Items Posted by Jim Kalb
From panix!not-for-mail Fri Apr 7 16:06:53 EDT 1995
Article: 3747 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Over-population Fantasies
Date: 6 Apr 1995 20:49:42 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <3m2276$8to@panix.com>
References: <3ld7ll$7kn@news.iastate.edu> <3l97gu$37d@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <3lcqfn$70r@clam.rutgers.edu> <504196608wnr@bloxwich.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In louspiel@dnai.com (Louis V. Spielman) writes:
> Have you no faith in famine,
>pestilence, and war?
Any theories as to pestilence? New diseases do appear from time to
time, and it can take a while to figure out what to do about them. If
AIDS weren't so difficult to catch it seems we'd have had a major
population decline by now. Or the next strain of flu might turn out to
be extraordinarily deadly. Do epidemiologists have concepts analogous
to the "500 year flood" and so on that hydrologists [?] talk about?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Boston, O do not sob.
From panix!not-for-mail Fri Apr 7 16:07:08 EDT 1995
Article: 12628 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Bloody Sissies
Date: 6 Apr 1995 03:24:17 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <3m04v1$5ae@panix.com>
References: <9504052127.AA25211@heartland.bradley.edu> <3lv8i4$5ts@agate.berkeley.edu>
In <3lv8i4$5ts@agate.berkeley.edu> farad@balboa.cea.berkeley.edu (Tony Faradjian) writes:
>>Work through the bereavement process together? What a bunch
>>of effeminate quiche eaters!
>Dude, you are an ignorant asshole.
You sound distinctly uninterested in working through any processes with
Mr. Ledbetter. Why?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Boston, O do not sob.
From panix!not-for-mail Fri Apr 7 16:07:11 EDT 1995
Article: 12629 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: The Projection of Racism onto Others
Date: 6 Apr 1995 03:31:17 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <3m05c5$5kr@panix.com>
References: <9504051605.AA00239@heartland.bradley.edu>
In <9504051605.AA00239@heartland.bradley.edu> gledbet@heartland.bradley.edu (Gene Ledbetter) writes:
>What I have
>noticed, of course, is the great frequency with which
>furious individuals have begun denouncing others (such as
>Republican Pat Buchanan) as racists, sexists, homophobes,
>and God knows what else. The manic energy of the attacks
>seems all out of proportion to the offenses. Can this be
>projection, and if so, how can it be explained?
I've always thought it was projection. How else explain the assurance
with which bad thoughts are inferred and the self-flagellation with
which discussions of the issue are often associated?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Boston, O do not sob.
From panix!not-for-mail Sun Apr 9 14:59:58 EDT 1995
Article: 12702 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: "End of the Pacific War" an insult to history
Date: 8 Apr 1995 06:26:37 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 4
Message-ID: <3m5oct$pmr@panix.com>
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Another problem is that "Pacific War" is an oxymoron.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Boston, O do not sob.
From panix!not-for-mail Sun Apr 9 15:00:08 EDT 1995
Article: 15688 of sci.philosophy.meta
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.christnet.philosophy,alt.philosophy.jarf,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.philosophy.zen,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.philosophy.tech,talk.philosophy.humanism,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Please give me your opinion about doubts !?
Date: 7 Apr 1995 20:07:52 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 11
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <3m4k4o$1hr@panix.com>
References: <3kjuau$9u5@irz401.inf.tu-dresden.de> <3lprhh$sc8@echo.i-link.net> <3lusdr$191q@echo.i-link.net> <3m4din$i7m@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.christnet.philosophy:1106 alt.philosophy.objectivism:38343 alt.philosophy.zen:1153 comp.ai.philosophy:26286 sci.philosophy.meta:15688 sci.philosophy.tech:14117 talk.philosophy.humanism:2704 talk.philosophy.misc:28067
In <3m4din$i7m@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> ald@mises.Eng.Sun.COM (Al Date) writes:
>As for me, I think that absolute certainty leads to Auschwitz.
I thought that the Leni Riefenstahl movie was "Triumph of the Will"
rather than "Triumph of Cognition", and that the the "Jewish science"
theory suggested that the Nazis didn't put much stock in talk of
objective truth.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Boston, O do not sob.
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Apr 13 15:42:11 EDT 1995
Article: 3765 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Rene Guenon & the Signs of the Times
Date: 11 Apr 1995 17:48:09 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <3metep$2bv@panix.com>
References: <3m3jkb$ghs@world.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In prgm@interport.net writes:
>Complete "traditionalist" list and
>related works [ ... ] he can get you a Reign of Q,
>or any other Traditionalist work.
I have the feeling that "'traditionalist'" and "Traditionalist" have a
rather specific meaning here. Can you enlighten me?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Boston, O do not sob.
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Apr 13 15:42:14 EDT 1995
Article: 3766 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Peter Brimelow and Alien Nation
Date: 11 Apr 1995 17:54:28 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <3metqk$3fj@panix.com>
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In tlathrop@netcom.com (Tom Lathrop) writes:
>I've just posted a long review of a new book by Peter Brimelow, called
>Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster. I
>figured you would want this newsgroup spared the firestorm I'm hoping
>to stir up
The review may have been too long and too well-written to stir up a
firestorm. Maybe if you posted something short entitled "America for
the Americans" or "America is a Nation not an Idea"?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Boston, O do not sob.
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Apr 13 15:42:26 EDT 1995
Article: 12900 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,talk.politics.theory
Subject: After Babel
Date: 13 Apr 1995 15:41:13 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <3mjuop$d31@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.society.conservatism:12900 talk.politics.theory:43933
What minimum of common faith is required for society to cohere?
We've been testing the limits in America for some time now. Our
national goal has become a society neither based on a common faith nor
divided (like traditional multicultural societies) into separate
autonomous faith communities. Such a society, it appears, would consist
of individual subjectivity and formal institutions, with nothing durable
in between.
It's doubtful that such a society could work, or even that our current
approximation to it can be maintained. Our society has always relied on
faith in democracy, individual freedom and material prosperity. Until
recently we were also publicly a Christian country. Our public
Christianity was becoming less and less articulate, but until the '60s
it was strong enough to limit the tendency of our secular faith to slide
into pure self-seeking and indiscipline.
After our vestigial Christianity was driven from public life, it was
succeeded by the social and moral chaos we see all around us. The
sequence is no accident; if there is no commonly accepted transcendental
principle of order all that remains is the conflict of individual wills.
Our secular faith has not been able to sustain social order because it
contains no principle of restraint other than formal equality, which is
too abstract to be useable.
What now? One answer is that the situation will right itself:
transitions bring chaos, but in a while moral and social order is re-
established on new principles. No doubt there is something to that, but
the issue remains what the new principles will be.
It seems doubtful that they will bear any very simple relation with our
long-standing secular faith. That faith is based on the principle that
it is the greatest political good for men to be free to pursue the goals
they set for themselves. Such a principle is arguable if state action
is limited to affairs in which adults deal with each other at arm's
length. When extended to social life in general the principle becomes
absurd, and in America the state has come to dominate too many things
for it to make sense. For instance, public education, social security
and welfare have placed the state at the center of the practical
concerns of family life, and it is absurd for the state to govern family
life by the principle of maximizing the individual choices of each
member.
One might attempt to save as much of liberalism as possible through
radical restriction of the scope of state action. To do so would
require persuading people that private property and voluntary
transactions are inviolable. I doubt they can be persuaded of such a
thing on the grounds that the goal of politics is to enable each of them
to pursue his interests as he sees them. After all, redistributive
taxation and affirmative action aid many people in pursuing their
interests.
One might also attempt to save liberalism by establishing a more
substantive liberal faith that, in spite of demanding allegiance to an
understanding of the good that can rationally be contested, remains true
to liberalism by minimizing itself. I'll believe it when I see it; a
faith that views its own existence with suspicion is not a faith that
can do much for anyone.
It seems, then, that society will re-establish itself on the basis of
some faith more substantive than either what we have now or the
dissipating Christianity that kept things going until the '60s. Since
faith relates to matters on which people differ, it seems likely that a
variety of social orders will arise based on differing faiths, and we
are headed into an era of tribalism.
It's hard to say what that will mean. Some obvious issues:
1. What overall system of public order will be possible?
Constitutional and republican forms of government seem to require a
degree of cultural cohesion. Despotism mitigated by communal autonomy
and anarchy has been the typical form of government in regions such as
the Near East and India inhabited by radically diverse ethnic and
religious communities. On the other hand, some philosophies (e.g.,
Confucianism and stoicism) seem suited to form a tolerably disinterested
ruling class for a multicultural society that respects the autonomy of
its constituent communities.
2. What common institutions can a tribal society have? Reports from
the universities suggest that humane learning may not be one of them.
Technological changes -- the multiplication of channels of communication
-- also seem likely to contribute to intellectual fragmentation.
Natural science presumably would survive as a shared activity, but not
one regarded as supremely authoritative intellectually. Markets would
also survive, but within tribal communitites would be subjected to a
variety of restrictions.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Boston, O do not sob.
From panix!not-for-mail Fri Apr 14 15:50:37 EDT 1995
Article: 12932 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.impeach.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.ronald-reagan,alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Newt Gingrich: Champion Welfare Queen
Date: 14 Apr 1995 05:11:30 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <3mle82$mkp@panix.com>
References: <3l005u$4ba@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <3m816l$f18@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <3mjht9$9cj@gazette.medtronic.COM> <3mkeah$d6d@agate.berkeley.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.politics.usa.congress:1027 alt.politics.usa.republican:71471 alt.politics.libertarian:85504 talk.politics.libertarian:16791 alt.politics.usa.misc:26564 alt.activism:88179 alt.politics.radical-left:44199 talk.politics.misc:266431 alt.politics.clinton:148372 alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich:15930 alt.politics.reform:26900 alt.politics.economics:19979 alt.president.clinton:39386 alt.politics.correct:52027 alt.impeach.clinton:9322 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:262675 alt.fan.ronald-reagan:12149 alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy:4842 alt.society.conservatism:12932 alt.politics.perot:21205
In <3mkeah$d6d@agate.berkeley.edu> cameron@gauss.eecs.berkeley.edu (Mike Williamson) writes:
>A small footnote: Cobb County receives more federal subsidies than any
>suburban county in the country, with two exceptions: Arlington
>Virginia, effectively part of the Federal Government, and Brevard
>County Florida, the home of the Kennedy Space Center. When we move
>out of the state system itself, Cobb County is the leading beneficiary
>of the "nanny state." Its largest employer is Lockheed Aeronautical
>Systems Company, which is designing the F-22 advanced tactical fighter
>and other military aircraft. Seventy two percent of the workforce are
>in white-collar jobs "in expanding areas of the economy like
>insurance, electronics and computers, and trade" -- all carefully
>tended by "the nanny state."
You don't mention any subsidies. Presumably the feds get value in
their dealings with Lockheed; if they don't I agree it's a problem and
something should be done about it. I'm not sure what your point is as
to insurance, electronics and computers and trade. Would those areas
of the economy shrivel away if the nanny state disappeared tomorrow?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Boston, O do not sob.
From panix!not-for-mail Fri Apr 14 15:50:42 EDT 1995
Article: 12934 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: misc.immigration.usa,misc.immigration.canada,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.nationalism.white,soc.culture.african.american,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.canada,alt.society.conservatism,alt.society.revolution,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,talk.environment,can.politics
Subject: Re: Alien Nation -- Peter Brimelow's warning on immigration
Date: 14 Apr 1995 05:26:58 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <3mlf52$n0c@panix.com>
References: <3mgu0l$p1r@ionews.io.org> <3mj8dg$b7s@paul.rutgers.edu> <3mjpvq$1hhi@rover.ucs.ualberta.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix misc.immigration.usa:5397 misc.immigration.canada:3734 talk.politics.misc:266437 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:262683 alt.discrimination:33930 alt.politics.correct:52031 alt.politics.nationalism.white:6055 soc.culture.african.american:101372 soc.culture.usa:60550 soc.culture.canada:68930 alt.society.conservatism:12934 alt.society.revolution:5508 alt.politics.usa.misc:26566 alt.politics.usa.republican:71476 alt.politics.usa.congress:1028 alt.politics.libertarian:85506 alt.politics.reform:26901 talk.environment:29846 can.politics:67739
In article <3mj8dg$b7s@paul.rutgers.edu>, sid@paul.rutgers.edu (Sid) writes:
> Let's all write to this person's internet provider and make
> them aware of the kind of drivel Mr. Lathrop is spewing on the net.
> In an era when we need more racial harmony, Mr. Lathrop is subliminally
> promoting hatred, war and anarchy by putting up such posts.
It would be helpful to your position if you would point out the flaws
in Mr. Brimelow's arguments that current American arrangements as to
immigration are disadvantageous to the present population of the United
States. If you don't, and limit yourself to calling for censorship,
you will create the impression that the arguments are valid and
unanswerable.
It's also not obvious to everyone that restricting immigration, or
thinking restrictions on immigration are a good idea, promotes hatred,
war and anarchy. Those conditions are often found in places such as
Bosnia and Lebanon that are no less multicultural than the America
immigration is giving us. On the other hand, there are very peaceful
nations that restrict immigration much more than America does.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Boston, O do not sob.
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Apr 20 14:07:04 EDT 1995
Article: 3783 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Sting5
Date: 20 Apr 1995 07:04:19 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <3n5f3j$27f@panix.com>
References: <3n2s4v$9nj@balsam.unca.edu> <46153039wnr@bloxwich.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <46153039wnr@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> raf379@bloxwich.demon.co.uk (rafael cardenas) writes:
>Mind you, a friend of mine used to denounce Sorbs in the mistaken
>belief that they had been safely exterminated by the Ottonians
>in the 10th century. He was shocked to discover that they were
>still around
Holy smokes! Are there still Wends about as well?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: A new order began, a more Roman age bred Rowena.
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Apr 20 14:07:36 EDT 1995
Article: 13154 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: After Babel
Date: 19 Apr 1995 07:09:28 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <3n2r18$7h1@panix.com>
References: <3mjuop$d31@panix.com> <3n26uq$9pm@rover.ucs.ualberta.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.society.conservatism:13154 talk.politics.theory:44353
dellb@gpu3.srv.ualberta.ca (Brian Dell) writes:
>It seems that America has hitherto been able to reify the abstract
>principles of liberty (as framed by its founding fathers) into a
>concrete iconography which could command general fealty and
>enthusiasm ~a la~ carrying one's colors into battle.
>Liberty is being increasingly viewed as a *means*, however, in that
>its value is recognized not in the terms of its historic role as a
>banner under which Americans could unite but rather as the best
>practical means for securing the material advantages of free market
>economics.
"Liberty" can serve an organizing function if it is understood as a
definite and therefore limited thing (e.g., national independence,
limited government, property rights, respect for law). When so
understood it can impose a common discipline. The game's over when it
becomes understood as the right of the asocial ego to the aid of
society in realizing whatever goals it sets for itself (that is, to a
maximum of gratification with a minimum of responsibility). The
abstract requirement that liberty be equal does not limit it clearly
enough to give rise to a comprehensible concrete discipline. It
follows that the conceptual development and purification of liberalism
ends up destroying liberalism.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: A new order began, a more Roman age bred Rowena.
From panix!not-for-mail Sun Apr 23 05:03:46 EDT 1995
Article: 3805 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: && Construction, Deployment, and Detonation of Explosives &&
Date: 23 Apr 1995 05:03:32 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <3nd554$mio@panix.com>
References: <011343Z22041995@anon.penet.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
an250610@anon.penet.fi writes:
>Are you interested in receiving information detailing the components
>and materials needed to construct an bomb identical to the one used in
>Oklahoma.
