Right vs Left - Political spectrum, socialism and conservatism
Recently I have turned more and more right-wing, and I am interested to discuss with members of this forum, many whom I know to be leftist/socialists. The way I see it, the left takes certain values, such as equality for all, freedom against culture/norms, etc. and then imposes these over the rest of the world, and anyone who doesn't respect them becomes a misogynist, racist, sexist, etc. The left claims to be tolerant, but only for things which respect their fundamental values; towards anything else, absolutely intolerant. But there are so many different ways of life under the sun. Who am I to condemn, for example the Islamic way of life and go tell them that their women should have a choice to wear the burkha etc etc? It's their fundamental right to decide what rules are to be obeyed on their lands, and what rules are not. Everyone has their own laws on their lands, in their families, and true toleration means not interfering with these. In fact, the world is beautiful precisely because there is diversity and there are many different customs, religions, and cultures. This diversity should be respected I believe, and we should not aim towards a globalisation of culture, in which we slowly aim for the whole planet to have and share the same values. All that is required, I think, are a set of international values, along the following lines: "My land, my rules. Your land, your rules. I will not interfere with you unless you do something that is threatening or damaging to me"
Instead of the leftist position that others must observe rights, I much rather prefer the conservative position that others must not interfere with rights. It seems both more tolerant, and more ethical. Hopefully this is enough to get some discussion started :)
Instead of the leftist position that others must observe rights, I much rather prefer the conservative position that others must not interfere with rights. It seems both more tolerant, and more ethical. Hopefully this is enough to get some discussion started :)
Comments (223)
I think this a massively sweeping claim. The left presumably believes these fundamental values are intrinsic rights to every human being. So of course they are going to be intolerant to the right and others who dismiss many of these values. They are intolerant of intolerance, intolerant of backwards thinking.
Quoting Agustino
This is a funny thing to say, considering you said you are leaning to the right (which has history of supporting the rolling of tanks into countries that don't necessarily want them).
Is Landru the de facto Commie of TPF? :P
True, not all leftists would be like this. However, I disagree that these are fundamental values and intrinsic rights. Who are they to claim so? As far as I'm concerned, the only rights a man has by birth are the same rights a tiger has - which are not many. It is society which grants man any other rights that he has, and man owes it to his community for having them. Thus it is man's duty to support his community which has provided for him while he couldn't provide for himself - and it is also his duty to remember that if it wasn't for his community he'd be in no better or worse state than a tiger is. Hence, for the left to claim that there are "intrinsic rights" is nonsense, unless of course we believe in a God who has granted these intrinsic rights. Mother Nature certainly has not :)
Quoting darthbarracuda
To counter threats, yes. And yes, there were also mistakes in this, that's inevitable.
Oh my. I agree with the beginning, but I must admit a severe disagreement with your conclusion. Yes, rights are only granted by society, but -- this only means we can get more, not that we have to respect society. And, really, why shouldn't we ask for more? If we don't, then we have an over-class of folks who take advantage of those who are below them -- and I don't blame them, of course, because that's only human nature -- but we don't have equality until people in the underclass actually come together and fight.
Who are you to claim so?
There isn't any such thing, except as we decide there are intrinsic rights. My opinion is that deciding there are makes for a better world for everyone in it, so we might as well act like there is such a thing.
No one, but keep in mind, I'm not the one making a claim here. I'm stating a fact, which is that we don't have any rights by Nature. If we did, then we should expect Nature herself to have a mechanism to assure us those rights.
I disagree for example that "everyone being equal" is a good thing. What will happen with the millions of people who, like me, also disagree? Will we be oppressed for it?
I don't think a coherent philosophical argument can be made for the objective existence of inherent rights. The best anyone can do is invoke God, and that will only get you as far as people believe in God. And even then, God doesn't seem to bother to enforce those rights, so ...
Well, it's inevitable for some people to be better than others. Instead of making everyone equally bad, why not allow those who are better to pull the rest, as much as possible towards where they are? And for those who are worse to have something to aspire to?
This doesn't follow, because I will be oppressed in social terms, I will be treated as a social outcast, with whom no one wants to be associated with. So therefore, this is necessarily intolerant towards me, since it acts as a way to marginalise me.
Better than others in what way, though? Athletically, intellectually, better at making money, better at exploiting and manipulating, being more beautiful, being the right skin color, being born to the right family, etc? How are you going to define the criteria for who is better?
Who do you think deserves to be considered better?
Better in any of these ways. Not better in absolute terms, since there is no way to decide if the best plumber is better than the best lawyer :)
So you think people should be required to socialize with you even if they can't stand your views? I think people should be free to socialize with whomever they want.
Landru would be pretty much right too. Agustino is worshipping the myth of rights having nothing to do with what people do here, as if systems which assign rights and define the lives of people who live there had nothing to do with the actions of the people and their culture. As if "Rights" were more important than doing what is right.
There is much to be said against (in recent times, Western) Imperialism and it's destruction of local culture, way of life and power organisation. It can result in outright disaster. But this is not because any local way of life is necessarily good. It's because such interference causes social destruction, instability, war and similar horrific outcomes. Interference is frequently terrible. As quite a few on the Left have been at pains to point out (all that stuff on Colonialism and Western Imperialism and the damage it caused to so many indigenous peoples, the damage inflicted by modern Western Imperialism and globalisation, etc.,etc.).
Agustino is confusing the question of the ethics of interference with the ethics culture (and the Left with Western Imperialism to a significant degree here).
But in most societies it's already the case that people can find all sorts of ways to end up better off than others financially, in terms of status quo, or other ways. A free and equal society gives people the most opportunity to do this, whereas more stratified societies tend to put barriers in place for ambitious individuals born to the wrong class, ethnicity, gender or circumstances.
No, as they can't be required to do so. Therefore I believe that the system which encourages them to ostracize me, and believe absolutely that they have the correct values, and I don't, is wrong. A system which encourages epistemic humility, on the other hand, is to be preferred.
Yes, nevertheless, these very same leftists send NGOs and money in the Middle East to educate Muslim women how to be Western, because being Western is clearly the right thing to be for the whole world! ;)
Quoting Marchesk
I disagree with this. A "free and equal" society gives everyone good opportunities to become average. But if someone wants to be truly great, he's much better off in a stratified society, where the opportunities for big gains, big advances, etc. are much greater.
If I want to become moderately rich, a "free and equal" society is good. But if I want to become immoderately rich, extremely rich - then such a society places more constraints on me than its opposite.
This is contradiction. When each individual is accepted in terms of their ability, there is no-one to aspire too because that would be to covert what one was not. It would be for the best plumber to think, in absolute terms, the best lawyer was more valuable because they were the best lawyer rather then the best plumber. Your argument is masquerading an assertion of absolute value as respecting each individual for what they do well.
Yes, I, being a plumber, can aspire to another plumber whose plumbing is better than mine. There is no contradiction there.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No it wouldn't. The best plumber would know that, in terms of plumbing, he is the best, better than the best lawyer. In terms of law, of course the best lawyer is better than he. There is no "best" independent of context; best is context specific.
I don't know. Seems like the tech billionaires did alright for themselves. Bill Gates was the richest person in the world for how long? How influential are companies like Google and Facebook?
Nope. Since this plumber is not as good, doing that would be to insist they needed to have more than the abilities they have. It is to give the better plumber more absolute value. The worse plumber is think the MUST, as a person, be a great plumber like the other guy, else they have failed as an individual. If each individual is respected for their own abilities, it must be alright for the worse plumber to be worse.
Yes - but that is simply because technology (esp. computers) is a relatively new and young industry, which only relatively rich and developed societies could have proper access to. (hence a priori it was restricted for much of the time to the Western world, esp. the US) Try to do the same in plumbing, or making jeans, or pretty much any other industry, and you'll have quite a big problem in a country like the U.S. It would be much easier to become rich from jeans in a less developed country - that is why people like Amancio Ortega, Giorgio Armani, etc. come from the war-torn, relatively less developed (at the time) continent of Europe.
But it's reasonable for the best plumber to be more respected than the worse one. He should be more respected, why else did he work and put all the effort to be the best for? Otherwise he should just have thrown up his hand, done a mediocre job, and leave it like that. He'd have a much easier time doing a mediocre job afterall. So yes - the worse plumber should always aspire to the better one, and seek to develop his skills (something that is not impossible), in order to become better than he currently is, and perhaps even better than his colleague.
As it stands though, the West has the power and influence to remake the world in their image, and so those values are the ones which will win out. I say that's good, but with an understanding that it's my modern Western preference for those particular values. And also with an understanding that China could change that equation in the future. And as the rests of the world modernizes and makes it online, the balance of influence could shift.
Bingo. I disagree about being "good" part, but the rest is very well put! :)
The biggest value in those societies seems to be promotion of the state apparatus. Individual lives (unless you're high command or Emperor) are to be sacrificed to the state. And of course all those lives not deemed worthwhile are either subjugated or exterminated.
As I said, you a masquerading absolute value as respect for an individual's abilities. You don't hold everyone ought to be themselves. You really think everyone should be equal; everyone master at some skill or craft. Those who are worse, according to your position, must get better or else fail as a person.
Yes, I do give him a greater absolute value, but only in terms of plumbing. All of his life doesn't resume to plumbing, and therefore I do not claim that in what consists all of his life he is worse off than the best plumber, merely only in that which concerns plumbing.
False. It is to say that the better plumber is to be MORE respected than the worse plumber when it comes to plumbing only.
This question is a dead end. Being a point of ethics, there is no "how." There is no absolute point of view. Ethics are, by their nature, of a point of view and that's how they function. Take Augistino's position here. He views it as just seeing back and thinking about nothing, of holding no point of view, of refraining from where his ethical commentary is not needed.
But's that not what is actually happening. His position is actually advocating a particular point of view: that the present culture of a given society is right for that society.
That tends to happen naturally anyway. Are you just promoting meritocracy? Flesh that out for other aspects of life in addition to work. How is the superior plumber treated legally?
Yes I would agree with a form of meritocracy. As legal matters have very little to do with plumbing, he is treated equally. He is no more right to swindle his clients than the worse off plumber is for example.
That's not valuing each individual for what they can do. It's giving greater absolute value to those who are more skilled in a particular area. You don't just want to give the good plumber and award for good plumbing. You are insisting the good plumber ought to have greater wealth, social respect,etc., etc. than the worse plumber.
No, but I attempt to evacuate my predisposition, and try to look at things from the point of view of others. It makes me realise that everyone wants to have their views respected, and to be able to live life as they want to. Therefore, I realise the importance of respecting different ways of life and different cultures so long as they respect mine. My land, my rules, your land, your rules :)
Only in-so-far as that respect depends on plumbing. People aren't only respected for their jobs. They may also be respected for their kindness, for their morality, etc. etc. In these respects, the worse plumber may be better off than the better one.
Yes it is - it's simply admitting that one does better work than the other, and therefore he earns more than the other one. Money is simply the way society values the work - of course society and other people prefer the best work if this is possible.
That sounds good and reasonable and all, and it is for many things. But then you have things like female circumcision, child soldiers, genocide sometimes, and what not where your land is some people in the land treating others very badly.
As a parallel, I can say your house, your rules, but if I found out you were beating and doing terrible things to your spouse, children, or roommates, then I will be motivated to take some sort of action.
Of course that parallel can fail because I can just get the police involved in your case, whereas it might take a war in the case of a sovereign country, and all the fallout that comes with that.
So whereas I might wish that Western values could prevent genocide or the use of child soldiers, to do so would be very bloody and messy. Unless those values can be spread in a non-violent means. And that's where I become less relativistic about things. I do want to people to be told that female circumcision is wrong.
Sure, as cruel as female circumcision, child soldiers, genocide etc. sounds to us, I believe that it is not OUR responsability to fix it, but the responsability of those countries where it happens. Most certainly their citizens aren't happy either, and sooner or later, as they have always done in history, they will take action themselves and fix their own problems, by the sword if needed.
Quoting Marchesk
Yes, because we live in the same country, so naturally if you find out that I undertake illegal actions (according to the laws of our country), which are against the law which governs us both, then you are entitled to take action. But if we lived in different countries, and say in my country it was acceptable by law to use physical violence in certain circumstances (such as if my family was rude to me), then according to what law will you judge me to have done wrong? The law of your country? That certainly doesn't seem fair.
As Wittgenstein has stated, and I agree with him, criticisms of ways of life can only come from inside. From inside a culture or a country, people can decide they no longer want a certain law/rule, and thereby get rid of it, by force if necessary. But it is wrong when somebody imposes things from the outside.
Usually it is wrong to impose things from the outside (although, is that an absolute or something?). And it often has bad consequences, because nobody likes to be imposed upon. But on the other hand, at what point do we decide that we're all in this together on the same planet?
It's also a question of who doesn't want the imposing. Would American slaves before the Civil War have welcomed a foreign power putting an end to the institution? What if the foreign power had the means to flip things and put blacks in power to subjugate the whites? Then would the blacks be resentful of the foreign power, or become close allies?
It's only an absolute in-so-far as it's a meta-statement applicable to different ways of life. It's not in the same class of statements as rules which apply within a particular way of life, but rather the very structure that governs ways of life themselves.
As for being on the same planet... we're only on the same planet in-so-far as we can affect each other - in-so-far as we share a way of life. Which, I dare say, is not that much. We much rather live in our small communities, than on the planet. We are on the same planet when it comes to things like global warming etc. which affects all of us, but when it comes to day to day matters, we certainly live very little on the same planet, although globalisation and trade have changed things a little.
