Though I believe in a use and occupancy condition for property, I also believe that this condition should be interpretted liberally - and by liberally here I mean conservatively. Thanks in part to agrarian nostalgia and also to philosophical convenience, original appropriation and continuing "use" and "occupancy" are often explained in terms of a particular mode of subsistence, which is family farming. Under a very strict interpretation of the use and occupancy condition, you don't own your land unless you plant and/or live on it, and the only bits of it that you do own are those parts that you either live directly on or plant on; and if your land goes fallow, then you don't own it any more.
I think there are very good "liberal" and "leftist" reasons for homesteading and continuing use and occupancy to not be interpretted so strictly. One is American Indians getting run off their land because they hadn't sufficiently appropriated it and/or weren't making "good enough" use of it. Another is protected natural areas.
My general and hopefully noncontroversial sense is that if there is no room under the property rules for an area set aside for the mere observational enjoyment of nature, then the property rules are too strict. So what if my land went fallow? I like the look of tall dry grass and wildflowers. Merely walking through and enjoying it should be good enough to count as use (and if I'm the first in a while to walk on it with a fence around it, then that should count as first use).
I shouldn't have to spend 7 nights a week 52 weeks a year on my land for my claim to it to be respected. And I shouldn't have to plant on every bit of it for my claim to be respected, either. If I can't enjoy my land in the way I want to enjoy it (assuming of course that my method of enjoyment doesn't get in the way of other people enjoying their own land), then I don't have property rights. And the way I'd like to enjoy it, once I get rich enough to buy a few acres, is to leave some of it as brushland, grassland, or woods.
None of this is to say that I think the use condition should be thrown out altogether. A house that has boards over its windows and obviously isn't being used at all is, I think, "re-homestead-able". And I believe a field that has nothing grown on it and no one living on it, and whose last owner according to all the records there are died with no heir or anyone who claims to be one, then that field too is re-homestead-able. I just think that sitting there and enjoying the land as it is should be good enough to count as use.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Sunday, June 13, 2010
More on the Rich Young Man
One of the New Testaments sitting around in my house has a "Harmony of the Gospels" in the back of it, showing which parts of Jesus' life are talked about where. I should have known it before, but I just realized this afternoon that two events Unitarians use to argue against the supposed deity of Christ, which are the Baptism of Jesus and the story of the rich young man, are in all three of the Synoptic Gospels but nowhere in the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John does have a whole lot of stuff that isn't in the Synoptic Gospels, like the preface about the Word becoming flesh and dwelling among men, the parable about the bread of life, and all those verses that seem to fit so neatly into an Evangelical perspective. It should be no wonder that when I went door-to-door soul winning when I was younger, all the verses that I referenced that weren't in the Romans Road were in John.
In the story of the rich young man, Jesus tells the young man (in 3 different gospels!) "Why do call me good? There is none good, but God." Implying, to the simple reader, that Jesus is saying that he isn't God. When I told my dad about this story not being in John, though, my dad *corrected* me and said that Jesus nowhere here claims to not be God, that he isn't telling the man to not call him good, and that he therefore is actually claiming to be God. I personally don't see how that fits into the story. If a man asks another guy why he's calling him good and then says that only God is good, the implication that he himself is God isn't the first thing you think of. And you typically wouldn't have any need to think of it, unless of course you already believe that Jesus is God and you have to somehow try to reconcile it with these three passages of the Bible which suggest that Jesus is in fact a mere human.
John is a very different kind of book from the other three gospels. I personally think it has a completely different agenda than the other gospels. And the interpretations people give to the three Synoptic Gospels to make them adhere to the rest of the New Testament are just as aggressive as the claims within these gospels about fulfilled prophecies from the Old Testament.
In the story of the rich young man, Jesus tells the young man (in 3 different gospels!) "Why do call me good? There is none good, but God." Implying, to the simple reader, that Jesus is saying that he isn't God. When I told my dad about this story not being in John, though, my dad *corrected* me and said that Jesus nowhere here claims to not be God, that he isn't telling the man to not call him good, and that he therefore is actually claiming to be God. I personally don't see how that fits into the story. If a man asks another guy why he's calling him good and then says that only God is good, the implication that he himself is God isn't the first thing you think of. And you typically wouldn't have any need to think of it, unless of course you already believe that Jesus is God and you have to somehow try to reconcile it with these three passages of the Bible which suggest that Jesus is in fact a mere human.
John is a very different kind of book from the other three gospels. I personally think it has a completely different agenda than the other gospels. And the interpretations people give to the three Synoptic Gospels to make them adhere to the rest of the New Testament are just as aggressive as the claims within these gospels about fulfilled prophecies from the Old Testament.
The Rich Young Ruler
There is a Christian story about a rich young man who came to Jesus and asked what he can do to get eternal life, and then went away very sad because the answer he got sounded too hard for him to do - to sell everything he had and give the proceeds to the poor. This story is told three times throughout the New Testament - Matthew 19:16-30, Mark 10:17-31, and Luke 18:18-30. Many Evangelical Protestants, including the fundamental Baptists among whom I was raised, interpret this story to accord with their almost antinomian Free Grace soteriology. "What Jesus means here," they say, "is that no one is or can ever be good enough to go to heaven by their own works. Jesus is actually saying that no one can or should even try do anything to get to heaven, besides asking God for salvation and trusting Him."
Granted, there are many parts of the Bible that are flat out ambigous, and that need to be given a nuanced interprettation. Besides those ambiguous passages, other parts of the Bible need to be given a meaning that isn't the obvious one, if they are to accord with other parts of the Bible (or with the overall agenda that's attributed to them). And I think the story of the Rich Young Ruler is an example of the latter one of these.
The standard Evangelical interpretation of this story simply doesn't work. Or at least, it doesn't work nearly as well as a salvation-through-works reading. When a man approaches the Son of God and asks what he can do to get eternal life, you'd think that - if the Son of God is all he's cracked up to be - the words that then come from Jesus' mouth would shed some light on how someone can get eternal life. And the words that Jesus says next are "You know the commandments - don't commit adultery, don't murder, don't steal, don't perjure, and honor your parents." The most obvious meaning here is that the answer to this man's question about what he should do to get eternal life is that he should keep the Ten Commandments. If Jesus had meant something other than that, then maybe he would have said something other than that.
