"The options seem to be: either you show Felix and others respect and engage with them or you show that you do not respect them or think you have any obligation to even feign respect for them."
Huh?? How about I "respect" Felix (meaning that I grant that he deservedly has the same rights as I do) but I DON'T "engage" with him? Or at least, I don't go out of my way to try to stir up a conversation regarding views he has that I disagree with. It seems as if the author would turn us all into Jehovah's Witnesses, if not for religion then for everything else under the sun.
I'm happy to share my (highly libertarian) views with anyone who is interested, but it's neither courteous nor productive to be pushy with them.
Yeah, that's good. The thought here, that I failed to make explicit, is that the "you" in the story has been actively calling the other person a "Felix" and condemning him for the views the "you" believes he has. In such situations, I think what I said stands.
Respect is a feeling that can't be directly chosen (although it can sometimes be cultivated). Luckily, respect is not necessary. We only need to tolerate the liberty of other people by not imposing on their persons or property. But "democracy" (in any version) is inconsistent with such practical toleration.
I think that my use of “respect” comes close to your use of “tolerate.” (I do not think of respect as a feeling, but as an attitude that comes with recognition of the other as a source of valid normative claims.)
Thank you for that clarification of your intention. In normal usage, however, people typically object to being merely tolerated rather than respected. I still don’t see how “democracy” is relevant—or desirable.
I agree they are different sorts of things. Genuine communities have a great deal more connections between individuals. Still, we use the term “community” pretty broadly and I tend to think much of what I said applies in both genuine communities and in large scale societies.
Apparently, the name is used like "Karen," to indicate a particular sort of person. You can do a search for "is Felix a racist" to see where it may have originated. My post, though, is not at all meant to be about whomever the original "Felix" was. It is meant to be more general. Thanks for reading.
"The options seem to be: either you show Felix and others respect and engage with them or you show that you do not respect them or think you have any obligation to even feign respect for them."
Huh?? How about I "respect" Felix (meaning that I grant that he deservedly has the same rights as I do) but I DON'T "engage" with him? Or at least, I don't go out of my way to try to stir up a conversation regarding views he has that I disagree with. It seems as if the author would turn us all into Jehovah's Witnesses, if not for religion then for everything else under the sun.
I'm happy to share my (highly libertarian) views with anyone who is interested, but it's neither courteous nor productive to be pushy with them.
Yeah, that's good. The thought here, that I failed to make explicit, is that the "you" in the story has been actively calling the other person a "Felix" and condemning him for the views the "you" believes he has. In such situations, I think what I said stands.
Respect is a feeling that can't be directly chosen (although it can sometimes be cultivated). Luckily, respect is not necessary. We only need to tolerate the liberty of other people by not imposing on their persons or property. But "democracy" (in any version) is inconsistent with such practical toleration.
I think that my use of “respect” comes close to your use of “tolerate.” (I do not think of respect as a feeling, but as an attitude that comes with recognition of the other as a source of valid normative claims.)
Thank you for that clarification of your intention. In normal usage, however, people typically object to being merely tolerated rather than respected. I still don’t see how “democracy” is relevant—or desirable.
I am interested in all levels of community; large democratic communities as well as small communities.
I doubt that "large democratic communities" are really communities.
https://jclester.substack.com/p/community-communitarianism-and-libertarianism
I agree they are different sorts of things. Genuine communities have a great deal more connections between individuals. Still, we use the term “community” pretty broadly and I tend to think much of what I said applies in both genuine communities and in large scale societies.
Apparently, the name is used like "Karen," to indicate a particular sort of person. You can do a search for "is Felix a racist" to see where it may have originated. My post, though, is not at all meant to be about whomever the original "Felix" was. It is meant to be more general. Thanks for reading.