Tag-arkiv: frihed

Tear down this wall!

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 12. juni 2007. 5 svar

Advarsel: I sidste uge skrev jeg en post om Ronald Reagans “The Boys of Pointe du Hoc”-tale (1984), og allerede nu er jeg så i samme boldgade igen.

Men lad mig lige begynde et andet sted.  Jeg er som antydet forleden p.t. i Cambridge, og der stødte jeg forleden til en celeber middag på smukke Clare College aldeles uventet ind i min gamle, gode ven, Finn Ziegler (den piberygende økonom og liberalist og 180grader-skribent, ikke den engang cigarrygende, men nu afdøde violinist).  Finn har jeg kendt i knap 25 år, og hvad jeg i sin tid først lærte om public choice teori, lærte jeg ved at ryge pibe sammen med Finn og vores fælles mentor, Otto.

Nå, men henover college-portvinen gjorde Finn og jeg, hvad man så ofte gør, når man får tyndere hår og højere humør, nemlig at mindes “gode gamle dage”.  Og dér slog det mig pludselig: I disse dage for præcis 20 år siden befandt netop Finn og jeg os sammen, på vores første tur til Guds Eget Land, hvor vi var ovre sammen, for som studerende at deltage i et sommerseminar på Marymount College, arrangeret af Institute for Humane Studies.  Vi var ankommet til New York, hvor vi skulle spendere et par dage, inden turen videre til Washington og Virginia.  I den store by havde vi allerede første dag shoppet bøger i stor stil i den nu mere eller mindre hedengangne Laissez Faire Books, som dengang lå på Broadway.  Det var før internettet–før man kunne bestille bøger fra den anden side af verden med et klik på få sekunder, og før man med e-mail kunne lære alle mulige at kende uden nogensinde at møde dem.  Så nu var vi–med en upassende blandingsmetafor–i frihedens Mekka, hvor vi kunne se og købe flere interessante bøger, end vi troede eksisterede, og hvor vi kunne drikke kaffe og hyggesludre med alle mulige andre, der mente de samme gakkede ting som os selv–inkl. den navnkundige nestor blandt amerikanske libertarianere, Roy Childs.  Vi boede til med i en lejlighed på Upper West Side hos LFB’s medarbejder Charlie Fowler; hvordan vi lige præcis endte hos ham, husker jeg faktisk ikke, men jeg husker, at hans “casa” var vores “casa”, fordi han skulle ud og rejse, og at han inden da arrangerede store dele af vores besøg i Washington ved at ringe rundt til frihedsorienterede venner og bekendte.  (Som sagt, det var før internettet.  Det var også dengang før liberaliseringerne af flytrafikken, og jeg husker endnu, at den billigste returbillet kostede ca. 7.000 kr.) 

Anyway … Finn og jeg nød dagene i NYC, traskede byen tynd og stod på toppen af World Trade Center og blev fotograferet med Frihedsgudinden i baggrunden.  Vi var henholdsvis 22 og 20 og følte os ganske frie i frihedens eget land.  Det omfattede uvilkårligt også, at vi fik drukket nogle øl, og jeg husker klart, omend med smerte, den næste morgen.  Det var hamrende varmt, som næsten kun NYC kan være om sommeren, når solen bager ned i asfaltjunglen og blandes med de fugtige rester af den caribiske strøm sydfra–og så tømmermænd.  Jeg gik ind i stuen, hvor Finn havde sovet på en madras på gulvet, og hvor han nu sad og zappede på de 117 kanaler.  Ret mange af dem viste det samme, nemlig en live-reportage direkte fra Brandenburger Tor.  Og dér–i dag for 20 år siden, den 12. juni 1987–stod han, Ronnie-manden, “the Gipper”, og holdt talen:

“Behind me stands a wall that encircles the free sectors of this city, part of a vast system of barriers that divides the entire continent of Europe. From the Baltic, south, those barriers cut across Germany in a gash of barbed wire, concrete, dog runs, and guard towers. Farther south, there may be no visible, no obvious wall. But there remain armed guards and checkpoints all the same–still a restriction on the right to travel, still an instrument to impose upon ordinary men and women the will of a totalitarian state. Yet it is here in Berlin where the wall emerges most clearly; here, cutting across your city, where the news photo and the television screen have imprinted this brutal division of a continent upon the mind of the world. Standing before the Brandenburg Gate, every man is a German, separated from his fellow men. Every man is a Berliner, forced to look upon a scar. 

President von Weizsacker has said, “The German question is open as long as the Brandenburg Gate is closed.” Today I say: As long as the gate is closed, as long as this scar of a wall is permitted to stand, it is not the German question alone that remains open, but the question of freedom for all mankind.

… In the 1950s, Khrushchev predicted: “We will bury you.” But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind–too little food. Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself. After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor.

And now the Soviets themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom. We hear much from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness. Some political prisoners have been released. Certain foreign news broadcasts are no longer being jammed. Some economic enterprises have been permitted to operate with greater freedom from state control.

Are these the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state? Or are they token gestures, intended to raise false hopes in the West, or to strengthen the Soviet system without changing it? We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace.

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

Whoa! Og, som man siger, “the rest is history …”

Update: John Fund skrev tirsdag om årsdagen i Wall Street Journal, og ovennævnte Finn Ziegler onsdag aften i en klumme på 180grader.dk.

The Boys from Pointe du Hoc

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 6. juni 2007. 3 svar

Denne Punditokrat er en gammel sentimentalist, og jeg kan godt lide mindedage–mestendels de glade og symbolsk højstemte. Jeg bliver glad, når de markeres, og ærgerlig når de glemmes–og forbandet på mig selv, når jeg f.eks. glemmer at tænde lys i vinduet 4. maj.

I den forbindelse tænkte jeg i dag en del over, at jeg (der i disse dage befinder mig i smukke Cambridge) reelt havde overset, at det i går var Grundlovsdag derhjemme i Danmark. Men så blev jeg mindet om, at i dag sådan set også er en anden, værdig mindedag: D-Dag. Det er i dag 63 år siden, at De Allierede gik i land i Normandiet, og i det store billede er det en af de dage, der klart må regnes som ikke bare en af de vigtigste i det 20. århundrede men en af de afgørende i frihedens historie.

Men det betyder også, at det i dag er 23 år siden, at præsident Ronald W. Reagan holdt en af sine bedste taler. Måske ikke den mest ideologiske, men klart en af de smukkeste, mest sentimentale (i ordets bedste betydning) og mest velskrevne–og selvfølgelig skrevet af Peggy Noonan. Talen, kendt som “The Boys from Pointe du Hoc”, blev holdt foran rækker med overlevende “Rangers” fra D-Dag, og den findes hér på audio (under datoen June 6, 1984) og hér som tekst. Her er et par uddrag:

“We’re here to mark that day in history when the Allied armies joined in battle to reclaim this continent to liberty. For four long years, much of Europe had been under a terrible shadow. Free nations had fallen, Jews cried out in the camps, millions cried out for liberation. Europe was enslaved, and the world prayed for its rescue. Here in Normandy the rescue began. Here the Allies stood and fought against tyranny in a giant undertaking unparalleled in human history.

… The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead, or on the next. It was the deep knowledge — and pray God we have not lost it — that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.

You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One’s country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it’s the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.

… [But not] all that followed the end of the war was happy or planned. Some liberated countries were lost. The great sadness of this loss echoes down to our own time in the streets of Warsaw, Prague, and East Berlin. Soviet troops that came to the center of this continent did not leave when peace came. They’re still there, uninvited, unwanted, unyielding, almost forty years after the war. Because of this, allied forces still stand on this continent. Today, as forty years ago, our armies are here for only one purpose: to protect and defend democracy. The only territories we hold are memorials like this one and graveyards where our heroes rest.

… Here, in this place where the West held together, let us make a vow to our dead. Let us show them by our actions that we understand what they died for.”

Muhammed, Danmark & ACLU

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 25. maj 2007. 3 svar

Kender man lidt til amerikanske forhold, og er man grundlæggende positivt indstillet overfor klassiske frihedsrettigheder, så må man næsten også per definition have et lidt ambivalent forhold til den amerikanske borgerrettighedsorganisation, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).   Blandt mange amerikanske konservative (men ikke alle–mere her) er den afskyet, fordi den bliver opfattet som en “left liberal, bleeding heart” organisation, hvis medlemmer er “bløde”, når det gælder den nødvendige retshåndhævelse.  Men blandt mange andre–klassisk liberale som venstreorienterede–er der en stor respekt for, at organisationen ofte tager slagsmål til fordel for klassiske frihedsrettigheder.

Denne punditokrat har ihvertfald altid selv haft et lidt ambivalent syn på ACLU.  Jeg har fundet det fremragende, at de ihærdigt har forfægtet habeas corpus, ytringsfrihed, adskillelse af kirke og stat, o.s.v.  Men jeg har også fundet deres læsning af den amerikanske Bill of Rights lidt selektiv–de har sjældent gjort meget ud af det 2. forfatningstillæg, selvom det altså sådan set også er en borgerrettighed, og mens de mange kommunister, som var med til at stifte ACLU godt kunne lide adskillelse af stat og kirke, gik de aldrig meget op i, at religionsfrihed også betyder retten til at udøve ens religion.

Og med den politiske korrektheds fremmarch i 1980erne og 1990erne var det næsten forudsigeligt, at denne også på et tidspunkt kunne få ACLU til at tippe endnu mere i den retning, som jeg ihvertfald ikke værdsætter.  Netop det emne var forleden omtalt i detaljer på Wall Street Journals debatsider, i kronikken “The American Liberal Liberties Union”, hvori advokaten Wendy Kaminer argumenter, at ACLU er ved at blive ret selektiv på ytringsfrihedens front–og midt i det hele dukker Danmark og Muhammedkrisen op.   Her kommer et langt uddrag:

“ACLU Defends Nazi’s Right to Burn Down ACLU Headquarters,” the humor magazine The Onion announced in 1999. Those of us who loved the ACLU, and celebrated its willingness to defend the rights of Nazis and others who had no regard for our rights, considered the joke a compliment. Today it’s more like a reproach. Once the nation’s leading civil liberties group and a reliable defender of everyone’s speech rights, the ACLU is being transformed into just another liberal human-rights group that reliably defends the rights of liberal speakers.

