Items Posted by Jim Kalb
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Jul 6 05:51:12 EDT 1995
Article: 18167 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Revised FAQ on sex
Date: 5 Jul 1995 20:53:03 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <3tfc5f$gle@panix.com>
References: <3tb7n2$msl@panix.com> <3tf6v2$n16@access1.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <3tf6v2$n16@access1.digex.net> steve-b@access1.digex.net (Steve Brinich) writes:
> What do you mean by "general"? If you mean "virtually universal", I still
>await your ringing denunciation of celibacy.
When you apply a rule like [if it were generally done bad stuff would
happen]=>[it's wrong to do it] the way you apply it has to have a lot
to do with how many people would do it if no one recognized any moral
rules on the subject.
If you mean "by a large fraction
>of society", I still await your proof that customs that violate your taboos
>(which do not involve neglect for one's natural obligation to support such
>children as one may produce) are going to "destroy" anything vital to
>society.
What inadequacies do you see in what the FAQ says on the subject?
A key point, I think, is that you seem to think of people as devices
that can be programmed to do or not do anything that as a logical
matter is independent of all the other things they do, so that (for
example) someone who habitually thinks of sex as a feature of his body
and other people's bodies to be used to produce pleasurable sensations
is as likely to stick with the woman he sleeps with and has a child by
as someone who thinks of sex as something that can't be separated from
a close permanent tie between the parties.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Jul 6 05:51:13 EDT 1995
Article: 18179 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Revised FAQ on sex
Date: 6 Jul 1995 05:47:04 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <3tgbeo$er0@panix.com>
References: <3tb7n2$msl@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In schwarze.ccomail@starbase1.caltech.edu (Erich Schwarz) writes:
> Mr. Kalb: I think you need to think a little harder about whether "act
>as if your behavior were to become a general law" *really* addresses all
>moral issues.
No such claim or belief. My claim would only be that it's a necessary
part of moral reasoning, not that it and it alone exhausts morality.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Jul 6 14:04:58 EDT 1995
Article: 6791 of alt.politics.sex
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex,alt.sex
Subject: FAQ re traditional sexual morality
Date: 6 Jul 1995 06:43:16 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 442
Message-ID: <3tgeo4$jof@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.politics.sex:6791 alt.sex:215298
Any comments on the following?
Draft Sexual Morality FAQ
Sex continues to be a contentious topic. On the net the dominant view
is that the only appropriate public standards are that it should be
consensual and that precautions should be taken to avoid disease and
unwanted pregnancy; everything else is a matter of individual choice
that others should respect. That view is also the one easiest to
articulate in the language of public discussion today in America and no
doubt elsewhere. Since many hold a contrary view, I thought I could
contribute to the discussion by setting it forth as clearly as I could.
Comments are welcome.
QUESTIONS
1. Why should anyone care what consenting adults do in private?
2. What are "public standards"?
3. How are public standards enforced?
4. Who are you to say what sexual conduct is right for me?
5. What's so bad about the sexual conduct traditionally viewed with
disfavor?
6. Why believe that looser sexual standards have the bad consequences
you describe?
7. I still don't see what effect the things I do in bed have on the
rest of the world as long as I take the obvious precautions.
8. If the worry is people's happiness, why won't people be happiest if
they can write their own ticket in sexual matters?
9. Why wouldn't it be enough if people took responsibility for their
actions and lived up to their commitments?
10. How do you know that the particular standards you like are the ones
everyone should comply with?
11. Isn't traditional sexual morality oppressive and discriminatory
against women?
12. What about people such as gays, women caught in loveless marriages,
and others for whom traditional sexual morality doesn't work?
13. Why not recognize that so-called traditional sexual morality has
become a private prejudice rather than a public standard?
14. Isn't the nuclear family a figment of Western bourgeois patriarchal
second-stage society that necessarily will give way to something
entirely different?
15. You and your friends have your system of sexual morality and I and
my friends have ours. They're different. What now?
16. People just aren't going to go back to the old ways.
17. What is the relation of sexual morality to politics?
Answers
1. Why should anyone care what consenting adults do in private?
Private conduct doesn't stay private. Among other things, private
consensual sex gives rise to babies, family life, knife fights,
betrayal, self-sacrificing devotion, and STDs. All these things
are of concern to people other than those immediately involved, so
public standards regarding the private conduct that leads to them
can be a good thing if they help promote some and reduce others.
2. What are "public standards"?
A reasonably coherent common understanding of what behavior is
right and wrong. Examples include rules of politeness and everyday
moral standards (honesty, trustworthiness and so on). Such
standards aren't perfectly fixed and most often aren't legally
enforceable, but in any society that is not in crisis they are firm
enough for people to use in judging their own conduct and
criticizing that of others, and they find it extremely awkward to
flout them publicly.
3. How are public standards enforced?
Any number of ways. Depending on circumstances and how serious the
violation is, people may look the other way, refuse to cooperate,
make critical comments, avoid dealings with violators, and so on.
In addition, people rightly expect the actions of public
authorities to uphold accepted standards or at least not undermine
them. How public authorities do that varies tremendously depending
on any number of things -- it's not the same for standards of
politeness and the standards that condemn murder, and it differs
from one political regime to another depending on the degree of
government responsibility for various aspects of social life.
4. Who are you (or the majority, or the Church, or the state) to say
what sexual conduct is right for me?
Who is to say what conduct of any kind is right for you? Who is to
say what is polite, what are the requirements of honesty, or what
constitutes slander or harassment? Standards and sensibilities
differ, and the effects of what we do depend on chance,
circumstances and other people, so most things people do might be
considered either proper or improper. Nonetheless, decisions must
be made, and some decisions must be made socially rather than
individually. As to sexuality, it is the root of procreation, the
family and the rearing of children, and thus of the continued
existence and well-being of society. Standards regarding sexuality
are fundamental rules for how we live together, and can't be viewed
as a matter of individual choice any more than the political
constitution, the rules of property, or the standards of ordinary
honesty.
5. What's so bad about the sexual conduct traditionally viewed with
disfavor?
Accepting it transforms the setting in which men and women deal
with each other in a way that weakens ties between them that are
basic to family life.
More specifically, traditionally proscribed conduct, such as
adultery, fornication and homosexuality, has the practical effect
of denying to the sexual tie between a man and a woman its unique
socially-recognized value and seriousness. Accepting such conduct
leads to a world in which men and women deal with each other in
sexual matters with no preconceptions except that each wishes to
find a pattern of relations and conduct that satisfies whatever
inclinations and impulses he may have. Under such circumstances no
one knows except through trial and error how he should bring order
into his impulses and no one has a right to expect anything
particular from anyone else. An ideal of mutuality remains
possible, but it is hard to see how the requirements of such an
ideal could be made concrete enough to be relied on. People can
make private commitments to each other based on their feelings, but
the commitments will last only as long as the feelings.
Governing sexual life purely by private impulses and purposes thus
makes trust and fidelity far harder to realize, and so is unlikely
to lead to either individual happiness or conditions favorable to
the successful rearing of children, an absolute necessity for a
tolerable society. Stable and functional unions between men and
women for raising children are too important to leave to individual
idiosyncracy or random circumstance; public moral standards and
attitudes must create a setting that fosters and protects them.
Accordingly, a moral view that brings sexual relations into a
publicly recognized order that can be aimed at and relied on is a
necessity.
6. Why believe that looser sexual standards have the bad consequences
you describe?
Why believe that people who view sex as a matter of no-strings
pleasure will act the same way as people who view it as a matter of
love, marriage and fidelity? More concretely, experience indicates
that those are indeed the consequences. Trends regarding family
structure and the well-being of children since the sexual
revolution of the 1960s are very much in point.
To give a few numbers, in 1960, 5.3% of all births in America were
illegitimate; in 1990, 28%. For blacks the figures were 23% and
65%. Over the same period the marriage rate per 1000 unmarried
women went from 73.5 to 54.2, the divorce rate from 9.2 to 20.9,
and the proportion of couples cohabiting without marriage increased
about sixfold. Not surprisingly, the proportion of children living
with both parents plunged from 78% in 1960 to 57% in 1990, and the
percentage living with their mother only grew from 8% to 22%.
At the same time the world became far worse for children. The
percentage of children living in poverty grew by a third from 1970
to 1990, largely as a direct result of illegitimacy and divorce.
The evidence for causality in the case of other problems such as
juvenile delinqency and suicide is more inferential, but the huge
growth of such problems during the years in which sexual customs
and therefore family structures were loosening (and during which
spending on education and social welfare increased enormously) is
certainly suggestive, as are the greater frequency of such problems
among young people living with illegitimacy and divorce and
anecdotal and impressionistic accounts.
Anecdote and impression are also suggestive regarding the relations
between the sexes; the marriage and divorce rates aren't the only
signs those relations aren't what they should be. It appears that
men and women are different enough to have trouble establishing
solid long-term relations if they can't rely on settled
expectations and must instead base their relations on individual
negotiations leading to deals that last only until someone's mind
changes. The sexual revolution, disastrous for children, hasn't
made their elders happy either.
These unfavorable trends, like the trend toward more relaxed sexual
morals, have been international, although the specific consequences
at any particular time and place have depended on initial
conditions and other local circumstances. From 1960 to 1990
throughout the West a decline in marriage rates was accompanied by
a much sharper rise in divorce rates (which typically more than
doubled) and illegitimacy (which typically rose 4-6 times). At the
same time crime rates, welfare costs, and other indicia of social
disorder, especially those relating to young people, increased
enormously.
7. I still don't see what effect the things I do in bed have on the
rest of the world as long as I take the obvious precautions.
An act can be wrong not only because of its specific consequences
but also because of the consequences of the general practice of
acts of the same kind. For example, it would cause no demonstrable
injury to anyone if I used a perfect counterfeiting device to print
enough money to live on. It would nonetheless be wrong for me to
do so because counterfeiting if generally engaged in would destroy
the financial system. A similar line of thought applies to acts
that if generally engaged in would destroy a generally beneficial
system of sexual attitudes and customs. The question is always
what the world would be like everyone felt no qualms about acting
the way you are acting.
8. If the worry is people's happiness, why won't people be happiest if
they can write their own ticket in sexual matters?
Sex can't be understood as something that relates only to
individuals. It is the basis of the most durable and important
human relationships. Its connection with the creation of new life
and the resulting need to care for that life in a stable and safe
environment is unavoidable. The continuation of the partnership
between a man and a woman to raise children through all the changes
and open-ended difficulties of life is not an easy matter.
However, it is necessary for human happiness that such partnerships
form and endure as a matter of course, and that the participants
view success in their partnership as an essential part of their own
well-being. Accordingly, human happiness requires that attitudes,
customs, and moral standards surrounding sex establish the
permanent union of a man and a woman for procreation and the
rearing of children as a necessary and uniquely favored form of
human association. Traditional sexual morality has that effect,
while the views that are called progressive do not and therefore
must be rejected.
9. Why wouldn't it be enough if people took responsibility for their
actions and lived up to their commitments?
Such a system works in commerce and other settings in which people
typically deal at arm's length and in which the matters at issue
can be clearly defined in advance and satisfactorily dealt with by
the usual standards of contract and tort liability because fault
and damages can be assessed by third parties and money is an
adequate remedy.
Sex and having children aren't like that. You never know what
you're getting into and it's hard for other people to know what's
going on, whether it's consistent with the original undertakings of
the parties, or how to put things right when they've gone astray.
Also, in commerce risky transactions can be left to specialists and
there are well-developed ways of limiting or laying off risk. Not
so in the case of marrying and having children, which most people
inevitably will engage in and the major risks of which cannot be
avoided without destroying the point of the relationship. So if
it's necessary for sex to be subject to a publicly recognized
order, commercial principles aren't going to do the job.
10. There have been many different systems of sexual morality. How do
you know that the particular standards you like are the ones everyone
should comply with?
Questions regarding moral knowledge in any sphere are notoriously
difficult, so the question has no specific connection with sex. A
practical response is that a self-governing society must be based
on a reasonably coherent common moral understanding. Accordingly,
a member of such a society can legitimately apply the accepted
moral standards of his society to other members, in sexual matters
as in others. Long-established standards change over time and may
be subject to discussion, but the presumption is necessarily in
their favor.
11. Isn't traditional sexual morality oppressive and discriminatory
against women?
The claim that traditional sexual morality discriminates against
women, if true, makes it hard to understand why women have always
been its most enthusiastic proponents and why its weakening and the
consequent growth of illegitimacy and marital instability have so
extensively feminized poverty. On the face of it, the "one man/one
woman" rule is most burdensome to socially and materially
successful men who like variety and are in a position to get what
they want, rather than to women, who are less likely than men to
view sex as a consumer good.
On the more general point, all social systems that deal with
fundamental matters seem very oppressive to people who have come to
think they shouldn't have to comply with them. The economic system
requires us to get up and go to work every day, sacrificing the
best hours of our lives to the requirements of other people. The
legal system demands that we deny our own nature by restraining our
impulses, while the political system can require us to sacrifice
our very lives in its defense. Since we are social animals, the
normal response to these necessities is to bring children up to
accept whatever demands must be met and view meeting them as part
of what it is to be a good person, and to show only limited
tolerance toward those who refuse to comply with them.
12. What about people such as gays, women caught in loveless marriages,
and others for whom traditional sexual morality doesn't work?
What about those for whom any system of things doesn't work? What
about large and muscular people with vehement appetites, minimal
intelligence, and violent tempers who find the restraints imposed
by modern criminal law unbearable and would have been happier as
Vikings? What about people with an intense psychological need for
uniformity, stability and discipline who find that for them the
multicultural capitalist consumer society doesn't work? Such
people don't write books that get favorable reviews in mainstream
publications, but they do exist and suffer. No system pleases
everyone; the point is to have a system that works tolerably well
as a general thing. Once such a system exists it may be possible
to find piecemeal ways of handling irregularities, but it's absurd
to put such things at the center of attention.
