The French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo is in trouble again – this time for publishing two cartoons about drowned Syrian refugees. And anybody who believes in unfettered free speech needs to stand up for Charlie’s liberty to offend the pro-refugee and anti-racist lobbies just as staunchly as its right to offend Islam.
|
|||||
|
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] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the daySeptember 15th, 2015 |
 107 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
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. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
As the article says the real target of the cartoons was Western “consumer” society.
However, even if the target was the migrants – look at the language of the critics.
“hate crime” – to be “reported to the International Criminal Court”.
So this is what these new institutions (such as the “International Criminal Court”) are for…..
To crush Freedom of Speech and establish world tyranny.
China and the Islamic world also – will learn to love the “International Criminal Court” just as they came to love the “United Nations Charter” and so on.
These documents and institutions are always dressed up Western “Classical Liberal” language (just as organs of opinion – such as the Economist magazine, are).
But when looks at the small print……
And not by accident.
These people are totalitarians.
They are not open totalitarians – but they are totalitarians.
They will not even tolerate cartoons that they believe “discriminate”.
They wouldn’t even stand up for themselves.
IMO, there are two ridiculous parties to address.
1. The idiots that are “offended” by everything and want to abuse state powers to limit what others can say and/or how they say it.
2. Those that call for “tolerance” of everything, “tolerance” in principle.
Sorry, both are extremists. Rights of free speech means that government has no business limiting your free speech, but it does not mean to be able to say anything at any time with complete impunity to the natural consequences of your actions. An 18yr old girl has the right to walk outside a biker bar at 2 in the morning wearing nothing but a bikini, but I wouldn’t recommend it, nor would I call for government to dictate where 18yr old girls can walk, or when.
There has to be some allowance for people to take responsibility for their own actions, like ADULTS. If you slap a bear, you can talk about injustice after the fact all you want, but you’ll still be sitting there with a bitten off face.
It just like being a practising homosexual or a committed homosexual.
China has consistently refused to join the ICC, because of its’ own meddling in other countries (Tibet, Uighurs, etc.), and thus the chance that it might be hauled before the ICC.
Some people (not me, you understand) might say that they agree with most of the comments above, in principle, but that there probably should be room for the ICC to have jurisdiction in some more genuine criminal matters – for example (say), US or other presidents demonstrating sloppy thinking, potential fraud, or outright moronic policies/propaganda, or men making an ugly spectacle of themselves in public by cross-dressing and especially the wearing of high heels/stilettos – but I couldn’t possibly comment.
Thailover, sorry, but I think you’re wrong.
An 18 year-old girl in a bikini does have the right to walk past a biker bar at 2am. And if she suffers as a consequence, the perpetrators should be punished, severely. If she does not have that right then, when else does she not have it? Walking down the high street at midday? On the beach?
A person who goads a dog to the point that it bites him is not deserving of sympathy. Dogs have no free will or sense of right and wrong – they’re dogs, after all – and, at some point, will bite. By contrast, bikers are human beings who do have free will and do understand the difference between right and wrong; those who choose wrong should be punished.
And if an 18 year-old girl in a bikini should not walk past a biker bar at 2am, perhaps a homosexual should not walk past a mosque.
Very good point – and neither of them should ever walk past a mosque. They’d be a bleeding idiots if they did. That’s precisely where the ICC could come in useful, to protect such idiots from making those sorts of bad life/death choices.
Schrodinger’s Dog- you forgot to mention whether it would be wise to do so, in either case. Perhaps in Texas. If we all went round armed, then this might even be a wise decision. Has anyone come up with a gun that looks good on a bikini? (Could be a vast market!)
Being a moron is, to the best of my knowledge, no bar to being the President of the USA.
Obviously.
China has consistently refused to join the ICC, because of its’ own meddling in other countries (Tibet, Uighurs, etc.), and thus the chance that it might be hauled before the ICC.
The Chinese would argue strenuously that the Uighurs have been part of China for quite some time, and was historically within its borders before then. Tibet too. The situation is complicated, but the Chinese position is not without merits.
Before we race off to condemn the Chinese, let us think how much more right the UK has to Gibraltar, the Falklands etc. They have the right of possession take by outright force, and pretty much nothing else.
The US has had some land-grabs of base morality from Mexico. And why do they get Hawaii? Ah, yes, it’s a super important naval base. Silly me!
Spain has Ceuta. Russia has Kalingrad. France has Savoie. Germany has Schleiswig. India has Kashmir.
But no, we have to bang on about the Chinese as if they are somehow worse.
Chest of Draws, the Chinese are grabbing more, or trying to, right now! That is why we keep banging on about it. Have you heard about the South China Seas, and the land grabs going on there?
Chester:
The UK’s possession of both Gibraltar and the Falklands is backed up by the overwhelming support of the populations there. This fits with the UN ideal of ‘right of self-determination’.
Well said.
Reminds me of an old Maistre quote that has a similar point:
And when one notes the waves of refugees are not heading south, I suspect the same is true of Ceuta.
As Mick Hume goes on to say
“The new backlash against Charlie Hebdo has exposed the truth behind the free speech fraud we witnessed after the January massacre. The false image projected then was of a Western world united behind the ‘Je Suis Charlie’ banners, defending freedom of expression against the barbarians at the gate. The truth, as we argued from the first on spiked, was that the more powerful and insidious threats to free speech came from within the citadels of civilisation itself. Indeed, those freedom-hating Islamist gunmen were not alien imports so much as products of the prevailing mood in Western society, where free speech is increasingly out of fashion and we spend far more time discussing how to limit our most precious liberty than defend and expand it.”
Indeed. I always suspected that very few of those who marched, protested, and shouted “Je Suis Charlie” were actually motivated by a belief in freedom of speech.
Chester,
Argentina’s claim to the Falkland Islands is one of the Big Lies of 20th Century history, based on nothing more than a landing by a murderer and rapist and his criminal gang, followed by an invasion over 140 years later. The claim also now extends to South Georgia, which, laughably, has no name in Spanish, hence they call the island group ‘Georgias del Sur‘, acknowledging King George of England. Of course, if, by some chance, it was found that Captain Cook, that intrepid Yorkshireman, happened to actually be Argentinian, then they might have a bit more of a claim. As it stands, Peru has a stronger claim to Paddington Bear than Argentina has to the Falkland Islands. Argentina’s claim is nothing more than Hispanophone chauvinism, and hatred of the Anglosphere and its relative freedom.
Spain ceded Gibraltar to England, forever. The locals wish to remain under British rule, and the local Spanish seem happy to have a low-tax prosperous economy at hand to mitigate the effect of Madrid rule. And Spain took Ceuta from Portugal, but at least they had a referendum of sorts, and they voted to join Spain. Spain also occupies Olivença.
Schrodinger’s Dog-Stunning reductio absurdum.
Slartibartfarst-etc. I SUPPOSE the ICC can justify vaporization of say “Death to Israel” folk.
Blah blah blah Falklands. Some twit beaches their boat and sticks a flag in the sand?
How about, whoever defends the land against all comers, such that it’s no longer economically feasible to continue “mining”, invasion, or assault?
Mindful that I speak from a United States (formerly known as The Colonies, and Turtle Island before that)bias of course.
UN? ICC? SERIOUSLY? Or else…WHAT? In the USA, nancy boys and girls use the Department of the Treasury to “threaten” and “punish” folks that simply don’t toe their own line in the sand!
Renewed protests against Charlie Hebdo’s printing of allegory? DEMANDS that someone else “do something” about it? SERIOUSLY? Or else….WHAT?
*sheesh*, Sit down, and Shut The Fu<k Up!
There's a band of marauding migratory parasitic invaders, of suitable age to battle/work, unwilling to defend/cultivate/mine their OWN land against all comers, to "address"!
@Thailover
> 1. The idiots that are “offended” by everything …2. Those that call for “tolerance” of everything
Maybe I am wrong here, but it seems to me that it is usually the same people who make both claims at the same time. Which seems very strange. I have no problem with people being offended by whatever, or people who demand tolerance in everything. What I do have a problem with is when they cheat — when instead of doing the hard work of convincing me and others that we too should be “offended” or “tolerate” their particular cause de jour, they shortcut the process and try to use the government to make me do it under threat of criminal sanction.
Being a silly douche is one thing, being a cheater and a totalitarian douche is a whole other thing.
I am sure I am like many of you here in that I think that people use these things like Charlie to hear their own voices rather than for any other reason. There really is a certain visceral pleasure in being offended, and being offended with a group of similarly minded individuals is even more fun. Being offended together parties are a lot of fun, and a great way to meet potential dating partners, I hear. And I suppose being offended at people’s lack of tolerance is just another form of the same thing.
I mean there are lots of things that are published that offend me, I just don’t read them. Perhaps I am missing out on all the fun, all the bonding? Of course, perhaps I am off base on that. After all that previous article said that I had to “engage” with the work to have an opinion… so perhaps that is it. Perhaps bikini girl needs to engage with the biker bar to really know what is going on there.
Oh, and just for the record… I am offended by the stereotype being promulgated here about bikers, and for that matter 18 year old bikini girls.
