I have chosen to address several of the comments to my original post on this topic at one time, via this new post. I thank each one of you as you have provided very good feedback and conversation on this topic.
While I began the original post on the trail of dealing with the lack of freedom of speech as an issue in this freedom award, I obviously wandered further – into self-censorship; it is in this “further” where much of the feedback to the original post was focused.
- Stayton June 10, 2016, at 9:20 AM
…just as liberty affects the development of culture, so can culture affect the development (or preservation) of liberty.
This touches on a point discussed on and off between Unhappy Conservative and me. He suggests (and I paraphrase) that a common culture (and of a certain type) is necessary before one can begin building a libertarian society. I had not thought much about sequence before he raised this discussion.
Ever since this discussion began, I have been moving slowly toward his view. I think the reasons are three-fold: first, UC is well thought-out on this matter he presents his reasoning in a logical and rational manner. Second, I observe the world around me. Finally, in all of my writing about culture and liberty, the responses from too many defenders of libertarianism have been – let’s just say, less reasoned and less rational. In my words: they chant “NAP, NAP, NAP” and believe this is the answer to every problem in a world filled with humans. In UC’s words, they are autistic.
In other words, the libertarian community – to the extent it has given considered thought to the issue of culture – has recognized its importance in the development and maintenance of a libertarian society (see Hoppe). Unfortunately, there are many who have given the subject no thought and cannot believe it is worthy of any thought (the list is too long); for them, nothing more is required than chanting “NAP” and offering rote answers for every question. In other words, they offer no reasonable arguments, objections or alternatives.
The question for me is, if liberty is negative in nature, then the goal of liberty cannot only be “more liberty.” The goal must be a more moral society.
I have not thought about it this way – at least not in such direct terms.
How do libertarians, as libertarians, view this thing called “morality”? Some libertarians see “morality” as nothing more than the removal of coercion in all relationships – state and otherwise (business and family relationships, for example); call this the libertine anarchist/communist (my label, not theirs). It is impossible for me to consider this, as there is nothing in human history to suggest that human society can flourish – or even function – without a hierarchy of some sort.