It's customary to say "a bomb" rather than "an bomb". Also, the readers
of this newsgroup are all aware of your offer so perhaps you might go
make your pitch elsewhere.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: A new order began, a more Roman age bred Rowena.
From panix!not-for-mail Sun Apr 23 13:38:59 EDT 1995
Article: 3806 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Citizen Militia >pkp@ix.netcom.com
Date: 23 Apr 1995 05:05:42 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <3nd596$mn5@panix.com>
References: <3ncv5o$1nb@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
pkp@ix.netcom.com (Philip Paulson) writes:
> A well regulated Militia is the State National Guard - not
>vigilante citizen militias.
This isn't my issue, particularly, but I was under the impression that
"militia" meant something like "the body of adult male citizens under
arms".
The 2nd amendment is troublesome in a political society that is not
radically decentralized. If you don't want that kind of society you
won't like the RKBA; if you do you won't think it's so bad.
>Random car bombing, kidnapping, poisoning, attacking, intimidating, and
>exercising bullying tactics on innocent citizens and children goes
>outside the scope of freedom and the Second Amendment.
Not many would disagree. That's why all those acts are illegal. Is
your point that the laws against them are not being enforced and that's
why the Oklahoma City bombing took place?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: A new order began, a more Roman age bred Rowena.
From panix!not-for-mail Mon Apr 24 10:30:02 EDT 1995
Article: 13336 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Alien Nation -- What is Right?
Date: 23 Apr 1995 19:35:19 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <3neo7n$sa0@panix.com>
References: <3ne9h8$3q2@decaxp.harvard.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
carney@fas.harvard.edu (john carney) writes:
>The New York Times gave Brimelow a fairly good review. "Mr. Brimelow's
>arguement that whithout a lengthy new lull [in immigration] we will be
>in trouble is too persuasively made to be ignored." According to all
>reports, the Wall Street Journal panned Brimelow's book
Reports of the death of Right and Left are exaggerated, I think. The
book reviews in the Times don't invariably follow the paper's own
political line. For example, _The Bell Curve_ and the Rushton book got
respectfully reviewed (they assigned their science writer to the job,
and he played it straight). The line of the WSJ editorial page is pro-
business neocon, and they've always supported immigration.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: A new order began, a more Roman age bred Rowena.
From panix!not-for-mail Mon Apr 24 18:13:54 EDT 1995
Article: 3830 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Citizen Militia >pkp@ix.netcom.com
Date: 24 Apr 1995 18:13:07 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <3nh7pj$s8o@panix.com>
References: <3ncv5o$1nb@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <3nd596$mn5@panix.com> <3ngbcu$6fe@tzlink.j51.com> <3nghi4$pld@interport.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
lepslog@j51.com (Louis Epstein) wrote:
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) wrote:
: > A well regulated Militia is the State National Guard - not
: >vigilante citizen militias.
: This isn't my issue, particularly, but I was under the impression that
: "militia" meant something like "the body of adult male citizens under
: arms".
That's the interpretation the gun lobby likes,but it's not the one the
courts have agreed the 2nd Amendment MEANS.
In the discussion people were going back to the text of the
constitution and interpreting it directly, without reference to
judicial glosses of the past 50 years. Surely the meaning of the word
"militia" when the amendment was framed and adopted would be relevant
to such a discussion?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: A new order began, a more Roman age bred Rowena.
From panix!not-for-mail Mon Apr 24 18:14:09 EDT 1995
Article: 13354 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Alien Nation -- What is Right?
Date: 24 Apr 1995 13:07:48 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <3nglt4$nao@panix.com>
References: <3ne9h8$3q2@decaxp.harvard.edu> <3neo7n$sa0@panix.com> <3nfkq3$bn8@decaxp.harvard.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
carney@fas.harvard.edu (john carney) writes:
>I wonder if it is still possible to meaningfully identify any person or
>position as "conservative." The term may be too inclusive. Can we
>include sessionists and Big Government-types, isolationists and global-
>crusaders-for-democractic-capitalists, Congress is the conservative-
>branch types and Energy in the Executive types, Christians and
>secularists -- can we include everything that goes by the name
>conservative in one category and still be clear and precise?
It seems to me that in America "conservative" usually means someone
who's dropped out of the continuing development of liberalism.
Depending on when he dropped out you get a different brand of
conservatism. Some like the pre-1861 or pre-1933 republic, some the
pre-60s middle-class democracy. Also, conservatives differ on what's
reversible and what isn't. Can you do away with Big Government? Avoid
foreign entanglements? Restablish various cultural and moral
presumptions?
The common thread, I think, is a desire for the maintenance of the
authority of something other than the desires and impulses of
individuals and a universal rational bureaucratic scheme to maximize the
equal satisfaction of such desires and impulses. The "something other"
can be any of a number of things: the responsible individual, the
family, the local community, traditional morality, religion, the nation
as an object of patriotic devotion, whatever.
So "conservatism" does mean something, it seems to me, but what it means
is mostly the negation of something else.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: A new order began, a more Roman age bred Rowena.
From panix!not-for-mail Tue Apr 25 05:14:43 EDT 1995
Article: 3832 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Counterrevolutionary Doctrine
Date: 24 Apr 1995 20:51:05 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <3nhh1p$r8d@panix.com>
References: <3nfap4$4uj@tzlink.j51.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
lepslog@j51.com (Louis Epstein) writes:
>Is there anyone here who is a true counterrevolutionary,who sees
>revolutions as crimes and their reversal the only justification for
>analogous action?
I'll be posting the a.r.c. FAQ in a couple of days. See whether that
answers your question.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: A new order began, a more Roman age bred Rowena.
From panix!not-for-mail Tue Apr 25 05:14:50 EDT 1995
Article: 13375 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Alien Nation -- What is Right?
Date: 24 Apr 1995 20:54:41 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <3nhh8h$s0i@panix.com>
References: <3nfkq3$bn8@decaxp.harvard.edu> <3nglt4$nao@panix.com> <3ngoq4$iup@decaxp.harvard.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
carney@fas.harvard.edu (john carney) writes:
>But who really argues that the only authority should be the desires and
>impulses of individuals and a universal rational bureaucratic scheme to
>maximize them? Maybe some academics at Harvard's philosophy
>department.
Philosophers deal with pure Forms. The actualization of the Forms does
not come about fully consciously and is never complete. So there are
no pure liberals or conservatives. To decide whether as a practical
matter someone is liberal or conservative, of course, you look at the
things he takes most seriously and does most to advance.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: A new order began, a more Roman age bred Rowena.
From panix!not-for-mail Tue Apr 25 12:17:48 EDT 1995
Article: 13405 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Alien Nation -- What is Right?
Date: 25 Apr 1995 06:06:39 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <3nihjf$3hd@panix.com>
References: <3ngoq4$iup@decaxp.harvard.edu> <3nhh8h$s0i@panix.com> <3nhkpd$oag@decaxp.harvard.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
carney@fas.harvard.edu (john carney) writes:
>what do we mean when we say conservative? What are the "things"
>conservatives take most seriously?
Conservatives tend to emphasize things like individual responsibility,
economic self-organization, family and traditional values, opposition to
bureaucratic control, religion and patriotism. The point of my abstract
definition was to find the feature that makes us call people
"conservative" to the extent they emphasize some selection of things
>from what at first looks like quite a varied list.
>And do any contemporary liberals take the satisfaction of the maximum
>number of desires or impulses to be the "most serious" project?
That's "maximal equal satisfaction". And of course people don't
consider that to be their project. No one except a few ivory tower
types thinks about things abstractly, so actual liberals have more
concrete projects. Liberals do sometimes say they favor things like
letting people choose their own values, empowering people with control
over their lives, extending compassionate and nonjudgmental aid to
those in distress, or dismantling social structures that are repressive
or that advantage some groups and lifestyles at the expense of others.
Those are still very abstract phrases, but they're apparently concrete
enough to mean something to people actively involved in political life.
Put them all together and I think you get something like my definition.
My goal, of course, was to find some phrase abstract enough to cover
them all.
>Conservatism cannot be the rejection of a ideology that is rejected by
>everyone; that would make everyone a conservative. If "conservative"
>is going to be a reasonable category it must be describable by
>distinguishing characteristics.
Agreed, but not sure of your point. It appears to me that you're
demanding that a description of a tendency fully describe everything
that is part of the tendency and that a characterization of an ideology
be a statement that those subscribing to the ideology would subscribe
to.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: A new order began, a more Roman age bred Rowena.
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Apr 27 08:42:02 EDT 1995
Article: 3861 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Discussion on OK
Date: 27 Apr 1995 08:41:56 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <3no3ek$hkk@panix.com>
References: <3nhet9$cg$1@mhadg.production.compuserve.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Galloway@CRL.com writes:
> 1) You do NOT have the right to fire on legal agents when they knock
>on your door to ask what the hell you are planning.
That's not recognizable as a description of the original 100-agent raid
on the compound, but I suspect it was intended as such. Am I right?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: A new order began, a more Roman age bred Rowena.
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Apr 27 08:44:34 EDT 1995
Article: 3862 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Counterrevolutionary Doctrine
Date: 27 Apr 1995 08:44:24 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <3no3j8$i1s@panix.com>
References: <3nfap4$4uj@tzlink.j51.com> <3nhh1p$r8d@panix.com> <3nk116$b6d@tzlink.j51.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
lepslog@j51.com (Louis Epstein) writes:
>So how old is this group?
It's more than two years old. Actually, for most of its life the
discussion didn't have much to do with the American populist right
(RKBA, militias, Patriot movement, sovereign citizenship, white
nationalism, etc.). It was started by some Catholic monarchists, who
spent very little time discussing FRNs or the ZOG.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: A new order began, a more Roman age bred Rowena.
From panix!not-for-mail Fri Apr 28 08:02:58 EDT 1995
Article: 19101 of talk.politics.libertarian
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Query re law without state
Date: 27 Apr 1995 14:41:40 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 8
Message-ID: <3nooh4$b34@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
I believe there are books about consensual legal systems (the law
merchant?) that arise without the support of the state. Can anyone
give me any references?
Thanks.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: A new order began, a more Roman age bred Rowena.
From panix!not-for-mail Sat Apr 29 06:13:44 EDT 1995
Article: 13614 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: French Turn Right
Date: 28 Apr 1995 13:03:50 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <3nr75m$e2n@panix.com>
References: <3nocr8$8lb@meaddata.meaddata.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <3nocr8$8lb@meaddata.meaddata.com> upardjc@dsdprod.meaddata.com (John C Pardon) writes:
>And *extreme
>Right* candidate Jean Marie Le Pen (FN), running on an anti-immigration
>platform, received 15.6% of the vote. If this isn't enough to show the
>strength of the French right, another *far right* candidate, Phillipe de
>Villiers (nationalist, anti-EU) won 5% of the vote.
What do "extreme right" and "far right" mean here? I know those are
the expressions that are used, but it's never been clear to me what the
content is.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: A new order began, a more Roman age bred Rowena.
From panix!not-for-mail Tue May 2 05:47:57 EDT 1995
Article: 3898 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: communitarianism -info on
Date: 1 May 1995 20:23:19 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <3o3u1n$n6@panix.com>
References: <3o0cvc$d1u@news.xs4all.nl>
In <3o0cvc$d1u@news.xs4all.nl> vtnet@xs4all.nl (vtnet) writes:
>Can anyone tell me if there are newsgroups or mailing-lists that
>focus on the political ideas of authors like A. Macintyre?
I don't think so. Someone tried to organize an email discussion group
on A. Mac a year or so ago and it fizzled. (I was the only one who
signed up, and the organizer got too busy with other things to continue
the discussion.) This place is probably as good as any to raise the
issues.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: A new order began, a more Roman age bred Rowena.
From panix!not-for-mail Tue May 2 19:19:05 EDT 1995
Article: 3907 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: TFP
Date: 2 May 1995 06:51:46 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <3o52s2$qhh@panix.com>
References: <3o1of7$f5k@decaxp.harvard.edu> <3o4brb$4c3@tzlink.j51.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
lepslog@j51.com (Louis Epstein) writes:
>john carney (carney@fas.harvard.edu) wrote:
>: On another thread someone mentioned Tradition, Family &
>: Property. It has been quiet some time since I've heard from them or of
>: them. Does anyone know what they are up to these days and how I can get
>: in touch with them?
There's a Virginia address in the a.r.c. resource lists that I posted
yesterday. Probably a more up-to-date address (which I'll add to the next
version of the resource lists) is:
The American TFP
P.O. Box 1868
York, PA 17405
Tel: (717) 225-7147
Fax (717) 225-7382
>(I'm a Constantian Society member myself...firmly monarchist but quite
>secular).
If you give me the address and a description (throne si, altar no?) of
the Constantinian society I'll add that to the list as well.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: A new order began, a more Roman age bred Rowena.
From panix!not-for-mail Wed May 3 10:07:51 EDT 1995
Article: 3917 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Counterrevolutionary Doctrine
Date: 2 May 1995 19:36:35 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <3o6fm3$gko@panix.com>
References: <3no3j8$i1s@panix.com> <3npo93$ivl@tzlink.j51.com> <3o545d$9e9@gabriel.keele.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
cla04@cc.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear) writes:
>More or less, one of them now writes for a Distributist paper in the US.
Who's that, and what paper? (I feel an interest in what our alumni do.)
>: (I am basically hostile to ANYTHING populist.I stand for the discrediting
>: of the very *idea* of revolution.
>
>Does that include the rebellion of the American colonies?
Why do you call refusal to take orders from the Elector of Hanover a
"rebellion"?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: A new order began, a more Roman age bred Rowena.
From panix!not-for-mail Wed May 3 15:35:35 EDT 1995
Article: 3935 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: a.r.c. FAQ
Date: 3 May 1995 15:35:10 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <3o8lte$r3e@panix.com>
References: <3o30lb$itb@panix.com> <3o5m05$62h@tzlink.j51.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
lepslog@j51.com (Louis Epstein) writes:
>: e. Distributivism. Decentralize economically. Promote small
>: business. Build a nation of independent property owners.
>
>Sounds almost communist to me.
It can't be, it's based on private property.
>Certainly radical-egalitarian.
I don't think so. "Small business" and "independent property owner"
could have no meaning in a radically egalitarian society since the
differing results for each business could be allowed no effect. Also,
such a society would be impossible to combine with economic
decentralization.
>(I'm generally against anti-trust meddling,and for aristocrats want tax
>structure designed to help build the upper classes' fortunes...I am
>against all inheritance tax)
Why not be satisfied with stabilizing the fortunes of the upper classes
and also the lower orders?
>I don't see my own perspective here [ ... ] I seek eradication of the
>idea of racialidentity,racism's parent. I do not subscribe to
>prescribed sex roles.
It's hard for me to fit your views into my schema. CRs usually like
particularism and reject political rationalism and radical
individualism. Your apparent desire to eliminate gender and ethnicity
as significant social categories seems to go the other way. Why not
work your views up into your own FAQ?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: A new order began, a more Roman age bred Rowena.
From panix!not-for-mail Wed May 3 15:39:04 EDT 1995
Article: 3936 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Continued discussion
Date: 3 May 1995 15:36:56 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <3o8m0o$rli@panix.com>
References: <3nhevr$cg$2@mhadg.production.compuserve.com> <3o7olc$703@balsam.unca.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
kepley@photon.phys.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) writes:
>In article aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken) writes:
>>The encouragement to
>>"do your own thing," the demotic energies set free from the necessary
>>restraints of tradition and custom - these are bound to result in such
>>tasteless efforts at capturing the public's attention.
>
>I don't think that this is necessarily the case with the Oklahoma
>bomber(s). It does describe the uni-bomber, in my opinion.
