The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision to strike down Texas's abortion laws, specifically those laws which creates overly burdensome requirements on abortion clinics to operate, has generated a fair bit of controversy over the last few weeks. As someone who is 'pro-choice but personally opposed' (or 'pro-life but anti criminalisation), let me offer my perspective.
As SCOTUS has decided that abortion is to be legal in all 50 states, this remains the law of the land. Consequently, any attempts to circumvent this situation ought to be illegal, or any right guaranteed by SCOTUS can be similarly circumvented (including marriage equality, for example). Therefore, this ruling is very fair, and I hope no other state attempts something similar ever again thereby wasting SCOTUS's time.
If someone feels strongly about reducing abortions, they can provide counselling services, and spread the word. But what they cannot do is to be tricky with the law, preventing access to what is considered a protected right, no matter how passionate they are about it. Being tricky with the law only serves to erode public trust in the law, I believe.
Doing sociology and philosophy in real time by looking at developments in contemporary Western politics and culture. My mission is to stop the authoritarian 'populist' right and the cultural-systemist left from destroying the West.
Labels
The UK's Second Female Prime Minister: Theresa May vs Andrea Leadsom: History Made?
The candidates for the next British Prime Minister are down to Theresa May and Andrea Leadsom, which means the UK will definitely have its second female PM. Many have hailed this as history in the making.
Personally, I'm not so sure. For a Prime Minister, I believe someone's policies is much more important than their gender. And even the staunchest feminists would have to agree with me here, to a point. I'm sure many wouldn't want to vote for candidates like Hanson in Australia or Le Pen in France.
David Cameron has been a great Prime Minister and his record will be hard to match. These are big shoes to fill. Good luck to whoever wins.
Personally, I'm not so sure. For a Prime Minister, I believe someone's policies is much more important than their gender. And even the staunchest feminists would have to agree with me here, to a point. I'm sure many wouldn't want to vote for candidates like Hanson in Australia or Le Pen in France.
David Cameron has been a great Prime Minister and his record will be hard to match. These are big shoes to fill. Good luck to whoever wins.
A Tale of Three Parties: Shorten Labor vs Corbyn Labour, and what Hillary and Bernie supporters can learn
(While this piece is regarding three leftist parties, rightist parties can equally benefit from this lesson, I believe)
The British Labour Party is in deep crisis. Jeremy Corbyn won't step down as leader despite most of his MPs wanting him to go, and even if he faces an actual challenge, he may prevail, making the whole situation unworkable. The controversies over foreign policy won't just go away, even as most domestic voters really don't care. They can't even decide if Tony Blair is a hero or a villain. Nobody is expecting them to win in 2020.
The Australian Labor Party, on the other hand, is much happier. Bill Shorten may not be PM yet, but, in his own words, 'Labor is back'. Analysts on both sides have suggested that Labor has a good chance at the next election, due in 2019, on the back of their strong performance this year. Obviously, there is no leadership controversy there. Shorten was warmly welcomed by his MPs, and was re-elected unopposed as leader.
Why the big difference? Whilst Australian Labor has been focussed on addressing what people really want and focussing the message on what people care about, such as health care, education and marriage equality, British Labour seems to have lost focus, fighting over issues that matter only to the political elite. Whilst Australian Labor is clearly united, British Labour is clearly not. Most people don't want to elect a divided government, no matter what they stand for.
Whilst the picture is clear for both Australian Labor and British Labour, their US counterparts could really go either way now. Hillary Clinton may have won the Democratic nomination, but many Bernie Sanders supporters still hate her. The fate of the US Democrats, and whether Clinton or Trump would be the next US president, may rest largely on the choice of Bernie's supporters.
The British Labour Party is in deep crisis. Jeremy Corbyn won't step down as leader despite most of his MPs wanting him to go, and even if he faces an actual challenge, he may prevail, making the whole situation unworkable. The controversies over foreign policy won't just go away, even as most domestic voters really don't care. They can't even decide if Tony Blair is a hero or a villain. Nobody is expecting them to win in 2020.
The Australian Labor Party, on the other hand, is much happier. Bill Shorten may not be PM yet, but, in his own words, 'Labor is back'. Analysts on both sides have suggested that Labor has a good chance at the next election, due in 2019, on the back of their strong performance this year. Obviously, there is no leadership controversy there. Shorten was warmly welcomed by his MPs, and was re-elected unopposed as leader.
Why the big difference? Whilst Australian Labor has been focussed on addressing what people really want and focussing the message on what people care about, such as health care, education and marriage equality, British Labour seems to have lost focus, fighting over issues that matter only to the political elite. Whilst Australian Labor is clearly united, British Labour is clearly not. Most people don't want to elect a divided government, no matter what they stand for.