13. Why not recognize that so-called traditional sexual morality has
become a private prejudice rather than a public standard?
The changes have been accepted only in particular social circles.
The debate in society at large continues, although so far it has
been as one-sided as the debate on government intervention in the
economy was earlier in the century. Those favoring the changes
have on the whole had their way, but (as in the case of government
intervention in the economy) the visible results of their success
have made their position far harder to defend.
14. Isn't the nuclear family a figment of Western bourgeois patriarchal
second-stage society that necessarily will give way to something
entirely different?
People are fond of saying so. On the other hand, the bond between
mother and child is assuredly universal. As to that between a man
and a woman, Mencius says that a man and woman living together is
the most important of human relations; Genesis says "Therefore
shall a man leave his father and his mother; and shall cleave unto
his wife; and they shall be one flesh"; the _Iliad_ is the story of
a war fought to undo an adulterous elopement; the _Odyssey_ is the
story of a man's struggle to return to his wife and son, a son's
search for his father, and a woman's loyalty to her husband; and
the _Ramayana_ is the romance of Rama and Sita, husband and wife.
Each of these is a fundamental text for its civilization. It would
be easy to multiply examples. So the view that there is something
special and basic about the group consisting of man and woman with
their children, about fidelity and trust within that group, and
about the social conventions and standards that support those
things doesn't seem to be a recent invention for a temporary
purpose.
15. You and your friends have your system of sexual morality and I and
my friends have ours. They're different. What now?
As in the case of any moral clash, we can try to persuade each
other. The purpose of this FAQ is in a small way to clarify the
issues and thus make productive discussion easier. If persuasion
doesn't work then accommodations may be possible, but to the extent
the clash relates to things that are fundamental to social life the
alternatives may become social separation or overriding your views
or mine by force.
An example of accommodation between necessary public standards and
the difficulties some people have complying with them is
maintaining the standards when violations become an issue but not
prying too vigorously into things people keep out of sight. Social
separation, to the extent people find it necessary or appropriate
(some people might not want to live with the social consequences of
high illegitimacy and divorce rates or the medical consequences of
promiscuity, while others might find it hard to live with what they
view as puritanical morality), could be realized within a loose
federal system that permits states and localities to act in
accordance with their own moral standards and eliminates cross-
community transfer payments, such as public education, social
security and welfare, that have the effect of forcing one lifestyle
to subsidize another. Current examples of the final possibility,
the overriding of views by force, include public school curricula
that oppose traditional moral views (the compulsion lies in
compulsory tax support and compulsory attendence laws) and laws
against discrimination on the basis of marital status and sexual
orientation.
16. You can't keep people down on the farm after they've seen the big
city. People just aren't going to go back to the old ways.
We shall see. What people find natural depends on the social
institutions among which they grow up, and social institutions are
very flexible over time and tend to evolve to provide what's
needed. If sexual freedom does cause very serious social problems
it won't last. How the necessary restraints will be inculcated and
reinforced under circumstances of instantaneous and open worldwide
communication is of course an interesting question. Presumably the
great flexibility of modern social networks will be adequate to the
task if it has to be done; people are very inventive in configuring
their dealings with each other to satisfy their needs. Some
initial steps are obvious, such as doing away with the social
standards that have grown up in favor of unrestricted sexual
liberty like the prejudice against criticizing people in such
matters and certain antidiscrimination rules. Possibly the ease
under modern circumstances of voluntary self-segregation by
lifestyle will also play a role.
17. What is the relation of sexual morality to politics?
Too complicated to treat exhaustively. With respect to current
ideological debates, social acceptance of complete sexual freedom
is most consistent with full-blown liberalism (taking "liberalism"
in its American sense to refer to the noncommunist Left), which
attempts to achieve equality by substituting reliance on the state
for reliance on particular ties to particular persons as the anchor
for people's lives. Crucial difficulties with that approach are
that the reliance on the state over time becomes insupportably
expensive, and that the weakening of interpersonal relations has
bad cultural consequences. Intelligent liberals should therefore
consider modifying their philosophy to mitigate its troublesome
consequences, in particular by recognizing the central position
that any free society must give to social and moral institutions
that promote durable ties among particular individuals.
Certain libertarians (in particular, many pop libertarians active
on the net) also tend to favor social acceptance of sexual freedom
because they believe that markets are a sufficient basis for all
aspects of people's lives. More thoughtful libertarians disagree
because they understand that commercial relationships are not
adequate to all needs; for example, small children are unable to
take care of themselves by participating in the market, and
commercial insurance can't cover all personal misfortunes because
doing so would be the equivalent of establishing a fully
comprehensive welfare system with all the inefficiencies and moral
risks that would entail. Thus, intelligent libertarians recognize
that reduction in state activity requires a network of strong and
reliable interpersonal relationships for which no source is
apparent other than family life supported by strict standards of
conduct.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Jul 6 14:05:13 EDT 1995
Article: 18190 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Draft FAQ on sex
Date: 6 Jul 1995 12:31:29 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <3th351$nu4@panix.com>
References: <3soqpa$cd0@panix.com> <3t4foa$ga2@access1.digex.net> <3t64jl$8fp@panix.com> <3teuvv$i9m@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <3teuvv$i9m@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA> g9126007@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (Kelly T. Conlon) writes:
>I can't imagine what other societal effect results from consentual
>sex other than pregnancy
For starters, family life is based on limitations on consensual sex.
The existence of families has societal effects.
>>no society has done for any length of
>>time without extensive social regulation of consensual sexual conduct,
>Can you name one of these societies?
Can you give me a counterexample?
>>when they're adults that's the accepted way of acting.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Accepted by whom, white man?
This seems to be a major point. You and some of the others in this
discussion seem to recognize no social standards other than legal
standards, and believe legal standards are reducible without remainder
to statements of intent to use force under particular conditions. Is
that right?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Jul 6 14:05:14 EDT 1995
Article: 18196 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Revised FAQ on sex
Date: 6 Jul 1995 14:04:27 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <3th8jb$d9d@panix.com>
References: <3tb7n2$msl@panix.com> <3tgbeo$er0@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In schwarze.ccomail@starbase1.caltech.edu (Erich Schwarz) writes:
> So what on *earth* makes you think that "what if everybody did that?"
>is an argument against, say, celibacy? Or homosexuality? Or polyamory?
>Or even, Heaven forfend, monogamous male-female church-blessed marriage?
Your question seems to be how one applies the test. I've changed it in
the FAQ to something like "what if people generally had no qualms about
doing that". The change should get rid of issues about people choosing
lifetime celibacy, not engaging in agriculture, and so on.
The problem still remains as to how to identify the "that" and otherwise
do the testing. It seems to me that identification of the act and
testing has to be done by reference to social rules, actual or
reasonably prospective.
For example, someone who's visiting an acquaintance and pockets a $20
bill that he sees on a table couldn't justify it on the grounds that he
will get good use out of it, the acquaintance doesn't need it and will
never miss it, and no one will ever know he did it. The reason is that
the act violates existing social rules against theft which are known to
be workable, those rules visibly serve an important function and aren't
arbitrary (as evidenced among other things by the existence of very
similar rules in a great many diverse societies), and that the change
to the rules implicit in the proposed justification (you can steal when
you judge the good consequences to be substantial and the bad
consequences to be minimal) doesn't look like it would make the rules
better able to attain their end. For one thing, people would be making
the judgement as to consequences from a rather biased position. So the
question to be asked is "what if people had no qualms about stealing"
and not "what if people had no qualms about thoughtful and responsible
stealing" even though if in the particular case it might be perfectly
true that there would be no particular bad consequences to the act.
Given what we know of human nature, a moral regime permitting
thoughtful and responsible stealing is not one that would achieve the
goals of forbidding theft so it's not what one refers to in testing the
rightness of an act.
Moving on to sex, one might ask whether someone visiting an acquaintance
who wants to hop in the sack with her can justify the action on the
grounds that they both want to do it, they're responsible and will take
precautions, and no one need ever know and if someone does know it's
none of his business anyway. Again, the question is whether the
conventional system of sexual morality would be more functional if
people felt they need have no qualms about engaging in consensual sex as
long as they take precautions. For a discussion of why I think it would
be much less functional, see the FAQ.
So perhaps another way of putting the question would be "Is the moral
regime that would justify my act one that is workable and at least as
functional as the moral regime I am rejecting by acting as I am?"
(Interesting -- I wonder whether what Kant meant by "maxim of the will"
is at all similar to what I mean by "moral regime"?)
> A free society isn't going to have most people doing what most other
>people want to do. Thank goodness.
Assume 66% of the people want to do X. Then if the society is totally
free 66% of the people will do X, and most people (66%) will be doing
what most other people (66% - 1) want to do. I suppose the line of
thought fails if the society has only three people.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Fri Jul 7 15:03:00 EDT 1995
Article: 4774 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Tedium
Date: 6 Jul 1995 17:54:55 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <3thm3f$o1p@panix.com>
References: <3tfao0$mnn@dockmaster.phantom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <3tfao0$mnn@dockmaster.phantom.com> pas@phantom.com (Stop Yer Whinin!) writes:
>So, how can we rid ourselves of these boring libertarian 'confederates'?
You could always write them notes asking them not to crosspost. That
eventually worked last time we had an invasion of the libertarians.
If you want *AUTHORITY* you could point to the section in the a.r.c.
FAQ that says crossposting is a no-no.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Sat Jul 8 06:30:22 EDT 1995
Article: 18278 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Revised FAQ on sex
Date: 7 Jul 1995 21:37:20 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <3tkngg$m4g@panix.com>
References: <3tb7n2$msl@panix.com> <3tgbeo$er0@panix.com> <3th8jb$d9d@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In schwarze.ccomail@starbase1.caltech.edu (Erich Schwarz) writes:
> The difference is that, in the first case, you've got a substantive act
>of force/fraud being performed on the person having their $20 stolen. In
>the latter, you have two consenting responsible adults making a decision
>concerning themselves.
That's all very well if you assume the commonly-accepted rules of
property but not traditional sexual morality. One might wonder why
assume the one but not the other, though. The point of the "what if
everybody did that" analysis is to have some coherent and systematic
way of thinking about what sets of moral rules to accept and live by.
Saying "the first set of rules is valid and the second is not" isn't
really a response.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Sat Jul 8 06:30:23 EDT 1995
Article: 18287 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Draft FAQ on sex
Date: 8 Jul 1995 06:17:50 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <3tlm0e$kde@panix.com>
References: <3soqpa$cd0@panix.com> <3t64jl$8fp@panix.com> <3teuvv$i9m@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA> <3th351$nu4@panix.com> <3tjrsh$fs4@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <3tjrsh$fs4@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA> g9126007@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (Kelly T. Conlon) writes:
>I have engaged in
>pre-marital sex on more than a number of occasions. What does my
>behaviour have to do with the pre-existence of a stable family structure?
Do you have comments on the section of the FAQ dealing with this
specific point?
>I have already eluded to the example of Nazi Germany and the extensive
>social regulation of sexual conduct put into place then. If your
>arguement is that social control of sexual conduct is a neccessary
>prequisite to a moral society, I have given you one counter-example.
The argument is that social control of sexual conduct is a necessary
prerequisite to a society that will last any long time. A
counterexample would be a society that lasted a long time even though
consensual sexual conduct was understood to be solely the private
business of those concerned. Examples of societies that lasted a long
time with social control of sexual conduct include Chinese society,
European society, traditional Jewish society and Gypsy society.
>A statement of "social standards" is virtually useless unless one
>intends to use social coercion to achieve those ends.
I suppose that may be true if "social coercion" is defined broadly
enough. For example, one might say that we are coerced to follow the
rules of English grammar and use words in their accepted sense because
if we don't people won't understand us, they'll get annoyed, they'll
think we're uneducated or there's something wrong with us, they won't
want to talk with us, etc.
>Essentially, your arguement seems to boil down to "This would be a much
>better society if we all thought alike on the issue of sexuality".
You may believe that society should be based on a certain conception of
property rights. If so, would you phrase your belief "This would be a
much better society if we all thought alike on the issue of property
rights"?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Sat Jul 8 06:30:24 EDT 1995
Article: 18288 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Revised FAQ on sex
Date: 8 Jul 1995 06:29:56 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <3tlmn4$kn5@panix.com>
References: <3tb7n2$msl@panix.com> <3tgbeo$er0@panix.com> <3th8jb$d9d@panix.com> <3tkngg$m4g@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In schwarze.ccomail@starbase1.caltech.edu (Erich Schwarz) writes:
> "Force and fraud" isn't just property rights, it's a wonderfully
>crisp way to describe the boundaries of what should be outlawed in
>a free society, in which human beings are held accountable for
>discrete and immediate consequences of their behavior but not for
>vague, ineffable, and highly speculative "vast social consequences"
>of their having unapproved sex or drinking too much coffee.
What would the discrete and immediate consequences be if I
engaged in tax fraud, counterfeited just enough money to live on, or
walked on the grass in a heavily-used public garden?
> It's the difference between having the government be your umpire
>and having it be your mother.
Whether something should be subject to social standards and whether the
standards should be enforced by law are separate issues. The revised
FAQ is quite clear on the point.
> What's really terrifying is that *you* want to set laws for society,
>yet can't deal with the clearest reductio ad absurdum of your own
>principles.
What's boring is that you apparently don't read what I've written, for
example my rather long discussion of how to deal with various
objections to the "what if everyone did it" principle.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Sat Jul 8 10:33:40 EDT 1995
Article: 6820 of alt.politics.sex
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex,alt.sex
Subject: Re: FAQ re traditional sexual morality
Date: 8 Jul 1995 07:32:33 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <3tlqch$mts@panix.com>
References: <3tgeo4$jof@panix.com> <3tkucr$egb@parsifal.nando.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.politics.sex:6820 alt.sex:215944
Matthew Cromer writes:
>Which is why the Religious Right opposes birth control?
I don't understand what the "which" refers to.
>Also, please show how sex helps promote knife fights.