This transformation is gradual, unacknowledged and not readily apparent, since evidence of it lies mainly in cases the ACLU does not take. It’s naturally easier to know what an organization is doing (and advertising) than what it is not doing. But a review of recent free-speech press releases turns up only a handful of cases in which ACLU state affiliates defended the rights of conservative, antigay or otherwise politically incorrect speakers. And lately the national organization has been remarkably quiet in several important free-speech cases and controversies.

One of the clearest indications of a retreat from defending all speech regardless of content is the ACLU’s virtual silence in Harper v. Poway, an important federal case involving a high-school student’s right to wear a T-shirt condemning homosexuality. Of course, the ACLU doesn’t speak out on every case, but historically it has vigorously defended student speech rights, as its Web site stresses. It is currently representing a student in a speech case before the Supreme Court, Morse v. Frederick (involving the right of a student to carry a nonsensical “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner at an off-campus event). The ACLU pays particular attention to the right to wear T-shirts with pro-gay messages in school, proudly citing cases in which it represented students wearing pro-gay (as well as anti-Bush) T-shirts. This year, the ACLU awarded a Youth Activist Scholarship to a student who fought the efforts of her school to bar students from wearing T-shirts that said “Gay, Fine by me.”

So in 2004, when Tyler Chase Harper was disciplined for wearing a T-shirt declaring his religious objections to homosexuality, civil libertarians might have expected the ACLU to protest loudly. Mr. Harper was barred from attending classes when he wore the antigay T-shirt to school on an official “Day of Silence,” when gay students taped their mouths to symbolize the silencing effect of intolerance. Represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, he sued the school district. That same year, the ACLU initiated the first of two actions against a Missouri school that punished students for wearing “gay supportive T-shirts,” eventually securing a promise from the school to “stop censoring,” the ACLU Web site boasts. Mr. Harper, however, was unsuccessful in his quest to stop school censorship. In a patronizing, antilibertarian decision in which Judge Stephen Reinhardt stressed the imagined feelings of gay students, the Ninth Circuit rejected Mr. Harper’s First Amendment claims. (There was a sharp dissent from Judge Alex Kozinski.)

… The Harpers didn’t need representation from the ACLU. But the organization frequently speaks up for the rights of people it does not represent, like Guantanamo detainees, and often files amicus briefs in important civil liberties cases. Given its focus on student rights and religious liberty (one of the ACLU’s priorities), it’s hard to explain the ACLU’s apparent equanimity about the violation of Mr. Harper’s First Amendment rights–unless you consider the content of his speech. 

This case does not appear to be anomalous. Despite its professed commitment to religious liberty, for example, the ACLU tends to absent itself from cases on college campuses involving the associational rights of Christian student groups to discriminate against gay students, in accordance with their religious beliefs. But conservative students might be grateful for the ACLU’s absence. Consider its intervention in a successful federal court challenge to an unconstitutional speech code at Georgia Tech, brought by the Alliance Defense Fund in 2006 on behalf of two conservative religious students. The ACLU of Georgia filed an amicus brief proposing a substitute but still overbroad “antiharassment” policy that included a prohibition on “injurious communications . . . directed toward an individual because of their characteristics or beliefs.” In other words: Students should be punished for sharply criticizing or satirizing each other’s beliefs if their remarks are deemed “injurious.”

Og så til Danmark:.

“The ACLU was even AWOL in one of the most visible and frightening free-speech controversies in recent years–the Muhammad cartoons, which many condemned as “hate speech.” When Muslim groups violently protested the cartoons (first published in the Danish press), when American newspapers declined to publish them for fear of reprisals, and when the U.S. State Department condemned their publication–the ACLU exercised its right to remain silent. In fact, its press office actually advised ducking questions about the cartoons that might arise during discussions of torture at Abu Ghraib. A set of talking points from the press office recommended responding to questions about the cartoons by exhorting the U.S. government to “demonstrate . . . that it is taking the Abu Ghraib images seriously.” (This was later spun as an effort to stay on message about abuses at Abu Ghraib.)

Not until an ACLU donor complained about this silence on the cartoon controversy, and questions about it were
raised before the ACLU bo
ard, did ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero speak up–quietly. He mentioned the controversy in a relatively obscure dinner speech to the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. He sent a letter to the University of Illinois urging it not to discipline student editors who published the cartoons in a campus paper. In a letter to the ACLU board, Mr. Romero both denied and defended the ACLU’s relative silence: “With regard to the cartoons, rather than put out a hortatory statement that no one would read (except insiders) but might make us feel good about ourselves, we have tried to engage in thoughtful forums and discussions that relate to the issue. Speaking out on an issue involves more than slapping a paragraph together and posting it on a website.”

…

Why did the ACLU avoid issuing a loud and clear public statement decrying violent efforts to suppress the Muhammad cartoons? Its silence may have reflected growing sympathy among ACLU leaders and supporters for restricting what many liberals condemn as hate speech. “Take hate speech,” Mr. Romero remarked to the New York Times in May 2006. “While believing in free speech, we do not believe in or condone speech that attacks minorities.” (He was commenting on a proposal to bar board members from criticizing the ACLU–a proposal that was amended only after being exposed in the Times.) “

Kronikøren leverer flere lignende eksempler og sammenfatter:

“This is not the same organization that once took pride in its costly, principled decision to defend the rights of neo-Nazis to march in a community of Holocaust survivors in Skokie, Ill. Of course the ACLU hasn’t definitively abandoned its defense of speech: Large, national organizations change incrementally. But people should no longer depend on the ACLU to defend what they preach (especially at a cost), if it disapproves of what they practice.”

Ugens citat: VU om samtykke, frihed & polygami

Af Redaktionen, den 24. maj 2007. 4 svar

Hele Danmarks borgerlige netavis 180Grader.dk har et dagsaktuelt, omend to år gammelt, citat fra de unge liberales politiske program:

”Staten skal ikke bestemme hvorvidt man må have mere end en ægtefælle, dette må være op til de enkelte par at afgøre. Eneste krav for at få flere ægtefæller skal være den/de nuværende ægtefæller(s) samtykke.”

VU’s Thomas Banke uddyber til 180Grader:

Polygami?

”Hvis kvinder vitterligt ønsker at lade sig gifte ind i et harem, så mener jeg faktisk ikke at det en politisk opgave at blande sig i. Det må være folks frie valg. … Hvis ikke der er tale om tvang eller misbrug, så er det svært, synes jeg, at finde nogen grund til at lovgive imod det. Også selvom jeg ikke selv bryder mig om den form for ægteskab.”

VU’s formand, Karsten Lauritzen, kan derimod ikke helt finde ud af, hvad han mener.

Billedet viser et typisk dansk bunkebryllup.

The Capitalist Peace

Af Igor, den 7. maj 2007. 6 svar

Der findes dem, der mener, at socialvidenskabernes væsentligste formål er at bekræfte fordomme og aflive myter. Denne punditokrat har derfor været ualmindelig godt underholdt af januar nummeret af American Journal of Political Science. Her har Erik Gartzke fra Columbia University en fremragende artikel, “The Capitalist Peace”, der dybest set viser, at Bastiat havde ret: Stater, der er økonomisk integrerede i verdensøkonomien, går bare ikke i krig. Man tvinges jo nærmest til at udbryde: Hvad sagde vi – eller som en video på youtube udtrykte det: The Right was Right! Men den type argumenter anvendes jo som bekendt ikke på denne blog.

Det nye i Gartzke artikel er selvfølgelig, at det altså ikke er regimeformen – dvs. graden af demokrati, graden af omfordeling, sammenhængskraften eller andre metafysisk funderede forhold, der er afgørende for, hvor krigeriske stater egentlig er. Men derimod er graden af handel helt afgørende for graden af krigerisk adfærd. Særligt finansiel åbenhed har betydning for, hvor sandsynligt det er, at observere krige mellem stater. Jo mere finansiel åbenhed – jo lavere sandsynlighed for krig. Med andre ord: Sørg for at folk har mulighed for at berige sig og de vil bekymre sig mere om deres pension end om at slå andre ihjel. En pensionsopsparing skal nu engang bruges i fremtiden– og pensionsopsparingen er nu engang mere værd, hvis man rent faktisk er til stede, når fremtiden indtræffer. Ingen Metafysik!

Det rejser jo – unægtelig – nogle interessante perspektiver. Hvis vi skal have fred – og hvis vi mener, at fred er noget godt – så skal vi måske sikre markedsadgang for 3. verdenslande til vores markeder? Måske skulle vi give folk i disse lande en mulighed for at blive rige uden alt for voldsom indblanding i, hvor mange cementfabrikker og hvor meget samtaledemokrati et udviklingsland skal stopfodres med?

4. maj

Af Christian Bjørnskov, den 4. maj 2007. 15 svar

Hvis det skulle have undsluppet nogen læsers opmærksomhed, er det i dag den 4. maj. Det vil sige, at i aften klokken otte er det 62 år siden, at BBC kunne meddele danskerne, at de tyske styrker i Danmark havde overgivet sig. At se billederne fra den gang, og tale med de få, der oplevede den aften og den næste dag og stadig lever, bekræfter at sangen taler sandt: Der blev flaget så meget, at byer rent faktisk blomstrede i rød og hvidt! Det er 62 år siden, men som det stadig er tradition i Sønderjylland (hvor jeg kommer fra) og enkelte andre steder i landet, har jeg levende lys i vinduerne i aften. Hvis der er noget, der skal huskes, er det den dag og de ofre der gik forud for den.

Den danske modstandsbevægelse var en af årsagerne til, at Danmark i sidste ende blev betragtet som en allieret nation, og ikke blot en af Nazitysklands medløberstater. Og der var ikke bare tale om nogle drenge, der legede krig, som enkelte historikere synes at mene. Jeg voksede op med en morfar, der havde været med i modstandsbevægelsen fra tidligt i krigen, og en mormor der fragtede dokumenter for bevægelsen mellem Haderslev og København fra hun var 18 år gammel. Nogle af mine klarest minder om min morfar er de sjældne gange han fortalte historier fra krigen. De var spændende og medrivende, men med dem fulgte altid en undertone fra de historier, der ikke blev fortalt – dem hvor kammerater blev taget af Gestapo, hvor nazisterne vandt, hvor venner døde.

