iSoul In the beginning is reality.

Category Archives: Relating

Relating as persons: psychology, society, politics

Kinds of rights

Human rights are the political rights people have because they are human beings. They apply equally to all because of their common humanity. There are several statements of human, or natural, rights. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights issued in 1948 is a statement of human rights.

Developmental rights are the political rights people have because of their stage of development, notably, childhood or adulthood. The rights of children differ from the rights of adults because of the differences between children and adults. Children require adult parenting, whereas adults do not. Adults can marry, whereas children cannot.

Parenting is a developmental right because it concerns the stage of development. Adults parent children, not the other way around. In the confused times of today, developmental rights are confused with human rights and children are treated as adults.

Sexual rights are the political rights people have because of their sex, that is, male and female. Sex is also called gender, although gender is a grammatical term, whereas sex is a biological term. The rights of males differ from the rights of females because of the differences between males and females. An unmarried male adult has the right to marry any unmarried female adult. An unmarried female adult has the right to marry any unmarried male adult.

Marriage is a sexual right because it concerns a sexual relationship that naturally leads to the birth of offspring. In the confused times of today, sexual rights are confused with human rights and the sexes are treated as if they did not exist.

Woe to the society that confuses childhood with adulthood and male with female. That society will learn the hard way the importance of developmental and sexual differences.

Communitarianism

This post is a parallel contrast to the previous post on Old style liberalism.

Communitarianism puts major emphasis on the freedom of communities to control their own destinies. Communitarianism is its creed; individualism and alienation its enemy. The state exists to protect communities from coercion by other communities or individuals and to widen the range within which communities can exercise their freedom; it is purely instrumental and has no significance in and of itself. Society is a collection of communities and the whole is no greater than the sum of its parts. The ultimate values are the values of the communities who form the society; there are no sub- or super-community values or ends. Nations are convenient social units; patriotism is a part of its creed.

In politics, communitarianism expresses itself as a reaction against individualistic regimes. Communitarians favored limiting the rights of individuals, establishing geocratic governing institutions, limiting the franchise, and moderating civil rights. They favor such measures both for their own sake, as a direct expression of essential political freedoms, and as a means of facilitating the adoption of communitarian economic measures.

In economic policy, communitarianism expresses itself as a reaction against individuals controlling economic affairs. Communitarians favor free cooperation at home and among nations. They regard the organization of economic activity through free private enterprise operating in a competitive market as a limited expression of essential economic freedoms and as unimportant in facilitating the preservation of political liberty. They regard cooperation among nations as a means of eliminating conflicts that might otherwise produce war. Just as within a country, communities following their own interests under the influence of cooperation indirectly promote the interests of the whole; so, between countries, communities following their own interests under conditions of cooperation, indirectly promote the interests of the world as a whole. By providing common access to goods, services, and resources on the same terms to all, cooperation would knit the world into a single economic community.

Read more →

Old style liberalism

The following excerpt is from “Liberalism, Old Style” by Milton Friedman, published in the 1955 Collier’s Year Book, pp. 360-363. New York: P.F. Collier & Son, 1955. Reprinted in The Indispensable Milton Friedman, Essays on Politics and Economics, edited by Lanny Ebenstein, pp. 11-24. Washington, D. C.: Regnery Publishing, 2012 (see here).

Liberalism, as it developed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and flowered in the nineteenth, puts major emphasis on the freedom of individuals to control their own destinies. Individualism is its creed; collectivism and tyranny its enemy. The state exists to protect individuals from coercion by other individuals or groups and to widen the range within which individuals can exercise their freedom; it is purely instrumental and has no significance in and of itself. Society is a collection of individuals and the whole is no greater than the sum of its parts. The ultimate values are the values of the individuals who form the society; there are no super-individual values or ends. Nations may be convenient administrative units; nationalism is an alien creed.

In politics, liberalism expressed itself as a reaction against authoritarian regimes. Liberals favored limiting the rights of hereditary rulers, establishing democratic parliamentary institutions, extending the franchise, and guaranteeing civil rights. They favored such measures both for their own sake, as a direct expression of essential political freedoms, and as a means of facilitating the adoption of liberal economic measures.

In economic policy, liberalism expressed itself as a reaction against government intervention in economic affairs. Liberals favored free competition at home and free trade among nations. They regarded the organization of economic activity through free private enterprise operating in a competitive market as a direct expression of essential economic freedoms and as important also in facilitating the preservation of political liberty. They regarded free trade among nations as a means of eliminating conflicts that might otherwise produce war. Just as within a country, individuals following their own interests under the pressures of competition indirectly promote the interests of the whole; so, between countries, individuals following their own interests under conditions of free trade, indirectly promote the interests of the world as a whole. By providing free access to goods, services, and resources on the same terms to all, free trade would knit the world into a single economic community.

