Sorry! I know I’m not supposed to be here and on a social media break and I promise I’ll return to it. But I just couldn’t stay away after reading this fascinating conversation between you and Benjamin Boyce, Jake! I have so much to say (respectfully of course) about this conversation. I respect libertarians and their belief system. I also very much understand it’s appeal. But I strongly disagree with it. I’m totally opposed to the idea of a national divorce or everybody self-segregating into their own little communities. I think on a smaller scale, self-segregation is fine. I.e. the Amish, the Mennonites, white supremacists, the town of Orania in South Africa, which is only for Afrikaners, etc. On a micro level that concept is fine. But on a larger scale/macro level? Absolutely not! We need to learn to live together and love our neighbors regardless of their culture, beliefs, customs, etc. I’m a Lutheran, a Rockefeller Republican, Christian Zionist, animal and nature lover, and a pacifist. But I’d have no problem living in the same community with say a Pagan, Wiccan, Catholic, Jew, or Muslim, a big-time hunter, someone who is fervently anti-Zionist, a gun enthusiast, or anywhere on the political spectrum as long as they are kind, respectful and good people we can live together and disagree amicably. If we all went into our own little self-segregated bubbles, we’d essentially have what we have in America now, political polarization and tribalism galore. Also, if different kinds of people are not or very seldom, exposed to one another or know much about each other I see prejudice, stereotypes and feelings of superiority beginning to form all over the country. I could see violence between these segregated communities becoming an issue. Let’s say you have a community of Catholic conservatives and a gay person gets lost and wanders in there, what if those folks don’t take too kindly to their presence and proceed to beat the s*** out of them? Or say you have a community armed to the teeth of pro-gun second amendment types and a hippie wanders in trying to find their way home, they are distrustful of these outsiders, pull a gun and bang, bang, bang. Last example, I’d use let’s say we have a CHOP type community policed by Antifa and a Trump supporting couple has the misfortune to cross paths with these folks? That’s not going to end well. I can think of a million scenarios where the ideal society you propose would end in violence, bloodshed and mutual hatred developing over the generations in these segregated societies. You also mentioned each community will have its own military/defense forces. Yikes! (No disrespect intended there!) I could see multiple mini-civil wars breaking out! I must admit I was a bit puzzled and taken aback a bit by your opinion that bisexual people should be encouraged to be straight and marry someone of the opposite sex. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that’s what you said. I don’t agree with that at all. Any sort of pressure on them from the state or society to choose a certain partner or lifestyle would be blatantly against their constitutional rights and personal liberty as Americans. I’m all for the nuclear family and kids having a mother and a father where possible. But I don’t think there is anything wrong with gay marriage or two men or two women raising a child. Many have done so successfully. Also, one will usually play the mother role and the other the father role. So, kids don’t necessarily need two parents of different sexes to have an optimal childhood, I’ve seen no data to that effect. But I have seen data to prove that two parents is better than one. That’s what our focus as a society should be. That every child has two parents of whatever sex. I must admit I was also taken aback a bit when you said gay marriage was not an overall good. I would argue letting two people who love one another regardless of sex who God has blessed with a loving and sincere relationship entering into such an arrangement is a beautiful thing that is consistent with our Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the American spirit. People having such freedom when it doesn’t hurt anyone else or is morally wrong is always a good thing for our society. I would disagree about doing business with Southern racists. No way, no how! I would agree that Southern BBQ is tremendous. But there are certain moral qualms I would have that wouldn’t allow me if were a business owner to do business with or patronize an establishment, that engaged in something I found to be abhorrent. For instance, I would never be a costumer of a bakery that wouldn’t bake a cake for a gay wedding or an interracial wedding. I could never do business with a company run by Southern racists, Islamic fundamentalists or homophobic Christian conservatives. Just as in the 1980s, I’d have divested from a company in Apartheid South Africa in a heartbeat and avoided South African diamonds like they were airborne plague! I’d be happy to do business with or patronize the establishment of people all across the political spectrum but there are certain moral lines I can’t cross. A Trump supporter or a libertarian? I’ll be happy to eat donuts and sip orange juice at their bakery! A Klansmen, Neo-Nazi or Kahanist? No way, Jose! I’ll take my love of pastries and baked goods elsewhere! States having the right to succeed? I’m very iffy on that one. Unless this was under extreme circumstances like a dictatorship assuming power in America, that is something I couldn’t support. I’m not a fan of Hans Herman-Hoppe. His homophobia and support for communities being able to keep out whoever they want always repelled me. I hope you found this response thoughtful Jake! I apologize for breaking my break and I will now return to it. :)
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.
