Apr
28
(in relation with the previous post)
Liberty is a reasonable idea, as slavery of any sort is condemnable.
As in Ayn Rand’s words “Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.”
Freedom of man from men, freedom of Individual from the collective group that is what civilization is. That surely doesn’t mean that Man should avoid groups, or society or community or nation and should live in solitude as a solipsist. What it means is, Man is free, he is not a slave of the society, and he is not bound to it. He has his free-will to decide to take part in some activity of a group as an individual, or to reject it.
It means that Man is free from the collective decision making authoritative system, and the Man is liable and is absolutely responsible for everything in his life with or without fault.
The degrees of Liberty in various societies differ accordingly with the attitudes and patterns of the collective group and individuals and that degree becomes obvious by studying the kinds of relations the members of the public makes. In a liberated society, obligations don’t exist. Man is rational animal; he has Mind, the ability to think right for himself and judge his actions according to the individual rights which are fundamentally natural and rationally sound, hence are unchangeable. In an unconventional, emancipated society the individuals have the freedom to opt for the relations they wish, and are not obligated into any association against their will. These relations includes the general emotional relations, such as companionships, activity meetings, friendships and marriages, philosophical relations, religious grouping, spiritual meetings and it embraces objective associations, such as trade, common property, business ventures, enterprises, contributions and charities.
This freedom and hence accountability in social/emotional relationships, is ruled by consent based agreements, and it depends on the involved Individual’s choice. By his reason and wisdom, he chooses his friends, companions and life-partner. Society has no say in it, it is the matter of those individual’s involved. As for example, if a group is agreeable for polyamory, or says homosexuality/lesbian relationships, then there remains no reason for anyone outside that group to prohibit it, or ban it, or to punish the individuals involved in such relations on behalf of polyamory.
Yet, the individual autonomy doesn’t banish the other individuals to criticize or express their views on such relations.
The freedom in substantial associations provides right to enter an association on common consent for mutual reciprocated benefits. It includes voluntary taxations, charities, and gifts.
Non-voluntary relations includes government taxes, obligatory charities, crime, curtailing on trade and market, licensing, authoritative regulations imposed on individuals as state duties in opposition to their own conclusion.
In a free society, Non-voluntary relations of either type (emotional or commercial) cannot exist. In Ayn Rand’s words “Government “help” to business is just as disastrous as government persecution… the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off. 
Yet, a positive acceptance is the requisite of a free society for other people’s viewpoint and relations. That tolerance doesn’t mean that one cannot criticize the wrong of it. Being a free individual, everyone has right to praise, or criticize the right/wrong he finds in others prospects, but that cannot be made mandatory or obligatory.
Freedom to express is a fundamental right, and dignity is always earned, it cannot be begged as right.
The political notion of such freedom is, every Individual has the same rights as everyone else has. That is, irrespective of his gender, class, philosophical, religious, racial, friendships, commercial associations and love relations, one will get equal treatment under the law as anybody else will get. This kind of tolerance is a pre-requisite of a free-society and it can be violated only by the use of force. Political inequity comprises of favoritism or prejudiced dealing with any group or person founded on any measure other than a person’s reverence for the rights of others. cases of political intolerance are reservations and quotas, in education and jobs based on caste, creed, religion or gender, government taxes which are not fixed and favors the poor or rich, licensing or limitations of business ventures based on religion, gender or market share of a person.
We can judge the degree of any society on these criteria.
Despite of being secular, India never remained politically tolerant and free. There always remained reservations and quotas based on castes, religion and gender. Discriminations between economic classes are obvious, and even today, the license system provides major hold in government’s hands. There are region based discriminations too. Not only that, even the individual is not so-free in general relations. Even now, the major marriages pattern in India remains arranged marriage system, where the choice of Individual matters less and adjustments, family/societal/religious obligations acts more. Inter-caste/ inter-religious marriages are yet opposed and attacked. Superstitious society still harasses individuals. Obviously, it all is violence against the Individuals of India. How will it change?
Evil requires the sanction of the victim.
Just opposite to political lenience, social acceptance is not judgmental of the degree of the liberty in the society. Social acceptance in a free-society acknowledges that no culture, way of life or vital principle system is superior to other.
Without expressing opposition, without condemning the wrong, one actually sanctions the wrong, and that is equivalent to be wrong. Hence, to criticize and oppose the wrong by the help of freedom of expression is must.
Virtually each person take on different types of social favoritism when they provide moral support and criticize, or decide to associate or dissociate with different people or communities based on their values or personalities.
In a free society, people should be politically tolerant, yet, socially uncompromising.
There can be no compromise on values and vital principle of an individual and there should not be any obligation about it and for that, social intolerance is necessary.
