The open society and its enemy

GaryO

He also funds the US's public broadcaster NPR and has just "bought" 50 reporters for them for $1.8million.

BTW, $1.8million for 50 reporters equals $36,000 for each reporter that is less than £23,000 – BBC take note and stop spending our money on expensive "journalists".

Jords

'...deeply questionable beliefs'

You mean like any recognised religion/cult?

Richard

Melanie,

Do you think billionaires in general have an excessive power to influence the political process by lobbying governments, controlling the media and funding organisations - Rupert Murdoch as well as George Soros? I'd be with you there.

John Holland

It's all right, Mel, there are plenty of fabulously wealthy men funding projects that you might approve of.

Personally, I find the Koch brothers and Murdoch pretty repulsive, but what can you do- ban the stinkingly rich from expressing their megalomania?

New Brunswick Barry

Woah, hold on, there, Mel. Soros is everything you say he is, and probably more. There is no doubt that his influence is pernicious. But...when it comes to the legalisation of drugs, the issue is not quite so black and white (leaving aside the possibly moral issue of whether humans ought to imbibe any sort of mood-changing substances, whether tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, or whatever).

There are many conservative economists -- most famously, Milton Friedman -- who have advocated legalisation for all sorts of sound reasons that I won't clutter up the blog by repeating; readers can Google that for themselves. Anyway, never mind hard stuff like heroin, but can anyone say with a straight face that pot is worse than alcohol? If one, why not the other? Treat drug abuse (as opposed to social use) as a health issue, not a criminal act.

Timac

Cannabis is quite harmless, Melanie and, as with many things, in moderation can be enhancing. Much like the glass of wine I enjoy at sunset after a long sail. Would you like to stop me from enjoying that too?

Rory

is The Spectator suggesting it is wrong for a rich person to spend their money how they wish?

Rory

is this column seriously suggesting that rich people should not be allowed to spend their money how they like?

Ann Stoker

Thank you Melanie for drawing attention to Soros and his aim to legalise drugs - not only in the UK via The Beckley Foundation - Mike Trace was a director, but also internationally. Lord Malloch Brown was a Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and now works for Soros and his Open Society.
If ever one man could be said to 'own' a political party it is Soros. To see just how widespread the Soros tentacles spread log on to www.discoverthenetworks.org - and check on Soros funded groups.

Bozana

Excellent article. The government should seize this maniacs assets (which is worth billions from the looks of it) and use them for programs to help people affected by the economic crisis or some other good cause.

EDDIE

I suppose it is common for very rich or successful people to suffer from megalomania, but this man is quite off the charts. I have no idea why he bothers as he is only passing through.

Jeremiah Kugelkopf

But he looks like a real darling, doesn't he?

Daibhidh

Deeply questionable ideology would be more to the point.
The guy probably thinks he's a philanthropist. He's certainly not of the Carnegie or Robert Owen mold.

Ganpat Ram

Melanie's guru warns:

"His [Soros'] hatred of religion is the key. He promotes an education system that will neutralize any lingering spiritual yearnings of the young, and promote the loss of a sense of place and history already experienced by millions of Westerners, whether they are aware of that loss or not. Estranged from their parents, ignorant of their culture, ashamed of their history, millions of Westerners are already on the path of alienation that demands every imaginable form of self-indulgence, or else leads to drugs, or suicide, or conversion to Islam or some other cult."

Whose religion? Vulgar to ask, i suppose.

This sort of hysterical drivel has been the stock of reactionary alarmism at least since the Nineteenth Century. You would be surprised at how destructive of morality its earlier proponents found the abolition of child labour or slavery.

porkbelly

Of course cannabis is effectively legal in California already, readily available from "dispensaries" by prescription. One cannot help but wonder if the real goal of Soros is to keep the proles in a state of blissful befuddlement, the easier to rule them just as Soviet Communism relied upon vodka. Soros is a sociopath.

Chirb Economy

When did believing in Hayek and Popper mark you out as a radical lefty and when did believing in human rights and the autonomy of the individual become a revolutionary crime against the community (which, anyway, I thought lefties were into)?

