Items Posted by Jim Kalb
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sun Sep 1 16:35:47 EDT 1996
Article: 8081 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: The monarchy - a compromise
Date: 1 Sep 1996 16:25:44 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <50crg8$kit@panix.com>
References: <4vo30k$fpl@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> <50bnat$nrp@gerry.cc.keele.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
cla04@cc.keele.ac.uk (Andy Fear) writes:
>I've always taken the view that denying a collectivity is the first
>major step on the road to liberalism. However it is also an interesting
>fact that many individuals who choose to say that 'the people' want
>this or that, a good example being the miniscule group of republicans
>in this country, are usually the keenest on not letting the people have
>their say.
I'm inclined to think that the problem is the inclination to reduce
everything to simple substances and logical constructions, and to view
all else ("the spirit of the British constitution" or whatever) as
ontologically inferior myth. Modern thought likes that approach because
when it works it's very helpful in getting control of things.
If that inclination leads you to identify individual persons as the
simple substances and "society" as a merely logical construction from
those individuals, wholly reducible to them, you get liberalism. If it
leads you to identify "society" as the simple substance, and therefore
to view it as an undifferentiated mass that is the true actor in
events, you'll end up with a different kind of antitraditionalist
radicalism that doesn't take individuals seriously at all.
One feature of the latter version of socially reductionist radicalism
is that since it's a huge undifferentiated mass "society" a.k.a. "the
people" can't speak for itself, so you need someone specially qualified
and knowledgeable to speak for it. By good fortune the adherents of
such radicalisms are often very helpful in identifying persons with the
necessary special qualities.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Dammit, I'm mad!
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sun Sep 1 16:35:48 EDT 1996
Article: 8082 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Buchanan & the Taxpayers?
Date: 1 Sep 1996 16:27:12 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <50crj0$kn0@panix.com>
References: <4ui5nc$p4h@nadine.teleport.com> <4uib5h$oul@panix.com> <4va8sg$q3t@gerry.cc.keele.ac.uk> <223788232wnr@bloxwich.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
rafael cardenas writes:
>The English state was highly centralized, but always had to rely for
>some local-gorvernment purposes on _unpaid_ officials who were thus
>necessarily chosen from the local elite: this created a balance of
>power between the centre and the locality.
Was it also important that routine application of force by the state
required the cooperation of local people, not necessarily part of the
elite? I'm thinking of the jury system, the hue-and-cry to apprehend
criminals, and (my impression of) a greater tendency than on the
Continent to rely on the militia rather than standing armies for local
disturbances.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Dammit, I'm mad!
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Mon Sep 2 05:13:15 EDT 1996
Article: 8083 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Downward Cross Equalization of Wages - The Debate Rages On
Date: 1 Sep 1996 17:29:37 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <50cv81$q67@panix.com>
References: <080320Z28081996@anon.penet.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
an716472@anon.penet.fi writes:
>Jim Kalb wrote:
>
>> Why break the law if you can do that when you could
>> make millions as the world's best lawyer?
>
>The Author responds:
>
>I do believe you are attempting to say something interesting
>here. I just can't figure out what it is. Can you clarify
>and elaborate, please?
18 U.S.C. 242 makes it a crime for anyone under color of law to deprive
any inhabitant of any state, territory or district of any rights
protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. My point
was that if you're smart enough to know what that means you're the
world's greatest lawyer. The more basic point is that "void for
vagueness" is a result-oriented doctrine dressed up as procedural, and
it's extremely unlikely it would be used against something judges like,
such as the civil rights laws.
>> Not a good argument. Consider a law that punishes
>> attempted murder. State of mind is part of the crime.
>
>Discrimination is thought and purely thought, and requires no external,
>affirmative actions (no pun) for an accusation to be lodged against a
>defendant. Employers routinely tell job applicants that if they are
>not contacted further, then they can assume that they were not
>selected. So here we see no specific action on the part of the
>employer, but this will not serve as a defense against a discrimination
>charge.
If an employer merely fantasized about making an employment decision
based on race etc. there would be no liability. The external
affirmative actions required are those that make the applicant an
employee or prospective employee (for example, placing a "help wanted"
ad in the paper), and those that treat him differently on account of
race or whatever. If he's treated differently by not getting called
back then the call to the other applicant is the external affirmative
action that creates the discrimination.
I agree discrimination is different from the examples of attempted
murder I can think of. That doesn't make it merely a thought crime,
though. In addition to the rules that bind all of us the law imposes
particular duties on those who do particular things, for example
binding common carriers to serve all customers without discriminatory
treatment. Here the law binds employers to deal with employees and
prospective employees in a particular way, specifically to base
treatment on considerations other than race and the like. I think it's
a bad law and one that intrudes on how people think about and deal with
each other in a very strange way, but I don't think you can capture its
oddness by saying it's a pure thought crime.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Dammit, I'm mad!
From jk Sun Sep 1 01:09:50 1996
Subject: Re: Bumper stickers
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 01:09:50 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960819221556.006a7d7c@swva.net> from "Seth Williamson" at Aug 19, 96 06:15:56 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 249
Status: RO
> "Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty"?
Reminiscent of "war is harmful to children and other living things" of
60s fame.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Dammit, I'm mad!
From jk Sun Sep 1 16:31:12 1996
Subject: Habermas' Between Facts and Norms
To: neocon@abdn.ac.uk (neocon)
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 16:31:12 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2606
Status: RO
Edward Kent writes:
>To quote reviewer, Cass R. Sunstein's analysis in the NY Times Book
>Review (8/18/96):
>
>"The oganizing theme of the book is Mr. Habermas's rejection of both
>views and his effort to defend instead what he calls 'deliberative
>politics' of 'deberative democracy'. This is emphatically a procedural
>ideal. It is intended to give form to the notion of an ideal speech
>situation. Like civic republicans, deliberative democrats place a high
>premium on reason-giving in the public domain. But like liberals, they
>favor a firm boundary between the state and the society, and they
>insist on a robust set of constraints on what the government can do.
>Mr. Habermas sees majority rule not as a mere statistical affair, an
>effort to tally up votes, but instead as a large social process by
>which people discuss matters, understand one another, try to persuade
>each other and modify their views to meet counterarguemts. In this way
>we form our beliefs and even our desires."
Sounds like a book for a philosopher to write and a professor of
constitutional law to review favorably, naturally for high-minded
reasons.
We are to be ruled in accordance with procedural ideals that call for
reason-giving and insist on a robust set of constraints on what the
government can do. Presumably the ideals and constraints and their
application will be determined philosphically, that is by a small and
coherent body of experts, rather than through division of power or
historical evolution. Otherwise it seems their integrity could not be
maintained. Given the ideals and constraints, measures are to be
determined not by consensus or weight of opinion, or by the decision of
responsible actors, but by the outcome of a deliberative process that
avoids the usual messiness of deliberations by large and heterogeneous
assemblies because it conforms to higher standards, presumably again
determined and applied by experts. The higher standards would of
course trump majorities and the beliefs and desires of the people,
since the latter, where they do not measure up to the standards, are to
be understood as conditioned and formed by social circumstances that
did not themselves measure up to sufficiently high standards.
It all sounds wonderful; the only difficulty I see is finding the
necessary experts to supply and apply the rules for the rest of us to
live by. Do Habermas and Sunstein have any helpful thoughts on that
subject?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Dammit, I'm mad!
From jk Sun Sep 1 16:33:33 1996
Subject: back to smoking
To: newman@listserv.vt.edu
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 16:33:33 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1029
Status: RO
In connection with discussions a month or so ago on anti-smoking
feeling -- on our flight back to New York from London someone created
an amazing ruckus by sneaking a smoke in one of the lavatories. The
stewardesses were calling to each other about it to each other across
the aisles, and there were several announcements about it on the public
address system, one from the captain himself who said they took a very
dim view of it, that it was a Federal criminal offense to smoke on
aircraft, and if anyone did it again and they found out who it was
they'd make sure he spent his first night in the U.S. in a jail cell.
It wasn't clear to me what U.S. law had to do with the matter, since
the event took place on a non-U.S. aircraft (Virgin Atlantic) outside
our airspace, but for some reason he made a point of that rather than
any particular risk or problem smoking might cause.
Has anyone had a similar experience?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Dammit, I'm mad!
From jk Sun Sep 1 20:20:23 1996
Subject: Re: Bumper stickers
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 20:20:23 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <3.0b15.32.19960901191437.0069de90@swva.net> from "Seth Williamson" at Sep 1, 96 07:24:28 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 684
Status: RO
> >> "Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty"?
> Maybe it's just me, but I swear it hits me with the feeling
> that there's an insufferable smugness about it.
I agree it's insufferable, at least usually. The literal meaning is
confused so different people who put it on their cars might have
different things in mind. The second part is rather on the precious
side.
> Just like the one I saw last night, which I haven't seen in
> two or three years: "WARNING: I BRAKE FOR ANIMALS."
I was never able to get anything at all out of that one.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Dammit, I'm mad!
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Mon Sep 2 08:58:41 EDT 1996
Article: 8094 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: The monarchy - a compromise
Date: 2 Sep 1996 08:46:32 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <50ekv8$mb4@panix.com>
References: <321AE15F.2781E494@cybercity.westnet.net.uk> <4vo30k$fpl@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> <50bnat$nrp@gerry.cc.keele.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In le@put.com (Louis Epstein) writes:
>: I've always taken the view that denying a collectivity is the first major
>: step on the road to liberalism.
>Eh?It is the usual practice of the left to not only insist on the existence
>of the collective,but to deify that fictitious collective.
It is the usual practice of radical revolutionaries to deify some
particular part of the social world and construct everything else
wholly by reference to that deified part. Liberals do it with the
isolated individual, other leftists with the collective, others with a
leader, yet others perhaps with a ruling house.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Dammit, I'm mad!
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Mon Sep 2 08:58:42 EDT 1996
Article: 8095 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Buchanan & the Taxpayers?
Date: 2 Sep 1996 08:58:07 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <50elkv$nju@panix.com>
References: <4ui5nc$p4h@nadine.teleport.com> <4uib5h$oul@panix.com> <4va8sg$q3t@gerry.cc.keele.ac.uk> <223788232wnr@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> <50crj0$kn0@panix.com> <50egnf$a6e@gerry.cc.keele.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <50egnf$a6e@gerry.cc.keele.ac.uk> cla04@cc.keele.ac.uk (Andy Fear) writes:
>The usual solution offered for why there was no English revolution is
>that the English monarchy never detached itself from these local
>elites in the way that the fossil monarchies of Europe did.
Decentralization. But didn't the English themselves identify the jury
system and the rights of Englishmen generally as a distinctive and
crucial part of their national heritage? If so, were they just
deceiving themselves? Did those institutions, the prejudice against
standing armies, the early reliance on longbowmen rather than chivalry,
and the ability of local elites to rely on the loyalty of the
barely-trained troops they equipped and officered lack a basis in the
general organization of social life?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Dammit, I'm mad!
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Wed Sep 4 05:30:45 EDT 1996
Article: 8105 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: a.r.c. resource lists I
Date: 3 Sep 1996 05:27:46 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <50gtmi$ovk@panix.com>
References: <50cfos$3fp@panix.com> <50flem$kcg@news.ro.com> <50g31v$3r0@panix.com> <50gqd8$lpo@gerry.cc.keele.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <50gqd8$lpo@gerry.cc.keele.ac.uk> cla04@cc.keele.ac.uk (Andy Fear) writes:
>: >Just wondering what these books are doing on the list.
>:
>: I no longer remember what the theory was.
>Surely ...
Actually, I should have mentioned that I've never read Tolkein. It's
good to see there was and is a theory, and a persuasive one.
>Lewis in the Discarded Image (is that on the list?)
No. What's it about?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Dammit, I'm mad!
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Wed Sep 4 05:30:49 EDT 1996
Article: 67029 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: FAREWELL TO THE FEMINIST PESTILENCE?
Date: 4 Sep 1996 05:29:50 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <50ji6e$nr0@panix.com>
References: <50ipig$dn7@Axil.wave.co.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <50ipig$dn7@Axil.wave.co.nz> g.hunt@wave.co.nz (Graeme Hunt) writes:
>Hallelujah! After 40 years of helping inflict social havoc and
>demolition on Western society, the radical feminist movement - female
>Robespierres - are finally getting their comeuppance.
In the sense that it's obvious they're wrong? Not much of a
comeuppance. In America at any rate all respectable institutions and
public discourse are still committed to feminism. The only questions
are how to make it work, and what to do about the problem of "hate
speech", which includes expressions of the view that there are
differences between men and women that ought to be treated as material.
No doubt you're right in a sense. In the _Republic_ Plato argued that
the worse thing that could happen to someone who was wrong was to be
successful in wrongdoing. Most of us however take a less ideal view of
such situations.
>As US evangelist Pat Robertson has observed, radical feminists have
>(among other things) persuaded equally silly women to despise
>marriage, reject religion, rush to divorce, kill their children,
>become lesbians.
>Much of this can be traced back to the unnatural philosophies,
>paranoia and wilful stupidity of the so-called "women's liberation
>movement." Fortunately, overseas ar least, the feminist cause, under
>the cold weight of reality, is taking a heavy knock, with fewer and
>fewer people falling for the feminist fairy tales.
