Rätten till egna val

Det borde vara en självklarhet att vi har en rätt att göra egna val. Upptäcker man, som jag gjort, att andra försöker utnyttja en för sina syften kan man känna sig tvingad att avtvå sådant man en gång själv skrivit. Är det jag som menat det där eller har någon manipulerat med mitt medvetande för att få mig att skriva sådant de önskar opponera eller försvara? Vi har kanske en serie privata "trollfabriker" som önskar få folk att sprida åsikter på nätet. Hela tiden stalkas man. Gör man fel utsätts man för en bestraffning.

Så gjorde jag en gång ett försök med en liten roman jag kallade "Det svåra valet". Det dröjde inte länge förrän en man sa att den titeln skulle de ge till en annan berättelse, om abort. Så hade jag alltså ögonen på mig.

Med tiden har minnesbilder kommit upp till ytan om en serietecknare och hans redaktör. Jag vill därför avtvå mig alla moralfilosofiska modeller om domstolar där vi ska döma oss själva för att det passar dessa infiltratörer av frimureriet. (Jag är inte själv frimurare men känner stor respekt för sådana seriösa frimurare som Rene' Gue'ron.) Visserligen ligger valfriheten mig fortfarande varmt om hjärtat. Jag önskar exempelvis själv vara hjärnan bakom det jag skriver. Är det inte så vill jag inte att vi ska döma oss till något vad hjärtat än säger, ty hjärtat kan inte bara fyllas av kärlek utan också av hat.

Frihet att välja skola, vård, omsorg kan strängt taget vara förenligt med ett icke parlamentariskt system (även om jag är demokrat också i den meningen). Det är demokrati även utan valt parlament om konstitutionen är sådan att individen både har en grundtrygghet, kanske i form av en basinkomst, och friheten att skörda frukterna av den egna sådden, dvs en grundläggande rätt till egna val. Det kommer att finnas materiella skillnader i detta samhälle, men dessa skillnader gör det möjligt att finansiera nya angelägna projekt. Vi har alltså garanterat någon form av dynamik i samhället. Handen på hjärtat : Var finner du, annat än i drömmen ett jämlikt samhälle i absolut mening? Självklart bör alla ha en rätt till utbildning men framgång beror inte bara på dessa rättigheter utan på så mycket annat. Så länge en grundläggande trygghet finns kan vi inte klaga på orättvisor så länge utbildning, vård m m svarar på verkliga behov hos befolkningen.

Du kan alltså inte ställa någon moraliskt inför en domstol. Har jag någon gång förfäktat en sådan bisarr uppfattning beror det på en bakomliggande manipulation kombinerat med en fas i mitt liv och filosoferande som för länge sedan är passerad. Jag vill tvärtom hävda att även om den moraliska domstolen prima facie kan te sig legitim, dvs om man bara beaktar en aspekt av verkligheten, så är den inte det när alla skäl beaktats i en slutgiltig avvägning. Varför? Jo, för att vi ska kunna tala om rätt måste vi kunna förutse våra handlingars konsekvenser och dessa måste vara moraliskt godtagbara (jfr Aleksander Pescenik "Rätten och förnuftet"). Om du vid sidan av juridiska lagar och domstolar ska riskera hamna inför en moralisk domstol vars beslut du inte kunnat förutse måste den moraliska domstolen i praktiken bli omoralisk. Vi kommer inte längre med den moraliska domstolen än till ett tankeexperiment. Folk som haft invändningen att man som företagare kan tvingas agera vid sidan av lagen ibland för att överleva skjuter sig själva i foten om de går emot det resonemang jag manipulerades till att framföra och det på två sätt: För det första var jag anhängare av lättnader för företagen och sänkta skatter, bl a avskaffandet av förmögenhetsskatt och fastighetsskatt samt arv-och gåvoskatten. För det andra så går de miste om ett moraliskt argument för sitt företagande då de brutit mot en juridisk bestämmelse. Istället för att säga att jag i min ungdomliga fas var fel ute kunde de ha menat att jag var rätt ute och att de i avvägningen mellan rätt och moral fann skälen för moralen större, kanske efter att, åtminstone i huvudet, ha upprättat en utilitaristisk kalkyl. Som företagare behöver du inte sträva efter egoism. Så att omedelbart försvara all egoism tycks inte rimligt, ty då tycks man implicit mena att alla företagare verkligen är egoister. Tvärtom är det som så att egoismen finns hos oss alla och att vi har att bekämpa den på samma sätt som vi har att bekämpa frosseriet, dvs lusten att ge efter för matbordets läckerheter. Det är bra för oss själva att vi bekämpar frosseri. Det är inte bra för den egna hälsan om man äter för mycket. På samma sätt är det bra för ens egen utveckling om man bekämpar egoismen, men för det behöver du inte frammanipulerade fiktiva berättelser utan de heliga texterna satta i sufisms ramverk där bekämpandet av det egna egot, nafs, är en nödvändig förutsättning för att vinna den verkliga rikedomen som är av andlig art. 

