"By quickly establishing the US as a demonic new enemy, Mao galvanized support for his regime. He was also able to neutralize the domestic threat still represented by hundreds of thousands of unwanted soldiers and officers from Nationalist armies that had surrendered in the final weeks of the Chinese Civil War. Feebly armed and equipped, they were fed into the meat-grinder of war in Korea.This comment from Don Cropper, appearing on the same page as my Yunlin County water letter, should be read as evidence for the view I have long held - any Chinese invasion of Taiwan will be done for the purpose of either maintaining or advancing the political power of the CCP (or certain factions therein) with all economic, financial and other calculations thrown out of the window. It is (one of) their last cards in the event things get desperate for them. In this light, China's military build-up itself can be read as a sign of a growing loss of confidence among the CCP in their own future.
So the intervention in Korea was rational to the degree that it served the needs of Mao and his inner circle. It was “irrational” only in the sense that it defied the rationally optimistic expectations of pundits in the West."
See also J.Michael Cole's editorial piece which sparked that response. The discussion in his comments section is unfortunately very, very poor - his entertaining of such commie-vomiting entities as that Darren Taylor, for example, is just sickening. A sampling of Taylor:
"I may be wrong in thinking that most people in the Taiwanese establishment have paranoid and condescending attitudes to the CCP and mainlanders respectively, but I've yet to see much evidence to the contrary. And how could they see the positive effects of the CCP and Communism, when they've been brought up in a society constructed by the losers of the civil war?"
Mike, isn't there some way I can avoid sickening you? Read "Gao Village" by Mobo Gao, or Joel Andreas on the Erosion of Paternalistic Democracy in Chinese Factories (itunes has it), they are both very accessible and well researched. Mobo Gao lived through the cultural revolution, and gives a very detailed account of how it changed his village.
ReplyDeleteDo you know why the CCP is building up there military? Because they don't want to be destroyed or overrun by other countries. That's pretty standard international behavior.
"Mike, isn't there some way I can avoid sickening you?"
ReplyDeleteNot with frivolous references like that, and not without investing some serious time in learning about the "capitalism" you are so wont to dismiss.
"Because they don't want to be destroyed or overrun by other countries. That's pretty standard international behavior."
See because as things stand, you're nothing but a slave to your own ignorance.
I used to be a libertarian. I've read Mises, Hayek, Menger, Rothbard, Rand, Hazlitt, the 2 Friedmans, Sciabarra, Reismann, Albert Jay Nock, and others.
ReplyDeleteHow much more ignorance can I bare? What is your own particular theory of capitalism?
"I've read Mises, Hayek, Menger..."
ReplyDeleteThe last guy who used that line on me was full of shit. Why should I think you're any different?
I'm wondering, "Comrade Darren," who the Chicoms think will overrun China? Even Mao claimed that if the Soviets nuked China, he would do essentially what Chiang Kai-shek did. Mao even took pains to move a great amount of industrial equipment inland in the event China were invaded and/or nuked. Even the nationalistic vomit on comment sections in Chinese newspapers use this "America will never be able to conquer China, China will be an even bigger Vietnam, look at the Japanese failure," blah, blah, blah. I'm wondering who can believe that both China is on the brink of being overrun militarily and that China can never be overrun militarily? (Note as well that these PRC commentators never mention that both the Yuan and Qing Dynasties were foreign dynasties.)
ReplyDeleteAlso, Darren, before you call yourself a capitalist because you were a libertarian, I'd suggest you shy away from statist interpretations of capitalism (libertarians, although desiring minimal state intervention in the economy, desire the existence of the state nonetheless), you should read anarcho-capitalists/free-market anarchist interpretations, such as Murray Rothbard and David Friedman. I say this because most commmunists/socialists assume that without the state, capitalism/the free market would no longer exist as well. Free-market anarchists believe that the state, far from being a help, is a hindrance to the free market. The state, not the free market, is repressive.
By the way, Michael, I recently wrote an editorial (not sure if/when it will be published) agreeing with you (before having read this) that the Chinese military buildup should be viewed as a weakened, insecure China's response to a situation it fears may spiral out of control: the "Taiwan issue." Didn't mean to steal your thunder here (it was purely coincidence). I wrote it only because there is this growing fear, both internationally as well on Taiwan (of which you are probably well aware) that China faces Taiwan confidently and Taiwan is being--and should be--cowed. I find this to be one aspect of current KMT mainland policies, this fearmondering that Taiwan is somehow weak and needs to embrace the enemy before it is too late (again, only one aspect of current KMT mainland policies).
ReplyDeleteDarren: this brings up another question: all of that military hardware aimed at Taiwan--are the Chicoms expecting a Koxinga anytime soon? US intervention to aid Taiwan could not reasonably be--although it probably would be considered by the PRC--portrayed as a US invasion of Chinese territory. Unless--and possibly even if--the PLA invades Taiwan, most US operations would originate and conclude on sea--international or disputed territorial sea at that. Unless you subscribe to PRC propaganda (which I'm guessing you in at least some ways must) regarding US intentions, is China amassing all that stuff because it feels threatened by an invasion from Taiwan? If so, and if the US could never possibly conquer China (see my earlier comment), how could China be afraid of Taiwan (or even a Taiwan-US invasion alliance)?
nathan:
ReplyDeleteWho the Chinese think will overrun them..... Maybe the same countries that have invaded China repeatedly in the last few hundred years. The US has a history of belligerence against China, and that's the main reason it supported Taiwan for so long. S.Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Filipines, and other countries in the southeast asia have are ready to be mobilized in a war against China, while India is not on great terms with China, and Pakistan is a US ally, then north of that, we have Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, all with US military bases. How would the US react to military bases placed by distant super powers in Mexico or Canada?
You advise to read authors I gave up years ago. I liked Rothbard's "For a New Liberty" and "Conceieved in Liberty" And I used to spend a lot of time on anti-state.com. As for D. Friedman, I read "Hidden Order", but not "Machinery of Friedman" I used to think it was a great idea to work towards an anarcho-capitalist society, with competing enforcement agencies, and a predominance of contractual relations based on the fundamental right to property. I used the term "libertarian" before, because I didn't want to get too technical. Where it all breaks down for me is the issue of property rights. Rights are just agreed upon intentions towards ourselves and others. They are socially constructed and humans can construct all manner of rules, laws, and rights. Saying that property rights are somehow fundamental avoids the fact that we must all choose what kind of property rights we recognize and whether or not we will allow private property. The whole range of pro-market beliefs avoid the process of constructing rights. It is a social process, and it is up to us to construct that process.
"Even the nationalistic vomit on comment sections in Chinese newspapers use this "America will never be able to conquer China, China will be an even bigger Vietnam, look at the Japanese failure," blah, blah, blah."
How do you choose when or when not to trust nationalistic vomit? Intuition?
"I'm wondering who can believe that both China is on the brink of being overrun militarily and that China can never be overrun militarily?"
Keep wondering. What I'm saying is that there is an ongoing threat from the world's strongest country, which has China surrounded by military bases, who refused to recognize the government of China for thirty three years, and many of whose politicians still regard it as evil and threatening.
" (Note as well that these PRC commentators never mention that both the Yuan and Qing Dynasties were foreign dynasties.)"
Every Chinese person I knows about Mongolian and Manchu rule. What's the catch? You're saying it happened before and why not again?
China has had the stated policy of retaking Taiwan since the fifties. If Cromwell had overtaken Great Britain, and the old regime had fled to Ireland, it would be understandable if both Cromwell and the loyalists still considered the land they didn't control as belonging to their country, since rulers tend to conflate the interests of their subjects with their own interests, and tend to identify the country with themselves.
In East Asia and Central Asia are both full of US military bases. The US has invaded China before. Just because the KMT’s dream of retaking the mainland has lost all credibility, that doesn’t mean that the US wants to be friends with China now. It currently wants the status quo, which is continued non-resolution of the cross straits dispute. On the other hadn, the US has gone to war about once about once every ten to twenty years since it’s inception, and the only proven deterrent to US invasion so far has been nukes, and a strong military.
ReplyDeleteChina is not on the brink of being overrun, nor on the brink of collapse. But the risk of attack from the US, which the Taiwanese government would likely go along with, is not going away for a long time.
As for nationalistic vomit, what are your standards for believing it?
What’s your point about the Manchus and Mongols ruling China? Everyone in China knows this already.
I am definitely not a capitalist. I am opposed to the capitalist system. As to the particular divisions in pro capitalist thought, such as minarchist, anarcho-capitalist, agorist, etc., just before I came to agree with socialism and anarchism, i found anarcho-capitalism to be most compelling. I’ve read many of Rothbards article, as well as his books “For a New Liberty”, and the first two or three volumes of “Conceived in Liberty.” As for D. Friedman, I read “Hidden Order”, but not “Machinery of Freedom.” For a time, I believed in a property-rights/contract based society, with private enforcement agencies and the rest.
Where it broke down for me was the issue of property rights, which have to be constructed by a given group of people at a given point in history, and, to use a Randian phrase, their “existential referents” can, at root, only be intentional states in the minds of people. The whole contstruction of rights, laws, and morality is a social process. We are free to construct any system of rules we want, but the key, for me, is the process of construction itself. I believe that this process works best for everyone when it’s a cooperative, consensual process.
China wants to retake Taiwan. The US doesn’t want to bother too much with Taiwan, and it needs to keep China on it’s good side. You’re saying to me that China should leave Taiwan alone. But, it seems the argument for leaving Taiwan alone is a little like saying “The government of Taiwan claimed sovereignty over you guys for three or four decades, but now, after the US stopped backing them as the Rulers of China, most people in Taiwan don’t want to retake the mainland and just want to be left alone. And even though some people in the Taiwanese ruling class still consider Taiwan to be a part of the mainland, pay no attention to that. Taiwanese, particularly, white guys who have taken up it’s cause, merely believe that the CCP is evil, will and should collapse, and only has the support of Chinese people insofar as they are brainwashed, ignorant or evil.” That’s not reassuring to anyone. You’re saying, “We hate you, but please leave us alone, and we won’t hurt you.”