I think it's important to understand how feminism is a natural outcome
of a great many other things that have been going on for a long time,
such as the triumph of technology. Scientific technique is to make
whatever desires we happen to have the measure of all things. Since
getting what we want is to be the purpose of social organization, what
place can there be for set social roles and obligations, or for the
conception of a moral reality that transcends particular individual
goals?
So feminism can't be understood as a passing aberration. Today's
Western society stands or falls with it -- to escape from it would
require quite radical changes and reverse trends that have been
gathering force for centuries. My own view is that the reversal and
changes will happen, since feminism and other features of the current
order can't be made to work long-term, but it's not going to happen
easily or rationally and it's going to be a mess.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Dammit, I'm mad!
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Thu Sep 5 06:34:23 EDT 1996
Article: 8113 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Joseph de Maistre sur le Web
Date: 4 Sep 1996 14:06:26 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <50kgf2$m0f@panix.com>
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In dc@cage.rug.ac.be (Dr. Denis Constales) writes:
>English abstract: two texts of Count Joseph de Maistre (one of the
>foremost counter-revolutionaries) are now on the Web.
>http://cage.rug.ac.be/~dc/JMIE/index.html
>http://cage.rug.ac.be/~dc/JMSP/index.html
In each case it should be " ...~dc/Literature/J... "
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Dammit, I'm mad!
From jk Wed Aug 14 21:59:30 1996
Subject: Re: you shoulda seen the other guy
To: schmoore@shentel.net (Andrew Bard Schmookler & April Moore)
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 21:59:30 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <01BB8A15.150954E0@eb4ppp17.shentel.net> from "Andrew Bard Schmookler & April Moore" at Aug 14, 96 07:14:54 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1717
Status: RO
>Sure I personally consider Buddha to have revealed more wisdom than
>Hitler, yet Buddha himself would no doubt have said that Hitler's life-
>expression taught us as much as Buddha's
I have a hard time saying much about this and other such comments. They
don't seem either sensible or interesting. Maybe there's a context in
which they are illuminating, but I don't see the context, and your
friend's approach seems too facile for paradox to be justified. Paradox
is at the margins of what we can understand, and it's difficult to
handle well. I'm not sure your friend has gone through the discipline
that entitles him to appeal to it so freely.
>What has this to do with moral action? I (as you see) am not the least
>bit inhibited from acting toward Hitler in accord with my own moral
>sense, without the slightest need to evaluate his.
Fine, he does whatever he feels like doing to Hitler, no one in his
social circle is going to yell at him for that. How about other people
with whom he doesn't see eye to eye? Does he have a reason for taking
them and their views more seriously? If so, what's the reason? If not,
does he feel free to model his treatment of them on the treatment he
imagines himself dishing out to Hitler?
>Outside of a context where validity has an agreed-upon measure, what
>does it mean to say that one statement is more valid than another?
If that's right then I don't think an agreed-upon measure will do him
any good either. If there were such a measure, how could valid
compliance with it be determined? By virtue of a second agreed-upon
measure?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Dammit, I'm mad!
From jk Mon Sep 2 08:38:19 1996
Subject: Re: Common Prayer Volume 2 Issue 11
To: common-prayer@covert.ENET.dec.com (Common Prayer Mailing List)
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 08:38:19 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <9608241453.AA26443@us2rmc.zko.dec.com> from "Common Prayer Mailing List" at Aug 24, 96 10:53:32 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2325
Status: RO
Something for your next issue on responses to the Righter verdict:
Rev. Dr. Michael G. Cole writes:
>we must accept the reality of the situation, which is the inevitable
>acceptance of the ordination of practicing homosexuals.
It does look likely, and I don't think any of us should build anything
on the idea that it's not going to happen. For all that, "I can't
figure out how to change it" isn't the same as "inevitable". Nothing's
inevitable until it happens, and even done deals can come unglued when
there's something basically wrong with them.
>Your comments would be appreciated - The Rector
What can you do when you think your bishop, and the whole tendency of
thought in your branch of the church, is seriously wrong on important
issues? Since the Moderator has not said that he will censor based on
lack of knowledge, intelligence, or clarity of expression, I will go
ahead and throw out my own thoughts:
1. Christ has told us that when we gather in his name he is among us.
So it seems that even if it is true that serious errors are dominant in
our part of Christ's church it is still part of Christ's church and we
should be reluctant to abandon it.
2. An answer to charges of isolationism or congregationalism is that a
local congregation should try to maintain union both with its own branch
of the Church here and now and with the univeral Church throughout and
beyond the world and all ages.
3. Modernists consider the traditionalist view of homosexuality
utterly irrational. In response it is necessary to hold to and present
an understanding of God, man and the world that makes that view
reasonable and necessary. Since the modernist view is winning big in
the secular culture, and opponents are increasingly considered weird
bigots, traditionalists should expect clearheaded and consistent
adherence to their own perspective to end up putting them uncomfortably
at odds with accepted ways of thinking about things in America at the
end of the 20th century. They aren't likely to be understood or
praised for it. They might even have to reform their own lives in ways
that aren't easy and of which they might never have become aware if the
issue hadn't come up.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Dammit, I'm mad!
From jk Wed Sep 4 13:49:15 1996
Subject: Re: Neill in London
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 13:49:15 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <3.0b15.32.19960904061914.006a86e4@swva.net> from "Seth Williamson" at Sep 4, 96 06:19:24 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 828
Status: RO
> Speaking of religion in contemporary London, on at ATC
> broadcast I heard somebody claim that there are more Muslims
> attending weekly services of some sort in Britain than there are C.
> of E. members.
We visited a lot of ancient churches while driving up to Scotland from
Heathrow and it sure looked to us like things were dead in the C. of E.
Most of the churches had a multicolored poster about Peruvian women
demonstrating against higher prices, but that was usually the only sign
of recent activity.
It's not just the Anglicans who are having problems. There was a news
article on the RCs in Scotland that talked about how well they were
doing, having lost only 30% of their attendence since 1980.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Dammit, I'm mad!
From jk Thu Sep 5 09:40:23 1996
Subject: Re: Neill in London
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 09:40:23 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: from "Francesca Murphy" at Sep 5, 96 12:56:52 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1308
Status: RO
> They claim unanimously - on the basis of what evidence I know not -
> that the drop in attendance has bottomed out and recovery has begun.
In Cullen there was an article in the paper that the local K. of S.
minister had organized a successful campaign to increase participation
and attendance. The tone of the article was "gee isn't this an oddity"
but maybe the writer's just behind the times. The minister's a live
wire, by the way -- like the Royals we're Presbyterians in Scotland and
attend services at his church which is only 50 yards or so from where
my mother lives.
> As far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, in contemporary
> Scotland and elsewhere, you have to have divine guidance continuously
> to make such an extreme hash of things (most recently with Vatican II)
> and yet to survive two thousand years.
Shakespeare can take a lot of punishment and still be Shakespeare, so
it speaks well for the RC church that it can do the same.
You're lucky you can control what your cats are named, by the way. At
our place everyone feels free to invent private names and change them
at will, so there are usually several times as many names in current
use as there are cats.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Dammit, I'm mad!
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sat Sep 7 11:44:57 EDT 1996
Article: 67288 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.government.abuse,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.president.clinton,alt.society.conservatism,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Belgium's Silent Tax Revolt
Date: 6 Sep 1996 17:38:40 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <50q5l0$12d@panix.com>
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: news.panix.com alt.government.abuse:9401 alt.politics.clinton:342885 alt.politics.democrats.d:131778 alt.politics.economics:87719 alt.politics.equality:24741 alt.politics.libertarian:254230 alt.politics.radical-left:142534 alt.politics.reform:118947 alt.politics.usa.congress:78968 alt.politics.usa.misc:135712 alt.politics.usa.republican:349847 alt.president.clinton:115055 alt.society.conservatism:67288 talk.politics.libertarian:161403 talk.politics.misc:574479 ca.politics:108102
In "P. Marks" writes:
>By the way (in case anyone is thinking "defence spending") Belgium spends
>little on defence. Indeed it is subsidised - NATO H.Q. is there.
>The European Union also subsidises Belgium (H.Q. is there etc).
>And Belgium is still a mess - with unemployment at about 14% (not
>counting people in government "training schemes").
Is Belgium that different from other countries of Western Europe? My
impression is that most have heavy taxes, widespread evasion, very high
unemployment especially among young people, a worse debt problem than
the U.S., blossoming social problems (crime, family breakdown,
homelessness, unassimilated immigrants), and political systems in which
everything is basically locked in place, so that nothing can be done
about any of the foregoing.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Dammit, I'm mad!
From jk Sun Sep 8 19:37:28 1996
Subject: Re: Neill in London
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 19:37:28 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <3.0b15.32.19960908073438.00693694@swva.net> from "Seth Williamson" at Sep 8, 96 08:02:40 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1436
Status: RO
> Did you see the piece in the (I think) New Yorker six or
> eight months ago about C. of E. clergy? Somebody or other who had
> been interviewing many of them said the main thing he noticed was how
> depressed and dispirited most of them are. I don't know enough about
> English manners and folkways to be a good judge, but on the basis of
> my three weeks there--most of it church-mousing from town to town--it
> struck me as well that many of the C. of E. clergy seem to be aware
> that they are part of a superfluous and dying institution. No wonder
> they're sad.
Didn't see the piece, but it seems likely. At the one C. of E. service
we attended, an evensong at York Minster, I was struck by the extent to
which the liturgy presumes that the C. of E. is the established church
of a Christian and monarchical society. England today is far from
either in any real sense, actually it's fundamentally opposed to both,
so the whole scenario was rather aside the point. Like the cathedrals
we saw, it was a fragment of a civilization that isn't there at all any
more.
We ran into one man, an Anglican evangelical, who claimed that the
evangelicals are taking over the Anglican church. I'm not sure what
that involves, or what it could mean or lead to. They seem to need
something, though.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Dog, as a devil deified, lived as a god.
From jk Mon Sep 9 08:06:31 1996
Subject: Re: Neill in London
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 08:06:31 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: from "Francesca Murphy" at Sep 9, 96 12:49:21 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 626
Status: RO
> he blames that silly book, Honest to God. The C of E was never the
> same again!
1963 or thereabouts, wasn't it? If it hadn't been that it would have
been something else. Almost anything that happened at that time could
be viewed as the cause of what happened just afterwards, which means
that it wasn't any particular thing that resulted in the changes of the
60s. The latter were simply changes in habits and attitudes that made
no sense in the absence of something that had already died.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Dog, as a devil deified, lived as a god.
From jk Tue Sep 10 14:48:10 1996
Subject: Re: Neill in London
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 14:48:10 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: from "Francesca Murphy" at Sep 10, 96 04:18:18 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2118
Status: RO
> > > that silly book, Honest to God. The C of E was never the same
> > > again!
> If one speaks to Anglicans of around forty-five, the people who have
> been the decision makers at a Parish level for the past ten years,
> they very frequently mention that Honest to God was a key book in
> their lives. If you study and teach it, as I have done, you can see
> why its curious mixture of literalism and subjectivism gained a hold
> over many people's minds and why it had such a deleterious effect.
I'm in the glorious position of never having read the book, but insist
on my right to talk about it anyway. Do you think that the situation
in the Anglican Church, because of that book, is very different from
what it would have been if the book had never been written, and that
it's very different from the situation in other churches in which the
book played less of a role, simply for that reason?
My own inclination, based solely on ignorance and prejudice, is to
suppose that the situation in Anglicanism/Episcopalianism is much like
that in other mainline churches, only more so because as the
established church in England and the church of the social elite in
America it's more mainline than anyone else and so more thoroughly
reflective of opinion and attitudes in respectable society at large.
I'm also inclined to think that a particular silly book shouldn't be
blamed for bad things happening on a large scale any more than a
particular bottle of Night Train Express should be blamed for someone's
habitual drunkenness. If it hadn't been that it would have been
something else.
For all that, there may have been something very special about the
book. That would be awkward, because I have no intention of reading
it, and if you are right I will be forever in the dark as to the causes
of the recent history of Anglicanism. Hence my argumentativeness.
Should I take a look at the book? Would it be enough just to read the
first and last page and the chapter headings?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Dog, as a devil deified, lived as a god.
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Wed Sep 11 20:04:32 EDT 1996
Article: 67854 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.sex,alt.politics.sex,soc.men,soc.women,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Sexual morality FAQ
Date: 11 Sep 1996 20:04:26 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <517k2a$jv9@panix.com>
References: <516u3s$7gg@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: news.panix.com alt.society.conservatism:67854 alt.sex:361011 alt.politics.sex:18478 soc.men:232142 soc.women:207822 talk.philosophy.misc:65811 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:583545
"D. Braun" writes:
>Don't you realize that if you pose your own hypotheses, and then answer
>them with nary a reference (not one, nada), you are open to the charge
>of circular reasoning, that you had the answer in mind before you wrote
>the question?
I intended to cover the major objections usually advanced against
traditional sexual morality. Did I leave out questions that I should
have included given that intention? If so, what should I have added?