The Great Mistake

The spiritual path is not without direction. It was one of the great insights done by Baha'u'llah that he recognised a pattern such that the different religions are corroborated and not all but one deemed false. Different positions in the Time-Space neccessitaded different expressions of the one divine truth.

Baha'u'llah is the founder of the Baha'i Faith. A position that had not just the holy books of the religions as its starting point but also methods developed by the sufi orders. From that perspective, the Baha'i Faith seems as a logical conclusion that liberates the mind from the restrictions of the former religions without giving up the core. A true messianic position! Jesus did the same. Paul did the same. You can still be a christian or a muslim and believe that Baha'u'llah is a manifestation of the messianic mind. You are not forbidden to pray five times a day just because Baha'i Faith says you not need to do it. You can still gain from the regulary praying.

Once you considered the nature of Baha'u'llah's mission, it seems to be the Great Mistake of the House of Justice to label Ali Muhammad and his followers as "The contamination of the Faith". It is not a good way to solve a conflict over the leadership and it does not rhyme with the universal brotherhood Baha'u'llah so firmly believed in. Ali Muhammad was one of the sons of Baha'u'llah, younger brother of Abdul Baha that took over the leadership after the death of Baha'u'llah. Abdul Baha said that the conflict between the brothers gained the Faith. It was necessary to give a clearer formulation of the belief system.

If you reconcile different religions and view them as parts of one whole, why not do the same with the difference among the baha'is themselves?

For the future of Baha'i it is necessary to view the role of Ali Muhammad and his followers, so important for the missionary work in India, in another light and admit that the labeling of them as a contamination of the faith was a great mistake. Otherwise it is impossible for many people to join the Baha'i Faith.

Att förstå marknadens mekanismer

För att förstå hur marknaden fungerar är det angeläget att studera teorier framförda av tänkare som Ludwig von Mises, F A Hayeck, Robert Nozick m fl. Som von Mises påpekat ägnar sig liberalt sinnade inte åt den närmast religiösa auktoritetstro som förekommer på andra håll. Man behöver inte gilla allt av J S Mill eller John Locke. Man måste inte försvara allt vad andra kommit fram till utan intar en mer vetenskaplig attityd. Vissa saker kan behöva modifieras p g a faktorer författaren inte kände till. Samhället förändras.

Dock lär vi oss det väsentliga av teorierna. Är man som undertecknad ekologistiskt sinnad menar man att de karteller Adam Smith varnade för då de höjer priserna kan vara acceptabla i vår tid av miljöproblem. Faktorer som inte var relevanta under Smiths tid gör att vi idag i vissa fall kan acceptera något han varnade för Utan att hävda att han hade fel i sitt tänkande. Tvärtom utgör detta grunden för vår slutsats!

Vissa tror att libertarianska teorier alltid leder till ett försvar av privata lösningar och ett motstånd mot offentliga initiativ. Det behöver inte vara så. Om invånarna i en kommun önskar mer el och de privata företagen inte kan leverera detta, inte bara kan utan också bör ett kommunalt elbolag bildas. Kan skattemedel och lån bolaget tar utöka mängden producerad el skapas inte bara nödvändig el utan också ett bolagsvärde. När detta är nog högt bör kommunen sälja bolaget för att istället uppodla en annan marknad eller sänka skatten, ge kommuninvånarna tillbaka de pengar de satsade när bolaget nu fullgjort sin uppgift. Man har förstått marknadsteorierna och agerat utefter dem.

On riba

A sheykh from Uzbekistan, living in West,  has made a distinction between 'halal mortgage' and 'haram interest'. Although I am not a muslim in the formal sense but a believer, the distinction the sheykh did attracted my attention, it was worth some consideration. The outer scenario is the same in the both cases in his comparision. You buy a house (or someting else) for money you did not previously own. That money sets you in a position to move into a house - and to use it. You have to pay back the money and a little extra. In both cases you pay the same amount of money. The money that made it possible for you to move into the house. In both cases you pay the same amount as an extra. Is it important what that amount is called? We call it 'interest' when we lend money from a bank. But what we call a thing cannot be the essential. The essential has to be what a thing is.

If you voluntarily have agreed to pay a small amount as an extra, the terminology is not the important thing. The important thing is your legal position. Strong or weak? We can agree that the principle behind the islamic concept of riba is a sound one. The purpose is to support the weaker part in the transaction. A rich person or a bank is guaranteed a success by the interest you pay for the loan you use in your business activities but you take the risk and may bear the burden of a loss all by your self. But is it better if you have to involve someone else in the decisions you have to make? Is that something that makes you weaker or stronger?

The difference between 'halal mortgage' and 'haram interest' is  a legal one: When you loan money to buy a house, or a car, for example, you own that thing you bought with the money. In The mortgage case you became not the owner but are buying the thing bit by bit when you are giving the buyer (the bank) of the house the money they used to buy the house and that little extra not considered as riba, because you did not own the house - or the money. The bank is the owner. Legally it is the bank that buys the house and you buy the house from the bank in several small portions. This remindes me of situation were people have exclaimed that 'It is not you that own your house, it is the bank!' This because of the fact that the bank has the right to sell your house at an executive auction if you do not pay back the loan with interest.