Min mormor, derimod, fortalte aldrig et ord om krigen. Min søster og jeg hørte intet om hendes rolle, min mor og moster heller ikke, og hvis min morfar og hun talte om det, var det aldrig mens der var andre tilstede. Måske var det simpelthen for smertefuldt at tænke tilbage på den tid, for hvordan præger det en teenagepige at sidde i et tog i seks timer – den tid det dengang tog fra Sønderjylland til hovedstaden – med dokumenter som man alt for godt ved, kan betyde liv eller død for en selv og ens nærmeste venner? Man kan lige så vel spørge sig selv, hvordan man lever sit liv, når man har haft år hvor man risikerede sit eget og andres liv for at kæmpe mod en overmagt, der stod for en umenneskelighed og et vanvid, som man ikke behøvede få ind på livet?

Men fakta er, at mange danskere tog det eneste moralsk rigtige valg og gjorde modstand. De vidste, at de risikerede alt, og de vidste sandsynligvis også, at de aldrig blev de mennesker, de ville have været uden krigen eller hvis de valgte den lette løsning og accepterede nazismen. Jeg vil nødig lyde plat og sentimental, men jeg har intet andet udtryk for det: Selv de der overlevede, gav deres liv for modstanden – det normale og lettere liv, de havde haft hvis de havde valgt anderledes. Ligeledes valgte andre også modstanden, om end på en anden måde. Mange danske bønder havde mulighed for at tage arbejde for nazisterne på den del af Atlantvolden, der stadig i form af næsten uforgængelige bunkere står op langs med den jyske vestkyst. Jeg er derfor stolt af, at min farfar valgte den mulighed fra. I stedet fristede han og min farmor en tilværelse som – helt bogstaveligt – desperat fattige bønder på den hårde jord i Sønderjylland. Et fravalg er også et valg, og derfor en moralsk stillingtagen.

Og hvorfor så skrive om det, når det nu er 62 år siden? Skulle vi ikke være kommet videre for længst? Og er ham Bjørnskov ikke bare en af de sædvanlige sønderjyder, der kan diskutere moral, tyskere, og hvem der laver de bedste ringridderpølser herfra til helvede? Jo, det kan godt være, og måske er jeg også stolt af mine bedsteforældre, men der er mere i det end som så. For da 1945 kom, havde mange danskere forståeligt nok travlt med at bortforklare deres arbejde for nazisterne, og mange havde travlt med at hoppe med på modstandsvognen. Da det blev omkostningsfrit at tage et valg for et frit Danmark, blev valget selvfølgeligt populært. Men dem, vi skal mindes i dag, er ikke de sidste dages frelste, men derimod de danskere, der villigt lod sig mærke på krop og sjæl af deres valg i starten af krigen.

Dem, jeg vil huske, er de mennesker der tog det rigtige valg mens det stadig var upopulært, og holdt fast i det, også selvom det valg i flere år så ud til at være forbundet med en tabersag. Hvis man bringer den holdning op til en nutidig debat, kan man måske godt være lidt Jeronimus-agtigt skeptisk overfor medierne og danskernes rygrad i al almindelighed. Holder danskerne for eksempel fast når danske soldater dør mens de beskytter almindelige afghanere mod en af de mest formørkede politiske bevægelser i de sidste 100 år? Eller hvis det samme sker i Irak? Og hvor mange ledende politikere og meningsmagere holdt egentlig fast i ytringsfriheden som ideal, da danske virksomheder tabte markedsandele i Mellemøsten og danske ambassader brændte? Hvis vi endegyldigt holder op med at holde fast i vores værdier når det gør lidt ondt, ender vi så på den rigtige side af det næste jerntæppe? Det er hverken rare eller lette spørgsmål, vel?

Så for mig er 4. maj en meget personlig påmindelse om to ting. For det første er det en reminder om, hvor vigtigt det er at have holdninger og værdier, og særligt hvor vigtigt det er at forsvare dem, når de umiddelbart begynder at koste noget. For det andet er den 4. maj en lejlighed til at mindes mine bedsteforældre og en helt særlig ting ved dem: Miraklet at de på trods af deres oplevelser og deres ofre under krigen blev de mennesker, jeg har elsket så højt som nogen. Men måske har sangen ret – livet er ikke så svært, hvis man kæmper for alt man har kært.

Grøde i Tyrkiet og Pakistan

Af Jacob Mchangama, den 1. maj 2007. 1 svar

April måned har set en udvikling i vigtige muslimske lande som Pakistan og Tyrkiet, der synes at bekræfte den forsigtige optimisme på den muslimske verdens vegne, som et stadigt mindre antal borgerlige – såsom undertegnede – stadig holder fast i.

I Tyrkiet demonstrerede op mod 300.000 i Ankara i forrige uge mod islamismen – i form af det siddende regeringpartis præsidentkandidat. Den 29. april tog op med en million tyrkere så på gaden mod islamismen i Istanbul.

Mindre kendt – men mindst ligeså væsentligt – er det, at titusinder af mennekser i Karachi ifølge Reuters og NY Times gik på gaden i protest mod

a radical religious school that has begun a Taliban-style anti-vice campaign in the capital, Islamabad.

Ifølge den pakistanske avis Daily Times var demonstration i Karachi ikke enestående:

Citizens’ rights activists organised simultaneous protests in Lahore, Islamabad, Karachi and Peshawar to denounce the campaign of vigilantism and intimidation unleashed by the clerics in the heart of Islamabad. The rallies were taken out against the criminal action taken by scores of boys and girls from the seminaries of Hafsa (girls) and Fareedia (men) run by the clerics of Lal Masjid in Islamabad. Armed students went into the house of one Shamim Akhtar and bound her and her daughter and daughter-in-law in ropes and dragged them to the seminary where they were kept for three days while the government in Islamabad wrung its hands and didn’t take any action. The statement of the wronged family is still on the BBC website in which the seminarians also denounce the abducted family as “sinful Shias”.

[…]

The Lahore march was organised by the Women’s Action Forum (WAF) in collaboration with other non-governmental organisations to register the first-ever citizens’ protest against religious extremism. They were joined by minority groups, political workers, lawyers, trade unionists, journalists and students, as well as contingents of the PPP and PMLN women’s wing, as they marched to the Lahore High Court and the Punjab Assembly building on the Mall. The slogans raised condemned clerical blackmail and intimidation and were supported significantly by the Hall Road traders with banners reading: “Stop blackmailing and exploiting traders in the name of Islam,” and “We condemn mullahs’ operation against CD shops”.

[…]

Understandably, the government that has shown no backbone in facing the Lal Masjid clerics came in for criticism by the rallies in the big cities: “We, the people of Pakistan, are not oblivious of this mullah-military alliance. There can be no democracy in Pakistan unless GHQ-backed mullahs stop issuing decrees to exploit people in the name of Islam”. [..]


The procession of protesting men and women that walked up to the Parliament House in Islamabad asked: “Where’s the writ of the state?” In its demonstration of defiance of moral tyranny the rally carried placards saying, “No to religious extremism; yes to life and music” and “Free the children’s library”. Karachi too put up its demonstration of outrage at what was happening in Islamabad. Pakistan’s largest city and economic engine has seen the worst clerical outrages in its history since 2000. It has seen its most respectable citizens done to death and its precious innocent lives lost to suicide-bombing.

Det store antal tyrkere og pakistanere, der aktivt og (hidtil) fredeligt tager afstand fra islamiseringen af deres respektive lande er vel det bedste bevis på, at homo islamicus moderatus, som så mange debattører har efterlyst henholdsvis erklæret for ikke eksisterende, rent faktisk findes og er ved at finde fodfæste i en tid, hvor islamismen ellers spredes og radikaliseres i et skræmmende tempo. Det er samtidig en tiltrængt pind til ligkisten for den deterministiske holdning til Islam, som per definition værende ureformerbar og totalitær. De moderate kræfter i Tyrkiet og Pakistan skal støttes, ikke mødes med selvretfærdige holdninger til den religion, som de insisterer på må tilpasse sig udviklingen af en moderne og demokratisk samfundsmodel.

Punditokraterne på P1 III

Af Jacob Mchangama, den 24. april 2007. 15 svar

Denne blog var udgangspunkt for debatten i dagens udgave af Kaffeklubben på P1, hvor undertegnede skulle lægge op til debat med MF’erne Mette Frederiksen, Helle Sjelle og Ellen Trane Nørby. Udsendelsen tog udgangspunkt i indlæggene “Når markedet tilfredsstiller basale behov” og “To slags integration: den skandinaviske og den amerikanske”. Endvidere blev det debatteret, hvor vidt der bliver lovgivet og reguleret for meget og for vilkårligt her i landet.

Mill, Sujith Kumar og friheden til en masse ting

Af Christian Bjørnskov, den 13. april 2007. 16 svar

Nogle gange skal man tage chancen og prøve noget anderledes. Hvis man lader være med at passe på, lærer man måske endda noget nyt. Så det var det, jeg gjorde i går. Ikke nok med at jeg som nationaløkonom har sneget mig med til MPSA – verdens næststørste politologikonference – men jeg valgte i går eftermiddags at tage til et panel, der handlede om den britiske 1800-tals samfundstænker John Stuart Mill.

Det var et farvel til formler og tal og et goddag til store, gamle tanker og ny gentænkning af dem. Jeg overlevede de første tre talere og fik så lov til at opleve Sujith Kumar fra London School of Economics og hans bud på, hvorfor Mills stivstikkeri ind imellem de liberale tanker måske ikke var så dumt og uliberalt alligevel. Sujiths idé er, at Mill muligvis har haft to niveauer i tankerne, da han skrev ‘On Liberty’.

Han demonstrerede det med et sjovt eksempel, der kun blev sjovere af at blive illustreret med pile ovenpå et foto af den gamle Mill. I den klassiske liberale tradition skal folk have frihed til at drikke øl, og lige så meget som de har lyst til. Mill bruger sit ‘Harm Principle’ som udgangspunktet for diskussionen: Individer skal have lov til at gøre alt, så længe det ikke direkte skader andre individer. Men mange bryder sig ikke om dette princip, og Mill selv var måske ikke helt konsistent – efter sigende syntes han for eksempel ikke alt for godt om homoseksualitet.

Selvfølgelig kan man argumentere ud fra en slags ‘samfundsnytte’ – som mange danske politikere for eksempel gør – men det bliver hurtigt absurd. Et dansk eksempel kunne være, at man burde begrænse tidligere Århus-borgmester Flemming Knudsens frihed til at drikke store fadøl. Hans forbrug er sandsynligvis skadeligt for ham selv, og indebærer en byrde for det danske sundhedsvæsen – og måske endda et problem for Århus-borgerne. På samme vis kan man argumentere for, at min adgang til chokolade bør begrænses, fordi der er en reel risiko for at jeg i fremtiden bebyrder sundhedsvæsenet fordi jeg spiser for meget af ‘gudernes føde’.