Answering the objections concisely is difficult because different
people have different presuppositions and different ideas as to what an
answer would require. What I tried to do was set forth brief arguments
that together constitute a coherent position, each point of which is
defensible. Some find that position convincing as it stands, some find
it suggestive and worth discussing, some find it hopelessly lacking.
You seem to think it has pretty big flaws. Can you tell me what you
think the major ones are?
I don't understand your "nary a reference (not one, nada)" when in fact
there *are* references.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Dog, as a devil deified, lived as a god.
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Wed Sep 11 20:11:10 EDT 1996
Article: 67855 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.sex,alt.politics.sex,soc.men,soc.women,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Sexual morality FAQ
Date: 11 Sep 1996 20:07:46 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <517k8i$kk3@panix.com>
References: <516u3s$7gg@panix.com> <5177j6$cgc@hal.cs.duke.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: news.panix.com alt.society.conservatism:67855 alt.sex:361012 alt.politics.sex:18479 soc.men:232143 soc.women:207824 talk.philosophy.misc:65812 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:583547
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
># As in the case of any moral clash, we can try to persuade each
># other. Differing attitudes toward sex have to do with differing
># understandings of what the world and human nature are like. Those
># can and do change, and when they change they often have an enormous
># influence on conduct. If persuasion doesn't work then
># accommodations may be possible, but to the extent the clash relates
># to things that are fundamental to social life the alternatives may
># become social separation or overriding your views or mine by force.
>
>*After* you and your friends will give up "overriding views by force"
>as an alternative we will have a nice talk about your "morality."
All I say here is that if people disagree on fundamental matters
relating to how they live together they can persuade each other, they
can separate, or they can use force. With what do you disagree in that
analysis?
You seem to think for some reason that I have a special fondness for
force. Not so. For example, I very much oppose the current proposals
for making discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal.
I hope you do so as well. For more on general political considerations
you might reread the rest of the section from which you extracted your
quote and the following two sections.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Dog, as a devil deified, lived as a god.
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Thu Sep 12 05:33:08 EDT 1996
Article: 67856 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.sex,alt.politics.sex,soc.men,soc.women,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Sexual morality FAQ
Date: 11 Sep 1996 20:11:07 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <517ker$l08@panix.com>
References: <516u3s$7gg@panix.com> <5177j6$cgc@hal.cs.duke.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: news.panix.com alt.society.conservatism:67856 alt.sex:361013 alt.politics.sex:18480 soc.men:232144 soc.women:207825 talk.philosophy.misc:65813 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:583550
arcline@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Austin Cline) writes:
>If I have a baby, a family life, been betrayed, contracted an STD, or
>exhibt self-sacrificing devotion is really of no concern to you or
>anyone else, thus the premise of all of the rest of your post is faulty
>- and incorrect.
If you have a baby how you act is certainly of concern to the baby, and
it's also of concern to the people who later come in contact with that
child.
There are parts of American cities where the great majority of children
are illegitimate and grow up without a father in the home. Do you
think those circumstances have no consequences for how those children
develop and what it is like to live around them? Do they matter to the
children themselves, for whom the circumstances of their early life and
surroundings are not a matter of choice?
>> public standards regarding the private conduct that leads to them
>> can be a good thing if they help promote some and reduce others.
>
>Naturally, a similarly bogus argument can be made as to the necessity
>of regulating other sorts of "private conduct" - like religion,
>political affiliation, forms of entertainment, dietary habitys, and
>even thoughts. However, since all such arguments are entirely without
>merit in a society where the starting premise of one of personal
>freedom and autonomy, no one need give them the slightest bit of
>credence.
I don't get it. Your last sentence makes no sense unless there are
valid public standards regarding political opinion. The preceding
sentence seems to reject the notion of such standards.
>Try China - they're very receptive to such things.
It seems to be your view that public standards of sexual conduct are an
unusual thing that most societies except a few particularly restrictive
ones have dispensed with. Is that right?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Dog, as a devil deified, lived as a god.
From jk Wed Sep 11 06:58:36 1996
Subject: Re: Neill in London
To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 06:58:36 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: from "Francesca Murphy" at Sep 11, 96 09:55:17 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1009
Status: RO
> 'It would have happened anyway' is very thin ice, philosophically? How
> can one discuss might have beens?
Same way one can talk about causes, I suppose.
> So it, rather than any other, because there didn't happen to be any
> other, encouraged Anglicans to cease to understand their faith as
> objectively true.
I believe everything you say. It just seems to me that even without
HtG by 1996 something else would have done the same job. Conceptions
of enduring objective truth have been falling out of favor generally
and I can't think why the Anglicans (an established church with no
aversion to comfort and compromise) would have remained forever at odds
with the rest of the world. I think most of us understand only what we
already half-believe, and it certainly sounds as if the middle-aged
vicars you mention were ready to receive the message in their student
days.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Dog, as a devil deified, lived as a god.
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Thu Sep 12 18:04:14 EDT 1996
Article: 67925 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.sex,alt.politics.sex,soc.men,soc.women,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Sexual morality FAQ
Date: 12 Sep 1996 07:41:11 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 83
Message-ID: <518ssn$2r9@panix.com>
References: <517k2a$jv9@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: news.panix.com alt.society.conservatism:67925 alt.sex:361194 alt.politics.sex:18502 soc.men:232286 soc.women:207896 talk.philosophy.misc:65855 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:583990
"D. Braun" writes:
>It would help if you actually sprinkled references in your text. None
>of your discussion of what the statistics mean was referenced. This
>either means that it was conjecture or plagarism.
Most discussions that make their way into print are not footnoted. Does
that mean they are either irresponsible or dishonest?
>Either way, what you wrote was very one sided, and much of it simple
>assertion based on little or no presentation of causation that was
>persuasive to me. Me, I'm a skeptic, and a social libertarian. Ya gotta
>prove it to me.
I presented arguments that the correlations involved causation. If you
have comments on those arguments I can respond to them.
>I did smell a certain bad odor, in that you appeared ready to trample
>on the rights of the minority, for the perceived good of the majority-
>-- about such private matters as sex and sexuality.
What people's rights are, and how private sex and sexuality are, are of
course issues that can be discussed at enormous length. The approach
of the FAQ however is to narrow the focus by putting the issue of legal
enforcement of public moral standards to one side and asking whether
public moral standards regarding sex and sexuality are a good thing.
As an analogy, many people on usenet think it is important for there to
be strong public moral standards against racist opinions but do not
favor legal sanctions against them. Does such a view violate people's
right to have an opinion?
>For example, baldly stating that the sexual revolution of the '60s, if
>that statement is even correct, caused the family problems of later
>decades proves absolutely nothing.
That's not what I do. Reread 5., 6., and 7.
>I got so annoyed reading it that I just read part way, and skipped to
>the end.
It shows.
>> For example, I very much oppose the current proposals for making
>> discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal.
>
>So, descrimination against homosexuals isn't "force", if its the force
>of the law giving a landlord the right to kick you out because you
>seem to be homosexual, or lose custody of your kids, or be forced to
>testify aggainst a domestic partner of 20 years, or have a will
>nullified because you have no spousal rights, all have nothing to do
>with FORCE??!
The Senate bill that just barely got voted down related to employment
discrimination. Overriding the right not to enter into contractual
relations in matters fundamental to daily experience of life (who you
work or share living space with) with people whose way of life you find
seriously objectionable strikes me as force.
In custody disputes the use of force in inevitable, so it seems that
discrimination against homosexuals would not increase the amount of
legal force and its elimination would not make society less coercive or
more libertarian. The other situations strike me as quite rare and I
don't see that they should affect an overall analysis. Compelled
testimony is the general rule in trials, although as you suggest
privileges sometimes apply and there are always disputes as to who
should get one. I'm not sure of the testamentary situation you have in
mind. The usual rule is that you can leave your property to whoever
you want, but if you have a spouse she can take part of your estate (I
think usually a third) against your will.
>narrow-minded busybodies and "stealth" religous fanatics like yourself
Not surprisingly, we disagree on the identity of the narrow-minded
fanatic in the present exchange. It's unclear to me why the fanatic is
the party who looks at the world, notes that all societies have had
public codes of sexual morality that have usually been taken quite
seriously, observes that current efforts in the West to do away with
such codes have been associated with major problems that could readily
be seen as consequences, and therefore concludes that those efforts are
a mistake.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Dog, as a devil deified, lived as a god.
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Thu Sep 12 18:04:15 EDT 1996
Article: 67953 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.sex,alt.politics.sex,soc.men,soc.women,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Sexual morality FAQ
Date: 12 Sep 1996 15:41:09 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <519p0l$rns@panix.com>
References: <517k2a$jv9@panix.com> <518ssn$2r9@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: news.panix.com alt.society.conservatism:67953 alt.sex:361331 alt.politics.sex:18528 soc.men:232390 soc.women:207926 talk.philosophy.misc:65889 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:584268
In "D. Braun" writes:
>BTW, its intellectually dishonest to snip most of a reply you are
>responding to in order to benefit your point (I had offered a dozen or
>so alternatives to the "sexual revolution of the 60's" as the central
>cause of family problems).
Don't understand the complaint.
You said I just made assertions without giving arguments, and I said I
had given arguments and asked you for comments on them. I didn't
comment on your alternatives but so what? They didn't look as if they
were intended as comments on my arguments, which in any case you said
didn't exist and which from your other comments it appeared you
probably hadn't read.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Dog, as a devil deified, lived as a god.
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Thu Sep 12 18:04:16 EDT 1996
Article: 67960 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.sex,alt.politics.sex,soc.men,soc.women,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Sexual morality FAQ
Date: 12 Sep 1996 16:22:52 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <519res$6m8@panix.com>
References: <516u3s$7gg@panix.com> <517k2a$jv9@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: news.panix.com alt.society.conservatism:67960 alt.sex:361347 alt.politics.sex:18529 soc.men:232402 soc.women:207933 talk.philosophy.misc:65892 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:584302
In "D. Braun" writes:
>One could also hold that [1] the shift in working class jobs overseas,
>[2] the downturns in the economy, [3] growth of suburbia and monster
>malls at the cost of inner cities, abetted by the car/highway culture,
>[4] ongoing racism, [5] movement of the demos and repubs to the right,
>[6] rise of the Ayn Rand "greed is good" culture, [7] rise in the
>national debt under Reagan leading to tighter budgets, [8] greater
>global competiveness, [8a] increased TV viewing, [9] increasing income
>gap between rich and poor, [10] two parents working in the home, [11]
>the CIA heroin and crack connections, or [12] a lack of decent TV
>shows like Leave it to Beaver ALL CONTRIBUTED TO FAMILY BREAKDOWN.
Rather an odd list. 1, 2, 7, 8, and 9 seem to have to do with economic
hardship. There's far less economic hardship and far more family
instability now than 60 or 100 years ago so that doesn't seem to be the
problem. That's doubly true in Europe. In any event, divorce and
single motherhood don't seem to be a good solution to personal economic
difficulties, so I'm not sure what the causality is. The relevance of
3, 4 and 5 is obscure. 8a, 12 and maybe 6 and 11 have to do with
cultural trends that I don't doubt are a problem. The FAQ of course
does not claim that that weakening of traditional sexual morality is
the only bad cultural trend we've had to contend with. See the answer
to 7. for example. 10 (I assume you mean "outside" instead of "in")
has to do with the weakening of sex roles that I agree has been a
problem, one related to the decline of traditional sexual morality.
I do wish you'd comment on the arguments in the FAQ if you want to
carry on a discussion.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Dog, as a devil deified, lived as a god.
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Fri Sep 13 05:57:52 EDT 1996
Article: 67980 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.sex,alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Sexual morality FAQ (fwd)
Date: 12 Sep 1996 19:38:45 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <51a6u5$7n4@panix.com>
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: news.panix.com alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:584446 alt.politics.sex:18533 alt.society.conservatism:67980
In "D. Braun" writes:
>This is a repost, as Kalb snipped most of it when replying--- not real
>honest, Kim.
I *truly* don't understand this. I try to copy enough to make the
point of my comments clear. If there's a point you want me to cover
that I didn't respond to, you should simply say so.
For my own part, I *hate* it when people copy the whole of a long
previous post and I hate it worse when a whole exchange is carried on
that way so that the posts become hundreds of lines long, with only a
few new ones that people are expected to search for.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Dog, as a devil deified, lived as a god.
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Fri Sep 13 07:36:27 EDT 1996
Article: 68027 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.sex,alt.politics.sex,soc.men,soc.women,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexual morality FAQ
Date: 13 Sep 1996 07:36:00 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <51bgv0$hdu@panix.com>
References: <5177j6$cgc@hal.cs.duke.edu> <517k8i$kk3@panix.com> <51a0j4$6ra@hal.cs.duke.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: news.panix.com alt.society.conservatism:68027 alt.sex:361581 alt.politics.sex:18560 soc.men:232595 soc.women:208017 talk.philosophy.misc:65931 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:584826 alt.politics.homosexuality:142353
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>My choice is simple:
>If you are against abortions then don't have one.
>If you are against adultery then don't commit adultery.
>If you are against gay sex then don't fuck members of your sex.
>If you are against straight sex then fuck only members of your sex.