+1 Schrodinger’s Dog -1 Thailover
Thailover, what you are putting forward
‘There has to be some allowance for people to take responsibility for their own actions, like ADULTS. If you slap a bear, you can talk about injustice after the fact all you want, but you’ll still be sitting there with a bitten off face.’
is the classic argument of those who just want ‘common sense’ restrictions on speech and expression, and reinforces a soft bigotry of low expectations – you shouldn’t offend those Muslims, because they always resort to violence, they just can’t help themselves.
Well, guess what? They CAN help themselves, and have shown themselves perfectly willing to do things they don’t want to do – if the consequences are sufficiently persuasive. And protecting innocent people from those who perpetrate violence against them because they are ‘offended’ should be one of the basic police functions of any civilized state.
To extend the biker-bar-and-bikini-chick analogy – the bikers will leave the girl in the bikini alone if they understand that the consequences for molesting her will be severe, and certain. Similarly, radical Muslims will leave those that offend them alone if they understand that the consequences for molesting them will be severe, and certain. Instead, it appears that in most European countries, the price for enforcing the rights of citizens to express themselves unmolested is just too high, and it’s easier to simply give in to the demands of the barbarians not to be ‘offended’.
“But we can’t be everywhere!” I hear the Powers-That-Be cry, and that is true – but that’s no reason to surrender the rights of the individual en-masse, simply because you can’t be there to defend them. Return the power to defend themselves to the citizens. Right now, what you have in Europe appears to be a very small minority of fundamentalist Muslims who have access to plenty of weapons to apply their principles by force, and a very large population of innocent citizens who are powerless to resist them. Maybe time for a bit of table-turning. Yes, I know they’re all willing to die attacking those who offend them – well, maybe if dying became a stone-cold certainty, rather than a remote abstraction, we would at least whittle them down. I see where the clown who climbed on the train in France with a Kalshnikov and a pistol is now claiming it’s all a silly misunderstanding, and has a gaggle of ‘human-rights’ lawyers lining up to defend him – perhaps if his fate had instead been a swift Mozambique after the first round he fired, a few less like-minded clowns would be moved to follow his example.
llater,
llamas
The 18-year-old woman in a bikini has the right to walk past a biker bar at 2am. And she also has the right of fully bear the consequences of her act. Exactly the same right the biker, or whoever the potential offender happen to be, has.
Quick question for everyone — wouldn’t it be too cold to walk past the bar in a bikini at 2am in the morning? I mean somebody give that girl a coat or something….
@ Cristina – no, the girl has a right to walk past the biker bar at 2.00 am, unmolested – End Of Story. No ‘well, but she has to bear the consequences . . .’. The minute you start hedging around her right by saying, well, she should have done this, or she has to take responsibility for this or that – then you are negotiating her rights away. Same goes for free speech.
llater,
llamas
In Newcastle-upon-Tyne, yes, but it doesn’t seem to stop some young ladies from wearing barely more.
Llamas/Cristina, yes and no. It depends upon what those “consequences” are. If they are leers, wolf whistles and verbal invitations which might or might not be welcome, then yes she must accept them. But if they are physical assault, no. The same is true of anyone taking any action which someone else might find objectionable (such as printing political cartoons). The person making the offensive “statement” can reasonably expect to receive indignant letters and be the subject of critical editorials and blogs, boycotts, maybe even public protests outside his door. That’s the price you pay for taking an unpopular position. But the line is crossed when the response becomes physical violence or invoking the power of the state to prevent or punish that statement (which, of course, is merely a violence of a different type). Charlie Hebdo has (or should have) the right to publish whatever allegedly offensive cartoons it chooses, and not to be assaulted in response. But it has no right not to be the recipient of howls of outrage, which are the consequences it must accept.
The “well, but she has to bear the consequences …” clause is not inserted to take away her rights. It is only meant to distinguish between a girl with rights and is healthy, and a girl who has rights and might end up in a hospital.
You have the right to jump off a building too, you know. And the obvious consequence does not change things, but perhaps you don’t need to execute that right.
llamas, frankly I couldn’t care less about what the hypothetical woman might do. I’m not saying what she should or should not do. She has the right to act as she chooses. She has no right to expect that everyone will behave correctly.
He who chooses to molest her is doing so freely and that’s his right as well.
Both, the woman and the assailant, should be responsible for their actions.
@ Dom & Cristina – let me be sure I understand you here.
What I think you are saying is that a person (let’s not muddy the waters with anything more specific right now) is responsible for, and must accept, the reactions of any other person, up to and including violence, in response to anything they say or do, even if it is completely non-violent and is merely ‘offensive’.
So, to take Dom’s example –
Our hypothetical girl-in-a-bikini-past-the-biker-bar-at-2.00am is identical in principle to the same girl throwing herself off a building – she must accept the inevitable consequences of what she did.
And then, to take Cristina’s example:
Our hypothetical girl-in-a-bikini-past-the-biker-bar-at-2.00am is responsible for whatever the bikers in the bar might choose to say or do to her. She has no right to expect them to behave ‘correctly’ or leave her alone.
Do I understand you correctly? Very important question.
If I do understand your meaning correctly – if – then I completely reject what you say. Your position ignores human agency and positions voluntary violence against others as some sort of inevitable law of nature, like gravity. You also seek to blame violent acts of aggression upon the non-violent party, as though words, expressions and behaviours are somehow equivalent to fists and clubs.
This is the law of the jungle, and rejects thousands of years of civilization and enlightenment. It absolves those who use violence in response to disagreement or offence of any responsibility for their actions, and instead blames the non-violent party for the aggressor’s inability to control himself.
No mere word, thought, behaviour or expression can ever be the justification for violence by anybody. Under any circumstances. And one of the primary functions of any civil government should be to protect those who express mere words, thoughts or behaviours in a non-violent manner against any other person whose lack of self-control leads them to threaten or commit violence in response. No matter how ‘offended’ or ‘provoked’ they feel.
Absolutely Reject.
llater,
llamas
llamas,
I think what Cristina may be saying is that the girl-in-a-bikini must expect reality to unfold in a predictable way and has no right to having a special safe bubble created (by others) around her everywhere she goes.
At the same time, the bikers also have no claim to a ‘safe space’ and when the girl-in-a-bikini pulls a compact semi-auto out of a cleverly disguised holster and reconfigures their digestive tracts, that is the reality they are compelled to accept.
That is how I interpreted Cristina’s argument.
llamas,
“Absolutely Reject.” So if your daughter said, “bye dad, I’m going to spend the evening walking past some bars in a bikini” you’d say, “have fun”.
If I didn’t know better, I’d think that someone may have been watching too much Tarantino… :-O
On a more serious note, and having no idea what Cristina may have actually meant, I think that her argument boils down to seeing rights as “natural” (as per Rand?), while Llamas’ argument is based on the view that rights are human societal phenomenon. Personally, I tend to subscribe to the latter position, but that is an aside.
“…a person […] is responsible for, and must accept, the reactions of any other person, up to and including violence, in response to anything they say or do, even if it is completely non-violent and is merely ‘offensive’.”
No, llamas. I never said responsible. The woman is not responsible for what the biker chooses to do. She is responsible for what she does.
“[…] positions voluntary violence against others as some sort of inevitable law of nature”
Not a law of nature. A fact of live.
“You also seek to blame violent acts of aggression upon the non-violent party”
Ridiculous. Trying to shame me for the stupidity of the hypothetical woman do not change the fact that she is freely choosing to put herself in harm way and should be responsible for that.
No, you did not understand correctly.
Midwesterner, that’s correct.
llamas, what would you answer to Dom?
Alisa, 🙂
I think I see what Cristina and/or Dom are saying now.
Violent behaviour is “a fact of live” (sic) and if you put yourself in the way of a violent person, you’re responsible for anything that happens to you, because you should avoid violent people.
Again, completely reject.
Sure, violent behavior by humans is a fact of life, but it is different than, say, gravity, or the dangers posed by wild animals, or lightning. Those things are also facts of life, but the difference is, they are inevitable. You would be foolish to go skipping along in bear country covered in strawberry jam, and you’d be entirely responsible for anything that happens to you. cf Timothy Treadwell. Bears have no conscience, and no concept of natural rights. But violence by humans is entirely-voluntary, and bounded by concepts natural rights, and of right and wrong. And that is why our girl-in-a-bikini should be free to wander past the biker bar at any time she likes – because the bikers know that it is wrong to molest her, and will only do so because they think they can get away with it. This is what separates us from the dumb beasts.
You keep bringing the examples back to comparisons with people doing things which they know by the laws of physics will hurt them, eg Dom’s ‘jump off a building’ example. These comparisons ignore the added factor of human agency.
Alisa – no, I see the right to be safe and secure in one’s person from the physical attacks of others resulting from mere offence or provocation to be a natural right, equally applicable in all times and places, and not some local, societal construct. My right to be free of violent attack by others cannot be predicated on how they choose to see me and what I do, so long as I am not engaged in real or threatened violence against them. Endowed by their Creator, that sort of thing.
As to Dom’s challenge
‘So if your daughter said, “bye dad, I’m going to spend the evening walking past some bars in a bikini” you’d say, “have fun”.’