Men for os alle vil disse drypvise indgreb blive absurde – hvor de end ender, og hvor man starter – og betyde et stort tab for alles frihed. Så hvorfor var Mill så personligt ambivalent? Sujiths forklaring er, at en genfortolkning af Mill afklarer hans mærkelige position. Mill argumenterer i hans optik for, at man på et første niveau skal have fuld frihed til at konsumere øl eller chokolade. Men samfundet – ikke defineret som staten, men som aggregatet af alle borgere – skal have en slags frihed til at kritisere opførslen og forbruget. Et andet af hans eksempler er ikke helt ved siden af, når man tænker på forskelle mellem Danmark og Sverige. Sujith forklarede nemlig, at de fleste kan være enige om, at racisme og racistiske holdninger og ytringer er forkerte. Det betyder bare ikke, at sagen ender der – man bør nemlig have frihed til at ytre visse holdninger. Denne frihed indebærer nemlig, at ‘samfundet’ får hvert individ til at reflektere over sin adfærd. Holdninger fører til adfærd – på det første niveau – men holdningerne kommer også et sted fra – det andet niveau.

Således bliver Mills fordømmelse af for eksempel homoseksualitet faktisk logisk konsistent med en liberal position. Som han skriver i On Liberty: “Human beings owe to each other to help to distinguish between the better and the worse”. En frihed til både at handle i overensstemmelse med sine egne holdninger og præferencer og diskutere, kritisere og fordømme andres adfærd fører netop til – ifølge manden fra London – at man reflekterer over, hvorfor racisme eller overdreven øldrikning er forkert. Dermed bliver folks holdninger udtryk for en ‘levende sandhed’ i stedet for ‘døde dogmer’.

Og for at komme til forskellen mellem Danmark og Sverige – og måske forskellen mellem frie vestlige borgere (både dem der er født her og andre) og indvandrere med fødderne solidt plantet i Mellemøstens mest tilbagestående støv – er Sujiths indsigter og tanker om Mills logisk konsistens og inkonsistens alt andet end fra det nittende århundrede. For hvorfor diskuterer vi danskere indvandring så frit og med en tone, som mange ikke rigtigt bryder sig om? Hvorfor gør de det ikke i Sverige? Tja, måske fordi Mills Harm Principle gælder i begge lande, men skellet mellem hvad der sker på andet niveau er markant? Sverige som samfund virker ikke i denne henseende – man tager holdninger osv. for givet og ender derfor med at lovgive om individuelt moralske forhold. Ligeledes gælder det netop, at nogle mellemøstlige muslimer nægter andre – og sig selv – adgang til at diskutere muslimsk/arabiske holdninger.

Dermed bliver megen islamisk lærdom og svenskeres holdning til for eksempel døde dogmer, mens de i Danmark enten er levende sandheder (racisme er skidt) eller døende misforståelser. På andre områder må man vel indrømme, at der er ting i Danmark, som er døde dogmer fordi vi netop ikke forstår at udnytte det, man hvis man strækker Mill (rigtigt, rigtigt) vidt kunne kalde andet-niveau-frihed. Nogle gange nytter det simpelthen at åbne for helt anderledes idéer og acceptere, at nogle af dem måske ikke er særligt nyttige endsige interessante. Nogle gange skal man lede udenfor lygtens skær efter sine bilnøgler. Man risikerer nemlig at finde mere end man ledte efter, så længe man har friheden til det. Og det ville gamle John Stuart Mill vel ikke have været uenig i, vel?

Om den herskende borgerlig-liberale negativitet

Af Jacob Mchangama, den 25. marts 2007. 18 svar

Denne Punditokrat bliver – i lighed med en af mine medpunditokrater – ofte deprimeret over, i hvor høj grad borgerlig-liberal retorik er præget af negativitet, pessimisme, fordømmelse og til tider også af selvretfærdighed og skråsikkerhed. Der er eksempelvis intet mere uinspirerende og sterilt end den borgerlige dyrkelse af offerrolle i forhold til og skyttegravskrig med “kulturradikalismen” (i Danmark) eller “New York Times læsende liberals” (i USA).

Skal borgerlig-liberale vinde opbakning til borgerlig-liberale ideer, nytter det ikke at beklage sig over, hvor dumme, selvhadende eller totalitære ens ideologiske modstandere er. Det betyder naturligvis ikke at kritik og polemik skal bandlyses, men når polemikken bliver det bærende element træder egne selvstændige argumenter, som oftest i baggrunden og debatten bliver forudsigelig, uinteressant og uinspirerende.  Resultatet af overvejende fokus på det negative er blot – tror jeg – at man prædiker for de allerede omvendte, støder tvivlerne fra sig og gør modstanderne endnu mere indædte.

Jeg skal langt fra gøre gældende, at jeg selv er immun overfor tendensen til at fokusere på det negative. Det er jo så dejlig nemt at “bashe”. Men nemme løsninger bør være undtagelsen frem for reglen, i hvert fald hvis man rent faktisk har en ambition om at vinde gehør for de ideer man selv tror på.

Udfordringen for borgerlig-liberale må bestå i at fremhæve alle de positive aspekter af vores daglige liv, som overordnet set kan spores til den grad af individuel, økonomisk og politisk frihed vi trods alt nyder, ikke bare i Vesten, men også andre steder, hvor frihed så småt har vundet frem. Et godt eksempel på en, der mestrer dette er Johan Norberg, hvis entusiasme på den klassiske liberalisme vegne er utroligt smittende og givetvis har været medvirkende til at liberale ideer har vundet terræn i Sverige.

Et andet eksempel er Indur Goklany, der har skrevet bogen “The Improving State of the World: Why we’re living longer, Healthier and More Comfortable Lives on a Cleaner Planet”, som Reason Magazine omtaler i en artikel her.

Af omtalen fremgår det bl.a., at:

the 20th century saw the United States’ population multiply by four, income by seven, carbon dioxide emissions by nine, use of materials by 27, and use of chemicals by more than 100.

Yet life expectancy increased from 47 years to 77 years. Onset of major disease such as cancer, heart, and respiratory disease has been postponed between eight and eleven years in the past century. Heart disease and cancer rates have been in rapid decline over the last two decades, and total cancer deaths have actually declined the last two years, despite increases in population. Among the very young, infant mortality has declined from 100 deaths per 1,000 births in 1913 to just seven per 1,000 today.

These improvements haven’t been restricted to the United States. It’s a global phenomenon. Worldwide, life expectancy has more than doubled, from 31 years in 1900 to 67 years today. India’s and China’s infant mortalities exceeded 190 per 1,000 births in the early 1950s; today they are 62 and 26, respectively. In the developing world, the proportion of the population suffering from chronic hunger declined from 37 percent to 17 percent between 1970 and 2001 despite a 83 percent increase in population. Globally average annual incomes in real dollars have tripled since 1950. Consequently, the proportion of the planet’s developing-world population living in absolute poverty has halved since 1981, from 40 percent to 20 percent. Child labor in low income countries declined from 30 percent to 18 percent between 1960 and 2003.

Equally important, the world is more literate and better educated than ever. People are freer politically, economically, and socially to pursue their well-being as they see fit. More people choose their own rulers, and have freedom of expression. They are more likely to live under rule of law, and less likely to be arbitrarily deprived of life, limb, and property.
Social and professional mobility have also never been greater. It’s easier than ever for people across the world to transcend the bonds of caste, place, gender, and other accidents of birth. People today work fewer hours and have more money and better health to enjoy their leisure time than their ancestors.

Hvorfor går det så så meget bedre på jorden end de fleste af os tror?:

The proximate cause of improvements in well-being is a “cycle of progress” composed of the mutually reinforcing forces of economic development and technological progress. But that cycle itself is propelled by a web of essential institutions, particularly property rights, free markets, and rule of law. Other important institutions would include science- and technology-based problem-solving founded on skepticism and experimentation; receptiveness to new technologies and ideas; and freer trade in goods, services—most importantly in knowledge and ideas. In short, free and open societies prosper. Isolation, intolerance, and hostility to the free exchange of knowledge, technology, people, and goods breed stagnation or regression.

Hvis en overbevisning om kausalitet mellem velstand og økonomisk, politisk og individuel frihed – som Golky (og Johan Norberg) så blændende demonstrerer – var gængs blandt menigmand (og politikere), ville de tiltag, som (vi) borgerlig-liberale så ofte raser mod givetvis være langt færre. Det må være borgerlig-liberale debattørers fornemmeste opgave at søge at manifestere denne opfattelse hos vores medborgere, hvilket bedst sker via overbevisende argumenter frem for via en resignerende negativitet.

Til grin for egne penge?

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 22. marts 2007. 22 svar

De af os, som må placeres i den frihedsorienterede ende af det ideologiske spektrum, står nogle gange overfor et besynderligt paradoks, eller ihvertfald et dilemma:  Vi afskyer ineffektivitet og spild i det offentlige–fordi det trods alt er borgernes penge og frihed, det går ud over.  Men hvis vi hjælper til med at gøre det offentlige mere effektivt, så …  Ja, fuldfør selv sætningen og tanken. 

For at udtrykke dilemmaet i Ayn Randske termer: Skal man vælge at være en Hank Rearden, som tror på, at han kan gøre noget godt for sanmfundet (i hans tilfælde ved at være et moralsk og produktivt menneske i en verden, der er gået bananas), eller skal man være en John Galt, der arbejder på at "trække stikket ud" (uanset de kortsigtede konsekvenser)?

Problemet bliver naturligvis kun endnu større for de mange af os, som på den ene eller den anden måde ender i enten det offentlige som ansat eller som aktive i politik–eller for den sags skyld i tænketanke.  Tag f.eks. udliciteringer: Det leder givetvis til en bedre udnyttelse af skattekronerne–men det er så skattekroner, som givetvis bliver brugt på noget andet snarere end skattelettelser (plus det skaber et nyt net af halv-private særinteressegrupper med en asymmetrisk interesse i en ekspansion af det offentlige, eller ihvertfald i at modarbejde en mindskelse).  Eller tag skattevæsenet: Er det bedst, at dét er monstrøst ineffektivt og baseret på uigennemskuelige og arbitrære principper, eller at det er monstrøst effektivt og baseret på gennemskuelige og lidt mindre arbitrære principper?  Skal man foretrække, at éns sagsbehandler i skattevæsenet er en tumpe eller et geni?

