What the authors call "liberalism" is the old focus on individual liberty. In the US, this term has been co-opted by the left. Far from protecting individual rights, this group likes to use the power of government to coerce people into doing what they deem as "right." Usually trying to save something. This savior premise becomes part of their psychological identity. Any debate with these folks brings out anger and labeling one as homophobic, racist, misogynist, suffering from Islamophobia, climate denier, etc. To enter a debate of reason, would bring into question their very identity. A dangerous proposition for one expecting a civil debate of ideas. On the other hand, if you debate with someone who believes the role of government is protect people from each other, provide a system for justice, and to help ensure that markets are free from manipulation, these issues do not strike at the identity of one who hold these beliefs. If you proclaim that you are a socialist, these folks would merely wonder if you understand economics and the nature of man. Have you paid attention to spectacular failures of socialism in the last few centuries. Or that socialism is the road to serfdom as noted by FA Hayek. Hayek wrote this about the National Socialists in Germany, also known as NAZIS. These nuts were leftists, they were considered "right" of the communists in Germany. It is amusing to see leftists labeling people who don't agree with them as Nazis or Fascists. One can only conclude that this is psychological projection, projecting onto others what their goal of central planning and coercive power has in mind for the rest of us.
Saturday, January 28, 2017
A new book is out entitled, Age of Anger: A History of the Present. By Pankaj Mishra. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. The Economist has an interesting article on the book: http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21715636-original-attempt-explain-todays-paranoid-hatreds-deep-roots-modern-resentment
What the authors call "liberalism" is the old focus on individual liberty. In the US, this term has been co-opted by the left. Far from protecting individual rights, this group likes to use the power of government to coerce people into doing what they deem as "right." Usually trying to save something. This savior premise becomes part of their psychological identity. Any debate with these folks brings out anger and labeling one as homophobic, racist, misogynist, suffering from Islamophobia, climate denier, etc. To enter a debate of reason, would bring into question their very identity. A dangerous proposition for one expecting a civil debate of ideas. On the other hand, if you debate with someone who believes the role of government is protect people from each other, provide a system for justice, and to help ensure that markets are free from manipulation, these issues do not strike at the identity of one who hold these beliefs. If you proclaim that you are a socialist, these folks would merely wonder if you understand economics and the nature of man. Have you paid attention to spectacular failures of socialism in the last few centuries. Or that socialism is the road to serfdom as noted by FA Hayek. Hayek wrote this about the National Socialists in Germany, also known as NAZIS. These nuts were leftists, they were considered "right" of the communists in Germany. It is amusing to see leftists labeling people who don't agree with them as Nazis or Fascists. One can only conclude that this is psychological projection, projecting onto others what their goal of central planning and coercive power has in mind for the rest of us.
What the authors call "liberalism" is the old focus on individual liberty. In the US, this term has been co-opted by the left. Far from protecting individual rights, this group likes to use the power of government to coerce people into doing what they deem as "right." Usually trying to save something. This savior premise becomes part of their psychological identity. Any debate with these folks brings out anger and labeling one as homophobic, racist, misogynist, suffering from Islamophobia, climate denier, etc. To enter a debate of reason, would bring into question their very identity. A dangerous proposition for one expecting a civil debate of ideas. On the other hand, if you debate with someone who believes the role of government is protect people from each other, provide a system for justice, and to help ensure that markets are free from manipulation, these issues do not strike at the identity of one who hold these beliefs. If you proclaim that you are a socialist, these folks would merely wonder if you understand economics and the nature of man. Have you paid attention to spectacular failures of socialism in the last few centuries. Or that socialism is the road to serfdom as noted by FA Hayek. Hayek wrote this about the National Socialists in Germany, also known as NAZIS. These nuts were leftists, they were considered "right" of the communists in Germany. It is amusing to see leftists labeling people who don't agree with them as Nazis or Fascists. One can only conclude that this is psychological projection, projecting onto others what their goal of central planning and coercive power has in mind for the rest of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)