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI started to respond at greater length, and then I realized that doing so is essentially hopeless. I'll write only this:
ReplyDeleteChina has had the stated policy of retaking Taiwan since 1941. It was after Chiang began to assert his claims to Taiwan (as late as 1938 Chiang was saying in speeches that Taiwan should be made free after it was liberated from Japan) that Mao also changed his tone (Mao also stated, in several places [cited in _Red Star Over China_, for one] that he believed Taiwan should be liberated and made free as well, arguably to go along with his own theories of self-determination).
"The US has a history of belligerence against China, and that's the main reason it supported Taiwan for so long."
Darren, US support for Taiwan was and remains a part of US internal politics. As the Chinese say, do not intervene or criticize the internal affairs of other nations. (Of course this serves a great purpose for China, which can then simply arbitrarily declare any affair, even if it regards international and/or disputed waters and/or territory, an indisputable part of China, therefore in CCP's small world of ideas closing the case.)
"China" did not have to "retake Taiwan," the Communists--use their term--wanted to "liberate" Taiwan. Chiang and Mao both considered their governments the true goverments of China. Your generalizing seems to be a product of your ideology, there, "Comrade."
In short, your effort is noted, but your facts are quite wrong and your arguments are contradictory to your own rhetoric. You can pull up almost any example of foreign belligerence/condescention towards China, and I can show you examples of China doing the same thing to foreign nations. Your victim theories are old, boring, and although true in some cases are true only because they are the results of writers and Party members picking and choosing which sections of history to cover for the benefit of the writer and/or Party.
On the contrary, I don't hate China. I study China. I seek to understand it. The problem there is that one has to sift through the sands to find understanding. I do not think the CCP is weak necessarily, and I do think it has the ability to survive for the short- to medium-term. But I do think that it will be hard for a monolithic party structure to effectively deal with many of the changes occurring within China in the longrun despite--or perhaps even due to--its political reforms (which are occurring but are not democratic). I acknowledge that reforms can be reforms without their being democratic. This does not make them more (or less) flexible.
ReplyDeleteI'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim that the US has invaded China before. China has invaded other countries as well--Vietnam, for example. Moreover, much of China's economic growth and technical knowhow has come from Western, and particularly US, investment and education. I'm not sure exactly why it is that all things Western are essentially evil except when I take into account that people are told to think this. This is where I draw the line with nationalistic vomit. (Actually, I draw the line with just about all nationalistic vomit, as it usually has little to no substance behind it.)
You also make the error of believing US cooperation with nations on China's periphery are inherently antagonistic to China. This is not necessarily the case. Once again, capability does not equal intent. Moreover, the United States has attempted to keep military ties with China open; if they are stopped (at least in recent history) it is because of Chinese sensitivities. If China felt threatened, one would think it would try its utmost to keep talks open.
The leadership "class" in Taiwan is as of right now very blue. This in part explains the "Chineseness" you mention. However, public opinion has been moving away from unification for some time, and the current administration moved away from its unification platform during the campaign. Currently, a much greater number (acknowledged even in KMT polls) would rather have independence now or independence in the future than those who would prefer unification now or unification in the future. The majority of the Taiwan public prefers the status quo for the time being. This will influence leadership "class" decision making.
The Chinese also have the tendency to place responsibility on the United States for keeping Taiwan close to China. If it were not for the US strategic ambiguity policy (which serves as a double deterrent) that has served to restrain some policy makers from taking the independence road, I would argue that Taiwan may have already attempted to declare de jure independence. The US attempts to restrain both China AND Taiwan, but most often the United States is blamed for not walking the road the Chinese attempt to pave for it. (This is nothing new for any nation; my point is that US policy here is not completely anti-China as your argument appears to state.)
Yes, China has had the stated policy of retaking Taiwan. I missed your point. the KMT, the US, and even Stalin up until a point, supported the destruction of the CCP. As do you. This is significant.
ReplyDelete“Darren, US support for Taiwan was and remains a part of US internal politics.”
Some might say that this is less internal US politics and more an issue of foreign policy, part of the US’s continued military maneuvering throughout the world. My point is that the predominant view in regards to cross strait relations is the Status Quo, they don’t want China to invade Taiwan, nor do they want to hear anything about Taiwan pissing China off.
"China" did not have to "retake Taiwan,"
Here, you’re referring to the distinction between liberating and retaking. I think you must have the idea that “retake” connotes previous possession, whereas “liberate” goes along with the idea of China not possessing Taiwan? Perhaps Mao went around saying that he was going to 解放 every country? I usually think 解放 as in 我们一定会解放台湾· Since Ive been back in the states, Ive had to get out of the habit of using 解放 in relation to China, because in China, we say 解放以后, and here, I have to say “After the Communists came to power.” The reason Mao referred to Taiwan was because he considered it to be part of China, which linguistically and culturally, it still is. If you support democratic self-determination, than focus on supporting the self determination of both China and Taiwan. Take a trip to the mainland and see what different people there want for there country.
“You can pull up almost any example of foreign belligerence/condescention towards China, and I can show you examples of China doing the same thing to foreign nations”.
You’ve decided that I want to equate horrible acts of some country with another, and thereby justify the CCP as good? And to refute this, you offer more equating. But my point is not the CCP is good or bad, just that it is acting withing the same, nation-state, capitalist logic that Taiwan, the US, and every other country acts within, military power is pursued both to defend from other nations, and to grant the ruling class more power. What is it you imagine my central point to be? I have lived in that country, how could I view it’s government in simple terms of good and evil?
“ Your victim theories are old, boring, and although true in some cases are true only because they are the results of writers and Party members picking and choosing which sections of history to cover for the benefit of the writer and/or Party.”
I think here you are equating my statement that China has been attacked by the US, and my statement that China has ample justification for military buildup, given the traditional and present hostility from Taiwan, Taiwan’s history of being part of China (except for colonization by the Dutch and Japanese), and, of course, because the US has been hostile to the Chinese government for quite a while and has China boxed in with military bases. You’re “victim” statement is a non-sequitur. You’re quite ready to infer where I’m coming from, such as my ignorance of Real Capitalism and my reliance on bad historians. I like the little sum up at the end, it's so American aggressive, like "Case Closed!" or "'Nuff Said!!"
“I recently wrote an editorial (not sure if/when it will be published) agreeing with you (before having read this) that the Chinese military buildup should be viewed as a weakened, insecure China's response to a situation it fears may spiral out of control: the "Taiwan issue." Didn't mean to steal your thunder here…”
ReplyDeleteSure, have at it Nathan. No thunder stolen at all – in my 20+ letters to the Taipei Times I’ve always been more interested in making tactical criticisms and suggestions toward action than in offering analysis. However, perhaps a certain Jeffrey Wasserstrom may have stolen some of your thunder:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2010/09/25/2003483708
“…contractual relations based on the fundamental right to property…”
Your reading must have been shallow then, because the right to property is not fundamental.
“Saying that property rights are somehow fundamental avoids the fact that we must all choose what kind of property rights we recognize and whether or not we will allow private property.”
Of itself that claim – the social “construction” of rights – is no argument against a right to private property. Your claim to have been a libertarian is fraudulent; property rights are not fundamental, they are political expressions of ethical maxims themselves derivative of human ontology. Here’s a test: can you cite a single one of the writers you mentioned earlier (Mises, Hayek etc) - in context - who claimed that property rights are “fundamental”? I’m betting you can’t.
“The whole contstruction of rights, laws, and morality is a social process. We are free to construct any system of rules we want…”
No “we” aren’t; in the first place because some of those systems will eventually kill us (e.g. socialism and its inherent inability to efficiently distribute scarce resources), and in the second place because that social construction process you refer to must always end with some breaking of that “we”, with one system of rules prevailing over another, with some of the “we” arrogating to themselves powers of government over the remainder of that “we”.
See, here’s the catch: some systems of rules work better than others – i.e. accord better than others with the reality of human nature and that of the world we live in. This stands on the metaphysical claim that there is a reality independent of our consciousness. The position that there is no truth to the claim that private property rights are the best way to organize society because rights are socially constructed hinges on the socialization of metaphysics qua the rejection of reality’s independence over human conciousness of it. It is akin to the relegation of truth to simple consensus. Your position is the poverty and dirt of your own weaknesses.
“…many of whose politicians still regard it as evil and threatening…”
Because it is, you clot.
“…the only proven deterrent to US invasion so far has been nukes, and a strong military…”
Bullshit. Countries with a more or less vaguely liberal political economy are far less likely to be invaded by the U.S.
“China is not on the brink of being overrun, nor on the brink of collapse. But the risk of attack from the US, which the Taiwanese government would likely go along with, is not going away for a long time.”
The conditions for a possible collapse in China are very strong; in particular Chinese demographics must be terrifying to the CCP. Any U.S. attack on China will likely come about just before or during a collapse of the PRC in which it attempts to attack Taiwan in a desperate to keep itself afloat.
“I believe that this process works best for everyone when it’s a cooperative, consensual process.”
Which is precisely what socialism is not and never can be, and precisely what a society organized on individualist principles is.
William:
ReplyDelete“Darren, US support for Taiwan was and remains a part of US internal politics.”
It’s actually part of the US’s mediating of international disputes, which out government believes is it’s right and duty. We agree that the US just want’s the status quo to continue.
