Hold up Henry; what's a libertarian?

[henry quirk]

The trouble for libertarians is they can't define once and for all who is to be in their tribe. Henry will need some Muslim or Marxist one day to help him with no quid pro quo.

As far as I'm concerned, everyone is in my tribe cuz, deep down, everyone is a natural rights libertarian, even if they think or feel otherwise.

Your heart is good. Perhaps you are too optimistic about human nature. Most people don't observe the great universalist ethic "everyone is in my tribe".

I'm not most people.

[Belinda]

The trouble for libertarians is they can't define once and for all who is to be in their tribe. Henry will need some Muslim or Marxist one day to help him with no quid pro quo.

Who needs a "tribe"? What you need is to live well with other people: why must they be defined as a faction? That's Marxist-think.

Ironically, groupthink undermines itself through inter-sectionalism. If everybody is part of several tribal identities, then every individual ends up at a unique "intersection," and there are only unique individuals left.

People do in fact define themselves as tribal factions. The more fearful/ less loving the less universal their sympathies.

You are right that social tribes more than biological families shift their boundaries. Do you have any proposal that can persuade people to adopt the universalist ethic, especially when divisive politicians are in power??

[Belinda]

As far as I'm concerned, everyone is in my tribe cuz, deep down, everyone is a natural rights libertarian, even if they think or feel otherwise.

Your heart is good. Perhaps you are too optimistic about human nature. Most people don't observe the great universalist ethic "everyone is in my tribe".

I'm not most people.

If you have children you want them to be good?

[commonsense]

As far as I'm concerned, everyone is in my tribe cuz, deep down, everyone is a natural rights libertarian, even if they think or feel otherwise.

Your heart is good. Perhaps you are too optimistic about human nature. Most people don't observe the great universalist ethic "everyone is in my tribe".

I'm not most people.

Ditto, cuz my family is humankind.

[henry quirk]

Your heart is good. Perhaps you are too optimistic about human nature. Most people don't observe the great universalist ethic "everyone is in my tribe".

I'm not most people.

If you have children you want them to be good?

I want my kid to be honest, self-directing, self-reliant, discerning, and kind.

Don't know if any of that falls under the umbrella of what you'd call good.

[commonsense]

The trouble for libertarians is they can't define once and for all who is to be in their tribe. Henry will need some Muslim or Marxist one day to help him with no quid pro quo.

Who needs a "tribe"? What you need is to live well with other people: why must they be defined as a faction? That's Marxist-think.

Ironically, groupthink undermines itself through inter-sectionalism. If everybody is part of several tribal identities, then every individual ends up at a unique "intersection," and there are only unique individuals left.

People do in fact define themselves as tribal factions. The more fearful/ less loving the less universal their sympathies.

You are right that social tribes more than biological families shift their boundaries. Do you have any proposal that can persuade people to adopt the universalist ethic, especially when divisive politicians are in power??

Alas, divisive politicians encourage and normalize divisiveness, which is incompatible with human kindness.

[henry quirk]

Your heart is good. Perhaps you are too optimistic about human nature. Most people don't observe the great universalist ethic "everyone is in my tribe".

I'm not most people.

Ditto, cuz my family is humankind.

Just keep in mind: you're not obligated to like 'em or carry 'em just cuz they're family.

[Belinda]

I'm not most people.

If you have children you want them to be good?

I want my kid to be honest, self-directing, self-reliant, discerning, and kind.

Don't know if any of that falls under the umbrella of what you'd call good.

Kind is the universalist ethic

[Immanuel Can]

You are right that social tribes more than biological families shift their boundaries.

I don't recall having said that, but it's probably true anyway. My point was simply that individuals are the basic unit of society, not groups. Groups are illusory, and the ideology of intersectionality destroys them completely. It reduces to the individual again. The libertarians win.

Do you have any proposal that can persuade people to adopt the universalist ethic, especially when divisive politicians are in power??

I wasn't trying. I was just pointing out that "groupthink" invariably results in evil, so the libertarians win on that point again.

