Freedom to Harm Others?

No society can hold together if people were to have unlimited freedom to harm others.  Without fair rules, objective adjudication, and impartial enforcement to counter injurious behaviour, there would be no peace or order, let alone solidarity or cooperation.

 

Yet some people are set on pursuing their own desires and interests at the expense of others’ wellbeing.  They want to be able to do whatever that suits them regardless of the damaging consequences for other people.  And they dress up their callous arrogance as their right to freedom – as though it is unquestionable that they should be free to act as they please, and any attempt to restrain them from hurting others is an outrageous violation of their liberty.

 

Although the abuse of freedom – e.g., to deceive customers in the sale of goods, to steal or rob, to inflict pain on others, to overthrow democratic governments – is readily seen to be unacceptable, all too often the mere invocation of ‘freedom’ (even by the most shameless charlatans) is enough to keep legitimate intervention at bay.  This sleight of hand must be exposed.  Its harmful effects are already spreading way too far.

 

The freedom to push discredited claims about MMR vaccines was allowed for so long that it was almost forgotten that we should stop false information from endangering lives.  Now anti-vax promoters are turning their attention to the Covid-19 vaccines, and unless effective means are deployed to halt not simply campaigns of mass deception, but the reckless behaviour of infecting others with a life-threatening virus, we will all suffer.

 

The freedom to intimidate others directly or by inciting followers to threaten particular groups has also been protected as a result of the misguided belief that the freedom to express a ‘view’ is sacrosanct.  Now we see Trump and associates taking it so far as to encourage their supporters to threaten the lives of public officials involved in safeguarding the electoral process, and overturn the results of a democratic election.

 

There is also the freedom of a sovereign country to do as it pleases – something the UK’s Brexit-obsessed government invokes to break international law and reject independent arbitration over disputes regarding any agreement it has entered into with other countries.  In essence, Boris Johnson wants to be free to renege on any commitment he has signed up to regardless of the harm it may cause others.  By the same token, countries around the world seeking to act aggressively and exploitatively towards others can also invoke their sovereign freedom to do so – proving all the more that there is a need to have global structures to secure and enforce arrangements for peace, trade and security.

 

There is no moral or political reason to confer on anyone the absolute freedom to act without due consideration for others.  Only flawed thinking has led some well-intentioned people to side with non-intervention when intervention is palpably needed to stop the thoughtless and unscrupulous from ruining the lives of others.

 

It is vital to remember – freedom without limits is just a licence to harm.  

It's a Wonderful Greeting

In countries like the UK, US, Canada, and many others, the winter break has for a long time been celebrated with cultural references to Christmas.  People with different religious beliefs or none have put up decorations, sent each other greetings, and talked about the ups and downs of family gatherings over this period.  Despite the contrasts in religious/secular backgrounds; preferences for food; inclinations to shop, drink, or watch TV; they share a common experience of ‘Christmas time’.

Thus, we greet each other ‘Merry Christmas!’

 

Appreciating that there are other cultural festivals that may be celebrated by other groups, some of us take note of these events, and send tailored greetings to friends and colleagues who follow, for example, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Chinese, or other traditional customs.  That is all well in itself.  But then, there are a few who seem to lose the plot.  They go from appreciating the customs of diverse groups in society, to calling for distancing from the inclusive customs that prevail across society.  In short, they want to see all references to Christmas removed.  They want us to give each other ‘seasonal’ greetings, and regard any display in public or personal communications mentioning ‘Christmas’ as unacceptable.

 

Not surprisingly, that led to a reaction against the perceived attack on prevailing customs.  Many feel that it was untenable that the diverse cultures of individual groups in society should be respected but the general culture characteristics of the whole society must be erased.  Unfortunately, this understandable reaction has been swiftly exploited by bigots and charlatans who try to turn it into a platform to condemn diversity and challenge multiculturalism.

 

In this season of goodwill, let us remember that Christmas in our society is a cultural event that promotes kindness, joy, and in truth, a fair amount of indulgence.  No one is pressured into going to church, sing carols, dress up as Santa, eat turkey, or watch the latest Xmas Special on TV.  Indeed, people are to enjoy themselves in whichever way they like.  It is fully compatible with wishing people with their own ethnic/religious/local customs the very best with their celebrations.  Anyone who try to hijack Christmas for their own fundamentalist sect poses as much a threat to Christmas as those who misguidedly want to blank it out.  

 

Christmas is a time for, not petty demarcation, but coming together.  It is a splendid tradition, as the year draws to a close, of reminding everyone to spread joy and hope.

 

Merry Christmas everyone!

What is Offensive?

