Christopher Hitchens is one of my heroes. He is a hero of mine when it comes to the triumph of secularism and science over superstition and religion. But Hitchens never was, and probably will never be, someone who influenced myself in political philosophy.
Up to the year 1990, Christopher Hitchens was a Marxist. He was open about it and never was ashamed about calling himself a Marxist. In 1991 he said that he abandoned Marxism and socialism because he came to the realizations that these philosophies are failures.
So who exactly did Christopher Hitchens evolve into? He never really says it out in the open but from my studying of his positions he is definitely not a liberal. There is hardly anything liberal about him. When he was published in a magazine as one the top most influential liberals he objected to it and said he is no liberal. He condemned the Republican party and said that he is no Republican either. So it is hard to get exactly what his positions are.
But I believe, and I think most people would agree with me, that Hitchens is a neo-conservative, something that I distance myself from even more than liberalism. A lot of people would be surprised by this, but I think I seen Hitchens say once in some debate that he is pro-life. I am rather surprised.
Hitchens is definitely pro-war. And he supported George Bush when everybody else was making fun of him. Check out this link. I actually love that link, because Maher usually is the one who dominates the table. But with Hitchens, Maher is scared. Anyway, Hitchens supports the Iraq war and the US military empire.
Hitchens claims to be the follower of the Enlightenment. And he says that his two biggest heroes and influences are Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. I doubt that these Thomas's share much in common with Hitchens.
In particular with regard to WikiLeaks. I was actually surprised that Christopher Hitchens is unsupportive of WikiLeaks. I imagined Hitchens to be stronger with regard to free speech issues. Paine and Jefferson would definitely not agree with Hitchens here, so I find it surprising that he does.
But I guess Hitchens's position is not terribly surprising. Since he is a neo-conservative after all. He belongs together with his neo-conservative friends minus the religion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You have mentioned that you love Thomas Paine before. Perhaps you should read his book Agrarian Justice, where he argues for property tax that would be used to fund payments to the poor.
ReplyDelete[FROM WIKIPEDIA] The work is based on the contention that in the state of nature, "the earth, in its natural uncultivated state... was the common property of the human race"; the concept of private ownership arose as a necessary result of the development of agriculture, since it was impossible to distinguish the possession of improvements to the land from the possession of the land itself. Thus Paine views private property as necessary, but that the basic needs of all humanity must be provided for by those with property, who have originally taken it from the general public. This in some sense is their "payment" to non-property holders for the right to hold private property.
Maybe you will rethink your love of Thomas Paine as he advocates what you call theft.
I do not understand why I must agree with someone on everything to love him or respect him or consider him a hero.
ReplyDeleteI respect Ron Paul (not a hero of mine). But he is a Christian and a creationist. But that does not bother me because I respect him for being a defender of freedom.
I love Issac Newton and he is a hero of mine. But he was a religious freak who played around in achlemy. But that does not matter because he I respect him for being an influence in mathematics and science.
I also love Jefferson, and he is a hero of mine. But he was a slave owner. While it is true that Jefferson opposed slavery he nonetheless participated in it himself, hypocrisy. But I can still draw from him inspiration to having distrust of authority and leaders because I do not use Jefferson as an inspiration to be some slave onwer.
The same is true for Hitchens. As I said I draw from inspiration from being anti-religion and superstitution. But that does not mean that this inspiration extends to his largely neo-conservative views.
Thomas Paine is no different. He is my biggest inspiration of all the founders and all philosophers from the Enlightenment. He inspires me in matters of being anti-religion and anti-state.
You would always find inconsistencies and problems in people. Take George Orwell for example. He wrote a book whose theme was the dangers of socialism and state power, but was a socialist himself. I find that be a strange contradiction in him. Or consider Charles Darwin. He explained where the animals and other kinds of life came from without a need of a central designer. But he still remained a Christian when he published his works. That is really contradictory. You will always find strange contradictions in people but that does not mean you reject them entirely.
What Thomas Paine is talking about is a long discussion between what is property? The notion of private property has to be some arbitrary cut off point. Say I homestead a piece of land and claim ownership of it. You might ask how deep into the ground do I own it and how high to the sky to I own it. Or consider a situation when you build a tall building near my house and block my access to the sun. We can ask whether or not I have certain air property about my house, and if I do, how much?
ReplyDeleteThere is no scientific or any reasoned way to come to conclusions to answers like these. There needs to be some arbitrary point. Whatever is chosen as the notion of property will be part of the law. And then disputes that people have with regard to law will be settled in court that use a set up notion of private property rights.
There is some disagreement over people to whether or not people can own land. Maybe land should be unowned, just like the sun, or moon, or the oceans. There are those who do not recognize land ownership as legitimate owenership. And there are others who do. In fact, some people, like the communists, go so far as to say that all property is theft, not just land.
