Good Sense to Judge
Jamie responds to my post about Columbia university:
Yeah, I can see how threatening sanctions against an organization because you don’t like their speaker list is indeed libertarian. Where does it end?
Pulling funding does not explicitly prohibit Columbia from bringing in certain speakers. Some might argue that they want to pull funding because it puts Columbia in a financial situation that they must comply with an approved speaking list. I have no desire to pull funding for this purpose.
It makes no sense for the state to fund institutes that happily give legitimacy to it’s enemies. The state should not be allowed to prohibit institutes from selecting certain speakers, but it makes no sense that the state must fund those institutes. It’s unclear how this is an anti-libertarian position. If anything the mere reduction in funding regardless of reason is very libertarian.
But now lets turn it on you. How do you justify giving legitimacy to the head of state that’s actively killing our soldiers? If the response is that he can’t possibly gain legitimacy than the next question becomes why have him speak? If everyone knows he is crack pot and has nothing of value to say then what’s the point of him speaking?
Would you support a university that brings Osama Bin Laden to speak? It’s hard to see how you would discriminate between a head of state who’s policy have lead to citizen death and a head of an organization whose policy have lead to citizen death. If you support a university’s right to let Ahmadinejad speak then you should also let Osama speak.
Along the same lines you should also support that University’s decision to allow Timothy McVeigh or Jeffrey Dahmer to speak? How about the shooters from the Columbine killings? Would you support the University’s right to bring the murderer of your wife and kids to speak on the proper ways of raping a child? If you were contributor would you continue funding the university?
Concepts informed by relativism like tolerance and multiculturalism mutate into a childish world view that leads to poor judgment. Some people are monsters and they are not to be tolerated, but put down. No amount of ‘understanding’ is going to civilize them. Some cultures are superior to other cultures. No amount of ‘understanding’ is going to stop the stoning of homosexual in middle-eastern cultures. Some people are simply bad and some cultures are simply bad.
One must have the good sense to discern between good and bad. Western culture is good while middle-east culture bad. Capitalism is good while Communism is bad. Soldiers sacrificing themselves to protect civilians are good while terrorists intentionally blowing themselves up to kill civilians are bad. Relativism robs the person of this good sense of discriminating between good and bad. It denies simple judgments even when those judgments are warranted. (The opposite, which is endemic to conservatives, is hyper-judgment which leads to missing essential nuance for proper judgment.)
Relativism corrupted the good sense of the administrators of Columbia to judge Ahmadinejad as bad, and as such, someone not suitable for inclusion in serious discussion.
September 25th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
1.) Timmothy McVeigh who killed many federal employees has enjoyed a forum from which to speak on several interviews since the incident. While not preferring to watch any of these interviews, I’m certainly happy he has been granted such an ability.
2.) So yesterday you use Neitzsche to argue how this man should be banned by our “weak” government from having a forum and today it’s simply that he can talk but federal funds should be cut off?
3.) Do you understand what a university gives to the community in terms of jobs and income for a region? Are you against all federal subsidies? If the governement gives federal subsidies and then decides to restrict what they sell in their book section, does this make you happy?
4.) Your penultimate paragraph makes you sound like a biggot, an idiot, a racist and a simple-minded fool. Congrats. I’m glad you feel the world would be better off if someone could “dicern between good and bad” as long as the person doing so has the same exact belief system as you.
5.) Go burn some books, Nazi.
5.) Must be hard being you. Sound of mind. Perfect in every way. Lucky enough to be born into the one fundamentally correct system in a large, large world. Hell, you’re even the right color and sex. You must be proud of yourself.
September 25th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
You see, I’m so imperfect I used number 5 twice. Probably why I lack the intelligence to see truth. I should have been sacraficed early in life.
September 25th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
As soon as a court calls for Ahmadinajad to come to trial for specific criminal charges, I will be inclined to believe that it would be comparable to letting any of the people you mentioned speak. I mean, people laughed at him - how is it different from letting a comedian speak?
And in the strictest sense, shouldn’t the Libertarian want to lower the funding of all research and educational facilities equally, regardless of the political leanings of a given institution?
September 28th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
So I’m not sure if I have business posting to this blog and I’m not sure how seriously the posts are intended to be taken, but I feel like this should be responded to.
1. “Tolerance”, as it has been traditionally used means that people should not be persecuted for saying believing or doing things that do not harm other people. Tolerence, as advocated by Locke and others in the liberal tradition, has never meant that we cannot judge what others are saying; it simply means we cannot throw stones at them for saying it. Nor does tolerance mean that we should not punish those who do hurt other people. By criticizing “tolerance” you end up implying things that you probably don’t mean, and you may end up agreeing with people who are far from libertarian.
2. Isn’t it going too far to say that certain cultures are completely good or completely bad? Culture is complicated. Can’t one say that stoning homosexuals is fundementally evil, while recognizing that there may be things of value in the Middle East? Can’t one appluad American soceity for producing the Bill of Rights, while also recognizing that we have had our own evils, such as slavery and Jim Crow.
3. Along the same lines, the middle east is a diverse place and I’m not sure one can talk about Middle Eastern culture as a uniform, monolithic thing. (indeed, the Iranians see themselves as culturally distinct from much of the rest of the MiddleEast). Nor am I sure that one can equate culture with regime type. Clearly, the Iranian regime is horrific, but Tehran has long been a center of liberal intellectuals, and they might take offense at the idea that thier culture is fundemtnally bad, while agreeing with your assesment of the people in power.
4. One might interpret the statement that MiddleEastern culture is fundementally bad to mean that there is something fundementally evil or illiberal about Islamic soceities, though you probably did not mean this. Still, I would remind you that the Ottoman Empire was a predominately Islamic empire and it treated religious minorities, such as Jews, far better than most of Western Europe did. Fundementalist Islam is probably incompatible with liberal democracy, but so are many fundementaist versions of Christianity. One can certainly imagine a society that is both predominantly Islamic and liberal, just as the United States is both predominantly Christian and liberal. It is worth noting that the emphasis of violent jihad by Muslim extremeists today is a recent development and an emphasis that is certainly not shared by all Muslims.
5. I don’t think Colubmia invited Amadinajad because they thought his ideas had merit, but because they think it is good for Americans to realize what people in other parts of the world actually believe. It seems to me taht there are good reasons to try to understand the Iranian reigme, if only to see how scary it actually is.
September 28th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
It couldn’t have been said and phrased better - moderation, as I appreciate it - tolerance, as I understand it. Wow, that is truly a contribution.
September 28th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Wow…. The anonymous poster makes WAY too much sense to post here.
September 29th, 2007 at 1:39 am
we have free choice, as with everything
September 29th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
[…] post is in response to comment left in the Good Sense to Judge […]