People argue passionately about what is offensive and whether or not anything offensive should be banned.  But passion without reason tends to end in an incoherent mess.  Consider the following:

 

·      Should everyone – in the name of art, religion, freedom – be allowed to behave as they wish regardless of how offensive others may find it? Should racists, sexists, homophobes be given free rein to taunt and denigrate others in the most offensive manner?

·      Should everyone – in the name of tradition, sacred teaching, decency – be supported in stopping others from behaving in any way they find offensive? Should calls for racial equality, same sex marriage, rejection of creationism, all be ruled out as some people may otherwise be offended?

·      What about people, who demand to have the right to be offensive as they wish AND the support in banning others from being offensive in any way they would not tolerate?  How can anyone even begin to reconcile such arbitrary and conflicting demands?

 

The fact is that different people at different times find different things offensive.  If everything deemed offensive subjectively is to be banned, then few acts can escape from being banned as someone, somewhere, in sound mind or not, may well find it offensive.  Trying to differentiate what is truly offensive in itself from what is wrongly so regarded is futile since the nature of offensiveness is inherently subjective.  What we must recognise is that being offended by something does not necessarily render that something ban-worthy. 

 

How then should we respond when people complain about offensive behaviour they have encountered?  This question can only be answered in relation to our understanding of what kind of society we want to live in.  If we are to have any rules, assessments, and sanctions that are to apply to everyone, then it is a societal – rather than individual – matter as to what should be done.

 

This moral understanding of appropriate behaviour changes over time, but it does not mean that it is incapable of developing in a thoughtful direction.  If society is predominantly influenced by unreflecting views which overlook cruelty and neglect but hang on tightly to oppressive prejudices, then it could end up condemning as unacceptably offensive any expression that does not conform to some arbitrary sense of ‘purity’ or ‘tradition’, while concerns with, for example, racist or sexist behaviour will be dismissed as symptoms of over-sensitivity and misguided outrage.  But if society is moving towards greater thoughtfulness that brings with it deeper awareness of the difference between the manifestation of nastiness, callous neglect, or spiteful provocation, on the one hand, and the inherently harmless acts of people seeking love, creativity, or recourse against injustice, on the other; then that difference will be discerned and reflected in the rules and policies being advanced.

 

It is society that sets the norms regarding what causes of offensiveness should be restrained, and what should be allowed.  The challenge for us is not to come up with a definition of ‘offensiveness’ that can be used universally as the basis for banning behaviour that fits with it.  Instead, our endeavours should be directed towards promoting the moral culture of thoughtfulness, mutual respect, and generosity of spirit.  And we need to spread that ethos both educationally (so more people come to appreciate it) and politically (so governing institutions will act to safeguard it).

Trumpism: Old Con in New Bottle

There is a lot of talk about Trumpism – a new ideology, a new movement, a new kind of politics, etc.  Nothing like a new ‘ism’ to get commentators going.  But what Trump has brought to politics is actually just the same old Con, albeit in a gauche new bottle.

 

Con politics has always been exploiting lamentable tendencies in people who are susceptible to being manipulated into acting against their own interest.  

 

Here are four classic Con tricks:

 

[1] Recruit cult followers

Target people who would feel valued by joining a cult where a shameless and arrogant leader would be perceived by the flock as faultless chief to be followed with total devotion.  Give them a misguided sense of belonging, and they would back the cult regardless of its wrongdoing.

 

[2] Scam gullible buyers

Target people who would fall for con merchants selling snake oil, Ponzi schemes, or anything that would cost them and give them nothing in return but false hope.  Deflect them from good offers, and mislead them into buying into worthless, or even harmful deals.

 

[3] Feed rumour mongers

Target people who would gladly pick up and circulate malicious rumours to help stoke outrage, prejudice, mistrust, fear, etc., as that would get them attention from propagating shocking ‘news’.  Make them feel ‘special’ in spreading ‘information’ that established experts assess to be false or unsubstantiated.

 

[4] Gather law-breaking fodder 

Target people who would embrace any excuse to break the law to suit themselves, especially when it is dressed up as some self-righteous cause.  Encourage them to intimidate, or even attack, scapegoats and enemies with the help of verbal threats, display of weapons, and physical violence – all in the name of ‘freedom’.

 

Trumpian recycled Con

 

So-called ‘Trumpism’ is little more than recycled Con.  For decades we have seen the aforementioned tricks deployed, and Trump has simply made more brazen use of them.

 

First, evangelical cults have always tried to claim ‘God’ for the politics of exploitation, while trampling on religious values of love and fairness.  Like many cult leaders, the morally vile Trump was able to take on the role of the ‘one who can do no wrong’ in the eyes of his followers.