Sexual jealosy is a common cause for such things.
>Other examples from the "glorious past" include rules like blacks sit in
>the back of the bus, fornication is ok in men but punished in women,
>women are hit by their husbands and otherwise made to "obey", etc.
>
>The Religious Right agenda has been tried--remember the dark ages and the
>persecution of Galileo? Or we can just look at its modern islamic
>incarnation...
I don't see the connection between any of this and what I wrote. It's
as if I said government regulation of agriculture is OK and someone
started ranting about Soviet collectivization and the liquidation of the
kulaks.
>Or, beat up the "violators" and even kill them (burning of witches in
>N.E., for example).
Same comment. Are social standards relating to grammar or common
courtesy and honesty enforced by burning people alive? If not, what's
the point?
>Nobody is interfering with *your* right to have a family--why do you
>care if others chose not to?
High rates of illegitimacy, divorce and so on affect me. Disorderly
family life means lots of kids get a cruddy upbringing and tend to grow
up into cruddy people who do cruddy things. That's what I see around
me.
>Two thousand years of misogynist Christian "morality" bearing no
>resemblance to Jesus' teachings, and you want to send us back to the
>"good old days" of slavery, witch-burning, crusades, the inquisition,
>the burning of heretics, the legal beating of women by their husband-
>"lords", etc.
What's specifically Christian about the views set forth in the FAQ? Are
they so alien to Jewish or Chinese tradition? Do the people in India
think that total sexual freedom is A-OK? Have the things you mention
been characteristic of every society that has failed to uphold the view
that consensual sex is a purely private matter (so far as I know, that
would be every society that has ever existed)?
>Personally, I prefer single parenthood and less adultery to the
>prevalence of sham marriages filled with hatred and despair.
Why suppose that there's less adultery now, or fewer relationships
filled with hatred and despair?
>Much of this social chaos is because of the end of the ability for a
>working-class, non-educated person to earn a family-supporting wage.
People say that, but wages are higher now than they were in 1950, let
alone 1940 or 1930. Also, the problems exist among the upper classes as
well.
>Having sex is just having sex. Look around the world--thousands of
>cultures, most of whom don't share your same "values" about sexual
>deprivation before marriage.
I agree that the restrictions vary somewhat in different societies.
That's not an argument for not having concrete restrictions, any more
than the circumstance that the rules of property vary greatly among
societies is an argument for having no concrete rules of property.
>Most people continue to marry and have children, and even to stay
>married a lifetime.
In some communities (American blacks, for example) a substantial
majority of all births are illegitimate, and the rates are rising
rapidly for others. Fewer than half of all children born today are
expected to live out their childhoods in two-parent families.
>In a totalitarian dictatorship, such as you advocate, life is one
>unending mistake.
Where do I advocate a totalitarian dictatorship? How many societies
have *not* been totalitarian dictatorships by your standards? Where do
I even advocate that the government get involved in any of this? Also,
I was under the impression that totalitarian dictatorships didn't much
like strong private ties and loyalties like those characteristic of
family life.
I doubt that it would be useful for me to go through the remainder of
your comments. Certainly not to you, judging by the lack of rational
connection between your responses what I wrote. Your expressions of
feeling have been of interest, though, so I thank you for writing.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From alt.politics.sex Sat Jul 8 11:19:44 1995
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex,alt.sex
Subject: Re: FAQ re traditional sexual morality
Date: 8 Jul 1995 10:31:54 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <3tm4sq$c6e@panix.com>
References: <3tgeo4$jof@panix.com> <3tkucr$egb@parsifal.nando.net> <3tlqch$mts@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.politics.sex:6822 alt.sex:216037
In <3tlqch$mts@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>Are social standards relating to grammar or common
>courtesy and honesty enforced by burning people alive? If not, what's
>the point?
I should have said "If not, so that enforcing social standards is not
much like burning witches, what's the point".
>I doubt that it would be useful for me to go through the remainder of
>your comments.
I nonetheless decided to write a little more:
>>Any comments on the following?
>
>Yeah. I find it to be fascist.
What do you mean by "fascist"? In 1943 American sexual morals were
stricter than those of the Italians, or so I'm told. In the Sicilian
campaign were the fascist Americans therefore fighting the anti-fascist
Italians?
>Counterfeiting would injure *you* because you would feel like a
>counterfeit.
Many people have been tormented by sexual guilt. Why aren't both kinds
of bad feelings moralistic prejudices that we should rise above?
Presumably the answer is that if social standards foster a better life
then whether they protect the financial system or family life we should
feel bad about violating them.
>| think they shouldn't have to comply with them. The economic system
>| requires us to get up and go to work every day, sacrificing the
>| best hours of our lives to the requirements of other people.
>
>Bullcrap. You are *NOT* forced to do this. You have many
>choices--living with less money, self-employment, living off the land or
>charity, etc. etc.
Self-employment also involves sacrificing the best hours of our lives to
the requirements of other people. The other possibilities you mention
force me to live in poverty. So the economic system requires me to do
what I said it did, and the punishment for refusing is being forced to
live in poverty. The various social prejudices in favor of working for
a living, making something of yourself, being successful and so on
should also be taken into account. Those prejudices are shoved down
people's throats at home and in school from earliest childhood.
>You are confusing social pressures with coercion.
The FAQ doesn't propose coercion as distinguished from social pressures.
So if that's a confusion your comments are based on the same confusion.
> The
>| legal system demands that we deny our own nature by restraining our
>| impulses,
>
>What are you talking about?
I might really feel like punching people who get in my way or taking
whatever I want no matter whose it is. I'm not allowed to, though.
Children are intensively trained for years with the aid of psychological
coercion and physical force not to do such things, and the legal system
backs up the training with threats of organized violence. Why isn't
that kind of system something that suppresses my nature?
>This country was founded by DEISTS who, for the most part, despised
>organized Christianity and were determined to lock it in its place.
If so, it's hard to understand why they adopted the First Amendment to
the Constitution, which forbids the federal interference with state
religious establishments. Also, none of this has any distinct
connection to sexual morality or to anything I've written.
>Sexual morality *has* changed.
Changes come and go.
>You are arguing that, since most people aren't inclined to be doctors, or
>physicists, we shouldn't have those people around.
Not at all. An analogy would be an argument to the effect that property
rights or courtesy make life better so there ought to be social
standards that protect and support such things.
>Just what we need--to Balkanize the entire United States.
It's already happening, and I expect to see a lot more of it. People
need to have things in common to live together productively. In
particular, they have to have some accepted and workable way of dealing
with the relations of men, women and children. If radically different
practices arise with regard to things that are socially as fundamental
as family life, and some of the practices don't work at all well, then
different groups will tend to go their own way. I'm not sure what can
be done about it.
>*THAT* is
>the glory of this country--that people are free to do things *their way*.
> *THAT* is the essence of the Bill of Rights.
Patently false. Read Tocqueville and other writers on American
conformism and moralism. In the past we got by without much government
because informal social standards took the place of legal ones.
>We moved from England and Europe and now from everywhere in order to
>partake in that freedom.
For the sake of sexual freedom? Again, patently false.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Sat Jul 8 15:16:25 EDT 1995
Article: 18314 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Revised FAQ on sex
Date: 8 Jul 1995 14:49:38 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <3tmk02$eph@panix.com>
References: <3tb7n2$msl@panix.com> <3tf6v2$n16@access1.digex.net> <3tfc5f$gle@panix.com> <3tmcci$fke@access1.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <3tmcci$fke@access1.digex.net> steve-b@access1.digex.net (Steve Brinich) writes:
> I find a morality based on one's given word far superior to one based
>on social convention.
One issue is what people are like, whether they find it more difficult
on the whole to defy social convention or break their word. Another is
the nature of sexual and family relations (non-arms' length,
non-publically observable, non-convertible into money, typically -- in
the most important cases -- very long term, very pervasive and very
risky) and whether a purely contractual regime can be made to work as
well as in soybean futures. The FAQ discusses that. Another is
whether in matters of sex and family other people (like children) get
affected by our actions in ways (like being brought into the world)
that don't and can't have much to do with contract.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Sat Jul 8 15:16:26 EDT 1995
Article: 18315 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Revised FAQ on sex
Date: 8 Jul 1995 15:05:19 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <3tmktf$fo7@panix.com>
References: <3tb7n2$msl@panix.com> <3tgbeo$er0@panix.com> <3th8jb$d9d@panix.com> <3tmcva$g03@access1.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <3tmcva$g03@access1.digex.net> steve-b@access1.digex.net (Steve Brinich) writes:
> Have fun with your historical research....
I'm not prepared with references for all times and places. From the
newspapers it appears that contemporary Chinese, Indian and Muslim
society all disapprove of premarital sex, adultery, homosexuality and
pornography. I have lived in a Muslim society and can testify that
while homosexual conduct is not uncommon it's definitely viewed as a
vice. From research I've done for other purposes I can say that the
same is true of traditional Jewish society and Gypsy society (actually,
I admit I haven't read anything specific about Gypsy attitudes towards
pornography). That seems enough diversity to support the view that
traditional sexual standards indeed have a function.
> In any case, your assertion that the social rules against theft are
>justified simply because they are "workable", without reference to absolute
>principles (such as the obvious principle of property rights) makes your
>entire moral argument (literally) unprincipled.
What's wrong with the following principle:
Support social institutions, including moral institutions, that
strongly promote good lives for most people.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Sat Jul 8 15:16:27 EDT 1995
Article: 18317 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Revised FAQ on sex
Date: 8 Jul 1995 15:14:24 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <3tmleg$h71@panix.com>
References: <3tb7n2$msl@panix.com> <3tkngg$m4g@panix.com> <3tlmn4$kn5@panix.com> <3tmd9s$g9a@access1.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <3tmd9s$g9a@access1.digex.net> steve-b@access1.digex.net (Steve Brinich) writes:
> In the case of tax fraud, somebody (individuals who can be identified if
>one has enough information, not vague abstractions) ends up paying extra.
> In the case of counterfeiting, somebody (again, individuals who can be
>identified if one has enough information, not vague abstractions) gets
>burned when each counterfeit bill is detected -- at best, losing the face
>value of the bill; at worst, falling under suspicion themselves.
In the tax case the govt. can and almost certainly will just print more
money or the equivalent, so we're left with what we have in the case of
counterfeiting, an increase in the U.S. money supply of a few thousand
dollars. If you can tell whether that's good or bad, and if it's bad
just who gets hurt, you're smarter than most. I see no reason to think
it can be determined even in principle.
As to counterfeiting, you present no objection in the case of a perfect
counterfeiter, only of a bungler. Or suppose he's not perfect, just
very good, and he's modest and only wants enough to live on so he just
does ones and fives which no one checks on.
> In the case of a "public" garden, you need to define "public". If owned
>by nobody in particular, asking about negative consequences is like asking
>about the negative consequences of the million-megaton Shoemaker-Levy
>impacts on Jupiter.
A garden owned by the New York City corporation, which a million people
buy into so they can use it. If one person walks on the grass the
grass won't be affected, but if all the people who use the garden feel
free to walk on the grass the garden will turn into a mudhole.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From alt.society.conservatism Sun Jul 9 06:21:57 1995
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Revised FAQ on sex
Date: 9 Jul 1995 06:16:09 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <3toa99$dn8@panix.com>
References: <3tb7n2$msl@panix.com> <3tgbeo$er0@panix.com> <3th8jb$d9d@panix.com> <3tkngg$m4g@panix.com> <3tlmn4$kn5@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In schwarze.ccomail@starbase1.caltech.edu (Erich Schwarz) writes:
> Successfully? A tiny decrease in the value of everyone else's money or
>a not-so-tiny decrease in the aesthetic quality of the garden.
The decrease in the value of money would be unobservable, but you have
faith it's there. Not persuasive for those who lack the eyes of faith.
Also, is it your view that all increases in the money supply are
harmful?
As to the decrease in the aesthetic quality, it wouldn't exist. One
person walking on grass doesn't hurt it. I could as well argue that
one act of fornication causes a tiny change in public attitudes toward
sex between unmarried people and therefore in the rate of illegitimacy
and the number of children with bad upbringings.
>In the end, therefore, I think you're going to have to use the
>blunter instrument of actually passing state laws against what you morally
>disapprove of -- as you imprudently suggested you might do, in your
>original FAQ.
I don't see why. Merely social sanctions (including avoidance) are
powerful things. Do you think that the swift and unprecedented rise
throughout the West in the rate of cohabitation without marriage and
illegitimacy came about because laws were suddenly repealed in all
countries so that people involved in those things no longer had to
worry about being tossed in the slammer? Just how people understand
their social world is enormously important for personal conduct. That
enormous importance is multiplied still more enormously if the
understanding is one that is generally accepted all around them. Laws
are secondary. Intelligent libertarians understand that.
The FAQ mentioned legal penalties as an extreme of the very large
variety of ways social standards are enforced. It didn't suggest that
they should play much of a role in many situations. The way they were
mentioned was misleading for this audience because this audience
doesn't have a clear understanding of the degree to which human conduct
is based neither on individually selected goals nor physical
compulsion. As a result, if they hear someone saying " ... social
standards ... well, sometimes there are laws ... " they think it's law
that's really under discussion. It's not. I and every intelligent
social conservative I know of would be much happier with a libertarian
political regime than what we have now.
> Unfortunately, Jim, I *have* read it. It makes no sense. Essentially,
>you want to allow diversity in areas you like even though they are,
>arguably, destructive to the entire society if widely practiced -- yet ban
>diversity in areas that are not clearly harmful to us as a country.
I gave you arguments, but I can't give you comprehension. I dealt with
the celibacy and "not engaging in agriculture" situation a couple of
different ways, and I think it's clear from experience and reflection
that unless we as a society have fairly concrete standards for sexual
conduct rather on traditional lines we're going to have big trouble.