Whilst the picture is clear for both Australian Labor and British Labour, their US counterparts could really go either way now. Hillary Clinton may have won the Democratic nomination, but many Bernie Sanders supporters still hate her. The fate of the US Democrats, and whether Clinton or Trump would be the next US president, may rest largely on the choice of Bernie's supporters.
Ruby Rose Suggested Trump and Hanson may be the Same Person. Whilst that's not true, she may have a point.
Ruby Rose recently joked on twitter that Pauline Hanson, leader of Australia's right-wing One Nation party, may in fact be Donald Trump in drag. Whilst some have quickly dismissed this as a joke in bad taste, I actually think she may have a point there.
Whilst Trump and Hanson are clearly two different people, there is, I believe, substantial overlap in the policies they represent and the type of people who would vote for them. Moreover, I would even suggest that Britain's UKIP and France's National Front may belong in the same basket. The theme is the same: what's on offer is a mixture of nationalism, anti-multiculturalism, and old fashioned protectionist policies. These policies may be rejected by both urban intellectuals and most young people in general, but there's clearly a market for this type of thinking, be it in the US, Europe or Australia.
As a liberal and committed multiculturalist, I do find it alarming. However, I believe we must go back to basics and understand and seriously deal with this phenomenon. In Australia, there have already been opinion pieces written suggesting that the return of Pauline Hanson may be related to real unfairness and structural disadvantage parts of the population are experiencing due to changed economic conditions since the 1980s. If the US Democrats are to win against Trump, I suggest they better examine their economic policies in this light. Whilst I am a supporter of free markets and free trade, you can't expect any type of economic liberalism to be sustainable if it hurts people's actual liberties, by making their livelihood difficult.
Whilst Trump and Hanson are clearly two different people, there is, I believe, substantial overlap in the policies they represent and the type of people who would vote for them. Moreover, I would even suggest that Britain's UKIP and France's National Front may belong in the same basket. The theme is the same: what's on offer is a mixture of nationalism, anti-multiculturalism, and old fashioned protectionist policies. These policies may be rejected by both urban intellectuals and most young people in general, but there's clearly a market for this type of thinking, be it in the US, Europe or Australia.
As a liberal and committed multiculturalist, I do find it alarming. However, I believe we must go back to basics and understand and seriously deal with this phenomenon. In Australia, there have already been opinion pieces written suggesting that the return of Pauline Hanson may be related to real unfairness and structural disadvantage parts of the population are experiencing due to changed economic conditions since the 1980s. If the US Democrats are to win against Trump, I suggest they better examine their economic policies in this light. Whilst I am a supporter of free markets and free trade, you can't expect any type of economic liberalism to be sustainable if it hurts people's actual liberties, by making their livelihood difficult.
Brexit now, Donald Trump next? Is the world going mad? Is there a solution?
A lot of my friends are really despairing the Brexit decision. Not just because of economic implications, but because they think the 'racists' have won. And now, they live in fear that the 'racists' will win the White House for Donald Trump too.
Whilst I can empathize, I really have to disagree with their assessment. It was probably true that some people who voted leave were racist, but I'm sure the majority had other reasons. Not wanting another layer of government control was a major reason for supporting Leave, to my knowledge.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. I have already said that I would prefer Clinton winning, but let me also say this: to my knowledge, some people are supporting Trump not necessarily because they agree with what he says, but because they are sick of political correctness. And whilst I wouldn't do this, I can empathize here too. Especially in recent years, political correctness has gone mad, and this is pushing many people further and further into the right. I know those 'social justice warriors' probably mean well, but their actions have only been to the detriment of the very people they wish to help, in my opinion. I would even go so far as to say, were Donald Trump to win in November, the recent rise of SJWs would have been a major factor.
I'm all for changing the world, ridding it of racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia, but we need to uphold the freedom of speech and conscience, first and foremost. It was the freedom of speech that let us begin on the path to correct the aforementioned injustices historically, and it will be free and honest conversations that will win people over in any cultural campaign. Western society has done comparatively well in ridding these injustices, precisely due to a long standing history of freedom of speech and conscience. In many other cultures, the expectation of social conformity has meant that the process couldn't even be started.
I believe that the treatment of racial minorities in many countries needs to be improved. I believe that there still needs to be much cultural change towards full gender equality. I believe in the absolute equal treatment of individuals and couples irregardless of their sexuality. And I believe that whatever gender identity people present as, their truth is the truth, and is the only truth. For me, these are all logical positions I hold based on logical reasoning, some which I only acquired through the course of life, after re-examining each viewpoint again and again. If you debate something openly and long enough, the truth will win. There is no need for taboos and political correctness, which will only serve to prevent the conversations that will change people.