 

Secondly, the ‘free market’ scam is there to con people about the economics of redistribution from the poor to the rich.  Regulations are imposed or removed to suit the wealthy elite.  Trump continued to sell to the public that cutting funds for the less well-off to enrich the few at the top is a great bargain for all.

 

Thirdly, malicious fabrications to denigrate immigrants, public institutions, climate science etc are integral to the Con rumour mill to stir up distrust and animosity, so that the needed public policies are thwarted.  Trump extended the web of deception via social media and reached even more who preferred lies to reality.

 

Fourthly, Con politics has consistently waved the banner of Law & Order while whispering threats of disruption and violence.  From gun-toting gangs to supremist groups, Trump endorsed intimidatory behaviour, and encouraged rejection of the rule of law whenever his failings were being exposed.

 

Pour the old Con away

 

Many books and articles will be written about this tacky bottle called ‘Trumpism’, but what everyone should focus on is the dreadful old Con that it contains.  These tricks can be played in different ways by different performers.  But they all follow the same patterns, and should be thoroughly exposed.  Don’t let the face on the bottle distract you; keep the spotlight on the lies and misdirection. 

The Identity Trap

Careless talk about who we are supposed to be can throw us into a dangerous identity trap.

Some may think that pinning down someone’s identity is an unequivocal matter. But what is one’s identity is a question that depends on the context in which it is asked. Is one being asked about one’s nationality, religion, moral outlook, attachment to customs, workplace position, cultural preferences, sporting allegiance, socio-economic background, biological traits, role in one’s family, or membership of some group that holds special significance? None of the elements just mentioned is sufficient by itself to cover every possible question about one’s identity. Furthermore, just because one cites a particular category in relation to any of these elements, it does not follow that it must be part of one’s identity to possess all the features some people may choose to ascribe to that category.

For example, pick any nationality, and there will be some who associate it with all that is noble and heroic, and some who regard as the embodiment of untrustworthiness and aggression. The truth, for just about every nation, is that there are proud and regrettable moments in its history, and while its members may be judged on how they feel about these moments, they can’t be held accountable for those occurrences over which they had no influence. Similarly, one may have grown up with certain customs, but it does not follow that one will continue to embrace all those customs and related beliefs, or interpret their meaning in the same way. Short-hand labels like ‘Catholic’, ‘Buddhist’, ‘Shiite’ can be totally misleading if we assume everyone with that label must resemble one another in every vital respect, and share responsibility for the actions of anyone who happens to apply that label to themselves.

Biological features could be relevant when referred to in specific contexts, but are likely to distort how people are viewed if invoked on the basis of dubious generalisation. If information relating to DNA, X/Y chromosomes, bodily health, etc can help to determine the diagnosis and treatment of people, then it should be factored in. However, to talk about someone’s ethnicity, gender, or age as though from that element alone we can deduce every significant statement about that person is clearly absurd. Identity politics may rely on rigid categorisation of people into pre-conceived ‘black/white’, ‘female/male’, ‘old/young’ types; but every attribution of inherent psychological or behavioural traits to these types has been refuted by experience.

Equally unfounded, but just as commonly made, are identity claims formulated about people in connection with their socio-economic circumstances. For instance, people who cannot make ends meet and are socially marginalised (because, e.g., they are hampered by the deprivations in their neighbourhoods, recession has left too few job opportunities, disability limits what paid work they can find, dire conditions back home have forced them to become refugees) may have in common the need for external support to obtain food and shelter, but how they see their predicament and what they do in response vary greatly. Yet, to group them as ‘benefit seekers’ and project them disparagingly, especially by equating them with a small minority who attempt to claim benefit payment on false terms, is simply misleading and viciously hurtful.

The identity trap is one of the most insidious propagandist tools. To counter it, we should:
[1] stress we have multiple characteristics and not any single one of these can be picked out as all-defining of who a person is;
[2] expose any attempt to make arbitrary generalisations about what any partial identity label is supposed to encompass; and
[3] remind everyone that there are other characteristics that are all too often overlooked – e.g., the important self-identification as someone who seeks to be a thoughtful person, a caring parent, an enemy of cruelty, a defender of reason.

Humans are complex beings. We must never let others stick us down with a simplistic label.

Make America Sane Again

The world needs the US to be of sound mind. For then it will see that to look after the American people, it should not be divisive either within or beyond its borders. It will seek to understand what really works to make lives better for everyone, and keep at bay the rantings of deranged narcissists.

Let us hope that on 3 November, an end is put to the madness of the last four years. In its place, we look forward to signs of a genuine recovery.

