Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?

[Ecurb]

And you seem to have missed the point of the reductio ad absurdum argument. It applies to "lost opportunities" arguments, and the contention that lost opportunities are losses of welfare. They aren't, and if Alfie may not seize an opportunity, then neither may Bruno or anyone else to whom it presents itself. And an opportunity which cannot be seized is not an "opportunity" at all.

What about opportunities that COULD be easily siezed were it not for artificially instituted proeprty laws?

Suppose a black man lived on a tiny square of land, consisting of one square yard. The land around him was all owned by a racist, who decreed that no black people could set foot on his property. Are you suggesting that the black man's right to "freedom of movement" is NOT limited by property ownership? Come on now! That's ridiculous.

Heh. What is ridiculous is the notion that anyone would buy, or even accept as a gift, a square yard of land lacking access.

If you can offer reductio ad absurdum arguements, so can I. This is one.

I know what "free association" means, GE. But nobody has a right to free association in all circumstances. If, for example, the racist store owner goes out of his store into the street, he must associate with all sorts of people.

Well, now you're using "association" with a looser (and dubious) meaning than intended in the phrase "freedom of association." The term there refers to intentional interpersonal relationships entered into for some mutual benefit. Merely being in the presence of other people doesn't entail one is associating with them in that sense.

"Associate (transitive verb):
"1: to join as a partner, friend, or companion"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/associate

Hmmm. Is a customer a "partner, friend or companion". No, not any more than a fellow pedestrian walking on a crowded sidewalk and avoiding bumbing into people.

Property rights inherently limit freedom of movement, as noted above. That is their very purpose.

Well, you have a 4-term fallacy going there. "Rights" in the first clause refers to natural and common rights; "rights" in the second refers to fiat rights ("frights"). "Rights" in the first clause have a moral basis, as previously given. "Rights" in the second are arbitrary, ad hoc inventions of politicians. Hence the argument is invalid.


Er, no. Common rights are not "determined by law." (Sound) laws merely recognize them. They are determined per the first possession rule, as are the natural rights. But unlike the things to which one has natural rights, one does not bring the things to which one may gain common rights with them into the world. They are acquired after one's arrival.

As you should know by now, this is where I disagree. Property rights are fiat rights, in my opinion. This is obvious because they vary dramatically from one culture to another. The "first possession rule" may have legal standing, but it has no inherent moral standing, in my brilliant opinion. Why should it?

[Good_Egg]

The state always limits liberty, because laws always limit liberty. That is the nature of law.

I don't think that's quite right. A law against rape, for example, can be considered to both take away a man's freedom to rape and create a woman's freedom to go out in public without being raped. Why would you call that a net loss of liberty?

You could say that that's only true to the extent that laws change behaviour. A law which is known to be not enforced may be ineffective in either restricting or enhancing liberty. And similarly a law which would be obeyed even if it didn't exist doesn't change anything. (Are there cultures where rape is not illegal because it is unknown ?)

Arguably the above applies both to passing a statute law and recognising a moral law (as part of natural law).

There is no reason to assume that just because some rights (obligations) exist prior to the state, they cannot sometimes be violated because of other moral obligations. If you shoot a home-invader who is axe-murdering your family, for example, you have violated your obligation not to kill.

Created moral obligations can conflict - you could be unwise enough to make mutually-conflicting promises. It's less clear that natural law obligations can conflict.

Can we take it as read that a natural law obligation cannot be evaded by creating a conflicting obligation ? I can't justify murdering you by promising someone that I will do so...

Self-defence is traditionally considered in terms of the invader forfeiting their natural rights. The moral obligation is not to kill an innocent party.

Acts (like not allowing black people in one's home) that are legal in the private sector may be properly regulated in the public or economic sector. That was my point. That's because the State has a legitimate interest in regulating the public sector. If the racist wants to ban black people from his own home, the interest of the Public (State) in preventing that is negligible.

I think this is along the right lines but you're conflating "public" and "economic". The relevant difference between running a restaurant and having a dinner party is not whether money changes hands. It's that in declaring your business open to the public you are in effect granting everyone (I.e. all members of the public) a "created right" to be served. As something like a promise.
And you do no wrong if you qualify that promise, making it clear that you intend only to serve adults or children or men or women.