Well, there have been more than a few societies who decided that imposing their way on others was not only okay, but necessary. The Romans weren't exactly live and let live.
Exactly. When that happens, it becomes a threat to other societies, and the discussion becomes open for the possibility of war, to defend oneself. That is why I emphasised supra-cultural norms, such as "my land, my rules, your land, your rules" to promote toleration of other countries/cultures instead of mutual violence. There's no moral need to do this; just a pragmatic need. It's much better for both to respect each other, and nothing is to be gained by subjugating other cultures.
The problem is you are disrespecting the worse plumber. You say he ought to be a better plumber, even though that isn't at all necessary as an individual. (indeed, it might be WRONG for him, as being a better plumber might affect what else he does, to the detriment of himself or society). You are actually ignoring how the worse plumber is better in other ways. You are not simply admitting the better plumber is better at plumbing. You are saying the worse plumber is a less deserving person because he doesn't have the greatest plumbing skills.
But this misses the crucial question: what work is valued an how much? Society pays for the work which is most in demand, not on the basis of how much it is needed, what it provides or, in some cases, whether it is actually good quality. More critically, since it is a person skills which are valued economically, it is a measure of not just amount or quality of work, but rather how valuable a person is in comparison to others. So does the better plumber deserve more money than the worse plumber? Maybe, for his better plumbing work... but then what of the worse plumber does some sort of other work or activity? What if he gives-up hours he could have spend practicing plumbing to help out his family? Or entertain is friends? Or plant trees to rejuvenate a local environment? Then exactly how much more does the better plumber deserve for the better plumbing? Should they be a billionaire while the worse plumber is staving? The question is far more complicated than simply adoring the expert with the greatest skill above all others.
And that is perhaps the ugliest part of your argument: the snivelling contempt for those who do not excel. You think those who excel are worth more than those who do not. Not merely in a monetary reward sense, but in a value sense. You think those who excel should be adored of the who a merely average or the mediocre. It's an ego thing. You think those who excel should be said to be better people, to occupy a special place of "genius" where they are understood to be for more amazing or important than anyone else.
I understand this distinction to be between positive rights and negative rights, wherein a person in a society claims to have positive rights that entail some action is taken by a government (e.g., a guaranteed standard of living) and negative rights entail the government refrain from acting in a way that violates a right (e.g., freedom of speech). You seem to be arguing that the political left make some positive rights claims, whereas the political right make only negative rights claims. It is not clear to me this is an accurate description of the respective positions. In particular, I can conceive of a leftist position that aims at equality through negative rights and distinguishes itself from the political right in terms of the negative rights that are claimed.
No, this is false. While I may have less respect (which is not the same as disrespect) towards him when it comes to plumbing, I may have much higher respect for him when it comes to kindness, loyalty, and moral character compared to the better plumber. Therefore I am not saying that he is less deserving, nor am I saying that he necessarily must be a better plumber than he already is. That is for him to decide, because only he can know if his time is better spent developing his plumbing skills, or otherwise, for example, doing his duty and taking care of his children, etc.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Depends on the context of this question. If we expand the question, and ask should society value the work of the lawyer more than that of the plumber and so forth, then we'll get into a very big mess. I agree that there needs to be some government regulations here, and a pure free market won't do.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
If the worse plumber does some other work, then he'll surely be more deserving in that other work than the better plumber who focuses just on plumbing. He'll probably be much more respected for his social and moral values compared to the better plumber, who while better at his craft, is sorely lacking compared to the worse plumber in the moral sphere. He'll be rewarded by having more people desire to be his friends, and desire to be in his company, as he is a good citizen, expousing values that other people would like to emulate. So while for plumbing he will be paid less, for his other activities he will earn awards that the better plumber will not.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
He should earn exactly what his work deserves. It being better work, it will deserve more, but most likely not in the range of one of them starving, and the other being a billionaire. I'm not saying no reward for the worse plumber, and ALL rewards for the better plumber. Each according to their work.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
In the domain where they excel, they should be respected more than others. Not across all domains though. It would make no sense to say that the best lawyer deserves more respect as a lawyer than the best plumber deserves respect in-so-far as he is the best plumber. So I think that people need to be rewarded according to their work. Best work means best rewards.
There's nothing in particular that I disagree with here.
Quoting Marchesk
Don't forget who produced those movies (ie, progressives, liberals). Hence the values of those societies are most likely a strawman - in fact, I believe that if Nazi Germany had won the war, it wouldn't have been long until Hitler, as well as the regime based on the fuhrer's dictatorship was eliminated by the Germans themselves. Let us not forget that there were several assassination attempts on Hitler's life even during the war - in all likelihood, if the war had ended, there would have been an increase in such attempts, as more and more would focus their attention on internal affairs.
Also, do not forget that Hitler himself was a National SOCIALIST, who greatly respected Karl Marx, agreeing with almost his entire ideology, with the only significant difference being the focus on the importance of the Volk (race), whereas Marx emphasised the international proletariat (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html) . State control has never so much been a right-wing emphasis, but rather a left wing one. I mean it makes sense if one believes with absolute certainty that they hold the right values to use even the power of the state if necessary to make those values universal.
Quoting Marchesk
Sure, because in our culture, it makes sense for female circumcision to be wrong, and hence we can argue, and prove, from our basic values that it is wrong. But these are most likely not the basic values of Islamic countries. Hence from within their systems, in cannot be proven to be wrong. However, their systems can change, and probably will, but it takes time, and they need to change from the inside. People themselves have to decide if they want to continue having female circumcision, or they don't, based on their own internal criteria.
Quoting Marchesk
Yes they would have welcomed the foreign power, and even befriended them. (Although I doubt that the foreign power wouldn't just take matters in its own hands and colonise both the blacks and the whites). But if you consider how the blacks gained equal rights, you would realise that it was through internal criticism of culture - using the culture's own values, they showed that there was a contradiction there, which led, slowly, to them gaining equal rights, and the culture responding to their criticism.
In my experience when people describe themselves as becoming more right-wing, they often have to posit some sort of imaginary leftist position that they feel they can measure their shift against. The use of 'etc.' seems like a lazy marker to me of this. The rise of the movement for 'rights' is a largely centrist product of the coming together of free democracies, and of indigenous developments in those democratic countries, sometimes aped then by autocracies who want to appear to join the democratic club.
I am 66 years old and so remember in my own country, the UK, when racism was rife, women were second-class citizens and homosexuality was illegal. I regard it as a fine achievement that in matters of race, gender and sexual preference, the UK is a more liberal and tolerant place than when I was young, and that this is often nowadays not a right/left issue: the British Conservatives introduced gay marriage, for instance.
Are leftists from here trying to impose these values on unwilling foreigners on their own soil? I see no sign of this, but would welcome evidence. Is there some?
I see no evidence actually that leftists have much power anywhere at present, South America excepted.
I also feel it's not inevitable that as one gets older one shifts to the right. I haven't, although my views have changed considerably. Do you mean that at heart you too would like to be racist, sexist and homophobic, or what? What are your specific complaints, and who are specific examples of the perpetrators? Without specifics this is all rhetoric.
The Washington Post, this may say more about what American's know about British politics, but it shows that we categorize people by where they stand on issues.
Considering that in the quoted bit "etc" refers merely to some labels that some Leftists use to (mis)label the Right. How is that lazy or suggesting an imaginary leftist position?
Quoting mcdoodle
The Left, to a large degree, has succeeded in making it unacceptable in the cultural landscape of Europe to even consider, for example, the possibility that gay marriage should be illegal as an option. Someone who does this today, either from the Left or from the Right, will be thoroughly shouted at (discredited out of hand) by all the Leftist intellectual elite (which is in fact 90% of our intellectual elite) (look what's happening to Donald Trump). Hence the Right doesn't even have a choice there - they have to introduce gay marriage if they want to stay in power and avoid criticism - it becomes a pragmatic issue. But this is the result of the Left which has imposed its values over most of the West.
If you go look in the elite intellectual circles of European and American Universities (especially English speaking) you will find that a vast vast majority of students are hard-line Leftist. Dare to say that gay marriage should be illegal, they will not even talk to you. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3338867/Universities-dominated-Left-wing-hate-mobs-Professor-says-free-speech-stifled-challenging-views-shouted-down.html). You will be thrown out and looked down upon. The Left has so thoroughly dominated the intellectual circles of Europe that they have effectively created a culture where it has become unacceptable to go away from the party line. If you do, you are a racist, xenophobe, misogynist etc. They have done exactly what I am saying: they have imposed a way of life on everyone, justifying it as these values being "universal". The problem is that a vast number of European/American citizens do not agree with these values. In fact, a lot of these changes bear no historical nor rational necessity based on traditional Western values of occurring.
Quoting mcdoodle
NGOs going to the Middle East to teach Muslim women how to be Western for example. The West attempting to impose democracy over different regions of the globe (including Africa and the Middle East). The West's continuous attempt to attack Russia's authoritarian regime as being morally wrong. Need I list more?
Quoting mcdoodle
Go on a University campus in the UK :) Even the English Conservatives count as left now - because they have been forced to become leftist in spirit, while in letter they remain right-wing.
Quoting mcdoodle
No. I mean that this culturally intolerant Left is dangerous, and it is dangerous to the world, as well as to the West itself - because they think they absolutely have the right values, and therefore must enforce these values by force and ostracisation if necessary. It's not the homosexuals, or other races, or etc. who are dangerous. It's the Left. The Left has ensured that across the Western world, one will be treated as a social outcast if they dare not submit in belief towards mantras such as "equality for all", "equal rights for homosexuals", etc. It's good to have discussions and talk about whether gay marriage should be legal or not, and of course vote on it, and perhaps even approve it. But to attempt to impose it, and consider anyone who disagrees to be a monster morally speaking - that is terribly wrong, and terribly dangerous.
This is the poor persecuted conservative meme. All rightwing memes are counterfactual, but this one is a doozy.
Of course you can't even give an example of this alleged "intolerance." It's purely a fabrication of the Right. I'll demand you provide a citation now, just to watch you squirm and gloss. You'll probably end up whining about some college kids protesting some homophobic college administrator, which will expose the counterfactuality of the meme - as if college kids hold political power.
This is also the reverso-meme. A classic. Progressives work for political equal rights for various minorities, and rightwingers claim that fighting for equal rights is "intolerance." A perfect example of the pathological projection of the conservative mind. Freaky.
Pretty silly thinking you could get away with this lumpen conservative underclass rhetoric here. You might want to post this at Hannity.com. You'll find a receptive audience.
Classical, another instance of labeling :) Also another instance of attempting to get a reaction out of me. Curious that those tactics written of long ago by Saul Alinsky have become so well in-grained into left activists. So let me put things straight. What you wrote above is no argument, but an unsupported generalisation backed up by labeling aimed at marginalisation through ridicule and rhetoric.
Quoting Landru Guide Us
I did. It's in the post above :) .
Quoting Landru Guide Us
In their communities, universities, yes they do (ever heard of sororities/fraternities in US, and societies and student unions in UK?). Power isn't achieved only by money or political office. It's also achieved by numbers, especially if the numbers are concentrated in one small community such as becomes the case in a University (also, student-led organisations have quite a lot of power in influencing what happens in their local community, the university). The fact that left-wingers disagree with right-wingers is not a problem in itself. What the problem is, is that they brush aside right-wingers with arrogance, and self-righteousness, without understanding that they could be wrong. They do not defeat right-wingers by argument... but rather by protests, by insulting, by labeling and by instigating - that is what is wrong.
Quoting Landru Guide Us
Well it is intolerance when you assume, without prior demonstration, that "equal rights" is universally a value, and therefore you can impose it on other people. Who are you to fight to impose "equal rights" on me? Maybe I don't like this "equal rights". Am I morally wrong if I don't? If you say yes, then you need to mobilise an argument which explains both the origin of this value "equal rights" and its universality. Something that is sorely lacking at the moment.
Quoting Landru Guide Us
Well I fail to see a counter argument Landru. As far as I see, yes I did "get away with it", as you say. I've argued that there are no objective moral values, and it is very hard for us to figure out which the correct values are for a certain situation. Therefore this mandates epistemic humility, instead of seeking to "fight for" equal rights, or any other particular value. It also mandates that while we ourselves hold values, we respect the right of different communities and cultures to hold different values than we do, instead of attempting to put "equal rights" down their throats, and then labeling them as intolerant and holding them morally culpable when they refuse.
The version of the Right that I supported above short-circuits the Left by a tripartite move: first, denying the existence of God (which the Left needs more than the Right), second denying that the values of the Left are universal and absolute (and denying that the Right must share them, which you and mcdoodle assume it does, or otherwise it should in order to remain moral), third affirming difference and toleration of different values as pragmatic rules aimed at preventing intra-cultural conflict given our inability to decide on universal and absolute values.
You say you're turning right-wing, and then proceed to espouse a position that these days is very characteristic of the Left, namely identity politics and multiculturalism. The idea that Europeans should not condemn the barbaric and oppressive practices of certain regimes in Islamic countries, because this is an imperialist attack on all Muslims, is now the standard far Left position, sadly. As if the most powerful and most conservative sections of the Islamic world are the legitimate representatives of Muslim people, those that we must respect in the name of diversity. As if we should respect laws that oppress women, as somehow embodying a sacrosanct culture, while those women have no say in changing these laws. "It's their fundamental right to decide", you say, but fail to note that most Muslims, least of all women, have no such right to decide.
