Friday, January 30, 2015

The Burnham 39

Via James Taranto, who gets the list via James Panero, consider the following 39 statements from James Burnham's Suicide of the West, which was written a half century ago. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

1. All forms of racial segregation and discrimination are wrong.
2. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion.
3. Everyone has a right to free, public education.
4. Political, economic or social discrimination based on religious belief is wrong.
5. In political or military conflict it is wrong to use methods of torture and physical terror.
6. A popular movement or revolt against a tyranny or dictatorship is right, and deserves approval.
7. The government has a duty to provide for the ill, aged, unemployed and poor if they cannot take care of themselves.
8. Progressive income and inheritance taxes are the fairest form of taxation.
9. If reasonable compensation is made, the government of a nation has the legal and moral right to expropriate private property within its borders, whether owned by citizens or foreigners.
10. We have a duty to mankind; that is, to men in general.
11. The United Nations, even if limited in accomplishment, is a step in the right direction.
12. Any interference with free speech and free assembly, except for cases of immediate public danger or juvenile corruption, is wrong.
13. Wealthy nations, like the United States, have a duty to aid the less privileged portions of mankind.
14. Colonialism and imperialism are wrong.
15. Hotels, motels, stores and restaurants in southern United States ought to be obliged by law to allow Negroes to use all of their facilities on the same basis as whites.
16. The chief sources of delinquency and crime are ignorance, discrimination, poverty and exploitation.
17. Communists have a right to express their opinions.
18. We should always be ready to negotiate with the Soviet Union and other communist nations.
19. Corporal punishment, except possibly for small children, is wrong.
20. All nations and peoples, including the nations and peoples of Asia and Africa, have a right to political independence when a majority of the population wants it.
21. We always ought to respect the religious beliefs of others.
22. The primary goal of international policy in the nuclear age ought to be peace.
23. Except in cases of a clear threat to national security or, possibly, to juvenile morals, censorship is wrong.
24. Congressional investigating committees are dangerous institutions, and need to be watched and curbed if they are not to become a serious threat to freedom.
25. The money amount of school and university scholarships ought to be decided primarily by need.
26. Qualified teachers, at least at the university level, are entitled to academic freedom: that is, the right to express their own beliefs and opinions, in or out of the classroom, without interference from administrators, trustees, parents or public bodies.
27. In determining who is to be admitted to schools and universities, quota systems based on color, religion, family or similar factors are wrong.
28. The national government should guarantee that all adult citizens, except for criminals and the insane, should have the right to vote.
29. Joseph McCarthy was probably the most dangerous man in American public life during the fifteen years following the Second World War.
30. There are no significant differences in intellectual, moral or civilizing capacity among human races and ethnic types.
31. Steps toward world disarmament would be a good thing.
32. Everyone is entitled to political and social rights without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
33. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and expression.
34. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
35. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.
36. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security.
37. Everyone has the right to equal pay for equal work.
38. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions.
39. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

The idea behind the questions was to determine whether your views are those of a conservative or of a liberal. Burnham said the following:
A full-blown liberal will mark every one, or very nearly every one, of these thirty-nine sentences, Agree. A convinced conservative will mark many or most of them, a reactionary all or nearly all of them, Disagree. 
While some of the questions are now moot, and deservedly so (I'm looking at you, #15), many of the questions are still open a half-century later. Some questions aren't categorical to me, either. Consider #6:
6. A popular movement or revolt against a tyranny or dictatorship is right, and deserves approval. 
I hold no brief for any tyrant, but we've seen repeatedly that the popular movement becomes something even worse than the tyranny it replaces. While my sympathies lie with purported liberators, it would be foolish to agree to that statement. So how do you answer the question?

