The Self-Help to Right-Wing Pipeline? | BreadBusting #7

Welcome to BreadBusting, where we attempt to examine the problematic ideas that come out of BreadTube, and the ideology of Breadism more generally. Basically, it's like Myth Busting, but for Breadism. Please note that, while I do have my personal political beliefs, all this is done in the name of intellectual discussion and seeing things from different perspectives. Today, I want to respond to a point that Caleb Cain, i.e. Faraday Speaks, sort of touched on during a recent interview with David Pakman. As I understood it, Caleb said that part of the reason why he went over to the hard right was because he got into the self-help philosophy of Stefan Molyneux, who also linked his life philosophy to cultural traditionalism, and from there to right-wing politics. This point was made in the context of discussing Caleb's journey into the political right. Moving on from this, David and Caleb also extended their discussion to Jordan Peterson, who David seems to think has a similar issue.

I guess if people are selling their politics via self-help, then it's a real issue, and we need to call it out. But as to whether Jordan Peterson or even Stefan Molyneux are doing that, I think it's very debatable. While it is true that they do link their self-help philosophy to encouragement of traditional lifestyles, I don't think this is necessarily unrelated or deceptive. Let's start from this example. Say I wrote a self-help book, and it advised readers to stay away from drugs and alcohol. You could say that is encouraging a traditional lifestyle. But if I told my readers to stay away from drugs and alcohol, it would be because I want them to lead healthy lives, for their own good, rather than because I have any political agenda. But then, there are many other lifestyle decisions that could lead to healthier and happier lives, and many of those also happen to involve living a relatively traditional lifestyle. At least I can personally understand and agree with this point. For example, I would think that advising readers against casual sex is also a good thing to write in a self-help book.

Now, all this would be politically neutral, at least in the pre-1960s era. Even before the 1960s, we had lots of very left-wing people, but they generally wouldn't take issue with traditional lifestyle advice. All this changed after the 1960s and 70s, a time where many problematic developments occured. Firstly, there was the proliferation of critical theory on the left, something that I think was a mixed bag with some problematic results to be honest. Furthermore, the kind of critical theory that took hold at this time had a strong critique of family values in general and the nuclear family in particular, linking it to capitalism. Now, this line of reasoning goes all the way back to Engels in the 19th century, but personally I have never found it convincing. If anything, capitalism has never been pro-family: we used to have strong extended families in feudal times, but early capitalism broke them up into nuclear families for the sake of labor flexibility, and later capitalism further eroded the family unit. I also happen to believe that we need to culturally limit this tendency of capitalism, because otherwise liberalism will effectively self-destruct, and fascism will grow. But that's another story. The point is, leftist critical theory began to look negatively on values associated with strong families since the 1960s and 70s, and because of that the left has been against many traditional lifestyle values for no good moral or economic reason since then. For example, the aforementioned advice against casual sex would be frowned upon, as a pro-patriarchy message, or even a carrier of cultural hegemony.

As someone who sees things primarily through classical liberal values, when I look at something, I want to see there being liberty and equal opportunity. I guess you could say that this was the majority viewpoint of progressives before 1960, and back then both capitalist liberals and socialist lefists would agree on many things culturally despite disagreeing economically. Where both liberty and equal opportunity have been satisfied, then I'm satisfied. From a classical liberal viewpoint, that is, the default of the pre-1960s progressives, life advice that tends to traditional choices, for example abstinence outside of marriage, would be value-neutral, and it should be treated fairly like all other ideas in the free market of ideas, as long as there isn't an implication of endorsing state coercion. So where, in the past, the left stayed true to these values, people who lived and promoted traditional lifestyles could live happily on either side of the political spectrum. But since the 1970s, this was no longer true. I think this is why many people who start out from believing in traditional lifestyles for their own good also end up finding the right side of the political spectrum a more hospitable place for them. And I think this is where the left has given itself a massive own goal.

Therefore, my advice is this: if the left is so worried about people like Jordan Peterson and Stefan Molyneux using their self-help to move people into right-wing politics, then they should make a real effort to cease alienating people who believe in traditional lifestyle choices. My point is, the ball is in the Left's court, and they alone will decide if this so-called pipeline continues to exist. As soon as they drop that anti-traditional side of critical theory, and go back to their pre-1960s cultural views, this so-called pipeline will cease to exist.