I wouldn’t say ‘have fun’. I’m principled – not stupid. I realize that the world has bad people and that it is unwise to put yourself in situations where bad people can take advantage of you. But it’s a long way from there to saying that if you do such unwise things, it’s your own fault if bad things happen to you. By this logic, a woman whose dress attracts the attention of a rapist has only herself to blame for being raped – as Cristina says, she is responsible for what she does. Or, circling back round to Charlie Hebdo, that it’s their own fault that those cartoonists and writers were killed and maimed – it’s the natural result of saying and doing things that others found offensive. After all, everyone knows that Muslims who will kill you for saying bad words about them are just ‘a fact of live’ (sic). To take this approach is to resign our civilization to whoever can be the most easily offended and/or can exert the greatest amount of violence.
Midwesterner wrote:
‘I think what Cristina may be saying is that the girl-in-a-bikini must expect reality to unfold in a predictable way and has no right to having a special safe bubble created (by others) around her everywhere she goes.’
We have to disagree. Even if reality ‘unfolds in a predictable way’, she has the same right as anyone else (not a ‘special’ right, but the same right as anybody else) to go about her peaceful business unmolested. The fact that she chooses to go about her peaceful business in ways you think are unwise and would not encourage, makes no difference. The salient fact is that she is going about her business peacefully. What you, or the bikers, or I, or anyone else thinks about it is simply not relevant. She also has the right to uphold her right to go about her peaceful business unmolested, by force if necessary, and a civil society has the obligation to uphold her right to do so (along with everybody else’s), by force if necessary.
Again, reality only ‘unfolds in a predictable way’ because society has neglected to uphold her right to go about her peaceful business unmolested. If there were a black-and-white parked outside the bar when she goes for her walk, reality would unfold in an entirely different way. Once human agency and conscience enter the mix, there can be many different outcomes. Shoot 100 bears for attacking humans, and the 101st bear will attack the next human it cares to. Shoot 100 bikers for attacking a bikini-clad girl, and the 101st biker will go ‘Hmmm . . . . ).
In the particular case, if I had a daughter, I’d tell her ‘be careful’ – as we all should be. That’s a long way away from saying ‘anything bad that happens to you, it’s on you’.
Here’s a thought experiment, because I suspect that what we are seeing here is a cognitive dissonance between ideas of personal and political liberty on different sides of the Atlantic:
A group of Muslims announces their intention to parade through the streets of a predominantly Jewish neighborhood, carrying banners with message like ‘Hitler had the Right Idea’, ‘Death to all Jews’, ‘Send them to the Showers’ and similar edifying thoughts. They will be carrying bullhorns and singing the HorstWessell Lied, waving rashers of bacon at passersby, throwing oysters on the front lawns of houses they pass, and generally Making a Huge Ruckus. Their parade will end on the street outside the local synagogue. On a Friday.
What should the authorities do?
llater,
llamas
She does not have the right to compel me to make that neighborhood a safe one. Certainly she has the right to walk in peace, but she doesn’t have the right to compel me to run interference for her. If, on the other hand, she elects to do that with the mastery of concealed weapons, then I thank her for improving the world a little bit at a time.
So please tell me again what exactly we disagree about? I made very clear in my first comment that I thought Cristina was advocating for the girl’s responsibility to deal with the consequences of her own bad judgement. There hasn’t been a single person in this thread that I am aware of that has challenged bikini girl’s right to defend herself, with violence if necessary. Yet based on your last comment you appear to think that right is being challenged here. This appearance of disagreement seems to be a failure to communicate clearly by multiple parties.
Oh yes, I did imagine that – not from that comment though, but from your other comments here over the years. In that particular comment though, you used the word ‘right’ in a way that logically implied what I described – even if you haven’t noticed (yes, I think there is a logical contradiction there, although I’m sure you’ll disagree). There is nothing natural about human rights – quite the contrary: the “natural” state of, well, nature – including the human one, is of wild beasts – including human ones (those bad people you mentioned). All of these animals, good and bad, wild and civilized, less or more intelligent, respond to incentives – but different ones. Bears respond to incentives different from humans, good people respond to incentives different from bad people (carrots vs sticks), etc.
llamas, again, I didn’t mention responsibility for what others do. Just responsible for what she does
Wishes are not rights. You do not have the right to be free of violent attacks. You have the right to act as you see fit and, in so doing, you rationally choose the consequences of that action as well.
How can you be principled and not stupid regarding this topic? Do you act on your principles, or you just use them to moralize about them to others? Would you teach your daughter that bad decisions have consequences?
“The fact that she chooses to go about her peaceful business in ways you think are unwise and would not encourage, makes no difference.”
Yes, it makes a huge difference. That’s why you say you are not stupid, remember?
When you say that society has neglected the enforcement of that imaginary right of yours, you are taking for granted that we know who the bad guys are and do nothing to stop them on their wicked ways. At the end of that road there is only a possible state, a tyranny.
“What should the authorities do?”
Only to enforce the laws, whatever they are.
Cisitina – I must admit I am having more and more trouble following your logic, but in the name of inquiry, will soldier on.
Rights are rights – not wishes. Nor are they imaginary. They are not subject to temporal adjustments or limitations based on what you call a ‘fact of life’. Yes, the attainment of perfection in natural rights is seldom seen – but that does not make it an unrealistic goal, or unattainable. Do I live these principles? Well, nobody’s perfect – but I try.
When rights are clearly understood, and not hedged around with your ‘facts of life’, it is actually remarkably easy to determine who the ‘bad guys’ are, and punish them when they infringe on the rights of others.
Yes, you absolutely do have the right to be free of violent attacks (assuming that you are otherwise going peaceably about your business) and one of the few basic responsibilities of a civil society is to recognize that right, and to protect it by pursuing and punishing those who infringe upon it, both by collective action (such as a criminal-justice system) as well as by leaving you insofar as possible free to protect your own rights. This is one reason why (as others here will affirm) I am a rock-ribbed absolutist when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of the person.
By the same token, you do not have the right ‘to act as you see fit’, as you describe. My right to ‘act as I see fit’ is limited by the rights of others to be free of the consequences of what I do. To use an old formula – my right to swing my fist ends at the point where your nose begins.
Now you claim that what I have described leads inevitably to tyranny, to which I respond – when did it ever happen? It’s a simple fact that the societies where the natural rights of the individual are most-actively supported and protected by civil society tend to also be the most-free, the safest and the most inclusive – not tyrannies at all.
By contrast, tyranny is almost-inevitably what you get when we go down the road that you suggest, where the rights of the individual are traded away because they interfere with ‘facts of life’ and other, similar nonsense. In truth, what you call ‘facts of life’ tend to be nothing more than transitory rules made up by whoever has the biggest stick or the biggest gang – or on the basis of the alleged instructions of some imaginary sky-being.
So in the Middle East, women are wrapped from head to toe in shapeless bags, forbidden to drive, or vote, or leave the country, or even go to the store, because it’s a ‘fact of life’ that if they do not follow these rules, they will turn into wanton harlots who will overthrow the very foundations of the universe and make Big Sky Being angry. Meanwhile, in the rest of the world, millions of women do these very things every day and yet the sky does not fall. Seem like a tyranny to you? It does to me.
Next country over, teh Gayers are routinely killed by being thrown from tall buildings. According to you (if I understand you right) they have no ‘right’ to be free of this sort of thing – they should have known that this is a consequence of being teh gay, they actually “rationally choose the consequences”, to use your words. Tyranny much?
To me, the very definition of ‘tyranny’ is the denial or infringement of individual rights on the basis of what others think – what you call ‘facts of life’. You seem to think that these so-called ‘facts of life’ are somehow immutable and unchanging, but in fact they are generally transitory social constructs. Slavery used to be so universal that it was known to be simply a ‘fact of life’ – but we actually came to realize that it is an infringement of fundamental human rights, and now it is universally condemned – except, or course, in the Middle East, where human rights are still fungible and subject to the whims of whoever’s in power today.
As to this:
“What should the authorities do?”
Only to enforce the laws, whatever they are.
Nice try. But you don’t get off that easy. Presuming that public marches have not been outlawed, the authorities don’t have to do anything at all, since no law is broken.
Now, turn the tables. The marchers are Jewish, and they plan to march through an overwhelmingly Muslim area, ending up in front of the mosque just in time for evening prayers. In the past, marches like this have led to violent attacks by Muslims on the marchers. Now – what should the authorities do?
@ Midwesterner – you are right, I dragged in the self defense point, trying to present the fullest possible picture, but only muddied the waters. My bad.
We do have to disagree on one thing – I think that civil society (which are you and me, via our taxes) does have the duty to uphold and protect her rights, which includes making any neighborhood safe for her to walk in, any time. I realize that this is a challenge that may be impossible to achieve, but what’s being suggested here is that we not bother trying – just cede that street to the biker gang, and tell people their rights don’t apply there because we can’t be bothered to protect them? Well, which of your rights are you prepared to have bargained away in this way?
@ Alisa – again, poor wordsmithing on my part. Nothing new there. I used the term ‘natural rights’ in the sense that the US Founding Fathers used it – those certain and inalienable individual rights, like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that enlightened values have led us to prize most highly and which most enlightened people agree should be protected to the greatest possible extent, both individually and (when necessary) collectively.