My own CR slant on the whole thing is that the Oklahoma bomber acted
out of the alienation and inarticulate hatred of ruling elites that is
the inevitable consequence of the control of cultural institutions and
communications media by such elites combined with political
rationalism.
BTW -- welcome back, Andrew!
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: A new order began, a more Roman age bred Rowena.
From panix!not-for-mail Thu May 4 19:37:57 EDT 1995
Article: 13949 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Conservatism Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Date: 4 May 1995 11:28:43 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <3oarrb$ku9@panix.com>
References: <3o30p3$jc6@panix.com> <3oakff$139k@unix1.cc.ysu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <3oakff$139k@unix1.cc.ysu.edu> s0174026@unix1.cc.ysu.edu (Andrew L Garman) writes:
>I find this FAQ to be if nothing else poorly written. And if something more
>revolting to my own concept of conservative society.
Greater specificity would be helpful.
>Or perhaps I just have a differing view of conservatism.
Why not take up the invitation to draft your own FAQ?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age.
From panix!not-for-mail Fri May 5 15:32:27 EDT 1995
Article: 3960 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Continued discussion
Date: 5 May 1995 13:49:58 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <3odog6$sh7@panix.com>
References: <3nhevr$cg$2@mhadg.production.compuserve.com> <3o7olc$703@balsam.unca.edu> <3o8m0o$rli@panix.com> <3oded7$hhh@tzlink.j51.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <3oded7$hhh@tzlink.j51.com> lepslog@j51.com (Louis Epstein) writes:
>: My own CR slant on the whole thing is that the Oklahoma bomber acted
>: out of the alienation and inarticulate hatred of ruling elites that is
>: the inevitable consequence of the control of cultural institutions and
>: communications media by such elites combined with political
>: rationalism.
>Interesting.Seems to me part of being a CR is support for ruling elites.
Depends on the ruling elite. Ruling elites committed to political
rationalism (e.g., the view that politics can be reduced to the
rational equal accommodation and furtherance of men's actual desires)
don't qualify for CR support.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age.
From panix!not-for-mail Sun May 7 16:29:05 EDT 1995
Article: 3981 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Bombing aftershocks
Date: 7 May 1995 16:23:44 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <3oja8g$6ev@panix.com>
References: <3odttq$ube@insosf1.infonet.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
wmcclain@worf.infonet.net (Bill McClain) writes:
>When Left-radicals used bombs in the late 1960s, liberals took much of
>the blame.
How much stuck, and among whom? The bombings certainly didn't prevent
the triumph of left-liberalism throughout official culture. The view
among opinion leaders, I thought, is that the bombings had to do with
understandible alienation, justifiable grievances and idealism that had
been made to go sour. The answer was to change society in response to
the underlying concerns.
>I've seen a quote attributed to Nixon's Attorney General, John
>Mitchell: "This country is going so far Right you won't recognize it."
>Somewhat prophetic, if he actually said that.
It hasn't happened yet. Is this country really to the right of where it
was in (say) 1960? That's not the impression I get from watching TV,
reading the mainstream press, or looking at statistics on social trends
or public opinion polls. It's true that there is widespread unease now
even in the intellectual class about the consequences of leftist
policies, while there wasn't in 1960, but any serious practical
opposition to such policies is unthinkable.
> Resistance to the Progressive political agenda is possible only by
> the violent, nihilistic Right. There is no civilized way to criticize
> the direction the ruling elites have been taking us.
>
>The Republican Right seems helpless in the face of this abuse and I
>expect the Party will cave in.
Seems likely. The triumph of the Left has made it impossible even to
articulate the concerns of the Right in public discourse. Therefore
those concerns emerge in irrational and extreme forms.
>Whoever can discover how to restore legitimate authority will transcend
>current political disputes and lay a foundation for whatever comes
>next.
I doubt that it will happen anytime soon, or that "whatever comes next"
will be continuous with what we have now.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age.
From panix!not-for-mail Sun May 7 16:29:07 EDT 1995
Article: 3982 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: communitarianism -info on
Date: 7 May 1995 16:28:51 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <3ojai3$755@panix.com>
References: <3o0cvc$d1u@news.xs4all.nl> <3o3u1n$n6@panix.com> <3odt88$qjs@news.xs4all.nl>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
vtnet@xs4all.nl (vtnet) writes:
>It stated that the division of the proceeds from cooperation among rational
>maximizing bargainers will be at the point where the product of the respective
>utilities is highest. That is, if the utility for a rich man for $80 is .8 and
>the utility of $20 for a poor man also is .8, and no other product of
>utilities can be found that is higher than .64, then there will be an 80/20
>split in favour of the rich man.
[ ... ]
>If an incorruptible team of two cooperating predators have a better chance for
>making two kills in a given timespan (taking negative utility such as getting
>wounded into account) then they would have making one kill alone, especially
>if the utility of prey diminishes when more kills are made, then they may as a
>team, when rationally negotiating a cooperation with a third party that is
>alone, demand more then 2/3 of the total kills made by the new team of three
>since 3 stands to gain more from the cooperation.
I think the liberal response to this example would be to denounce the
"incorruptibility" of the members of the initial team. Presumably they
stick together for non-economic motives; otherwise the third party could
offer one of the pair a slightly better deal than his partner is giving
him and the ultimate consequence would be a much more equal arrangement
than you propose. Therefore the liberals try to uproot non-economic
motives for affiliation such as ethnicity. Their ideal is that every
man deal with every other at arm's length with only his own interests in
mind.
With respect to social-science analysis supporting communitarian
solutions, I don't know of a lot. The ever-busy Charles Murray has
something of the sort in _In pursuit of Happiness and Good Government_.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age.
From panix!not-for-mail Sun May 7 20:02:02 EDT 1995
Article: 3983 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Continued discussion
Date: 7 May 1995 16:29:44 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <3ojajo$7dr@panix.com>
References: <3oded7$hhh@tzlink.j51.com> <3odog6$sh7@panix.com> <3oelhc$j6h@tzlink.j51.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
lepslog@j51.com (Louis Epstein) writes:
>: Ruling elites committed to political
>: rationalism (e.g., the view that politics can be reduced to the
>: rational equal accommodation and furtherance of men's actual desires)
>: don't qualify for CR support.
>
>I would describe the unsupportable elites as *revolutionary* elites...ones
>claiming to act for "the people" rather than for principles and claiming
>the defensibility of armed insurrection.
What sort of principles would satisfy you? After all, "always act for
the people" is a principle. Does the claim to act for "the people"
correspond to my parenthetical description?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age.
From panix!not-for-mail Wed May 10 19:32:42 EDT 1995
Article: 3997 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Continued discussion
Date: 10 May 1995 05:44:14 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <3oq1te$j1v@panix.com>
References: <3nhevr$cg$2@mhadg.production.compuserve.com> <3ooec2$q2l@gabriel.keele.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <3ooec2$q2l@gabriel.keele.ac.uk> cla04@cc.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear) writes:
>: >Let's continue our discussion of the recent events in Oklahoma City [...]
>Surely these events are more to do with US foundation myths of frontiersmen
>than liberalism.
Why? Blowing up buildings as a form of political self-expression
wasn't something frontiersmen did and wasn't invented in the U.S.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age.
From panix!not-for-mail Thu May 11 18:57:44 EDT 1995
Article: 14272 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Conservatism Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Followup-To: alt.society.conservatism
Date: 11 May 1995 14:54:26 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <3otmh2$sqe@panix.com>
References: <3o30p3$jc6@panix.com> <3ot9he$90l@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.society.conservatism:14272 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:281244
turf@skinner (Brian McInturff) writes:
>My main problem with conservatives is that they use the force of the
>gun to promote their values
Pretty much a definition of politics, I should think. Libertarians
value clear, well-protected property rights because that's the key to
the kind of society they like. They're happy to vindicate that
conception of rights by using the force of the gun against those who
value some other kind of society and so reject it.
>Conservatives think that the government should regulate the substances
>you put in your body,
The liberals are the most enthusiastic proponents of the FDA and
antismoking rules, so it's certainly not a specifically conservative
view. It's true that conservatives aren't dogmatic on the issue, so if
some specific substance (crack cocaine) causes social problems they're
ready enough to let government act.
>the people with whom you are allowed to have relations
What do you have in mind? Conservatives aren't notable supporters of
civil rights laws, which are the obvious instance of government
regulation of choice of people with whom to have relations.
>and even the manner in which you have sex
Like a National Sex Board that keeps track of sexual conduct, imposes
record-keeping requirements, sets up goals for acts of one sort or
another, and so on? Not a conservative cause. You may be thinking of
anti-sodomy laws. If so, prosecutions are far too rare and (in the
nature of things) difficult to make "regulate" a reasonable choice of
words.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age.
From panix!not-for-mail Sun May 14 05:58:28 EDT 1995
Article: 4024 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Continued discussion
Date: 13 May 1995 08:01:51 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <3p273f$dcr@panix.com>
References: <3ooec2$q2l@gabriel.keele.ac.uk> <3oq1te$j1v@panix.com> <3ovue9$1g7@gabriel.keele.ac.uk>
cla04@cc.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear) writes:
>: >: >Let's continue our discussion of the recent events in Oklahoma City [...]
>
>: >Surely these events are more to do with US foundation myths of frontiersmen
>: >than liberalism.
>
>: Why? Blowing up buildings as a form of political self-expression
>: wasn't something frontiersmen did and wasn't invented in the U.S.
>
>No but carrying guns and insisting on a right to firearms was and is a US
>foundation myth in a way it isn't here.
I'm not sure what blowing up a building with a mixture of fertilizer
and fuel oil has to do with a right to firearms. If there were a
connection it would have been a more common activity in this country, I
should think.
Did Guy Fawkes, Russian revolutionaries, the IRA, various Red Brigades
and Palestinians and others who have gone in for bombings have
foundation myths of the same type?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age.
From panix!not-for-mail Mon May 15 06:33:41 EDT 1995
Article: 4033 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter,alt.history.what-if
Subject: Re: British Pretenders (wasRe: Filling the HRE Throne
Date: 14 May 1995 18:51:40 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <3p61hs$7v9@panix.com>
References: <3o3r66$3fd@tzlink.j51.com> <3o4otm$jgq@infoserv.rug.ac.be> <3ot1ne$3c4@wimbledon.dcs.hull.ac.uk> <3p4isl$r7c@gabriel.keele.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.revolution.counter:4033 alt.history.what-if:16612
In <3p4isl$r7c@gabriel.keele.ac.uk> cla04@cc.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear) writes:
>I wonder if there are any Cromwells still lurking about. We could do with a
>new Lord Protector.
Who would his followers be? There seems to be a shortage of
Roundheads.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age.
From panix!not-for-mail Mon May 15 06:33:44 EDT 1995
Article: 14353 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Conservatism Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Date: 14 May 1995 08:10:14 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <3p4rv6$ih3@panix.com>
References: <3ot9he$90l@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com> <3otmh2$sqe@panix.com> <3p2eul$9jp@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
turf@skinner (Brian McInturff) writes:
>However, there is less a demand for penicillin that there is for
>cocaine on the black market, which makes prohibiting cocaine cause much
>more crime.
Your point is that aside from libertarian principles even on utilitarian
grounds banning cocaine is a bad thing because the people who are going
to wreck their lives and the lives of others by using it are still going
to do so but are going to steal more because the price will be higher.
That's an argument conservatives can understand and give some weight to,
although claims that the American War on Drugs is what's behind the
modern crime problem strike me as grossly exaggerated. They don't
explain, for example, why in England and Wales the rate of indictable
offenses in 1991 was 40 times that in 1901 and 10 times that in 1955.
There are obviously a lot of arguments and counterarguments; I don't
know enough to debate them.
The chief thing conservatives want to add to the discussion is concern
for the patterns that enable people to carry on their lives. If
something disorders those patterns (e.g., cocaine use tends to make it
harder for people to meet their obligations to family, employers and so
on and so leads to a lot of misery) then conservatives want there to be
counteracting social institutions of some sort.
What institutions make sense depends on the issue and on the particular
society. In Italy the habits and attitudes of the people seem to be
enough to keep drunkeness from being a problem, but not so in Russia and
on Indian reservations. So a conservative Russian or Indian presumably
wouldn't object to government involvement to reduce alcohol consumption,
what kind of involvement depending on the specifics. Cocaine in America
is like alcohol among the Indians: it's very seductive and it's new, so
we really don't have any established way of dealing with it and it
causes a lot of destruction. In such circumstances government can have
a role, I think.
>As you say, it is true that although practicing homosexuality in many
>states is illegal, it is not often enforced. So why are stupid laws
>like that on the books?
They can't and never could be enforced in the case of private acts
between consenting persons. So the obvious function of the laws is to
give formal recognition and support to traditional sexual norms;
inconsistent conduct, which has been officially judged bad, has to keep
quiet and under cover. Whether you think that's reasonable depends on
how important you think it is for a society to have a concrete and
coherent system of sexual norms.
The notion that one is needed doesn't strike me as stupid. It's true,
of course, that our own society's most authoritative institutions have
decided over the past 30 years or so that such a system is an outrage to
personal autonomy. If that decision leads to a society of happier
people it will no doubt stick.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age.
From panix!not-for-mail Mon May 15 20:36:51 EDT 1995
Article: 14369 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.newt-gingrich,alt.society.conservatism,freenet.pub-sq.podium
Subject: Re: Lies, threats, and hypocrisy
Date: 15 May 1995 06:32:22 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <3p7ajm$pja@panix.com>
References: <3netfa$gtb@jhunix1.hcf.jhu.edu> <3ngdpd$an8@cmcl2.NYU.EDU> <3niu07$nad@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> <3nk4e2$k3@sparc.occ.uky.edu> <3nkujp$evh@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <3nlmb2$35d@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> <3orvvt$875@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> <3p6ee5$lqo@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Xref: panix alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:282975 alt.politics.usa.republican:84052 alt.fan.newt-gingrich:13460 alt.society.conservatism:14369
In <3p6ee5$lqo@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> dhg2@po.CWRU.Edu (David H. Gorski) writes:
>>"There is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending
>>that you can love your country but hate your government," Clinton
>>said. PD; 5/6/95
>Apparently, to Clinton at least, the country IS the
>government. He is equating distrust or dislike of the government with a
>lack of patriotism [ ... ]
>Bill, wake up, the government is NOT the country! The country is the people
>to whom the government owes its existence.
A problem is that for Clinton and established public thought generally
the American people owes its existence to the government. To speak of
"the American people" as something with an existence and rights that
precede the government is (from this view) ethnocentric, and we have
been declared to be a multiracial and multicultural society.
If you're an animist who speaks only Hmong you can nonetheless be no
less an American than George Bush. It follows that "the American
people" can be defined only as the people bound in allegiance to the
American state. A purpose of current immigration policy is to make
that clear.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age.
From panix!not-for-mail Tue May 16 10:26:53 EDT 1995
Article: 4043 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Are "citizen militias" constitutional?
Date: 15 May 1995 20:39:23 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <3p8s7r$9h0@panix.com>
References: <234318Z14051995@anon.penet.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
"Charles C. Anesi" writes:
>Recall that under the English Constitution (the statutes and customary
>law of England, not a single written document) Parliament could (and can)
>do whatever it pleased, and that the actions of which Jefferson and his
>buddies complained were perfectly legal.
Was that clear in 1776? The reason I ask is that constitutional
questions tend not to get resolved very quickly, and Lord Coke had held
that the common law could in some cases override an act of Parliament.
In any case, I don't think the issue had been resolved when the American
colonies were established, and that the constitutional relation between
Parliament and territories other than England had not been wholly
resolved.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age.