But the fact that you see your position as right-wing--which I don't think is a crazy thing to think at all--while it actually has a lot in common with much of the Left, does, I think, demonstrate just what is wrong with the Left today. In any case, the terms "Left" and "Right" have become pretty useless.
It's interesting you say this. Can you provide some sources which identify with the Left and claim that cultures must respect themselves and allow each other to govern themselves as they see fit, instead of attempt to impose certain values one upon the other? Can you name a Left source which states that "equality for all" isn't a universal value and therefore it doesn't have to be shared by the whole world?
Quoting jamalrob
Why should they have a right to decide in a democratic fashion? If their state hasn't granted them such a right, why should they have it? Remember that human beings start by having no more rights than a tiger has; whatever rights they get afterwards, they get because of their state. You presuppose those Leftist values of equality etc. etc. when you speak like you do above. But you forget that these communities may not share those values.
I said it's the fundamental right of their community to decide. If their community has decided by the way it has organised itself that they shall be ruled by an authoritarian regime who makes all decision for the masses, than that's how it should be. If the masses are no longer happy with it, they need to start and organise a revolution to change their society as they deem fit, as it has always happened through history. When people weren't happy, it wasn't that foreigners intervened to settle the matter. When Martin Luther King was fighting for black equality, it was from inside American culture, with no external intervention. If Muslim women truly want a say in how they should dress, etc. then why don't they organise themselves? Why must we go in there to tell them about equality, about having to choose how they want to live, etc.?
The truth is, that in many of those communities, women DO NOT WANT more freedom. I haven't lived in Islamic countries to know their culture well enough to be able to give you a concrete example, but, for example, my grandmother is Eastern European and she could never conceive of a woman being happy if she didn't have a husband who was the head of the family and the source of authority on which she relied. She couldn't conceive of herself as happy if she had to manage finances, pay the taxes, etc. And she was very happy focusing on being a teacher (her job), taking care of young kids and teaching them, and at home doing the housework, while her husband did everything that had to do with family representation in society. If you went to her and started talking about this "women should have a right to decide" blah blah, she would kick you out of the house. You presuppose everyone shares those values, but that is false. And she felt quite bad that in modern society women like her were looked down upon as being inferior. She never felt she was inferior. She actually felt moral superiority. I'm not saying that she really was morally superior, as I don't believe one culture is superior to another. However, I am merely telling you how she felt (and she felt that way because towards the end of her life, when she moved to a different country, she felt oppressed and looked down upon by others), and the fact that your view of the world neglects that there are people like this, while the right-wing view I have exposed takes into account for this and doesn't oppress those people, even when they are minorities, and doesn't encourage that they be disconsidered for holding different values.
The other sad part is that the Left has mobilised science in order to prove its values being the "most natural". But again, all experiments are flawed, as they are performed on people who already, a priori, share the values of the Left. This scientific basis of morality is also dangerous - it ignores the fact that morality is cultural. What is shameful in one culture, may be a source of pride in another - and there is no right answer that science can determine about which is better. It is all cultural specific.
I don't have time to look out examples, but they're not all that hard to find. The branding, by sections of the Left, of many critics of Islamism (including Muslims and ex-Muslims) as "Islamophobic" (e.g., in Left-leaning student unions, one of which refused to condemn ISIS because they thought such a condemnation would be Islamophobic), the association of Islamists and the far Left in the UK (e.g., the Respect Party and the Stop the War coalition), and the toleration of Hamas with its reactionary politics among the supporters of the Palestinian movement, are well-known examples. The trajectory of Left-wing politics has been towards identity politics for the past several decades. In identity politics, what is important is the group, or as you say, the "community", and if a person's values and ambitions do not coincide with what are thought to be the collective values and ambitions of their group (race, sex, whatever), then they're stuffed. This is where socialism and your communitarian conservatism come together (even though they're very different political traditions).
Otherwise, I don't have time to address the rest of your post in detail or describe the struggles of liberal campaigners in the Middle East. In a nutshell I think you're saying that democrats and leftists in liberal democracies ought not to try to impose their favoured political and cultural values on countries where those values are rejected by those in power. Well, I'm not a supporter of neoconservatism and generally don't advocate such impositions from the outside. To that extent I think you're right that it is for people within a state to fight for freedom and equality if they want it.
Equally though, neither do I accept the right of religious conservatives, tribal sheikhs, absolute monarchies, and corrupt authoritarians, to impose their interpretation of Islam on millions of people. Why should they represent the true voice of the community, just because they managed to grab the power and have managed to hang on to it, often brutally? You talk as if you think the regimes of the Middle East were established by peaceful consensus by accepted people's representatives, but this is very far from the truth.
You may be aware, but speaking up against the powerful in the Middle East is not an easy thing to do, and I am not comfortable with a complete abandonment of those who are brave enough to fight. Generally I think you have a simplistic view of human society; for example, the divisions within many societies--especially those of the Middle East--are as deep and as explosive as the divisions you think you see between those countries and those of the West. Your us and them narrative just doesn't fit the facts.
What I advocate is to make ideas available, for whoever can make use of them, rather than imposing anything. The ideas of freedom and equality are available to all, and to me they are high points of human culture that still have a lot of potential. You accuse me of presuming, and this is true to a degree: I presume that what human beings share is more important than any supposed racial, ethnic, or cultural differences, which is why I treat the values I believe in necessarily as universal.
Yes but I wouldn't agree with these views, hence why I haven't identified as Left. I don't agree, for example, that we must not go to war to destroy ISIS. I was always pro bombing Syria and pro totally destroying these Islamic terrorists. I am pro attacking and destroying organisations and even civilisations if they pose a serious threat to our national security. However, I am against interfering with the region apart from actions which are a response towards threats and/or attacks originating from there. I think civilisations and cultures should maintain their cultural integrity, all the while trading and interacting economically with each other - this would hopefully minimise the need of armed conflict between them over the long term.
Quoting jamalrob
Even if established otherwise - it's up to the people themselves to fight for changes from inside if they want them. They may agree with an authoritarian regime, which wasn't established with their explicit consent. Why would you assume they don't?
Quoting jamalrob
Yes, I don't disagree with this. But ideas are often the result of misinformation, which is potentially more dangerous than lack of information, for the masses of people. For the intellectual elite, of course it's a different story - because they have the skills necessary to understand how ideas relate to one another, and what gives rise to particular ideas (the conditions for their possibility). However, when your average lad from the West in a secular society reads a title like "Study shows unmarried women who have frequent sex are happier than unmarried women who don't", what will he think of his Christian, abstinent lady friend? He'll be like "Hurr hurr... she's losing her life, how stupid she is, I knew all along!" - all the while failing to understand that the criteria for happiness in a secular community is different than the criteria of happiness in a religious community; so while a study done in a secular community may reveal such findings, it doesn't mean that they translate and can be applicable to religious communities who have a different criteria of happiness. So. How is our average man, when exposed to such news, be able to come to a reasonable, and tolerant view of different values? How can we build communities which tolerate different ways of life instead of being antagonistic to one another? (I don't see a way of achieving this apart from assigning an intellectual elite with the job of policing information - we can't expect your average man to have an IQ > 130 - and even this solution is highly problematic) So much of conflicts around the world have a cultural foundation today - because we don't respect each other's values well, and try to think that we are correct in an absolute sense, and others are wrong in the same absolute sense. That's why countries like Portugal have internal conflicts between Catholics, and secularists, especially amongst the young people.
Quoting jamalrob
Well what all human beings share is the desire to be free to be who they want to be, and not be oppressed for it (again, even this isn't certain, but I personally believe it). So this necessitates that we allow others to hold different values than we do, without ostracising them for it. This includes the religious-minded, the dogmatists, the authoritarians, etc. with the exception of when they attempt to impose things on us, when of course we have the right to react and stop them. However, this is not a philosophically air-tight argument -> which is why I prefer my version: for pragmatic reasons, to avoid conflict, we must not interfere with others' culture, and they must not interfere with ours. "My land, my rules, your land, your rules". This is better since it doesn't justify it morally, something that I think would be impossible, however it does accept submission to the rules of others on their lands.
Not so much the leftist position but rather a bizarre conservative fetish about being put upon when the rule of law applies to somebody other than rich entitled people. Get use to the fact that your views are dissociated from reality.
I honestly don't know what the hell you're talking about. It's more rightwing memes. You seem to have a problem with the Constitution and the values of due process and fairness that underly it. Can't help it if you have ugly self-serving values. Get used to the fact that people you want to oppress aren't going to allow you do so without a fight.
Oh God, I love the reverso-meme. You've just spent I don't know how many posts making bizarre coutnerfactual claims with loaded language against "leftist", and now you alleged I'm labeling you.
Perfect projection.
You even threw in the Alinsky meme - classic rightwing memery.
And still no factual content after all these posts. It's all conservatives can do.
And no, I won't "argue" with your bizarre counterfactual memes. They have no factual content. Rather I will identify them as ugly little narrative - the rightwing meme. It is how the rightwing mind functions.
No, you didn't. You related bizarre rightwing memes with no factual content, and pretended that you were "in danger" from the left That's the poor put upon conservative meme. It has no content. I asked you for an example, and you can't give it. Instead you ranted that students who protest rightwing agendas are a threat to you.
In contrast, the right has armed militias, a vast network of media outlets, a pernicious ideology that calls on killing people, billionaire supporters and minions like Planned Parenthood shooter.
So your posts are typical rightwing reverso-memes - projecting on normal people the reality of the Right's violence and dangerous activities.
It's what conservative do.
I don't know where I have said I have a problem with the Constitution of any country... Perhaps you'd be so kind to say where I've talked about the Constitution.
Quoting Landru Guide Us
"Hurr hurr I have no argument, instead I'll point my finger" Really? That's low, I expected more from you. I'm disappointed.
Quoting Landru Guide Us
You've probably repeated in different forms "it's what conservatives can do". If you have any proper, real content, except finger pointing and acting like a baby who just saw his teddy bear go out the window, then please put it up so that we may indeed discuss it like real men and women.
As for not giving examples, I've given quite a few. If you opened that article about hard-line leftist students, you would see that, since Student Unions can and do decide who comes up on a university campus, they have banned or stopped certain speakers -
Now stopping people from speaking is intolerant. Shutting people down from speaking is intolerant. Insulting people for the views they hold is intolerant. At least in the West it is.
Second, do you think there's anything wrong with asymmetrically polygamous cultures (like Islam) where men are allowed to have multiple wives, while women are allowed only a single husband? Further, do you think there's anything wrong with any culture just because it chooses a different social arrangement, and different gender roles for example?
Okay, but you know that oppression is itself cultural. What is oppressive in one culture is merely being just in another. That is the problem. We can't say that one action is oppressive without referencing the culture where it occurs.
Quoting ?????????????
Wait a minute... but what if homosexuality is illegal in Iran, and yet homosexuals still choose to practice it there? If they do this, aren't they breaking the law, and therefore deserve the punishment mandated by law? Afterall, one ought to follow the law even if one doesn't agree with it. Why don't they instead work, build up sufficient money, move to a different country, and then start practicing homosexuality there for example?
Yes, but what is considered to be oppression depends on one's culture, the country one lives in, and the laws there.
Quoting ?????????????
Yes of course they can do it. But there are consequences if they fail, and they need to be aware of those consequences and accept them. A revolution by default is outside of the law. So if you do decide to break the law, and you get caught for it, or fail to execute your revolution, then it's your fault and it is only just that you face the consequences. A homosexual in Iran knows what will happen if they get caught being a homosexual. If they don't want those things to happen to them, why take a chance and perform homosexual behavior in Iran?
As for "hegemonic" discourses, they may be contested, but that is a viable practice only in certain cultures (such as the Western culture).
It's not a question of should or shouldn't. There just are consequences to breaking it, full stop.
Quoting ?????????????
Well - as I look across cultures I don't see that contesting hegemonic discourses is an accepted cultural practice in many parts of the world, and in order to retain my objectivity, I cannot claim that it should be just because in the West it is accepted...
Why shouldn't there be? That's a cultural-specific assertion.
Quoting ?????????????
And other cultures do accept it and function accordingly... I don't see your point. My whole point is that what counts as "hegemonic discourse" is cultural specific. One culture, for example most of the West right now, treats it as hegemonic discourse. Other cultures, such as the West in Cato's time for example, didn't.
You think shoulds are universal and objective, such as your "there shouldn't be consequences to breaking the law". You fail to see that your "shoulds" are culturally mediated, and CANNOT be objective nor universal. To my mind for example, the fact that you think there shouldn't be consequences to breaking the law is an abomination. Does that mean my opinion is universal? Of course not. Neither do I mean to claim it is, it is just my opinion. All "shoulds" are culturally mediated.
In fact, the whole POINT of the law is that even if you don't agree with it, you will respect it. That's why there are punishments to failing to obey the law, in order to pragmatically force you to obey it. So the point of the law is never that 100% of people agree with it. A law remains a law if the power structures in the respective community (which, if the community is a democracy, are the 51% majority) agree to.
Rights are such that membership to a group permits protection against harm by appeal to a right, so long as there is a mechanism to uphold the right. If the group is humanity, then rights protect all members of that group (i.e., human rights). If you want to exclude a person or a demographic from protection by appeal to a human right, it is you that needs the argument as to why some humans are to be excluded. Human rights as equal rights have a pretty solid argument from John Rawls in A Theory of Justice, which argues for equal rights as a rational principle. Do you care to take a stab at refuting Rawls?
Yes, I would say you're morally wrong because inequality can only be sustained by the irrational, paranoid and destructive principle that one deserves more because of the arbitrary circumstance of one's birth.
