Buff's Stuff: INTOLERANCE (Not by D.W. Griffith)

My school chum Charles Nabet sent me an article from a French Magazine/Journal called Contrepoints with the tag line – Le journal libéral de référence en France which can be translated as “The leading liberal newspaper in France”.

The piece he sent to me, after some hesitation (he says), is entitled:

Être de gauche rend intolérant et peu généreux ? C’est la conclusion de ces chercheurs

Loin des idées reçues, ce sont plutôt les socialistes qui font preuve d’intolérance selon différentes études universitaires. Pourquoi ?

By Alexis Vintray

The publication states that Alexis Vintray is a journalist and head of development for Contrepoints, the benchmark liberal newspaper in France. He launched the journal in its current format in 2009 and served as its editor for about ten years. He graduated from HEC Paris and the Sorbonne.

The Google translation reads:

Being on the left makes you intolerant and ungenerous? This is the conclusion of these researchers.

Far from popular belief, it is rather the socialists who show intolerance according to various university studies. Why?

His conclusion to the article:

Conclusion: being on the left makes you intolerant and stingy?

The reader will have understood it, it is not so much the fact of being on the right or on the left that would make intolerant, stingy, etc. in my opinion. The readers of this article who would be the most on the right would therefore be wrong to rejoice in believing that they can attack the opposing camp in this way.

It would indeed be much more appropriate to speak of statism versus liberalism, of closed society versus open society. Of those who expect everything from Leviathan or of those who take their destiny into their own hands. From these choices stem our daily attitude, including generosity. Either we ask others to be generous for ourselves, or we are generous for ourselves.

By dint of asking the State to do everything, we end up doing nothing for the other by ourselves. Going towards ever more socialism and statism is going towards a closed society. Socialism and statism, whether right-wing or left-wing, only lead to a society of intolerant, inward-looking people.

Moving towards an open society implies empowering the individual, ceasing to entrust everything to the State in order to return power to whoever is the source of it: the individual. As some say, "I did not betray my socialist ideal by becoming a liberal". Any individual in good faith who really wants the development of the individual in an open and tolerant society can only want a society of freedom.

(I will post the entire article at the end of the blog – in a google translated version – the French Article can be seen at: https://www.contrepoints.org/2022/03/21/10334-etre-de-gauche-intolerant-et-peu-genereux )

In my view the piece is flawed. To begin with, most of the research quoted is from North American academics. The problem with American libertarians is they are so tied up with “free enterprise” and Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments, that they lose sight of the reality they have before them.

Economic wealth does not trickle down. Smith’s belief in the sympathy or empathy of ‘the person concerned’ assumes that it is part of our DNA. I am sorry to say it is not. The sentiment may certainly be more profound in the female of the species, but that is not the case with the male, let alone the dominant male.

So, when dealing with the concepts of Statism and Socialism, it is, in my view a great fallacy to equate one with the other, and claim that ‘libertarianism’ and individualism leads to an open society of freedom.

Libertarianism (from French: libertaire, "libertarian"; from Latin: libertas, "freedom") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as a core value. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, and minimize the state; emphasizing free association, freedom of choice, individualism and voluntary association.

All very laudable sentiments and one would think derivative of left wing politics; however, the emphasis on individualism and minimalism of the ‘State’ is what causes the confusion, in my view.

As societies have developed into nation states, certain concepts have emerged for the protection of individuals and for the maintenance of freedoms for the individual. That is to say that individuals are entitled to certain rights. In some nations, those rights have been listed and codified into law. They include freedom of association, freedom to choose, freedom of thought, religion, education. In short, individuals have a the right to be free, to work, study and to health and safety. They have a right to be whatever they choose to be; however, society also imposes a duty on individuals to allow for the same privileges for others. With freedom goes the obligation to allow others to be just as free. Free from want, free from discrimination, free from attack, free from imprisonment without just cause, and many other aspects of society that allows the individual to live in a society of freedom. It is not so much a question of tolerance, but a question of duty of care to protect the other individual’s rights. The idea that we do not shit on each other. Hence the establishment of the state.

