7 Comments
author

All of that being said, we could hash this out over a Zoom call, that could be fun. :)

Thanks again.

Expand full comment
author

Tobias, I believe we are completely missing each other here... i don’t get how you are coming to the assumption that I’m not willing to engage on the topic. I’m perfectly fine with a “dialectic” and am willing to engage in it.

Personally I don’t want it to be JUST me engaging with one other person. It’s best if other people engage on any and all of our posts.

I hope that makes sense. I was being very specific about not defending my posts to the hilt, when it’s better for others to toss the ideas around and debate them, whether or not they, or we ever reach a “conclusion.”

So no. You’ve possibly completely and tragically misunderstood (not your fault; 100% mine) the point of my engagement here.

Sincerest apologies.

Expand full comment
author

Thanks for your comments and I hope to hear more from you.

Couple of things:

I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time, both individually, and as a society. People can support the protests when they are peaceful and they can point out when they are not. Some people might focus on one and some people might focus on the other. I think it’s natural. Remember Butch’s Rule: two things can be true at the same time.

Asking our ancestors why they did or did not do better is... a nice exercise. I can certainly agree that we should not be imposing our judgement too harshly on past generations. Here in the US I’m asked to shoulder that burden and am told that I share in the sins of my ancestors. I’m not told NOT to judge. I’m told TO judge. And not only that, to take the blame and prostrate myself for my privilege. My only point there is that (to one of your points) an argument can be made for the fact that I’m blessed and have benefited from the system. That’s true. But not everyone has. There are MANY white people in these United States who are not so lucky. Are they “privileged”...

A thought exercise for you...Tell a poor kid from Appalachia that he got passed over because the spot went to an upper middle class minority from suburban DC...and then explain to him how he is “privileged.” (Actually, record it on video, though. It would be valuable.) And then when you patiently explain to him that the privilege he has is historical and “systemic” and then stop and ask yourself, “even if true is this a worthy perspective to share with this person,” because you may be privileged, and have the luxury of analyzing such. He is NOT, and he doesn’t feel that way and HIS perspective is worthy of respect and attention as well. (On this note if you get a chance.... watch the HBO drama called “Brexit”... a lot to gleen from that on a similar phenomenon.)

Lastly, ranking Life, Liberty, and Property is literally an exercise I’m futility. If LIFE is THE most important always, then slavery can be justified in certain circumstances, when individuals are simply not able to take care of themselves in any meaningful way. In other words, liberty means having the choice to make decisions that could negatively affect your life. It’s not about ranking them. It is about BALANCING them. As soon as you decide that ONE is objectively and in all times and places and circumstances, more important than the other two, then the balance is lost.... like a three legged stool.

I’m sure I didn’t cover everything. And speaking of balance. My opinion pieces are not meant for balance. This SITE is meant for balance. And I felt the need to explicitly defend property rights, lest we fall out of balance.

Sincerest thanks again for the thoughtful comments. It was good seeing it! Hope to have more and equally thoughtful discussions... upon advise and discussion from one of our others authors (EmJay!) , I’ll leave this as my single response to your engagement here. So last word to you if you’d like it.

(Also, if you’re interested in writing original posts, especially from your European perspective, we’re happy to host a couple articles for you and see if you enjoy it and if it’s a fit.)

Expand full comment

Dear Butch,

I strongly agree with you that the protection of property is one of the main pillars of a functioning society. I would not necessarily put it on the same plain as life and liberty but pretty close. I think it is horrible that people unrelated to the issues at hand have their property and livelihood destroyed.

Having said that I want to challenge you to play a thought game that we used to play discussing our difficult past and the role of our grandparents in the past. Whenever you think about the abhorrent things committed in Germany before and during World War 2 you immediately start to challenge your ancestors "How could you....?", "Why did you not rise against...?". Most of the time after long back and forth we always ended with the insight that it hard to judge someone if you have not shared their experience, and certainly that is never an excuse for crimes committed or help not offered or action not taken.

I very often end up also nowadays that I should be careful with judgement about other people and their deed since I am upper privileged, well-educated, some sort of wealthy. I know that if I speak up my voice due to the color of my skin and my background by pure luck of birth will be heard and accepted. I never had to feel threatened for my life just by the color of my skin or feel discriminated in all societal aspects and I think neither have you.

This is not an attempt of an excuse for the destruction of property but it should make me careful judging those people without offering solutions for the underlying problem that caused these crimes in the first place.

There is one single aspect where I really think it is important to disagree. If protest are mainly peaceful I think it is okay to call them mainly peaceful while also condemning the not peaceful protests at the same time. I also believe that peaceful protesters should always try to restrain not peaceful protesters but not doing so does not render the peaceful protesters automatically to be a mob or not peaceful.

As a side note I think you make a weak argument about life and liberty. It is interesting that you condemn especially one aspect of failures in addressing the COVID crisis. Which given yesterdays news seems even more strange. I would probably rewrite that paragraph for a more balanced, less partisan assessment of the meaning of protecting lives during a pandemic.

Liberty in my view is mainly not an issue about restricting some movements in the attempt to protect lives (the other important pillar of society). Liberty is in my view, having lived close to political systems that did not protect individual liberties, is mainly about our liberty to think and speak without fearing for repercussions and these fundamental liberties are the important ones to a democratic society. Sure we have to careful if our liberty of movement is permanently restricted but in a pandemic you can have the dilemma to have to weigh one fundamental right against another. Is freedom of movement more important than protecting lives of vulnerable parts of the society. Is the requirement to wear a mask to protect lives of other members of society more or less important than my freedom of speak?

You can certainly disagree with me on these questions but I believe you can't have it both.

Best,

Tobias

Expand full comment

Some times we gotta let "things" (aka property) go. Can you imagine if women were still considered property? Can we be grateful buildings are burning and not our spouses? Retribution is never fun to experience. Doesn't mean those looting do not feel justified in their action. The Bible is quite clear that property and riches won't save anyone and there is plenty of freedom in Christ regardless of how Capitalism chains us. ;)

Expand full comment

Hi Butch,

I will try to add my external point of view whenever possible and I think I have something valuable to add.

I will not challenge your answer on the topic itself because I would want to have a reply but I will challenge your answer about the purpose of a great conversation itself.

I strongly believe in dialectic and I can‘t see how you can reach this by voicing opinions without incorporating opposing views to create a possible solution. A great conversation in my opinion is not a debate club where my goal is to win an argument. A great conversation should challenge my own views and to create a shared path for me and my conversation partner.

This is where most democratic societies also the German currently fail and the US from my outside view fails spectacularly: Partisan opinions, the more provocative the better, entrenched in their own social/political bubbles where no one wants to even listen to the other side.

If you created this platform to only voice your opinion where is your path to unite opposing views. You can’t expect to get a antithesis for every thesis of yours to reach a synthesis at some point. So people will only find a partisan view on this blog. I believe you have the responsibility to already create a shared path in your own first piece.

Expand full comment