I disagree with you on the conscious strategy point, though.

“Smart” people seem to always overlook the fact that “dumb” people are trying to get ahead, too..and shunning certain types of people is usually a good strategy for them.

It reduces the competition quite nicely.

So is toadyism.

I disagree with you on the conscious strategy point, though.

“Smart” people seem to always overlook the fact that “dumb” people are trying to get ahead, too..and shunning certain types of people is usually a good strategy for them.

It reduces the competition quite nicely.

So is toadyism.

I disagree with you on the conscious strategy point, though.

“Smart” people seem to always overlook the fact that “dumb” people are trying to get ahead, too..and shunning certain types of people is usually a good strategy for them.

It reduces the competition quite nicely.

So is toadyism.

If you profit from conformity…coerce away!

If you profit from conformity…coerce away!

If you profit from conformity…coerce away!

There are three different types of freedom involved here. First, there is the distinction between negative and positive liberty, with which most readers here will, I think, already be familiar. Next, positive liberty can be parsed into two specific kinds: the freedom to do things which can be done on one’s own, versus those which require the participation of others. The first type of positive liberty is dependent only on a person’s abilities and the noninterference of others. In social terms, this type of positive liberty is equivalent to negative liberty.

Shunning compromises only the second form of positive liberty, which, in libertarian theory, cannot be guaranteed as a legal right, since to make it a guaranteed right would require the coercion of others and the violation of their negative liberty. Is a person “less free” when she is shunned? That depends on what definition of freedom one is using, and how one weights the different types of freedom (which is subjective). In actuality, the shunned person is making a trade-off by choosing to exercise certain aspects of her positive liberty (doing things others disapprove of), in return for which she voluntarily sacrifices the positive liberties which come from participation with others (the specific others who shun her.) Is she better or worse off overall? That is for her to decide.

But, have any of her freedoms been taken away? Only those particular positive liberties which were provided by the shunning group itself, and which she would not have had without them. Thus, she is equally free in all respects as if she had never met them in the first place.

The effects of shunning will depend on how many positive freedoms belong in the first or second category. In a complex society like ours, nearly everything involves the participation of others in some fashion; however, many transactions can be made in relative anonymity, which mitigates the effects of ostracism.

I disapprove of shunning not because I believe that it causes a general or global reduction in freedom, but because I consider it an unenlightened strategy. As I mentioned, shunning and ostracism seem to me generally to be more due to emotion than conscious strategy.

There are three different types of freedom involved here. First, there is the distinction between negative and positive liberty, with which most readers here will, I think, already be familiar. Next, positive liberty can be parsed into two specific kinds: the freedom to do things which can be done on one’s own, versus those which require the participation of others. The first type of positive liberty is dependent only on a person’s abilities and the noninterference of others. In social terms, this type of positive liberty is equivalent to negative liberty.

Shunning compromises only the second form of positive liberty, which, in libertarian theory, cannot be guaranteed as a legal right, since to make it a guaranteed right would require the coercion of others and the violation of their negative liberty. Is a person “less free” when she is shunned? That depends on what definition of freedom one is using, and how one weights the different types of freedom (which is subjective). In actuality, the shunned person is making a trade-off by choosing to exercise certain aspects of her positive liberty (doing things others disapprove of), in return for which she voluntarily sacrifices the positive liberties which come from participation with others (the specific others who shun her.) Is she better or worse off overall? That is for her to decide.

But, have any of her freedoms been taken away? Only those particular positive liberties which were provided by the shunning group itself, and which she would not have had without them. Thus, she is equally free in all respects as if she had never met them in the first place.

The effects of shunning will depend on how many positive freedoms belong in the first or second category. In a complex society like ours, nearly everything involves the participation of others in some fashion; however, many transactions can be made in relative anonymity, which mitigates the effects of ostracism.

I disapprove of shunning not because I believe that it causes a general or global reduction in freedom, but because I consider it an unenlightened strategy. As I mentioned, shunning and ostracism seem to me generally to be more due to emotion than conscious strategy.

There are three different types of freedom involved here. First, there is the distinction between negative and positive liberty, with which most readers here will, I think, already be familiar. Next, positive liberty can be parsed into two specific kinds: the freedom to do things which can be done on one’s own, versus those which require the participation of others. The first type of positive liberty is dependent only on a person’s abilities and the noninterference of others. In social terms, this type of positive liberty is equivalent to negative liberty.

Shunning compromises only the second form of positive liberty, which, in libertarian theory, cannot be guaranteed as a legal right, since to make it a guaranteed right would require the coercion of others and the violation of their negative liberty. Is a person “less free” when she is shunned? That depends on what definition of freedom one is using, and how one weights the different types of freedom (which is subjective). In actuality, the shunned person is making a trade-off by choosing to exercise certain aspects of her positive liberty (doing things others disapprove of), in return for which she voluntarily sacrifices the positive liberties which come from participation with others (the specific others who shun her.) Is she better or worse off overall? That is for her to decide.

But, have any of her freedoms been taken away? Only those particular positive liberties which were provided by the shunning group itself, and which she would not have had without them. Thus, she is equally free in all respects as if she had never met them in the first place.

The effects of shunning will depend on how many positive freedoms belong in the first or second category. In a complex society like ours, nearly everything involves the participation of others in some fashion; however, many transactions can be made in relative anonymity, which mitigates the effects of ostracism.

I disapprove of shunning not because I believe that it causes a general or global reduction in freedom, but because I consider it an unenlightened strategy. As I mentioned, shunning and ostracism seem to me generally to be more due to emotion than conscious strategy.

And delicious.

If there is ever a “moral philosopher” professional wrestling character, I think you should try out for it.

“Will Power” should be your name.

And delicious.

If there is ever a “moral philosopher” professional wrestling character, I think you should try out for it.

“Will Power” should be your name.