Just what is expected of the state? Because the world is not made up of concerned citizens as described by Adam Smith, and because international companies are not the altruistic enterprises he pretends them to be, the state requires a defence force, which comprises all manner of equipment and personnel, with ever increasing need for modernisation and financial support. The state also, because of the nature of society and the persistent propensity to offend and create anti-social incidents, requires a police force to enforce the laws created to protect the individual from harm. This organisation also needs financing and training as well as control in order to prevent so called ‘bad apples’ from assuming legal authority to arrest and detain individuals. These organisations account for the safety and security not only of the state, but to protect the freedoms of the individuals within the state. The individual needs the state to maintain the freedoms and rights he or she is entitled to.

Moving on, the right to health is likewise an important freedom, and access to health is of paramount importance. In order to achieve this it is imperative to have the organisation and facilities to provide for the medical needs of all individuals within the state, no matter what their personal economic situation. This is by far the most costly right, not only in human terms but in financial terms as well. Many European countries have created national health institutions. There have been different ideas in North America, which tends to rely on the private sector insurance companies to provide medical care. The only thing insurance companies do is enter into a contract to pay for the medical care an individual might need. The establishment of medical facilities, and medical personnel is a completely different enterprise. The type of contract and the type of cover the individual receives, is dependent on what he or she can afford to pay. The smaller the amount, the more likely the individual will have to find additional funds to cover anything outside the contract of cover. This piece meal service is just the sort of thing capital enterprise is about. It is company profit, not health care. The health professional will insist it is about health care first, when in fact the first question one is asked in America is how much cover or money have you got. The limitations of Medicare and the Affordable Care Act provisions, whilst helpful, are, in reality woefully inadequate, and do not compare in the slightest with the NHS in the UK.

The objection to ‘socialised medicine’ or national health in the United States is most vociferously made from the right. Is that the tolerance and generosity of the right in action? `I think not. Many libertarians in the US would also claim that reliance on insurance is favourable; but given the state of physical and mental health care in the United States, the imperative of the state to step in is tangible. How long must this abrogation of the right to health continue?

A lot of health care insurance is included in contracts of employment in America, assuming you have a job; however, let us look at the matter of employment. Even although there is a minimum wage in place, minimum wage does not necessarily include a health care package, and if it did, the deductions for contributions towards the insurance element, will impair any benefit from minimum wage.

At some point, in order to protect the individual’s right to work, the state has to step in and make such regulations as may be required to protect that freedom to work. Regulation imposed on enterprise is about protection from others’ freedom to exploit. Exploitation is not a right; it is a symptom of what was once called the unacceptable face of capitalism. Is saying that a show of left wing intolerance?

Again, so far as health and safety is concerned and the individual’s right to freedom of movement in a free society, roads, sewage, utilities, public transport are all matters in which the state may have a part to play. The regulations for the provision of and maintenance of services to our homes, the construction of our dwellings, all are within the purview of the state; but, providing the services is costly.

Of course there are problems. As an example, the collection of local refuse is usually organised by whatever local area authority is established. It was funded by the inhabitants of the area concerned, by paying a tax or levy towards the expenses the local authority incurred in organising refuse collection. That meant employing people to do the work and operating purpose built vehicles to collect the rubbish. It meant the local authority or ‘state’ ran the refuse collection service and all that entailed, being an employer, paying wages, maintaining equipment etc. As the population and density of homes grew in the area, there came a point when the local authority, given everything else he had to do, found it difficult to run such a growing organisation. In the event it invited private enterprise to tender for the contract to collect the area’s refuse. It would then be up to the private company to run the refuse organisation, employ the staff, pay the wages, maintain the equipment, all within the budget provided by the local authority for the contract based on the company’s bid for the contract. The private company’s bid therefore would be based on what they thought they could get away with, whilst making a decent profit. How the company directed its internal affairs and wages would no longer be a concern for the authority or the state.

The reliability and decency of the company towards its employees and customers however, remains the concern of the state. They still have the responsibility to ensure the health and safety of the individual, whether they like it or not, and that means looking after the workers, local authorities and tax payers within the community. It cannot get out of that social contract.

