[Travis]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Hi Travis,

I hope you are well. It's been a while.

Now, as you know, it would be tough for me to care less about breaking up the American homosexual community. At the same time, I don't quite understand your thought. Right here, you're saying that we should structure our ethical judgments/behavior around the modern public/private dichotomy. But in half of your other recent posts you've been incredibly angry at the politics of the State that is the outworking of that modern public/private dichotomy. Which is it? Whenever I read from hardline libertarians and/or their more extreme anarchist kin I get the sense that this central tension resonates throughout all their thought.

Peace,

John

Hey John! I hope you are well, man,

Excellent questions, as usual, John. Damn. You are good. But you say that you could not care less about breaking up the homosexual community. Wow. That's rather heartless. They are good people who are horribly persecuted by people just like you. Yes, I hate the state. How in the world is any of this inconsistent? You LOVE to fabricate ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺, John, and you are good at it. I reject you and your ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺. Shoot straight with me one day and maybe we can talk.

-T

Now, I support absolute anarchism. Can you explain how THAT is a problem? I have read your post. Twice.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

I am assuming this is sarcasm, based on your past as a theonomist. Stoned anyone recently?

If not, please let me know, because I could respond, but do not wish to respond to trolling.

Haha Angry boy! Ohhhh I am SCARED!

[OiBoyz]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You don't... unless you are trying to get me to put in effort to respond to you.

But you DID respond to me.

Of course. Your challanege is getting me to care whether someone who popped on and resurrected a dead thread believes me or not.

See, again you're not checking facts. I didn't resurrect a dead thread. As for the rest of your post, I just see blatant arrogance. Not someone who actually wants to have a conversation with anyone.

Originally Posted by Travis

Funny, I bet you wouldn't want to meet me in an alley.

Is that a threat? Am I supposed to be frightened? Or do you actually beat girls up?

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Travis

Hey John! I hope you are well, man,

Excellent questions, as usual, John. Damn. You are good. But you say that you could not care less about breaking up the homosexual community. Wow. That's rather heartless. They are good people who are horribly persecuted by people just like you.

Maybe that didn't come out right. What I mean is that I don't have any desire whatsoever to bring that about. My favorite professor from college is a gay man who has lived with his companion for more than a decade, and they have a really fantastic home. For a summer I lived with a man who at one point wasn't sure if he was gay or female (he decided on the latter). I've been in Bible studies with gay people and even communed with gay people. Now, I don't deny that active homosexuality is sinful, just as I don't deny that theft and divorce and drunkenness and abuse and cursing one's parents are sinful. But those things go on in the Church all the time without the same treatment that homosexuality receives.

I can't help but think that this is because we've traded the Church for the State. We need a scapegoat for why things don't meet the politically conservative ideal and one easy answer is the homosexual community, because quite frankly it's so easy for the rest of us not only not to be gay but to be unable to imagine how that could be possible. The rise of the homosexual community starkly marks an epochal social shift. Rather than deal with that changing paradigm -- a paradigm of love and the self which, in fact, totally pervades evangelical churches -- the reaction has been to lash out at a representative of the shift: "the homosexual." And that's terribly wrong. What I mean to say is not that I want to see the downfall of the gay community but rather that I couldn't care less to see its downfall; I'm not on board with that program at all.

Jesus, as I recall, was considered pretty scandalous for the great value he placed on the socially marginalized.

Originally Posted by Travis

Yes, I hate the state. How in the world is any of this inconsistent? You LOVE to fabricate ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺, John, and you are good at it. I reject you and your ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺. Shoot straight with me one day and maybe we can talk.

Haha, sounds like you're drunk, high, or just angry. I hope you enjoyed it. (That's a real smiley, not the proverbial Smackdown Smiley.)

I'll try to shoot straight with you, but I'll admit that I was shooting straight the first time and might have trouble avoiding my own love of ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺! So, the liberal State is most fundamentally structured by the dichotomy between what is private and what is public. You hate the liberal State that is the outworking of this dichotomy. Yet in your post you appealed to this dichotomy; what happens in one's private sphere is not subject to public judgment, you said.

Now, I've seen this tension whenever I've come into contact with folks on the conservative-libertarian-anarcho-capitalist trajectory, but it's rare that any of these people have had any degree of philosophical sophistication, much less the great level that you have. (I'm being genuine here, not ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺ting.) So I'm wondering, what is the distinguishing factor for you? Why is the public/private dichotomy so fundamental when it comes to the self or the market, but you so despise it when it comes to the State that it spawned? Or do you think that this is simply a matter of execution, that the State has executed the dichotomy the wrong way?

