Hi Dawie For another view of "positive freedom" at work, you might want to have a look at Japan's system. The Japanese defer to "the society", they're immersed in it, or perhaps drowned, from the Western point of view. Western-style individualism is frowned on, it's seen as aggressive, and likely to disturb the all-important peace of the society. So "negative freedom" wouldn't seem to have much value.
The way local hierarchies work is an example. They're at least twofold: first, there's the pecking order within the family, and within the clan, and among clans (it's patriarchal), and second, the contact between local authorities and residents. In Ichichima, all the houses had loudspeakers installed that were hard-wired to the Town Office, and had no volume control (they were loud), nor an on-off switch. Each evening at 7.30 it blared a half-hour message from the village chief and/or the local authorities. (We cut the wire.) In Tamba, which was richer, the Town Office had run a fibre-optic cable into all the houses, connected to the TV set, which, I suppose, did at least have a remote and an off switch. (It also served as a broadband Internet connection.) There didn't seem to be any interactive aspect, strictly top-down. Our house didn't have a cable because it had been empty for so long and nobody was ever going to live there again (it was haunted). What we did have though was the village-wide public address system, an impressive set-up, high-fidelity sound, impossible to avoid. Each day at appointed times it played six different jingles, starting at 5.30 am, last one at 9 pm. Awful jingles, I can still hear them now (wince). It reminded me of something. When I was a lad I saw the 1960 version of The Time Machine, with Rod Taylor. The future world of the Eloi and the Morlocks was post-apocalyptic, and when the evil Warlocks harvested the day's supply of Eloi airheads into their noisome caves they simply sounded an air-raid siren, and the sheep obligingly herded themselves to safety in the air-raid shelter, it didn't even need a judas goat. Midori also thought that was interesting, so we watched the 2002 version of the movie, directed by Simon Wells, who's HG's great-grandson, so he should have got it right. But it wasn't there - no air-raid sirens. So I read the book, and it wasn't in the book either. Damn. Anyway, the point stands, with or without HG - George Pal, who directed the 1960 movie, was a Hungarian, maybe he'd seen his share of war and bombs. And in Tamba, the 9pm jingle wasn't actually a jingle, it was a siren. Outsiders tend not to see this kind of stuff in Japan. Of course there are other factors at play, it's not quite that stark, though I don't know whether it's based on traditional practices or something new. I'm not sure the locals were even conscious of the jingles, maybe it's just background noise to them, but I don't think that makes any difference. I can't help trusting my instinct that it's basically sinister, but maybe it's benign in the Japanese context - though the authorities' thoroughly lousy record in keeping the society informed after the 3/11 disaster wouldn't seem to confirm that. Strangely, it left them looking more like Pavlov's dogs than Morlocks, disinfo and lies and cover-ups were so ingrained in them they didn't seem capable of anything else, while very many of the individual (!) members of "the society" turned out to be a lot less air-headed than they might have seemed. Anyway, I'm not sure it makes much sense to apply Berlin's standards to Japan. I doubt it's the only exception. I came upon this snippet on neocons, from James Zogby: >... The neo-conservative movement began in the 1960's and 1970's as >a reaction by some Democrats to the policies of the Soviet Union. >Some of the early founders of this current had even been Socialists, >but were driven by anti-Communism, especially the USSR's attitude to >Israel and its own Jewish citizens, to seek more extreme ways of >confronting that regime. As they became increasingly disenchanted >with what they described as the Democrats' "soft" attitude toward >fighting the cold war, many drifted to the Republican party. When >they were welcomed into the Reagan campaign in the late 1970's, >their transformation was complete. > >Interestingly enough it was at this same time that the U.S. >neo-conservatives developed a relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu >in Israel. Netanyahu had invited many of those influential writers >and commentators to a working conference in Jerusalem to discuss how >to end the Democrats' "fixation on human rights" and replace it with >a campaign against "terror" as the dominant theme in U.S. foreign >policy. http://www.aaiusa.org/ Washington Watch, James Zogby, May 13, 2002: Understanding America's Right Wing Re this: >It is equally obvious that the political right have been >manipulating this impulse of normal people's for a very long time >now. But I repeat that the ideological device they have been using >to do so is small, a slight prismatic twist which distorts the >entire scene; and that twist is the spectre of corporate personhood. >... Indeed, but there's another device as well, neither small nor slight: Fundamentally Unsound Michelle Goldberg, Salon August 2, 2002 http://www.salon.com/2002/07/29/left_behind/ And here: <http://www.mail-archive.com/search?q=fundamentally+unsound&l=sustainablelorgbiofuel%40sustainablelists.org> George Monbiot also wrote about it: "Their beliefs are bonkers, but they are at the heart of power - US Christian fundamentalists are driving Bush's Middle East policy" George Monbiot The Guardian, Tuesday 20 April 2004 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/apr/20/usa.uselections2004> That deserves a further look, IMHO - it hasn't exactly got any better. There's this too: The "Pathological Dishonesty" Disease http://www.amasci.com/maglev/levbill1.html "The people of the lie." All best Keith >Once again George Monbiot narrowly fails to nail it. > >I