Whilst I can empathize, I really have to disagree with their assessment. It was probably true that some people who voted leave were racist, but I'm sure the majority had other reasons. Not wanting another layer of government control was a major reason for supporting Leave, to my knowledge.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. I have already said that I would prefer Clinton winning, but let me also say this: to my knowledge, some people are supporting Trump not necessarily because they agree with what he says, but because they are sick of political correctness. And whilst I wouldn't do this, I can empathize here too. Especially in recent years, political correctness has gone mad, and this is pushing many people further and further into the right. I know those 'social justice warriors' probably mean well, but their actions have only been to the detriment of the very people they wish to help, in my opinion. I would even go so far as to say, were Donald Trump to win in November, the recent rise of SJWs would have been a major factor.
I'm all for changing the world, ridding it of racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia, but we need to uphold the freedom of speech and conscience, first and foremost. It was the freedom of speech that let us begin on the path to correct the aforementioned injustices historically, and it will be free and honest conversations that will win people over in any cultural campaign. Western society has done comparatively well in ridding these injustices, precisely due to a long standing history of freedom of speech and conscience. In many other cultures, the expectation of social conformity has meant that the process couldn't even be started.
I believe that the treatment of racial minorities in many countries needs to be improved. I believe that there still needs to be much cultural change towards full gender equality. I believe in the absolute equal treatment of individuals and couples irregardless of their sexuality. And I believe that whatever gender identity people present as, their truth is the truth, and is the only truth. For me, these are all logical positions I hold based on logical reasoning, some which I only acquired through the course of life, after re-examining each viewpoint again and again. If you debate something openly and long enough, the truth will win. There is no need for taboos and political correctness, which will only serve to prevent the conversations that will change people.
J.K. Rowling Wishes she could use Magic to Undo Brexit. Is it really this scary?
J.K. Rowling has recently said she wish she could use magic to undo the UK's recent vote to leave the European Union.
It seems that everyone is so scared of what's going to happen, now that Brexit has become 'reality'. It has even become a major theme in the AUSTRALIAN election, half a world away. But the truth is that, it was just a vote. Some Brits thought it would be a good idea to leave the EU, and now that they have proven a majority agrees with them, their vision will proceed. Had the vote been the other way around, their vision would not proceed. It's just how democracy, the 'collective expression of liberty', is done. It's a decision that's done, you may not like the results, but it won't be life changing for 99% of us. So please don't help the scare campaign along.
And the world is more resiliant than this, really. Life will move on, and the economy will adjust, but will soon find its feet. Indeed, the markets are already recovering.
There's now also talk that Trump may win in November just because there was a shock result in Brexit. That's nonsense. The likelihood of Trump winning or not has not changed as a result of a very separate event. One surprise does not increase the likelihood of another surprise. Get logical, people!
Download the full song here.
It seems that everyone is so scared of what's going to happen, now that Brexit has become 'reality'. It has even become a major theme in the AUSTRALIAN election, half a world away. But the truth is that, it was just a vote. Some Brits thought it would be a good idea to leave the EU, and now that they have proven a majority agrees with them, their vision will proceed. Had the vote been the other way around, their vision would not proceed. It's just how democracy, the 'collective expression of liberty', is done. It's a decision that's done, you may not like the results, but it won't be life changing for 99% of us. So please don't help the scare campaign along.
And the world is more resiliant than this, really. Life will move on, and the economy will adjust, but will soon find its feet. Indeed, the markets are already recovering.
There's now also talk that Trump may win in November just because there was a shock result in Brexit. That's nonsense. The likelihood of Trump winning or not has not changed as a result of a very separate event. One surprise does not increase the likelihood of another surprise. Get logical, people!
Download the full song here.
Vanessa Hudgens wore a Dream Catcher, Now She's In Trouble (Not again?)
Vanessa Hudgens recently wore a dream catcher in her hair. And predictably enough, accusations that she was 'appropriating native American culture' came flying. Apart from the fact that Vanessa is actually part native American, the 'cultural appropriation' idea is getting really old, isn't it?
People being able to follow their dreams in whatever way is the CORE of the Princess's Spirit, and that extends to every little thing in life, I believe. Therefore, I have a very basic view that people should be able to do, say and believe whatever they want to, unless it physically hurts another or takes away from the freedom of another.
All this 'cultural appropriation' stuff really is political correctness gone mad. I am all for decency and politeness in society, and I definitely do more than my part in combating racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia. People who read my stuff know it. However, political correctness is poison for freedom, and we should not embrace it.