At best, Soros is a rather bland thinker, a mild communitarian who has written extensively about the ambiguities and perils of free societies that lack deeper bonds of solidarity and shared understanding. Being sceptical of traditional, unquestioned morality or authority does not exhaust the possibilities for community as Phillips suggests, a totally gratuitous and unnecessary manouevre that says more about her own reactionary prejudices and politics, though I do grant that people who knock religion or the nation-state should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There again, not to present faith or national and ethnic coherence as cute and cuddly with no discussion of its costs is historically naive and disingenious.

Frankly when OSI funds grassroots networks in post-soviet states ruled by kalashnikov-bearing oligarchs or research to boost labour market participation among women in defiance of benighted, medieval theocrats (as OSI has done), I know whose side I'd rather be on...

Derek BLADES

I see that "Soros supports programs and organizations that ... advocate ever more stringent gun control..."

Is this intended as a slur? Hands up all lunatics in favour of weaker gun controls!

Proper gun control - meaning elimination of all weapons from the civilian population - is one of the many things that Soros has got right. The end of judicial murder is another one. Thank god for a few good rich men.

Mark

George Soros is a bit of a bogeyman on this blog. Last month he was accused of being in the business of undermining western civilisation by supporting causes such as

"opposing the death penalty in all circumstances"

"promoting socialized medicine in the United States"

"promoting the election of leftist political candidates throughout the United States"

Now whilst I don't agree with drug legalisation I don't see how this or the causes mentioned above can be attributed to a goal of "a new global imperium based that will be truly totalitarian."

Bhaskar

Melanie, your beloved Fox News, arguably the most one sided and biased broadcasting corporation in the West is owned by Murdoch. This means it's OK for billionairs to influence public opinion if they are on the right of the political spectrum and sympathetic towards the dreadful tea party movement. But if they have a social conscience and hold liberal views it is not OK for them to influence policy. Incidently Soros is part of the grand tradition of American wealthy philanthropists. Also many if not most American billionairs (Buffett, Trump, Jobs and Gates comes to mind) are democrats. What next? Demonize Bill Gates because he shows concern for the poor and the downtrodden?

Stephen Fox

Ganpat Ram:
Two posts ago, Melanie referred to comments made by Michael Nazir-Ali to the education secretary Michael Gove:

'He said Christianity was the most significant link in the story of Britain and that education should look at the vital role played by reformers in the struggle for the freedoms he says shaped the British nation and are now under threat.

He wants to see schools teach children about the link between Britain today and its foundations in the Judeo-Christian traditions of the Bible, particularly the role of Christians in abolishing the slave trade, introducing universal education, improving working conditions, and caring for the sick.'

Whose religion?
Ours.
Muslims never abolished slavery.

C.Gee

Religion itself is no longer, if it ever was, a "traditional structure capable of resistance" to the post-national totalitarian nightmare envisioned by Soros and the left. The left despises Western religion but promote Islam in its human-and-civil-rights guise because it helps undermine Western freedoms born of free market liberalism. If Melanie Phillips and Trifkovic believe traditional religion can defend civilization, they are wrong.

Christianity or Judaism offer nothing to counter the zeitgeist of ever-loosening social constraints. "Spirituality" is a commodity marketed variously (even within the traditional religions, as anyone attending a liberal reform synagogue in California can attest to). The last bastion of civilization - of voluntary collective polities, democracies of free people in pursuit of happiness under law - is the nation-state, constitutionally protecting the individual, regardless of his identity with any race, gender, or sexuality, against being subsumed by collective ("human") rights and privileges.

It might be that: the legalization of pot means greater numbers of children and adults will be stuck on stupid more often than they currently are; the legalization of homosexual marriage means greater numbers have (non-procreative) sex; the legalization of abortion may result in many more dead babies, but fewer dead women. All that may disgust the very traditionally faithful, but restoring the social stigma attached to it, let alone the legal proscription, is not going to happen.

All those are individual decisions. They do not jeopardize civilization. What will bring civilization down are the post-national leftist choice architects, the people who decide carbon dioxide is a pollutant, that you must have government health care, but forfeit it if you’re fat, that international human rights preempt justice and self-defense, that governments own everything and must distribute proportionally to collectives’ demands.

