The Right To Hate
I was astounded and outraged by the recent story from Nigeria, where 200 girls have been kidnapped and sold as wives or into slavery by a radical group of thugs, calling themselveshttp://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2014/04/30/reports-abducted-girls-forced-to-marry-extremists. The girls were attending a Physics test along with boys when the group surrounded the school and carried out the kidnapping. It was reported the group is against school for women, not unlike other religious sects in the Middle East, including areas of Pakistan and Iran. The legal protection of the rights of women in most third world countries are almost non-existent, due primarily to the practice of Islam. and other radical religions. The situation in that region of Nigeria was described by one spokeswoman as " "life has become nasty, short and brutish. We are living in a state of anarchy." This of course echoing Thomas Hobbes, the english philosopher, who said in his book Levithian (1651),
"No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."
Hobbes was a firm believer in a strong, central authority of governance created on moral foundations. This comment was in part an explanation regarding Men living in a constant state of Nature, where Man sees all property his. There are no rights in a State of Nature, but complete freedom.
On the same day, I read Eudaimonia/s post of Yale's current push to curb racist and bigoted comments which are popularly used. I was struck dumb that the push made headlines and I seriously wondered at the use of scarce resources for such a program. The justification included sentiments such as empowerment of women. People have a good understanding of what is basic politeness and what is not. So it begs the question, why the need to keep pushing at some cost programs or plans on words and phrases which are permissible/not permissible in the name of political correctness? There are so many things wrong in the world today-You can't travel and feel safe, You are stopped and searched by your own police, The NSA is spying on private citizens, the IRS is targeting certain groups, the EPA is regulating your private property and business right out from under you. 200 girls are kidnapped and made slaves because they wanted to learn....The irony of a major and important US university focusing on and elevating the hurt feelings of the few and being alarmed enough to "educate" their students about it compared to the alarm regarding real rights-being kidnapped! is staggering. I find it equally ironic that the former Dean of Yale Law School, now legal adviser to the State Department, Harold Koh, was very outspoken for the US to adopt a "transnational" approach to law, in response to the now famous video "smoking gun" for the Benghazi cover-up. We should revise our laws to include broader interpretation of Hate Speech, including denouncing of Islamic practices, which sees women as property and of little worth. Protect the rights of the group who do not acknowledge natural rights of women and denounce and pass hate laws against people who point that out! http://www.volokh.com/2012/09/13/former-.... This is referred to as the "abuse of free speech."
IF we get to a place where people's outrageous comments are considered so important that they may lose their business, their income, perhaps face jail, the influence of such programs like Yale's serves to not only indoctrinate but define the very terms for which a free citizen may be bound-in speech. The fact that the owner of a basketball team can lose his business and pay outrageous fines for words spoken in the privacy of his home- or a man lose his job because of a political donation is getting ever closer to the same tactics used by the villains in Nigeria. "I don't like what you are doing and I will control you." Why are free citizens of the once greatest country on Earth standing for that?
If racism and bigotry have become the MOST important issue Americans are facing today-we are in serious trouble. Because they are not. People are going to hate you for the color of your skin, for your political orientation, etc. You cannot legislate that away. Protecting natural rights and property rights is the single most effective way to address racism issues.
If we continue to raise false flags, eventually, when real problems need to be dealt with, like the team owner's privacy being violated by not one person but by multiple organizations through publishing of recordings, and no one is held accountable, you'd better strap on your skiis-the slope is a black.
"No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."
Hobbes was a firm believer in a strong, central authority of governance created on moral foundations. This comment was in part an explanation regarding Men living in a constant state of Nature, where Man sees all property his. There are no rights in a State of Nature, but complete freedom.
On the same day, I read Eudaimonia/s post of Yale's current push to curb racist and bigoted comments which are popularly used. I was struck dumb that the push made headlines and I seriously wondered at the use of scarce resources for such a program. The justification included sentiments such as empowerment of women. People have a good understanding of what is basic politeness and what is not. So it begs the question, why the need to keep pushing at some cost programs or plans on words and phrases which are permissible/not permissible in the name of political correctness? There are so many things wrong in the world today-You can't travel and feel safe, You are stopped and searched by your own police, The NSA is spying on private citizens, the IRS is targeting certain groups, the EPA is regulating your private property and business right out from under you. 200 girls are kidnapped and made slaves because they wanted to learn....The irony of a major and important US university focusing on and elevating the hurt feelings of the few and being alarmed enough to "educate" their students about it compared to the alarm regarding real rights-being kidnapped! is staggering. I find it equally ironic that the former Dean of Yale Law School, now legal adviser to the State Department, Harold Koh, was very outspoken for the US to adopt a "transnational" approach to law, in response to the now famous video "smoking gun" for the Benghazi cover-up. We should revise our laws to include broader interpretation of Hate Speech, including denouncing of Islamic practices, which sees women as property and of little worth. Protect the rights of the group who do not acknowledge natural rights of women and denounce and pass hate laws against people who point that out! http://www.volokh.com/2012/09/13/former-.... This is referred to as the "abuse of free speech."
