tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post113985404392345785..comments2024-03-26T12:23:29.784-04:00Comments on Philosoraptor: Winston Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1140576470990521652006-02-21T21:47:00.000-05:002006-02-21T21:47:00.000-05:00I should clarify that the most powerful check on a...I should clarify that the most powerful check on a majority tyrannizing a minority is the republican form of government, as opposed to pure democracy. This, along with the above-mentioned centralized government answerable to many disparate parties works to frustrate the efforts of majority factions working together to oppress the minority. The smaller the unit of government, however, from the Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1140547587594692952006-02-21T13:46:00.000-05:002006-02-21T13:46:00.000-05:00"But when mores are decided by a holy book-like in..."But when mores are decided by a holy book-like interpretation of the Constitution by a minority which rides roughshod over the mores of the majority, yes, problems arise."<BR/><BR/>Exhibit A: Antonin Scalia.<BR/><BR/>And the greatest protection against either a minority or majority riding roughshod over the other is the existence of a strong central government, dependent upon the approval of asAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1140545745915580502006-02-21T13:15:00.000-05:002006-02-21T13:15:00.000-05:00"A sneaky conflation of Falwell and bin Laden, to ..."A sneaky conflation of Falwell and bin Laden, to which I object. Christian fundamentalism co-existed quite peaceably with the Founders' government for over 100 years, including the era of William Jennings Bryan's Christian populism."<BR/><BR/>You're ignoring the history of the American political system. Compare geographic Congressional representation up until Bryan's time and now. The Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1140545037290520762006-02-21T13:03:00.000-05:002006-02-21T13:03:00.000-05:00You're deliberately distorting what he's saying vi...You're deliberately distorting what he's saying via selective quoting, a favorite pastime of those without a cogent counterargument; and attempting to capitalize on the visceral reaction to coded words and phrases.<BR/><BR/>A careful reading of Smith reveals that he labored to elucidate what naturally IS about markets, and how that led to beneficial results SUCH AS 'the equitable distribution of Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1140470851850897132006-02-20T16:27:00.000-05:002006-02-20T16:27:00.000-05:00Montesquieu wrote that a government must reflect t...Montesquieu wrote that a government must reflect the mores of its people. You wrote:<BR/><BR/>I don't think that western liberalism and Islam are necessarily incompatible, although I do think that western liberalism and Islamic fundamentalism are, in much the same way that western liberalism and Christian fundamentalism are.<BR/><BR/># posted by Lewis Carroll : 10:23 PM<BR/> <BR/>A sneaky Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1140448277637738832006-02-20T10:11:00.000-05:002006-02-20T10:11:00.000-05:00No, I demolished your original point, which was th...No, I demolished your original point, which was that Islam was inherently not compatible with liberal democracy. When you realized you had no EVIDENCE for this, you attempted to obfuscate with some diatribe against what you consider to be *modern* liberals.<BR/><BR/>The other point was regarding your advocacy of simply accepting things the way they are because that's the way they are - your Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1140408748171839392006-02-19T23:12:00.000-05:002006-02-19T23:12:00.000-05:00Yes, you've demolished the argument, but it's not ...Yes, you've demolished the argument, but it's not the one I'm making: There is a difference between classical and modern liberalism.<BR/><BR/>I was speaking of positivist political philosophy. No, Europe is not composed of totalitarian, fascist states. Yet. However society and government are far more heavily intertwined than here. So far.<BR/><BR/>As for Mr. Korten, I admit I barely skimmed Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1140404378669661412006-02-19T21:59:00.000-05:002006-02-19T21:59:00.000-05:00"Europe, being founded on modern liberalism, where..."Europe, being founded on modern liberalism, where society and the state are synonymous, is unequipped to deal with the need for true pluralism."<BR/><BR/>Careful. Reductionist logic run amok. Where is your evidence that today's European states are completely statist? Is free enterprise not permitted? Most important in this instance, are the media an arm of the state? For example, was it a Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1140309551403376452006-02-18T19:39:00.000-05:002006-02-18T19:39:00.000-05:00So why not take the model that has worked in Ameri...<I>So why not take the model that has worked in America and apply it globally?</I><BR/><BR/>My point exactly: America is the last bastion of classical liberalism. Europe, being founded on modern liberalism, where society and the state are synonymous, is unequipped to deal with the need for true pluralism. That's why they try to ban Muslim headscarves.