"China" did not have to "retake Taiwan,"
Here, you’re referring to the distinction between liberating and retaking. I think you must have the idea that “retake” connotes previous possession, whereas “liberate” goes along with the idea of China not possessing Taiwan? Perhaps Mao went around saying that he was going to 解放 every country? I usually think 解放 as in 我们一定会解放台湾· Since Ive been back in the states, Ive had to get out of the habit of using 解放 in relation to China, because in China, we say 解放以后, and here, I have to say “After the Communists came to power.” The reason Mao referred to Taiwan was because he considered it to be part of China, which linguistically and culturally, it still seems like it is.
“You can pull up almost any example of foreign belligerence/condescention towards China, and I can show you examples of China doing the same thing to foreign nations”.
You’ve decided that I want to equate horrible acts of some country with another, and thereby justify the CCP as good? And to refute this, you offer more equating. But my point is not the CCP is good or bad, just that it is acting withing the same, nation-state, capitalist logic that Taiwan, the US, and every other country acts within, military power is pursued both to defend from other nations, and to grant the ruling class more power. What is it you imagine my central point to be? I have lived in that country, how could I view it’s government in simple terms of good and evil?
“ Your victim theories are old, boring, and although true in some cases are true only because they are the results of writers and Party members picking and choosing which sections of history to cover for the benefit of the writer and/or Party.”
I think here you are equating my statement that China has been attacked by the US, and my statement that China has ample justification for military buildup, given the traditional and present hostility from Taiwan, Taiwan’s history of being part of China (except for colonization by the Dutch and Japanese), and, of course, because the US has China boxed in with military bases. You’re “victim” statement is a non-sequitur.
William:
ReplyDelete“On the contrary, I don't hate China. I study China. I seek to understand it. The problem there is that one has to sift through the sands to find understanding.” I do not
Agreed.
I don’t know how long the CCP will survive, and I’ve never considered it as an important question. But I heard a lecture by the China Scholar David Shambaugh and he thought it fail eventually, maybe within decades.
“I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim that the US has invaded China before. China has invaded other countries as well--Vietnam”
September 7, 1901, This was after a few decades of Californian anti-Chinese lobbying efforts, to keep Chinese immigrants from competing with white settlers.
“ Moreover, much of China's economic growth and technical knowhow has come from Western, and particularly US, investment and education.”
I missed the point on that one. But you might also note that a key reason American coporations love the Chinese labor force is precisely because it lacks the rights of the American labor force, and have no official means to organize or fight back, like we do over here.
“You also make the error of believing US cooperation with nations on China's periphery are inherently antagonistic to China. “
No, cooperation is great. What I meant were the all the military bases. And the history within the US ruling class (by which I mean large media corporations, defense industry, political parties, and other people who participate at top levels to work out the course of US policy.), within this class, there has been consistent, thought not universal hostility towards the CCP. Right wing Americans still say “ChiComs”, even the only people I met in China who described themselves as marxists or socialists, were Canadians and Americans, no kidding. Most Chinese people that I have met do not see the recent past primarily as ideological, or democracy vs. tyranny. Many refer to particular politicians or policies, but many more don’t care, as the national dream now is only to get rich. Chinese nationalists see this economic power as a means to national strength, as do Taiwan and the US.
“capability does not equal intent. Moreover, the United States has attempted to keep military ties with China open; if they are stopped (at least in recent history) it is because of Chinese sensitivities.”
I’m not claiming any equations of capability and intent, I’m referring to US’s tendency to go to war a lot, build a lot of military bases, and intervene in countries around the world.
“Currently, a much greater number...would prefer independence”
It would be better if we lived in a world where democracy had more power than money and weapons.
“US policy here is not completely anti-China as your argument appears to state.” My argument is that the US swtiched it’s recognition towards China when Kissinger and Nixon realized that the Chinese government was open to improving relations with the US, as a hold off against the Soviet Union. The US is not completely pro or anti-anything, at any given time, certain factions within the ruling class win out and get to implement their policies. My point is that given the US’s history and current capability, economic and military strength are the only logical deterrents to US hegemony for nation-states.
Darren: Your assumptions are that this "boxing in" of China is based purely on US strategy. Yet you ignore the active pressure placed on the United States by ASEAN (both the group and the several member states) to strengthen US engagement with the region. The Philippean president made a statement quite similar to this yesterday. These countries seek balance in the region because without a balancer, they are far more vulnerable to Beijing's policies. This does serve US interests by strengthening its relationship with these countries, but it is also a burden financially and can be considered as such militarily when taking into account that the US is still heavily engaged in Afghanistan and present to whatever extent you will accept in Iraq.
ReplyDeleteStill waiting, by the way, for you to tell me when the United States has invaded China. The United States has fought China before. Then again, so has Russia. How far back into history would we like to go? Mongolia? Really, some of this, even if it is substantiated, is virtually worthless except to stir nationalist sentiments--which is how it is often used.
No, I did not try to "equate" by "equating" or whatever you're trying to communicate. I'm simply saying that China has not always been the victim it portrays itself as being. And I think it is quite irresponsibile for someone to pass the "victim" mentality off as "a non-sequitur." Wiping off the "stain of national humiliation" at the hands of the Japanese has been a very popular theme these past two-three weeks--and not only these past three weeks. Moreover, the United States government is subject to enormous criticism, from both its domestic and an international audience. The PRC does not accept one and attempts to destroy another. I'm one American who is not often proud of his country. I am allowed to make that public, however.
Would you argue that the United States should build bases in China? Of course that wouldn't work, either. There are nations that do not look at a US presence as single-mindedly as the PRC does. But it is interesting that any US movement within Asia, even if it is in Indonesia (for example), is immediately determined to be threatening to China (even as the United States seeks military meetings and exercises with a China that has canceled them).
"Taiwan’s history of being part of China (except for colonization by the Dutch and Japanese). . . ."
Bullshit. The first known Chinese immigrants to Taiwan came during the late Ming, around 400 years or so ago. Taiwan aborigines are more closely related biologically to Austro-Asian aborigines than Han Chinese. Don't pull that on me. It won't work. The Qing claim to Taiwan covered, at its height, roughly 40% of the island and the island was tacked on to Fujian Province until roughly 8 years before the Japanese took over administration of the island. It was not an "integral part" of Chinese territory. In fact, most Chinese who went to Taiwan during the late Ming and Qing periods were escaping sea and fishing restrictions as well as high levels of taxation and unemployment. Rubinstein, ed.,'s _Taiwan: A New History_, essentially an undergraduate-level book, highlights all of this quite well. Now, you could say that times and sentiments change; I would say that you are right, and because that has been established, you have given strength to the argument that even though Taiwan may be Chinese culturally, it is not a part of China, an identity argument that has been growing in certain circles on Taiwan because sentiments have changed. Either way, historical revisionism is not history, and it is a very poor way to make a historical argument.
Michael Fagan
ReplyDelete“Your reading must have been shallow then, because the right to property is not fundamental.”
Fair enough. Rothbard refers to the most viable method of elaborating the natural-rights libertarian position. Rothbard, on pages 26 & 27 criticizes emotivist and utilitarian bases for the right to property, then elaborates his own natural rights theory of private property, which starts from “the right to self-ownership, to a property right in his own body and person.” (For a New Liberty, p. 31) I usually just call this the right to property, since one’s body is considered one’s property.
“Of itself that claim – the social “construction” of rights – is no argument against a right to private property.”
Right, I’m just pointing out that the process of constructing rights is crucial.
“Your claim to have been a libertarian is fraudulent;”
What is the concern you have with my past beliefs? Is it that I couldn’t have had a valid belief in Objectivism, Anarcho-Capitalism, or Libertarianism, and then decided that my beliefs on these subjects were wrong?
“No “we” aren’t; in the first place because some of those systems will eventually kill us”
Consequences don’t exclude our freedom of choice.
“that social construction process....must.. end with some breaking of that “we”, with one system of rules prevailing over another,”
Not clear what this refers to, but there is no breaking or constituting of that “we”, I am talking about specific human beings, born into specific socio-historical condtions and relations, with limited power to choose within their context. These people constantly choose how they will relate to each other, and have the ability construct rules amongst each other, which might fail or succeed.
“See, here’s the catch: some systems of rules work better than others”
That’s no the catch. For me that’s the point. We have to keep trying to improve our systems of rules.
(contd.) Michael
ReplyDelete“ The position that there is no truth to the claim that private property rights are the best way to organize society because rights are socially constructed”
My position is that rights are socially constructed, so we ought to focus more on the details of their construction. I just happen not to agree that property rights, or the right to one’s body has any bearing outside internal-intentional states of mind among human beings.
“hinges on the socialization of metaphysics qua the rejection of reality’s independence over human conciousness of it. “
That’s some old-school Objectivism. It takes me back.
“Because it is, you clot”.
Yes, so you’re argument for China leaving Taiwan alone is still going to sound like “We hate you so much, but you have to leave us alone because of democracy and sovereignty.” I would advise you to prepare some more conciliatory approach, but on the other hand, neither of us are Chinese or Taiwanese, so it’s funny were both so worked up about this. It seems like quite an American way of doing things.
“Countries with a more or less vaguely liberal political economy are far less likely to be invaded by the U.S. “
But the ones that have defied US threats and hostility are mostly the ones with military/economic strength.
“The conditions for a possible collapse in China are very strong; in particular Chinese demographics must be terrifying to the CCP.”
I have heard so many Chinese people complain about their government. Go to China and see what people think of their government. It’s not a matter of love or hatred, and it’s not a matter of imminent doom.
“Which is precisely what socialism is not and never can be, and precisely what a society organized on individualist principles is.”
Socialism, Capitalism, and Individualism are labels that describe both existing social formations and idealized normative theories. Some things I don’t like are murder, unlimited rights to accumulate wealth, political repression, religious superstition, intolerance, living on wages. It’s less useful to talk in terms of Individualist versus Socialist, for the theories contradict a more uniform practice among modern Capitalist, Socialist, and other types of nation states. The struggle for domination prevails.
