The Death of our Liberty. (Discussion Thread)

[Lord Sovereign]

True.

Yet, as the Scholastics noted on the subject of free will: to be forcibly witheld from ill behaviour is no virtue at all. To be called good at all, you must choose to be good.

The problem of "the Moderns" is that they are nihilists, by and large, who argue that there is no morality, and that "allowed" therefore equates to "good". Or at least "as good as anything else". The problem of many "conservatives" in the modern period is that they (often without understanding it!) think in the same paradigm, but just flip it around. They say: "...And because of this, everything we recognise as not good must be forbidden by law."

That, too, is against the traditional conception of morality, which recognised different spheres of authority. Meaning, generally: that by which you harm others is the province of the law, and that by which you harm your own soul is the province of the Church.

The traditional view is more nuanced than the modernist one, and essentially holds that things can be bad without being legally forbidden; and that therefore, the mere fact that something shouldn't be regulated by the law doesn't mean that it is therefore a good idea.

Of course, that view assumes that people are capable of exerting moral agency. Traditional approaches to morality are superior to the crude modernist attempts, but are wholly unsuited to a populace of vacuous idiots. Hence the current state of things.

This was partially what I was driving at. Outlawing vice is a murky road we shouldn’t go down, but vice is an enslaving thing that can reap a man’s soul more completely than even a sword’s edge.

Edit: And I’m not even sure a majority of the population are vacuous idiots. They strike me as more…lost than anything else. On some level they’d like to be virtuous but they aren’t sure how.

 

[S'task]

This was partially what I was driving at. Outlawing vice is a murky road we shouldn’t go down, but vice is an enslaving thing that can reap a man’s soul more completely than even a sword’s edge.

Edit: And I’m not even sure a majority of the population are vacuous idiots. They strike me as more…lost than anything else. On some level they’d like to be virtuous but they aren’t sure how.

The question is what are just vices and what does actual harm to others.

The issue that I'm sure Bacle and Vyor immediately are thinking of that turns them off from the traditional understanding of liberty is pornography. They dislike that many social conservatives seek to restrict access or outright ban it and rankle at the idea that anyone who could seek to ban that is in anyway anything but an authoritarian. To them, pornography is just a vice that should not be legislated against, but others would argue that pornography causes harm to others and thus it should be allowed to be restricted even under the traditional framework you're proposing.

 

[Agent23]

The question is what are just vices and what does actual harm to others.

The issue that I'm sure Bacle and Vyor immediately are thinking of that turns them off from the traditional understanding of liberty is pornography. They dislike that many social conservatives seek to restrict access or outright ban it and rankle at the idea that anyone who could seek to ban that is in anyway anything but an authoritarian. To them, pornography is just a vice that should not be legislated against, but others would argue that pornography causes harm to others and thus it should be allowed to be restricted even under the traditional framework you're proposing.

Porn and whoring/hookup culture but especially shit like onlyhoes contribute to hoeflation and the decline of marriage, the increased levels of depression among men, the decline in family formation, and declining birth rates.

Or as Kipling put it:

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promiced the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbor and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: 'The Wages of Sin is Death'
...
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man —
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began —
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire —
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

We have a lot of silly people who think freedom/liberty is basically the freedom of an overindebted, atomized, thoroughly media controlled consumerist individual who burns time on bullshit corporate crap and e-thots.

A sheep that gets free food and doesn't mind being fleeced and eventually slaughtered for food.

To paraphrase Andrew Ryan, a man chooses, a slave consumes mindlessly.
Just more declining civic virtue and true individualism.

The Roman Stoics would have had a field day with our time.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

The issue that I'm sure Bacle and Vyor immediately are thinking of that turns them off from the traditional understanding of liberty is pornography. They dislike that many social conservatives seek to restrict access or outright ban it and rankle at the idea that anyone who could seek to ban that is in anyway anything but an authoritarian. To them, pornography is just a vice that should not be legislated against, but others would argue that pornography causes harm to others and thus it should be allowed to be restricted even under the traditional framework you're proposing.

I'm of the opinion that rubbing one out every now and again never hurt anyone as the human race has likely had pornographic images since the ancient world. Either that or brothels.

The modern internet based industry however is genuinely fucking with people's brains in the same vein as some drugs do. There's a problem here and something may need to be done about it.

 

[Agent23]

I'm of the opinion that rubbing one out every now and again never hurt anyone as the human race has likely had pornographic images since the ancient world. Either that or brothels.

The modern internet based industry however is genuinely fucking with people's brains in the same vein as some drugs do. There's a problem here and something may need to be done about it.