wholly applaud his reference to Isaiah Berlin, though a cursory >dip into the essay he mentions reveals that the issues are rather >more complex than should allow for a conclusion reducable to, "The >great political conflict of our age - between neocons and the >millionaires and corporations they support on one side and social >justice campaigners and environmentalists on the other - has been >mischaracterised as a clash between negative and positive freedoms." >For a start, the distinction between negative and positive freedoms >is more complex than that, though Monbiot commendably seems to admit >as much. The distinction is so complex that I cannot see myself >finally making up my mind whether on the whole I agree with >Monbiot's reading of the situation or not. > >Berlin's distinction in the original is subtly different from the >usual usage of the respective terms. The questions thus opened up >are both interesting and frustrating, as they ever tend to deflect >us from the thing we know and for which we use the term 'liberty'. >Nevertheless the distinction is indispensible, for it exists to >conserve the "negative" sense as a rationally intelligible idea >against the linguistic abuses that would wholly submerge it in the >"positive" sense: which project attests to a conviction that the >"negative" sense (and its object) is valuable. > > >Indeed the native and, to my mind, valid apprehension of what we >might call the Western Middle is clear enough: it is the fear of the >Nazi Third Reich, of Stalin's Soviet Union, of every tin-pot >dictatorship in fact, fiction, or fantasy suddenly manifesting about >their ears. This is not an engineered construct: the Western Middle >have not been hypnotized or brainwashed into this fear. Nor has >their love for the contrary condition, be it real or illusory, been >implanted by devious means. And when they see in the acts of their >respective governments the shadow of totalitarianism they react as >anyone might, with suspicion. This is why they tend to take a dim >view of increasing regulation of their own lives; it is nothing the >political right told them. > >It is equally obvious that the political right have been >manipulating this impulse of normal people's for a very long time >now. But I repeat that the ideological device they have been using >to do so is small, a slight prismatic twist which distorts the >entire scene; and that twist is the spectre of corporate personhood. >Without that twist the fundamental enmity between the corporations >and the people is eminently clear: for by that twist is the key >question of scale excluded from the debate.Ironically it is >precisely the question of scale which Monbiot fails to incorporate. > > >Otherwise the logical progression is to a Proudhonian analysis of >the structural preconditions for the sort of corporate acts we wish >to see abolished: how the very scope for significant damage is >predicated on the existence of a certain sort of political >landscape. And that takes us from the barren realm of compromise, of >conflicts of "negative" liberties resoluble only by severe >limitation of all, or of two people standing nose to nose, both >content at least to have completed half their respective journeys >even though neither journey makes any sense but for the expectation >of reaching its destination; and into the fertile realm of >innovation, where the liberty of both is for all intents and >purposes wholly restored by the significantly insignificant >agreement on which direction to take half a step sideways. And thus >the trajectories of liberty become elements of design (paradoxically >because design is control) and that enables solutions. It's my > metaphor of old, if indeed it is a metaphor: it's all about the >trellis, because pointing a gun at the vine won't work. > >Regards > >Dawie Coetzee > > > > > >>________________________________ >> From: Dave Hajoglou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org >>Sent: Wednesday, 21 December 2011, 1:17 >>Subject: [Biofuel] How Freedom Became Tyranny >> >>http://www.monbiot.com/2011/12/19/how-freedom-became-tyranny/ >> >>Rightwing libertarians have turned "freedom" into an excuse for greed and >>exploitation. >> >>By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian >><http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/19/bastardised-libertarianism-makes-freedom-oppression>20th >>December 2011 >> >>Freedom: who could object? Yet this word is now used to justify a thousand >>forms of exploitation. Throughout the rightwing press and blogosphere, >>among thinktanks and governments, the word excuses every assault on the >>lives of the poor, every form of inequality and intrusion to which the 1% >>subject us. How did libertarianism, once a noble impulse, become synonymous >>with injustice? >> >>In the name of freedom - freedom from regulation - the banks were permitted >>to wreck the economy. In the name of freedom, taxes for the super-rich are >>cut. In the name of freedom, companies lobby to drop the minimum wage and >>raise working hours. In the same cause, US insurers lobby Congress to >>thwart effective public healthcare; the government rips up our planning >>laws(1); big business trashes the biosphere. This is the freedom of the >>powerful to exploit the weak, the rich to exploit the poor. >> >>Right-wing libertarianism recognises few legitimate constraints on the >>power to act, regardless of the impact on the lives of others. In the UK it >>is forcefully promoted by groups like the TaxPayers' Alliance, the Adam >>Smith Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs and Policy Exchange(2). >>Their conception of freedom looks to me like nothing but a justification >>for greed. >> >>So why have been been so slow to challenge this concept of liberty? I >>believe that one of the reasons is as follows. The great political conflict > >of our age - between neocons and the millionaires and corporations they >>support on one side and social justice campaigners