Feminist activist in Iran sentenced to 24 years in prison for removing hijab.

In some ways, you are saying what I am saying; in other ways, not.

In the meantime, let me also say this: ultimately, it is obviously not true that we are all equal in education and understanding. And we, as human beings, aren't prone to accept another person (a mere mortal) being more enlightened than us, especially if what we are told doesn't serve our immediate desire or interest, and where there is no pretense that this mortal speaks on behalf of someone higher in authority. Educated people, indoctrinated in their education, accept (even if reluctantly) the authority of those who hold what would be regarded the highest 'educational credentials'. Not so educated people, indoctrinated in other traditions, ultimately look for an authority that claims to represent a higher being.

In medicine, in law, and other professions, we don't allow laymen to prescribe to others what only professionals should. And we don't even let dissident medical professionals to prescribe their views if those views are rejected within their academic circle and lack the requite consensus. Take, as one example, the whole problems which have arisen from the refusal of some of the masses to accept vaccination against diseases which had hitherto been basically eradicated and defeated, relying on such dissident views trying to bypass scholarly consensus and directly appealing to mass sentiments.

In politics, and law, we have prescriptions, and will have them necessarily. The issue is who should wrap them and from what processes should these people emerge? Are these prescriptions to be wrapped in reality by special interest groups, while leaving people to believe they are the ones doing so? Or should we use a "noble lie" suggested by Plato a long time ago in his Republic, in devising a society where a (properly trained and selected) "Philosopher king" (trained in many of the things you suggest) guides its affairs while making sure other would be "Philosopher kings" can't be silenced and are there to provide reasoned challenges (if not unreasonable ones requiring appealing to the masses), while at the same time allowing the people all the trappings and good things that come from representative democracy as well?

Iran is a very interesting place today, not for the ridiculous things which are highlighted by the propaganda wars against it, but because it is the place where some of these issues can be thought again and debated about in a scholarly setting where the results of that debate, and the consensus that will emerge from it, can then be packaged at some point as "God's will", while at the same time allowing the people their say too -- through institutions that are closer to them and their thinking than the seminaries in Iran.

 

Propaganda comes in many forms. "If you see Buddha on the side of the road - Kill him" is the title of a book. The point is "make unto no one a Guru"

I speak of a system where the power of Gov't (some authority) is limited. You speak of a system where the power of Gov't is increased.

Classical Liberalism is based on the premise of limited Gov't authority - and it focuses on the rights of the individual rather justification for law on the basis of "what is best for the collective" = Utilitarianism.

In Classical Liberalism - and the founding principles - Essential Liberty is "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't. The authority of Gov't with respect to essential liberty is then restricted to protection from direct harm - one person on another - murder, rape , theft and so on.

Utilitarian justification for law completely disregards the rights if the individual / individual liberty - and focuses only on "what will increase happiness for the collective".

The problem of this as a sole justification are

1) who gets to decide - one persons poison is another persons pleasure
2) This justification allows for an end run around safeguards that protect individual liberty - and gives Gov't pretty much unlimited and unchecked authority.
3) It is just a horrible justification for law.

For example "If it saves one life" / "Harm Reduction" - this is a plague in the US right now.

This is a very insidious justification for law as it sounds quite good on the surface ... Who does not want to save a life ?

OK - lets test it - If "if it saves one life" is valid justification for law - should we not ban skiing tomorrow - would this not save one life ? How about boating - that is really dangerous - one could drown. Forget driving a car.. and while we are at it ban religion.

In fact - one should probably not rise from bed in the morning as one might fall and break neck.

In a free society the individual has the right to risk a reasonable amount of harm to oneself.

Utilitarianism is a path to Totalitarianism .... and that is the path you are on my friend.

 

I am not on the path you imagine, principally because I am ultimately a little of a lot of things: a little libertarian (and somewhat versed in its ideology, with a good grounding from the years where I more or less believed in classical liberalism and the lessons from classical liberal economists); a little 'utilitarian" (whose attacks on its actual real foe, coming from the 'natural law' tradition, were quite effective; a little into 'natural law' nonetheless, because and for reasons much more difficult to explain, a bit of that is necessary too; someone who at once knows and appreciates America's constitutional tradition as well as Iran's very different but equally compelling intellectual tradition as well; an agnostic who is certainly not religious, but who isn't sure fighting religion is as wise as helping it on a different path; ...

In the meantime, the system I believe in will definitely have a robust system of checks and balances and the authority invested in my 'philosopher king' will ultimately be not be what you might imagine either. But I do want such an institution and one reason for it is precisely to have a working system of 'checks and balances."

 

No one is interested in bringing about Iran's 'demise', though an end to the theocracy would certainly be a good thing for the Iranian people and the rest of the world.

The Mullahs may be "quite sophisticated and educated in their own ways' but so are those living in the middle of a jungle. Having lived and worked in a dozen countries and traveled in many more, I have seen many people educated 'in their own ways' who would be be completely lost in any small sized modern city.

