Life, Liberty and Security (Tim)

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person

(Human Rights Series Part 2; Part 1 - Free Speech) 

This is article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I think we can all agree that the world is failing at quite spectacularly at this one. According to the ICRC, Syria now has 6.3 million people internally displaced, 5 million living in besieged cities and 4.8 million refugees who have fled the country. As of April the UN estimated the death toll to be at least 400,000.  God knows how many more have died since the Syrian and Russian bombing campaigns accelerated, and the siege of Aleppo started.

When the genocide happened in Rwanda, we all vowed that the world would never let such a thing happen again, and yet we’re watching it right now in Syria. So what went wrong? It’s pretty obvious that the world’s global policeman, in the shape of America, has blown all his goodwill, lost his authority and just flat-out spread himself too thin. Not only that, but by so transparently seeking self-interest in Iraq and other conflicts, Uncle Sam has set a dangerous precedent. Enter Russia and Iran as the self-interested saviours of the Syrian regime, and agents of genocide.

In ‘The Better Angels of Our Nature’, Steven Pinker revived Thomas Hobbes’ idea of keeping the peace by means of a ‘monopoly on the legitimate use of force’.  The Wild West illustrates the principle perfectly. The American West was a great deal more violent and dangerous 100 years ago than it is now because everyone was armed, and everyone had the right to defend himself, which set the scene for vigilantism and unbreakable cycles of revenge killing. Nowadays, the police generally reserve a monopoly on violence, and so the average citizen is much safer.

Thomas Hobbes and Better Angels

To me there is a clear analogy between this and one of the core principles of the United Nations – that no single nation has the right to take unilateral action against any other. Clearly, the UN isn’t keeping the peace as well as it could, and the veto power of the Security Council member states is one of the main reasons why. And yet, in cases where the member states can agree, the UN has had a good deal of success. There have been 71 UN Peacekeeping missions since 1948, with 16 currently in progress. Perhaps the most successful United Nations military intervention thus far was protecting South Korea from invasion by the North in 1953. I wouldn’t be sitting so comfortably in Seoul right now if that hadn’t happened.

So, to draw these threads together, my wish is that individual states would have less power and that the UN would have more power to intervene in conflict situations. To me, giving a disinterested body like the UN a monopoly on the legitimate use of force is only way of ensuring that peacekeeping is exactly that, and not politically motivated like the American action in Iraq, or the Russian involvement in Syria. 

--- Other posts by Tim Casteling ---

Ongoing Conflict

Ongoing areas of conflict

There have been massive declines in violence as people have learnt to co-operate with those who are not like themselves, and with those who are like themselves, but disagree.

Wikipedia lists the places that have ongoing armed conflicts. 

Four have had more than 10,000 deaths in the last year (start date): 

Afhghanistan (1978); Iraq (2003); Nigeria/Cameroon/Niger/Chad - Boko Haram (2009); Syria (2011). 

1,000 - 9,999 deaths 

Turkey-Iraq, Somalia-Kenya; Pakistan; Mexico; Libya; Yemen-Saudi Arabia; Egypt; Sudan; South Sudan-Ethiopia; Ukraine

100 - 999 deaths

India-Pakistan; Pakistan-Iran; Myanmar; Thailand; India; Israel-Palestine; Colombia; India; Philippines; Armenia-Azerbaijan; China; Ethiopia; DR Congo; Nigeria; Algeria-Tunisia; Sudan; DR Congo-Burundi; Russia; Central African Republic; Mali; Egypt; Burundi; Turkey

Rising v Listening

Thomas Hobbes was a 17th century philosopher who lived through the English Civil War. Masses of people died on both sides in the fight of the King's men versus those supporting Parliament. The question he spent most of the latter part of his life looking at was how much we should obey rulers. If they are rubbish, should we start revolutions and depose them? See the Book of Life chapter on Hobbes. Once people stopped believing in the 'Divine Rights of Kings', the relationship with authority started to wobble. But the price of revolution is chaos and bloodshed.

I don't much about all the Civil Wars that have been going on (before and) since the end of World War II. I know that in going down the rabbit hole of trying to understand the relationship between Christianity & Islam, and the impact of Colonialism and Globalisation - most of the conflicts ended up being 'proxy wars'. Wars of ideology. Wars of religion. Wars of ethnicity.

