Thank you for this thoughtful criticism Noah. Some clarifications/responses:
1. I think it becomes much easier to love our neighbors when they do not force us to live like them. My love for my neighbors is one of the biggest reasons I’m a libertarian. Love ought to imply respect for their rights. Neighboring communities that don’t seek to…
Thank you for this thoughtful criticism Noah. Some clarifications/responses:
1. I think it becomes much easier to love our neighbors when they do not force us to live like them. My love for my neighbors is one of the biggest reasons I’m a libertarian. Love ought to imply respect for their rights. Neighboring communities that don’t seek to control each other will get along much better than when they are overlapping and competing for control of the political structure.
2. I don’t think an ethical vegan and a hunter can truly be happy living in the same society together. The ethnical vegan will always want to control the hunter. Similarly, while it may be possible in the West for Zionists and anti-Zionists live comfortably in the same society, that’s certainly not the case in Israel itself, where each ideology poses a direct threat to way of life desired by the other (this is IMO one of the best arguments for a two state solution).
3. Tribalism is natural and will always exist. It’s what we evolved for. Any ideology that seeks to deny that is doomed to failure. It’s how we deal with our tribal instincts that matters. I think what I’m proposing deals with our natural tribalism in a way that promotes peaceful coexistence rather than conflict, and this is the main reason I advocate for it.
4. Violence comes from neighboring communities trying to control each other, which is precisely what I oppose. The liberal international order has led to peace between states within America’s sphere of influence at levels historically unprecedented. What I’m advocating is practicing that at a more localized level.
5. I support peaceful and voluntary self-segregation. This doesn’t necessarily mean a lack of exposure, but it means lack of control over others who don’t think like you. Those who think the same way will organize together, but it doesn’t mean they have to completely disengage with the outside world. As I noted, the Amish are an extreme example and I think there's more moderate ways.
6. The situations you describe about the Catholic and the gay person, the gun lover and the hippie, and Antifa and the Trump supporter all exist right now, except in today’s world they are far more likely to run into each other than in the world I’m advocating. The world I’m advocating ameliorates these problems, it doesn’t worsen them.
7. It’s not necessarily the case that each community will have its own military. It may be the case that one community has a strong military and others pay to use it (not dissimilarly from how the U.S. enters into defense agreements with smaller nations currently). There’s a lot of different ways this could be organized on the market. But I’d also note that local militias defending local communities was explicitly envisioned by America’s founders and is directly referenced in the Second Amendment, so what I’m describing isn’t particularly radical, but is fully in line with America’s historical values.
8. Civil wars are caused by the party that refuses to let a group secede, not the seceding group.
9. Yes, I think it’s healthier for bisexual people to be encouraged to be straight. I don’t support any state force to make them live that way. I do support social norms peacefully spread through education, families, etc. Ultimately individuals will be free to make their own choices, but that doesn’t mean that their choices should become a norm. Yes, children can and do regularly come out fine with gay parents, but on average I don’t think it’s capable of leading to optimal outcomes. Men and women aren’t the same and can’t perfectly take on each other’s roles in all ways at all times.
10. Gay marriage is indeed a blessing for those who aren’t wired to be able to find happiness in a straight marriage. But that’s a solution for a specific problem that they have, it doesn’t mean it’s optimal.
11. I think that you likely currently do business with people who have much worse beliefs and practices than those who might privately hold racist beliefs, but are peaceful and physically removed from the groups they’re racist against. For example, I think it’s highly likely you buy goods made through pseudo-slave labor in China, but don’t think about it.
12. The right to not bake a cake for someone you don’t want to is a necessary part of freedom. If you don’t want to purchase from them, that’s fine, but all the more reason you and they should live physically removed. The alternative is forcing them to bake the cake, which was appropriately ruled to be unconstitutional.
