Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?

[Ecurb]

The article didn't quote mommy as to the specifics of the incident. It simply said, "It was reported that . . ." The offense "reported" was not "calling a boy 'she'."

Calling a boy "she" may be insulting, and considered "name-calling," just as calling the boy an "wimp" or a "retard" would be. But unlike the latter, the former is also grammatically incorrect. Referring to an individual as "they" or "them" is also grammatically incorrect. That the school deems grammatically correct use of pronouns to be "insults" or "name-calling" reveals its embrace of the lefty agenda and its commitment to impose that agenda on its students --- not to mention abandoning its duty to teach the (grammatically) correct uses of pronouns.

The offense reported was similar to calling a boy "she". That's why I made the analogy. Grammar changes with the times. I still feel uncomfortable saying "they" as a singular pronoun, but that's my problem. Bullying a transgender teen is similar to calling a boy "she". Why do you have a problem with the school? Is Libertarianism pro-bullying in the schools?

Yes, the liberal tradition holds that persons ought to be judged on their individual merits --- i.e., on their behavior and accomplishments --- not on the basis of factors over which they have no control. But it also holds those judgments are for individuals to make, not the State. The freedom of association precludes government second-guessing of individual decisions in such matters.

Obviously, liberal though I am, I don't really care about "classic liberalism". Why would I? It's not holy gospel (and even if it was I wouldn't care). Of course people have freedom of association -- except when it is properly limited in paticular circumstances. Businesses that are open to the public must serve the public, even if members thereof are of a different race. Hmmm. That seems pretty reasonable to me. The economy is regulated by the State, and benefits from that regulation. Participants must abide by the rules.

[GE Morton]

The offense reported was similar to calling a boy "she".

I just pointed out that it is NOT similar. Referring to a boy with "she" falsely implies that the boy is female. Referring to a female with "she" implies no falsehood. On the contrary, referring to an individual with "they" falsely implies the subject is plural.

That's why I made the analogy. Grammar changes with the times.

It may, but no person has any duty to adopt arbitrary changes concocted to advance fashionable political agendas (i.e., Newspeak). Nor does any government have any authority to mandate such adoption.

Bullying a transgender teen is similar to calling a boy "she". Why do you have a problem with the school? Is Libertarianism pro-bullying in the schools?

First, there is no such thing as a "transgender" teen (or any other "transgender" animal, of any age). Nor is it "bullying" to call a boy a boy, a girl a girl. Your claim rests on a presumption that one has some duty to pander to others' fantasies, in order not to hurt their feelings. There is no such duty.

Obviously, liberal though I am, I don't really care about "classic liberalism".

Then you are not a liberal. You've adopted a Newspeak re-definition of THAT word.

Of course people have freedom of association -- except when it is properly limited in particular circumstances.

There are no "proper limits" to free association. The moment you advocate limits, you abandon free association. Those two concepts are antithetical.

Businesses that are open to the public must serve the public, even if members thereof are of a different race.

Private businesses, just as all other private property, are only "open" to whomever the owner says they are open. No one has any "right" to enter upon someone else property. Entering is a privilege, which may be extended to anyone the owner wishes or withheld from any one he wishes, and that privilege, if granted, may be revoked at any time.

The economy is regulated by the State, and benefits from that regulation.

Any regulations it imposes for any purpose other than preventing force, fraud, or injuries to third parties are illegitimate.

[Sy Borg]

If some student feels "tormented" by others correct use of language, then it is that student who needs some counseling, not the user of the language.

Since a 40% suicide attempts for young transpeople is not enough, you need to go for the quorum. I see.

I worked in HR for a long time and it is true that a significant number of people want transpeople and other queer people gone - preferably away, but dead if need be. The degree of hatred is quite an eye-opener. You wouldn't think that harmless people could be hated almost as much as sexual predators, but that's the (unbalanced) situation. Basically, you reveal your preference for tyranny by neglect for the weak. I call that political bullying.