and environmentalists on >>the other - has been mischaracterised as a clash between negative and >>positive freedoms. >> >>These freedoms were most clearly defined by Isaiah Berlin in his essay of >>1958, Two Concepts of Liberty(3). It is a work of beauty: reading it is >>like listening to a gloriously crafted piece of music. I will try not to >>mangle it too badly. >> >>Put briefly and crudely, negative freedom is the freedom to be or to act >>without interference from other people. Positive freedom is freedom from >>inhibition: it's the power gained by transcending social or psychological >>constraints. Berlin explained how positive freedom had been abused by >>tyrannies, particularly by the Soviet Union. It portrayed its brutal >>governance as the empowerment of the people, who could achieve a higher >>freedom by subordinating themselves to a collective single will. >> >>Rightwing libertarians claim that greens and social justice campaigners are > >closet communists trying to resurrect Soviet conceptions of positive >>freedom. In reality the battle mostly consists of a clash between negative >>freedoms. >> > >As Berlin noted, "no man's activity is so completely private as never to >>obstruct the lives of others in any way. 'Freedom for the pike is death for > >the minnows'". So, he argued, some people's freedom must sometimes be >>curtailed "to secure the freedom of others." In other words, your freedom >>to swung your fist ends where my nose begins. The negative freedom not to >>have our noses punched is the freedom that green and social justice >>campaigns, exemplified by the Occupy movement, exist to defend. >> >>Berlin also shows that freedom can intrude upon other values, such as >>justice, equality or human happiness. "If the liberty of myself or my class >>or nation depends on the misery of a number of other human beings, the >>system which promotes this is unjust and immoral." It follows that the > >state should impose legal restraints upon freedoms which interfere with >>other people's freedoms - or on freedoms which conflict with justice and >>humanity. >> >>These conflicts of negative freedom were summarised in one of the greatest > >poems of the 19th Century, which could be seen as the founding document of >>British environmentalism. In The Fallen Elm, John Clare describes the >>felling of the tree he loved, presumably by his landlord, that grew beside >>his home(4). "Self-interest saw thee stand in freedom's ways/So thy old >>shadow must a tyrant be./Thou'st heard the knave, abusing those in >>power,/Bawl freedom loud and then oppress the free." >> >>The landlord was exercising his freedom to cut the tree down. In doing so, >>he was intruding upon Clare's freedom to delight in the tree, whose >>existence enhanced his life. The landlord justifies this destruction by >>characterising the tree as an impediment to freedom: his freedom, which he >>conflates with the general liberty of humankind. Without the involvement of >>the state (which today might take the form of a tree preservation order) >>the powerful man could trample the pleasures of the powerless man. Clare >>then compares the felling of the tree with further intrusions on his >>liberty. "Such was thy ruin, music-making elm;/The right of freedom was to >>injure thine:/As thou wert served, so would they overwhelm/In freedom's >>name the little that is mine." >> >>But rightwing libertarians do not recognise this conflict. They speak, like >>Clare's landlord, as if the same freedom affects everybody in the same way. >>They assert their freedom to pollute, exploit, even - among the gun nuts - >>to kill, as if these were fundamental human rights. They characterise any >>attempt to restrain them as tyranny. They refuse to see that there is a >>clash between the freedom of the pike and the freedom of the minnow. >> >>Last week, on an internet radio channel called The Fifth Column(5), I >>debated climate change with Claire Fox of the Institute of Ideas, one of >>the right-wing libertarian groups which rose from the ashes of the >>Revolutionary Communist Party(6). Claire Fox is a feared interrogator on >>the BBC show The Moral Maze. Yet when I asked her a simple question - "do >>you accept that some people's freedoms intrude upon other people's >>freedoms?" - I saw an ideology shatter like a windscreen. I used the >>example of a Romanian lead smelting plant I had visited in 2000, whose >>freedom to pollute is shortening the lives of its neighbours(7). Surely the >>plant should be regulated in order to enhance the negative freedoms - >>freedom from pollution, freedom from poisoning - of its neighbours? She >>tried several times to answer it, but nothing coherent emerged which would >>not send her crashing through the mirror of her philosophy. >> >>Modern libertarianism is the disguise adopted by those who wish to exploit >>without restraint. It pretends that only the state intrudes on our >>liberties. It ignores the role of banks, corporations and the rich in >>making us less free. It denies the need for the state to curb them in order >>to protect the freedoms of weaker people. This bastardised, one-eyed > >philosophy is a con trick, whose promoters attempt to wrongfoot justice by >>pitching it against liberty. By this means they have turned "freedom" into >>an instrument of oppression. >> >>www.monbiot.com >> >>References: >> >>1. http://www.monbiot.com/2011/09/06/making-a-mockery-of-localism/ >> >>2. http://www.monbiot.com/2011/09/12/think-of-a-tank/ >> >>3. >>http://www.wiso.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/wiso_vwl/johannes/Ankuendigungen/Berlin_twoconceptsofliberty.pdf >> >>4. http://www.poemhunter.com/best-poems/john-clare/the-fallen-elm/ >> >>5. >>http://www.thefifthcolumn.co.uk/the-interrogator/global-warming-does-it-matter/ >> >>6. http://www.monbiot.com/2003/12/09/invasion-of-the-entryists/ >> > >7. http://www.monbiot.com/2000/05/19/the-most-polluted-place-in-europe/ _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