Sorry! I know I’m not supposed to be here and on a social media break and I promise I’ll return to it. But I just couldn’t stay away after reading this fascinating conversation between you and Benjamin Boyce, Jake! I have so much to say (respectfully of course) about this conversation. I respect libertarians and their belief system. I also very much understand it’s appeal. But I strongly disagree with it. I’m totally opposed to the idea of a national divorce or everybody self-segregating into their own little communities. I think on a smaller scale, self-segregation is fine. I.e. the Amish, the Mennonites, white supremacists, the town of Orania in South Africa, which is only for Afrikaners, etc. On a micro level that concept is fine. But on a larger scale/macro level? Absolutely not! We need to learn to live together and love our neighbors regardless of their culture, beliefs, customs, etc. I’m a Lutheran, a Rockefeller Republican, Christian Zionist, animal and nature lover, and a pacifist. But I’d have no problem living in the same community with say a Pagan, Wiccan, Catholic, Jew, or Muslim, a big-time hunter, someone who is fervently anti-Zionist, a gun enthusiast, or anywhere on the political spectrum as long as they are kind, respectful and good people we can live together and disagree amicably. If we all went into our own little self-segregated bubbles, we’d essentially have what we have in America now, political polarization and tribalism galore. Also, if different kinds of people are not or very seldom, exposed to one another or know much about each other I see prejudice, stereotypes and feelings of superiority beginning to form all over the country. I could see violence between these segregated communities becoming an issue. Let’s say you have a community of Catholic conservatives and a gay person gets lost and wanders in there, what if those folks don’t take too kindly to their presence and proceed to beat the s*** out of them? Or say you have a community armed to the teeth of pro-gun second amendment types and a hippie wanders in trying to find their way home, they are distrustful of these outsiders, pull a gun and bang, bang, bang. Last example, I’d use let’s say we have a CHOP type community policed by Antifa and a Trump supporting couple has the misfortune to cross paths with these folks? That’s not going to end well. I can think of a million scenarios where the ideal society you propose would end in violence, bloodshed and mutual hatred developing over the generations in these segregated societies. You also mentioned each community will have its own military/defense forces. Yikes! (No disrespect intended there!) I could see multiple mini-civil wars breaking out! I must admit I was a bit puzzled and taken aback a bit by your opinion that bisexual people should be encouraged to be straight and marry someone of the opposite sex. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that’s what you said. I don’t agree with that at all. Any sort of pressure on them from the state or society to choose a certain partner or lifestyle would be blatantly against their constitutional rights and personal liberty as Americans. I’m all for the nuclear family and kids having a mother and a father where possible. But I don’t think there is anything wrong with gay marriage or two men or two women raising a child. Many have done so successfully. Also, one will usually play the mother role and the other the father role. So, kids don’t necessarily need two parents of different sexes to have an optimal childhood, I’ve seen no data to that effect. But I have seen data to prove that two parents is better than one. That’s what our focus as a society should be. That every child has two parents of whatever sex. I must admit I was also taken aback a bit when you said gay marriage was not an overall good. I would argue letting two people who love one another regardless of sex who God has blessed with a loving and sincere relationship entering into such an arrangement is a beautiful thing that is consistent with our Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the American spirit. People having such freedom when it doesn’t hurt anyone else or is morally wrong is always a good thing for our society. I would disagree about doing business with Southern racists. No way, no how! I would agree that Southern BBQ is tremendous. But there are certain moral qualms I would have that wouldn’t allow me if were a business owner to do business with or patronize an establishment, that engaged in something I found to be abhorrent. For instance, I would never be a costumer of a bakery that wouldn’t bake a cake for a gay wedding or an interracial wedding. I could never do business with a company run by Southern racists, Islamic fundamentalists or homophobic Christian conservatives. Just as in the 1980s, I’d have divested from a company in Apartheid South Africa in a heartbeat and avoided South African diamonds like they were airborne plague! I’d be happy to do business with or patronize the establishment of people all across the political spectrum but there are certain moral lines I can’t cross. A Trump supporter or a libertarian? I’ll be happy to eat donuts and sip orange juice at their bakery! A Klansmen, Neo-Nazi or Kahanist? No way, Jose! I’ll take my love of pastries and baked goods elsewhere! States having the right to succeed? I’m very iffy on that one. Unless this was under extreme circumstances like a dictatorship assuming power in America, that is something I couldn’t support. I’m not a fan of Hans Herman-Hoppe. His homophobia and support for communities being able to keep out whoever they want always repelled me. I hope you found this response thoughtful Jake! I apologize for breaking my break and I will now return to it. :)
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.