Download the full song here.
People being able to follow their dreams in whatever way is the CORE of the Princess's Spirit, and that extends to every little thing in life, I believe. Therefore, I have a very basic view that people should be able to do, say and believe whatever they want to, unless it physically hurts another or takes away from the freedom of another.
All this 'cultural appropriation' stuff really is political correctness gone mad. I am all for decency and politeness in society, and I definitely do more than my part in combating racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia. People who read my stuff know it. However, political correctness is poison for freedom, and we should not embrace it.
Download the full song here.
Lindsay Lohan's Tweets About Brexit Set a Good Example
During the Brexit vote, Lindsay Lohan surprisingly emerged as one of the most popular 'political correspondents', tweeting in support of the campaign for Britain to remain in the European Union. (Yes, she's not just a party girl anymore. People DO grow up, you see.)
Whilst I did not agree with everything she said, I very much applaud her for what she did.
A lot of celebrities don't dare to speak up about numerous issues, fearing it would lose them fans. But this traps all of us in a cycle of expecting our favourite celebrities to always agree with us, which further serves to increase the pressure against celebrities speaking up.
So did Lindsay lose any Leave camp fans? Possibly. But I do know that quite a few Leave supporters agree with my assesssment that what she did was valuable. So maybe that made up for it.
Anyway, thanks Lindsay.
Download the full song here.
Whilst I did not agree with everything she said, I very much applaud her for what she did.
A lot of celebrities don't dare to speak up about numerous issues, fearing it would lose them fans. But this traps all of us in a cycle of expecting our favourite celebrities to always agree with us, which further serves to increase the pressure against celebrities speaking up.
So did Lindsay lose any Leave camp fans? Possibly. But I do know that quite a few Leave supporters agree with my assesssment that what she did was valuable. So maybe that made up for it.
Anyway, thanks Lindsay.
Download the full song here.
I'm Endorsing Bill Shorten for Prime Minister of Australia
I'm Endorsing Bill Shorten for Prime Minister of Australia
In the upcoming Australian election, I am putting my endorsement behind Bill Shorten and his Labor team.
I know this means I'm endoring Labor again, like 3 years ago. But trust me, the decision has been harder to make, with Malcolm Turnbull, a 'thoroughly liberal' Prime Minister on offer, instead of Tony Abbott.
Despite what some people say, Abbott and Turnbull are miles apart. I also don't think there is evidence that Turnbull has sold out on anything. He remains the best leader of the Liberal Party ever, in my opinion, because he's a small government liberal, not a big government conservative. My socialist friends used to love him and now they hate him, but they just never understood the man. His strong support for marriage equality is also something I thank him for. Truth to be told, I prefer Turnbull to ALL of the alternatives on offer this year in the US. If the choices were Turnbull, Clinton, Sanders, Trump and Cruz, I would have picked Turnbull without even needing to think.
On the other hand, Shorten is also one of the best leaders Labor has ever had. He has re-united the party, stared down the conservative wing's resistence on marriage equality, made a compelling case to support Labor's policies, and provided the bravest set of policies any opposition leader has come up with in living memory. And all that in just three years. His effective opposition was also a major reason why we managed to get rid of Tony Abbott, Australia's worst PM ever in my opinion, in just two years. If we had another opposition leader, Abbott may still be PM and cruising to a second term.
So we have two of the best leaders. But in the end, for me, it comes down to priorities. Turnbull offers company tax cuts but it will come with cuts to health and education. Shorten believes that this prioritization is wrong, and he has pledged to maintain bulk billing and affordable university degrees. I agree with him here. I surely do agree with company tax cuts, in the longer term, but in the light of Australia's major budget deficit, it will have to wait, especially as the economic benefits will be limited in the short term. However, health and education programs cannot just be sacrificed, as people need them right now.
In addition, whilst the big-L Liberal party is called that name, my small-l liberal conscience does not automatically have to agree with them. In a recent interview shadow treasurer Chris Bowen has made a strong case why Labor's policies fit better with actual small-l liberalism, and in light of the above prioritization, I wholeheartedly agree.
So that's it, I'm backing Shorten.
p.s. it's a tight election and the polls are predicting a Turnbull win at this stage. If that is the case, I urge the Labor party to keep Shorten as leader for at least the next three years. Given how well he's performed, if he's replaced as leader, I don't think that's fair, and therefore it would be hard for me to support that new leader, whoever it might be.
In the upcoming Australian election, I am putting my endorsement behind Bill Shorten and his Labor team.
I know this means I'm endoring Labor again, like 3 years ago. But trust me, the decision has been harder to make, with Malcolm Turnbull, a 'thoroughly liberal' Prime Minister on offer, instead of Tony Abbott.