From panix!not-for-mail Thu May 18 12:00:24 EDT 1995
Article: 14481 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.newt-gingrich,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.nationalism.white,soc.culture.usa,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform
Subject: Re: Alien Nation -- Peter Brimelow on our immigration disaster
Date: 18 May 1995 04:13:28 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <3pevj8$pan@panix.com>
References: <3pdpmt$2u2@decaxp.harvard.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix talk.politics.misc:285936 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:284548 alt.fan.newt-gingrich:13564 alt.discrimination:36025 alt.politics.nationalism.white:8832 soc.culture.usa:67024 alt.society.conservatism:14481 alt.politics.usa.misc:32243 alt.politics.usa.republican:85102 alt.politics.reform:31958
In <3pdpmt$2u2@decaxp.harvard.edu> carney@fas.harvard.edu (john carney) writes:
>I don't think your "America as an idea" proposition can possibly mean
>anything.
Presumably it means that there is a comprehensive and specific set of
thoughts that you have to have, and if you don't have them you're
unAmerican or a traitor or something.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age.
From panix!not-for-mail Fri May 19 21:25:33 EDT 1995
Article: 14605 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.newt-gingrich,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.nationalism.white,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.canada,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,talk.environment,can.politics
Subject: Re: Alien Nation -- Peter Brimelow on our immigration disaster
Date: 19 May 1995 17:44:52 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <3pj3gk$jiu@panix.com>
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix talk.politics.misc:286808 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:285326 alt.fan.newt-gingrich:13607 alt.discrimination:36204 alt.politics.correct:59279 alt.politics.nationalism.white:8962 soc.culture.usa:67296 soc.culture.canada:73499 alt.society.conservatism:14605 alt.politics.usa.misc:32451 alt.politics.usa.republican:85643 alt.politics.reform:32142 talk.environment:31496 can.politics:72515
nmfa100@cus.cam.ac.uk (N.M.F.Adams) writes:
> The entire white population of the Americas are immigrants. The only
>people with the right to moan about immigration to this continent are the
>native Americans.
This sort of comment puzzles me. No one is claiming that immigration is
an abstract evil, always and everywhere. No one is claiming that there
is any place on earth, except maybe a few islands, still inhabited by
the descendants of the original human settlers. Every (or nearly every)
society occupies land once occupied by earlier societies that have
vanished. That was the case in the Americas when the Europeans arrived
as well, since if you dig down you find that the Indians who lived in a
place in 1500 were there because they had displaced earlier groups.
The issue is not whether there is an abstract right to moan about the
fact that things change and one thing gives way to another. It's much
more concrete: how much and what sort of immigration should we the
people of the United States of America permit now? The Indians would
have been well advised to limit immigration from abroad if they had had
the power to do so. The Hopis didn't much like Apache settlement in the
Southwest, and for good reasons. To what extent do we in America today
also have reasons to limit immigration? I don't see why slogans such as
"we are a nation of immigrants" answer that question.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age.
From panix!not-for-mail Mon May 22 21:14:33 EDT 1995
Article: 4076 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Continued discussion
Date: 22 May 1995 06:08:17 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <3ppnqh$fcn@panix.com>
References: <3ooec2$q2l@gabriel.keele.ac.uk> <3oq1te$j1v@panix.com> <3ovue9$1g7@gabriel.keele.ac.uk> <3p273f$dcr@panix.com> <3pnf2q$ong@gabriel.keele.ac.uk>
In <3pnf2q$ong@gabriel.keele.ac.uk> cla04@cc.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear) writes:
>This
>notion of rebellion is inbuilt into US foundation mythology and it's outcome
>is violent death - spectacularly in the case of OK but in a minor way in
>the numbers of deaths caused by firearms throughout the country.
If so, I would expect murder rates to be highest among those most taken
with the foundation myths, that is among the non-urban and the white.
Wrong on both counts. Among American whites murder rates aren't
particularly high by Western standards. I would also expect expect
violence to decline during a period of increasing rejection of the
foundation myths by all public authorities and their replacement by the
myth of the multicultural and multigendered nation of immigrants with
no privileged founding narrative. That hasn't happened; rates of
violent crime have soared in the United States in recent decades, as
they have in other countries such as England.
I would also repeat what I said in my last post:
>: If there were a
>: connection it would have been a more common activity in this country, I
>: should think.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age.
From panix!not-for-mail Thu May 25 21:42:42 EDT 1995
Article: 4082 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Query re racism
Date: 25 May 1995 21:42:08 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <3q3blg$9p7@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
A request for comments:
Why is it that over the past 30 years racism has turned into one of the
wickedest things imaginable? The definition has become extraordinarily
broad and flexible, but it's generally agreed that it's all evil, evil,
evil. It's evident that there's been a change in moral sensibility,
but what is the cause and meaning of the change?
Some possible explanations:
1. Radical individualism gone mass-market. Involuntary group
membership is no longer part of that makes you what you are. What you
are is a self-defining will, so treating you as if your essential nature
depended on membership in a particular group is to deny the
characteristic (i.e., self-definition) that gives you your moral worth,
and is therefore equivalent to murder. (It's not clear how this line of
thought can be squared with black consciousness, difference feminism,
queer theory, etc., etc., etc. It appears that if society defines you
and others as essentially X then it's OK and maybe mandatory for you and
the others to accept the definition as long as it's for the purpose of
subversion.)
2. Skepticism as to human worth. If you're doubtful that people are
really worth anything, the only support for the practice of treating
people as valuable becomes the principle of equality. Someone who
thought there were substantive reasons for thinking people were valuable
could treat them as valuable but of different value; someone who thought
there were no such reasons would tend to confuse treating A as of less
value than B with treating A as of no value at all.
3. TV. Television makes anecdote seem universal and so is well suited
to dramatize anything that can be made to seem unfair. Also, because
of its manner of production and distribution it reflects the views of
national elites, who think society should be reordered in accordance
with uniform rules designed and enforced centrally.
4. Traditional cultures, which are always associated with ethnicity,
have been replaced by consumer and mass media culture, which is not.
Ethnicity is therefore seen as irrelevant to anything of legitimate
interest and actions based on ethnicity are seen as irrational.
Any others?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age.
From panix!not-for-mail Sat May 27 05:45:00 EDT 1995
Article: 4097 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Starting A Neo-Confederate Newsgroup
Date: 27 May 1995 05:39:20 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <3q6s08$68d@panix.com>
References: <3q6co8$4e8@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <3q6co8$4e8@newsbf02.news.aol.com> jimhedman@aol.com (JimHedman) writes:
>Given that the Civil war occurred as a result of the revolutionary
>excesses of the Founding Fathers it would follow that Southern apologias
>are certainly grist for the mill of alt.revolution.counter.
What revolutionary excesses do you have in mind? At the time (1787)
people objected to the Federal constitution as a weakening or betrayal
of the anti-imperial principles of the Revolution.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age.
From panix!not-for-mail Sat May 27 15:16:19 EDT 1995
Article: 4099 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Query re racism
Date: 27 May 1995 09:47:40 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <3q7ahs$ho9@panix.com>
References: <3q3blg$9p7@panix.com> <3q5hdl$963@tzlink.j51.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
lepslog@j51.com (Louis Epstein) writes:
>Racism has always been an evil,but in recent years efforts to rid us of
>it have been hijacked by the "multiculturalist" nonsense that tries to
>define people by their flaws(homosexuality,deafness),appearance(skin
>color,weight),and other things.
What specifically do you mean by racism, though? It's a fluid concept.
What I see is a tendency first to apply the term very broadly and then
to act as if all instances were malicious, hateful, inexcusable,
socially destructive, and so on.
For example, was pre-1965 immigration law, that attempted to stabilize
the ethnic composition of the United States, racist? How about
preferring to live and associate with (in neighborhood, school,
workplace) people of one's own ethnic background? Was it racist for
Norway to become independant of Sweden in 1905? Would it have been
racist if the Swedes had been Chinese? Such things strike me on the
whole as normal, human, and consistent with principles of social
cohesion and stability. There are pathological cases, but then there
are pathological cases of everything and you don't deal with pathology
by treating the normal as the pathological.
The multiculturalists are right, it seems to me, to point out that no
one defines himself except rhetorically as "human being". Everyone has
characteristics that he and others feel are what make him what he is,
and he feels particular fellowship with those with whom he shares those
characteristics. One such characteristic is ethnicity. A social order
that attempts to make these characteristics irrelevant to practical
affairs isn't going to work. The multiculturalists are of course
extremely confused in their theories as to how to deal with that basic
situation.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age.
From panix!not-for-mail Sun May 28 08:25:50 EDT 1995
Article: 4110 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Starting A Neo-Confederate Newsgroup
Date: 28 May 1995 08:25:40 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <3q9q44$3tl@panix.com>
References: <3q6co8$4e8@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <3q6s08$68d@panix.com> <3q8mt8$d6t@tzlink.j51.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
lepslog@j51.com (Louis Epstein) writes:
>A counter-revolutionary would be an imperialist.
Is there any evidence that the Elector of Hanover, to whom the American
colonists refused to bow the knee, ever acted as an obedient subject of
the Holy Roman Emperor?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age.
From panix!not-for-mail Sun May 28 08:36:17 EDT 1995
Article: 4111 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Query re racism
Date: 28 May 1995 08:34:59 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <3q9qlj$4kl@panix.com>
References: <3q6bph$45u@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <3q8c23$cnt@tzlink.j51.com> <3q9bkb$r5h@cmcl2.NYU.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
writes:
>DISCRIMINATE IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT ANIMAL. THIS IS WHEN YOU DIRECTLY
>EXCLUDE A PERSON REASON DEALING WITH APTITUDE OR QUALIFICATIONS, BUT
>FOR THE FACT THAT THEIR PERSONAL AGENDA IS DIFFERENT FORM YOUR OWN.
Louis Epstein writes:
>"Discrimination" as in choosing the best person for a job is
>essential...you have to have the facility of being able to discern and
>choose.Letting impertinent considerations color your judgement is
>another matter.
The idea seems to be that there are objective purposes implicit in a
position in an organization such that the particular purposes of those
who run the organization are irrelevant. Maybe so, but suppose those
particular purposes are purposes of the organization as well? When
St. Benedict engaged people to work on the farm he managed he
discriminated by religion, gender and marital status. I think other
abbots of monasteries still do the same thing when they take on novices.
Are they all irrational? If you were Dean of the Academy for White
Scholarship and you only took on whites as teachers and students, would
you be acting irrationally?
Apart from such grand purposes, if you own a business you might want to
hire based on who you like, who you feel you have something in common
with, who you think will get along with the other workers, who will add
to the qualities that make your business a pleasant place to work.
Would any of those purposes be irrational? Would it be irrational to
think that things like gender and ethnicity are sometimes related to
such purposes?
Finally, assume all you want to do is make a buck. We hear of "meeting
the challenge of diversity". Diversity consultants are a big business,
so presumably there are difficult issues. Would a businessman be crazy
who wanted to reduce by one the number of challenges he has to meet?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age.
From panix!not-for-mail Mon May 29 17:55:15 EDT 1995
Article: 4122 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Query re racism
Date: 28 May 1995 22:59:14 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <3qbda2$7dv@panix.com>
References: <3q3blg$9p7@panix.com> <3qa1v3$lf7@balsam.unca.edu>
In <3qa1v3$lf7@balsam.unca.edu> kepley@photon.phys.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) writes:
>>Why is it that over the past 30 years racism has turned into one of the
>>wickedest things imaginable?
>Facism, Hitler, the Holocaust, World War II.
I don't think so. Otherwise communism, Stalin, the Gulag and Pol Pot
would have turned class envy and utopian materialism into symbols of
pure evil. It seems to me that shifts in moral sensibility are more
likely to be caused by changes in social life than by events in foreign
countries.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age.
From panix!not-for-mail Mon May 29 17:55:16 EDT 1995
Article: 4123 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Query re racism
Date: 28 May 1995 23:07:07 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <3qbdor$8hd@panix.com>
References: <3q9qlj$4kl@panix.com> <3q6bph$45u@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <3q8c23$cnt@tzlink.j51.com> <3q9bkb$r5h@cmcl2.NYU.EDU> <233057946wnr@bloxwich.demon.co.uk>
In <233057946wnr@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> rafael cardenas writes:
>> St. Benedict engaged people to work on the farm he managed he
>> discriminated by religion, gender and marital status.
>No. Sex. Gender is a term of grammar. The use of 'gender' to mean 'sex'
>indicates capitulation to political correctness and present-mindedness.
The rote repetition of a present-minded politically correct accusation
was part of a text designed to debunk such things. The use of "gender"
was thus part of my rhetorical strategy.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age.
From panix!not-for-mail Wed May 31 07:52:45 EDT 1995
Article: 3129 of nyc.announce
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: nyc.announce
Subject: Re: VOLUNTEERS NEEDED for election of NYC Judge
Date: 31 May 1995 07:51:58 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <3qhl8u$s0p@panix.com>
References: <3qfo93$dmu@spruce.citicorp.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <3qfo93$dmu@spruce.citicorp.com> Michael Ling writes:
>Work on a political campaign this summer for DORIS LING-COHAN. An
>Asian American candidate in the Lower East Side of New York City.
Some people might want to know more about the issues in the election.
For example, what race is her opponent?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age.
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Jun 1 06:27:58 EDT 1995
Article: 4138 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Query re racism
Date: 31 May 1995 12:53:27 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <3qi6u7$4ea@panix.com>
References: <3qa1v3$lf7@balsam.unca.edu> <3qbda2$7dv@panix.com> <3qhje3$lgp@balsam.unca.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
kepley@photon.phys.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) writes:
>I doubt if one in ten Americans can associate Stalin with "utopian
>materialism" or "class envy". Racism as practiced by the Nazis is a
>little easier to understand.
They haven't been educated to do so. In contrast, they've been educated
to associate what the Nazis did with everything to which the very
expansive definition of "racism" applies.
The link between the attempted extermination of the Jews and racial
discrimination in employment doesn't strike me as more obvious than the
link between the liquidation of the Kulaks and the progressive income
tax. In each case a close relationship can rhetorically be asserted
and some people do assert it; the question is why in one case the
rhetoric is taken seriously.
I think one difference in our views is that you think that "racism" is
an obvious and clear concept but "utopian materialism" and "class envy"
are not. I don't agree. They all seem equally debatable to me.
>>It seems to me that shifts in moral sensibility are more
>>likely to be caused by changes in social life than by events in foreign
>>countries.
>
>Foreign countries?!!?
>
>How many Americans died fighting Nazis?
How many died fighting the Japanese or Kaiser Bill? Nonetheless, people
don't think of monarchy as ultimate evil.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age.
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Jun 1 06:27:59 EDT 1995
Article: 4142 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: wiretapping problem
Date: 1 Jun 1995 06:16:49 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <3qk42h$on3@panix.com>
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In trinkett@eskimo.com (Scott Wentworth) writes:
>As far as I'm aware of (and my law classes seem to back this up
>substantially) wiretapping is illegal in the U.S. w/out a warrant.
I thought he was worried about his phone being tapped by his employer.
If so, and it is his work phone he is worried about, then his employer
would be tapping his own phone used in his own business and I think
different rules would apply.
Possibly the laws relating to recording a telephone conversation
without informing the other party would be relevant. Last I looked, it
was legal in some states but not in others.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age.
