[Peace-discuss] Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for the
Coup?
E. Wayne Johnson
ewj at pigs.ag
Mon Feb 9 08:39:36 CST 2009
Laurie,
I find it a weak negatively flavoured argument to disparage the other
guy's language as negatively flavoured and disparaging.
You are free to use what ever words you like, even characterizing the
other guy's characterizations
as being that of calling them fools, idiots, evil, and villains. You
seem to employ similar appellations,
but with a lot more words.
Totalitarianism, authoritarianism, statism are synonyms for the same
thing. We could call it Jabberwockism or any other "handle" we agree on
or some letter or number. Hitler and Mussolini represent extreme
manifestations of burbling Jabberwock-ness. Beware of their jaws and
claws, but such must be dealt with by slaying. Shunning is recommended
for the frumious Bandersnatch.
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>
> I had hoped to get around to responding before David Johnson chimed in
> with his post suggesting that there is common agreement that Hitler
> and Mussolini were evil villains. I am not going to disagree with
> this in this post; and for the sake of argument, say yes we all agree
> to that. However, this is not the point and is a form of misdirection
> that seeks to change the substance and direction of the argument.
> Similarly, no one is arguing if authoritarians might or might not be
> fools or idiots.
>
>
>
> My comment was "by your use of negatively flavored language and
> disparaging portrayals (i.e., "the oppressive bondage of the
> totalitarian "nanny state".") to describe the opposing position with
> the implication that those who may believe that self-control is not
> all it is cracked up to be and that many times external authority and
> sanctions may be needed to produce the common good are fools, idiots,
> evil, villains." /What is in question is/ (a)*/ your use/* of the
> negative characterization of a positively acting as contrasted to a
> passive state as being a totalitarian "nanny state" and its actions as
> constituting "oppressive bondage" and (b) */the implication that/*
> /those who disagree with your view as to the desirability of a very
> limited and passive state and who support an active state that
> positively exercise external authority and sanctions to produce or
> attempt to remove obstacles to the attainment of the common good of
> the collective and the potential self-fulfillment and development of
> the individuals in that collective/ */are fools, idiots, and villains/*.
>
>
>
> No mention was made of authoritarians or authoritarianism, although
> the use of the term "totalitarian" does implicitly suggest
> authoritarianism and by implications suggests that those who favor an
> active state that imposes external authority and sanctions in pursuit
> of generating conditions suitable to the advancement of the common
> good are authoritarians (and hence, indirectly evil villains). We are
> not talking about Hitler or Mussolini; no one until your post even
> mentioned them. We are not even talking about potential Hitler-like
> or Mussolini-like leaders and government officials. We are talking
> about common everyday ordinary people who may feel it desirable to
> have a proactive state and government, who may want a state and
> government that actively exerts its authority and ability use official
> sanctions (rewards and punishments) to further the common good -- be
> it to eliminate racism and sexism, to remove ethnic prejudice and
> homophobic biases, to insure that everyone in the population is
> entitled to and gets needed quality housing, food, education, health
> care, and equal opportunities; and to furnish conditions that allow
> for fairness, equity, and justice for everyone independent of their
> status in society to mention some examples. Moreover, there is no
> necessary or sufficient reasons why the leadership of such a state and
> society would have to be Hitler-like or Mussolini-like or Stalin-like
> or authoritarian -- except if due to one's initial presuppositions any
> such leader by definition is authoritarian because lead a state or
> society that yopu have defined as being authoritarian or totalitarian
> based on your beliefs.
>
>
>
> So as they say in the courts, you answer is non-responsive to my
> questions, objections, and statements.
>
>
>
> >Courage to accept what?
