Tag: liberalism

Categories
Liberty

[1416] Of appeal to the mind, not authority

I used to be impressed of individuals that are able to cite names — some obscure, others well-known — when discussing philosophy. Green with envy, I once tried to widen the scope of my reading in hope to achieve the same ability to refer to great philosophers like Kant, Smith and Ibn Khaldun whenever necessary, hoping to gain the same ability while impressing others. No more do I think as such.

While names are important for the purpose of discussing historical development of various thoughts, names themselves are irrelevant to ideas. One does not, should not, feel compelled to embrace liberty because Adam Smith espoused so. One should not have the impulse to do good because higher beings insist so. One should embrace liberty, or any idea, based on the merit of the idea itself. I am attracted to libertarianism not because of Hayek, or Smith, or Friedman or any other name associated with libertarianism. I accept that the Earth is spherical not because the Greek sages or the Muslim astronomers said so. I accept it because of the proofs that have been presented to me. I accept comparative advantage not because Ricardo said so but for its truth in governing trade.

Frequent reference to great thinkers during philosophical discussions outside of the realm of history of thoughts, of how thoughts developed over time, is nothing but an appeal to authority. It is a fallacy unworthy of those that seek to push the boundaries of ignorance farther away in the retreating darkness. It does not appeal to the mind, the original purpose of philosophy. Thus, I shall awe not at any utterance of another philosophers of old. It may show the person is well-read but it says nothing of his faculty. Of greater value is how one evaluates ideas and proofs on its own merit.

Those that incessantly cite names of great thinkers, respectfully, are missing the point of philosophy, unless rhetorics is the art they wish to pursue instead.

Categories
Liberty Society

[1379] Of superficiality is inferior to sincerity

I would have almost forgotten that religious police are patrolling the streets of Malaysia, trying to catch those that abstain from fasting during the month of Ramadan, if I had not caught a piece of news report stating so yesterday. In my mind, there is no confusion that the religious police forget that it is sincerity that matters, not coercion.

This is perhaps but a symptom of how for the Muslim society in Malaysia, specifically the religious conservatives, imposition of their moral values on others has become a favorite pastime instead of self-improvement. Several other issues that lead to the same conclusion are apostasy and moral policing.

Concerning cases of religious freedom in particular, religious conservatives are more interested in forcefully preventing a person from choosing his or her religion rather than understanding why the person is leaving Islam. Indeed, when debates on Lina Joy dominated public domain, some religious conservatives as well as other sympathizers leaned on superficial factor as the main issue — procedure — whereas those that see it pass skin deep know full well that it is about freewill; liberty; freedom.

All this portrays Islam in a bad light to outsiders. Thanks to religious conservatives, many outsiders see the religion as stressing on appearance rather than appealing to the heart. I have always in the opinion that religion is about the inner self, the content of a book, not its cover. This is why freewill is so crucial; sincerity and freewill come together. Without freewill, there can be no sincerity; an unfree conscience knows no sincerity. What is the point of having Muslims that are unwilling to be Muslims? What is the point of forcing somebody to do religious biddings? Looking the issues through Islamic tradition, would the supreme being not know what is the truth?

Religious conservatives fail to understand this. For this reason, religious conservatives will always be ridiculed for their preference for the superficial.

Categories
Liberty Personal

[1355] Of one-night stand for you, eternity for me

It is finally the week after. Once the crowd was over with the euphoria of superficial freedom, a kind of liberty that one shouts out loud but have none of it, life returns to its dull elements.

We wake up in the morning, trying to beat others in the traffic, cursing while we are at it. Some are still in bed, still unemployed. But the sun rises, faithfully than most of us could ever be, as it has always been since time first began, whenever that was.

Some flags still fly. Some other are on the ground, stepped upon by unsuspecting strangers. The patriotism and the cry for liberty that many made on August 31 was an one night stand. One is only so enamored with the other only before the climax. Once satisfied, life goes on as if nothing happened. We go on our separate ways after talking so much about how we loved each other. How fake.

The sky was so blue that day. I half suspected it to rain like it had the days previously. Just like how it is raining drizzly today. I woke up late after going to bed at 4AM, doing things that I used to do in college, trying to relive life that I had. It was a fool’s errand but I did what I needed to do. But the morning was so blue that I woke up and stayed on my bed, staring outside, smiling at the cloudless sky. I thought I saw the color of liberty smiled back at me.

