Tag: liberalism

Categories
Liberty Mudslinging

[2210] Of re:liberalism and authoritarian feminism

Dear Ms. Alicia,

In replying to your letter, I will probably admit to only this: perhaps I accidentally casted my net too widely by not using enough qualification when I criticized Farrelly some days ago.[1] I qualified my statement at the beginning but later, I did away with it. I tend to do this because I typically define something early and then, purely for the sake of convenience, use concise term with the expectation that my readers will understand its meaning. For instance, when I write liberal, I refer to classical liberal and not just general liberals who may or may not adhere to the tenets of classical liberalism. Such method usually works. After reading your letter, I discover that that expectation of mine fails in this instance. I should have tirelessly used the qualification until the very end. I may have been sloppy in that sense but I am not guilty of laziness or other accusations of yours.

When I referred to authoritarian feminism with respect to the burqa controversy several days ago, it was not my intention to paint feminism as authoritarian as a whole. I am merely referring to a strain of feminism that is authoritarian. Feminism as advocated by Farrelly clearly belongs to a strain of authoritarian. The litmus test for this is simply her call to use state power to ban the wearing of burqa.

You are right how a political belief such as feminism, or any political belief for that matter, is diverse and complex. Contrary to your assertion, I am well aware of that. The presence of diversity however does not negate the fact that the call for the ban of burqa has been based on feminism, whatever strain that is. It is exactly due to diversity that this can happen.

Neither is this illiberal opinion is a fringe one within feminism. Current development suggests that it is well-subscribed. Not standard — I do not claim so; I merely asked — maybe but popular nonetheless. Unless this illiberal opinion is somehow being overly represented in the media, its popularity is a proof enough that it is a major opinion within feminism. The fact that the debate is being played out in the open is another proof. Such debate suggests that this illiberal fraction within feminism exists. If it did not exist, there would not have been a debate.

I certainly did not base my thoughts on only two articles. You appear to be well aware of the burqa debates within feminism, and perhaps, the larger debate surrounding the burqa. I believe you yourselves are well aware of how popular the call to ban the burqa is among feminists. It is easy to find feminists who disagree and agree with the ban.

I am picking on illiberal feminism and feminists who are supporting the ban. It is this illiberal strain of feminism as advocated by Farrelly that I call authoritarian. If you do not belong to this authoritarian feminism, then good for you.

As a side point, just because one does not have the power to coerce others does not mean authoritarian thoughts do not exist. Authoritarian thoughts and actions can exist independently of each other. Being a fringe also does not mean one does not have the ability to wield the “weapon of authoritarianism.” It is a fallacy to think otherwise. History has shown how minority groups can be authoritarian. But I am digressing. Before there is any misunderstanding, I definitely am not pointing out feminism in this specific case within the confined of this specific paragraph. I am merely proving a point, and a secondary point at that for the purpose of this reply.

So, what if Farrelly exhibits authoritarian tendency? Farrelly is not a spokesperson for feminism, as you have argued.

True. But this argument is quite irrelevant. If it were relevant, it would raise a question: are you a spokesperson for feminism? What right do you have to speak on behalf of any kind of feminism then? The use of ”˜we’ by you would be certainly questionable, if we apply the logic of she-is-not-a-spokesperson without being unfairly selective about it.

My point is that this illiberal tendency within feminism exists and Farrelly is only an agent of it. Perhaps you are a liberal manifestation of feminism. It is unproductive to dismiss Farrelly so easily, given the popularity of the illiberal view. On top of that, Farrelly, after all, writes for an influential mainstream newspaper in Australia. Whatever right you claim, it is claimable by Farrelly as well. It is both a strength and a weakness of diversity within feminism.

After all that, I think since both of us disagree with the ban, I feel there is little to discuss. Indeed, I think there is little room for harsh words. The unkind words scented with personal attack early in your letter are quite unnecessary. Disagreement can be addressed in a civil manner.

Now that the issue of burqa is out of the way, there is one last order of business. It involves reverse discrimination — or positive discrimination or affirmative action, depending which term one prefers — for women. I have made my position clear earlier and my opposition is largely due to my concern for tokenism. For your benefit, allow me to provide a brief explanation with the hope that this disagreement will evaporate in my favor.