Banning people from your restaurant based on race or gender is wrong because there is no rational reason for it, and because it may cause some people to go hungry.

This seems like spurious reasoning. Restaurant-prepared food is more expensive than food you buy to prepare yourself; those who can't afford to go to restaurants prepare their own food. Nobody opens a restaurant because people will starve if they don't.

And if you live in the sort of society where men are likely to spend more money on drink in a men-only restaurant than in a mixed restaurant, it's entirely possible that operating such an establishment is more profitable, and hence rational.

See my argument to GE about the man on one square yard of land who is surrounded by property owned by someone else and festooned with "No Trespassing" signs.

In an agricultural area, it's entirely normal for some fields to be accessible only across other fields. If you're stupid enough to buy such a field without securing a legal right of access, you could well be unable to get to your land. Not clear that this example says anything at all about rights.

disagree that making value judgments about whether some good outweighs another is a denial of the concept of rights. It is a necessary adjunct to that concept.

Really ? You'd be happy if your right to life were conditional on everyone agreeing that the world is a better place with you in it ? You'd be happy to buy a house (or anything else) from someone on the basis that he could take it back anytime he thought that would be a better outcome ?

[Sy Borg]

GE Morton, you are a lost cause as regards the issue of transpeople. You maintain an ideology based on instinctive dislike and no knowledge of the issues. It would be nice if those who knew nothing about a topic paid even the slightest attention to those who have worked in the area, but that is too much to ask in today's post-modern milieu.

Just as flat-Earthers deny Earth sciences, anti-trans advocates deny medical sciences, pretending that regular men and women simply decide to have a sex change on a whim, as if that's a fun thing to do, a guilty pleasure rather than an emotional/mental nightmare that becomes too intense to deny. Many have tried desperately to lead "normal" lives, from childhood on, but the internal friction reaches a point where they either change/come out or kill themselves.

Their vulnerability is obvious. To target these people is obviously a deliberate attempt to push them over the edge, much like undermining a disabled person for their disability every day. You can defend those who engage in casual sadism with the justification that they are being "real" or "moral" - many do - but the carnage caused by those who stigmatise these people (at no cost to themselves) makes clear the cost to those people, their families and society generally.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34989340/

A Plausible Explanation of Increased Suicidal Behaviors Among Transgender Youth Based on the Interpersonal Theory of Suicide (IPTS): Case Series and Literature Review

Whatever, this is not a trans thread. If the issue is so important to you, start a new thread. A good title would be, "The freedom to push vulnerable queer teens into suicide. Why it's a good thing".

That is an invalid justification. It's not the state's job to nanny misbehaving people, right? [Those who kill, rape and steal] Let them work it out themselves. If the weak die, then you have a stronger society, right?

There are numerous issues that result in redress and the inflicting of losses on moral agents. White-anting, gossip, hiring and firing, relationship problems, bullying, vilification and other goading, financial dealings gone wrong - the list is almost endless.

Well, you've lumped together a number of disparate things there. Financial fraud and bullying (in the legal sense) inflict losses; hiring and firing, "relationship problems," "vilification," "goading" (unless it involves a threat of force ) do not. A loss is a tangible, measurable reduction in welfare. And I have no idea what "white-anting" is, but since it appears to be some sort of newly-coined Newspeak term, it probably doesn't either.

1. You previously justified outlawing and policing murder, rape and theft on the basis that these activities cause disruption through cycles of revenge. I note that you have shifted.

2. I listed various areas of tension that drive people into taking revenge, aside from Murder, rape and theft (MRT). Fraud, bullying, hiring and firing, relationship problems, vilification and goading are frequent sources of tit-for-tat revenge attacks, you you see no role for the state or other organisations to limit these behaviours.

3. Your rationale is simply materialistic. If the harm is material, ban it. If the harm is immaterial, no problem. It's an arbitrary line, based on your personal prejudices. You explanation is little better than "God said so". Just one more arbitrary line.

4. You claim that "white-anting" is a trendy new term. It has been in common use for the best part of a century. It describes the erosion of another's credibility, via false rumours and setting traps. As with the trans issue, you too often opine with great confidence about issues you know nothing about.