>
>
>
> Courage to accept pure unqualified version of libertarianism, which is
> in many respects akin to anarchism where no state is preferred to a
> state and a very limited state, if a state is necessary, is preferred
> to a robust state. In short, by implication, a state that is just
> short of complete laisser-faire government and society where everyone
> is for themselves in a war of all against all and the fittest
> survives. Instead, you qualify your libertarianism with the adjective
> qualifier "Christian" and let in the back door state activism in those
> areas that you value and prefer such as the protection of private
> property, the protection of individualism, the protection of an
> individual's right to do what they please on their own property with
> their own property as long as it is not directly harming others or
> interfering with them, the protection of individual member's life and
> limb and right to survive, and other such things. However, you stop
> at supporting government actions that tell people that they only have
> a right to private property if they use it for the public good and
> collective welfare of the society at large rather than for their own
> individual good and benefit, that make it a crime to accumulate wealth
> beyond what one reasonably needs to survive happily at a modest level
> when others in society are unable to meet that level of quality of
> life, or that says that an individual's rights and freedoms are only
> valid if and when they are exercised in the public good on behalf of
> the common good. Thus, you are picking and choosing what areas you
> desire government to be active in and what areas you think they have
> no business in rather than taking the approach that, since we have no
> real basis for evaluating what actions are legitimate actions for
> government to be involved in, it either should be involved in nothing
> (e.g., we in effect have no government) or it should be proactively
> involved in every aspect of collective life with private individual
> desires and needs having a lesser priority to the collective good
> (e.g., an ant --like society).
>
>
>
> *From:* E. Wayne Johnson [mailto:ewj at pigs.ag]
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 08, 2009 5:29 PM
> *To:* LAURIE SOLOMON
> *Cc:* jencart13 at yahoo.com; 'peace discuss'
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran
> for the Coup?
>
>
>
> Dont over-read my "certainly". There are things that are uncertain
> to me and thinks that I believe are certain.
>
> Authoritarians may not be fools or idiots. Hitler and Mussolini were
> not exactly fools and idiots but I think
> it is fair enough to characterize them as evil villains.
>
> Courage to accept what?
>
>
>
> LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>
> Hmmm! Whenever someone starts a statement with "certainly," as you
> have done in the second sentence, I immediately and reflexively start
> hearing alarm bells going off in my head telling me to be careful
> because I may be dealing with some "true believer" who thinks that
> they have a corner on the market of truth and with whom one cannot
> engage in any sort of rational discourse with any possibility of
> changing their opinion, which they usually do not view as opinion, or
> reaching any sort of accommodation with as to compromise or acceptance
> of diversity. Unless one likes to talk for the sake of talking or
> argue for the joy of arguing, discussions with such a person are
> typically fruitless and a waste of time.
>
>
>
> I do find it telling that you use "certainly" but do not even bother
> to qualify its usage with "in my opinion." This tells me you have
> arrogantly assumed a self-righteous position and are no longer engaged
> in discussion but are now prostylizing and evangelicalizing both your
> religious beliefs and secular beliefs as well. This is further
> evidenced -- despite the civil wording and tone -- by your use of
> negatively flavored language and disparaging portrayals (i.e., "the
> oppressive bondage of the totalitarian "nanny state".") to describe
> the opposing position with the implication that those who may believe
> that self-control is not all it is cracked up to be and that many
> times external authority and sanctions may be needed to produce the
> common good are fools, idiots, evil, villains. In fact, I find it
> interesting that (based on other writings by you) you do not even have
> the courage to accept the pure unqualified version of libertarianism
> but are perfectly willing to abandon notions of self-control and
> accept -- if not promote - the oppressive bondage of the totalitarian
> "nanny state" when it suits your needs and beliefs (such as the
> protection of private property; the protection of life, liberty, and
> the pursuit of happiness; the protection of individualism, among
> others).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
> <mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net>
> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] *On Behalf Of *E.
> Wayne Johnson
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 08, 2009 8:59 AM
> *To:* jencart13 at yahoo.com <mailto:jencart13 at yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* peace discuss
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran
> for the Coup?
>
>
>
> Wow, pretty good. You've thought about this for awhile Jenifer.
> Certainly self-control is far more valuable and desirable than the
> oppressive bondage of
> the totalitarian "nanny state".
>
> Do you prefer the flexible molded magnets shaped like a pair of stone
> tablets
> or the ones that have the magnet glued on the back?
>
> /"You were called for liberty (eleutheria), but take care that don't
> just use this liberty as a resource and excuse for the fulfilling the
> selfishness of the biological nature of the flesh, but in love you
> should serve one another. The whole letter of law, both the
> commandments and the derived corollaries, as regarding human
> relationships, is readily complied with in one statement, "you shall
> love your neighbour as yourself"./
> - after Paul, Galatians 5.13-14.
>
>
>
>
> Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
>
> Wow, I was just stating the obvious, duh -- I didn't think I'd said
> anything that anybody could possibly disagree with!
>
>
>
> So.... what would YOUR ideal society look like, Wayne? No rules, regs,
> laws, or gov'ts... and survival of the fittest? The Ten Commandments
> printed on refrigerator magnets, with implementation left to the honor
> system and God's revenge??
>
> --Jenifer
>
> --- On *Sat, 2/7/09, E. Wayne Johnson /<ewj at pigs.ag>
> <mailto:ewj at pigs.ag>/* wrote:
>
> From: E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag> <mailto:ewj at pigs.ag>
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran
> for the Coup?
> To: jencart13 at yahoo.com <mailto:jencart13 at yahoo.com>
> Cc: "John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com> <mailto:jbw292002 at gmail.com>,
> "peace discuss" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> Date: Saturday, February 7, 2009, 2:01 PM
>
> "Go and learn what this means..." "The Law killeth, but the
> Spirit giveth life".
>
> I suppose that one of the great benefits of this country being a
> federation of united States is that the people in each individual
> state can
> determine just what degree of intrusion of the authoritarian
> police power they are willing to tolerate, and people can then freely
> associate themselves to authoritarian or free societies depending
> upon their values and ability to tolerate inexact fit.
>
>
>
> Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
>
> Re John's point about human nature: even if we argue that most
> people are kind, generous, and good, there are always those few
> who are not... and regardless of the economic systems in which
> they're operating, some of these ruthless types will make their
> way to the top by stepping on the backs of others UNLESS there are
> laws in place -- and enforced -- that prevent it.
>
> Some people (those who don't want their immorality interferred
> with) love to say that "you can't legislate morality." Well, my
> view is that it's the responsibility of gov't to use both sticks
> and carrots. The gov't first must rule that certain immoral
> behaviors are illegal, and then must enforce that ruling by
> imposing penalties -- the civil rights act of 1964 comes to mind.
> The gov't also sweetens the pot by allowing philanthropists to
> deduct certain charitable contributions on their taxes... which is
> the main reason that so many rich folks give so much money to
> worthy causes. And in this way, the gov't sets the tone, and
> people (not all of them, but more than otherwise) do eventually
> become more ethical (e g comparison of the treatment and rights of
> African-Americans immediately before- and now, long after the
> civil rights act of '64).
>
> --Jenifer
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On *Fri, 2/6/09, John W. /<jbw292002 at gmail.com>
> <mailto:jbw292002 at gmail.com>/* wrote:
>
> From: John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com> <mailto:jbw292002 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Would It Kill Us to Apologize to
> Iran for the Coup?
> To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
> <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu>
> Cc: "peace discuss" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> Date: Friday, February 6, 2009, 7:15 PM
>
>
> Here is a point on which Carl and I agree, though his interest
> in the topic is more academic, let us say, than mine.
> Capitalism was the root cause of racial discrimination rather
> than the reverse, and it's the source of just about all of our
> other disparities as well.
>
> However, I go a step further and identify unregenerate human
> nature as the real culprit. Humans, by and large, are
> self-centered, grasping, fearful little creatures who are more
> interested in getting ahead of their neighbor than in sharing
> their bounty with him/her. It doesn't matter what "system" we
> operate under, be it monarchy or capitalism or communism or
> what have you. Some humans always seem to figure out a way to
> oppress their fellow humans, and rationalize their behavior in
> myriad ways. They don't even consider it oppression, they
> consider it "working hard" or "living right" or whatever -
> even when they don't work and live on the income from a trust
> fund! And in that Marti is absolutely right; by failing to
> recognize their privilege and surrender at least some of it
> for the common good, they perpetuate and exacerbate the evil.