[henry quirk]

If you have children you want them to be good?

I want my kid to be honest, self-directing, self-reliant, discerning, and kind.

Don't know if any of that falls under the umbrella of what you'd call good.

Kind is the universalist ethic

Mebbe so.

[Arising_uk]

Who needs a "tribe"? What you need is to live well with other people: why must they be defined as a faction? That's Marxist-think.

Ironically, groupthink undermines itself through inter-sectionalism. If everybody is part of several tribal identities, then every individual ends up at a unique "intersection," and there are only unique individuals left.

This from a theist.

[Impenitent]

What's wrong with being anti-American?

the democrat party proclaims their hatred of America as founded everyday

-Imp

Democrats uphold the spirit of 76. Whilst the Repugs are monarchists in all but name demanding obedience.

enjoy your politically correct freedom

-Imp

[Belinda]

You are right that social tribes more than biological families shift their boundaries.

I don't recall having said that, but it's probably true anyway. My point was simply that individuals are the basic unit of society, not groups. Groups are illusory, and the ideology of intersectionality destroys them completely. It reduces to the individual again. The libertarians win.

Do you have any proposal that can persuade people to adopt the universalist ethic, especially when divisive politicians are in power??

I wasn't trying. I was just pointing out that "groupthink" invariably results in evil, so the libertarians win on that point again.

Jesus' ethic as illustrated by The Good Samaritan parable was not a libertarian ; in social relations Jesus promoted neither tribalism nor individualism.

[Immanuel Can]

Jesus' ethic as illustrated by The Good Samaritan parable was not a libertarian ;

Well, it certainly wasn't collectivist. In the midst of two societies divided by a history of racism, the Good Samaritan ignored the racially-privileged status of the wounded man, and risked his own financial and personal well-being to rescue somebody who didn't even belong to his own despised group. That's definitely not collectivism. Rather, it's a case of the good individual doing the right thing in an unusual situation.

in social relations Jesus promoted neither tribalism nor individualism.

True, but he put the responsibility for moral behaviour and choices squarely on the shoulders of the individual.

He never excused a person based on social group, as in "Well, he has to be like that -- he's a Samaritan," or privileged another social group, as in, "I'm just a poor carpenter from Galilee, so you owe me reparations and affirmative action," or "How great is it that I'm Jewish." He was entirely free of groupthink, and focused on the individual's relationship to God. In fact, he called out several "social groups" for thinking they were better than others, and could escape their individual responsibility by hiding in a collective -- as he did with the Pharisees and Sadducees, for example.

[Belinda]

Jesus' ethic as illustrated by The Good Samaritan parable was not a libertarian ;

Well, it certainly wasn't collectivist. In the midst of two societies divided by a history of racism, the Good Samaritan ignored the racially-privileged status of the wounded man, and risked his own financial and personal well-being to rescue somebody who didn't even belong to his own despised group. That's definitely not collectivism. Rather, it's a case of the good individual doing the right thing in an unusual situation.

Your interpretation is insufficient. The main point is the Jew, neglected by his own, needed the despised Samaritan . A collective needs equality in diversity.

in social relations Jesus promoted neither tribalism nor individualism.

True, but he put the responsibility for moral behaviour and choices squarely on the shoulders of the individual.

He never excused a person based on social group, as in "Well, he has to be like that -- he's a Samaritan," or privileged another social group, as in, "I'm just a poor carpenter from Galilee, so you owe me reparations and affirmative action," or "How great is it that I'm Jewish." He was entirely free of groupthink, and focused on the individual's relationship to God. In fact, he called out several "social groups" for thinking they were better than others, and could escape their individual responsibility by hiding in a collective -- as he did with the Pharisees and Sadducees, for example.

Social classes are not collectives. In certain cases for instance families or tribes the family or tribe may act as one unit regardless of members' individual powers. Jesus however was opposed to family and tribe collectives remember he said to leave mother and father . This was not an injunction not to honour these relationships (JC well knew the Mosaic law)but to get rid of vendettas and cabals.