John Wright | Free speech on terrestrial radio

Hey That Sh*t Aint Right! Very funny! I think you should use that for every time someone ticks you off!

Sorry John
Dont have the hardware to listen right now, but as you brought up the issue again I thought of another point on why it IS an issue.
Thoughtful critiques of homosexuality are regularly causing police investigations in the UK and the pro-gay lobby are trying to have “homophobia” classed as a mental illness. So there is a real danger anyone engaging in scientific or theological discussions on homosexuality could in the near future end up in jail or an asylum. I am sure you will agree those are unacceptable constraints on freedom of thought and speech.

see:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4603474.stm

Best
PB

PB- Why would it be aimed at you? Are you gay?

PB- No, the song wasn’t aimed at you. It’s one of many CDs that passes my desk at work on a daily basis, it was funny, and somewhat relevant to what we’ve been discussing.

I’m aware of Sir Iqbal’s comments about homosexuality last year, and I’m entirely with you on the freedom of speech issue that resulted from that complaint recieved by the police. Unfortunately it says more about the INFRINGEMENTS of liberty, PB, than it does about the concept of too much sexual liberty.

Basically, both freedom of speech AND freedom of sexuality should be attentively guarded by our government in its only moral purpose. I get the impression you’re keen to defend one over the other – alas you are generally in the majority where that’s concerned.

pb I don’t think you are understanding John Wright’s libertarian view on this. He is not commenting on the ‘reality’ of the situation at all, what he said was ‘both freedom of speech AND freedom of sexuality should be attentively guarded by our government in its only moral purpose.’ I have looked at all your comments and I don’t think you have the faintest idea of what people are saying to you. You are writing things that seem to be intelligent but actually under closer examination are not. Nobody in their right mind have I ever heard claim that gay rights lobbyists are ‘chomping at the bit’ to curtail free speech. John Wright’s point is that there is no excuse on any side to curtail freedom whether it be the freedom to have sex with another man or the freedom to say that homosexuality is good, bad, whatever. You are trying to say that one freedom is expendable, just because you don’t agree with it morally.

Thanks S Quinney for your comment, and for ‘getting it’. Your last sentence was key – so often the problem with politics is that democratic people have been cultured to treat the concept of freedom as though various rights need to be played off against each other so that lawmaking be consistent with a single moral belief system (eg. PB’s apparent belief that because gay rights lobbyists want to curb free speech which criticises homosexuality, we should seek to curb their rights in return). The premise of this blog is that such a practice is erroneous, impossible to achieve, in breach of a moral code itself, undesirable anyway and, in most cases, counterproductive in the first place.

PB has difficulty with this because he believes that being a Christian inherently makes it hard or impossible for him to support freedom for people who wish to violate some aspect of his belief system, in this case they are homosexuals. He doesn’t see the contradiction that such a position inevitably creates: that he is demanding freedom to practice his personal moral code while simultaneously wishing to deny that same freedom to people who have a DIFFERENT personal moral code.

This desire to enforce your own particular version of morality on the rest of humanity (or at least the rest of your fellow citizens) is a well-documented attitude … libertarianism (in one form or another) is the only political philosophy that seeks to honour ALL legitimate freedoms and the rights they demand that we recognise.

PS As a matter of fact I think the current gay rights/free speech relationship in the UK is currently quite well balanced. But this situation is fluid and the police are “interviewing and advising” an increasing number of ordinary people who question aspects of homosexuality publicly.

IN ADDITION, in your PS you call it the ‘gay rights/free speech relationship’ – and say that you think it’s currently quite well balanced. Doesn’t that epitomize what John called playing rights off against one another?

Guys
There appears to be a tension here about whether we could or should be talking about realpolitik and its relationship to ideology. If you are saying realpolitik is off limits on this blog then I’m afraid it will be so unconnected to reality I will make my farewellsas this is of no use to me. John, you give me the nod and you will never hear from me again, no probs, plenty other places RSVP.
Now guys I am not trying to be awkward here but there to be a some contradictions in your recent contributions that I would like to hear you on again;

1)S Quinney said: “Nobody in their right mind have I ever heard claim that gay rights lobbyists are ‘chomping at the bit’ to curtail free speech”
……but then added: ” I never questioned that the gay lobby would want to quash anti-gay opinions!” ???????????????