There is no such group as "humanity". If there is, please explain to me its power structures. There is no government governing "humanity", and there is no such thing as "humanity" to be governed in the first place. You're talking as if we all shared the same culture, the same language, the same power structure. We don't. All that exists is different groups of people, under different power structures interacting with each other. The ideal of "humanity" or of a culturally globalised world is just that... an ideal, and not a reality.
So, before I go into the question of refuting Rawls, it is you who must prove that there is a group called humanity. I argue that there is no such group, since it lacks all the features that other groups (such as countries, or families) have: namely power structures, uniform laws, uniform language(s), shared beliefs, shared values, shared practices, shared holidays, shared calendars. And I argue further, namely that our differences are too many for us to ever be one "humanity". Humanity can be talked about by those who are lazy enough to see only superficial similarities, and not the nitty-gritty differences that exist, and can never be eradicated. Where others see identity, I look deeper and see difference. Not only do I see difference, I see value in that difference, and a destruction of that value through the attempt to establish an identity (or equality - same thing).
Quoting Soylent
It's not a question of deserving or not deserving. It's realising that whether one has more by birth or has less by birth is due to what his community decides to give him/her. And what his community has, is largely dependent on the availability of resources in that region (Nature). The one who has more neither deserves this, nor doesn't deserve this. It is you who is attempting to enforce a morality upon a factual matter of nature. So inequality is sustained by Nature herself, and has nothing to do with man.
Just so we're all talking about the same thing, here is the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Is it really "universal"?
Yes, by definition. The Declaration applies to the entire planet. (It's not called "the South American" or SE Asian Declaration of Human Rights.)
Does everybody agree with it?
Of course not. The declaration has been honored in the breach more often than in the observance.
If everyone doesn't agree with it, how can it be "universal"?
Because it is aspirational rather than contemporaneously descriptive.
What if I, personally, don't want the same human rights that everybody else has? Maybe I'd prefer fewer human rights for myself. Is that OK?
If you were an imbecile, a moron, or an idiot, it might be OK in a sort of imbecilic, moronic, or idiotic way for you to desire fewer human rights than everybody else has. (There is conclusive evidence that you are none of these three.) However, the universal declaration happens to apply to imbeciles as well as highly leftist and right wing philosophers with intelligences that are at least normal, if not above average.
What gives anybody the right to IMPOSE universal human rights on everybody else?
We live in a world where there are many powers counterposed against one another. No nation or group of nations has both the power and the unanimity of purpose to effectively IMPOSE much of Universal Anything on various groups of people.
It sounds like a bunch of autocratic left-wingers foisted this upon the oppressed peoples of the world. Where did this business of "universal human rights" come from?
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights was cooked up by a cabal of autocratic sort of liberal-to-left-wingers after the end of World War II, which (as you know) featured an unusually lavish display of utter disregard and contempt of even minimal human rights for millions and millions of people. It was an opportune time to issue such a declaration.
Isn't this Universal Declaration of Human Rights just another form of western imperialism being forced down the throats of third world dictatorships?
Some dictatorial, authoritarian, plutocratic, human-rights-abusing regimes have complained about that very thing, as a matter of fact. And they are right. If the United Nations could, they would and should deep throat any number of cannibal regimes with the big dick of Universal Human Rights. As it is, the UN can't pull off such an act of universal beneficence because it is pretty much hog-tied by the major and minor powers who could conceivably be found to fall short of universal human rights themselves. So... bad actors can rest, assured of their impunity for the short run, at least.
There is a difference between "the Regime" and "the People". The Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to "the people" and not to "the regime". In human terms, no regime can be considered sacrosanct. In real politic, of course, it is the other way around: Regimes tend to be much more sacrosanct than "the people".
That is a sensible objection. It is precisely the difficulty of making human rights claims, and furthermore, if there is a common group, what rights could possibly come from membership to that group. The geography and political power structures of where an individual lives is arbitrary and cannot inform us about inclusion into the group of humanity. If we want to identify human rights, and maybe you don't quite yet want to identify such rights, we would want to begin by stripping away all the superficial differences between disparate people throughout the world to see if there is anything common that can be the basis for rights. We're not going to have much left, if anything, as the basis for human rights.
What could motivate you to look for human rights? How about self-interest? If you have an interest in yourself, and who doesn't, what right(s) would you need to optimize your ability to get as much of the things that you want? That's the start of human rights.
Quoting Agustino
Nature doesn't say we live in societies and communities where we respect property rights, We decided in our own self-interest, and to escape the Hobbesian State of Nature, to submit to a magistrate. Inequality in a society is arbitrary, irrational, paranoid and destructive (i.e., unsustainable).
I can write a declaration which says the opposite. What value does this hold? The UN is in no position to guarantee those rights, and therefore cannot claim that they exist.
Quoting Bitter Crank
What's the point of aspiring to something that we know cannot be achieved? To talk about "universal" human rights means to have a body capable of guaranteeing those rights universally. As that is impossible (or if possible, undesirable - because it entails a power structure capable to dominate all of mankind), we cannot talk about them being universal in any real sense of the word.
Quoting Bitter Crank
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is toilet paper so long as the UN cannot guarantee them. If the UN can guarantee them, then they risk becoming a global dictatorship. Either way - doesn't look favorable to me.
Quoting Soylent
I wouldn't call them human rights, I'd call them the rights that a particular state grants its citizens. Again, the justification for calling those rights "human" assumes that there exists a power structure capable of guaranteeing those rights to all humans. As no such structure exists, or can indeed exist (our differences are too many; + it's too dangerous since it would be too powerful), we are left solely with rights granted to us by our nation. And yes, each nation should choose to grant the rights to its citizens which fits the requirements of the time best. As for what rights I want - that is a question that presupposes that I am a member of a certain society. However, being a member of a certain society always-already implies that I have some rights granted. Hence, what rights I want whenever I make a judgement on this is necessarily and inescapably dependent on the rights I have already been granted by my society, as well as by the person my society has made me become. Do not forget - people are to a large degree the products of their societies. The self is the product of the community.
Quoting Soylent
Indeed, and I encourage that. I just don't like this idea of a "global community". It makes no sense to me. A world formed of a multitude of DIFFERENT countries, with different customs and ways of life makes more sense to me.
Yes, rights require a mechanism to uphold said rights, which becomes particularly troublesome for stateless individuals. The mechanism doesn't have to be a global authority, but can come from within individual nations that recognize the rational basis of human rights as the advancement of the nation's own self-interest. This allows a criticism of other nations for the lack of human rights protection on the basis that the nation's policies are inconsistent with the nation's own self-interest (if you can properly identify the nation's self-interest, which is minimally assumed to be sustainability). The nation can continue to shrug off such a criticism, but pressure to adopt mechanisms to uphold human rights is consistent with tolerance insofar as the pressure is not itself a violation of a human right. Allowing a sovereign nation to treat the nation's own citizens in a way that is judged to violate human rights is a balancing act. You want them to be independent and free to make their own choices, but at the same time the outcome is foreseeable and compassion for fellow humans (philanthropy) wants to minimize the suffering of bad policy by those nations.
Quoting Agustino
Not what rights you want, what rights would you need, minimally, to pursue your interests, even the most basic interests of food, shelter and security. People will have different wants as a product of the culture or society to which they belong, but the rights they need are not so (at all) culture dependent.
Yes, and they are often right to do so.
Quoting Agustino
I'm intolerant of intolerance and offended by offense taking. No idea is above scrutiny and no person beneath dignity.
Quoting Agustino
You are someone who is free to choose either to condemn or not to condemn an "Islamic" way of life. Therefore, you implicitly reject, by exercising your right to speak freely, those particular Islamic ways of life that would prohibit you from doing so.
Quoting Agustino
No it's not. First of all, it's not "their" lands. The notion of property only has meaning with respect to the fruits of human labor. All borders, boundaries, etc are utterly contrived. Second, the belief that they have a "fundamental right" to certain pieces of land and the enforcement of certain laws is the wellspring of nationalism, racism, and sectarianism of all kinds. The only way to ensure peace is a thorough going cosmopolitanism, of the kind Socrates advocated: "I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world."
Quoting Agustino
BS. I will not tolerate men in Afghanistan throwing battery acid on the faces of young girls simply because they held hands with the wrong person at the wrong time of day. I will not tolerate IS throwing gay people off of buildings. I will not tolerate genital mutilation of any kind. The list can go on and on. Tell, me, Augustino, do you tolerate these things? How can you, based on your criteria for "true" tolerance, which these examples all meet? Ergo, your position results in an indirect apology for the most contemptible practices imaginable.
Quoting Agustino
True, but some of them are so barbaric that they need to be eradicated. Hiding behind contrived shibboleths is just an excuse for moral cowardice.
Quoting Agustino
Then you will appease and tolerate the grossest violations of justice, decency, and morality conceivable. Cower behind such a base and egotistical cultural relativism all you like, but I for one will take a stand against the enemies of civilization. You are, once again, protected to say what you like because far braver people than me have taken just such a stand.
As an addendum, I have no particular interest in left/right politics, as I find most political labels meaningless, but also sometimes quite dangerous, for they engender lazy thinking, complacency, and radical adherence to party lines and ideologies. I think for myself and decide my views on a case by case basis.
This is problematic. A nation's self-interest may not be sustainability at all costs - in other words, a nation may have certain desires regarding the form it wants to exist in which are more important than mere survival. For example, I can imagine an Islamic state having as prime goal the flourishing of an Islamic culture - this can mean a culture which upholds Islamic values and a measure they may want to implement is laws against homosexuality for example. So I suggest instead of disallowing them to do this, which can never be justified because no values are universal - other nations choose to help them in the following way: "We'll take your homosexuals and make them our citizens, and instead we want X reduction in tariffs on Y good". In this way, trade is helped, and both nations fulfill their values, instead of one nation imposing its values on the other.
Quoting Soylent
This doesn't follow because of the same reasons. If I'm born in ancient Sparta I need different rights to flourish than I do if I am born in modern day Norway. While in modern Norway I may thrive by being given rights such as "free speech", "equal treatment in work", etc., in ancient Sparta I would thrive if I'm given rights such as "free access to military training". If I'm born in the Arab Emirates, I don't need to even pursue my interests such as "food, shelter and security" because the state already guarantees them to me, hence I need different rights in order to flourish there. My interests and the rights that I need to fulfil them change depending on where I am born.
Agreed.
Quoting Thorongil
It doesn't follow that because I personally disagree with them, others must also disagree.
Quoting Thorongil
But let us remember that Socrates deemed it morally despicable if he were to run away from the court which had unfairly sentenced him to death. He argued that since he had accepted those laws from the very beginning, and had been greatly helped by being a citizen, and he never departed to a different region of the world, he had an obligation to follow the law even when he disagreed with it :) Instead, we have people in this thread who argue that homosexuals in Iran SHOULDN'T respect the law of their countries...
Quoting Thorongil
No, hence I do everything in my power so that they don't happen on my lands and in my country.
Quoting Thorongil
I have yet to see a society founded upon the morally reprehensible survive and thrive. Those things can and do happen - but they are generally brought to an end by the community in which they happen sooner or later. I believe that communities, having the freedom to govern themselves, necessarily make mistakes and learn from them, just like we have made mistakes and learned from them.
Quoting Thorongil
I don't disagree. Keep in mind that I am all for bombing Syria, and annihilating ISIS. Why? Because ISIS poses a threat to the sovereignty and national security of other countries, and therefore other countries have to react by destroying them.
Your interests change, but the minimal right(s) needed to pursue those interests are fundamental (i.e., the right to pursue interests so long as those interests are not harmful to the interests of others). This is where left and right ideologies collide (i.e., identifying interests that are harmful to the interests of others). For example, the unrestricted right to private property permits the excessive pursuit of capital such that few have nearly all the resources while most have little to nothing. The respective tolerance or intolerance of the political spectrum is cashed out in terms of whose interests are being upheld (i.e., personal freedom vs. inequality) but is flexible and in flux within the respective groups to the degree that each side picks and chooses how they fall on specific issues and not a general principle (e.g., dominant abortion views in political groups/parties) and each group accuses the other as intolerant.
Naivety gets the better of us when we think our interests aren't in agreement with state interest, lest we become an enemy of the state and choose to fall in line or perish. We always have the right to pursue our own self-interest as stateless individuals (refugees), but such a decision, barring a benevolent intervening state, should practically be conformity or death (or at least a brutal and short life).
Good point. Ahistoricity is another motif of conservative memes. The idea is that history started yesterday.
So conservatives argue we should get rid of regulations that protect the environment because the environment isn't threatened - because of the regulations.
It also is a convenient excuse for dog whispering. For instance conservative will call Obama a monkey and pretend that there is no racist history involving that iconography, whining stuff like "but leftists called Bush a chimp." All in all there is a profound dishonesty to the little narratives the right propagates in lieu of real arguments.
As if the above was anything but a blatant counterfactual ... We can go on pointing fingers like this all day long, but it's not gonna solve anything...
So the ridiculous idea -- the meme being propagated by most of the rightwing noise machine right now -- is that students who protest unfair selection of speakers who attacks minorities, the poor, women as part of their rightwing agenda -- are "dangerous" to free speech by expressing their right to free speech by protesting.
What's wonderful about rightwing memes is that since they have no real factual content, they get more and more convoluted. You're like a tea partier who calls Obama a Muslim, Fascist, Marxist, Wall-Street Insider. The factual incoherency of your claims never occur to you because they aren't factual at all -- just ugly little narratives.