Ironically, I am against transwomen competing in elite sport against regular women but, as a libertarian, you would not want to interfere.

I am definitely in favour of disciplining school bullies for deliberately undermining young, and extremely vulnerable, transpeople. They could easily push a youth into suicide - not that you would seem to care. Let the weak die, right?

Yet, if the eggshell skull rule is valid, then so is protecting the mentally vulnerable. Or are you against the eggshell skull rule too? If someone has a thin skull, bad luck, let 'em die.

There is a world of difference between the freedom to bully and undermine queer people until they kill themselves and the freedom to express opinions about political leaders and the government. If you equate the two, that further clarifies America's very public death-by-hubris. It's ever more post-modern, with ever more Americans unable to tell fact from fiction, or parse the important from the trivial.

GWB won in 2004 on the back of a gay scare campaign, and that resulted in the Iraq invasion, with many thousands dead, trillions wasted and soft power squandered. But you showed those gays who's boss!

[Sy Borg]

Look at this thread - about one of the most important issues of our time, and it's been derailed by America's current kinky obsession with transpeople - a minuscule, non-criminal part of the population.

Not sure if this is more grotesque or amusing. It might be a tie.

[LuckyR]

You're the expert on Hobbes and Locke, not I. However, it seems to me that human freedom and dignity are enmeshed in the liberal tradition. Not only slavery, but other forms of discrimination (Jim Crow Laws) defy that tradition.

Freedom yes, "dignity" no. That latter is a gratuitous addition by modern lefties. And, as is typical for them, they pervert that concept, re-defining it as denoting how one is treated, rather than as how one behaves. People are treated with dignity when they behave with dignity. There is no a priori entitlement to be treated with dignity. That is something, like respect and admiration, that must be earned.

Nor is there anything in the liberal tradition that prohibits discrimination, other than by the State. All persons within the jurisdiction of a government are entitled to equal application and protection of its laws. But prohibitions against private discrimination conflict with the right to liberty, specifically, the right of free association (the right of each person to freely decide with whom he will associate and enter into relationships).

How you can say that "domestic tranquility" or "the blessings of liberty" were better in the days of slavery and the Civil War, or the predatory riots in Missourri and Kansas that preceded and accompanied it, or the Tulsa massacre, is beyond me. Nor were the "blessings of liberty" more secure under Jim Crow laws.

I agree those practices were inconsistent with those principles (which is why they were abolished). But apart from those exceptions people were freer and more content with their citizenship then than they are today.

Regarding the freedom of speech post, schools often have rules against bullying. This does limit free speech, but is necessary for protecting vulnerable students and maintaining order in classrooms. The facts of the case to which you linked are unclear -- but if bullies continuously call a boy "she", that is clearly a form of bullying and should be stopped by school discipline. School discipline is not part of our legal system: free speech is constrained when students are prevented from shouting insults at a teacher in the classroom, too. Your link seems like anti-woke click bait, to me.

The article set forth the specifics:

"The incident in question reportedly took place in March, when a student announced a preference of 'they' and 'them' to identify them.

"But Rabidoux said her son was merely sticking up for one of his friends.

"'She [the offended student] had been screaming at one of Braden’s friends to use proper pronouns, calling him profanity, and this friend is very soft-spoken, and kind of just sunk down into his chair,' Rabidoux said. 'Braden finally came up, defending him, saying "He doesn’t have to use proper pronouns, it’s his constitutional right to not use, you can’t make him say things."'

The kid was perfectly right. Schools have no business declaring what are (politically) "proper" pronouns, and no student has any duty to pay heed to any such Orwellian dictates.

If by "people" you mean white, protestant, male people, I agree with you.

[Pattern-chaser]

Now, now. You know very well that libertarianism is not anarchy.

No, it's not. ... But it is equally true to observe that they have a lot in common, particularly in their focus and support of individualism.

[Ecurb]

I just pointed out that it is NOT similar. Referring to a boy with "she" falsely implies that the boy is female. Referring to a female with "she" implies no falsehood. On the contrary, referring to an individual with "they" falsely implies the subject is plural.