Despite what some people say, Abbott and Turnbull are miles apart. I also don't think there is evidence that Turnbull has sold out on anything. He remains the best leader of the Liberal Party ever, in my opinion, because he's a small government liberal, not a big government conservative. My socialist friends used to love him and now they hate him, but they just never understood the man. His strong support for marriage equality is also something I thank him for. Truth to be told, I prefer Turnbull to ALL of the alternatives on offer this year in the US. If the choices were Turnbull, Clinton, Sanders, Trump and Cruz, I would have picked Turnbull without even needing to think.
On the other hand, Shorten is also one of the best leaders Labor has ever had. He has re-united the party, stared down the conservative wing's resistence on marriage equality, made a compelling case to support Labor's policies, and provided the bravest set of policies any opposition leader has come up with in living memory. And all that in just three years. His effective opposition was also a major reason why we managed to get rid of Tony Abbott, Australia's worst PM ever in my opinion, in just two years. If we had another opposition leader, Abbott may still be PM and cruising to a second term.
So we have two of the best leaders. But in the end, for me, it comes down to priorities. Turnbull offers company tax cuts but it will come with cuts to health and education. Shorten believes that this prioritization is wrong, and he has pledged to maintain bulk billing and affordable university degrees. I agree with him here. I surely do agree with company tax cuts, in the longer term, but in the light of Australia's major budget deficit, it will have to wait, especially as the economic benefits will be limited in the short term. However, health and education programs cannot just be sacrificed, as people need them right now.
In addition, whilst the big-L Liberal party is called that name, my small-l liberal conscience does not automatically have to agree with them. In a recent interview shadow treasurer Chris Bowen has made a strong case why Labor's policies fit better with actual small-l liberalism, and in light of the above prioritization, I wholeheartedly agree.
So that's it, I'm backing Shorten.
p.s. it's a tight election and the polls are predicting a Turnbull win at this stage. If that is the case, I urge the Labor party to keep Shorten as leader for at least the next three years. Given how well he's performed, if he's replaced as leader, I don't think that's fair, and therefore it would be hard for me to support that new leader, whoever it might be.
The rise of Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn - Does it really mean people are dissatisfied?
The recent rise of 'outsider' politicians with radically different agendas to what we're used to has raised discussions in many quarters as to whether people have become very dissatisfied with the world we are living in.
I think the answer is 'yes'. People feel like their politicians are not reflecting their beliefs, that their democracy is 'broken', and that they don't have the true freedom to be who they want to be in life. They feel like the ability to get ahead in life is no longer there. People everywhere are feeling this, from twenty-somethings in quarter life crises to older adults who have been made redundant and yet cannot afford retirement. They also feel like the decisions about our future is not being made by them, that they are not being listened to by the political class. In other words, representative democracy has become unrepresentative.
Whilst I can understand why people are looking to the likes of Trump, Sanders and Corbyn, I also believe that they are not the answer. Not that any politician is, anyway.
I believe we need to fix our system, badly. For example, there should be more emphasis on liberty, and politicians on all sides should be focussing on the concept of liberty and 'living together' in a liberal society. Representative democracy should also be supplemented by an increased use of direct democracy in the form of regular plebiscites or referrenda, in my opinion. A decisive victory for climate action at the ballot box will stop any further protesting from corporate interests, for example.
Furthermore, it's dangerous to look to our politicians to solve everything. We need to remember that not everything needs to be done by the government, and that non-governmental solutions are often better. Inspiring people, lifting people up from a feeling of helplessness, is a collective responsibility, for example. Governments cannot do that. Speaking up against those forces which are making people feel oppressed, which is clearly not limited to our governments, is also a collective responsibility. Only broad-based discussion and consensus in society will push those forces back. Finally, changing the culture so that 'outsiders' are not excluded anymore, including but not limited to combating racism, sexism, homophobia and disability discrimination, is something we all need to do, together.
I think the answer is 'yes'. People feel like their politicians are not reflecting their beliefs, that their democracy is 'broken', and that they don't have the true freedom to be who they want to be in life. They feel like the ability to get ahead in life is no longer there. People everywhere are feeling this, from twenty-somethings in quarter life crises to older adults who have been made redundant and yet cannot afford retirement. They also feel like the decisions about our future is not being made by them, that they are not being listened to by the political class. In other words, representative democracy has become unrepresentative.
Whilst I can understand why people are looking to the likes of Trump, Sanders and Corbyn, I also believe that they are not the answer. Not that any politician is, anyway.
