Jon, if you don't think that there's enough love manifesting
in the world, stop re-defining opportunities for its expression
as 'duties' :)
Despite my being born and bred in NEW YORK CITY ('git a rope')
I have a lot more faith in people's 'love' capacity then you
apparently. You went back DECADES to find that one example
of not enought love in my home town (NYC). You ignored the
day in day out counter examples. Most will never be 'famous'
but some are: Bernard Getz being one. Remember, the subway
guy with a gun who 'terrorized' thugs.
Of cours the fear driven statists in my home town of NYC came
down on him very hard; remember?
A common feeling when pan-handled by strangers on the street
in NYC is that one has already given enough through the power
of govt coerced obligation. That belief that 'people are no
damn good' so us elites will have to physically force them to
'do right' Even sounds pathetic when ya say it that way. :(
Coercing obligatory acts that should have been the province of
IDEALISTIC 'love' (not just personal sentimentality) are
destructive to society. Driven by, imo, exagerated fear that
'people are no damn good' a policy of employing govt to force
what should have been done out of genuine caring, DISPLACES
the responses of natural caring. (btw,same arguments are made
regarding other things 'wanted' as 'rights')
But, despite this destructive influence via coerced caring,
during 911 the were MANY 'above and beyond duty' responses by
New Yorkers; even to the point of death (included a libertarian
hero too) There are more examples but I'm not sure that you
and I can agree about current human nature, Jon.
I will say this, you and I 'love' the best of American ideals
and no one could make us do the stuff that we do already :)
-Terry Liberty Parker
'Real world' experiment in LIBERTARIAN community became famous
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LibertyProspects/message/2569
'Real World' experiment in LIBERTARIAN nation building
at http://www.constitution.org
--- In [email protected], Jon Roland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The "general concept" is a duty of mutual defense. "Love" is a
wonderful
> thing. It is probably an essential component. But it is not
sufficient,
> nor is it reliable. Once we get beyond sexual and familial
affection,
> most social bonding, we can call "love", arises from mutual
struggle in
> a common cause, which is usually a form of mutual defense.
> Consider what happens with new military recruits. Do they "love"
the
> other members of their unit at the outset? Not really. They might
bring
> a general sense of duty to others from their previous civilian
> backgrounds, but by an large they begin by not caring that much
about
> what happens to the others. It is not until they have fought
together
> for a while, and protected one another, that the special kind of
bonding
> develops that will cause them to risk or even give up their lives
for
> their buddies. That's love, and it's important, but it doesn't just
> arise out of human nature without a bonding situation.
> Or consider the case of Kitty Genovese. You might recall she was
killed
> on the streets of new York after letting out plaintiff calls for
help,
> heard by many neighbors, none of whom came to her aid, because they
> didn't want to "become involved". That is more like the situation
we
> face today. As one who has rushed out into the street to aid a
victim of
> a mugging (and identified the mugger in a line-up, which led to his
> conviction), I find that attitude unthinkable, but I came out of a
> small-town Texas background where the concept of militia was strong.
> In the early Republic everyone was expected to respond to a militia
> call-up. Kitty Genovese's calls for help were a militia call-up.
There
> were fines, and even jail, for those who didn't respond in those
early
> days, but it was rare to have to impose them. And it was probably
mostly
> love that induced people to respond to a call-up for an immediate
> threat. The problem was to respond to a call-up for training, or to
make
> the decision to replace a broken gun instead of a broken plow, if
one
> couldn't afford both. Love has a way of not being strong enough to
get
> people to prepare to do the right thing, and without preparation
they
> are likely not to be adequate when the real threat materializes.
For
> that there was the coercion of social ostracism, which in a small
town
> could become a matter of life and death. Imagine your neighbors not
> joining in putting out a fire in your house because you had
neglected
> militia training. The problem is, how to rely only on social
pressure in
> a modern urban setting when most people don't even know their
neighbors.
> So it is all well and good to call for love, but that is a call for
> human nature to change, and until we can re-engineer people and
apply
> the changes to everyone, it is not a solution.
>
> Terry L Parker wrote:
>
> >Jon, while I did not explicitly use the term 'social contract'
> >I did not reject the general concept of one, either.
> >
> >Reciprocal comprehensive physical autonomy for each person
> >is the LIBERTARIAN 'social contract' Don't hit me and I won't
> >hit you; and so on. We in general , as beings with conscious
> >volition and agency automatically enter into a 'physical
> >aggression truce' with other such beings as it's in our own
> >self interest to so do. In my previous reply I dealt with the
> >'exceptors' to this 'truce' or 'social contract'
> >
> >However, Jon says that it's not enough to have a universal duty
> >to not violate another person. He's also asserting a 'duty' for
> >each person to be coerced into a duty to provide another's
defense.
> >
> >I say that should be the province of 'love' not 'duty'
> >
> >
> >Please also see what I wrote in
> >'Your Freedom and the Rights of Others'
> >at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/22990
> >
> >
> >-Terry Liberty Parker
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Our efforts depend on donations from people like you. Directions
> for donors are at http://www.constitution.org/whatucando.htm
> Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757
> 512/374-9585 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