I find that I agree with the following:

2. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion.
3. Everyone has a right to free, public education.
7. The government has a duty to provide for the ill, aged, unemployed and poor if they cannot take care of themselves.
12. Any interference with free speech and free assembly, except for cases of immediate public danger or juvenile corruption, is wrong.
15. Hotels, motels, stores and restaurants in southern United States ought to be obliged by law to allow Negroes to use all of their facilities on the same basis as whites.
17. Communists have a right to express their opinions.
20. All nations and peoples, including the nations and peoples of Asia and Africa, have a right to political independence when a majority of the population wants it.
21. We always ought to respect the religious beliefs of others.
23. Except in cases of a clear threat to national security or, possibly, to juvenile morals, censorship is wrong.
24. Congressional investigating committees are dangerous institutions, and need to be watched and curbed if they are not to become a serious threat to freedom.
26. Qualified teachers, at least at the university level, are entitled to academic freedom: that is, the right to express their own beliefs and opinions, in or out of the classroom, without interference from administrators, trustees, parents or public bodies.
27. In determining who is to be admitted to schools and universities, quota systems based on color, religion, family or similar factors are wrong.
32. Everyone is entitled to political and social rights without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
33. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and expression.
34. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.

Okay, but are there limits to my agreement on these notions? Of course. Consider #12:
12. Any interference with free speech and free assembly, except for cases of immediate public danger or juvenile corruption, is wrong. 
Now, put that in the context of the Black Lives Matter protest at the Mall of America last month. Was it right or wrong for the Bloomington Police Department to arrest some of the protestors? They were on private property and there against the express wishes of MOA management. But were they creating an immediate public danger? That's a tougher question.

So, where do you fall? Let me know in the comments section.

13 comments:

Gino said...

Blog bait. Maybe ill expound on one a day, give or take a day...

Mr. D said...

Blog bait.

Well, yeah. LOL.

jerrye92002 said...

OK, I'll bite. Not sure on all 39, but you are wrong by definition on #'s 3 & 7.

By definition, a "right" is something one can be denied by government, but can only be a right if it is exercised without ill effect on another. Therefore, a "right" to an education requires that someone either provide it for free (slavery), or be paid for by a third party, i.e. taxpayer.

Similarly, when we say government should "provide" for the ill, etc., it impinges on the taxpayer to pay for this caring, and relieves that taxpayer of the means by which private, voluntary charity could be exercised for the mutual benefit of both. There is no "right" to government welfare.

W.B. Picklesworth said...

Reactionary. Which is to say, I'm no longer convinced that "the will of the people" counts or should count for much of anything. That isn't to say that I don't have personal preferences. I'd rather live in a country that was polite, peaceful, rooted in tradition, and curious.

Mr. D said...

Jerry,

Excellent responses. That's what I'm after.

Should a public education be a right? By your reasonable definition, probably not. Having said that, it's very much in our interest to provide a certain level of education. Could it be done through home schooling? Of course, and I fully support that; I know a number of individuals who have been home schooled and they are outstanding people. At the same time, home schooling won't work in a lot of cases, because it takes a significant and sustained parental effort to make it work. Public schools have myriad issues and they aren't the right solution for many students, but I am personally willing to pay taxes for public education, so long as I remain an active participant in how my children are participating in the system.

As for #7, it's a dangerous slope — I get that. In many instances, private charity does a better job of caring for individual needs than the state does. Having said that, there are cases where the state is the last resort for people who cannot take care of themselves — the "ward of the state" scenario.

Bike Bubba said...

My objection to "free public education for all" is that it leaves out the reality that some kids just don't want to learn, and don't have parents who will lay down the law. Now should the kids who belong there have to suffer with these clowns in the class?

I find myself half-agreeing with a lot of these statements because of what is left out. Sounds good in theory, let's work it out in practice. Oh, we just jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire, didn't we?

jerrye92002 said...

I agree that public education is a "public good" upon which public funds IN REASONABLE AMOUNT may be spent (US schools need not be the most costly in the world to produce below average results as they do). However, public education is or should be "education of the public" and does NOT require that it be done in government buildings, by unionized government employees, according to rigid government rules.

