Jerry Brown Blog - Responses by Charlotte Laws

BLOG SPEAK
Philosophy & Other Comments By LEAP Founder Charlotte Laws

The below excerpts are taken from posts made to Mayor Jerry Brown's Blog. To check out Charlotte's own blogs, go to Charlotte's Web Blog or The Official Charlotte Laws Blog.

Click to View Topics and Responses:

Quote - Extremism
Free Sigarchi
In Pursuit of Excellence	Local Environmentalism Lives
Culture Crash
L.A. Convention: Day 2	Here and There: The Death of a Cliché

LEAp founder Charlotte Laws - Jerry Brown Blog
Charlotte Laws

Jerry Brown Writes:

Quote of the Week

"Extremism is so easy. You've got your position, and that's it. It doesn't take much thought. And when you go far enough to the right, you meet the same idiots coming around from the left."

Charlotte Laws Responds:

Thomas Paine once said, "Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principal is always a vice."

If someone screams "I am a moderate; we should all be moderates" at the top of his lungs and flails around like a lunatic, would he be considered an extremist? Can an "inappropriate" display of emotion be extreme, even when devoid of "extreme" content?

Is Mr. Eastwood right? Is it easy to be an extremist? Is it easy to be an ALF or ELF sympathizer with arguably "noble" values that run counter to society? Is this ideology merely the result of mechanical thought processes or rather the result of an intense philosophical journey?

Was it easy to be Jesus, considered an extremist in his time? Was it easy to be Baruch Spinoza or Jan De Witt (the political leader of the Netherlands in the 1600's), both considered extremists by the conventions of their time. Why were they called extreme? In large part because they were proponents of democracy when the Dutch people did NOT want democracy. Jan and his brother Cornelius (who held a minor political position) were lynched by the towns people, hung in a square in The Hague. Their body parts were proudly displayed in store fronts all over town.

Who shall we call extreme? The townspeople who displayed the body parts? The De Witts with their pro-Democracy stance? Both? Neither?

Even though I suspect I am again somehow criticizing your belief in "the objective" (as opposed to "the subjective"), you are still my favorite extremist!

Have a nice weekend.

Suppose we accept the flawed, but commonly accepted paradigm of a left to right political continuum, how does one move right, as Mr. Eastwood suggests, and end up on the left? I am not sure, unless one is talking about both extremes exhibiting a tone level of fear / anger. The extremes could be called shrill and moralistic, but this is probably a gross generalization.

I can, however, see how moving left could result in a position on the far right. The view of the right in my somewhat erroneous continuum would be that the far right wants a few (corporations) in control.

If one accepts the definition of the "left" as the group that protects the voiceless, the powerless, the forgotten ... then the natural progression would be to protect the truly voiceless – animals and nature. They are excluded from our political system, without representation, except by a small-time politician, such as myself, whom you would probably call an "ideologue." Right, Jer?

But I am no more an ideologue than you; we both have our perspectives of the world, and we both alter those perspectives when it makes sense to do so.

Nonhuman species have no standing in court; yet corporations do. Nonhumans are virtually excluded from the conversation in our anthropocentric and speciesist society.

I think a move left means to move away from Democracy – which is really just a rule by the elite (humans) – to an Omniocracy (which I describe as a government of, by and for all living beings). The European Union has added nonhumans to their Constitution, as have Switzerland and Germany. New Zealand, India and Reggio Emilio, Italy have outlawed using animals in ways we normally think acceptable in the U.S. (boiling lobsters alive, keeping fish in small bowls, vivisection, etc.).

We are trailing behind other nations. Even though Arnold says we amend every seven years, I think it would be difficult to sell this idea to our "What's the Matter With Kansas?" country at this time. It would be easier to sell it to the state of California.

You may be thinking what would stuffing a few extra words in the state Constitution really do? Well, words are a powerful tool and an important start. You know that better than most after all your years in politics.

Lastly, why does this move to the left spit us out on right? Because to implement policies that foster the idea that nonhuman species have value "in and of themselves," requires a "top down" government or rule by a few (although not by corporations, of course).

People are self-interested (as are all species) thus cannot be expected to vote against their self-interest. Legislators, however, are different (or should be) because they receive their self-worth from helping others, being fair, inclusive, looking at the "big picture." Plato got this part of his "Republic" right in my estimate.