Liberty is a foul word these days, despite how many simpletons are shouting, we are free. They celebrate freedom but scorn others that cheer for larger freedom. Their freedom needed to be defined by fascists and they celebrate blindly in their cage. True freedom reaches for the sky, a concept a meek mind incapable of even imagining. Perhaps, the sky is too high and daunting to them. Socrates was right; prisoners chained since childhood in a cave are scared of the sun. The comfort of the cave spoils them. The darkness that imprisons them are their protector.

When the Prime Minister held up his hand while shouting senseless, I could not help but recall a certain German standing on a podium, addressing a sea of smartly dressed individuals in gray at the Nuremberg Rally. Maybe I am extrapolating too much. Silly me.

The birds sang, trying to convince to me to get out of bed, to grab the moment, to live the moment. Yet, sigh, it felt so good to just lie down without worry. I told the birds, shoo, go away and let me savor this peace of mine. The mind felt so empty, as if the world is alright. Let me have my peace, just this morning.

But time conspired against me. The sun rose too fast, the clock was running on steroid. The next thing I knew, the day ended. Yet, I felt so tired. For this one day, I told myself, let me stay in bed, please. I do not wish to hear to any more lie about on how free we are. For once, leave me be. Be damned with your sanctimonious speeches. I am tired of all of it and I want no part of it. I just want to be free.

Here comes another day, another to sweep your lies aside, another day to anger you for being different, for refusing to be part of your drone, for dismantling your narrow worldview. It is another day for liberty, another day for eternity.

Categories
Liberty Society

[1348] Of formation of Malaysian identity

Malaysia is experiencing something similar to multiple personality disorder. She wears different caps at different times, being described differently by different people. Many of us are convinced who she is but Malaysia herself is confused of who she is. After so many years, the debate on Malaysian identity still rages. This by itself however is not a reason for worry because 50 years, or rather 44, for any country is a rather short time length. We, Malaysians, as a society are still searching and forming our identity.

Evidences that we as a society, like a teenager, are still looking for our own unique identity are aplenty. The debate whether Malaysia is an Islamic or a secular state is one clear indication of such searching. The unconvincing answer given by the Prime Minister on the same issue, perhaps flip-flopping along the way, only strengthens such perception. Then there is the matter surrounding the age of Malaysia; are we 50 or 44 years old? And no less but forgotten, the issue surrounding Malacca and Srivijaya.

Our goals themselves are unclear. Are we striving to be a monocultural or a multicultural society? Are we working toward a color blind community or a society extremely conscious of our difference in skin color, belief or simply background? Are we looking for an assimilationist or diverse society?

There are people, many in fact, that feel strongly about one thing or another. I myself preferring a liberal society but the truth is, there are approximately 27 million Malaysians and none are able to completely convince the others, enough of the others of their own vision. There are competing perceptions of current state and visions among the society and the debate on it is alive; emotional, even.

Those in power are worried at the ferocity of very public debates and tried to shut it down. The Prime Minister has given out order for the public not to discuss the issues anymore but he is powerless as civil society eagerly tries to claim a role in the society, testing the waters for larger liberty.

Some shrugged off these debates as cosmetics, irrelevant and unimportant. The issue of the age of Malaysia for instance has far larger consequence than mere cosmetics and semantics however. The question on the age of Malaysia so deeply entrenched inside down so many pressing issues that too many people fail to see how greatly this question ranks in importance. Who are we? Malaya or Malaysia? Issues on the surface alas receive greater attention than items so fundamental such as Malaysian identity, if one subscribes to the idea of nation state. If such fundamental question left unanswered, shrugged off as something of unimportance, trivial, I say dream not of coherent Malaysian identity, be it Malaysian nation or anything else. The concept of Malaysian nation requires justification and at the moment, it is left unjustified to a certain extent, unless it answers the question of who are we.

I personally do not envy the idea of nation state or national identity. I fear of a national identity being forced down my throat. Besides, a national identity grossly generalizes the population. I however do concern myself with it due to pragmatism, purely due to the fact that I live in one and at the moment and in the foreseeable future, unfairly, there is no alternative other than in a nation state. This identity shapes various institution of the state. So, I fight for the least intrusive national identity. I have to care because it is so deeply connected to my own life. I have a stake in this state and that is why I participate in these debates to create Malaysian identity.

