We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
English cultural rage The unfortunate but wholly predictable result of British government meddling in the affairs of the countryside:
Militant pro-hunt groups are targeting Labour MPs and government ministers in a growing campaign of abuse, threats and intimidation over the decision to ban hunting.
An MP had a large lump of concrete thrown through his constituency office window while the private homes of three MPs have also been targeted.
What about the root causes of the hunter’s anger and frustration?
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
About time MP’s took some personal responsibility for their decision making. Too often they hide behind a wall of bureaucratic secrecy, and thus avoid any consequence for their, all too often, dogmatic political lawmaking.
If they wish to make laws, just to show how ‘pro-active’ they can be, then let them be prepared for the consequences.
Ironic that in the past it has been those of the ‘lefty’ persausion, who have freely resorted to letting their displeasure be known by disobedience and violence. As has been said, “What goes around, comes around”…
I fail to understand how libertarians of any stripe can advocate the initiation of violence to express political views.
David is advocating it but rather explaining why it is happening.
And in any case it shows how little you know of ‘liberatrian’ ideas: if the state passes a tyrannous law, resistance to that law is not ‘initiation’ of violence but rather a violent reaction to a violence based law: a law that threaten a person with arrest if they join with other like minded folks on private property to hunt.
Rick,
Would defence of a traditional lifestyle be a good enough reason?
And who said that libertarians had to be ‘pussy cats’, and be expected to roll-over when a pip-squeak squeaks?
Politicians wish that so-called politics were limited to mere debate or discussion, – that life could be that pure and simple, – it isn’t, most of us are too busy earning a living, to play their silly games. When they screw-up, they must expect to get slapped….and hard, – real democracy at work…. it’s called ‘taking responsibility’.
See the motto in the side-bar? I don’t know what sissified form of libertarianism you follow, but you interfere with me, I’ll bite, democratic decision or not.
As much as the Left are waging their ‘class war’, so should we, of different beliefs be waging our war against their piracy and lunacy…
Gee, that would justify a violent response to taxation, speeding tickets, anti-abortion laws, pro-abortion laws, etc.
The rejection of the initiation of violence to achieve social or political ends has now been declared meaningless.
What “libertarian” means, here, is that we will create the government we think to be best by any means including violence, but once we have thereby created that government, no further violence will be allowed, because our government will, by definition, have no “tyrannous law”.
This is a philosophy that Genghis Khan could have appreciated.
Rick: I could reply your post in detail but it would be off topic. Summary: we do not believe government is above the law.
“Gee, that would justify a violent response to taxation, speeding tickets, anti-abortion laws, pro-abortion laws, etc.
The rejection of the initiation of violence to achieve social or political ends has now been declared meaningless.”
Yeah, so what?
There is no “rejection of the initiation of violence” or intimidation by the state, why should an individual or group reject that approach?
Let us Fisk:
A violent response to taxation… you mean like the Boston Tea Party? Hell, the whole American Revolution actually. Yes, that is quite right, when law becomes tyranny then the violence used to enforce that tyranny can legitimately be met with violence. It is just a matter of making the right decision which issues are intolerable and which do not really justify opposing with force. This is why it really helps to have an understanding of how to form conjectural moral theories rather than just rely on crude utilitarianism.
Maybe you rejected violence to achieve political ends but I never did. I supported the war against the Iraqi Ba’athists and the Taliban, so I am hardly someone who objects to the idea of using violence to achieve political ends. However I note you bizarrely conflate social and political. A common mistake, but a mistake nevertheless. I am not in favour of using violence for social ends as I have no difficulty telling the difference.
Quite so. After all, there will be so little government of any sort by current standards that it could hardly be an issue.
Ah, I must have missed the bit where Temujin espoused a non-collectivist laissez faire minimal state. The problem you seem to have is differentiating between degrees of something and also assuming everyone else has the same problem. Thus opposition to restrictions of free association on private property are much the same as throwing a brick at a traffic warden for giving someone a parking ticket. Yet in reality most folks have no problem telling the difference when tolerable law becomes intolerable law.