5. If you use measurability to determine whether issues warrant the intervention of the state, how would you measure the trauma of a young adult after being molested in childhood? Historical abuse, be it children or adults, would be legal in your model. If there is no material evidence and no readily measurable degree of losses, then your libertarianism cannot justify intervening in historical child molesting cases.

6. The point is that your version of libertarianism is incoherent in a range of areas, this being just one. You likewise have no answer to the issue of a non-taxing government gaining revenue to fund the military, police, courts and lawyers, prison complexes, not to mention project management, administration and financial management. Nor have you an answer for the fact that libertarianism must always lead to increasing disorder eventually resulting in authoritarian "crackdowns" and, ultimately, authoritarianism.

[GE Morton]

The issue where the topic of gender identification gets particularly complicated in relation to tyranny and democracy is how it is dealt with officially, including in organisations.

Well, "officially" and "organizations" are two different things. The former implies State action; the latter does not. Only the former relates to democracy v. tyranny.

Say Alfie has changed name legally and is now Freda, with the title Ms. The person goes into the bank and the staff and the staff member dealing with her begin addressing her as 'Sir' and using the pronoun 'he' it would seem an invalidation of identity and lack of respect. On what basis would it be done. Would it because they knew that Freda used to he Alfie or because Freda's voice is deep and she looks masculine? Some people get mistaken for the opposite gender sometimes anyway, so it can be problematic if use of pronouns is made purely on the basis of appearance.

I would imagine that bank would adopt policies requiring employees to indulge the customer's wishes in such matters, in order not to lose that customer. Whatever policies it might adopt are fine with me, as a citizen. Were I an employee of that bank and disagreed with its policy, whatever it might be, my option would be to quit and find another job. But the customer relations policies of that bank are no business of the State.

When working in mental health care, I have been in situations where a transgender person is being admitted to hospital and there are so many issues, including where they are going to be placed, especially as so many units are single sexed. That is why there need to be certain policies, but it can be problematic if they don't have some flexibility. That involves the person's presentation. If Freda is admitted to the male section while wearing a purple dress and stockings it is going to be extremely difficult for her. On the other hand, if she still looks like a man in a dress and is admitted to the female section some women might feel unsafe. In some ways, unisex areas can be helpful but this involves a third category which is not always recognised and it can be a problem if someone is forever cast into the third. 10 years down the line, Freda has taken hormones and now looks convincingly female, is it still a problem to admit her to the 'other' section? Some people may say it depends on whether she has had genital surgery, but does this involve asking her? This would be an intrusive question and do other people have the right to know which genitals a person has, or in what circumstances is it relevant.

Those are indeed real issues --- thorny ones --- and different types of settings would surely require different policies. Any policies private organizations adopt would be fine with me, as a bystander not involved with the organization. As with the bank, were I an employees and disagreed with a certain policy, then my option is to resign. As for whether there is a "right" to know what genitals a person has, yes, there could be. Someone freely offering a service or privilege has a right to condition it on any contingency he wishes. So if Freda wishes to partake of that service she must agree to whatever conditions the grantor imposes.

As for your issue of people being led into the fantasies of the gender dysphoric person it is extremely different from a person believing that they are a horse, for example. That is because gender dysphoria is a recognised diagnosis, and a recognised gender identity.

Heh. The only difference is the content of the delusion. It is still a delusion. And "recognition" by the APA doesn't carry a lot of weight; what counts and does not count as a "mental disorder" or "diagnosed condition" is largely determined by the shifting winds of popular opinion and what is currently considered "politically correct," not by any objective empirical evidence. Until 1973 gender dysphoria was deemed by the APA to be a "mental disorder." Now it is only a "diagnosed condition." What is "recognized" as either a "disorder" or "condition" is also strongly influenced by public choice economics --- the interests of practitioners and their organizations. They seek more patients, which means more job opportunities, more grants and more revenue --- the same forces that drive every other organization. Hence the relentless growth of diagnoses in the DSM --- from 128 in DSM-I to 541 in DSM-5.

http://apsychoserver.psych.arizona.edu/JJBAReprints/PSYC621/Blashfield_etal_2014_ARCP.pdf

All these issues are important in policy making and in daily living. It is sometimes possible to try to avoid pronouns in situations where there is uncertainty. Perhaps, rather than rigidity a certain amount of sensitivity is called for. Each person has a unique story leading to their gender identity and, of course, there are various intersex conditions. There are some overlaps between the two but understanding the differences in the terms is important. All of these factors, raise so many areas which make the differences between tyranny and democracy very intricate, in getting the balance.