The globalization of welfare government - that is the dream of the left and Soros. Insofar as traditional religions preserve the ideas of the morality of institutionalized compassion and the compulsion of individual conduct they are easily coopted by the forces of darkness. In the coming Universal State, Muslims will be allowed to continue honor-killings as a collective right, but the right of an individual - to kill in self-defense, to expect justice, to start and mind his own business, to allocate his resources as he pleases, to provide for himself and his family, to have children and to raise them, and to say what he likes to whomever he wishes - will be regulated out of existence. “Civilization” will have been redefined as “acceptable choices”. Enlightened self-interest will be knowing the difference between private (cholesterol levels) and public ( carbon usage) virtue. Religion can do nothing whatsoever to stop this, only a resurgence of belief in individual liberty and the free market can. Good luck with that.

zibby

Yes, here in California the measure to legalize pot was losing support(down in the polls) and along comes Soros to try and save the measure.
"By making drugs available of various kinds, by giving him alchol, praising his wildness can create the necessary attitude of chaos which can then 'turn', deconstruct the mnd and fill with garbage values.
Funny how all the "enlightened" useful idiots are nothing more than programmed.

Edward McLaughlin

New Brunswick Barry

"but can anyone say with a straight face that pot is worse than alcohol?"

They both are capable of wrecking your life without you really noticing, but pot is the one to go for to do the job more effectively. More fashionable too.

porkbelly

@Bhaskar - Trump is a Republican, Bill Gates is apolitical, and while Buffet and Jobs are Democrats your contention that "many if not most" American billionaires are Democrats is (a) wrong, and (b) meaningless.

zibby

"By making drugs available of various kinds, by giving him alcohol, praising his wildness this can create the necessary attitude of chaos which can then 'turn', deconstruct the mind and fill it with garbage values."
My apologies for not making sense in my original post. Typed too fast and didn't check my typing errors.

wrinkled weasel

You paint a picture of a character who only exists in Bond movies.

If you want a focused debate about any of the dozen issues you have raised, why not try using a Heckler and Koch HK417 instead of a blunderbuss?

zibby

C.Gee "If Melanie Phillips and Trifkovic believe traditional religion can defend civilization, they are wrong."
------------------------
If you haven't read Melanie's book I suggest you do. You may also benefit from watching Yuri Bezmenov an ex kgb agent who specialized in cultural subversion. He believes the only thing that can save a society or civilization is religion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7r0QgdDLO0

JohnW

Soros gets his wealth from his hedge fund, I take it. This means that his wealth is generated from money coming from outside the US. Consequently, any funds that he donates partly emanates from abroad.

I thought it was illegal for US political parties to take money from abroad for electioneering purposes. In that case, there should be an investigation into this funding.

Timac

@Edward McLaughlin

My experience, both my own and that of others I have seen leads me to exactly the opposite conclusion to you.

Simon

Bhaskar

Have you ever heard of the BBC?

Jez

His family seems to have suffered greatly in the machines of radical ideologies, the early soviet model with his father, then for all his immediate family from 1944 to January 1945 with National Socialism. Again with the fall of BudaPest there were harsh depravations through Communism.

I do not understand the mindset of radically wanting to break everything down that Soros and his Globalsist companions hold.

The problem with this flawed concept is that the world is made up of nations run by persons bent on three ideologies;

Internationalist Free Trade Globalism.

The remanants of Communism in the guise of China, Vietnam, Laos.... dipping their feet into the above IFTG but not breaking down their societies to do so. North Korea alone surving as a Stalinist Socialist State amongst these as the West's favourite boogy man.

And then there is Islam.

The West (with Soros, Obama and our guys now in Westminster) are playing a massively dangerous game here.

Break down our societies for some unobtainable utopian vision and the void will be filled by the other two.

The perfect instance;

China and Islam are doing so in Africa- after all European and Western influence was seen as unfashionable, then handed (personaly by Prince Charles and Margaret Thatcher in the instance of Southern Rhosesia) to Communism in many instances- the void was then filled by resource hungry / Globalist friendly China. Radical separatist Islam is now taking hold from the North of he continent down to Nigeria in the West and Somalia in the East.

And we become weaker, less influential- with maybe now even our armies are split into multinational entities with Aircraft Carriers with a crew from one country, planes and pilots from another and boat from a third.

Surely the Post Communist Revolutions of the late Eightes in Central and Eastern Europe, The YugoSlav Civil War and the actual break up of the USSR itself is proof enough?

Decline, Collapse, Vacuum.