>
>Can you live in such a society?
Depends on what other things turn out to be true about such a society,
doesn't it?
>I have no doubt that you see the using of force to "solve"
>disagreements as an alternative. I just hate this alternative.
You see it as an alternative as well, but you prefer other means.
(Elsewhere for example you indicate that you think taxes and armies are
OK.) That's OK from the standpoint of the FAQ -- the issue it discusses
is what ways of life should be accepted as good, not how social
morality should be vindicated. See for example 3.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Dog, as a devil deified, lived as a god.
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Fri Sep 13 07:52:40 EDT 1996
Article: 68028 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.sex,alt.politics.sex,soc.men,soc.women,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Sexual morality FAQ
Date: 13 Sep 1996 07:45:29 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <51bhgp$i6a@panix.com>
References: <518ssn$2r9@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: news.panix.com alt.society.conservatism:68028 alt.sex:361585 alt.politics.sex:18561 soc.men:232598 soc.women:208019 talk.philosophy.misc:65933 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:584832
arcline@phoenix.princeton.edu (Austin Cline) writes:
>The citation of statistics and numbers in an effort to prove a point
>*is* either irresponsible or dishonest when not properly referenced.
So naming the sources but not footnoting is irresponsible or dishonest?
I would have thought it had to do with levels of formality. In non-
scholarly discussions footnoting is uncommon and it's not even common
for people to give sources for statistics. As to the FAQ, it should be
clear enough which of the sources given to look at for which
statistics.
>Correlation does not prove or necessitate causation - that is just *so*
>basic and fundamental, it hardly needs comment, much less repeating.
Couldn't agree with you more. That's why the FAQ doesn't simply cite
correlation.
>Nowhere in your "FAQ" did I detect a general discussion about whether
>public standards at all were a good idea.
1. - 4. say in rather general terms what public standards are, how they
differ from other things (laws, private opinion, whatever) and why they
are needed for sex. Much of the rest of the FAQ is intended to support
the case that they are needed.
>Only the government can violate a person's right to have an opinion. If
>everything thinks an opinion is nutty and says so, then a person's
>right to have that opinion is not violated so long as the government
>does not try and keep them from having it. If the government is
>neutral, no rights are violated. Period.
Is the same true of sex? Remember that the issue considered in the FAQ
is whether there should be public standards regarding sex, not the
appropriate role of the law.
>>Overriding the right not to enter into contractual
>>relations in matters fundamental to daily experience of life (who you
>>work or share living space with) with people whose way of life you find
>>seriously objectionable strikes me as force.
>
>By that reasoning, there should be no laws against racial or sexual or
>religious or political discrimination in the area of employment. After
>all, it involves overriding the right not to enter into contractual
>relations in matters fundamental to daily experience of life (who you
>work or share living space with) with people whom you find seriously
>objectionable - and that is force.
I don't know of any laws against political discrimination. The other
situations are distinguishable since race, sex and (in America in 1996)
religion are not essentially about orientation toward conduct that is
fundamental to people's most important moral connections to others. In
any event, antidiscrimination laws *do* involve the use of force, and
based on what Hillel said I would expect him to oppose them.
>Oh, and by the way: homosexuality is *not* simply a way of life, it is
>a sexual orientation. You can be homosexual and celibate.
So proposed laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation would permit discrimination on the basis of non-celibate
homosexuality?
>If I *have* the baby, that is of no concern to anyone else. That
>another individual human being happens to exist in this world is none
>of your concern. Now, how that person acts towards you and others is
>within the scope of your interest, but that is another discussion
>entirely.
I find this and a lot of the rest of what you say a mixture of the
dogmatic, the pedantic, and the pointlessly idiosyncratic.
>A set of standards which assumes that individuals are not autonomous
>and should make their own decisions about their private lives is *not*
>compatible with a political system which *does* assume that. Thus, you
>ideas about sexual morality are incompatible with our type of free
>society.
You speak as if I were talking about something that is a novelty in
American history.
In any event, "autonomy" and "private lives" don't define themselves
and the American political system has not been based on staring at them
and speculating about what they mean. They are useful conceptions to
the extent they bring out aspects of our political attitudes and
practices that have done good things in our life together.
Accordingly, they have to be given a meaning consistent with other
things in our political and social life, such as our reliance on each
other, and if some interpretation of those words makes life decidedly
worse for the great majority it will and should not last.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Dog, as a devil deified, lived as a god.
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Fri Sep 13 20:52:22 EDT 1996
Article: 68034 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.sex,alt.politics.sex,soc.men,soc.women,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Sexual morality FAQ
Date: 13 Sep 1996 09:22:07 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <51bn5v$1ef@panix.com>
References: <516u3s$7gg@panix.com> <5177j6$cgc@hal.cs.duke.edu> <517ker$l08@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: news.panix.com alt.society.conservatism:68034 alt.sex:361610 alt.politics.sex:18566 soc.men:232624 soc.women:208031 talk.philosophy.misc:65949 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:584873
In arcline@phoenix.princeton.edu (Austin Cline) writes:
>>>If I have a baby, a family life, been betrayed, contracted an STD, or
>>>exhibt self-sacrificing devotion is really of no concern to you or
>>>anyone else, thus the premise of all of the rest of your post is faulty
>>>- and incorrect.
>>
>>If you have a baby how you act is certainly of concern to the baby, and
>>it's also of concern to the people who later come in contact with that
>>child.
When I wrote the preceding sentence I thought it clear that "how you
act" includes the things that determine the baby's environment and thus
the rest of Mr. Cline's list at the top. If it wasn't, let it be so.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Dog, as a devil deified, lived as a god.
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Fri Sep 13 20:52:23 EDT 1996
Article: 68061 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.sex,alt.politics.sex,soc.men,soc.women,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexual morality FAQ
Date: 13 Sep 1996 20:47:03 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <51cva7$1t6@panix.com>
References: <51a0j4$6ra@hal.cs.duke.edu> <51bgv0$hdu@panix.com> <51c6eb$p23@hal.cs.duke.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: news.panix.com alt.society.conservatism:68061 alt.sex:361787 alt.politics.sex:18588 soc.men:232790 soc.women:208092 talk.philosophy.misc:65974 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:585193 alt.politics.homosexuality:142486
In <51c6eb$p23@hal.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>The government should do as little as possible, and the use of force
>should be limited to defending people's body and property, not to
>enforce "moral" values.
The FAQ's consistent with that. It seems to me that if we had a
minimal government then the generally accepted view of sex and sexual
conduct would be very much like the traditional one. After all, it's
not something that arose during the big government era.
Suppose there were no public schooling, no social security, no medicare
or medicaid, no welfare. People would rely on family connections *far*
more than today. That means that they would be brought up with
attitudes and habits that emphasize and promote stable and strong
family obligations and those would be the habits and attitudes that
receive social support. ("Social support" and "government support"
aren't synonymous.) My claim is that the view that sex is simply a
matter of individual choice has the reverse effect, so it would not
survive under a libertarian legal regime.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Dog, as a devil deified, lived as a god.
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sat Sep 14 04:57:38 EDT 1996
Article: 8164 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: The monarchy - a compromise
Date: 13 Sep 1996 14:14:58 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <51c8b2$gk@panix.com>
References: <321AE15F.2781E494@cybercity.westnet.net.uk> <4vo30k$fpl@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> <50bnat$nrp@gerry.cc.keele.ac.uk> <50ekv8$mb4@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In le@put.com (Louis Epstein) writes:
>: It is the usual practice of radical revolutionaries to deify some
>: particular part of the social world and construct everything else
>: wholly by reference to that deified part. Liberals do it with the
>: isolated individual, other leftists with the collective, others with a
>: leader, yet others perhaps with a ruling house.
>I would define devotion to a ruling house as opposition to radical
>revolutionaries,and thus counter-revolutionary.
But devotion in your manner seems to give the ruling house a blank
check. It treats them as the source of social order rather than part
of social order. I don't see the advantage of such a view over a
radical revolutionary view, if the two differ. After all, there have
been royal revolutionaries.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Dog, as a devil deified, lived as a god.
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Mon Sep 16 12:00:27 EDT 1996
Article: 68284 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.sex,alt.politics.sex,soc.men,soc.women,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexual morality FAQ
Date: 16 Sep 1996 11:51:18 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <51jt1m$ilv@panix.com>
References: <51ihe2$h4q@daily-planet.nodak.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: news.panix.com alt.society.conservatism:68284 alt.sex:362743 alt.politics.sex:18691 soc.men:233354 soc.women:208339 talk.philosophy.misc:66087 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:593996 alt.politics.homosexuality:143014
In <51ihe2$h4q@daily-planet.nodak.edu> dunnigan@plains.nodak.edu (Creature of the Wheel) writes:
>Not that I support dependency on the government, but it seems fairly
>obvious that sexual mores and other values are largely dependent on
>what is pragmatic within a particular environment.
Sure.
>One thing that must be noted is that there are many behaviors which
>may be related indirectly to sexuality, but have a much larger
>influence upon those who are not engaged in the behavior than
>sexuality itself. For example, certain parenting methods bring about
>various personality types. A person who gets pregnant with a child
>that they do not want may very well raise that child in a detatched
>manner which could very possibly harm the child, or those associated
>with the child in the future.
Sexuality is fundamental to what we are, so it's part of a whole web of
things that makes our life what it is. Change one part of it and the
other parts change too. That's why in these things tradition (the
accumulated experience of many different people under varying
circumstances over a long period of time) is usually a better guide
than reasoning about particular circumstances.
Not that reason doesn't tell us useful things. For example, it seems
reasonably clear that an understanding of sex, family and children that
makes them all highly optional, to be freely decided on in accordance
with the individual's understanding of his current situation and
intentions, will end up causing many parents to feel detached from
their children when their goals and circumstances change, as they
almost certainly will long before the child reaches adulthood. On such
an understanding the child is likely to end up being for the parent a
burden blocking his further growth resulting from past decisions based
on grounds that are no longer valid.
>In cases of people acting responsibly, there is really no good reason
>to try to influence them to adapt a different system of sexual
>morality.
Since people aren't machines how they treat their children and others
depends on the whole of what they are rather than on responsibility as
an isolated characteristic. Section 9. of the FAQ focuses on this
issue, although much of the rest is relevant as well.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: O, Geronimo -- no minor ego!
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Mon Sep 16 12:00:30 EDT 1996
Article: 68285 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.sex,alt.politics.sex,soc.men,soc.women,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexual morality FAQ
Date: 16 Sep 1996 11:57:57 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <51jte5$jvt@panix.com>
References: <51ihog$h4q@daily-planet.nodak.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: news.panix.com alt.society.conservatism:68285 alt.sex:362745 alt.politics.sex:18692 soc.men:233355 soc.women:208340 talk.philosophy.misc:66089 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:594015 alt.politics.homosexuality:143015
In <51ihog$h4q@daily-planet.nodak.edu> dunnigan@plains.nodak.edu (Creature of the Wheel) writes:
>: In cases of people acting responsibly, there is really no good
>: reason to try to influence them to adapt a different system of
>: sexual morality.
>I must follow myself up. Even in cases of irresponsibilty there is no
>excuse to enact controls on somebody unless the irresponsibility
>directly or necessarily has a negative effect upon someone else.
In view of the sentence immediately preceding I'm not sure whether your
follow-up has to do with penal law or with social standards as well.
Are you saying that unless an action directly or necessarily has a
negative effect upon someone else there is no excuse for trying to
influence someone to do the contrary, or something less than that?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: O, Geronimo -- no minor ego!
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Tue Sep 17 10:29:42 EDT 1996
Article: 68388 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.sex,alt.politics.sex,soc.men,soc.women,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Sexual morality FAQ
Date: 17 Sep 1996 10:24:32 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 170
Message-ID: <51mcb0$585@panix.com>
References: <517k2a$jv9@panix.com> <518ssn$2r9@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: news.panix.com alt.society.conservatism:68388 alt.sex:363063 alt.politics.sex:18736 soc.men:233589 soc.women:208465 talk.philosophy.misc:66150
barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>[Newsgroups reduced to something reasonable]
I added alt.sex and soc.women back in. If you want to make do without
the Rush Limbaugh fans that's OK.
>One may thus add the additional question, is there reason to assume it
>has to be a package deal, a consistent principle that unites each
>proposal into a unified package, or can we pick and choose, agreeing
>with some things, rejecting others?
It's difficult to pick and choose too much since (as I just said to
someone else) sex is quite fundamental to our lives, individual and
social, and it affects other aspects of our lives in ways that are
difficult to isolate and fully understand. So I think the best approach
is to model ourselves on a pattern of behavior that has worked for
people rather like ourselves under circumstances that aren't too
radically dissimilar. In a healthy society the modelling and
adjustments to the pattern take place through acceptance and slow
evolution of tradition. Hence the appeal to "traditional sexual
morality."
The overall point of it all, as the FAQ suggests (for example in 5.
through 7.), is to establish a social pattern of conduct and feeling
that reliably leads to durable long-term connections of mutual
obligation between particular people that are felt to be basic to who
those people are, and in particular among mother, father and children.