I do not have such a big issue with people who take the position that no one can claim ownership over land because it belongs to all people. My big serious issues with a lot of people who say this is rather their inconsistency to jump to the conclusion that the state should own it. Which makes no sense at all. If one says that land cannot be owned then by what right does a state acquire ownership of the land? This is a question which is never answered.
But there are those who also say that including the state no one can own the land (or perhaps all property altogether). This is kinda the disagreement between anarcho-capitalists and anaarcho-communists. The anarcho-capitalists do not have problems with land ownership or any other forms of ownership. The anarcho-communists do. It is not that one of them are statists and the other is not, it is really their regard to property that separates them from one another - they are both anti-state.
The position of Thomas Paine is therefore the position that land cannot be owned by people. Which I do not agree with but it does not really bother me for the reasons that I explained above.
Paine actually uses good arguments. He does not repeat the same non-sense you hear people say, "we are the state, and we are just participating in society, so it is your payment that we need for being part of us". He actually uses intersting arguments.
"what you call theft":
Let us talk about income taxation. How is income taxation not theft? The state demands a portion of your income. By what right can it make such a demand? I do not know. And what happens if you refuse? You got to jail or get killed. And that is what you support as a nanny statist.
"My big serious issues with a lot of people who say this is rather their inconsistency to jump to the conclusion that the state should own it. Which makes no sense at all. If one says that land cannot be owned then by what right does a state acquire ownership of the land?"
ReplyDeleteThe state is not a person. It does not own things as an individual does. Depending upon how the state is set up and where power resides the state is sharing mechanism. In a democracy it represents (however imperfectly) the citizens of the country. It is therefore the closest thing to the will of the people at least in theory.
"Let us talk about income taxation. How is income taxation not theft?"
Any tax revenue that is taken from one person and used for a purpose other than that persons wishes could be called theft. That said, it is just another one of your incendiary terms used to create an argument rather than to illuminate. The Supremer Court of the United States has ruled it is not theft so shut up about that. Its just not a realistic worldview. Its no more realistic than thinking that everyone should share all the worlds resources nicely.
"The state is not a person. It does not own things as an individual does. Depending upon how the state is set up and where power resides the state is sharing mechanism.":
ReplyDeleteThe state consists of people. And if you say the people within this institution can claim ownership over land while people themselves cannot do so themselves, that is a contradiction. Besides the state is supposed to represent the delegated rights of the people (which is really not true, that is just one big lie, but that is what the apologists of statism say). Well, if people have no right to claim ownership over land, then how can they delegate a right they do not have to the state that now does have the right to claim ownership over land? As I said, statism is one big giant contradiction.
"In a democracy it represents (however imperfectly) the citizens of the country.":
Non-sense. The state does not represent the will of the people. The state consists of people. And people primarily only care about themselves. Humans pretty much suck to care about other people anywhere as much as they care about themselves. Which is why the state's first and foremost interest is in itself and the accumulation of more power.
"It is therefore the closest thing to the will of the people at least in theory.":
It represents the will of the people so much it will use guns and violence towards everyone who disagrees with it.
Other than that. I can use the same argument with regard to slaves on a plantation farm that get to vote every four years. Democratic slavery. Here it is clear how voting and democracy does not imply any sort of control or agreement between the slaves in the system.
"That said, it is just another one of your incendiary terms used to create an argument rather than to illuminate. The Supremer Court of the United States has ruled it is not theft so shut up about that.":
And if the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that killing Jews is not murder and constitutional then it would not be murder and be constitutional?
Why does it matter what the Supreme Court ruled? And why does it matter what the Constitution says?
"Its just not a realistic worldview.":
Who cares about explaining why I am wrong if you can just say "you are not realistic"? That is the ultimate conversation winner in any discussion. If you want to show yourself to be correct just say "I am a realist" and be done with it.
Saying what is a realistic and what is not is an empty statement, just like saying "you are wrong". It does not mean anything.
"Its no more realistic than thinking that everyone should share all the worlds resources nicely.":
I actually explained why that is impossible when I explained why the Venus Project is non-sense. I did not just say "it is not realistic". I made an explaination about where the problems are and why it is unattainable and utopian.
I, on the contrary, believe the other way around. That is, it is statism that is unrealistic and utopian. But I never go around saying how "realistic" I am. Because in the end that is an empty statement that does not mean anything.
On the contrary statism is realistic in that it exists everywhere ubiquitously. The idea that a state will ever be perfect is of course utopian but there is no denying that concentrating power in a state is a real phenomenon while the idea of a country without taxes is not.
ReplyDelete"On the contrary statism is realistic in that it exists everywhere ubiquitously.":
ReplyDeleteI was very careful in how I used my words. I said that statism is unrealistic. I did not say states are unrealistic. I was very careful how I said that. Statism is the support of the state and the belief of using state power to solve problems. That I consider to be unrealistic and utopian.