That's all for today. I'll be back next time to discuss another big idea. Subscribe if you want to follow our story. The transcripts are available on my website. And remember to resist the hive mind and stay individualistic. The world depends on it.

A Classical Liberal Case for Pete Buttigieg? | Moral Libertarian View

NOTE: While I did support certain candidates in the 2019–20 Democratic primaries because of their ideas (e.g. UBI, anti-war, broad tent approach), it doesn't mean I endorse their other positions.

Welcome to Moral Libertarian View, a podcast style program where we discuss big ideas to see if they can contribute to more individual liberty and equal opportunity, values that are at the heart of the Moral Libertarian idea. Unlike many popular channels out there, this show is a dedicated non echo-chamber, where views from the left, right and center are all going to be considered without discrimination. I hope you subscribe if you are interested.

In the recent debate for 2020 Democratic candidates, Pete Buttigieg was one of the most noticed personalities. At only 37 years old, he is the youngest candidate in the field, but many people have found him surprisingly mature in his thinking. Here at Moral Libertarian View, we have a habit of analysing people and platforms from a classical liberal values point of view, to see if they are good for freedom or not. With the renewed interest in Mayor Pete, I think it's time we look at him throughly from the freedom viewpoint.

If you visit the Pete Buttigieg 2020 website, you will see that he has divided his whole platform into three categories, with Freedom being one of them. So, at least from the surface, we see a man who says he is committed to freedom, which is already much better than many people these days. Pete says that his emphasis is on both 'freedom of' and 'freedom from', and I guess this means both things like 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom from a lack of health care'. Consequently, his website details many policies to do with social programs, like health care and education. As I frequently say, as a Moral Libertarian, my main emphasis is that everyone should have equal and maximum moral agency, and I believe this is the moral core of the classical liberal values as espoused by its 18th and 19th century proponents. This means that, while I generally agree with political libertarians on many social issues, when it comes to economic issues I think having a strong social safety net is valuable from an individual freedom point of view. I previously made my Moral Libertarian case as to why expanding health care and education programs is worth the money, so I am in general agreement with Mayor Pete here.

While Mayor Pete is for spending more on health and education, his plans have been criticized by those further to the left. For example, his 'Medicare for All Who Want It' is seen as a cop-out among those who believe in achieving 'Medicare For All' overnight. Similarly, while he clearly states that he wants public college to be free for middle income families, this is still not free college for all. However, I think that the important thing is to have a policy that does what it wants to do, and the objective here is to have health insurance coverage for all, and make the cost of college no longer a problem for all who want to attend. From what I see, Pete's policies achieve these objectives. His plan for Medicare also appears to preserve an element of choice, which is good from a classical liberal perspective. I don't actually understand why the left seems to have a problem with Mayor Pete's policies here. I mean, if you can convince me otherwise, then I will listen, but personally I don't see a problem there. Furthermore, Pete's platform also states that he wants to put an end to the endless wars, which is encouraging to hear, even if he has not put much emphasis on this policy yet.

Overall, from what I can see, Mayor Pete is committed to freedom generally, and his social programs sound reasonable. I still have some concern about where he stands on critical theory, which comes from both his background and some of the statements he has made, but I am relieved that at least his policies don't reflect this mindset. Otherwise, there don't seem to be any red flags I can see in his platform either.

That's all for today. I'll be back next time to discuss another big idea. Subscribe if you want to follow our story. The transcripts are available on my website, and my Medium profile. And remember to resist the hive mind and stay individualistic. The world depends on it.

Can Someone Like Bernie Sanders AND Joe Biden at the same time? | TaraElla Report Radio

Welcome to TaraElla Report Radio, a podcast style program where we discuss big ideas to see if they can contribute to more individual liberty and equal opportunity. Unlike many popular channels out there, this show is a dedicated non echo-chamber, where we look at things from a truly independent perspective. I hope you subscribe if you are interested.

Tonight, the second round of the first debate for the 2020 Democratic candidates will take place, and it is the round most people are excited about, because there will be many big names like Andrew Yang, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. Speaking of Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, they are not the only two oldest and most experienced candidates in the race, they are also probably the most polarizing ones. It sometimes seems like if you love Bernie you must hate Uncle Joe, or vice versa. But then, there are plenty of people who have indicated to pollsters that they either have Bernie as their first choice and Biden as their second, or vice versa. Today, I'm going to ask this question: can somebody actually like Sanders and Biden at the same time. I guess I'm in a good position to look at this, because neither of them are my favorite, but both are in my Top 5. Furthermore, I also once looked at if someone can like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump at the same time, so this looks like a fitting follow-up.

