Amsterdam on the Mediterranean
Alexis Haase sends along this Michael Totten piece on Suicide Girls (confused yet?) about Beirut, the city that was once the Arab world's answer to the South Bronx but has been something entirely else for years now:
Beirut has been called the Paris of the Middle East. But that isn't right. Beirut is the Amsterdam of the Middle East.
Here is where the taboos in the region--against alcohol, sex, scandalous clothing, dating, homosexuality, body modification, free speech, and religion--break down. Its culture is liberal and tolerant, even anarchic and libertarian. The state barely exists. Its pleasures are physical and decadent. It is where Saudis and other Gulf Arabs like to vacation because they can do, think, wear, and say whatever they want while they're there.
Whole thing here. Read it while thinking of Jamie Farr, Casey Kasem, anyone other than Spence Abraham, and raise a glass of arak in honor of Danny Thomas (God surely made room for him in heaven). A shout-out to Lebanese-Americans, big and small, worthy and unworthy, here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Yet another person who seems to not know the difference between 'libertarian' and 'libertine.'
Whatever happens in Beirut, STAYS in Beirut!
Thank you, Number 6. I get tired of seeing that confusion, too. FWIW, I have always made the distinction thus:
Libertarians believe you should be free to do what you want, but that doesn't mean they think you should do it.
Libertines believe you should do it.
Oeconomist-Sounds like a good way of explaining the distinction. I'll have to use that.
Where's the love for the Sununus?
So I can finally have these moddies removed that Papa Bey insisted on?
Number 6 and Oeconomist,
If you read the run-up and descriptions of Reasonoid get-togethers, you would know all Reasonoids are libertines... and it's a damn good thing!
Saying the state barely exists is consistent with saying it's libertarian, but then saying it's a libertarian culture is a stretch as libertarianism (as a philosophy) is only concerned with the state and not at all with culture, strictly speaking.
All that said, when is Michael Young going to give us some first-hand reporting we can really use?! 🙂
Well...how about this. You don't have to be libertine to be libertarian. But it helps! 🙂
Where's the love for the Sununus?
They're more Palestinian than Lebanese, but they keep that discreet.
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/02/18/State/Senate_candidate_call.shtml
Libertarians believe you should be free to do what you want, but that doesn't mean they think you should do it.
My... how magnanimous of you. So nice to know that you're standing behind me... so you can spit on me behind my back. I'll try to be sure that my freedom doesn't fly in the face with your backward, regressive, superstition-based values.
It is where Saudis and other Gulf Arabs like to vacation because they can do, think, wear, and say whatever they want while they're there.
Well, isn't that convenient. Maybe if they didn't have Beirut to play with, they would be a little less repressive at home?
Rhywun,
I don't know. They've been having a good time in Paris too.
Akira
I beg your pardon? Have you mistaken me for someone else, perhaps?
So I can proudly wave the flag of Israel in downtown Beirut without threat of violence?
The Saudis also have Bahrain. While I was there, I saw many Saudis make the drive across the causeway, get hammered and drive back to Saudi Arabia.
"If it were me, I probably wouldn't do it, but you go right ahead" = "backward, regressive, superstition-based values" & "spitting on your back"? How fucking paranoid are you?
I'm sorry, but one of my H&R pet peeves is the whole "libertarian-doesn't-mean-libertine" meme. It's either spouted by the half-hearted who are too gutless to appreciate just what libertarianism could or should lead us toward, or conservative moral scolds posing in libertarian clothing to lecture us on the wickedness of our godless, hedonist ways.
Or by people smart enough to recognize the difference between "free to" and "obliged to."
Akira, you seem to be operating on the profound misconception, shared by our statist rulers, that there should be no distinction between what is legal and what is right.
Libertarians, for a variety of reasons, believe that what should be legal to do is a much bigger class than what is right. Certainly, the first lesson I learned in law school was that just because its legal doesn't make it right. The second lesson was that just because its right doesn't mean there isn't a law against it somewhere.
