The book "The Missionary Position" criticises Mother Theresa sharply. Her quote "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." is just wrong. We should try and reduce inequality so that the poorest people don't have to suffer. The world is not helped at all by needless suffering.

Gandhi's reputation is based on a sham - see 'Letter to a Christian Nation' by Sam Harris. Also, the Dalai Lama is by no means a libertarian. He was the head of a theocratic dictatorship.

A government that forcibly restructures and changes the nature of corporations strikes me as specifically non-libertarian. That sounds like state-controlled capitalism.

The Wikipedia page about that book doesn't mention Ghandhi. Although I think Sam Harris is a good writer (and read his blog) I don't feel inclined to buy his books. In his blog post about how to lose readers without trying he lost me on "Objectivism is basically autism rebranded". Even if I wasn't opposed to Ayn Rand (I can imagine a version of me that if I was diagnosed at 17 and exposed to right-wing propaganda) the combination of negative things with Autism would have always offended me at any time after learning anything about Autism.

Is Libertarianism about liberty for people or pieces of paper? If it's about liberty for people then corporations would either be controlled or not particularly recognised. Unless Libertarianism is just the new name for Feudalism.

It is good to bring in a world view, and there are so many example of the "Allies" manipulating the world, then manipulating the consequences of earlier manipulations. It makes one dizzy!

Thanks for the referral - Harris sounds like someone with some very interesting projects. I especially liked that he wishes to incorporate spirituality in the domain of human reason.

Maybe I read something different from you:
Harris stated, “Gandhi was undoubtedly the twentieth century's most influential pacifist. The success he enjoyed in forcing the British Empire to withdraw from the Indian subcontinent brought pacifism down from the ethers of a religious precept and gave it new political relevance.”

What the essay was saying is that pacifism does not solve problems when “when your enemy has no scruples”, not that Ghandi was a sham.

The Dalai Lama was the figurehead of a theocratic dictatorship, and unofficially still is.

It is an honorific role that he inherited, and he does not hold it by force. He is adored by his followers even though he has not held public office since 1952. He instructs his followers to not risk their lives for his position following the Chinese government deposing him.

Compare Tenzin Gyatso (the Dalai Lama) to the pope, who holds force far beyond the boundaries of his country, Vatican City, through papist adherents around the world.

These adherents are categorized (by me) as Pharisee Christians. Through them, much harm has been done in this world for millennia, including the institutionalization of child sexual abuse.

This pope is currently disciplining American nuns for following Christ’s teachings rather than the pope’s mandates.

Libertarianism is an interesting theory that (like christians and the bible) many like to claim membership without understanding it.

Some interpret is as 'the new white supremist', while others are lost in complicating the philosophy and the interpretation of it, with little practical consideration.

This philosophy is actually based on negative liberty (“the absence of forcible interference from other agents when one attempts to do things”).

This totally fits the work of Ghandi and The Dalai Lama.  Strict interpretation of negative liberties leads to radical pacifism (the use of force is never permissible).

Libertarianism is a theory of justice in the first of three senses:  
1. “justice is concerned with the moral duties that we owe others”
It does not address
2. impersonal duties (duties owed to no one)
3. duties owed to self

The Libertarian Platform is wonderful on paper, a terrific theory; but it naively overlooks oligarchy (the new feudalism) as the real outcome. To paraphrase Harris, [libertarianism] does not solve problems when “when your enemy has no scruples”

"I used to be a libertarian- then I took a corporate oligarchy in the knee"

I wonder how people would class my outlook.  I think people should voluntarily reduce the territories they occupy with modern society, and allow not just wild habitat but also "primitive" human habitat.  Cities would train people to advance modern technology and live in modern society, and also to live in a hunter gatherer society.  I think it would be nice if people were free to choose.  

It would requier three things, of course.  1, a reduction in population.  2, the reduction absolutely must be voluntary (or the goal I described would be destroyed) 3. the political capital would have to be available to food-foragers to present their alternative as rational and healthy.

Sounds like dualistic primitivism and techno-positive environmentalism. You'd probably enjoy Deep Ecology an the works of primitivists like Jensen and Zerzan (though they emphatically do not leave room for cities, and their followers can frankly be noble-savage-myth-perpetuating twits).

If you are a primitivist be careful, you follow the same school of philosophy as the Unabomber.

The primitivist response would be- at the end of the day, who caused more damage, the Unabomber, or a coal executive? The violence of the former is forbidden, while that of the latter is encourages and aided. I'm not saying I agree with Kaczynski (because a good part of his manifesto is **** loopy, plus, you know, the whole bombing people thing. Also, primitivism tends to imply mass starvation), but you can make a damned good case for his militancy. When everything's said and done, you've got one the one hand a set institutions, systems and people, that are driving what the scientific community has no choice but to call an extinction event, that are leveling ecosystems, tearing up mountains, poisoning rivers, choking the air, and often imposing direct or indirect violence on the people around them to do this, often circumventing human rights and democracy. On the other hand, you've got a bearded mad math genius sending bombs that blow people up. Which is more violent? Which is more terroristic? Can we condemn the vile and heartbreaking acts of violence performed by the Unabomber, while we turn a blind eye to the overwhelming violence that provoked it? Soldiers have shot, killed, and bombed people for less worthy reasons and been treated with parades and pensions. In the 17 years that Kaczynski's bombs killed 3 people and wounded 23 more, the bombs of the United States military fell on Grenada, Beirut, Libya, Panama, Iraq, Somalia, and Haiti- this in a period that most in our country consider to have been a time of peace. What alchemy, made those bombings a thing we can accept and stomach, and the bombings of Kaczynski an abomination? In the time Kaczynski killed three people, how many people were killed by air pollution, water pollution, landslides from strip-logged slopes, cancer from hazardous waste, and other assorted environmental deaths? Why are these deaths not named murder, and why are those who terrorize the ecosystem with them, not called terrorists?

Again, I'm not saying I agree with the man- I may be radical, but I lean towards the tactics of participatory democracy and Earth First!; tactics like the Unabomber's are counterproductive, accomplish nothing, and bring harm to human life that we should not be willing to accept. But, as a scholar of the environment, and all the ethical and political issues that surround it, I have to play devil's advocate.

Edit: In retrospect, I've chosen a poor avatar picture to have while making this case.

This post was last modified: 04-28-2012 12:33 AM by EDoyle.

I like your thinking.

I think its a false dichotomy that we must justify, condone or rationalise either party. Both the executives and the Unabomber are dangerous, reactionary entities that must be shunned by the allies of democracy and human progress.

I would rather people follow a ideology that recognises the good brought by technology and industrial progress while also acknowledging the destructive nature of capitalism and plutocracy.

That's just a joke from the U.S.
Don't believe every BS, please.