Larry in Tel Aviv

Melanie usually I am in agreement with you, but this 'reefer madness' thing, really it is so pre-WW2. It's insane that BigPharma which has a history of poisoning men, women, children and babes with many adversely toxic dobious drugs draws no or very little comment. That's all hunky dory it seems, BigPharma with politicians and the media shilling for them, but possess a couple of joints of cannabis, and you can get arrested. What about the damage done by alcoholism? Is Phillips going to be calling for a ban on booze?

All that happens by illegalising even hard drug use is that their use is driven underground and the mafia are in control. What we see throughout the West is the nightmare consequences of that.

John Holland

Zibby- "Funny how all the 'enlightened' useful idiots are nothing more than programmed".

That's a very intelligent and useful statement. Thankyou for your wisdom. And thankyou for writing it twice. It was well worth a second viewing.

Stephen Fox- "Muslims never abolished slavery".
True, but then neither did Catholicism, the Church of England, or Judaism. It was essentially a 'progressive' Non-Conformist movement, of the sort so disliked by traditionalists then and now.
Established religion was, by and large, perfectly happy for it to continue, and made use of the plentiful passages in the Bible condoning it.

As for universal education, improving (through government intervention) working conditions and the rest, sounds like the sort of statist, so-called "human-rights" plot against the sanctity of the individual that makes most of the people on this site seethe.

Victor Jara

Mel,
Your gripe with Mr Soros I wonder does not have anything to do with his support for the US/Jewish pro peace group J Street?

steve

The government of Iran also doesn't like George Soros so I guess he makes for strange bedfellows.

New Brunswick Barry

Edward McLaughlin:
An excess of anything -- sex, food, politics -- can wreck your life. That's an insufficient reason to ban it or to criminalize those who engage in it (though I might make an exception in the case of politicians). My point stands: if alcohol is legal, why not pot? Or should we go back to Prohibition?

Derek BLADES

C.Gee thinks that "The left despises Western religion but promote (sic) Islam in its human-and-civil-rights guise because it helps undermine Western freedoms born of free market liberalism."

After unravelling C.Gee's execrable prose I think he is saying that some people whom he sees as having “left” opinions would like to see an equal playing field provided for all mediaeval superstitions including Islam as well as Christianity and Judaism. So far so good, but he goes on to say that the "left" is doing this in order to “undermine Western freedoms”. What piffle!

Providing equal access to all religious beliefs, however quaint, misguided and even harmful they may be, is a basic tenet of Western freedom. So far from undermining them the "left" is strengthening Western freedoms.

C.Gee

Derek BLADES:

"After unravelling C.Gee's execrable prose I think he is saying that some people whom he sees as having “left” opinions would like to see an equal playing field provided for all mediaeval superstitions including Islam as well as Christianity and Judaism."

You have not unravelled my execrable prose far enough. I am saying nothing of the kind.

C.Gee

libby:

Are you aware that your ex-KGB man was speaking in 1983, before the Berlin Wall fell? This blast from the past - culturally ignorant, irrelevant, superficial, out-of date and incorrect even for the Cold War era - has nothing to say of the slightest consequence for this discussion. May I suggest you read Vladimir Bukovsky - the Russian dissident who withstood ideological subversion because of the strength of his belief in his own integrity?

John Holland:

Islam has not abolished slavery - and Muslims still own slaves. Repeat: Muslims own slaves. In 2010. Your pedantry about "progressive" (demotic?) Christian sects pressing for abolition rather than the established (upper class?) churches is absurd - sophomoric reflexive Marxism inaptly applied.

Miranda Rose Smith

Timac
October 27th, 2010 12:46pm
Cannabis is quite harmless, Melanie and, as with many things, in moderation can be enhancing. Much like the glass of wine I enjoy at sunset after a long sail. Would you like to stop me from enjoying that too?

As I've said before, on this blog, cannabis wrecked a life very ear and dear to mine.

Miranda Rose Smith

Rory
October 27th, 2010 12:46pm
is The Spectator suggesting it is wrong for a rich person to spend their money how they wish?

Good point, Rory.

Frank P

A more optimistic take on the creepy one, by JR Dunn:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/soros_and_the_collapse_of_the.html

Miranda Rose Smith

In those ever decreasing sections of our planet still occupied by rational and truthful souls, everyone knows someone whose life has been wrecked by abuse of cannabis and you are right to bear witness to that fact.