The issue, in short, is "family values." So my view is that especially
under present circumstances (which tend toward social atomization and
weakening of principles of social order other than market and
bureaucracy) changes in traditional sexual morality that weaken family
values are very troublesome.
>Certainly our own culture has one, you summarized it well in your
>essay: do no harm, apply no coercion.
To clarify: when I speak of "public standards of sexual conduct" I mean
standards that have something specifically to do with sex.
>The public sexual moralities of human cultures are incredibly variable.
>The variability cannot even be simplified onto a linear scale of
>strict<->lax, so eccentric are the rules various cultures have
>proclaimed for sex.
Agreed that it's far too subtle and complicated to reduce to anything
linear. Sex can't be engineered or made simple; that's why a
specifically sexual morality is necessary and tradition plays such an
important role in determining what it is. That doesn't mean it's wholly
inscrutable or lacks common principles, of course. I live in New York
City, for example, and it seems to me that the traditional sexual
moralities of quite a variety of groups (Italians, Hasidic Jews,
Baptists, Hindus, Muslims, Chinese) have important tendencies in common
that distinguish them from the sort of view dominant in _The New York
Times_ and make it possible to speak meaningfully (as people do) of
"traditional sexual morality" without special reference to a particular
tradition.
>Well, no, actually. No-force-or-fraud is _much_ more restrictive than
>some cultures' moralities in significant ways, yet those _same_
>cultures are much more restrictive in other ways; there's no simple,
>linear comparison.
When I said no-force-no-fraud is "looser" than traditional morality I
was of course speaking of a traditional morality that excluded force and
fraud rather than of Roman morality.
>the relative strictness or laxity of a culture's sexual morality, seems
>to correlate not at all with that culture's overall viability and
>success.
No doubt that's so up to a point -- strictness and laxity typically vary
within limits, they're multi-dimensional, and other things are going on
as well. If sexual morals are loose they may not be loose in all
respects and other things may take up the slack in personal relations.
Early mediaeval Iceland would be an example -- divorce and concubinage
were common, although not as common and certainly not as consequence-
free as among us today, but homosexuality was strictly forbidden and
other personal relations such as kinship, friendship and fosterage were
far stronger.
None of that means that it's impossible for things to go seriously awry
with regard to sex in a way that has serious social consequences. The
current attempt to do without any specifically sexual public morality
falls, it seems to me, outside the range of historical precedents. It
seems that people think they'll make up for the stronger family bonds
once supported by traditional sexual morality through contract law, the
welfare system, and counseling. I don't think that will work.
>Consider, for example, the difference between what can be freely
>_discussed_ today, versus the public discussion of, for example, 1950.
A certain degree of public reticence with respect to sex is I think
appropriate and natural. Where to draw the line is a matter of public
taste. Presumably if sexual issues were less embattled people would
feel less need to discuss them in all fora.
>Or take masturbation. The height of antimasturbation hysteria was back
>around the turn of the century, before the time of anyone around now,
>and I expect I could get general agreement that a campaign against
>masturbation should not be a major national priority :-). But where
>does one draw the line, if the proposal is not to simply turn back the
>clock?
I'm not sure what issue you have in mind. The public judgment that
masturbation is wrong is a very old one so I'm not sure why a particular
state of affairs at the turn of the century is so relevant. It seems to
me it would be hard to maintain the rest of traditional sexual morality,
the point of which is to make sex essentially tied to love, marriage and
children, without viewing masturbation with disfavor. I don't see though
that a public judgment something is bad implies that a campaign to
eliminate that thing altogether need be a major national priority.
>At least one modern change in morality, the legality of abortion,
>_reduces_ the number of unwanted and neglected children in our society.
Your understanding of people strikes me as far too mechanical.
Attitudes depend on moral context. If people think of a baby as a
choice that draws its value from the parent's intentions and goals then
I think there will be more children who end up unwanted and neglected
than if people think of a baby as something with a great and irreducible
value that is independent of such things. Legal abortion is more
consistent with the former than the latter way of thinking.
>How does one separate out economic factors, the difficulty of one
>person (or even two, frequently) earning enough to support a family
>today? Is it a lack of sexual morality or a lack of free time that
>endangers our children?
Controlled experiments are hard to do and perfect comparisons are hard
to find, but the social world isn't wholly inscrutable. If it were
rational political action would be impossible. You might compare for
example illegitimate children and children whose mothers are single or
short of cash for other reasons. You could then argue about those
comparisons and look at other things. Eventually you would come to some
sort of conclusion.
>I suspect I know what his uniting principle may be, and I suspect I
>also know why he chose to leave it out as too problematic.
Do you want to share your suspicions?
>I am moved to ask two questions of Mr. Kalb: how does he expect this
>change to come about
My answer in 19. of the FAQ is basically "who knows, but cultural
evolution is ingenious, and if I'm right about the benefits of public
sexual standards like the traditional ones then somehow or other
they'll end up getting institutionalized." My best guess is that the
libertarians and cyber-anarchists will turn out to be right about the
fate of government responsibility for the welfare of individuals --
it's not going to last. The welfare system will go, and then social
security and public education. The result, as outlined in a post I
think to Hillel within the past day or so, would be a renewed need for
close ties of mutual obligation among individuals especially those of
different generations, therefore family values, therefore something
very like traditional sexual morality.
>and has he considered the unintended consequences of both the change in
>sexual morality itself, and of the methods which are used to bring it
>about?
A change in our current sexual morality or (at least official) lack
thereof would no doubt be tied to changes in many aspects of our social
attitudes and habits. I think it's necessary, and the best thing I can
do to help avoid or mitigate ill effects is to promote rational
discussion of the situation.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: O, Geronimo -- no minor ego!
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Tue Sep 17 22:34:58 EDT 1996
Article: 68436 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.sex,alt.politics.sex,soc.men,soc.women,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexual morality FAQ
Date: 17 Sep 1996 22:25:54 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <51nmji$ll3@panix.com>
References: <51ndqc$egd@daily-planet.nodak.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: news.panix.com alt.society.conservatism:68436 alt.sex:363278 alt.politics.sex:18763 soc.men:233728 soc.women:208523 talk.philosophy.misc:66190 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:596095 alt.politics.homosexuality:143419
In <51ndqc$egd@daily-planet.nodak.edu> dunnigan@plains.nodak.edu (Creature of the Wheel) writes:
>As far as social standards, I find OK to warn somebody about sexual
>practices which may prove harmful (such as unprotected sex), but as
>long as the act takes place between two consenting adults, I feel that
>it is not society's right to do any more than offer suggestions.
Why is that? Is it your belief that such acts don't affect other
people, or that society shouldn't do more than offer suggestions as to
acts that affect others unless the effect is immediate and specific, or
that there's something special about sex such that social interests
carry less weight with regard to it than with regard to other
departments of life?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: O, Geronimo -- no minor ego!
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sun Sep 22 12:50:15 EDT 1996
Article: 68561 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: <"talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.reform,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,talk.politics,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory">
Subject: Re: More Shocking Evidence of GOP Hypocrisy
Date: 19 Sep 1996 06:37:00 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <51r7oc$okh@panix.com>
References: <3240CA36.2EA9@ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: news.panix.com alt.politics.usa.republican:359650 alt.activism:225153 alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich:106236 alt.society.conservatism:68561 alt.politics.correct:179310 alt.politics.reform:122173 alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater:79577 talk.politics.guns:395718 alt.politics.clinton:350726 alt.politics.democrats.d:137002 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:597397 soc.women:208657
> From Gail Thaler
> "...The latest exposee is Republican pollster and strategist Arthur
> Finklestein, 51, whom Boston Magazine calls a 'semi-out' homosexual
> living with a male companion and two adopted children in a posh, horsey
> section of Massachusetts's North Shore.
>
> "This wouldn't be news had Finklestein not worked for such vocal
> gay-bashers as Jesse Helms and Luach Faircloth, Don Nickles and Bob
> Smith."
>
> Faircloth calls him "an excellent consultant, and he is a friend." "But
> the Senator, a vocal foe of gay adoption, protection of homosexuals from
> workplace discrimination and of service by gay men and women in the
> military."
Is it hypocrisy to have a business associate and friend who lives in a
way that you think is wrong?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: O, Geronimo -- no minor ego!
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sun Sep 22 12:50:17 EDT 1996
Article: 68597 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.president.clinton,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.society.conservatism,ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Americans Waking Up to News Media Bias
Date: 19 Sep 1996 18:31:35 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <51shk7$rvc@panix.com>
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: news.panix.com alt.news-media:41611 alt.politics.clinton:351008 alt.politics.correct:179447 alt.politics.democrats.d:137188 alt.politics.economics:89475 alt.politics.elections:89208 alt.politics.equality:26501 alt.politics.libertarian:259396 alt.politics.reform:122323 alt.politics.usa.misc:140160 alt.politics.usa.republican:360014 alt.president.clinton:118683 alt.society.civil-liberty:63674 alt.society.conservatism:68597 ba.politics:48577 ca.politics:109691 talk.politics.guns:396013 talk.politics.libertarian:165774 talk.politics.misc:585513
In "P. Marks" writes:
>Well I am British and I have just (24.29 British time) been watching a T.V.
>program "Spin" on the (liberal) British station "Channel Four".
>This has film of Larry King of C.N.N. talking to Bill Clinton in 1992 whilst
>off air during his chat show saying "Ted Turner is big fan of yours", "he
>would serve you know", "give him a call after you are elected".
Another small bit of evidence I just noticed, as if it could add to the
obvious -- an item in "Neal Travis' New York" on page 9 of the
September 18 _New York Post_:
Marlo Thomas looked around her Fifth Avenue penthouse the other
night and chuckled. "We just invited all the usual New York
liberals," she said of the throng she and Paul Newman had
assembled to toast Dr. Helen Caldicott's autobiography, "A
Desperate Passion" (Norton).
Caldicott, the Australian-born anti-nuclear campaigner, kept up
the liberal theme. She noted that Walter Cronkite told her years
ago that if America really knew what he believed in, he'd never
have been voted the nation's most trusted man.
I was standing next to Cronkite as she spoke, and he beamed at the
reference. The revered former anchor these days can confess to
being, as he puts it, "a true liberal in the dictionary definition
of the term."
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: O, Geronimo -- no minor ego!
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sun Sep 22 12:50:18 EDT 1996
Article: 68720 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.sex,alt.politics.sex,soc.men,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Sexual morality FAQ
Date: 21 Sep 1996 05:22:26 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <520c4i$4ps@panix.com>
References: <516u3s$7gg@panix.com> <517k2a$jv9@panix.com> <32434637.1E19@dsmo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: news.panix.com alt.society.conservatism:68720 alt.sex:364701 alt.politics.sex:18929 soc.men:234408 talk.philosophy.misc:66404 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:598971
In <32434637.1E19@dsmo.com> kmd writes:
>> On 11 Sep 1996, Jim Kalb wrote:
>
>> rise of the Ayn Rand "greed is good" culture ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Um, Jim? Michael Douglas said this.
No doubt a lot of people have said it. I'm not one of them, though --
I was quoting another poster whose name I forget.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: O, Geronimo -- no minor ego!
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sun Sep 22 12:50:20 EDT 1996
Article: 68824 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.sex,alt.politics.sex,soc.men,soc.women,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexual morality FAQ
Date: 22 Sep 1996 05:28:13 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <5230rd$s87@panix.com>
References: <51c6eb$p23@hal.cs.duke.edu> <51cva7$1t6@panix.com> <51k7it$3ei@hal.cs.duke.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: news.panix.com alt.society.conservatism:68824 alt.sex:365197 alt.politics.sex:18983 soc.men:234642 soc.women:209037 talk.philosophy.misc:66483 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:599767 alt.politics.homosexuality:144578
In <51k7it$3ei@hal.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>So, what traditional model do you like?
>Do you like the model of the Mormons from 100 years ago?
>What about the model of Greeks from 2,500 years ago?
>What about the model of Romans from 2,000 years ago?
>What about the no-divorce Catholic model?
You can't choose traditions arbitrarily. Sexual morality is different
for example in a society built on slavery and one that accepts that in
some sense human beings are morally equal. If sexual liberalism were
rejected in America I expect that it would revert to something like
pre-1960s public standards because the pre-1960s Americans are the
people who are most like us, minus the sexual liberalism and associated
attitudes. There would be some differences, for a variety of reasons,
and one could speculate and argue about what they'd be, but I'd expect
the similarities to be a lot more striking than the differences.
>>That means that they would be brought up with attitudes and habits
>>that emphasize and promote stable and strong family obligations and
>>those would be the habits and attitudes that receive social support.
>A group marriage is a great way to achieve that.
Is there such a thing? Has there ever been? Is there the slightest
reason to expect there will be in the future?
>%The problem here was that all these sources of aid pretty much had an
>%agenda, a set of rules they insisted you follow in order to be a
>%recipient of their (usually grudging) charity ... Everybody tried
>%*real* hard not to fall upon bad times, and kept their insurance
>%premiums paid up; because, while nobody much actually starved, the
>%alternatives sometimes didn't look all that much better.
