J. Neil Schulman
@ Agorist.com
@ Agorist.com
The core libertarian test of any human behavior is whether it forces itself upon any unwilling party. So, it would be a core libertarian position that doing anything by yourself in private on your own property — or privately between or among universally consenting sentient beings — should not be invaded to prevent it by any outside party.
Somewhere in here then comes questions pure materialists might regard as mere matters of taste or personal preferences but which those with a philosophy embracing any sort of metaphysics — a sense that existence itself is biased — might regard as nature.
A pure libertarian might be absolutely value-free when it comes to a question of whether nature is at all to be preferred over invention or artifice; many libertarians, it appears to me, actually have a strong disregard for the natural and prefer the invented; a disdain for the mainstream and a preference for the offbeat. I think this is true of most real intellectuals of any stripe.
But how far is anyone willing to take this? I actually think most libertarians — most intellectuals — are more conventional than they believe themselves to be.
So let’s find out. Here’s a quiz for libertarians.
1. Would you be comfortable living in a society where cannibalism was practiced? I exclude the eating of murder victims by their murderers from this question. But it would include the eating of murder victims by third parties when their families sold the bodies to restaurants, children and teens killed in automobile accidents, suicides, prisoners executed for murder, and — soon available on eBay — celebrities who die from overdoses of drugs.
2. How would you get along in a society in which undergarments commonly substituted for bathrooms, so that it would be a common occurrence to be sitting in a restaurant or movie theater — or walking through a shopping mall — within a few feet of someone freely and unabashedly defecating or urinating under their clothing?
3. Professor Arnold van Huis of Holland’s Wageningen University has written a white paper for the United Nations in which he suggests replacing the Western diet’s reliance on red meat for protein with insects. How would you feel if his suggestion were commonly adopted and KFC served Kentucky Fried Cockroach? Let’s up the ante. What if restaurants had bullshit burgers on the menu?
4. Combat to the death was popular in ancient times; the custom of dueling made it to the 19th century in America and later elsewhere. The Romans explored just about every variety of this, including combat between gladiators, human bouts with wild animals, and even filling an arena with water and staging ship battles. Would you have any problem with this as popular sports — and new variations, such as two skydivers fighting over one parachute — if all athletes were volunteers?
5. For much of human history human childhood ended at the onset of puberty. Could you live in a society where 11-year-old girls and 13-year-old boys could marry, work, smoke (including tobacco, marijuana, and opium), drink, consent to sex, gamble, and engage in prostitution in which they got to keep the earnings?
6. Do you believe people have the right to decorate, accessorize, or configure their bodies in any way they desire? Suppose tattooing and piercing were one-upped by “amping” — the deliberate amputation of body parts — or blinding — people deliberately deciding to remove their eyeballs?
7. Here’s a question about practices which are already not uncommon throughout Europe and Asia: public offerings of nudity and sex? Do you have a problem with X-rated sex-fetish movies on broadcast television; billboards with both male and female full-frontal nudity; nude beaches; topless women on sidewalks; couples having sex in public parks; red-light districts with prostitutes offering their sexual services to the street; clubs with orgies and human-animal sex shows?
8. A federal judge has just overturned California’s Proposition 8, which had restricted marriage to a man and a woman. Do you accept that any form of marriage should now be legal, that California county clerks should now issue marriage licenses for unions including any number of men and/or women within a single marriage — and that these marriages should be able to have as many children — naturally, through surrogates, or through adoptions — as they desire?
9. Should any form of peaceful protest be allowed, not only burning of American flags, but including the defacement of religious icons — crucifixes, portraits of the Prophet Mohammad, Jewish Torahs?
10. Fox News commentator/comedian Greg Gutfeld, has proposed the opening of a gay nightclub adjacent to the “Ground Zero Mosque.” I’ve already watched a documentary about a pro-life center operating across the street from an abortion clinic. Do you believe White Supremacists should be able to open offices next to NAACP centers, and that Neo-Nazis should be able to operate offices next to Jewish Synagogues?
[Revised August 15, 2010]
My comic thriller Lady Magdalene’s — a movie I wrote, produced, directed, and acted in it — is now available for sale or rental on Amazon.com Video On Demand. If you like the way I think, I think you’ll like this movie. Check it out!
August 14, 2010 - 5:58 am
The last one is a recent convention, but most of the rest are taboo in practically every society because of natural aversion to things like feces and things that spread germs. Eating insects isn’t such a big deal because many cultures do so. What, after all, is a crab or lobster but a big water bug?
August 14, 2010 - 10:14 am
August 14, 2010 - 12:00 pm
For me, perhaps following Heinlein’s example, I pick and choose, without regard to nature, tradition, and novelty. Except that I believe that before you tear a fence down, you should see why it was put up.
Your post invites the damnable presumption that I approve of everything I want legal. (“Would you be comfortable?” “Would you have a problem?”)
Before I thought of your response re #2, I realized I’d *love* to be in a society where #2 was common — because I was off-world and a pressure suit was required.
August 15, 2010 - 1:04 pm
I have never understood why it is supposedly OK for a 12 year old boy to watch a slasher flick where people are hacked to pieces, but not to watch two (or n) consenting adults enjoying sex. With many of these questions, it isn’t so much “would you like to see this happen on the sidewalk in front of your house” as “would you approve of people with guns preventing people from doing this?”
Take the question about culinary preferences. There are people who enjoy eating bugs. This bothers me no more than the presence of octupus on the menu at a dim sum restaurant. I choose to eat it or not. Wherever feasible, I would prefer to rely upon red meat; if someone else eats ants or whatever, it “picks not my pockets and breaks not my bones.”