When the man says that he already does keep the commandments, Jesus tells him that there's one thing that he lacks - he has to sell everything he has and give all the proceeds to the poor, and follow him. It doesn't look like Jesus is adding these on as things you have to do as well as keeping the commandments. It looks like he's saying that these things are part and parcel of keeping the commandments. In the context of an imperialist government where being rich implies being well connected to someone who makes their living aggressing against others, it's understandable that someone would associate wealthiness with theft. This condition isn't entirely absent from our own society, since many people today make their living through government largesse.
But even if we don't read "sell all you have and give to the poor" as part of the Ten Commandments, it very clearly looks like it is part of what Jesus describes as a means to salvation. I don't think this is mere hyperbole. True, Jesus does concede that with men this is impossible - but then he says "but with God all things are possible." What thing is he talking about that is impossible with men but possible with God? Maybe the tasks he just prescribed for a rich man to get eternal life - selling everything and giving all to the poor.
If Jesus were speaking merely in hyperbole, as the Evangelicals wish he were, then why pick on the rich people? Why does the rich man go to hell and poor Lazarus go to heaven? Why does Jesus say that it's harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle? If Jesus were merely talking about all of mankind's total depravity, then maybe he would have said "any man". But he refers specifically to *rich* men, and probably because he is specifically pointing out attachment to wealth as an impediment to salvation.
All Evangelicals (and Christians, for that matter) believe that God's intervention is a necessary ingredient to salvation. Jesus' paying the penalty for all of everyone's sins so that a free ride to heaven can be given to anyone who asks for it, is one predominant way for Evangelicals to view it. Another is that God handpicked everyone who He decided to fit into the category of "Not Going to Hell." This passage about the rich young man clearly does give God a role in salvation, but it's very different from the role given to Him by the above two views.
The most straightforward reading of this passage shows that God helps people get saved, but not by dying for them and giving them a free ride. There is a means to salvation, which is very clearly given as keeping the commandments, giving everything to the poor, and following Jesus. This means is recognized as being very hard, next to impossible, or flat-out impossible for humans to do; but it is also recognized as possible with God's help.
Those Evangelicals who give the Bible a fairer reading than what the Free Gracers do, believe in something called "Lordship Salvation". They believe that good works necessarily result from getting saved, and that anyone who is truly saved will start doing good works as a result of it. But this view doesn't accord with these passages about the rich young man, where Jesus describes works as a means to salvation, not as a mere result of it.
Though I was raised a Baptist, my beliefs have changed to the point that there is no practical use to even calling myself a Christian. So I can't describe anything I wrote here as being what I actually believe. I might believe this if I still were a Christian. If I were to take this reading of these passages seriously, I would have to downplay or radically reinterpret other passages of the Bible. And that's okay. I don't think every bit of a text is necessarily compatible with every other bit of it - especially of a piece as composite as the Christian Bible.
Granted, there are many parts of the Bible that are flat out ambigous, and that need to be given a nuanced interprettation. Besides those ambiguous passages, other parts of the Bible need to be given a meaning that isn't the obvious one, if they are to accord with other parts of the Bible (or with the overall agenda that's attributed to them). And I think the story of the Rich Young Ruler is an example of the latter one of these.
The standard Evangelical interpretation of this story simply doesn't work. Or at least, it doesn't work nearly as well as a salvation-through-works reading. When a man approaches the Son of God and asks what he can do to get eternal life, you'd think that - if the Son of God is all he's cracked up to be - the words that then come from Jesus' mouth would shed some light on how someone can get eternal life. And the words that Jesus says next are "You know the commandments - don't commit adultery, don't murder, don't steal, don't perjure, and honor your parents." The most obvious meaning here is that the answer to this man's question about what he should do to get eternal life is that he should keep the Ten Commandments. If Jesus had meant something other than that, then maybe he would have said something other than that.
When the man says that he already does keep the commandments, Jesus tells him that there's one thing that he lacks - he has to sell everything he has and give all the proceeds to the poor, and follow him. It doesn't look like Jesus is adding these on as things you have to do as well as keeping the commandments. It looks like he's saying that these things are part and parcel of keeping the commandments. In the context of an imperialist government where being rich implies being well connected to someone who makes their living aggressing against others, it's understandable that someone would associate wealthiness with theft. This condition isn't entirely absent from our own society, since many people today make their living through government largesse.
But even if we don't read "sell all you have and give to the poor" as part of the Ten Commandments, it very clearly looks like it is part of what Jesus describes as a means to salvation. I don't think this is mere hyperbole. True, Jesus does concede that with men this is impossible - but then he says "but with God all things are possible." What thing is he talking about that is impossible with men but possible with God? Maybe the tasks he just prescribed for a rich man to get eternal life - selling everything and giving all to the poor.
If Jesus were speaking merely in hyperbole, as the Evangelicals wish he were, then why pick on the rich people? Why does the rich man go to hell and poor Lazarus go to heaven? Why does Jesus say that it's harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle? If Jesus were merely talking about all of mankind's total depravity, then maybe he would have said "any man". But he refers specifically to *rich* men, and probably because he is specifically pointing out attachment to wealth as an impediment to salvation.
All Evangelicals (and Christians, for that matter) believe that God's intervention is a necessary ingredient to salvation. Jesus' paying the penalty for all of everyone's sins so that a free ride to heaven can be given to anyone who asks for it, is one predominant way for Evangelicals to view it. Another is that God handpicked everyone who He decided to fit into the category of "Not Going to Hell." This passage about the rich young man clearly does give God a role in salvation, but it's very different from the role given to Him by the above two views.