We're already having lots of trouble and it's going to build.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Sun Jul 9 22:13:32 EDT 1995
Article: 18329 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Revised FAQ on sex
Date: 8 Jul 1995 19:14:39 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <3tn3gv$jde@panix.com>
References: <3tb7n2$msl@panix.com> <3th8jb$d9d@panix.com> <3tmcva$g03@access1.digex.net> <3tmktf$fo7@panix.com> <3tmuaq$pf2@access1.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <3tmuaq$pf2@access1.digex.net> steve-b@access1.digex.net (Steve Brinich) writes:
> Expropriating the "fruits of exploitation" from the "bourgeois kulaks"
>was sold on _precisely_ the basis that it was for the good of most people
>("the workers").
The phrase "fruits of exploitation" makes it sound to me more like it
was a conception of a fundamental property right that was being
enforced, one that John Locke made a lot of, the right of toilers to
the fruits of their labor.
> Doing away with the "Jewish Internationalists" was sold on _precisely_
>the basis that it was for the good of most people ("the Aryan Race").
Again, the Jews were said to be bloodsucking exploiters, so it sounds
like an attempt to enforce a conception of justice against those with a
congenital tendency to violate it. Germany for the German people.
Sounds like an assertion of a property right. Or maybe an exercise of
a right of self-defense, which I believe the libertarians also
recognize.
It's worth noting that it's possible to get far more self-righteous and
it's far easier to ignore the misery you're causing when you base your
politics preferentially on rights rather than on the public good.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Sun Jul 9 22:13:35 EDT 1995
Article: 18387 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Revised FAQ on sex
Date: 9 Jul 1995 22:04:55 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <3tq1s7$rtb@panix.com>
References: <3tb7n2$msl@panix.com> <3tmktf$fo7@panix.com> <3tmuaq$pf2@access1.digex.net> <3tn3gv$jde@panix.com> <3tora9$fth@access1.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <3tora9$fth@access1.digex.net> steve-b@access1.digex.net (Steve Brinich) writes:
>Rights are universal and apply to the minority against the
>majority
And to the majority against the minority, and can be defined at least
as inventively as the public good. Their most notable feature from the
standpoint of their use in political rhetoric is that they override all
other considerations. That's why people feel justified in threatening
"9 mm migraines" in what they assert to be their defense.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Sun Jul 9 22:13:42 EDT 1995
Article: 2731 of nyc.politics
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: nyc.politics
Subject: Re: The Right Idea
Date: 9 Jul 1995 10:56:33 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 5
Message-ID: <3toqn1$28j@panix.com>
References: <3so751$ia9@ixc.ixc.net> <3sp6v7$8is@agate.berkeley.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
I hope this thread can be continued a while longer. It must be setting
some kind of record.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Mon Jul 10 09:51:23 EDT 1995
Article: 18391 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Revised FAQ on sex
Date: 9 Jul 1995 23:03:21 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <3tq59p$7u5@panix.com>
References: <3toa99$dn8@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
schwarze.ccomail@starbase1.caltech.edu (Erich Schwarz) writes:
> Japan, the Netherlands, and most of the First World has dealt with
>this by having effective public education, a sane attitude towards sex,
>and readily available health care and contraception.
So far as I can tell, most of the first world has the same social
problems we do but they're generally behind us on the curve because they
started off with a lot more social cohesion and discipline than we ever
had. So I'm not sure that effective public education and what you would
consider sane attitudes have really put them on top of things. It would
be surprising if they had; there's a lot more to life than that, and sex
is rather close to a lot of very basic things.
Specifically, from 1960 to 1990 throughout the West (not Japan, where
special considerations seem to apply) a decline in marriage rates has
been accompanied by a much sharper rise in divorce (which typically has
more than doubled) and illegitimacy (which has typically risen 4-6
times). [Source: _Statistical Abstract of the United States_] At the
same time crime rates, welfare costs, and other indicia of social
disorder, especially those relating to young people, have increased
very greatly. [The only countries I've looked at intentionally in this
connection have been England and Sweden; newspaper accounts suggest to
me that the situation is in general similar in other countries.] The
indications in America are that the two trends are causally connected.
I know much less about Europe than about America, but tend to assume
that people there are basically similar to people here. Your views, as
I understand them, are that fragile family life has nothing much to do
with what people develop into, and that sexual attitudes have nothing
to do with the stability of family life. I find it hard to take either
view seriously.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Mon Jul 10 09:51:25 EDT 1995
Article: 18409 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Revised FAQ on sex
Date: 10 Jul 1995 05:39:57 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <3tqshd$6u9@panix.com>
References: <3tb7n2$msl@panix.com> <3th8jb$d9d@panix.com> <3tmcva$g03@access1.digex.net> <3tmktf$fo7@panix.com> <3tp9fm$k5n@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <3tp9fm$k5n@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA> g9126007@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (Kelly T. Conlon) writes:
>From anthropological evidence i've been exposed to, the Polynesian
>cultures of the South Pacific had very different sexual ethos from those
>of the societies outlined above wrt premarital sex and adultery.
My impression is that Margaret Mead was pretty thoroughly debunked by
[Derek Freedman?], who found for example that Samoans in fact place a
remarkably high value on premarital virginity. Of course a great many
other people have studied those societies. Do you have references to
suggest?
In any case, appropriate sexual morality seems to depend in part on the
extent to which principles of durable and reliable affiliation among
particular individuals besides the nuclear family and its extensions
are available. So special considerations may well be relevant to very
small tribal societies.
>Having had a glance or two at the "Kamra Sutra", as well as some of the
>more esoteric Eastern writings on the topic of Tantric Yoga, I can
>gaurentee you that you've left yourself with a rather distored view of
>Indian culture wrt sex.
I didn't comment on everything anyone in India ever did, only on the
sexual attitudes and standards that currently seem predominant there.
Similarly, I would imagine that in India there are strong social
standards that forbid strangling innocent people even though you might
not think so if you considered only the beliefs and practices of the
Thugs.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Mon Jul 10 15:00:26 EDT 1995
Article: 18415 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Revised FAQ on sex
Date: 10 Jul 1995 10:37:24 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <3trdv4$bhe@panix.com>
References: <3tq59p$7u5@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
schwarze.ccomail@starbase1.caltech.edu (Erich Schwarz) writes:
>> So far as I can tell, most of the first world has the same social
>> problems we do but they're generally behind us on the curve because they
>> started off with a lot more social cohesion and discipline than we ever
>> had.
>
> In *Britain*? Make me laugh -- have you read about a British soccer
>match in the last decade? *France*, the nation that invented the concept
>of guillotining nobles you don't like? Puritanical *Sweden*, perhaps?
As often, I find it hard to see the point of your comments or their
relevance to what I said.
> Fix our education, and then we can argue about whether there is a
>residual effect on society of people fooling around. Until that's fixed, I
>think you're wasting everybody's time.
What reason is there to think that formal education can make much of an
independent contribution to a better social order? I can understand
that a statist who believes that the way to bring about good things is
to have some centrally-run formal system take care of everything, for
example by training everbody properly, might believe that, but that
outlook hasn't been successful when put into effect.
> *My* point is that a particular source of pain to conservatives --
>teen pregnancy -- has very little to do with liberal attitudes towards
>sex (which in Japan and the Netherlands would shock the bejeezus out of
>you and most conservative Americans) and a lot to do with children
>being raised to see themselves as having a future, which unplanned
>pregnancies will obstruct, and which contraception will allow them to
>rationally move towards.
Is it your view that unwed teen motherhood is very high in the U.S.
because career opportunities for women are closing down (perhaps you
think unemployment rates in Western Europe are much lower than here,
and it's easy for young people to find good jobs there), and that it
has remained very low in Japan because girls there have always had a
glorious future to look forward to?
> The stability of family life has got nothing to do with whether one
>does or doesn't have one or more sex partners of either gender before
>marriage, or even whether one marries before having children. It
>depends on whether one chooses to postpone childbearing until one can
>support one's children, and until one is emotionally mature enough to
>subordinate one's own needs to one's children. And it depends on
>whether one raises those children in a setting with adults with whom
>one is happy and respectful, and where children are allowed to develop
>without either being force-fed inappropriate experiences or excessively
>protected from necessary experiences.
Your claim is that the stability and reliability of your relationship to
the woman you're sleeping with has nothing to do with presumptions,
habits, and expectations as to sex. Anything could be true, I suppose.
Over the past 30 years the stability of family life has declined to an
unprecedented degree throughout the West (Japan, as ever, is a different
story). Is it your contention that all these things you're talking
about have dramatically declined during that period? Surprising, since
everywhere formal education has become much more prolonged, accessible
and well-funded, and the attitudes you consider sane have become much
more entrenched.
This discussion has been valuable. You have given me the prejudices of
your environment and class without the distorting influence of personal
observation or thought. It's getting boring, though, and you're a
sloppy and irresponsible writer, so my responses in the future are
likely to be even more spotty.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Tue Jul 11 06:01:41 EDT 1995
Article: 6868 of alt.politics.sex
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex,alt.sex
Subject: Re: FAQ re traditional sexual morality
Date: 10 Jul 1995 16:42:26 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 159
Message-ID: <3ts3bi$9hh@panix.com>
References: <3tgeo4$jof@panix.com> <3tq6io$j2a@news1.halcyon.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.politics.sex:6868 alt.sex:216742
elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
>First of all, it's not a FAQ, since almost none of the questions you
>self-answered were, in fact, Frequently Asked, here or anywhere else on
>the alt.sex newsgroups that I've seen.
People argue a lot about traditional sexual morality on the net. I
wanted to identify the major objections, put them in order, and call the
result "frequently asked questions" in the hope of clarifying the
arguments, which are often very stupid. Does that give you a problem?
Do you think there are common objections I don't deal with? If so,
what are they?
> Immoral because it proposed a community standard that was based
>on a single paradigm-- the nuclear family of the 1950's. Any
>anthropologist worth his degree will tell you that that attitude has
>been responsible for more pain and suffering than any other in the
>history of the world.
What attitude? I assume you mean proposing a community standard based
on a single paradigm. But "let each find his own way" is a single
paradigm as well, the paradigm of the self-actualizing individual.
Most communities have rejected that paradigm in most respects. It
seems very poor as a comprehensive description of what people are like,
so it strikes me as a distorted paradigm as well as an eccentric one.
For dealing with sex, giving the nuclear family primacy strikes me as a
much more common paradigm than "let each elicit and actualize his
sexual nature, whatever it may be". That doesn't necessarily make it
right, but it does suggest it's not horribly disfunctional compared to
other possible paradigms. Like yours. It also suggests that's it's
more connected than yours to what people on the whole are like. So I
don't see the basis of your accusation of immorality.
As to "the nuclear family of the 1950s", I don't think so. The FAQ
doesn't give that pattern any preference over the Vicar of Wakefield's
family of the 1750s, or for that matter the standards for family life in
Jewish law or the early medieval Icelandic families described in _Njal's
Saga_. The family of Odysseus is a lot closer to my FAQ than to your
standard.
> Babies, STDs, and family life are private matters that
>government has no business involving itself in.
I take it you are opposed to all government welfare and public health
programs. That's a common attitude on the net, and I won't argue with
it. You will note that the FAQ took no position on the extent to which
government should enforce social standards, including social standards
regarding sex.
> In other words, the granularity of moral conduct is much finer-
>- one need not rely on a book or moral standards, be it secular or
>religious, to find happiness, but instead must rely on communication
>and negotiation, on choosing what is mutually agreeable between people
>and not calling upon some one-size-fits-all contract.
The granularity of artistic performance is also very fine, but there are
traditions of art with objective standards for judging performance,
accepted models for emulation, things that are done and not done, and so
on. These things are not subject to the choice of artists working in
the tradition except marginally and in special situations. All very
constraining from some points of view, but the best art has been
produced within well-developed traditions rather than in situations in
which everything was up for grabs.
That's true even in the case of the greatest geniuses, who presumably
were most able to make up their own way of doing things. Shakespeare
may have warbled "native woodnotes wild", but he didn't invent the
English language, the Elizabethan theater and its conventions, rhymed
couplets, blank verse, sonnets or most of his stories. He didn't invent
his audience either, whom he tried to please. He didn't appear out of
nowhere, but at a time of great achievements in England that made what
he did possible and determined what it would be like in many ways.
The dependence on tradition and objective standards is far greater in
the case of ordinary artists. A piano teacher who let his students do
whatever they felt like doing would be grossly irresponsible, and most
pianists feel the need of a teacher all their lives. In morals, of
course, most of us are in the position of very ordinary artists indeed.
>Go find a community that supports you.
Good idea! The separation of communities that disagree on fundamentals
>from each other is the leading practical lesson of the FAQ. So we may
be fully in accord on that. The question of which communities will
prove the most functional and most conducive to human happiness remains,
but it strikes me as one that is politically secondary even though as a
human matter it is most important of all.
> Stable and functional unions only occur either in thoughtless
>marriages or in well-thought-ones, ones in which the agreements, and
>the reasons for those agreements, between the people in the union are
>consciously understood.
You have enormous self-confidence if you think you know yourself well
enough to predict how you're going to be feeling for the next 20 years
about some arrangement you've defined yourself that will pervasively
affect every aspect of your life in ways you can't predict or control.
>>On the other hand, the bond between mother and child is assuredly
>>universal.
>
> Tell it to Susan Smith.
Why be shocked by what she did if you don't feel it was unnatural?
>The war, however, was purely an economic affair.
This looks like pure faith on your part. How can you possibly know?
>The notion that the Iliad, or the Odyssey, or any other work was a
>"fundamental text" belies a critical failure in your thinking, since
>the Iliad is full of male/male romances that strengthened the fighting
>power of men; a large and functional segment of Greek society
>functioned only because their homosexuality was observed and respected.
What homosexuality? Achilles and Patrocles were friends, which meant a
lot, but there's no indication their relationship was a sexual one.
Achilles shares his bed with a slave girl. In some times and places
people have intense feelings for each other without specific sexual
content. You may know of parents who have such feelings for their
children.