From panix!not-for-mail Fri Jun 2 06:36:45 EDT 1995
Article: 15313 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.ronald-reagan,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: WELFARE WORKS (FACTS PROVE IT)
Date: 1 Jun 1995 10:42:51 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <3qkjlb$9il@panix.com>
References: <3qd2h9$stb@news.cais.com> <3qdl43$or8@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> <3qdvt2$ebq@news.cais.com> <3qgjbg$eho@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <3qkb19$erc@whitbeck.ncl.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:290181 alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy:8056 alt.fan.dan-quayle:46989 alt.fan.ronald-reagan:13722 alt.society.conservatism:15313 alt.politics.correct:60860 alt.politics.economics:23611
In <3qkb19$erc@whitbeck.ncl.ac.uk> "chris.holt" writes:
>In the UK in the 1980's, crime pretty well tracked the business cycle;
>that is, as the economy slumped, crime went up, and vice versa.
The crime rate in England and Wales has gone from from about 250 per
100,000 population in the period 1901-1921 to 400 in 1931, 900 in 1941,
somewhat below 1000 in 1955, 1750 in 1961, 3400 in 1971, 5600 in 1981,
and 10000 in 1991. Neither the business cycle nor cuts in social
programs seem a good explanation. (Sources: B.R. Mitchell, _British
Historical Statistics_ (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 776-778, and Home Office
_Criminal Statistics_, both by way of Gertrude Himmelfarb.)
>Scandinavia is also known for high welfare levels, and is not particularly
>crime-ridden...
I don't have references handy, but Swedish crime rates have also risen
greatly since the 1950s. The base from which they were rising was of
course very low.
(Chris: as an aside, if you want to update your hypertext version of
my Conservatism FAQ there's a more current one available through my web
page.)
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age.
From panix!not-for-mail Sat Jun 3 06:43:47 EDT 1995
Article: 4155 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Query re racism
Date: 2 Jun 1995 20:29:49 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <3qoadt$684@panix.com>
References: <3qhjt8$606@gabriel.keele.ac.uk> <3qo4ph$398@chinacat.cwa.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <3qo4ph$398@chinacat.cwa.com> Elena Mills writes:
>What hogwash. "Gender" is synoymous with "sex", but with a more
>narrowly defined meaning (having "gender" and having "sex" are
>two different things altogether).
I was under the impression "gender" implies social construction while
"sex" does not, and that is the reason "gender discrimination" has
replaced "sex discrimination".
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age.
From panix!not-for-mail Sat Jun 3 06:43:52 EDT 1995
Article: 3156 of nyc.announce
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: nyc.announce
Subject: Re: VOLUNTEERS NEEDED for election of NYC Judge
Date: 2 Jun 1995 14:05:04 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <3qnjsg$1m6@panix.com>
References: <3qk28d$4m0@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
In <3qk28d$4m0@newsbf02.news.aol.com> jscis4u2@aol.com (JSCis4u2) writes:
>I very much agree! why does race have to enter into the equation?
One interesting point is that her name (Ling-Cohan) is mixed. She
might be Chinese and she might be Israeli. Either way she would be
Asian, but somehow I don't think that tells us much about her.
Of course, maybe she's Siberian Eskimo or Kashmiri Brahmin and got her
present name when she married Mr. Ling-Cohan, the sole survivor of an
ancient Jewish colony in Sinkiang ...
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age.
From panix!not-for-mail Wed Jun 14 22:50:05 EDT 1995
Article: 4358 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Current Social Contract
Date: 13 Jun 1995 20:29:06 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <3rlagi$qs6@panix.com>
References: <3rf733$fir@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <277589858wnr@bloxwich.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
rafael cardenas writes:
>But what answer would you (and he) have to someone who suggested that
>levels of inequality should reflect measurable differences of native
>ability (at which point the allocation of returns to human producers
>should in theory be optimized) and went on to point out that existing
>levels of inequality are far greater than measurable differences of
>native ability, so that the labor market (including the effects of
>education and training) is grotesquely inefficient, and _a priori_ must
>be becoming more so if inequality is increasing further, by however
>small an amount?
I don't see why economic efficiency requires proportionality between
native ability and economic return, for any number of reasons. For
one, the economic contribution a man makes need not be directly
proportionate to any of his qualities. A very crude example: if
everyone on a university faculty had an IQ of 100 except for one guy
with an IQ of 150, it's likely the contributions to scholarship the
smart guy could make would be worth more than 1.5 times the average
contribution of his colleagues.
Also, native ability may be directed by its possessor to purposes other
than maximum economic return, and it should not be part of the
definition of "efficient economy" that it induces everyone to devote all
his efforts to making as much money as possible. Finally, it's not
clear to me why an economy in which there is a large element of chance
regarding the return for individual efforts must be more efficient than
an economy in which it is not. (The former economy will, of course,
have large inequalities not corresponding to differences in native
ability.) It seems to me that the world contains a very large element
of chance, and efforts by socialist and similar regimes to suppress that
element have often been a source of economic inefficiency and other bad
things.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Niagara, O roar again.
From panix!not-for-mail Wed Jun 14 22:50:08 EDT 1995
Article: 4359 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Starting A Neo-Confederate Newsgroup
Date: 13 Jun 1995 20:30:45 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <3rlajl$r7o@panix.com>
References: <3rhnno$7g5@gabriel.keele.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
cla04@cc.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear) writes:
>: As to your last statement: I'm curious as to who authorized the founding of
>: your country.
>
>being originals rather than a bunch of rebels we didn't need any. I look
>forward to the US giving back to mexico the territory it stole
I am unfamiliar with the theory that the present inhabitants of the
United Kingdom are autochthonous and that the existence of the United
Kingdom goes back either to the beginning of time or to free agreements
among political entities that go back to the beginning of time. I would
like very much to hear more, though.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Niagara, O roar again.
From panix!not-for-mail Wed Jun 14 22:50:12 EDT 1995
Article: 4363 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Current Social Contract
Date: 14 Jun 1995 10:43:49 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <3rmsj5$6ul@panix.com>
References: <3rf733$fir@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <277589858wnr@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> <3rlagi$qs6@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <3rlagi$qs6@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>Finally, it's not
>clear to me why an economy in which there is a large element of chance
>regarding the return for individual efforts must be more efficient than
>an economy in which it is not. ^^^^
I should, of course, have written "less" instead of "more".
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Niagara, O roar again.
From panix!not-for-mail Wed Jun 14 22:50:37 EDT 1995
Article: 16253 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.newt-gingrich,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.nationalism.white,soc.culture.african.american,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.canada,alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Alien Nation -- Peter Brimelow on the immigration disaster
Date: 13 Jun 1995 20:32:16 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <3rlamg$rgd@panix.com>
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix talk.politics.misc:299081 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:295262 alt.fan.newt-gingrich:14280 alt.discrimination:38010 alt.politics.correct:62305 alt.politics.nationalism.white:10409 soc.culture.african.american:114345 soc.culture.usa:70982 soc.culture.canada:75809 alt.society.conservatism:16253
ak052@torfree.net (Edward Gonsalves) writes:
>If the natives had the kind of laws that he is proposing none of us
>would be here today, so tell that man to go to hell.
Would the natives have been well advised to limit immigration if they
had had the power?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Niagara, O roar again.
From panix!not-for-mail Fri Jun 16 06:42:11 EDT 1995
Article: 16463 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.conservatism,alt.fan.ronald-reagan,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: CONSERVATIVES SECRETLY LOVE POVERTY
Date: 15 Jun 1995 23:09:04 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <3rqskg$mbv@panix.com>
References: <3rdof4$eon@news.cais.com> <3rqde1$fh0@news.cais.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:296041 alt.politics.economics:24859 alt.society.conservatism:16463 alt.fan.ronald-reagan:14155 alt.fan.dan-quayle:47913
>Politicians support welfare reform SOLELY to get votes, but they
>know that 6 percent of the workforce MUST live in poverty if the
>rest of us are to live in tranquility.
You seem to assume that the people who find themselves in the 6 percent
must (or rather MUST) be there permanently, an odd assumption. If it
takes 4 months instead of two months to find a job then the joblessness
rate will double (other things being equal) but there's no reason why
poverty should.
Also, the 6 percent is not chiselled in stone. It depends on lots of
things like the skills of the least skillful workers and the eagerness
for jobs of the labor market participants who are least eager to take
one. If women were forbidden to work, all savings were confiscated,
and wages were cut so that most families were one paycheck away from
starvation the number would go down because unemployed breadwinners
couldn't afford to be at all choosy. I doubt you would find that an
improvement.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Niagara, O roar again.
From panix!not-for-mail Mon Jun 19 12:05:56 EDT 1995
Article: 4428 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.society.resistance,alt.war.civil.usa,alt.society.sovereign,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.revolution.counter,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Historians, Slavery, the Civil War, Hecate, MacBeth, and Me
Date: 18 Jun 1995 16:06:10 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <3s20vi$rlk@panix.com>
References: <3rpfpg$54@ankh.iia.org> <3rtsbp$3cm@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3rujem$6lg@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.society.conservatism:16721 alt.society.resistance:3404 alt.war.civil.usa:32969 alt.society.sovereign:3940 alt.politics.usa.constitution:28450 alt.politics.libertarian:99780 alt.revolution.counter:4428 alt.politics.usa.republican:94507
charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Gary Charbonneau) writes:
>Neither clause stated which governments were forbidden to take the
>specified actions, the Confederate government alone or the Confederate
>government and the individual state governments. There is no reason to
>infer from the wording of the two clauses that the protection extended
>by them were respectively intended to apply to different levels of
>government (i.e., the Confederate government alone in one case, and
>the Confederate and state governments in the other). Consequently,
>there is no reason to infer that one was a universal right, and the
>other was not. It is probable that both were universal rights, or
>neither.
I haven't read the Confederate constitution. It may be worth
mentioning, though, that at the time the universal understanding was
that the Bill of Rights in the U.S. constitution limited only the
actions of the government created by that instrument. The view that it
applies to state governments as well is one that developed in the
course of the 20th century based on the "incorporation" theory that the
"due process" clause of the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of
Rights, or at least most of it (the right to trial by jury in civil
cases does not apply to the states). It seems unlikely that the
Confederate constitution would have had a stronger centralizing
tendency on the point than the U.S. constitution, although of course
anything is possible.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Niagara, O roar again.
From panix!not-for-mail Tue Jun 27 07:42:01 EDT 1995
Article: 17335 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Conservatism Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Date: 26 Jun 1995 08:20:45 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <3sm8mt$dpc@panix.com>
References: <3slg4r$dvi@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
dr240@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jeffrey A. Miller) writes:
>I think many parts of this document are a misrepresentation of
>conservatism.
It presents one form of conservatism. If you prefer a different form
you can argue your views are better, compose your own faq, or both.
>The answer to the question about what happens to feminists,
>homosexuals, and racial minorities in a conservative society implies
>that racial minorities are somehow inherently liberal and not part of a
>conservative society.
I don't think so. The faq does imply that demanding that the world be
rearranged to make it equally easy for everyone regardless of ethnicity
is inherently liberal and makes a conservative society impossible. A
conservative society is inherently diverse, I think, and so has no
essential objection to ethnic minorities. On the other hand, a
conservative society is also one that relies heavily on tradition,
accepted custom, informal understandings, prepolitical loyalties and so
on. Those are things that vary from one ethnic group to another,
because they are matters of culture, and culture is one of the defining
attributes characteristics of ethnicity.
To give an example -- French culture and Chinese culture aren't the
same. So if there were a French community in a conservative society
that was predominantly Chinese the French would find that things were
set up in a way that suited the outlook and habits of the Chinese more
than their own. To some degree that might cause them problems, to some
degree they might try to assimilate to make things easier for
themselves, to some degree they might try to carve out their own niche
as a French island in a Chinese sea. In all these cases there would be
burdens on the French (for example, the need to assimilate or to find
some niche and then limit themselves to it) that wouldn't be there for
the Chinese, and there would be no government guarantee that any of
their strategies would be successful.
>It is a basic part of conservatism that all men of all races are
>created equal
I agree that American conservatism accepts that all men are created
equal in a very important sense.
>I would hope the writers of this document would re-evaluate this
>portion atleast of this FAQ.
Next time I revise it I'll take a look at the wording with your comments
in mind.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Niagara, O roar again.
From panix!not-for-mail Tue Jun 27 07:42:03 EDT 1995
Article: 17423 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Draft FAQ on sex
Date: 27 Jun 1995 07:41:30 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 303
Message-ID: <3soqpa$cd0@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Any comments on the following?
Draft Sexual Morality FAQ
Sex continues to be a hot 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 in America today. Since I and many others
have 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. Who are you to say what sexual conduct is right for me?
3. What's wrong with the sexual conduct traditionally viewed with
disfavor?
4. If the worry is people's happiness, why won't people be happiest if
they can write their own ticket in sexual matters?
5. I 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.
6. Why wouldn't it be enough if people took responsibility for their
actions and lived up to their commitments?
7. How do you know that the particular standards you want to impose
are the ones everyone should comply with?
8. Why not recognize that traditional sexual morality has become a
private prejudice rather than a public standard?
9. Isn't traditional sexual morality oppressive and discriminatory
against women?
10. What about people such as gays, women caught in loveless
marriages, and others for whom traditional sexual morality doesn't work?
11. What do you propose to do to people whose sexual conduct doesn't
please you?
12. You and your friends have your system of sexual morality and I and
my friends have ours. They're different. What now?
Answers
1. Why should anyone care what consenting adults do in private?
Private conduct doesn't remain that way. 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
suppress others.
2. Who are you (or the majority, or the Church, or the state) to say
what sexual conduct is right for me?
Who are any of those people to say what conduct of any kind is
right for you? Who is to say what is polite or rude, what
constitutes slander or harassment, whether racial discrimination
should be forbidden or required, or how much you should pay to
support education, roads or national defense? Tastes and standards
differ, and the effects of what we do depend unforeseeably on
chance, circumstance and what other people do, so almost any act
might be viewed as either good or bad.
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 or the rules of property can.
3. What's wrong with 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. Stable and functional unions between men and
women for raising children are too important to leave to individual
idiosyncracy or random circumstance. Institutions, attitudes and
moral standards must create a setting that fosters and protects
such unions.
More specifically, traditionally proscribed conduct, such as
adultery, fornication and homosexuality, has the practical effect
of depriving the sexual tie between a man and a woman of its
socially-recognized unique 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; 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.
Such a state of affairs isn't likely to lead to individual
happiness and certainly isn't likely to lead to conditions
favorable to the successful rearing of children, an absolute
necessity for a tolerable society. Accordingly, the sexual free
market must be rejected and a moral view that brings sexual
relations into a publicly recognized order that can be aimed at and
relied on must be accepted instead.
4. If the worry is people's happiness, why won't people be happiest if
they can write their own ticket in sexual matters?
Sex is not an individual thing. It is the basis of the most
durable and important human relationships. We cannot ignore its
connection with the creation of new life and the resulting need to
care for that life in a stable and safe environment. 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.
5. I 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 if the way you are acting became the
general custom.
6. Why prescribe who has to do what with whom? 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
deal at arm's length with respect to matters that can be clearly
understood in advance and which can be satisfactorily dealt with by
the usual standards of contract and tort liability. Sex and having
children just 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 and
whether it's consistent with the original undertakings of the
parties. So if it's necessary for sex to be subjected to a
publicly recognizable order, principles like those of commercial
law aren't going to do the trick.
7. There have been many different views of sexual morality. How do
you know that the particular standards you want to impose are the ones
everyone should comply with?
Questions regarding moral knowledge regarding anything are
notoriously difficult, so the question has no specific connection
with sex. A practical response is that a free 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 the society to other members, in sexual
matters as in others.
8. Among educated and articulate people the loosening of sexual
morality and strengthening of sexual privacy are done deals. Why not
recognize that traditional sexual morality has become a private
prejudice rather than a public standard?
They're not quite done deals except in particular social circles.