First of all, isn’t it time to get much closer to affordable healthcare for all? Did it really take an inescapable pandemic for the richest country in the world to realise how outrageously wrong it is that millions of its own citizens must suffer and die just because they are denied the necessary jobs and income? Universal healthcare has to be the most fundamental of human safety net.

Next up, the ‘unscrupulous takes all’ economy has to change. So long as corporate cheats can use tax loopholes, relentless lobbying, political donations, etc. to amass a fortune for themselves while leaving most people with insecure, underpaid jobs or no jobs at all, there will be insufficient demand to sustain supplies. Worker cooperatives, community enterprise, strategic regulation and investment, are needed to give people a dependable livelihood.

Thirdly, urgent action is needed to tackle pollution, depletion of non-renewable resources, and climate change threats, all of which have surged ahead under a leader who has cared more about playing golf than not inflicting harm on countless people. These problems require international collaboration, and the sooner callous unilateralism is moved aside, the more chance we will have for a sustainable future.

Fourthly, the world has had enough of Putin’s ambassador to the White House disrupting global security to serve Russia’s geopolitical interest. Sanity calls for, not a return to military intimidation abroad to boost a false patriotism at home, but for a new era of calm leadership and rational cooperation with other countries to secure peace and stability.

Last, and certainly not least, there has to be an unmistakable resolve to put an end to vile discrimination and the politics of hate. The gratuitous stoking of animosity against people based on their gender or race; the standing alongside of misogynists, homophobes, and racists as an shameless ally; and the abuse of executive power to target the vulnerable – all this must be irrevocably displaced by a new dawn of respect and decency.

All these changes are possible. A path to civic recovery is feasible.
On 3rd November – Make America Sane Again.

The Revolution Paradox

Revolutions. What are they good for? Some might say ‘absolutely nothing’, and many caught up in the unleashing of destructive forces and random violence would agree. Moreover, leading revolutionary figures have all too often toppled authoritarian rulers only to establish themselves as even more dictatorial oppressors.

A glance back at the two archetypal revolutions – the French of 1789 and Russian of 1917 – would remind us of a familiar pattern. Vocal denunciation of the prevailing autocratic regime, coupled with promises of a new era that will truly put the people first. Overthrowing of the established order, and dismantling of long-standing arrangements for all key aspects of the governance of society. Suspicion, fear, hysteria intensifying over threats to undermine or even overturn the revolution, leading to baseless accusations, arbitrary arrests, repressive measures, tortures and executions. Tyranny asserts itself and terror reigns.

Many have argued about whether or not these negative consequences of revolutions are ever outweighed by the beneficial changes they might have engendered. What is indisputable is the impact of these revolutions had on fuelling reform movements in other countries which had otherwise long ignored calls for social and political reforms.

Throughout the 18th century, many reformists in Britain had pressed for changes that would curtail corruption within the ruling regime, and enable more people to participate equitably in democratic elections. Their demands were repeatedly brushed aside until the 1789 French Revolution turned their attention to the danger of pent-up demands for change exploding into a violent uprising that could not be suppressed. On the surface, the British establishment remained disdainful of reformist ideas, but in practice, successive reforms were enacted in the following decades to move the country much closer to what the reformists were seeking.

The effects of the Russian Revolution on Western Europe and North America were even more dramatic. Laissez faire capitalism had become the dominant power system in the advanced industrial nations in the 19th century. Against this status quo, reformists called for the state to take on greater social responsibility in protecting citizens from highly damaging economic vicissitudes, and they were routinely ignored, if not condemned. But once the 1917 Russian Revolution and its aftermaths had shown how a ruling regime could be swept aside and replaced by radicals acting in the name of economic justice and respect for workers, political leaders in the West started to accept (however grudgingly in some cases) that the state must take seriously the role of regulating the marketplace properly and providing a decent level of social security for its citizens. The New Deal in the US, the welfare state in Britain, and the rise of social democracy in many parts of Europe illustrated the spread of the new political mindset.

Then came the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, followed by the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Communist revolutionary threat was declared over. Social reforms could not only be ignored once more, but relentlessly reversed. Deregulation, privatisation, welfare cuts, removal of public safety nets, were celebrated as the best policies.

Consequently, millions have suffered. It’s depressingly likely that any revolution would bring short-term terror and long-term oppression to one’s country. But paradoxically, a revolution elsewhere might cause reactionaries to wake up to the need for genuine social and political inclusion, and change course without violent upheaval at home. Of course, in all good conscience, we wouldn’t wish the bloody turmoil of a revolution on any country. Yet what else would it take to shatter the complacency of shameless plutocrats?