I am eternally grateful to have never learned to kill. Never to have had to. South Africa avoided Civil War. Just. Take a look at the 'list of Civil Wars' on wikipedia. The length of the conflicts. The decrease in population because of people fleeing. The death tolls. Revolution is nuts. Oppression is nuts. 

Violence and poverty are being defeated. It isn't a case of rising up. It is a case of listening. We can and are doing better. We can build communities rather than looking to impose ourselves.

Don't Know, Do Care

Tim Ferriss, author of The 4-Hour Workweek, talks about cultivating selective ignorance. Our issue these days is not tracking something down, it is cutting things down. There are far more books than we could possibly ever read. There is so much going on around the world. There are 7 billion people. Selective ignorance means you don't try to keep up, you choose a few things to focus on and you get comfortable with saying 'I don't know' when it comes to the other stuff.

There are some things that feel too important to not have an opinion on, but that are ridiculously complex. The simple tasks of living take up so much time, many people would rather just have a glass of wine on a Friday night and look forward to squeezing in some time with friends on the weekend. The opinions then get formed by dipping in to a few stories that resonate. We look for things that confirm what we already believe. You don't need to read all the books on parenting to be a parent. Just one that backs up what you think. You don't need to think about all the different political and economic ideologies, look at what has happened in history, look at what countries are trying different approaches, listen to people in different circumstances to you, and then form a opinion. You just need to vote with your tribe.

One thing I feel strongly about is that the world tends to move forward. Not in a straight line, but if you take a step back and look with a long enough view, things get better. We are less racist, less sexist, less homophobic, less classist, less xenophobic, less poor and generally just a nicer bunch of people than a hundred years ago. Things go pear shaped for long stretches. China talks of the the 150 years of shame since the Opium Wars. But they get back on track. Go back far enough and there have been stretches where various cultures and places around the world have carried the torch for human progress. We have also learnt hard lessons about prejudice, judgement, violence and bigotry. We can point to slavery. We can point to Facism. We can point to Apartheid. We can point to Genocides. We can be better.

Life is complicated. Just having a job and a family swallows the majority of our time and energy. So I think we tend to depend on mood for the bits where we don't have time to do these grand surveys to get perspective. A series of bad things can make us feel awful. If a few of us start feeling awful we starting getting confirmation of our bad mood from others, and it spirals.

We are resilient. We get back up. And I think if we weren't quite so busy, if we did have the time to step back from jobs and day to day life, we would be less dependent on these moods. With a little more space to breath, things are more calm. We have time to look at the little stories that don't make the news. The little stories of the people who are just getting on with things. The parents doing the best for their kids. The friends helping each other out. The leaders chipping away at the backwardness of the crazies.  Passionate people reaching out to help people who are helping themselves.

Onwards and upwards. Exciting times.

A Game of Thrones - War and Peace

Like many, I am hooked on the book & TV series 'A Game of Thrones'. Somewhat differently, I am attempting to take advantage of the liberating character of audio books which allow you to maintain your concentration for longer (because you entertaining the elephant) to listen to some books which I have 'wanted' to read but in reality haven't had the will power. One of those books is 'War and Peace'.

The one is more obviously not based on reality than the other, but the sad truth is that the benefits that come from monopolising violence fall aside when leaders start to play games with who is in control. The glad truth is that our current generations leader's playing of 'the Game of Thrones' is significantly less violent, and more and more people are left to get on with their lives.

I feel pretty lucky to be living in a country with rule of law and no need to stand before someone with a sword to dispense Kings justice if I frustrate them. I am glad the Queen of England is more like a granny. Granny's are cool.

Monopolising Violence

Conn Iggulden is a great author [Hat tip Rob Grave]. He writes historic novels using well researched detail as the starting point to weave an embellished tale. I have just finished the 5 book series starting with the rise of Genghis Kahn and ending with his grandson Kublai Kahn. Kublai founded the Yuan dynasty (from where the Chinese currency gets its name).

People often talk about the past being much simpler. Most historical accounts I read make me very glad to be living today! Incredible destruction had to go into the monopolisation of violence so that people didn't have to live in constant fear. History was about putting the strongest in charge - and hoping that power would protect you from others. Kings, Kahns, Shahs, Popes and Emperors fought for world domination. Once mere geography was out the way, it became idealogical. You didn't really have the choice to opt out and live peacefully.

