Fascinated by symmetry

In my late teens and early twenties, I tended to divide the political world in good and evil forces. There was no room back then for doubts, subtleties or shades. Everything was black or white, right or wrong, and you were either with me or against me. Of course, I thought the correct side was the left, the progressives, the ‘reds’. I wanted to change the world. I felt the poverty, injustice and harsh living conditions of those around me, and of suffering people I saw on TV and newspapers. The ‘good’ guys had to be those who wanted to get these people out of poverty and adversity by means of redistributing wealth, freeing them of the cruelties of the market as much as possible. Actually, I never sympathized with communism, but nevertheless really believed in the liberating possibilities of socialdemocratic public policies and the limitless opportunities government action offered to change the world for good. Emancipation was the key, a word which conjured up more than just freeing people from the whims of capitalism; it also meant elightening them, and once this was accomplished, the world would be pure harmony and welfare for all. My ideals were not only noble, but the democratic, socialist way of accomplishing them was perfect, flawless and unparalleled by any alternative theory or practice. Of course, I kept hearing complaints and objections against this way of thinking, but I deemed those making them privileged, selfish and self-interested. They were the ‘bad’ guys.

As it turned out, my passion for perfect emancipatory theories grew out with time, as I engaged in the complexities of the real world and discovered the limits to collective action, human fallibility, the endless plurality of desires and worldviews, the mighty power of chance and the many imperfections concomitant to human nature. In particular, I learned governmental power may be as bad as private power, and usually much more so. On the other hand, I still feel the injustice and suffering in this world, but no longer attribute all evils to some bad guys controlling our fate.

Since I landed at the blogsphere I have paid some attention to the curious opinions and attitudes of the so called Spanish anarcho-capitalist bloggers. For them, governments are the worst tragedy ever befallen to humanity, and everything sort of its complete erradication is wrong. The likes of Robert Nozick, Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe are their gods, and they scrutinize their works as a rabbi or a priest studies the Torah or the Bible in search for the Truth. They think taxes, laws, policies and anything related to the state amount to the most severe of immoralities. Governments are criminal; all laws except those sanctifying property enslave individuals; all taxation is theft. If we wiped out governments from the face of earth, humans would spontaneusly organize themselves and everyone would be happy and free at last. They call anyone not sharing their views a ‘socialist’, including here not only leftists but also liberals, classic liberals, moderates and conservatives. However their extremist views, they dispense themselves with the need of giving any detailed arguments to prove their points. They judge repeating time and again the same clichés about the criminal nature of government suffices. Do they think for a second their theories may be put into effect? Do they ever consider reality as something else than an a despicable annoyance? Are they convinced of being useful, of doing something meaningful to others? Will they ever venture out of their ivory towers to deal with the real problems human societies face? I guess many of our local anarcho-capitalists are very young, have not studied much yet, or have not done so dispassionately, and have seldom experienced the real world. In those circumstances, it is easy to be fascinated by accounts in which everything is perfect, symmetrical and beautiful, and any intended moves lead invariably to the desired outcomes. I felt this kind of fascination at their age. By relating to those narratives, we skip the wearing task of finding our place as active citizens in an imperfect world and solutions to its real problems, solutions which always will be incomplete, imperfect and contingent upon given circumstances. Eventually, some of these devotees of faultless theories and ideal worlds will leave behind their utopies. Very few ones will become notable libertarian thinkers, and still others will always remain the doctrinaires they were meant to be. Dogma needs believers as much as they need a faith.

Photo: Battlestar Galactica poster

Identity and immigration priorities

1

The Spanish opposition conservative Popular Party (PP) made public last week its proposed measures on immigration policy as part of its program towards next month´s general election. As it is usually the case in Spain, these propositions were welcomed not with the ensuing debates and discussion such an important issue deserves, but with a cacophony of accusations and contempt from the leftist parties, which in turn triggered new accusations and contempt from the PP. Nothing new under the sun…

The new measures proposed by the PP are twofold. First, a legally binding ‘Integration contract’, whose signature will be mandatory for all new immigrants. Among other prescriptions, this integration contract stipulates immigrants will have to respect the law, pay taxes, and find a job -all of this being already in effect-, but also to learn Spanish and abide by the Spanish customs, without further specification on the latter, though party officials hinted at the prohibition of genital mutilation and the equality between sexes, both of which are already enforced. Failure to comply may result in the immigrant being expelled from the country. The party justified the measure on the need to ameliorate the integration of immigrants by way of them adhering to core Spanish values -”which must be clearly stablished by society as a whole”-, thus improving social cohesion. The need for society to decide in which cases should we all be morally and legally bound and when differences and diversity should be respected was also mentioned.

