It's sort of like my new upstairs neighbors, noisy Dumbest Generation trash. They see my complaints to the landlord about their blasting loud music into my apartment at all hours as an "imposition" on their "wiggah" lifestyle.

I think a nice game of cops and wiggahs might be in order.

Eric, the vast majority of humanity have a deep need to belong to, and have status in a group. Harnessing that need, creates great power, and great power will eventually be misused.

Well, Bilwick, it is an imposition. The question is, is it a just imposition?

The problem Eric is having is that he's realizing that one of the standard Libertarian arguments makes zero sense. Naturally, he doesn't want to agree to this because changing one's mind hurts, and because it might mean that he's been treating socons unjustly. And no one likes realizing they've been doing wrong, or that the people they've been scorning were actually right.

Its a theory anyways.

And Bilwick,

My folks when I was a little diaper clad tyke had problems of a similar sort with loud rockers. They called the cops, the cops came out, and again, but the next door apartment would only stop until the cops were gone.

So one cop told them to get a jam box, or whatever they had back then, and put it up next to the wall, and play 'Amazing Grace' at loud volume.

Now I think Amazing Grace might be especially effective, but you might not like it, and so try to find some sort of music that is just going to get the wiggahs nauseated. Randy Travis might work.

It depends.

If animals are persons then the meat eater is imposing on the animals.

So which freedoms would you deprive us of, Will?

Joseph
The right to be idolized, or worshiped.
The right to revel in self satisfaction just for proving someone else is ignorant or weak.

but I'm not holding my breath.

The problem Eric is having is that he's realizing that one of the standard Libertarian arguments makes zero sense.

That is an assertion not a proof. Exactly which argument is wrong BTW? That leaving others alone is a bad idea? That the refusal to accept Christian culture you don't care to join is unAmerican?

I had Christian culture imposed on me in public school in the 50s and 60s and for decades after I hated Christians. I have mellowed with age. Hate is now just a mild dislike. Be careful what you wish for.

Don't get me wrong. I'd have just as much trouble with Islam.

Of course being Jewish might have something to do with it. These days I tell my Christian friends to return to the old time religion. If it was good enough for Jesus....

But I would not expect Jewish prayers in public schools. Or any other prayers. The Satanists might ask for equal time. And get it.

"Don't impose your morality on me." is the standard argument.

And it was an attempt at analysis of the problem Eric is having in his own mind. My attempt at unlicensed pschyology.

Christianity is the Old-Time Religion. Adam and Abraham, David and the Once and Future King of the Jews, Paul and Luther and moi are all part of the same Truth progressively revealed from the Garden of Eden.

As to what is prayed at local schools, I'll leave that up to local school boards. And if the Satanists get theres, then so be it.

Joseph is of course right.

Some Peta lady famously said ...a rat is a dog is a bird is a boy.....okay, not those exact words, but the sense of them.

The problem Eric is having is that he's realizing that one of the standard Libertarian arguments makes zero sense. Naturally, he doesn't want to agree to this because changing one's mind hurts, and because it might mean that he's been treating socons unjustly. And no one likes realizing they've been doing wrong, or that the people they've been scorning were actually right.

OK, now that you have told me what I think, could you please specify what I am supposed to be changing my mind about? And how have I treated socons unjustly? I have advocated for an alliance between libertarians and social conservatives for years, despite my disagreements with the latter. Are my disagreements unjust?

What I think I said here is that I cannot understand how refusing to be imposed upon (in the political context, the insistence on being left alone) can constitute an imposition on the imposer.

To stay with my example, I think people who would prevent me from eating meat would be attempting to impose their morality on me. I do not think that my eating meat imposes my morality on them in any fashion.

I don't see where I have changed my mind, but maybe I'm missing something.

Today is Sunday. If you tell me I should not break the Sabbath, that's your opinion, and it does not impose morality on me. But if you get together with enough people and pass a law prohibiting me from working, that would. Correct me if I am wrong, but the argument seems to be that if I object to or break such a law, that I am imposing my morality on those who want it. I disagree. My not doing what you want me to do imposes nothing (as you are still free to observe the Sabbath as you see fit), and you have not explained how it does impose anything.