I love it when conservatives, flummoxed by having their memes exposed, have to start quoting me and my vocabulary.
Of course the history of campuses being used by the right (and the current attempt of corporations to stifle real free speech on campuses) is something you want to distract from by claiming a handful of freedom loving students are the real problem
Ahistoricity? You're soaking in it!
No, if it was just protesting. But they want to BAN such speakers. Also they insult them. It;s not just that they disagree with them, and proceed to put some arguments forward.
Look mate... they can love freedom all they want to. But to insult people for not believing like them, to want to BAN others from speaking out their ideas... is that tolerant to you?
Of course where were conservatives when "communists" (I.e., freedom loving Americans) were banned from speaking on college campuses. Oh, they were leading the charge for the ban!
Total hypocrisy.
BWHAHHAHAHAHHA. Conservatives never insult people who don't agree with them! BWHAHAHHAHHAHAH!
Projection? You're soaking in it.
I'm glad you're working so hard to get rightwing purveyors of hateful rhetoric off the airwaves. Wait, you're not!
So in the name of freedom of speech, they have a right to ban freedom of speech of individuals who promote different values than they believe in? You for real?
Look friend, some conservatives may, but I haven't here. You're talking with me now, not with all conservatives on the Earth...
I think your discourse here is just putting these forums to shame. Everyone else is attempting to offer productive arguments, while all you do is make statements containing blatant generalisations. Just look around for a moment will you? Do you see anyone else behaving this way? No. Because I'm not here to spew propaganda, but rather to discuss an issue rationally. If you give rational arguments, I can respond - but there's no response I can give to blatant "You're lying" type of statements. If you believe I am lying, fair enough, but at least let us show it instead of merely state it.
So you're for allowing people to appear on campuses and recruit jihadists to kill Christians right? Because you're for free speech, right?
Stop pretending. There is no absolute right to speech and speakers speak by invitation of the universities that invite them. Nobody is banning anybody from speaking. They are protesting who the college invites to speak.
This isn't even a free speech issue. It's who the college invites and why.
So were these conservative speakers going to discuss the toppling of England's government, or how to undermine England's national security? Really? How can you compare the two? On what basis?
On the basis that your premise is false from the start. Nobody is being banned from speaking. The issue is who is invited to speak. If conservative weirdos want to spout their homophobia on street corners, they have a perfect right. Nobody has a right to speak on a campus at an event unless invited.
See the difference yet? Or are you going to pretend not to because you've used inflammatory and false lingo to describe the issue. I.e., you used a meme
Ok but these people were invited, otherwise they wouldn't just show up because they felt like it. And since Universities are educational environments, it makes sense to allow students to be exposed to a diversity of views, both conservative and progressive. It's not like conservatives are the equivalent of radical jihadists...
That's not a ban of free speech. So the fact that you used that to describe the issue shows how dishonest you are.
If you don't think so, then you should be OK with Muslim students inviting ISIS to the campus to discuss how to behead infidels. So stop pretending you care about free speech. You care about using the campus to intimidate people you don't like -- apparently minorities, et. al.
So those speakers were odious? Peter Hitchens is the equivalent of a jihadist?
A strange statement to make when I personally agree with most of the current liberal values (while of course disagreeing with their universality)... I don't know which minorities you were referring to.
Rightwingers are odious, yes. HItchens was mostly just dumb. Gallaway really wiped him out in his debate with him over Iraq.
But you seem to be saying that people you find odious shouldn't appear on campus, but people others find odious should.
I sense an entitlement issue here.
No you don't. That's a trope conservatives often use.
Okay, give proof please, I'm willing to listen and give counter evidence to you.
So now you're pretending to be reasonable after 30 posts dripping vitriol about the Left.
Won't work with me.
Yes, because I think the Left is wrong in attempting to universalise the values it shares. Those values aren't all universal, and people should be allowed to be different and choose different ways of organising themselves as well...
No you won't. After one of your meme is exposed (something I and others have done), you'll go to the next one. There is no factual content to anything that you've said, starting with your labeling the issue as a ban on free speech, a total lie.
If the proposition is: should colleges be selective about who is invited to speak on campus, because it suggests an endorsement, and in particular colleges should not allow speakers who attack or demean minorities, then I fail to see how any rational person would disagree with the proposition.
But I bet you'll gloss it as a "ban".
Quoting Agustino
Yeah right, and I recommend the West to take on Iranian homosexuals, because I'm so anti-gay. I'm not anti-gay, I'm pro freedom. There's regions of the world where homosexuals obtain all the liberty they want. There's also regions where they don't. Why don't we all collaborate with each other to make sure homosexuals are in such a region, instead of attempting to make all regions accept homosexuals?
They are. What does that have to do with being invited to a campus to speak and to intimidate minorities?
Because people should be able to live in their own country without being persecuted for having gender preferences? History shows that when hatred and discrimination is allowed to hound people out of country, that country is probably going to find other people to oppress, even if that means going to war.
Your post would have been well received by Nazis, who said the same thing about Jews.
But now you've changed the subject, another conservative trope.
The students on the campus, many of them minorities, believe that. So I'm going to listen to them.
In addition to that I have heard enough of hateful conservative rhetoric to know it is all dog whistling intent on attacking minorities and inciting violence and discrimination. So bravo to those students for speaking out against the conservative bullies.
Who says they should in all cases?
Quoting Landru Guide Us
Nazism was based on a racial theory which claimed that the Jewish race was INHERENTLY inferior, AND EVIL. The theory I presented above doesn't claim that homosexuals are INHERENTLY inferior, AND/OR EVIL. See the difference? It merely claims that homosexuals should be helped to live under regimes which favor their disposition.
Nobody, so this is a false dilemma. Another conservative strategy for avoiding discussing real issues.
But surely you have to recognise that this must be prejudice... you can't possibly claim that millions of conservatives are all evil and hateful people who want to oppress others... it's just so unfair.
No, I don't. Hatred of peoples' condition is a sickness. Claiming discrimination against Jews is bad, but not against gays, is borderline pathological.
I'm glad you've exposed your ugly homophobic agenda.
You need to pay attention to what you say, but that's asking a lot of the right.
Yes, I can say without contradiction that all conservatives are evil. Conservatives are pathological and hate the other. Eschew it before it consumes you.
But nice distraction from the issue, since you were losing. Poor put-upon conservatives. How do they survive in this hostile land of ours?
Where have I said that I discriminate against gays in that post? Nowhere. I simply said that those who wish to build communities without homosexuals should be respected, and we can help them achieve this, because we have nothing against homosexuals, and we can treat them as first class citizens... This is doing good for both - respecting the freedom of both.
And that's pathological It's the Krystalnacht mentality of the Nazis.
Just be honest and admit you hate and fear gays. Get it over with. You'll feel better.
Well if this is the case - notice you have broken the limit and have gone into hate speech - you cannot demand or expect that any conservative behave nicely towards you. Because it would be like a Westerner behaving nicely to a Jihadist who wants to kill him... nonsense.
I honestly don't though...
So slaves can't expect the respect of slaveholder is they call them criminal and evil.
I like your style of oppression!
We can and should. It is accurate. You are ignoring what oppression means here. It doesn't mean, for example, all conservatives are like Nazis and want to lock minorities up and commit genocide (though some are. And you seem to be okay with that, so long as the are living in a country where state power enforces it), but rather that their ideology is such that it advocates various minorities are of lesser value and that associate which does this is not of ethical concern (to the people living in it, I might add).
I don't think many conservatives would agree with this...
Well clearly you are not aware that if this was the case, the regime doing it wouldn't be long in power. There were several assassination attempts even on Hitler's life in the middle of the war. Just imagine if Hitler had won the war how quickly he would have been assassinated. The invisible hand works even in politics...
And I haven't argued it is moral to lock them up or to kill them. Please cite where I did.
What are you talking about... slaves by definition cannot expect the respect of the slaveholder, regardless of whether they call him God or devil.
They are wrong.
Agreement is not an issue here. How someone is valuing and treating others ifs not defined by agreement. It's a matter of the logical expression of their understand an actions. The truth of how people are valuing and treating others is what matters.
It's more complicated than this. People can often feel persecuted even when they aren't. This is a well-known psychological phenomenon, especially if they have been oppressed in the past. So it's not that simple to judge whether someone really is oppressed, or they're just feeling oppressed, or worse - they claim to be oppressed to obtain certain advantages.
Whoosh! Right over your head!
Do you have an example? There are, occasionally, instances where people mistake the oppression of the past for the present state of society. Most of the time, however, it is just "conservatives" ignoring a present issue which has its origins in some historical form of oppression (e.g. the relationship of slavery, segregation and racist culture of the past to present day economic inequality of black people in the US).
And this is, usually, a misreading of an oppressed people gaining some sort of improvement in how they a treated. Indeed, it really represents the "conservative" failure to understand social issues. The entire point of taking issue with oppression, of changing culture so it isn't bigoted to a given minority group, is to improve how they are treated. Those who were oppressed gain a life where they are not (or are oppressed less). The self-interest of rights movements isn't the problem. "Gaining and advantage" is the entire fucking point. If a an oppressed group doesn't gain "an advantage" they are still oppressed.
No, conservatism is fueled by wealthy oppressors, intent on exploiting others. They are pathological.
The conservative underclass are either fools, duped by the memes of the rich, or they are pernicious racists who want to harm other.
In any case, the whole purpose of conservatism is to exploit others and enrich the rich - kind of like slave owners.
This is another conservative trope: say something and then say you didn't say it, looping back over and over again.
You defended the right of oppressive regimes to discriminate and bemoaned interference by goodgoody liberals in trying to stop them. You called this, amazingly, a "fundamental right".
So stop pretending. It's clear you just don't like gays, and probably other minorities, and have hit upon the idea of noninterference with oppressive regimes (my that is so important!) as a justification.
This statement is pathological. Just consult a psychiatrist if you don't believe me. It's the same as the Nazi's labeling the Jews as the source of their problems; you label the conservatives. Same old rotten socialist ideology - because yes, Hitler was a socialist. Instead of assuming responsability for the state you are in, you point your finger and cry - Nietzsche's Last Man.
Quoting Landru Guide Us
Hey, why don't you open your own business, work hard, be smart, and achieve all the success you want, instead of complaining that others have more than you do. Of course they have more than you - they have worked to achieve that. Is it because "you don't want to exploit others"? Or is that perhaps just an excuse to mask inability? The fox who cannot reach up to the grapes says they are sour.
Quoting Landru Guide Us
This is hilarious beyond measure... another proof that you are just rhethoric and nothing else. You misinform people and are a liar. Where have I said that "the most important issue is defending the right of oppressive regimes to discriminate against gays"? You're out of your mind, plain and simple.
Quoting Landru Guide Us
Ok, so show me where. All of us have big mouths, but let's see, can we walk the talk as well?
Quoting Landru Guide Us
No I don't. Fundamental rights are given by each state in particular. There are no rights beyond the state. A man by birth has no more rights than a tiger has.
Quoting Landru Guide Us
A lie often repeated will soon start to be believed. Said Hitler. Seems like you are keen on applying his tactics :)
And we had regimes which didn't. What do you mean to say, that the world is very diverse in its customs and what it deems acceptable or not? Sure it is! But just like one culture deems it unacceptable to use hallucinogenic drugs, another culture deems it unacceptable to engage in gay sex. What's wrong with that? Cultural norms - that's all.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No, all that needs to happen is that oppressed groups stop being oppressed, not that they gain advantages. That is like desiring that the poor replace the rich - nonsense.
There is room for conservative ideology to justify interference and harm on the grounds that the group being interfered with and harmed is not included in the group to which the rights apply (note: this is not exclusive to conservatism). A freedom principle does not assign inclusion to the group whereas an equality principle in theory aims to offer an inclusion criteria. A freedom principle is applied once inclusion has been granted and can be a secondary principle to the equality principle. An equality principle is not without flaws and susceptible to special pleading as well, but it offers a somewhat more tangible principle to appeal to for the mechanism of upholding rights.
Hitler wasn't much of a socialist.
True, early on he took over a little German political group which maybe had some socialist-type intentions, but that was more opportunist than anything else. The neglect of socialist programming became a small issue in the National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, abbreviated NSDAP), AKA, the Nazi Party.
While this seems like a sensible response, it ignores a potential (and potent) harm of social and psychological displacement. It shouldn't be expected that a person is asked to leave friends and family in exchange for security. The two needs (social and safety) are basic needs, and a society that fails to meet the basic needs of individuals in that society loses legitimacy (from within).
I included everyone in my statement, i.e. those who do and those who do not condemn other ways of life. My point, once again, is that the ability to freely express one's opinion either way would itself be made impossible in certain cultures/countries. Therefore, by merely expressing your opinion, you have rejected said cultures and so cannot be inclusive to all of them. Some of them must be destroyed in order for you and others like you to live.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, but I'm not beholden to everything Socrates allegedly said. His cosmopolitanism is worth keeping, whereas his other positions can be argued over on their own terms.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, morally bankrupt societies usually don't survive long, but they often attempt to bring down everyone and everything with them when they implode. Free societies have an obligation to prevent atrocities and protect the people living under barbaric regimes.
Quoting Agustino
Now, see, this is interesting, and not at all the impression you gave in the OP, which implied a very conservative isolationism. I know in today's completely warped political discourse, those who would be in favor of greater military action are alleged to be on the right, but in fact, and historically speaking, this would be a leftist position.
