You’re advocating for two different positions here.
But in practical sense, you want there to be people who meet their love at 11 and spend their whole lives together and then you want there people who start their sex lives at 11 and die at 100 while having a threesome. [....] You want there to be people distributed on both ends of the spectrum, with most somewhere around the middle
On the one hand you say there should be a diversity of behavior. As you describe it you want people who are wholly monogamous and people who are polygamous because there are individual evolutionary advantages to each kind of behavior.
I wouldn’t want nazis, communists, murderers or pedophiles enact their ideas
But for other areas where there can be diversity you say you just want a difference of ideas and opinions. And your justification for the diversity of some ideas is that it will make other people less likely to act on that idea. You’re justifying a diversity of ideas by saying it will cause less diversity of behavior.
I see a conflict here not just in methods but in what the end goal itself is.
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.
You’re advocating for two different positions here.
On the one hand you say there should be a diversity of behavior. As you describe it you want people who are wholly monogamous and people who are polygamous because there are individual evolutionary advantages to each kind of behavior.
But for other areas where there can be diversity you say you just want a difference of ideas and opinions. And your justification for the diversity of some ideas is that it will make other people less likely to act on that idea. You’re justifying a diversity of ideas by saying it will cause less diversity of behavior.
I see a conflict here not just in methods but in what the end goal itself is.
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.