The most straightforward reading of this passage shows that God helps people get saved, but not by dying for them and giving them a free ride. There is a means to salvation, which is very clearly given as keeping the commandments, giving everything to the poor, and following Jesus. This means is recognized as being very hard, next to impossible, or flat-out impossible for humans to do; but it is also recognized as possible with God's help.
Those Evangelicals who give the Bible a fairer reading than what the Free Gracers do, believe in something called "Lordship Salvation". They believe that good works necessarily result from getting saved, and that anyone who is truly saved will start doing good works as a result of it. But this view doesn't accord with these passages about the rich young man, where Jesus describes works as a means to salvation, not as a mere result of it.
Though I was raised a Baptist, my beliefs have changed to the point that there is no practical use to even calling myself a Christian. So I can't describe anything I wrote here as being what I actually believe. I might believe this if I still were a Christian. If I were to take this reading of these passages seriously, I would have to downplay or radically reinterpret other passages of the Bible. And that's okay. I don't think every bit of a text is necessarily compatible with every other bit of it - especially of a piece as composite as the Christian Bible.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Sex, Drugs, and Thickness
I might write more on this eventually, but for now let it be known that I think Libertarian Thickness can be interpretted differently in different ways. Everyone who takes Thickness seriously understands that there are more dimensions to authority, coercion, and power than the mere use or threat of physical force, and that a genuine commitment to anti-authoritarianism and individual freedom requires a broader commitment to levelling out certain social hierarchies and defending the individual's control over oneself against undue social pressures and other non-political threats to autonomy. But the answer to whether this or that counts as a non-political threat to autonomy depends on who you're asking. Here are a few examples.
Sex: Does Thick Libertarianism demand we do away with gender roles? Does it look down on sexual objectification? Or does it demand an acceptance of and appreciation for a vast diversity of sexual expressions? Does it allow for personal sexual preferences, or does it demand that we each be equally attracted to every phenotype?
For a vain little indication of what I think on it, let me share this quote with you: "i objectify men, that’s what i do. if you have a problem with that then start your own blog."
Drugs: Some people believe that a broader commitment to control over oneself implies shunning psychoactive drugs. If I remember right, Ayn Rand did. Penn does too. And so does the Church of Satan. Then there's this guy, who calls himself the Last Libertarian, who writes: "The first Randians I ran into decided I wasn't good material for their cause on account of my habit of winding up dead drunk in the gutter in strange towns on weekends."
Advocating a culture of control over oneself can mean either that recreational drug use should be socially demonized, or that recreational drug use should be celebrated. I used to do the latter, but now these days stupefication bores me almost as much as sobriety does. And there's my best friend who called me at 2 this afternoon to tell me that he's too hung over to ride his bike to work and to ask me to leave my work early and drive him to his work.
Maybe there is some kind of middle ground between drug-positive and drug-negative Thickness. Drugs may be celebrated, so long as their use is temperate. And I don't think the celebration of their use needs to be universal. What should be universal, is the dogmatic condemnation of paternalistic force. (That might not be that different from Thinness.)
Religion: Is Thick Libertarianism strictly secularist, or does it demand that we have not just an understanding of but also an appreciation for a vast diversity of religious viewpoints?
Sex: Does Thick Libertarianism demand we do away with gender roles? Does it look down on sexual objectification? Or does it demand an acceptance of and appreciation for a vast diversity of sexual expressions? Does it allow for personal sexual preferences, or does it demand that we each be equally attracted to every phenotype?
For a vain little indication of what I think on it, let me share this quote with you: "i objectify men, that’s what i do. if you have a problem with that then start your own blog."
Drugs: Some people believe that a broader commitment to control over oneself implies shunning psychoactive drugs. If I remember right, Ayn Rand did. Penn does too. And so does the Church of Satan. Then there's this guy, who calls himself the Last Libertarian, who writes: "The first Randians I ran into decided I wasn't good material for their cause on account of my habit of winding up dead drunk in the gutter in strange towns on weekends."
Advocating a culture of control over oneself can mean either that recreational drug use should be socially demonized, or that recreational drug use should be celebrated. I used to do the latter, but now these days stupefication bores me almost as much as sobriety does. And there's my best friend who called me at 2 this afternoon to tell me that he's too hung over to ride his bike to work and to ask me to leave my work early and drive him to his work.
Maybe there is some kind of middle ground between drug-positive and drug-negative Thickness. Drugs may be celebrated, so long as their use is temperate. And I don't think the celebration of their use needs to be universal. What should be universal, is the dogmatic condemnation of paternalistic force. (That might not be that different from Thinness.)
Religion: Is Thick Libertarianism strictly secularist, or does it demand that we have not just an understanding of but also an appreciation for a vast diversity of religious viewpoints?
Thursday, June 10, 2010
A Quick Note on Asian Teen Porn
Some people might think of more downsides to Blogger than I do. Maybe because I'm easily satisfied. Right now I can only think of one downside that Blogger has, and that is that a user can't delete comments once they're made on his or her posts.
The upside is that users can moderate comments on their posts, and on April 22 of this year I started doing that. But that doesn't keep the publicity personnel of a certain Asian porn/erotica website (I don't know if it's more porn or erotica, cause I haven't explored it yet) from attempting to post links to this website on my blog. It makes me wonder whether they even check my blog after they try posting. Wouldn't they think that after several attempts of commenting and not seeing any of their link-laden comments posted that maybe they're wasting their time commenting on my blog?
Personal aesthetics aside, I have very little against Asian porn and teen porn. I just don't think my blog is an appropriate place to advertise sexually arousing material. I talk about sexual ethics quite a bit on this blog, but I'm not going to post links to my favorite sex-themed tumblrs or to my favorite amature and solo girl websites.
So dear Asian teen porn advertising administrators, whoever and whoevermany you are (I know you're using multiple Blogger names), please don't consume your time copying links into comment fields and clicking "Post Comment", because in an equally brief moment I can simple click "Reject this comment".
This doesn't mean, of course, that you're not welcome to read and comment on my blog. Go ahead, post all the comments you want to, especially the intelligent ones. Just know that the ones that contain links to a pornographic website aren't going to be approved.