Errr…I think that’s what a lot of people here actually do advocate, at least in their hearts of darkness…;-)
Scary, yes. But consistent. I remember Perry arguing with me that he would be justified in greeting the taxman with firearms (I still have copies of the emails). Now, I think he has modified his position a bit as time has passed, but I think some of his colleagues still think that way…..
Regarding the original post: The affairs of “the countryside” are well within the purview of the ministers, like it or – as you obviously don’t – not. (If that’s not a double negative.)
And why is it when pro-hunt protesters do it (with whom, incidentally, I am in sympathy) it is libertarian resistance to an oppressive state, but when others (Poll Tax protesters, Miners etc) do it, it is civil disobebience of a “lefty” nature?
Perry and Julian: One of you could be correct, but not both. The Government (in this instance) makes the law under a sort of democratic mandate. Therefore it is not above the law, but OF it.
Resistance to or Protest at it is sanctioned if within certain parameters. Outside those parameters it is something akin to rebellion. If libertarianism sanctions that, it is extra-legal and akin to anarchic.
And as Perry knows, I think, all laws are “violence-based”. If there is no enforcement of sanction, there is no law. Even in a Libertarian Utopia. Unfortunate, but Human Nature.
Tom wrote a good pamphlet. Society and Government are demonstatively different, accepted. But do not your “social ends” trespass upon the (admittedly self-ascribed) “political concerns” of Government?
Tom’s governmental and societal tensions are very much of the 18th century and are rather different from those that confront us today….
In today’s milieu, what are your parameters for the use of violence, Perry, and how deadly might that violence allowably be?
I take your remark about private e-mails as something akin to a threat. Well I still do think most taxation as illegitimate theft.
However clearly it would not be an effective strategy to shoot at tax men at this juncture, or even in the foreseeable future, as there is obviously not much of a supporting constituency for that sort of thing right now. Such an approach would be counter-productive and therefore not supportable on the grounds that violence is usually only justified if it can reasonably expect to result in moral ends.
So? Throwing concrete is within the purview of people on the receiving end of unjust laws, like it or not. I am not convinced it is a good idea but I am not yet convinced it is an entirely bad one either.
Because it is not the use of violence that is the issue, but why violence is used. One can support the principle of using violence at appropriate times but then judge that a given use of violence is not appropriate. No real mystery there.
So what? A democratically sanctified tyranny is still a tyranny and being democratic does not really matter. We are not quite there in Britain at the moment.
Am I the only one that noticed the conspicuous abscence, in the link, of the terms “insurgent” or “freedon fighter,” etc.? There were references to “thuggish” and “criminal” elements, but, since they’re targeting their own Gov’t officials in time-honored fashion, they must be dangerously irresponsible subversives that must be stamped out at ALL COST.
If they take to blowing up marketplaces, bus depots, schools, etc., they might find a bit more sympathy in the media.
Only in some ways, in other it is startlingly similar.
That is unanswerable. Context context context. In any case I have no intention of setting myself up for an ‘incitement to violence’ charge just now thanks, so go fish somewhere else.
No threat at all…Like Blunkett says, if you have nothing to hide, why be afraid?
LOL
Seriously, everyone is allowed to modify their views, and even if you haven’t, we still know you’re a big cuddly bear…;-) And those emails will remain private, as long as the usual sum is delivered to the usual address, at the usual time….
No it isn’t, not under English Law. Dis-elect the bastards, fine, but you can’t kill them. Or even bruise them too badly.
So “appropriate” means when MY guys do it….or how else would you distinguish between different episodes of Civil Disobedience?
Is there a principle here, and would you care to define it??
Violence in the support of liberty may be moral. Violence enforcing the suppression of liberty generally ain’t. Simple really.
Miners rioting because their tax subsidised jobs are being axed: not legitimate.
Hunter rioting because their liberty to freely associate to conduct activities on private property: may well be legitimate, but again… depends on context.
Well, that’s a point of view. And democracy is riddled with error and compromise, true. But what else is there? Fascism, Communism, Anarchy, Monarchy/Aristocracy…?
If you define Tyranny as somebody else prevailing upon you about what you ought to do….well, that’s a part of living in a society. You reject all foreign influence on your own judgement, you reject society and you become an island.