I'm sure my words will be attacked by some of your feisty bloggers, but these sentiments represent a genuine attempt at discourse and a sincere attempt to influence you – someone who will always have a voice -- regardless of the number of years you choose to remain in politics. There will always be a microphone at your disposal.

"There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest." – Elie Wiesel.

What does "fascist" mean today? It has lost all currency, is flung around as a term of abuse, with pejorative and racist connotations. Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain, the Generals' Argentina, the Colonels' Greece and Pinochet's Chile were "fascist" and were happy to define themselves in this way.

Today's left-right shorthand description of the "map of politics" denies other beings any place on the spectrum at all, as does the vertical, totem pole scale advocated by Austrian economist Skousen. His paradigm reflects levels of economic freedom, and the optimum position, in his estimation, is the "extreme" top (free-market capitalism), not the center. But any economic measure will necessarily ignore the interests of other beings, who are considered property or commodities.

There are numerous political, social, and economic continuums/models, even one that purports to be diamond-shaped and one that advocates a four quadrant approach.

In "Deschooling Society," Ivan Illich originates his own scale – it is left-right and attempts to measure the least manipulative institutions to the most manipulative. The term "manipulative" can relate to psychological addiction, advertising or indoctrination. In his paradigm, many traditionally "left" institutions, such as unions, are situated on the "right" alongside large corporations. He places small businesses (that do not advertise) on the "left."

Although I agree with much of his thought and consider him a creative thinker, I view this model as naive. Small businesses, which he places on the left, can be just as manipulative as large institutions, simply in different ways. A person may feel psychologically compelled to return to a local business due to a personal relationship even if the product is inferior. A small business, in my experience, is more likely to have a "No refunds. No exchanges" sign in its window. A complaint letter to the CEO of a large corporation will often result in financial satisfaction (again my experience). It is arguably manipulative not to give refunds; it certainly provides less freedom for the customer. The lower prices of Walmart could be said to provide more freedom for people (to live a better lifestyle, buy other items), less manipulation in the long run, etc....

Omniocracy requires a new paradigm for society; and interestingly enough, its optimum position is not an "extreme." It cannot be properly described by a horizontal or vertical line; the appropriate model would be an "X."

The line which starts at the bottom left corner of the "X" and moves to the top right corner represents a scale of "satisfying of no interests to the satisfying of all interests," other living beings included. Of course, it is not possible to realize either "extreme."

So the second prong is indispensable. The line which starts at the bottom right of the "X" and moves to the top left corner represents a scale of pragmatism, going from the "least practical to the most practical." There will always be conflicts between species and individuals; there will always be winners and losers in any particular situation. It is the job of government and the legal system to mediate or arbitrate these "disputes." The point of intersection or "moderate" position, if you will, represents the optimum point from which society would operate.

This point also represents what I call "the definitional good," an idea which I came up with years ago when reading Schopenahuer (in his discussion of noumena vs. phenomena)—a fascinating topic for another time.

"If at first you don't succeed, try again. Then quit. There's no use being a damn fool about it." - W.C. Fields

In your utopian "omniocracy" are human beings mere animals, no different than any other beast?

I don't buy into your assumption that omniocracy is utopian.

You insert the word "mere" as if to insinuate that humans have greater innate value than other beings. I refute this notion. The Western philosophical and religious tradition, our culture, mores, etc. have convinced/brainwashed people into believing they are at the pinnacle of the Great Chain of Being, second only to God. I hold this to be a fallacy, an arrogance and indicative of speciesism (a prejudice in which humans think they are superior merely because they are human). Speciesism is much like racism, sexism, anti-Semitism.

As Baruch Spinoza says it is absurd to think that "God has made everything for man's sake...most people are victims of this prejudice." (Ethics, p. 57)

"The medieval-Cartesian attempt to distinguish man from the rest of nature, to elevate him above the rest of the animal kingdom (is) not only an illusory metaphysical extravagance but a symptom of a faulty psychology, whose moral consequences are serious." (Ethics, p. 12)

_________________

Nice to hear from you. I agree with a couple of your comments. (Also please ignore typos and redundancy; I am writing this rather quickly...)