So when one considers the functions of the state, even at its most limited, in a democratic society, it provides a framework for the protection of the individual’s freedom, for his/her health and safety. The armed services, foreign service (relationships with other states) domestic services (protection of environment and habitat) interstate commerce, employment, utilities, communications, justice, education, health, etc… There are a number of aspects of our lives that every individual is entitled to benefit from, protected and promoted by the state at the request of the people of the state. The more varied and larger the population, the more it has to look after. It is the nature of nations. Squabbles between the left and the right can to some degree affect the administration of the state, but on the whole the civil service of the state manages with varying degrees of efficiency. I am not being statist, it is what is.

These are but examples of the state’s obligations in protecting an individual’s right to a free society. That has nothing to do with left or right. In fact tolerance and generosity have only to do with education. This is another freedom, a right to be educated. That too is provided mainly by the state, although some private educational establishments do exist.

Educational institutions vary, but on the whole it is hoped that they will impart some degree of understanding and tolerance and generosity in the minds of the individuals who attend them.

How they relate to the state or to society will depend on the individual, and no amount of ridiculous questions, whilst polling people of different political persuasions, has anything whatsoever to do with tolerance or generosity. Most people who answer polls and questionnaires know full well what answers will put them in a more favourable light. I would suggest that those on the left are probably more honest and state freely that they are strongly intolerant of intolerance, racism, sexism, anti-feminism or any prejudice whatsoever.

In any event the research conducted as covered by Mr Vintray’s article, is in my view unlikely to be useful in any way that would create more tolerance and generosity. It would certainly not change anyone’s political thinking. One is bound to question, OK, what’s your point?

I would love to see what answers to such a poll might be given by Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene. I’m sure they would come across as very tolerant and generous, but we all know what they are. How intolerant and ungenerous am I for saying that?

For Film Buffs: D W Griffith's version of Intolerance (1916) can be seen at:

https://ok.ru/video/2405789796940

Here is an English Google translation of the French article:

Being on the left makes you intolerant and ungenerous? This is the conclusion of these researchers

Alexis Vintray

Far from popular belief, it is rather the socialists who show intolerance according to various university studies. Why?

Donate now Make a donation

Posted on March 21, 2022 -A+

People on the left and, more generally, interventionists of all stripes, are the first to claim the values of tolerance and generosity. In particular for this last value, the fact of wanting to use the State for social ends is presented as a pledge of generosity. Social policies are good by nature, others selfish.

Yet, as academic studies show, it is people on the left – or, it should be said, statists – who are the least tolerant and the least generous.

Intolerance, a leftist value?

“Intolerance is a contagious disease because it always infects those who fight it” said Raymond Aron. The phrase could apply to the French left, which has made the fight against intolerance one of its main priorities. This is particularly sensitive in 2021 with the woke and identity turn taken by this same left.

However, according to Anne Muxel, sociologist and director of research at Cevipof, this left is much less tolerant than the right.

Anne Muxel conducted a sociological study to see how people on the right and on the left reacted to close people who did not share their ideas. The observation was clear: people claiming to be on the right are much more tolerant than those declaring themselves on the left. What explains this greater tolerance of the right is its culture of freedom, and therefore the liberal influence, according to Anne Muxel in her book You, me and politics, love and conviction.

The sociologist summarized the conclusions of her work on France Inter as follows:

It was a surprise for me insofar as the values of tolerance, respect for difference, respect for others are part of a culture in any case claimed by the left. Yet there is a greater difficulty for people who classify themselves on the left to accept political divergence in the private sphere… […] The culture of the right presupposes freedom, the freedom of the other to think, to live and be as he wants. This presupposes greater openness.

The strong correlation between statism and racism

These French works find a complement with the American study of James Lindgren, a famous jurist at Northwestern University. In this paper, the author examines the motivations of proponents of redistribution and anti-capitalists ("What Drives Views on Government Redistribution and Anti-Capitalism: Envy or a Desire for Social Dominance?", March 2011, Northwestern Law & Economics Research Paper No. 06-10 & 29). The conclusions are edifying: the more racist, embittered, solitary or ungenerous one is, the more one is in favor of the redistribution of wealth and anti-capitalism.

Specifically, James Lindgren analyzed 25 years of data from the National Opinion Research Center, one of the most respected social science research centers in the United States. From these data, he attempted to correlate economic and political ideas with racism or intolerance. Each time, the same clear correlation: the more racist and intolerant one is, the more one favors redistribution and the more one hates liberal capitalism. The correlation is obviously not perfect (who would assert such a basic relationship?) but there is a strong and recurring link. Even when education, income, age or gender are taken into account, the link persists between socialism and racism/intolerance.