I agree with your thrust there, concerning sensitivity to particulars. But those are all personal decisions each person is entitled to make for himself. There is no role for the State in making them, except perhaps within its own agencies.

[JackDaydream]

GE Morton
I will keep my reply short because as Sy Borg has said this is not a trans thread. I am a bit surprised how you suggest that if you were working in an organisation where you were asked to refer to someone in their chosen gender you would have the choice of resigning. Do you feel that strongly about the issue of trans that you would resign rather than call someone by their chosen pronouns? Also, to call someone who identifies as trans 'delusional' seems extreme and misses the complexity of the nature of gender identity, as if it is all down to biology.

As far as policies are concerned generally, even though they are made by organisations they have to be in line with the government and law. This applies to gender and amongst all other issues. The particular aspect relevant here is equal opportunities. Organisations are expected to adhere to legal frameworks, and it is a basis for legal cases.

[Ecurb]

You could say that that's only true to the extent that laws change behaviour. A law which is known to be not enforced may be ineffective in either restricting or enhancing liberty. And similarly a law which would be obeyed even if it didn't exist doesn't change anything. (Are there cultures where rape is not illegal because it is unknown ?)

Arguably the above applies both to passing a statute law and recognising a moral law (as part of natural law).

Created moral obligations can conflict - you could be unwise enough to make mutually-conflicting promises. It's less clear that natural law obligations can conflict.

That depends on what is considered "natural law". If "liberty" is a "natural (inalienable) right", then one person's liberty can clearly conflict with another person's.

]I think this is along the right lines but you're conflating "public" and "economic". The relevant difference between running a restaurant and having a dinner party is not whether money changes hands. It's that in declaring your business open to the public you are in effect granting everyone (I.e. all members of the public) a "created right" to be served. As something like a promise.
And you do no wrong if you qualify that promise, making it clear that you intend only to serve adults or children or men or women.


This seems like spurious reasoning. Restaurant-prepared food is more expensive than food you buy to prepare yourself; those who can't afford to go to restaurants prepare their own food. Nobody opens a restaurant because people will starve if they don't.

Try another hypothetical: all restaurants and stores in an area are owned by white people and refuse to sell to black people. OH! That's right! It's not a hypothetical; it actually happened here in the United States during my lifetime. Even if it were a mere hypothetical, however, based on Kant's categorical imperative it would be immoral to refuse to sell to someone because of his race, because it suggests you think it's OK for EVERYONE to refuse to sell to black people. Such discrimination is also illegal -- and so it should be (although you and GE seem to disagree). Perhaps you think it would be fine for every store and restaurant to refuse to sell to black people, or, perhaps, to charge them twice as much as they charge white people. Or perhaps you think that one person can act immorally as long as everyone doesn't. But I disagree.

And if you live in the sort of society where men are likely to spend more money on drink in a men-only restaurant than in a mixed restaurant, it's entirely possible that operating such an establishment is more profitable, and hence rational.

That was precisely the argument Southern retailers made when laws were proposed preventing racial discrimination. "My customers won't eat here if we allow black people in," they whimpered. Tough tooties. Justice is more important than profits (and, of course, white people continued to buy stuff).

See my argument to GE about the man on one square yard of land who is surrounded by property owned by someone else and festooned with "No Trespassing" signs.

In an agricultural area, it's entirely normal for some fields to be accessible only across other fields. If you're stupid enough to buy such a field without securing a legal right of access, you could well be unable to get to your land. Not clear that this example says anything at all about rights.