I believe we need to fix our system, badly. For example, there should be more emphasis on liberty, and politicians on all sides should be focussing on the concept of liberty and 'living together' in a liberal society. Representative democracy should also be supplemented by an increased use of direct democracy in the form of regular plebiscites or referrenda, in my opinion. A decisive victory for climate action at the ballot box will stop any further protesting from corporate interests, for example.
Furthermore, it's dangerous to look to our politicians to solve everything. We need to remember that not everything needs to be done by the government, and that non-governmental solutions are often better. Inspiring people, lifting people up from a feeling of helplessness, is a collective responsibility, for example. Governments cannot do that. Speaking up against those forces which are making people feel oppressed, which is clearly not limited to our governments, is also a collective responsibility. Only broad-based discussion and consensus in society will push those forces back. Finally, changing the culture so that 'outsiders' are not excluded anymore, including but not limited to combating racism, sexism, homophobia and disability discrimination, is something we all need to do, together.
The TaraElla Show
The new TaraElla show is launching, and the ideas lab is becoming part of the new TaraElla show.
Check it out here!
This means the ideas lab is closed for now. It may reopen in the future, depending on need.
Check it out here!
This means the ideas lab is closed for now. It may reopen in the future, depending on need.
Let's Honour the Tradition of Marriage in Diverse Ways
The tradition of marriage is important, yet simple. It's all about two people vowing to commit exclusively to each other for life, with religion being involved most, but not necessarily all of the time. It was neither a legal contract nor did it need government approval. Of course, there was also no government approval of divorce, as a result.
Things have changed, and not for the better, I believe. Marriage has since been usurped by the government, and any road back to marriage privatization will be long and difficult (although we must not give up). Some celebrities have also, regrettably, trampled on the institution of marriage for their own publicity. Marriage is not always what it was, back then, nowadays.
Hence whilst we have to recognise that those who want to live the original spirit of marriage may now do so in a number of different ways. For example, there are some religious or very libertarian people who may object to the government being their God and ruling over their marriage. Such couples may choose to have a religious ceremony but not be legally married. On the other hand, other couples may choose a form of 'covenant marriage', wanting legally stricter rules for divorce, where it is available. Still other couples feel that, whilst they would vow to do anything to stay together for life, having the government as the agent discouraging divorce is subjugation to authoritarianism, and covenant marriages still have an unacceptably high failure rate (up to 20% from my memory), so they would instead rely on their own self-sufficient ways to keep their marriage intact for life. Some of these choices may take a form of the modern legal-social institution of marriage, some may come under another title, and some may be able to sit side by side with the standard legal marriage contract. What matters is they all honour the tradition of two people vowing to commit exclusively to each other for life, using the method considered most appropriate by the couple themselves.
This diversity also applies in the case of same sex marriages. Society now has to deal with how to include same sex couples in the social fabric, after their unfortunate exclusion for many centuries. Long stading traditions are being called to adapt to this new demand. Whilst I strongly believe in extending the institution of marriage to same sex couples as I believe they too should be benefitted by the tradition, and I also believe that laws everywhere should be changed in line with the principle of equality before the law (the US Supreme Court has recently agreed with me here), I do believe that those who sincerely believe in marriages being only between a man and a woman should be afforded their freedom of conscience. This includes churches and individuals. They should be able to perform, partake in, and recognise marriage only according to their personal beliefs.
Marriage is a long standing tradition, and like any tradition that lives and thrives over countless generations, adaptation to changing circumstances and hence evolution by diversification is inevitable. To say that there is only one way to honour the ancient tradition of marriage is necessarily wrong and maladaptive. What is important is that the original spirit of marriage continues to be honored in modern society, and is not forgotten in future generations.
Things have changed, and not for the better, I believe. Marriage has since been usurped by the government, and any road back to marriage privatization will be long and difficult (although we must not give up). Some celebrities have also, regrettably, trampled on the institution of marriage for their own publicity. Marriage is not always what it was, back then, nowadays.
Hence whilst we have to recognise that those who want to live the original spirit of marriage may now do so in a number of different ways. For example, there are some religious or very libertarian people who may object to the government being their God and ruling over their marriage. Such couples may choose to have a religious ceremony but not be legally married. On the other hand, other couples may choose a form of 'covenant marriage', wanting legally stricter rules for divorce, where it is available. Still other couples feel that, whilst they would vow to do anything to stay together for life, having the government as the agent discouraging divorce is subjugation to authoritarianism, and covenant marriages still have an unacceptably high failure rate (up to 20% from my memory), so they would instead rely on their own self-sufficient ways to keep their marriage intact for life. Some of these choices may take a form of the modern legal-social institution of marriage, some may come under another title, and some may be able to sit side by side with the standard legal marriage contract. What matters is they all honour the tradition of two people vowing to commit exclusively to each other for life, using the method considered most appropriate by the couple themselves.
