Terror in England

Although this blog is principly an ahistorical one in that it eschews most commentary on current events, that probably will change. Not for any reason other than that current events put philosophic and political ideas into perspective, and denying perspective is the first step towards divorcing oneself from the world (pace Nietzsche).

The terrorist attacks on London's mass transit system occurred yesterday, as pretty much everyone has heard by now. These attacks wouldn't be such an important thing, except that they occurred in a country that is not at war internally, is relatively wealthy, and the attacks targeted civilians qua civilians, not military personnel, government officials, or strategic sites. No, the attacks were purely about inciting terror and convincing Londoners to give up their "meddling" in Iraq and elsewhere, presumably.

I say presumably because it is unclear whether the attackers -- whoever they are -- actually have any rational goals. It is clear that the diffuse, decentralized phenomena of worldwide terrorism presents a problem which purely democratic thinking cannot resolve. These are people who cannot or will not appear in the public sphere to debate their points of disagreement rationally, and attempt to persuade their fellow persons to their point of view. These are people whose most convincing arguments involve economic hegemony by the West over the poor peoples of the Middle East -- and yet they would institute tyrannical governments without any civil liberties. Which is as if to suggest that economic freedom would be worth anything without political or civil rights -- an idea most Westerners would laugh at, and rightfully so. Furthermore, it is unclear why attacking relatively powerless civilians in prosperous nations that purportedly exercise said 'hegemony' will bring about the ending of Western domination in the Middle East and the muslim world. But maybe it is clear: maybe the civilians killed in London are not powerless, and the progenitors of fear realize this; maybe it is precisely because those citizens can vote and cajole and lobby and contribute and argue and have free speech; perhaps that is why they were slain. In a capitalist democracy, despite the overwhelming evidence of class, racial bias, and centralized power in the wealthy class, there is still a fair amount of political power that can be exercised by an individual adult. So by attacking the electorate, perhaps these people are attacking the leaders themselves -- but that may be a stretch of democratic theorizing.

In any case, I am not one of those who will play the "numbers comparison" game and write-off the attacks on London as just run-of-the-mill terrorism. To say, as some do even now, that "oh, why care about those rich Britons when there are people starving around the globe" is to dissemble before your own morality. If one should care about freedom and equality and the basic provision of food, shelter, healthcare, and services to all peoples of the world, then one should also care about FDR's much maligned "freedom from fear" -- one should also be concerned wherever an attack like this occurs in a nation at peace, because it is an unwarranted breach of peace by rogue anti-public forces. Remember always that the people who attacked New York, Madrid, and London are vehemently against the Open Society, against the participation of the public in a deliberative process, against antihierarchical aspirations -- all elements of the previously-posted Modern American Liberalism framework. To defend that part of the framework is to defend the whole, and to realize that wherever liberal ideals are challenged by irrational violence, one should mourn that challenge and rise to combat it.

Which is to say, in short, that the poor in the third-world won't get any closer to realizing those same goals (see Framework) if the first-world nations contract their realization and aspiration of those goals (e.g. instituting a stronger PATRIOT Act, closing up immigration, increasing the scope of the police state generally). But these terrorists, of course, don't believe in those goals, and that is precisely why they should be given as little political and social power as possible. We have a right to discriminate against those who discriminate, and we have a right to deny participation to those who are anti-participation. Or to quote Karl Popper:

"We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

"No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude."