[Peace-discuss] Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for the
Coup?
E. Wayne Johnson
ewj at pigs.ag
Mon Feb 9 09:41:02 CST 2009
I do not accept your notion of courage as being the bottleneck nor your
notion of a binary function rather than a gradient.
Picking and choosing is good, and I really do like your idea of qualifying
Libertarianism with the adjective Christian.
I do however reject this statement -
/we have no real basis for evaluating what actions are legitimate
actions for government to be involved in
/
Picking and choosing is a necessary, re-iterative and dynamic process.
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>
>
>
>
> >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 , 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/20090209/31b437e3/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list