Bears respond to incentives – but only incentives which affect them. They don’t have any concept of the rights of other bears, and will happily steal from them, or kill them, if they can get away with it and it is to their advantage. Their sole focus is their own well-being. I like to think that we have moved beyond that approach.
There. Chew on that lot.
llater,
llamas
Issue citations for Littering and/or Impeding Normal Flow of Traffic, as fits the facts?
Schrodinger’s Dog,
I fail to see how your post is a disagreement with what I wrote. Perhaps you didn’t understand my point.
I find no provision in the US Constitution for the creation of a taxpayer funded police force although there was the possibility in both the US and the UK that a sheriff or other officer of the court could conscript assistance from the general citizenry. Even as recently as Peele’s formation of his principles, he asserted that police are no different than common citizenry and of “the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.”
We have reached a state of affairs in both the US and UK where we have two standards of conduct, even two sets of laws distinguishing “police” from common citizens. This is a clear violation of the prohibition on titles of nobility in the US.
We have reached this state of siege because of the attitude that you espouse, namely that it is our duty to, through our taxes, secure a safe society. It has never been to my (admittedly very limited) knowledge in Anglo history until recently that the law enforcement function was a paid profession. A look into the history of sheriffs indicates them to have been more in the line of magistrates than police. This is why they needed to conscript help to compel attendance to the court.
The simple dynamic of one magistrate attempting to conscript men at arms to enforce the law assured that, much like jury nullification, law served the will of the people.
If I seem quick to dispute the suggestion that we are obligated to assure that all corners of society comply with legislation via levying taxes to pay professionals to patrol and enforce the laws, it is because the outcome of that approach has demonstrated itself to be as flawed in application as in principle.
It is not that I reject the moral imperative that the strong among us make our communities safe for the weak or foolish, it is that I reject the legal imperative that we must fund this industry. Let the shire reeve conscript us to round up the biker gang and bring them before the court. That is as it should be. But saying that we are bound to make our communities safe through professionals engaging in proactive intervention is a dangerous power to unleash.
LLamas wrote:
“is the classic argument of those who just want ‘common sense’ restrictions on speech and expression, and reinforces a soft bigotry of low expectations – you shouldn’t offend those Muslims, because they always resort to violence, they just can’t help themselves.”
Completely wrong. I’m saying that people have the right to free speech, 100%, and when the Islamists come and blow you up, they ARE responsible for blowing you up, 100%, but guess what, despite the leftist trend against “blaming the victim”, there actually is such a thing as “asking for it”. Bikers raping a teen in a bikini is wrong. She has a right to walk where she wants to walk unless she’s trespassing, but, yes, there is such a thing as asking for it. That does not mitigate the behavior of rapists. It does however reflect on the naivete of some young girls (or perhaps stupidity of a particular girl). If Charlie Hebdo wants to piss people off, good on them. But I’m not going to sit here pretending that people have the right to be shitheads and expect no negative consequences. It seems to me that the negative consequences is part of the package they’re opting for. “What if they had a war and no one showed up” is a common phrase. What if Charlie Hebdo tried to offend and no one noticed? Outrage is what they’re shooting for.
So…congratulations?
If the goals (assuming they have any) of charlie hebdo is to expose european fascists calling for them to get jail time, then again good on them. If they’re actually whining about receiving negative attention when they fart in public, then the lady doth protest too much.
Cheers,
llamas,
Actually rights are imaginary. By definition. I’d ask you to prove me wrong but you can’t.
I don’t think you’re a fool. Therefore, I must conclude that you meant to preface this statement with “in my ideal libertarian society” given that rights are subject to adjustments and limitations based on facts of life in more ways than even a fool can’t fail to notice.
Actually, the attainment of perfection in natural rights is never seen. And the reason it’s unattainable is because of human nature.
There are so many things wrong with this I don’t know where to begin.
First of all a common misconception of libertarian-types is that the measure of freedom in a country is the de jure freedom enjoyed by statute as opposed to the de facto freedom enjoyed in reality. So, for example, a man is free to peaceably walk through Compton, CA at 2:00 AM carrying a clear suitcase according to the law, but not according to reality. Judging societies according to the extent to which they afford their peoples de jure liberty is going to skew the results of any analysis in favor of modern Western nations (especially Anglo ones) for a variety of reasons.
Kindly define and explain the benefit of an inclusive society – as opposed to one where (simply enough) rights to life, liberty and property are protected. And kindly elucidate the benefit of an inclusive society – I can think of numerous drawbacks, such as the corrosion to civil society and unravelling of culture that necessarily follow from liberating a society from self-definition and affirmative identity.
As far as tyranny – the term is generally woefully misunderstood or misapplied these days. In the modern era tyranny mostly flows from the consequences of the people’s consensus, but I suspect you meant something more akin to hereditary monarchy where the King’s majesty implies sovereignty and his word is inviolable. The incentives of governmental policy for a King who was born to rule his nation, who was expected at his birth to keep & protect and grow the prestige and stature of his country are rather different than those incentives shaping such “leaders” as Bush, Obama, Cameron, etc. Kings, unlike Presidents/Prime Ministers, care for the long run. Kings, unlike Presidents/PM (who are leaders of factions) care for the whole of their nations usually. And of course Kings owe favors to no donors, NO special interests and no lobbyists.
So you see, what is commonly accepted to be the “form” of tyranny (monarchy) is in fact nothing of the sort. But what I’m explaining was not only mainstream thinking but more or less accepted knowledge among the learned classes prior to WWI.
This reminds of Joseph de Maistre’s wonderful quip that he knew of no such thing as man – he knows of Frenchmen, Persians, Italians, etc but never had he encountered a “man”. By way of anecdote – when I was young, I too thought that one set of rules could govern all mankind. Then I grew up!
There remains slavery in the world. There is a great deal of slavery in various forms on every continent. You live under a rock. Just because blacks aren’t picking cotton doesn’t mean there’s no slavery – even if CNN isn’t reporting on it.
Also, it’s adorable how you appear to imply that human rights are not fungible in regions outside the Middle East.
Fraser Orr,
I myself am a biker. I ride a 2010 red Vulcan 900 LT with the windscreen removed.
Imagine this with black leather saddle bags.
http://149.255.34.50/listimg/img1_0715/12/img_S2tmn0NcIs.jpg
However, I still recommend 18yr old girls in bikinis not walk around biker bars at 2am, LOL.
Biker bars….because nothing goes together like motorcycles and alcohol! LOL
Midwesterner,
Excellent.
The lack of titles of nobility is a very rare societal attribute that is fleeting when it occurs.
For a variety of reasons, I suspect we are seeing in the Anglosphere a “return to form” – if you will.
The truth is that such titles elevate nobility in monarchies while in democracies such titles don’t.
Shlomo Maistre said,
That’s like saying that Pi, love and the color magenta are imaginary. It doesn’t mean these concepts and experiences are invalid just because they don’t have a discrete, tangible physical existence.
Life is a process of self-generated and self-sustaining action. Rights is simply a recognition that someone owns that process, me or some other body, be that body an individual or collective. However, to say that someone else, by right, own my life, is to say that this someone else has the right to violate the rights of others which is a contradiction. (If they have rights then so do I by the same token). It must be that I own my own life, that ongoing process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. “Rights” is simply the recognition that I need to do certain things to further that owned process in a manner which does not contradict or directly conflict with others who own their own lives as well. There is no conflict of interest or rights when I get what I earn. However, the right to “have”, in and of itself is a bogus one because it may conflict with the freedom rights of others. “Postive rights” is a self contradictory concept. “Negative rights” are not.
Christina wrote,
“Wishes are not rights. You do not have the right to be free of violent attacks.”
Well, actually yes, you do have the right to be free of violent, unprovoked attacks. You just might not have a reasonable expectation of being free of a violent, unprovoked attack. Rights and reasonable expectations are two entirely different things.
Christina said,
“He who chooses to molest her is doing so freely and that’s his right as well.”
There must be a translation error or something going on. There’s no such thing as a right to molest someone freely because to have the alleged right to violate the rights of others is a self-contradiction that undermines the entire concept of rights. If her rights are meaningless then de facto so would be his.
“Actually rights are imaginary.”
Purple doesn’t exist. That doesn’t change the fact that the timestamp under my name is purple.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPPYGJjKVco
What are “natural rights”? That is, what is the concept that we call “natural rights”?
Prof. Randy Barnett explains:
(My boldface.) This is from an excellent paper entitled “A Law Professor’s Guide to Natural Law and Natural Rights,” published in the Summer, 1997 issue of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. It’s online at
http://www.bu.edu/rbarnett/Guide.htm
It’s not terribly long, but it’s a very good explanation of “natural law” and “natural rights,” how the concepts arose and what they mean.
Contents:
I. The Natural Law Methods of Analysis
II. Natural Law Ethics versus Natural Rights
III. Natural Rights and the Obligatoriness of Human Laws
IV. Natural Rights and Utility
V. Conclusion
The quote above is from Section II, but if anyone is not familiar with this paper I have to recommend reading Section I before Section II, because it states exactly the reasoning by which, and the factual basis upon which, “natural law” or, more properly per Dr. Barnett, “natural law ethics” is derived. He then explains what “natural rights” really means.