The second measure consists in the introduction of a new scheme to give out temporary visas and working permits based on a ‘points system’, aiming at facilitating the arrival of high skilled and experienced workers. Along with prioritizing immigrants possesing certain skills or having the high capabilities the Spanish labour market is in need of, those individuals coming from countries “with which we may have special or historical links” would also be favored. According to one leading Spanish newspaper the PP would actually like to toughen immigration policy giving preference to foreigners arriving from Latin America -catholic and Spanish speakers- over those coming from the Maghrib -muslim and Arab speakers-. Also, temporary and working visas would be awarded according to the following criteria: (a) Knowledge of Spanish; (b) Professional skills; (c) Knowledge of the Spanish legal system; and (d) Knowledge of the Spanish culture.

On the left camp, the governmental Socialist Party (PSOE) deemed the announced proposals xenophobic, reactionary and discriminating; the socialist Vicepresident considered they favor rejection and racism, and showed contempt for immigrants, for equality and for diversity; and the post-communist United Left (IU) added they were racist, classist and islamophobic, and that the PP abhors diversity and religious pluralism.

Do measures like those proposed improve immigrants integration and social cohesion, as the PP claims, or else they embody racism and contempt for other cultures, as the left asserts? At this point it would be interesting to look at how other countries are coping with immigration and diversity, and one such interesting comparation, if not the most appropriate, is the Canadian case.

Canada has, right after Australia, the highest proportion of foreign-born population in the world (19,8%). In the five years preceding 2006, the year for which we have the latest available figures, Canada’s foreign-born population increased by 13.6% (the equivalent rate for the Canadian-born population was 3.3% for the same period. Immigrants born in Asia and the Middle East made up the largest proportion (58.3%) of newcomers, followed by those born in Europe (16,1%), Central and South America (10,8%) and in Africa (10,6%). In 2006, just three metropolitan areas -Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver- were home to nearly 70% of all recent immigrants. 70.2% of the foreign-born population is allophone, that is, has as mother tongue neither English nor French. If aboriginal languages are included, one out of five Canadians does not have any of the official languages as mother tongue. Regarding religion, in 2001 Catholics and Protestants made up nearly 70% of the population; another 15% has no religious affiliation, the rest was Othodox, other types of Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh and other, in varying percentages.

Commensurately with this astonishing level of diversity, Canada faces enormous integration challenges, and the country has engaged itself in a ceaseless debate on the core values of its social and political system, trying to stablish what being Canadian really means and what this notion of citizenship, if any, implies for the Canadian legal system. Both liberal institutions granting rights and freedoms, the rule of law, and multiculturalism play a relevant role in this debate, the most important one Canada faces nowadays as a nation.

The current Canadian immigration policy is based on the idea that immigration prompts the country’s growth, its prosperity and its cultural diversity. The system also aims at families´reunion and the protection of refugees. Permanent residence is usually granted according to a point system based on several selection factors, such as educational level, abilities in English or French, working experience, age, arranged employment in the country, or potential adaptability (having studied in Canada, having relatives or having previous work there). Immigrants are also subjected to a proof of funds, that is, they must show they are not going to be dependent on the state after their arrival. Residents and citizens may sponsor relatives to immigrate in the country, and it is worth noting that -on a very progressive note and besides dependent children, grandparents, siblings and other relatives- not only spouses but also common-law or conjugal partners are eligible. Finally, let us mention language proficiency and knowledge about Canadian culture plays an important role, but only when applying for citizenship. Broadly speaking, the system aims both at matching the needs of Canadian labour market with both the skills and flows of newcomers, and at facilitating integration by means of a non-restrictive, non-ideological and objective set of selection criteria, and also helping families reunite.