You and the theocrats you affect to despise both apparently believe that the class of what should be legal to do and the class of what is right to do are one and the same.
BTW, all Suicide Girls are libertines and should definitely be invited to the next Reasonoid get-together.
It's not enough to merely "tolerate" freedom, and it certainly undermines liberty to constantly nag your neighbors about the freedoms you really don't think they should be practicing.
Any mention of Danny Thomas should have a link to here. They do fantastic work there.
It's not enough to merely "tolerate" freedom
Agreed. Freedom from government interference has to be fought for every day. Not sure what this has to do with libertarians (who fight for freedom) and libertines (who may or may not fight for freedom, but sure like to pleasure themselves).
it certainly undermines liberty to constantly nag your neighbors about the freedoms you really don't think they should be practicing.
I don't want to go all gaius marius on you here, but state-supplied and enforced standards for behavior will appear whenever there aren't voluntary civil society type standards for behavior.
In other words, if your neighbors don't nag you, the state will. The difference is, you are free to ignore your neighbors, or move to a different neighborhood. You are not free to ignore the state, and moving out of the country is a hell of a transaction cost.
But nagging your neighbors IS one of those freedoms you shouldn't really be practicing...
I have never smoked crack. I don't envision a situation where I will ever smoke crack. If somebody asks whether I think they should smoke crack, I would say no. If I saw a friend smoking crack, I would try to convince him or her to stop.
However, I am opposed to the law banning the smoking of crack, and would vote for its repeal.
How does this "undermine liberty?"
But nagging your neighbors IS one of those freedoms you shouldn't really be practicing...
That's...exactly my point of view. There are things I think we all should be able to do, but I have no interest in doing them. Some of them I even find obnoxious. I ain't gonna go Church Lady on people for doing them, at least not unless they ask.
Libertarians believe you should be free to do what you want, but that doesn't mean they think you should do it.
It doesn't mean they think you shouldn't, either. You can be "libertine" and be a libertarian, and you can be non-"libertine" and be a libertarian. You can even be "libertine" in some areas and not in others. Indeed, you kind of have to be. (Is it libertine to kiss in public? To watch a lot of TV? If I scold drug users and homosexuals but am a complete glutton at the dining table, am I a libertine? Which forms of "doing what you want" count as libertinism?)
It doesn't mean they think you shouldn't, either.
Thank you. There is a big difference between adhering to personal tastes and being a prig. I'm not gay. It's not my turn on. I will never willing engage in homosexual acts, but you will NEVER hear me tell anyone, "Steve, I think you should be free to have sex with men, but in the name of my personal lord and savior, JEEZ-us, you should really stop."
somebody asks whether I think they should smoke crack, I would say no. If I saw a friend smoking crack, I would try to convince him or her to stop.
Why? Is he you? If not, then it's none of your gorram business. He's enjoying himself. If one really belived in liberty, then they'd shut up and leave him alone.
Akira
Your type of thinking is the reason that libertarianism is doomed. You had better adapt yourself to the state now; doing so will save you trouble later.
Your type of thinking is the reason that libertarianism is doomed.
I can't help it if the world is composed of cowardly, superstitious, statist sheep.
You had better adapt yourself to the state now; doing so will save you trouble later.
Make me.
it certainly undermines liberty to constantly nag your neighbors about the freedoms you really don't think they should be practicing.
The words 'nag' and 'constantly' don't really apply to me, but there ARE certain freedoms I really think people would be better off not exercising. Various drug examples have already been mentioned; I also don't think it's a good idea to go to bars every weekend and sleep with strangers you meet there, but I damn sure won't push for a law against it. Though if any of my friends did it, I'd certainly try to talk them out of it.
It's not enough to merely "tolerate" freedom, and it certainly undermines liberty to constantly nag your neighbors about the freedoms you really don't think they should be practicing.
Constantly nagging is a pretty high bar. How many people ever really do that? Especially here?