That and feminist liberation crap mix together to turn an ever larger percentage of women into whores/cock carousel riders or e-thots.

And that feeds back on itself and creates more simps and porn addicts.

 

[Captain X]

rankle at the idea that anyone who could seek to ban that is in anyway anything but an authoritarian.

Because it is authoritarian. No different from the petty little Leftists who want to ban everything they find objectionable.

 

[Skallagrim]

This was partially what I was driving at. Outlawing vice is a murky road we shouldn’t go down, but vice is an enslaving thing that can reap a man’s soul more completely than even a sword’s edge.

Edit: And I’m not even sure a majority of the population are vacuous idiots. They strike me as more…lost than anything else. On some level they’d like to be virtuous but they aren’t sure how.

I agree completely. And the conclusion of your last point is quite hopeful.

The idiocy -- the shallow nature of the age -- is mostly a result of egalitarianism run amok. The supposed goal was to "lift up all", but the result is regression to the mean. In cultural terms, that means that leading influences and influencers (and I hardly just mean the 'online influencer' type, although they are a clear example, typically) become base, and crude, and idiotic.

This is not to say that in previous ages, refined enlightenment was the norm. Rather, it is to say that a degree of stratification is a good thing. The result of radical egalitarianism has been the marginalisation of high culture, and the universalisation of low culture.

In manners and morals, too.

The question is what are just vices and what does actual harm to others.

The issue that I'm sure Bacle and Vyor immediately are thinking of that turns them off from the traditional understanding of liberty is pornography. They dislike that many social conservatives seek to restrict access or outright ban it and rankle at the idea that anyone who could seek to ban that is in anyway anything but an authoritarian. To them, pornography is just a vice that should not be legislated against, but others would argue that pornography causes harm to others and thus it should be allowed to be restricted even under the traditional framework you're proposing.

There must always be room for such debate. An issue that presents itself is that the "nah, bro, it's all good, and if you disagree you're an authoritarian!" types don't want a debate. They assume their position is the only valid one. (Which is itself a typically modernist attitude.)

Personally, I'm rather inclined towards legal permissiveness, and social restrictions, which would allow people to live as they please, but -- in some cases -- only in their own communities. In Dutch, back in the day, this idea was called "sovereignty within one's own sphere".



Of course, it must be noted that if "BUT MUH PORN!" is truly one's argument, I suspect that there is little of substance to the world-view (...if any...) that informs this particular position. I have little faith in the long-term success of any community or society rooted in such barren soil. So perhaps any perceived problem, in a somewhat healthier society, will simply prove self-solving.

 

[Vyor]

The question is what are just vices and what does actual harm to others.

The issue that I'm sure Bacle and Vyor immediately are thinking of that turns them off from the traditional understanding of liberty is pornography. They dislike that many social conservatives seek to restrict access or outright ban it and rankle at the idea that anyone who could seek to ban that is in anyway anything but an authoritarian. To them, pornography is just a vice that should not be legislated against, but others would argue that pornography causes harm to others and thus it should be allowed to be restricted even under the traditional framework you're proposing.

I was thinking alcohol and obscenity along with more minor drugs.

But such an argument could be used for video games, anime, and movies. Matt Walsh certainly seems to be among that crowd. Anything that hints towards sexuality, anything obscene, anything violent, anything that wastes time should be banned according to him; or at least heavily restricted.

So: where is the line? At what point does it become your choice to peruse these things and not someone else's choice? Because that line is where the Law should be at.

 

[Captain X]

And shit like this is why I don't much care for conservatives either sometimes. There really can be a lot of similarities between them and the Leftist moral busy bodies. And the fact some of you can't recognize that and maybe take a step back and re-evaluate is just sad.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

The idiocy -- the shallow nature of the age -- is mostly a result of egalitarianism run amok. The supposed goal was to "lift up all", but the result is regression to the mean. In cultural terms, that means that leading influences and influencers (and I hardly just mean the 'online influencer' type, although they are a clear example, typically) become base, and crude, and idiotic.

In some respects, for a few philosophers of the enlightenment (cough, Rousseau, cough), ripping everything down to return man to the “state of nature” where he is “completely free”, might well have been the goal all along.

That aside, even in the base and the crude you see people almost questing for virtue. What else is “gangster culture” but a misguided and crude attempt at being part of a fellowship of warriors serving a ring giving lord?

 

[Simonbob]

And shit like this is why I don't much care for conservatives either sometimes. There really can be a lot of similarities between them and the Leftist moral busy bodies. And the fact some of you can't recognize that and maybe take a step back and re-evaluate is just sad.

