religion and libertarianism are incompatible

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=806933 time=1781532107 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=806922 time=1781531022 user_id=15238]
There's nothing about libertarianism that requires allowing people who believe their imagination confers special knowledge to hold an ounce of power to effect others' lives.[/quote]
Whom do you mean?

[quote]Mental illness is not part of allowing people to make their own choices, even for themselves. Having a rational idea of what is e mental illness is necessary for any ideology to be morally acceptable.[/quote] Libertarianism does not subscribe to any particular view of what's moral. It doesn't even imply there can be such a thing as "moral," in fact. Maybe there isn't. Maybe there is. Libertarianism offers no opinion on that.
[quote]
We cannot simply accept that people are reasonable by default in a political ideology. [/quote] Well, the problem arises when one asks the question, "Who gets to define 'mentally ill'?" Whomever that is, they have incredible coercive power, and it's not Libertarian [i]laissez-faire[/i] anymore. If I or you can simply dictate that ideology X or Y is to be regarded as "mentally ill," and hence outside of the range of Libertarianly-allowable options, then we're not Libertarian anymore. We're authoritarian.
[/quote]

"Why gets to decide" is a perennial problem for any pragmatic ideology, but who it categorically cannot be is someone who believes that faith is an adequate substitute for Justified belief.

[Immanuel Can]

"Why gets to decide" is a perennial problem for any pragmatic ideology,

Yes, it is. But for Libertarianism, it's also fatal. For Libertarianism is about each person deciding for himself what he wants to do, not about any group deciding his choice is "mentally ill" and preventing it.

...but who it categorically cannot be is someone who believes that faith is an adequate substitute for Justified belief.

I've not met such people. "Faith" is actually synonymous with "belief," and nobody can actually "believe" a thing they don't genuinely think is "justified." You should tell them that.

But supposing them to exist somewhere, how does saying "it cannot be" allow Libertarian freedom? It seems to me that Libertarianism, at least in the ideal, implies that if they want to choose anything, they can.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=806973 time=1781537705 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=806953 time=1781534084 user_id=15238]
"Why gets to decide" is a perennial problem for any pragmatic ideology,[/quote]
Yes, it is. But for Libertarianism, it's also fatal. For Libertarianism is about each person deciding for himself what he wants to do, not about any group deciding his choice is "mentally ill" and preventing it.

[quote]...but who it categorically cannot be is someone who believes that faith is an adequate substitute for Justified belief.[/quote]
I've not met such people. "Faith" is actually synonymous with "belief," and nobody can actually "believe" a thing they don't genuinely think is "justified." You should tell them that.

But supposing them to exist somewhere, how does saying "it cannot be" allow Libertarian freedom? It seems to me that Libertarianism, at least in the ideal, implies that if they want to choose anything, they can.
[/quote]

Au contraire. Belief is expectation of predictive certainty and it comes in two flavours: justified ( knowledge ) and unjustified ( faith ). The latter is explicitly the realm of those who Cannot be trusted with the wellbeing of others. And the former of those who can ( it is necessary, not sufficient ).

[Immanuel Can]

Au contraire. Belief is expectation of predictive certainty and it comes in two flavours: justified ( knowledge ) and unjustified ( faith ).

No, those are artificial definitions, actually. You'll find that the word "faith" in the Bible, at least, means "a justified belief." In fact, the same word is alternately translated "faith" and "belief" in different contexts. You might, then, be talking about some kind of cultists or an odd subsect of something...not about "religion" in a general way.

But you still have the problem: what's "Libertarian" about having an authority declare some people "mentally ill" and denying them whatever it is they want to choose, even if they were nutty cultists? It seems to me that Libertarianism's cardinal virtue is supposed to be "liberty" from such arbitrary and authoritarian constraints, is it not?

[Advocate]

>No, those are artificial definitions, actually. You'll find that the word "faith" in the Bible, at least, means "a justified belief." In fact, the same word is alternately translated "faith" and "belief" in different contexts. You might, then, be talking about some kind of cultists or an odd subsect of something...not about "religion" in a general way.

My definitions are better in every meaningful respect. They do better work and they do not respect foolishness. There is no sense in which faith has ever been a positive, ever, anywhere. Ever. At its least problematic it's still an opportunity cost for always extent better ways of being, living, and doing. Defending faith is a moron's move. But i'm being too lenient rn.

>But you still have the problem: what's "Libertarian" about having an authority declare some people "mentally ill" and denying them whatever it is they want to choose, even if they [i]were[/i] nutty cultists? It seems to me that Libertarianism's cardinal virtue is supposed to be "liberty" from such arbitrary and authoritarian constraints, is it not?

Everyone had the authority to determine truth if they have the ability to effectively judge evidence and vice versa. Your ethical right to judge is directly proportional to your critical thinking skills times your knowledge. When people's foolishness creates problems for those around them, that's explicitly when those around them, assuming intellectual capacity, do have the right to do so.