Jeg har ikke noget endegyldigt svar på dét dilemma, men vi er ved at være fremme ved dagens emne.  Her kommer nemlig lidt genbrug fra min "Groft Sagt" i dagens Berlingske omhandlende den store, dyre kampagne, som SKAT p.t. kører for at få flere, bedre, højtuddannede medarbejdere, "der vil være med til at opbygge verdens førende skatteforvaltning og sikre en effektiv og retfærdig finansiering af fremtidens offentlige sektor" …:

Dyrt grin

De er nu lige godt nogle finurlige fætre derinde hos det upassende benævnte organ SKAT. De vil ikke bare gerne have nogle flere medarbejdere (og hvem vil ikke altid gerne det?) – nej de vil også vise, at de både har humoren og pengene til at annoncere efter nogle humoristiske medarbejdere. Så kan de få endnu mere gemytlig tant og fjas, for slet ikke at tale om pengene til at finansiere det med.

Vi taler naturligvis om den ganske dyre annoncekampagne med »personlige« annoncer fra SKAT, som i denne tid er svær at undslippe, og hvor man i noget, der skal ligne billet mrk.-rubrikker, søger efter 400 »udadvendte talknusere«, med »mod på samvær med ligesindede« og »udgangspunkt i ærlighed og nationaløkonomi« og »med interesse for store tal. Meget store«. »Foto-svar er ikke et krav«. Jo, jo, selvironien er tyktflydende og sofistikeret. Herfra hæftede vi os dog særligt ved en enkelt formulering, der enten afslører manglende selvironi, eller at der har sneget sig en enkelt lille anarkist ind i skattevæsenet: »Et sundt og afklaret forhold til økonomisk kriminalitet«.

Under alle omstændigheder er det som skatteborger en ganske særlig fornøjelse at se éns skattekroner blive anvendt så kreativt og produktivt – og så endda under en borgerlig-liberal regering. Man får næsten associationer til replikken i filmen »De Grønne Slagtere«, hvor Ole Thestrup beskriver hjortens sørgelige vej fra fritgående vildt til pølse: »Man kan vel nærmest sige, at der er noget mytologisk ved at dræbe et dyr, og så håne det ved at stikke det op i dets egen tarm bagefter«.

Spørg Atilla II

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 20. marts 2007. 4 svar

Vi har tidligere beskrevet de trængsler, som den tyrkiske liberale professor Atilla Yayla har måttet gennemgå, fordi han i vinter kom til at sige politisk ukorrekte ting om “Kemalismen” og Tyrkiets evne til at tilpasse sig vestlige værdier om frihed, konstitutionalisme og markedsøkonomi.  Nu er der lidt nyt i sagen.  Her er en artikel fra den amerikanske Chronicle of Higher Education:

Friday, March 16, 2007

Turkish Professor Faces Charges for Cmments About the Nation’s Founder

By AISHA LABI

Turkish professor faces charges for comments about the nation’s founder.

A professor of politics and political theory at Gazi University, in Ankara, Turkey, was charged on Wednesday with insulting the legacy of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the modern Turkish republic.

The charge follows comments made by the professor, Atilla Yayla, during a public panel discussion in November in which he referred to Atatürk as “that man.”

If convicted, the professor could be sentenced to up to three years in prison.

In a telephone interview on Thursday, Mr. Yayla said he had spoken at the November gathering, in the coastal city of Izmir, about his view of civilization as a unifying and universal principle, and had questioned official descriptions of modern Turkey’s early, single-party period from 1925 to 1945 as “very progressive.”

He had commented, he said, that according to his research, “the first period is not as progressive as it is claimed to be.”

“‘In what respects?’ I was asked. I said in respect to freedom of opposition, of association, religious freedom, and other freedoms, it was not as progressive as some people have claimed.”

Mr. Yayla courted further controversy with his observation that, especially as Turkey pursues membership in the European Union, the country’s iconographic fixation on Atatürk might seem puzzling. “Europeans will ask us why everywhere there are statues of this man and in every state office we have the same man’s photos,” he told the panel.

A local newspaper billed those comments as traitorous, and the matter gathered steam as national news outlets picked up the story.

Administrators at Gazi University began an investigation of Mr. Yayla, both for the content of his comments in Izmir and for having attended the conference without first seeking permission to travel. “We are required to take permission when we leave Ankara,” Mr. Yayla said, although he explained that such leave is usually sought and granted informally. He did not miss any classes as a result of the weekend trip, he said.

While it investigated, the university temporarily suspended him and cut his salary by one-third.

Aybar Ertepinar, the vice president of the Turkish Council of Higher Education, a government-financed body that oversees the country’s universities, said that while he thought the university’s actions against Mr. Yayla might have been “overdone,” those steps were within the scope of the rector’s authority.

“The rector has the right to suspend a person about whom there is an investigation going on,” Mr. Ertepinar said.

He said he thought Mr. Yayla’s comments had been inappropriate, but added, “I also consider it as his freedom of speech to say what he did.”

As far as the council is concerned, Mr. Ertepinar said, the issue has been resolved. “The university has closed the matter, Professor Yayla is back to his office, teaching and doing research, and academically there is nothing, I believe, following the present situation.”

Mr. Yayla said he still feared that he would lose his job, especially if convicted. He said he has been told his trial is scheduled to begin on April 30.

Turkish prosecutors have pursued similar charges against other writers and academics in recent years and, although those cases have not resulted in prison sentences, they have fueled an atmosphere in which extremist nationalists enjoy disproportionate influence in public discourse.

Ozlem Caglar-Yilmaz is the general coordinator at the Association for Liberal Thinking, a think tank in Ankara that Mr. Yayla helped to found. Ms. Caglar-Yilmaz thinks that Mr. Yayla’s trial could prove an important turning point for Turkey. “There are already many academics who have been severely critical of this era and Atatürk,” she said. If the prosecution fails, she said, popular opinion could follow: “People would feel more free to question this era.”

Jo, jo, Tyrkiet er helt klar til EU …

Mere internet, færre drab og voldtægter

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 18. marts 2007. 8 svar

En af de mest interessante og altid underholdende forskere at læse mere populære klummer og kommentarer af er den fabelagtige økonom Steven Landsburg, forfatter til den moderne klassiker og bestseller “The Armchair Economist”.  Som vi tidligere har nævnt her på stedet, så skriver han fast for Slate.com, hvor han giver lænestols-økonomistiske forklaringer på dette eller hint, eller kommenterer andres forskning.  Det er altid læsværdigt, som f.eks. denne klumme, “How the Web Prevents Rape”, fra for et par måneder siden, som er en indirekte opsang til udviklings-pessimisterne, der i internettet kun ser stigende problemer:

“Does pornography breed rape? Do violent movies breed violent crime? Quite the opposite, it seems.

First, porn. What happens when more people view more of it? The rise of the Internet offers a gigantic natural experiment. Better yet, because Internet usage caught on at different times in different states, it offers 50 natural experiments.

The bottom line on these experiments is, “More Net access, less rape.” A 10 percent increase in Net access yields about a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes. States that adopted the Internet quickly saw the biggest declines. And, according to Clemson professor Todd Kendall, the effects remain even after you control for all of the obvious confounding variables, such as alcohol consumption, police presence, poverty and unemployment rates, population density, and so forth.

OK, so we can at least tentatively conclude that Net access reduces rape. But that’s a far cry from proving that porn access reduces rape. Maybe rape is down because the rapists are all indoors reading Slate or vandalizing Wikipedia. But professor Kendall points out that there is no similar effect of Internet access on homicide. It’s hard to see how Wikipedia can deter rape without deterring other violent crimes at the same time. On the other hand, it’s easy to imagine how porn might serve as a substitute for rape.

If not Wikipedia, then what? Maybe rape is down because former rapists have found their true loves on Match.com. But professor Kendall points out that the effects are strongest among 15-year-old to 19-year-old perpetrators—the group least likely to use such dating services.

Moreover, professor Kendall argues that those teenagers are precisely the group that (presumably) relies most heavily on the Internet for access to porn. When you’re living with your parents, it’s a lot easier to close your browser in a hurry than to hide a stash of magazines. So, the auxiliary evidence is all consistent with the hypothesis that Net access reduces rape because Net access makes it easy to find porn.

Next, violence. What happens when a particularly violent movie is released? Answer: Violent crime rates fall. Instantly. Here again, we have a lot of natural experiments: The number of violent movie releases changes a lot from week to week. One weekend, 12 million people watch Hannibal, and another weekend, 12 million watch Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit.

University of California professors Gordon Dahl and Stefano DellaVigna compared what happens on those weekends. The bottom line: More violence on the screen means less violence in the streets. Probably that’s because violent criminals prefer violent movies, and as long as they’re at the movies, they’re not out causing mischief. They’d rather see Hannibal than rob you, but they’d rather rob you than sit through Wallace & Gromit.

I say that’s the most probable explanation, because the biggest drop in crime (about a 2 percent drop for every million people watching violent movies) occurs between 6 p.m. and midnight—the prime moviegoing hours. And what happens when the theaters close? Answer: Crime stays down, though not by quite as much. Dahl and DellaVigna speculate that this is because two hours at the movies means two hours of drinking Coke instead of beer, with sobering effects that persist right on through till morning. Speaking of morning, after 6 a.m., crime returns to its original level.

What about those experiments you learned about in freshman psych, where subjects exposed to violent images were more willing to turn up the voltage on actors who they believed were receiving painful electric shocks? Those experiments demonstrate, perhaps, that most people become more violent after viewing violent images. But that’s the wrong question here. The right question is: Do the sort of people who commit violent crimes commit more crimes when they watch violence? And the answer appears to be no, for the simple reason that they can’t commit crimes and watch movies simultaneously.

Similarly, psychologists have found that male subjects, immediately after watching pornography, are more likely to express misogynistic attitudes. But as professor Kendall points out, we need to be clear on what those experiments are testing: They are testing the effects of watching pornography in a controlled laboratory setting under the eyes of a researcher. The experience of viewing porn on the Internet, in the privacy of one’s own room, typically culminates in a slightly messier but far more satisfying experience—an experience that could plausibly tamp down some of the same aggressions that the pornus interruptus of the laboratory tends to stir up.

In other words, if you want to understand the effects of on-screen sex and violence outside the laboratory, psych experiments don’t tell you very much. Sooner or later, you’ve got to look at the data.”

Kan man lide denne slags analyser, bør man naturligvis heller ikke undlade at læse David D. Friedman.