If any woman, and indeed, anybody, suffers from endowment effect that necessarily means that she or he does not start at the same starting line and indeed behind, they need to be empowered through skills. Train them. Educate them. A more refined approach is required to address historical accident.

Merely putting them in a position because of affirmative action is counterproductive. Such tokenism will adversely affect society through incompetence, disfranchise the capable and ultimately create unfair generalization of women as a whole.

Reverse discrimination in this manner is what referred to when I wrote beyond tokenism. I despise sentences that go “[a]nd what is this fear of the demands that women may make beyond tokenism that you speak of? A dystopian future of emasculated men?” It is clearly out of context. But I guess, effective rhetoric demands so. It is the cherry on top I suppose.

Let merit be the major determination of who holds what. If women everywhere are more capable than any man anywhere is, then let all positions be dominated by women. I have no problem with that. What I have problem is tokenism brought upon by reverse discrimination.

If a capable woman is prevented from rightly reaching the top due to male chauvinists, then by all mean prosecute the chauvinists under some anti-discrimination laws. If a man is prevented from rightly reaching the top because of some tokenistic system, then you can see me actively dismantling that system. Equal representation is one that demands equality of outcome. As a libertarian, all I want is equality of negative individual rights. I want equality of opportunity as radiated from equal rights.

Oh, just because I do not believe in affirmative action for women does not mean that I have underdeveloped thoughts about gender discrimination. If you supposedly have developed advanced thoughts on the matter, then do share. I would very much like to find out how your argument will be different to those I have listened in the past, either in terms of gender, ethnicity or even business.

Until then, if you demand equality of outcome, then I am proud not to sit on the same side as you. I have raised my voice against demands for equality of outcome in terms of race and ethnicity. I will be a hypocrite if I do not raise my voice against equality of outcome in terms of gender. Merit is the only fair result to an outcome in most, if not all, situations.

With that, I believe I have my say for now.

Thank you for your letter. It gives me an opportunity to clarify my earlier thoughts with measured fashion.

Kind regards.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — Show me authoritarian feminism, and I’ll show you some poorly researched tosh: A letter to Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Alicia Izharuddin. Cycads. May 17 2010

Categories
Liberty

[2206] Of it is not hard to choose between liberalism and authoritarian feminism

Elizabeth Farrelly at the Sydney Morning Herald writes that the burqa is an affront to feminism.[1] She makes feminism sounds authoritarian. Quoting a friend of mine, “all this really is another case of someone trying to shove the politics of one kind of identity ahead of another.”

I am unsure how widely this view is shared among feminists out there. BBC seems to believe that it is a standard position.[2] If it is a standard position, then I think the gulf between me and them has just grown wider.

My greatest issue with feminism up until recently is affirmative action. I cannot bring myself to support affirmative action for women and ending up living in a tokenistic system. Worse, some want more than tokenism. Through experience, radical feminists want inequality of rights in their favor rather than simple equality between genders.

The issue with burqa opens up a second front. If feminists seek to ban burqa, then it necessarily goes against the principle of liberty. If a person freely chooses to wear burqa, then to prevent her from wearing it is a violation of her individual liberty. It is a violation of liberalism. Therefore, if the burqa is an affront to feminism, then feminism has to be an affront to liberalism.

We all have our bias and some of these biases may be perverted and deserve criticism. Whatever it is, a person is free to hold whatever bias there is. But to act on the bias and impose others of one’s bias is unambiguously authoritarian. Clearly from her article, Farrelly is choosing the illiberal path.

If feminism indeed tries to push this agenda through, this is a sad development for all. Feminism can be a great ally in promoting liberty, especially in societies where women suffer from real discrimination. Liberals are fiercely in favor of equality of rights and that make liberals and feminists friends.

Sometimes however, I feel feminism simply goes to places when no liberal will follow and in fact, will oppose. This case of burqa is one of those impossible paths for liberal to tread on.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — Democracy pivots on the universal franchise; the presumption for each individual of a public identity, as well as a private one. To cover someone’s face in public, to reduce them to a walking tent, is to declare them lacking such identity, destroying any possibility of their meaningful public existence. It is, literally, to efface them.

To hide the face is to hide the person. As Shada Islam, Europe correspondent for the Pakistan paper Dawn, wrote last week, most European Muslim women have little patience with the burqa or its wearers, seeing it as ”a sad process of self-isolation and self-imposed exile”.

