If we can agree on protecting individual rights, abundant opportunities exist for making common cause with those who otherwise don’t share our philosophy.
Well said, Anders. This is particularly important right now, as too often the opponents of the irrational savages out there are resorting to tribal, collectivist reasons why they instead should wield the power of the state. A power which will eventually be turned against them.
Get along covers a wide spectrum of relationships. We can coexist and yet still choose not to associate with the people whose ideas we disagree with - let alone try to evangelise them. I can still choose to be polite towards a neighbour I dislike without compromising on my principles.
Oddly enough I'm seeing reasonable people reject (block) others for their opinions. I've decided that they just don't know where to draw the line between people who haven't "figured it out yet" and people who are evil so they opt to condemn the former to be safe.
To my mind, it's a bit presumptuous and shallow to so easily dismiss your fellow man,
Needless to say, Anders, this resonates with me. It does so because, among other reasons, it is a recognition of a number of aspects of reality.
The fact that our mutually shared philosophy in which its principles are not shared by the majority of those with whom we deal, is nonetheless a fact! Your words reveal what, morally, represents potential choices we may select in response to such a fact.
Two other facts come to mind which guide my choices. The first from you-know-who. The second from a much lesser known “you-know-who.”
"Reason must be Man's only absolute!" - Ayn Rand.
“If a picture is worth a thousand words, then an example is worth ten-thousand!”
You have continually demonstrated such an example since I have known you. I don’t know what your word count is up to but it is well past ten-thousand!
Well thought out & well written, as usual, Anders.
I believe you & I are actually in complete agreement here, but I found a minor point to quibble over. Really just your wording.
Re: < I can work with conservatives, leftists, atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and people whose metaphysical assumptions differ radically from mine. Provided they accept one fundamental rule: No one gets to use government force as a weapon for moral conquest. >
The actual fundamental is more fundamental than that. It's that no one may use physical force to satisfy their wants or needs, or to impose their beliefs or preferences on someone else. Including indirect use of physical force, like stealing via fraud; or electing politicians who use force -- the threat of imprisonment -- to steal your money to pay for what they feel is a good and moral cause.
That said, you nailed it with your conclusion: < civilized human beings settle moral disputes with words rather than force. >
Not only is this an appropriate way to live, in the end, it is the only way to actually 'win' the philosophy war. Every single person beyond the age of 10 is ruled by their mind, by their epistemology, if you will, even if they don't know it. To believe you are EVER going to change their minds through anything but logical persuasion is a fool's errand that will only make things worse in the end. There is one caveat to this - irrational fanatics who have demonstrated they WILL harm you cannot be dealt with in this fashion. Iranian mullahs and their minions come to mind.
The first Amendment in the USA constitution already has the establishment clause and free exercise clause to protect all religions and freedom of thought.
“ First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; “
The problem is that no educational institution or religious sect wants to teach the First Amendment because each seeks achieve power over the other .
Let us educate the American people that our constitution protects inalienable individual
rights and Freedom of religion. There is already a separation of the church from the state. All we need to do is to publicize it .
Yes , separate the economy from the . That may happen after the next few depressions . But right now the economics , banking and finance are all based on Keynesianism which is big intrusive government managment of the economy is necessary . Keynesianism is so entrenched in the world economy that I cannot possibly imagine it ever disappearing .
To me, the challenging aspect is the one not stated. What about those who support and condone government force as a weapon for economic conquest, financial advantage, educational mandates, or speech codes?
Mark, as I mentioned in the piece, "A mature political order leaves room for this diversity. What it may not do is grant any faction the power to impose its worldview using government force, violating the individual rights of others. That is the line I refuse to compromise on." To the people you mention, confidently and openly state your principles, but don't compromise with them. They may never change their mind, but someone else who's reading or listening and may be on the fence may be swayed by your argument. You never know when you reach the right mind at the right time.
Yes, thank you Anders, and that is the passage I read more closely. I think the difference is that most people don't have "the power to impose" but many will approve of that kind of power and many more will look the other way.
The radical Islamists' do not care about your preferences, they will kill you if you do not worship "Allah". The experience of France and G. Britain is a warning to the U.S....
Well said, Anders. This is particularly important right now, as too often the opponents of the irrational savages out there are resorting to tribal, collectivist reasons why they instead should wield the power of the state. A power which will eventually be turned against them.