2)I never asked you to believe I would vote yes for all that stuff but if, John, you think it tolerant for me to say the homosexual worldview is invalid how can you expect me to vote in support of it? Eventually many people who disagree with homosexulity (eg Jews Muslims Christians) could be asked to compromise their views by legally being forced to endorse/accept/condone homosexuality in their professional lives or face prosecution.

I am arguing that there is a very direct link between freedom of speech on this matter and how far gay rights progress. It is a battle for hearts and minds and consquently legislation. I just don’t believe you can say this isn’t directly related to this discussion.

Perhaps more importantly, I now believe these type of discussions are based on false and dangerous assumptions and of course S Quinney is trying to keep me in a narrow agenda.
However, throughout the 20th century almost all scientific evidence concluded it was a mental illness and this only began to change in the US with political lobbying, not new scientific evidence.
Has any professional guild of mental health pracitioners EVER changed their view on this because of a new scientific study enlightening them or… primarily because of political lobbying? Dont fudge this one, I am very interested in your responses!
Now I am sure you will challenge that but before you do I ask you this; Can you tell me what the actual causes of homosexuality are? I understand all current research suggests primarily disordered cultural influences, with Kinsey saying many/most gay men grow out of/reject it in later life (we all know of such examples). All this being the case the reasons for this discussion all come into question; is this form of mental illness something to be encouraged in society?
Of course you will tolerate all these comments/questions because I am would not dream of trying to deny the gay lobby their worldview, just saying it is substantially invalid.
PB

PB- This blog is about how libertarian ideology RELATES to realpolitik, as you put it. Of course we’re talking about the real world, but we’re talking about what the real world should and could be, too.

You ask: “If, John, you think it tolerant for me to say the homosexual worldview is invalid how can you expect me to vote in support of it?”

That is the most relevant question you’ve asked to date. And the answer is – read carefully – that such a vote is not an endorsement of homosexuality or what you call the ‘homosexual worldview’, but a vote for FREEDOM. It quite simply is a vote which honours the rational, free choices of other human beings who may or may not share your worldview. It is a mature vote. It is a sophisticated and a tolerant vote.

This should cast the comments above from myself and from S Quinney in a new light for you.

pb if you can’t deal with the issues of the debate then why are you pursuing it???? You have lost ALL credibility with that latest comment – avoiding the issue, talking about court – what has this got to do with court and in what way could John Wright’s response have any relation to a court proceeding? You are WAY over your head here I think, and you have failed to adequately respond to ANYTHING John said. And I’m beginning to wonder about something else which could explain a lot about why you can’t maintain a reasonable adult discussion: What age are you, PB?

I should point out that, saying something is illogical and untruthful without demonstrating HOW it is illogical and untruthful WOULD NOT STAND UP IN COURT EITHER, although I can’t see how court has the slightest relation to a debate of political philosophy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

S Quinney
As a matter of self-respect I am not talking to you further until you review your tone/attitude, which I would describe as abusive.
To give you credit you have admitted to one hummer of a contraduction in what you are lambasting me with (why did you do that?) and that in itself is grounds for you to reconsider your faith in your own comments; so cool off and reflect on your attitude. I have my self-respect to maintain.

Anonymous, fair point I have not demonstrated that. Illogical because, can you imagine if it became widely accepted practise for everyone in society to act contrary to their conscience and convictions? Really? just imagine how that would go in your own personal life for a second.
Untruthful may not be the best word, but it is right up there in principal, hypocrisy would be a good word for it; actions contrary to beliefs.
Now, court; If someone believed a course of action was evil but signed a document to authorise it, could this get you into jail?

Rosalita; I will stick my neck out and say it is my understanding that any society down through history that adopted anything like this in its national culture suffered meltdown soon after; Ancient Israel is one case in point. The prophet condemned the impact of “everyone doing what is right in their own eyes” and dismissing God’s laws.
I am mainly using my understanding of history here as a guide, which I use professionally.
But I think it is a fair point to put the onus on you too; has there EVER been a STABLE society which used this thinking? I dooooont think so.
Can you name one? To me it all smacks of an dangerous social experiment with no reliable precedent in history. For such a fundamentally revolutionary product I would demand trial results before I would buy! Got any?