I agree there is a limit to this, but if you don’t accept societal modification of your personal freedom at all, we are probably beyond rational intercourse.
But hey, let’s argue anyway, ‘cos it’s fun….
John Ellis says “Perry and Julian: One of you could be correct, but not both. The Government (in this instance) makes the law under a sort of democratic mandate. Therefore it is not above the law, but OF it.”
The law is property and self-ownership, plus the various common-sense rules for the handling thereof. These constitute natural justice.
Democracy is not a mandate. There can be no mandate to defy justice.
Legislation is not law. At best, legislation codifies law. At worst, it enforces lawlessness. No loyalty is owed to legislation per se.
Perhaps not so simple. When people disagree about what “liberty” includes, then your philosophy will justify violence on the part of any party that believes its liberty has been violated.
You frequently refer to your principles of moral rights, but declaim to give the details on the grounds that it would take too long and you feel that if we had any brains we would already know.
Yet your entire argument that you know when violence is justified and when it is not depends on the objective moral rights to which you allude.
Somehow, I get the feeling that you do not want to specify the basis of your objective moral rights because that basis is not as sound as you imply.
May….Generally….not a principle then, more of a guidleine. And that’s fine, I rather support moral dis-absolutism …. And about the tax-subsidised nature of mining jobs…no disagreement, But are they not equally entitled to protest? Or do you have to be politically sound before you can be politically active?
Julian,
Nope, under the commonly-accepted view of our English “Constitution”, the Government can make Law. New Law if need be. Judges enforce and/or interpret it, but the ultimate court is a democratically-elected one.
Loyalty is owed such legislation. You may renege on that loyalty, but don’t be surprised if that leads to imprisonment or exile.
Sez you. Justify your love….
John Ellis: “But are they not equally entitled to protest? Or do you have to be politically sound before you can be politically active?”
I have no problem with protests from anybody, for anything, provided property is respected. I don’t think hunt supporters have a right to mess up the private property of innocent third parties, nor trespass thereon. Note that “public property” is basically claimed by the government, their legitimate adversary. So it’s open season on “public property”.
If somebody’s protesting for an evil cause, eg: anti-capitalist anti-globalization marchers, then I’ll be merciless in my taunting – but violence would not be justified.
Julian,
OK, we could have another debate about the relative value of private property vis-a-vis individual life/freedom. And “public property” is a new concept here that I would like to have defined. But you must accept that your definition of anti-capitalism/globalisation as “evil” is hugely subjective, unless you can provide a cogent argument.
Can you? If so, taunt away….If not……Well.
But they can mess up “public property”…? What is “innocent” here? How do you define “public”? Is the police, public?
John Ellis: Hmm hmm, so many questions. Others have done better private property explanations. Still, I’ll work on composing one so I can post it on this thread.
Meanwhile, you asked “But they can mess up “public property”…? What is “innocent” here? How do you define “public”? Is the police, public?“.
Innocent means, a person who has not wronged them.
Public, I’m using here as in “public sector”, which is admittedly a slightly distorted use but should be comprehensible. I mean: any building or land or chattels claimed by the state, or official quangos. Are the police “public”? The police are people, so they’re outside the scope of the definition. Police materials and facilities are public.
Yes, having a valid beef against the state, hunt supporters can legitimately mess up “public property”, and trespass on it. (Note that having the moral right on ones side doesn’t necessarily make such action sensible, strategic, or safe.)
But you are not talking about society but rather the state. Not the same thing. I am all for social pressure, but that is not the same as the Islington set (or the Kensington & Chelsea set for that matter) outlawing things they do not like.
I thought we were discussing political violence, not protests.
In principle there can be no libertarian objection against the use of violence against the State. However, in practice it is a bad idea. The State is bigger and stronger and so we are likely to be imprisoned or killed if we try to defend ourselves against its depredations.
But as I say, in principle we should regard the State and its agents as no different to any other bunch of criminals; and should reserve to ourselves the right to act accordingly.
They’re not huntsmen, they’re terrorists.