So why would someone like Bernie and Biden at the same time? Most of the people who have this preference seem to not be active in the internet political scene, so we can't know what they think for sure. At least Sanders-Trump fans are more outspoken. But Sanders-Biden fans tend to not be similarly outspoken for some reason. Some people have hypothesized that people holding this preference could just be due to name recognition. But then, plenty of big names have already received lots of media coverage, so if it was true back in January, it can't still be true now. Others have suggested these people would only support men, possibly due to sexism. Again, I don't think this is right. I have never met a single person in my whole life who would only vote for men as a rule. Besides, there are plenty of other men in the running, and we don't see nearly as many people going Biden-Buttigieg or Sanders-O'Rourke, for example. But Biden-Sanders, or Sanders-Biden, seem to be quite common.

I guess there are plenty of things that Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden actually share, that are not as important to many activists, but could be quite important to your average voter. From the top of my head, I can think of experience, perceived reliability, and a lack of identity politics as three big things they share. Firstly, most voters value experience, and both Sanders and Biden have lots of it. In fact, if either were elected President in 2020, they would be the oldest newly elected president in US history. Secondly, experience also links with perceived reliability. The longer one can maintain a track record without serious stuff-ups, the better the perceived reliability. Finally, an under-appreciated factor is the widespread loathing of identity politics throughout America and most Western countries. I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I firmly believe that Hillary lost in 2016 because of identity politics. I mean, it was stupid for Hillary to go with identity politics, there was already the example of a certain leader of another English speaking country who tried a similar thing a few years earlier with disasterous results, so I don't know why Hillary would choose to go there. But even in the 2020 race, we still see several big name contenders who like to play up their identity politics, as if they want to become the new Hillary. Against this background, Bernie and Biden both look like the way to escape a repeat of Hillary 2016. I should add that, if escaping from identity politics is important to you, you should probably also check out Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard, both excellent candidates who never play identity politics.

That's all for today. I'll be back next time to discuss another big idea. Subscribe if you want to follow our story. The transcripts are available on my website, and my Medium profile. And remember to resist the hive mind and stay individualistic. The world depends on it.

Jordan Peterson says Speak The Truth. But it may Require a Revolution | Moral Libertarian View

Welcome to Moral Libertarian View, a podcast style program where we discuss big ideas to see if they can contribute to more individual liberty and equal opportunity, values that are at the heart of the Moral Libertarian idea. Unlike many popular channels out there, this show is a dedicated non echo-chamber, where views from the left, right and center are all going to be considered without discrimination. I hope you subscribe if you are interested.

Today, I want to respond to a clip Jordan Peterson recently uploaded, where he encouraged people to speak the truth. His message was that, we should all conceptualize the highest good that we can, aim at that, and then tell the truth. Basically, we should speak as per our conscience believes. If we all do that, we will have a much better world. A very simple message, and one I totally agree with. The reason why I'm a Moral Libertarian is because I believe people can't be always right, and all ideas from all individuals need to be challenged in the free market of ideas regularly, so we can get closer to the truth. To participate in the free market of ideas in good conscience would of course require us to speak the whole truth of what we believe. There's one problem though: we live in a world where it's often not easy to speak the truth.

Many people would say that the problem is a lack of free speech. For example, people are socially punished for saying controversial things, even losing their jobs for it, and there are also activists who de-platform speakers for a variety of reasons. My regular audience would know that I am deeply concerned about these things. But the problem actually goes much deeper. The problem is that, many people, no matter their background or belief, simply don't want to listen to ideas they don't agree with. Too many people like to live within their echo chamber, with their views never being challenged. If their views are ever challenged, they somehow feel unsafe, and they react very badly. This is the reason why we often can't have rational and constructive debates on important issues.