I am always open to the possibility of changing my mind, but it really isn't a fair form of argument to simply declare that I have changed my mind when I haven't. But maybe I'm missing something, or perhaps I misspoke. I don't want to be misunderstood if I can help it.

Tenn,

Christianity is just a bunch of made up stuff by members of a formerly Jewish cult. Most of the current Christians are more pagan that Christian. Christ was born in the spring if you believe the Bible not near the time of Saturnalia.

The Christians I admire celebrate Passover. And more than a few other Jewish holidays. The new lot? Well they can't seem to handle well that Jesus was a Jew. The honoring of Jews by Christians is a rather recent event. Hitler shamed you boys something good. Anti-Jewish sentiment in America peaked in 1944.

BTW it took almost 300 years to get Jesus declared as identical to God. You would think that those on the scene would have noticed. Or at least those in close proximity in time. For a long time that point was in contention in the Church until it was settled by fiat.

And the hope of resurrection? Well it is a common human theme among those who revere a religious teacher. Look up Schneerson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabad_messianism

Such stuff still happens in modern times.

And seriously. Saints with magical powers? How much more pagan can you get? And to be canonized today? Ya gotta show evidence of magical powers. And relics have magical powers? That is called belief in talismans. Pagan all the way.

Now I don't mind a bit living in a pagan culture if the pagans leave me alone. De gustibus non est disputandum. But to say Christianity as commonly practiced is an extension of Judaism is nuts. Or Christian propaganda.

You might as well say Islam is a product of Jewish culture. No it is not. It is just another pagan culture stealing from the Jews - with just enough attribution to make it seem plausible.

Of course Jews stole from the Babylonians. And the Zoroastrians. So there are no pure cultures. I forget now which of the above cultures (Babylon or Persia) it came from but the idea of Satan was not originally a Jewish idea. As a bit of pre-modern psychology (reptile brain) it is not bad. Which says Satan is in us all. Not some external being. Which is to say: you can't exorcise the Devil. You can only get control of "him".

Well I could go on in way more detail about all this. But this is just a blog comment.

Eric,
It looks like you are realizing that this 'no imposing' argument makes no sense, although you are fighting against that realization.

Take the first half of your comment where you used the word 'tyrannical' and quote marked 'imposed' and you look like you agree with me. Take the second half, and you disagree with me.

Looks like a man divided in his own mind.

But you tell me strongly this is not the case. OK. But I hope you can see how an outside observer might think otherwise with good reason.

You have been attacking them, socons, for some time. Granted, you want fusionism, but you also want them to shut up.

Yes, your disagreements are unjust because they are based on wrong ideas. But that is, what I believe is called 'begging the question'. The question at hand is, are your basic ideas wrong? If they are, then yes, you've been unjust. If not, then very possibly you have not been unjust.

To go to your meat example, why not answer Hertzlinger. He makes his point with more brevity than I can.

More on meat...Freedom is the ability to take action you choose. Restrictions on that morality are based on physical reality (gravity or the Law of the Gun) or on morality (You should not murder. Cows are people too, and killing a cow is murder.)

When you refuse to allow me to take what action I choose, by preventing me from robbing you...you restrict my freedom, you impose this restriction on me.

Now you do this imposition based on one or both of two laws: The Law of the Gun or the Law of Morality.
a. I like that car, and I'll kill you if you touch it.
b. Its wrong to steal my car, and I'll kill if you touch it.

This morality is something everyone has. Even thieves get upset when you steal their ill-gotten loot from them. 'hey, I stole that fair and square. Its mine.'

Ah, yes, the old "Hitler was a Christian" myth. Never mind that Hitler spent as much time undermining Christianity as he could. And look up the Thule Bruderschaft sometime.

M. Simon,

You're welcome to retain whatever out-dated 19th century theories, and vain imaginings you like. Science, logic, experience, and history disagree with you, but don't let that stop you.

Tennwriter, libertarianism is not an imposition on someone else for the same reason that self defense is not assault.

It is plausible to argue that they are the same with different circumstances and justifications, which you seem to do, while I suspect (although i am not a mind reader) eric sees them as actually different acts.

Regarding your most recent post on eric's thinking: I re-read his comment. Nothing in the later part of eric's comment is incompatible with the non-imposition of morality argument. Just because he comes to similar conclusions to you in one area, does not mean he has the same priors.