Posts Tagged with Ethics

Conscientious Objection

Posted on

This is a bit of my latest episode in which I respond to Tom Woods and Dave Smith's episode on a libertarian objection to voting Trump. Hear the whole thing below. Enjoy. -P

Hey, this is Pen up at the front here. I have a few introductory thoughts that should help set the forthcoming in good order. This is a response to Dave Smith and Tom Woods talking about why someone might have felt inclined to vote Trump, including themselves. Their conversation covers a lot of important stuff, so it merits some response, and a few really important points (maybe) went unaddressed, so I'm going to respond and contribute to the conversation, for whatever it’s worth. Election day has now passed, but I think that make this a better time to do this because it gives people less to get worked up about. “You’re going to talk people into not voting for-” That objection has passed. So there's that.

I want to say up front that I do appreciate these gents. I am criticizing their take, not them. I've been a fan of Dave Smith since seeing him on youtube videos of the insult comedy stuff at the Stand in New York. I can't remember if I'd heard of him liberty-wise before that or- that was my early memories of Dave-Smithery. Tom Woods is my gateway drug into libertarianism, so I very much appreciate his work. And really, who says it like Tom? And, mostly I agree with him on stuff. So having said all that, I want to get started with the disagreement, and there is one particular consideration I want to highlight up here at the front. I think it helps bring all of this into focus. It may sound trite at first, but just hold on. Hear me out. Here it is:

Opposing Harris did not require voting Trump. A candidate can be shown to be horrible (and Tom and Dave do a great job of that in their episode) and that, showing them horrible, that helps drive their success down to the point where they don't get elected. One can bring a candidate's success down somewhat, at least a single vote's worth. (That’s a low bar right?) They can bring the [opposing] candidate down a vote's worth instead of voting. How much does a single vote do, especially in a non-swing state? Maybe nothing . . .

Penjammin grew up in a labyrinthine cavern. Later he ran with the wolves and lived every moment marinated in the sweet scent of his game, until pirates landed and… See About for full story, and get his eletter at penjams.com/subscribe.

Better Libertarianism

Posted on

This is a bit of my episode with Iowancap in which we discuss how Libertarianism might be served by considering how various schools of ethics relate. Hear the whole episode below. Enjoy. -P

Penjammin: I was just reading For a New Liberty by Rothbard, and his last chapter is a strategy for liberty . . . He makes one caveat in there that I thought was really fascinating and perhaps a little controversial, which is really what you're saying. The idea that– well, a conservative in Congress might prefer some sort of a policy compromise or a trade where they get a little bit of this, a little bit for that. Whereas a libertarian who might want agree with the conservative on the boon, you know, that's to be had (maybe lower taxes or something), but they won't also say, “okay, but for this, what we're going to do is we're going to introduce a new act of aggression by Washington, DC against the people.” I'm not going to positively support that. I'm going to hold principle. The goal is always not to be incrementalist or gradualist, but to have the whole thing now. But with that hope, you know, firmly in place, there's you accept gains as they come. You're not going to tell them no. But he always had that caveat. It's like, “but I'm not going to vote positively against my principles. I will accept gradual movement towards them, but I will not vote against them.” . . .

Iowancap: Yet, I think there there is also an idea where, sometimes you do go for less bad. Sometimes that is the move. I think. In fact, I suddenly realized, Pen, that this all worked out perfectly because I realized that it was that phrase that I told you that I really loved, that you said, that actually launched all this thinking for me.

Penjammin: Okay.

Iowancap: And that is when I saw it, it was in a in a group chat, I saw that you made the statement: The means must be worthy of the ends.

Penjammin: Yeah.

Iowancap: And I think that is really what I'm talking about. Yes, we should keep in mind the ends. We need to keep the goals in mind. And, we shouldn't live purely principally and say, “but let's not look at what works. Let's not look at strategy, let's not look at tactics. Let's not look at reality.” At the same time, we have to always keep our principles in mind because if the means are not worthy of the ends, then you could start asking the question: “Are we really going where we think we're going?”

Penjammin: Yeah.

Iowancap: Especially as a Christian, I think that's very important because obedience to the law of God, obedience to the gospel and to Christ's commands, that is ultimately a winning strategy, even if short term it is not.

Penjammin: Right. I mean, we've already won.

Iowancap: And so I think that's really where this whole tension of principles and strategy is so important. Yeah, let's look for strategic ways to get the gospel to go out. Let's look for strategic ways to accomplish and to carve out the freedom to do the work that the church needs to do. And yet, if we at any point find ourselves going against the law of God with a sort of ends justify the means sort of mentality, then– if the means are not worthy of the ends, then we should question whether or not the means are actually going to get us to the ends that we think we're going toward.

Penjammin: Yes, because that's how you trapped. I think when you play the game, you get played by the game. It doesn't work in the long run. And, that's how I think about third-party voting as well. But I'll leave that for another time.

Penjammin grew up in a labyrinthine cavern. Later he ran with the wolves and lived every moment marinated in the sweet scent of his game, until pirates landed and… See About for full story, and get his eletter at penjams.com/subscribe.

Freedom to not vote Trump

Posted on

Yep. I recommended the Tim Stratton as a good account to follow. He has many merits as a public thinker and as an advocate of multiple freedoms: political, metaphysical, and (as a Christian) spiritual. But he's not perfect (wouldn't ya know it?), and right after I recommended him, he went and re-forwarded his ideas that Christians are morally required to vote for Trump and also- Well, let's just say he sounds a little Christian National*ish*. Thanks Tim! 😉 (Hey, we have to be real, and it's how he really feels. I get that.)