This is another hypothetical If you can see the problem of the man trapped by no-trespassing signs (he needn't own the place where he is standing, perhaps it is public land), then you can see the problem with ALL property rights. They all limit freedom. That (of course, Captain Obvious) doesn't mean that they don't also enhance freedom (if you own a car, your ability to prevent other people from driving it means it is always available for you to drive). Per my argument with GE, because "liberty" is a natural (inalienable) right, and property is a fiat (legal) right, the fiat right should demonstrate a good reason why it should be allowed to violate someone's inalienable rights before it violates them. In the case of property, there are many reasonable and sound arguments supporting the benefits of private ownership. However, because property rights are fiat rights, they are correctly described and limited by law. That's why GE's argument about the natural right of "free association" of the restauranteer is specious. The owner has that right, but it is properly limited under certain proprietary circumstances (i.e. a public store). Fiat rights are determined by law, and I support the Civli Rights Act of 1964 (if that's the right law I'm thinking of). I'd suggest it would be completely reasonable to make a law saying it is legal to trespass on unimproved, privately held land, as long as the trespasser does no harm. It would be merely another legal definition of one's legal right to control other people vis a vis owned property. There's no reason (since property rights are merely what the law says they are) that we can't tweak them to enhance justice and liberty.

Really ? You'd be happy if your right to life were conditional on everyone agreeing that the world is a better place with you in it ? You'd be happy to buy a house (or anything else) from someone on the basis that he could take it back anytime he thought that would be a better outcome ?

My right to life IS conditional on other people agreeing to honor it, as are all other rights. What good is a right that nobody honors?

[GE Morton]

GE Morton
I will keep my reply short because as Sy Borg has said this is not a trans thread. I am a bit surprised how you suggest that if you were working in an organisation where you were asked to refer to someone in their chosen gender you would have the choice of resigning. Do you feel that strongly about the issue of trans that you would resign rather than call someone by their chosen pronouns?

I wouldn't, but others might.

Also, to call someone who identifies as trans 'delusional' seems extreme and misses the complexity of the nature of gender identity, as if it is all down to biology.

"Extreme" doesn't apply to descriptions. Descriptions are not honorifics or judgments. A description is either accurate or inaccurate, and its accuracy doesn't depend upon the emotional effects it may have on the subject being described. It depends only upon definitions and observable facts. You're right that "gender identity" doesn't "come down to biology; that is a matter of beliefs and desires. Gender --- sex --- however, does. And if a person's beliefs about his/her sex differ from the biological facts of his/her sex, then those beliefs are delusional, by definition:

"Delusion (noun):

"1 a: something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated

" b (psychology): a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delusion

As far as policies are concerned generally, even though they are made by organisations they have to be in line with the government and law. This applies to gender and amongst all other issues. The particular aspect relevant here is equal opportunities. Organisations are expected to adhere to legal frameworks, and it is a basis for legal cases.

Well, that is question-begging, since the question is whether laws that presume to dictate how people must speak are morally justifiable. In the liberal tradition they are not, prima facie, not in order to assure equal opportunity or for any other reason.

[GE Morton]

What about opportunities that COULD be easily siezed were it not for artificially instituted proeprty laws?

Well, you just seem to be ignoring the arguments previously made. Property laws --- most of them, in the common law tradition --- are not "artificially instituted." They have a clear and compelling moral basis. You're also ignoring the implications of the reductio ad absurdum concerning lost opportunities. The "opportunities" you imagine cannot be seized, which is absurd.

If you can offer reductio ad absurdum arguements, so can I. This is one.

Well, no. An absurd scenario is not a reductio ad absurdum argument. The latter is an argument showing that a proposition, plausible on its face, leads to absurdities when applied consistently.

Hmmm. Is a customer a "partner, friend or companion". No, not any more than a fellow pedestrian walking on a crowded sidewalk and avoiding bumbing into people.

Oh, surely you can recognize a difference between those. Yes, a customer is a "partner," in a sense --- someone with whom one intentionally enters into a relationship pursuant to mutual or complementary interests.

As you should know by now, this is where I disagree. Property rights are fiat rights, in my opinion. This is obvious because they vary dramatically from one culture to another. The "first possession rule" may have legal standing, but it has no inherent moral standing, in my brilliant opinion. Why should it?