IF we get to a place where people's outrageous comments are considered so important that they may lose their business, their income, perhaps face jail, the influence of such programs like Yale's serves to not only indoctrinate but define the very terms for which a free citizen may be bound-in speech. The fact that the owner of a basketball team can lose his business and pay outrageous fines for words spoken in the privacy of his home- or a man lose his job because of a political donation is getting ever closer to the same tactics used by the villains in Nigeria. "I don't like what you are doing and I will control you." Why are free citizens of the once greatest country on Earth standing for that?
If racism and bigotry have become the MOST important issue Americans are facing today-we are in serious trouble. Because they are not. People are going to hate you for the color of your skin, for your political orientation, etc. You cannot legislate that away. Protecting natural rights and property rights is the single most effective way to address racism issues.
If we continue to raise false flags, eventually, when real problems need to be dealt with, like the team owner's privacy being violated by not one person but by multiple organizations through publishing of recordings, and no one is held accountable, you'd better strap on your skiis-the slope is a black.
The real problem arises when "dumb speech" is elevated from one person exercising their freedom to be "dumb" by efforts to make others regulate their lives by this "dumb speech".
The owner of this basketball team was making comments intended to be private, between his girlfriend and himself. At which point he took down whatever guards he must have kept up when addressing people on a day to day basis, or this "news" should have came out long a go. So we should look at how his "hate speech" differed from those muslin kidnappers.
First it must be noted that the highest paid members of his organization were paid millions each year. Next that the most publicly recognizable figures of his company were these same, highly paid black men. While there were a couple white men at these levels of payment, they were not paid more than a fraction of the blacks pay scale. Were there blacks who were maltreated by this individual who were not so paid (payment being the highest level of recognizing excellence in our capitalistic society), possibly, but in the case of this recording no reference was made to any person who was not a millionaire basketball player and no allegation has been made that he allowed his personal views to influence his hiring or the pay scale of his employees. In all ways, this was a conversation that epitomized "dumb speech". Speech that effected nobody apart from the two people involved. It may have displayed the poor choice of boyfriend - girlfriend of this pair, but the entire thing was, well, dumb.
Then we look at the sad case of the 200 girls kidnapped and carried away marry men they have never seen, ripped away from parents and friends to be placed into marriages where they may be killed for no more a crime than looking at another man. Where they will be forced to live under Sharia Law, never allowed to attend school again and not allowed any of the freedoms that young women enjoy in our society without being killed - all nice and legal.
They will never have a conversation like the "dumb" one between "Mr. basketball" and his girlfriend, they won't be allowed to call another man or to speak to one who is not their husband. Of course they won't be afflicted by racism - under a burka, race is not important. And hate speech won't be a problem for them to avoid - they won't be allowed "free speech" and any time they'll be allowed away from home a male will accompany them and if they vary away from the legal stricture of Sharia Law, he will be empowered to beat her appropriately, even kill her if it's required, but that right is more often reserved for her husband.
In short, her life will now be comprised of little more than hate all directed at her and only because she is a female.
Contrast the life she will lead against the lives million dollar basketball players lead - it's really hard to equate the two will any such word. The hatred we know in this land would not rise to the level of mind dislike in most of the world.
What we are seeing is the Saul Alinsky method taken international. Distract, distract, distract. While we are filling college students' heads with nonsense, not educating them, and indoctrinating them, they are not worrying about the real issues - like the IRS, Agenda 21, phoney EPA alerts, and where our gold is that should be held. Hillary Clinton loves to side in with this distraction and would like nothing more than to stop free speech. Those who want to limit what we say, do not ever put themselves in that category, it is for other people.
Those poor girls, they will live a life of slavery, rather than being educated. I have spoken with some of these young extremists, and I know the low value they put on females. In this country, they could only use them, but in their own countries, their will is the only limit.
Thanks again form bringing these issues to light.
Alinsky made it pretty clear that many such methods were to be used to accomplish their goals, be it setting races against each other (a form of distraction in itself), setting economic groups against each other, etc. The idea was to promote the end, Marxism, whatever methods that took. Did you ever see a community organizer stand up and say outright, that the goal was Marxism? No, they use non issues, which they blow up into big issues, to fire the people up, and then move them toward the goal.