Given, democracy is not perfect (I am no democrat), but democracy is not merely "money and weapons." At the very least, public opinion (albeit guided by the media and limited by the amount of messages out there) changes the strategies and tones down the messages of those seeking election--which was my original point, by the way.
ReplyDeleteThe signing of the Boxer Protocol is the only example you can come up with? After a group of Chinese openly and brutally attacked any foreigners within their sights, killing most? This is what China places all its fear on? An act, over 100 years ago, must certainly explain every American action towards China thereafter. You do realize that most of the unequal treaties were not signed by or in favor of the United States, don't you? As though the Opium Wars define England or the Brown Shirts still represent Italy. This seems to me to be much more of an act by someone to direct a nation's hatred at another nation. "America has invaded China before!" "When?" . . . "Let me check . . . oh, here it says that back in 1901." . . .
"But you might also note that a key reason American coporations love the Chinese labor force is precisely because it lacks the rights of the American labor force, and have no official means to organize or fight back, like we do over here."
--Why do Chinese workers lack those rights? Have you considered that? If we continue to go back before globalization, you'll find that not only workers but citizens had no rights. (As an aside, "rights" are a myth, but that does not add to this conversation.)
Yes, I'm quite familiar with Dr. Shambaugh. I met him when I was interning in DC and have read several of his books and a number of his studies.
Nathan:
ReplyDelete“Darren: Your assumptions are that this "boxing in" of China is based purely on US strategy.”
No, my assumption is that the us has China boxed in militarily and has a history of hostility towards China, as well as a history of invading countries.
“Still waiting, by the way, for you to tell me when the United States has invaded China.”
Eight Power Allied Forces on September 7, 1901
“ The United States has fought China before. Then again, so has Russia. How far back into history would we like to go?”
Up to you. But as for the present. The US dominates the world militarily, with over 800 military bases all over the place, in other people’s countries. And it has China boxed in militarily. I feel you might think I’m trying to imply some defence of the CCP?
“I'm simply saying that China has not always been the victim it portrays itself as being.”
Yes, but who was trying to justify anything by victim-hood. What I’m saying telling you are the reasons the CCP has to think it needs massive militarization.
“The PRC does not accept one and attempts to destroy another.”
Is that a little bit of hyperbole?
‘Would you argue that the United States should build bases in China?”
I would argue that the US government seriously cut it’s military spending and start closing bases, not building more.
“ But it is interesting that any US movement within Asia, even if it is in Indonesia (for example), is immediately determined to be threatening to China”
Any military movement within Asia, by the U.S. is definitely calculated with China in mind. You’re saying that all Chinese, all Party Members, or all members of the Central government find it threatening?
“Bullshit. The first known Chinese immigrants to Taiwan came during the late Ming, around 400 years or so ago.”
I know that part. What percentage of the Taiwanese population is aboriginal? Is America really Native American still? What do you call a country that is visible from the beach in Fujian, where the two main languages (Minnanhua and Mandarin) are Chinese, and where the dominant religions are Chinese.
“Taiwan aborigines are more closely related biologically to Austro-Asian aborigines than Han Chinese.”
Are the Hui not Chinese either? What about the Zhuang, the Tujia, or the Lisu? If it’s not a Chinese place, then it’s close enough. The real question is whether that place will be under the control of the CCP. You’re not going to stop that with historical arguments.
“ you have given strength to the argument that even though Taiwan may be Chinese culturally, it is not a part of China”
Yes, but that’s the key distinction. It’s not part of China politically, just linguistically, culturally, and, historically. It’s the political situation that needs to be worked out, and thinking of Taiwan as a valiant defender of freedom against the evil CCP is not realistic or practical.
but democracy is not merely "money and weapons." At the very least, public opinion”
ReplyDeleteAgreed, I’m saying democracy is a kind of power over other people, so is money, and so are weapons. Of these three, I prefer democracy.
“The signing of the Boxer Protocol is the only example you can come up with?
After a group of Chinese openly and brutally attacked any foreigners within their sights, killing most?”
You’re saying it only happened, and it was justified, and it was a long time ago, right?
Nathan:
“This is what China places all its fear on?”
No, there is also internal instability, and, of course, the international military strength of a country prone to invasion. I’m “China” has all kinds of fears.
“--Why do Chinese workers lack those rights? Have you considered that? “
Yes, I have. But my point is that international corporations profit off of Chinese labor, in part, because in countries like ours, the workers have too many rights and benefits. And in China, those corporations don't have to worry about as many problems with uppity workers demanding more pay, better working conditions, etc. That's called the profit motive, right?
Does it matter that the United States has a history of fighting the Chinese? The United States has a history of fighting the Germans--a far deeper and extensive one. England fought France for centuries. Again, this seems to be some form of pedantic justification. This is where victimhood comes in.
ReplyDeleteOf course it has to think that it needs military modernization. That's not the point. The point is that that buildup and modernization makes its neighbors worried, not necessarily US policy in the region.
Chinese Taiwan policy is also made with one eye--perhaps one-and-a-half eyes--on the United States. That's called strategic calculation (at least that's what I call it; others may call it something different, but it is strategic nonetheless). What's your point?
I don't think that's hyperbolic at all. I think the PRC attempts to deflect, downplay, or denounce foreign criticism while attempting to put down domestic dissidence. Is that too hyperbolic?
People in Belgium may speak either German or French, but they are still Belgian. Most in central and western Canada speak English; they are Canadian. Many of those groups share similar backgrounds, yet they live in different nation-states/political entities.
Don't try to turn the historical argument you yourself used on me against me when I respond. You will recall I said that something to the tune of attitudes change. You essentially refute and simultaneously agree with me. Chinese moved to Taiwan; parts of Taiwan were taken under the jurisdiction of China; that adminsitration was lost to the Japanese; the Japanese lost that administration; a group of Chinese administrators came (different group of administrators altogether); those administrators ruled, and at times brutally; the system pluralized; attitudes have been experiencing a period of change. It is tedious to write it that way, but you'll remember I was not the one using a historical argument nor a cultural argument. Politics depends on many things, one of which is attitudes (and that may or may not be the most important dependent at any one time or any times).
Do the Hui have a choice? The Zhuang? The Tujia? The Lisu? The Tibetan? I'm just wondering. Although this is not really an equivalent, you brought Native Americans into the argument, so I'll tell you (or probably remind you) that Native Americans are given the option of living on areas in which they can practice self-governance and receive subsidies from the US government. They can also choose not to live there. That's not better, but it also isn't the coldest of all cold monsters declaring the monster is those people (in Nietzsche's terms).
I don't think you are defending the PRC. I don't think I'm attacking the PRC. I was of the understanding that we were having a conversation. You stated above (in your comment to Michael) that it is very American to get involved and emotionally so; I'm merely observing and commenting on what I observe.
No, I'm saying it seems a rather weak reason to base nearly all judgments about another nation's intentions regarding your nation on an incident which was, considering other enormous upheavals and disasters in Chinese history, rather miniscule in scale and happened before my great-grandparents were born. That does not mean it lacks meaning, but I think the actual significance is quite overplayed if this is justification for fear of the United States conquering China. I say that also because you are certainly not the first person I've encountered that has used that as a justification for China's fear of US intentions. That's what I'm saying.
ReplyDeleteChina is also at a lower stage of development (I hate using such terms because I don't subscribe to cookie-cutter "stages" theories) than most nations investing in it. Moreover, the Chinese government has been known to encourage Chinese workers to target foreign firms in their demands for pay raises but keep their hands off Chinese-owned and State-owned enterprises.
I'm simply asking whether you think the Chinese government may have something to do with what a Marxist might call "exploitation" of workers.
I'm a free-marketeer, but I do not consider myself a capitalist simply because capitalism tends to nowadays be associated with corporatism and cronyism. I blame this more on the government than the market, as the government distorts the market and is a coercive entity by definition. The market is a relationship between two or more private actors seeking to better their own situation. Corporations are essentially public, not private. In this argument, I would say Schumpeter, although I think he is mistaken in several places, is closer to the truth than other economists I've come across.
I'll be leaving my computer soon. I have enjoyed this discussion, btw.
“…starts from “the right to self-ownership, to a property right in his own body and person.”
ReplyDeleteYes, but that claim is made possible by basic facts about human existence.
“What is the concern you have with my past beliefs?
Misintegration of premises and principles.
“Consequences don’t exclude our freedom of choice.”
When those consequences bring about death they do.
“Not clear what this [“some breaking of that “we”, with one system of rules prevailing over another..”] refers to, but there is no breaking or constituting of that “we”…”
It refers to your presumptive arrogation of “we” over cases of conflicting claims; such claims must be resolved on one set of principles or another.
“I just happen not to agree that property rights, or the right to one’s body has any bearing outside internal-intentional states of mind among human beings.”
Property rights – or rather the integrity of their instantiation – have a “bearing” upon the survival of human beings via the reality of economic production of values.
“…you’re argument for China leaving Taiwan alone is still going to sound like “We hate you so much, but you have to leave us alone because of democracy and sovereignty.”
No. I do not make an argument for “China” leaving “Taiwan” alone, since I reject the collectivist premise which allows you to make use of those designations. I argue for several ways of undermining, frustrating and circumventing government involvement (from both Beijing and Taipei) in what ought to be free exchanges of value on the markets.
“But the ones that have defied US threats and hostility are mostly the ones with military/economic strength.”
And they are also mostly the countries with the worst and most abusive governments and retarded cultures.
“I have heard so many Chinese people complain about their government.”
So have I, both in person and in print. That doesn’t help you.