The Canadian immigration system has worked reasonably well, is the result of successive approaches to immigration and integration policies throughout decades, and commands a high degree of approval among the Canadian population and the agreement of all political parties. Sure, there are challenges and integration issues in Canada, as mentioned before, such as social tensions regarding some cultural practices or the consecuences of a certain degree of permanent low income among recent immigrants, but, overall, the system has worked efficiently and allowed for the great numbers of newcomers mentioned above to settle successfully in the country -access to citizenship is easy, in international terms, as permanent residents may apply for it after three years, and about 85% of those eligible get naturalized- and share the wealth its arrival has contributed so much to trigger.

Going back to Spain, what does the Canadian experience tell us?

It is strongly advisable for a country subjected to high immigration rates to open a public debate on identity issues, as comprehensive as possible and including immigrant groups. Our society, as those of many other countries, is becoming increasingly multicultural, and cannot do without trying to stablish which is our minimum set of core values, those our legislation must embody and protect, and citizens and residents comply with. However, this is not an easy task, and different parties in the debate may feel the temptation to try to impose their views, resorting either to an elusive concept of ‘ancestral national culture’ -empty and dysfunctional in the face of accelerated social change- or to a multiculturalist notion of citizenship, which relativizes values and may lead to a ghettoization of certain groups and entrenched discriminating practices inside ethno-cultural communities and among them.

When making public their immigration policy proposals, the Popular Party spokesmen mentioned the need to address this debate on core values, and rightly so, but perhaps an electoral campaign is not the best moment to raise the subject, which calls for a quiet, comprehensive and long-term reflection, nor political parties should be its (only) stirring agents, as many other social forces, institutions and individuals ought to have a say in the disscusion.

By choosing to bring up immigration and integration issues just before a general election, the Popular Party looks like he is not so much interested in opening a debate on these extremely important questions but on gaining some political advantage by means of playing with the emotions of voters. Also, the criteria it advanced for stablishing priorities among residency claimants seem to be very subjective and hastily assembled, though consistent with a certain conservative notion of Spanish culture, as if its definition enjoyed an overwhelming consent and needed no further discussion, which is just the contrary of the non-biased reflection mentioned above. Whereas having certain professional skills and at least a working command of Spanish may increase immigrants´chances of finding a job and integrating, it is difficult to grasp how favoring certain countries of origin over other countries or regions -out of culture, religion or historical links- will benefit the Spanish economy. This arbitrariness also reveals an static idea of Spanish culture, insusceptible to change and frozen in time, and it sends the message as well that Spain is an open country not for those wanting to come here to live, respect the laws, progress and contribute to its wealth, but only for the ones who will not challenge the supposedly immutable essence of Spanish ‘culture’.

On the other hand, the socialist government and the rest of the leftist parties are wrong in criticizing the stablishment of priorities in the immigration policies and of certain rules newcomers must observe, since it is perfectly legitimate governments choose which people are entitled to form part of their societies, and doing so in a non-discriminating, open-to-all and reasonable manner is a proper way of conducting public policy.

The reaction of the left lays bare the fact it does not really know how to address the identity and multicultural issues we are facing. Or else, worst still, as in the case of post-communist or post-marxist parties and movements, they know perfectly well, following their desire of detonating the pivotal institutions of our open societies. Regarding integration and identity, it is worth recalling cultures are dynamic and are subjected to constant change; they are not ‘stock’ but ‘flow’, to borrow the language of the economic science. However, we must give sound arguments and reasons to defend or criticize the elements making up a culture and, if we care at all for human rights, rule out any relativist temptations, which prevent us from exercising a rightful critique of cultural practices. Let us not fool ourselves: criminalizing genital mutilation and arranged marriage but leaving intact many other forms of abuse in the name of diversity -something post-marxist movements and even a part the socialdemocratic left support- only shows our selfishness and our disdain for the fate of the individuals we supposedly care for. Avoiding a debate on what constitutes the foundations of our freedom -those deserving uttermost respect on the part of citizens, residents and visitors alike- and, moreover, doing so out of a supposed ‘respect’ for the customs dear to minoritarian ethno-cultural groups also being a part of our society, only demeans our legitimacy to speak for the oppressed and the abused in those groups, and exposes the degree towards which we yield to a sort of post-colonial remorse -conveniently transmited through generations-, and also the fact that we are paradoxically shameful about the accomplishments of our civilization.