It seems that the two cases are very similar. If you buy a house and are not able to pay for it, you have become insolvent and have to sell what you can to solve your financial problems. If it is the mortgage case or the interest case. Practically speaking there is no difference at all. It seems as if the distinction ought to be done in another way to give us the possibility of a well functioning society without the risk of the richer and stronger misusing their strength against the weaker and poorer.

Consider a case mentioned by the famous J H L Hart: A person is drivning a car and suddenly he looses controll over the vehicle due to a swarm of bee attacking his head. He cannot see and cannot stop the car. He causes a child to die since he could not stop the car. It is not murder and it is not dangerous drivning.

If you take a loan to buy a car with the intention that your career as a taxi driver may benefit from this and you have no possibility of taking a loan without interest and a great chanse to get more passangers and money. And you are allowed to reduce your taxes with the amount you pay in interest, then this must be described as a case of 'not riba' since the lack of intention.

The banks reduce the poverty in the society. Without them there would be a far lesser amount of tax payers and each of them poorer.

Who is responsible for the rainforests?

As an environementalist who likes market solutions, the problem of deforestation is someting to adress. An unrestricted exploitation seems unresponsible since those forests are important for the welfare of the whole planet. To do nothing is not to take a market friendly position since to do nothing is not the solution of a problem consisting in doing nothing to stop an accelerating deforestation of the important rainforests of the Earth.

Investments and reinvestments in agricultural production gives us the food we need for survival, our daily bread, so to speak. This is done, mainly, by private initiatives, private firms. I think we have to invest in the rainforests to save them. I leave it as an excercise for the reader to figure out how it can be done in a reasonable way. It is not hard to understand that Brasil, for exsample, want incomes from the resourses in the forests. If the world wish to save the forests, it has to invest in them. In a way that saves the forests from destruction. It is here we need market solutions. I think, personally, that legal prohibitions and taxes can mean someting important, but only if you understand how the market works. A higher price and a lower supply is equivalent to a more responsible income making, considering the rainforests as an area for global exploation. The exploated area of the valuable forests can in this way become minor without a loss for the producers and sellers. We can buy seeds and replant those valuable plants elsewhare as a complement and as an act of responsibility, if we really want to save them - and us.

The meaning of poetry

What are poetry and why do we write poetry? Those questions are difficult to answer. The sounds of the words linked in a chain with rythm and perhaps rhyme are not the sole purpose of the activity to write poetry. To produce images and feelings is the main purpose. Images and feelings are intertwined in an entity signaling oneness of expression. Poems are excellent vehicles for religious ideas. The mysticism of religion is closely related to the mysticism of poetry, speaking of siblingship. The poet and the religious minded understand each other.

The Law of Utopia

This is not serious stuff concerning the conditions of an existing state such as Sweden but some philosophical speculations of a highly abstract nature. We as humans share a certain amount of needs. We want to eat, drink, love and be loved. We want to feel that we are parts of the society and that our existence matters.

The principle of respect of others oblige me to tolerate whatever choice you make, or decision you take, or thought you think - as long as the same rights are granted to me. Axiomatically we say that prima facie (that is one thing considered) we ought to strive for as a free society as possible and for an as equal society as possible. This sounds like John Rawls and a property-owning democracy way of thinking. That is fine because I deeply admire that position. But to talk about justice is difficult. As a reader or listener you may think that the author or speaker wants to hide something when he or she elaborates on the subject. It may seem as the philosopher in question wants to camouflage an unjust society by som abstract theory of justice. And which kind of decision procedur is at hand for you to apeal to if you consider something wrong? Is a just society possible? Does the philosophers who talk about justice mislead people to think that an impossible equality is possible?

We do not need a fictious original position if we talk about respect and not about justice. Liberty and equality are still conditions we dream of and we consider it a mission for the politicians to balance between the two.

It is to show respect to a starving person to give her food, to a lonely person to visit her. The holy texts of the religions have a capacity to guide us if listened to.

It is not my job to live your life. And vice versa. If we want freedom to act and to speach, etcetera, and equality, as we axiomatically stated, we prefer to give a certain amount of money to the citizens. They may not starve given this Citizen Pay. We have a personal account in a bank of our choosing. Every bank is connected to a Central bank. The individuals are on a reglar basis buying goods from the supermarkets, departement stores etcetera. The Citizen Pay monthly given will uphold a market for the most basic supply. To earn money private corporations compete to give what the accountholding consumers want. To earn more they hire folk to do work for them. As an assurance for the quality of their products they give the costumeres medical assurances. Doctors and other medical experts compete to become hired in these service facilities, hospitals. We can, out of respect of others weaker then we, accept some schematic financing of the hospitals that the supermarkets are responsible for. This is an holistic view of the individuals and the society.

The supermarkets may contract people to run libraries and museums. That becomes attractions for the custumers and shows the public that those engaged in the business responsible for this have other interest than just to sell candy.

We may ask what more do we need? Police and fire departements of course. It was not private companies that forbade black people to study at universities or to sit at what benk in the park they wanted. That was decisions camouflaged as laws, laws of a state.