It may, but no person has any duty to adopt arbitrary changes concocted to advance fashionable political agendas (i.e., Newspeak). Nor does any government have any authority to mandate such adoption

.First, there is no such thing as a "transgender" teen (or any other "transgender" animal, of any age). Nor is it "bullying" to call a boy a boy, a girl a girl. Your claim rests on a presumption that one has some duty to pander to others' fantasies, in order not to hurt their feelings. There is no such duty.?

This is assinine. Referring to an individual using a pronoun of which they disapprove can constitute bullying or teasing, both of which are legitimately prohibited by schools. Referring to a boy as "she", or someone who prefers "they" as "she" are clearly similar in this respect, although, of course, not identical. Duh! End of subject.

Then you are not a liberal. You've adopted a Newspeak re-definition of THAT word.

Incorrect again. I said I was liberal, not 'a liberal". As an adjective liberal means (among other things) "open minded, free-thinking and generous." It also means (acc. my dictionary) "willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
(in a political context) favoring policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare." Words are re-defined constantly. You should keep up with the times, which have changed in the last 400 years. Perhaps you think the policies you advocate "promote social welfare", but your arguments in support of them are dogmatic and close minded, therefore not "liberal".

There are no "proper limits" to free association. The moment you advocate limits, you abandon free association. Those two concepts are antithetical.

Private businesses, just as all other private property, are only "open" to whomever the owner says they are open. No one has any "right" to enter upon someone else property. Entering is a privilege, which may be extended to anyone the owner wishes or withheld from any one he wishes, and that privilege, if granted, may be revoked at any time.

Any regulations it imposes for any purpose other than preventing force, fraud, or injuries to third parties are illegitimate.

Your lack of liberality is showing here, GE. Private businesses are NOT open only to whomever the owner wishes. Fortunately, there are laws preventing the owner from discriminating in certan ways. Perhaps you mean that in your opinion private busineses SHOULD be able to discriminate on the basis of race or gender. But by stating what is clearly not true, you simply make youself look silly.

Both free speech and free association are limited in the public sphere of business, and properly so. A store front advertises to the public, and even in your terms denying access to members of the public may constitute fraud. IN any case, however, your dogmatic and literalist adherence to your philosophy is lacking in liberality, as well as causing you to state things as facts which are clearly not true. In the interest of free speech, however, I support your right to prevaricate. It's still annoying, though.

[GE Morton]

Look at this thread - about one of the most important issues of our time, and it's been derailed by America's current kinky obsession with transpeople - a minuscule, non-criminal part of the population.

I agree there is indeed a current "kinky obsession with transpeople." But the policies those obsessed with it advocate fall squarely into the realm of tyranny, the subject of the thread. The subject matter per se is irrelevant to the thread, but those policies are not.

[GE Morton]

Since a 40% suicide attempts for young transpeople is not enough, you need to go for the quorum. I see.

Suicide rates for "transpeople" --- or among any other demographic --- do not justify violating others' rights or infringing their liberties. Alfie has no duty to prevent Bruno from committing suicide, and Chauncey certainly has no moral warrant for forcing Alfie to assume such a duty. Bruno's life is his to do with as he wishes, including ending it.

I worked in HR for a long time and it is true that a significant number of people want transpeople and other queer people gone - preferably away, but dead if need be. The degree of hatred is quite an eye-opener. You wouldn't think that harmless people could be hated almost as much as sexual predators, but that's the (unbalanced) situation. Basically, you reveal your preference for tyranny by neglect for the weak. I call that political bullying.

I'm sure there are those who hate "queer people," just as there are those who hate Jews, blacks, Catholics, Arabs, Republicans, or "the rich," and would wish them "gone, or preferably dead." But as long those haters violate no one's rights they can hate whomever they want, as deeply and for as long as they want. Neither hating nor neglect constitutes tyranny. Nor do they constitute "bullying."