The debate in society at large continues, although so far it has
been overly one-sided. Those favoring the changes have on the
whole had their way, but the results of their success make their
position far harder to defend.
Statistics aren't perfect indicators of human happiness and
causality can always be debated. Nonetheless, numbers are useful
as concrete points of reference. It is thus worth mentioning that
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%.
The consequence has been a far worse world 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.
It's harder to show direct causality for other problems such as
juvenile delinqency and suicide, 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 anecdotal and impressionistic accounts and
correlations between illegitimacy and divorce and problems among
young people.
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 often last only until someone's
mind changes. The sexual revolution, disastrous for children,
hasn't made their elders happy either.
9. 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 povery. 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 restrain our impulses and thus deny
our nature, while the political system can require us to sacrifice
our very lives in its defense. Since we are social animals, the
usual response to these things is to train children from earliest
childhood to accept social requirements and to show only limited
tolerance toward those who refuse to comply with them.
10. 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 people with an intense psychological need for uniformity,
stability and discipline who find that for them the multicultural
capitalist consumer society 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? Such people
don't write books that get favorable reviews in the _New York
Times_, 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.
11. What do you propose to do to people whose sexual conduct doesn't
please you?
The same as with other people whose conduct doesn't please me. If
I think my displeasure is based on a sound judgement that what they
are doing is wrong, then depending on circumstances and how bad I
think the conduct is I may look the other way, make critical
comments, ask them to stop, refuse to cooperate with the specific
conduct, avoid all dealings with them, and so on. I may urge
others to do the same or demand that actions of public authorities
reflect a judgement that the conduct is wrong. Such public action
may range, again depending on circumstances, from refusing to
facilitate it to criminal penalties (statutory rape is a reasonably
non-controversial example of the latter).
12. 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. If that doesn't work then to the extent the clash relates
to things that are fundamental to social life the alternatives are
social separation or overriding your views or mine by force. The
former could be realized within a federal system looser than the
present one 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 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.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Niagara, O roar again.
From panix!not-for-mail Tue Jun 27 18:05:46 EDT 1995
Article: 17486 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Conservatism Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Date: 27 Jun 1995 18:03:59 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <3spv8f$t5q@panix.com>
References: <3slg4r$dvi@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> <3sm8mt$dpc@panix.com> <3sorbv$b37@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <3sorbv$b37@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> jst@ix.netcom.com (Shack Toms) writes:
>>So if there were a French community in a conservative society
>>that was predominantly Chinese [ ... ]
>Actually, I think that it under the conservative position the French
>would be better able to maintain their culture than under the liberal
>position.
I agree. To attempt to equalize the position of all cultures, as
liberal multiculturalists wish to do, is make all cultures equally
irrelevant to everything of public importance and therefore to
trivialize all cultures. A culture that has been trivialized, though,
is a culture that has been destroyed.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Niagara, O roar again.
From panix!not-for-mail Wed Jun 28 18:30:35 EDT 1995
Article: 17586 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Draft FAQ on sex
Date: 28 Jun 1995 18:26:22 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <3sskue$idl@panix.com>
References: <3soqpa$cd0@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In schwarze.ccomail@starbase1.caltech.edu (Erich Schwarz) writes:
>> 11. What do you propose to do to people whose sexual conduct doesn't
>> please you?
>>
>> The same as with other people whose conduct doesn't please me [ ... ]
> That's pretty much what I propose to do to people like you.
I take it my views don't please you. Why?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Niagara, O roar again.
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Jun 29 12:54:31 EDT 1995
Article: 17613 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: 29 Jun 1995 06:51:55 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <3su0kb$2ni@panix.com>
References: <3soqpa$cd0@panix.com> <3ssmbh$h28@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <3ssmbh$h28@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA> g9126007@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (Kelly T. Conlon) writes:
>In article <3soqpa$cd0@panix.com>, Jim Kalb wrote:
>>Any comments on the following?
>[deletion]
>Yeah. You're a total fuckwit.
Please explain.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Niagara, O roar again.
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Jun 29 12:54:35 EDT 1995
Article: 17614 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: 29 Jun 1995 07:03:14 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <3su19i$36s@panix.com>
References: <3soqpa$cd0@panix.com> <3sskue$idl@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In schwarze.ccomail@starbase1.caltech.edu (Erich Schwarz) writes:
> I'm 31 years old. I've gotten a bachelor's degree in molecular biology
>at Harvard and I'm finishing a Ph.D. thesis in neurogenetics at Caltech
>now. I've lived my entire life without individuals like you "helping" me
>manage my sexual conduct. And I do not intend to have people like yourself
>start in on the job now.
The point of the FAQ is that we can't consider sexual conduct as
concerning only ourselves. Your response consists of an announcement
that you intend to do so. The FAQ presents arguments, while you do
not. Are you willing to explain why you think the FAQ is wrong? Do
you have any specific criticisms of the arguments it presents? Is your
problem with basic principles? Factual claims? Inferences?
Conclusions?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Niagara, O roar again.
From panix!not-for-mail Fri Jun 30 06:01:46 EDT 1995
Article: 17641 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: 29 Jun 1995 13:36:26 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <3suoaq$1r6@panix.com>
References: <3su19i$36s@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
schwarze.ccomail@starbase1.caltech.edu (Erich Schwarz) writes:
>> The point of the FAQ is that we can't consider sexual conduct as
>> concerning only ourselves.
>
> "Can't" in what sense?
We can't do it consistent with a coherent overall way of thinking about
human life that doesn't grossly falsify experience.
> You seem to think that the choices available are solipsism versus
>conservatism, with nothing in between. In my experience, this is not the
>case.
In your first posting you took what looked like a solipsist position, so
I responded as I did. In the FAQ I do discuss intermediate positions,
for example the view that standing by one's commitments and taking
responsibility for the consequences of one's actions is a sufficient
basis for sexual morality. If you think I handled the issues badly, or
if you have an intermediate position I did not discuss, do let me know.
> Actually, my initial point was simply this: you may, within your
>rights [do stuff in opposition] But this right is *exactly* paralleled
>by my right to treat you in the same manner.
It seems that we agree on what one is in general entitled to do when he
disapproves of something morally. Do we also agree that moral
disapproval can be justified or not justified? If so, it's not clear to
me that the right to fight retains its vitality when the impulse to make
a fuss is based on unjustified moral disapproval. Do you agree with me
on that as well?
> Suppose for the sake of argument that your arguments might be
>wrong. Is there any *empirically verifiable* datum you can think of
>which, if actually observed, would *prove* your arguments wrong?
It would be hard for a particular datum to *prove* a theory wrong when
the theory relates to something as difficult to stand back from and see
whole as the moral aspects of human life. Actually, I understand that
many people believe that even in the physical sciences a theory can
never be *disproved* by an empirical datum. Nonetheless, my arguments
would be very hard to maintain if empirical procedures established that:
1. The great majority of human societies, including Western societies
other than 19th and early 20th century America, have considered choices
relating to sexual conduct a strictly private matter for the persons
directly engaged in the conduct;
2. Either the loosening or abandonment of public standards of sexual
conduct is positively correlated with greater family stability and
reduced illegitimacy, or family instability and illegitimacy are
positively correlated with the major indicia of well-being for children
and other family members; and
3. Public sexual standards have never had a significant effect on
actual sexual 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 Fri Jun 30 17:17:01 EDT 1995
Article: 17741 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: 30 Jun 1995 07:52:45 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 160
Message-ID: <3t0oid$jrj@panix.com>
References: <3suoaq$1r6@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
schwarze.ccomail@starbase1.caltech.edu (Erich Schwarz) writes:
>> In your first posting you took what looked like a solipsist position, so
>> I responded as I did.
>
> Oh, feh. You know *nothing* about me from that first post except that
>I find you morally obnoxious and intend to treat you exactly the way you
>treat me.
Quite true. I should have said "second posting", the one in which you
told the story of your life.
> As far as I can tell, your FAQ addresses sexual issues pretty much
>the way my left-wing friends handle economic issues, and the way the
>religious right handles philosophical issues. There's no real way to
>argue with it because the implicit premises are beyond argument.
Do you distinguish the manner in which you handle sexual, economic and
philosophical issues? It seems to me that you also argue from premises
that most people in fact reject but for you are authoritative and not
appropriate for rational justification.
>Either you think that individual liberty -- in sexual life, economic
>life, or philosophical life -- is desirable enough that it justifies a
>higher-than-otherwise level of sloppiness and chaos in public life ...
>or you don't. Either you think that man is fit to govern himself, or
>you start looking for angels to govern him instead.
You should expand your notion of the possible content of individual
liberty. I suggest de Sade as a guide. Reading him might make you take
more seriously questions relating to what restrictions on human liberty
are appropriate and how they could best be institutionalized.
I doubt for example that you believe that individual liberty in economic
life is so desirable that everything anyone does in that sphere should
be viewed as his own business. Very likely you think that there should
be rules of property that enormously restrict the things each of us is
allowed to do, and that those rules should be enforced if need be by
force. I doubt that you would view adoption and enforcement of such
rules as a denial of the proposition that man is fit to govern himself
even though some people would inevitably have major objections to the
particular rules that are adopted.
> You're in good company in arguing that sexual liberty hurts
>children when it's abused.
Actually, my claim is more radical. I argue that sexual liberty as such
hurts children and others because of its effect on the network of social
relationships children and others rely on. The bad effect cannot be
reduced to the bad effect of abuses.
>I've got several left-wing friends who think the same thing about
>economic liberty, and can cite child-mortality statistics in the U.S.
>versus Sweden to prove it. They proceed from that fact to argue that
>we have too much economic individualism in the U.S. and what we really
>need is greater collective social control of wealth.
I certainly agree that freedom to do as one pleases in economic matters
would be a bad thing (see above). Beyond the often extemely burdensome
restrictions on freedom imposed by rules of property, I would favor
informal enforcement of social standards in such things. For example,
people should praise and honor those who voluntarily use their wealth
for public ends (endowing libraries or whatever), criticize and look
down on those who never do so and instead devote all their efforts to
piling up as much money as possible by every barely legal means
available, and *really* condemn a father who spends his money on a
Ferrari instead of medical treatment that his son needs.
As to your friends, their argument is legitimate but like other
arguments must be evaluated. For example, there are differences between
the U.S. and Sweden other than socialism. Also, in the USSR they had
lots of what's called collective social control of wealth and lots of
dead babies as well, so the effect doesn't seem to be a uniform one.
> Between two people holding fundamentally different postulates of
>how the world ultimately works, and what the world's ultimately for,
>there can be no rational agreement whatsoever. There can only be
>either a respectful detente, or war.
How can you tell when people's postulates are fundamentally different?
In the physical sciences laws are sometimes shown to result from more
fundamental principles; I'm not sure why the same shouldn't be true in
other matters as well. If so, differences that seem ultimate could
really result from differing applications (which could be debated) of
more ultimate things. It seems to me that if you can stand back from
something sufficiently to identify it as a postulate it's not likely to
be your ultimate view.
>As far as I'm concerned, you're preaching sexual Sovietism.
A useful comment. One thing I should look at in the FAQ is whether it
makes clear that sexual morality has to be primarily a set of background
understandings that make society and its members what they are rather
than something the state decides to adopt and enforce. The problem with
Sovietism, as I understand it, is that it was an attempt to remake the
world through administrative means. Part of the point of sexual
morality is that society must have principles of order other than the
state (and also, I would add, other than the market).
> No. I think that we were right to oppose the Soviets, even though
>they actually had eloquent and reasoned apologias for their gulags and
>empire.
I'm really not sure what you can mean by "right" when in your view the
Soviets would have been equally justified in saying they were "right" to
oppose us.
> You're really asking me to write a book on liberty on my own time
>for your edification.
The request was more limited than that. I assume that when we argue
with someone we can understand his arguments even though we disagree
with his conclusions, and that we form views as to where the arguments
fall short, what they leave out or misconstrue, objections they can't
deal with and so on. What I wanted was for you to tell me what views of
that sort you have formed with respect to my arguments in the FAQ. What
you've said is only "our differences are too fundamental to discuss".
If that's the only objection you can come up with, then I must have
written the FAQ very well indeed.
>Frankly, if the existing books by Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John
>Stuart Mill, Milton Friedman, and David Friedman don't move you
>intellectually, it's not obvious what the point is of my writing yet
>another.
Why not mention Murray Rothbard? He was as much a libertarian as the
next man, and seemed to think that a society that was institutionally
libertarian wouldn't work unless it had lots of religious and
traditional moral values that the members of the society viewed as
binding. I agree with that view. Conversely, it seems to me that if a
society whose political institutions were libertarian could be created
and maintained the people in that society would adopt a rather
conservative code of sexual conduct and enforce it on each other by
social pressure. If you can't rely on the state to educate your
children, support them and you if the other parent's not around, take
care of you if you're sick, and support you in old age, then family
values are going to start looking pretty good, so good that you'll be
outraged when people violate them.
>Most societies have upheld social control of sex. They also upheld
>slavery, second-class status for even aristocratic women, disregard for
>the rights of anybody not at the top 5% of the socioeconomic bell-
>curve, religious control of scientific inquiry, technological
>pessimism, and torture/execution for such misdeeds as advocating
>Mendelian genetics or observing Jupiter's moons with a telescope.
If people knew nothing in the past about things like politics and
morality it would be surprising if they suddenly started knowing
something today.
> This issue was pretty thoroughly addressed by the Tofflers in _The
>Third Wave_ in their section on "how to maintain the nuclear family."
>I recommend that you reread that.
Thanks for the cite. It's always good to know what people think is
plausible. (I've read the Tofflers enough to think it unlikely that
what they say on the issue will convince me.)
--
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 1 05:30:23 EDT 1995
Article: 17808 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: 30 Jun 1995 21:18:27 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <3t27p3$8au@panix.com>
References: <3soqpa$cd0@panix.com> <3ssmbh$h28@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA> <3su0kb$2ni@panix.com> <3t13g1$odl@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <3t13g1$odl@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA> g9126007@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (Kelly T. Conlon) writes:
>I think the phrase "you're a total fuckwit" is self-explanitory, no?
I'll assume you mean "FAQ wit" and take it as praise.
>I cannot think of a single compelling arguement why one ought to consider
>the private affairs of two or more consenting adults acting within the
>confines of privately owned property to be the business of anyone excpet
>the individuals involved.
Any comments on the specific arguments in the FAQ?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Sat Jul 1 16:07:02 EDT 1995
Article: 17823 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Draft FAQ on sex
Date: 1 Jul 1995 07:55:34 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 183
Message-ID: <3t3d3m$o1p@panix.com>
References: <3t0oid$jrj@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
schwarze.ccomail@starbase1.caltech.edu (Erich Schwarz) writes:
>I still fail to see how a lifetime of self-governance and undertaking
>difficult tasks constitutes mere solipsism.
"Solipsism" was your word. My point is that you seemed to think your
account of s.-g. and u. d. t. together with a statement of your intent
to do what you pleased in sexual matters constituted an argument. If
so, it was not one that dealt with the social aspects of the matter.
>In the end, after 50 cycles of Usenet posts, one finds oneself running
>up against postulates about the world that are different.
Usenet discussions are of course less than they could be, often because
of the laziness, bad faith and stupidity of many of the participants.
Nonetheless, even an inconclusive discussion can be useful as an
exploration of what a postulate means to those who hold it, its position
in their understanding of the world, what they think the alternatives
are, and so on. Postulates are usually less absolute than they look.
> If you really think that anybody who refuses to submit to your
>guidance is an advocate of de Sade's behavior, you are indeed in a
>condition that is not appropriate for rational justification.
I didn't suggest that. My point was only that one's moral position
should take into account the whole universe of moral possibilities.