The fact is, even before so-called 'safe speech' became a thing, the safe speech mentality was already pervasive in many social circles. I know this because, being the outspoken person that I am, I have regularly received social backlash, even 10 or 12 years ago. The truth is, the safe speech mentality is not new, and if we are to be free to speak the truth, we must actively overcome it. To overcome the safe speech mentality, we need a revolution in the way we think about many things. For example, from now on, we need to agree 100% that it is never impolite to disagree. We should expect even our close friends to disagree with us all the time. Furthermore, we should actively step out of our echo chambers, and step out into the wider world, to listen to all the diverse voices out there. Many of us actually live in social circles that are akin to safe spaces, and that's not healthy. To counterbalance this, we need to actively expose ourselves to the full range of people and ideas out there. Finally, we need to remember not to take any disagreements personally. We need to remember that, to regularly have someone disagree with our point of view is a natural fact of life, not a statement of our deficiency. Besides, if we are truly confident about what we believe in, and we are certain that we have sound arguments for our belief, we wouldn't feel bad about others disagreeing. On the other hand, when we are not truly confident of our own position, which is certainly more frequent than people would admit, then we need to give the other side a fair go to change our minds.

That's all for today. I'll be back next time to discuss another big idea. Subscribe if you want to follow our story. The transcripts are available on my website, and my Medium profile. And remember to resist the hive mind and stay individualistic. The world depends on it.

Why BreadTube is Getting So Excited About a Joe Biden 'Gaffe' | BreadBusting

Welcome to BreadBusting, where we attempt to examine the problematic ideas that come out of BreadTube, and the ideology of Breadism more generally. Basically, it's like Myth Busting, but for Breadism. Today, I'm going to talk about why some BreadTubers, or at least BreadTube fans and BreadTube adjacent creators, have been getting very excited about some comments from former Vice President Joe Biden, which have been widely misinterpreted in the media.

Recently, Joe Biden described how he has a long track record of being able to work with people who he strongly disagreed with, including those who supported segregation back in the 1970s, because there was civility. As I understand it, the point is about being able to maintain a civil relationship with people who you have strong disagreements, so that you can still find common ground and get things done. A very important point to make, especially in this toxic political climate, where we can't even have reasonable debates anymore. Nonetheless, many people have been trying to make something out of nothing, accusing Joe Biden of being sympathetic to racists, when this was the exact opposite of what he actually said. Of course, attacking Biden over almost anything is quite easy these days, especially on the internet where he is pretty unpopular with activists from both the left and the right.

But then, if your average Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump supporter is perhaps promoting this controversy strategically, even if out of somewhat bad faith, Breadists are excited about this so-called gaffe for much deeper reasons. You see, Breadists don't believe in rational debate or civility. In the Breadist worldview, everything is about power, power struggle and power dynamics. Breadism sees everything through the lens of power, and believe that speech is only a device of power. While Joe Biden saw his ability to work with segregationists in the light of being civil despite fundamental disagreements, Breadism sees his ability to get along with racist people as part of his 'white privilege', operating in the power structure they call 'white supremacy'. Therefore, while Biden takes an opportunity to highlight his ability to work with those he disagreed with, Breadists saw an opportunity to highlight his white privilege, and his role in what they call 'white supremacy'. The problem with this attitude is that, if all we emphasize are our differences and our conflicts of interest, there is simply no way to work together towards anything. And this point was echoed even by progressives like Tulsi Gabbard.

In fact, historically, real progressives have long been uncomfortable with the Breadist view of breaking down everything into power and privilege analyses. 20th century French philosopher Michel Foucault was perhaps the most important influence on modern Breadism, and he saw everything from science and medicine to tradition and even knowledge itself as power structures. This essentially nihilistic view of the world was rejected by even Noam Chomsky himself! In fact, the rise of Breadist ideas is the fundamental reason why much of the left has become averse to rational debate, and instead promote authoritarian stances like safe speech and de-platforming speakers. For the committed Breadists, ideas and debate don't matter, because they are only a cloak for power and privilege. Unlike most Bernie or Trump supporters, Breadists oppose Joe Biden not because of policy differences, but because they fundamentally believe he stands for the powerful and the privileged, and his latest comments are proof of this. From a fundamentally Breadist point of view, it matters more that Joe Biden comes across like the embodiment of straight white male privilege, more than what anything Joe Biden actually has to say. And I think this is really sad.

That's all for today. I'll be back next time to discuss another big idea. Subscribe if you want to follow our story. And remember to resist the hive mind and stay individualistic. The world depends on it.