Far from being an exercise on ‘neo-colonialist’ imposition and ‘contempt’ for diversity and pluralism, to judge by the left´s initial reaction to the Popular Party immigration measures -the point not being how good or ill-conceived they are-, vindicating the very values and institutions that make us all equal before the law and grant us, among many other things, the freedom to engage in the cultural practices of our election or the abandonment of them, is the only way of organizing a multiethnic, multicultural and diverse society for the good of its members. For all of them, current and prospective.

Photo: School friends, 2007 © Woodleywonderworks

Heaven and hell

Still a few months before I join the chosen ones in paradise, where good and evil overlap and pure hedonism flows unbound among creatures of mythical beauty… The perfect bliss…

Photo: DC-10, Ibiza, 2006 © Loudsoul

Sorry Karl, I prefer Groucho

My coleague Kantor suggested some time ago we all should read Marx because he was both an outstanding writer and one of the greatests social scientists ever. Yes, indeed. I totally agree with him. In his amazing works, he portraits governments, progressive and conservative alike, as brutal opressors of the common fellow, who just struggles to lead a simple life and make ends meet, in marked contrast to the indecent life of sheer pleasure and luxury of the privileged classes. He also showed us the way to wipe up the long decadent traditions of the bourgeoisie, by way of completely devastating its parties, exhibitions and celebrations. No less important, he taught us how to undermine the authority of the repressive forces of the upper classes, such as priests, politicians and policemen, by continuously cheating and mocking the sacred symbols of their power. Consistent with his revolutionary ethics, his big plans to destroy the rotten culture and make room for something new used to end in caothic turmoil and anarchy, so we may well forgive him for his mistakes, like a little singing and dancing here and there.

Yes, a visionary figure who definitely showed us the way ahead, Marx… Groucho Marx.

Photo: Groucho Marx

Dos locos en el umbral

Tardó más de un año en mantener una conversación con ella. No fue una conversación extensa; apenas una respuesta a su jovial “¡Feliz año!”. No lo esperaba, y sólo pudo balbucir un manido “Igualmente. ¿Cómo te va?”, mientras dudaba entre detenerse o seguir hacia el portal. Hacía tiempo que se cruzaban en la entrada del edificio. Su sesión semanal de psicoanálisis acababa a la misma hora que empezaba la de él. Al principio no reparó en ella, pero luego se dio cuenta de que aquella regularidad no era fortuita. Fue eso y darse de bruces con ella en una ocasión en la puerta de la consulta. Con el tiempo aprendió a esperar el momento en que sus ojos acuosos y su alegre sonrisa aparecían en la portería. A veces, cuando creía que iba a llegar tarde a su cita ficticia, se pegaba la gran carrera desde la salida del metro y llegaba sudoroso y descompuesto. No quería cruzársela en las escaleras, ni mucho menos en la sala de espera, así que siempre aguardaba en la calle, y cuando se encendía la luz del portal se dirigía hacia allí para hacerse el encontradizo, porque no quería que se diera cuenta de que la estaba esperando. Siempre rezaba -en vano- por que no apareciera hablando por el móvil, lo que impedía todo inicio de conversación. ¿Por qué no podía salir de la consulta en silencio, pensando en sus cosas, como el resto? Poco después del saludo navideño se armó de valor, y tras alguna broma algo torpe para romper el hielo le propuso tomar un café a la semana siguiente. Ella aceptó, aparentemente encantada, aunque luego, riéndose de esa forma suya tan alegre, soltó un enigmático: “¿Y de qué van a hablar dos locos como nosotros?”. Después se marchó, contenta y volviéndose a saludar. El día de la cita él la espero en el bar en que habían quedado, pero ella no apareció. Estaba dolido por el plantón, pero meditó si convenía más a su estrategia de largo plazo reprochárselo la próxima vez que se cruzaran en la consulta o bien quitarle importancia y no mostrarse rencoroso. En cualquier caso, no coincidió con ella esa semana. Ni la otra. Tampoco la siguiente. Al cabo de tres semanas supo que no la iba a volver a ver. Pensó que su psicoanalista, de la que sospechaba que no le gustaba que los pacientes se relacionaran entre sí, le había cambiado el día a propósito para que no coincidieran. Luego concluyó que aquello era imposible, que ella no podía sospechar nada. Quizá había terminado su análisis pero, ¿tan repentinamente? Por lo poco que habló con ella le dio la impresión de que aún le quedaba bastante. El caso es que había desaparecido, y preguntarle a la doctora quedaba totalmente descartado. Igual que había aprendido a esperarla, al cabo de unos meses apenas recordaba cómo solía emocionarse al llegar a la consulta. Ya sólo quedaba una rutina: portal, escaleras, timbre, saludo, diván, sesión, despedida y hasta la próxima semana. Después concluyó su análisis y no volvió a aparecer por allí.