> But in reality even an Objectivist would agree that (for instance)
>the initiation of force, fraud, and theft should be outlawed.
>Nevertheless, that does not make an Objectivist identical in views to a
>Communist, any more than a rejection of de Sade's viewpoint makes me
>identical to you.
Quite true. It does mean, though, that saying "I think liberty ought to
be treated as an absolute value" is something that requires some
explanation to make it coherent and comprehensible. (My own view, for
what it's worth, is that the necessary explanations can't be carried
out.)
> I'm not opposed to your having moral opinions about other people's
>behavior. I'm opposed to your trying to make the state a moral agent
>in areas that I find legitimately controversial, and in your expecting
>passive acquiescence in such areas from the targets of your moral
>disapprobation.
There is legitimate moral controversy over how much of Bill Gates'
property he ought to be allowed to keep and how much ought to be taken
>from him and devoted to public purposes. Should the state avoid
intervening, and neither take his property from him nor prevent others
>from taking it?
I should add that in the FAQ I say nothing about passive acquiescence
and next to nothing about state action. I take it that the issue as to
the former has to do with common understandings of how good lives become
possible for us; the purpose of the FAQ is (in a very small way) to
influence common understandings. As to state action, its role seems
quite subordinate to me.
>> How can you tell when people's postulates are fundamentally different?
>
> How would *you* go about telling, Jim?
I assume that we all have a common human nature. Since we are rational
and social animals, that means I assume we have common fundamental
postulates with respect to knowledge and morality. It's likely, of
course, that no one has yet been able to formulate those common
postulates. For all I know, no one ever will. To reject that
assumption, though, is to put the possibility of rational thought and
action very seriously in doubt.
> On the contrary: in mathematics it is always explicitly the case
>that an argument has postulates, despite the extreme intellectual
>clarity of that field. Plainly the ability to discern a postulate
>clearly does *not* make it unlikely to be a postulate.
The attempt to identify postulates is part of the attempt to think
clearly. The issue is not whether that attempt is productive, but
whether it can be carried out completely so that ultimate postulates can
be discovered. My claim is that the latter is a very difficult task,
and may well be impossible. As to mathematics: I believe that
mathematicians have not reached general agreement as to the nature and
foundations of their field. Even assuming they did, once someone left
formalism and tried to apply mathematics to something non-mathematical
he would find himself in a much murkier area in which absolute clarity
as to what he was doing would be much harder to come by.
> So what do you do with dissident members of society?
The law was not the chief thing that kept people in line sexually in
1950. Also, this isn't a question that relates specifically to sex.
What do you do generally about dissidents? As you point out, even the
Objectivists would have laws that keep us from doing lots of things that
we might want to do and that many of us no doubt think we have a right
to do.
> Because it seems to me that where we disagree is something a lot
>deeper than statements like "hurting children is bad." Where we
>disagree is in our sense of life. That's awfully difficult to have
>rational debates about.
Agreed. On the other hand, experience and discussion affects people's
sense of life and eventually may transform it. Remember that the Soviet
Union fell not because we nuked them but because the people there
eventually got too sick of the whole thing to stand it any more.
> And I agree with Oliver Wendell Holmes, who instead said, "A
>Constitution is for people with fundamentally differing views."
A nice aphorism, but Holmes was no Aristotle. If the views differ too
fundamentally there won't be popular self-rule because the "people"
won't be coherent enough to engage in collective acts like making
decisions together.
> The real grown-up work begins [ ... ] when you try to live
>peacefully in the same country with people who do *not* share "lots of
>religious and traditional moral values" in common with you.
It seems to me false that the real grown-up work consists in negotiating
truces among people with radically different goals and not much common
ground. Do you find in science that the real work begins when the
physical anthropologist, the high-energy physicist, the backyard
tinkerer, and the parapsychologist are given a single lab and told to
work out a common project among themselves? Finding unity in diversity
and bringing order out of chaos can of course be real grown-up work, but
that activity requires an assumption that you reject, that in spite of
appearances there are shared fundamentals.
>One might see a society arise where there were fairly strict social
>codes governing care for children, but a shockingly liberal set of
>social codes governing a lot of other stuff. One might even see a
>society where it was understood and accepted that adult human beings
>have both child-caring and free-living roles, and that those roles are
>distinct, and that living a good adult life means keeping both roles in
>vigorous balance. (That's pretty much the French attitude towards life,
>as far as I can tell.)
So you think it's OK for a society to have strict social codes governing
domestic (and therefore private) conduct. That's a start. Lots of
things are possible in the abstract. Which are possible concretely,
either in general or for a particular people, is of course a much harder
question. The position of the FAQ is that high standards regarding the
care of children require stable long-term relations between men and
women, and those won't exist if sexual conduct is viewed as strictly a
matter of private choice. Do you disagree with both those claims?
As to France, I know very little about it. It's worth noting that
things change there just as they do here. The same social trends we
have in America exist in Europe. For example, the proportion of
children born to unmarried women in France increased from 6% in 1960 to
30% in 1990.
>There *are* a great many things we know in 1995 that we did not know in
>1895 or 1795. Specifically, we have vastly increased scientific and
>technological knowledge -- knowledge that makes a great many aspects of
>traditional societies irrelevant, dispensable, or obsolete.
All very true. I'm not sure why you think that matters, given your view
that moral attitudes rest on postulates regarding which discussion (and
therefore presumably knowledge) is irrelevant.
> Face it, bub: morally, we human beings are tree-swingers who have
>just barely begun to radically flirt with the idea of knuckle-walking.
I don't understand this either. Here you seem to accept the notion of
moral progress. How can such a thing exist if there is no rational way
to say one moral view is better than another?
> There's room for reasonable debate about their detailed
>predictions, but I think their fundamental point on this particular
>issue is difficult to refute: if you want "family values" of the Jim
>Dobson sort, you've got to keep the world moderately ignorant and
>moderately poor.
Actually, my objection to the Tofflers has more to do with their
understanding of what human beings and human life are like. I will look
at their argument; from my standpoint it constitutes an argument that
non-ignorant and non-poor societies don't last. Pessimistic, but
perhaps true nonetheless. There have been plenty of cyclical theories
of history involving the corruption of rude virtue by wealth, and maybe
there's something to them.
--
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 1 22:15:01 EDT 1995
Article: 3467 of nyc.announce
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: nyc.announce
Subject: NYC events for conservatives
Date: 1 Jul 1995 22:13:11 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <3t4vbn$88f@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
[[ [[
[[ [[ [[
[[ [[ [[[[[[
[[ [[ [[ [[ [[[[ [ [[[ [[[ [[[[[[ [[[[[[
[[[ [[ [[ [[ [[[[[[ [[[[[[ [[ [[[[[ [[[[[[[ [[
[[[[ [[ [[ [[ [[ [[ [ [[ [[ [[ [[ [[ [[
[[ [[[[ [[[[[[[ [[ [[ [[ [[[[[[[ [[ [[ [[
[[ [[[ [[[[[[ [[[[[[ [[ [[ [[[[[[ [[ [[ [[
[[ [[ [[ [[[[ [[ [[ [[ [[ [[ [[[
[[[[[ [[[[[
[[[ [[[
************************************************************************
July 1, 1995 vol. 1, no. 9
************************************************************************
_NYC Right_ is a biweekly newsletter listing events in the New York City
area of interest to conservatives, whether traditionalist or
libertarian. It is posted regularly to nyc.announce and nyc.politics,
and irregularly elsewhere. Feel free to distribute more widely.
The current issue is available at http://www.panix.com/~jk/nl. If you
want to receive it by email, let me know at jk@panix.com. Email
subscribers receive updates between issues when appropriate.
The summer doldrums continue. Nonetheless, do let me know if you know
of an event open to the public even in July or August that might be of
interest to conservatives of whatever stripe.
Jim Kalb
jk@panix.com
***********************************************************************
C A L E N D A R
***********************************************************************
July 6 -- Charlie Rose interviews Newt Gingrich at the 92nd Street Y, 7
P.M. Call (212) 996-1100 for info.
July 12 -- Catholic Renaissance presents on open debate with Fr. James
Loughran (pro) and speakers to be named (anti) on the topic "Resolved:
Ecumenism Strengthens and Clarifies the Catholic Faith". Audience
participation invited. 7 P.M. at 86 Riverside Drive (corner of 81st
Street).
Tickets for Rush Limbaugh TV show. Call (212) 397-7367 Monday through
Thursday between 10 A.M. and 1 P.M.
Tuesday Night Traditionalists -- discussion of tradition and ethnicity.
Date to be determined; email jk@panix.com for details.
***********************************************************************
--
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 2 11:00:43 EDT 1995
Article: 17906 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: 2 Jul 1995 08:48:53 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 121
Message-ID: <3t64jl$8fp@panix.com>
References: <3soqpa$cd0@panix.com> <3t4foa$ga2@access1.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
steve-b@access1.digex.net (Steve Brinich) writes:
> Among other things, private consensual consumption of junk food gives
>rise to obesity, heart disease, ill health resulting in lost
>productivity and higher insurance rates, etc. All these things are of
>concern to people other than those immediately involved.... [repeat
>balance of above paragraph]
There are important differences between sex and eating:
1. Sex has an essential connection to other people that eating does
not. The thing about sex that can't be ignored or downplayed is that
it's the way babies are made. Sex (not every sexual act, but sex in
general) therefore has a necessary connection with long-term and open-
ended obligations to other people. Nothing similar is true of eating.
If eating were as important for human relations as sex there would be as
many songs and stories about food as there are about sexual love.
2. The good results of good nutrition accrue directly, primarily and
most importantly to the eater, and the same for the bad results of bad
nutrition. That's why _laissez faire_ is plausible in the case of
eating. Sexual conduct is different. If the consequences of eating
affected other people as much as those of sex do, Flaubert would have
written _Madame Bovary_ about an act of nutritional betrayal, there
would have been a movie _Food, Lies and Videotape_ about culinary
fooling around, and there would be nutritional crimes corresponding to
rape, statutory rape and incest.
> More specifically, traditionally proscribed conduct, such as heresy,
>blasphemy, and atheism, has the practical effect of depriving the
>Church of its socially-recognized unique value and seriousness.
If the Church is as necessary for day-to-day social life as the family,
then I agree. On the other hand, many societies have done without an
established state religion, while no society has done for any length of
time without extensive social regulation of consensual sexual conduct,
so on the face of it the latter looks like a more pressing social
interest.
> Yes, trying to figure out your own answers is _such_ a pain.
Again, the point is that sex is not something that relates just to one's
own life. People need social rules that they can rely on in dealing
with their most important interests. I doubt for example that you want
people to be set free to invent individually the rules of property each
intends to live by.
> >We cannot ignore its connection with the creation of new life and the
> >resulting need to care for that life in a stable and safe environment.
>
> If _that's_ what you're worried about, why the big hoo-haw about gays?
The stable environment exists because people are brought up to think
"men are X, women are Y, and men and women together are Z" and because
when they're adults that's the accepted way of acting.
>Unless you have Hillary Clinton's Miracle Commodities Broker on your
>staff, you "never know what you're getting into" with many commercial
>contracts -- should those, too, be strictly regulated lest we poor
>sheeplike individuals get ourselves into too much trouble?
Typically, risks in commerce can be converted into money, evaluated and
limited. If you can't form a clear enough idea of what you're getting
into, so there's too much risk, you can stay out of it. Commercial
contracts typically have no effect on people other than financial.
That's why if the contract is broken the damages can be turned into
money and everyone can go home.
It's possible as you suggest that there are commercial contracts that
typically affect people in unpredictable ways in their most personal
affairs for decades. However, there's no pressing social need for most
people to enter into such contracts and stick to them through thick and
thin. There *is* a pressing social need for couples with children
(that is, most people at some point) to stick together come what may
and make a go of it. So it seems unlikely to me that the social
standards appropriate for commercial contracts would be suited to
family life and related matters (like sex).
> Without a principled standard limiting those "actions of public
>authorities" to cases where someone's rights (not merely someone's
>sensibilities) are violated, this is simply an apologia for unbounded
>statism.
Any comments on the position taken by the conservatism FAQ?
One problem with your position here is that the "merely" is in the eye
of the beholder. I suppose that if my tactile sensibilities were
affronted by a punch in the nose you would say my rights had been
violated. If a woman's psychological sensibilities are affronted by a
dirty joke in an employment setting then the law of the land seems to be
that her rights may have been violated. What principled way is there to
decide which sensibilities are protected and become rights?
Another problem is that it's an overly individualized standard. Suppose
I use freon and everyone agrees that if everyone used freon we would all
get fried because the ozone layer would disappear but its use by one
person has no discernible effect on anyone. Whose rights have I
violated by using it?
> > The former could be realized within a federal system looser than the
> > present one that permits states and localities to act in accordance
> > with their own moral standards...
>
> Again, without a principled standard limiting such actions, this is
>simply an open invitation to a tyranny of the majority.
As a practical matter, is it your proposal to have a central authority
that imposes on states and localities its interpretation of your
"violation of rights" standard? Sounds like a bad idea. What's wrong
with voting with your feet if you don't like the local situation?
>*****===== I love
>*****===== the Republic
>========== I fear
>========== the Empire
Is it your view that empires tend to have stricter sexual morals than
republics?
--
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 2 11:04:01 EDT 1995
Article: 17909 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: 2 Jul 1995 11:03:44 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <3t6cgg$ivd@panix.com>
References: <3t0oid$jrj@panix.com> <3t2mp6$epo@access4.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
steve-b@access4.digex.net (Steve Brinich) writes:
> Yes, and socialists find equally convincing examples of real-life
>figures resembling the pre-reform Ebenezer Scrooge to bash economic
>liberty. If one takes such anecdotal arguments seriously, belief in
>liberty of _any_ type becomes indefensible.
Such examples certainly should be taken into account. I'm not sure what
"anecdotal arguments" you mean. If the argument based on Scrooge is
that maximizing liberty doesn't lead to the best results in every case
and the argument based on de Sade is that it takes a certain amount of
analysis, discussion and limitation to make "liberty" a coherent and
acceptable concept, then the arguments are valid. I don't see why it
therefore becomes impossible to give liberty an important role in one's
political theory on both practical and principled grounds.
> > For example, people should praise and honor those who voluntarily use
> >their wealth for public ends (endowing libraries or whatever), criticize
> >and look down on those who never do so and instead devote all their
> >efforts to piling up as much money as possible by every barely legal
> >means available, and *really* condemn a father who spends his money on
> >a Ferrari instead of medical treatment that his son needs.
>
>The first two parts boil down to "people should praise those who spend
>their money on things that people approve" (that being the ultimate
>definition of "public ends"), which is an empty tautology. The last
>part concerns a legal obligation, not a mere social convention.
If "public ends" means only "what people approve of" then I don't
understand the purpose of discussing politics except as a rhetorical
maneuver aimed at bringing about one's private ends. The last part was
intended as an example of an obligation that could not be reduced to
property rights. If you as a libertarian (so I take you to be) wish to
say such obligations should be legally enforced that's OK by me; in what
I wrote I didn't take a position on the issue.
> BTW, what do insurance and pensions (which is what a prudent person
>would arrange if he didn't expect the state to take care of him if he
>got sick or old) have to do with the issue?
I don't think it would be efficient to insure all risks of personal
life. For one thing, the health insurance and pension plan would have
to be backed up with "inability to pay the premium" insurance. The
latter kind of insurance would have all the moral risks and
inefficiencies of a welfare system that result from the inability of the
insurance company or welfare bureaucracy to figure out what's going on
when someone announces that through no fault of his own he doesn't have
the money he urgently needs. The obvious solution to the moral risk and
knowledge problems would be for the insured to get his insurance from a
carrier composed of people who know him intimately and are in a position
to put pressure on him to shape up if he's dogging it. The obvious
organization that fits the bill is his family. So the need will remain
for a strong family system that includes just about everyone and
features ties and obligations that people have a great deal of
difficulty wiggling out of.