In a society, which does not use political ways and force to restrict destructive (but self-decided) attitudes and opinion, people rely on their own judgment by the rational faculty (mind) against such destructive attitudes and practices. Not only that, social intolerance, and freedom of speech provides rights to any individual to express his views against any wrong and condemn it. Doing so is necessary, because by doing so, individuals provides a reality check for each other and helps in eradicating the ill-ideas and attitudes from the society of free-individuals completely.
The Political correctness and tolerance provides a security for the Social intolerance too, by means of freedom of expression.
“A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others.”
Ayn Rand.
15 Responses to “Liberty, Tolerance, Freedom of expression and Political Correctness”
Leave a Reply
karthik Says:
April 28th, 2008 at 8:01 amnice post…last line is captivating..
Favela Cranshaw Says:
April 28th, 2008 at 11:30 amIt’s captivating because it is true and that is what Ayn Rand is famous for–truth.
gabrieal Says:
April 28th, 2008 at 3:41 pmAnd I’m a creative man…. but a l’le competiton always pushes me in the right direction =)
void_spaces Says:
April 28th, 2008 at 3:54 pma very good self contradictory post !
“Man is rational animal; he has Mind, the ability to think right for himself and judge his actions ..”
you say every man is entitled to his opinion, every man has his own resoning ability to think .
“Yet, the individual autonomy doesn’t banish the other individuals to criticize or express their views on such relations.”
“The political notion of such freedom is, every Individual has the same rights as everyone else has. “
so as you say every person is entitled to his opinion based on his reasons. then why is it wrong if a person chooses an arranged marriage out of his reasons, why is it wrong if a person chooses to have reservations based on his reasons ? why do you say it is wrong since it is based on reasoning ?
how do you say a particular reason is wrong or right .. why is a particular action right or wrong ? what is the truth .. what is reality .. who determines it .. ? and what are your reasons to champion this philosophy .. arent you biased .. but you must have your reasons right .. so does a person have his reasons for his bias. why do you call someone else to be biased but when you take a stand you say its right ! isnt this called hypocrisy !
am just a free individual thinking on my own based on what you say !
am not saying your right or wrong .. just saying that this is your principle but how can it be someone else is wrong?
a creative man is motivated by the desire to live .. to exist !
@above “It’s captivating because it is true and that is what Ayn Rand is famous for–truth” reality and truth can be created .. you can create it too if you come out of the limitations imposed by someone/something else !
unpretentious_diva Says:
April 28th, 2008 at 4:33 pm@void
Truth is not created.
And no one but reason is right.
Personal perceptions matters nothing.
Reason decides the truth. That which is reasonable is truth.
There is no self-contradiction anywhere.
so as you say every person is entitled to his opinion based on his reasons. then why is it wrong if a person chooses an arranged marriage out of his reasons
it shows that you don�t understand the meaning of REASON. Reason are not changeable, they don�t depend on your perception.
I never said that arranged marriage is wrong. I said forcing arrange marriage is wrong. There must be freedom for individual to decide whether to do arrange marriage or whether not to do marriage at all. That freedom to choose is REASONABLE, which is missing in India.
No girl is basically free, peer pressure culls her. Just last month 4 girls in different parts of India were killed , in three cases their husbands were also killed, One, because she married a Muslim being a Hindu girl. Second, because she married a Brahmin guy of bihar while she was a scheduled caste. Third, was harassed and killed because unknowingly she fell in love with a person who was of same gotra, so they were gotrik brother and sisters, for incest they were killed, Fourth, was case of dowry.
Because contradiction doesn’t exist, If you are confused, then check again, its not contradiction, but the way of your perception is irrational.
Now, about arranged marriage, there is distinct difference between reason and compromise. Yet, you don�t understand that difference.
Slowly, India is liberating. Now some girls do dare to kick the smartasses who demands for dowry etc. many girls rejects peer pressures too for their cause of reasonability.
Things are surely improving but at very insignificant pace.
And anyways, you are not a free thinker. You are a brick batter, a whiner a lazy parasite a second hander.
unpretentious_diva Says:
April 28th, 2008 at 4:35 pmreality and truth can be created .. you can create it too if you come out of the limitations imposed by someone/something else !
Toohey, illusions are created, truth are understood by the means of reason.
You can create illusions and live in it.
Reality remains absolute, because it is dependent on reason, not your fucking perceptions of reason.
Vinodh Says:
April 28th, 2008 at 5:40 pm“Despite of being secular, India never remained politically tolerant and free.”
I believe,India has never remained and will never be politically tolerant and free just because it is so vastly secular.
unpretentious_diva Says:
April 28th, 2008 at 6:21 pm@ vinodh, I know you mean pseudo-secularism when you say secularism.