Why BreadTube is a Left-Wing Rabbit Hole | Re Caleb Cain (Faraday Speaks) | BreadBusting

Welcome to BreadBusting, where we attempt to examine the problematic ideas that come out of BreadTube, and the ideology of Breadism more generally. Basically, it's like Myth Busting, but for Breadism. Today, I'm going to talk about the political journey of Caleb Cain, aka Faraday Speaks, who used to be a far-right fellow-traveller for a while, but is now a left-winger. His story first came to prominence when he made a video about his journey a few months ago, and I have actually been following what he had to say since then. About two weeks ago, New York Times had an article about him, which caused even greater discussion.

Basically, as I understand it, Caleb started out as your average liberal young man, who got exposed to some right-wing ideas on YouTube. It all started when he became a fan of Stefan Molyneux. But then, the YouTube algorithm also introduced him to other right-wing channels, including both mainstream conservatives like Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder, and other, much much further right channels. But it all changed when he got into creators like Destiny and ContraPoints, which pulled him back towards the left. But now, he's gone even further left than before, leftier than your average American liberal, although I don't know exactly where he stands on the issues. Towards the end of the NYT article, the journalist stated his concerns that Caleb, having just crawled out of a right-wing rabbit hole, may be falling into a left-wing rabbit hole. Caleb apparently doesn't share that concern very much.

The problem is, BreadTube is indeed a left-wing rabbit hole. Behind the fun and games, BreadTube creators are introducing people to very radical ideas. Ideas like how everything we know is socially constructed, how we don't actually have that much individual agency after all, and, in some cases, how everything we know and love, from families, to religion, to the liberal notion of individualism, is only here to serve capitalism. A good example is how, Breadism would have you believe that homophobia is due to the existence of the nuclear family, which in turn is due to the capitalist demand for workers. Honestly, this sounds like a conspiracy theory. And if you look at Breadist ideas, they ultimately all point to one theme. Everything you have come to know is evil, and is responsible for racism, sexism, homophobia, and every other social ill. Every traditional social institution stands in the way of your liberation. And social engineering to abruptly change everything is hence justified. Any resistence to this agenda is the exercise of oppressive power by the privileged, and if you don't see that, you must have false consciousness caused by cultural hegemony. I know that's a lot of jargon to take in, but that's Breadism, also known as Critical Theory and Postmodernism, in a nutshell.

The problem with BreadTube is, they've got some very controversial ideas, and they need to promote these ideas while not turning people away. Critical theory and postmodernism have been around for decades, but they had been widely rejected until recently. Some BreadTubers apparently believe that it is the serious attitude of thinkers like Adorno, or the academic jargon they use, that's unpalatable. That's why they dress their message up as entertainment. My concern is, if people take the messages of Breadism in this way, they may be less critical of what the message actually is. The problem is, we are generally less critical of entertainment than of serious lecturing. But if you think about it critically, it's not just the academic jargon in Breadism that's unpalatable. In fact, it's the ideology itself that's unpalatable. An ideology that calls for the dissolution of everything we know and love is inherently unpalatable. An ideology that encourages minorities to adopt a victim mentality is going to be rightly opposed by supporters of real social justice, as it used to be defined before 2010. BreadTube may have dressed Breadism up as entertaining and harmless, but if you scratch the surface, you will find some really problematic stuff.

That's all for today. I hope you subscribe if you are interested. See you next time!

Andrew Yang, Dave Rubin, YouTube Politics, and Free Speech | Moral Libertarian View

Andrew Yang is Right. We Need Less Identity Politics! | Re Rubin Report | Moral Libertarian View

NOTE: While I did support certain candidates in the 2019–20 Democratic primaries because of their ideas (e.g. UBI, anti-war, broad tent approach), it doesn't mean I endorse their other positions.

Welcome to Moral Libertarian View, a podcast style program where we discuss big ideas to see if they can contribute to more individual liberty and equal opportunity, values that are at the heart of the Moral Libertarian idea. My aim is to untangle the confusions and seek the truth, in the areas of civilizational values, economic policy, and culture. I hope you subscribe if you are interested.

A while ago, I uploaded a video where I made the case for Dave Rubin to get Andrew Yang on his show. You know, two individuals big on freedom, coming together to have a chat. And it appears that Rubin has done exactly what I wanted him to do! Last week, the Rubin Report featuring Andrew Yang was finally released, and they discussed some very interesting topics. One of these was identity politics. Rubin, as you all know, is very concerned about identity politics taking over the Democratic Party. As I always say, there is actually plenty of identity politics on both sides, and it's not just the Democrats. But the Democrats do have an identity politics problem, as evident in the platforms of candidates like Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren, who even said that 'race matters'. I'm sorry Warren, but race shouldn't matter!