Libertarianism per se, as I understand, strictly applies to the use of coercion, ie force. That said, I do have some sympathies with the notion that, from a broader philosophical perspective (ie, one encompassing a broader view of ethics), using shame to manipulate others' behavior (especially as opposed to reason) in an uninvited and unappreciated manner has certain overlaps with what we don't like about coercion. While I would definitely not say that such persuasion tactics violate the letter of libertarianism, I would suggest that they perhaps violate the spirit of libertarianism. Thus I think it is most ethical and best manners to limit persuasion of others to arguments formed of reason made to those who are open to hearing your persuasion. Except perhaps in extreme cases. But then, anything can get thrown out the window if the circumstance is extreme enough.
All that said, is anyone here constantly nagging you Akira to drop some supposed vice of yours? If so, I must have missed it. But your protestations did raise an interesting subject! 🙂
The conflation of libertine and libertarian is absurd. Everybody knows the only libertines worth their salt are Charles II-style autocrats who rule the country with an iron fist while maintaining their own palaces as paradises of forbidden lust where indentured servants and helpless farm girls are made to serve their every whim. A free and tolerant country is a true libertine's hell because it takes all the flavor out of sexual perversity. Where's the fun in being a perv if any slob in an I'm With Stupid t-shirt can be as licentious as you?
Gaius Marius would understand this. We just don't have the kind of high class aristocrats' orgies and harem-keeping popes our ancestors enjoyed. Radical individualism has destroyed that golden age.
Akira
If I were to see you walking toward the edge of a 4,000 foot cliff, it would be my human/moral/ethical/Christian/whatever DUTY (as a fellow human being) to shout "Stop!" This would be true even if I were hallucinating about the cliff. However, as a libertarian, I believe I have no right to stop you from continuing to walk forward so long as you are acting of your own volition.
My definition of libertarian must be significantly different from yours. I do not believe that it is my right to stop you from killing yourself, or smoking crack, or walking off that cliff; and I will not stop you from doing any of these things. But I do believe that I have every right--and indeed a DUTY ( as a fellow human being) to scream "Watch out for that cliff!" I also believe that, should I fail to scream a warning about what I see--even if my sight is just an illusion--then I should be scorned/damned.
Quoth Akira:
Make me.
Ah, but we don't have to. The Bush/Clinton adminstration, however, can and will, since you've so neatly bought into their morality.
You essentially argue that anything bad should be outlawed, and anything good should be legalized. The difference between you and they is one of degree, not of kind. But once you concede that the good and the law should be mirrored, you have no room to argue that it's "none of their gorram business" what you do, because you've argued that it is, in fact, precisely their business what you do.
So the logical consequence of what you argue is that every value becomes a political battle, and the question outlawing of murder versus pot smoking is one simply of popular support, not any intrinsic difference. I have a liberal friend who believes as you do, though obviously with different values about what should be outlawed than you. I can never seem to get it through his skull that he'd be living in a world much closer to his ideals if George Bush didn't have the amount of power he does. He insists, however, that it's just bad leadership and the next election will surely see people come to their senses.
Good luck, both of you. It won't help, but good luck anyway.
Akira:
You said "If one really believed in liberty, you'd shut up and leave him alone."
My response is that if you really believed in your version of liberty, you'd shut up and leave me alone, right?
That's true liberty--my friend is free to smoke crack, and I'm free to tell him it pisses me off and I want him to stop. Why, under your vision, is one permitted and not the other?
Under a libertarian system, people will still care about each other. Parents will still nag their children, people will still have friends, they will sometimes fight with those friends, people will still have their superstitions and their fears. That can't be stopped. What can be stopped is the idea that the state is the solution to all of your problems, and the way to put a stop to things you don't like. People will become free, they will not become islands.
Alton
What you said.
Much better!
Cheers!
You only have one "Duty" and that is to yourself. Growing up, I've heard this fascist song-and-dance from my right-wing father. It didn't convince me then, and won't convince me now.
...they will not become islands.
Collectivist bull.