Incidentally, by the standards of later Athenian homosexuality the
relation of Achilles and Patrocles couldn't have been one of sexual love
because both were too old to be the beloved. Besides, Achilles couldn't
have been the lover because he was younger, and Patrocles couldn't have
been the lover either because he was weaker and less distinguished.
> Your prosposal to sell me a "morality" is much like a proposal
>to sell a suit-- one that fits anyone. It is far more agreeable, and
>powerful, for people to negotiate with one another on the cut, size,
>and fabric-- to, in effect, have a wide range of choices in which they
>can tailor their relationships.
A morality is something that precedes transactions. You seem to be
saying "'I will do what I choose' is my standard". That's an odd
morality, and I don't think it will work in the long run either for you
or those connected to you, but it's a morality nonetheless because it's
a principle that precedes and provides a standard for everything you do.
> The measure of a relationship is in the interface, Jim, not in
>the internals. You're right; people aren't islands, and what they do
>affects the community in which they live. But it is the measure of
>that effect that is important, not the means by which that effect is
>achieved. If a collection of people, a family, adds to the community
>rather than subtracts to it, then I care very little how they came to
>be a family, or what they do internally to maintain that family.
If it's all in the interface and not in the internals, then people truly
are islands since it is only what they seem and not what they are that
matters to us. In fact, we are not such stupefyingly skilled engineers
of the spirit that we can separate interface from internals, what we do
and seem from what we are. The parts of human life, body and soul,
thought, feeling and action, are much more entangled with each other
than you believe, and far less under individual conscious control.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Tue Jul 11 18:10:21 EDT 1995
Article: 4805 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Information
Date: 11 Jul 1995 06:19:39 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <3ttj7r$aql@panix.com>
References: <3ts1bu$6jn@news1.databank.com>
Jovan Weismiller writes:
>As promised, here are some addresses which might be of interest.
Thanks! They'll go into the resource lists.
>The Scorpion. Schnellweiderstrasse 50, 5000 Ko"ln 80, Germany
What I think is a more up-to-date address (at least, it was valid a
couple of months ago) is in the resource lists.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Tue Jul 11 18:10:24 EDT 1995
Article: 4806 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: a.r.c. FAQ
Date: 11 Jul 1995 06:20:55 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <3ttja7$atd@panix.com>
References: <3tjckb$eh4@tzlink.j51.co <3tosr4$mtt@tzlink.j51.com> <3tsi9m$ja@dockmaster.phantom.com>
pas@phantom.com (Stop Yer Whinin!) writes:
>Of course there's no 'rightful' authority! At least, not legitimated
>outside that authority's own necessarily arbitrary standards.
Can this view seem right except from a standpoint of truly radical
individualism? How is such a standpoint possible?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Wed Jul 12 19:10:46 EDT 1995
Article: 4820 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: a.r.c. FAQ
Date: 12 Jul 1995 19:10:12 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <3u1kok$710@panix.com>
References: <3t3ddp$obs@panix.com> <3t6pii$r0h@tzlink.j51.com> <3t93td$tah@worf.netins.net> <3t9dhi$rge@panix.com> <3ta0qn$23d@tzlink.j51.com> <3tb40p$ij8@panix.com> <3tbr8p$4k5@tzlink.j51.com> <3tfbma$mnn@dockmaster.phantom.com> <3tjckb$eh4@tzlink.j51.co> <3tmo02$s6v@dockmaster.phantom.com> <3tosr4$mtt@tzlink.j51.com> <3tsi9m$ja@dockmaster.phantom.com> <3ttja7$atd@panix.com> <3u0okh$9j7@worf.netins.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <3u0okh$9j7@worf.netins.net> wmcclain@worf.netins.net (Bill McClain) writes:
>> >Of course there's no 'rightful' authority! At least, not legitimated
>> >outside that authority's own necessarily arbitrary standards.
>>
>> Can this view seem right except from a standpoint of truly radical
>> individualism? How is such a standpoint possible?
>Can't groups manifest arbitrary authority? This is an amoral stance, but
>not necessarily an individualistic one.
A person or group can certainly exert arbitrary power, or exercise
authority in an arbitrary way, or accept arbitrary power as rightful
authority. The claim, though, is that there is no such thing as
authority that is rightful and non-arbitrary. In order to judge that
claim to be correct, though, you would have to abstract yourself
entirely from your social world, look as an outsider at the values that
define that world, demand their credentials, and reject whatever is
proferred, thereby ceasing to be a member of that social world or
(since you can repeat the trick) of any possible social world. *That*
is radical individualism.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Wed Jul 12 19:10:53 EDT 1995
Article: 50379 of talk.politics.theory
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Essay on Public Morality (0/8)
Date: 12 Jul 1995 06:03:47 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <3u06m3$4kv@panix.com>
References: <035302Z11071995@anon.penet.fi>
In <035302Z11071995@anon.penet.fi> an251400@anon.penet.fi writes:
> As Blackburn argued, the thesis "objective values do not exist; and
>all moral claims are false" is of no practical significance unless it
>implies a need to change our practices - the way we make moral judgments.
>For example, philosophers debate whether numbers are real - "out there" -
>or whether they are something that we invented. But this debate means
>nothing to the practical mathematician. Nobody would argue that the
>quadratic equation is false because those who use it think it refers to
>right triangles "out there" that do not exist. Similarly, Mackie's thesis
>about intrinsic values is of no importance to the practitioner of
>practical morality. (Simon Blackburn, "Errors and the Phenomenology of
>Value.")
I understand Blackburn's point in connection with the first clause of
the thesis but not the second. Presumably someone who said that
numbers are not "out there" would want to come up with some other
account of mathematical truth that can tell us for example why we're
justified in using the quadratic formula when we're designing bridges
but we wouldn't be justified (the bridges would fall down more often)
if we substituted "2ac" for 4ac". If someone argued it really didn't
matter whether we used 2ac or 4ac, so that no account could be given of
the "mathematical truth" (the unique special goodness and value) of the
formula using 4ac, then I think it *would* have an effect on the
practices of those who accepted the argument. Also, it seems that the
account of "mathematical truth" would have to have something to do with
what's "out there" if it is not to affect practices. If someone said
"'4ac is correct' means '4ac subserves the interests of bridge owners'"
I think it would have an effect on the conduct of people who accept
that view.
> The denial of intrinsic values leads us to a third level of
>universalization. "In this third stage, we are taking some account of all
>actual desires, tastes, preferences, ideals, and values, including ones
>which are radically different from and hostile to our own, and
>consequently taking some account of all the actual interests that anyone
>has, including those that arise from his having preferences and values
>that we do not share . . . . We must . . . look not for principles which
>can be wholeheartedly endorsed from every point of view, but for ones
>which represent an acceptable compromise between the different actual
>points of view (p. 93).
Mackie seems to put a preference for giving people what they want on a
different logical plane from every other preference and treat that
preference as something whose goodness is "out there". Also, it seems
that what compromises are "acceptable" cannot be determined without
reference to preferences other than his privileged preference. And I'm
not sure what he means by "must". So it's not clear what he can be up
to. Something like that may be the point you're building toward, of
course.
Also, if we're going to base morality on some kind of theoretical
construct why stop with the conjunction of all actual points of view?
Many (probably all) actual points of view are unstable, internally
inconsistent, based on ignorance of oneself, the world and long-term
satisfactions, and so on. So why wouldn't it be even better to base
morality on a conjunction of perfected points of view? Hard to carry
out, but if the concept's right it seems a better goal.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Jul 13 10:58:22 EDT 1995
Article: 4831 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: a.r.c. FAQ
Date: 13 Jul 1995 07:26:17 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <3u2vsp$cdd@panix.com>
References: <3tsi9m$ja@dockmaster.phantom.com> <3ttja7$atd@panix.com> <3u1klj$s7@dockmaster.phantom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
pas@phantom.com (Stop Yer Whinin!) writes:
>Power creates the standards by which it is judged. There is no
>'legitimating' point that can stand outside of it: that point itself
>would then be the most powerful.
If there is no legitimating point that can stand outside of it then it
can't be judged from outside and there is also no point from which it
can be judged arbitrary. On such a view the legitimacy of power would
seem to those subject to it a feature of the world, and there would be
no standpoint (unless individualistic secession from the society the
power creates and orders is possible) from which they could see that it
is really only a feature of one perspective on the world.
Another comment -- it seems to me that treatment of power as prior to
agreement as to value is a mistake. It's easier for the latter to exist
without the former than the former without the latter. To say that
power comes first is to deny that man is essentially a social animal;
Odysseus and his men may have been subject to the power of Polyphemus
but they were not members of the same society because it is agreement as
to a common good and not power that creates a society.
The temptation to say that it is power that is fundamental seems to me
attributable to a feeling that all knowledge really ought to be
reconstructed on the lines of Newtonian physics (F=MA and that sort of
thing). It's based on the metaphysical belief that there is nothing
real except atoms and the void so stuff like "good" and "evil" are
epiphenomenal.
>Just because one can acknowledge the contingency of power does not mean
>that power is irrelevant or somehow less 'real'.
What do you mean by "contingency"? One can certainly acknowledge that
the king might drop dead or be overthown tomorrow without denying his
power or even his rightful authority.
>There is no universal legitimating myth, nor does there need to be.
What is the status of the theory "power creates its own legitimacy"?
>I would think that counter-revolutionaries would oppose any attempt at
>imposing one.
To respect the diversity of societies is to view their institutions as
non-arbitrary realizations of goods that are real even if not understood
by others. It therefore requires the view that value transcends
particular societies and all their features, including arrangements as
to political and other kinds of power.
I should mention that I'll be away until Monday, and so won't be able
to respond to any further comments for a few days.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Mon Jul 17 07:50:01 EDT 1995
Article: 6949 of alt.politics.sex
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex,alt.sex
Subject: Re: FAQ re traditional sexual morality
Date: 13 Jul 1995 11:07:16 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <3u3cr4$jht@panix.com>
References: <3tgeo4$jof@panix.com> <3u3923$bhj@erinews.ericsson.se>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.politics.sex:6949 alt.sex:217598
In <3u3923$bhj@erinews.ericsson.se> qrajoln@kiay22eras70.ericsson.se (Johan Lindgren AR/AF) writes:
>It's a joke right?
Not at all. I'd love to hear your views, but will be out of town
several days. Later, perhaps.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Wed Jul 19 09:19:00 EDT 1995
Article: 50878 of talk.politics.theory
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: An Essay on Public Morality (3/8)
Date: 18 Jul 1995 14:50:05 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 101
Message-ID: <3ugvot$fn9@panix.com>
References: <061347Z17071995@anon.penet.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
an251400@anon.penet.fi writes:
>In other words, which real-world events can not be explained without
>reference to "intrinsic merit?"
The real-world events that people explain by reference to "intrinsic
merit" are instances of moral obligation and the like.
>But why be moral? Here, Mackie admits, he can give no answer. He can
>say that insofar as one is concerned with being moral, this is how to
>go about it. But the person who shrugs his shoulders at morality is not
>being irrational or making any kind of mistake.
It seems to me that a theory of morality that can't even suggest why
morality is binding has failed to deal with a fundamental defining
characteristic of morality. Mackie can't tell us he's giving us the
essence of what we've really meant by morality all along since (as I
understand your account) he believes that our moral language is
hopelessly entangled with the false view that there is such a thing as
intrinsic merit. Really, he should be using different words. I could
understand him better if he gave us a definition of "grommeting" that on
his own account is consistent but utterly arbitrary and told us that to
the extent we want to "grommet" we must do X, Y and Z. That would be an
extremely boring thing to say, but at least it would be comprehensible.
>Value is grounded on desires; desires, unlike beliefs, are not subject
>to correction [ ... ] But all actual desires count; without intrinsic
>values we can not dismiss any of them as being innately or inherently
>mistaken.
The view that our actions follow from our desires which are not subject
to correction seems false, since rational deliberation as to what is
best is possible. It's possible for example to deliberate whether
following my desire to have the next beer, which will give me a headache
the next morning, or endanger the lives of other people when I drive
home, or violate a self-imposed restriction on alcohol consumption, is
something I should do. It seems to me that what I am doing in such
situations is not weighing desires and following the strongest but
ultimately developing a conception of the good life and rationally
subordinating my conduct to that conception. A conception of the good
life can, it seems to me, be criticized and evaluated on grounds of
consistency, practicality, useability as a basis for social solidarity
and cooperation, and so on, so that it's as difficult to reduce a
statement like "A is good" without remainder to my desires as it is to
reduce a statement like "Y is true" without remainder to my sense
impressions.
>A moral person has desires which tend to fulfill the desires of others.
>An immoral person has desires which tend to cause actions which, in
>turn, thwart the desires of others. The moral value of actions depends
>on whether a moral person (a person having good desires) would have
>performed them (not the agent's actual desires); and the moral value of
>laws and institutions depends on whether a moral person would endorse
>them.
This looks like a utilitarian test for morality. On the face of it, the
choice of "fulfill the desires of others" over "evolve the best rational
conception of the good you can and conform to that" as a test for
morality seems wholly arbitrary. For example, I don't see what
dispensible metaphysics is avoided by choosing the former.
>Both major alternatives to the desire-based account of value, intrinsic
>value theory (IVT) and subjectivist theories, exclude some desires from
>moral calculations. As such, their use involves treating the holders of
>those desires as mere things.
Why, unless having the particular desires I do is what makes me what I
am? That seems wrong -- my desires could change and I would still be
the same person. Compare accounts of truth that exclude some beliefs
>from epistemic calculations -- presumably such accounts don't treat
people who happen to hold such beliefs as mere things. In any event,
an intrinsic value theorist would presumably say that it is the
capacity to rise to the recognition of intrinsic value rather than the
ability to have desires that makes the moral person what he is.
>The third option leads us eventually to selecting a different "good"
>for each different individual that exists, for each individual is a
>unique kind of creature [ ... ] there is no justification for taking
>the sentiments of the dominant type of creature within a species or
>among species and defining all value accordingly.