Read more →

Vital records of society

Vital records are the official documents of the birth, marriage, divorce, and death of members of a society. They are currently kept by an office of state government, but before the 19th or 20th century these documents were under the control of religious institutions, i.e., churches. For example, the state of Nebraska has birth and death records only since 1904, and marriage and divorce records only since 1909. Since marriage required a license, marriage certificates are often available since the 17th or 18th century in the older states.

State and national governments, however, have done poorly at this basic task. They have not recognized the personhood of children in the womb, they have made divorce “no-fault” and easy to get, and they have redefined marriage to eliminate the sex requirement. In some states, lawful death has been redefined to include assisted suicide.

With this in mind, it is time for religious institutions to take back the keeping of vital records. While legal requirements must still be met, religious requirements are different and need their own certificates and vital records. This is an opportunity to show the importance of recognizing the humanity of children in the womb by issuing a Life Certificate. It’s an opportunity to show the necessity for marriage to be kept for opposite sex couples only, and not same-sex or changed gender couples. It is an opportunity to set the requirements for divorce. And accurate death records would discourage the pretexts of assisted suicide.

Although religious institutions bear responsibility for this task, the operation may well be contracted out to a business. Because people move between the states and change church affiliation, it is best that a national database be established. This national database of vital records should be maintained with the highest integrity to safeguard how society treats the unborn, the institution of marriage, and the dying.

Sex and gender

Let us untangle the words sex and gender, which have become so confused and adulterated. In the past they were almost synonymous but today are quite different. The Online Etymology Dictionary notes:

As sex (n.) took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the usual English word for “sex of a human being,” in which use it was at first regarded as colloquial or humorous.

Academic theorists have successfully tied gender to culture, which can change with one’s place, time, or personal inclinations. Today there is no reason to use gender as a substitute for sex, for example on forms. Also one should not say sex when one means gender.

Let us then accept the simple distinction between sex, a biological term, and gender, a cultural term. In accord with this, let us distinguish male and female sexes from masculine and feminine genders. The former is fixed at conception, recorded at birth, and an aspect of physical embodiment throughout life.

Let us also acknowledge that there is no simple relation between male and female on the one hand, and masculine and feminine on the other hand. We could posit as a definition that masculine means the cultural expectations for males, and feminine means the cultural expectations for females.

But it would be simplistic to speak as though males are always masculine and females are always feminine. We are all a mix of masculine and feminine aspects, although their definition suggests that most males are mostly masculine and most females are mostly feminine.

Read more →

Deception technique

A common method of deception is for the deceiver (or group of deceivers) to strongly accuse someone else of doing what the deceiver is doing. The deceiver is attempting to deflect attention about what they are doing away from them. They want others to think that the deceiver is the last person who would be doing such a thing because they are so against others doing that.

Self-deceived deceivers do this as well, though unconsciously. They “do unto others what they do not want others to do unto them” in reverse of the Golden Rule. Beware: “For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.” (Mt. 7:2)

The clue that there is deception (including self-deception) is the emotion behind the deceiver’s accusation. The deceiver has little rational argument to offer but much suggestion, innuendo, and exaggeration. The deceiver may also tell lies about others (and themselves), which they might believe if they are self-deceived. There may also be “fellow travelers” and others who are duped into promoting the deception.

The mass media and social media unwittingly promote deception by sharing it with others as if it they were endorsing it. With many unsubstantiated accusations being spread by the media, people don’t know whom to believe. That allows even more deception to be introduced. It’s very difficult to find the truth in all of this. People even lose hope that there is truth somewhere. Reality is ignored until it comes crashing in.

Hopefully, this scenario won’t play out in contemporary life, but in the 20th century several countries experienced such a disaster, notably Russia, Germany, and China. May it not happen here.

Speaking of reality

Anti-realism has been popular among the elites for some time. This has led to anti-realist speech spreading to the mass media and general culture. It has also led to much confusion and foolishness. One wonders how it will end, but reality can be averted only so long.

As a start toward speaking of reality the following terms are offered. Note that “pseudo” has been added to anti-realist conceits. If not now, then at some point people will be speaking of reality and will need some terms such as these.

Many terms could be used for the sexual obsessions of the elites. There is pseudo-sex, which means the false couplings of same-sex duos; and the pseudo-sexed, which means the false identities of those who reject biological sex. There are male and female variations of these false couplings and identities as well.

Since these pseudo-couplings have been legalized, there are pseudo-marriages, pseudo-weddings, and pseudo-spouses, too. Some claim to be in transition between their sex and a pseudo-sex, as if there were a middle ground between true and false. The law of the excluded middle has no exceptions so we have pseudo-trans, which is a kind of pseudo-squared.