Edit: You only have one "Duty" and that is to yourself. Growing up, I've heard the whole fascist "duty-to-your-fellow-man" song-and-dance from my right-wing uber-Catholic father. It didn't convince me then, and won't convince me now.
Akira
I'm sorry to hear that. I promise, however, that I will still discourage you from smoking crack cocaine.
I hope that you will discourage me from doing the same.
You said "If one really believed in liberty, you'd shut up and leave him alone." My response is that if you really believed in your version of liberty, you'd shut up and leave me alone, right?
There's an inherent paradox in ever telling someone else they can't tell someone else what to do. One way out of the paradox is to look at who "started it," just the same as with the use of force. This can be useful, although it can sometimes be less clear who started it than it often is with the use of force, which is more clearly defined.
Another way out of it is to make the distinctions I made above, ie between both the mode of persuasion and the willingness of the recipient to hear it.
Regarding walking off a 4000 foot cliff and crack addiction, that's why I brought up the matter of exceptions for extreme cases. You can always find an example to make the strictest ethical distinctions blur into an existential morass. But just as extreme cases make bad law, perhaps they make bad ethical discussions as well!
I hope that you will discourage me from doing the same.
I won't. It's your body. It's your life. And I'd respect your freedom enough to let you have control of it.
never mind
apparently, H&R has eaten my remarks....
sad
apparently, H&R has eaten my remarks....
Yeah, I'm having the same trouble too.
We might as well change subjects. This one is giving me a migraine.
I like pancakes. Does anyone else here like pancakes? 🙂
Tim Cavanaugh,
Everyone's a libertine, in his own way. (Sung to the tune of, "Everyone is beautiful.")
Magreb: "So I can finally have these moddies removed that Papa Bey insisted on?"
Just wanted to let you know that at least one person caught the reference.
You only have one "Duty" and that is to yourself.
Akira provides a pristine example of the extreme individualism that sets gaius marius off.
And me, too.
Is it possible ot have a more shallow, narcissitic, self-absorbed, and anti-social creed?
It is only by recognizing that we are part of a community, and acting as if we do have certain minimal moral/civic duties to our fellow creatures, that we can avoid having the dead hand of the state imposing micro-managed legal duties on every aspect of our lives.
Taking Akira's formulation at face value, I have no duty not to kill my fellow man on a whim. Since my only duty is to myself, I need only weigh the consequences to me of busting a cap on my annoying, nagging neighbor. If I can get away with doing so (no annoying, expensive trial or tedious jail time), and I will derive pleasure from the act, well then, you might say I have a duty (to myself, of course) to off the busybody.
Damn. Well, at least let it be said that we attempted to appeal to you fools. Whether you like it, or believe it or not, you shall serve us as you always have.
My sons will tell your sons what to do.
You had your chance: you failed.
RC, you nailed it.
R. C. Dean
"...community..." "...moral/civic duties..."
Those are mere euphanisms for words like "tyranny," "collectivism," and "slavery."
The only thing that keeps me from murdering my neighbor in cold blood is the desire not to have his friends and relatives kill me in retaliation. "Live and let live" is a survival tactics, not words handed down from some mythological being.
The only thing that keeps me from murdering my neighbor in cold blood is the desire not to have his friends and relatives kill me in retaliation. "Live and let live" is a survival tactics, not words handed down from some mythological being.
This forum is bringing out the worst in me. I'm going to lie down for a while.
"This forum is bringing out the worst in me. I'm going to lie down for a while."
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
What kind of fucked up world do you live in where "Caring about others" is equal to "tyrannical fascism?"
God forbid (oh my gosh... I said the "G" word!) that people have "morals" or "ethics" that they follow. One does not have to believe in a deity to believe in right and wrong.
Luckily most people aren't like you- a whiny, dipshit, amoral atheist (no offense to Jennifer et al, just noting that Akira is the epitome of any negative atheist stereotypes). Just because your dad was a prick doesn't mean your philosophy has to be diametrically opposed to his. And you talk about "sheep."