As for the comparison between a 'glass of wine and a spliff'. I will repeat my mantra: in vino veritas, in ganja gobbledegook!

Of course too many glasses of vino also leads to wrecked lives. But that's no excuse for inhalation of hallucinogens, and certainly not for decriminalising the practice - already almost achieved by the default of law enforcement agencies.

And those who talk of alcohol 'prohibition failing'. It did not. Much less alcohol was consumed overall during prohibition and therefore much less misery from alcoholism and its concomitant violence and suffering during prohibition than has occurred since the manufacture and distribution of alcohol was legalised and 'regulated' in the US. To suggest that Organised Crime was removed from the equation when Prohibition was repealed is utter nonsense. The reason it was repealed was so that Organised Crime could use the booze industry as a money laundry for its other ill-gotten gains: as with the legalised Gaming Industry. Organised Crime was not driven out of either industry by repeal of prohibitive law; they own both industries, in some cases covertly, in other quite blatantly and overtly. And the proceeds are partly used for bribery to ensure that this state of affairs is maintained.

If the proscription of Dangerous Drugs were to be repealed, then consumption would increase exponentially and the concomitant harm would be immediate and utterly destructive to what's left of our culture and humanity.

John Holland

C.Gee- here's an idea- next time you reply to a post, TRY READING IT. Is that really too difficult?
I said, in reply to a post saying that Muslims never abolished slavery, "TRUE". Which part of that do you not understand?

I then pointed out that it was not the established churches that were the force behind its abolition in the West. I made the point because many on this site, including Melanie Phillips, claim that;
a) Christian religion per se was the source of abolitionism, and
b) the Non-Conformist sects that were the principal force behind the movement shared many ideals that most conservatives, including ,no doubt, you, still find disagreeable, or , to use your insult of choice for anything whatsoever that is to the left of you, Marxist (free education, fair pay, etc.).

It seems your standard response to anything you don't agree with is to shout "Marxist" until you feel better. It was your "reflexive" response to apply the notion of class, not mine.

By the way, if you think the pro-AGW lobby is saying that Co2 is a "pollutant", then you havn't understood the argument, and it would probably be better to learn more before making commenting. Sorry if that's Marxist. Or to use the new Tea-Party insult of choice, "elitist".

C.Gee

John Holland:

Why don't you check out the EPA decision to regulate CO2 as a potentially dangerous greenhouse gas?

zibby

C.Gee
I disagree. It is extremely relevant as you can see what he says has happened and what is going to happen is on display in the grandest way. Just look around. Thank you for the book suggestion and I don't disagree that some people have an inner strength and conviction to overcome ideological brainwashing. But, a whole culture? If you look around as I'm sure you have, it hasn't been the case. Western culture is crumbling and the breaking down of morals, cultural values which stem from Judeo Christianity are some very huge reasons.
------------------------------
"This blast from the past - culturally ignorant, irrelevant, superficial, out-of date and incorrect even for the Cold War era - has nothing to say of the slightest consequence for this discussion."
I would actually suggest you watch the entire video because you are in fact incorrect. I'm assuming you're a libertarian? The society you envision is a nice utopian society and it is attainable only through cultural suicide.

Harold

C.Gee
October 27th, 2010 9:04pm
I asked some questions, which didn't appear. I'll try again, because I'd be interested to know what you think.

Your rallying cry is, Liberty and free markets; the enemy, a globalised welfare government.

We can agree that the best of what's on offer is liberal democracy.

I'd like to know more about what you mean by that. And I'd like you to identify the enemy (other than Islamists - we can agree they are vicious, although perhaps disagree on the magnitude of the threat they pose).

Are you aware (I suspect you are)that markets are efficient only under certain conditions, and not for all problems of resource allocation? and that free markets rely on institutions and values that free markets are unlikely to produce by themselves?

An economy where the players are corporations, whose power is magnified by their capture of government, and workers, whose unions have been emasculated, is not the economy depicted by the economic theorists who produced the proofs of market efficiency. The practical application of their proofs is not straightforward.