And while you could see even exile as a personal right, it does directly contradict a public duty, the duty of public presence. The morality of identity-erasure may be (barely) acceptable, but the ethics are not. Brave little Belgium. [Let’s face facts, the burqa is an affront to feminism . Elizabeth Farrelly. Sydney Morning Herald. May 13 2010]

[2] — But the arguments against the niqab are not just based on feminism and the status of women. [Behind France’s Islamic veil. BBC News. April 8 2010]

Categories
Economics Liberty Society

[2192] Of embrace a more holistic view on development

There is much stress on economic freedom these days. This is clear by the fact that the New Economic Model is advocating less government in various aspects. So excited are the document authors about the idea of free market that at its rhetorical climax, they highlight the phrase ”market-friendly affirmative action”, never mind the apparent contradiction that the phrase invites. That phrase is perhaps the hallmark of contradiction of the document in terms of economic freedom. The latter part of the document suggests various government interventions that do not tally with its rhetoric. Yet, the document does begin from a liberal point and that is a good starting line. It has to begin somewhere after all.

Truthfully, the goal of the document is development and not the creation of freer market. Without strong conviction to the idea of free market in pursuing its main goal, contradiction is only natural. To criticize the authors of such contradiction is an effort unlikely to impress them and others who share the same view on development vis-à-vis free market.

They primarily believe that the government has a role in development. Such idea is hardly a controversial one. The government can indeed play a role in development even while adhering to the concepts of limited government and free market.

The issue is that the goal of development set by the New Economic Model is unsatisfactorily limited in its scope. The document limits the idea of development to merely economic progress. It ignores the larger meaning of development, just as freedom takes a larger meaning well beyond the realm of business and economics.

Development is not merely about better infrastructures or higher income levels for us all. While income levels do indicate general well-being in many ways, it is not the only factor in development that needs to be taken into account.

Development must empower individuals in a comprehensive manner. More often than not, this means enhancing economic progress as well promoting individual liberty. Indeed, economic progress and individual freedom work hand in hand. Without the other, each feels empty even if each lifts one up from the gutter by a tiny margin. Both are required to catalyze the jump out of the gutter.

Without development as confined within self-limiting definition of economic progress, individual freedom itself is redundant. Individuals living in dire economic condition will be unable to reap the dividend of liberty for they are incapable of understanding virtues of freedom. Without such comprehension, they are unable to make full use of it for their benefits. As the Malay idiom goes, what is a flower to a monkey?

There are so many elementary concerns need to tend to that whatever freedom they have is meaningless. It is the excess capacity that will never be used up. For instance, what is free speech when the stomach growls endlessly? In fact, free speech with an empty stomach can easily descend into anarchy as the hungry and famished knock rule of law essential to the preservation of liberty down to the ground to satisfy their very basic desire while robbing somebody else’s rights and liberty.

Similarly, where there is economic progress without individual liberty, what use of those shinny sedans or overly big four-wheel drives, clean and smooth roads together with tall and richly decorated towers when they are merely a posh prison to keep the prisoners happy? After all, what is economic wealth while one is repressed, living in fear?

They have the all the means but if the means are prevented from reaching the ends by traditions or prejudices, economic progress become meaningless. Life must be one cruel joke if economic progress in the end only comes to naught.

Individuals have to become richer not only in monetary terms but also in terms of themselves. The set of what can be done must be enlarged and the set of what cannot be done must shrink for development to take its holistic meaning. Choices have to expand.

Their choices have to be well informed. That is only possible through the tradition of free enquiry that embedded in it the concept of free speech and free press, among others. They must be able to express themselves and to do so is to practice freedom of expression. We talk about how young graduates lack communication and social skills in general: can we blame them when the avenues for practice are limited and guided paternalistically?

This idea is not new. Nobel Prize Laureate economist Amartya Sen is the vanguard of the idea. Although it must be said that he goes farther than a classical liberal would, he articulated similar view much earlier and wrote Development as Freedom for wider consumption.

Development must focus on both fronts for it to be meaningful. It is in this sense that the New Economic Model is insufficient. Malaysia needs more than economic freedom.

This is not to say that the authors of the document are not doing their jobs. Their terms of reference are clear: focus on the economic front. And they are doing just that. They cannot be blamed for that.

The other focus on the social front where it involves individual freedom is the job of ordinary citizens.