Secular Islam Summit

Af Jacob Mchangama, den 11. marts 2007. 1 svar

Den 4 og 5 marts i år afholdtes en særdeles bemærkelsesværdig begivenhed i St. Petersburg, Florida; nemlig "Secular Islam Summit". Konferencen havde deltagelse af prominente navne som Ibn Warraq, Amir Taheri,  Shaker Al-Nabulsi,  Tawfik Hamid,  Irshad Manji og Wafa Sultan (hele deltagerlisten kan læses her) og havde reformation af Islam som emne.

 

Videodækning fra konferencens debatter kan ses her, og her kan ses en række interviews med bl.a. Irshad Manji, Ibn Warrag (og Michael Ledeen).

 

Konferencen mundede ud i en erklæring underskrevet af deltagerne (samt Ayaan Hirsi Ali) (Ibn Warraq kan ses læse erklæringen op her):

 

We are secular Muslims, and secular persons of Muslim societies. We are believers, doubters, and unbelievers, brought together by a great struggle, not between the West and Islam, but between the free and the unfree.

We affirm the inviolable freedom of the individual conscience. We believe in the equality of all human persons.

We insist upon the separation of religion from state and the observance of universal human rights.

We find traditions of liberty, rationality, and tolerance in the rich histories of pre-Islamic and Islamic societies. These values do not belong to the West or the East; they are the common moral heritage of humankind.

We see no colonialism, racism, or so-called "Islamaphobia" in submitting Islamic practices to criticism or condemnation when they violate human reason or rights.

We call on the governments of the world to

reject Sharia law, fatwa courts, clerical rule, and state-sanctioned religion in all their forms; oppose all penalties for blasphemy and apostacy, in accordance with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights;

eliminate practices, such as female circumcision, honor killing, forced veiling, and forced marriage, that further the oppression of women;

protect sexual and gender minorities from persecution and violence;

reform sectarian education that teaches intolerance and bigotry towards non-Muslims;

and foster an open public sphere in which all matters may be discussed without coercion or intimidation.

We demand the release of Islam from its captivity to the totalitarian ambitions of power-hungry men and the rigid strictures of orthodoxy.

We enjoin academics and thinkers everywhere to embark on a fearless examination of the origins and sources of Islam, and to promulgate the ideals of free scientific and spiritual inquiry through cross-cultural translation, publishing, and the mass media.

We say to Muslim believers: there is a noble future for Islam as a personal faith, not a political doctrine;

to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Baha'is, and all members of non-Muslim faith communities: we stand with you as free and equal citizens;

and to nonbelievers: we defend your unqualified liberty to question and dissent.

Before any of us is a member of the Umma, the Body of Christ, or the Chosen People, we are all members of the community of conscience, the people who must chose for themselves.

Konferencen fik i øvrigt dækning af Wall Street Journal, CNN, Times of London og måske endnu mere væsentligt af muslimske medier som Al-Arabiya, Kuwaiti News Agency og Muslim World Today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ugens citat: Metz om frihed (igen)

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 28. februar 2007. 3 svar

Så er Informations aldrende redacteur, Georg Metz, igen på banen med indsigtsfulde udtalelser om CEPOS og frihed:

“CEPOS og andre helligt overbeviste om den personlige friheds nær absolutte karakter og dyrkelse af individet som mål i sig selv er noget fis.”

Det er godt, at der er nogen, der holder fanen og tonen højt–og samtidigt bliver klogere.  Sidst Metz udtalte sig om emnet, sagde han, at det var lige så uforståeligt som albansk.  Nu må han have forstået det så meget, at han dog kan sige, at det er “noget fis”.  Man bliver tilsyneladende klogere med tiden.

The Triumph of Authoritarianism: An Assessment of the UN's Human Rights Council

Af Jacob Mchangama, den 27. februar 2007. 5 svar

On 15 March 2006 the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 60/251 establishing the new Human Rights Council ("the Council"). The adoption of the Council had become necessary since its predecessor – the Human Rights Commission – had lost its credibility due to the politicising and double-standards of its work. This often resulted in the effective protection of human rights having little or no bearing on the agenda of the Commission. The Commission was further tarnished by the fact that its membership was open to countries which systematically violated the most basic civil and political rights of its citizens, culminating with Libya chairing the Commission in 2003.

While the improvements made from the old Commission were very modest and mostly theoretical in nature, Resolution 60/251 does state, inter alia, that the Council shall

"address situations of violations of human rights, including gross and systematic violations, and make
recommendations thereon" and "that the work of the Council shall be guided by the principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity."

According to former Deputy Secretary General Mark Malloch Brown the reform of the Commission was a "litmus test" of UN renewal. At his statement on 19 June 2006 at the Council's first day of work, former Secretary General Kofi Annan proclaimed a "new era in the human rights work" of the UN. Annan also expressed his hope that the Council would entail "a change in culture" from the Commission.

However, rather than ushering in a new era of non-partisan commitment to the efficient protection of international human rights, the work of the Council has so far proved even more politicised, biased and hostile to the protection of basic rights than the work of the Commission. In particular, the failure to limit Council membership to States with proven human rights records has proven costly.

The 3 regular and 4 special sessions held by the Council so far, have shown fundamental and bitter differences between Western and non -Western – in particular Muslim – States. The Muslim States are often co-ordinated by the Organization of the Islamic Conference ("OIC"), which has a substantial number of members on the Council which consists of a total of 47 members. The Muslim States can often count on the votes of the members of the African group, as well as the votes of countries such as Cuba and China. The Western states can only sometimes hope to count on the support of other liberal democracies such as South-Korea and Japan.

In effect, this forms a majority coalition of States with a very questionable, if not hostile attitude toward classic, civil and political human rights. Accordingly, countries based on Western style liberal democracy with separation of powers, constitutionalism and protection of individual rights at its core, form a marginalised minority within the Council. These States are thus powerless to prevent the aforementioned coalition from setting the agenda of the Council and in the name and with the moral authority of the Council, adopting resolutions and decisions which are blatantly at odds with the effective protection of human rights.

While the first regular session was largely ceremonial in nature and the third concentrated on institution building, the second regular session of the Council -supposed to achieve substantive results – offers a good window into the workings of the Council.

Western States continually found themselves unable to gain support for decisions or resolutions on issues such as freedom of speech and religious tolerance, Sri Lanka, which experienced wide-spread violence at the time, and Darfur, which continues to be the worst current example of systematic human rights violations in the world. According to an anonymous EU official:

"the unsuccessful attempts to reach consensus, despite exhausting efforts, have showed once again that the EU simply cannot muster enough support for its proposals and was repeatedly forced into an underdog position." 

The coalition of non-Western States also successfully obstructed other attempts at any country specific discussions, decisions and resolutions, which would otherwise seem a prerequisite for the Council since human rights violations are committed by states and, that the obligation of human rights conventions rest upon states.

According to another anonymous EU official:

"Country mandates were more vigorously attacked than previously; the "hardliners" did not accept that the Council "took note" of  reports of SRs (Special Rapporteurs)[..] and discussing human rights violations by countries, appeared  to be increasingly difficult."

The Report also claims that most likely a majority of the Council will seek to do away entirely with the current possibility of appointing Special Country Rapporteurs charged with investigating human rights violations in designated countries.

The second ordinary session resulted in no substantive decisions or results and the session had to be suspended with a view to further discussion of different proposals.

The EU official paints a bleak picture of the future work of the Council:

"Still, the past three weeks have shown that it will be an uphill battle for those who want a strong Council effectively equipped to promote and protect HR worldwide, in a non-selective and non-politicised atmosphere, and to ensure that its objective and balanced recommendations are adequately implemented." 

The Israeli Exception

Despite the resistance of non-Western States to country specific reports, these countries have shown themselves willing to make a notable exception. In the Council's first regular session the Council decided to ask various Special Rapporteurs to report "on the Israeli human rights violations in occupied Palestine", as well as on:

"human rights violations and implications of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other occupied Arab territories at its next session and to incorporate this issue in following sessions".

Accordingly, the Council decided to make specific consideration of Israel a permanent issue of future sessions, all the while unwilling to consider any substantive human rights issues in other countries with serious human rights problems. Moreover, the wording of the decision is markedly biased in that it only mentions Israeli human rights violations and omits any reference to terrorism and the killing of civilians by Palestinian groups.

It is noteworthy that the countries voting in favour of this decision included Algeria, China, Cuba, Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan, whose human rights records are notoriously poor. The Western States were easily outvoted, demonstrating the power of the OIC to set the agenda on the Council. When the Special Rapporteurs, appointed by the Council, reported back on their findings with regard to Israeli human rights violations in Palestine, their conclusions were vigorously opposed by the very same majority which had requested the Special Rapporteurs to initiate their work. This opposition seemingly resulted from some of the Special Rapporteu
rs – while roundly condemn
ing Israel – also mentioned Palestinian killings of innocent civilians, which the majority found tantamount to pro-Israeli bias. Accordingly the OIC states worked actively to drop any reference to the conclusions of the reports of the Special Rapporteurs from the Council's decisions and resolutions.

3 out of 4 of the Council's special sessions have been called in order to discuss Israel and issues such as Palestine, Lebanon and Beit Hanun. All of these extraordinary sessions have resulted in completely one-sided, strong-worded condemnations of Israel – often based on no verifiable factual background and/or media reports. Moreover, these condemnations include no reference to the abduction of Israeli soldiers or terrorism by Palestinian factions and Hezbollah. These decisions have been carried through despite Western States voting against the proposals.

Of particular interest is the Council's second special session on " The grave situation of human rights in Lebanon caused by Israeli military operations", a session called by Tunisia on behalf of the Group of Arab States and the OIC. The title of the session – attributing the war and its civilian casualties solely to Israel without mentioning Hezbollah – is indicative of the extreme level of bias demonstrated by the Council during this session.

The Council adopted a resolution, which, inter alia, condemned Israeli military operations in Lebanon as "gross and systematic violations of the Lebanese People" – language ordinarily reserved for circumstances such as the ethnic cleansing of the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The Council was moreover, "appalled at the massacre of thousands of civilians", an accusation which should only be employed by the body of an international organization if backed by solid facts and clear supporting evidence, which was not the case.

The Council also decided to establish a high-level commission of inquiry comprising of eminent experts on human rights:

"To investigate the systematic targeting and killings of civilians by Israel in Lebanon[…] to assess the extent and deadly impact of Israeli attacks on human life, property, critical infrastructure and the environment".