The upside is that users can moderate comments on their posts, and on April 22 of this year I started doing that. But that doesn't keep the publicity personnel of a certain Asian porn/erotica website (I don't know if it's more porn or erotica, cause I haven't explored it yet) from attempting to post links to this website on my blog. It makes me wonder whether they even check my blog after they try posting. Wouldn't they think that after several attempts of commenting and not seeing any of their link-laden comments posted that maybe they're wasting their time commenting on my blog?
Personal aesthetics aside, I have very little against Asian porn and teen porn. I just don't think my blog is an appropriate place to advertise sexually arousing material. I talk about sexual ethics quite a bit on this blog, but I'm not going to post links to my favorite sex-themed tumblrs or to my favorite amature and solo girl websites.
So dear Asian teen porn advertising administrators, whoever and whoevermany you are (I know you're using multiple Blogger names), please don't consume your time copying links into comment fields and clicking "Post Comment", because in an equally brief moment I can simple click "Reject this comment".
This doesn't mean, of course, that you're not welcome to read and comment on my blog. Go ahead, post all the comments you want to, especially the intelligent ones. Just know that the ones that contain links to a pornographic website aren't going to be approved.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
More on the Ebionites
In a recent post of mine I wondered whether the Ebionites disappeared. Didn't have to worry about that, though, since after a good while of clicking around I was able to find some of the users I was looking for, and also find other users who would fit the description of an Ebionite. I have not found anyone who openly identifies as Ebionite. What I had to do to find people to classify as Ebionite was look for people who identify themselves as followers of YHWH and Yeshua AND who condemn Paul.
The impression that I get from this loose group I have overviewed is that contemporary non-trinitarian Judaic Christianity (they don't call themselves Christian, but I have to use that word anyway) is basically foaming-at-the-mouth evangelical fundamentalism minus Paul's epistles. Whether these users should be classified in the same group as the operators of this website, who openly do identify as Ebionite, can be a matter of debate. Ebionite.org doesn't place a whole lot of emphasis on the end times, while these users do. Maybe the owners of ebionite.org do believe in the end times, and share beliefs about the New World Order and what not, but just decline to advertise it on the website. I should note that the "original" Ebionites probably did have apocalyptic beliefs.
If I were to classify these users' political beliefs, I would call them paleoconservatives of the Alex Jones variety (though I actually don't know where these users stand on Zionism, which paleoconservatives typically virulently oppose). This isn't because they themselves identify as paleoconservatives; I just notice that there's a whole lot of overlap between them and paleoconservatives, especially beliefs about all the world's major political institutions being dominated by a very small group of economic elites, beliefs about apocalyptic political and economic turbulence occuring in the very near future, efforts to prepare for such turbulence, conspiracy theories, and hidden knowledge.
The following is a short list of Youtube users who I would call Ebionite or Ebionite-isch. This isn't all of them; there are definitely more. Maybe many more. And there might be many Ebionites who are quite differnt from these users.
http://www.youtube.com/user/LiveForGodsKingdom Ebionite End-Timer, survivalist, and bi-polar patient who stopped taking his meds during his conversion.
http://www.youtube.com/user/kalamata777
http://www.youtube.com/user/WitnessOfYHWH
http://www.youtube.com/user/wayisnarrow Also an End-Timer.
http://www.youtube.com/user/HisWordsAreTruth
http://www.youtube.com/user/YoelBenYsryael Also anti-NWO
http://www.youtube.com/user/bendixen12 Ebionite worship music
http://www.youtube.com/user/fyrstikken I have no idea if this is an actual Ebionite, but he/she does deny Paul.
Also of interest:
http://www.youtube.com/user/yshuaknesset http://www.congregationisrael.net/ Like the Nation of Islam, but Ebionite-isch
The impression that I get from this loose group I have overviewed is that contemporary non-trinitarian Judaic Christianity (they don't call themselves Christian, but I have to use that word anyway) is basically foaming-at-the-mouth evangelical fundamentalism minus Paul's epistles. Whether these users should be classified in the same group as the operators of this website, who openly do identify as Ebionite, can be a matter of debate. Ebionite.org doesn't place a whole lot of emphasis on the end times, while these users do. Maybe the owners of ebionite.org do believe in the end times, and share beliefs about the New World Order and what not, but just decline to advertise it on the website. I should note that the "original" Ebionites probably did have apocalyptic beliefs.
If I were to classify these users' political beliefs, I would call them paleoconservatives of the Alex Jones variety (though I actually don't know where these users stand on Zionism, which paleoconservatives typically virulently oppose). This isn't because they themselves identify as paleoconservatives; I just notice that there's a whole lot of overlap between them and paleoconservatives, especially beliefs about all the world's major political institutions being dominated by a very small group of economic elites, beliefs about apocalyptic political and economic turbulence occuring in the very near future, efforts to prepare for such turbulence, conspiracy theories, and hidden knowledge.
The following is a short list of Youtube users who I would call Ebionite or Ebionite-isch. This isn't all of them; there are definitely more. Maybe many more. And there might be many Ebionites who are quite differnt from these users.
http://www.youtube.com/user/LiveForGodsKingdom Ebionite End-Timer, survivalist, and bi-polar patient who stopped taking his meds during his conversion.
http://www.youtube.com/user/kalamata777
http://www.youtube.com/user/WitnessOfYHWH
http://www.youtube.com/user/wayisnarrow Also an End-Timer.
http://www.youtube.com/user/HisWordsAreTruth
http://www.youtube.com/user/YoelBenYsryael Also anti-NWO
http://www.youtube.com/user/bendixen12 Ebionite worship music
http://www.youtube.com/user/fyrstikken I have no idea if this is an actual Ebionite, but he/she does deny Paul.