It wasn´t me, mummy!

Last month, a canadian woman won a lawsuit she had filed against a man. It was a very special lawsuit, since she was suing the dealer who sold her the drugs she overdosed with. The woman, Sandra Bergen, now 23, bought from Clinton Davey some crystal meth in Biggar, Saskatchewan, in 2004, and then smoke it with him. She had consumed the substance before, and claims she was addicted to it back then. After smoking it for a while, she felt very sick, and wound up in hospital, in a coma. She eventually got out of it and decided to sue her dealer. She accused Davey of knowing “the drug was highly addictive and harmful” without letting her know, and of intentionally wanting to “inflict physical and mental suffering” to her. She also named as a defendant the person who supplied the drugs to her dealer. In the pre-trial examination process, Davey refused to reveal who provided him with the drug and, facing the threat of a contempt-of-court charge, he agreed to have his statement of defence struck, de facto admitting his liability. That lead to Sandra Bergen legal victory. A future trial will determine the amount she will be awarded in damages. According to her statement of claim she is seeking more than $50,000.

Leaving aside some paradoxical aspects of this legal process (i.e.: may an individual be accused of breaking an implicit contract -“you give me something which I will enjoy and will not hurt me and I will give you money in exchange”- when the whole transaction is illegal, to begin with? I would really like to hear from any legal expert regarding this question), the case exemplifies perfectly well the extent towards which freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. Freedom entails choosing among different courses of action and different possible outcomes, hence the need to assume responsibilities for those choices. Mrs. Bergen wants to be free to consume crystal meth, knowing such behavior carries some risks linked to the frecuency and amount of the drug comsumption, to her own physical condition in relation to the drug´s effect, and to the substance composition. In any case, no one forced her to buy and consume the drug. If she was not sure about the mentioned circunstances, she should not have bought it. However, she did it, voluntarily, and claiming she was addicted to the drug does not change the fact that it was a voluntary act. Addiction does not really exist, since any comsumption habit may be stopped (all of a sudden or in a short period of time, depending on the substance, doses and lenght of comsumption) if the consumer chooses to do so. When the undesired outcome materializes, Mrs. Bergen refuses to admit she is the only responsible for it, and starts looking for someone else to blame (her dealer, his supplier), seeking compensation.

If so called recreational drugs were legal (actually, drugs have always been legal except for the past 80 years, the years of the prohibition crusade), they would have to display an accurate description of its components and detailed administration instructions. Failing to do so would result in the banning of its commercialization, and frauds would be prosecuted. However, governments have chosen to keep the production, distribution and consumption of drugs illegal out of paternalism and other reasons, thus effectively making children out of us adults when it comes to making an informed choice about which substances we want to consume. In this day and age, it is not us who decide what we wish or is convenient to put into our bodies, but our governments, which restrict our freedom and our responsibilities in our supposed best interest. Needless to say, many adults are only too happy to relinquish as many responsibilities for their actions as possible.

As in the case of the woman who sued Starbucks Co. because she scalded herself when spilling the coffee she had just bought at one of its stores, and many other such examples (obese consumers suing McDonald´s after years of happily visiting its restaurants or lung cancer patients proceeding against the tobacco companies which provided them with so many smoky pleasures come easily to one´s mind), Mrs. Bergen´s case conjures up the tender image of a child who mischievously breaks his favourite toy. With weeping eyes, he will run to his mother, denying the evidence and pointing the finger at something or someone else instead: “Please mummy, fix it! It wasn´t my fault! I didn´t do anything…!”