Suppose the procedure of putting each individual in his own evaluative
universe doesn't maximize utility as well as evolving a conception of a
common human good and treating it as authoritative? People don't
invent their values out of nothing, what each recognizes as valuable
develops out of his upbringing and social environment. Also, the
things most of us desire most have to do with our relations with others
and recognition by them as fellow participants in some common good. So
on the face of it it seems likely that people will usually be happiest
(fulfilled desires would be maximized) if they grow up with some
definite conception of what's good and bad that is presumed correct in
their environment. That way they will tend to grow up with desires
that their world will be fitted to fulfill, including the human desire
to participate with others in common goods recognized as more valid
than individual or transitory feelings. Some would be unhappy, but
some would be unhappy anyway and (as I understand you) your only
criterion is that fulfilled desires be maximized and presumably
unfulfilled desires minimized.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Sat Jul 22 16:54:01 EDT 1995
Article: 19147 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.sex,alt.sex.politics
Subject: Revised sex FAQ
Date: 22 Jul 1995 06:26:12 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 8
Message-ID: <3uqjo4$nv7@panix.com>
Xref: panix alt.society.conservatism:19147 alt.sex:220318
Revised versions of the FAQ regarding traditional sexual morality
posted a few weeks ago in this newsgroup are available at:
http://www.panix.com/~jk/sex.html (hypertext version)
http://www.panix.com/~jk/sex.faq (plain ASCII version)
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Sat Jul 22 16:54:04 EDT 1995
Article: 117957 of misc.legal
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Recent Supreme Court decisions re federalism
Date: 22 Jul 1995 13:37:44 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 7
Message-ID: <3urd18$ar4@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Would someone tell me the names of the recent Supreme Court cases
involving term limits and firearms near schools?
Thanks.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Sat Jul 22 16:54:07 EDT 1995
Article: 51287 of talk.politics.theory
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: forced morality
Date: 22 Jul 1995 06:12:23 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <3uqiu7$nf2@panix.com>
References: <3ujdej$b90@masala.cc.uh.edu> <3ujl60$b6o@news1.halcyon.com> <3ujloo$b90@masala.cc.uh.edu> <3uos4e$i92@masala.cc.uh.edu>
Xref: panix tx.politics:18279 talk.politics.theory:51287 talk.politics.misc:318590 talk.politics.libertarian:35992
In <3uos4e$i92@masala.cc.uh.edu> salzberg@menudo.uh.edu (Jeffrey E. Salzberg) writes:
>American schools were in flagrant violation of the constitution until the
>Warren court required them to comply.
The First Amendment forbids Congress to make a law with respect to an
establishment of religion. What connection was there between what the
Court did and anything Congress had done?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Mon Jul 24 09:41:44 EDT 1995
Article: 51494 of talk.politics.theory
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Essay on Public Morality (5/8) Response
Date: 24 Jul 1995 08:12:32 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <3v02ng$78r@panix.com>
References: <081303Z24071995@anon.penet.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
an251400@anon.penet.fi writes:
>I asserted that moral judgments are made primarily of desires;
>evaluations of actions (laws, institutions, etc.) are made in a derived
>sense as whether a person with good desires would perform that action
>(support that law, endorse that institution). Desires are evaluated
>according to how they stand vis-a-vis other desires.
I suppose my difficulty is that "desires for the satisfaction of other
people's desires are good" [you can correct me if I have it wrong again]
is for you a definition of the word "good" and not a substantive
assertion about what is good. So if someone else said that what is good
is the desire to comply with the categorical imperative, or the Koran,
or the best available (most consistent, most satisfying long term, etc.)
conception of the good life, you would not view that as a moral
disagreement but rather as a difference in linguistic convention
possibly together with a statement of differing intentions with regard
to plan of life.
> You may assert that this use of should still does not contain enough
>of the same function as the original use. I disagree, but how are we
>going to resolve this issue? How much is enough?
It seems that on your account there would in principle be no way other
than force or fraud to resolve a practical dispute based on differing
definitions of "morality". Rational deliberation that respects what is
morally fundamental on each side could resolve nothing, since all that
is morally fundamental on each side would be inconsistent definitions.
>From the standpoint of an individual there could be also be no "right"
or "wrong" with respect to choosing a fundamental moral position, so
rational deliberation would be impossible about that as well. To the
extent the practical consequences of fundamental moral positions differ
a clearheaded individual would be aware that what he is pleased to call
the "moral" action is so only by virtue of an utterly arbitrary
definition. None of this sounds like the moral life that (so far as I
can tell) people accept as valid and can't help but accept as valid.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Tue Jul 25 14:08:15 EDT 1995
Article: 4938 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Tedium
Date: 25 Jul 1995 09:11:24 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <3v2qhs$kq3@panix.com>
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
bj695@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Geoff Lupton) writes:
>Again, the principal point in modern politics is not whether or not
>the people are to be mobilised but for what purpose. Pretending that
>one can retreat into a netherworld of pre-modern social structures is
>the height of reactionary folly.
Why not go forward into an overworld of post-modern social structures
instead? History has not come to an end.
The modern tendency, I think, has been to supplant the particular and
the transcendent with increasingly large-scale market or bureaucratic
social arrangements rationally oriented toward pragmatic ends. The
trend won't last forever, because the resulting form of society can't
support itself on the moral resources it generates and thus will
eventually dissolve in stupidity, disorder and violence.
>The genius of fascism is its ability to harness the creative and pro-
>ductive powers of the masses for national goals (moral, spiritual,
>cultural and racial).
Its error is its belief that there are creative and productive powers in
the masses as masses that can be harnessed.
>Those who seek to promote esoteric variations on reactionary themes
>will remain perpetually on the margins of modern life (which is perhaps
>where they wish to stay).
When modern life comes to an end the margins will be the source of what
replaces it.
>However, reality dictates that those who seek to deny and remove
>themselves from the essence of the modern age will eventually be
>overtaken by it nonetheless.
Correct, if the modern age fully realizes human nature and thus puts an
end to history. Otherwise, the fascists may be attempting to turn a
sinking scow into a futurist hydrofoil.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Mr. Owl ate my metal worm.
From panix!not-for-mail Tue Jul 25 14:08:25 EDT 1995
Article: 51618 of talk.politics.theory
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: An Essay on Public Morality (5/8) (Repost)
Date: 25 Jul 1995 09:14:21 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <3v2qnd$lcd@panix.com>
References: <080303Z25071995@anon.penet.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
an251400@anon.penet.fi writes:
> So, what happens when "morality," as you defined it, says that you are
>obligated to do something that "morality," the way I defined it, says that
>I ought to prevent you from doing. Is there any way other than force or
>fraud to resolve this dispute? Well, yes. Let's look at "morality" the way
>you defined it and see what it really says about your obligation. Perhaps
>you have made a mistake (like the mistake my neighbor made about his pet
>being sick). And let's look at "morality" the way I defined it and see if
>I made any mistakes. There is a great deal of room for substantive debate.
Examination could just as easily disclose that there are far more
conflicts than at first thought. That's the point of "let sleeping dogs
lie".
> If your morality refers to desire-independent values, then I am going to
>assert that you have no "moral" obligations because the types of entities
>you say bind you to performing this act are mythical. They are not real,
>and neither is your "moral" obligation. Or, perhaps, I have made a mistake
>in asserting that the only values that exist are desire-dependent, for
>part of my reason for defining morality in a desire-dependent way is that
>this is the only way that the term can refer to something real.
Suppose everyone agrees with your principle that there are no desire-
independent values. You say "I define 'morality' as a complex of things
having to do with satisfying the desires of others and I intend to
conform my actions to 'morality' as so defined", Kant says "I define
'morality' as a complex of things having to do with universalizable
maxims of the will and I intend the same", and neo-Mohammed says "I
define 'morality' as doing the will as set forth in the Koran of the
literary character named "God" in that text and [ditto]". It's
conceivable that examination could eliminate practical conflicts between
the views instead of making them worse, or that all but one of the
parties could die, be bribed, give up, or whatever. It seems, though,
that rational persuasion that respects what is morally fundamental for
each would be impossible since what is morally fundamental for each on
your theory (as I understand it) is an arbitrary set of definitions for
moral terms that so far as I can tell could be motivated only by the
personal preferences of those using the defintions regarding how they
would like people to act.
In our moral life we often try to attain clarity and consistency by
relating specific decisions and principles to more ultimate ones from
which they follow. On your theory (as I understand it) the ultimate
basis of everything we do morally is an absolutely arbitrary decision to
accept (say) your satisfaction-of-desires morality instead of the moral
outlook of the Vikings or the Buddha. To aspire to moral clarity and
consistency would thus be to aspire to a clear perception that moral
language is simply a set of nice names used to refer to one's favored
system of acting. If that's what it is, why bother with it when we are
trying to think clearly and systematically? Or if we find we can't get
rid of moral language, does that tend to show there is something wrong
with your theory?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Mr. Owl ate my metal worm.
From panix!not-for-mail Tue Jul 25 14:08:27 EDT 1995
Article: 51630 of talk.politics.theory
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: An Essay on Public Morality (5/8) (Repost)
Date: 25 Jul 1995 14:06:40 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <3v3brg$73b@panix.com>
References: <080303Z25071995@anon.penet.fi> <3v2qnd$lcd@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <3v2qnd$lcd@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>On your theory (as I understand it) the ultimate
>basis of everything we do morally is an absolutely arbitrary decision to
>accept (say) your satisfaction-of-desires morality instead of the moral
>outlook of the Vikings or the Buddha.
I refer, of course, to their substantive moral outlooks (the things
they would have called "good", "bad" and the like) rather than to any
metamoral or metaphysical views they may have had.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Mr. Owl ate my metal worm.
From panix!not-for-mail Wed Jul 26 10:18:12 EDT 1995
Article: 4958 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Tedium
Date: 26 Jul 1995 07:15:41 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <3v584t$1co@panix.com>
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
bj695@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Geoff Lupton) writes:
>With respect to the masses, obviously not all individuals are possessed
>of equal ability. Some may be very talented, while others may be
>totally devoid of such attributes.
>
>Fascism, as opposed to reaction, believes that natural hierarchies
>based on merit and ability develop when the people are given the
>opportunity to serve the Nation, each to the best of his ability.
This makes fascism sound like individual equal opportunity within a
comprehensive system rationally oriented toward concrete goals, leading
to a meritocracy. If so, what is the distinction from liberal equal
opportunity? That the goals are defined by leaders rather than by
cumulating individual preferences?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Mr. Owl ate my metal worm.
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Jul 27 06:34:27 EDT 1995
Article: 4977 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: The New Republic
Date: 27 Jul 1995 06:27:36 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <3v7pmo$d2j@panix.com>
References: <3v68f8$o17@insosf1.netins.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <3v68f8$o17@insosf1.netins.net> wmcclain@worf.netins.net (Bill McClain) writes:
>TNR is the epitome of American elitism.
I think that's so, and American elitism is in really sad shape. In a
age of single-issue politics and multiculturalism a coherent
responsible elite can't exist, so elitism becomes a matter of
remembered poses and gestures. For example, the only visible
qualification of their literary editor, Leon Weseltier, for his job is
his name. It makes him sound like Lionel Trilling's cousin or
something.
>Some wag described the editors
>as "in need of adult supervision"
I subscribed for a while a few years ago, and that was my impression.
Unbelievably sophomoric. The children had taken over.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Mr. Owl ate my metal worm.
From panix!not-for-mail Fri Jul 28 15:23:13 EDT 1995
Article: 51844 of talk.politics.theory
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: An Essay on Public Morality (5/8) (Repost)
Date: 28 Jul 1995 04:24:30 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <3va6ru$jp3@panix.com>
References: <193314Z27071995@anon.penet.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
an251400@anon.penet.fi writes:
>It does not matter what we call these things we decide to conform our
>behavior to; that we each decided to name the thing we seek morality adds
>nothing more to the problem than facts about what we ate today.
I don't understand why you are posting an 8-part essay on public
morality in which you spend a lot of time and effort explaining how you
propose to use moral terms. Wouldn't it be clearer if you rejected such
terms altogether as obfuscatory? I suppose your claim is that you've
redefined them so they are no longer "moral" terms in the conventional
sense, but I find your use of words such as "good", "should", "harm" and
so on in the conventional manner, and apparently with the conventional
intended effect, extremely confusing. Why not change your language to
avoid implications you don't want?
>The values I bring about (desire-dependent values) are real. That
>is, they really matter (as opposed to the pretend mattering of categorical
>imperatives); what they are called simply is not important.
I don't understand your use of the expression "really matter". An act
conforming to the categorical imperative is as real a thing and as
capable of being chosen as anything you would call "good".
>But that's not the worst of it. In pursuing this practice people are
>being genuinely, truly, harmed.
The distinction between harms that are genuine and true and those that
are otherwise strikes me as arbitrary when *you* make it, given your
metaethical views. From a more practical standpoint, your view seems to
be that people would be happier if everyone abandoned the notion that
one's morality could be anything other than a set of nice words for
things he likes and opprobrious words for things he doesn't like. To
me, the contrary seems true. If people thoroughly believed that the
whole explanation of human conduct is that people just go for what they
want, and that the whole explanation of moral language is that people
use rhetorical ploys along with any other expedient that comes in handy
to get their way, then I doubt that the war of all against all could be
avoided.
>If somebody should introduce some set of observations which can not be
>explained except by means of the entities postulated by this moral
>language, then that would show that there is something wrong with my
>theory. In fact, it will prove that I was wrong.
Any instance of recognition of moral good or evil would do the trick.
If those who claim that such instances don't exist would purge
themselves of moral claims, moral judgements, moral language and so on,
so that the rest of us could be confident that they are really able to
get through life functioning as rational human beings without committing
themselves to the possibility of recognizing moral good and evil, we
would be better able to take what they say seriously.
>I suspect that there may be a great deal of difficulty getting rid of
>moral language independent of whether there is anything wrong with my
>theory. People need an excuse for dismissing the harm caused others in
>their fulfilling their desires. Moral language does an excellent job of
>providing this excuse.