Now please, put down your Ayn Rand book and fuck off, Mackenzie-san.
I'll gladly spit on your back Akira, don't you worry.
I'm wondering though, why is preaching wrong? Would it be because it is possibly influencing anothers decision regarding themselves? Would this be conceding that people need to be protected from different ideas?
Your type of thinking is the reason that libertarianism is doomed.
And the thinking of people like you, andy, and 76 are why people dismiss libertarians as smug Republicans who like pot.
Schmucks.
is why, rather.
Still schmucks.
Why so Eric? How do I think? Did you get a hostile vibe and feel the need to defend Akira or is it something I'm not seeing?
To expand: Is it because of some sort of false dichotomy or slippery-slope whoop-de-doo?
Or is it that we [i]seem[/i] to be arguing for a moral code based on societies wants rather than in the favor of freedom within reason?
Isn't this kind of like the differnce between objectivists and libertarians (the akira libertarianism vs the opposition)?
"Isn't this kind of like the differnce between objectivists and libertarians"
Even Rand would have said it's immoral to kill your neighbor because no one should sacrifice another to themselves (not because "his friends and relatives will kill you" or whatever the fuck akira says.)
"Your type of thinking is the reason that libertarianism is doomed.
And the thinking of people like you, andy, and 76 are why people dismiss libertarians as smug Republicans who like pot."
I didn't say that, dipshit. Anyway, your argument implies that most people are libertines like Akira (and you, apparently).
Also, like 35% of the electorate is Republican, and lots of people like pot, so if libertarians were really regarded as "Republicans who like pot," we'd be doing a lot better than we are.
"we'd be doing a lot better than we are."
Would the Vestal Virgins have ever said anything like that? I don't think so.
We here are all doing just fine because we are as far from the mainstream as we are.
I do hope you feel better soon, Akira.
I share your revulsion against compulsive parenting, handiness, buttinskiism and preaching.
Do-gooders need a bean-ball pitch fairly often.
Is it possible ot have a more shallow, narcissitic, self-absorbed, and anti-social creed?
God I hope not, otherwise I've been wasting my life.
"It's not enough to merely "tolerate" freedom, and it certainly undermines liberty to constantly nag your neighbors about the freedoms you really don't think they should be practicing."-Akira Mackenzie
"The only thing that keeps me from murdering my neighbor in cold blood is the desire not to have his friends and relatives kill me in retaliation. "Live and let live" is a survival tactics, not words handed down from some mythological being."-Akira Mackenzie
So if Akira'a neighbor exercises his freedom in a way that annoys Akira excessively, Akira will kill him, if Akira thinks he can get away with that action without consequence. Indeed, logically Akira grants himself the right to trample his neighbor's rights at will (if he can get away with it). Essentially, the only person in Akira's world who has freedom is Akira, which the rest of us must absolutely respect, at our peril.
Of course, if everybody had that worldview, then the logical consequence is that Akira would have no freedom that must be respected from everyone else's perspective. Akira's philosophy is simply irrational, and unworkable in the real world. The idea that individuals have inherent liberty is a moral concept. Rejecting the idea of morality out of a paranoia of the religious associations of the word leads to a cold land filled with bitter, fearful people.
I'm wondering though, why is preaching wrong?
I'll answer that. Because it's OBNOXIOUS!! If I didn't ask to be preached to, then it's rather bad manners to do so. And if I don't end up behaving the way you want me to, well that's none of your GODdamn business!
Would it be because it is possibly influencing anothers decision regarding themselves?
Well people don't usually listen to whomever they don't want to listen to anyway, so that's hardly the issue. But look, give me well argued reasons why I should behave differently than I do if and when I'm open to hearing such, and I have no problem with that. And that's totally aside from how Akira would feel about it because I'm not necessarily supporting him or what he's said. But a fool, in avoiding one extreme, will embrace the opposite extreme. I don't recognize anyone's right to butt into my business, even in lieu of using force to do so. And while I'm all for offering my advice to those whom I care for and who are open to hearing it, I'm not for shoving it down anyone's throat, metaphorically speaking or otherwise. Again, as I said above, one can easily come up with extreme cases where I might violate these principles, but that's just what make them "extreme" cases.