Also of interest:
http://www.youtube.com/user/yshuaknesset http://www.congregationisrael.net/ Like the Nation of Islam, but Ebionite-isch
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Gun Control; Or, One of the Issues where I'm not a Consequentialist
Recent incidents in Cumbria show that very strict UK-style gun control can not reduce the number of shooting sprees to zero. One of the typical American conservative responses is that this is an example of criminals getting guns anyway. I do think this response might overlook something. The UK has a very low rate of gun-related deaths. In England and Wales in 2002, this rate was 0.38 gun deaths per 100,000 of the population per year. In the U.S. in 2004 this rate was 11.66. (That figure does include suicides and accidents as well as homicides.) The UK laws might not have prevented this latest shooting spree, but if we compare the rates of gun fatalities there does seem to be room for the idea that the UK's gun laws may have prevented a whole lot of other deaths.
There's also the standard conservative line that if you ban guns, murderers are going to use knives, or some other object. And this might be why the UK also strictly regulates the possession of knives. If we look at the rates of homicides in general, regardless of killing tool, we'll find that the UK still has many fewer killings than the U.S. In 2006, the number of homicides per 100,000 per year was 1.61 in England and 4.55 in the U.S. Maybe gun laws aren't the whole picture. Maybe there's a broader cultural issue. The UK might just be a much more peaceful country that the U.S., despite its notably higher rate of alcohol consumption (in 2003 the UK had a higher alcohol consumption rate than Russia). When we include other violent crimes, though, the UK looks a little more violent than the U.S.
The UK does have a reputation of being a Nanny State. It is possible that its multi-layered web of protections makes it virtually impossible for the regular guy to cause a violent death. Maybe this is a desireable and commendable feature of their society. After all, the right to live is the most precious right. If a legal system should make a mistake, it should - as the lawyer for Terry Schiavo's parents puts it - make the mistake on the side of life.
Every political issue can be approached in at least one of two ways - through consideration of strict moral duties that must be respected no matter what, and through consideration of the most desireable consequences. A lot of people use both these methods at the same time. Sometimes I use both at the same time. Some libertarians like to believe that both of them can always be used at the same time, should always be used at the same time, and are inseparable.
When it comes to gun control, libertarians bring up two things: first, they say that the mere possession of a particular object is not in and of itself a violation of anyone's rights, and so banning it is a violation of personal freedom (the moral argument), and secondly, they try to scrape together some stuff about unarmed civilians being made prey to abusive police, invading armies, and common criminals (the consequentialist argument).
As far as abusive police and common criminals are concerned, an honest consequentialist approach would give a whole lot of weight to the pro-gun control side and very little weight to the gun freedom side. Yes, gun bans disarm the law-abiding civilians; but here in the U.S., and even in California, gun ownership is still legal. And despite that legality, very few of us know how to use a gun, much less own one. Heck, there's a gun store and shooting range right here in my home town in the San Francisco Bay Area. Any time I want to I could go start practicing, and I haven't been in a shooting range since the first time I went to one, in August 2008.
Even though guns are legal here, we really don't have a gun culture. If a guy pulled a gun on someone, almost no one would take advantage of their 2nd Amendment right. And even if you had your gun with you, once someone else pulls their gun on you it's too late for you to pull out yours. So even though there are instances of people successfully using weapons to deter crime, I think bye and large the vast majority of crimes that involve guns would have been committed anyway.
Civilian ownership of guns won't deal with abusive police, either. Have you ever tried shooting a cop and getting away with it? I dare you to.
So of the consequentialist arguments that might help the libertarian/conservative side, the only one left is foreign invasions. And that doesn't seem especially strong. The best way to defend yourself and your family when your country gets invaded is to leave the country. Hopefully whatever country you flee to would allow you to cross their border without a visa.
Despite all this, I still do believe in the right to keep and bear lethal weapons. I think that the moral argument about personal freedom still stands, despite the derth of strong consequentialist reasons. I cannot violate any one else's rights merely by keeping and carrying around a piece of metal with me. Whether I violate someone's rights with it depends on how I use it.
It seems that libertarians, especially the cosmopolitan and erudite types, constantly reach for statistics out of an effort to not look bull-headed. I don't think this always works. There's always going to be some issue, somewhere, where an honest and "open-minded" look at the numbers gives weight to the wrong side. Maybe you can go get more numbers and try to show that the states in the U.S. with the highest gun homicide rates are the ones with the strictest gun laws, or show that the rate of gun deaths in the UK was already very low before the complete gun ban went into effect. And your opponents are going to go get more numbers and try to counter that. But at the end of the day, what it all boils down to is that those of you on my side are fervently pre-convinced that any act or object that does not itself intrude into or trample upon another's life should be legally permitted. I hurt no one by carrying a gun, so I have the right to carry a gun. Case closed.
There's also the standard conservative line that if you ban guns, murderers are going to use knives, or some other object. And this might be why the UK also strictly regulates the possession of knives. If we look at the rates of homicides in general, regardless of killing tool, we'll find that the UK still has many fewer killings than the U.S. In 2006, the number of homicides per 100,000 per year was 1.61 in England and 4.55 in the U.S. Maybe gun laws aren't the whole picture. Maybe there's a broader cultural issue. The UK might just be a much more peaceful country that the U.S., despite its notably higher rate of alcohol consumption (in 2003 the UK had a higher alcohol consumption rate than Russia). When we include other violent crimes, though, the UK looks a little more violent than the U.S.
The UK does have a reputation of being a Nanny State. It is possible that its multi-layered web of protections makes it virtually impossible for the regular guy to cause a violent death. Maybe this is a desireable and commendable feature of their society. After all, the right to live is the most precious right. If a legal system should make a mistake, it should - as the lawyer for Terry Schiavo's parents puts it - make the mistake on the side of life.
Every political issue can be approached in at least one of two ways - through consideration of strict moral duties that must be respected no matter what, and through consideration of the most desireable consequences. A lot of people use both these methods at the same time. Sometimes I use both at the same time. Some libertarians like to believe that both of them can always be used at the same time, should always be used at the same time, and are inseparable.
When it comes to gun control, libertarians bring up two things: first, they say that the mere possession of a particular object is not in and of itself a violation of anyone's rights, and so banning it is a violation of personal freedom (the moral argument), and secondly, they try to scrape together some stuff about unarmed civilians being made prey to abusive police, invading armies, and common criminals (the consequentialist argument).