@ Midwesterner, who wrote:
“I find no provision in the US Constitution for the creation of a taxpayer funded police force”
Well, no, you wouldn’t. Because our Founding Fathers were wise men and they wisely left almost-all matters of criminal law to the states. I share what I read as your concern about the vast armies of Federal law enforcement that have grown up around multiple regulatory bureaucracies, most of them having a very tenuous basis in the Constitution. The Department of Education maintains a SWAT team for – what?
I didn’t say ‘it is our duty to, through our taxes, secure a safe society.’ What I said was that we ‘have the duty to uphold and protect her rights, which includes making any neighborhood safe for her to walk in, any time.’ These are two very different things. No society, in all its many and wonderful forms, can be made ‘safe’. But we should try at least to make those parts of it which are public, shared and common, places in which the individual rights of every citizen are upheld and protected. I don’t say we will always succeed 100%, but that is better than simply giving away her rights because it’s too much trouble to enforce them. Which is what is happening / has happened in large parts of Europe already.
I would have thought that it was obvious from my past history here that I am no fan of the massive expansion of law enforcement in the US. There are huge problems with what law enforcement has become in the US, primarily because they are getting further and further away from what should be their defining purpose, which is the secure the rights and freedoms of citizens. Most are now just a combination of tax collectors and political enforcers, to a greater or lesser degree. But that does not mean that we must throw out the baby with the bathwater – it’s still possible to have a police power which does as you describe. I do not accept that the current state of affairs in the us is ‘because of the attitude that you espouse, namely that it is our duty to, through our taxes, secure a safe society.’ That is, after all, not what I said. In fact, quite the reverse is true – US law enforcement has reached the state that it has precisely because it now concentrates on just-about everything but what I suggested.
As far as other commenters go – now we are mostly talking past each other, with disputations about what is ‘reasonable’ and ‘imaginary’ and other such angels-on-pinheads chit-chat. Sorry, don’t have bandwidth for that, so shall bid you and your ideas adieu.
Biker? Big old Desmo Ducati. Black leather jacket and everything.
later,
llamas
Mid, the way I read Llamas’ point is that the “mere” rounding-up of the suspects and bringing them before the court – or, rather, the expectation of the relative certainty thereof on the part of the suspects – would be enough to make our communities safe, with no need for proactive intervention (which indeed would be a dangerous power to unleash).
I really don’t think that there is much real disagreement here (some, but nothing substantial), but rather a lot of misinterpretation of semantics and initial factual premises. I also regret bring up the ‘natural rights’ issue yet again – not because it is unimportant, but because in most cases it remains philosophical: even though I may disagree with the Founding Fathers on us being endowed with those rights by Our Creator, the more important point to me is that they and I agree on the practical essence of those rights.
“even though I may disagree with the Founding Fathers on us being endowed with those rights by Our Creator”
We can thank Ben Franklin for the final wording of that line in the Declaration of Independence. In truth, anything arbitrarily granted by fiat by anyone (including gods) can be just as arbitrarily revoked by fiat by that same person or body, which contradicts both the meaning of ‘rights’ and ‘unalienable’. (Weirdly enough, Tom Jefferson’s original wording in the DoI had ‘inalienable’. I’ve never seen unalienable used anywhere else.)
I wonder what John Adams response would be to someone pointing out that not even the gods can alienate someone from their inalienable rights. He would probably just accuse one of casuistry.
Shlomo Maistre 3:17 am, perfectly explained. Just one thing. When I mentioned tyranny I was referring precisely to the democratic type. New laws enacted for the common good by the masses and their “representatives”
Indeed – but as someone who does not believe in the existence of gods, I couldn’t care less about their ability to revoke anything.
LLamas wrote:
I sometimes talk to the occasional Satanist or Nietzschean (essentially the same thing) who love to derive “natural laws” from observing “lower animals”. I’ve always found this perplexing since these same individuals will talk about people (them, of course) becoming god-like. Maybe it’s me, but I fail to see how one is to become god-like by following the ‘rules’ followed by a bear or bob cat, or (gasp) a beaver, lol. It’s obvious to me that mankind’s propensity toward’s self-awareness far outstrips that of any other animal on the planet. We are not merely conscious, but conscious of our consciousness.
My problem is with the creation of a taxpayer funded profession of enforcing laws.
llamas, you are conveniently forgetting your statement that I specifically quoted.
You can only be talking about a paid professional career of enforcing laws. Not of interpreting, I can readily understand the utility of professional judges (although I think the creation of ‘law lords’ was the beginning of the end of rights in the UK). It is the creation of professionals endowed with the weapons, procedures and unique (noble) authority to apply physical force that is the danger that has come home to roost.
Modern policing, even the kind you approve of, is pretty much the result of Peele’s procedural articulations. But it pays to remember that Peele’s foundation was Jeremy Bentham.
With such a creation, removing the need for the courts and magistrates to conscript men at arms in much the same way they conscript jurors, it was inevitable that enforcement itself would become the self justifying purpose. The opportunity for nullification via community scale defiance was removed.
This is perverse incentives justified through very plausible utilitarianism. Our present state of affairs was inevitable from the point that policing morphed from raising the hue and cry for the community to respond, to empowering and paying professionals to take the place of the community’s response.
The problem is not that law enforcement is “getting further and further away from what should be their defining purpose“. It could not have ended otherwise. Again, a professional careerist monopoly on the use of force creates an entire structure of perverse incentives that could not have turned out differently than it has.
And since everybody is naming their bikes, I don’t ride anymore but my number one ride for many years was a CX500TC, 500cc’s of turbocharged Jekyll and Hyde. Unwieldy and tippy off boost and, er, interesting on boost.
Thailover, have you ever studied Marxism? Just wondering.
Changing planes. Back in a while.
llater,
llamas
At the time the divine right of kings to rule was well established in the metacontext of the times. The invocation of the “Creator” was a necessary construct to justify defiance of that divine right.
Interesting point, Mid.
And the divine right had been emphatically dis-established by Oliver Cromwell, at least until he appointed his son Richard as his successor… 🙂
Christina asked,
“Thailover, have you ever studied Marxism? Just wondering”
Not formally, but I’ve read quite a bit about it years ago. I’ve probably forgotten more than I remember at this point. I’ve been amazed how Marx managed to be wrong about virtually everything IMO.
I wrote,
To which Alisa responded,
Agreed. I’m an atheist myself. I thought it an interesting logical point. Inalienable rights cannot be god favors.
Are you being modest, Thailover? 🙂
Rights cannot be inalienable.
I agree. But the only person who can alienate them (by actions transgressing someone else’s rights) is that person themself.
Perry, are you saying that my rights (to free speech, free movement, property, even life) cannot be alienated by government?
Indeed. Not that any government would agree 😉
…and they would be correct.
No they are not, because then they are permissions, not rights.
Perry nails it.
Hmm, when a bear attacks you, is he alienating your right to life, or revoking your permission to live? 🙂
Thailover,
Not at all.
Pi is a mathematical constant with tangible uses in engineering, math, etc.
Love is an ephemeral concept that refers to kind of intense emotion experiences by humans.
Magenta is a color.
The theory of absolute individual rights is just that – a theory, at best. It can arguably explain some portion of what is observed in the world. It can be bandied about as if a holy scripture by zealous fanatics to advance an untenable set of ideals for society to be measured against.
I disagree; I believe in vitalism (since I never let fashion get in the way of revelation) which rather precludes such notions. Many theists would likewise beg to differ on this point – perhaps with less seemingly dogmatic supposition than I.
I’ll roll wit dis.
Hm. I’ll note that life is basically war of all against all.
Anyway, If you mean who possesses what rights according to your theory (which is actually sophistry, in the old sense) then, yes, I can hardly muster any disagreement with you: every one possesses rights to his/her life, liberty, property.
If you mean who possesses what rights according to reality then, well – that’s a rather complex matter with messy implications for your neat little theory.
Why is that?
Yes, according to your theory.
Yes, according to your theory. Meanwhile, over in the real world, the 80 richest people in the world have as much $ as the 3.6 billion poorest. Congrats on seeing no “conflict” here – whether conflict of “interest” or of “rights”.
No he’s not.
Perry,
I just want to point out that the fact that not ANY government would agree should tell us something.
It indicates that libertarianism is not terribly compatible with the art of governance at the very least.
I’ll take this opportunity to make clear, though, that contrary to the suspicions of some I generally consider de facto liberty enjoyed by individuals in a society to be a favorable aspect of said society. The primary obstacle libertarians/minarchist-types encounter in their quests for greater personal liberty is in misunderstanding how these fortuitous circumstances come about.
The illustrious history of grossly twisting, blatantly violating, and boldly misinterpreting the Constitution of the USA demonstrates how little impact written laws can have on actual governance (jurisprudence and bureaucratic dictates) when said written laws seek to codify the personal liberties of the people. The extent to which the codification of personal rights is specific is generally the degree to which (eventually) the twisting, violating, and misinterpretation of said codification will be gross, blatant, and bold. This is for a variety of reasons – one of which is that the extent to which rights are written is a rough indication of the degree to which government is unstable and insecure, which is what leads rulers to control their subjects’/citizens’ liberties with more restrictions.
Instead, the path to the aforementioned fortuitous circumstances cannot be prescribed a priori. Joseph de Maistre explains:
Epic.