“Go to China and see what people think of their government. It’s not a matter of love or hatred, and it’s not a matter of imminent doom.”
No need, I know it’s common to hear Zhou Enlai enjoying a better historical reputation than Mao and so on… but look: the Chinese people may think the CCP is good or bad as hard as they like, but that will have no bearing on the facts – primarily demographic and economic – which may yet bring it to collapse within the next decade.
“Some things I don’t like are murder, unlimited rights to accumulate wealth, political repression, religious superstition, intolerance, living on wages.”
Unless the universal dimension to political rights is denied, then there can be no such thing as an “unlimited right”.
Yes, Michael, I saw that editorial by Wasserstrom this morning. I'm not so concerned with losing or gaining "thunder" as I am with the tossing around of ideas. Respective media tend to sensationalize just about everything possible in order to sell, sell, sell. I don't buy the sensational aspects of much of anything. I would agree mostly with Wasserstrom's argument; I do think we approach it from different ways. I think the chances that the PRC may fail are not high now, but of course as time passes, all things because more and more possible mathematically speaking. (I also tend to reject the idea of the state for ideological reasons, but since I consider myself more of a realist, I do have to wrestle with it for practicality's sake.) I'm more concerned that foreigners (by this I mean non-PRC nationals) are caught up more in hype than substance. Both sides of the Taiwan political aisle tend to agree that Taiwan is in a position of weakness, but I don't see it this way.
ReplyDeleteShould say "become more and more possible mathematically," not "because," above.
ReplyDelete"Respective media tend to sensationalize just about everything possible in order to sell, sell, sell.
ReplyDeleteWell that's true of the tabloids, but you must surely know that the Taipei Times doesn't make a dime. It's paid for by one of Soros's groups.
"I think the chances that the PRC may fail are not high now, but of course as time passes, all things because more and more possible mathematically speaking."
No, no, no - let's not have any recourse to mathematical bullshit, let's have facts. List for me, if you would (Darren too), any facts and corollary conjectures pertaining to China's terrible demographics and economic vulnerability that would illuminate any possible confidence in the PRC's medium to long term future (i.e post 2020).
"...I do have to wrestle with it for practicality's sake."
Practicality to what actions by whom aimed at what end?
I'm aware of the _Taipei Times_ desire to make money. I'm not an _TT_ employee per se. They give me 稿費 if they publish something I write. They've published more of my things than they haven't published, but it is certainly their choice to publish what they wish. As you say, they prefer "fireworks" because it sells newspapers. I've come to expect this; I'm under no illusions. But they have also published things I've written which are not sensational--my latest article about China's reforms, for example, a form of article which does not often appear in the _TT_. I was actually a bit surprised they published it.
ReplyDeleteWell, when it comes to China's major issues--and growing problems, not shrinking--my point is that the things you mention above--terrible demographics, economic vulnerability--and things mentioned above by others--lack of outlet for public displeasure (towards the government/Party, that is), a continuous sense of insecurity (which Darren seems to feel is justified, and I would, too, to a point, but mostly a feeling of insecurity (when coupled, oddly enough, with feelings of extreme pride) manufactured by the state to unite a nation that for the better part of its history did not have strong feelings of national pride (many political terms regarding nation-state, etc., came into the Chinese language in the early 20th century); this feeling may drive China (or, rather, be driven by China) into a massive conflict (political, economic, military, etc.) which it cannot win against vitually all of its neighbors and the United States--these things were included in the rising probability that, as time passes, the PRC Party-state will not be flexible enough to deal with all problems. (I could go on, and will if you'd like [and I'd appreciate additions from the two of you], but I, after reading both your (Mike's) other posts as well as Darren's, that these things were kind of already understood; indeed, you mentioned two already.
Well, when dealing with the state, I am a political scientist and historian (so far a graduate student, but working towards it becoming my profession). By practicality, I mean whether I reject or accept the premise of the state--just as, perhaps, you and I both reject the premise of racial superiority sentiments, we can't reject the fact that they have existed as an element of fascism or yet exist within societies--I still have to deal with its existence. One can be a capitalist and reject socialism, for example, but one cannot realistically reject socialism's existence as a form of economic organization/ideology. To what actions: the fact that the nation-state exists; its mere existence makes it problematic for the political scientist and historian, especially the realist. By whom: all the actors in the international arena as they exist, as well as their citizens (granted these things are human concoctions, but so are cars; if you walk down the middle of the road and reject the existence of the car, that won't stop you from being struck by one). What end: Ideologically, to me, the state is purely coercive and parasitical; in reality, states survive, grow, decline, and die. I'm sure about which specific "end" you're looking for, but my point is that even though I'm probably more closely a free-market anarchist, even the anarchist accepts the idea of the state as the enemy. Without the state, what would the anarchist be left with to oppose? (If you find this rambling and redundant, perhaps you could be a bit more specific as to "what end" you mean.)
"I'm not an _TT_ employee per se. They give me 稿費 if they publish something I write."
ReplyDeleteReally - you just send them unsolicited articles? Surely, there is some mediation by Jhongshan University... otherwise I could be on fire sending them editorial articles two or three times a week on everything from defence, business, monetary policy, banking, education, history, healthcare, the environment, agriculture, transport... you name it, all the things I know next to nothing about. I wouldn't get tired either.
"If you find this rambling and redundant, perhaps you could be a bit more specific as to "what end" you mean."
It is rambling and redundant; deny the existence of the state? Please.
By "end" what I mean (though it was an open question to you...); the intellectual defence of freedom against the State, even the democratic State (a la Tocqueville's observation on the ever expanding democratic impulse), and the advancement of solutions to social problems (e.g. externalities) by means consistent with an ethics of freedom.
Your end, as a would-be historian, is up to you in your choice of aspect; what are you going to chronicle and why?
Nope. Actually, I have had things published in the _TT_ before I even applied for Zhongshan. There's no connection there. I just send them unsolicited articles. I suggest you keep sending (editorials, however, not letters; I've found they rarely publish letters). I don't get tired. I often find time to be a problem, what with my other research, work, and studies. I've sent some things to other newspapers in Taiwan as well (_The China Post_, for example), but I'm guessing my arguments are not in line with the paper's ideas of correctness (or perhaps they think my articles simply suck).
ReplyDeleteI'm not denying the existence of the state. Quite the opposite. I'm not a proponent of statism--I said above I find the state an unnecessary and negative entity. But one cannot approach much of anything without bumping into the state. So, even though I'm not a statist, I cannot and do not deny the state's existence. (I'm not sure where you got that idea. I was simply making reference here to both your and my rejection of racial superiority theories but my admission that they do exist.) Note I did not say anyone denies the existence of the state; I reject the premise of the state as illegitimate, purely coercive, and parasitical. The state is everywhere I go, however. I cannot reasonably deny its existence.
You may be more interested in my response regarding "what end," then, later in life. I'd say my personal end is unfettered freedom of the individual to live his or her life as benefits him or her to whatever end he or she pleases so long as it does not hinder another from the same or different ends. In reality, however, I'd say the "end" humanity has always been working towards is essentially "Benjaminism" (a la Benjamin from _Animal Farm_): Life will go on as it always has--that is, badly. I study and comment; I don't think I have an agenda, and if I do, even I have been unable to locate it.
I study greater East Asia, focus on China and Taiwan and cross-Strait relations. I've also done some research work on Russia (Soviet and post-Soviet). I did my undergraduate thesis on the Sino-Soviet Relationship, roughly from the time of Lenin to the death of Mao. In the future, I'm hoping to finish my Ph.D. in political science (focus probably on Comparative Governments/Politics, China Area Studies, and either International Relations or American Foreign Policy [especially in Asia]). Would like to research, teach, write, etc. That's a pretty broad area to "chronicle," but I'll be focused mostly on Modern and Contemporary China and Asia.
nathan:
ReplyDelete“Does it matter that the United States has a history of fighting the Chinese?”
To the Chinese, it does.
“The point is that that buildup and modernization makes its neighbors worried, not necessarily US policy in the region.”
Neither of us were arguing about China’s neighbors felt, were we?
“Chinese Taiwan policy is also made with one eye--perhaps one-and-a-half eyes--on the United States....What's your point?”
Just clarifying.
“I don't think that's hyperbolic at all. I think the PRC attempts to deflect, downplay, or denounce foreign criticism while attempting to put down domestic dissidence. Is that too hyperbolic? “
This time, slightly less. Thank you.
“Chinese moved to Taiwan; parts of Taiwan were taken under the jurisdiction of China; that adminsitration was lost to the Japanese.....”
Yes, I’m saying that Chinese attitudes (among citzens and party alike) are still influenced by recent history, invaded by everyone. For Taiwan, I’m saying you can’t justify independence through successive occupations, if you believe that only democracy confers legitimacy on a government, nor can you use history to show that the majority of Taiwanese people are not really Chinese. The immediate conflict and decisions are political.
“Politics depends on many things, one of which is attitudes (and that may or may not be the most important dependent at any one time or any times).”
My point is that the most important thing now is how to secure peace with the mainland, not pretending Taiwan is not a basically Chinese place.
“Do the Hui have a choice? The Zhuang? The Tujia? The Lisu? The Tibetan? I'm just wondering.”
They do have some choice. At least, in Jiuzhaigou, the Tibetans have set up one of the cleanest nature-tourist attractions in China. And in Tibet, Han dominance has replaced a feudal theocracy, so in some areas they have more choice in their lives. As for the Hui, they’ve been integrated into Chinese culture more than other minorities, but I don’t know much about the Hui controlled regions of Ningxia. I assume it does give them some choice in their own governance.
“ Native Americans are given the option of living on areas in which they can practice self-governance and receive subsidies from the US government.”
It isn’t relevant if reservations are better than 自治区, right?