[Immanuel Can]

>No, those are artificial definitions, actually. You'll find that the word "faith" in the Bible, at least, means "a justified belief." In fact, the same word is alternately translated "faith" and "belief" in different contexts. You might, then, be talking about some kind of cultists or an odd subsect of something...not about "religion" in a general way.

My definitions are better in every meaningful respect.

Well, they're not anybody else's...and that's the real utility of a definition. They only work when others recognize them.

But you still have the problem: what's "Libertarian" about having an authority declare some people "mentally ill" and denying them whatever it is they want to choose, even if they were nutty cultists? It seems to me that Libertarianism's cardinal virtue is supposed to be "liberty" from such arbitrary and authoritarian constraints, is it not?

Everyone had the authority to determine truth if they have the ability to effectively judge evidence and vice versa.

So anybody who thinks he's right can be the authority that excludes others "liberties"? That's a very strange Libertarianism, I have to say. It's actually kind of authoritarian.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=807002 time=1781547397 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=806992 time=1781543344 user_id=15238]
[quote]>No, those are artificial definitions, actually. You'll find that the word "faith" in the Bible, at least, means "a justified belief." In fact, the same word is alternately translated "faith" and "belief" in different contexts. You might, then, be talking about some kind of cultists or an odd subsect of something...not about "religion" in a general way.[/quote]

My definitions are better in every meaningful respect. [/quote] Well, they're not anybody else's...and that's the real utility of a definition. They only work when others recognize them.

[quote][quote]But you still have the problem: what's "Libertarian" about having an authority declare some people "mentally ill" and denying them whatever it is they want to choose, even if they [i]were[/i] nutty cultists? It seems to me that Libertarianism's cardinal virtue is supposed to be "liberty" from such arbitrary and authoritarian constraints, is it not?[/quote]
Everyone had the authority to determine truth if they have the ability to effectively judge evidence and vice versa.[/quote] So anybody who thinks he's right can be the authority that excludes others "liberties"? That's a very strange Libertarianism, I have to say. It's actually kind of authoritarian.
[/quote]

straw man

[Immanuel Can]

Everyone had the authority to determine truth...

Well, we all have the right to believe whatever it is we want to believe. That has nothing to do with the truth, though, and it doesn't impart authority, either...certainly not the authority to force others to believe or not believe various things.

As a Libertarian, you could say, "I don't like what you believe" to people. But you can't stay Libertarian and say, "I deny you the opportunity to choose it."

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=807010 time=1781550751 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=807007 time=1781549906 user_id=15238]
Everyone had the authority to determine truth... [/quote]
Well, we all have the right to believe whatever it is we want to believe. That has nothing to do with the truth, though, and it doesn't impart authority, either...certainly not the authority to force others to believe or not believe various things.

As a Libertarian, you could say, "I don't like what you believe" to people. But you can't stay Libertarian and say, "I deny you the opportunity to choose it."
[/quote]

Whether what a particular person believes is actually true is epistemology. this is ethical theory ffs.

[Immanuel Can]

Whether what a particular person believes is actually true is epistemology. this is ethical theory ffs.

You think the categories of philosophy are neatly separable? They aren't.

But the more important point here is simply this: you can't really say "I'm a Libertarian, so I get to be authoritarian." You can't tell other people what they can and cannot choose to believe if you also claim that freedom of choice is the highest value. So you'll either have to stop being Libertarian, or you'll have to stop being authoritarian. They're opposites. You can't have both.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=807025 time=1781554884 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=807016 time=1781552033 user_id=15238]
Whether what a particular person believes is actually true is epistemology. this is ethical theory ffs.
[/quote] You think the categories of philosophy are neatly separable? They aren't.

But the more important point here is simply this: you can't really say "I'm a Libertarian, so I get to be authoritarian." You can't tell other people what they can and cannot choose to believe if you also claim that freedom of choice is the highest value. So you'll either have to stop being Libertarian, or you'll have to stop being authoritarian. They're opposites. You can't have both.
[/quote]

if someone can "legitimately" wield power over others in any way that doesn't require actual ability to think about things rationally, ethics is moot.

[Immanuel Can]

if someone can "legitimately" wield power over others in any way that doesn't require actual ability to think about things rationally, ethics is moot.

What you mean is that they are being disabled from doing their own ethics. Fair enough.

Nobody is saying that anybody can "legitimately" wield power over others, particularly so as to force them to believe things. I'm saying the opposite: I'm saying that by your dictating to others what they can and cannot choose to believe you are acting as non-Libertarian, and the very least, and as an authoritarian.

If you believe in freedom, one of the things it entails is that you have to allow people to choose things you don't approve or like...maybe even things you think are bad. That's what freedom means: the right to choose to accept or reject what the other person prefers.