tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post7065210253645631866..comments2024-02-11T19:28:27.997+11:00Comments on Personal Reflections: Australian confusions over religious and other freedomsJim Belshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-68806637164680077502018-10-21T17:43:05.352+11:002018-10-21T17:43:05.352+11:00tanners: "It's not a left/right thing, so...tanners: "It's not a left/right thing, so much as an extremes/centre thing"<br /><br />Major: (goes on quite a bit, but worth the quote...)<br /><br /><i>I understand the motives of those who voted to leave the European Union: it can – as I well know – be very frustrating. Nonetheless, after weighing its frustrations and opportunities, there is no doubt in my own mind that our decision is a colossal misjudgment that will diminish both the UK and the EU. It will damage our national and personal wealth, and may seriously hamper our future security. It may even, over time, break up our United Kingdom. It will most definitely limit the prospects of our young.</i><br /><br />How anyone could suggest, never mind believe, that Major's comments were couched in reasonable, conciliatory, terms is beyond me? <br /><br />"colossal misjudgment" "diminish" "damage" "hamper security" "break up the UK"<br /><br />Jim: "The only conclusion that I came to is that its up to those who believe in civility, who are opposed to prejudice, to defend it"<br /><br />Another writer who I've followed for over 10 years (i.e. nearly as long as I've enjoyed Jim's thoughts) has a "blog tag" for 'civility bullshit'.<br /><br />Please forgive the language, but to get to the point: calls for 'civility' in debate are always and only ever made by those without an adequate rebuttal argument - whatever the subject - and are thus basically bullshit.<br /><br />This past decade, I'm very much inclined to agree - and John Major is Exhibit A.<br /><br />kvd<br /> <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-51797738554015655752018-10-19T19:57:41.738+11:002018-10-19T19:57:41.738+11:00I was trying to challenge my own thinking on this ...I was trying to challenge my own thinking on this one. The only conclusion that I came to is that its up to those who believe in civility, who are opposed to prejudice, to defend it. Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-80371162311687085272018-10-19T13:52:55.043+11:002018-10-19T13:52:55.043+11:00Thanks 2 tanners. John Major’s article is well wor...Thanks 2 tanners. John Major’s article is well worth reading. Winton Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-51622473122740736482018-10-19T09:39:14.533+11:002018-10-19T09:39:14.533+11:00JoHn Major (i.e. the former British PM) has just w...JoHn Major (i.e. the former British PM) has just written a column for the Guardian about Brexit, but making many of these points, particularly that as ideologues splinter the major parties, political compromise becomes difficult/impossible. Also that the shrill voices of the extreme mustn't be allowed to drown out the voices of the moderate centre. Worth a read, at least if the Brexit imbroglio appeals to you as a metaphor for things going on in other countries including our own.<br /><br />It's not a left/right thing, so much as an extremes/centre thing.<br /><br />Article can be found here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/16/false-promises-brexit-john-major2 tannersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-36722072388720974982018-10-15T17:25:49.454+11:002018-10-15T17:25:49.454+11:00I think we are on the same page, Jim.
I think we are on the same page, Jim.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Winton Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-76365872604771052192018-10-15T12:03:18.066+11:002018-10-15T12:03:18.066+11:00Thank you for your comment on natural rights, Wint...Thank you for your comment on natural rights, Winton. That's what I remembered.<br /><br />One of the central themes in the political tradition I come from is the tyranny of the majority. What do you do when your group is always disadvantaged, or perceived to be disadvantaged, because it is a minority? Entities such as Australia or NSW are legal and social constructs. What do you do or say when someone rejects those constructs because they disadvantage, who say that just because those constructs exist we will not accept the benefit to the "broader society" because we will always lose? Why should we comply?<br /><br />Identity politics is a real problem because it undermines cooperation by placing a single good in advance of everything else. To my mind, and this is just a logical statement, there is no logical difference between a Muslim and feminist fundamentalist, between a Green fanatic and a member of the Christian right. They all assert that a single or small group of goods must be paramount. Once you make that assertion, you come back to the weighting to be placed on one or a small group of values that must be asserted regardless of everything else.<br /><br />Politics is always set in an institutional frame, it is concerned with making things work in that frame. Once you get absolutes then the compromises necessary to make things work ceases to be possible. Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-56539330534868870632018-10-15T00:27:37.440+11:002018-10-15T00:27:37.440+11:00Jim, thanks for the reference to Helen Dales’s art...Jim, thanks for the reference to Helen Dales’s article. <br /><br />I used to think of rent seeking and interest group politics as being about people with common economic interests lobbying government. Now we have identity politics splintering all the major parties - not just Labor. It looks to me as though liberal democracy is imploding. Instead of asking which party has the best policies for the society as a whole, or for broad economic interest groups, voters now tend to ask which party will pander to their particular claim to victimhood. <br /><br />Regarding natural rights, it seems to me that the classical liberal tradition was strongly influenced by John Locke, who recognised the natural right of persons to life, liberty and property. Adam Smith’s doctrine of natural liberty seems to be closely linked. <br /><br /><br />Winton Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-31897872791836933482018-10-14T21:44:30.061+11:002018-10-14T21:44:30.061+11:00Not quite connected but linked, Winton. Have you s...Not quite connected but linked, Winton. Have you see this piece by Helen Dale? https://quillette.com/2018/09/06/the-system-of-diversity/<br /><br />Natural rights have a long history. It is not absolutely clear to me that this is incompatible with classical liberalism although I stand to be corrected. I don't think any of our social conservatives are classical liberals either!<br /><br /> Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-21907830587949641912018-10-14T19:34:03.437+11:002018-10-14T19:34:03.437+11:00I’m becoming tired of social conservatives who try...I’m becoming tired of social conservatives who try to pretend that they are classical liberals. Winton Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-5766168888388997042018-10-14T19:30:46.421+11:002018-10-14T19:30:46.421+11:00Jim
You write: The right often rejects the concep...Jim <br />You write: The right often rejects the concept of “rights” as such.<br />It is good to see recognition that natural rights advocates are not of the right. Classical liberals reject the statism and stasim of both the left and right.Winton Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-18058571492047146752018-10-14T15:38:30.833+11:002018-10-14T15:38:30.833+11:00Haven't read that book, Evan. I have been read...Haven't read that book, Evan. I have been reading Dennis Lloyd's idea of law. I wonder if left and right don't have an equal problem with human rights language. The left places emphasis on individual human rights but only those they agree with and then wish to impose those on the collective. The right who often reject the concept of "rights" as such place emphasis on individual freedoms but only those they agree with and then wish to impose on others. There is a lack of clarity, an authoritarian streak, on both sides.<br /><br />I have found Lloyd interesting because in attempting to clarify the underpinning of law he was forced to address hierarchies of values and beliefs. Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-44814830951694194252018-10-14T10:07:31.710+11:002018-10-14T10:07:31.710+11:00I think you are right about it being an immediate ...I think you are right about it being an immediate solution and long-term problem.<br /><br />The difference I think is that the attention on this won't just go away. It will always be a hot-button issue for some.<br /><br />It would have been a real contribution I think if the religious right could have come up with another way of speaking political language than the human rights language - it is distinctly individualist and so has problems with 'the rights of collectives' - 'cultural rights'. Alasdiar MacIntyre (sp.?) tried with his "Dependent, Rational Animals". Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13355215688351759230noreply@blogger.com