For
the record, my view on Islam and multiculturalism are given in
this earlier post.
I'm an atheist, thank God, attempting to live a life defined by reason and humanism. My morality comes solely from man qua man, necessitating self-responsibility for
one’s actions and peaceful co-existence with one’s fellows and fellowesses. Voluntarism.
But
the reportage I have read, as with social media, regarding this latest act of terrorism in France, applicable to free speech, only, largely
misses the point. My position can be simply stated.
1. The
free speech issues deriving from this have nothing to do with Islam,
offence-making or umbrage-taking per se.
2. The
question is regards the role of the state to police non-violent
offence-making or umbrage-taking.
3. The
question then becomes how are offence-making and umbrage-taking defined, and by
whom?
4. Worse,
the question becomes once you’ve set society along this totalitarian route of the censor state - totalitarian because we
are now dealing with issues which are correctly stated as otherwise being ‘thought-crimes’
- where do you stop defining
offence-making and umbrage-taking, and who gets that choice/power? With the
corollary question of is containment of the state even possible once this
function is voted to it by a democratic mob?
Plainly
- read my blog - I don’t believe the state can have this role if it is to be
the free society that I believe is all of our birth rights. That’s irrefutable
on definitions alone.
Just
as there is no ‘in-between’ regarding capitalism versus command economies, so there
can be no free society where the state is powerful enough to hold this
function.
Note
I publish this post voluntarily choosing not to publish an image of the fabled Mohammed-man
, or any of the contentious cartoons, though following the logic of my
argument, and thus my principles, I would (metaphorically, possibly in
actuality) die fighting for my right to do so without the intervention of the
censoring state.
My
next post may well, however, cause offence. Working title: Retrieving the Corpse of Roger Sutton from the Cross of Shesus.
Next week …
Hi Mark
ReplyDeleteNice to have you back posting, refreshed from your holiday, and with (presumably) a full beer fridge once again.
You know that for most things we are more aligned than opposed, however I have a question for you. Assuming the following statement is true (and I believe it is)...
"A liberal immigration policy that entails importing lots of illiberal people will necessarily mean the end of liberalism.”
How does the Libertarian deal with this practical weakness in their philosophy of open borders and the free exchange of people and cultures, when it ultimately leads to the death of everything they stand for?
I once said to Linz Perigo, whom I consider one of my mentors, ... "but what if 'greed' means that some of our fisheries are destroyed?" (Sorry, I'm dropping all context here.)
DeleteHis answer was that freedom has a price.
Look forward to chatting through 2015, Brendan :)
Mark, you faced a similar challenge on SOLO one time before. It went something like this.
Delete"A libertarian tax policy entails that paying tax is voluntary which might mean that a libertarian government cannot fund its core functions and shuts down leaving the kind of vacuum that man in the state of nature abhors."
How does the libertarian deal with this practical weakness in his philosophy of voluntary taxation, when it ultimately leads to the death of everything he stands for?
"Freedom has a price" is the wrong answer!
I blogged the right answer here. :-)
Afraid I can't accept Romans 13 as a solution Richard. I'd not seen that post though, so thanks for linking.
DeleteRegarding the question of tax, I do think that works voluntarily: I'd certainly pay for core minarchist services, for the same reason I pay insurance.
Regarding this question, I also apply the 'sell them coke cola argument'. Children who are brought up in a prosperous Western culture will some generation or other drop the superstition. Problem is the Left are buggering up the prosperous in 'prosperous West'.
I had a chuckle about your "I am an atheist, thank God". It reminded me of a bit of Kremin of the Star Corp when Kremin asked Carla why she was an atheist. She said she didn't know, it was just the way God made her. I'm not sure I can take you seriously after this.
ReplyDelete3:16
How very astute of you.
Delete#JesusChristAlmighty
If your initial comment was lost on him I am sure your reply will be too. But maybe we laugh with him (or her).
Delete