As far as abusive police and common criminals are concerned, an honest consequentialist approach would give a whole lot of weight to the pro-gun control side and very little weight to the gun freedom side. Yes, gun bans disarm the law-abiding civilians; but here in the U.S., and even in California, gun ownership is still legal. And despite that legality, very few of us know how to use a gun, much less own one. Heck, there's a gun store and shooting range right here in my home town in the San Francisco Bay Area. Any time I want to I could go start practicing, and I haven't been in a shooting range since the first time I went to one, in August 2008.
Even though guns are legal here, we really don't have a gun culture. If a guy pulled a gun on someone, almost no one would take advantage of their 2nd Amendment right. And even if you had your gun with you, once someone else pulls their gun on you it's too late for you to pull out yours. So even though there are instances of people successfully using weapons to deter crime, I think bye and large the vast majority of crimes that involve guns would have been committed anyway.
Civilian ownership of guns won't deal with abusive police, either. Have you ever tried shooting a cop and getting away with it? I dare you to.
So of the consequentialist arguments that might help the libertarian/conservative side, the only one left is foreign invasions. And that doesn't seem especially strong. The best way to defend yourself and your family when your country gets invaded is to leave the country. Hopefully whatever country you flee to would allow you to cross their border without a visa.
Despite all this, I still do believe in the right to keep and bear lethal weapons. I think that the moral argument about personal freedom still stands, despite the derth of strong consequentialist reasons. I cannot violate any one else's rights merely by keeping and carrying around a piece of metal with me. Whether I violate someone's rights with it depends on how I use it.
It seems that libertarians, especially the cosmopolitan and erudite types, constantly reach for statistics out of an effort to not look bull-headed. I don't think this always works. There's always going to be some issue, somewhere, where an honest and "open-minded" look at the numbers gives weight to the wrong side. Maybe you can go get more numbers and try to show that the states in the U.S. with the highest gun homicide rates are the ones with the strictest gun laws, or show that the rate of gun deaths in the UK was already very low before the complete gun ban went into effect. And your opponents are going to go get more numbers and try to counter that. But at the end of the day, what it all boils down to is that those of you on my side are fervently pre-convinced that any act or object that does not itself intrude into or trample upon another's life should be legally permitted. I hurt no one by carrying a gun, so I have the right to carry a gun. Case closed.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Religions You Should Learn About
Granted, this isn't a list of all the religions I find interesting, or that I think contain ideas which can contribute to positive (atheologizing) dialogue. Hinduism and Buddhism are both rich and colorful, but they're old news. In this post I want to draw attention to those minor religions that stand out to me for their doctrinal, ritual, and/or lifestyle expressions of something that approaches the sacredness of the individual. The last entry in this post is a religion which is neither minor nor especially individualistic, but which I think everyone should familiarize themselves with nonetheless.
Jainism: The main tenet of this ancient Indian religion is ahimsa - popularly translated as nonviolence, but which I think might be better interpretted as a kind of nonaggression when the term applies to the duties of the laity. (I should note that though the NAP is often taken as deontological, Jain ethics are somewhat egoist in that they assume a causal link between harming others and harming oneself, and derive the duty to not harm others from the self-interest of improving one's next-life prospects.) All Jains are vegetarian. Some (maybe most) even abstain from root vegetables, like potatoes, onions, and carrots, out of consideration for the subterranean beings that could be hurt in the process of uprooting, and also because the plant itself would necessarily be killed, and many Jains believe that the plant itself should not be killed if human survival doesn't depend on its death. (Other reasons to abstain from onions might include the traditional Hindu ascetic abstinence from spicy food and other indulgences which can lead a soul down the road of untamed passions.) There are two main denominations of Jainism, which are based around different orders of monks and nuns. Shvetambara monks and nuns wear white, and sometimes wear a white cloth over their mouths to avoid accidentally breathing in and killing a flie. Digambara monks, the clergy of the other denomination, take the vow of nonpossession so seriously that they go about "sky-clad". Out of consideration to conventional propriety, they do not admit females. And so, they believe that women cannot attain moksha in their current life.
Though Jainism can be called nontheistic, it is not an atheist religion. Jains do believe in gods - they just believe that the gods also die and are reborn (and, needless to say, they believe in the immortality of the soul). At the center of the Jain pantheon sit 24 Tirthankaras - people who are alleged by Jain tradition to have conquered the cicle of death and rebirth and have contributed to human understanding of how that cicle can be overcome.
Taoism: Another nontheistic (though not atheist) religion which bases a certain "correct" way of acting on a certain understanding of how the world naturally works.
Epicureanism: Though Epicureanism is taught as a school of Hellenistic philosophy, I think this school and other Hellenistic schools have attributes that mark them as all out religions. Epicurus and his followers had certain beliefs about the world, including beliefs about gods and the soul, and a certain ethical framework related to these beliefs and which implied a particular way of living. Epicureans are physicalists. They believe that what happens in the world are the results of natural processes and not the intervention of gods. Epicurus himself did believe that immortal gods exist, but he believed that as divine and perfect beings they did nothing but sit in bliss, and that they declined to bother themselves with human drama. If there is a polytheistic kind of Deism, it would look a bit like Epicureanism. Epicureans do believe in the soul, which in Greek is called psyche, but this is more like the psyche of psychology. The soul is an aspect or function of the living body; once the body dies, so does the soul. Epicureans believe that the highest good, or purpose in life, is pleasure - which they define as living without pain and anxiety. Contrary to the popular use of the word "epicurean", the lifestyle that Epicurus himself recommended was a bit ascetic. He advised against having sex too often, and his beverage of choice might have been water. Should say, though, that he did like his cheese.