This diversity also applies in the case of same sex marriages. Society now has to deal with how to include same sex couples in the social fabric, after their unfortunate exclusion for many centuries. Long stading traditions are being called to adapt to this new demand. Whilst I strongly believe in extending the institution of marriage to same sex couples as I believe they too should be benefitted by the tradition, and I also believe that laws everywhere should be changed in line with the principle of equality before the law (the US Supreme Court has recently agreed with me here), I do believe that those who sincerely believe in marriages being only between a man and a woman should be afforded their freedom of conscience. This includes churches and individuals. They should be able to perform, partake in, and recognise marriage only according to their personal beliefs.
Marriage is a long standing tradition, and like any tradition that lives and thrives over countless generations, adaptation to changing circumstances and hence evolution by diversification is inevitable. To say that there is only one way to honour the ancient tradition of marriage is necessarily wrong and maladaptive. What is important is that the original spirit of marriage continues to be honored in modern society, and is not forgotten in future generations.
Commitment in the New Age
Relationships between people have become less permanent over the past few decades, and this has let to a lot of pain and misery for many people. Is life meant to be this way? I don't think so. I think we have lost the culture of commitment, and we need to restore it.
The traditional marriage relationship serves as a good inspiration. Two people make their vows to each other, and commit for life (for the record I don't agree with the government usurption of marriage in the 1700s, turning it into a legal contract)*. When people took this more seriously, relationships often did last for life. On the other hand, many of my friends don't believe in marriage nowadays. That's okay too, each person should be able to find the path of commitment most suitable for them. What's important is that traditional and non-traditional couples alike can take commitment seriously, and try their best to make it life-long.
Restoring commitment culture is essential for the future survival of our communities. It should be a high priority in today's world, and it's also something we can work together towards.
*Whilst I totally believe in marriage, my strong view is that the vows to keep each other for life is what makes a marriage. Therefore, I see 'private marriages' as equally dignified and meaningful, and I believe anyone who isn't a fascist should also do so. Google 'marriage privatization' to learn more.
The traditional marriage relationship serves as a good inspiration. Two people make their vows to each other, and commit for life (for the record I don't agree with the government usurption of marriage in the 1700s, turning it into a legal contract)*. When people took this more seriously, relationships often did last for life. On the other hand, many of my friends don't believe in marriage nowadays. That's okay too, each person should be able to find the path of commitment most suitable for them. What's important is that traditional and non-traditional couples alike can take commitment seriously, and try their best to make it life-long.
Restoring commitment culture is essential for the future survival of our communities. It should be a high priority in today's world, and it's also something we can work together towards.
*Whilst I totally believe in marriage, my strong view is that the vows to keep each other for life is what makes a marriage. Therefore, I see 'private marriages' as equally dignified and meaningful, and I believe anyone who isn't a fascist should also do so. Google 'marriage privatization' to learn more.
A New Liberal Consensus
What does the word 'liberal' mean nowadays? It's a question worth asking. In North America, there has long been a distortion of the word to just mean big government and leftism, whilst in Australia, it is the name of what has become the major conservative party, a party that does not even support the freedom to marry for gay couples. Neither definition seems very 'liberal' to me.
In fact, the word 'liberal' has an inherent meaning, much like conservative or socialist. It means to support freedom. Of course, how this freedom is interpreted differs amongst individuals, but surely it doesn't mean taxation without representation or opposing the freedom to marry. We need to reclaim this word by strengthening awareness about what liberalism is (and what it is not).
All liberals should support freedom above any other ideology. A liberal may be conservative, progressive, pro-business, pro-environment, religious or atheist, or everything in between, but they must respect liberty above all else. Whilst they may have their own beliefs, they must not force it onto others. In politics, liberty must be their main game, and in upholding this liberty, they must not use the power of the state to force their beliefs onto others. For example, a liberal is free to not approve of same sex marriages personally, but should still vote for the freedom to marry. On the other hand, a liberal may be personally angry about climate sceptics not supporting more climate action, but has to fully understand that the mutual respect of each individual's personal conscience and the upholding of the principle of governments only levying taxes when there is a mandate to do so are too important to sacrifice in any case, and therefore will not use the climate emergency to justify distorting these principles.
