Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Whoisjohngalt

Regulars
  • Posts

    128
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Whoisjohngalt

  1. What about polygamy leads you to conclude that it is either uncivilized or primitive? And as Inspector alluded to, why do you think it violates anyone's right such that it should be "banned"?

    In a polygamous marriage, all the wives may not be fully satisfied by the husband. Actually, I don't think it violates anyone's rights as such.

  2. [Mod's note: merged with earlier thread. sN]

    What do the members think about polygamy? Should it be made legal for anyone to choose to be a polygamist?

    If you ask me, I think polygamy is barbaric and should be banned.

    Just wanted to know the thoughts of others here.

  3. Anyway, my point in raising the issue of sharia law in India was to show how the Indian government is encouraging Islamic fundamentalism by refusing to push for reforms in the Islamic community. India is the only country where muslims are paid by the tax-payers' money to go to Mecca for Haj! If this is seperation of state and church, then I am Emperor Ashoka. :thumbsup:

    The worship of death and destruction that is inherent in religion was institutionalised in India by Gandhi through slogans like sarva-dharma-samabhav ("equal respect for all religions") which has resulted in unrestrained support of religion by the government.

    On a side note, not too surprisingly, Gandhi's followers, after his death, quickly migrated to socialism, under which India has been suffering ever since independence.

  4. If adult men and women want to be in this type of contractual arrangement with each other, I don't see why the government should object.
    Ok.

    Is rationality the legal standard or is individual rights the standard? For instance, if a billionaire signs a prenuptial agreement with a penniless fiancee promising her half his fortune if they are divorced for any reason whatever, would the law need to make a judgement of whether that is rational or irrational? Or, is it enough for the law to say it will be upheld as a valid contract as no rights were violated in its making?
    I think the 2nd option would be the right one. BTW should these posts be moved into a seperate thread?
  5. Let's see: they built India's railways, the telegraph, ports, and plantations. The two points one which the British are usually criticized are:
    • The fact that British rulers took gold and diamonds from Indian rulers. I know Indians who point to the Kohinoor diamond in the British crown as a symbol of their "evil".
    • The accusation that they did not let industry grow as it would have, because they wanted to keep India as a supplier of raw-material, while they would encourage their factories in the home country to make finished goods

    Neither of these is points is valid. Are there others that you were thinking of?

    You are listing the positive points of the Raj and I do not disagree with them. But, the fact that artificial poverty and starvation were imposed on Indians is a blot on that rule. I have not gone through any trustworthy data on 19th century economics in India, but I remember reading in one of Will Durant's books that the Vijayanagara Empire was the richest state in the medieval world. But are you saying India would anyway have been poor if the British had not come?
  6. No, I'm not speaking of freedom of religion as such (thoughb it is closely related). I am asking about the freedom of two individuals to make a contract that they think is fit (assuming that the contract does not contain violence, etc.). In the case of a marriage contract, should the government insist on a single set of rules, or should a couple be allowed to frame their own contract.

    As for Sharia, I'd like to make it clear that I think it is evil. However, there is Saudi sharia and there is Malaysian sharia and there is the tiny sliver of sharia that is practice under Indian law. I am only talking about the Indian verson.

    Actually, I know of many muslim men in India with multiple wives. What do you think of this? As to your question, as long as the couple make rational arrangements in the contract, I don't see why I'd oppose the existence of multiple types of marriage contracts, although I don't know the status of this kind of law in other non-Islamic democratic countries.
  7. Okay, let me try this another way. Let us say that India does away with Muslim marriage law. Now, having done away with it, let's suppose a Muslim couple want to get married and want to draw up a specific marriage contract, with terms and conditions of their own choosing. Also, suppose they get many of their ideas about their contract from traditional Muslim law. Let's say they codify this in their marriage contract. Suppose they agree on a mechanism that would indicate divorce (e.g., three un-coerced declarations of a desire to divorce by either side, made without any intervening reconciliation, and each not made less than a day apart); also suppose they decide that in the event of such a divorce the husband will pay the wife a lump-sum amount of Rupees 5 million.

    Note, I am speaking of a private contract with some conditions, not a standard contract recognized as being standard. If we assume that the contract does not contain clauses allowing the guy to beat his wife and such, do you think the law should uphold the terms of that private contract?

    I don't know ehat you are driving at, but I think you are talking about religious freedom here. Thats a different issue altogether. IMO religious freedom along with freedom of speech and freedom of thought should increase in India. What do you think? BTW, read up on sharia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia. There is nothing worse than this for either muslims or non-muslims. This is barbaric and deserves to be left in the medieval ages.
  8. Raiding armies that conquer and destroy are different from armies that seek to rob. A thief is not a nihilist; an arsonist might be, if his primary motivation is the act of arson itself. Colonialists mostly set up colonies. They sought to extract value, not to destroy for the sake of destruction.

    I don't think thievery was the essence of British colonialism; but, I won't repeat stuff that is already in the thread. My point is that even if thievery was their primary motive, it isn't nihilism. So, call the British colonial destroyers and thieves, if you wish; but, not nihilists.

    Well, I called those who seek physical dominance over other by destroying other people as nihilists. Again, I'm not sure about the exact motives of the British imperialists. When I thought about it, I figured it had to be trade. They did not do much physical damage, but the economic damage is quite evident.

  9. Not sure if you meant this particular "Political Philosophy" sub-forum, or OO.net as a whole; so, just to clarify, it is fine to discuss a wide variety of subjects as long as they're in the right sub-forum. As for Political Philosophy, History is the base from which it draws its referents. History is the source of examples that form the basis. With a topic like colonialism, it is impossible to discuss it at any length without discussing history.
    Thanks for the clarification.

    Why nihilistic? Do you think that destruction of the colony was the motive of colonial powers?
    Well, the result of the colonisation was destruction of human beings. I cannot comment on the motives of the colonialists as historians are varied in opinion regarding their motives which may range from religion (Islamic conquests), prosperity (Columbus's search for India), desire for physical domination (Nazi colonialisation). But I think all the colonialist motives could be reduced to the last one which is pretty much nihilism.
  10. Okay, thanks for the clarification. (Though, the way you describe it, one would not be able to say that "multiculturalism is good", just that it is true or false.)
    Yes, but do you have an alternative definition of it?

    These laws acknowledge that people from different communities follow different legal conventions. It is not an issue of whether these are good conventions. From a legal viewpoint, if these conventions do not violate rights they may be upheld. Now, some of these conventions cannot be allowed to continue: so, no more chopping off hands for stealing. However, other conventions are not right-violating. E.g., if someone wants to agree on a divorce-price at the time of marriage, there's no rights-violation in that. In fact, it's just a different legal mechanism, and may even have some merits.
    I am sorry, but I think sharia law is barbaric and it does not have any merits whatsoever, just as the Hindu scriptural laws are not valid today.

    Take a similar example. Suppose the U.S. were to merge with another country, which followed the French Napoleonic system of justice. It would be fine to allow certain elements of that system to remain in place, if they do not violate rights. This does not imply that the French must necessarily have a system of their own, just that they do. Allowing such a system to remain is not a bow to multiculturalism. It is a bow to existing practice and existing understanding of family contracts.
    But unfortunately, India has never "merged" with any country. All the people in India (including muslims) have been living there for thousands of years. In such a case, maintaining communal differences and claiming to be a "secular" state (as the Indian constitution does) is absurd.

    Much worse than the application of these conventions to family law is the new Hindu assertiveness that has disallowed religious conversions. That is the true threat to individual freedom.
    IMO, this may be a strawman. Just substituting one mystical irrationality with another is stupid. In fact I think the lack of freedom for individuals who criticise religions is a more dangerous trend in India as we are seeing with the recent Islamic cartoons and Pope controversies. I support the so-called "new Hindu assertiveness" as it actually allows for individual freedom in trying to continue in the same religion as they are born. Anyway, I would like to see India move past religion of all sorts and adopt genuine secualrism in all aspects of life.
  11. Whoisjohngalt,

    The question isn't whether British colonialism, with its socialist elements, was bad (compared to Capitalism, it was). It's a question of whether it was worse than the all-crushing caste-system which preceded it. Yes, it allowed for socialist elements to infiltrate the culture of India. But the culture of India was already collectivist/statist for thousands of years. But consider that it also allowed the ideas of Capitalism, reason, and rights to infiltrate the culture of India.

    That is true. This is not a forum to debate history (not with my knowledge of it at least :lol: ). Ideologically I disagree with colonialism as I think its just a nihilistic incursion of some powerful people into another country. I am not a pacifist though.
  12. Well, from the perspective of the entirety of Indian history I could see how you'd think that I was referring to The Glorious Raj, whereas I was primarily referring to the developments of the past few years. I am aware that the majority of the population of India is still living in Traditional India, but I'm predicting that the trend of moving to Modern India will continue and accelerate. Vimana salesman will be replaced by Mercedes salesman, because Mercedes salesman actually deliver their product.
    Vimana salesman :lol:

    I don't think describing the British Raj as "glorious" would be doing justice. But yes, during the last 10 or 15 years, our economy is slowly transforming into an open market.

    And yes, the majority of Indians are still farmers.

  13. So, the practice in India is to allow for different "standardized interpretations" of these types of implicit agreements based on religion, while allowing people to opt out. This practice predates independence. It comes from the British era. I think it was pretty smart of the British to have adopted this: have a uniform Penal code, a uniform contract law, and respect existing implicit contracts in marriage and inheritance, based on prevailing norms in each community.