Epicureanism is an egoist brand of hedonism, and is a forerunner of modern ethical egoism (what XOmniverse calls "rational ethics"). Moral obligations are those actions or inactions that contribute to one's personal happiness or avoid displeasure. People should be sober because when they are, they keep their better judgment and tend to think twice about decisions that might get in the way of their happiness. People should be kind to others because kindness is most conducive to relationships that help people meet their social and physical needs, and unkindness repels people and provokes retaliation, which is not conducive towards one's own happiness. One criticism I have of ethical egoism, which I speak more about here, is that when one's own happiness is the only basis of morality, there is no reason outside of cultural norm to not rape babies with pickets.
LaVeyan Satanism: Anton Szandor LaVey may have been the funnest thing that happened to religion in the past 2 millenia. People who don't know about this path of darkness should read LaVey's book. LaVey was a complete atheist, he did not believe that any fallen angel named Satan actually existed, he knew that magic was all smoke and mirrors, and yet he started a religion that gives center stage to the fictional character "Satan" and which involves "black magic". Satanism straddles the fence between egoism and a purer individualism. The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth include prohibitions against stealing, harming children, and killing non-human animals for reasons other than defense or food. These prohibitions imply an assertion of the other's entitlement to a certain standard of treatment or non-invasion, which would make it a more purified individualism; but then, these prohibitions could be based on mere self-interest combined with an awareness of social convention.
Liberal Quakerism: Since its formation in the the mid-17th century, the Religious Society of Friends traditionally has been a quite liberal religion. It took the priesthood of all believers to its logical extent and did without clergy. There is no plan to the church service, which they simply call a meeting: they just sit in silence, and whoever feels moved to say something stands and says it. Women were allowed to speak in meetings since the beginning. Early Quakers did not accept sola scriptura. George Fox, who founded the religion, believed that what was authoritative was the Holy Spirit that inspired men to write the Bible - not the Bible itself. Quakers were involved in many social justice issues, including abolition, women's suffrage, civil rights, and the obvious one, anti-war activism. But some Quakers classify as evangelicals, while other Quakers - including and especially the ones here in the SF Bay Area - are either accepting of atheists or are atheists themselves. One of the Quaker themes that atheist Quakers embrace is the Inner Light, which is often understood as every human's innate capacity to sense moral or spiritual truth. I've also seen it explained as that which makes every human innately valuable, though I don't think that captures all of what it is "supposed to" mean (and I think it conflates or welds together conscience and rights-possession; I do believe one can have the latter while not having the former, or while having a very simple one, or while not being very good at listening to it). Another Quaker theme that atheist Quakers embrace is concensus. From what I've seen with my own eyes, Quakers are very hard core about open and participatory democracy. I have been allowed to actively participate in business meetings at the local Friends' Meeting, even though I am not formally "convinced".
Unitarian Universalism: UUs don't have creeds. But if they were to, the doctrine at the top of their list would be the inherrent dignity and worth of every person (sometimes it's written "of every being"). Since UUism assumes this from the get-go, it can be thought of as a more purely individualist religion than Jainism, Epicureanism, and Satanism. However, the vast majority of UUs are politically "progressive", and so they are New Tories. That aside, UUs as individuals are strongly encouraged to conduct their own "free and responsible search for truth and meaning". There's a general impression that many UUs are atheists who can't let go of doing church. From what I've seen, loads of UUs are Wiccan - but maybe those are just the ones that stand out to me. The three interest-themed spiritual groups at First Unitarian in San Jose are the Covenant of Unitarian Universalist Pagans, Dances of Universal Peace, and the Labyrinth Guild. Quite a few UU churches have a chapter of the UU Christian Fellowship, but not the one in San Jose (at least they don't advertise it on their website). Once when I made a remark about Jainism to a man at First Unitarian in SJ, the man looked at me frankly and asked "Is that your path?" Of course it was a decent and appropriate question - but only in a UU church, or a Friends' Meeting. I encourage anyone who hasn't yet visited a UU church to do so. Do be forewarned, that it might be a bit out of your comfort level.
Islam(s): I'm putting this religion on this list, not because I think it's notable for anything, but because it's been in the news quite a bit and a whole lot of non-muslims think they're authorized to open their mouth and speak on the religion when they apparently aren't. One of the most respectful things you can do for people of a different religion is recognize that there is diversity in that religion. Making a sweeping remark about some supposedly monolithic entity called "Islam" can be like saying that Protestant priests are allowed to marry (which is only true for those denominations that have priests). So please, click around on the internet, and especially here, cause if you say something about Islam as if it's supposed to describe all Muslims and it doesn't, then you're going to look like you have a big mouth and really small ears.
Jainism: The main tenet of this ancient Indian religion is ahimsa - popularly translated as nonviolence, but which I think might be better interpretted as a kind of nonaggression when the term applies to the duties of the laity. (I should note that though the NAP is often taken as deontological, Jain ethics are somewhat egoist in that they assume a causal link between harming others and harming oneself, and derive the duty to not harm others from the self-interest of improving one's next-life prospects.) All Jains are vegetarian. Some (maybe most) even abstain from root vegetables, like potatoes, onions, and carrots, out of consideration for the subterranean beings that could be hurt in the process of uprooting, and also because the plant itself would necessarily be killed, and many Jains believe that the plant itself should not be killed if human survival doesn't depend on its death. (Other reasons to abstain from onions might include the traditional Hindu ascetic abstinence from spicy food and other indulgences which can lead a soul down the road of untamed passions.) There are two main denominations of Jainism, which are based around different orders of monks and nuns. Shvetambara monks and nuns wear white, and sometimes wear a white cloth over their mouths to avoid accidentally breathing in and killing a flie. Digambara monks, the clergy of the other denomination, take the vow of nonpossession so seriously that they go about "sky-clad". Out of consideration to conventional propriety, they do not admit females. And so, they believe that women cannot attain moksha in their current life.
Though Jainism can be called nontheistic, it is not an atheist religion. Jains do believe in gods - they just believe that the gods also die and are reborn (and, needless to say, they believe in the immortality of the soul). At the center of the Jain pantheon sit 24 Tirthankaras - people who are alleged by Jain tradition to have conquered the cicle of death and rebirth and have contributed to human understanding of how that cicle can be overcome.
