This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The innate possession instinct only applies to chattels, not land. (And only questionably applies to more chattels than you can carry). Given how much of libertarian dispute resolution comes down to "the landowner decides what to allow on his land", you need to justify property in land to get a workable libertarianism. This is the hard part of libertarian ethics - particularly if (like most libertarians) you are dependent on the goodwill of people who benefit from the existing pattern of land ownership. Our moral instincts about land ownership come from our views on the proper relationship between warrior elites (the original landowners) and peasants.
Locke/Nozick come up with a theory which makes sense, but if taken seriously requires the Norman robbers and their successors in title to give back the stolen land of England, and the parts of the United States where the Indians practiced a minimal level of land stewardship to be returned to the original owners.
If you want to justify your land title based on the lapse of time since the last time the land was stolen, then you have the problem that the State's rights to sovereignty over the land are just as ancient.
Ayn Rand dodges the issue by accepting that moral rights in land stem from the sovereign granting the original land title.
More options
Context Copy link