And the government is in the way. Hopefully, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet embraces the wider meaning of development to enable Malaysia to progress at all fronts. Hopefully, they will realize that only a liberal democratic system can bring Malaysia forward in a convincing style.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

First published in The Malaysian Insider on April 12 2010.

Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[2126] Of Mill and best and brightest in government

I admire John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty. In it, the author succinctly describes the limits of the state and individual liberty. His defense of individual liberty against the transgression of the state and the majority is impressive to me, who is already familiar with core points Mill articulated in On Liberty even before learning Mill’s name. While all points are well-argued and logically derived from reasonable premises, I am hesitant to embrace a few of his conclusions. One of those conclusions revolves around talents and government.

Near at the end of On Liberty, Mill makes the case against government interference in the market. The context in which he frames the argument is the enhancement of the capacity of the government, or rather the state, to do evil. In order to limit this capacity, he disagrees in having the best and the brightest individuals be employed as part of bureaucracy of the state.

The idea of having the best and the brightest as part of the civil service is quite relevant in Malaysia. Various individuals in Malaysia have suggested that the civil service should attract the best through various means, including, and possibly, mainly by offering most competitive salary. Apparently, the same argument was raised in England at least before 1859, the year On Liberty was first published.

Mill’s opposition is beautifully put in a way that uses the benefits proponents of such mechanism celebrate as the mechanism’s weakness. He writes that these highly talents individuals would make the bureaucracy highly capable and beyond criticism of the public. Why? Paraphrasing Mill, the public will become ill-qualified “to criticize or check the mode of operation of the bureaucracy“. This sort of shield from criticism brings about authority to the bureaucracy to embark on programs which may or may not be useful. Furthermore, with the freedom from criticism, the bureaucracy will be comfortable in where it is and not improve.

According to Mill, if the bureaucracy is to be on its toes, they must be entity or individuals capable of raising criticism against the bureaucracy, “independently of the government“.

Perhaps, most eloquently, the more well-stocked the government is with the ablest of all mankind, the capability of evil by the state “would be greater“, delivered more “efficiently and scientifically“.

This as well as other points made against the idea of big government made in On Liberty are persuasive. I am doing an injustice by summarizing his idea here. The best way to fully appreciate the robustness of arguments made by Mill is to read the book.

Regardless of that, I think Mill may have taken a step too far down the street in forwarding the proposition on talents and the state.

I do not see how having the less capable becoming part of the bureaucracy can necessarily be beneficial to free individuals. Such bureaucrats, holders of public office and perhaps politicians may as well introduce policy based on unenlightened policy that incongruous to culture of liberty, considering that there is a relationship between being a liberal and education level.

Capable if not the best of talents will be needed to introduce and enforce policies, including those which are the most liberal. Without these talents, others out of the government would be able to outwit the state in matters such as protection of individual liberty and fraud, which is the function of a state in liberal tradition. A state that is unable to perform such function effectively is a worthless state.

Besides, Mill in On Liberty is concerned with capability of the bureaucracy to improve. Criticism is important but only capable talents can effectively bring about improvement to the bureaucracy. If improvement is a concern, surely capable talents need to be hired as part of the system to act upon the criticism.

More ominously is that the argument, while maybe attractive in a world where there is only one state and no external threat, does not account for a world with multiple different states. In a world where there are other hostile states, having incapable individuals running the bureaucracy may be disastrous. States compete with each other to forward its interest that may not coincide with the agenda of promotion and conservation of liberty. Wars do happen and incapable bureaucracy increases the likelihood a state — we are interested in liberal state — capitulating to tyranny originating from external forces.

The argument cuts both ways really. The trick is to ensure there are the brightest in and outside of government. The brightest in government will be tasked to introduce and to carry out good policies while the brightest outside will be free to criticize those inside apart from pursuing their own interests in the free market.

Therefore, I think Mill’s proposition should not be accepted unconditionally. The position taken by Mill should only be accepted when a majority or sufficiently large fraction of the best and brightest are already hoarded by the government. It should be a matter of degree, not of absolute.

Categories
Liberty Society

[2121] Of refusing to agree to disagree

Is it not great to witness the culture of freedom spreading in Malaysia, no matter how painfully slow progress has been so far?