You're right.

But, being human makes you capeable of seriously screwing up. We NEED limits. And, unless you want people able to, say, rape small kids, you agree too.


It's just where that line is, and why.

 

[Bigking321]

Anything that hints towards sexuality, anything obscene, anything violent, anything that wastes time should be banned according to him; or at least heavily restricted.

While I don't agree with him I will freely admit that that would be better than what we have now.

I completely disagree with the "no limits or you're a authoritarian" school of thought. Some things are bad and should be restricted.

Wasn't there a liberal city on the west coast that decriminalized all drugs and then overdose deaths and crime went through the roof?

 

[Vyor]

While I don't agree with him I will freely admit that that would be better than what we have now.

I completely disagree with the "no limits or you're a authoritarian" school of thought. Some things are bad and should be restricted.

Wasn't there a liberal city on the west coast that decriminalized all drugs and then overdose deaths and crime went through the roof?

So literally no hobbies and just work is better?

Go to North Korea then.

 

[Agent23]

So literally no hobbies and just work is better?

Go to North Korea then.

You really are trying to stretch things here.

In any case, porn and whores and thots are also a symbol of an entitled, instant gratification culture that does not predispose one of more complex, long-term thinking or actual individualism.

You know, the type where you think of the possible consequences of your actions.

If you look at successful people and unsuccessful people, one important difference is the ability to postpone gratification and develop self-control.

Back to your hobbies, now, not all of the rot your brain and contribute to making society dysfunctional.

This intellectual conversation, for example, is a hobby.

Reading "America's great depression" is a hobby if you are not a historian or an economist.

As to my 2 cents, well, I do not want to ban thots and hookers and porn.

Merely tax them the same way tobacco, gambling and alcohol are taxed, but at a higher rate, since lighting a cigarette causes less stupification and less of a marrital/family crisis contributor.

And yes, I do consume a decent amount of porn and nut regularly to it.

Frankly, I view the regular excretion of a certain white fluid to same way as taking a piss or a dump, but it should be kept in check and doing it far too often is a bad indicator of health.

 

[Bacle]

Then you entirely missed the point of what I was doing.

The OP was asking who was supporting Liberty in these times, I pointed out that many are for their definition of liberty. My purpose was to spur discussion that perhaps the modern definition of liberty is, in fact, part of the problem and that perhaps we should actually harken back to an older understanding of the term. That the modern definition of Liberty leads people towards philosophical Hedonism which, in turn, leads to the downfall and collapse of society as Hedonism produces nothing but selfish narcissists who focus only on their own personal pleasure and what they can get, without caring about others or what is needed for society at large to function.

You wanted to start a 'discussion' around an esoteric and rather uncommon definition of 'liberty', while pretending the modern definition is just 'wrong/bad' and got huffy when I said I had never seen nor heard liberty defined the way you have, and that your definition is useless for the modern debate of the subject.

You just come in and go, "no that definition is invalid and it's not real outside of a small subset of people whom I politically dislike and thus invalid", and I, in response, showed you that no, that the definition of liberty I was expressing was both historically valid and known outside of the narrow circle... so now you are changing the goalposts and saying that the definition is invalid because it's not the common understanding... which I did acknowledge. I'm putting forward the idea that your understanding of Liberty is wrong and part of the inherent problem with society at large today.

No, you are asserting a definition of liberty that as viewed by one hardcore section of the GOP, not the American populace as a whole.

Where as I am working with the definition 90% of the populace uses, and the definition that is most relevant to actual discussion about 'liberty' in the current year.

The thing is, you utterly ignored half my original post to claim my second definition of liberty was ahistorical and invalid. So how about you engage with that? You don't actually define Liberty as being able to do what you want, now do you? You accept limits on your liberty as valid? So what are those limits? You mock the Libertarian Non-Aggression Principle, but they at least espouse an understandable and reasonable limitation on Liberty. So what's yours? You clearly don't think people have the freedom to just go and kill each other? To steal things? Why? What do you found that on? Do you accept Speed Limits on roads and obey traffic signals and do you think that those rules are moral or immoral? Have you moral? Have you even thought about this, or do you just throw the term out to use as an attack against people who's politics you don't like because you feel they would limit your ability to pursue personal pleasure?

You seem to have missed me agreeing with the whole argument put forth by Judge Holmes; "My right to swing my fist ends when it touches your nose.", which is the definition of 'liberty' as understood by most of the American populace.

As Bacle said, that's not the general defintion of Liberty today.

Note, I hadn't heard that stuff, either.


I do agree, there needs to be limits to freedom, and the NAP's a reasonable one.


