JK Rowling reveals she is survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault

[Tamas]

Executive summary?

There's a tension between rationalism (which is about protecting the rights of the individual and may enhance the powers of the state to do so at the expense of intermediate societies, like universities, churches, mosques, states, the old corporate bodies) v pluralism (which is about protecting the right to free association/self-governance who may oppress the individual, the intermediary bodies). And this actually runs through the liberal tradition, both in libertarian and more egalitarian liberal views.

That sounds more like a tension between liberals and leftists, which is real enough but I wouldn't use these terms on them.

[Sheilbh]

That sounds more like a tension between liberals and leftists, which is real enough but I wouldn't use these terms on them.

It's not - I'm not sure which of that side is liberal or leftist

Give it a listen.

[The Brain]

Tension? If someone wants to join a cult that (say) takes their entire paycheck and forbids them to masturbate then by all means do so.

[grumbler]

Executive summary?

There's a tension between rationalism (which is about protecting the rights of the individual and may enhance the powers of the state to do so at the expense of intermediate societies, like universities, churches, mosques, states, the old corporate bodies) v pluralism (which is about protecting the right to free association/self-governance who may oppress the individual, the intermediary bodies). And this actually runs through the liberal tradition, both in libertarian and more egalitarian liberal views.

I don't think that this is a new idea.  We tend to distinguish between "classical liberals" who are all about individual freedoms (i.e. the best decisions  are those made by individuals) and "modern liberals" who are more about group rights.  Modern liberals would support closed shop trade unions, for instance, whereas a classical liberal probably would not (though there might be extenuating circumstances that would make either group agree to a temporary abandonment of the principal).  I don't think even modern liberals, though, would argue for the empowerment of churches or mosques.  Religion only abandons reactionary principals when it becomes irrelevant.

[grumbler]

Tension? If someone wants to join a cult that (say) takes their entire paycheck and forbids them to masturbate then by all means do so.

The tension comes when that cult tries to disallow, say, medical treatment for the members' children and use prayer instead.  The classical liberal would say the individual right of the child overrules the rules of the cult, whereas a modern liberal might argue that the cult has a right to practice its religion as it wants, so if the parents agree with the cult's rules, the kid only gets faith healing.

[The Brain]

Tension? If someone wants to join a cult that (say) takes their entire paycheck and forbids them to masturbate then by all means do so.

The tension comes when that cult tries to disallow, say, medical treatment for the members' children and use prayer instead.  The classical liberal would say the individual right of the child overrules the rules of the cult, whereas a modern liberal might argue that the cult has a right to practice its religion as it wants, so if the parents agree with the cult's rules, the kid only gets faith healing.

Sounds like a parent thing and not a cult thing. If it's legal to only give your kid faith healing then it is, and if it isn't it isn't.

[Sheilbh]

I'm not sure it's a modern v classical distinction.

So he uses federalism as an example of pluralism in liberalism. That ultimately states rather than a central authority/power are a way of organising a community just as the old corporate rights were.

He talks about one of his pairings being Mill v Acton. Mill is very good on the coercive power of intermediate bodies - family, society, patriarchy - and was quite enthusiastic about the 19th century nationalist ideals which in a way merge the nation and the state. Acton on the other hand thought nationalism was dreadful - that if you merge the nation and the state you will end up destroying minority rights and that protecting intermediate bodies and especially federalism was a key way to stop the state becoming too powerful, too overarching.

And Acton was right on that - especially regarding nationalism in Europe. But Acton wrote these letters to Robert Lee where we said he felt the defeat at Richmond was more catastrophic than victory at Waterloo was beneficial. He absolutely opposed slavery, but his view was almost that slavery is a price worth paying to protect the intermediate bodies and limit the realm of the state.

So to use the cult example - one he uses is Orthodox Jews or Muslims who have separate prayer spaces. Women have basically broken the rules and prayed in the male space - asserting they are just as Orthodox and believing as the people condemning them. Those organisations have called the police who have removed the women for trespassing - so the law enforces the rights of the corporate body, over the sort of self-definitional rights of the individual.

As I say it's worth a listen.