I’m using here as in “public sector”, which is admittedly a slightly distorted use but should be comprehensible. I mean: any building or land or chattels claimed by the state, or official quangos. Are the police “public”? The police are people, so they’re outside the scope of the definition. Police materials and facilities are public.
So, it would be okay to vandalize a public park, or wreck a bus stop, in protest?
“So, it would be okay to vandalize a public park, or wreck a bus stop, in protest?”
Theoreticaly, although IMO it would be a bit harsh to completely not discriminate between various parts of government this way. One might even make the case that county goverment, which operates parks and bus-stops, is sufficiently devolved as to not be part of the same mechanism as westminster government, is not at fault in this case, and so ought not to be targeted. (Such a judgement being subject to change if the county actually starts enforcing any hunt ban.)
I’m going to have to side with Perry on this one, though the position is hard to articulate.
The social and political distinction is the pivotal issue here. It’s just like abortion or gay marriage. Personally, I find both morally reprehensible. If I had some gay friends who were considering marriage I would invest as much time an energy into my friends trying to convince them to change their thinking. I would appeal to their conscience, I would appeal to their reason, I would use everything I could think of, SHORT OF POLITICAL MUSCLE.
On the other hand if the federal government was to forbid my friend from making the decision by force I would be one of the first in line to oppose that imposition (perhaps even violently).
Perhaps the origins of Parliaments supremacy in the English Civil War should be examined.Not a few of the discontents on the Parliamentary side were of the same nature as the banning of foxhunting.
Parliaments supremacy is wholly based on violence,the social contract that exists between Parliament and the populace is being broken by our rulers on a vast scale,from law and order,education,immigration,the EU,this is just another nail in the coffin.
To the hunters:
You guys have big balls. Bravo.
What a pity that after all the political tyranny that the UK has had to endure during the past ten years, and all suffered with so much bovine passivity, that it should be fox hunting that stirs so much disquiet, not to the point of open rebellion, but close enough to cause concern among the saner members among us.
Of all the more important issues, – the destruction of our judiciary, the emasculation of the Upper house, the neutering, and total submission of the Police, the destruction of the Education and Health systems, the whole ‘statefication’ of every facet of life, the ultimate destruction of our society as being, in any meaningful way, capable of being regarded as civilised. That it has taken some stupid little piece of legislation against a minority group, who were harming no one, to arouse the ire of Old John Bull.
You can kill my sheep, you can kill my beef, and I will stand there and let you do it, with hardly a whimper, but deny me my hunt and I will get really annoyed…so says the Farmer, Landowner or whoever has a proprietorial interest (i.e. the Hunt fraternity), in the countryside.
There is probably a word to describe this attitude, but it escapes me at the moment, stupid or foolish, does not really capture the essence of their way of thinking, and is probably not a fair description.
None of it makes sense, – that things have come to such a pass, over what is essentially trivia, is a sure indication that all is not well in the UK, either politically, socially or communally. Does anyone else get the feeling that the end may well be nigh?…
ernest young: In itself the ban’s cold-bloodedly expedient, contemptuous, condescending and spiteful, picking on the little guy, lacking any pretense of good intent. In context, it has become the “last straw”. Support for hunting cuts across a wider political base than any other isolated issue, and it lends itself readily to a principled last stand for liberty. Naturally it has become a rallying point.
While civil disobediance to some dgreee may be legitimate in some circumstances, the targeting of MP’s private home, where the possible families and children live and have the right to consider safe, is morally dispicable and gutless.
Throwing concrete lumps at politician’s offices? Sounds a lot like the fight for women’s suffrage in the beginning of the last century.
ernest young: “Does anyone else get the feeling that the end may be nigh…”
I sincerely hope so!
ernest young: “does anone else get the feeling that the end is nigh…”
I sincerely hope so!
Your point was already asked and answered several times before. People can disagree all they like but some will be doing so on the basis of falsified moral theories and others will not. In other words it does not matter what they believe, only what is true.
Yes. You form a critical prefence for a moral theory.
Beacuse reducing it to a few paragraphs is very difficult, though actually I *have* laid it out before and you seem to have not grasped it, so I am clearly not doing a good job. ALthough I do not agree with Randian epistemology, Rand does a good job of explaining how you derive objective moral theories, so go read some Rand…and then go read some Popper to figure out how to repair Rand’s epistemology to make it all work better.