Well, whether a purported right is a "fiat right" is not a matter of opinion. The latter is a legal right which has no basis other than the whim of some lawgiver. Property rights (as understood in the liberal and common law traditions) have an objective and morally defensible basis, which precedes any laws. And, in fact, they don't vary much from culture to culture. What may count as private property (as opposed to communal property) varies somewhat, but the first possession principle determines ownership nearly everywhere, for personal/private as well as communal property. Notions such as "Our ancestral lands" rest upon that principle.

[GE Morton]

GE Morton, you are a lost cause as regards the issue of transpeople. You maintain an ideology based on instinctive dislike and no knowledge of the issues. It would be nice if those who knew nothing about a topic paid even the slightest attention to those who have worked in the area, but that is too much to ask in today's post-modern milieu.

Ah, back to ad hominems, I see. I have no "dislike" of "transpeople." I don't even know any. I've known many gays, however, some of whom I liked a lot, others not so much. And I suspect my knowledge of the issues is at least as extensive as yours. You're likely confusing knowledge of the issues with acceptance of politically correct dogmas concerning the issues. But what knowledge do you suspect I'm missing?

Just as flat-Earthers deny Earth sciences, anti-trans advocates deny medical sciences, pretending that regular men and women simply decide to have a sex change on a whim, as if that's a fun thing to do, a guilty pleasure rather than an emotional/mental nightmare that becomes too intense to deny. Many have tried desperately to lead "normal" lives, from childhood on, but the internal friction reaches a point where they either change/come out or kill themselves.

If by "medical sciences" you mean the opinions of psychiatrists, you're being misleading. There is very little science involved in that discipline, not because the practitioners are incompetent, but because the subject matter is intractable. But no one I know of suggests that persons consider sex change surgery "on a whim." Nor is the question of why people consider such surgery, or whether or not they ought to do so, relevant to this thread. It is whether the government has any role to play in such decisions, or in dictating how individuals relate to or address "transpeople."

Nor do I deny that sexual dysphoria --- like many other psychological conditions --- can produce great stress and depression in those suffering from them. The question is, What obligations do those disorders impose on other people? My claim is that they impose none. "Straight" Alfie's obligation to "trans" Bruno are the same as his obligations to anyone else --- he is constrained from inflicting losses or injuries upon him, including bulling, tormenting, and harassing him. But he is not obliged to indulge Bruno's delusions or alter his speech patterns or enter into any sort of relationship with him --- and certainly not to subsidize his therapy or sex change surgery. He has no such obligations to anyone, beyond any he may have taken on voluntarily, or perhaps incurred due to some tort he committed. I.e., Alfie is not responsible for Bruno's welfare, "trans" or otherwise.

To target these people is obviously a deliberate attempt to push them over the edge, much like undermining a disabled person for their disability every day.

Anyone who "targets" another person "in attempt to push them over the edge," if that attempt involves acts of bullying or harassment as commonly defined in law --- acts which would justify issuance of a restraining order --- would be crimes.

1. You previously justified outlawing and policing murder, rape and theft on the basis that these activities cause disruption through cycles of revenge. I note that you have shifted.

Oh, stop with the misquotes and fabricated quotes. Earlier you accused me of advocating conversion therapy, about which I'd never said a word. Nor have I ever said anything about "cycles of revenge," or even considered it. I'm quite sure I've never used that phrase. Are you confusing me with someone else, or are you just inventing this stuff from whole cloth?

3. Your rationale is simply materialistic. If the harm is material, ban it. If the harm is immaterial, no problem. It's an arbitrary line, based on your personal prejudices. You explanation is little better than "God said so". Just one more arbitrary line.

The distinction is not between material and immaterial, but between objective and measurable and subjective and indeterminate. The difference between hurt feelings and a broken leg is arbitrary? The difference between an insult and an assault is arbitrary? How would a jury go about determining how much compensation was due to the "harm" inflicted by Alfie's referring to trans-Bruno as "she"? And if what counts as "harm" is subjective and idiosyncratic, and therefore impossible to predict in advance, how would anyone know what is and is not harmful to someone?

4. You claim that "white-anting" is a trendy new term. It has been in common use for the best part of a century. It describes the erosion of another's credibility, via false rumours and setting traps. As with the trans issue, you too often opine with great confidence about issues you know nothing about.