I used the word "refute"," but you are correct that I did not present the arguments. I can do so if you would like. I simply assumed you wanted brief feedback rather than a lengthy response on this somewhat complicated topic. I am happy to discuss it further.

When I mentioned "Western tradition," I did not mean to imply that Eastern thought is any different or "better" in this respect—although there are traditions such as the Jains in India who subscribe to the philosophy of ahimsa (non-injury to all living beings). I assumed that because you are American, Western Tradition influenced you, as it has most Westerners. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps you grew up with the Islamic tradition.

Omniocracy is merely a political system; it is not meant to have any authority over wildlife or bears. My theory requires dividing land into two sections: Bioland (where humans and, of course, some animals and plants reside) and Ecoland (which is off limits to humans).

The latter appeals to the environmentalists: it is essentially "to be left alone" so systems and processes and species can operate without interference by man. It is a way to preserve, which will also benefit humans in the end.

Bioland, on the other hand, is where humans reside, along with some animals – perhaps dogs and cats and rats and insects and trees and plants, etc. But not bears. If one wants to strive towards the "definitional good" – which is the definition of a "happy world," then an omniocracy would be the political system of choice. Note: "Happy" does not have to mean "smile on face". It is shorthand for the satisfying of interests.

Now you ask...what exactly is a happy world? What is the "definitional good"? Well, the "definitional good" is where the objective and the subjective overlap. This has nothing to do with morality; in fact, my ideas are not in line with traditional animal rights or environmentalist philosophies. My belief is that free will and morality are fictions, but this is a very long discussion...so I will not elaborate on this now.

To give you a simple example....let's assume the entire earth is comprised of only 8 living beings – all frogs. No others. If all of these frogs are happy, then it is a "definitionally good" world. If all 8 frogs are in great pain and dying, it is a "definitionally bad" world. There are varying degrees, i.e. if 5 frogs are pretty happy and 3 are medium happy, etc. It is based on utilitarian guidelines, but not utilitarianism. The latter is a moral theory. Note: I define morality as an absolute -- I subscribe to existence of and value of lessalities and leastalities. (Again for another time)

The subjective and the objective intersect because the subjective opinions of our 8 frogs equals an objective point of view. Their subjective view of being happy, for example, equals an objectively better or happier situation. It is either defintionally better or worse. There is a scale based on the view each frog has of his situation. Do you see how the subjective perspectives added together equal an objective situation?

Now let's broaden our situation to include the complicated web of life forms that would inhabit Bioland (if it were to exist). Because remember we would probably not tamper with Ecoland – even in the instance of a forest fire, etc. The goal in Ecoland is to "leave it alone."

Omniocracy is merely the representing of all interests, not just the powerful and elite (humans). Decision-making would not be limited only to how a situation would affect people. Part of this calculation includes pragmatic factors, thus you may recall the "X" paradigm that I wrote about earlier.

One cannot enforce laws against the murder of small beings, i.e. insects and small plants in most cases so they would be less likely to receive protections in Bioland. Read Jain philosophy – noble but so ascetic and prohibitive that it is impractical.

There would be conflicts of interest between individuals and species (as there are now) and these conflicts would have to be mediated or arbitrated (via government and the legal system).

The decision-makers in the Omniocracy would negotiate, compromise, make decisions in much the same way it is done today. The major difference is that people would not be the only beneficiaries. The interests of other beings would be given weight. There would be governmental representatives who represent nonhumans.

I do not believe a "democratic type system" would work; people would routinely vote to fulfill their own desires and discard the interests of other beings.

I do believe people would be vegetarians in Bioland, but it is up to the decision-makers of the Omniocracy. I am not going to say what would be permitted or disallowed. Despite what you think, I am not vying for a senior position in the Omniocracy. But as a local politician in Valley Glen, I feel I represent the interests of all beings in my district.

I know I have left out a significant portion of my theory, but I appreciate your interest in the topic. I hope you will buy my book on this topic which will be published later this year. Title is "Armed for Ideological Warfare" It expresses this theory in much greater detail; it utilizes Baruch Spinoza's philosophy as a starting point.

Spinoza's pantheism has not been discredited. I think you are mistaken. He was brilliant philosopher, in my view. He was much ahead of his time, and his ideas have great relevance today.