P.S.: Besides her legal victory, and the money going with it, Mrs. Bergen´s story has yet another happy ending: she got a job and a purpose in life. Now she tours the country speaking of her experience for “38 cents a kilometer or airfare” and “$250 honorarium (negotiable)”, “in order to educate whom ever, where ever” about the dangers of drug consumption!

Photo: ‘Black Opium’ cover, illustrated by Robert Maguire © The Book Palace

Liberalism, elections and the proper place for religion

In a free society, religion should remain in the private realm, period.

To be sure, churches and sects will always to try to exert influence in the political arena, claiming to be above earthly legislation if they are (or purport to be) the main religious denomination in a given community, or demanding tolerance in they are a minority. Acting this way, they conduct themselves just like any other interest group. If, for the sake of maintaining freedom, we deem essential the state is neutral between different conceptions of the good -that is, that we have a liberal order, leaving aside for a moment the many varying interpretations of this notion-, then the appropriate public policy towards interest groups will consist in avoiding them to impose their views on the general population.

As some liberal historians have shown, what is central in the constitution of liberal thought is not the economy but the religious problem. The seventeenth-century liberals considered the only way out of the political crises that mired the European political landscape was to achieve the neutrality of the state in religious matters. From then onward, tolerance has been the key concept, and many liberal thinkers have struggled to show that to bring about fully the idea of tolerance and peaceful social co-existence between different creeds, the state should be completely detached from religious sects, moreover granting none of them any privileged status.

Ludwig von Mises, the great Austrian liberal economist and theorist, summarized the classic liberal position on the subject when he wrote the following lines in 1927 (Liberalism. The classical tradition, Indianapolis, Liberty Fund, 2005 [1927]:

“If one considers the peaceful cooperation of all men as the goal of social evolution, one cannot permit the peace to be disturbed by priests and fanatics. Liberalism proclaims tolerance for every religious faith and every metaphysical belief, not out of indifference for this “higher” things, but from the conviction that the assurance of peace within society must take precedence over everything and everyone. And because it demands toleration of all opinions and all churches and sects, it must recall them all to their proper bounds whenever they venture intolerantly beyond them. In a social order based on peaceful cooperation, there is no room for the claim of the churches to monopolize the instruction and education of the young. Everything that their supporters accord them of their own free will may and must be granted to the churches; nothing may be permitted to them in respect to persons who want nothing to do with them.”

If contemporary liberal parties, which claim to be the political heirs of distinguished liberal thinkers such as Mises, are to follow their ideas, they cannot turn their backs to an institutional design that allows members of different denominations to practice their own faith without forcing others to be involved with it, either mentally, socially or financially. If they favor, as we often witness, one cult over the others -for example, the self-proclaimed liberal Spanish Popular Party tends to align itself with the opinions of the Catholic Church-, they should be considered as conservatives and not as liberals.

However, a certain democratic perverse effect is at work here, apparently blurring the distinction between liberalism and conservatism. Given the majoritarian nature of our contemporary representative political systems, the main contending parties are forced to become catch-all parties, as theorized by Otto Kirchheimer, to maximize their electoral support and, hence, their chances of arriving to power. That means they will include different proposals in their political programs, however incoherent they result, in pursuit of the highest electoral support. In the case of the centre and right of the centre parties (a purely journalistic but rather empty classification), where liberal parties are usually found, this implies appealling to both secular and religious voters in a sort of unclear -and impossible- equilibrium, hard to fathom by true liberals. Such ideological exercises tend to lean towards the conservative pole time and again, since liberal parties´ strategists usually believe there is more to lose -in terms of sheer voting numbers- neglecting the conservative part of the constituency than the secular, liberal one. In practical terms, that means they will align themselves with the church and will favor it finantially or in other ways when they are in power.