Well, you got me there. I had to look that up. It is apparently an Australian colloquialism. It appears in only one online dictionary:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/white-anting

5. If you use measurability to determine whether issues warrant the intervention of the state, how would you measure the trauma of a young adult after being molested in childhood? Historical abuse, be it children or adults, would be legal in your model.

You don't need to measure that. Child molestation is illegal prima facie. Moreover, how traumatic that is depends on the details, and even more on the individual. You don't need to measure how traumatic a rape or armed robbery is, either, and that is not a factor in determining whether an accused is guilty of them. All those things can can have lasting consequences for some; others put them behind them quickly and get on with their lives.

6. The point is that your version of libertarianism is incoherent in a range of areas, this being just one. You likewise have no answer to the issue of a non-taxing government gaining revenue to fund the military, police, courts and lawyers, prison complexes, not to mention project management, administration and financial management.

And another false attribution. I've never proposed a "non-taxing government," and given the extent of our previous discussions of taxes, you very well know that.

[Sy Borg]

GE Morton, you are a lost cause as regards the issue of transpeople. You maintain an ideology based on instinctive dislike and no knowledge of the issues. It would be nice if those who knew nothing about a topic paid even the slightest attention to those who have worked in the area, but that is too much to ask in today's post-modern milieu.

Ah, back to ad hominems, I see. I have no "dislike" of "transpeople." I don't even know any. I've known many gays, however, some of whom I liked a lot, others not so much. And I suspect my knowledge of the issues is at least as extensive as yours. You're likely confusing knowledge of the issues with acceptance of politically correct dogmas concerning the issues. But what knowledge do you suspect I'm missing?

Just as flat-Earthers deny Earth sciences, anti-trans advocates deny medical sciences, pretending that regular men and women simply decide to have a sex change on a whim, as if that's a fun thing to do, a guilty pleasure rather than an emotional/mental nightmare that becomes too intense to deny. Many have tried desperately to lead "normal" lives, from childhood on, but the internal friction reaches a point where they either change/come out or kill themselves.

If by "medical sciences" you mean the opinions of psychiatrists, you're being misleading. There is very little science involved in that discipline, not because the practitioners are incompetent, but because the subject matter is intractable. But no one I know of suggests that persons consider sex change surgery "on a whim." Nor is the question of why people consider such surgery, or whether or not they ought to do so, relevant to this thread. It is whether the government has any role to play in such decisions, or in dictating how individuals relate to or address "transpeople."

Nor do I deny that sexual dysphoria --- like many other psychological conditions --- can produce great stress and depression in those suffering from them. The question is, What obligations do those disorders impose on other people? My claim is that they impose none. "Straight" Alfie's obligation to "trans" Bruno are the same as his obligations to anyone else --- he is constrained from inflicting losses or injuries upon him, including bulling, tormenting, and harassing him. But he is not obliged to indulge Bruno's delusions or alter his speech patterns or enter into any sort of relationship with him --- and certainly not to subsidize his therapy or sex change surgery. He has no such obligations to anyone, beyond any he may have taken on voluntarily, or perhaps incurred due to some tort he committed. I.e., Alfie is not responsible for Bruno's welfare, "trans" or otherwise.

To target these people is obviously a deliberate attempt to push them over the edge, much like undermining a disabled person for their disability every day.

Anyone who "targets" another person "in attempt to push them over the edge," if that attempt involves acts of bullying or harassment as commonly defined in law --- acts which would justify issuance of a restraining order --- would be crimes.

First the offtopic material.

I worked with LGBTQI in HR, and further as EEO officer. I attended many seminars addressed by the various "colours" of the sexuality and gender spectra.

You insist on your right to out transpeople publicly by using their old pronouns, who may only be known as a woman or man to those listening. You 100% do NOT have a right to out queer people. Some advocate of freedom, you are. You refuse transpeople to right to get on with their lives, insisting that you can casually derail their personal and professional lives just to prove a point.

Your comments about "delusions" are about half a century out of date. If you can't bother researching, you are unworthy of interaction.

And this is the end of the trans discussion on this thread. Further offtopic comments on this thread will be deleted.

