Comments on: B for Betrayal http://shianux.jiyuuu.org/2006/04/10/b-for-betrayal/ The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Sat, 22 Nov 2008 11:03:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Han http://shianux.jiyuuu.org/2006/04/10/b-for-betrayal/#comment-4903 Han Sat, 15 Apr 2006 04:16:47 +0000 http://shianux.jiyuuu.org/2006/04/10/193/b-for-betrayal/#comment-4903 Jol: Well, at least we are in half agreement. The "interest" of society is irrelevant to me, as long as no one screws anyone else over. I take this stance because I believe only individuals have rights, and not societies, cultures or religions, and least of all governments. The reason I asked for examples of ideas that you hold is because I needed to understand where were you coming from. Just as "right-wing" can consist of many different factions whose interests do not always align (libertarians, neo-cons, religious fundies, etc), there are many different groups which put themselves in the left-wing camp as well. For the record, I do not consider libertarians "right-wing". In all honesty, I actually have not read Nozick. And I also hardly consider Hayek to be "right-wing". In fact, I would say that Sowell is more "right-wing" than Hayek in many respects because he favours the use of state-action to further socially conservative agendas. In this post, I was criticising one particular strain of leftism, the multiculturalists/moral relativists. As you should be able to tell from my blog, I am a strong proponent of LGBT rights. For that reason, I simply cannot accept that all cultures and all social values are equally valid, not when some cultures take away the rights of individuals if they do not conform. Also keep in mind that the only boundaries I set for these individual rights is non-consensual harm (coercion, fraud, physical force) to another, so a minimum standard of conformity is required when it comes to stopping people from harming one another. I have never doubted the existence of Islamophobia. The question is, is it really ill-founded? I'll address this in the next post. Maybe you could suggest some good books from the left so that I may better acquaint myself with these ideas? Jol:

Well, at least we are in half agreement. The “interest” of society is irrelevant to me, as long as no one screws anyone else over. I take this stance because I believe only individuals have rights, and not societies, cultures or religions, and least of all governments.

The reason I asked for examples of ideas that you hold is because I needed to understand where were you coming from. Just as “right-wing” can consist of many different factions whose interests do not always align (libertarians, neo-cons, religious fundies, etc), there are many different groups which put themselves in the left-wing camp as well. For the record, I do not consider libertarians “right-wing”.

In all honesty, I actually have not read Nozick. And I also hardly consider Hayek to be “right-wing”. In fact, I would say that Sowell is more “right-wing” than Hayek in many respects because he favours the use of state-action to further socially conservative agendas.

In this post, I was criticising one particular strain of leftism, the multiculturalists/moral relativists. As you should be able to tell from my blog, I am a strong proponent of LGBT rights. For that reason, I simply cannot accept that all cultures and all social values are equally valid, not when some cultures take away the rights of individuals if they do not conform. Also keep in mind that the only boundaries I set for these individual rights is non-consensual harm (coercion, fraud, physical force) to another, so a minimum standard of conformity is required when it comes to stopping people from harming one another.

I have never doubted the existence of Islamophobia. The question is, is it really ill-founded? I’ll address this in the next post.

Maybe you could suggest some good books from the left so that I may better acquaint myself with these ideas?