He was never an official member of the communist party BUT his actions and methods FULLY supported the communist cause.
Anyways, turn to page 125, it's the Chapter titled "Tactics". Now, I know you'll be looking for the smoking gun "I say use distractions!" or something along those lines. Nope you won't find them. Why? Because that's not how Saul works. Here's a spoiler: Saul goes into detail on the ways in which you (the community organizer) can disrupt things in society. I think you'd get the idea by the time you reach page 139. Another word for unnecessary disruptions is......can you guess?
ISBN: 0-679-72113-4 Amazon it. You have no excuses.
Media fomenting the mob, knowing the irrational behavior it will cause.
How long might it be until facts are not allowed...Black people are 7 times more likely than white people to commit a crime...Is this hate speech? Sure is more statistically relevant than human affected climate change, but boy would it be an unpopular story.
Anybody recall Eddie Murphy's Mr Robinson's Neighborhood skit on SNL? Will humor become illegal?
Hey, how about we get a Supreme Court case brought against the media on the same grounds as yelling "fire" in a theater?
Further, I've also read of studies that show enforcement is racially biased. If true, that would explain some or all of the discrepancy.
While I think the posted article has a great point about our priorities in addressing problems in the world, I don't think we should ignore facts about the other problems that exist.
The other false assumption you are operating under is that an individual's actions to fail to regulate themselves have no effect on others in society. The evidence from Colorado shows that this is a false premise. Regardless of whether the government prosecutes users or not, the natural consequences of drug use are very clear and should not be so casually ignored.
You claim I'm operating under a false assumption or premise that "an individual's actions to fail to regulate themselves have no effect on others in society." This is entirely untrue. In my opinion, any time an individual intentionally -- or recklessly -- harms another, there should be compensation and/or a negative consequence. But it is not a given that every drug user harms others, and every teetotaler never hurts anyone. Punish the individual wrongdoer, but not the entire group he or she belongs to, which contains innocent people as well as the guilty.
Statistics show that men cause more fatal car accidents than women. Should all men be banned from driving? Clearly their failure to regulate themselves has effects on others in society. By your standard, it's acceptable and desirable to take away the rights of innocent individuals for the sake of community safety.
I think people can be careless and cause harm to others in many ways -- eating or texting while driving a car, taking legal prescription drugs that affect their mood and behavior just as much as illegal drugs, driving when tired, etc. I think culpability can be caused by many factors, and presuming it based solely on the fact of illegal drug use, while rejecting it in the absence of illegal drugs, is far too narrow a standard for me.
While I am glad that you support the premise of personal responsibility, it is a false dichotomy to believe that one can simultaneously support a public policy decision that will lead to an increase in irrational choices without also assuming some responsibility, is it not? That was my point, if inelegantly stated.
Yes, absolutely, people can make all kinds of stupid choices - even when in complete control of all their faculties. My question is why someone who purports to place as their highest ideal the promotion of rational thought would seek to contribute to irrationality? Or do you contend that the mind-altering effects of marijuana are not real?
"By your standard, it's acceptable and desirable to take away the rights of innocent individuals for the sake of community safety."
This is a false characterization, not only of my argument, but of the entire policy decision in the first place. I support everyone's ability to rationally choose their life and take responsibility for those choices. The matter at hand is whether or not to encourage people to make irrational or impaired decisions by eliminating a substantial cost for doing so.
I think either you must be in favor of a police state outlawing many prescription drugs and alcohol, and even mandating people's diets and requiring exercise (as there's piles of evidence that certain foods and physical exertion help mental function) -- or else you're being highly inconsistent to favor only the prohibition of marijuana. Many laws can be made to theoretically promote rational thought by using violence and punishment against dissenters, so why stop at just prohibiting marijuana?
Legalizing marijuana and other prohibited drugs would not be "eliminating a substantial cost" of drug use itself, but merely removing the artificially imposed penalties (and artificially created profits of the illegal drug trade) that result from making them illegal. From my readings in child psychology, I know people learn best from the natural negative consequences of a choice, rather than from artificially imposed punishment.
I simply do not agree that any of us are entitled to use force (threats and punishment) on people in order to make them behave more "rationally." To me, the initiation of force against a person who has harmed no one else is immoral and irrational, even if you claim you're doing it "for their own good" or "for the good of society." That's the logic and excuse of dictators.