States themselves are realistic. But so was slavery was like 99% of human existence. If we were living in the 1600's and I said that slavery needs to end there would most definitely be people who would say that slavery is the way the world works and that I am being unrealistic.
"While the idea of a country without taxes is not.":
You are correct that societies without taxation are very uncommon. There are a few such occurences but they are very uncommon in history. But as I said non-slavery was uncommon for a vast period of history also. There was no such thing as liberal democracies in the middle ages or any time before that. Saying to a liberal that what he advocates is unrealistic because it has not yet came to be would be a bad argument.
Comparing paying taxes with slavery is a good way to get lynched. Of course that is clearly your intent. Comparing one uncommon but unrelated thing from the past with another on a moral plane requires the belief in a moral system, which as a nihilist you do not posses.
ReplyDelete"I was very careful in how I used my words. I said that statism is unrealistic. I did not say states are unrealistic. Statism is the support of the state and the belief of using state power to solve problems."
Not really...statism is the support of the state as an effect way to utilize power. That power can be either be used benevolently (assuming some kind of moral system) or it can be used otherwise. There is no doubt in my mind that the ability of states to respond to natural disasters probably saves lives. It is therefore possible that the state can be used for good ends. That does not mean that it always is or even most of the time.
"Comparing paying taxes with slavery is a good way to get lynched. Of course that is clearly your intent. Comparing one uncommon but unrelated thing from the past with another on a moral plane requires the belief in a moral system, which as a nihilist you do not posses.":
ReplyDeleteI did not compare paying taxes to slavery. If you read my previous post I did not say anything about taxation. I only used slavery as an example of something which was realistic for most of the pathetic history of mankind. Alternative systems without slavery were not as common. But that does not mean that a non-slave world is unrealistic. That is why I used slavery. I might as well used the example that men dominating women is realistic. I might as well used the example that being poor is also realistic.
It is true, I admit, that I view statism as a form of slavery. For obvious reasons that you can figure out from my position. But I never said anything about it here.
"Not really...statism is the support of the state as an effect way to utilize power.":
I used the word statism first, therefore I get to decide what it means. I define statism as belief of using the state to solve (social or economic) problems. This is actually the standard definition of statism. If it means something else for that, that is okay, but since I am using this word I get to define it by my own standards. Besides what I said does apply to you. You might tell me that what you mean by statism is different from what I said, but in the end you do believe in using the state to solve social and economic problems.
"That power can be either be used benevolently or it can be used otherwise."
That is part of statism. And that is the part which I said is unrealistic and utopian. Just watch the elections. Look at the false promises and hopes that people have.
It is rather foolish to imagine that an institution that is defined by having concentration of arms and weapons would act in benevolence of the people. If you look at the general history of statism it is filled with blood. The 20th century alone was responsible for about 200 million deaths through statism. While it took one man, a scientist, Norman Borlaug, to feed about a billion poor people through the green revolution.
"There is no doubt in my mind that the ability of states to respond to natural disasters probably saves lives.":
I used to, not so long ago, believe that the government giving aid in a natural disaster is an appropriate function of a government. But I abandoned this idea. Because they are so terribly inefficient that it is better for charities to do it instead. If you observe what happened during Katrina the US government did not do anything to help the poor victims. All the aid and help that they recieved was through concerned citizens. Some for charity others for business.
I also opposed giving aid to Haiti for the same reason. I believe that private charities can do, and will do, a superior job if given the oppurtunity to do so.
And I oppose all forgein aid to Africa in its entirely for a similar reason. Because I do not agree with you that this money is actually being used for something good. If it did then you would have a point, but I do not see it.
"(assuming some kind of moral system)":
Benevolence is not a moral system. I believe in benevolence. I believe in love and believe in kindness. I practice something which is basically, "just be nice to people for the sake of being nice (if they deserve it)". But I do not treat these as moral systems. There is nothing moral about it. What morality has meant through all of history was something entirely different. In fact, some moral systems even viewed kindness as evil. So kindness and benevolence has nothing to do with morals. Friedrich Nietzsche's account of morality explains it better, hence the triumph of nihilists over the moralists.
Good analysis of Hitchens. I agree he's pretty much a neocon and I also look up to him despite disagreeing with him about politics.
ReplyDelete"Good analysis of Hitchens. I agree he's pretty much a neocon and I also look up to him despite disagreeing with him about politics.":
ReplyDeleteI think this is why Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are generally more liked by atheists than Hitchens.
Because Dawkins and Harris are rather mainstream politically. I do not remember the last time I ever heard something said by Dawkins and Harris that I found to be outrageous.
I know Dawkins said in opposition to banning the burqa, he said so on Real Time with Bill Maher. They both agreed that it does not matter what you really wear. But Hitchens is anti-burqa. He did support of a ban of it.
It is for these reasons that most atheists and freethinkers distance themselves from Hitchens even though I think Hitchens is by far the most eloquent (and sexually appealing) out of all the Gods in the atheist movement.