No one seems to be responding to my middle road comments on this thread. Must be making too much sense.
Akira's supposed philosophy reminds me of "The True Knowledge" in the SF book The Cassini Division by Ken MacLeod.
The society in that book is a working anarcho-communism. Admittedly, I couldn't buy the society as realistic, because it struck me as too altruistic. For example, on an airline flight (it might actually have been an airship, I can't remember), there are no flight attendants. Instead, some of the passengers take it upon themselves to hand out refreshments to the other passengers. This is just routine and expected in their society. (And presumably someone else takes it upon themselves to replenish the depleted stocks of refreshments between flights, etc.)
Two of the characters have a conversation something like, "Did you know that back in the last century, when almost everyone was a Non-Cooperator, people were forced to do this kind of work all day, every day, or they'd starve?"
What was interesting about the society, though, is that toward the end of the book it's revealed that the philosophy underlying the culture is not altruism but enlightened self-interest. People are actually taught that you have no obligations to anyone, and that it's a free and moral course of action to do absolutely anything you think you can get away with, without theoretical limit. However, it's actually in your own interest to be nice and co-operative, because that gives others an incentive to reciprocate. The underlying principle of this society is not selfless sacrifice but a war of each against all -- but very craftily and pragmatically conducted. That is what they called "The True Knowledge." Other societies of the past failed because "they lacked The True Knowledge."
(It also helps that the society in the novel is very rich and productive thanks to the level of technology, with very little in the way of scarcity or reasons to compete for resources.)
Like I said, I couldn't buy the plausibility of this; this novel is my least favorite Ken MacLeod book. But it was interesting.
Fyodor: what's the fun in arguing with someone who's right? I try to help/advise friends who I think are doing stupid things, but only if I think they might listen (or not mind being teased incessantly). Hassling strangers, on the other hand, is just dumb. Not very productive.
Stevo: that actually reminds me of what you get from a lot of Communist thinkers, especially in the 20s and 30s. See, now that capitalism has developed automation and good productive technologies, the problem of scarcity has been solved; the only reason goods are still scarce is that the capitalists are artificially restricting supply to increase their own profit. So when we get rid of the capitalists, scarcity will be gone and we can have utopia. Yay.
fyodor, some of us appreciate it.
And, I'll add that unless you're living your life in such a way that your opposition to crack usage isn't obvious, it's pretty arrogant to go around lecturing people about the dangers of drugs. If any drug users really cared what you thought, would it be necessary to nag at them? Wouldn't they, say, ask your opinion? Or quit outright, if you were that important?
Pointing out that self-destructive or irresponsible behaviors have bad consequences to the individual and the people close to him is an assualt on liberty? Please, that's absurd. Being an obnoxious moralist is counterproductive, but there are definite circumstances where teaching the difference between bad acts and good ones is appropriate and necessary.
It seems to me there are a number of people around here who never want to be told that they are in the wrong.
there are definite circumstances where teaching the difference between bad acts and good ones is appropriate and necessary
Teaching is a good thing to do...to students. Or put another way, to people who are willing and interested to learn.
It seems to me there are a number of people around here who never want to be told that they are in the wrong.
"...around here" may as well mean "on planet Earth" as I think your statement can pretty much apply to everyone.
Thanks Jadagul and Shem, sometimes I forget about the "silent majority"! 🙂
I'll gladly spit on your back Akira, don't you worry.
I didn't say that, dipshit. Anyway, your argument implies that most people are libertines like Akira (and you, apparently).
Did you get a hostile vibe and feel the need to defend Akira or is it something I'm not seeing?
Random idiots (who clearly can't bother to read a thread) showing up to insult commentors deserve nothing but complete dismissal.