Socialism makes you embittered?

Another interesting finding of the study, socialists seem to be more embittered: the most ardent supporters of a redistribution policy are up to three times more likely than average to have been angry in the week preceding the poll.

The same goes for sadness, loneliness or melancholy. Conversely, opponents of redistribution are four times more likely to say they are happy or satisfied! Socialists (in the sense of redistributors again) further claim that their tantrums, in addition to being more numerous, are also longer. They admit twice as much as the average that they responded to this anger by planning revenge.

To complete the picture, socialists and anti-capitalists claim to be less happy, to have fewer happy marriages, to be less satisfied with their financial situation or their job, even when correcting for differences in income, sex, etc. Finally, socialists and anti-capitalists declare much less than the opponents of social redistribution policies to have an altruistic behavior or give regularly to the homeless. In summary, stingy, racist and intolerant socialists and anti-capitalists, according to this academic study!

These results of a sociological study are unsurprisingly confirmed by the study of the respective generosity of people on the right and on the left.

Generosity, a liberal value, not statist or “leftist”

Arthur Brooks is a doctor of economics, specialist in social sciences and behavioral economics. In Who really cares (Basic Books, 2006), he studies the respective behaviors of American conservatives and liberals (leftists in English) in terms of generosity1.

These two positions have a concrete translation in the behavior of the individuals who claim to follow them2: those who "think that the government should carry out a stronger policy of redistribution" give... clearly less to associations or to the less fortunate than those who want to reduce the role of the state. This while the former have an income 6% higher than the latter.

Here again, it is the individualistic culture that largely explains this difference in generosity depending on political opinions. Those who trust the individual and not the state to help others give more. Those who call for state action give significantly less and rely on others to help the less fortunate. They have no right to claim the notion of generosity that they talk about but do not put into practice.

We find exactly the same pattern for blood donation: people on the right donate blood much more often than people on the left. If people on the left and center gave as much as those on the right, there would be 45% more blood donations in the United States according to Brooks! (“If liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply of the United States would jump about 45 percent.”)

Another interesting comparison that supports Arthur Brooks' conclusions is that between the United States and Canada. As Martin Masse (from Canada) writes:

One might think that a society like Quebec, where the words solidarity, equity and compassion are on everyone's lips, a society that "resists the cold wind from the right blowing over the rest of the continent" as our politicians defenders of the "Quebec model", is a place where individuals show greater generosity than elsewhere. Compared to those materialistic, individualistic Anglos from the rest of the continent, aren't we one big, generous, tight-knit family?

Well no. As polls and studies show year after year, Canadians are less generous than Americans, and Quebeckers are the least generous of Canadians. They are therefore the North Americans who contribute the least to charities. A December 2000 Fraser Forum study (Canadian & American Monetary Generosity) that compares all US states and Canadian provinces in terms of generosity (number of donors and amounts donated) places the provinces at the bottom of the list. It is Alberta, paradise of conservatism and minimal taxation in the country, which does better. Quebec is dead last.

This reality is not so surprising and the explanation is very simple. The Quebec taxpayer must support the heaviest state on the continent and is forced to contribute to the financing of a host of social programs for the most disadvantaged, including a special fund to fight against poverty. Logically, he tells himself that he is already doing his part. Why give a second time to private works, when we are already obliged to give for public programs?

Quebecers are no more selfish than other North Americans, they act rationally in their socialist context. Albertans too, who are the least taxed in the country. They logically feel more responsible and therefore contribute more to private works.

The result, however, is far from the same in terms of morality. Private donors can claim to be truly generous: it is their own money that they give, freely and voluntarily. On the contrary, public charity is nothing but a vast socialist deception. Those who contribute to it are forced to do so. And those who take credit for it, our rulers, are really just highwaymen and hypocrites.

Conclusion: being on the left makes you intolerant and stingy?

Article originally published on December 5, 2021

Buff's Stuff

Tuesday, 22 March 2022

INTOLERANCE (Not by D.W. Griffith)

No comments:

Post a Comment