Yet liberal parties have an alternative to what seems to be the only route in terms of electoral tactics, which is restoring political pedagogy its good name and effectiveness by again practicing it. That implies they should not merely adapt their political platfoms and policies to the perceived or seeming inclinations and whims of the majority but try to persuade voters of the benefits for freedom and prosperity of their core liberal ideas, however unpopular, with clear, coherent programs, determined public policies, and courageous and articulate leaders.

Photo: Orthodox cathedral, now the University of Saint Petersburg, Russia, 2006 © Loudsoul

Reciprocal atrocities

On Dec. 31st, the number of casualties reaches 450 on both sides. On March 31st, it reaches 2,000 casualties and 4,000 injured. Both parts anounce ceasefires that are almost inmediately breached. Savage retaliation acts against civilians on both sides follow each other. The UN endorses a two states solution in Palestine as the only quick and effective way of stopping the bloodbath. The divided Arab ruling class has been unable of defending efficiently its people´s interests and couldn´t prepare the Palestines for the armed conflict either. On April 9th, Irgun and Lehi troops kill 100 Palestinian civilians in Deir Yassim, west of Jerusalem. In revenge, the Arabs attack a Hebrew group of trucks travelling with medical equipment; as a result, 77 people die. The number of Palestinian refugees reaches 750,000 by November. They and their descendants will remain in exile in camps in Egipt, Lebanon,west of the Jordan river and Syria, festering their anger and resentment and unable to integrate in the new foster societies, thanks to the official Arab policy towards them. Expelled, robbed of their properties, hundreds of Hebrews suffer retaliation all over the Middle East.*

Is this a description of recent attacks on Israeli population by Palestinian terrorists and on Palestinian population by the Israeli army? No, these events happened in 1947-1948, right after the Israeli declaration of independence, but they could be yesterday´s headlines; they have never ceased to take place, as both peoples wage war on each other since then. Soon it will be the 60th anniversary of the creation of the state of Israel, 60 years of bloody attacks on soldiers and civilians on both parts, a mutual disregard for the rights of each other, and countless actions and policies aimed at impeding a peaceful and prosperous co-existence of two political communities. All this murderous nonsense is bound to go on until both peoples are weary of fighting each other. Then, they will be ready to elect responsible and corageous leaders who are willing to compromise and let the inhabitants of this war-torn region have a future.

(*) Data from Joan B. Culla, Israel, el somni i la tragèdia. Del sionisme al conflicte de Palestina [Israel, the dream and the tragedy. From Zionism to the Palestinian conflict], Barcelona, Edicions La Campana, 2005.

Photo: Balata Refugee Camp, September 2005 © Shabtai Gold

On marriage and homosexuals

My fellow bloggist Dhavar has published a post claiming homosexuals have no right to marry. His main arguments are: (1) marriage is a social institution whose goal is reproduction; (2) homosexual unions are not reproductive; (3) the reason some entitlements, such as inheritances and widow pensions, are legally linked to marriage only lays in them being created to allow for the provision of children (nourishment and education); and (4) homosexuals want to be able to marry to missappropriate those funds, towards which they have no rights.

Since I totally disagree with him on this subject, here are my two cents to the discussion.

Firstly, marriage is nowadays not based on reproduction (moreover, it never was, but proving this would lead us to a complex antropological discussion). According to Eurostat, in 2006 there were nine countries in the EU in which the number of children born out of wedlock reached a proportion of 40 per cent or higher (Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, France, Latvia, Slovenia, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom), and in four of these the proportion was 50 per cent or higher (Bulgaria, Estonia, France and Sweden). In Norway and Iceland, two countries of the region, the figures are 53 and 65,72 per cent, respectively (2006 in the Norwegian case and 2005 in the Icelandic one). In the U.S., roughly 40 per cent of children were born outside marriage in 2005. The Spanish figure for 2006 is wrong in the Eurostat table. According to the Spanish National Statistics Institute, unwed mothers gave birth to a 26,57 per cent of the children born in Spain in 2005, though given the trend, the figure for 2007 should be around 30 per cent. In all cases the figures show an increasing drift without any exception.

In most countries, and certainly in all of the above mentioned, children of single parents enjoy the very same rights those of married parents do.

