Christoph raises an interesting question, on an earlier post.
To wit, isn't one of the core values of Libertarianism the respect for other people's opinions, and lifestyles? Including desiring that other people get to express their views, and that I have a chance to listen to them?
After thinking about it, I find I disagree. There is a big difference between two things:
1. Respect: A positive affect for other people, for their views, and for their choices. Meaning, I actively like other people, regardless of their worldview.
2. Tolerance: An acceptance, both as a matter of personal conduct and as a matter of policy, for views and choices toward which I have negative affect. Meaning, I leave other people alone, even if I think they are making a mistake. If they ask me, I'll give them advice. But I will not use the coercive power of the state to FORCE them to act as I want them to, even if my "want" is genuinely motivated by love and good feelings.
I have no respect for the choices of men who decide to raise their children as fundamentalists, rejecting science in favor of mysticism. Doesn't matter if you are Taliban, or Baptist, you're wrong to do that. I have no respect for women who use abortion as a casual birth control device.
In fact, I dislike them. Those are stupid choices.
But I also believe strongly, as a Libertarian, that we have to tolerate those choices.
No way I want to have to listen to those people justify their bad choices, or to force me to pay for their living expenses. In fact, if they come to my door to ask for money, I'll show 'em my gun collection. They had better stay away from me.
But, the government had better stay away from THEM.
If Libertarianism requires that we have a sense of love for idiots, then I don't think Angus and I are Libertarians. We can't do it, and we can't fake it.
11 comments:
A few quotes in my defense:
"The Libertarian Party ... is the only political organization which respects you as a unique and competent individual."(from http://www.lp.org/issues/introduction.shtml)
"Respect for individual rights of action, belief, and property, can create a
free and prosperous world." (from
http://www.munger4ncgov.com/why-am-i-running.php)
"... the Libertarian Party of North Carolina seeks ... a society that is ...
based on the respect for our differences ..." (from
http://lpnc.org/our_principles/platform.html)
Am I really misinterpreting badly, or do they support my view?
Another thing:
I have friends on the far left and at a time I had a friend on the far right. I very much enjoy (and enjoyed) discussions
with them although I don't share their views. I think it's much more worth while than petting each other's shoulder in a belief-controlled society. But that might be just Christoph-ism.
I interact with tons of people every day. Do I have to interact with people of different beliefs than me at every second to have meaningful discussions? You're equating respect and tolerance, Christoph.
Shawn,
I don't think I'm equating respect with tolerance. As Mungowitz points out, tolerance means "I leave other people alone, even if I think they are making a mistake." Leaving people of other beliefs alone does not seem a good ways to have discussions with them. But of course you don't have to "interact with people of different beliefs ... at every second to have meaningful discussions." I just don't have the slightest clue where in your opinion I said otherwise.
1. IMHO, Christoph, you are right that the party propaganda sez respect and me and Mungo have at most tolerance. If I was in, i guess they could boot me out, but I'm not in (and never was). Mungo will have to try and live with his heresy i guess.
2. where do you sign up to get your shoulder petted? that sounds good to me!
It seems Christoph is getting at the difference between respecting ideas and actions. Thus one might not need to respect someone who chooses to have an abortion for casual birth control while differences between the left, right and libertarian ideas might require respect. Nevertheless I don't think it works. For example I only respect the right of people to express Marxism, but I don't respect their ideas, indeed quite the opposite.
I'd also say that I don't think the Libertarian Party et al quoted above really means "respect" in the way that Christoph is saying. I think if you explored with them they'd say they respect people's right to disagree but they don't necessarily respect every idea put forth. Or at least that's what I'd hope. Thus "respect for our differences" means that there is a right to disagreement but that doesn't mean that the LP is going to adopt such policies.
(PS. I have changed my blog's site "de Libertate" in your blogroll from blog.rsporter.com to delibertate.com)
Agree w/all. I would like to see the planks changed to use a word like tolerance.
This is at the root of why Libertarianism is THE ONLY MORAL CHOICE, and we should get it right. Any deviation from Libertarianism makes one person superior to another, which is contradictory to the founding principles of the USofA ('All men are created equal') and the core of most religions.
I believe that "Respect" in the phrase "Respect for individual rights of action, belief, and property" refers to the rights, rather than the beliefs".
OED sense 14 c - "To treat with consideration; to refrain from injuring or interfering with; to spare"
T.O.L.E.R.A.N.C.E.
Nah - doesn't work
Semantics.
You don't have to respect a person in order to respect their right to believe or act in the way they see fit, as long as it does not hurt anyone else.
I like using the term tolerance myself, instead of respect. But then I'm not a libertarian either, even though I often vote for them.
This whole conversation seems mere semantics. There are activities we think the gov't should use its coercive power to interfere with, and others we think it should not be allowed interfere with. Mungo thinks brainwashing one's kids with fundamentalism and abortion are the latter sort of activity. Other people, perhaps those who agree with Christopher Hitchens that raising a child to be a fundamentalist is actually child abuse, and those who are anti-abortion, believe these activities are of the first sort. But Mungo, I imagine, does think that gov't should stop what he would call child abuse (even if he thinks brainwashing them with fundamentalism doesn't qualify). Worrying about whether to call Mungo's value judgments "tolerance" or "respect" doesn't seem to make much difference.
'Respect' is simply tolerance without the judgement. Not all differences are moral choices; some are just personal preferences. For example, please respect my choice to spend my money the way I want to spend it, instead of asking the government to mandate that I spend it on your favorite program. If respect is really too much to ask, fine, then tolerate it. Respect is just a nicer way to say it.
Post a Comment