The fiction endorsed by the courts in the late 19th century that the corporation is a legal person whose sole obligation is to maximise value for its shareholders has produced entities that in the last century have increasingly defined what liberty means for individuals (the right to buy what the coporations have to sell, and to vote for the parties the corporations have bought).

A corporation is obliged to maximise its shareholders' returns. This obligation need not coincide with the interests of the nation state where the corporation is domiciled. What then of the nation state and its defence of its citizens liberty?

The nation state itself has features in common with the corporation. It is a fiction that evolved to further the interests of its constituents, or some part of its constituents. Like the corporation, it is not constituted to consider anything other than the interests of its constituents. They may enjoy their liberty and prosperity at the expense of others. And there is nothing to stop others doing likewise, in a war of all against all.

In a world of nation states and free market economics, do you not think there is room for concern for the welfare of others, for regulation, or for cooperation between states to reduce conflict?

And who is the enemy? "Reflexive Marxists" I doubt picks out any particular group of people. Who is the enemy, and what the evidence that they represent an imminent and credible threat to liberal democracy?

John Holland

Frank P- if you really think the trade in illegal substances is essentially no different from that of legal ones, have a look at this week's (or indeed any week's) figures for drug-related murders in Mexico.
28,000 murders in 4 years, not to mention the massive political corruption.

Maybe you think this is matched by the crimes of the (legal) alcohol industry, or by the makers of meat pies- I doubt it.

If organised crime needed a legalised alcohol industry to launder money, that just raises the question of where that illegally gained money came from; drug dealing, maybe?

C.Gee; A pollutant is potentially damaging in any quantity; a greenhouse gas is (they claim) dangerous only when present in excessive quantities.

Disregarding the accuracy or otherwise of any particular predictions, it's a significant point because of the number of times sceptics claim to have proved it's all rubbish because CO2 is 'not a poison, because plants need it and we produce it'. And then people take that as a significant statement.

Vaemar

Glenn Beck is right. Soros is "The spooky guy."

Derek BLADES

John Holland tells Frank P "if you really think the trade in illegal substances is essentially no different from that of legal ones, have a look at this week's (or indeed any week's) figures for drug-related murders in Mexico."

Those on favour of legalising narcotics argue that making them legal would avoid the kind of drug wars now raging in Mexico. Competition would no longer be waged by shooting the opposition but through advertising, special offers, sports sponsorships and the like as currently practiced by, for example, cigarette and whisky producers

C.Gee

Harold:

I will take only your question: “In a world of nation states and free market economics, do you not think there is room for concern for the welfare of others, for regulation, or for cooperation between states to reduce conflict?”

My answer is: Who in a world of nation states and free market economics are “the others”? The law would regulate economic conduct, including international trade which is itself the best evidence of cooperation among states and where it exists there is usually no violent conflict.

This is not really the forum for setting out an individual political philosophy, so I decline to answer your other questions, touched as I am by your curiosity. Some of your compound questions - especially those on economics - are unanswerable, without tedious unpicking first.

Any debate following my answers would only result in definitional wrangling. We can be pretty certain on the basis of past exchanges that my terrorist is your freedom fighter. Happily, there is just enough political and linguistic common ground between us for us to gallop over in a joust from time to time, as valor requires.

C.Gee

zibby:

“Western culture is crumbling and the breaking down of morals, cultural values which stem from Judeo Christianity are some very huge reasons.”

The cultural values that have broken down almost completely are: that the culture has value and should be defended from attack; and it has value because it values the free market and individual liberty. Individual liberty could trace - with a stretch - some of its intellectual ancestry to Judaism, and to the history of the separation of Church and state, of which the Reformation was a part. There is some theory that capitalism was possible thanks to the Reformation. But wherever Enlightenment values - and they are what most distinguishes the West from the rest - stem from, they came into cultural dominance as church power faded. Scientific culture strengthened as the assertion of religious dogma and compulsion to ritual observance weakened. Today our Western culture is a culture of science and politics, with the two often blurring into each other. New religions (cults) are being created out of pseudo-science and political doctrine, but the established religions have either adapted themselves to the new culture or they remain as self-preserving museum exhibits. “Spirituality”, as I have said elsewhere, is now a commodity - marketed along with “green” products.