Ironically, I am against transwomen competing in elite sport against regular women but, as a libertarian, you would not want to interfere.

Whether I would interfere would depend upon who is financing/sponsoring the sporting event. If a private group using private capital, then they may set any qualifications for contestants they wish. If a public body using taxpayer's money, then they may set whatever policies the majority of those taxpayers prefer. As a taxpayer I would not support allowing male faux-women to participate in women's sports.

Yet, if the eggshell skull rule is valid, then so is protecting the mentally vulnerable. Or are you against the eggshell skull rule too? If someone has a thin skull, bad luck, let 'em die.

You apparently misunderstand the eggshell skull rule. It holds that someone who has committed a tortious act --- assaulting someone or running a red light and crashing into someone --- is responsible for all damages caused, even if the victim's damages are greater due to some pre-existing vulnerability. Using a common English pronoun is not a tortious act. People have no duties to "walk on eggshells" in order to avoid inflicting "psychological harms" on people with goofy beliefs or "dysphorias." Some people also suffer from "species dysphoria" --- they think they are "really" eagles, or cats. Or identity dysphorias --- they think they are Jesus Christ, or Napoleon, or Cleopatra. No one has any duty to refrain from innocent behaviors because they might offend or traumatize such people, by not affirming their absurd beliefs.

It's ever more post-modern, with ever more Americans unable to tell fact from fiction, or parse the important from the trivial.

Well, that is ironic. Nothing could be more fictional than a man's belief he is a woman (or vice versa), or more trivial than what pronouns one uses to address that person.

[GE Morton]

Now, now. You know very well that libertarianism is not anarchy.

No, it's not. ... But it is equally true to observe that they have a lot in common, particularly in their focus and support of individualism.

Well, that is true. But individualism is not a political doctrine. It is an empirical reality.

[Pattern-chaser]

Individualism is not a political doctrine. It is an empirical reality.

I think not. That is a faith position.

Reality features a fruitful and dynamic balance between the individual and the group.

Religious extremists seek to derail this balance, on both sides. But reality is not changed - it is what it is.

[GE Morton]

Individualism is not a political doctrine. It is an empirical reality.

I think not. That is a faith position.

Er, no, PC. That humans are individuals is an undeniable, observable fact. And that those individuals differ in countless ways, and especially in their respective talents, abilities, temperaments, and interests, is also an undeniable, observable fact. Those differences are extensive enough and distinct enough to render each of them unique. Individualism is nothing more that the recognition of those facts. No "faith" is involved.

Reality features a fruitful and dynamic balance between the individual and the group.

Er, PC, a group (of humans) is nothing more than than the individuals who comprise it. It is not something distinct from them which can be "balanced" against those individuals. You're making a "category mistake" (Gilbert Ryle).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

[Sy Borg]

Since a 40% suicide attempts for young transpeople is not enough, you need to go for the quorum. I see.

Suicide rates for "transpeople" --- or among any other demographic --- do not justify violating others' rights or infringing their liberties. Alfie has no duty to prevent Bruno from committing suicide, and Chauncey certainly has no moral warrant for forcing Alfie to assume such a duty. Bruno's life is his to do with as he wishes, including ending it.

So the right goad people into killing themselves is more important to you than trying to avoid what should be easily preventable suicide. Noted.

You apparently misunderstand the eggshell skull rule. It holds that someone who has committed a tortious act --- assaulting someone or running a red light and crashing into someone --- is responsible for all damages caused, even if the victim's damages are greater due to some pre-existing vulnerability. Using a common English pronoun is not a tortious act. People have no duties to "walk on eggshells" in order to avoid inflicting "psychological harms" on people with goofy beliefs or "dysphorias." Some people also suffer from "species dysphoria" --- they think they are "really" eagles, or cats. Or identity dysphorias --- they think they are Jesus Christ, or Napoleon, or Cleopatra. No one has any duty to refrain from innocent behaviors because they might offend or traumatize such people, by not affirming their absurd beliefs.