The Council had thus already concluded that Israel was guilty of "systematic and targeted killings of civilians" before the independent experts whose job it was to investigate the conflict had even been appointed, let alone commenced their work.

The Council also ensured that the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry would be limited to deal only with Israeli human rights violations, so as to effectively shield the actions of Hezbollah from any scrutiny. In fact, Hezbollah is not mentioned once in the Council's resolution, nor are the deaths of Israeli civilians mentioned therein.

The wording of the Council's resolution is not consistent with the Security Council's balanced Resolution 1701, which does not speak of massacres, but rather, makes mention of hundreds, rather than thousands of deaths, and specifically mentions Hezbollah attacks on Israeli civilians as well as the abduction Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah. Once again, the Western States were helpless in preventing the Council from hijacking the cause of human rights in order to pursue the political agenda of its majority – or perhaps rather the agenda of the OIC – an agenda which is completely at odds with the mandate of the Council as set out in Resolution 60/251.

The conflict in Lebanon would have been the perfect occasion for the Council to prove to the world that it had risen above the Commission's old failing ways. There was good reason to initiate an impartial investigation of the behaviour of both parties to the conflict in Lebanon, including those Israeli violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, which did occur. Instead, the Council descended into practices and rhetoric so one sided as to practically constitute a defence of Hezbollah, thereby exhausting what legitimacy it still possessed.

Sudan

When the Council, in its fourth special session, finally decided to investigate a country other than Israel, namely Sudan, the difference in the approach adopted was stunning. In its decision, the Council merely expressed its concern about the situation in Darfur. Moreover, the Council commended the Sudanese Government for its cooperation with the Human Rights Council.

This despite the fact that the Sudanese government has persistently frustrated the efforts of the international community to solve the crisis in Darfur. The decision included no condemnations of Sudan and made no mention of the wide spread massacres which have occurred in Darfur with impunity for years.

This is so despite the fact that the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Sudan on 11 January 2006 had issued a report stating, inter alia that she "saw no improvements in the Human Rights situation". The Special Rapporteur also reported that

"the renewed level of conflict too often left civilians the target of attacks by government forces, milita and rebels. Armed men travelling in small groups […] continued to murder, beat and sexually assault IDPs and villagers".

While the Council did decide to dispatch a high-level mission to Sudan, surely the gross and well documented human rights violations in Darfur including the killings of tens of thousands of innocent civilians warrant a condemnation or at the very least an acknowledgement from the UN's premier human rights body. The fact that the Council has repeatedly chosen not to do so while routinely condemning Israel demonstrates that the Council can not be trusted to fulfil its mandate under Resolution 60/251.   

An alternative approach?

It is a good measure of how bad things have become that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International – both vocal supporters of the adoption of the Council – have been critical of the work of the Council. However, organizations such as the abovementioned and other prominent members of what can be labelled as the human rights movement are unlikely to call for the abandonment of the Council and will most likely insist on any reform to be kept within the institutinal framework of the UN.  Yet the implosion of the Council demonstrates that serious reform of a UN human rights mechanism, which members consist of UN member States rather than individual and independent persons, is a utopian dream.

Despite the beautiful words in countless UN conventions and resolutions, the UN has never been and never will be the guarantor of basic civil and political rights. Such rights have always – however imperfect – been best secured at the national level by liberal democracies with constitutions much older, more vigorous, and more proven and respected by political institutions and citizens than the UN Charter and its human rights related off springs. This demonstrates that if classic civil and political human rights are to be efficiently protecte

d at the international level, the relevant states must be liberal democracies and share a culture of and commitment to constitutionalism.

A good example of this is the Council of Europe ("CoE"), the brainchild of Winston Churchill. In its preamble, the CoE member States reaffirmed

"their devotion to the spiritual and moral values which are the common heritage of their peoples and the true source of individual freedom, political liberty and the rule of law, principles which form the basis of all genuine democracy".

Liberal democracy and ratification of the European Convention of Human Rights ("ECHR"), supervised by the European Court of Human Rights is compulsory for member states. The CoE, which now includes former fascist states such as Portugal, Spain, Greece, as well as the former communist States in Eastern Europe, has quietly played its part in spreading and consolidating basic civil and political rights in European States.

While the European Court of Human Rights have at times engaged in worrying levels of judicial activism, thereby arguably somewhat diluting the ECHR, it's jurisprudence is generally well respected amongst the member States including the national courts of these. The success of the CoE in the area of human rights is in stark contrast to the failure of the UN. A failure which the UN will be unable to remedy unless it too realises that when membership is open to democracies as well as totalitarian, authoritarian, fundamentalist and communist States, the latter will never be committed to respect classic civil and political rights since systematic violations of these are the means by which the regimes of such states keep themselves in power.

The Western States on the Council should be commended for voting against the often outrageous proposals submitted by the majority. However, their support for the Council as an institution is in the long run, tantamount to acquiescence in the further deterioration of human rights standards and the effective protection thereof, which seems to be the aim of several members of the Council. After all, the mood among EU officials demonstrates that Western states know perfectly well that there is little chance of improving the Council within the UN system.

Thus, rather than protecting the Council and the UN, Western States ought to insist on the intimate link between liberal democracy and human rights and the moral, as well as practical superiority of such a system of government. This would entail abandoning the UN as the principal international organ for the promotion and protection of human rights and the creation of a new international organization better equipped to serve this purpose.

Membership of such an organization should be open to countries of all continents, provided that they are liberal democracies with basic protection of civil and political rights. If one uses Freedom House's "Freedom in The World 2007" survey as inspiration, 25 countries from the Americas, 1 Middle Eastern (Israel), 24 Western European, 16 Asian and 13 Eastern/Central European countries are deemed to be "free" and would thus qualify for membership of the proposed new organization entrusted with the protection of international human rights.  

The creation of a new international human rights organization would be a watershed event on the international scene marking the intent of the free countries of the world to stand up for the basic rights and liberties which ensure the freedom enjoyed by their citizens. The work of a competing human rights organization consisting of free countries used to free public debate and criticism of their governmental policies and practises would expose the way the Council majority abuses the rights it is meant to protect. At the same time, it would send a loud and clear message to the authoritarian countries of the world that their form of government lacks the legitimacy of liberal democracies. A message sorely needed at a time where human rights at the international level are expected to be protected by countries where no human rights exist.

 

Ugens citat: Dave Barry om frihed

Af Redaktionen, den 18. februar 2007. 5 svar

På det amerikanske Marquette University har institutlederen for Dept. of Philosophy, James South, beordret en ph.d. studerende, Stuart Ditsler, til at fjerne et “patently offensive” citat, som den studerende havde placeret på sin kontordør på instituttet.  Citatet var af den meget vittige amerikanske humorist (og libertarianer) Dave Barry, som er forfatter til bl.a. bestsellerne Dave Barry Hits Below the Beltway: A Vicious and Unprovoked Attack on Our Most Cherished Political Institutions (2002), Dave Barry Slept Here og utallige morsomme klummer.  Citatet lød sådan:

“As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless.  I refer, of course, to the federal government.”

Så meget for “academic free speech”.  Mere her fra Cato Institute.

Showdown om vestlige værdier i Paris

Af Christian Bjørnskov, den 7. februar 2007. 13 svar

I dag starter en af de mest bemærkelsesværdige retssager i Europa i mange år. I Paris står Philippe Val tiltalt for at 'opfordre til racehad', en anklage der er rejst af to organisationer, "Sammenslutningen af Franske Islamiske Organisationer" og "Stormoskéen i Paris". Hans specifikke brøde er at han, i sin egenskab som chefredaktør for det ugentlige, venstreorienterede tidsskrift Charlie Hebdo, har taget beslutningen at genoptrykke 12 tegninger, som Jyllandsposten oprindeligt bragte i efteråret 2005. Da der naturligvis – hvis nogen overhovedet kunne være i tvivl – er tale om de famøse Muhammed-tegninger, er forbrydelsen ikke at trykke satiriske tegninger fra Danmark, men derimod at trykke tegninger, der tydeligvis på tidspunktet havde bragt nogle særlige følelser i kog i en særligt følsom del af verden.

En sådan retssag kunne sandsynligvis have været indledt i Danmark, da vi foruden Grundlovens krystalklare beskyttelse af ytringsfriheden også har en paragraf, der forbyder blasfemi. Den har godt nok ikke været brugt i mange år, men hvis danske muslimer følte sig tilstrækkeligt krænkede, havde sidste forår måske været en god lejlighed til at prøve den af. At det ikke skete, er vel i nogen grad udtryk for, at ingen ærligt tror på, at Jyllandsposten på nogen måde kunne bringes til ansvar for en absurd situation, der først opstod – og så kan Thøger Seidenfaden og hans slæng sige hvad de vil – da en række mellemøstlige regimer greb chancen for at aflede deres befolkningers opmærksomhed fra regimernes overgreb.

I stedet bliver en sådan retssag altså ført i Paris, i et land og under et system hvor politikere har noget større indflydelse på retsvæsenet, end vi er vant til i Danmark. At det ikke er en løs påstand bekræftes af Fraser-instituttets behandling af disse ting, hvor fransk ' Judiciary independence' scorer cirka tre point under den danske situation – og det på en 1-10 skala! Så det forhold, at man vælger at føre retssagen i Frankrig, der har tætte politiske bånd til flere ganske ubehagelige styrer i Mellemøsten, og hvor politikerne oven i købet har reel indflydelse på domstolene, er vel ikke helt uden betydning?

Sagens kerne er bestemt heller ikke uden betydning, idet den handler om hvor stor indflydelse, religion, religiøse dogmer og religiøse følelser bør have på det samfund, der eksisterer uden om dem, som tror på religionen. På et vist plan handler den endda om, hvorvidt religiøse dogmer og følelser i andre lande, bør have indflydelse på vores samfund. Og de dogmer har betydning udenfor retsvæsenet og udenfor politik, og i langt højere grad end jurister og politikere er opmærksomme på. Friheden for dem er grundlaget for vores samfund.