With all due respect, you need to do your own first principles work if you want to get your head around the whole ‘critical prefences’ and ‘conjectural understanding of objective reality’ thing.
Personally, I think these tyranical MPs should consider themselves lucky to still be above room temperature.
I see two reasonable courses of action for the hunters:
1) Start hunting MPs, but without dogs. You wouldn’t want to ruin the training of a good dog by getting it accustomed to the chasing of humans, though the dogs could probably easily tell the difference between the odor of these MPs and real humans.
2) Go about their hunting as usual and shoot dead anyone who tries to stop them.
It is rather amusing to see Peter Hain bleating about the actions of a few pro-hunt protestors. Considering some of the things he got up and has been accused of doing, a few broken windows (noxious though it is) is rather minor.
My money. Sure.
My guns. OK
My children. If you say you say it’s for their own good.
My fox hunting. Now it’s war.
I guess you’ve got to start somewhere.
Shawn,
So it is OK for the pip squeaks to throw metaphorical stones at us (the public), via their irreponsible legislation, all of which affect us and our families, but it is despicable and gutless for any sort of retaliation… how else do we show our displeasure and disagreement, they either ‘cock-a-deaf-‘un’, or find some other weasel way to disregard the views of those who object to their, usually, petty minded laws.
Metaphorically they have thrown the first stone, and without any regard for the damage down to our offspring, the effects of which will be felt for many years. At least a stone on the noggin heals in a week…why should we have any regard for them or theirs.
They just love folk like you when you invoke the code of morality, and label others as ‘gutless’, when in truth, it is they who are the gutless wonders..
All’s fair in Love and War, and believe me, this is war, and has been for many years, only now does John Bull realise that fact….
Ernest Young asks an interesting question about why the hunting ban, of all the things this government has done, has caused such a massive reaction.
I think the Government has underestimated the hunting community, both in numbers and in its resolve.
When people accept Government handouts, either working in a nationalised industry like mining or medicine, or a highly regulated and subsidised sector like livestock farming, they implicitly accept the Government’s authority to tell them what to do. They may protest about the decisions Government makes, but they keep taking the money. With the foot and mouth crisis, there was arguably some scientific basis for culling livestock being the best way to protect the longterm viability of the industry – it wasn’t just that MPs got up one morning and decided to slaughter livestock for fun. And there was a compensation scheme to protect farmers from disastrous financial loss.
Changes to schools and hospitals – again it is the Government paying the bills so few people working in those organisations question the ultimate authority of the state to make those decisions.
Those involved in hunting, however, are financing the activity themselves. It is something they get together and do. There is no question in their minds that this is a gross infringement of their freedom.
Last week I was in Neath, Peter Hain’s constituency and two things were clear from the conversations I had with local people – the ban on hunting has aroused great anger and it is not just toffs who are involved in hunting. Peter Hain seemed genuinely shocked when a couple of hundred protestors turned up outside his house in Resolven and he found out that his own working class constituents are involved in hunting, not just rich farmers.
Peter Hain seemed shoocked when
Your confusion, Perry, lies in your assumption that your objective moral theory is the only one that could be true, because you believe that it is the only objective moral theory that has not yet been falsified.
There is always room for differences of opinion regarding what particular theories have been falisified. Scientific history is replete with examples of competing theories where some scientists believed they could falsify all both one theory while others believed that they could falsify all but another theory.
There is no means of assuring that there will be only one unfalsified theory at a time. Moreover, there is no means of assuring that all scientists will agree at any point in time as to which theories have actually been falsified.
Hence, we always live in a reality of some uncertainty, with viable competing theories.
Your claim to have the right to violently overthrow the government’s ban on fox-hunting depends not only on your objective moral theory being unfalsified, but on there being no other such unfalsified theory that supports that ban. Since you can not prove that there is no other such theory, you can not justify your use of violence.
Your confusion is that I think there is only one moral theory which could be ‘true’ (not yet falsified)… as I have stated that all theories are conjectural, clearly it would be bizarre to think only THIS conjecture could be the best explanation of reality… it is at best the most complete theory at the moment that I am aware of. But until a better one comes along, that is what informs my actions.