Finally Rosalita, this well illustrates the pride of “modern” thought in dismissing the lil ol bible; The ENTIRE fabric of your legal system and process are based on the laws of the bible; historical fact. It has evolved through modern thought and language but if you can’t see the wood it is because of the trees; it is integral. This is fact I have had confirmed in my own studies, obersvations and from an unbelieving lawyer/lecturer of mine.

Furthermore…
In the previous “longwinded” discussion John and I had I got the very clear sense he was floundering when I asked him who or what was going to be the ultimate arbiter of what is right and wrong in a society where right and wrong is fluid and changes from year to year.
John said it was “tricky” and, get this Rosalita, said his value system was based on the bible; “post evangelical” is how he put it.
In fact our culture is so influenced by the bible that you are living and breathing it moment by moment; many/most key assumptions and ways of thinking.
So who or what is going to be the ultimate guide for this new society’s morals we are discussing? This is not an abusive question but a fundamentally important one.
The danger is that, for example only, pedophilia will become acceptle in your country as it did in ancient Greece and Rome. Who says it is wrong? perhaps we are not yet “sophisticated” enough to understand how good it is? There are certainly a growing number of “respectable” professionals who believe this.
Rosalita? Anonymous? John?
Sincerely
PB

Finally, for today,
Ways of thinking cannot be isolated to one field of life; If you believe you can divorce your conscience from your actions in the voting booth it cannot but carry over to the rest of your life.
Novelists (writing fiction intended to influence culture), and not politicians, decide what laws Governments pass, as the old adage goes (paraphrase).

Rosalita
I dont for a second claim to be an oracle or that I get everything right or that I dont have blind spots. I have not read all the books you guys have.
I big part of the reason I do this is to learn from others where I do have blind spots.
I dont think you do your faith in your viewpoints justice by wishing you had an historical intellectual here to fight your corner.
To me that suggets you havent thought through what you believe well enough to engage in discussion, but I dont know you to be certain.
If you see a logical flaw in what I am saying I am genuinley interested to hear it.
PB
PS ref “Tirade”; I dont think a discussion made up from soundbites has much substance and I would welcome a substantial response from you.

Sure, pb, I understand that and in a sense we are all here to learn. I was joking of course regarding having Rand or Smith here. But I do think that you would do well to consider the points presented as they are.
As I understand John Wright’s position, he, along with Stephen Graham who has a few very well-written essays on this blog, believes fundamentally in freedom to choose.
In this sense, he would not be breaking his moral code to allow others the freedom to follow their own moral code. He believes that it is immoral to stop them, and that God gave us free will that other humans should honor. I know I’m not explaining this very well – maybe John can do that. But it is a very compelling argument, if difficult to implement in practice.

Also Rosalita
To continue my tirade
First I have to say I take my hat off to John’s respect and patience with me on his blog though I always argue with him.
And yes I completely accept your point that he and his colleague would not be violating their own moral codes to vote in this way.
PB

Firstly, thanks guys for all your comments – and for your attempts to try and keep it levelheaded. PB deserves as much respect as anyone else, though we disagree.

It’s even simpler than that, Rosalita. Let me try and explain how it would not be an infringement of ANY moral code to treat politics as I do. It is obvious to me that when I move my arm, it is mine to move. When I try to move somebody else’s arm, it won’t move unless I go over there and force it to using my own body to do so. I am responsible for my own life, my property and my own sense of right and wrong. We are all in the same boat, from this perspective.

There are people who wish to use such force to control other people. ‘Freedom’ is the societal idea that they should not be able to do so. It already applies, in the West, to things like what clothes we choose to wear, whether we choose to be married or not and what food we want to eat.

Libertarianism simply recognises that we are free to make our own moral choices in life. God gave such freedom to Adam and Eve (which they later abused). By voting for freedom in matters of sexuality, this is my statement: “I am not you. I am not responsible for you, nor am I able to make your moral choices for you. I respect your rationality and your capacity as a human being to make such choices for yourself. I may not agree with your decisions, but since your life is yours, what I believe happens to be irrelevant. What I ask in return is that you allow me the freedom to make my choices likewise.”