I just want to point out that Agustino referenced Peter Hitchens, the brother of the late Christopher Hitchens. Peter was against the war in Iraq and to my knowledge has never debated that human turd Galloway. It was Christopher who debated him and supported the Iraq war, rightly in my opinion.
Crusty, carnivorous conservative capitalists exploit people with gusto. True. So do svelte, vegan, liberal capitalists. I prefer the friendlier face of liberal capitalism, but on pay day one is just as exploited by the friendly-faced capitalist. There is a difference between cryptofascist KKK conservatives and earnest Catholic conservatives who tend to the demands of the Gospel, for instance. And so on...
Political, economic, social, religious, sexual, blah blah blah ALL occur in a spectrum of forms. Individuals, by chance, necessity, or design, mix and match. So do societies. We are always (almost always, anyway) confronting a gradient of mixed human phenomena.
There is too much meme slinging going on. However much it may work as a rhetorical technique in PR, political campaigns, or war, it doesn't serve us well here.
Straight from the Breitbart meme machine.
Now you're reduced to the reverso-meme, talking the hard right ideology of Nazism, and pretending it's crypto-leftist. I love the smell of desperation in the morning.
And you wonder why thinking people never take anything a conservative says seriously.
The back track meme. Conservatives post a statement, then contradict it, and when pointed out, say they never said it. Even though it's sitting there in a prior post. You can also call this the Nathan Thurm meme.
Fancy lingo all in the service of combating "leftists" from stopping persecution of gays. A noble cause indeed.
And we have Godwin liftoff. Agustino - you've got the memo!
Shouldn't you have written "ineffectual discussions"? I agree with Landru; discussion is ineffectual when it comes to these kinds of matters. There is simply no will for it. There are only memes here; and the memes of the left are by far the more palatable.
"By their fruits you will recognize them. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?" Matthew 7:16
I'm not aware of any "leftist" who does this but me, regrettably. It's the only way to deal with conservatives and block their bizarre and dishonest way of framing issues.
So stay hopeful. I'm sure you'll find a lot of progressives who will actually think your memes are real arguments and foolishly rebut them with facts, allowing you to go on and on and on with one discredited meme after the next.
So based on all this, would you consider me a leftist? If so, why, and if not, why not?
This does not follow. It does not follow that because it is not wrong (ie, no rights are broken) to interfere/harm another group that this is right. Therefore, a conservative may not use this as justification, and if they do, then they're committed to a fallacy.
Quoting Bitter Crank
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html
Hitler's policies implied a lot of governmental control over the economy - at least in terms of economics, he was clearly not laissez faire.
Quoting Soylent
This presupposes that there is a way not to harm anyone while resolving this problem. I argue that the majority of the people in that community feel harmed by homosexual practices because this goes against their cultural values. Therefore, such practices are outlawed. However, out of compassion for homosexuals, the only remedy is for a society which appreciates them, and can truly provide a satisfactory environment for such individuals to flourish to take them from the society which is incapable, due to other commitments, to do this for them.
Quoting Thorongil
Again - this doesn't follow. I may have the ability to express myself freely right now, and therefore make use of it - but it doesn't follow that I necessarily must believe that I SHOULD have such an ability to begin with. In my previous post I was just saying that I agree with you - I value the ability to express myself, and I think others should have access to it - but I'm not in a position to impose this upon other communities, who decide on different values.
Quoting Thorongil
This needs to be argued.
Quoting Thorongil
I think free societies have an obligation to protect their citizens, and so to the extent that oppressive societies seek to increase their strength in order to subjugate them, etc. they have a right to take action to stop this from happening. So yes - by and large, I agree with you here.
Quoting Thorongil
What do you mean are historically speaking left? Could you provide some examples please? Thanks!
Quoting John
Justify both statements please.
Quoting John
Agreed.
Quoting Landru Guide Us
Yes, because unlike you, many of the other Leftists here are willing to be rational and discuss this issue openly. You just want to impose your views. I'm going to stop addressing your posts until you bring in some real content. Thanks for whatever participation you could offer to the thread so far Landru. But I don't think it helps either of us to continue our discussion - you obviously have an extremist view thinking that the right is always evil and wrong, and, while I respect you and your view, I would kindly ask you not to impose this on me.
Quoting Thorongil
I'm not - because if I did it would be very messy. Meaning is use, hopefully the meaning will elucidate itself through the way this thread has been progressing (and I encourage you and everyone else to read the whole thread - the only way to truly understand what is currently going on). It's very difficult, because as you and others have said - these positions have kept changing historically, and they're not, at the moment, very useful or informative. Further difficulties are added by mine, as well as other members vague use(s) of the term(s). But we have no other terminology, so unfortunately, what can I do?
Quoting Thorongil
Me too. Which is why this is the first (and probably the only) political thread that I'll engage in, in both PF and TPF.
Quoting Thorongil
Ok.
Quoting Thorongil
I disagree that Proudhon's ideas of socialism are practical. The vast majority of mankind can never ever achieve the moral perfection necessary to thrive under such freedom. Therefore, there must be rulers - preferably as Plato said - philosopher Kings. Sure - they will prevent them from ever reaching moral perfection - but then, the masses could never do it to begin with. At least this way, those who can achieve moral perfection, and who wish to strive for it, can do so, and are respected for so doing.
Quoting Thorongil
I would call you right-wing. The only reason why I have some reservations is because of Proudhon and the fact you seem to, at least to me, think that the masses can achieve the wisdom of sages - otherwise there would be little debate about it.
Once you expose the rightwing memes, the next gambit is this: "You're mean on me"
I'm going to keep exposing your memes regardless, making you look like the fool you are
And so this makes him a socialist?
Jesus man. Words mean nothing to conservatives
Political allegiances are like tastes for certain kinds of food, or aesthetic taste in general. When you 'argue' with a leftist you each valorize your own tastes. All philosophical positions of any kind are based on starting assumptions which are themselves not rationally justified; they are accepted as axioms. When it comes to what is accepted as axiomatic by political disputants, what is 'self evident' to each one is arrived at by 'what feels right' to them, in other words it is biased by their conditioned preferences; into which many complex influences feed. A persons taste in food, clothes, even art, is not much of a moral matter; we might find certain things others like in these areas distasteful, even disgusting, but when it comes to politics, including sexual politics, it is much more closely aligned with the ethics of human life in general. There are no serious discussions going on in this arena, just the usual mud and meme-flinging.
I don't have to justify my preference for left wing values; I simply have an emotional preference and consequent feelings of support for dispositions of compassionate concern and love of freedom as opposed to dispositions of malicious or indifferent exploitation and domination. For me it comes down to aestheticization of ethics, as it did for Nietzsche.
Good - according to your theory your ethics cannot be enforced upon others since you yourself admit it's the product of your emotional preferences, and hence something unique to you and therefore not universal :) - hence my critique applies directly to you.
Neither you nor the Independent have convinced me one wit that Hitler was a socialist in anyway more than having that one word in his party's title. I don't think Joseph Stalin was much of a socialist either -- certainly of no kind that I would care to associate with.
Socialism is a process: not an event, not a political party, not a person. What Marx was talking about was the self-liberation of the working class. Lots of amped up and impatient people want to skip over all sorts of necessary steps and jump-start the Revolution. The revolution of the working class can not begin until the working class is ready to do it en masse by and for themselves.
Ghastly dictatorships, rule through violence, ruthless exploitation of human resources, genocidal drives (or, at the very least, ethnic cleansing) and so on all have many exemplars. Workers' self-liberation through revolution, not so much.
Hitler wasn't even a very good social democrat in his politics. Subversion was his game from the get go. He didn't persuade Germans to accept Nazism, he threatened their persons with dire consequences if they didn't--and he delivered. The Nazi Party was a thug-scum operation from the beginning--the SA was organized early on to take political debate to the street with the help of Nazi fists and truncheons. The SA set up private dungeons for short-term storage of good Germans who might not be getting the point through subtler arguments.. A few days in their little lock-ups usually convinced Germans that resistance was futile. Then there were the concentration camps proper, of which there were many hundreds. Most of them were for the purpose of maintaining political power, not racial purity.
Stalin was despicable. If he wasn't quite as bad as Hitler; even if he was a lot better than Hitler, he was still appallingly cruel, vicious, paranoid, ruthless, and drenched in blood. Maybe Soviet methods needed to be ruthless, cutting as many corners as they were on Karl Marx's idea for workers self-liberation. Russia scarcely had a working class when the Soviets opened up for business, so a lot of ground had to be skipped over (meaning, lots of people had to be forced to cooperate or be shot).
A process that is by its very nature oppressive and conflictual, as the working class is supposed to overthrow the capitalist class and impose its values on them - thus creating values which are universal, as Marx put it (that is in fact how Marx attributed universality to those values - a universality achieved by the fist). In the process, of course all family values will be overthrown - the family will be removed as a social structure - and we're all going to be forced to live in "free love", sharing our lovers with the whole rest of mankind, because we are now all equal. In the process we will all become like isolated islands, who sometimes touch, but never for long. Of course, I'm most certain that our nature will not interfere with us while we seek to achieve this - I mean how dare our instinct to exclusivity with our lovers interfere with our socialist dreams? And even if it does, it's easy - all those in whom such an instinct dares to manifest must certainly suffer from some type of mental illness, and thus they deserve our pity and "help". Afterall, our scientific studies, that we have done amongst our healthy-minded (which of course means socialist) circles, prove that such instincts and desires are most unnatural, and certainly an abnormality. People displaying them are simply the victims of capitalist oppression... After we "help" them, they will will surely realise the magnificence of the socialist dream. And on an economic level - how dare someone desire to have something his neighbour doesn't have? I mean isn't that the most selfish, and unnatural of desires, born out of capitalist oppression? On a cultural level - how dare someone want to play a game which has winners and losers? Surely such people deserve our pity and "help", then they will certainly see the glory of our socialist dreams. They will be dignified working and owning their own labour, and everyone will be satisfied with what they have - our games will have no winners and no losers, and now everyone will be entirely equal and will not be haunted by emotions of oppression.
Finally, communism has been achieved. We all shag our sisters, live in free love, and have the same lack of resources that everyone else has. None of us is any different, and we all receive the same treatment. In this world none of us desire to feel superior to anyone else, and even if we do, we don't have the means. There is no more shame, as everything has become acceptable - if you want to fuck the communal dog, then that is most certainly acceptable, how dare anyone oppress you for it? What a wonderful world, I'm sure that if this was reality I would most certainly not want to put a bullet in my head.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yes, welcome to reality - this is what is required to achieve your socialist dream. You just do not have courage and do not want to be pragmatic about the issue. How else, if not through oppression, could the Marxist values ever become universal?
Quoting Bitter Crank
Stalin was worse than Hitler. At least Hitler had an agenda - Stalin just ordered a certain percentage of the population from X region to be killed and signed the papers himself. For no reason, except his own paranoia. The difference between Hitler and Stalin is the difference between evil and insanity. Insanity is worse. But yes - poor Marx - he had always failed to realise the opposition that our nature has towards socialism - but Stalin knew it. He did what was required in order to change our nature and achieve socialism. He should be the hero of all socialists as he dared do the only thing that was necessary to achieve the socialist dream. Long live comrade Stalin!!
Utter crap.
It not just "cultural norms." It is the ethical position that the given group of people ought to be locked-up killed. And you are here supporting it in any instance where the present causal power happens to enforce it. Your argument is directly opposing those how do take issue with such polices in their own country. This is what Landru meant by the "back-track." You make a claim, that is it ethical for a society to kill gay people if a culture happens to enforce it, but then do everything to deny that's what you are actually saying, even as you proudly continue asserting it.
What I mean is that, when one group has power over another, the removal of oppression takes this away. The oppressed group gains something they did not have before. By definition, the oppressed gain an "advantage" compared to be they had when oppression ends.
Oppressors lose something they had. Sometimes this might mean, literally, that the poor replaces the rich: consider instances of economic exploitation where ending oppression involves employers losing profits to pay their workers an non-explotaive wage. The rich lose money to remove this oppression. Other times people merely read the loss of power as the formerly oppressed gaining an unjust entitlement, despite the fact they haven't lost money, property, or position, etc.etc.
What I think you are failing to see is that an oppressor is one whose ethics are enforced upon others. For me this is the essence of the right wing base assumption; that might makes right, that you may exploit others to your heart's content if you remain within the law. For me, your 'position' is a poorly though out moving self-contradiction.
This is factually incorrect. I never claimed it is ethical to kill gay people if a culture happens to be anti-gay and enforces it. What you may ARGUE I claimed (and even that is unlikely given my arguments), is that such a culture would not be wrong to outlaw gay practices (in either case, this does not imply it is right to do so, or that it should do this). It remains for you to show how X not being wrong necessitates that X is either right, or that it should be done.
Furthermore, you have strawmanned what I said. Gay people can exist all they want in Iran - what is outlawed is not being gay - but rather practicing homosexuality. Someone can still be gay and yet remain abstinent from homosexual practices if the laws of the country where they live demand this. Now this means that someone could campaign for homosexuals to receive rights, but cannot do so in a manner that breaks the law - ie, having gays kiss, hold hands, or any other practice that is judged to be homosexual according to the law which outlaws such practices. The law cannot be protested against by BREAKING the law. The protest must remain within the confinements of the law. Now - if the state punishes one of its peoples in a way that is not according to its own laws, then it loses legitimacy, and the people are entitled to usurp the powers of the state. Does this warrant foreign intervention? Maybe.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Yes - also by definition that is not an "advantage". If me and a fellow worker should both be earning 5$ because that's what our work is worth, and I trick management to pay me 7$ while paying him 3$, then the resolution of this is not in him gaining an advantage - since a priori his salary should have been 5$, which is what it will become. In this case, he gains justice, and I lose my unfair advantage.