August 15, 2010 - 6:11 pm
Brad Spangler at C4ss was going to ask me to sum up my argument in the initial article so it could be considered an Op-Ed piece. I’d rather do that within the discussion.
I was careful what I chose as my examples. Everything on my list qualifies as behavior that libertarians would argue must be protected under libertarian codes of justice, because every single one of them is non-coercive behavior on private property or in the commons by persons who are considered adults under many legal codes. None of this violates property rights. None of this behavior is more invasive than, for example, smoking cigarettes in a restaurant, wearing strong perfume, emitting an unpleasant body odor, engaging in a practice which has only a small following.
Anarchist filmmaker Luis Buñuel posed similar situations in his 1974 movie The Phantom of Liberty. His belief was that all customs were arbitrary, and that it would make just as much sense for people to hide in a closet while they eat and sit on toilets around a table.
None of my questions are politically impossible, nor — in my view — more improbable than the change within my lifetime of homosexual behavior shifting from legally prohibited to not only legal but a fashionable cause célèbre among the hoi palloi.
The first questions to my tolerance test published in other venues immediately focus in on people using undergarments as bathrooms. People appear to find this more impossible than that cannibalism could become socially acceptable.
Really?
Check out the website http://www.wetset.net/. This is a website for men and women who make a sport out of wetting and soiling their pants in public — and as often as not the point is that they get a thrill out of getting caught.
There are people who believe they have the right to be anorexic — the movement is called “Pro-Ana.”
Michael Vick went to prison for fighting dogs in the United States — if he had moved south several hundred miles he would have been in the clear. Libertarians would ask only: were the dogs his property?
I no longer believe there is anything so outrageous that it can’t become the basis for someone deciding their personal choices need to be protected and that denying them public expression of it makes them an oppressed class.
So here’s the “Op-Ed” summary that Brad Spangler asked me for:
The whole point of the “tolerance test” is not about what we personally find objectionable. It’s about whether you think there are any questions that need to be asked beyond the libertarian one: “Is the behavior invasive, fraudulent, or coercive?”
Once we eliminate from consideration unlibertarian acts, the test asks whether you believe there is any basis other than esthetic preference for deciding what personal behavior should not be socially acceptable in public settings.
If libertarians ask nothing but whether an act is libertarian — in the same way a Muslim might ask whether an act is within Sharia law, or a Christian might ask whether it violates the Ten Commandments — such that there isn’t even a common basis to ask these questions, then how is libertarianism not just another insular cult, with no wider relevance to outsiders?
Neil
August 16, 2010 - 7:50 am
I agree that libertarianism tends to being defined as a cult, as most groups are. However, the main tenet is that freedom reigns in terms of positive and negative liberty. While unintended effects of the behaviours listed above are as defined, unidentifiable, the only two that may indirectly infringe on “negative” liberty would be one and four; a person should be left to do what they are able to do or be, without interference by other persons, and 1 and 4 may indirectly open doors to such incentives to do so.
August 16, 2010 - 9:35 am
So are you saying you would answer “no” to some of those questions? Which ones?
August 16, 2010 - 9:36 am
“If libertarians ask nothing but whether an act is libertarian — in the same way a Muslim might ask whether an act is within Sharia law, or a Christian might ask whether it violates the Ten Commandments — such that there isn’t even a common basis to ask these questions, then how is libertarianism not just another insular cult, with no wider relevance to outsiders?”
There *is* a common basis for liberty, though… expressed in the principles of self-ownership and non-aggression. Congruent with those principles, none of your examples can be prohibited… the question is whether they would exist in anything other than a niche, if at all. There is not likely to be a thriving bullshit burger market, for example.
August 16, 2010 - 10:02 am
I only have a few short points.
Just because an act is legal, does not mean you must tolerate it. If I find the eating of donated bodies offensive, or unhealthy, Then I have the right to expose, share my opinion, and boycott such practices. If childhood ended at 11 or 13. Well I am still a part of the new adults life and can influence and give them guidance as I see fit. Most people will see that getting married at 11 or 13 can be just as much of a mistake as getting married at 18. Tolerance is a problem if it goes against your morals and values. You must speak up, and if you have a good point, then I believe others will stand behind you. You can only teach each other, and that is the only way our society will evolve.
August 16, 2010 - 6:07 pm
Neil,
I don’t have a problem with any of those, despite not particularly caring to be exposed to some. (I’m not interested in watchin cannibalism, for instance.) But by the same token, if I had a business, and preferred, for example, to prohibit my patrons from soiling themselves in my establishment, I would have every right to do so, and succeed or fail as the purchasing public made their choices whether to buy from my business in that light.
If it’s on your dime, on your time, on your property (sorry, could find the right rhyming word), it’s your business, not mine. (Unless some emitted substance travels onto my property in a trespass, etc.)
August 16, 2010 - 6:08 pm
I don’t have a problem with any of those, despite not particularly caring to be exposed to some. (I’m not interested in watching cannibalism, for instance.) But by the same token, if I had a business, and preferred, for example, to prohibit my patrons from soiling themselves in my establishment, I would have every right to do so, and succeed or fail as the purchasing public made their choices whether to buy from my business in that light.
If it’s on your dime, on your time, on your property (sorry, couldn’t find the right rhyming word), it’s your business, not mine. (Unless some emitted substance travels onto my property in a trespass, etc.)
September 1, 2010 - 2:01 pm
–
Yeah, I’m good with all ten items. I just wonder how the Health Nazis would handle long pork, which (as any of us who’ve spent the qualifying year in a human gross anatomy lab can certainly tell you) tends to be quite fatty.
And not uncommonly diseased.
I suppose any religious objections would be handled along the lines of that Monty Python bit about the lifeboat and the fact that human flesh isn’t kosher (“Depends how we kill him, sir”).
–