‘I'm merely observing and commenting on what I observe.”
Thanks. It’s good to get away from ad-hominem and righteous indignation.
“No, I'm saying it seems a rather weak reason to base nearly all judgments about another nation's intentions regarding your nation on an incident”
Not all judgements. I was specifically saying that it is a factor, along with having been invaded by the Japanese, and being presently boxed in on either side by the US military. These are all factors in Chinese people wanting to have a strong nation, that can defend itself from anyone.
“China is also at a lower stage of development ... than most nations investing in it. ...the Chinese government has been known to encourage Chinese workers to target foreign firms in their demands for pay raises...”
I agree. The government lets in these corporations who profit from a largely helpless labor force. The CCP elite were the first ones to start purchasing labor.
“The market is a relationship between two or more private actors seeking to better their own situation. Corporations are essentially public, not private.”
This distinction seems odd, in that the public and the private have evolved together, and it has been impossible to stop private power from dominating public power, or to stop the public from dominating. Moreover, it’s often been the same people holding political power as private power.
“I'll be leaving my computer soon. I have enjoyed this discussion, btw.”
Me too.
nathan
ReplyDelete“Does it matter that the United States has a history of fighting the Chinese?”
To the Chinese, it does.
“The point is that that buildup and modernization makes its neighbors worried, not necessarily US policy in the region.”
Neither of us were arguing about China’s neighbors felt, were we?
“Chinese Taiwan policy is also made with one eye--perhaps one-and-a-half eyes--on the United States....What's your point?”
Just clarifying.
“I don't think that's hyperbolic at all. I think the PRC attempts to deflect, downplay, or denounce foreign criticism while attempting to put down domestic dissidence. Is that too hyperbolic? “
This time, slightly less. Thank you.
“Chinese moved to Taiwan; parts of Taiwan were taken under the jurisdiction of China; that adminsitration was lost to the Japanese.....”
Yes, I’m saying that Chinese attitudes (among citzens and party alike) are still influenced by recent history, invaded by everyone. For Taiwan, I’m saying you can’t justify independence through successive occupations, if you believe that only democracy confers legitimacy on a government, nor can you use history to show that the majority of Taiwanese people are not really Chinese. The immediate conflict and decisions are political.
“Politics depends on many things, one of which is attitudes (and that may or may not be the most important dependent at any one time or any times).”
My point is that the most important thing now is how to secure peace with the mainland, not pretending Taiwan is not a basically Chinese place.
“Do the Hui have a choice? The Zhuang? The Tujia? The Lisu? The Tibetan? I'm just wondering.”
They do have some choice. At least, in Jiuzhaigou, the Tibetans have set up one of the cleanest nature-tourist attractions in China. And in Tibet, Han dominance has replaced a feudal theocracy, so in some areas they have more choice in their lives. As for the Hui, they’ve been integrated into Chinese culture more than other minorities, but I don’t know much about the Hui controlled regions of Ningxia. I assume it does give them some choice in their own governance.
“ Native Americans are given the option of living on areas in which they can practice self-governance and receive subsidies from the US government.”
It isn’t relevant if reservations are better than 自治区, right?
‘I'm merely observing and commenting on what I observe.”
Thanks. It’s good to get away from ad-hominem and righteous indignation.
“No, I'm saying it seems a rather weak reason to base nearly all judgments about another nation's intentions regarding your nation on an incident”
Not all judgements. I was specifically saying that it is a factor, along with having been invaded by the Japanese, and being presently boxed in on either side by the US military. These are all factors in Chinese people wanting to have a strong nation, that can defend itself from anyone.
“China is also at a lower stage of development ... than most nations investing in it. ...the Chinese government has been known to encourage Chinese workers to target foreign firms in their demands for pay raises...”
I agree. The government lets in these corporations who profit from a largely helpless labor force. The CCP elite were the first ones to start purchasing labor.
“The market is a relationship between two or more private actors seeking to better their own situation. Corporations are essentially public, not private.”
This distinction seems odd, in that the public and the private have evolved together, and it has been impossible to stop private power from dominating public power, or to stop the public from dominating. Moreover, it’s often been the same people holding political power as private power.
“I'll be leaving my computer soon. I have enjoyed this discussion, btw.”
Me too.
Nathan:
ReplyDelete“Yes, but that claim is made possible by basic facts about human existence.” &
“Misintegration of premises and principles.”
You went from insulting incredulity at my statement of past beliefs, to an argument against non-Ojbectivist derivation of property rights. If you’re original concern was whether or not I was full of shit, and didn’t really understand any of the authors I mentioned, why not simply say “Okay, so you cited one of those authors and you know some libertarian theory.”
““Consequences don’t exclude our freedom of choice.”--”When those consequences bring about death they do. “
We cannot choose after we die. Agreed.
“It refers to your presumptive arrogation of “we” over cases of conflicting claims;”
Which arrogation is that? Offer a quote. There is no we over any other we. What exists are particular individuals, who occupy limited historical and social contexts, who are parts of various groupings, and who are all constantly deciding on how to get along with one another.
“Property rights – or rather the integrity of their instantiation – have a “bearing” upon the survival of human beings via the reality of economic production of values.”
Yes, my point is that they’re socially constructed, and exist only in our minds.
“No. I do not make an argument for “China” leaving “Taiwan” alone, since I reject the collectivist premise which allows you to make use of those designations.”
ReplyDeleteMore of that old-school Objectivism. It’s like the ‘re-introducing the measurements” issue. Do you remember that? It’s not about collectivist premises, I’m going with the colloquial manner of description, like “Chinese Government”, “PRC”, etc. They are innaccurate, as opposed, I assume, to “commie-vomiting.”
“I argue for several ways of undermining, frustrating and circumventing government involvement (from both Beijing and Taipei) in what ought to be free exchanges of value on the markets.”
You’re sounding slightly more reasonable
“And they are also mostly the countries with the worst and most abusive governments and retarded cultures.”
Always good reasons to bomb innocent men, women and children. As for retarded culture, I assume you weren’t including Real Housewives of the OC, or Jersey Shore? Other governments are abusive, which is why our government and the military it commands must abuse other countries.
In response to “Go to China and see what people think” , you explain how you don’t need to go to a country to tell me all about it. You really ought to read the Eleven Theses on Feurbach. You have all these conclusions deduced largely from principles and implications of principles. But in this case, you’ve found out that someone you initially found despicable is familiar with your own point of view, and who argues without needing to stay anchored to perjorative adjectives.
“Unless the universal dimension to political rights is denied, then there can be no such thing as an “unlimited right”.”
Whether or not there is a universal dimension to any right is a matter of whether or not there is a universal disposition to intend in the manner described by that right. In other words, it all comes town to what people think about their behavior towards other people, which must be worked out in our relationships with other people, people we know, people we don’t know, and people that exist in the minds of bourgeois materialists.
"To the Chinese, it does."
ReplyDeleteOften because they are taught to care so much.
"Neither of us were arguing about China’s neighbors felt, were we?"
Not necessarily; then again, this has a part to play in US strategy, as well as Chinese strategy, does it not? Then how can it not be relevant?
". . . invaded by everyone."
Who's sounding hyperbolic now?
"They do have some choice. At least, in Jiuzhaigou, the Tibetans have set up one of the cleanest nature-tourist attractions in China. And in Tibet, Han dominance has replaced a feudal theocracy, so in some areas they have more choice in their lives."
Your revising history here. No one living in a "feudal" system called it "feudal," and it would be hard to argue whther any questions regarding their status ever occurred to them. These terms you use were created after the fact. 600-1300 Europeans didn't call themselves feudal; for them, that was life. We criticize it today, but this is not what they thought about it. I can say rather confidently that Tibetans also thought this way, as "feudal" entered Asian languages in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. If such a system was repressive, so are communist systems.
"It isn’t relevant if reservations are better than 自治区, right?"
It is important that reservations are better than imprisonment, right? Which is what happens if someone criticizes the CCP whether he is living in Tibet, Inner Mongolia, or Hunan.
"This distinction seems odd, in that the public and the private have evolved together, and it has been impossible to stop private power from dominating public power, or to stop the public from dominating. Moreover, it’s often been the same people holding political power as private power."
I've addressed this already as a problem inherent in ALL governments. I consider it, therefore, a government problem. In all--all--recorded existing socialist systems, the same holds true. This is not only a problem with capitalism today (i.e., corporatism).
"For Taiwan, I’m saying you can’t justify independence through successive occupations, if you believe that only democracy confers legitimacy on a government, nor can you use history to show that the majority of Taiwanese people are not really Chinese."
Here's a mistake (which I've already addressed): I'm no democrat, and I think democracy is just as illegitimate as any other form of totalitarianism, authoritarianism, etc. The reality of the situation today, however, is that a group--perhaps a majority--of the strongest and most powerful nations believe it is (which says nothing about my own personal inclinations). Indeed, over the past 200 years or so, there were times in which Chinese also wanted democracy. The CCP has, in order to attempt to "further legitimize" their rule have taken measures to democratize within the Party. This says something about how even they view systems in which individuals have at least some say (even though those individuals have to first agree to Party norms, etc.).
I'm assuming the other two posts are directed at Mike, not me, as I did not write the comments you are commenting on.
I have to get ready for class, but I'll be back periodically.
“If you’re original concern was whether or not I was full of shit, and didn’t really understand any of the authors I mentioned, why not simply say “Okay, so you cited one of those authors and you know some libertarian theory.”
ReplyDeleteBecause you annoyed the hell out of me with your insolent defence of the PRC over at J.Michael Cole’s place.
“Which arrogation is that? Offer a quote. There is no we over any other we. What exists are particular individuals, who occupy limited historical and social contexts, who are parts of various groupings, and who are all constantly deciding on how to get along with one another.”
