Thanks for pointing this out. I have to admit I have totally overlooked this and I think it seems like very important point and it should be clarified.
At first look when I look at these two examples, it feels clear to me why it should be so. But I cannot identify principle behind it of why it should be so. Yet, most of us can agree that we wouldn’t want killers to be running around, but it is not harmful for people to lead their sex lives as they wish as long as they don’t harm anybody.
I think it could be thought of then that harmful ideas should be expressed, but not acted on so that we can judge and keep in mind their harmfulness without being affected. These ideas will be mostly weeded out by society by “natural selection”. On other hand, ideas that are not harmful will remain to be enacted on as they don’t have any obvious harmful effects, other than not being a preference of other people who can feel offended by them.
On another note as I think about it, I wouldn’t mind if there is society that decides that it is OK for there to be killers killing people etc. as long as living in such society is only voluntary and does not affect any other society. So I am thinking that as long as behaviour I oppose does not affect me, or anyone who does not want to be affected, is being enacted by people who are OK with being affect, then it is fine.
This idea is very similar to Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s covenant communities. Groups of property owners who all contract with one another to limit the kinds of tenants who live on their property to a particular group. This gives people who want to live in a certain kind of community the opportunity to do so. People who wish to live in total anarchy or a different kind of community only need to live outside of the covenant community.
You might like to read a few of his articles online and maybe pick up a copy of Democracy at a bookstore or library if you haven’t already.
I should mention that I agree with the worldview you express here, I consider myself a Hoppean libertarian. It just so happens that discussing libertarian economic and social philosophy doesn’t generate much interest on LW.
Thanks for pointing this out. I have to admit I have totally overlooked this and I think it seems like very important point and it should be clarified.
At first look when I look at these two examples, it feels clear to me why it should be so. But I cannot identify principle behind it of why it should be so. Yet, most of us can agree that we wouldn’t want killers to be running around, but it is not harmful for people to lead their sex lives as they wish as long as they don’t harm anybody.
I think it could be thought of then that harmful ideas should be expressed, but not acted on so that we can judge and keep in mind their harmfulness without being affected. These ideas will be mostly weeded out by society by “natural selection”.
On other hand, ideas that are not harmful will remain to be enacted on as they don’t have any obvious harmful effects, other than not being a preference of other people who can feel offended by them.
On another note as I think about it, I wouldn’t mind if there is society that decides that it is OK for there to be killers killing people etc. as long as living in such society is only voluntary and does not affect any other society.
So I am thinking that as long as behaviour I oppose does not affect me, or anyone who does not want to be affected, is being enacted by people who are OK with being affect, then it is fine.
This idea is very similar to Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s covenant communities. Groups of property owners who all contract with one another to limit the kinds of tenants who live on their property to a particular group. This gives people who want to live in a certain kind of community the opportunity to do so. People who wish to live in total anarchy or a different kind of community only need to live outside of the covenant community.
You might like to read a few of his articles online and maybe pick up a copy of Democracy at a bookstore or library if you haven’t already.
I should mention that I agree with the worldview you express here, I consider myself a Hoppean libertarian. It just so happens that discussing libertarian economic and social philosophy doesn’t generate much interest on LW.