Siden renæssancen har Europa udviklet sig som en direkte følge af, at man frigjorde sig fra snærende religiøse dogmer. I 1400-tallet valgte Medici-familien ligesom andre i Norditalien at se stort på Bibelens forbud mod at bruge renter. Dermed opstod de første dele af et moderne bankvæsen, der betød at mange flere kunne finansiere flere og større investeringer i mange flere projekter. Dele af de store opdagelsesrejser og en stor del af den stigende handel blev således finansieret af lån fra disse banker, og af andre moderne finansielle instrumenter som blev udbredte efter et religiøst dogme blev brudt. I løbet af 1500- og 1600-tallet blev mange mennesker også mere modtagelige for andre budskaber end dem, der kom fra kirken. Galileo blev retsforfulgt for at sige, at Jorden drejede rundt, og slap relativt godt fra det, mens man allerede på hans tid var holdt op med den slags forfølgelse i Holland og England. Men helt grundlæggende betød det også, at vi formåede at spørge os selv, hvad vi gjorde forkert i stedet for hvem (Gud eller Fanden), der gjorde ondt mod os. Vores ulykke og fattigdom var pludseligt ikke fordi vi var syndere, som en gammeltestamentlig gud straffede, men derimod vores eget personlige ansvar, og dermed noget vi alle aktivt kunne gøre noget ved. 

Og resultaterne udeblev ikke: England oplevede en industriel revolution – da ideerne flød, investeringer i dem kunne finansieres af et moderne bankvæsen, og et uafhængigt domstolsvæsen opretholdt den private ejendomsret så der var incitament til at foretage investeringerne – der i stigende grad bredte sig til resten af Europa sammen med det moderne syn på samfundet. De næste århundreder var Holland verdens hurtigst voksende økonomi, mellem 1500 og 1820 blev landet 33 % rigere, og ved slutningen af perioden var landets gennemsnitlige indbygger næsten en halv gang rigere end i Danmark. I de arabiske lande, der før renæssancen havde været rigere end næsten alle regioner i Europa, udeblev både ændringerne i religion, synet på samfundet, og økonomien. 1500-1820 voksede den tyrkiske gennemsnitsindkomst med 7 %, og så vidt man kan dømme fra Angus Maddisons historiske BNP-data, stod Iran og Iraks økonomier helt stille. Fra 1820 til Første Verdenskrigs udbrud blev gabet mellem Europa og Mellemøsten kun større. Danmarks økonomi blev for eksempel tredoblet i perioden, mens Tyrkiets voksede med knap 90 % og Iran og Iraks havde en lignende udvikling.

I dag er den gennemsnitlige dansker 3½ gang så rig som den gennemsnitlige tyrker og 4 gange så rig som iranerne – der i øvrigt er helt gennemsnitlige i Mellemøsten. Disse forskelle startede at vise sig i det øjeblik, Europa startede med at frigøre sig fra religiøse dogmer og dermed tillod almindelige mennesker – og ikke blot en politisk elite – at tænke frit og uden særlige forbehold. Hvis læserne vil tillade mig at anlægge et langt, og måske lidt vidtløftigt, syn på sagen, handler retssagen, der indledes i Paris i dag, derfor basalt set om at opretholde den frihed, vi vandt i renæssancen. Spørgsmålet er, hvorvidt vi i Europa kan opretholde den frihed fra religiøs indflydelse i andet end individers personlige begrebsverden, som er et helt nødvendigt grundlag for vores velstand, demokrati og ligeværdige samværsformer i den vestlige verden. Hvis de franske dommere, og måske i lige så høj grad deres politiske herrer, bøjer sig for førmoderne krav fra fundamentalistiske muslimer, er det ikke blot et nederlag for et lille politisk magasin. Det er den første bid tæppe, der bliver trukket væk under vores verden.

Bertrand Russell og hyperrationalismen

Af Jørgen Møller, den 2. februar 2007. 5 svar

Den europæiske filosofiske tradition kredser, og har bestandigt kredset, om den menneskelige fornuft – og dens begrænsninger. Lidt groft sagt er det muligt at identificere tre lejre: hyperrationalisme (eller ukritisk rationalisme), kritisk rationalisme og irrationalisme. Hvor irrationalismen så ganske undsiger den menneskelige fornuft, der sætter hyperrationalismen så ganske sin lid til den. Begge dele er farlige, lyder den kritiske rationalismes indvending.

Med irrationalismen siger det næsten sig selv, for afviser man fornuften, så er der ikke meget tilbage at bygge på. Men hyperrationalismens skyggesider er lidt sværere at forstå. En god måde at illustrere den overdrevne fornuftstros skavanker er at lægge vejen omkring en af dens navnkundigste disciple. I dag for 35 år siden døde den britiske filosof Bertrand Russell, og hans livslange politiske engagement er sigende i denne sammenhæng.

Russell fremstår som en af det 20. århundredes intellektuelle giganter. John Stuart Mill var hans gudfader, og han var ud ad den reneste victorianske adel. Bedstefaderen, Lord John Russell, havde tjent som premierminister i årene 1846-1852 og 1865-1866, og var efterfølgende blevet adlet som jarl. Efter storebroderens død i 1931 arvede Bertrand jarl-titlen. Men det var som matematiker og logiker, at Russell i første omgang gjorde sig bemærket. I det 20. århundredes første årti begik han sammen men sin lidt ældre kollega Alfred Whitehead den monumentale Principia Matematica, og livet igennem bidrog han til forskningen inden for matematik, logik og filosofi.

Russells metode var yderst krævende. Inspireret af Leibniz søgte han at bryde komplekse ideer ned til deres mest simple bestanddele – for derved at blotlægge the natural world. Denne tilgang, samt et formidabelt intellekt og en ligeså formidabel arbejdsevne, satte Russell i stand til at nå en række videnskabelige gennembrud, herunder den berømte typeteori, der løste det lige så kendte ‘Russell-paradoks’. Men da Russell efter Principia Matematica tog livgeb med den sociale verden, med menneskenes verden, viste metoden sig at have klare begrænsninger.

Russells omfattende politiske forfatterskab var medvirkende til, at han i 1950 blev tildelt nobelprisen i litteratur. Og der var da også tale om et meget velmenende engagement båret af et inderligt ønske om at afskaffe både krig og elendighed mere generelt. Men Russell var galt afmarcheret, fordi han aldrig forstod fornuftens begrænsninger. Han politiske virke tog således afsæt i overbevisningen om, at også magtens mænd var i stand til at nedbryde den virkelige verden i dens logiske bestanddele. At de – kort sagt – kunne analysere hvert et politisk skaktræk og nå frem til sikre konsekvensberegninger. Han afviste derfor på det bestemteste, at politikerne mere eller mindre uforvarende fremkaldte begivenheder som krig og kriser, var kort sagt blind for betydningen af uvidenhed, fejl, ærgerrighed og – frem for alt – utilsigtede virkninger.

I stedet vendte han sig igen og igen imod sammensværgelsestankegangens tyrkertro på, at skjulte bagmænd havde fingeret begivenhederne for at tjene deres egne, fordægtige interesser. Russell nægtede eksempelvis at tro på, at mordet på John F. Kennedy kunne være en enlig galnings værk – der måtte være et skjult plot, som kunne og skulle afdækkes.

Samme ‘overrealistiske’ holdning udviklede han efterhånden om den vestlige verdens udenrigspolitik. Russell bekendte sig af hjerte og sjæl til venstrefløjen, og han havde i 1917 hilst den russiske revolution velkommen. Et besøg i 1920 fik ham til at vende på en tallerken. Bolsjevikkerne havde han ingen lovord til overs for, og i de følgende årtier kastede han sig in i kampen imod Lenin og hans disciple. Men efter atomvåbnenes fremkost rettede han i stigende grad sin olympiske vrede imod de amerikanske magthavere. I 1960erne anså han ligefrem USA for en større trussel imod verdensfreden end det USSR, han ellers fyrre år tidligere havde lyst i band. Og i forbindelse med det famøse Russell-tribunal blev skævvridningen fuldstændig. USA’s forbrydelser i Vietnam-krigen blev (oftest på skrømt) fordømt, mens de nordvietnamesiske forbrydelser end ikke blev behandlet.

Endelig drev hyperrationalismen Russell i armene på ideen om et verdenssamfund, der bistået af overlegne militære midler skulle holde de uopdragne nationalstater i ørene. Hverken Folkeforbundet eller FNs noget mere prosaiske virkelighed kunne ryste ham på dette punkt. Og han fandt det end ikke nødvendigt at forklare, hvordan et sådant verdenssamfund – bevæbnet til tænderne – skulle kunne forblive tro imod de friheder, han ellers skattede. Russell politiske virke er kort sagt et eksempel på, at hyperrationalismen meget let ender i frihedsfornægtelse, fordi den ønsker at sætte samfundet på formel. Og i den forstand er de ofte hørte hyldestsange til Russell – eksempelvis fra fredsbevægelsen – lidt svære at sluge.

Karen Jespersen rykker til Venstre

Af Christian Bjørnskov, den 1. februar 2007. 36 svar

Her på Punditokraterne forsøger vi efter bedste evne at følge med i nyhederne. Og dagens nyhed er uden tvivl, at Karen Jespersen stiller op for Venstre. Den tidligere VS'er, socialdemokratiske socialminister, TVA-og Information-journalist og – tør vi vist godt sige – kontroversielle debattør er dermed kommet en lang vej rundt i dansk politik, fra den ene yderpol i 70ernes Danmark (når vi ser bort fra de revolutionære grupper, der endte i Blekingegade) til et parti, der står en lille smule til højre for S i dag.

Begrundelsen for Jespersens partiskifte er ikke det mindst interessante. Jespersen mener nemlig, at Venstre er bedre til at sikre samfundets sammenhængskraft og mere end noget andet parti " står vagt om grundlæggende liberale frihedsværdier. Ytringsfrihed, demokrati og kvinders ligestilling". Hun har dermed taget det, der for hende utvivlsomt er et logisk skridt: Skridtet mod den lejr, der forsvarer individets rettigheder.

Herfra skal der lyde et stort tillykke til Karen Jespersen for at have både modet og indsigten til at slutte sig til Hayeks, Friedmans og en masse mere ydmyge frihedselskeres lejr. Man kan kun håbe på, at hendes tilstedeværelse i Venstre kan bringe resten af partiet tilbage på samme sti. Og Karen, hvis du nogensinde har brug for hjælp eller inspiration, ved du hvor vi er!

Herfra skal der lyde et stort tillykke til Karen Jespersen for at have både modet og indsigten til at slutte sig til Hayeks, Friedmans og en masse mere ydmyge frihedselskeres lejr. Man kan kun håbe på, at hendes tilstedeværelse i Venstre kan bringe resten af partiet tilbage på samme sti. Og Karen, hvis du nogensinde har brug for hjælp eller inspiration, ved du hvor vi er!