From a certian point of view, we're freer now than almost any point in history. If you want to be a degenerate, now's a great time. Have kids and treat them like shit? Happens all over. Eat to the point of stupidity? Sure, why not? Be a con artist? Just choose the right con!


There's certain groups who have more of this freedom, but it's there. And it's showing me, at least, that freedom's not that good a thing. It needs a great deal of limits.

The saying put forth by Judge Holmes seem the best way to define liberty and it's limits.

The question is what are just vices and what does actual harm to others.

The issue that I'm sure Bacle and Vyor immediately are thinking of that turns them off from the traditional understanding of liberty is pornography. They dislike that many social conservatives seek to restrict access or outright ban it and rankle at the idea that anyone who could seek to ban that is in anyway anything but an authoritarian. To them, pornography is just a vice that should not be legislated against, but others would argue that pornography causes harm to others and thus it should be allowed to be restricted even under the traditional framework you're proposing.

I agree completely. And the conclusion of your last point is quite hopeful.

The idiocy -- the shallow nature of the age -- is mostly a result of egalitarianism run amok. The supposed goal was to "lift up all", but the result is regression to the mean. In cultural terms, that means that leading influences and influencers (and I hardly just mean the 'online influencer' type, although they are a clear example, typically) become base, and crude, and idiotic.

This is not to say that in previous ages, refined enlightenment was the norm. Rather, it is to say that a degree of stratification is a good thing. The result of radical egalitarianism has been the marginalisation of high culture, and the universalisation of low culture.

In manners and morals, too.




There must always be room for such debate. An issue that presents itself is that the "nah, bro, it's all good, and if you disagree you're an authoritarian!" types don't want a debate. They assume their position is the only valid one. (Which is itself a typically modernist attitude.)

Personally, I'm rather inclined towards legal permissiveness, and social restrictions, which would allow people to live as they please, but -- in some cases -- only in their own communities. In Dutch, back in the day, this idea was called "sovereignty within one's own sphere".



Of course, it must be noted that if "BUT MUH PORN!" is truly one's argument, I suspect that there is little of substance to the world-view (...if any...) that informs this particular position. I have little faith in the long-term success of any community or society rooted in such barren soil. So perhaps any perceived problem, in a somewhat healthier society, will simply prove self-solving.

I see that trying to point out the over reaches of religious authoritarians will fall on deaf ears, because if you two think our only objection to the religious conservative definition of 'liberty' regards 'pleasure and vices'.

Because religious authoritarianism in the guise of 'religiously defined liberty' doesn't seem to be something that you two are at all worried about preventing (in fact that seems to be what you want), where as the rest of us do not want to trade progressive authoritarians for religious authoritarians.

And I doubt pointing out there are more religions active in the US than Christianity, that have different morals, is why liberty is defined in secular terms for US law, not religious terms, would get through why trying to force this discussion into the framework of 'Christian morality" is useless for any larger discussion that cross faith/creed/ideological boundaries.

And shit like this is why I don't much care for conservatives either sometimes. There really can be a lot of similarities between them and the Leftist moral busy bodies. And the fact some of you can't recognize that and maybe take a step back and re-evaluate is just sad.

Horse-shoe theory of politics rears it's head again; authoritarians on the Left and Right dislike 'liberty' and 'freedom' outside their ideological boundaries, they just use different excuses for their authoritarian tendencies.

 

[Bigking321]

So literally no hobbies and just work is better?

Go to North Korea then.

I literally said I didn't agree with him. Just that it would be better than our current hellscape.

 

[Vyor]

I literally said I didn't agree with him. Just that it would be better than our current hellscape.

I don't think it would be better. Once again: go to north korea if you think that way.

 

[Crom's Black Blade]

As my post here shows... you're being a bit disingenuous here guys.

Well speaking just for myself but for me the question of "What is moral" isn't quite the same as "harm no man". The latter, while a fine principal, is largely meaningless without moral values of some caliber to determine right from wrong, to what degree the wrong can/should be tolerated and to what extent we should go to arrest/ stop it.

Ultimately I don't think there's any easy answers or a magic philosophy that will neatly fix everything. Humans are too complex for that. At best every generation must have the same old discussion and come to the most agreeable solution.

 

[Bigking321]

I don't think it would be better. Once again: go to north korea if you think that way.

...

OK. Sure. Whatever.

Nice chatting with you I guess.

 

[Vyor]

...

OK. Sure. Whatever.

Nice chatting with you I guess.

You said a lack of hobbies would be better than the current western world.

The North Korean state, or the way it is run, is the only way to achieve such.