The thread is called "Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?", not "Does GE Morton have the right to ruin transpeople's lives by outing them publicly?"

I can tell you with complete confidence that you have no idea what you are talking about in this area.

[Sy Borg]

1. You previously justified outlawing and policing murder, rape and theft on the basis that these activities cause disruption through cycles of revenge. I note that you have shifted.

Oh, stop with the misquotes and fabricated quotes. Earlier you accused me of advocating conversion therapy, about which I'd never said a word. Nor have I ever said anything about "cycles of revenge," or even considered it. I'm quite sure I've never used that phrase. Are you confusing me with someone else, or are you just inventing this stuff from whole cloth?

Sorry, I assumed your ideas to be more intelligent than they were.

You said to: "prevent or redress infliction of losses or injuries on other moral agents".

All of the above list result in losses or injuries to moral agents. I note that you are too busy being competitive to actually stick to the issue. That is, you draw arbitrary lines according to your personal biases - "no killing, raping, theft or fraud - that you treat as if objective. Simply, your ideology is incoherent.

[Sy Borg]

GE Morton

Note that the revenge problem is real. Let's simplify the idea to your claim:

2. I listed various areas of tension that drive people into [inflicting losses or injuries to moral agents], aside from Murder, rape and theft (MRT). ... bullying, hiring and firing, relationship problems, vilification and goading are frequent sources of [injuries or losses to moral agents], yet you you see no role for the state or other organisations to limit these behaviours.

[GE Morton]

First the offtopic material.

Er, it was you who launched the "trans" discussion:

https://www.onlinephilosophyclub.com/fo ... 48#p411948

[Sy Borg]

3. Your rationale is simply materialistic. If the harm is material, ban it. If the harm is immaterial, no problem. It's an arbitrary line, based on your personal prejudices. You explanation is little better than "God said so". Just one more arbitrary line.

The distinction is not between material and immaterial, but between objective and measurable and subjective and indeterminate.

Hurt feelings results in death more often than a broken leg, and are often more preventable because the harm is deliberate. I have removed comments related to your fetish about transpeople so we can stick to the point. The point is:

Your version of libertarianism is a ridiculous, childish ideology that ignores history, social dynamics, economics, logic and ethics. It is utterly incoherent to the point of delusion.

There are countless ways to cause harm, and many are measurable, but you limit the state's intervention to society to policing just these few basic areas. For example, what about unregulated:

- killing animals
- killing trees
- loud parties and music late at night
- littering
- unregulated dumping toxic chemicals in creeks and rivers
- arson in wilderness areas
- destroying public property (no moral agents were harmed)
- traffic rules
- bullying and harassment without physical contact


How far will your regulatory scope increase when you realise that many government functions that you decry make for a better society overall. That small amount of extra government intervention - that awareness and attention to details missed by ideologues - is why life in most western European nations, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is better than in the US. The US has suffered for Republican experimentation with quasi-libertarianism, resulting in seemingly permanent societal divisions, decaying infrastructure, policy stasis, relatively low levels of happiness and life expectancy.

[Sy Borg]

First the offtopic material.

Er, it was you who launched the "trans" discussion:

https://www.onlinephilosophyclub.com/fo ... 48#p411948

Obviously you started it by using vulnerable people as a political plaything. I almost always stand up for weak minorities, for underdogs and this often leads me into conflict the kind of American who detests "losers". Americans have even turned their national hated of "losers" into a tenet of their only growing religion - the prosperity gospel.

Usually it's animals that I am forced to defend on the forum, who are routinely objectified or dismissed as pointless, despite being far more similar to humans than is generally assumed. Now it's transpeople's turn to be treated as objects, as though being outed in public didn't matter to queer people, whose suicide rates are already unacceptably high.

Many influential philosophers of yore held anthropocentric, misogynist, racist and homophobic views. They were people of their time, but that context is not always appreciated, and too many follow slavishly.

That leaves me with plenty of work to do on the forum. I see the holding of "normal" beliefs for one's place and time to be a failure of philosophy, a shift from the philosophical to the profane, the political. Thus, too often we see so-called philosophical people who are happy to see the weak crushed in accordance with their naively extended version of natural selection.

It's one thing to expect natural selection to play out, another to encourage it.