That there may be many theories does not make all theories equal and that is why we form a critical preference for the best theory we can find and act in accordance with it. Hence I might conclude one act of violence is a reasonable course of action whilst another is not.
That does not mean I think my moral theories are always better that someone else’s but I express my views based on the theories I hold of course.
That however has NOTHING to do with some other person thinking their moral theories are better. If one is not trapped by dogmatism, one can adjust theories on the basis on new information as more objectives facts are discovered. When it is appropriate to use violence for example, well, people of good will might agree to differ but very few actually take a pacifist position that it is never justified, so deciding to throw rocks at politicians is not per se something I have a problem with… most folks would regard Hitler or Stalin or Saddam Hussein as legitimate targets for violence, moreover extending the range of legitimate targets to supporters of those people is also not much of a leap… but at the opposite end of the continuum, is it alright to throw rocks at a parish councillor in Britain circa 2004, who is far removed from whatever means of repression has induced some to use violence against ‘The System’?
One group of people imposes certain restrictions on several liberty via the collective means of coercion (i.e. the law), by virtue of their control of the democratic political processes of the state… and the minority group decides that the democratic political process has overstepped tolerable bounds and react s with violence of its own… the theory that is is CLEARLY justified at times is a no-brainer. For example at the extreme end, if a majority vote for all black people to be rounded up and shot, clearly democratic sanctification does not mean that black people in that country and not justified shooting dead any policeman that tries to arrest them for being black. Also at the other end, it is not reasonable to shoot someone for giving you a traffic ticket. The principle is clear however: there comes a point in a political system that it has become sufficiently repressive that responding with violence is appropriate and moral. So then all we are really arguing over is… when exactly is that point reached?
From the excellent Laban Tall blog, native middle-class Brits are leaving their homeland in record numbers:
Goodbye England
The clueless New Statesmen **wonders** if the exodus has something to do with “multiculturalism.”
Yes, NS, the hard-working, law-abiding, decent pigeons who pay for all the diversity coordinators, BBC license fees, prison liaisons and welfare benefits for the followers of Captain Hook and Sheikh Half-Baked and their multiple wives and scads of non-integrating brats, and who receive in turn nothing but the “privilege” of watching their own culture and traditions trashed and destroyed at a dizzying pace, are flying the coop! Fancy that!
Perry,
I not do believe that there is anything in your last post with which I would directly disagree. You acknowledge the infallibility of your preferred moral theory. In addition, you acknowledge that we are arguing over the point at which violent reaction against the state is justified, and you do not appear to claim an objective standard to determine when this point has been reached.
Hence, there is first the issue of whether your preferred theory is really the best available. You believe it is, but recognize that other existing theories might actually be better.
The second issue is whether the state’s violation of your preferred moral theory is severe enough to warrant a violent reaction by yourself or others of similar belief. Since we have no objective standard of this severity, it seems to be a simple matter of judgment.
Your original statement in this sequence appeared to state that a violent reaction is justified if the state prohibits hunting on private property:
As others have opined here, prohibitions of fox hunting are hardly the most serious examples of British restrictions on liberty in the last 50 years. Government control of health care and of the news media quickly come to mind as much more severe constraints on liberty.
What bothers me most is the implication that violence against the government would be justified with respect to most of what government does, since fox-hunting prohibitions are less severe than so much else that the government does to restrict liberty.
As a libertarian, you would probably sanction only violence against excess govenment. But others who “prefer” a moral theory that calls for income redistribution might sanction violence against insufficient government.
Those who “prefer” orthodox Islamic law might sanction suicide bombers in streetcars.
In the end, I get little comfort from preferred moral theory and its judgmental application.
Huh? How can a theory be infallible? I said no such thing and that makes no sense at all.
The fact that something is objective does not make it any less conjectural and I think that is where you are a tad confused.
Likewise the fact other people have other theories, and therefore do other things (like, say the late Osama bin Laden), is not really germane. They will do what they think is right and I will do what I think is right. If their theories (which they probably do not realise are theories) are based on what ‘God’ said in some old book, then I would suspect my moral theories are probably more likely to reflect objective reality than their moral theories.