Get along covers a wide spectrum of relationships. We can coexist and yet still choose not to associate with the people whose ideas we disagree with - let alone try to evangelise them. I can still choose to be polite towards a neighbour I dislike without compromising on my principles.
Thank you for this timely reminder.
Oddly enough I'm seeing reasonable people reject (block) others for their opinions. I've decided that they just don't know where to draw the line between people who haven't "figured it out yet" and people who are evil so they opt to condemn the former to be safe.
To my mind, it's a bit presumptuous and shallow to so easily dismiss your fellow man,
Needless to say, Anders, this resonates with me. It does so because, among other reasons, it is a recognition of a number of aspects of reality.
The fact that our mutually shared philosophy in which its principles are not shared by the majority of those with whom we deal, is nonetheless a fact! Your words reveal what, morally, represents potential choices we may select in response to such a fact.
Two other facts come to mind which guide my choices. The first from you-know-who. The second from a much lesser known “you-know-who.”
"Reason must be Man's only absolute!" - Ayn Rand.
“If a picture is worth a thousand words, then an example is worth ten-thousand!”
You have continually demonstrated such an example since I have known you. I don’t know what your word count is up to but it is well past ten-thousand!
Dave
Well thought out & well written, as usual, Anders.
I believe you & I are actually in complete agreement here, but I found a minor point to quibble over. Really just your wording.
Re: < I can work with conservatives, leftists, atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and people whose metaphysical assumptions differ radically from mine. Provided they accept one fundamental rule: No one gets to use government force as a weapon for moral conquest. >
The actual fundamental is more fundamental than that. It's that no one may use physical force to satisfy their wants or needs, or to impose their beliefs or preferences on someone else. Including indirect use of physical force, like stealing via fraud; or electing politicians who use force -- the threat of imprisonment -- to steal your money to pay for what they feel is a good and moral cause.
That said, you nailed it with your conclusion: < civilized human beings settle moral disputes with words rather than force. >
Not only is this an appropriate way to live, in the end, it is the only way to actually 'win' the philosophy war. Every single person beyond the age of 10 is ruled by their mind, by their epistemology, if you will, even if they don't know it. To believe you are EVER going to change their minds through anything but logical persuasion is a fool's errand that will only make things worse in the end. There is one caveat to this - irrational fanatics who have demonstrated they WILL harm you cannot be dealt with in this fashion. Iranian mullahs and their minions come to mind.
The first Amendment in the USA constitution already has the establishment clause and free exercise clause to protect all religions and freedom of thought.
“ First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; “
The problem is that no educational institution or religious sect wants to teach the First Amendment because each seeks achieve power over the other .
Let us educate the American people that our constitution protects inalienable individual
rights and Freedom of religion. There is already a separation of the church from the state. All we need to do is to publicize it .
All we need to do is publicize it, and reach the next stage, which is to separate the economy from the state.
Values, whether material or spiritual, must be chosen values. Not “values” imposed from the top-down under coercion.
The only way policy (the use of force upon people) can be ethical is its policy that protects people’s ability to choose.
Yes , separate the economy from the . That may happen after the next few depressions . But right now the economics , banking and finance are all based on Keynesianism which is big intrusive government managment of the economy is necessary . Keynesianism is so entrenched in the world economy that I cannot possibly imagine it ever disappearing .
To me, the challenging aspect is the one not stated. What about those who support and condone government force as a weapon for economic conquest, financial advantage, educational mandates, or speech codes?
Mark, as I mentioned in the piece, "A mature political order leaves room for this diversity. What it may not do is grant any faction the power to impose its worldview using government force, violating the individual rights of others. That is the line I refuse to compromise on." To the people you mention, confidently and openly state your principles, but don't compromise with them. They may never change their mind, but someone else who's reading or listening and may be on the fence may be swayed by your argument. You never know when you reach the right mind at the right time.
Yes, thank you Anders, and that is the passage I read more closely. I think the difference is that most people don't have "the power to impose" but many will approve of that kind of power and many more will look the other way.
The radical Islamists' do not care about your preferences, they will kill you if you do not worship "Allah". The experience of France and G. Britain is a warning to the U.S....
You sound like a libertarian.