Maybe you'd like more elaboration. The modern State, in all its violence, is the outworking of certain philosophical commitments. Central among them is its dichotomy between public and private. This is, in my opinion, the central dichotomy of modernity. Self and State are working hand-in-hand for the kind of voluntaristic freedom that emerges at the eclipse of the Middle Ages. They are emancipated from the oppressive hand of the Church, of Tradition and Authority and Prejudice. I as a rational self-consciousness am to be freed from anything external, determined instead by my own decisions and commitments.

It's not hard to see how the anthropology of the trajectory from conservatism to libertarianism to market-anarchism can emerge here, and plainly the ethics of victimization follow. I'm responsible for myself and my only "duty" to you is not to take away your freedom. So there is a sharp division between my private world and my public world -- that is, between what I do with respect to others' freedom and mine.

The liberal State is based on exactly this dichotomy. The public world is the world of reason, facts, science, and Law. The private world is the world of opinion and unlimited freedom. The State's action in the public world is supposed to secure the freedom of the private world for its citizens. This basic story develops out of Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau, on to Rawls in our own time. Even Spinoza was in on it! And I can't help but hear echoes of Kant in all of this.

At any rate, I've probably droned on long enough, so back to the payoff. The State you hate and the Self you love (anarchism, market, victim-ethics, etc.) are of the same root, which is the public/private dichotomy. Why privilege one over the other?

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Travis

Haha Angry boy! Ohhhh I am SCARED!

Angry? more perplexed, a little sad, but not angry or scared.

My personal position on homosexuality honostly stands half a step harsher than John's, maybe. I think those who live an active gay lifestyle, who are claiming to be a believer should be under church discipline, like an adulterer, greedy, immoral, person divorcing their wife, etc. As the apostle Paul said, in

1 Cor 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?

For me, the issue of nature or nurture does intrigue me, but the data truly seems all over the map as if it is a complex interaction of the two.

I don't know where your anger is coming from, but all I can say is, I am praying for you, and bear you no ill will. My post was based on your past and unsure if you were joking because at one point, you proclaimed that gays should be stoned. I don't know if your reaction is some form of loathing based on looking in the mirror of your past or what not, but I don't think anyone here wishes you any harm.

However, threats will not be tolerated against people.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by OiBoyz

But you DID respond to me.

Yes, but not meaningful effort. You should read *every* word in the sentance you quoted, not just some.

See, again you're not checking facts. I didn't resurrect a dead thread. As for the rest of your post, I just see blatant arrogance. Not someone who actually wants to have a conversation with anyone.

I'm well aware of Travis' post. Your personal commentary is also irrellevent.

Perhaps you can point me to where you attempted an on-topic conversation. I can't find it.

[OiBoyz]

I was asking you for your citation of facts, which is on topic.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by OiBoyz

I was asking you for your citation of facts, which is on topic.

No you were not.

In your first post you inferred that I made up facts, and that I was being a hypcrite in accusing Nolidad of doing so.

In your most recent post you were calling me arrogant.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Now, I've seen this tension whenever I've come into contact with folks on the conservative-libertarian-anarcho-capitalist trajectory, but it's rare that any of these people have had any degree of philosophical sophistication, much less the great level that you have. (I'm being genuine here, not ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺ting.)

John, buddy, I say this with a spoon o' sugar: I'm getting tired of you forever playing the undecided prophet in the wilderness, able to spout off philosophical rhetoric without picking a side, acting as if you're seeing some deeper insight into other people's beliefs that they don't see, yet often without full research.

So since you basically gloss over the movement with which I currently sympathize if not fully agree with (as if your words about a lack of philosophical sophistication don't apply to all groups), I had to say something.

Maybe you'd like more elaboration. The modern State, in all its violence, is the outworking of certain philosophical commitments. Central among them is its dichotomy between public and private. This is, in my opinion, the central dichotomy of modernity. Self and State are working hand-in-hand for the kind of voluntaristic freedom that emerges at the eclipse of the Middle Ages. They are emancipated from the oppressive hand of the Church, of Tradition and Authority and Prejudice. I as a rational self-consciousness am to be freed from anything external, determined instead by my own decisions and commitments.

It's not hard to see how the anthropology of the trajectory from conservatism to libertarianism to market-anarchism can emerge here, and plainly the ethics of victimization follow. I'm responsible for myself and my only "duty" to you is not to take away your freedom. So there is a sharp division between my private world and my public world -- that is, between what I do with respect to others' freedom and mine.