And I'm not buying the slippery slope argument on public welfare, either, except perhaps in the opposite sense. Private charity works because it sets expectations on the recipient to help themselves, and rewards the giver with good feelings. When government steps into the middle and coerces money from one to provide "entitlement" to the other it eliminates the favorable human instincts on BOTH sides of the transaction, with huge monetary losses "in the middle." That is, if all the money spent on means-tested welfare went directly to recipients, the average welfare family of 3 would be getting $66,000/year, assuming no other income! Who is going to try to provide for themselves when they get that much for no effort at all?

But of course, in both cases, you have lots of liberals feeling great and compassionate about spending somebody else's money. Maybe that's enough?

jerrye92002 said...

Let me also disagree with #26. Teachers are paid to teach the material, not their opinion. If my kid's math teacher assigns "The Communist Manifesto," he's done-- strike three.

I'll disagree with 32-34 on the basis that they are simply too broad and create too much mischief. Perhaps everyone should have equal political rights, but does that mean 9-year-olds vote? Do convicted child molesters have all the "social rights" of parents in contact with children? Does freedom of expression include the old "fire in a crowded theater" or kiddie porn or animal sacrifice?

jerrye92002 said...

"My objection to 'free public education for all' is that it leaves out the reality that some kids just don't want to learn, and don't have parents who will lay down the law."

I find it very hard and very wrong to condemn parents for not making better educational choices when we offer absolutely no choice to many of them, the ones who may need an education most. Here's a suggestion: how about we give these parents the MEANS (whisper: a voucher) to seek something better for their kids, so that it "costs them something" (whisper: signing over the $10,000-$20,000 voucher) to get that education, so it's not "free"? World of difference IMHO.

Brian said...

--Qualified agreement on #4, but my qualifications are so narrowly construed as to almost not be worth mentioning, and most of the scenarios I could envision are ones in which people would probably self-select themselves out anyway. (For example, I wouldn't hire a creationist to teach biology.)

--Qualified agreement on #6 for the exact same reasons as Mr. D.

--Ambivalent on #27.

--I would rephrase #35 to "consent of the governed" or something along those lines rather than "the will of the people" (and it would be fair to say that they mean sufficiently different things that this means I in fact disagree.)

--Basically unqualified agreement on the rest.

Most political philosophers would point out that Jerry is essentially narrowing the definition of "right" to that "negative rights" and excluding positive ones. (I realize that many conservatives and libertarians don't "believe in" positive rights, but I think Burnham's statements deserve to be addressed on their own terms rather than simply negated by redefinition.)

Gino said...

But, many of these statements have already been negated through redefinition of terms.

jerrye92002 said...

I can't agree with #4 because discrimination based on religious belief is fundamental to a tolerant society, and to say it is wrong is to deny free expression of religion. For example, if I have a belief that homosexuality is a sin, I have the right NOT to engage in social, economic, or political league with those who oppose that view. I have the right to discriminate.

#27, like most of these, seems overly broad. Admission to charter schools, for example, often is given preference for siblings-- family-- of those already enrolled. That's not wrong, that's right.

In fact, if I want to read the list carefully rather than superficially, I find it hard to find anything to agree with here. It seems like the typical liberal catechism, full of high-sounding phrases and good intentions, but with no practical application in the real world or actually in conflict with human nature. Even #15, for example, might have been better left to the natural economic consequences of limiting your clientele to 1/2 the population, and not being obvious enough about it to alienate a good portion of the other half.

Mr. D said...

The problem with positive rights is compulsion. A decent society ought to put in safeguards for its more vulnerable members, but at what cost? And if you are the beneficiary of positive rights, do you have any positive obligation to eventually remove yourself from the safety net, especially if you have the wherewithal to do so?

Put simply, as P. J. O'Rourke did so well some 25 years ago now in his great book Parliament of Whores, are you willing to kill your grandmother to pave I-95?