<BR/><BR/>(As for anti-globalism, it's Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1140129581942654902006-02-16T17:39:00.000-05:002006-02-16T17:39:00.000-05:00There is a difference between classical and modern...There is a difference between classical and modern liberalism. I conflate nothing. At least here. :-)Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1140063908357621932006-02-15T23:25:00.000-05:002006-02-15T23:25:00.000-05:00"Bentham and Mill are the beginning of the end of ..."Bentham and Mill are the beginning of the end of classical liberalism. Utilitarianism ushers in positivism, where the state goes from guarantor of liberty to the agent of the relief of man's estate. (This is why modern liberalism cannot appropriate Hume and Smith.)"<BR/><BR/>The point is that there is something worthwhile in many of these theories. My belief, Tom, is that any economic theory, Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1140039853660029562006-02-15T16:44:00.000-05:002006-02-15T16:44:00.000-05:00Bentham and Mill are the beginning of the end of c...Bentham and Mill are the beginning of the end of classical liberalism. Utilitarianism ushers in positivism, where the state goes from guarantor of liberty to the agent of the relief of man's estate. (This is why modern liberalism cannot appropriate Hume and Smith.)<BR/><BR/>To the point, Islam is compatible with classical liberalism, which leaves room between society and government.<BR/><BR/>Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1140029770451586682006-02-15T13:56:00.000-05:002006-02-15T13:56:00.000-05:00No, there's no 'dilemma' whatsoever. The point is...No, there's no 'dilemma' whatsoever. The point is that I don't see a contradiction between how a 'classical liberal', modern liberal or any other such iteration would treat this case.<BR/><BR/>There's no contradiction whatsoever between free speech and pluralism. The question is one of freedom of speech and freedom from coercion.<BR/><BR/>The issues of some publisher's RIGHT to publish Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1139988335571590292006-02-15T02:25:00.000-05:002006-02-15T02:25:00.000-05:00I'm sorry you don't appreciate the distinction bet...I'm sorry you don't appreciate the distinction between the "classical liberalism" of, say, Adam Smith, whom you find obsolete, and whatever it is you and your like-minded fellows propose to replace him with.<BR/><BR/>"Modern liberalism," for lack of a better term. <BR/><BR/>It's the key to your dilemma between backing free speech or pluralism.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1139974854049584262006-02-14T22:40:00.000-05:002006-02-14T22:40:00.000-05:00"Are you referring to the Western liberalism of th..."Are you referring to the Western liberalism of the Founders or what it has mutated into?"<BR/><BR/>I fail to see the distinction, but just so that we can at least debate on common ground, would you at least agree that the internalization of the principle that someone's drawings, no matter how offensive to one's sensibilities or blasphemous of one's religion, is not grounds for phsical violence?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1139959514940464902006-02-14T18:25:00.000-05:002006-02-14T18:25:00.000-05:00Are you referring to the Western liberalism of the...Are you referring to the Western liberalism of the Founders or what it has mutated into?<BR/><BR/>As for your question, I suppose it's because the European governments were against riots instead of encouraging them.<BR/><BR/>As for the US, a) fewer Muslims and b) perhaps a greater liberalism toward their sensibilities, a liberalism not as greatly in evidence toward Christian fundamentalists, or Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1139887387231307962006-02-13T22:23:00.000-05:002006-02-13T22:23:00.000-05:00"If this clash of civilizations (and it indeed is ..."If this clash of civilizations (and it indeed is one) is going to be kept from becoming a full-scale war, it's going to be up to those in the West to study up and engage Islam on its own terms. Hopefully, there's enough liberalism in its history to build on and enable it to turn the corner from the implacable enemy of Western Civilization to something that won't kill us or necessitate us killingAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1139886783554930352006-02-13T22:13:00.000-05:002006-02-13T22:13:00.000-05:00Well, you asked for a try at it, WS, so I complied...Well, you asked for a try at it, WS, so I complied, and to the best of my ability.<BR/><BR/>I liked the result enough (at least it got long enough) to round it out and post it over at my groupblog. Thanks for the inspiration. It occurs to me that the philosopher's job isn't so much to provide answers, but to use his insight to kick over the rocks that are most likely to have gold under them, Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1139870693733238272006-02-13T17:44:00.000-05:002006-02-13T17:44:00.000-05:00This article from the dreaded National Review poin...<A HREF="http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/marshall200602130815.asp" REL="nofollow">This article</A> from the dreaded National Review points out that Muhammed has been shown in portraits all through Muslim history. That should be the counterargument, not an insistence of the "right" to bait someone else with cartoons. (Let's be frank---offense was definitely intended by them.) It's one Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1139860809556696062006-02-13T15:00:00.000-05:002006-02-13T15:00:00.000-05:00This "you have to honor our provincial religious d...This "you have to honor our provincial religious dictates in your newspaper, even though you don't believe in your religion" shit has got to stop.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com