The liberal State is based on exactly this dichotomy. The public world is the world of reason, facts, science, and Law. The private world is the world of opinion and unlimited freedom. The State's action in the public world is supposed to secure the freedom of the private world for its citizens. This basic story develops out of Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau, on to Rawls in our own time. Even Spinoza was in on it! And I can't help but hear echoes of Kant in all of this.

At any rate, I've probably droned on long enough, so back to the payoff. The State you hate and the Self you love (anarchism, market, victim-ethics, etc.) are of the same root, which is the public/private dichotomy. Why privilege one over the other?

I think Mises, Rothbard, Tucker, etc. would argue that the State doesn't respect boundaries of public and private to the extent that anarcho-capitalists would want. It continues to privilege certain codes of taboo held by the majority in society, so it doesn't recognize a proper divide. And I think you know that.

Your generalization is like wondering why someone pro-monarchy doesn't jive with oligarchy or minarchy, since they all come from the same root idea of having a government.

By the way, dude, this:

It's not hard to see how the anthropology of the trajectory from conservatism to libertarianism to market-anarchism can emerge here, and plainly the ethics of victimization follow.

...is the most ridiculous, obscurantist, academia-happy sentence I've seen on CGR.

Was it intended as a joke?




Travis, I saw your user message. Watch the language there, if you could. I'll shoot you an e-mail, I'd love to talk with you.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

John, buddy, I say this with a spoon o' sugar: I'm getting tired of you forever playing the undecided prophet in the wilderness, able to spout off philosophical rhetoric without picking a side, acting as if you're seeing some deeper insight into other people's beliefs that they don't see, yet often without full research.

I guess I've got two things to respond to.

1. I can't see what would be odd about what you bolded. Travis has a graduate degree in philosophy (or at least did grad work in philosophy; I don't know if he finished). To say that the good majority of people who write about anything, no matter the subject, lack his philosophical sophistication is just an obvious fact, then. And I can include myself in that category -- in many areas of study my degree of philosophical sophistication is nowhere near his! So here I have a unique opportunity to talk with someone who has an uncommon level of philosophical training and education.

2. It's not that I'm afraid to be straight; I was more than willing to lay my cards on the table in the rationality/rationalities thread, after all. But I see the world as a place with more questions than answers, more wonder than side-taking. I've put all my chips in for this Jesus fellow, and I think that his world and his people are just fascinating. I'm often happy just to observe, enjoy, and converse. What we do in our sojourn as the colony of heaven is a humbling and wondrous thing, and a chance to ask Travis about something I don't understand is an exciting and beautiful moment.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

So since you basically gloss over the movement with which I currently sympathize if not fully agree with (as if your words about a lack of philosophical sophistication don't apply to all groups), I had to say something.

I didn't say that folks in communities built around the conservative-libertarian-anarcho-capitalist trajectory are uniquely or especially unsophisticated philosophically. And of course, there's nothing wrong with being philosophically unsophisticated. Now, there have been some extremely sophisticated philosophers who have argued from/for some sort of perspective of anarchy or libertarianism, but that doesn't mean that the other people in these communities have an obligation to be philosophically sophisticated.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I think Mises, Rothbard, Tucker, etc. would argue that the State doesn't respect boundaries of public and private to the extent that anarcho-capitalists would want. It continues to privilege certain codes of taboo held by the majority in society, so it doesn't recognize a proper divide. And I think you know that.

In other words, it's a problem of execution. And why does this problem of execution exist? Is it systemic, or accidental/contingent? How does anarcho-capitalism circumvent this problem?

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Your generalization is like wondering why someone pro-monarchy doesn't jive with oligarchy or minarchy, since they all come from the same root idea of having a government.

Maybe, in a pretty obscure way. But I'm looking at a much more immediate genetic relationship: Modernity's quest is for the freedom of Self and State, picking up from late-medieval voluntarism and building in through Descartes and the rest of Modern philosophy. They're two sides of the same coin. Perhaps that means one must jettison the other, perhaps it means they depend on each other, perhaps it means they are locked in an eternal struggle, etc. But they are genetically related, I think, in a very direct way.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

By the way, dude, this:

...is the most ridiculous, obscurantist, academia-happy sentence I've seen on CGR.

Was it intended as a joke?

No. Keep in mind that I was writing directly to Travis, so jargon should be expected. But perhaps I should just fade back into obscurity.

Though I'd mention... I got a few positive comments on the first half of my post, the part actually about homosexuality. Apparently that part wasn't too obscurantist for others to understand. What if the jargon-filled second half of my post just reflects the inner-workings of how I get to that stuff that isn't so obscurantist?