[Peace-discuss] Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for the
Coup?
LAURIE SOLOMON
LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET
Mon Feb 9 21:51:47 CST 2009
Apart from the fact that in popular parlance "Totalitarianism,
authoritarianism, statism are synonyms for the same thing" may be true (not
to mention that in any parlance the statement is redundant); technically,
the terms philosophically in political theory have nuanced meanings which
make them different and not really synonyms; but I am not going to play word
games as you appear to be prone to do (i.e., "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.").
This conversation is unproductive. I am putting a fork in it because it is
done. Any respect of regard I may have had for you is gone; any respect
that I may have had for your opinions both when I agreed and when I
disagreed) is lost.
From: E. Wayne Johnson [mailto:ewj at pigs.ag]
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 8:40 AM
To: LAURIE SOLOMON
Cc: jencart13 at yahoo.com; 'peace discuss'; unionyes
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for the
Coup?
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] On Behalf Of E. Wayne
Johnson
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 8:59 AM
To: 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 <mailto:ewj at pigs.ag> <ewj at pigs.ag>
wrote:
From: E. Wayne Johnson <mailto:ewj at pigs.ag> <ewj at pigs.ag>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for the
Coup?
To: jencart13 at yahoo.com
Cc: "John W." <mailto:jbw292002 at gmail.com> <jbw292002 at gmail.com>, "peace
discuss" <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
<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. <mailto:jbw292002 at gmail.com>
<jbw292002 at gmail.com> wrote:
From: John W. <mailto:jbw292002 at gmail.com> <jbw292002 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for the
Coup?
To: "C. G. Estabrook" <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu> <galliher at uiuc.edu>
Cc: "peace discuss" <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
<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> 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
<http://www.newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2731> &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>> 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
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
_____
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
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/20090209/1e2de0b1/attachment.htm
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list