]]> By: Jol http://shianux.jiyuuu.org/2006/04/10/b-for-betrayal/#comment-4901 Jol Sat, 15 Apr 2006 01:57:31 +0000 http://shianux.jiyuuu.org/2006/04/10/193/b-for-betrayal/#comment-4901 We could get into an argue over specific policies for ages, but broadly speaking I think society's main interests are in preserving kinds of social relations rather than a material state of affairs. I often describe this as not believing that it's ever in the best interests of a country to screw anyone over. That's what I think the divide between left and right primarily means (I'm aware that e.g. Sowell has other visions of the divide and I think that his explanation of it, at least, reflects certain right-wing pretheoretical assumptions to begin with). If you want examples of the specific circumstances in which I could be described as left-wing, be warned, I don't have time to engage in detailed debate about each of these - they are really just going to be two-line examples. So, in the context of an industrialised society of the kind familiar to us (because unlike libertarians or indeed communists I simply don't believe that there is one type of government that is ahistorically and acontextually THE BEST given every possible state of affairs): (1) I think the state should provide universal primary and secondary education and that state-provided education should be non-stratified to a significant degree; and (2) I think the criminal justice system should be based around restorative justice and a parsimony of punishment (and criminal justice is an issue which I simply don't believe can be considered along a simplistic libertarian-authoritarian divide in solutions). But my deeper interest was in the process by which you conclude that the left is inimical to the values you hold - whether you've actually read much in the way of the thought of the left by people who actually subscribe to it, or whether you've only read the (inevitably less than convincing) presentations of it by parts of the right. We could get into an argue over specific policies for ages, but broadly speaking I think society’s main interests are in preserving kinds of social relations rather than a material state of affairs. I often describe this as not believing that it’s ever in the best interests of a country to screw anyone over. That’s what I think the divide between left and right primarily means (I’m aware that e.g. Sowell has other visions of the divide and I think that his explanation of it, at least, reflects certain right-wing pretheoretical assumptions to begin with).

If you want examples of the specific circumstances in which I could be described as left-wing, be warned, I don’t have time to engage in detailed debate about each of these - they are really just going to be two-line examples. So, in the context of an industrialised society of the kind familiar to us (because unlike libertarians or indeed communists I simply don’t believe that there is one type of government that is ahistorically and acontextually THE BEST given every possible state of affairs): (1) I think the state should provide universal primary and secondary education and that state-provided education should be non-stratified to a significant degree; and (2) I think the criminal justice system should be based around restorative justice and a parsimony of punishment (and criminal justice is an issue which I simply don’t believe can be considered along a simplistic libertarian-authoritarian divide in solutions).

But my deeper interest was in the process by which you conclude that the left is inimical to the values you hold - whether you’ve actually read much in the way of the thought of the left by people who actually subscribe to it, or whether you’ve only read the (inevitably less than convincing) presentations of it by parts of the right.

]]> By: Han http://shianux.jiyuuu.org/2006/04/10/b-for-betrayal/#comment-4899 Han Fri, 14 Apr 2006 18:59:53 +0000 http://shianux.jiyuuu.org/2006/04/10/193/b-for-betrayal/#comment-4899 Jol: Would you mind helping me out by giving some examples of beliefs or ideas which you ascribe to that would identify you as left-wing? I need more information before I can provide a respectable reply. Thank you. :) Jol:

Would you mind helping me out by giving some examples of beliefs or ideas which you ascribe to that would identify you as left-wing? I need more information before I can provide a respectable reply.

Thank you. :)

]]> By: Jol http://shianux.jiyuuu.org/2006/04/10/b-for-betrayal/#comment-4896 Jol Thu, 13 Apr 2006 17:32:36 +0000 http://shianux.jiyuuu.org/2006/04/10/193/b-for-betrayal/#comment-4896 Out of curiosity, what left-wing books have you read? I ask merely because your bookshelf seems full of right-wing books (I include purportedly neutral ones such as Sowell in that category because he casts the debate in the right's rather than the left's pre-theoretical terms) and I wonder if you aren't perhaps getting a less than complete understanding of what it means to be left-wing. Surely you should address the case for the left at its strongest, and respond to the most sincere and well-reasoned arguments in favour of left-wing positions, rather than basing your opinion on the writing of say Nozick and Hayek, who obviously aren't going to put forward the most favourable view of it. (Not from intellectual dishonesty, but simply from not being the best advocate of views they don't share.) Of course it's entirely possible you've already read leftist works and I'm preaching to the converted here but it strikes me as possibly slightly ill-informed to dismiss the left on the basis of this flimsily stated notion of the "greater good" philosophy which in many cases no self-respecting leftie would agree with. I self-identify as left-wing and I completely reject the notion that the sort of authoritarianism practised in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran is acceptable, but that to me doesn't preclude me from objecting also to blatantly ill-founded Islamophobic sentiment in the West. (And it exists: don't for an instant doubt it.) Out of curiosity, what left-wing books have you read? I ask merely because your bookshelf seems full of right-wing books (I include purportedly neutral ones such as Sowell in that category because he casts the debate in the right’s rather than the left’s pre-theoretical terms) and I wonder if you aren’t perhaps getting a less than complete understanding of what it means to be left-wing. Surely you should address the case for the left at its strongest, and respond to the most sincere and well-reasoned arguments in favour of left-wing positions, rather than basing your opinion on the writing of say Nozick and Hayek, who obviously aren’t going to put forward the most favourable view of it. (Not from intellectual dishonesty, but simply from not being the best advocate of views they don’t share.) Of course it’s entirely possible you’ve already read leftist works and I’m preaching to the converted here but it strikes me as possibly slightly ill-informed to dismiss the left on the basis of this flimsily stated notion of the “greater good” philosophy which in many cases no self-respecting leftie would agree with.