First, there is a huge difference between the ingestion of mind-altering substances and normal foods, so to lump all of those together is absurd, and an argument I never made. Second, prescription drugs are given to treat specific medical conditions and come with very specific conditions of use. They are not for recreational use or to try to avoid the realities of life for a little while. Attempting to lump the three together is a disingenuous argument and should be discarded without further adieu.
Next, a penalty is most assuredly a cost. Remember, laws do not prohibit people from engaging in any kind of behavior, they merely place a cost or penalty upon such. Police do not prevent crime. That's a complete misnomer. Police (and the legal system) are tasked with responding to crime and enforcing the penalties of illegal activities.
And what should further be pointed out are that there are natural costs/penalties to certain behaviors which exist irrelevant of what societal costs are put in place via laws. The most effective societal laws are those that mimic the underlying natural laws - like the prohibition on murder.
I would also point out that as a parent, I don't tell my children not to put their hands on the hot stove because I want them to, but because I don't want them to suffer the consequences and pain of such an action. To argue that while people may learn through experience, that the preferred method of learning is by doing is very dangerous indeed. Take murder for example. I don't think anyone is going to argue that we can't truly learn from murder without committing one! Yes, I intentionally take the logical argument to the extreme to illustrate that there is tremendous merit in placing societal rules there for people to follow so neither the individual nor society are forced to deal with the ramifications of a particular choice! The primary reason we create laws are not because we don't expect some to break them, but because we expect MOST to respect them!
Laws are societal agreements. When a critical mass of the population rebels, society breaks down into anarchy and society itself dissolves. Society does not exist because laws get broken in a vain attempt to understand them. Society exists because the vast majority respect and obey the laws that are in place.
"I simply do not agree that any of us are entitled to use force (threats and punishment) on people in order to make them behave more "rationally."
You mistakenly imply coercion where none exists. You are turning the argument on its head. No one is arguing that we should force anyone to imbibe mind-altering substances - or even healthy food. The law that exists - and which I support - imposes a societal penalty over and above the natural penalty for taking such substances. It exists to dissuade many from learning from sad experience what can happen when one is not in full control of their faculties and because of what may happen to others as a result. The laws against drunk driving are a very clear and explicit example.
"I would not say that promoting rational thought is my highest ideal."
I would suggest that without rational control of one's self, one can not fully recognize or allow for the natural rights of others. If one can not tell where their rights leave off and where others' rights begin because they have sacrificed rational thought to drugs, how can you possibly expect them to respect your rights?
"Alcohol is involved in most DUI convictions in Colorado. According to the state Department of Transportation, marijuana was involved in only about 1,000 of the 23,500 post-conviction drug-and-alcohol evaluations performed for probation purposes."
Read more: Colorado marijuana legalization's impact on stoned driving unknown - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/marijuana/ci_2...
http://rt.com/usa/colorado-crime-change-...
I would also point out the new studies that are actually pointing out that marijuana is far more dangerous and addictive than originally thought: (http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/hea...)
My question: why would someone want to knowingly limit the full control over their own choices by taking a mind-altering substance, and why would society WANT to allow this to be unregulated? All one has to do is look at the results of alcohol to see how many people it affects in terms of abuse, driving deaths, etc. Why would a rational person want to expand the possible causes of these behaviors - let alone condone them at all?
To me, the costs to society from people who relinquish control of their choices to baser impulses rather than rational thought runs contrary to anything an Objectivist would support? Am I completely misinterpreting this?
Also, it sounds like you're in favor of alcohol prohibition as well. What about prescription drugs, red meat and sugar? Do you want government to ban everything some expert says is "unhealthy," and perhaps mandate exercise and what we must eat to be healthy?
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/...
First, I am not trying to scare people into thinking that these are anything but rare circumstances. That being said, the fact that they have happened point out that marijuana is far from a "harmless recreational drug" as many would argue.
I don't favor government coercion, but I will point out that the only reason cigarettes are still legal is because of the taxes on them. The same argument (increased revenues) was used in Colorado to justify making pot legal in the first place. Alcohol can also be arguably included in this bin, though not entirely.
The reason most drugs are prohibited or limited is because they inhibit or alter cognitive function to such a degree that the imbiber can no longer make fully rational decisions. If a steak or 32 oz soda can do that, then the principle would still hold, would it not? That's the line politicians such as NYC Mayor de Blasio crossed when they went after transfats, sodas over a certain size, salt, etc.
I fully respect the right of individuals to make stupid, irrational decisions. What I don't respect is people's expectation that somehow one is not responsible for their decisions if made under the influence of a substance voluntarily taken.
