The correct version.
jks wrote:
> Sorry if I came across as touchy. But it's very important to realize that
the fact that guarantees can fail is just part of the way the world is. Yes,
proper procedure can lead to terrible results. I have a paper (as yet
unpublished) on this very point. That doesn't mean we have a better
alternative.
I understand. Somehow proper procedure strikes me as woefully inadequate.
> It is pretty wishy-washy and tepid. It's designed to be lowest common
denominator. It's also pretty useless, except the alternative is tyranny or
civil war.
But are those the only alternatives? Tepid proceduralism or tyranny? As a Buddhist I try to seek the middle path.
> Only if you are willing to impose the Correct View by brute force.
But wouldn't it be sensible to create a framework that would measure the concrete, empirical effects different views have when put into practice? Your approach seems an abdication of responsibility. So long as you follow procedure, everything is permitted.
> I don't pretend my answer is easy to take. There is a case to be made that as
horrible and immoral as the FSA were, they were legally binding because they
were enacted by a reasonably fair procedure in a society that was as
democratic as any you could find in those days -- and the Nazi laws banning
racial intermarriage and the like were not because they were enacted by a
repressive tyranny.
I don't buy it. FSA were not legally binding since the government that passed them was not democratic ("as democratic as any you could find" does not equal "democratic." Gosh, I wish my new leftist dictionary would come!). There was nothing reasonable or fair about laws passed by white, property-owning males which turned African peoples into property. The consequences of these laws were punitive and persecutory.
> I can hear the squawks about the undemocratic nature of antebellum
society, but that is just an example.
I just added another to chorus. LOL
> If homophobic laws are enacted by our society, I accept them as legally binding.
But do you think a fair and reasonable process is one that allows a majority to impose punitive laws on a minority? I don't think so. That is just majoritarian mob rule.
> What if queers are persecuted. That's bad. But there is no alternative to procedural
correctness except the imposition of a favored view by force or deception, and that
doesn't distinguish between which views are favored.
But you can distinguish between which views, when enacted, cause suffering and those that do not. It can be measured empirically. You seem to be too focused on theory and process and not paying enough attention to outcome and consequences. That is what Republicans do -- the process isn't racist so it doesn't matter that Blacks actually suffer discrimination -- the process was fair.
> I don't know what you mean by these terms. Maybe if you filled them out
some, we might agree that non-domination, whatever that is, is necessary for
procedural correctness.
To me non-domination consists in not allowing majorities to persecute minorities. In the case of same-sex marriage, the decisions about queer rights are being made by non-queers. Is that fair? Is that reasonable? Same-sex marriage has no effect on the lives of non-queers, and yet they are the ones who get to determine its legality. That is domination.
> But if by non-intereference you mean that Rawls is some sort of libertarian
who thinks that people should be allowed to impose their prejudices on on others
in a private context, that is not right.
No, I mean the liberal substitution of non-interference (from which libertarianism can be derived) for non-domination (as outlined above). Rawls' weak sister approach to fairness and justice translates into allowing mobs to bogart fair and reasonable procedures.
> What would you add?
Protections so that majoritarian mob rule could not be exercised over minorities.
Mike writes:
> When it comes to class interests and self-interest, I want workers to know
what they want and desire it on a material basis.
The rest of your post I understood and agree with. But this part puzzles me: what does it mean to "desire it on a material basis."
> BD: Can you define the self in terms other than self-interest?
> Mike: That's a big ask. Good question. I'd say that the great authors of the
centuries have attempted this feat. I'm not one of the great authors, but I have
made attempts to describe this, socialist self in what I have written, both from a
negative point of view i.e. presenting the casualties of the System and also the
fighters against its tendencies to ground us down with its "Iron Heel". I have also
hinted at in my posts to this list, including this one.
Could you be more explicit? I read your post several times and missed the hints.
Charles wrote:
> You aren't tired of that 2,500 year old sexphobe Buddha.
Buddha was not in the least sexphobic. What he taught about sexuality was that it should be practiced mindfully and without misconduct.
I think any rational person would agree with that framework for committing a sexual act. Do you disagree with it? Is there a better one?
I think you may be confusing people's misapplication/misappropriation of the Buddha's teaching (in order to demonize sexuality) with the actual teaching.
> You bet I fear AIDS. Don't you ? Duh.
No, why should I? Disease is a natural occurence in life. AIDS, cancer, typhoid -- one takes steps to avoid disease, but inevitably a person's body succumbs. AIDS/HIV have been part of my life for a long time; why should I let fear deform my experience of life? Indulgence in fear most often leads to domination. Isn't that what Red Scares were (are) all about?
To advocate and promote fear of ADIS/HIV is to make the disease that much harder to manage and treat. Shame is not an ally.
What Castro did was to intern PLW HIV/AIDS (the same course of action recommended by William F. Buckley). Should Castro, the alledged radical, be carrying out the proscriptions of the arch conservative?
Chris writes:
> Since homosexuals are the most important beings in the universe,
Castro's treatment of them must necessarily trump any other of his
features.
When did I post that homosexuals were the most important creatures in the universe? The most fabulous maybe, but the most important?
I would argue that Castro's treatment of Cubans with regard to their bodily integrity is a vital concern. If workers are not to be deprived of the means of production or the products thereof, how does one justify depriving people of their bodily integrity as he did when he persecuted, killed and imprisoned queers? What goal was he trying to achieve? Was there a rational materialist reason for his doing so?
If workers are to control the means of production, how can this be accomplished if they cannot control their own bodies?
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister