Wednesday, February 15, 2012

San Torum

There is an extraordinary line in Santorum's stump speech in which he says--I am paraphrasing, but barely--that if you remove the godly pillar from the house of state, you end up with the French Revolution, and if you remove the positive guarantee of inalienable rights, you end up with the guillotine!  I suppose this is a very shocking and funny misunderestimation of history, although in a certain way it echoes a long-standing worry of America's ruling class--I mean, peeps much brighter than Santorum, for sure.  L'esprit de '89 always troubled our own aristocratic republic, since it potentially augured an alternate-universe ending to America's picaresque quote-unquote revolution.  Not that it stuck in France even.  Well, anyway, it's interesting to see the salt-of-the-earth, Christian candidate warning that the sitting government of the United States is planning to subvert itself in favor of some kind of comité de salut public in order to . . . and here is where the logic gets interesting . . . in order to enact a sort of totalitarian dictatorship whereby rights become mere government guarantees rather than inalienable, god-granted . . . but now of course, uh mean, obviously, rights are government guarantees; or government limited warranties, more like it, when you think about it.  You can say all you like that the First Amendment, for instance, prohibits The Man from restricting the right to speechify and assemble, but, leaving aside the fact that the government restricts these rights all the time and in an almost infinite variety of legal and coercive measures, the application of this right is very plainly a matter of the government allowing something, not of the government being disallowed.

Even taking very seriously the very silly idea of the Christian God, the idea that His Trifection grants political rights, like, that Jesus and the Gang dreamed up "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" is pretty absurd.  Oh, yeah, you know, in between redeeming all mankind and whatnot, Jizzle is real interested in obscure matters of 18th-century Anglosaxon constitutionalism.  Sure he is.  The thing is: inalienable rights get alienated all the damn time; unabridgeable privileges are cut to cliffs notes every second.  So it God guarantees these things, he's not exactly doing a bang-up job.  Maybe we should have gotten the undercarriage protection plan when we bought the thing . . . And of course, what's really interesting here is that this Beneficent Deity who dreamed up these political rights and beamed them into John Locke's head with a pink laser, not only can This Guy not prevent the rights from being abridged, he can't even prevent His Selfness from being cut right out of society.  By Obama!  I mean, so, like, God is the guarantor of our inalienable rights; without his EnergyStar seal of approval, they evaporate like a Bourbon's blood on a hot paving stone; yet any schmoe with a 4-year term and a divided Congress can give him a pink slip?

Still, I kind of like Santorum.  He is not a smart man, but he's an earnest one.  His head is full of nonsense, but it is such charmingly sincere nonsense.  His family seems positively miserable in that peculiar manner of believing Christians who so often mistake their deep well of personal sadness for something very much resembling joy.  As insanely bellicose as he sounds, he very much reminds me of Carter--I suspect his presidency would contain several very small and very forgettable wars, which beats the American average for the last half-century at least; it would last one term; in his postpresidential Arcadia, he would devote himself to some banal but untroublesome charity: a chain of thrift stores, perhaps, or the Animal Friends.

65 comments:

Mr.Fundamental said...

By Obama! I mean, so, like, God is the guarantor of our inalienable rights; without his EnergyStar seal of approval, they evaporate like a Bourbon's blood on a hot paving stone; yet any schmoe with a 4-year term and a divided Congress can give him a pink slip?

they're gonna kill that poor woman! *flaps arms*

and George W Boosh ruined our democracy and trumpled apon our constitooshun! yearizzle

lucid said...

Let the frothy flow begin!

yonders said...

"beamed them into John Locke's head with a pink laser"

only a single aspect of the manifold deity, surely.

Richard Dawkins said...

I say if can't recite the title of Darwin's most famous tome from memory, then it's off with your head! What? No, no I know it. On the Origin of..., oh God, and the preservation of... Just a second , I know I can do it.

Anonymous said...

Re: 1202's moniker

Now that's someone whose 15 minutes are up.

The Dull Sycophant

Anonymous said...

One could charitably take Santorum's position to be not far from the political nihilist/anarchist/IOZist - "political morality", being an oxymoron, doesn't exist; all that matters is a person's own moral view and their attitude to the world. What keeps rights inalienable is not God, but a country where the masses believe in (the right kind of) God, as opposed to believing that government is the source of rights and justice.

Of course you can't tell the masses to believe in God because it makes for a more rights-friendly society, you have to tell the masses that God wants them to git 'er done and get on their knees before the end time approaches and vote for me and go Yankees, etc etc.

PDA said...

Carter wrote pomes and fly-fished in between propping up dictators and fighting proxy wars. it seems unlikely that we'll read about the lusts that Santorum has in his heart in any magazine.

and more's the pity: his doubtless dark, anguished and exuberantly pansexual secret fantasies - though they may well be better suited for Bound & Gagged than Playboy - would be infinitely more interesting than Carter's Presbyterian yearnings.

lucid said...

PDA - I think his fantasies would be best suited for Modern Dog magazine.

LP Steve said...

Carter's a Baptist, so "Presbyterian yearnings" would be kinda racy for him. Mainline, baby!

mp said...

no innate principles in the mind!

IOZ said...

Santa Or, um, is what I believe is called a practicing Catholic. I always loved that phrase. All life as a dress rehearsal.

John Kindley said...

What Anonymous said.

John Kindley said...

Except, I would add, that believing in God, apart from being contrary to believing in the State and therefore salutary, is liberating in itself, so long as you don't rely on the authority of others to tell you what God wants.

Leonard said...

Since Monsieur didn't link, for those curious here is a link which quotes Santorum saying more or less what IOZ is mocking.

“They are taking faith and crushing it. Why? Why? When you marginalize faith in America, when you remove the pillar of God given rights then what’s left?” Santorum asked and an audience member offered, “Communism!”

“The French Revolution,” Santorum answered. “What’s left is a government that gives you rights. What’s left are no unalienable rights. What’s left is a government that will tell you who you are, what you’ll do and when you’ll do it. What’s left in France became the guillotine. Ladies and gentlemen, we are a long way from that, but if we do follow the path of President Obama and his overt hostility to faith in America, then we are headed down that road.”

Gabe Ruth said...

You're just prejudiced against Mormons, you shill.

Leonard said...

Your Fuzziness, you can mock faith all you want, but Santorum's underlying point is true. The only sound basis for rights is faith. You're correct that rights are fictions and that in reality they are privileges granted by the powers that be. This obviously means that your "rights" are whatever the PTB decide. In fact you are living under an unlimited government. Well, that's not so bad when the government limits itself, as it did when it did believe in those fictitious rights, because it believed in those fictitious rights. Now, increasingly, it doesn't. This ought to frighten people. "Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Incidentally, people who see things as IOZ does ought to be interested in this question: how can people limit the state if there's no such things as rights? There are only two answers I have seen that I find at all convincing. One is anarchocapitalism: you abolish the state. The other is neocameralism: you create stable self-limitation within the otherwise unlimited state by harnessing human greed. Both of these have their problems, but they are, at least, not as stupid as expecting a democratic state to remain limited.

As for the idea that the 10th Amendment was divinely inspired, well, it's dumber than you, but it's smarter than the idea that the angel Moroni gave new law to Joe Smith on gold tablets that nobody else saw that were put there by Jews who migrated to America in 600 BC, etc. And yet many believe that. It is very easy to explain how the Congress can thwart God's will -- because they are unrighteous, and God allows evil. Duh. Jews did it right and left in the Old Testament, and look what it got them. It is also very easy to explain why God cares about state's rights, sparrows falling, and other such minutia: because's He's benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent. Again: duh.

Anonymous said...

"Well, that's not so bad when the government limits itself, as it did when it did believe in those fictitious rights, because it believed in those fictitious rights. Now, increasingly, it doesn't."

Hilarious. Keep it going and try to back it up, I'm sure it'll be even funnier.

anne said...

not carter

anne said...

of san' .. not bushman

Anonymous said...

leo, they weren't tablets, they were plates written in some kinda reformed egyptian, lol.

Professor Coldheart said...

Incidentally, people who see things as IOZ does ought to be interested in this question: how can people limit the state if there's no such things as rights?

Anyone else play D&D and subscribe to Dragon Magazine as a kid? I remember some months-long debates in the letters column over how to prevent players from abusing the stoneskin spell, a 4th-level wizard spell that let characters ignore 1d4+1 attacks, regardless of damage inflicted. This was before Internet fora really took off, so the arguments never got too heated, but man, it seemed really important at the time.

Jack Crow said...

Lovely read, Monsieur.

*

Leonard, could you kindly demonstrate how this works?

"The only sound basis for rights is faith."

I guess, in advance, it'd be nifty to know what you mean by both "rights" and "faith."

Jack Crow said...

Kindley,

Do you mean this as an absolute and a universal?

"...believing in God...is liberating in itself..."

And liberating from what, please and thank you?

Anonymous said...

Belief in Race, Nation, or State, for example.

Also, liberating from: "Donc, I' atheisme c'est votre religion!"

The Dull Sycophant

SOrry said...

You know the astronauts didn't read poetry. But that's changing. Santorum still has my Animal Charm VHS.

Leonard said...

Jack, rights are:

2: something to which one has a just claim: as
a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled: "voting rights" "his right to decide"


Faith is:

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof


For our purpose, 2b is closest, but (1) is instructive so I did not trim it.

Note the emphasis on "just" in the definition of rights. Now you can go and chase in Webster's further if you want, but what you will find is that the definition of rights is either circular or faith-based. Justice in the older conception is just carrying out the law correctly; but what is the law? In the new dispensation, for example John Rawls, justice is righteousness. Right and wrong are religious concepts; you cannot prove them just as you cannot touch justice nor a human right. No scientific experiment can ever show that murder is worse than jaywalking, or even that murder is wrong. Thus, faith, as the only way in which we can believe something that cannot be sensed or inferred from what is sensed.

Perhaps it should trouble atheists that we rely on faith so much in others, and indeed we have it ourselves. As I have said before in this forum, just because we have destroyed the old religions doesn't mean people are no longer religious. We just start to believe other stuff, some of it crazier than Moroni's tablets or plates or whatever the hell they weren't.

Khalid Adad said...

And it is of course fascinating that Mr. Froth comes from a family of Italian anti-fascist COMMUNISTS

http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-communist-clan-113600418.html

Anonymous said...

"Right and wrong are religious concepts; you cannot prove them just as you cannot touch justice nor a human right."

Christ if you don't want to read Kant read Gewirth or something. Either way don't make blanket statements that are contradicted by hundreds of years of beautiful tradition from Moses to Sandy Koufax.

"No scientific experiment can ever show that murder is worse than jaywalking, or even that murder is wrong."

Maybe the only area of productive research that evo. psch. has produced is in exploring how morality is a product of evolutionary processes.

"Thus, faith, as the only way in which we can believe something that cannot be sensed or inferred from what is sensed."

Georg Cantor's been dropping by, and lately he's been kind of a dick. I'm glad I have this to shove in his face next time he shows up.

"some of it crazier than Moroni's tablets"

Global warming isn't real because God gave Man dominion over the Earth and the fishes, right?

Freddy el Desfibradddor said...

the guillotine is more efficient

AND

more humane

than other public execution methods - particularly burning at the stake, the method favored by Catholics

Dr Wilhelm said...

Snap into a Slim Jizzle

Enron said...

Makes me pine for resurrecting Robespierre, just so he can build his precious statue to Reason in the Vatican

tdaschel said...

"I suspect his presidency would contain several very small and very forgettable wars,"

this i would enjoy to think, but his Sugar Daddy (some Christian Mr Moneybags whose name escapes ..) believes in "Hezbollah anchor babies" (so does Rep. Sue Myrick for that matter). do we really want to invade Bolivia looking for Quds Force?

rob payne said...

Now wait just one minute! The lesser of two evils is Obama's gig.
Liberals reading this post will be livid. Livid liberals.

TGGP said...

I was thinking of sending Santorum a copy of "The Myth of Natural Rights", but checking the 9BB store, it appears to be sold out.

Leonard, sounds like we need to elect Tinkerbell to the presidency.

lucid said...

Hey - Dave Mustaine is on board!

Professor Coldheart said...

You take a mortal man
And put him in control
Watch him become a god
Watch people's heads-a roll.

...

...

... dude was onto something.

Anonymous said...

Santorum is yet another grifter. You're distracted by rhetoric used as cover to bilk.

JTG said...

Rather than challenge Santorum on the issues, it seems pwogs are still content with making fun of his last name and smugly assuming that there's no way in Hell he can beat Obama. I can't wait to see the looks on their faces if he does.

Anonymous said...

"He is not a smart man, but he's an earnest one. His head is full of nonsense, but it is such charmingly sincere nonsense."

No. I know this is how he seems on the surface, but that is the center his ruse. Dig a little deeper into his history, he's actually more of a blindingly shameless hypocrite than -- and I can't believe I'm typing this -- most of his peers in Washington.

Or don't; I'm certainly not going to waste my time googling the schmuck. But know that insincerity is the heart of his personality.

Dawn Coyote said...

Apropos of nothing - http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/

Also, you probably already know about this, but just in case:

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/

IOZ said...

Hypocrisy? Oy, what is this, Hullabaloo?

High Arka said...

@8:28, yeah; he's not genuine, or he'd be easier to confuse and pick apart. If anything, he stays on message--the ability to liken things to the French Revolution tosses just enough history to the marks that even if they took Western Civ 1-B, they can still agree with him.

Sirius-ly, IOZ, he's not actually the bright-eyed Care Bear he lets on. He is one brilliant calculator, working a certain breed of people just the way Obama works a different set and you work a still different set.

That said, where can we buy your book? Are you running this year?

plashch said...

But Santorum's audience likes the guillotine.

puppylander said...

i dunno. i think you could make a case that some rights are god-given and inalienable.

but it depends a bit on how you define "god", and "inalienable", and for whom.

that is, for an atheist, "god" = the universe, "inalienable" is not strictly (literally) inalienable, and for whom refers not to any given individual but rather humankind on the whole.

Cüneyt said...

Oh, moralism. Leonard, I can limit the state without rights coming into it at all. Rights, being imaginary, follow the seizure of power or assertion of range of action. We say, "this is my right," when it is the actions that are the thing.

I can challenge a state in order to take it over, get from it something I want, turn it into an armadillo hat. Whatever I please. I don't need to be right, or have them, just as a bee doesn't need a right to sting a badger. Moralism is immaterial. You're talking about phantoms; we're talking physics.

Leonard said...

puppy, I think you could make a case that all rights are dog chewed and impregnable. Of you'd have to adopt the proper definitions for "dog chewed", "impregnable", and "rights". And possibly also, "is".

Leonard said...

Cüneyt, you are not limiting the state so far as I can tell.

So I cannot really determine what you are saying. We do live under an state that is increasingly undeterred by the paper limits that formerly observed. You are not doing jack shit, so far as I can see. Are you writing your Congresswoman or something?

Is the assertion that, because you have (some) might (even though in reality you don't have enough), you affect the state at the margin?

You seem to be asserting that once you have taken over the state via your hoped-for superior might, then that might makes right. This is true, in a sense. But I am not sure how you'd get a limited state from raw power. Quite the opposite: your revolutionary state is going to be lopping heads off right and left to maintain its position at the top of the greased pole.

Jack Crow said...

Leonard,

You are essentially asserting that a right is a fiction which must be believed, but that it is also eternal and comes from an unprovable and ineffable transcendent source?

Anonymous said...

Freddie,

Nothing beats offering your enemies as whole burnt offerings to Baal, I say.

Although from Dresden and Hiroshima to the enthusiastic annointing of gooks with NapalmB-white phosphorus combo, ye olde papist-blessed auto-da-fe seems quite puny. Progress!

The Dull (papist) Sycophant

Gabe Ruth said...

The only people I love more than internet anarchists are internet Bolsheviks.

"We're talking physics." Cuneyt, you're going to get me fired.

Leonard said...

Jack, no. I agree with IOZ. There's no such thing as rights, except as faith-based ideas in human minds. If I believed in God I might believe in rights, but as I don't, I don't.

I do believe in "rights" as an abstracted way of discussing the ways that a state acts, especially when its agents are informed by the faith-based ideas previously mentioned. The state attempts to apprehend and punish common thieves, for example; we can talk about this abstractly as the state "vindicating a right to private property".

Anonymous said...

Thank God for Lewis Carroll.

The Dull Sycophant

The Promiscuous Reader said...

... that is, for an atheist, "god" = the universe ...

Erm, no.

High Arka said...

This may set you off, PR, but whereas the traditional agnostic says "I don't know," the traditional atheist says, "I know it's not." Which is just as much a leap of faith as "I know it is."

So, do you fall outside that definition, or haggle with whether or not it's the real definition?

Cüneyt said...

Leonard sez: "how can people limit the state if there's no such things as rights?"

Cuneyt sez: "Here's how--through sheer insistence, so long as one has the power."

Leonard sez: "You Bonapartist!"

See, Cuneyt was silly because he should have noticed Leonard's purpose all along:
"There are only two answers I have seen that I find at all convincing. One is anarchocapitalism: you abolish the state. The other is neocameralism: you create stable self-limitation within the otherwise unlimited state by harnessing human greed."

He wants to liberate the drivers from their vehicle. Radical.

Sorry said...

"god" = the universe. We're talking physics! Santorum is a froth of quantum foam. & you have to haggle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u75XQdTxZRc

Anonymous said...

Leonard, do you understand the origins of common law and how it used to operate? 'Cos: no.

puppylander said...

leonard (&pr), ok, admittedly, i let the qualifying words eviscerate my own statement.

still, it's not so far a leap if we treat "god" as standing for the concept of, say, cause&effect (as reality manifests itself). and in that sense, it's not as if atheists disbelieve cause&effect. after all, suppose "god" = the universe, i think you'd find that most atheists don't argue with gravity. that is they generally believe in "the universe".

i think if you start from the christian right's understanding of the concept of "god", you've started at the wrong place, as if the christian right were the rightful interpreters of "god". that is to say, to treat christianity's concept of "god" as dumb/crazy/whatever is not so different from simply disagreeing with their interpretation of "god".

Leonard said...

Nony, my understanding is that common law is judge-made law. How did it "operate"? Um, by judges making judgments based the precedent of what other judges had judged?

How this relates to rights, or any of my arguments in this thread, I don't know.

How about you (a) get a nym, and (b) actually tell me what you think? If there is any flaw in my thinking, I aim to correct it. And lordy knows, the SWPLs who frequent IOZland are not shy of telling me how stupid I am for contradicting their religious views.

Anonymous said...

This may set you off, PR, but whereas the traditional agnostic says "I don't know," the traditional atheist says, "I know it's not." Which is just as much a leap of faith as "I know it is."

Oh for shit's sake, you human buttplug. More like, "Absolutely none of the evidence points in the direction of anything resembling what most monotheists mean by 'God', so I feel as confident as I can get barring the absence of any absolute proof, whatever that would be, and act accordingly." But do go on and tell us how atheism is like TOTALLY A RELIGION. Your views are interesting and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Fuckin' shitass.

Gabe Ruth said...

Jeez Nony, we're just talking physics here. No need to get emotional.

Anonymous said...

go back to reddit nony

High Arka said...

@7:31 rude anonymous: it's remarkably ethnocentric of you to assume that atheism, or believing in no gods, can only be defined by someone who disagrees with certain western religions that you're familiar with. That's ignorant, rude, and callous toward other cultures, whose "gods" may be very different than what you're used to.

More, though, your definitive statement "There is no God" is one of faith. Until you solve the lights in the cave/Matrix/deceiving demon problem, you can't be 100% sure that your own personal experience is the only clear view of the universe. Believing the latter is an act of faith.

So while it's great to have ideas about things, its wrong--and tends to go hand-in-hand with anger and violence--to be firmly committed to absolute beliefs about them. Either in the "pro" or the "con" position.

If what you meant to say is DOOD EVERYONE NOEZ IM TALKIN ATHEIST, LIKE, I HATE CHRISTIANS DOOD!

Then, that's fine. Just say "atheist" means, to you, "Someone who believes that the Judeo-Christian God does not exist." It's your own personal definition, but if you're honest about making it, we can better understand where you're coming from.

Anonymous said...

Absolutely none of the evidence points in the direction of anything resembling what most monotheists mean by 'God'


I surely hope so. "This wicked and adulterous generation demans proof- but none will be given"? - you think this was about 'Joos'?


"A God who is not GOD! is no god."

The Dull (papist) Sycophant

Rocky Rococo said...

Dearest IOZ

I believe I left my pink laser in my valis.

Rocky Rococo
Major Dickhead