I self-identify as left-wing and I completely reject the notion that the sort of authoritarianism practised in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran is acceptable, but that to me doesn’t preclude me from objecting also to blatantly ill-founded Islamophobic sentiment in the West. (And it exists: don’t for an instant doubt it.)

]]> By: Han http://shianux.jiyuuu.org/2006/04/10/b-for-betrayal/#comment-4889 Han Tue, 11 Apr 2006 12:31:13 +0000 http://shianux.jiyuuu.org/2006/04/10/193/b-for-betrayal/#comment-4889 If it is the imperialism of individual rights, then I'm all for it. If it is the imperialism of individual rights, then I’m all for it.

]]> By: ejl http://shianux.jiyuuu.org/2006/04/10/b-for-betrayal/#comment-4888 ejl Tue, 11 Apr 2006 09:43:02 +0000 http://shianux.jiyuuu.org/2006/04/10/193/b-for-betrayal/#comment-4888 "The reason that I have announced the death of feminism, which I agree is stark, is that from my point of view, looking at mainstream feminism in the west - in the universities, in the media, among academics and the socalled intelligentsia - there is a moral failure, a moral bankruptcy, a refusal to take on, in particular, Muslim gender apartheid. So you have many contemporary feminists who say, 'We have to be multiculturally relativist. We cannot uphold a single, or absolute, standard of human rights. And, therefore, we can't condemn Islamic culture, because their countries have been previously colonised. By us.' I disagree." - <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,,1746154,00.html" rel="nofollow"> Phyllis Chester in an interview with John Sutherland</a> it's the issue of universality vs relativism. on the one hand, i think relativism is good, because each society has its own history and its own coping mechanisms; on the other, relativism masks inherent inequalities by saying that its 'our culture' or 'our way' or 'our values'. But, just for the sake of argument, can universality ever be any thing more than a vague notion of normative values without coming across as another form of imperialism? “The reason that I have announced the death of feminism, which I agree is stark, is that from my point of view, looking at mainstream feminism in the west - in the universities, in the media, among academics and the socalled intelligentsia - there is a moral failure, a moral bankruptcy, a refusal to take on, in particular, Muslim gender apartheid. So you have many contemporary feminists who say, ‘We have to be multiculturally relativist. We cannot uphold a single, or absolute, standard of human rights. And, therefore, we can’t condemn Islamic culture, because their countries have been previously colonised. By us.’ I disagree.” - Phyllis Chester in an interview with John Sutherland

it’s the issue of universality vs relativism. on the one hand, i think relativism is good, because each society has its own history and its own coping mechanisms; on the other, relativism masks inherent inequalities by saying that its ‘our culture’ or ‘our way’ or ‘our values’.

But, just for the sake of argument, can universality ever be any thing more than a vague notion of normative values without coming across as another form of imperialism?

]]>