I agree, that has been my whole argument as well.
Quoting John
I disagree that this is the base assumption of right-wing politics, at least in the manner I think of it. If it were - then I'd agree with you. I think the base assumption of right-wing politics is to live and let live, whereas left-wing politics attempts to force everyone in a single pattern of acceptable values.
What exactly does "live and let live" mean to you? Also, do you not agree that there is necessarily a limited range "of acceptable values" (when it comes to any kind of human intercourse at least) if the aim is to live together in a civil-ized fashion?
It means exactly that no one culture is imposed over another. For example, we don't go in the Middle East to tell them what rules they should have about head scarves for women or not.
Quoting John
Yes - but it's also culturally dependent to at least a large degree - even though so far in this thread I've argued it's completely culturally dependent for philosophical ease of argument. Some things may not be culturally dependent such as torturing members of a minority just for fun is wrong, regardless of whether it is accepted by a large majority. But a lot of issues, (such as headscarves being mandatory for women) is culturally dependent and should be allowed to be so.
PS: Notice, that this also means that failure to, for example, wear a scarf, can be punished as the respective culture decides. Why? Because everyone can wear a scarf. Same with homosexuality in this case - everyone can be gay, and yet not engage in homosexual practices. Because of these reasons, what punishments are is irrelevant. What matters more is what is condemned and what is not condemned by law. If having black skin is condemned - then something is wrong (in other words no culture can justify condemning having black skin), because people don't get to decide whether they have black skin or not: hence people are "destined" to break the law, which clearly is cruel towards them, cause they don't even have a chance. But they certainly get to decide whether they commit adultery, engage in homosexual practicies, or wear a scarf (ESPECIALLY when they are aware of the consequences of doing so). There's no comparison there. Hence in one case justice is done by the application of the law in punishing individuals, and in the other - it is a case where the law is used to justify murder (necessarily killing someone for reasons not under their control).
If a culture were to punish people merely for HOLDING gay preferences (without engaging in homosexual practicies), then again this would necessarily be morally wrong regardless of the structure of that culture - because people don't get to decide what their preferences are in the first place, hence they cannot be held accountable for it in front of the law or anyone else.
The implicit "relative values" that you ascribe to the right seem more appropriate to the "left" and the narrow, single pattern of values seems more appropriate to the right -- at least the way I think of left and right. But let's not debate that, because thinking leftists and rightists both maintain wider margins in their definitions. The caricatured left and right aren't the real left and right.
I know people who fall on the left and right (using anybody's definition) who are a lot like their opposites. You do too, most likely. There are leftists who are quite rigid in their morals, have strong family values, and so forth. And there are right wing folks who are not models of conservative probity and propriety.
I'm saying that the "should" here is implicit by the very act of your exercising such an ability in the first place. You agree in practice, in other words, that you should be able to express yourself freely, if not in principle.
Quoting Agustino
Why not?
Quoting Agustino
In brief, cosmopolitanism is a logical consequence of the fact that we possess natural rights but also the necessary condition for said rights to be expressed and to flourish. A woman in Somalia has exactly the same right to life, liberty, etc as any one else in the world. Citing her culture, religion, or other invented institution as a means by which to deny her these rights is therefore unjustified. Moreover, those who do possess the free exercise of their rights have themselves the right to protect those in whom they are being denied.
Quoting Agustino
To stick with American foreign policy, if we go back to WWII, we find that those on the right, including Republican congressmen and presidential candidates, were largely against intervening in Europe, whereas FDR and his administration were largely for doing so prior to Pearl Harbor. Truman, another Democrat, then intervened on behalf of Korea shortly thereafter. Later, Democratic President Kennedy initiated the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba and the US intervention in Vietnam. (Unlike in WWII or Korea, these latter two decisions proved disastrous, of course.) Clinton, rather belatedly, intervened in Bosnia to stop the war and genocide there. And finally, in the case of Iraq, despite a purportedly conservative president initiating the war, we can see that the old right wing establishment, including figures like Pat Buchanan and Henry Kissinger, were opposed to it and that Democrats in Congress were essential in approving it. Bush also had the backing of a Labour Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, in the UK.
So based on this brief history, it seems to me that the left has largely been responsible for and favorable of strong military intervention in the world, and the right has largely tried to remain isolationist, which is indeed an inherently conservative position to take. It is somewhat surprising how swiftly and drastically this has changed in recent years, whereby the right is now strongly in favor of military intervention and the left now espouses a conservative isolationist policy.
Quoting Agustino
This may be true, and is actually a succinct statement of pessimism of a kind, but this is no excuse not to try to educate people, morally or otherwise. A free and open society in fact demands it. By the way, Proudhon may have popularized the term "anarchy" but he was certainly no anarchist in the sense of wanting to eliminate the state. Especially later in life, he saw its necessity, and I agree with him and presumably you that a state is necessary.
Quoting Agustino
The latter can only do so and be respected for it if they have the freedom to do so in the first place and the masses are enlightened enough to recognize and respect their moral and intellectual accomplishments. Ergo, unlike Plato's vision, this requires a free and open society, one that still has rulers and a state to be sure, but one whose sovereignty lies with the people.
Quoting Agustino
I'm not massively familiar with Proudhon, but from what I do know and have read of him, he seems to be slightly misunderstood. His ideas on property are not in fact all that dissimilar to antecedent classical liberal theories on the same, and as I said above, he is not technically an anarchist. I also don't think the masses can achieve the wisdom of sages, not at all. However, I do say that they should have the ability to do so should they so choose. That's the key point. I really do appreciate the rightist critiques of the Enlightenment, democracy, the notion of progress, etc. de Maistre in particular has quite hilarious, witty, and cogent take downs of the silly optimism contained in much liberal and leftist thinking. Yet his and his ilk's defense of the kind of Pre-Revolutionary aristocratic, autocratic, and theocratic ways of governance do not represent a better alternative.
So I'm still not at all sure why you think I'm a rightist.
What you are saying is equivalent to insisting that black people hide their skin colour if they want to enjoy citizenship ( they can't help their skin colour but they should hide it if it is deemed offensive).
People have no control over their sexual orientation, and to require people to repress their sexual feelings, not to express them, would be an act of unacceptable oppression, pure and simple, and as such completely unsupportable. I would like to know what your motivation is for making such idiotic claims.
No I don't. I simply take advantage of an opportunity I happen to have. I may not agree with having such an opportunity in the first place.
Quoting Thorongil
Because just like I have my freedom, others do too.
Quoting Thorongil
This is infantile. The masses will never be sufficiently enlightened, hence why they need rulers in the first place. I wonder - have you encountered real human stupidity? I come originally from Eastern Europe. I have encountered stupidity... some people, you explain to them something a hundread times - they don't care. I tried to explain to this old friend this relatively simple mathematics equation when I went back once: it was as if I talked to a wall. I had to give up. It is simply impossible. The village priest says something - that is the truth. They really don't give a fuck about anything else. They live in a state alike to that of the animals. The only way they can be controlled, and they can be stopped from slaughtering each other is through religion. It is an infantile dream of liberals that you'll ever convince those people that homosexuality is wrong - the only way to convince them will be to kill them. These people will live the way they have learned to live, regardless of what you do. You cannot even educate those people. They need to be governed by taking into account their intellectual level.
Most of Western society is the same. It's full of animals - who are totally confused and incapable to think, who just follow the crowd, wherever it is going. The only difference is that the Western crowd aren't peasants living in the countryside.
The Bible said "For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief". And if I think about it - even though I belong to no Church, and cannot be considered a Christian in any traditional sense - much more an atheist - this principle is correct. It befalls the elite to bear the sadness of the world and to take upon responsibility for everyone else. Everyone else doesn't care about knowledge - this harbringer of sadness, which is only acceptable to the elite. As the Romans said... bread and circus. That's all that they know or want to know.
Quoting Thorongil
Don't waste your time. Those who wish to do so, don't need your help. And those who don't wish so, cannot be helped by you.
How can you misinterpret this so badly I wonder... When I clearly said that having a law outlawing black skin would be IMMORAL because black people have no choice in their skin color, and cannot help but break the law.
Quoting John
They have no control over their sexual orientation. I agree. But they have control over whether they engage in gay behavior or not. And not engaging in gay behavior doesn't mean they repress their sexuality. They have outlets through masturbation and fantasy, and ways to sublimate this desire through fighting for legalising homosexuality within the bounds of the law. You make it sound as if homosexual people are like animals who cannot control their impulses... Isn't that demeaning?
I didn't say that outlawing having black skin, but rather outlawing showing it, would be equivalent to outlawing, not being gay, but expressing it. It is you that is interpreting poorly.
There is no good reason why homosexual (or any other kind of sexual) people should "control ( read as 'repress' or 'redirect') their impulses" as long as those impulses are directed towards others who are of appropriate maturity to consent, and it is this lack of good reason that determines that any requirement that they do so would be oppressive, and should not be supported by any rational person.
You are peddling nonsense... as if it were possible for a black person not to show any skin...
Quoting John
Yes there is good reason - that being against the law for starters.
They could be required to cosmetically disguised their skin colour or completely cover their faces and bodies with cloth. Women in some cultures are required to do little less than this.
Being against the law is not a good reason, on its own, for judging any practice to be ethically or morally right or wrong; and if you think it is then you are an ultra-conservative idiot.
Then you think people should consider themselves above the law?
The proper aim of enlightenment in my view is to be above the law, in the sense of no longer thinking that one's behavior be should be prescribed, or proscribed, by others, and also in the sense of no longer arrogating to oneself the right to prescribe what others should do. This is workable, though only for those in whom an appropriate feeling and respect for the rights of others is in place.
And the enlightenment is the "correct view" that ALL of mankind will always have for the remaining of its history?
It's probably not perfectly achievable on the large (or perhaps even on the individual) scale, but as an ideal, yes.
I fail to see how people shouldn't be prescribed how to behave at all (I agree people should have freedoms to choose their behaviors, but not unlimited freedoms). If I want to go and shag the dog in the street, you will let me? You will encourage me?
If you are not too embarrassed to shag the dog publicly, and the dog consents to being shagged, then I wouldn't stop you. You would be the main victim, having to then live with the stigma of being a renowned 'dog-shagger' for the rest of your life.
So - you will oppress me afterwards for shagging the dog by means of social exclusion no? Would you not thus break your own philosophy?
I wouldn't oppress you, but others might. They have a right to shun you if you have offended their sensibilities. There is no way to legislate against that. If you want to shag a dog in public, the question also needs to be asked as to why doing it in private is not enough for you, given that you might offend people's sensibilities. Homosexual behavior, or any sexual behavior, in private should not offend anyone's sensibilities. It would at least be incumbent on you to ensure that no children were to witness you shagging the dog, as witnessing such a thing could damage a delicate sensibility. And what about the dog? How do you know it consents?
So according to you, it is normal to disconsider homosexuals if they offend our personal sensibilities? This, to my mind, is barbaric. One should not let one's personal sensibilities act as judgements upon others. I hate country music. Yet I would find it horrible to disconsider people who love it.
You are a terrible (and I think, tendentious) mis-reader. I clearly stated that no private sexual behavior should offend anyone's sensibilities. How could it, if it is private? If you shagged, not in extremis, a dog, but merely your girlfriend in public that would offend many people. You may hate country music, but why should it offend you that others listen to it, provided they don't force you to?
Okay, sorry if I misread, as indeed I have. So if I privately shagged a dog, and told other people I did (because why not - I want to express and talk about my sexuality freely), would they not disconsider me?
We may just disagree on this point. I'm trying to say that there is such a thing as practical assent and that you exercise it in this case by speaking freely. It's also called implied assent under social contract theory and is the basis of the state's power and authority over you in a democracy. And from what I can tell, you clearly do accept the state's authority over you, do you not? On what else might it rest in a democratic polity, assuming you do accept its authority?
Quoting Agustino
Agustino, my friend, there is no need to give me your pessimistic bona fides with respect to someone like me. ;)
Yes, the human race is monstrously, painfully, and willfully ignorant, superstitious, and cruel, but where are these Platonic Kings going to come from and how are they to be maintained? Plato's Republic is very beautiful but it strikes me as even more utopian than the project of educating the masses and giving them political power.
Rousseau famously wrote that man is born free but is everywhere in chains. In the context of today's free societies, it seems to me that this phrase needs to be amended to say that everyone is born free but then exercises their liberty to put themselves in chains. People throw away the opportunity to be educated and express their opinions and don't realize just how precious these and other freedoms are until they're gone. But if they do disappear and society returns to autocracy, then how many potential geniuses are lost due to being born into the wrong social status, never getting a chance to kindle their abilities? In a democratic society, the genius is ignored but is able to realize his potential by being given the opportunity to do so. This is tragic, to be sure, but to be preferred in my opinion to an aristocratic or autocratic society in which only those of economic and political privilege can realize their potential. The philosopher kings among us are never and will never be in a position to exercise real power. Those that have done so have been the flukes of history, such as Marcus Aurelius.
I once made a thread in the old forum proposing a theory of constitutional autocracy, since like you, I thought a strong, powerful central monarch in charge best suited the human race, since the latter in democracies always chooses to elect blatantly inept charlatans out of ignorance, but I also wanted to ensure the protection of basic human rights. But this will never happen, and I have effectively abandoned it. Do you think Plato's Republic will be implemented any time soon? If so, then you are more optimistic than I, despite your seeming pessimism above. If not, then why not support liberal democracy? (Or maybe you do but I haven't seen it yet.)