Politics is much infected with anti-realism as well. There are the pseudo-progressives, who want western civilization to return to something like its pre-Christian condition. Pseudo-liberals want less liberty for the people and less protection for the unborn. Pseudo-conservatives are trying to change things back to a non-existent past.

Even science has fallen for anti-realism. There is pseudo-time, sometimes called deep time, which is the invented world that supposedly existed before time began to be measured (so much for empiricism). This leads to pseudo-history, which is history supposedly turned into a natural science, or rather a pseudo-science. This includes many pseudo-events that no one ever observed and pseudo-dates that no one ever recorded.

To this may be added the attempts to turn reality upside-down with pseudo-heros and pseudo-villians, the pseudo-art, pseudo-music, and pseudo-literature that turn from reality, and the pseudo-religions and pseudo-scriptures that worship a pseudo-god.

One wonders if any area of culture has not been infected with anti-realism. While few will accept these new terms today, there will come a time when many will return to reality. This is written for them.

Logical centrism

Other posts on centrism are here.

A moderate is one who takes two opposing positions and selects something in between. The opposing positions may be anything, so there are many people who call themselves moderate (or sometimes centrist). But moderation in this sense is dependent on the different positions one selects as the ends of a spectrum of positions. Thus anyone can call themselves a moderate.

A logical centrist is one who starts with positions that are contrary opposites, that is, they are opposites that pre-suppose one another. For example, one cannot have up without down, forward without backward, tall without short, etc., so these pairs are contrary opposites. Also included are functional contraries, such as libertarian and egalitarian, since generally speaking increasing one leads to decreasing the other.

Note that contrary opposites do not include the contradictory pairs true and false, good and evil, beautiful and ugly, etc. since they do not pre-suppose one another. That is, the true, the good, the beautiful, etc., stand on their own, whereas their contradictory opposites do not.

What is the contrary of a market economy? One says there is no market for something if either its demand is nil or its supply is nil. So, the contrary of a market economy is one without demand or supply. But that does not mean socialism, the state control of supply and demand, which is contradictory to a market economy.

A market economy tends to encourage greater demand and greater supply by stimulating demand through advertising and increasing production through capital investment. Its contrary opposite would encourage less demand and less supply by promoting conservation, frugality, and living simply. The centrist then selects something in between the contraries of an economy that encourages production and one that encourages conservation.

Notable webpages

One of the original purposes of a blog was a web log, that is, a log of the interesting sites one has visited. This posting is a list of links to webpages that are notable in some way.

* Voting and Elections *

Approval voting – Voting each candidate yea-or-nea

Demeny voting – This is the idea that parents (or legal guardians) have a proxy vote for their children so that children have a political representation.

2016 Presidential Election Results – No candidate won the popular vote in 2016 since no one received a majority of the votes cast.

Washington Initiative 1000 – Washington State legalizes discrimination based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, age, etc. George Wallace would be pleased

* Reverse Chronological Order *

Medieval cure for modernity – As modernity ends, pre-modernity is looking better

The New Family Violence – Canada criminalizes sanity

A Revolution in Time – Time as a timeline

Truth-telling and Big Abortion – Pro-choice deception

Neo-Segregation at Yale – A new form of racial segregation

It’s time to recognise anti-Christianism – Persecution today

Has the Postmodern Revolution Come Full Circle? – Post-truth politics is failing

Read more →

Geography and democracy

I’ve written about this before, here.

The old monarchies are as much about a geographic region as they are about a people. There is a strong identification of people and place. It’s the king of France, not the king of the French, though both are correct. The patriotic song God Save the Queen (or King), is as much about the land as the people who happen to live there. A monarchy is a geocracy, we could say.

A democracy, in contrast, is about people, with their location secondary. There is an openness about the boundaries of place, or even the limits of the electorate, in a democracy. The more people, the merrier, as in universal suffrage. Political liberals (or left-liberals) emphasize democracy. The more liberal U.S. Democratic Party supports more open immigration, and has the best support in large population centers.

Conservatives are the heirs to monarchy and landed gentry, while supporting democracy. But what is there between monarchy and democracy, the land and the people? In earlier times there was suffrage based on land ownership, a form of limited democracy. Nowadays, there is a division of population based on the land, such as what separates every nation. The U.S. Senate is based first on geography, and second on democracy. The combination of geography first and democracy second could be called geodemocracy. The more conservative U.S. Republican Party has greater support in the Senate and in more rural states.

The U.S. Constitution combines democracy and geodemocracy. The House of Representatives is a democratic institution, but the Senate, as noted, is a geodemocratic institution. The Electoral College for the election of the President preserves this combination. In this way the Constitution is a centrist document, combining elements of conservatism and liberalism.