>
> I continue to wonder at the factors which caused Europeans,
> just in the last half of the last century, to get it more
> nearly right than most other societies in history.
>
> JW
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 11:44 AM, C. G. Estabrook
> <galliher at uiuc.edu <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu>> wrote:
>
> I wouldn't call it limousine liberalism, but John is correct I
> think to suggest that there is a tendency in recent American
> liberalism to substitute diversity for (economic) equality as
> the goal of progressive politics.
>
> The argument is sharply set out by Walter Benn Michaels in
> "The Trouble with Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity
> and Ignore Inequality" (2006). And it's been argued that the
> real story of Tom Frank's "What's the Matter With Kansas?"
> (2004) is that the working class abandoned the Democratic
> party when the Democrats abandoned economic equality (insofar
> as they ever embraced it) in favor of diversity.
>
> Benn Michaels summarized his argument in a recent issue of the
> British journal, "New Left Review." Here is his conclusion:
>
> "...the answer to the question, 'Why do American liberals
> carry on about racism and sexism when they should be carrying
> on about capitalism?', is pretty obvious: they carry on about
> racism and sexism in order to avoid doing so about capitalism.
> Either because they genuinely do think that inequality is fine
> as long as it is not a function of discrimination (in which
> case, they are neoliberals of the right). Or because they
> think that fighting against racial and sexual inequality is at
> least a step in the direction of real equality (in which case,
> they are neoliberals of the left). Given these options,
> perhaps the neoliberals of the right are in a stronger
> position -- the economic history of the last thirty years
> suggests that diversified elites do even better than
> undiversified ones. But of course, these are not the only
> possible choices."
>
> <http://www.newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2731
> <http://www.newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2731>>
>
>
> John W. wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Robert Naiman
> <naiman.uiuc at gmail.com <mailto:naiman.uiuc at gmail.com>
> <mailto:naiman.uiuc at gmail.com
> <mailto:naiman.uiuc at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
> I'm definitely not in favor of refusal to recognize
> privilege. But I presume
> that in a non-racist society, if everyone woke up one day
> and discovered that
> by some mysterious process, a chunk of their neighbors were
> disproportionately excluded from the economic benefits
> that the society had
> to offer, people would move to address the disparity.
>
>
> You gotta be shitting me, Robert. Surely you jest? You
> have neighbors right
> here on this mailing list who are disproportionately
> excluded from the
> economic benefits that society has to offer, and it has
> nothing to do with
> race, and no one on this list is doing a damned thing
> about it or is GOING to
> do a damned thing about it. Whenever I talk about
> poverty, lack of health
> insurance, etc., from a personal perspective, I get a
> blank stare from the
> limousine liberals. "Get a life," they say, or "Be warmed
> and filled," to
> quote the Good Book. I daresay that most of the readers
> of this list care
> more about people in Pakistan than they do about their
> neighbors, at least in
> terms of doing anything pragmatic to help them.
>
> I'll probably live to regret that comment, but there it is.
>
>
>
> So, the fact that such disparities persist in our society,
> and the fact that
> we don't move successfully to redress them, to me is
> evidence enough of
> racism; no other story is necessary.
>
>
> You ain't read enough stories, apparently. There are many
> types of disparities in our society, and many complex
> causes of such disparities.
> Racism is an important one, but it is only one.
>
>
>
> That doesn't mean that other stories don't have value, and
> might not also be important to achieving the end of
> redress, but I see no need to posit them as
> prerequisites, and some reason not to; since it might be
> the case, for
> example, that some people have a psychological barrier
> against recognizing
> privilege, but not against redress justified on some other
> basis.
>
>
> You lost me there. Not that it matters.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Peace-discuss mailing list
>
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Peace-discuss mailing list
>
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090209/5cf6a032/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list