[The Brain]

FWIW I think that aspect is largely an illusion. I don't see intermediate levels of the state fundamentally impacting the relationship between the state and the individual. As for the cult example, you may as well view it from the perspective of the other members' individual rights, I don't see how the cult itself fundamentally impacts the question of what you do when different individuals want mutually exclusionary things.

[grumbler]

John Stuart Mill thought that nationalism was dreadful - except in the one case where it involved a liberal democratic system and progressive, common, economic values and the greatest possible personal liberty.  It is true that he wanted to see the end of the despotic "intermediate bodies" that conservatives used to retain their traditional power, but I don't see how any liberal, classical or modern, would disagree with him on that.

I think that, in the case of, say, a church that discriminates against women when it comes to seating, the church should be free to do so, and the women free to leave that church for one that has more respect for women.  Churches shouldn't have any power of compulsion, though, and they shouldn't be supported in any way by the state (other than, as in the example, the state enforcing laws against trespassing). 

The case of the cult and the faith-healing of children is different, however.  Their stance (even if the parents support it) is harmful to the child.  The state has an interest in the welfare of children residing in it, and so the state should have the power to remove the child from unfit parents and place the child in the custody of those more interested in the child's welfare.

Intermediate forms of social organization are easier for people to access and so are valuable as a form of service delivery, but only insofar as the people getting and paying for the service have a voice in saying how and to whom the services are rendered.

[Valmy]

Freedom of speech is freedom to say anything you want without being censored in advance. It is not freedom from having to suffer consequences, including social or legal ones, of said speech.

So if you are censored afterwards and not in advance it is freedom of speech? What nonsense, they are both censorship with long histories of being used. They are both contrary to freedom of speech.

But in any case I repeat me question, is simply thinking or speaking critically of something mean you do not tolerate it? That seems like a very hostile way to define tolerance. I may say critical things about nationalists but I tolerate their existance.

[DGuller]

Speaking of "tolerance", does it strike anyone as a really unfortunate choice of words when referring to groups of people?  I would think that "I tolerate black people" doesn't exactly sound like an enlightened thing to say.  I would think that "inclusion" would be a much better word and a much better goal; tolerance is something that you live with reluctantly, while inclusion is something that you embrace as your own.

[Duque de Bragança]

Freedom of speech is freedom to say anything you want without being censored in advance. It is not freedom from having to suffer consequences, including social or legal ones, of said speech.

So if you are censored afterwards and not in advance it is freedom of speech? What nonsense, they are both censorship with long histories of being used. They are both contrary to freedom of speech.

But in any case I repeat me question, is simply thinking or speaking critically of something mean you do not tolerate it? That seems like a very hostile way to define tolerance. I may say critical things about nationalists but I tolerate their existance.

Pas de liberté pour les ennemis de la liberté !

[The Brain]

Speaking of "tolerance", does it strike anyone as a really unfortunate choice of words when referring to groups of people?  I would think that "I tolerate black people" doesn't exactly sound like an enlightened thing to say.  I would think that "inclusion" would be a much better word and a much better goal; tolerance is something that you live with reluctantly, while inclusion is something that you embrace as your own.

FWIW I think that wrongfeel isn't a concept that has a place in a good society.

[grumbler]

Tolerance implies disapproval, but also the acknowledgement that other opinions than yours are valid.

Some things should not be tolerated, though, like the unwilling harm of innocents.

[viper37]

Tension? If someone wants to join a cult that (say) takes their entire paycheck and forbids them to masturbate then by all means do so.

The tension comes when that cult tries to disallow, say, medical treatment for the members' children and use prayer instead.  The classical liberal would say the individual right of the child overrules the rules of the cult, whereas a modern liberal might argue that the cult has a right to practice its religion as it wants, so if the parents agree with the cult's rules, the kid only gets faith healing.

Sounds like a parent thing and not a cult thing. If it's legal to only give your kid faith healing then it is, and if it isn't it isn't.

what is legal one day might not be the next.
Until 2016, discriminating against sexual orientation was illegal.  Now, it isn't really, since there are exemptions on religious grounds.