--
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 2 21:27:54 EDT 1995
Article: 17910 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: 2 Jul 1995 11:05:07 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <3t6cj3$j4q@panix.com>
References: <3t3d3m$o1p@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
schwarze.ccomail@starbase1.caltech.edu (Erich Schwarz) writes:
> Unfortunately for you, not all of us see ourselves as organs of
>society. Some of us perversely insist on seeing ourselves as free men
>and women.
A false polarization. Man is by nature a social animal, which means
that neither the individual nor society can be understood as primary to
the exclusion of the other. For example, your conception "free men and
women" would make no sense in a truly anarchic social world. It can
make sense only if people recognize prior claims relating to the
conditions necessary for it to make sense. If you find de Sade too
revolting or outlandish, read Hobbes' account of the state of nature.
> My essential point was: "I *am* an individual and I've been a
>successful, responsible one for a long time; get out of my bedroom,
>oaf." What part of that message do you find hard to grasp?
The two clauses have no obvious connection with each other. I have a
hard time distinguishing it from "I'm a hotshot, so I ought to be able
to double-park".
As to the remainder of your post: we seem to have been arguing past
each other, and given your apparent attitude on the possibility of
productive discussion I doubt that it would be worth the effort to try
to join issue. If there's any point you really want me to comment on,
let me know. Otherwise, thanks for the comments -- they've been useful.
--
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 2 21:28:55 EDT 1995
Article: 17941 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: 2 Jul 1995 21:25:27 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <3t7gu7$t0h@panix.com>
References: <3soqpa$cd0@panix.com> <3t4foa$ga2@access1.digex.net> <3t64jl$8fp@panix.com> <3t6vuf$9lv@access1.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <3t6vuf$9lv@access1.digex.net> steve-b@access1.digex.net (Steve Brinich) writes:
> >Sex (not every sexual act, but sex in
> >general) therefore has a necessary connection with long-term and open-
> >ended obligations to other people.
> Er, you _do_ realize that, by your own admission, you have just lost
>any rationale for taking a position on those sexual acts which cannot
>result in conception?
That would be true if life could be neatly divided into separate
pieces, so that habits and attitudes with such acts had no connection
with other things relating to sex (e.g., adultery using the pill had no
connection with the stability of marriage).
> That _precise_ claim was made in justification for the Spanish Inquisition,
>etc, which makes it extremely difficult (and dangerous) to accept it in _any_
>context without arguments that are a damnsight better than anything you've
>managed to come up with.
So if someone once claimed the Spanish Inquisition was a good idea no
one should say something should be done because it is a good idea,
because that's just what they used to say about the Spanish
Inquisition? It seems you want a formal criterion for what arguments
are acceptable in politics. I don't see why such a criterion should
exist.
> Sorry, but you have to prove that all those societies had _the same_
>regulations, or your case collapses.
Don't see your argument. If all urbanized societies have had
governments but not all have had kings that's a reason to think
governments are more necessary for them than kings and a reason to be
suspicious of plans for doing without a government in such a society,
especially if when you think about it you can see reasons why a
government ought to be necessary. I don't see why it's necessary to
show that the governments have been identical in each case.
> Your argument here seems to boil down to a claim that by their mere
>existence, A, B, and C emit mysterious eminations (from a penumbra?)
>that somehow interfere with the ability of X, Y, and Z to live by their
>own ways.
If for purpose C which is socially necessary it's very helpful for men
to be A and women to be B then A and B are going to be praised and ~A
and ~B are going to be disfavored. You seem to think that what people
are has nothing to do with how they are brought up, the expectations
they are subject to as adults, and so on.
--
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 3 14:42:21 EDT 1995
Article: 4712 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 Jul 1995 14:39:46 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <3t9dhi$rge@panix.com>
References: <3t3ddp$obs@panix.com> <3t6pii$r0h@tzlink.j51.com> <3t93td$tah@worf.netins.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <3t93td$tah@worf.netins.net> wmcclain@worf.netins.net (Bill McClain) writes:
>> You still don't have an entry for any who think as I do...favoring a secular
>> absolute monarchy atop a vital and respected pyramidal social hierarchy
>> whose distinctions are given precedence over others.
>How many thinkers does a "school of thought" require? I would advise Mr.
>Kalb "don't bother", although an entry in the resource list such as
>"contact Mr. Epsten regarding absolute monarchism" might be appropriate.
Mr. Epstein's views did seem too idiosyncratic to include as a separate
category. While I don't have anything specifically about monarchism,
previous monarchists on the list were also Catholic integralists and
seemed satisfied with the coverage I gave to that school of thought.
Is there a long tradition of secular absolute monarchical hierarchical
legitimist thought that's still active today? Where is it to be found?
Who are its leading thinkers?
--
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 3 14:42:37 EDT 1995
Article: 17965 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: 3 Jul 1995 06:37:30 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <3t8h9a$6i0@panix.com>
References: <3soqpa$cd0@panix.com> <3t4foa$ga2@access1.digex.net> <3t64jl$8fp@panix.com> <3t6vuf$9lv@access1.digex.net> <3t7gu7$t0h@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In schwarze.ccomail@starbase1.caltech.edu (Erich Schwarz) writes:
> Not in 1776, when all urbanized societies *had* had feudal lords of
>some sort
Geneva? Republican Rome? Athens during her Golden Age?
--
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 3 14:42:39 EDT 1995
Article: 17974 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: 3 Jul 1995 10:29:09 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <3t8url$sgo@panix.com>
References: <3soqpa$cd0@panix.com> <3t64jl$8fp@panix.com> <3t6vuf$9lv@access1.digex.net> <3t7gu7$t0h@panix.com> <3t81f6$9is@access4.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <3t81f6$9is@access4.digex.net> steve-b@access4.digex.net (Steve Brinich) writes:
> Either people can govern themselves if held accountable for the
>consequences of their actions (in which case the keystones of your entire
>argument fall) or not (in which case your argument leads to the need
>to control all of human conduct).
I don't understand the all or nothing.
> Sigh. I don't _want_ to accuse you of disingenuous "misunderstanding",
>but I fail to see how anyone could misunderstand the point about the
>dangers of enforced conformity to "social standards".
I find your points obscure and confusing. All laws and social customs
enforce conformity to social standards.
> Your apologia for social conservatism is not equivalent to claiming that
>a government of some sort ought to be necessary -- it is equivalent to
>claiming that a particular set of court ritual and etiquette is necessary.
The argument for social conservatism is equivalent to saying that we
start from where we are and it's impossible for us to stand back from
that point and construct something wholly new.
--
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 3 14:42:41 EDT 1995
Article: 17975 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: 3 Jul 1995 10:39:56 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <3t8vfs$16r@panix.com>
References: <3soqpa$cd0@panix.com> <3t81vr$mri@access1.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <3t81vr$mri@access1.digex.net> steve-b@access1.digex.net (Steve Brinich) writes:
> The Vikings are, naturally, out of luck, but to equate such people
>(whose problem is that they find it difficult to live and let live) with
>people who do not live by your sexual mores (who would gladly live and let
>live if you would quit bothering them) is outrageous.
Why? "Live and let live" certainly has its place, but to take it as an
absolute principle is to pretend that our lives can be separated
altogether from those of others.
I live in a dicey neighborhood in NYC where I constantly have to deal
with the consequences of people living cruddy lives and giving their
kids cruddier upbringings. It would make a *much* greater improvement
in my life for the locals to stop using drugs and alcohol and adopt
strict sexual morals than it would for them to all start paying all
their taxes. Why is the former covered by "live and let live" and the
latter not?
--
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 4 05:59:55 EDT 1995
Article: 78424 of alt.config
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.config
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: alt.politics.immigration
Date: 3 Jul 1995 14:48:10 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <3t9e1a$t4l@panix.com>
References: <3t5tgg$4ad@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <3t5tgg$4ad@panix.com> jbrock@panix.com (John Brock) writes:
>I'd like to propose the creation of alt.politics.immigration.
I support the proposal. It's a major political issue in the U.S. and
Europe, and there ought to be a place to discuss it.
Query -- should there be one global newsgroup or lots of little ones
like "a.p.immigration.usa" and "a.p.immigration.eec"?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Tue Jul 4 06:00:17 EDT 1995
Article: 4731 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Rejoining
Date: 4 Jul 1995 05:39:44 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <3tb290$gcf@panix.com>
References: <3t9fn4$2ji@news1.databank.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <3t9fn4$2ji@news1.databank.com> Jovan Weismiller writes:
>Hey everybody! Does anyone remember me? I was one of the original a.r.c.
>founders.
Good to see you back! Some of the old gang are still here, although
we're submerged at the moment by armies of crossposting Rebs and Yanks.
Glad you've bounced back from your auto accident. I understand (from
another old-timer) that you've been writing for a distributist
publication?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Tue Jul 4 06:00:18 EDT 1995
Article: 4732 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Conservatism Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Date: 4 Jul 1995 05:55:02 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <3tb35m$hb8@panix.com>
References: <3t3dda$oeo@panix.com> <3ta0ec$23d@tzlink.j51.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <3ta0ec$23d@tzlink.j51.com> lepslog@j51.com (Louis Epstein) writes:
>But why can't you believe your tradition
>will take you to objective truth for all?
That's OK as a guiding ideal for thought and inquiry. You aren't going
to reach a complete and comprehensive articulation of objective truth
that renders it fully portable among traditions, though, at least not
in a finite amount of time.
>: 5.5 I was raised to believe in certain substantive liberal positions
>: (the color- and gender-blind ideal, for example) on the grounds that
>: those are the positions good Americans should hold. Wouldn't it be
>: conservative for me to stay true to them?
>: Yes, if those are the views the people among whom you grew up
>: really lived by and experience does not drive you to change them.
>: Such a situation is unlikely to arise often. Liberal positions
>: (affirmative action is an example) typically are devised centrally
>: and propagated by the mass media and educational system.
>Bait and switch here,Jim."Affirmative action" racism is a fundamental
>betrayal of the color-blind ideal,not a legitimate outgrowth of it.
The answer doesn't take a position on the color-blind ideal, it just
suggests a test to which that an other ideals pioneered by liberals
should be subjected and gives an example of something that clearly
fails the test.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Tue Jul 4 16:01:09 EDT 1995
Article: 4733 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: a.r.c. FAQ
Date: 4 Jul 1995 06:09:29 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <3tb40p$ij8@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>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <3ta0qn$23d@tzlink.j51.com> lepslog@j51.com (Louis Epstein) writes:
>Well,I am a member of,but can not speak for,a monarchist group that celebrates
>monarchies of any kind,be they Christian,Moslem,Buddhist,Animist,or Pacific
>Island polytheist,upholding monarchy per se as the superior form of government.
>I can not point to any prior thinker whose disciple I can call myself,but
>certainly the strands of my thought go back far in various places.I frequently
>quote some of Tolkien's writings,cf. "Touching your cap to Squire may not
>do much good for Squire but it's damned good for you."
>The essential theory that power flows down from the Crown,not from that
>collectivist fiction "The People",and that levelling social distinctions
>is wrong certainly has a tradition.
The essential theory may have a history, but it all seems a bit too
thin at this point to constitute a separate tradition or school of
thought on a par with the others that people have to be told about in a
very general discussion of counterrevolutionary thought like the one in
the FAQ.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: No, it never propagates if I set a GAP or PREVENTION.
From panix!not-for-mail Tue Jul 4 16:01:16 EDT 1995
Article: 18044 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Revised FAQ on sex
Date: 4 Jul 1995 07:12:34 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 435
Message-ID: <3tb7n2$msl@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Any comments on the following? Comments from new people would be
especially helpful; it may be too slanted now toward responding to
libertarians. (I am grateful, of course, for comments already
received.
Revised Draft Sexual Morality FAQ
Sex continues to be a hot 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 I and many others 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 do you mean by "public standards"?
3. How are public standards enforced?
4. Who are you to say what sexual conduct is right for me?
5. What's wrong with 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 second-stage bourgeois
civilization 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 remain that way. 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
suppress others.
2. What do you mean by "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 in most situations aren't
legally enforceable, but in any society that is not in crisis they
are firm enough for people to use them in judging their own conduct
and criticizing that of others, and people find it extremely
awkward to flout them publicly.
3. How are public standards enforced?
Any number of ways. Depending on circumstances and how much people
object to a violation they 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.
4. Who are you (or the majority, or the Church, or the state) to say
what sexual conduct is right for me?
Who are any of those people to say what conduct of any kind is
right for you? Who is to say what is polite or rude, what are the
requirements of honesty, or what constitutes slander or harassment?
Sensibilities and standards differ, and the effects of what we do
depend unforeseeably on chance, circumstance and other people, so
almost any act might be considered either harmless or
unforgiveable.
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 so 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 wrong with 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 depriving the sexual tie between a man and a woman of its
socially-recognized unique 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; 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.
Such a state of affairs isn't likely to lead to individual
happiness, and certainly isn't likely to lead to conditions
favorable to the successful rearing of children, an absolute
necessity for a tolerable society. Accordingly, it is
insupportable to govern sexual life purely by private impulses and
purposes; a moral view that brings sexual relations into a publicly
recognized order that can be aimed at and relied on must be
accepted. 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.
6. Why believe that looser sexual standards have the bad consequences
you describe?
Both reason and experience point in that direction. The
theoretical reasoning is outlined elsewhere in this FAQ. As to
experience, the trends regarding family structure and the well-
being of children since the sexual revolution of the 1960s are very
much in point. 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.
It's harder to show direct causality for other problems such as
juvenile delinqency and suicide, 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 anecdotal and impressionistic accounts and
correlations between illegitimacy and divorce and problems among
young people.
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 often 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 (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 if the way you are acting became the
general custom.
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 is not an individual thing. 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 cannot be ignored. 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 prescribe who has to do what with whom? 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 with respect to matters that can be
clearly defined in advance, and satisfactorily dealt with by the
usual standards of contract and tort liability because money is an
adequate remedy and fault and damages can be assessed by third
parties.
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 the 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 in which the major risks
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, principles like those of commercial law aren't going to do
the job.
10. There have been many different views 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 the society to other members, in sexual matters
as in others. Long-established standards change over time and may
be subject to discussion, but it's difficult for social critics to
find a place to stand from which they can be judged worthy only of
categorical rejection.
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 restrain our impulses and thus deny
our nature, 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 the demands that 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 the _New
York Times_, 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 not been accepted except 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 the visible results of
their success make their position far harder to defend.
14. Isn't the nuclear family a figment of second-stage bourgeois
civilization 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 appears 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. So the
view that there is something special and basic about the group
consisting of man and woman with their children, about loyalty and
fidelity 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 enforcing
the standards but not prying too vigorously into things people keep
out of sight. To the extent people find social separation
necessary or appropriate (some people might find it hard to live
with what they think of as "puritanical morality", while others
might not want to live with the social consequences of very high
illegitimacy and divorce rates), it could be realized within a
federal system looser than the present one 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 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 individual and collective
needs. Some initial steps are obvious, such as doing away with the
social standards (some with the force of law) that have grown up in
favor of unrestricted sexual liberty, such as the prejudice against
criticizing people in such matters and certain antidiscrimination
rules.
17. What is the relation of sexual morality to politics?
Too complicated to treat exhaustively. With respect to current
debates, social acceptance of complete sexual freedom is most
consistent with modern liberalism, 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
Pop libertarians 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.
Do let me know if you have comments of any kind.
Back to my archive of posts.