Well, since I recommended his work (and I still do), I get to respond to those two things, those two ideas that I most certainly do not recommend. But first, a positive: his Trumpy article represents a real effort to explicate his case in an easy to understand way. Also, it may be the best defense of voting for Trump (“I felt like I should, and here's why!”) even if it is also, unfortunately, an imperative for others to do so too.

Previously, I distilled Tim's Trump argument to this: Voting for Trump is a big offensive against a yuge evil, and Christians should do everything they can to fight against that evil. So, Christians should vote for Trump. Now, that's pretty accurate. But I think we can make it better, make it also account for exceptions to the rule that Tim admits to (exceptions like over-worked single moms who don't have the time to vote). Also, this rendering focuses on Christians who actually can vote (U.S. citizens who aren't felons and so forth):

  1. If an able Christian doesn’t vote Trump, they neglect a fight against a particularly yuge evil.
  2. If an able Christian neglects that fight, they do wrong.
  3. So, if an able Christian doesn’t vote for Trump, they do wrong.

I imagine most people sympathize with premise 2. That's where the force of the argument is. But premise 1 is far from obvious. It assumes both (a) that it is ethical to vote for Trump and (b) that voting for him would make a difference in the case of all able Christians. (Failing to do something unethical is hardly negligence, nor is failing to do something insignificant.) But first, it is not obvious that this voting for (the lesser) evil is ethical, especially if one has taken an oath to defend the constitution. (More on that linked below.) Furthermore, many able Christians live in red states where Trump will get the electoral vote, even if they vote against him. Voting for him is not likely to change anything.

So, an able Christian does not neglect a fight that is already won or lost in his state. He need not combat Marxism by contributing to (or resisting) an all but guaranteed outcome, especially if their conscience is against it. He can find more efficient and effective ways to combat Marxism.

For more on this, I have an old two-parter that responds both to Tim Stratton and William Lane Craig on a similar matter. Check it out at penjams.com/i-will-do-mine.

Penjammin grew up in a labyrinthine cavern. Later he ran with the wolves and lived every moment marinated in the sweet scent of his game, until pirates landed and… See About for full story, and get his eletter at penjams.com/subscribe.

Driving out hate…

Posted on

Hey terrans, writing again from the same ol’ table here in The Inn, Far far away. Things are going well here. Everything steady and as expected. There’s more to say about the mob I was anticipating, but I have something else on my mind.

The last time I wrote, there was… an unplanned event at an awards show. I wanted to add that I found it interesting that Smith summoned principles of love to explain his actions. I get it. He is claiming protective/avenging mode. Maybe that’s true, and if so it’s respectable. But in so-doing his language used a lot of love talk: “I’m being called on in my life to love people . . . I want to be a vessel for love . . . I want to be an ambassador for that kind of love and care and concern . . . Love makes you do crazy things.”

The love-talk reminded me of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. with his love-talk like: “I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality,” and, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” The irony is that, Smith was speaking of love to explain, and maybe defend, his violence (like with “Love makes you do crazy things”). But King's love-talk denounced it:

“At the center of non-violence stands the principle of love.”

“Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love.”

Now, Smith's apology to Rock did have a subtle change of tune: “I would like to publicly apologize to you, Chris. I was out of line and I was wrong. I am embarrassed and my actions were not indicative of the man I want to be. There is no place for violence in a world of love and kindness.” It was more love-talk but denouncing rather than explaining. It’s almost like someone tapped him on the shoulder and said, “Ya can’t channel Dr. King in defense of violence.”

This all has me more interested in non-violence. I’ve noticed a twitter mutual is committed to it. Maybe I’ll ask him about it, but right now I should probably get back to my doings here in the realm. Although demand for extra help has really lightened up of late. Maybe I can take a day off!

-Pen

P.S. I found those particular King quotes here: azquotes.com/author/8044-Martin_Luther_King_Jr/tag/love. They're often cited there too.

“Meeting hate with love”

Posted on

Hello again and best wishes to you from the realm. I hope it has been a good week. As for me, I caught wind of the slap heard round the world. No one cares much over here. Here such things are pretty straight-forward: Teases are ok. Harmless playful ones between friends: no problem… Uninvited and in public though, well, that's inappropriate but not necessarily an offense. It's a tease.

Insults are a different matter. Say it in private and even the cutting and ill-tempered insults can end up appreciated, eventually. Saying it in public though, that can be bad for your health and much more so if directed against a man’s wife instead of against him.

Rock's remark was an inappropriate tease. Or so it seems to me. It was public and uninvited. It was not personal though, and there was nothing bad about the person said. It was among other jokes as an expected part of the gathering all of which were made at the expense of those in a position to afford the humility and maybe in need of some too. As the custom coarsens, it needs rethought, but the joke was not really an insult, per se.

The only *insult* there was against Rock, and it's Rock's retaliation that would be… maybe not best but understandable. There are elves that would have reacted similarly, at the time, but for whom things would be scary far from over. Not good.

Perhaps, Smith let the drink dull his senses and animate a heart already upset by other matters. If so, it might help to mention it. Personally, I am more impressed at the magnanimity of Rock. To great men, more wrongs are trifles.

That reminds me about– nope. It can wait. I just noticed some dame drinking heavily. We don’t need another one drunk and talking up my cardboard cut-out. I’m going to point it out to the man in charge. Take care, terrans.

-Pen