Liberals may otherwise still have disagreements on policy and ideology. For example, some liberals believe that lower taxation and freer markets are always the key to freedom, whilst others believe that freedom would only equally be available to the poor and disadvantaged if a strong welfare safety net is available. Some liberals believe in gun control, citing that it is a right for citizens to be able to roam the streets without fear, whilst others believe that the right to bear arms is more important. Either way, these are all valid disagreements for liberals to have, because they are all about how freedom is to be maintained. Therefore, liberalism should be a broad church. I believe the consensus should be that everyone who truly believes in liberty for all should be allowed in, even though this welcome should not extend to encompass those who seek to take away others' liberty for any other ideological agenda (whether it is religious values, environmentalism, upholding tradition, or feminism).
In fact, the word 'liberal' has an inherent meaning, much like conservative or socialist. It means to support freedom. Of course, how this freedom is interpreted differs amongst individuals, but surely it doesn't mean taxation without representation or opposing the freedom to marry. We need to reclaim this word by strengthening awareness about what liberalism is (and what it is not).
All liberals should support freedom above any other ideology. A liberal may be conservative, progressive, pro-business, pro-environment, religious or atheist, or everything in between, but they must respect liberty above all else. Whilst they may have their own beliefs, they must not force it onto others. In politics, liberty must be their main game, and in upholding this liberty, they must not use the power of the state to force their beliefs onto others. For example, a liberal is free to not approve of same sex marriages personally, but should still vote for the freedom to marry. On the other hand, a liberal may be personally angry about climate sceptics not supporting more climate action, but has to fully understand that the mutual respect of each individual's personal conscience and the upholding of the principle of governments only levying taxes when there is a mandate to do so are too important to sacrifice in any case, and therefore will not use the climate emergency to justify distorting these principles.
Liberals may otherwise still have disagreements on policy and ideology. For example, some liberals believe that lower taxation and freer markets are always the key to freedom, whilst others believe that freedom would only equally be available to the poor and disadvantaged if a strong welfare safety net is available. Some liberals believe in gun control, citing that it is a right for citizens to be able to roam the streets without fear, whilst others believe that the right to bear arms is more important. Either way, these are all valid disagreements for liberals to have, because they are all about how freedom is to be maintained. Therefore, liberalism should be a broad church. I believe the consensus should be that everyone who truly believes in liberty for all should be allowed in, even though this welcome should not extend to encompass those who seek to take away others' liberty for any other ideological agenda (whether it is religious values, environmentalism, upholding tradition, or feminism).
Rehabilitating Traditional Values
I believe that some traditional values, like a lifelong commitment to one's partner and family, public modesty, and modesty in the entertainment sphere, and associated lifestyle habits, like saying no to 'recreational' drugs, are conducive to living a great life. As much as I know that these are great values to have, however, I do know that just this preceding sentence will have made some readers uncomfortable. As a result, this is a topic we don't often get to talk about in public. And it is something we need to address.
I believe the reason why certain traditional values have almost become a taboo topic is because some of the people that have been proponents of these values in the past few decades have been judgemental. We need to change this image. For example, whilst I may be a proponent of the 'just say no to drugs' movement, I am also not going to be judgemental towards any drug user. In fact, I am of the opinion that what they do should not come under legal punishment, although I know that too may be controversial in some circles. In other words, although I live by this 'just say no' principle and I am proud to promote it from time to time, unlike many other people I don't feel that I am morally superior to drug users because of their lifestyle choice. It's just that I propose and promote what I believe to be a better lifestyle choice. The same principle can be applied to many other things in life.
The traditional values movement has a right to promote its values. However, it really doesn't have a right to treat those who don't follow as inferior or less moral in any way. Like any other movement, we need to attract followers by standing on our own merits. And being judgmental is never going to be viewed nicely.
I believe the reason why certain traditional values have almost become a taboo topic is because some of the people that have been proponents of these values in the past few decades have been judgemental. We need to change this image. For example, whilst I may be a proponent of the 'just say no to drugs' movement, I am also not going to be judgemental towards any drug user. In fact, I am of the opinion that what they do should not come under legal punishment, although I know that too may be controversial in some circles. In other words, although I live by this 'just say no' principle and I am proud to promote it from time to time, unlike many other people I don't feel that I am morally superior to drug users because of their lifestyle choice. It's just that I propose and promote what I believe to be a better lifestyle choice. The same principle can be applied to many other things in life.
The traditional values movement has a right to promote its values. However, it really doesn't have a right to treat those who don't follow as inferior or less moral in any way. Like any other movement, we need to attract followers by standing on our own merits. And being judgmental is never going to be viewed nicely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Let's rewind to 2016. Oberlin Banh-mi-gate was perhaps one of the most memorable episodes of 2010s cultural nonsense. It was memorable n...
-
I think it could be more popular than right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism In recent years, I've come to identify as both a cent...
-
He was the perfect trap the far-left set for us Back in 2018-19, when Jordan Peterson was at his peak, and going around promoting his critic...