Blaming outsiders for the actions of the Iranian leaders and their policies is very weak and more typical of a children pointing fingers in a schoolyard rather than a dialogue between mature adults.

And as far as "The Mantle Of The Prophet" is concerned it means nothing if a woman is sent to prison for 15 years for not wearing a covering on her head, no matter what the circumstances.

 

I beg to differ with you on all counts, but ultimately this give and take won't take us anywhere. I can politely advise you to mind your own business, but you won't. You can claim to know things you don't, and there isn't much I can say to convince you otherwise either. And the reverse, I suppose.

But, as an aside, if we were having this conversation at any time before the US made its policies of seeking informants, spies and saboteurs directed to the general public everywhere with a nice $15 million reward to entice them, I would have encouraged you to expand your travels to the one place you should have visited but never did, namely Iran. It would open your eyes, and challenge your assumptions (not just about Iran, but about your own country and what you have been left to trust and believe and not) in a way that no other country would. But, today, the forces at work against Iran have managed to do something that will force some attention by Iran's regime even to people who might not have had the same connections as the ones which would ordinarily receive their attention. Not just Iranians, but of course foreigners too; anyone who might be tempted to want a piece of the prize being offered to the general public now!! And for that reason, no, I would not in good conscience advise an American to travel to Iran now.

 

I don't think we are actually that far off... at the far end of the spectrum a benevolent dictator is actually the best and most efficient form of government - but are you willing to risk your future on the roll of a dice - and another roll of the dice when the next dictator replaces the first ?

Keep on rolling and ... eventually "Snake Eyes" shows up. Now you are screwed because you gave too much power to some authority and Tyranny reared its ugly head. This is not a guess .. it is a historical and mathematical certainty. Power corrupts and more power corrupts more.

We needs some kind of Philosophy that allows some authority enough power to do what needs be done - yet - as per Locke - and the natural law you were referring to "No Man wants to be ruled over by another"

So the power of this authority then must be limited - somehow. The enlightenment thinkers looked at the state of nature - starting with Anarchy - a time when there was no authority. People then banded together in groups... this was for social reasons but also for protection. "Strength in numbers"

It did little good to be protected from outsiders if you were not protected from insiders.. codes of conduct then developed. Codes of conduct are of little use if violators are not punished. Thus some authority needed to be given power to punish violation of conduct - with respect to protection... direct harm - one person on another ... rape , murder , theft , and so on.

The power of this authority to punish was however to be limited - only to protection from harm .. as "No man wants to be ruled over by another. Individual liberty is thus preserved. In addition .. the power is given that authority not by "Divine Right" /God but by consent of the governed.

This had problems though as in a pure democratic process you will get "Tyranny of the Majority" 50+1 or Simple Majority Mandate - that some leader has the power to make law messing with individual liberty simply on the basis of being elected.

The bar for messing with liberty is then "overwhelming majority" --- at least 2/3rds. If something is so harmful to society that some authority need be given power to punish .. then an overwhelming majority should agree.

 

Then why have polls shown that the number of women who identify as feminists has gotten less and less? Unfortunately feminism has been take over by the radicals and women know it. And you talk about 'feminism' as if it's the only philosophy which is about equality and equal rights! There's another one which I think that you're forgetting about! Any idea? Do you actually go around saying that you're a feminist?

 

If asked .. yes - I believe in equal rights for woman. The fact that less women are identifying themselves as such is due to the stigmatization of the word - its just lack of understanding. You do make a good point though in that the extremists have given the doctrine a bad name.

 

Not JUST women though, right? Again, you talk about 'feminism' as if it's the only philosophy which is about equality and equal rights! There's another one which I think that you're forgetting about! Any idea?

 

You're living in 1984, a book which is likely banned in Iran and where enemies must always be created in order that the government be supported. The fabricated enemies are, of course, the United States and Israel.

There are no 'forces at work' against Iran unless they continue their nuclear ambitions. Any nation which imprisons a young woman to 15 years in jail for not wearing a headscarf should not have their hands on anything nuclear whatsoever. Add that to the idea that Iran's enemies forced them to send this woman to prison and you have a nation with serious emotional and mental problems.

Background checks and psychological problems mean no nuclear weapons for Iran. If that is understood then the way to becoming a responsible nation with free people cannot be far away. I hope they make the right choice.

No one is going to attack

 

I agree we aren't probably as far apart in our ultimate vision, but maybe quite apart in how to get there. Of course, we aren't in any imaginary state of nature. Iran has a system and institutions that exist already. Any realistic solution to what Iran faces will need to work from the existing reality; otherwise, we will indeed end up with the "implosion' the neocons are searching for. And such an implosion isn't about, and wouldn't be, a neat replacement of Iran's regime with another one which would be more 'democratic' or anything else. Instead it would be chaos, civil war, disintegration, until something new emerges eventually in Iran from the rubble.