The story of religion giving way to science and politics is one way of recounting the history of the West. But for a specific example, I will just point out that both Christianity and Judaism have adherents who have interpreted the dogma to fit in with prevailing politics, but still insist on calling it Christianity or Judaism and seeing themselves as Christians or Jews. Liberation theology is a clear example of religion succumbing to ideological subversion. Even Islam has versions - the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood - where it has incorporated socialist and fascist ideas. Modern (Western) Muslims are reading the Koran as the blueprint for the Declaration of Human Rights.

No religion - or sect of any religion, or combinations of sects - offers a coherent package of values that could be a political platform. Conservatism in America is correlated with evangelical Christians who would press for social legislation against abortion. Jews overwhelmingly vote Democrat. But beyond the correlations, on any given issue every believer has his own views of what is moral, what is good for society and how far state power should coerce desired conduct. I cannot see how the faithful can rally the forces of religion to reinstate religious values where these are different from political ones, or to impose religious belief in their divine authority where they are the same.

Perhaps religious fanaticism can withstand political fanaticism - but that is fighting fire with fire: pitting the totalitarian puritan theocrat against the totalitarian eternal revolutionary. If either wins, civilization loses.

(I am not a libertarian, but a conservative atheist).

C.Gee

John Holland:

Your face-saving sophistry is feeble. I quote from the EPA's own website:

"After a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people. EPA also finds that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat.

GHGs are the primary driver of climate change, which can lead to hotter, longer heat waves that threaten the health of the sick, poor or elderly; increases in ground-level ozone pollution linked to asthma and other respiratory illnesses; as well as other threats to the health and welfare of Americans.

“These long-overdue findings cement 2009’s place in history as the year when the United States Government began addressing the challenge of greenhouse-gas pollution and seizing the opportunity of clean-energy reform,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. pportunity of clean-energy reform,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “Business leaders, security experts, government officials, concerned citizens and the United States Supreme Court have called for enduring, pragmatic solutions to reduce the greenhouse gas pollution that is causing climate change. This continues our work towards clean energy reform that will cut GHGs and reduce the dependence on foreign oil that threatens our national security and our economy.”

EPA’s final findings respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that GHGs fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants."

CO2=Pollutant.

Frank P

John Holland

The big pharmas and the legal booze industry have, over the years, been responsible for more premature death among its punters than all the illegal drug cartels combined. Add the tobacco industry toll since Walter Raleigh and the processed food retailers since Tesco et al. and together they account for more carnage than Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin and Chairman Mao.

As for Organized Crime, it derives its income from human frailty across the spectrum, not just illicit drugs. It serves the needs of greed and lust not already sated by legitimate business. And it eats politicians for breakfast.

No customers - no Organized crime!

Organized Crime = Disorganized (and/or corrupt) Policing.

There is no solution to human frailty. We're all suffering from that terminal disease called Life; its symptoms vary through a very wide register, from blissful delusion to the extreme agonies of pointlessness and hopelessness. Those, and all the other symptoms between, are manifested daily on these blogs.

What was your point again?

Frank P

John Holland

I forgot to mention that the only palliatives that makes the aforesaid terminal disease bearable are laughter - and taking the piss. I am hooked on both.

Miranda Rose Smith

As I've said before, on this blog, cannabis wrecked a life very near and dear to mine.

Miranda Rose Smith

Miranda Rose Smith

In those ever decreasing sections of our planet still occupied by rational and truthful souls, everyone knows someone whose life has been wrecked by abuse of cannabis and you are right to bear witness to that fact.

Dear Mr. P.: Thanks.

Harold

C.Gee
October 31st, 2010 1:01am
The interest was genuine. The questions were neither provocative not rhetorical. If you think this not the place to discuss your political beliefs, you should perhaps not have regaled us with your opinions on liberty, the nation state, free markets, and the forces of darkness.

John Holland

Frank P.- not sure how to respond to that. And I'm not sure what my point is.

I fear you are not so wrong; however, some things can be made better or worse, and it seems very likely to me that the State banning substances that some will do anything to get hold of is going to lead to more violent crime, and deaths, than not doing so. There will always be customers, and the 'war' on drugs has made things no better, and probably a great deal worse.

C.Gee- face-saving sophist as I am, I admit you have a point with that quote, which I have not read before, and which strikes me as using imprecise terms and of rather disingenuously seeking to merge disparate effects. It's a political statement.
But then I, and I suspect you, really don't know much about the relevant science, so we can take as read the usual reflexive political attitudes to the possible effects of the proportions of atmospheric gases on the retention of solar radiation.