A tale told from the perspective of someone who considers
libertarianism a complete account of politics and morality and
calculating desire a full account of human motivation. Still, it seems
that we agree that under minimal government connections to other people
based on a common understanding of what life is about become more
important and profoundly affect behavior.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: O, Geronimo -- no minor ego!
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Mon Sep 23 20:36:46 EDT 1996
Article: 68958 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.sex,alt.politics.sex,soc.men,soc.women,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexual morality FAQ
Date: 23 Sep 1996 20:29:09 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <527a0l$edh@panix.com>
References: <51k7it$3ei@hal.cs.duke.edu> <5230rd$s87@panix.com> <526rj2$p7h@hal.cs.duke.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: news.panix.com alt.society.conservatism:68958 alt.sex:365885 alt.politics.sex:19038 soc.men:235066 soc.women:209242 talk.philosophy.misc:66599 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:600835 alt.politics.homosexuality:144954
In <526rj2$p7h@hal.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>We are not in the 1950s. We have better birth control methods and
>legal & safe abortions. If you want to turn the wheel back you will
>have to eliminate those. But eliminating those will be (at least) as
>complicated as the war on drugs, and the resulting society will not be
>like the 1950s because the government power was not that strong in the
>1950s
I would imagine that a reversion to something like pre-1960s sexual
morality would actually be a reversion to something stricter in at
least some ways than sexual morality was in the 1950s. After all, '50s
morality ended up as post-'60s morality. Also, when social standards
become technically easier to violate (as happened for example when
social control by family and neighbors became weaker as a result of the
Industrial Revolution) the obvious response, if it turns out the
standards can not easily be dispensed with, is to be stricter than
previously.
I don't see why you keep harping on the government. Doesn't it seem
obvious that government concern with sexual morality can never be more
than subsidiary?
>Some 1960's commune run as group marriage. IMO if group marriage
>will be legal then quite a few people will take it.
So if it's difficult to keep man/wife/children together and functioning
as a unit it will become easier if you add half a dozen other adults to
the mix? If it's a form of human relationship that has natural
advantages I'm not sure why it hasn't been common historically (in fact
I believe it has been unknown). Also, I'm not sure what legal barriers
there are today that are so insuperable.
The only commune I know of that lasted very long with group marriage
was the 19th century Oneida Community, whose leader it seems was
peculiarly gifted. The system broke down when he died. People have
written books bemoaning the fact that communes that last typically
adopt (whatever the original intentions) quite traditional gender roles
and sexual arrangements. That's the non-celibate ones.
I should add that I seem to recall reading somewhere on the net that a
group of people who discuss group marriage know of two instances in
which it has worked. I don't know anything more about it -- it doesn't
sound like evidence the arrangement would be very reliable.
>A libertarian society can survive with little government coercion. It
>will be much more stable than forcing people to go back to the 1950s.
The issue we are discussing is how people would act and what social
institutions and standards would evolve under a libertarian legal
regime.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: O, Geronimo -- no minor ego!
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Tue Sep 24 14:55:35 EDT 1996
Article: 8193 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Inquiry: Libertarians and the ultra-right
Date: 24 Sep 1996 05:09:34 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <5288ge$a0c@panix.com>
References: <5271e6$5h0@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <5271e6$5h0@freenet-news.carleton.ca> ai433@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Baglow) writes:
>I have noticed that a number of far-right commentators ("Yggdrasil",
>Jack Wickoff, Dan Gannon, etc., etc.) identify themselves as
>"libertarian."
>Libertarianism is anti-statist, but seems also to carry with it
>elements of racism and anti-semitism.
Libertarianism and anarchism are in some ways an ink-blot test for what
someone thinks about a lot of issues other than oppropriate limits on
state power.
The actual form of a libertarian society depends on how men would
organize themselves in the absence of state guidance. If you think
that each of us is guided solely by idiosyncratic personal goals and
calculating reason, you'll end up as a typical net libertarian who
thinks that in a libertarian society the market would be everything.
If you think of man as a social animal that lives in families and
organizes his life in accordance with traditions developing within
particular communities then your vision of a libertarian society will
include *those* features. And if you think (for example) that the Jews
are a bane that all healthy feeling and social life reject then you
would expect the social life other peoples would develop in the absence
of external control to have prominent anti-semitic elements.
Possibilities could of course be multiplied.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: O, Geronimo -- no minor ego!
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Tue Sep 24 14:55:37 EDT 1996
Article: 8196 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Inquiry: Libertarians and the ultra-right
Date: 24 Sep 1996 14:51:09 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <529ait$bhc@panix.com>
References: <5271e6$5h0@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <5288ge$a0c@panix.com> <528e7e$dru@gerry.cc.keele.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <528e7e$dru@gerry.cc.keele.ac.uk> cla04@cc.keele.ac.uk (Andy Fear) writes:
>These people are not our friends, they are not convenient allies
>against a common enemy, there are the enemy.
It seems to me that the enemy is the quest for a perfected social
technology. Someone who believes that the perfected social technology
consists in the government doing nothing other than protecting person
and property against force and fraud may be wrong, but so what? He's
more an ally than someone who also thinks of society technologically
(as a mechanism for organizing available resources for maximum
satisfaction of wants) but wants the government to be more active.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: O, Geronimo -- no minor ego!
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Wed Sep 25 06:43:08 EDT 1996
Article: 69051 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.sex,alt.politics.sex,soc.men,soc.women,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexual morality FAQ
Date: 24 Sep 1996 18:03:10 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <529lqu$heh@panix.com>
References: <526rj2$p7h@hal.cs.duke.edu> <527a0l$edh@panix.com> <529c8q$gfg@hal.cs.duke.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: news.panix.com alt.society.conservatism:69051 alt.sex:366142 alt.politics.sex:19062 soc.men:235317 soc.women:209351 talk.philosophy.misc:66674 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:601515 alt.politics.homosexuality:145155
In <529c8q$gfg@hal.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>>I don't see why you keep harping on the government.
>Because you can't enforce people to live your way without the coercive
>power of the government.
True by definition, I suppose. Still, if people become convinced that
a more restrained approach to sex is right because their understanding
changes as to what sex is, and they expect that of each other, you'll
see changes in behavior. Sexual morality became stricter in England
during the course of the 19th century. Do you think that was because
more people were being jugged for sexual offenses?
Orthodox Jews and migratory Gypsies have managed to be rather strict in
their sexual morality without the ability to call on the coercive
powers of government. As I understand the matter, it has to do with
their understanding of men and women, of sex, and of the proper
relation among those things. It also I think has to do with the
conditions for maintaining a coherent and lasting society in an
environment that does nothing to support the society's institutions and
outlook. In the future I expect all societies to find themselves
dealing more and more with analogous conditions. Easy travel,
large-scale migration and instant universal communications mean that in
effect no society will have the support of inhabiting a homeland. So
your forebears may become a model for us all.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: O, Geronimo -- no minor ego!
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Wed Sep 25 06:43:10 EDT 1996
Article: 69104 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.sex,alt.politics.sex,soc.men,soc.women,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexual morality FAQ
Date: 25 Sep 1996 06:39:07 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <52b24b$6vv@panix.com>
References: <51c6eb$p23@hal.cs.duke.edu> <51cva7$1t6@panix.com> <51k7it$3ei@hal.cs.duke.edu> <5230rd$s87@panix.com> <324828fb.11819799@news.texoma.com> <529rtl$iep@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: news.panix.com alt.society.conservatism:69104 alt.sex:366360 alt.politics.sex:19090 soc.men:235449 soc.women:209423 talk.philosophy.misc:66705 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:601855 alt.politics.homosexuality:145257
In <529rtl$iep@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> Danger@primenet.com (Jack Danger) writes:
>If people check the stats the percentage of teenage mothers hit an all
>time high in the 1940's and 1950's.
And that means ... ?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: O, Geronimo -- no minor ego!
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Wed Sep 25 14:54:28 EDT 1996
Article: 69115 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.sex,alt.politics.sex,soc.men,soc.women,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexual morality FAQ
Date: 25 Sep 1996 07:30:56 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <52b55g$b3e@panix.com>
References: <51c6eb$p23@hal.cs.duke.edu> <51cva7$1t6@panix.com> <51k7it$3ei@hal.cs.duke.edu> <5230rd$s87@panix.com> <324828fb.11819799@news.texoma.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: news.panix.com alt.society.conservatism:69115 alt.sex:366371 alt.politics.sex:19094 soc.men:235457 soc.women:209426 talk.philosophy.misc:66708 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:601899 alt.politics.homosexuality:145274
In <324828fb.11819799@news.texoma.com> fredz@texoma.com (Fred) writes:
>If you think the pre-1960's were some sort of golden era of righteous
>non-sexual liberalism think again. The behavior that the 60's "ok'ed"
>was simply behind closed doors. People have practised all the sorts
>of sexual behavior available now since the beginning of recorded
>history and most likely before that as well.
I would have thought that (for example) a radical and unprecedented
increase in illegitimacy in an age of contraception and abortion is
some evidence that conduct has changed. Is it your view that the
ideals and standards people accept and expect of each other have no
material effect on conduct? What would you count as evidence to the
contrary?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: O, Geronimo -- no minor ego!
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Thu Sep 26 04:04:19 EDT 1996
Article: 69176 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.sex,alt.politics.sex,soc.men,soc.women,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexual morality FAQ
Date: 25 Sep 1996 20:20:20 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <52ci84$q0m@panix.com>
References: <51c6eb$p23@hal.cs.duke.edu> <51cva7$1t6@panix.com> <51k7it$3ei@hal.cs.duke.edu> <5230rd$s87@panix.com> <324828fb.11819799@news.texoma.com> <529rtl$iep@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> <52b24b$6vv@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: news.panix.com alt.society.conservatism:69176 alt.sex:366555 alt.politics.sex:19120 soc.men:235642 soc.women:209529 talk.philosophy.misc:66763 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:602377 alt.politics.homosexuality:145372
In jstanley@gate.net (John A. Stanley) writes:
>>>If people check the stats the percentage of teenage mothers hit an all
>>>time high in the 1940's and 1950's.
>>
>>And that means ... ?
>It means that the Golden Age of family Values the the RRR says we have
>to return to is a complete myth.
There are people, to whom you refer as the RRR, who believe (1) the
'40s and '50s were a Golden Age, and (2) not having a baby before
you're 20 is the sum and substance of family values? Surprising on
both points, but no doubt there are people who believe almost anything.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: O, Geronimo -- no minor ego!
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Thu Sep 26 09:35:31 EDT 1996
Article: 69259 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.sex,alt.politics.sex,soc.men,soc.women,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexual morality FAQ
Date: 26 Sep 1996 09:35:25 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 120
Message-ID: <52e0qt$li1@panix.com>
References: <526rj2$p7h@hal.cs.duke.edu> <527a0l$edh@panix.com> <52boa1$141e@uni.library.ucla.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: news.panix.com alt.society.conservatism:69259 alt.sex:366785 alt.politics.sex:19154 soc.men:235842 soc.women:209660 talk.philosophy.misc:66804 alt.politics.homosexuality:145510
zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>He cites Mencius, the Pentateuch, Homer, and the Ramayana as
>traditional moral authorities supporting his contention that
>traditionally validated relations between husband and wife and parents
>and children will be definitive of the coming minimal state. I
>disagree.
>
>All but one of the traditions cited by Jim accept and promote the
>institution of polygynous marriage wherever they are not dominated by
>the Christian tradition.
I can't think of anything in the texts cited that promotes polgynous
marriage. I don't think polygyny was the typical arrangement in the
societies in which the texts were composed. It was commonly accepted of
course for men at the top of the social scale, but the authors seem to
find monogamous relationships of far greater moral importance.
>Given vast economic disparity between males that already exists today,
>and is bound to increase in the society Jim envisions, polygyny offers
>significant advantages to women and men alike.
I don't see it. Women might find it advantageous when it offers very
large material and social advantages, but the number of such situations
wouldn't bulk very large in the general scheme of things. Less than in
other times, I would think, since a far more productive economy means
that more men are available who are in a position to set up a domestic
establishment in which the woman will be sole wife.
Multiple wives are notoriously hard to manage. You could keep them all
under one roof and endure the scheming and squabbling or set up multiple
establishments and add to your expense and worries about fidelity.
Unwieldy institutions that are hard to manage tend to disappear. Also,
the moral and sentimental bonds that hold a polygynous household
together don't seem to be particularly strong. In Libertaria women
would be free and equal under the law, and there would presumably be a
thriving commercial economy, so they would be in a position to leave if
domestic politics weren't going well for them or they felt
insufficiently attended to. It's hard to inspire loyalty without giving
it, and in the nature of things a wife of a polygynous husband is not
going to be well persuaded of his loyalty.
So it's hard to see the polygynous household as a source of the small-
scale social coherence, stability and mutual trust that people would
need in a minimal state. My argument is that we can't get along without
those things, especially if the provident state isn't around to look
after us in youth, misfortune and old age, so social institutions will
evolve to provide them, and the only institution that looks to me
capable of doing the job under circumstances anything like those today
is the traditional family or something similar, together with whatever
supporting institutions are necessary.
>Furthermore, the force of sibling rivalry is likely to grow to feudal
>levels in a society that leaves the matters of child welfare up to
>parental discretion.