It is tough to read the books and know how to view the destructive leaders. You see Syria and Egypt struggle without a monopoly of violence and yet we gag at the lack of liberty of the people under the autocratic leaders. Part of the US 'right to bear arms' was a rebellion against that monopoly of violence being in the hands of Government - because the British Monarchy wouldn't let them have their liberty. Iggulden's books certainly show some 'benevolent' leaders and some tyrannical leaders.

I am a fan of violence being monopolised, but I hope that one day it is disappears altogether. The sweep of history suggests we are heading in that direction - but lots of trauma around the world shows it is not in a straight line.

Normal Cruelty

I am a fan of Tarantino movies despite them usually leaving me disturbed. You would think that he veers so far from reality that you could discount most of what is in the movie. Django strikes closer to the bone because it touches on some of the cruelty of which we are really capable. Inglourious Basterds also created an unpleasant feeling in my stomach.

Artist Marina Abramovic did a performance piece where she let people do whatever they wanted to her. She placed various objects including thorns and a gun near her. It all started off friendly but got progressively more nasty. People stuck the thorns into her, and at one stage someone held the loaded gun to her head. Psychologist Philip Zambardo famously did experiments showing the cruelty normal people are capable of when their behaviour seems to be condoned. In the Stanford Prison Experiment, students were randomly assigned to the roles of wardens and prisoners. The guards became so brutal that the experiment had to be shut down after six days.

Tarantino films are extreme to the point where you laugh at some of the deaths. Perhaps this feels acceptable because the characters are so despicable or perhaps the reaction shows just how dehumanised cruelty can become.

How was slavery ever acceptable? It was normal. How was apartheid ever acceptable? It was normal. How is rape and physical abuse ever acceptable? Normal.

It is tempting to believe that there are two types of people. Evil ones like those we laugh at as they get killed in Django and Good ones where we shed a tear. It is tempting to believe that we are not capable of the utter cruelty that is subjected in other parts of the world and in different cultures. The world is moving forward and every day that our eyes get opened a little more to things that shouldn't be normal - we move another step.

The dialogue is clever, the music fits, and every scene is carefully constructed. The movies are pieces of art.

Art can be disturbing.

Don't get Distracted

Since no-one reads links, I will quote this post from Mr Torr in full.

Back in the day, when people were being murdered because some Danish paper printed drawings of Mohammed it was very common to hear people say things like,"Of course I support freedom of speech, and I condemn the violence, but people shouldn't use this freedom to cause offence." I mention this mild version because it was very widespread (Another common refrain was more confusing and went something like, "free speech doesn't entitle you to cause offence" which it obviously does).

I don't like this approach mostly because there's nothing really wrong with it, they affirm free speech and express a view on the original action, but it still makes me uneasy (a sure sign of unquestioning dogmatism on my part). I feel it subtly legitimised the violence. To me the violence was the story, changing the subject to our opinion about certain kinds of speech was worse than irrelevant.

It made me think of the chapter in Freakonomics on lynching by the Ku Klux Klan. They were surprised to find out that it was never very common. So, it was true that the vast majority of Klan members were non-violent and they could "reasonably" say things like, "Of course we condemn lynching but, I understand the underlying reasons." And then they'd have changed the subject and could rant about the "real" problem (because, hey! People get murdered every day right?).

No, no, no,
NO!
In this past any attempt to change the subject should have been resisted, there shouldn't have been a national debate attempting to deal with the root causes of Klan's grievances. They only needed a few lynchings because they had an enormous symbolic impact that did have real world consequences. It was intensely scummy and understanding where they came from would make it more likely that some communities would be sympathetic and possibly harbour the perpetrators or otherwise help perpetuate the problem.

So fine, there are underlying reasons why this has erupted now, but that doesn't mean we should talk about it now. Right now, there are a bunch of evil scumbags out there who need to be caught, and people need to know that it's not OK to sympathise.

Talk about the optimal immigration policy, whether it's really true that illegal immigrants are jumping the queue to get housing, whether stealing local jobs and local women, later.