People need the excuse only if they think they should follow a standard
of conduct other than their own desires. You want to relieve them of
the illusion that people ever do anything other than follow their own
desires. Also, since it tends to satisfy more desires to light one
candle than to curse the darkness, why don't you show us the way by
getting rid of moral language in your own case?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Mr. Owl ate my metal worm.
From panix!not-for-mail Sat Jul 29 06:16:10 EDT 1995
Article: 5012 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: The Paleoconservative Revolt
Date: 28 Jul 1995 21:37:18 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <3vc3ce$ddq@panix.com>
References: <3vaube$sni@insosf1.netins.net> <3vbhql$msn@newsman.viper.net> <3vbmhd$n17@insosf1.netins.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
wmcclain@worf.netins.net (Bill McClain) writes:
>A return to a constitutional federal system, empowering states and
>localities, seems desirable to me, but I don't yet see how it would
>work better this time than it did the last time. Unless we (the polity
>at large) really do learn from history. But wouldn't that require a
>very broad consensus as to the common good?
It might also work if there was a very small consensus as to the common
good, so that people fundamentally didn't feel like "Americans" but
rather like members of smaller collectivities.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Mr. Owl ate my metal worm.
From panix!not-for-mail Sat Jul 29 06:16:11 EDT 1995
Article: 5013 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: August "Chronicles" & Sam Francis
Date: 28 Jul 1995 21:39:19 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <3vc3g7$dug@panix.com>
References: <3vbmhg$6l3@insosf1.netins.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
wmcclain@worf.netins.net (Bill McClain) writes:
>Mr. Francis is actually somewhat opaque to me. Does anyone know what he
>is after? He wants a certain broad class to come into political power,
>but what exactly will they do then? How would the new regime differ
>from the old, and what would be its ideological characteristics? It
>will eschew all Left cultural traits. Anything else?
His big thing is cold-blooded analysis of power. That's all very well,
and it means he can say somewhat interesting things about "who whom",
which influential thinkers have thought the fundamental political
issue. It also seems to mean, though, that he doesn't say much about
precisely what it is that "who" should do to "whom", an issue that even
more influential thinkers have thought even more fundamental.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Mr. Owl ate my metal worm.
From panix!not-for-mail Sun Jul 30 14:14:45 EDT 1995
Article: 5040 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: a.r.c. FAQ
Date: 30 Jul 1995 13:59:27 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 130
Expires: 1 Sep 1995 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <3vgh9v$ob6@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Here's the August 1, 1995 version of the FAQ. As always, comments are
welcome.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
1. What is the purpose of alt.revolution.counter?
The discussion of counterrevolutionary perspectives on society,
politics, culture and religion. The newsgroup was originally
started by Catholic integrists and others of similar persuasions
attached to Christianity as the basis for culture and politics and
opposed to the ideals of the French Revolution and its progeny. It
has developed into a forum for the discussion of all aspects of
counterrevolutionary and related thought, including American
paleoconservatism, the European New Right, Integrism, Distributism,
monarchism, Southern Agrarianism and ethnic nationalism.
2. What is a counterrevolutionary?
One who believes that the leftward trend of recent times (which
some extend back to the Middle Ages) is irredeemably destructive
and recognizes that it has triumphed. Egalitarian hedonism has
become the guiding principle of almost all present-day political
institutions and discussion. As a result, conservatism as it has
been conceived in the past is no longer tenable because there is
not enough left to conserve; fundamental changes in the direction
of society are required.
3. What do counterrevolutionaries oppose?
In general, they oppose the tendency of modern society to take
nothing seriously other than the impulses and desires particular
individuals happen to have and the establishment and maintenance of
a universal rational order designed to organize all available
resources for the maximum equal satisfaction of those impulses and
desires. The modern order is universalistic, materialistic,
egalitarian, and hedonistic, and counterrevolutionaries don't like
any part of it.
4. What do counterrevolutionaries favor?
The things that don't fit into the foregoing scheme of things: the
Good, the Beautiful, the True, God, love, loyalty, family, local
and ethnic particularity, and so on.
5. Are all counterrevolutionaries the same?
No. Major schools of thought include:
a. American Paleoconservatism. Bring back the pre-1861 (or at
least pre-FDR) republic. Down with the neoconservative
revisionists and other left-wing deviationalists. Keep government
small, limited and local. Bring back the Protestant ethic. Build
communities of individualists. (Typical query from other
counterrevolutionaries: isn't the present situation a necessary
outcome of the thought of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson?)
b. European New Right. Down with all universalisms. Long live
the Europe of 100 flags, the Fourth World, and polytheism. What we
need is a fundamental shift in our collective consciousness and
basic philosophical and epistemological foundations. (Typical
query: exactly what does this all mean? Is this the wish list
from outer space, or is there something here that can be taken
seriously?)
c. Ethnic nationalism. Let's have a politically independent state
as the vehicle for the collective life of each people. (Typical
query: isn't partitioning a state on ethnic lines messy when
transfers of populations are required? Also, once there are
separate ethnic states, what then? Is Sweden really the ideal? If
we're looking for a fundamental political attitude, can ethnic
nationalism really fit the bill?)
d. Integrism. Long live Christ the King! (Typical query: if
that's such a great idea, why not come out and tell us about it?)
e. Distributism. Decentralize economically. Promote small
business. Build a nation of independent property owners.
f. American Populist Right. Down with the feds. Support the RKBA
(Right to Keep and Bear Arms) and your local militia. Become a
sovereign citizen. Barter instead of using those FRNs (Federal
Reserve Notes). Fight the ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government).
6. Since counterrevolutionaries are so different from each other, how
can they all fit into a single newsgroup?
Their views on the ills of modern society are broadly compatible,
as are some characteristics of the societies each would promote.
The discussions in a.r.c. can be useful in developing the
counterrevolutionary diagnosis of modern ills and bringing out the
strengths and weaknesses of proposed remedies.
7. Are counterrevolutionaries racist sexist homophobes?
As a general thing, yes. They tend to think that socially-defined
sex roles and ethnic loyalties are OK, and so qualify on all three
counts.
8. My ex-wife in Ulan Bator wants to join a.r.c. so she can discuss
her plans for bringing back the Mongol Empire but with more of a
theocratic emphasis. She has Internet email but not Usenet access.
What can she do?
Your ex qualifies for our outreach program to third-world women of
color who reject the traditional patriarchal family. She should
send email to jk@panix.com asking for a connection to the a.r.c.
mail gateway. (Others may also request the connection.)
9. Are there any special a.r.c. no-no's?
Crossposting. At its best alt.revolution.counter has been a haven
for discussions of a sort you won't find elsewhere on the net.
Crossposting makes it impossible for it to serve that function.
10. How can I find out more?
Listen to the discussions, join in if you wish, check out the web
page at http://nyx10.cs.du.edu:8001/~nmonagha/arc.html, and take a
look at our companion postings, the a.r.c. Resource Lists.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Mr. Owl ate my metal worm.
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Aug 3 17:24:29 EDT 1995
Article: 5047 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Chronicles and Sam Francis
Date: 30 Jul 1995 21:18:39 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <3vhb1f$gjs@panix.com>
References: <3vgtua$4fj@utopia.hacktic.nl>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
anon-remailer@utopia.hacktic.nl (Anonymous) writes:
>By his silence on the details, I suspect that Mr. Francis is making the
>fairly obvious point that the Euro-American middle class has a well
>understood political culture that would take hold following the
>rebelion [ ... ] In other words, whites are not to be trusted to decide
>their own fate, but must always have that fate decided by non-white
>minority voting blocks living among them.
Is this a sufficient analysis? It seems to me that it has been
deficiencies in middle-class white political culture that has put us in
our present fix. The effect of non-white voters has been marginal, and
the existence of non-whites has been more an excuse than a cause for the
overall shape of government policy. Otherwise the Northern European
welfare states could not have been such an attractive model for our
political elites. Not many non-whites there, just middle-class white
folks.
Having disagreed with you, I should say that I won't be back to continue
the discussion until the end of next week. Such is summer.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Mr. Owl ate my metal worm.
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Aug 3 19:40:59 EDT 1995
Article: 5094 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: a.r.c. FAQ
Date: 3 Aug 1995 19:40:51 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <3vrmq3$d2p@panix.com>
References: <3vgh9v$ob6@panix.com> <3vhdcd$c1j@tzlink.j51.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
lepslog@j51.com (Louis Epstein) writes:
>What could be more universalist than God?There is only one of Him to go
>around,He is the source of all.
God is universal, not necessarily universalist. If he wanted everyone
to be the same, why didn't he just create Adam and leave it at that?
The FAQ doesn't declare the counterrevolutionary outlook to be opposed
to every universal. It does say it favors particularism, but that's
simply a recognition that universals, although sometimes valid, are not
quite within our reach and so are often best realized (approached?
approximated? made available in concrete form?) in a somewhat
different manner by different peoples.
>You continue to ignore the principles of vital crystallized social
>pyramids under a sacred monarch who is the sole legitimate source of
>authority...while including distributists and populists who might as
>well march with Cromwell or the Levellers in the cause of revolution.A
>counter-revolutionary opposes entropy,not aids it.
As discussed, I've found your exposition of your brand of monarchism
confusing and extremely idiosyncratic. It is therefore difficult for me
to view it as a school of thought that should be discussed in something
as brief as the a.r.c. FAQ. Perhaps you could write a monarchism FAQ?
The more the merrier, so far as I'm concerned.
As to the other groups you mention, it's difficult to know where to draw
lines. It does seems to me that both distributists and populists oppose
the revolution that the FAQ says is the target of
counterrevolutionaries, so I include them.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Mr. Owl ate my metal worm.
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Aug 3 19:42:56 EDT 1995
Article: 5095 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Chronicles and Sam Francis
Date: 3 Aug 1995 19:42:40 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <3vrmtg$dap@panix.com>
References: <3vgtua$4fj@utopia.hacktic.nl> <3vhb1f$gjs@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
dgard@netcom.com (dgard@netcom.com (!)) writes:
>Sloppy post Kalb!
So what's new?
>The 1990 census lists "whites" as 72% of the population. To the extent
>that blacks vote 80% to 90% Democratic, and other non-white minorities
>vote 70% Democratic (and for federally mandated wealth redistribution
>and multiculturalism) it seems that the "defeciencies in white middle
>class political culture" to which you refer must mean its inability to
>reach super-majority voting percentages in favor of limited government
>and devolution of powers into local hands.
The current political state of affairs seems to me a natural outcome of
the New Deal and the Civil Rights Revolution. After those two events
it was clear that the function of the Federal government is to remake
and administer society for the benefit of individuals viewed as
isolated subjects of rights and entitlements. Neither revolution was
attributable to minority voting power. For one thing, the 72% was a
lot higher then, and the proportion of whites among voters higher yet.
Also, consider the state of affairs in academia, among the elite of the
legal profession and journalism, among leading mainstream churchmen and
so on. The climate of opinion among such people hasn't had much to do
with the power of minority group members in those professions. Nor have
the members of those elites come out of nowhere. By and large, they
have come out of the white middle class.
>But If I read it correctly, the point of the earlier post was a narrow
>one; - that the political culture of those elements of the white middle
>class that might participate in rebellion against the government would
>not be hostile to civil liberties nor be brutal to anyone other than
>the white liberal elites.
I had nothing against that part of the earlier post. In a way, my
comments enlarged on it. Yggdrasil said "there's a lot of popular
liberalism in the white middle class" and I said "you're right!"
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Mr. Owl ate my metal worm.
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Aug 3 19:44:03 EDT 1995
Article: 5096 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: In re: a.r.c. FAQ
Date: 3 Aug 1995 19:43:51 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <3vrmvn$dj4@panix.com>
References: <3vjnbs$51l@linda.teleport.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
cfaatz@teleport.com (Chris Faatz) writes:
>You know, you don't *have* to be a racist, sexist, homophobe to feel
>more comfortable on this group than on others. You could just be someone
>who's willing to live and let live and not really care that much how
>another person lives her or his life so long as they don't hurt you or
>others.
>
>"Socially-defined sex roles", etc. are just that--socially-defined. It's
>in the debate that surrounds such social definitions that Burke's vehicle
>for change occurs--his pressure valve, as it were.
The phrase was of course used in an intentionally provocative manner. I
word things somewhat more moderately in the Conservatism FAQ.
"Live and let live" is probably racist within the meaning of the FAQ
since it apparently would allow ethnicity to play a material role in
social organization. People could self-segregate, for example.
As to sex-related issues, it seems to me that sex roles and rules of
sexual morality, like property and government, are natural in the sense
that every society has them and they reflect innate human needs and
tendencies, but socially constructed in their concrete particularity.
As in the case of ethnicity, I have nothing against "live and let live"
as long as it allows communal self-organization. (If you *love* to read
my FAQs you could look at the Sexual Morality FAQ, available through my
homepage.)
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Mr. Owl ate my metal worm.
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Aug 3 19:45:26 EDT 1995
Article: 5097 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: a.r.c. FAQ
Date: 3 Aug 1995 19:44:37 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <3vrn15$dpv@panix.com>
References: <3vgh9v$ob6@panix.com> <3vos28$ac4@newsman.viper.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
jlangcus@rebel.viper.net writes:
>Neo-Confederates, generally speaking, are more concerned with
>preserving the constitutional balance between the central government
>and its master, the various states. On the other hand, Southern
>nationalists, though concerned about federal issues, are more concerned
>about preserving the unique aspects of Southern culture and tradition.
>
>I'll be happy to develop this theme further if you're interested in
>including it in the FAQ.
If you could write discriptions as brief as the ones in the FAQ, it
would be helpful.
>I'd also be happy to supply a reading list that could be added to the
>a.r.c. resource list.
Please do!
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Mr. Owl ate my metal worm.