Secondly, marriages without children are considered everywhere as fully legitimate ones, and they enjoy the same legal status everywhere as well. If procreation was their essential aim, they should be considered defectived or failed marriages, but we do not deem them so, do we?

Therefore, marriage nowadays is not about granting reproduction.

On the other hand, reproduction does not only imply giving birth, but also caring, loving and providing, and both heterosexual and homosexual couples or individuals are equally fit for these tasks. Homosexual couples cannot procreate, but they may bring up as parents a child born of one of the members, or adopted, thus qualifiying as parents. Heterosexual couples may do the same, by the way.

I also want to avoid a long historical account on the development of inheritance as an institution (a ‘pension’ is not even an institution in the proper sense of the word but a public policy choice), so it suffices to say nowadays it serves no such goal as provision for children in the absence of their parents, since in that case, or when family income is below a treshold, welfare state policies may apply.

Nearly everywhere, only spouses, children, parents or some other members of a deceased person´s family (in this order) are entitled to inherit her property, but not her partners or lovers. That is, the family may inherit property paying no taxes, or very few ones, whereas non-family members have to pay much more. Homosexuals who want to marry do not want to do so because they aim to embezzle the rights those people are entitled to by “artificially” becoming spouses, as Dhavar´s convoluted argument goes. They want to be able to marry to publicly and simbolically show mutual love (this reason seems quite strange to me, but it applies just the same to heterosexual marriage) and enjoy the same rights heterosexuals do. Period.

My suggestion here is that fiscal policy should be neutral regarding civil status, that is, individuals, other things being equal, should pay the same taxes whether married, single or in a civil union. Moreover, rights should be granted to individuals per se, not as bearers of a particular civil status.

There are also important simbolic aspects in the right of homosexuals to marry. By legalizing homosexual marriage, society eliminates yet another discrimination form, sending a message out that homosexuals should enjoy the very same rights their fellow citizens do, thus reasserting them as full members of their polity.

I hope to have shown this discrimination is only based in prejudices against a particular sexual orientation and also on atavistic fears, i.e., that society as we know it will just disappear if some supposedly essential institutions do not remain immutable.

The recent amendment to the Spanish civil code, allowing for marriage between individuals of the same sex and adoption by homosexual married couples, only redresses the lengthy legal discrimination suffered by Spanish homosexuals. It was high time.

My comments in the third part above are general and do not necessarily refer to Dhavar, whose post does not seem to contain prejudices against homosexuality per se.

Photo: Pink ad in a street of Saint Petersburg, Russia, 2007 © Loudsoul

Not so modern now

Watching Charles Chaplin´s Modern Times (1936), I wonder how accurately it reflects daily life in the thirties, at least for the average American people. Though it may not be the main argument of the movie -I think it points more toward the confussion and perplexity of the common folk in a whole new social and economic environment-, I guess it gives a rather precise portrait of the difficulties -stagnant unenployment, great numbers of working individuals living in sheer poverty, 12-hour workdays, repetitive tasks in the working line, a biased system of criminal justice- the working masses had to face back then. However, and contrary to what many collectivists would like us to believe, this is not the situation we witness today. At least in the Western world -obviously, in other regions things are quite different, but nevertheless their way out is just the same- knowledge is the main characteristic of labour markets. In developed economies -and let us not forget our modern socioeconomic systems necessarily grew out of the one Chaplin shows in his movie- aiming to produce high value goods and services, and whose markets strive to find out the tastes, needs and desires of a wide variety of consumers, independent enterpreneurs, individually taylored careers, and high skilled, flexible workers are needed in great numbers, and less so massive unskilled work. Paramount among other factors, this development has changed for good labour markets and industrial relations, often blurring distinctions between bosses and subordinates, thus making collectivist forces -trade unions, socialist parties, enemies of globalization, advocates of a much dreamed radically egalitarian paradise, and the like- look anachronistic and out of touch with reality, with all their rethoric of working classes vs. capitalistic tycoons and views of wage earners as common fellows crushed by the whimsical wishes of greedy proprietors. Very seldom tales of good and evil succeed in accounting for a complex world which is best described by its multiple shades of grey.

Photo: Charles Chaplin in the set of Modern Times, 1936 © Max M. Autrey