It is simple, if M.F Hussain makes a drawing and RSS attacks it, or if Chandrakant makes a idol and pictures, and BJP goons attacks him, Or if Taslima Nasreen comes in Kolkatta or Kanpur, and Muslim jamalia or other muslim groups attaks her, or if Indian muslims shows their fundamentalist fanatism against Salman Rushdie, then it is Political Intolerance and and Anti-Secularism, and is wrong.
Sandeep Says:
May 8th, 2008 at 12:32 pmnice one…illustrates almost everything, in right perspective…
Winston Delgado Says:
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:00 amGarGi Dixit-
Thank you for inviting me to view your site. The problem with your thinking, as I see it, is that you tend to let your outrage lead your logic and your ideals blind you to reality. For example, for some reason you are arguing against both caste systems and whatever it is you mean by ‘political correctness’ and ‘tolerance’. Are you upset that people have their lives dominated by caste systems and that it’s impolite to use ethnic slurs in public? I also read your post about age of consent issues and I find it disturbing that you think a 16 year old girl could concievably give adult consent to a sexual relationship with a 40 year old man. If we were to allow your schemes to determine our justice system it would be a field day for predators and a step backwards into the dark ages for victims of abuse. Thank you for providing a beautiful example of the mindset I was trying to describe.
Winston Delgado (The Furious Buddha)
renegade_division Says:
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:20 amI find it disturbing that you think a 16 year old girl could concievably give adult consent to a sexual relationship with a 40 year old man.
So you think you are the person who must decide whether a 16 year old girl is fit to have sex or not?
BTW which country do you live in? 16 year old girls have sex all the time, they get pregnant, and give birth to babies too.
If you live in India, then average age to lose virginity is 17 in Delhi, 16 in Mumbai, 18 in Chennai.
Point is not whether its correct to have sex at that age or not, point is, who are you to decide whether they should have sex at an early age or not, or what is the correct age for them to give consent.
Secondly, what amount of law stops 16 year old girls having sex? A 16 year old girl has sex with 17 year old boyfriend, and this crime never goes unreported, but somehow we don’t hear 16 year old girls regularly having sex with 40 year old men.
The problem in your thinking is dude, you think you own people. You think you are the vanguard of society’s morality, you think “If I think predators will be running amok if we allow 16 year old girls have sex”. How about bringing some substantial proof?
For my side, proof is Mexico, age of consent: 12. Yes a 12 year old girl can legally have sex with a guy 40 years old. OMG child predators are running amok….NOT!
Dowry- The Other Facet | Reason for Liberty Says:
June 8th, 2008 at 7:51 pm[...] and non-interference of government, society, authority in individual freedom. < discussed here Liberty, Tolerance, Freedom of expression and Political Correctness! > In Ayn Rand’s words, “Evil requires the sanction of Victim!” it is the woman [...]
Incognito Says:
December 26th, 2008 at 11:54 pm’if M.F Hussain makes a drawing and RSS attacks it, … then it is Political Intolerance and and Anti-Secularism, and is wrong.’
Quite agree with the above hypothetical statement.
However, if that dwg happens to be that of a venerated God or Goddess of the vast majority of the people, in the nude, in a very un-godly and derogatory manner… I would not agree with the above statement.
Why doesn’t MF do a similar thing about Mohammed … or Virgin Mary … or Jesus ….
Does his artistic inclinations towards drawing nude pictures of divine figures start and stop with Hindu Gods …?
RSS- the favorite whipping boy of self-righteous ‘intel’lectuals should be held guilty if it did not protest acts such as that.
Those who do not have any knowledge of Indian culture of pre-10th century era, before the Muslim invasion, when all sorts of persecuted communities found refuge among the Hindus and those who unthinkingly accept Macaulayite education that aims to destroy Indian culture will parrot ideas such as the above.
Wake up Gargi Dixit and realise that you have nothing to be ashamed of about your Hindu roots. In fact you have every reason to be proud of your heritage.
Read up the Vedas on Advaita philosophy that says that You are The Brahman- the Immutable One, which if you really understand it, you will find much similar to and even superior to the individualism that you seem to appreciate.
And on the philosophy of Vasudaiva Kutumbakam- Universal Family – the real essence of secularism and socialism.
Lurapets - Page 5 - DarkZtar Says:
May 2nd, 2009 at 2:36 am[...] comes under the right of free speech. —————– Then, the person who is blackmailing another person, is merely asking for a [...]
Human Pet | Reason for Liberty Says:
January 29th, 2010 at 7:44 am[...] I am all for the girl’s will and Man’s choice. It’s their freedom to choose for themselves and no one should object to it. Given that she describes herself as a human pet – [...]