Why? Presumably there would be about as much sibling rivalry as there
was before public education and the like became important, which wasn't
all that long ago, certainly not as long ago as the feudal period. When
a lot of property is at stake people fight over it, but those people
aren't much affected by child welfare legislation anyway. To the extent
welfare depends on labor rather than property I would expect the absence
of state involvement to promote family cooperation more than rivalry.
>Concubinage and prostitution are services that derive their popular
>validation from the principles of free trade, and it is hard to see why
>any society dedicated to optimizing the latter would be intolerant of
>the former.
We are talking about a society with a libertarian legal regime. The
issue is whether in such a society market principles would permeate all
of life or whether there are fundamental human needs that can not be
satisfied solely through those principles, for example care and
education of the young and aid in time of need. In the latter case, I
would expect other principles to become effective in the society and
institutionalized in ways that limit market principles.
Institutionalization need not require additional government action. My
claim is that the family is a necessary non-market principle and its
institutionalization requires an organization of sexual life far more
like the traditional one than one that corresponds to current morally
libertarian ideals.
>Likewise, the alpha male role that must be valued and promoted by the
>libertarian society would only be buttressed by homosexual submission
>of weaker males, who would in turn tend to satisfy their heterosexual
>drives by raping the mates of their betters.
Heroic societies do I think view passive homosexuality as particularly
disgraceful -- is there any indication that active homosexuality was
institutionalized as a sign of high status in say Viking or Homeric
society, or that rape of high-status women by low-lifes was much of a
problem?
More generally, it seems that part of what you're saying is that a
society based wholly on pursuit of individual advantage as conceived by
each individual would become tyrannical and lawless. I agree. That's
one reason I think such a society would not last and conceptions of
common good etc. would arise and become generally accepted. When I
speak of a "libertarian society," however, I do not mean a society
emphasizing the pursuit of individual advantage but simply one with a
libertarian legal regime.
>In short, Libertaria is more likely to implement the sexual mores found
>in the state of nature than the sort of sexual conservatism Jim Kalb
>favors.
Are the two distinct? Libertaria I think is to some extent an ink-blot
on which people project their understanding of the nature of man and
therefore of the state of nature.
My own inclination is to think that man is a social animal, and that
institutions such as the man/wife/children family that have been
extremely common, useful and durable for a very long time under a great
variety of circumstances express something of the natural form of his
social nature. Therefore I expect that in Libertaria we would find
those institutions and that social attitudes, habits, expectations etc.
would develop so as to make them stable and functional.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: O, Geronimo -- no minor ego!
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Thu Sep 26 17:25:04 EDT 1996
Article: 69283 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.sex,alt.politics.sex,soc.men,soc.women,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexual morality FAQ
Date: 26 Sep 1996 13:39:38 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <52ef4q$7c8@panix.com>
References: <5230rd$s87@panix.com> <324828fb.11819799@news.texoma.com> <52b55g$b3e@panix.com> <52e5mo$a4e@uni.library.ucla.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: news.panix.com alt.society.conservatism:69283 alt.sex:366872 alt.politics.sex:19165 soc.men:235923 soc.women:209710 talk.philosophy.misc:66826 alt.politics.homosexuality:145573
In <52e5mo$a4e@uni.library.ucla.edu> zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>the relevant question is whether or not the institution of publicly
>professed ideals and standards tends to ensure popular compliance
>therewith.
(It's not completely clear whether by "institution" you mean "setting
up" or "existence as an institution". I will assume the latter.)
Depends on circumstances. Usually they do -- people most often don't
publicly profess things they don't think are good, and individual
notions of what is good do affect conduct and are affected by what is
publicly professed as good.
Also, publicly professed ideals and standards coordinate behavior and
so are I think a necessary part of systems that benefit people
generally but don't necessarily suit one's interests and desires at any
particular moment. They let us know what we have a right to expect
>from people and to do ourselves, what we will be praised and blamed for
doing, and so on. Such things affect what we do.
Naturally, public standards and ideals like other social institutions
don't exist in a vacuum. Their effect depends on their relation to
other social attitudes and practices. So my claim isn't that publicly
announcing that traditional sexual morality is good and yelling at
people who don't pretend to agree will in itself change the world much.
It is rather that changes will be necessary (and I think will one way
or another take place) that involve among other things the public
acceptance of the things in question.
>Does the term "bourgeois hypocrisy" ring a bell?
The phrase has been used many, many times during the 19th century and
after. Conduct does deviate from ideals and standards, it's true, so
there's some point to the phrase, even without the modifier. Do you
think using it to ring bells has on the whole been beneficial?
>> What would you count as evidence to the
>>contrary?
>How about social success of a political system driven by political
>ideals and standards such as Communism?
I take it that every successful political system has ideals and
standards that are publicly set forth and affect political practice
although they don't determine it wholly.
As your reference to communism suggests, not every set of ideals and
standards can ground a successful political system. The question at
issue is whether sexual liberty in the current sense can ground a
successful social system as its ideal and standard. I don't see much
evidence to support an affirmative on that one. It strikes me as a
fantasy equal to the communist fantasy.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Young Ada had a gnu. Oy!
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Thu Sep 26 20:48:47 EDT 1996
Article: 69298 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.sex,alt.politics.sex,soc.men,soc.women,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexual morality FAQ
Date: 26 Sep 1996 19:16:35 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <52f2sj$ejj@panix.com>
References: <52boa1$141e@uni.library.ucla.edu> <52e0qt$li1@panix.com> <52eg9u$1dp8@uni.library.ucla.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: news.panix.com alt.society.conservatism:69298 alt.sex:366974 alt.politics.sex:19184 soc.men:236013 soc.women:209771 talk.philosophy.misc:66850 alt.politics.homosexuality:145623
zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>At issue is not the textual promotion of polygynous marriage but its
>explicit validation by societies that generate the texts in question.
>The classical Chinese, Judaic, Hindu, and Moslem traditions uniformly
>validate polygyny and indeed regard it as a concomitant and indication
>of social rank. If you have any historical evidence for enhanced
>"moral importance" of monogamy in these societies, please share it.
My issue was the recognition by those societies, as evidenced by the
texts cited in the manner noted in the FAQ, of the unique importance of
the bond between one man and one woman.
>Once the proportion of economic disparity between males at top and
>bottom of the social scale exceeds 2:1, polygyny becomes economically
>attractive to the females.
You think they'd jump at the chance?
>The hard anthropological evidence tends to congregate on the opposite
>side.
Are you saying that the evidence tends to show that polygynous are more
common than monogamous societies, that in societies recognizing
polygyny it has generally been the modal form of household
organization, and that the workability of polygyny is unaffected by
circumstances other than inequalities in income (for example by women's
rights or the ready availability of tolerable alternatives)?
>Polygynous households have worked for several millennia in traditional
>Chinese societies. Deal with it.
They indeed existed. And I suggested reasons why modern economic
conditions and for that matter a libertarian legal regime would be
adverse to their continued success to the same degree.
>In a word, primogeniture -- as traditional an institution as you are
>likely to find in nearly two millennia of Christian family values.
Traditional in Europe among those with large landed properties who
wanted to keep them together. Why assume it would suddenly appear in
America simply because the government once again bowed out of direct
involvement in child welfare? And what difference would it make to
people whose source of livelihood is not property of any kind, real or
personal, but labor?
>There is no such thing as "the family", and you know it. The fact that
>your tradition institutionalizes monogamy, whereas my tradition values
>polygyny affords conclusive evidence against your appeal to a
>mythically uniform traditional conception of family values.
What mythically uniform traditional conception of family values? This
is a bore. That would be like a mythically uniform traditional
conception of property, government, freedom, justice or whatever your
favorite social conception is. People don't even have the same
conception of food. If there were a uniform conception there would be
no need for tradition. There are common themes and tendencies
differently developed and articulated for a variety of reasons. The
result is particular traditions that tend to be held in common by the
members of a society when holding things in common makes a better and
more tolerable life. I've gone into all that.
By the way, what moral tradition do you hold to that values polygyny?
>For an example of widespread cultural validation of insertive male
>homosexuality, look no further than traditional Moslem societies.
Officially a vice, but done. I still don't get your point about alpha
males buggering their subordinates and revenge-rape of women. The only
Muslim society I'm personally familiar with is Afghanistan and that
wasn't the way things were.
>Generally accepted conceptions of common good tend to destabilize the
>libertarian principle. And once the principle is discredited, the
>legal regime that derives its claims to legitimacy therefrom is bound
>to collapse, as witness the end of the Soviet Union.
It is of course an issue how long a libertarian society can last. All
human things are subject to decay. My guess is that one would
eventually partition into a number of smaller societies each
recognizing its own common good. The government would then have no
organic relation to society and there would be no people capable of
common deliberation and decision for it to answer to or overall
conception of the common good to measure it by. It would thus become
despotic and end up as an army keeping order and exacting taxes run by
a warlord, rather like the sort of thing that's historically existed in
the Middle East.
>In short, you expect and welcome the prevalence of such common, useful,
>and durable sexual institutions as polygyny, concubinage, and
>prostitution in your Promised Land. That should give all boys
>something to look forward to.
I certainly think concubinage and prostitution have a long run ahead of
them. Ditto for condemnation of them.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Young Ada had a gnu. Oy!
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Fri Sep 27 05:15:28 EDT 1996
Article: 69338 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.sex,alt.politics.sex,soc.men,soc.women,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexual morality FAQ
Date: 27 Sep 1996 05:09:35 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <52g5kf$o69@panix.com>
References: <51c6eb$p23@hal.cs.duke.edu> <51cva7$1t6@panix.com> <51k7it$3ei@hal.cs.duke.edu> <5230rd$s87@panix.com> <324828fb.11819799@news.texoma.com> <529rtl$iep@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> <52b24b$6vv@panix.com> <52ci84$q0m@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: news.panix.com alt.society.conservatism:69338 alt.sex:367143 alt.politics.sex:19213 soc.men:236150 soc.women:209895 talk.philosophy.misc:66895 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:604154 alt.politics.homosexuality:145714
In amiles@interport.net (alan miles) writes:
>There is an assumption that ... the solution to the 'problems' of
>today is to return to pre-60's behaviors.
>the solution is to figure out how we construct the new world order
>since the old one won't work anymore.
As you point out a simple return to the past is not possible.
Presumably though the new world order to be striven for would include a
great many things that have existed in the past perhaps modified or
transformed in some way. The reason is that neither people nor
circumstances change in all respects.
The most central issue in this thread I think is whether (1) sexual
conduct is sufficiently fundamental to social life and has sufficiently
idiosyncratic features that socially accepted moral ideals and
standards that specifically relate to it are necessary, or (2) the
general standards of prudence (in the sense of avoiding specific
consequences like disease and unwanted pregnancy), noncoercion and
fulfilling contracts are sufficient. If (1) is correct then of course
the issue of the sufficiency of existing traditions arises (which I
think is the issue you raise).
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Young Ada had a gnu. Oy!
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Fri Sep 27 07:11:52 EDT 1996
Article: 8211 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Query About The Militias
Date: 27 Sep 1996 06:42:46 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <52gb36$d6@panix.com>
References: <52btnf$9um@news.ysu.edu> <1996092516261321186@deepblue4.salamander.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
>David A. Tharp wrote:
>> Couls someone in this newsgroup furnish some information about
>> the nutball right known as the militia movement. I would like to
>> find documented items about militia members making anti-semetic
>> or anti-black statements. Any help would be appreciated.
Look at http://www.buller.se/USR/MARCUS.WENDEL/. He has a huge
collection of political links, including I think a section specifically
on militias.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Young Ada had a gnu. Oy!
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Fri Sep 27 07:11:53 EDT 1996
Article: 8212 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Inquiry: Libertarians and the ultra-right
Date: 27 Sep 1996 06:55:58 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <52gbru$1av@panix.com>
References: <5271e6$5h0@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <5295u9$sre@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <52deqq$aku@gerry.cc.keele.ac.uk> <52f4lt$6dm@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <52f4lt$6dm@freenet-news.carleton.ca> bj695@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Geoff Lupton) writes:
>Well, I suspect the ridiculous libertarian tendency to worship
>capitalism would make America the perfect home for such a "movement".
Isn't putting "movement" in quotes going too far?
One thing to remember about the Right in America is that the state here
has always been established for universal/rational/utilitarian ends
rather than expressive/cultural/metaphysical/religious ends. Loyalty
to the latter sort of end therefore necessarily takes the form of
opposition to the state as such and support for other ways of
organizing society (private property, family values, voluntary
associations, informal local community). Libertarianism is therefore
in America a right-wing movement and there isn't much of the native
Right that is not in some manner or form libertarian.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Young Ada had a gnu. Oy!
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Fri Sep 27 07:11:54 EDT 1996
Article: 8213 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Inquiry: Libertarians and the ultra-right
Date: 27 Sep 1996 07:11:21 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <52gcop$2mg@panix.com>
References: <5271e6$5h0@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <5295u9$sre@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <1996092516261821492@deepblue4.salamander.com> <52f53i$6fu@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In <52f53i$6fu@freenet-news.carleton.ca> bj695@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Geoff Lupton) writes:
>> On the other hand (and I admit this is a stretch) many of the Old
>> Right characters revered by libertarians such as Rothbard, Raimondo
>> and Kauffman
>I agree with you that the supposition that libertarians would "revere"
>the Old Right is a bit of a stretch. The paleo-conservative
>world-view, rooted in an organic / spiritual world view, is anathema
>to libertarians, no?