Sure, here in your comment to Nathan at 23:10 on the 24th: “Saying that property rights are somehow fundamental avoids the fact that we [individuals] must all choose what kind of property rights we [to] recognize and whether or not we will allow [whether or not…to observe the principle of] private property.” You see how my paranthetical changes preserve the meaning you claim without arrogating the “particular individuals, who occupy limited historical and social contexts” you speak of into that ominous “we” with the consequence that decision-making about property rights must be consensual, lest the “we” swoop down on any offending individual daring to hold onto his property in defiance of any particular consensus. Put it another way; assume you were my neighbour and assume a mob gathered around your house to deliberate and perhaps even cast a vote on whether or not to break in, steal your stuff and do god knows what else to you and yours – and they asked me to take part in that – I’d want to reach for a shotgun and tell them to get the hell out of your driveway.
“Yes, my point is that they’re socially constructed, and exist only in our minds.”
Property rights must be realized socially, but once they are, their existence is no longer “only in the mind”, because that existence is enormously consequential. A farmer in Miaoli County might agree with you that property rights are “only in the mind”, but the sense of that agreement would be the deplorable lack of integrity to their legal instantiation (because he just had his land “expropriated” by the local government) – yet his moral sense of outrage would not be diminished at all. That was his farm, and they fucking stole it, the thieving bastards. Given that property rights, or their absence, have consequences outside of the human mind in the reality of economic exchanges and of the principles on which violence may operate, your relegation of them to the status of mere thoughts is problematic. An analogy could be drawn with the fact that modern knowledge of quantumn particles came largely from observation of and reflection on consequences, yet no physicist would claim that a quark, say, exists only in the human mind. The moral nature of private property comes to the human mind intuitively because of its obvious implications for survival in a world of scarce resources.
“It’s like the ‘re-introducing the measurements” issue.”
No it isn’t, because use of a country’s name risks conflation of distinct conceptual aspects, e.g. culture or nation or state or all three. I always use the phrase “the government in Beijing”, specifically because my complaint is not against “Chinese people” all arrogated together under a single invalid condemnation. My complaint is against the instantiation of government in Chinese society.
“They are innaccurate, as opposed, I assume, to “commie-vomiting.”
Yes.
“Always good reasons to bomb innocent men, women and children.”
Those are your words, not mine and I will not be held to that claim.
“Other governments are abusive, which is why our government and the military it commands must abuse other countries.”
ReplyDeleteAgain, your words not mine – the “must” ought to be completely unnecessary given that the demand for military action against other governments is currently expressed in primarily political rather than market terms. And again there you go with that deliberate ignorance of aspect. The U.S. military leadership generally targets governments and their military infrastructure with any damage to the wider “country” not usually the specific object of intention – and where it is, as in the Iraq prisoner abuse scandal – it tends to be punished. That abuses of U.S. military power do indeed occur is insufficient reason to draw a context-free moral equivalence between say, the government in Washington and the government in Beijing.
“In response to “Go to China and see what people think” , you explain how you don’t need to go to a country to tell me all about it.”
Indeed, because it is in fact true that I don’t need to go there to make limited pronouncements about it or what the people think about it. That’s part of the glory of global communications, and of personal memory.
“You really ought to read the Eleven Theses on Feurbach.”
Oh, it’s especially interesting when read in conjuction with Rand’s “Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology”.
“You have all these conclusions deduced largely from principles and implications of principles.”
Not to mention observation and personal experience.
“But in this case, you’ve found out that someone you initially found despicable is familiar with your own point of view, and who argues without needing to stay anchored to perjorative adjectives.”
Just because I have changed the tone of my language somewhat, doesn’t mean you’re entitled to that “initially”.
“Whether or not there is a universal dimension to any right is a matter of whether or not there is a universal disposition to intend in the manner described by that right.”
In practice sure, in theory, no. And practice is derivative of theory since it is application of theory to reality.
"I just send them unsolicited articles. I suggest you keep sending (editorials, however, not letters; I've found they rarely publish letters). I don't get tired. I often find time to be a problem..."
ReplyDeleteThat's interesting - maybe I'll start knocking out one or two articles, although today marks the 24th or 25th letter (off the top of my head) I've had published there. I should compile some stats on that...
“I'm not denying the existence of the state.”
I know you aren’t.
“But one cannot approach much of anything without bumping into the state.”
Of course.
“I'm not sure where you got that idea.”
I didn’t – you’ve got the wrong end of the stick there (again), not me.
“I'd say my personal end is unfettered freedom of the individual…so long as it does not hinder another from the same or different ends.”
So... political rights instantiated through ethical conclusions about individual liberty.
"I don't think I have an agenda, and if I do, even I have been unable to locate it."
Surely you just did – or at least the basis for it; consider what could it possibly mean to hold individual liberty as an “end” without acting for that… or perhaps it would be clearer to say that you know your interest and motivation, though as yet in only somewhat vague terms?
Mike: I'm busy with work and school, only time for a limited response
ReplyDelete“I always use the phrase “the government in Beijing”,’
The language you used in your initial responses indicated outrage outrage in reaction to the claim that there were benefits Communist Party rule of China. In our ‘discussion’, you’ve been referring to the "CCP', comprised of tens of thousands of people at present, and similarly large numbers of people throughout the past few decades, in and outside of Beijing. You find it despicable to assert that individuals within this large group of individuals have effected positive changes in China, and that there are thousands of party members still having beneficial effects. Once you get rid of your collectivist thinking regarding the CCP, you’re condemnation becomes either a matter of percentages, or abstract deductions from theories which you also treat in an a-contextual manner. You refer to me as Commie-vomiting, even though the Communist Party no longer does anything communist, and even though I’m not a communist. You cannot simply condemn the crimes committed by people in the CCP and praise the good things they’ve done.
Similarly, you’re obsession with ‘we’ as an indicator of collectivist assumptions suggests a-prioril presumption that my own usage does not simply refer to me, you, and everyone else that exists.
“but once they are, their existence is no longer “only in the mind”, because that existence is enormously consequential”
Existence through consequence? I got about thirty churches in my neighborhood, and all the ideas expressed inside of them have big consequences in reality. However, the gods and spirits they look to for guidance and legitimization are just mythological constructions. They're existential referents are mental states.
You think that rights exist outside our minds? This is what Objectivists ought to call the retention of the mystical in political theory. Rights are just rules of behavior that occupy a status in the minds of people who adhere to them.
You’re example of quarks is useful. “Quark” is an English word that corresponds to different concepts in various minds, depending on the particular individuals understanding of the word, and their understanding of quantum mechanics. Now, the concepts we indicate with the word ‘quark’ are not likely to refer to the actual phenomena in the minds of most people, since for us lay folk we understand it through metaphors, and intermediary concepts. But, in each of our minds, the concepts that ‘quark’ refers to either have or do not have existential referents. So, while the phenomena ‘quark’ referred to by quantum physicists exists, there is no telling what the corresponding concepts in the minds of the laiety might refer to. Some people might think of a ‘quark’ as a little ball, or they might think of it as more along the lines of the diagram they learned it through. Rights, of course, only have one sort of existential referent, what we can call intentional states or dispositions towards interpersonal behavior.
Mike:
ReplyDelete"I didn’t – you’ve got the wrong end of the stick there (again), not me."
Above you said something in a response to one of my comments about the state as "Please." I perhaps I got the wrong message; I was thinking you had misunderstood what I was saying (that I denied the existence of the state, which is of course false). Unfortuneately, as I'm in a bit of a rush, I haven't been able to locate that area of our discussion.
"So... political rights instantiated through ethical conclusions about individual liberty."
I think I arrive at this conclusion in a more rational factor: people are generally happiest and the most efficient when they have the freedom to do what they wish (professionally) and have the responsibility to follow through. This has to do with theories (which are I'm sure not my own) regarding freedom and slavery and freedom and responsibility. I don't have illusions of "rights," at least insofar as they are granted to us. I've come to see rights as merely political privileges that governments decide not to steal from the individual (at least for a certain time). This does not mean that I don't like the idea of rights, it is simply that they tend to be extremely arbitrary and essentially indefensible. In order for each and every individual to be happiest and most efficient, he or she needs the freedom to make personal choices and the ability to accept the responsibilities those choices may impose. In this, the only free act is the making of a decision followed by the will to act upon it. All consequences (the source of responsibility) comes from the act of decision making and the carrying out of the action. A person not willing to accept consequences is also not free in this sense, as his lack of acceptance puts the responsibility on others an, like the master's responsibility to feed, clothe, etc., his slave (consequences of the latter's bondage) inevitably leave to loss of freedom or his lack of acceptance of such responsibilities eventually leads to the rise of groups who desire to solve the problem (the state, the collective, what have you) which limit the individual's decision making abilities. (It's a bit more complex than that, but this is merely my understanding based on observations of private enterprises, the workings of the family structure, studies of different levels of freedom vs. bondage, etc.)
"You think that rights exist outside our minds?"
ReplyDeleteIn a sense qualified along a potential-actual fulcrum, yes. The social realization, or actualization of rights may rest on the prerequisite of particular intentional dispositions toward social behavior, but the concept of an individual's right to property is itself a vertically integrated abstraction of the conditions for individual survival in social groups.
Political rights are instruments to be sure, but they can only be so because their social realization, though it cannot be brought about independently of intentional dispositions, concords with two critical aspects of reality, to wit: the fact that our minds and bodies are individual in nature and the fact that resources are scarce and must therefore be acquired by productive effort. Those two aspects of reality raise the question of who gets what resources, to which a system of private property rights is the answer that best serves the greatest number of people without violating their nature as individuals.
So whilst it is correct to assert that rights must be socially realized, cutting the assertion short at that point overlooks the basis of those rights in the reality of human survival over time in large social groups.