But one thing we should not worry is this: the confusion of Malaysian identity. Fifty years, or rather, 44, may be a long time for an individual but for a society, it is barely a dot in on timeline. Malaysia is still a teenager compared to far older states such as Japan, Britain, France and the United States. Unlike those states which have firmly formed their identities, be it based on liberty, or equality, or anything after years, decades or even centuries of struggle, we, the Malaysian society, are still young. These debates are supposed to happen for it is a process of identity formation. It is a process that all must endure, if one cares for Malaysia.

This is why free speech is important. Without free speech, without the liberty to discuss our visions, the process of identity formation cannot occur. If one seeks to relatively end the debate, eliminating free speech is not an advisable act.

On this August 31, in remembrance of a free Malaya, a free North Borneo and even a free Singapore[1], we Malaysians should reaffirm our rights to free speech for it is the crucial tool to the formation of our identity, Malaysian identity, whatever that may be.

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

[1] Note — Sarawak is the only Malaysian member state that has little to do with the August 31 date. Malaya gained independence on August 31 1957. North Borneo and Singapore declared independence from Britain on August 31 1963. Internal politics prevented Sarawak from declaring freedom on August 31. The formation of Malaysia occurred only later on September 16 1963.

Categories
Liberty

[1329] Of bicameralism to moderate crass democracy

Democracy in its purest form is a mere majoritarianism and a society built on mere majoritarianism is a society built on pure populism. There is nothing in populism and by extension democracy that guarantees liberty. Yet, democracy has proven to be an effective decision making tool, allowing differences to be ironed out peacefully instead of by force. For this reason, libertarians — for the sake of simplicity, liberals — prefer moderated democracy and a tool that offers that possibility is a liberal constitution which guarantees negative rights. The merging of the two tools results in a system known as liberal democracy. Unfortunately, any constitution may fail under heavy populist pressure for a constitution itself is not free from revision. Here is where another moderator of populist sentiment comes into play: bicameralism.

How is that so?

Bicameralism is simply a system of two legislatives chambers divided into the lower house and the upper house.

In the name of democracy, the lower house is sensitive to popular opinion. Representatives elected into the house have only one interest at heart and that is the people. Whenever popular opinion sways for better or for worse, so does the opinion of the lower house.

There are moments when public opinion exhibits excessive instant gratification quality with little regard to future outcomes. More often than not, such moments are filled with emotion or are made possible with limited information. It goes without saying that opinion or decisions made with incomplete information may not produce the best of all possible outcomes. Worse, in times of great distrust, some groups may try to oppress the weaker communities and the weakest of all communities are the individuals. Those are the moments when democracy looms menacingly, when tyranny of the majority is most relevant. This is why liberals are distrustful of democracy.

If placed on a two-axes graph which the horizon axis represents time and the vertical axis represents public opinion through some numeral values, short term-based public opinion sways wildly as time progresses. Extreme values toward one side or another — for instance, authoritarianism or anarchy — that prevail for only a short time frame may have destabilizing effect and undo years of progress. When emotion subsides and rationality dominates, the mob, and the society in general, may regret its actions as complete information becomes available only later.

The upper house functions to smooth out the crests and troughs of public opinion. In order words, it is less sensitive to crass democracy with farther perspective in temporal horizon. For liberals, the upper house is more interested in protecting the liberal constitution rather than kowtowing to the mob.

This however does not mean the members of the house — senators — are not elected into their seats. Democracy still plays a role in the makeup of the house but its effect is far moderated than that in the lower house. This alignment of interest is achieved by granting senators longer term compared to the members of the lower house. Through this itself, the atmosphere in the upper house is calmer, where rationality overcomes emotion, emotion that appeals to the mob. In this environment, discussion could be carried in a more productive manner.

The insensitivity to public opinion however creates another problem. Due to the longer term, upper house members — or senators — do have considerable power compared to their counterparts. This is where one must tread carefully since senators are less responsive to the people. Conferring the senators with too much power may create powerful oligarchy relatively unanswerable to the people. To reasonably eliminate such possibility, a upper house of a liberal democracy practicing bicameralism has only the power accept or reject law proposed by the lower house. The upper house itself cannot introduce or amend any law. It is not an agenda setter.

It has to be noted bicameralism itself suffers from status quo bias. Whatever the status quo, bicameralism in the form expressed here is still a moderator of democracy. Like democracy, it is a tool and it is not an end. For liberals, the only end is liberty.