Or, let’s look at it from another angle. Why does it follow from my decision NOT to infringe on the freedoms of others that I am endorsing the actions that they make with that freedom?

PB- Morality is an entirely different concept to legality. Now, let me give you an example or two based on YOUR logic, PB. If Joe believes that adultery is wrong, should he vote the same way and make it illegal to commit adultery? Another. If Jane strongly believes that drunkenness is forbidden by God, should she take that belief to the voting booth and make it illegal to get drunk?

If you REALLY did what you suggest you do, PB, and attempted to enshrine your belief system in law, you would be lobbying for much more than you are, I’m sure. So here is your challenge, if you don’t accept a libertarian premise.

Where do you draw the line?

PB-

You have side-stepped my challenge to you. I don’t think you’re understanding what I’m saying. I’m trying to deal with what the law SHOULD say about homosexuality, in your eyes – and so far you’re saying that you would not vote for anything homosexual in law. That means you are happy that the law impede the freedoms of homosexuals because you aren’t homosexual! The fact is that, as you admitted to S Quinney, if it came to a referendum on these issues, you would not support the rights of gay people. That is KEY to this discussion. The reason it’s key to this discussion is that by not supporting the rights of gay people, you are content that the law impede those rights. You can’t divorce yourself from the political outcomes of your position – nor can you plead apathy, PB – apathy, if anything, is WORSE!

Then you try and turn it around on me, saying that I am trying to enforce MY belief system upon those who would reject it – Jews, Muslims, Christians. But this isn’t a belief system that requires anything but freedom for anyone else – in law it would not impede, it would free. Thus, I know of libertarian Jews, libertarian Muslims, and libertarian Christians (I am one). So on one hand we have you, who would either actively vote or passively allow the law to infringe on the liberties of everyone who doesn’t agree with a Christian version of events, and on the other hand we have me, who wants to limit the government’s ability to infringe on ANYBODY’S liberty! A huge, gaping, monumental difference.

Finally, you ask me when or where my system has ever worked in the past. There are two answers to that.

(1) We don’t have examples of ANY pure political ideology in practice. Since society began we have had mixed economies based on some forms of democracy, theocracy, tyranny or whatever. Communism in Russia was not pure communism. What we have today is basically mixed economies with the pendulum at varying positions toward left or right. So we can’t say what such pure systems are like to their full extent. But we DO have examples from those nations and periods in history that MOST implemented various political systems; while communist Russia and China were not ‘pure’ communism, we were able to see clearly that it was not so far producing good results AT ALL – far from it. That brings me to the second point.

(2) When the United States of America was founded, it was the most libertarian society that had existed to date. It was founded upon the ideals of liberty – people were not subjects of the state but responsible for themselves and free to make their own choices. Most of the founding fathers were Christian, yet they were also what we would describe today as ‘libertarian’ – they separated church from state so that people would be free to make their own moral choices. The United States Constitution is one of the most explicitly freedom-granting legislative documents in history.

In short, one only needs to look as far as one of the youngest, most prosperous nations on earth to answer your question about the principals of libertarianism working in practice.

John
Have thought a little more about what your are saying.
I do agree that a good dollop of liberalism in a political system is good, though I am probably conditioned to believe that.
Christianity in the new testament is NOT about trying to solve problems with laws.
My question was with the type of value system you are promoting is that I suspect you are taking it further than any of your movement’s great leaders every considered; how many of them every asked for such a thing?
PB

PB you’re all over the place with this. Your final sentence to me indicates that you really don’t get it – I’ve tried explaining why it is not a breach of your moral code to vote for freedom for others, in numerous ways to you, as have other contributors here – I’m afraid I’m just going to have to let it go. Thanks for your interest.

George Dawson is wrong to suggest that the civil partnership provisions in NI law consitute “persecution” of Christians. In fact, Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong need have no problems supporting gay and lesbian civil unions:

http://www.libertarianreason.com/2006/06/gay-marriage-amendment-fails-real.html