Yes, they may do, and that may be because of their limited capacities for understanding and compassion. The onus would be on you to exercise your discriminatory intelligence when considering who to tell. I personally would not "disconsider" you, as long as I believed you caused no pain to the dog, although I might think your sexual tastes were somewhat deviant insofar as your libido was not directed towards fellow humans, and I might feel somewhat sorry for the dog even though no pain was suffered by him or her, since he or she had no say in the matter.
In any case, being offended by witnessing or hearing about, sexual acts, no matter what their kind, is not ethically equivalent to blanket condemning of specific kinds of sexual behavior that involves consenting participants behind closed doors.
Okay I somewhat follow your point. So you're right on this and I have been somewhat wrong. I'll give you this - although I will still reply that me accepting it even in practice does not mean that I necessarily think it should be accepted in practice by everyone else.
Quoting Thorongil
Agreed.
Quoting Thorongil
I don't know if geniuses will be lost. As far as I know, most geniuses happened in the Renaissance/Enlightenment, which wasn't exactly the most libertarian and democratic stage in European history. If I look around today - there's hardly any geniuses left - all I see is mass idiocy. Does a Stephen Hawking compare even to someone like Einstein, much less to a genius of the stature of Newton? Does the best painter in the world today compare to a Leonardo Da Vinci? Of course not.
Quoting Thorongil
In theory - practice shows us that the temptations of democracies are so great that the genius will become stuck in the easy life, instead of take up his yoke and follow the hard and difficult ascent up the mountain - hence he will be stuck with a puerile and undeveloped intelligence, as he will lack the seriousness needed, and would much prefer bread and circus.
Quoting Thorongil
Unfortunately not.
Quoting Thorongil
I would support them in certain regions of the world, but not everywhere. There are cultural issues that are largely at play. Some people just cannot be governed by liberal democracy.
I think none of the political systems available today are adequate though. We need a different way of organisation, probably closer to a monarchy/meritocracy than a liberal democracy is. It is in fact that that we should be looking for instead of admiring liberal democracy. That is coming up with a different system.
How do you explain Marxism's total hate for the family then? Most of what socialism is has evolved from Marxism afterall.
I think you have a skewed notion of genius, science and painting. It always takes considerable time to see whether particular artists or scientists have been, in fact, great. You should not consider your own limited view to be a very good indicator in such matters.
How far do you want to be able to go in your descriptions of your sexual activity? Do you want to be able to vividly describe everything you and your sexual partners do with one another during your sexual encounters? Do you not think people would be offended if you did that? Would they feel you have offended their moral or merely their aesthetic sensibilities, do you think? Or would they just think you were an insensitive idiot for disregarding your sexual partners' senses of intimacy and privacy?
Certainly, though that's a shame.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, but how is this any different from the same person being tempted by aristocratic privileges in a non-democratic society of the kind you envision and then squandering their abilities?
Quoting Agustino
See, I think we've exhausted all the possibilities and are now faced with choosing the least possible evil. The forms of government that Aristotle wrote about in the Politics are the very same ones we have with us today, and I know of no real exceptions to his taxonomy. This is why I argue for liberal democracy, for it is the best means of preserving and protecting human rights. It seems you might be chasing after a utopia more than I am.
This level of knownothingism really can't get much lower.
If you're so intellectually lazy you can't even read a Wikipedia entry on how socialism's origins predate Marxism, and how it would obviously be more accurate to say socialism led to Marxism, at least you should forebear exposing your laziness in public.
But watch - you'll continue with this idiotic meme despite the facts. It's what conservatives do.
What Marxist hate for the family are you talking about? What passage in Karl Marx's writings leads you to think that Marxism hates families?
Are you talking about the abuse of the individual and the family common in dictatorial, authoritarian, regimes? Or, are you talking about the abuse of the individual and the family common in exploitative capitalist regimes? Look, large scale regimented organizations -- corporate, governmental, military, or ecclesiastical -- tend not to nurture individuals and families, regardless of what their ideological orientation.
My dog has very refined sensibilities. If you insult her by taking liberties she may employ her big sharp canine teeth to correct your indiscretion.
I don't think so - I think it's rather because they disagree morally with my behaviour.
Quoting John
So Muslim people may feel that homosexuals are somewhat deviant insofar as their libido is not directed towards females, as, according to them, God directs it.
Quoting John
I personally agree. But then this is because we share the same values - there is no philosophical necessity in other people sharing the same values that we do.
Quoting John
Since when is it a necessity that genius is not recognized during their own life? Einstein for example was recognized during his life. In the past it often was the case that genius went unrecognized because they didn't have the means to communicate to a wide enough audience, and it took time for their work to spread.
Quoting John
No, they'd just feel jealous (this is meant to be a joke btw).
Quoting John
Both.
Quoting John
This depends on whether my partner is okay with me sharing such information, but yes, they'd most likely think that as well.
Quoting Thorongil
There were more geniuses produced by aristocratic societies than by democratic ones if you look through history. So practically, it seems to have better results at least.
Quoting Bitter Crank
[quote = Communist Manifesto Chapter 2] Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.
And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.
The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.
But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.
The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.
He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.
For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.
Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.
Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private. [/quote]
Marx says that he wants to destroy the bourgeois family, which is in part kept together by the economic needs between man and wife.
He admits that non-communists fear that this will lead to a community of women, where women are free for any to take. He doesn't think that this will happen, however - he admits that it may. At worst, he says, a hypocritically concealed system of "wives in common" will be substituted for an "openly legalised community of women".
Marx fails to see that once economic needs no longer press on him and somehow "force" him to remain with his wife, he is much more likely not to, given man's nature. He also fails to see that the "hypocritically concealed" system is better than the "openly legalised" one, because at least in the hypocritically concealed this is condemned, giving another control mechanism that in the "openly legalised" one will be completely removed.
Most people are too weak emotionally to be able to live a life of virtue. Even the strongest of us will have temptations. Whatever mechanisms can help restrain our temptations in our moments of weakness - those mechanisms should be there. Many times, when I was tempted to do something wrong, I didn't just because I was afraid of the consequences. The mechanism was good - now I thank it - if it wasn't for it, I would've done a lot more wrong than I did even with it.
Quoting Bitter Crank
See - even the dog wouldn't agree to something like this :P
How exactly do you conclude such a thing? Do you keep a running list?
I will name you 10 geniuses from 1550-1650
1. Newton (1642-1726)
2. Galileo Galiei (1564-1642)
3. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
4. Michelangelo Buonarotti (1475-1564)
5. Giordano Bruno (1548-1600)
6. William Shakespeare (1564-1616)
7. Spinoza (1632-1677)
8. Leibniz (1646-1716)
9. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
10. Miguel de Cervantes (1547-1616)
Probably some of the greatest writers, poets, philosophers, scientists, and artists in history there.
I will start your list:
1. Einstein
2. Wittgenstein
Also your idea of keeping a running list is interesting... maybe I should!
I will need to compile a full list sometime soon to check this matter.
What Marx was saying (this in 1844, remember) was that the bourgeoisie (big factory operators) didn't give a rat's ass about the family, and were perfectly willing to exploit men, women, and children for sexual or productive purposes. The bourgeois accused the revolutionaries of the day of wanting to do away with the family, but in fact, the bourgeoisie was already doing precisely that thing.
Very well - but I've argued, and you haven't responded to the argument, that the bourgeoisie doing this behind closed scenes was better than the revolutionaries doing this openly.
I agree.
Poverty, lack of access to intellectual resources, lack of cultural values, high levels of oppression, military conflict.
Just like I attribute the lack of genius in today's world to:
too much social pressure, commercialisation of sex, high levels of misinformation, too much comfort, too much counter culture.
What is best is a median between those two extremes. You don't want an affluent hyper-democrato-capitalist rule of the mob state of affairs as we have now. Neither do you want a closed down monarchy with no regard for the people and full of poverty.
So, from the top one poverty needs to be removed, such that people have access to reasonable amounts of resources, intellectual resources need to be easily available, cultural values need to be promoted, levels of oppression need to be maintained to a minimum, and military conflict must be avoided. From the bottom one, you don't want social pressure (mob-rule via ostracisation and social exclusion), unregulated sex (which is almost enforced via mob-rule) - which increases conflicts between people and prevents them from developing their intelligence, high levels of misinformation so that people can no longer distinguish truth from falsity, too much comfort such that people aren't pushed to do anything useful, and irrational disregard for authority (other geniuses) (this doesn't mean that the authority shouldn't ever be questioned though).
Nobody does this behind closed doors -- neither the bourgeoisie nor the communists, because the millions of recipients know what is happening. (It's like "secret bombing"; certainly no secret to the people getting bombed.) And it's not better being done by the Bourgeoisie or the Communists.
This is rank nonsense.
Real, bona fide geniuses are always rare (at least, that's a characteristic I like to apply to "genius". But even when they are born, they may not flower. Einstein also built on the foundations of previous thinking, previous discoveries, the essential pieces of which were available to him by way of his own education. Had Einstein been born 100 years earlier, he would almost certainly have not been able to come up with relativity and everything preceding it in one fell swoop.
Had Shakespeare been born in 1264 instead of 1564, he might have have written something terrific, or maybe not. Neither the arts, the place, the times, nor the language were in a position to allow a multi-faceted genius to flourish in the way Shakespeare did.
My guess is that most geniuses come to naught because they are born in the wrong time and the wrong place. Wrong place, right place, they are still a rarity.
"Genius" isn't just a matter of a high IQ. It's also creativity, the capacity for very extended concentration and focus on very difficult problems (whatever field genius is expressed in), necessary information, and a certain amount of peace and quiet.
Are these all geniuses? Newton, Galileo, Pascal, Michelangelo, Bruno, Shakespeare, Spinoza, Leibniz, Kepler? Could be - I don't know. Cervantes? Steinbeck? Heidegger? Picasso? Steinbeck? I rather think not. It isn't damning an artist or a scientist or a cowboy to hell to deem them less-than-genius. You know, there isn't any standardized metric for "Genius". It's somewhat a matter of opinion.
This raises the question, "Just what, exactly, do geniuses do? How many are there? How important are they? What good are they? and..." but that is another thread.
This does not change the fact that it was done behind closed doors, and was, in words, repudiated. A society which repudiates such things in words, but nevertheless engages in them is better than one which doesn't repudiate them in words and engages in them. Why? Because at least one remains aware of the effects of not repudiating these things and doesn't seek to justify its actions.
It's a million times better if I steal your money saying "what I'm doing is wrong, I know it, but I'm forced by whatever reasons to do it" than if I steal you money saying "fuckin scum, this is my money, you don't deserve it!"
Yes. But this does not change the fact that the Renaissance and Enlightenment period had more geniuses than the Dark Ages or nowadays. Why? Because society was organised in a way that was more conducive to the production of genius.
So your whole write-up is a red-herring.
Tell that to Albert Einstein :) or Wittgenstein. Or many others.
I'd almost conclude that Agustino is trolling, but Poe's Law makes it impossible to tell
For example, the nuclear family is not new. It is very ancient and world wide. It is still the most efficient way to deal with a wide range of social issues; childhood to elderly care. This will be a Conservative issue. It is based long term thinking, is test proven, and ready for production. The left will attempt R&D and alter this to include other perturbations, such as the single parent family. This may also work, but it is not very efficient. It requires much more propping up by government programs. There is a higher overhead and social cost due to the scaffolding/prosthesis needed to create the illusion of being the same.
The left is like an R&D team, that can be useful for creating new approaches; think out of the box. However, it often goes into production, before the science is fully settled, and all the data is collected. The result tends to be inefficient and wasteful and need a high prosthesis or scaffolding requirement. The Conservatives try to get back to proven production techniques, that are cost effective. This may seem old fashion but it works, but with fewer whistles and bells.
The Liberals instituted PC, to help out people who get hurt feelings, due to words. However, this has a hidden social cost; loss of freedom of speech. Conservatives will look to the past to see what worked best; least social cost. They will stress freedom of speech, and require the over sensitive and neurotic, mature and grow. The higher level of emotional maturity, than leads to even more freedom of speech for all.
In the USA, President Trump is a threat to the left, because he may reduce the funding for social prosthesis and scaffolding. This will make ideas that are not ready for production, appear more suspect since the propping up illusion will be impacted. Tis may result in going back to the R&D drawing board, or looking to the past for efficient solutions. As long as government grows, half baked ideas can appear to look better. If government starts to shrink, only good ideas will look good.
The analogy is in construction. You need a lot of scaffolding to help support some structures, so it looks self standing. However, it is only standing because of the scaffolding. If you take that away it will collapse. Big government is full of scaffolding rigs. Old school ideas did not have the benefit of big government, so they needed to develop different building techniques, not as scaffold dependent.
I would agree with this part at least; liberalism is quite analagous to R&D. And companies/liberal societies that focus on R&D tend to thrive and lead, while companies/conservative societies that are afraid to innovate (invest in R&D) tend to stagnate and fall behind. Of course, there has to be a balance, and implementing the results of R&D can be a risk, but what separates successful companies and successful societies from unsuccessful ones is as much as anything else the extent to which they are willing to discover and implement change.
This analogy doesn't fit. Scaffolding does not support the structure being built. Scaffolding is erected to enable the workers to stand safely next to the structure while they build, paint or renovate it.