The stability and security of a government are the key preconditions necessary for rulers to grant the ruled liberty. Even if I agree for the sake of making this one point that rights CANNOT be taken away by the government – still it must be true that the permissions granted by government to the people to enjoy said rights are greater insofar as governance is stable and secure.
Of course, though, I generally concur with what King Charles I said on the scaffolding on Jan 30, 1649.
A relevant snippet of what King Charles I said, by the way:
Yeah, people with power like to think they are the source of people’s rights. That is why you need to cut the heads of the occasional King, Bishop or Prime Minister every now and then to remind them they are like bubbles floating in a room full of hedgehogs.
You remain as confused as ever as to what libertarianism is and is not.
And then when I compare the written constitution of the USA with the customary constitution of the UK, I find it is swings and roundabouts. Each are fucked in their own special way. Which of course applies pretty much everywhere. It comes down to culture mostly preventing institutions from getting, or at least perpetually remaining, too strong. Britain was vastly worse 40 years ago than it is now in most ways. Property rights were more secure in the USA than Britain 40 years ago. Now it is the other way around, I would not want any of my assets in the USA. But UK essentially insists on people being defenceless, so US wins that one. Kings and religions? Irrelevant fluff.
“Pi is a mathematical constant with tangible uses in engineering, math, etc.”
Yes it’s a ratio. A ratio is “mere theory”, a comparative concept, not an existent thing.
“Love is an ephemeral concept that refers to kind of intense emotion experiences by humans.”
Which has it’s corollary in brain functioning, but any definition of love would be incomplete without including experience in the definition. There is where reductionists like MIT’s Marvin Minsky goes wrong IMO.
“Magenta is a color.”
One that has no real world correspondence. It has no discrete frequency nor wavelength. “Purple” only exists within the domain of the mind.
“The theory of absolute individual rights is just that – a theory, at best.”
And Pi is a ratio, i.e. conceptual. And Purple is completely experiential with no real world discrete existence. “Purple” is created inside the mind.
…
[However, to say that someone else, by right, own my life, is to say that this someone else has the right to violate the rights of others which is a contradiction. (If they have rights then so do I by the same token).]
“Hm. I’ll note that life is basically war of all against all.”
No mutual cooperation to mutual benefit? Are you at war with your neighbors?
[It must be that I own my own life]
“Why is that?”
I already told you. The idea that someone else owns my life by right is a self-contradiction.
[There is no conflict of interest or rights when I get what I earn.]
“Yes, according to your theory. Meanwhile, over in the real world, the 80 richest people in the world have as much $ as the 3.6 billion poorest. Congrats on seeing no “conflict” here – whether conflict of “interest” or of “rights”.
Why would ones net worth conflict with rights? Do you have a right to other people’s money? Do others have a right to what someone else created?
What is your fair share of iPads?
If Bob creates a widget, sells it and makes a boat load of money, and everyone’s life is improved by it. What sense does it make to say “Bob is rich, meanwhile 3 billion people aren’t”?
It makes no sense at all. Would you remove the incentive for Bob to spend years creating the widget? We already know from the above that everyone’s life would not be better if Bob did not spend years creating the widget. The profit motive drives people to constantly innovate in order to retain marketshare. And yesterday’s innovations becomes cheaper and old-hat.
When refrigerators, electric stoves/ovens microwave ovens (radar ranges) game stations, cell phones, hell, even ball point pens were first invented only the rich could afford these “luxury” items. Today virtually every “poor” family in America’s lowest quintile of income has these items in their home, improving the quality of their lives. Yes, “greed” did that. Yesterday’s “greed” has dramatically improves the lives of today’s poor.
The CREATION of wealth is not zero sum, it’s positive sum, and Bob the innovator getting rich does not make others poor. It makes them richer too. We’re all better off in a world where innovation is profitable. Pray-tell, what was the quality of life for 99.999% of the earth’s population before the industrial revolution? One fun fact was that the average life expectancy was 32-35yrs. Yes, I know that much of that was because child mortality as in the double digits, but I’m taking that as read.
Cheers,
Indeed. Anyone who cannot grasp that is an economic flat-earther.
They do, and they are not. However, given enough power they can and will destroy those rights. So yes, you are correct after all when saying:
Not only by transgression of the rights of others – but rather more often by ceding their own rights to said people with power, one small right at a time.
Alisa asked,
“Perry, are you saying that my rights (to free speech, free movement, property, even life) cannot be alienated by government?”
Inalienable rights can certainly be violated by the government, but not alienated from you, the individual. Recognize that rights APPLY by catagory, but are not created nor destroyed. I have no Mexican citizenship rights because I’m not a citizen of Mexico, but I have human(being) rights because I’m both human and a being/person, (my brain is intact). Terri Schiavo, (the poor thing), had her brain turn into non-functioning jelly over a period of years, and arguably was incapable of awareness, much less the ability to excersize rights.
Thailover,
I notice you did not respond to some of my points, such as:
1. Who possesses what rights according to your theory vs reality: “if you mean who possesses what rights according to reality then, well – that’s a rather complex matter with messy implications for your neat little theory.”
2. “The theory of absolute individual rights is just that – a theory, at best. It can arguably explain some portion of what is observed in the world. It can be bandied about as if a holy scripture by zealous fanatics to advance an untenable set of ideals for society to be measured against.”
3. My reply to your contention that life is ‘self-generated’: “I disagree; I believe in vitalism (since I never let fashion get in the way of revelation) which rather precludes such notions. Many theists would likewise beg to differ on this point – perhaps with less seemingly dogmatic supposition than I.”
Just sayin’
If we are using the rather juvenile definition of war where guns need to be fired or at least fists need to be thrown then.. no of course not.
If we are going to be SLIGHTLY more sophisticated and notice the veracity Carl von Clausewitz’s old quip that “politics is war by other means” then, well, yes I am.
If we are going to be a bit more sophisticated still (oh boy!) then we can maybe even learn a thing from what I was saying. You see, war tends to result from conflicting perceptions of rights. So when you say that you own your body and, therefore, someone else cannot you are confusing what may not be possible in your head for what may not be possible in reality.
In fact, just because you think you own your life or even DO own your life does not preclude others from claiming a right to your life in reality. You’ll notice that the IRS and common thugs do this in slightly different ways. You can evade both the IRS and common thugs, but that does not alter the state of affairs between you and either of these parties, which is a state of war.
See above.
Nope. But I’m not a starving villager who has never had a decent meal. Were a starving villager to relieve a billionaire of a few hundred dollar bills I must confess that I’d be rather uninterested in throwing said starving villager in jail. Or punishing him in any way whatsoever.
Joseph de Maistre:
Tru dat.
lol
I’ve read more than enuff Austrian Economics in my day. Thanks for the lesson.
I used to think Mises, Rothbard, Schumpeter, Bastiat, Hayek etc were the creme de la creme of intellectual thinking. My cherry was later popped.
Alisa wrote:
“However, given enough power they can and will destroy those rights.”
I think it’s important to make the distinction between HAVING rights and having those rights recognized. If tomorrow the US federal government fails to recognize my rights of free speech, that doesn’t mean that I have no rights. It just means that they failed to recognize them. Larry Flint never lost his right to free speech.
By the way I just realized how amazing it is that Thailover replied to
primarily with a lecture on Austrian Economics. Putting aside the fact that I know Austrian Economics rather well, it’s completely off-topic and an absurdly bold-faced dodge. The simple reality is that wealth inequality might lead to slight conflict of perceived rights and interests (contrary to what Thailover originally suggested about no such conflict) irrespective of the veracity of positive sum economic thinking.
Perry,
Not much new there. I’ll note that you did not respond to some of the substantive points I made, mainly with regards to the futility of prescribing freedom to a people unworthy of it a priori. Such endeavors have been tried many times and failed virtually every time. The conditions of liberty appear organically in society and trying to prescribe them by applying pen to paper is not only futile but often counterproductive.
Liberty is a consequence of stable and secure governance -and the threat to behead political leaders is slightly counterproductive towards achieving, you know, a government that’s secure and stuff. Calling religion mere fluff is to discount a vast reservoir of human experience out of hand without (at least) seriously considering whether it might fulfill constructive purposes towards achieving desirable ends (greater liberty, more personal freedoms). Given the abysmal track record of libertarians in constraining the rate of growth of government for centuries, maybe it’s worth reconsidering some assumptions.
————
Because it didn’t warrant it and I would prefer our correspondence remain shorter than the Magna Carta.
1. ‘That’s complex and messy’ isn’t an argument nor a position. What did you expect me to say?
2. “it’s just a theory” was addressed. So are half a dozen different theories/ideas/concepts which we don’t ignore. If I went around saying “pi is just an idea” I would expect to be greeted with an “and? Do you have a point?”
3. Vitalism. Again, what do you want from me? Are you presupposing a soul or something? You as much as said that your own beliefs are not without contention or controversy. I’m in no obligation to pile on. Since vitalism v process is contrary rather than contradictory, I have nothing to gain by attempting to “prove wrong” vitalism.