The libertarians named do in fact revere the Old Right (i.e., the
pre-WW II American Right). As discussed, the organic/spiritual world
view is in America anti-state.
>I would dispute your use of the phrase "paleo-libertarian".
>Libertarianism is a relatively modern (and modernist) ideal, not at
>all compatible with paleo-conservatism.
The paleocons recognize self-described paleolibertarians like Rockwell
and Rothbard as brothers, with views varying mainly in emphasis.
I should add that in the _Rothbard-Rockwell Report_ and elsewhere the
paleolibertarians direct much of their considerable zest for abuse
against "movement libertarians" and "left libertarians" who they view
as morally compromised and libertine and therefore in the end pro-state
rather than libertarian. (They want for example to prohibit
discrimination against homosexuals.)
Irrelevant random paleo comment: it looks like referring to _First
Things_ as a "quirky little newsletter" has become part of the
_Chronicles_ stylebook. When Fleming did it I thought it was his
personal eccentricity, but now Paul Gottfried is using the same phrase.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Young Ada had a gnu. Oy!
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sat Sep 28 21:00:22 EDT 1996
Article: 8215 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Looking for a book...
Date: 28 Sep 1996 20:59:58 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <52khme$egp@panix.com>
References: <19960928092500134581@deepblue0.salamander.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
>Robert G. wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I think this might be the right newsgroup to ask, so here goes:
>>
>> Where can I get a copy of Hilaire Belloc's book _The Jews_?
Have you tried amazon.com? I think their URL is http://www.amazon.com.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Young Ada had a gnu. Oy!
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sat Sep 28 21:00:24 EDT 1996
Article: 69380 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.sex,alt.politics.sex,soc.men,soc.women,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexual morality FAQ
Date: 28 Sep 1996 20:57:03 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <52khgv$eag@panix.com>
References: <52e0qt$li1@panix.com> <52eg9u$1dp8@uni.library.ucla.edu> <52f2sj$ejj@panix.com> <52kc4h$1oc0@uni.library.ucla.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: news.panix.com alt.society.conservatism:69380 alt.sex:367320 alt.politics.sex:19235 soc.men:236297 soc.women:209976 talk.philosophy.misc:66936 alt.politics.homosexuality:145818
On 27 Sep 1996, John Lawrence Rutledge wrote:
> Polygynous societies are far more common that monogamous societies...
> Based on the large number of polygynous societies, I would say that
> it is workable under wide variety of conditions.
Thanks for the quote.
Do you know of any general discussions of polygyny? For example,
treatments of its frequency and function in societies that permit it,
other institutions and cultural characteristics it tends to be
associated with, etc.?
For example -- my impression is that where accepted it is usually far
>from the most common form of family organization, but my actual
knowledge on the point is spotty in the extreme. Also, I would have
thought it would be unlikely to have much importance in a society in
which personal freedom, equality of rights, and contractual ordering of
affairs were the norms, that it's generally declined with
modernization, and that it's unlikely that a society in which monogamy
has been the uniform norm throughout the changes of thousands of years
would turn to polygyny on account of a reduction of the role of
government. Is there any evidence you know of that seems illuminating
on any of these points?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Young Ada had a gnu. Oy!
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sat Sep 28 23:07:44 EDT 1996
Article: 69389 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.sex,alt.politics.sex,soc.men,soc.women,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexual morality FAQ
Date: 28 Sep 1996 23:01:57 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 109
Message-ID: <52kor5$pnv@panix.com>
References: <52eg9u$1dp8@uni.library.ucla.edu> <52f2sj$ejj@panix.com> <52kc4h$1oc0@uni.library.ucla.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: news.panix.com alt.society.conservatism:69389 alt.sex:367361 alt.politics.sex:19246 soc.men:236338 soc.women:210004 talk.philosophy.misc:66942 alt.politics.homosexuality:145837
zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>My issue was the recognition by those societies, as evidenced by the
>>texts cited in the manner noted in the FAQ, of the unique importance of
>>the bond between one man and one woman.
>
>No such recognition exists within either the Chinese or the Jewish
>tradition.
The texts cited demonstrate the recognition.
>>Are you saying that the evidence tends to show that polygynous are more
>>common than monogamous societies, that in societies recognizing
>>polygyny it has generally been the modal form of household
>>organization, and that the workability of polygyny is unaffected by
>>circumstances other than inequalities in income (for example by women's
>>rights or the ready availability of tolerable alternatives)?
>
>Yes on all counts.
This exchange is approaching a natural death I think.
>You have gone into that without showing that the allegedly emergent
>traditions would be likely to differ from present-day sexual mores in
>the direction you appear to favor.
If you're interested in what I have to say on the subject, reread the
FAQ (a slightly revised version is at http://www.panix.com/~jk/sex.html)
and previous articles in this thread.
>>By the way, what moral tradition do you hold to that values polygyny?
>
>The Jewish one.
I was under the impression that the rabbis decided around 1500 that
polygyny violated Jewish law and that it had fallen into desuetude well
before that. In any case, it seems to me that if you hold to Jewish
moral tradition in sexual matters the differences between us are matters
of detail, far smaller than the differences between either of us and
current official sexual morality. That remains true even if as you say
Jewish tradition is best interpreted as accepting polygyny.
>If that is your eventual expectation, why do you welcome and promote as
>inevitable the secular predominance of a single tradition of sexual
>morality that happens to be associated with Christian fundamentalism?
I don't think I was so specific.
There will be a single tradition to the extent society is single. Any
society needs a reasonably coherent set of sexual standards just as it
needs a reasonably coherent common understanding of personal and
property rights. To the extent you have multiple standards that differ
radically I think you'll end up with an aggregation of societies within
which people live separately rather than a single society. Hence my
reference to the Middle East as a model.
As to whether there will in fact be multiple standards differing very
substantially, and therefore multiple societies occupying a single
territory -- I'm inclined to think so. It's imaginable that common
conditions of life and the basically Christian and European heritage of
the United States will lead to substantial unity on these issues here.
On the other hand, immigration and modern transportation and
communication mean that people from very different backgrounds will
more and more be mixed together, physically or virtually, and it seems
unlikely that a common culture with sufficient content to support (for
example) family life will come out of that, especially when the common
culture we already have seems to be losing content. So it seems likely
that what we will get is a cosmopolitan world within which separate
cultures will find ways of maintaining themselves so that those who
adhere to them will be able to live tolerable lives. The moral
tradition you call your own provides one example of how that can be
done.
As to the content of the moral cultures of those separate societies --
for reasons given in the FAQ and previously in this thread I doubt that
any of them will adhere to anything much like the currently official
sexual libertarianism and all will have ideals and standards for sexual
conduct conducive to the stability of the nuclear family. The moral
tradition of the Jewish diaspora has proven its ability to survive in a
situation of the sort I foresee and the Christian moral tradition
evolved in such a situation, so both I think should do well. Very
likely the same can be said of the Chinese tradition.
>But if ubiquity, utility, and stability are your main criteria of
>libertarian acceptability, concubinage and prostitution, along with
>polygyny, should become more accepted and less frequently condemned as
>libertarianism takes root in our society -- as you supposedly expect it
>to.
Concubinage and prostitution are not typically stable relationships.
For reasons given, it seems polygyny would be far less so than monogamy
under foreseeable conditions. Even if it were accepted that in some
sense those things are all useful, the issue is whether it is more
useful to promote the patriarchal monogamous family by recognizing it as
the sole legitimate site for sexual relations.
I don't understand your comments on libertarian acceptability. You
seem to view libertarianism as an overall moral view that people are
going to hold. My view on it is basically that as there is less of a
common moral understanding in society at large collective action will
become more difficult and the role of the state will shrink. Law will
become no more than a set of protocols permitting exchange and
forbidding direct physical injury. The legal regime will therefore
become one of the sort the libertarians propose. That doesn't mean
that anyone's understanding of morality (as opposed to the state) will
be a libertarian one.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Young Ada had a gnu. Oy!
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Sun Sep 29 15:23:11 EDT 1996
Article: 69439 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism,alt.sex,alt.politics.sex,soc.men,soc.women,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexual morality FAQ
Date: 29 Sep 1996 15:20:59 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 82
Message-ID: <52mi6r$j8f@panix.com>
References: <52kc4h$1oc0@uni.library.ucla.edu> <52kor5$pnv@panix.com> <52m575$1qos@uni.library.ucla.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: news.panix.com alt.society.conservatism:69439 alt.sex:367654 alt.politics.sex:19269 soc.men:236468 soc.women:210089 talk.philosophy.misc:67004 alt.politics.homosexuality:145918
zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>I think you are mistaken. Please cite chapter and verse.
Cited in the FAQ.
>>>>Are you saying that the evidence tends to show that ... in
>>>>societies recognizing polygyny it has generally been the modal form
>>>>of household organization, and that the workability of polygyny is
>>>>unaffected by circumstances other than inequalities in income (for
>>>>example by women's rights or the ready availability of tolerable
>>>>alternatives)?
>
>The positive answers to your questions are well documented in
>introductory textbooks on anthropology and sociology.
As stated, the exchange is dying.
>Nor does any rational moral position warrant a transition from a
>secular or religious condemnation of such practices to their social
>censure or political proscription, except in the context of an
>autocratic dictatorship of virtue -- and certainly not in any extant or
>conceivable society even remotely grounded in democratic or libertarian
>principles.
It's interesting that you should make such an assertion, but I have
other things to do than speculate about your oddities and their
possible source. Tocqueville is an obvious example of an observer who
thought that strictness in sexual matters was connected with the
success of democracy in America. To me it seems reasonable to have
social standards about the things that are fundamental to how people
live together.
>There is no Judaic proscription against polygyny, and the extant
>mediaeval Ashkenazi rabbinical accomodations to their Christian rulers
>are wholly irrelevant to the Sephardim.
Is polygyny the most common form of household organization among the
Sephardim today? Among the Chinese, whom you also mentioned? Also, do
you happen to know anything about the laws of the State of Israel on the
point?
>It also seems to me that our differences are quite significant, in so
>far as I advocate legal, political, and social tolerance of consensual
>sexual practices, including those I judge to be morally repellent.
Does Jewish tradition call for social tolerance of consensual sexual
practices, including those judged to be morally repellent, within the
Jewish community?
>Nevertheless, I see no evidence that our peaceful coexistence in the
>absence of common sexual morality somehow vitiates the social bonds
>that hold this state together.
If you see no signs of problems I won't argue the point with you. We
shall see how things develop. Social changes that affect
intergenerational bonds take time to attain their full effects.
>From what you have claimed, I take it that a sexual morality that
>cannot be used as a means of excoriating and ostracizing the
>transgressors is of no use to you.
I don't see a fundamental difference in this respect between sexual
morality, standards of common honesty, codes of honor, disapproval of
brutish behavior, and so on. Man is a social animal and society has to
do with common goods, so most moral issues have something to do with
the well-being of other people. Accordingly, I see no prospect of
keeping moral disapproval and social disapproval unlinked as you seem
very rigorously to require.
>A libertarian state cannot subsist without grounding itself in private
>morality of radical tolerance that overrides individual disagreements
>on the merits of various consensual practices.
So a libertarian insists that the citizens of his Libertaria adopt a
particular and historically very unusual private morality? You make it
sound like a self-contradiction. Why bother establishing the
libertarian state if it's going to prescribe our private morality to
us?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Young Ada had a gnu. Oy!
From news.panix.com!not-for-mail Mon Sep 30 05:01:38 EDT 1996
Article: 8220 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: The monarchy - a compromise
Date: 29 Sep 1996 19:16:54 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <52n016$ei7@panix.com>
References: <321AE15F.2781E494@cybercity.westnet.net.uk> <4vo30k$fpl@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> <50bnat$nrp@gerry.cc.keele.ac.uk> <50ekv8$mb4@panix.com> <51c8b2$gk@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
In le@put.com (Louis Epstein) writes:
>: But devotion in your manner seems to give the ruling house a blank
>: check. It treats them as the source of social order rather than part
>: of social order. I don't see the advantage of such a view over a
>: radical revolutionary view, if the two differ.
>The Sovereign being seen as beyond the social order reminds us all
>that there are things we can not change...
But there's a particular man, the sovereign, who can change anything he
wants any way he wants. I don't see how the existence of a man with
such a power puts society into relation to anything transcending human
life. The transcendent he represents is a great blank, since nothing
he does can be judged invalid by reference to it, and a transcendent
that is utterly free of content disappears for us. All we're left with
is a despot.
>How is panix holding up after the widely reported sabotage?
Doing OK. They're technically adept, and so managed to deal. Some of
their services became unavailable during the attacks.
>Do you have a palindromes-of-the-week chronological list so you
>don't repeat?
I rely on memory.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
Palindrome of the week: Young Ada had a gnu. Oy!
Do let me know if you have comments of any kind.
Back to my archive of posts.