    Actually I am quite surprised reading the above lines as this imples that multi-culturalism is good. :worry:

    I think that the personal law boards must be scrapped immediately and a uniform civil law should come into place, but I know I may look like this: :lol: and I know not many Indians will agree with me. :P

  14. Regarding the British rule in India, it was evil precisely because because socialism is evil. They too looted India much like the socialists are doing now for the past 60 years. On the question of whether all colonialism is bad, I wouldn't know the answer as I don't know how badly the Native Americans or the Australian aborigines or the South American natives were affected by the colonialists.

    Moreover, objectivism requires that you have a pride of being and that pride can be sustained only if the natives have it inherently and not as a colonially induced pride (like saying "I am proud to be colonialised"). Moreover we cannot say a somewhat woolly word like "modern" is always good, as it is in the modern times that reason and freedom are threatened the most by some evil idealogies (I think this is mentioned in Atlas Shrugged). Therefore I am against accepting any thing blindly albeit it be allegedly "modern".

  15. The pro-Islam socialists and other leftists have nurtured the demon of Islam in India. Communists in the Kerala state have created a seperate district for muslims! Just shows how low these people will go for the "common good". The leftists here are politically surviving helped a great deal by the votes of devout sharia following muslims (the medieval sharia law has been in force in India since independence. B) )!

    Take a look at http://www.news.faithfreedom.org for the latest on Islam if you already haven't.

    [spun off a separate thread on "Sharia Law in India". - sN]

  16. First, this reference to "Western Civilisation" does not mean, generically, "any civilisation of Europe" or "everything done in the west", it really refers to the civilisation rooted in Ancient Greece. Second, it doesn't mean just those developments taking place geographically in Western Europe. Modern Japan, for example (as Maarten pointed out), is largely a part of the civilization that we mean; that would also include Modern India, but not Traditional India. This is a factual claim -- if you think that the philosophical and cultural developments of the Aztecs were superior to that of the west, you can make your argument.

    Also remember that Western civilisation is still alive, so when we speak admiringly of Western civilisation, we're talking about something actually alive now. Ancient Chinese civilisation, Mayan civilisation, and the "Golden Age" Islamic civilisation (of the caliphate of Baghdad) are extinct. Classical Indian civilisation has given way (is giving way) to expending Western civilisation. The same with China -- in bits and pieces, the Chinese are slowly embracing Western civilisation. If you want to compare Western civilisation with a "competitor", it would have to be an extinct civilisation. What the West is marginally competing with, in Islam, is not a civilisation.

    The tradition of thought as a continuation of the Greek civilisation is a very important point you bring up. There was a lot of give and take between the Greeks and the Indians as I learn from the history books. India too is "competing" with Islam but we are largely crippled by lack of freedom and rationalism.

    On the other hand, do you think the christian influence on the western civilisation has been something worthwhile or natural or is it a sore-spot, because Christianity had cut off all freedom and rationality during the Dark Ages?

    I agree with most of your other points. But, living in India, I know that the so-called "modern" India is really a mockery on the term. The British rule left us impoverished (we were the richest people before that) and the disease of socialism/communism that had taken over the minds of our political class was largely a result of "British socialism" or Fabian socialism introduced to Indian intellectuals from England. I feel socialism/communism is a carryover of the religious dogma and clerical control over society. The most fundamementalist marxists/stalinists/leninists exist in India even today. There is really no intellectual freedom here. I mean, the moment one is discovered as an anti-communist, one's prospects are not too good. B) India has been ever since independence controlled by the "looters" as Rand called them. But thankfully, a few people are waking up to freedom with the rise of free market.

  17. In short, it is very much based on the fact that for all its faults Western Civilisation is orders of magnitude better than other cultures/civilisations in terms of how much freedom and respect of rights (real rights) there is in the countries that are commonly seen as part of this civilisation. I think it's mainly the far greater respect for rights and the influence of reason on the development of this civilisation that makes many Objectivists defend Western Civilisation.
    I agree that Western civilisation has more respect on rights and reason has influenced the development of this civilisation. Are you saying no other civilisation has such qualities? If so I think that this may be a dogmatic/irrational position.

    If one interprets support for western civilization as implying that it is superior because it is in the west, I could see that one would think that's illogical: after all, how can its longitude make it a better civilization? (Surely, latitude has more influence on human life than longitude does.). If location did not do it, then what did? These people in the west were lighter skinned than humans in some other parts of the globe. However, even though white civilization is superior, it is not so because it was white.

    ....

    softwareNerd, would you agree that any civilisation that supports rational thinking, freedom and the like would be "objectivistically" worth defending? I thought this is what your words imply.

  18. Hi all,

    I wanted to know how much objectivism is tied to "Western civilisation"? I have read some articles by objectivists and the authors seem to consider themselves as defenders of "Western civilisation". What is the position of objectivists on non-western civilisations? I am skeptical about such defending the so-called western civilisation as it sounds too White-racish. I am not accusing anybody here. Just wanted to know the general mood. :)

×
×
  • Create New...