13. I also would have divested from apartheid South Africa. The difference there is they were actually using force to discriminate against their native population. Had they instead voluntarily separated themselves, there would have been no such thing as apartheid. Apartheid was by definition the use of government force to destroy individual rights along ethnic lines.
Thank you for this thoughtful criticism Noah. Some clarifications/responses:
1. I think it becomes much easier to love our neighbors when they do not force us to live like them. My love for my neighbors is one of the biggest reasons I’m a libertarian. Love ought to imply respect for their rights. Neighboring communities that don’t seek to control each other will get along much better than when they are overlapping and competing for control of the political structure.
2. I don’t think an ethical vegan and a hunter can truly be happy living in the same society together. The ethnical vegan will always want to control the hunter. Similarly, while it may be possible in the West for Zionists and anti-Zionists live comfortably in the same society, that’s certainly not the case in Israel itself, where each ideology poses a direct threat to way of life desired by the other (this is IMO one of the best arguments for a two state solution).
3. Tribalism is natural and will always exist. It’s what we evolved for. Any ideology that seeks to deny that is doomed to failure. It’s how we deal with our tribal instincts that matters. I think what I’m proposing deals with our natural tribalism in a way that promotes peaceful coexistence rather than conflict, and this is the main reason I advocate for it.
4. Violence comes from neighboring communities trying to control each other, which is precisely what I oppose. The liberal international order has led to peace between states within America’s sphere of influence at levels historically unprecedented. What I’m advocating is practicing that at a more localized level.
5. I support peaceful and voluntary self-segregation. This doesn’t necessarily mean a lack of exposure, but it means lack of control over others who don’t think like you. Those who think the same way will organize together, but it doesn’t mean they have to completely disengage with the outside world. As I noted, the Amish are an extreme example and I think there's more moderate ways.
6. The situations you describe about the Catholic and the gay person, the gun lover and the hippie, and Antifa and the Trump supporter all exist right now, except in today’s world they are far more likely to run into each other than in the world I’m advocating. The world I’m advocating ameliorates these problems, it doesn’t worsen them.
7. It’s not necessarily the case that each community will have its own military. It may be the case that one community has a strong military and others pay to use it (not dissimilarly from how the U.S. enters into defense agreements with smaller nations currently). There’s a lot of different ways this could be organized on the market. But I’d also note that local militias defending local communities was explicitly envisioned by America’s founders and is directly referenced in the Second Amendment, so what I’m describing isn’t particularly radical, but is fully in line with America’s historical values.
8. Civil wars are caused by the party that refuses to let a group secede, not the seceding group.
9. Yes, I think it’s healthier for bisexual people to be encouraged to be straight. I don’t support any state force to make them live that way. I do support social norms peacefully spread through education, families, etc. Ultimately individuals will be free to make their own choices, but that doesn’t mean that their choices should become a norm. Yes, children can and do regularly come out fine with gay parents, but on average I don’t think it’s capable of leading to optimal outcomes. Men and women aren’t the same and can’t perfectly take on each other’s roles in all ways at all times.
10. Gay marriage is indeed a blessing for those who aren’t wired to be able to find happiness in a straight marriage. But that’s a solution for a specific problem that they have, it doesn’t mean it’s optimal.
11. I think that you likely currently do business with people who have much worse beliefs and practices than those who might privately hold racist beliefs, but are peaceful and physically removed from the groups they’re racist against. For example, I think it’s highly likely you buy goods made through pseudo-slave labor in China, but don’t think about it.
12. The right to not bake a cake for someone you don’t want to is a necessary part of freedom. If you don’t want to purchase from them, that’s fine, but all the more reason you and they should live physically removed. The alternative is forcing them to bake the cake, which was appropriately ruled to be unconstitutional.
13. I also would have divested from apartheid South Africa. The difference there is they were actually using force to discriminate against their native population. Had they instead voluntarily separated themselves, there would have been no such thing as apartheid. Apartheid was by definition the use of government force to destroy individual rights along ethnic lines.