When you suggest that life is a war with life, it’s not juvenile at all to ask are you excluding voluntary cooperation to mutual benefit. Said cooperation shows that life is indeed not zero sum, where those that have should be robbed and pillaged as alms to the poor. Voluntary cooperation to mutual benefit is win-win, which is not possible if life were indeed zero sum, or ‘at war’ as you contended. I said nothing about guns, etc, so you consider that a “juvenile” place to jump to, then I suggest not jumping there.
Ah, so “somebody somewhere needs something” entirely negates the concept of earning? So now we should pretend that Bob should not have what he earned because someone somewhere could really use a tuna sandwich?
Let me guess. It would be wrong for a government to confiscate moneys from one middle class American ostensibly to give money to another middle class American, but if if’s confiscated from a middle class American ostensibly to give some of it to someone who has little then it’s fine?
So the moral distinction is that the recipient should be someone who has FAILED TO DESERVE IT OR EARN IT? Would it be even better if they’ve failed their families, community and themselves? Would it be even more morally commendable if the recipient was a drug addict with one leg? How about an alcoholic, drug addict, indigent with one leg, one eye and was force fed skiddles as a child. Would the government be vying for sainthood then? I’m joking, but I think you can see where I’m going with this.
Suggesting that one has no right to what one has earned is rather convenient when one wants to “redistribute” other people’s property. (Which, of course was never distributed to begin with).
I’m glad the idea of voluntary cooperation to mutual benefit brings joy to your life. I like it as well.
Will I again be accused of skipping a point if I fail to address this non-argument?
Cheers.
In a world where wealth is created rather than hunted and gathered, what is “wealth inequality” even supposed to suggest? What real world correlation is hinted at?
And once again, I ask, would the planet be better off by removing the vast incentive for the individual or “incorporated” group of individuals to innovate?
The short answer is, No. It would be far worse off. I think this is analytically obvious.
Is this the part where someone volunteers, “but Marxism was just done the wrong way before”? ‘Just curious.
Some were not all that substantive. But…
And my reply was it is down to culture. So yes, no point in casting pearls before the swine, I agree. It was why I was so contemptuous about trying to export liberal democracy to a unitary Iraq, rather than partition and let nature take its course. It works far better in the First World however.
Everything fails eventually and yes, as I said, people need to develop to the point liberty can take root, so not entirely disagreeing. However cutting the King’s head off and then eventually compromising on having a King who is a tourist attraction is the sign the society has matured into the highly desirable banal bourgeois end state. And my answer that you did not seem to see was that actually there really isn’t much difference between ‘writing it down’ or not, when viewed in the long run.
Stability has more often meant tyrannous stasis, not stable liberty. But that said, I have nothing against stability and secure governance, just as long as it knows its place (minarchist here, not anarchist). That is why lopping a head off (ideally every few centuries rather than every few years) works wonders to remind the vermin-in-ermine that the whole ‘divine right’ malarky is not to be taken seriously or literally. As long as they realise their job is to be stabilising and securing and to keep HELLO magazine in business, and not to have excessively strong opinions (I am looking you, Charles “Buggerlugs” Windsor), fine, you can have your monarchy if you insist, they are a shit load cheaper than the NHS and much easier to get rid of, if it all goes horribly wrong 😉
Well I am quite willing to cherry pick the interesting bits if that makes you happy (Catholic just war theory has a few useful notions once you parse the crap out of it for example. The individualist non-collective moral calculus is on the money too, though pity the current Pope does not seem to understand that. Ah well). And I am a great fan of William of Occam, even if he did believe in magic, so not all bad. But I do have to edit out the preposterous God bits to prevent a gag reflex (I actually feel the same way about Rand, which only works for me with a bit of serious editing, but I’d hate to throw out the good bits just because I think Peikoff is barking).
Actually I think we have done rather well and unlike many, I am quite optimistic about the future as we head towards H+. But then given you clearly have no idea who libertarians are, I can understand your confusion.
Perry said,
“It was why I was so contemptuous about trying to export liberal democracy to a unitary Iraq, rather than partition and let nature take its course.”
I admit, I was wrong about that.
I thought, simple concept, simple to see the benefits, everyone wins….there you go.
I underestimated people’s pig-headedness and the degree they would grasp with desperation their old tribal ideas of warlord v warlord. I SHOULD have known better, since I live in a nation where some people would rather everyone be “EQUALLY” worse off than for some people to be fantastically better off paving a way for others to be marginally better off.
Cheers.
Shlomo Maistre: what you seem to advocate is right of might, the natural law of tooth and claw. Why you then object to revolutionaries beheading the king? They were stronger and therefore had the right on their side, or hadn’t they?
Given the abysmal track record of libertarians in constraining the rate of growth of government for centuries, maybe it’s worth reconsidering some assumptions.
Given the abysmal track record of absolute hereditary monarchs of few last centuries in keeping crowns on their heads and heads on their necks….
Thailover wrote: The CREATION of wealth is not zero sum, it’s positive sum, and Bob the innovator getting rich does not make others poor.
Perry responded,
I’m still trying to figure out where the concept of “wealth inequality” fits into the real positive sum world. 🙂
Bob grew a field of watermelons over the summer.
-Oh hell no, fuck no! Watermelon inequality!
-Others don’t have watermelons!
But Bob worked hard growing watermelons. He’ll be happy to sell watermelons at an agreeable price. Free trade to mutual benefit.
-Oh hell no! Watermelon inequality! Crass consumerism is evil and greedy!
But people voluntarily trade cash for watermelon when they consider the watermelon worth more to them than the cash. And Bob has a surplus of watermelons, he has watermelons coming out of his ears, so the cash is more desirable for him. A deal is struck when it proves win-win for both parties.
-Oh hell no, watermelon inequality. Let’s vote for the government to TAKE his watermelons and “redistribute them”, because someone somewhere needs something.
All joking aside, this is how insipid most “redistribution” arguments seem to me. Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t think so.
Cheers.
Cristina asked,
No, just feeling my 50yrs of existence perhaps. 🙂
Cheers.
Alisa wrote:
‘Damned fascist bears!
Thailover,
In the long run, it is true, economics is positive sum. In the short run, things are different.
True. Were it not win-win voluntary cooperation would, um, not occur so your statement is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The idea that voluntary cooperation to mutual benefit is impossible in a zero sum “war” scenario is absurd.
First of all people voluntarily cooperate in wars all the time. When formally entered into they are often called alliances. Check out human affairs and you’ll find alliances pitting the UK Conservative Party and Lib Dems against Labor; Bayit Yehudi, Likud, UTJ and Shas against the rest of the parties in Israel; UK, Poland, USA, Canada, Australia, Spain, etc against Iraq in 2003.
Now I happen to think that the world is generally in the long-run positive sum when it comes to economics, but your statement that voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit is impossible if one believes that the world is not positive sum is absolutely ridiculous.
You rhetorically asked me if I’m at war with my neighbors to which I had to confess I am not – in the conventional sense at least. Responding “no” to such a question supported your point if you recall so I felt the need to clarify the various states of war one can be in to support the point I was making to which you had originally responded with a silly rhetorical question. Of course, my answer to your rhetorical question overall is yes people are at war with their neighbors, since politics is war by other means and in addition conflicting perceptions of rights leads to war (a more subtle point, see IRS etc).
By the way, mind explaining why you asked if I’m at war with my neighbor? My response I think it not what you were expecting eh? 😉
I too once thought that if a principle could be violated then it is thereby “negated” and thoroughly without meaning. Such an all-or-nothing, absolutist stance is indicative of a not very nuanced understanding of reality.
I’m just saying I wouldn’t favor punishing a starving villager for stealing a few bucks from a billionaire.
Irrespective of my prior points on this particular topic, I’ll note that democracy almost inevitably institutionalizes welfare-dependence by way of the “inner party” (as per Mencius Moldbug – examples are Democrats in USA, Labor in UK etc) advancing policies that serve to augment the share of the population dependent on state services. See Obamacare for the latest example. These policies expand the share of the voting public that depends on policies favored by the left-wing. And this is one reason (of many) why the median voter’s preferences shift left in democracy over the long run on fiscal matters.
So, as for your alcoholic, drug addict with one leg and one eye who was force-fed skittles as a child – I’ll just point out that the form of government you do not oppose (having a so called constitutional republic/liberal democracy broadly speaking) generally leads to people with more of those types of debilitating traits. Power takes many forms. Rendering the people incapable of fending for themselves without state support is one such form.
Darin,
Excellent question, I’m pleased you brought this up.
I’ll preface this by saying I was born and remain a secular Jew. I was born and raised and have always lived in a secular culture where 80%+ of the adults are self-described agnostics/atheists. I also am not humble by any means and consider myself rather adept in the art of revelation.
First of all, if one consults reality he will find that there is no such thing as an actual right save the one acquired by might. So I don’t advocate the right of might – I merely notice it.
Second of all, I don’t recall objecting to revolutionaries beheading the king. I know that people generally get the government they deserve – in the long run and in the aggregate. In other words rarely – only by miraculous coincidence – does one man receive the precise treatment by his government that he deserves. In virtually every case, peoples, whole nations receive the quality of governance appropriate to their actions – both recent and long past. The French people today still pay for the crimes against Providence committed by their ancestors in the 18th century.