But it just so happens that the existing reality, despite all of its warts and there are many, has the potential for something that will actually be quite profound for Iran and for the region as well. The main obstacles on that way aren't in the areas which foreign interests (or those who take their cues from them) direct the fight either. They would relate to the kind of things that would need to be debated elsewhere, but the overall context of the debate would be along the lines I mentioned previously. In the meantime, once Iran overcomes these latest foreign threats (threats that aren't new, but are more serious and more capable of harm than in the past) and things return to a more normal condition, Iran will also eventually face questions of succession -- and what vision or image any successor would bring for Iran's future? This is one of the things I would like to see the debate in Iran have a better, more profound, and less superficial tone, than what is and will be encouraged by the current political dynamics in Iranian politics. Dynamics which have adversely and more strongly than appropriate been impacted by foreign influences and issues. Otherwise, the Iran I want, will eventually have enough space for all of its people and what I mean by that is something I have already described elsewhere in another message here.

 

Iran has been and is under attack, not the kind that I was never particularly worried about (i.e., military invasion etc), but the kind that is a lot more damaging in many ways. The economic damage, in fact, the least of it even though that damage shouldn't be overlooked either.

The rest of what you said is, sorry to say, simply propaganda. If it makes you feel better, repeat it and then some. None of it is really relevant; much of it isn't even accurate.

 

Is Iran developing a nuclear program or not?

 

There are 3 ways to answer your question and I will take the high road and answer it the way I generally respond to various messages. Not that I couldn't just say: none of your business. Or, alternatively, discuss some irrelevant case from America's criminal justice system and make something from it that isn't. But to your question:

1- Iran obviously has a nuclear program, but (much to my irritation) not a nuclear weapons program.
2- Iran's civilian nuclear program was hampered and unreasonably shackled by the JCPOA. With the US reneging on its commitments under that agreement, and the Europeans and everyone else failing to abide by their's either because of fear of US sanctions on them, Iran has taken extremely slow and cautious steps to reduce its commitments to a deal that no one else is keeping.

My view Iran should proceed is simple: do what it has been doing, but make it clear that we don't feel bound by words, promises or anything from anyone else. Nor cowed by anyone's threats. In the meantime, work on a secret program and build as many nukes as possible. And when enough have been built, and are capable of being loaded on Iran's missiles, test one without announcing it publicly but also without denying it. "No comment". Let those who need to know, take the message they need to take from it.

 

Then Iran is doomed. This is what happens when any theocracy, or other out of control belief system, feel they are more powerful than they genuinely are. It really is too bad.

 

You are kind of moving the goal posts here. The question I was addressing is how to come up with a sound Philosophy -not the geopolitical factors influencing Iran.

The enlightenment thinkers did did not live in a "state of nature" either. What they were doing was trying to determine a rational justification for giving power to some authority - and define what the limits to that power should be - and where the power to that authority should come from.

 

On a purely individual level, unless I am chosen as the "philosopher king", I would probably prefer to live in a genuine libertarian like society. I don't think that applies to many others, as not everyone will find themselves as suited by circumstance to be able to navigate things in such a society. It certainly wouldn't be the model that would work in Iran, even apart from any geopolitical factors. But in my own model, there is always a haven for everyone with a substantial enough following to live in. For that reason, what I want for Iran is a system along the lines I mentioned, but (if you read the message I linked) one where there is also a place where alternative systems are basically allowed to show their worth, provide the necessary competition, and give those who prefer that model a place inside Iran to find the life they like to pursue.

 

Fair enough .. but - one must be forever mindful that wandering down the path of Utilitarianism if fraught with danger.

 

source it

 

The US government does execute people in the middle of the street. Perfectly legit to kill an unarmed black guy by chocking him to death for not paying taxes.

 

I am not into any "isms" right now, but was curious what you meant by your admonition against "Utilitarianism"? Ultimately, on a purely philosophical level, as Humes would say, you "can't derive an ought from an is". The problem with natural law theories is that they can be taken to any destination that someone wishes to and have been used to argue for many opposite things. You seem to ground your "libertarian" views on natural law, but my own interest in them was from a very different perspective. I was once attracted somewhat to the ideological framework of classical liberals and classical liberal economists, but at the same time, I have never been someone who attached more to that attraction than warranted by calling its dictates "natural rights" or "natural law". Basically, I am not much into dogma of any kind. Indeed, if there is any neo-Kantian type framework that would have interesting (but ultimately not more) lessons about what "natural law" might mean, it would be works like the Theory of Justice by Rawles. At the end, though, all these theories to me are like recipes for people to choose and test. None of them will necessarily satisfy everyone's interests nor have any more intrinsic worth than any other.

 

You go tell that to Eric Garners grave.

 

On the issue of women's rights in Iran, this report from Euronews (while inevitably full of loaded terms carrying propaganda notes) aired today after the tragic case of the woman I mentioned earlier self-immolating, is nonetheless going to be informative for many here. You will see different women inside Iran expressing their views on not just this issue, but the struggle for women's rights in Iran.

 

Right. Like no one suffered a similar injustice in Iran.

And I have to add people in the US are always free to move to Iran if it is so great to live there.

 

You're just now saying the difference between Iran and the US isn't that big. lol