Taoism: Another nontheistic (though not atheist) religion which bases a certain "correct" way of acting on a certain understanding of how the world naturally works.
Epicureanism: Though Epicureanism is taught as a school of Hellenistic philosophy, I think this school and other Hellenistic schools have attributes that mark them as all out religions. Epicurus and his followers had certain beliefs about the world, including beliefs about gods and the soul, and a certain ethical framework related to these beliefs and which implied a particular way of living. Epicureans are physicalists. They believe that what happens in the world are the results of natural processes and not the intervention of gods. Epicurus himself did believe that immortal gods exist, but he believed that as divine and perfect beings they did nothing but sit in bliss, and that they declined to bother themselves with human drama. If there is a polytheistic kind of Deism, it would look a bit like Epicureanism. Epicureans do believe in the soul, which in Greek is called psyche, but this is more like the psyche of psychology. The soul is an aspect or function of the living body; once the body dies, so does the soul. Epicureans believe that the highest good, or purpose in life, is pleasure - which they define as living without pain and anxiety. Contrary to the popular use of the word "epicurean", the lifestyle that Epicurus himself recommended was a bit ascetic. He advised against having sex too often, and his beverage of choice might have been water. Should say, though, that he did like his cheese.
Epicureanism is an egoist brand of hedonism, and is a forerunner of modern ethical egoism (what XOmniverse calls "rational ethics"). Moral obligations are those actions or inactions that contribute to one's personal happiness or avoid displeasure. People should be sober because when they are, they keep their better judgment and tend to think twice about decisions that might get in the way of their happiness. People should be kind to others because kindness is most conducive to relationships that help people meet their social and physical needs, and unkindness repels people and provokes retaliation, which is not conducive towards one's own happiness. One criticism I have of ethical egoism, which I speak more about here, is that when one's own happiness is the only basis of morality, there is no reason outside of cultural norm to not rape babies with pickets.
LaVeyan Satanism: Anton Szandor LaVey may have been the funnest thing that happened to religion in the past 2 millenia. People who don't know about this path of darkness should read LaVey's book. LaVey was a complete atheist, he did not believe that any fallen angel named Satan actually existed, he knew that magic was all smoke and mirrors, and yet he started a religion that gives center stage to the fictional character "Satan" and which involves "black magic". Satanism straddles the fence between egoism and a purer individualism. The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth include prohibitions against stealing, harming children, and killing non-human animals for reasons other than defense or food. These prohibitions imply an assertion of the other's entitlement to a certain standard of treatment or non-invasion, which would make it a more purified individualism; but then, these prohibitions could be based on mere self-interest combined with an awareness of social convention.
Liberal Quakerism: Since its formation in the the mid-17th century, the Religious Society of Friends traditionally has been a quite liberal religion. It took the priesthood of all believers to its logical extent and did without clergy. There is no plan to the church service, which they simply call a meeting: they just sit in silence, and whoever feels moved to say something stands and says it. Women were allowed to speak in meetings since the beginning. Early Quakers did not accept sola scriptura. George Fox, who founded the religion, believed that what was authoritative was the Holy Spirit that inspired men to write the Bible - not the Bible itself. Quakers were involved in many social justice issues, including abolition, women's suffrage, civil rights, and the obvious one, anti-war activism. But some Quakers classify as evangelicals, while other Quakers - including and especially the ones here in the SF Bay Area - are either accepting of atheists or are atheists themselves. One of the Quaker themes that atheist Quakers embrace is the Inner Light, which is often understood as every human's innate capacity to sense moral or spiritual truth. I've also seen it explained as that which makes every human innately valuable, though I don't think that captures all of what it is "supposed to" mean (and I think it conflates or welds together conscience and rights-possession; I do believe one can have the latter while not having the former, or while having a very simple one, or while not being very good at listening to it). Another Quaker theme that atheist Quakers embrace is concensus. From what I've seen with my own eyes, Quakers are very hard core about open and participatory democracy. I have been allowed to actively participate in business meetings at the local Friends' Meeting, even though I am not formally "convinced".
Unitarian Universalism: UUs don't have creeds. But if they were to, the doctrine at the top of their list would be the inherrent dignity and worth of every person (sometimes it's written "of every being"). Since UUism assumes this from the get-go, it can be thought of as a more purely individualist religion than Jainism, Epicureanism, and Satanism. However, the vast majority of UUs are politically "progressive", and so they are New Tories. That aside, UUs as individuals are strongly encouraged to conduct their own "free and responsible search for truth and meaning". There's a general impression that many UUs are atheists who can't let go of doing church. From what I've seen, loads of UUs are Wiccan - but maybe those are just the ones that stand out to me. The three interest-themed spiritual groups at First Unitarian in San Jose are the Covenant of Unitarian Universalist Pagans, Dances of Universal Peace, and the Labyrinth Guild. Quite a few UU churches have a chapter of the UU Christian Fellowship, but not the one in San Jose (at least they don't advertise it on their website). Once when I made a remark about Jainism to a man at First Unitarian in SJ, the man looked at me frankly and asked "Is that your path?" Of course it was a decent and appropriate question - but only in a UU church, or a Friends' Meeting. I encourage anyone who hasn't yet visited a UU church to do so. Do be forewarned, that it might be a bit out of your comfort level.
Islam(s): I'm putting this religion on this list, not because I think it's notable for anything, but because it's been in the news quite a bit and a whole lot of non-muslims think they're authorized to open their mouth and speak on the religion when they apparently aren't. One of the most respectful things you can do for people of a different religion is recognize that there is diversity in that religion. Making a sweeping remark about some supposedly monolithic entity called "Islam" can be like saying that Protestant priests are allowed to marry (which is only true for those denominations that have priests). So please, click around on the internet, and especially here, cause if you say something about Islam as if it's supposed to describe all Muslims and it doesn't, then you're going to look like you have a big mouth and really small ears.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- Isaiah
- I am a part-time philosopher and a former immigration paralegal with a BA in philosophy and a paralegal certificate from UC San Diego.