Third of all, in a crude sense it is of course true that any people may choose to rebel against their rulers at any time. This does not necessarily mean that such rebellion is right or wrong, good or bad, beneficial or detrimental; it only necessarily means that the Creator has endowed man with free will.
Fourth of all, a practical problem with beheading a King is the matter of what comes next. A neat thing about hereditary monarchy is that generally the law of succession is set prior to even the birth of those parties bound by it and mutually agreed upon (with some unfortunate exceptions). See the Salic Law for instance. The salience of the value of the extent to which laws of succession are mutually agreed upon must be stressed – this is no mere human ordinance, but when vested with religious significance takes on a bona fide law, a Schelling Point. A societal, nation-wide Schelling Point for means of succession of formal power (if not necessarily de facto power) renders much (if not all) of the business of politics entirely unnecessary and, in fact, actually besides the point.
Benefits galore! Bureaucrats actually accountable to heads of state; rulers personally vested in the long-term wealth of their nations; peoples genuinely bound together by common oath instead of divided by the discord of faction; the absence of formalized special interest lobbies; the vices of one man in place of the dictates of massive, systematic intrusions of armies of tax collectors and professional busy-bodies.
Revolutionaries – from Cromwell to Robespierre to Jefferson – are unable to substitute a Schelling Point for that which they rashly replace. This is not a matter of their not desiring a Schelling Point; it is simply not possible for a man to create the appearance of sovereignty in the midst of overthrowing another sovereignty – and sovereignty, or the appearance thereof – is the key ingredient necessary to lend sufficient credence to a Schelling Point to render it societally congealing.
Progenitors of rebellion differ primarily insofar as their works limited the disorder their revolutionary projects unleashed.
I could go on but that’s enough for now.
Perry,
So who holds the bureaucrats in line in your minarchist society?
One thing you don’t see is that if the monarchy is a genuine, hereditary (ideally divine right) monarchy and not just a tourist attraction, well, there wouldn’t be an NHS because the leader of the country a) would ACTUALLY be capable of holding bureaucrats accountable and b) would be PERSONALLY vested in the long-term stature, prestige, wealth of his nation.
Maybe this is where we disagree. The items at these two links would never have happened under King George III.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/debt_history
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1w5s0WwjFc
I’m not entirely convinced of the accuracy of data at the UK debt link I provided after investigating its sources more thoroughly.
However, with that said, with that link about the UK’s debt I was really just referring to the growth over the past century (the first chart). But for the record, the growth that happened in centuries prior to the last century in the second chart at that link occurred mostly under Kings that were becoming mere tourist attractions. The costs of trying to retain power are high when the people don’t obey. But I’d be interested in seeing the chart of net public debt as a % of GDP going back further prior to 1700.
Shlomo Maistre:
The French people today still pay for the crimes against Providence committed by their ancestors in the 18th century.
France is first world country, living in peace and prosperity for 70 years. The people of 18th century France would gave everything to pay and suffer like the modern French.
I do not see anything wrong with modern France that could be fixed by absolute monarchy.
Benefits galore!
Very nice place the fairy tale kingdom you describe, unfortunately it have absolutely nothing in common with pre-revolutionary France.
Bureaucrats actually accountable to heads of state;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venal_office
In the context of the French Ancien Régime, a venal office refers to an office sold by the state to raise money.
rulers personally vested in the long-term wealth of their nations;
https://www.academia.edu/6311992/The_Financial_Crisis_that_Contributed_to_the_French_Revolution
On 20 August 1786
the comptroller-general of the royal finances, Charles-Alexandre de Calonne, went to King Louis XVI and informed him that France was on the brink of financial collapse. According to
Calonne, the 1786 deficit would be 112 million livres
(currency of France until 1795). This represented about a quarter of the annual revenue of France. When Louis XVI had come to power in 1774 the deficit had been 40 million, and had even fallen over the next two years.
Since 1777, however, the deficit had risen steadily, largely due to an enormous rise in state
borrowing and consequently in the annual interest and repayments that the treasury was
obligated to disburse.
peoples genuinely bound together by common oath instead of divided by the discord of faction; the absence of formalized special interest lobbies; the vices of one man in place of the dictates of massive, systematic intrusions of armies of tax collectors and professional busy-bodies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taille
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabelle_of_salt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_of_the_Ferme_générale
You are American and you complain now about taxes. Call me when IRS builds a wall with checkpoints around capital city.
I understand you see yourself as hard-headed cynic telling the unpleasant truth. Did you considered the case you might be a lost romantic soul, dazed by the sight of mirrors of Versailles, smitten by fancey hats and magnificent wigs?
Do you understand that the revolutionaries of 18th century like you despised the corrupt and grisly reality of contemporary monarchy and like you looked wistfully at the time of glory and grandeur of republics of ancient Greece and Rome?
Monarchy is the natural organization of society. That is not a longing for the “better times of yore”. It is a fair observation of human behavior. While we are happy to choose our leaders with regularity, we merrily grant them more power with each passing year. We take a vicarious pride in their display of richness and power. We revere the figure and his status. The more we strive to replace the old form of government the closer we get to it by the mendacious and mediocre road called democracy.
Darin,
This does not preclude the possibility that the French still pay for the crimes of their ancestors of the 18th century.
I suspect that France would probably be wealthier today had the French Revolution never occurred – ceteris paribus. Of course, history happens but once so nobody can know “for sure” – but that does render my broader point meaningless, which is that the disorder wrought by revolution generally hinders stability and, therefore, the conditions (secure property rights, low taxes, minimal busy-body to productive subject ratio, etc.) most hospitable to economic growth, among other beneficial phenomena.
Well, nothing necessarily needs to be wrong with a country for improvements to be made.
More seriously, one of the issues Keynesians stumble upon in failing to understand the benefits of free markets is that many of them are invisible until they actually occur. The benefits of creative destruction (as per Schumpeter) and of course the invisible hand (as per Smith) are literally unseen; those enjoying first world standards of living while content with and supportive of the current massive extent of taxes, colossal bureaucratic regulations, and systematically distorting monetary policies know not what they are missing.
Your point? The extent to which the selling of offices occurs in the modern West may still be far more significant that it was in the French Ancient Regime. Raise enough money for candidate Clinton/Bush/etc for example and you can win yourself an ambassadorship!
Furthermore, many offices such as judgeships in the USA, are acquired by all manner of horse-trading of votes, public/private favors, campaign fundraising, networking, compromises on policies, etc. Is it better to secretly sell offices by such back room squabbling or create new offices for the transparent purpose of raising funds? I’d go with transparency.
Congrats. You found an example of a monarchy that was strapped for cash. If only they could have printed money out of thin air!
Anyway, this is not an impressive sample size.
I’ll cite Louis XIV and Frederick the Great:
Louis XIV – suffice it to say that even Voltaire called his reign the Great Century. There was robust and prolonged social order, the arts flourished famously, the treasury was replenished, and France grew enormously in stature and prestige.
And Frederick the Great modernized the backwater of Prussia, transforming its economy, developing whole regions of land so fundamentally so as to attract hundreds of thousands of eager immigrants. He cultivated a religiously tolerant society and intentionally attracted new peoples to broaden the stability of Prussia’s economy and facilitate a richly diverse culture.
Old Fritz and the Sun King make any American President look pathetically weak and woefully misguided by comparison.
Now, I’m sure there have been bad/dumb monarchs, but I’m not sure that pointing out extreme, isolated examples does much to convince either of us. The key is to look at the aggregate. To that end, check this out:
https://www.reddit.com/r/monarchism/comments/2dldcu/a_timeline_of_france_ask_yourself_are_republics/
And really think about what’s at that link.
I genuinely don’t understand your point?
http://money.cnn.com/interactive/real-estate/property-tax/
Again, what’s your point? I’d much rather have my salt be taxed instead of my earnings.
The tax code in most Western nations is so massive and complex that whole industries have sprung up to guide people in if not understanding at least addressing said tax codes. Massive numbers of accountants and lawyers are paid huge sums of money to exploit loopholes. Poor/middle class Americans make do with software to help them save from the government as much of their hard earned money as possible. Did the French Ancient Regime tax income, tax WORKING as much as modern France of America? Did the French Ancient Regime tax income, tax the productive act of working at all?
Granted, you may not mind paying high taxes. So this may be just for my vanity and anyone in the gallery – if anyone is still reading – who is rather not fond of paying high taxes, which I suspect is a hefty proportion of Samizdatistas/Samizdata readers.
I don’t understand your point still. There are massive security infrastructures built around buildings throughout Washington DC. Were current technology as basic as it was a few centuries ago I’m sure the walls build around Washington DC would be longer and taller than those which you reference.
I have considered this – and I think I am a lost romantic! Very perceptive of you. Perhaps you realize that such an aspect of my soul does not preclude the veracity of my argument?
You have no clue what you are saying. I don’t have the time to parse this right now; just read Mencius Moldbug (Unqualified Reservations) if you want to learn, learn more about my perspective. He’s a Carlylean and I’m a Maistrian so we agree on virtually everything.
Um.
should read:
Yeah, that’s better.
Cristina,
Very well said. And very true.
Shlomo Maistre, thank you.
I’m sure they would if the “pro-refugee lobby” (whoever the fuck that is) was shooting up their offices. Until then I’m not really sure what they need people to stand up for them against.