From panix!not-for-mail Fri Aug 4 13:08:59 EDT 1995
Article: 5099 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: In re: a.r.c. FAQ
Date: 4 Aug 1995 07:02:11 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <3vsunj$6ee@panix.com>
References: <3vjnbs$51l@linda.teleport.com> <3vrmvn$dj4@panix.com> <3vs2ji$6p7@linda.teleport.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <3vs2ji$6p7@linda.teleport.com> cfaatz@teleport.com (Chris Faatz) writes:
>: "Live and let live" is probably racist within the meaning of the FAQ
>: since it apparently would allow ethnicity to play a material role in
>: social organization. People could self-segregate, for example.
>I don't think that it's necessarily racist. I think choice and force are
>two things conspicuously absent; clearly, in a society where debate and
>discussion were the norm instead of the exception, such things would
>be frequently on the table. Same with questions of sexual mores, etc.
I assume that "choice" should be "compulsion" or something of the sort.
"Racism" of course can be used with many meanings. I think the current
tendency is to say that to the extent a society permits feelings of
ethnic solidarity to play a material role in matters that are not
strictly personal it is a racist society. Avoidance of racism thus
requires an extensive system of compulsion, assuming people do tend to
have such feelings and act on them.
"Frequently on the table" is a matter of degree, I suppose. A
self-governing society in which fundamental matters are constantly on
the table isn't going to remain self-governing for long. On the other
hand, any society that is going to last is going to make a lot of
marginal accommodations and adjustments along the way.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Mr. Owl ate my metal worm.
From panix!not-for-mail Fri Aug 4 15:38:32 EDT 1995
Article: 5103 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: All American Nightmare
Date: 4 Aug 1995 15:32:24 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <3vtsk8$abn@panix.com>
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
"James C. Langcuster" writes:
>[Lukacs] argues that Hitler, rather than Lenin or Marx, was the most
>significant revolutionary of the 20th century, because Naziism
>portended much of what awaits us in the next century: an age
>characterized by great technological feats but one in which the
>transcendant values of earlier ages have given way to barbarity and
>primitive tribalism.
It's an interesting issue. It seems to me that Nazism appeals to the
philosophical mind, Marxism to the 19th century scientific mind. Since
philosophy is deeper than 19th century science, Nazism goes deeper than
Marxism and will outlast it in spite of the broad and enduring appeal of
the latter. It is the unacknowledged recognition of the superiority of
Nazism that gives it such enormous importance in our current political
mythology.
For that matter, Marxism would have been nothing without its implicit
Nazism. Without the glamour of mindless and colossal violence, who
would have given Stalin a second look?
Nazism can be deduced from the following propositions:
1. Man is a social animal.
2. Man requires objective values for psychological and social
equilibrium.
3. Man recognizes values by contrast with their opposites.
4. There are no objective values that transcend concrete human desires
and social institutions.
5. There are no human universals except aversion to suffering and
death.
The first proposition is plainly correct. I think the second and third
are too, although some may argue. The fourth and fifth are
characteristic of modern thought at its most exact, forceful, and
successful. It follows from the five that man can only satisfy his
nature (which presumably includes achieving psychological and social
equilibrium) as a completely integrated member of a society that
validates its claim to embody values the validity of which all must
admit by inflicting suffering and death on all other societies. To
fall short of that ideal at any point (e.g., to permit some society to
retain its independence) is to remain unsatisfied.
>One need only tune in to the latest fare on American television to
>appreciate Lukacs' thesis. American culture, I regret to say, has
>contributed greatly to this trend, as you know so well.
It seems to me that it's modern and not American culture that is the
problem. "Americanization" is simply modernization.
Blaming America is like blaming the Jews: each, because of
circumstances, has played a leading role in the process of
modernization, but the process would go on just the same even if both
disappeared and were forgotten tomorrow. Otherwise, how would Plato
have been able in books viii-ix of the _Republic_ to describe what's
happening today?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Mr. Owl ate my metal worm.
From panix!not-for-mail Sat Aug 5 13:14:14 EDT 1995
Article: 5114 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Esoteric Hitlerism and the Resurrection of the Reich
Date: 5 Aug 1995 07:47:24 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <3vvloc$qsr@panix.com>
References: <3vv6gr$fq0@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <3vv6gr$fq0@newsbf02.news.aol.com> vicnoble@aol.com (VicNoble) writes:
>3. This pattern is applicable to Naziism (note correct spelling, in
>contrast to near-universal misspelling with only one "i"
People do pronounce it "Nazi-ism", so I'm convinced.
>5. Both the haters and adherents of Hitlerism miss the fact that it was/is
>essentially religious in nature, just as "atheistic" communism was -- and
>even more so, because it had a conscious esoteric core of
>magical/metaphysical elements.
Interesting -- yesterday I posted a theory that makes Naziism a logical
construction out of a few obvious truths and presuppositions of modern
thought, and today we get a very different slant. Food for thought.
No doubt a logical construct would be experienced very differently by
the non-logical parts of the mind. Presumably a system of thought and
feeling can be successful only if it appeals to more than one aspect of
our being.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Mr. Owl ate my metal worm.
From panix!not-for-mail Mon Aug 7 13:04:34 EDT 1995
Article: 5126 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Esoteric Hitlerism and the Resurrection of the Reich
Date: 7 Aug 1995 06:27:30 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <404pqi$i9t@panix.com>
References: <3vv6gr$fq0@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <426015151wnr@bloxwich.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
rafael cardenas writes:
>It seems that Socialism is dying everywhere; governments are
>increasingly powerless before the globalists.
Maybe that means that super-efforts will be necessary, so super-strength
nationalistic philosophies will be at an advantage in the coming years.
Part of the issue is whether people will find a universal society based
on global markets as a sole organizing principle tolerable. If not,
they will come up with something else, and the issue will be what
something else is capable of standing up to globalism.
>Naziism, even if one ignores its anti-semitic and nihilistic elements,
>contains an inbuilt contradiction between its nationalist collectivism
>and its glorification of the superman.
The contradiction is resolved for practical purposes by making each
member of the collective a superman with respect to outsiders, making
the leader of the collective a superman with respect to everyone, and
defining membership in the collective by reference to total
identification with the leader.
>I suppose the most coherent globalist cult is Randism, which
>conveniently deifies the businessman; the individual who fails
>(increasingly, most of us) in a competitive environment is necessarily
>the _untermensch_ and must be made to _feel_ that he deserves his
>failure.
The issue then becomes whether Randism can get enough, and durable
enough, support to serve as the ideological basis of a social order.
>But actually the conquest of Rome by Xtianity was a fluke. It won
>because Constantine won his battles. Had the Milvian Bridge gone the
>other way, things would have been very different.
What happened to the theory that the Church was the best organized body
in the Empire, so it was natural for the Emperors to do what they had to
do to enlist it in their support? (That's a real question, by the way.)
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No lemons, no melon.
From panix!not-for-mail Mon Aug 7 13:04:36 EDT 1995
Article: 5127 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: All American Nightmare
Date: 7 Aug 1995 06:29:36 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <404pug$ict@panix.com>
References: <3vtsk8$abn@panix.com> <4041im$5c4@newsman.viper.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
jlangcus@rebel.viper.net writes:
>I would argue that both Marxism and Naziism are both atavistic, in that
>each harkens back to some aspect(s) of our primordial past.
But everything we do is atavistic. Children are primitive and are
fascinating because they haven't learned to conceal their motives
(unlike adults, who have the same motives).
>You would probably agree that Marxism failed among the working classes
>because it failed to establish a broad enough philosophical base; in
>other words, it placed far too much emphasis on the class struggle at
>the expense of other issues such as race, culture and nationalism.
Marxism certainly doesn't satisfy the whole man, which would be OK in a
system that didn't claim to be a total explanation.
>modernism would have come sooner or later regardless of whether there
>had been an American influence -- that I'll concede. But I would also
>argue that the neo-Puritanical tradition that spawned in America has
>had a profound effect on modernism's spread. I would even venture to
>say that modernism would be far more benign without the neo-Puritanical
>influence.
I don't see this. I think of modernism as an attempt to reduce human
life to individual desires, the senses, and means-end rationality. Such
an attempt implies a view of the world that is emotionally austere to
the point of Puritan self-denial. It also seems to point toward an
emphasis that I associate with Puritanism on remaking the world in
accordance with an abstract plan. If that's right, then neo-Puritanism
is not a chance add-on to modernism.
It may be that to date all these things have reached their highest point
of development in America. If so, all it means is that there has been
less to oppose their triumph here. They seem too much of a single
logical piece to be attributable to peculiarities of a particular
national culture.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No lemons, no melon.
From panix!not-for-mail Mon Aug 7 18:42:18 EDT 1995
Article: 5134 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Unabomber manifesto
Date: 7 Aug 1995 16:56:00 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <405ul0$q51@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
More than a half-page of excerpts from the 35,000 manifesto of the
unabomber was published in the _New York Times_ last Wednesday, August
2. Intelligent and well-written, I thought. Anyone else see it?
His main claim seems to be that industrial society is necessarily
dehumanizing because (apart from leisure-time activities, which don't
matter) it treats man as a cog in a machine. Therefore it must be
destroyed.
One thing he doesn't discuss is whether communities could have
sufficient cultural cohesion to dominate technology rather than the
reverse. It seems to me a possibility; the Hasidim and the Amish have
done it. They take what they want from industrial society and leave
the rest, and both communities are thriving. The more abstract and
flexible technology and productive processes get the easier it should
be to deal with them that way. Or so it seems to me. In the absence
of such a strong culture modern science and technology would soon
reestablish itself in any event.
Any comments? I'd call the guy a CR, although most of us (me included)
don't like the idea of blowing people up to make the point that the
world ought to be very different from what it is. The glamour of
random murder can get you attention, but it's not something the best
political thinkers have relied on.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No lemons, no melon.
From panix!not-for-mail Tue Aug 8 06:36:30 EDT 1995
Article: 5139 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Unabomber manifesto
Date: 8 Aug 1995 06:01:43 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <407cm7$era@panix.com>
References: <405ul0$q51@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In pas@echonyc.com (Call Me Comrade) writes:
>But I would agree that he's in line with CR
>ideology, _even though he's on the 'left'_. He's another one of those
>interesting cases where red meets black.
Why is he on the left, or the 'left'? He says "one of the most
widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism" and
goes on to give an unflattering psychological and sociological analysis
of how people end up as leftists. He says that "they tend to hate
anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful", and
that they're "oversocialized".
As to conservatives, he says only that they are "fools. They whine
about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically
support technological progress and economic growth."
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No lemons, no melon.
From panix!not-for-mail Tue Aug 8 06:36:31 EDT 1995
Article: 5140 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: August "Chronicles" & Sam Francis
Date: 8 Aug 1995 06:21:13 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <407dqp$flg@panix.com>
References: <51436133wnr@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> <3vqdol$elo@newsman.viper.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In pas@echonyc.com (Call Me Comrade) writes:
>What, for instance is _not_ 'liberal' about people who promote private
>property and who propose to replace the state with the market?
Depends on which state. If you want to replace the _ancien regime_
with the market, you're a liberal. If you want to replace the late
twentieth-century egalitarian welfare state with the market you are
not.
The term "liberal" is relative to the goal of creating a world in which
nothing exists except economic resources, the particular impulses and
desires of individuals, and a comprehensive rational system that uses
the former to satisfy the latter equally. Liberation of the market
served that goal for a while, but it has become retrogressive because
it no longer advances equality and it depends too much on individual
decisionmaking, and therefore upon the responsible individual and the
social institutions that produce responsible individuals (the family,
traditional morality, etc.), none of which have a place in the world
that is under construction.
Therefore the specific content of the word "liberal" has changed, at
least in American usage which I prefer on this point.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No lemons, no melon.
From panix!not-for-mail Tue Aug 8 18:05:24 EDT 1995
Article: 5146 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: In re: a.r.c. FAQ
Date: 8 Aug 1995 13:56:41 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <4088gp$4hc@panix.com>
References: <3vjnbs$51l@linda.teleport.com> <3vrmvn$dj4@panix.com> <3vs2ji$6p7@linda.teleport.com> <3vsunj$6ee@panix.com> <407qh0$28g@linda.teleport.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <407qh0$28g@linda.teleport.com> cfaatz@teleport.com (Chris Faatz) writes:
>: >: "Live and let live" is probably racist [ ... ]
>: >I don't think that it's necessarily racist. I think choice and force are
>: >two things conspicuously absent [ ... ]
>: I assume that "choice" should be "compulsion" or something of the sort.
>Why "assume" anything, Mr. Kalb? As far as I'm concerned, "choice" as a
>word implies exactly that--I have no problem with the NOI organizing as
>Black separatists, nor do I have any problem with Yggdrasil doing the
>same thing. I don't think *anyone* should be compelled to live with others
>for whom theyhave no feelings of sympathy for any reason whatsoever.
Your words doesn't seem to do what you intend. If you don't like
"compulsion and force are two things conspicuously absent", how about
"choice is conspicuously present and force conspicuously absent"?
>A person's proclivities, emotions, prejudices, intellectual decisions,
>are theirs--to try and compel, much less *legislate*, opinion is an
>unmitigated disaster.
You seem to think that compulsion can be clearly distinguished from
non-compulsion in all or almost all important cases, and that
"proclivities, emotions, prejudices, intellectual decisions" and
"opinions" can be similarly distinguished from other bases of action.
I'm doubtful. The distinctions are often important, but I don't think
they're uniformly clear enough to build a whole political theory on as
many libertarians want to do.
>BTW, what am I--some kind of odd paleo-progressive-anarcho-hybrid?? :-)
You sound like J.S. Mill to me. "P-p-a-h" is probably as good a label
as any. Whether your position is coherent in the long run, or whether
Murray Rothbard was correct in claiming that libertarianism has to move
to the cultural and moral right in order to last, is of course a
question. (Not that the same sort of question can't be asked about the
position any of us holds.)
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No lemons, no melon.
Do let me know if you have comments of any kind.
Back to my archive of posts.