Quite so, but so what? That is hardly a revelation, is it? That is simply a truism.
Sorry to break it to you but reality is not there for your comfort. The amusing thing here is you took my preference for objectively derived moral theories (rather than some sort of subjective utilitarian approach) as a statement that I was in dogmatic possession of The Truth, whereas in reality that seems from your final remark that it is you who actually aspires to justified certainty. There is no such thing.
In reality the reason I prefer liberty over overweening statism is that I do not trust others with political power, precisely because of the implications of giving others coercive power in a world in which ‘what is the right thing to do’ is usually so unclear. THAT is the objective root of my moral and political theories.
re Perry’s initial comment – ALL laws are ‘violence based’ in that the State can imprison you/take your money or goods if you break them (they can also take your money anyway – and imprison you for resisting, but tax is another story).
Nonetheless people can resist unjust laws – but the price you pay is State action against you. In a democracy people really shouldn’t break the law – but the Government’s response to lawbreaking has been so ambivalent over the years that people look at the precedents and say ‘they got their way by direct action – why shouldn’t we ?’.
Whether this will work boils down to the will of those in power. They have not shown the will in the cases of Ulster, animal testing insitutions or crime generally. They did show the will in the case of the miners. Will smashing hunting be Blair’s equivalent ?
(and while I appreciate skcole’s plug above, I feel it may not be completely on topic .. though lord knows I need all the plugs I can get ..)
I’m almost certain he meant “fallible”.
Very interesting comment section for this post!
Perry,
I apologize, but in my last post I wrote “infallible” when I meant “fallible”, in reference to your characterization of your moral theory. Even so, you might have figured that out if you had noticed that I restated this as:
Hence, most of your response is irrelevant to my post. I have fully recognized that you acknowledge the fallibility of your moral theories, as well as the lack of any standard to determine when violence in defense of these theories is justified.
However, despite your acknowledgment of fallibility, you are quick to condone violence against government and reluctant to respect the democratic process. This reveals a lack of respect for the views of others. While you acknowledge your fallibility, you fail to see the implications thereof.
1. Trap foxes and release them in the suburbs where they can feed on pussycats and small dogs.
2. Continue the hunt, but with the announced goal of spaying and/or neutering the fox and making sure he has all his shots.
Huh? Moral theories are used to establish standards to determine when violence is appropriate! Otherwise what do you think they are for? Why bother to have moral theories at all?
I would hardly say I was ‘quick to condone’ however, just that I understand the reasons why some people are using violence, what sort of process for deciding if it is appropriate is involved and what the continuum of states puts it all into context.
But you are quite right that I have very little respect for the increasingly unfettered modern British democratic processes that have let to a sort of populist authoritarianism that is beginning to develop.
If you mean I have no respect for the views of others when they wish to have those views imposed on me by force, well you got me at last, guv… guilty as charged. Banged to rights. It’s a fair cop, etc. etc.
You see, if I am not going to impose my views on others by force because my views are fallible, I expect the same in return because theirs are also fallible, regardless of how popular or not they might be. If I am not extended that courtesy, do not expect me to feel obliged to play by those rules if they will not.
You previously said:
When your refer to “making the right decision which issues… do not really justify… force”, are you claiming that your moral theories not only tell you that a ban on fox hunting is wrong, but also whether this ban is “intolerable” to the degree that one is justified in opposing it with force?
Does this mean that your moral theories can rate the degree of wrongness of government acts? That is, do your moral theories not only specify which acts of government are wrong, but also which of those acts warrant only non-violent opposition, and which are so intolerable that a violent response is justified?
Do you further claim that your moral theory tells you what degree of violence is warranted? That is, does the ban on fox-hunting justify only a brick through a government window, or also a brick through the private window of an agent complicit in that ban, or also a brick against the head of such an agent, or also a bullet through the head of such an agent?
Forgive me, but I am sceptical that you can specify an objective moral theory that identifies appropriate violence with such precision, except in the extremes of rejecting all violence or of accepting all violence against a “wrong” government action.