What particularly concerns me is the so-called collateral damage to family and society of use. To me, the costs of such far outweigh the benefits and risk. Maybe I'm too simplistic or I don't have the whole picture, so if I'm missing something, please chime in.
If we truly want to solve the drug problem, prohibition is not the way to go. Studies have linked drug use (a desire to escape reality) to childhood emotional, physical, and sexual abuse. I've read that spanking alone lowers a child's IQ by 5 points. I believe we can solve a lot of the drug problem by embracing and teaching Peaceful Parenting techniques.
I would point out my reservations for such agreement in that the reasons some substances are outlawed and others are not is for economic considerations rather than because government actually wants to further rational thought.
You don't want to spank? Don't. What I would caution, however, is that talent (like IQ) is only as good as how it is used. If the child doesn't have the personal discipline to use their intelligence wisely, it won't matter how high it is.
http://reason.com/blog/2014/02/17/if-med...
I pose the question to point out the costs that come with any policy decision. I evaluate the outcomes as being unacceptable relative to the costs, but I am apparently in the minority.
So not to nitpick, but usually predictions come before something happens, and outcomes happen after. I get your point, though.
I think it is reasonable to ask, then, about the purpose of debating and the process of decision-making in public policy if for no other reason than to predict outcomes? I will completely agree that we could equate a public policy decision to a scientific test with hypothesis and verification. So my question is: what hypothesis are you trying to prove? What end are you trying to achieve?
If your only goal is to not spend the billions of dollars in law enforcement, I would like to know. I am making my value judgment off of the social ramifications and the deleterious effect on rational thought, so it is entirely possible that our evaluation methods and aims do not coincide.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/05/...
Don't disagree, about racial bias of police, although don't think the majority stems from simple prejudice and much as an associative behavior. For example, if the police sees more black criminals, he is more likely to pursue a black person over a white person under similar suspicious circumstances. It probably increases the difference a bit, but I think income level is the big driver. Red cars, sports cars and cars in disrepair similarly attract the attention of police.
Jan
I draw no conclusion from it, just pointing out how a simple fact can be twisted into hate speech, and noting no one called Eddie Murphy a racist for the skit where the behavior was the butt of the joke.
I've talked with a lot of folks over the years--white, black, asian, even a Navajo--and most agreed that deep down we all carry at least a small residue of prejudice--some learned from our elders and some through life encounters. The important thing is to recognize this in ourselves and deal with it.
We've all heard the saying: "good neighbors come in all colors." I think its equally true that "sonsabitches come in all colors". So we ought to be able to recognize "an SOB who happens to be black, or brown, or white (wait--maybe that's the default) and say as much without it being labeled "hate speech" and cowaring from it, i.e., separating out the "SOBness" Condescension is just a subtle form of prejudice.
1. Every time government makes a new law, they take away something that used to be a free choice.
2. You cannot legislate morality.
A PERSON HAS A RIGHT TO MAKE RACIST STATEMENTS.
I agree that a Leviathan, even a crappy Leviathan is better than a state of nature. We are working toward improving the Leviathan.
Great post. The world's priorities are upside down. The other day I listened to a discussion among college students that showed a lack of tolerance for free speech that made my hair stand on end. They preach tolerance for everything except speech. Soon America will adopt the same asinine, intolerant laws that now rule speech in Canada. We see the media deluged with coverage of one eighty year old bigot, but almost nothing on the Nigerian kidnappings. Shameful.
Regards,
O.A.
On which planet?
Check your premise; how does one have a good understanding of anything when one is not taught anything?
I see people coming into my store in pajama bottoms. 7 degree weather, people walk in wearing flip-flops and hoodies. Picking their nose openly as they browse the grocery items. Leaving used diapers under shelves. Consuming food products (unpaid-for) and leaving the wrappers sitting on the nearest available shelf. Opening packages to examine products and then setting them back on the shelf behind other products. Using four-letter words in front of women and especially children. Using abusive language toward employees simply because they know the employees can't defend themselves.
And these are just the examples relating to their behavior in a retail environment. They have no clue how to act in actual "polite society".
There are a thousand little behaviors that once were taught as part of "polite society", particularly at the height of civilization known as the Victorian Age. Formally taught, I mean. Now we teach children nothing, and they behave as you describe: "This comment was in part an explanation regarding Men living in a constant state of Nature, where Man sees all property his. There are no rights in a State of Nature, but complete freedom. " And no lessons on how to behave in a state of civilization.
However, regarding the rest of your post, you sound as though you read my blog post, "Welcome back to 1984":
http://humanachievementinitiative.wordpr...
Oh, wait... you have :)