Since you deny the validity of transgenderism, you make clear that you have no idea what you are talking about. You failed to acquaint yourself with the decades of science leading to today's situation. Yours are old, long discounted, arguments. Bringing you up to speed would be akin to convincing a flat-Earther than planets are oblate spheroids. Not worth my time, especially given your inability to admit being wrong on any issue.

Also, the lack of seriousness that you treat suicide (at least when it's someone you detest on principle) - despite suicide being one of the leading causes of death, discounts you as a serious observer altogether.

I would prefer that you did not post on this thread, as I am seeing sensible contributions from those equipped to make meaningful comments.

Please can we all address the thread topic? If anyone wants to discuss the best ways to goad transgenders into depression and self-harm, or perhaps even a tutorial on how to best kick the cat after a bad day, that would be another thread.

[GE Morton]

This is assinine. Referring to an individual using a pronoun of which they disapprove can constitute bullying or teasing, both of which are legitimately prohibited by schools. Referring to a boy as "she", or someone who prefers "they" as "she" are clearly similar in this respect, although, of course, not identical. Duh! End of subject.

What is "assinine" [sic] is claiming that one's uses of language are subject to others' approval, and that speakers may be punished for speaking without that approval. That is precisely what the 1st Amendment was written to prohibit. If a particular female considers being referred to with "she" to be bullying or teasing, then she is the one with the problem, not the speaker. It is not so considered by anyone else. "Bullying" consists of acts which would be threatening or disturbing or injurious to anyone to whom they are applied, not of ubiquitous, innocent behaviors to which some confused or "dysphoric" individual might object.

Bully (verb):
1: to treat (someone) in a cruel, insulting, threatening, or aggressive fashion
2: to cause (someone) to do something by means of force or coercion
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bully

Incorrect again. I said I was liberal, not 'a liberal". As an adjective liberal means (among other things) "open minded, free-thinking and generous." It also means (acc. my dictionary) "willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.

Yes, "liberal" also means both of those things.

" . . . (in a political context) favoring policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare."

Ah, yes. That is the Newspeak definition of (political) liberalism. But that is not the meaning assumed in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, etc. Nor is it "progressive;" it is regressive, resting upon a tribal vision of human societies, as does the notion of "social welfare."

Perhaps you think the policies you advocate "promote social welfare", but your arguments in support of them are dogmatic and close minded, therefore not "liberal".

Well, that is self-contradictory. Were I "closed minded," I would not be responding to your comments. "Closed-mindedness" consists in declining or refusing to answer arguments, or dismissing them as "dogmatic and close minded" (i.e., responding with ad hominems) rather than rebutting them by showing how their premises are false or the reasoning invalid.

But no, I wouldn't argue that the policies I advocate "promote social welfare." That expression is a Newspeak euphemism for statism, and as just mentioned, rests upon a tribal vision of human societies. "Welfare" is a measure of individual well-being, and I'd argue those policies promote that.

Your lack of liberality is showing here, GE. Private businesses are NOT open only to whomever the owner wishes. Fortunately, there are laws preventing the owner from discriminating in certan ways. Perhaps you mean that in your opinion private busineses SHOULD be able to discriminate on the basis of race or gender. But by stating what is clearly not true, you simply make youself look silly.

You're begging the question --- that question being, "Ought the State dictate to individuals with whom they must enter into relationships or invite upon their premises?" If you accept the principle of free association, the answer is clearly "no".

Both free speech and free association are limited in the public sphere of business, and properly so. A store front advertises to the public, and even in your terms denying access to members of the public may constitute fraud.

Circular. If a business advertised, "No women (Jews, blacks, gays, Italians etc.) allowed," there would be no fraud. But they would be punished for so advertising. Catch-22. Try again.

[Sy Borg]

GE Morton simply believes that, if people are weak, then they do not deserve any protection whatsoever from the state but they should instead be simply left to die. If the weak fail to perish in a convenient manner, then he would recommend the use of armed police to help them lose everything in a way that does not irritate the public.