The Myth of Natural Property

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

In our discussion of libertarian heroism, an interesting misconception came to light. There is a belief that private property is an aspect of human nature. The people who espouse this notion are not experts on what does and does not constitute human nature, nor are they experts on what constitutes privacy or property. The science on human nature is problematic because scientists are themselves sheltered from nature. The scientific discipline is an elevation above the level of the natural homo sapiens to a highly disciplined degree.

Are human beings selfish, greedy, lacking in compassion by nature, or is it a conditioned state of being demanded by the economic system into which homo sapiens is indoctrinated? Does the rat race program human beings to behave like rats, or is homo sapiens naturally rodent-like? Sometimes we can hear the soft patter of rodent feet scampering across the drop ceiling of Internet punditry.

Before Roman enslavement, educators did not own property. Property management was a mundane responsibility that prevented people from experiencing a full life. It was not a highly valued occupation although it was important for the sustenance of the general population. Education was a more rigorous discipline and its practitioners were better respected than they are today.

Whenever I hear people speak of property rights, I am reminded of an organization I encountered on the streets of New York back in the eighties. It is a retrograde Catholic group whose politics seem to resemble those of Opus Dei called the Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property (aka TFP). My partner was on their mailing list and regularly received their high production value newsletter. It was filled with quasi-fascist propaganda.

I am also reminded of Jeremy Bentham's arguments against the idea of equal property rights. It can be summed up by the argument that if your neighbor had property rights equal to yours, she has just as much a right to sleep in your bed as you do. (I know that a number of the guys in this community would probably welcome that.)

The traditional Tory slogan for rights runs along the line of the right to "life, liberty, and property." In America, broader minded people reconsidered this slogan and came up with "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Which right do you think is more important, the right to property or the right to the pursuit of happiness?

Can Science + Religion Co-Exist?

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

The answer is YES.

A recent study from Rice University indicates that 15% of scientists at major research universities see science and religion in constant conflict.

They interviewed a scientifically selected sample of 275 participants, pulled from a survey of 2,198 tenured and tenure-track faculty in the natural and social sciences at 21 elite U.S. research universities. Only 15 percent of those surveyed view religion and science as always in conflict. Another 15 percent say the two are never in conflict, and 70 percent believe religion and science are only sometimes in conflict. Approximately half of the original survey population expressed some form of religious identity, whereas the other half did not.

Those surveyed cited issues like stem cell research and the theories of evolution vs. creationism in education as reasons why science and religion are regarded as conflicting entities.

Nona Willis Aronowitz, Associate Editor with GOOD/Culture makes an interesting point in her piece on the study.

Claiming that religion and science are enemies only strengthens the forces that keep people of faith from accepting science in the first place.

1. Do you agree/disagree with Aronowitz's observation?
2. "Sixty-eight percent of scientists surveyed consider themselves spiritual to some degree." -- Do you think this would affect their work in any way?
3. What effects do you think (or hope) this study would have on science, religion (or spirituality) or both?

Putin forever

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

Vladimir Putin will be the president of Russia. AGAIN. Surprised much? No? So I thought.

Not only will he become president again, but his party United Russia will gain full majority in the State Duma (in one way or another), and the state resources will be again used for buying consent and cementing his position in power. This model could continue for quite a long time.

This became evident after the summit of United Russia in Moscow. It's now official. The current president Dmitry Medvedev officially quit any plans for a second term and endorsed Putin for presidential candidate on the 2012 election. And Putin gladly accepted, in turn nominating Medvedev for a leader of the party ticket on the Duma election - and automatically prime-minister.

This farcical play took place on the hockey arena at the Luzhniki stadium. And it was no surprise to anybody. As soon as he was practically appointed by Putin 4 years ago to formally rule as president, Medvedev was called the "keeper" of Kremlin who would simply serve the post back to his mentor in 4 years, allowing him to serve the needed term away from the presidential chair (because the Russian Constitution doesn't allow three presidential terms in a row; but neither does it limit the number of terms one could serve in a lifetime). During all these 4 years of Medvedev "reign", Putin was always close to the scene, but stayed a little hidden behind. He wasn't just the prime minister, he was the second power center in the state. The real power source. At no point, save for a brief episode last year, did the Russians have any illusions that Medvedev had any ability (or will) to act autonomously. He always was merely a marionette of Putin and the power elite around him.

( Read more about what Russia is turning into )