"This does not mean that I don't like the idea of rights, it is simply that they tend to be extremely arbitrary and essentially indefensible."
ReplyDeleteSorry Nathan, I just saw your comment now after posting a defense of property rights in response to Darren. You can take it as addressed to you too if you like.
Oh, Mike, I'm not saying that I think property rights are a bad thing one bit. I simply think all rights are essentially myths. Property exists, and he or she who holds it owns it for as long as he or she owns it. That's not a right, and if it were, it would be an arbitrary one that the state believes it gives you but that actually exists in reality. My meaning is not that these things are good or bad; my meaning is that they are legal (rights), and therefore based on the whims of the state. I reject this from a legal-rights standpoint as I also reject the "rule of law." If these things are mine in reality, and if you and I agree that no one can use force--not even the state--to take them, there's no reason for "rights" in the legal sense.
ReplyDeleteIf rights are not looked at as "legal," they are looked at as natural or "God given," both of which I reject. There's no real way to prove that rights are natural. We can look at nature and see all different and numerous forms of cause and effects, but I doubt these can lead us to "rights." I reject this "God given" interpretation, as in the US Constitution, because I do not believe in some supernatural being handing down rights to us.
I don't reject the "idea" of rights, but I think most explanations do not explain the broader idea of reality. Rights are often meant to defend something from someone and are essentially legal and therefore arbitrary. You can take that where you want. But from my observations, I trust neither the law nor those making laws to protect my interests.
Nathan I just gave a synoptic argument for private property as a natural right which does not necessitate any notion of "conferral" by the State or by a God; the necessity of rights (i.e. their social, and therefore legal recognition) lies in their relation to action over conflicts and disputes among individuals. If you think my argument is wrong, you're welcome to write a brief refutation.
ReplyDeleteMike:
ReplyDelete"In a sense qualified along a potential-actual fulcrum, yes."
Where does Jesus lay along the potential-actual fulcrum.
"Political rights are instruments to be sure"
As are laws, morals, the sacred act of confession between a believer and a priest, and the principles of logic. My point, again, is that rights are socially constructed intentional states, and thus up to the control of those who create/believe them.
"..our minds and bodies are individual in nature and ... resources... must ... be acquired by productive effort. Those two aspects of reality raise the question of who gets what resources"
Yes, and rights are one way of deciding these issues, as are morals and laws. As opened ended concepts, they may change over time, expanding and contracting.
, "to which a system of private property rights is the answer that best serves the greatest number of people without violating their nature as individuals."
Here is where opinion comes in. Best forever and ever? Best in the past? Best for every human being in existence? You're trying to deduce your way to a synoptic view of human relations. There's simply no way to know that. And as for violating their nature. Everything we do is our nature, loving our children, mass murder, picking our noses, etc. (This is also covered in The Eleven Theses..)
"So whilst it is correct to assert that rights must be socially realized, cutting the assertion short at that point overlooks the basis of those rights"
I didn't say they must be socially realized, I said they are socially constructed. Further, they are constantly reinterpreted, violated, and amended.
Also, I answered you're two dares (citing a libertarian author on rights & citing good things the CCP did) are you still afraid I'm full of shit? Do you still feel justified in calling me a slave to my own ignorance? .
Is my position still the poverty and dirt of my own weaknesses?
Sure: briefly, "rights" and "laws" are arbitrary.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: who decides what property is whose and why? Whether one can take it/claim it and defend it? Whether one can convince others he deserves it? Whether he can give enough to the previous owner for that previous owner to give it to him in return? If any of these, where does the basis of that ownership come from? If it is a private agreement, what is there to keep the previous owner from arbitrarily reclaiming it? A contract? Who will enforce the contract? (Note: I'm simply asking here, as I'm unclear. I have yet to come up with an answer for my own ideas except for tradition and defense [of that property], which is also arbitrary but less so.) Interested to hear your response, Mike. You may be able to convince me yet. . . .
(If you've already stated these, I apologize. I've been out almost all week and haven't been able to read all the posts carefully. Perhaps if you could point me in the right direction [in your comments] where you've already hit on these issues, if you already have.)
ReplyDeleteHave a good weekend, Darren and Mike.
”Where does Jesus lay along the potential-actual fulcrum.”
ReplyDeleteYou’d better ask Trey Parker and Matt Stone.
”As are laws, morals, the sacred act of confession between a believer and a priest, and the principles of logic [instruments]”.
Laws and confessions you can put into that category, along with some moral precepts, but you ain’t getting your hands on all of morality and certainly not logic, the sine qua non of a-priori knowledge.
”My point, again, is that rights are socially constructed intentional states, and thus up to the control of those who create/believe them.”
I know that it is your point, but simply restating it overlooks the argument I put to you.
”Yes, and rights are one way of deciding these issues, as are morals and laws. As opened ended concepts, they may change over time, expanding and contracting.”
No, the open-ended nature of concepts simply allows for the integration of new data within conceptual boundaries clarified by context, but that possibility of subsuming new data (e.g. new kinds of things to own) does not extinguish the conceptual boundaries themselves. So a right to private property cannot “contract”, for example, from a previous condition in which it applied to goods justly acquired through voluntary exchange to a condition in which it applies only to those goods to which the sanction of a government department is attached.
”You're trying to deduce your way to a synoptic view of human relations. There's simply no way to know that.”
Oh? And how do you know that there isn’t a way to know that?
”And as for violating their nature. Everything we do is our nature, loving our children, mass murder, picking our noses, etc.”
No it isn’t. A great many things are done, not simply from error, or stupidity, but from depravity – from the deformation of human nature into monstrosity. But look, if you want to pick your nose, fine, I am not going to denounce you as a monster for that. If however you want to pick other people’s noses on the grounds that they are “ours”, I may need to reconsider…
“I didn't say they must be socially realized, I said they are socially constructed.”
Well let’s narrow it down; some “rights” are socially constructed e.g. the government’s “right” to tax. But I don’t think those things count as rights; they are mere presumptions from a preponderance of political power. Unlike natural rights, they have no basis in nature as I have argued that the right to private property does indeed have.
”Do you still feel justified in calling me a slave to my own ignorance?”
No.
”Is my position still the poverty and dirt of my own weaknesses?”
I’m not the person to whom that question should be addressed.
Mike, Nathan, Busy with school now, but can’t resist:
ReplyDelete(”My point, again, is that rights are socially constructed intentional states....”)
“I know that it is your point, but simply restating it overlooks the argument I put to you.”
But it was the argument which you were arguing against. The second part of your argument is to infer some necessity your own preferred concept of rights, which, if you mean the American system of rights, or Canadian, etc. then you are talking about ideas which have evolved and will continue to do so. If you hold to some sort of Randian conception of rights, than you are trying to bridge the is/ought gap by a-historical deduction. The idea of natural rights, from the start, has been an ideal, the secular reformations of the doctrine of natural rights have been mere bourgois materialism, replacing qualities from their own social context and reifying them into some overarching rule, confusing prescription and description. That rights and other norms are socially constructed, places the key on the human ability to construct new norms, and reconstruct old norms. That has been the course of history and it continues in this moment.
“No, the open-ended nature of concepts simply allows for the integration of new data within conceptual boundaries clarified by context, but that possibility of subsuming new data (e.g. new kinds of things to own) does not extinguish the conceptual boundaries themselves. “
The concept of “net” contains the etymology of the word in our own language, as well as the usages of this word. As it stands know the word has been used to encompass a wider range of concepts and existential referents. Natural Rights, began as perrogatives granted by God, and nowadays, people like yourself want to change the concept to eliminate the old conceptual boundaries, and eliminate the ‘perogative granted by god’ part and just say it’s natural, or the inevitable result of proper rational thinking. This is an example of the way the concept of rights changes to exclude previous boundaries.
(”You're trying to deduce your way to a synoptic view of.. “)
“Oh? And how do you know that there isn’t a way to know that?”
Again with the apologetics. How do i know there’s no god? I don’t. I only know that every concept of god or argument for such concepts are irrational, as is the pretention of faith.
Mike: (contd.)
ReplyDelete“ A great many things are done, not simply from error, or stupidity, but from depravity”
So there you’re claiming that ‘error’ is not natural? And stupidity and depravity are not natural? When Chimps gang up on a baby orangutan and kill it and eat it, is this unnatural?
“If however you want to pick other people’s noses on the grounds that they are “ours”, I may need to reconsider…”
What is “ours” in common is the decision to sustain or deny each others intentions in regards to rights and other behavioral norms. “We” all decide if we will let each pick our own noses, and if we want to stop other people from picking their noses.
“. Unlike natural rights, they have no basis in nature as I have argued that the right to private property does indeed have.”
You have argued, but nature is to be discovered by empirical exploration and examination. What other natural characteristics of humans are unverifiable by the scientific method?
(”Is my position still the poverty and dirt of my own weaknesses?”)
“I’m not the person to whom that question should be addressed. “
Where to begin? I’ve had enough poverty and dirt in my life. As for weakness, I’m one of the toughest guys I know.
"...bridge the is/ought gap..."
ReplyDeleteI think that "problem" has a reputation it doesn't deserve.
"...Natural Rights, began..."
No they didn't - their conceptualization begins at the very least with Aristotle.
"How do i know there’s no god?"
That wasn't the question I asked you, and it is not a question in which I have the slightest interest.
"So there you’re claiming that ‘error’ is not natural? And stupidity and depravity are not natural?"
The contrast was between error and stupidity on the one hand, with depravity on the other. People are the only animals capable of depravity.
"...empirical exploration and examination. What other natural characteristics of humans are unverifiable by the scientific method?"
Empirical examination is not the exhaustive and distinguishing characteristic of the scientific method - haven't you read any Popper?