A.

C.Gee
October 31st, 2010 1:01am
Harold:

I will take only your question: “In a world of nation states and free market economics, do you not think there is room for concern for the welfare of others, for regulation, or for cooperation between states to reduce conflict?”

My answer is: Who in a world of nation states and free market economics are “the others”? The law would regulate economic conduct, including international trade which is itself the best evidence of cooperation among states and where it exists there is usually no violent conflict.

- Is this not at risk of simply begging the question?

A.

C. Gee
You loftily decline to discuss your political philosophy before launching in again with another lecture - C.Gee
October 31st, 2010 1:09am

International trade is regulated through international or supranational bodies.

"conservative" is if anything even less informative than "progressive" or "the left" or the "forces of darkness".

By your own standards of evidence and inference, you are justified only in agnosticism, not atheism (unless God comes forward and provides a sworn statement).

Think This

Personal responsibility, individual liberty, choice and not state control. Yep, anyone who considers themselves rightwing should believe in decriminalising drugs.

Grant

Let's look at the incredibly sinister imperialistic totalitarian policies George Soros is pushing:

-Legalisation of drugs
-Legalisation of euthanasia
-Same sex marriage

All good right-wing libertarian policies. There's nothing 'lefty' about individualism and expanding personal freedoms.

Also the actual evidence shows that criminalising drug addiction has lead to its proliferation and increased the harm it causes, while treating it as an illness makes people keen to stay off drugs - it may be glamorous to think oneself an outlaw, but who would volunteer to be sick?

-Death Penalty Abolition

This is neither radical nor left-wing: People of all political stripes have long had problems with the idea of killing someone who can't fight back.

-Gun Control

This is only considered a left/right issue in the USA.

C.Gee

Harold; A.:

When I make or respond to points at issue, I explain my point of view. If there is no point at issue, setting forth a general political philosophy - even when (flatteringly) requested to do so - would be presumptuous.

There are frolics and detours from the theme of the blog post from time to time. I pursue pernicious, unthinking prejudice. I sometimes chase after posters who vandalize the 'hood by spraying comments which are the equivalent of gang graffiti. On the whole, though, I try to stick with the program.

If you take issue with the substantive points I make, I respond - time and the vagaries of post publishing permitting. Comments on my style or attempts at "gotchas" do not rouse me to action, amusing or irritating as they may be. (A: God's affidavit on his own existence would be an example of begging the question. No cigar for you.)

Time to move on, folks.

A.

C.Gee
November 1st, 2010 4:50pm
I was touched by your response.

("I will take just one question" indeed!)

Harold questioned what you said. Your attempt at condescension in an effort to avoid explaining or defending what you said is inappropriate in honest debate.

I agree that Harold was right to move on and dismiss such little tricks.

John Pheeva

I am a bit confused?? What does supporting the legalization of Marijuana have to do with euthanasia?? If you are against the legalization of marijuana then make a case for prohibition. I am on the fence on prop 19. It seems to me the opponents of prop 19 are all making these irrational arguments that appeal to emotion rather than reason. Those in favor of prop 19 have been presenting science, statistics and some pretty credible academics. Harvard University professors, AMA, League of Women Voters, they even have cops. I don't know this Soros guy but has he actually euthanized anyone....? Anything? I know the DEA have euthanized quite a few human beings in the name of marijuana prohibition and many times found nothing. I have learned marijuana has killed no one. This is the first blog I have read by Melanie Phillips but I think the euthanasia argument applies to the other side. Thanks for helping me make my decision on prop 19.

A.

C. Gee
I don't have Harold's good sense. I can't stop myself asking (for the sake of my education):

"(A: God's affidavit on his own existence would be an example of begging the question. No cigar for you.)"

How would God turning up in person to give sworn testimony that He exists beg the question of His existence?

(Or is it all just too wearying?another question you won't "take"? another fiat it would be a frolic or detour to defend?)

...I'm a slow reader - I've only just noticed that you explain why Harold shouldn't have bothered: the points you made on free markets, the nation state and liberty (and much else besides) were not "substantive".

That was always the suspicion.