To observe individuals debating in the public sphere on issues that none was willing to ponder so openly in the past is an encouraging development for all freedom lovers. It opens up windows and doors of an old house to exchange stale air with fresh, belonging to that of delightfully fragrant summer days.

The bright light of summer now shines where darkness once reigned. With it, old perceptions succumb to more liberating views to present all with new possibilities to explore. The barrier to fulfilling individual potential is now less intimidating to overcome due to advancing freedom.

That barrier must continue to be chipped away. Challenges to greater freedom must be conclusively addressed, no inch must be surrendered.

With continual erosion of the fear of freedom, many Malaysians now are eager to practice their individual rights, especially free speech. They express their opinion in public space on issues ranging from the crucial to the comical. Along with liberty comes diversity of opinion, regardless of the validity of the opinion held.

There is a mechanism to sort out the issue of validity of opinion or ideas while respecting liberty. The mechanism is in the nature of spontaneous order and free competition, as each individual — or at least those who care enough — tries to convince the other of a position while others poke their fingers at that position, just as the invisible hand acts to allocate resources in a free, competitive market. It is the natural selection of ideas.

The act of convincing others through intelligent debate must continue to happen, if the process of natural selection is to separate the wheat from the chaff. If a society is interested in having the best ideas proliferate while phasing bad ones out to the margin, actions that prevent natural selection deserve rejection.

Most of the times, such actions detrimental to natural selection are easily identifiable because at its heart is coercion. A few common examples backed by coercion, as practiced by the governments all over the world — Malaysia definitely included — are banning of books, censorship on television and prohibition of public speaking. Others involving intolerant individuals include issuance of security threats, be it simply rhetorical or real.

Subtler is a situation when there is there is absence of coercion. Yes, challenges to the advances of liberty do not merely come in the form of coercion only. One way that it can exist is in form of thought-terminating clichés that try to end discussions held in the public sphere.

I have to be more concrete about this and I intend to do exactly that: how many times, when faced with difficult issues, has one heard the phrase ”agree to disagree”?

On the surface, a person who suggests for all to agree to disagree so politely sounds like a great liberal democrat. It signals willingness to tolerate diversity of opinion. The truth cannot be any farther however; the phrase somehow has wrongly gained reputation as the liberal thing to do.

Unable to convince others or unable to mount convincing rebuttals to a brilliantly presented point, and in a situation where all sides refuse to budge, such a suggestion when forwarded so politely immediately resolves tension. Case closed. Discussion ended. Criticism ceased.

Meanwhile, those who refuse to agree to disagree unfairly risk being accused as intolerant of diversity of opinion.

This is downright wrong.

The phrase and the spirit of ”agree to disagree” has nothing to do with free speech and the concept of liberty at large. Far from it, it seeks to end criticism without debating on points raised.

It does not promote free speech but in fact, it brings upon adverse effects to the agenda of freedom. This spirit masks itself as a liberal ideal but it is really an effort to cover a sign of weak intellect, by creating a force field to insulate the promoter of such illiberal spirit, from criticism.

Free speech does not come with freedom from criticism. Such insulation is the antithesis of the idea of freedom. At its worst, those who seek such insulation are intolerant of free speech. At the other end, at its best, they are either appealing to political expediency or running away from the issue.

The illiberal spirit of ”agree to disagree” is not the proper way of respecting diversity of opinion and liberty. The right way is by continually debating on the issues, no matter how sensitive they are — rationally and respectfully, without threats and force. It is the right way because the only factor that makes a point unassailable is its soundness.

All are entitled their own opinion but that does not mean every opinion is valid. The assertion that the Earth is flat is an opinion but we know that that is untrue. The spirit of ”agree to disagree” ignores the point on the validity of the idea. It treats all ideas as equally valid and sound when that is not the case. It is because not all opinions or ideas are valid that none should be beyond inspection and criticism. Hence, the invalidity of the appallingly inadequate spirit of ”agree to disagree”.

If that ersatz culture spreads and becomes the way of the majority, then that society, our society, is building its foundation on sand, incapable to supporting argument as good as we should because each time there are disagreements, we agree to disagree. Such weak foundation cannot support a liberal society in a convincing manner.

A free society will continually examine and re-examine any idea presented in the public space. Any action that discourages that, whether laced with coercion or not, is incongruous to the greater spirit of liberty and the goal of building a liberal society.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

First published in The Malaysian Insider on November 30 2009.