So how does Yang see identity politics? He is, from what I see, not in favor of it. Yang thinks there should be less identity politics, and more consensus building, more bridge building. I totally agree. I mean, I am all for listening to people who are doing it tough, and if people are discriminated against because of their immutable characteristics I'm all for preventing it from happening. I have no problems with things like the Equality Act currently before the US Congress, and I believe Andrew Yang is on the same page as myself there. But the thing is, when it comes to dealing with structural issues and social norms in general, it is best to have universalist solutions that everyone can benefit from equally, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexuality, or political affiliation. For example, Yang understands that economic disadvantage affects many different demographics, and it may affect each demographic in specifically different ways. But his solution is to let everyone have the Freedom Dividend. After all, at the end of the day, economic disadvantage is economic disadvantage, and fixing it doesn't require looking at skin color or gender. There is no point in making this issue divisive along those lines. It's much better to emphasize our commonalities and bring people together. Having solutions where everyone is treated equally, like how everyone gets $1000 per month with the Freedom Dividend without discrimination, is the best way to bring people together.

Another thing I often talk about is how identity politics is actually a substitute for the strong bonds of society that we once had. In a world where families and traditional institutions are weak, people are prone to instead make bonds over identity markers. Therefore, making family structures and the social fabric strong again is perhaps the best solution to combating identity politics. Andrew Yang's platform is very pro-family, from the Freedom Dividend to money for marriage counselling, and he also cares about making communities healthy again. In other words, Yang doesn't just say he wants to move away from identity politics; he has actual policies that will help make it a reality.

Of course, I have to emphasize again that the problem of identity politics doesn't just exist on the Democratic side, and in some ways this is particularly relevant to candidates like Andrew Yang. For example, I have heard from people who said that they won't support Yang simply because he is a Democrat. Ironically, this is often supported by the argument that the Democrats are the party of identity politics. Apparently, Yang is a Democrat, so he will play identity politics just like Hillary Clinton, even if he says otherwise. Well, guess what. That is also a form of identity politics! Stereotyping people by their associations, defining one's position against others based on identity markers of any kind, that's very much identity politics. As individualists true to the classical liberal tradition, we should reject identity-based considerations, and we should be consistently for ideas over identities all the time. Ideas over identities. We can do this by considering every person, every candidate, and every issue on its merits. Yang has a big platform of policies, in fact there are at least several dozen of them. He should be judged on those policies, and not how others in his party behave.

That's all for today. I'll be back next time to discuss another big idea. Subscribe if you want to follow our story. The transcripts are available on my website, and my Medium profile. And remember to resist the hive mind and stay individualistic. The world depends on it.

REAL CLASSICAL LIBERAL Takes on Dave Rubin and Steven Crowder | TaraElla Report Radio

Welcome to TaraElla Report Radio, where we revisit and Rethink the fundamental Classical Liberal ideals and values for the 21st century. We look at free speech, individual liberty, equal opportunity, civilizational values, economic policy, culture, and most importantly, maintaining a truly open minded stance on everything. I hope you subscribe if you are interested.

Today, I want to continue my discussion about the broader picture of classical liberalism, and why the free speech movement isn't doing so well right now. I want to start by sort of responding to Cathy Young's recent comments on Dave Rubin in an article published on Quilette. Now, don't get me wrong, I still like Dave Rubin, and I'm glad that he seems to have finally taken on my suggestion to get Andrew Yang on his show. But Cathy Young, who is a journalist with lots of credibility, certainly made some very valid points about where our movement is going, and I think we ignore her at our peril. The truth is, the free speech movement is losing credibility in some segments of society, and I'm afraid we don't have too much time to turn that around.

One important criticism Young made about Rubin is that he seems to be only focused on identity politics on the left, and generally ignores identity politics on the right. As classical liberals, we should endeavour to remove all identity considerations from politics, so that one day everyone will judge ideas solely on their merit. Therefore, Rubin is completely right to criticize left-wing identity politics. In fact, I think he should do more to take on the arguments of high-profile politicians like Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren, who clearly support leftist identity politics and have much more influence than your average college student. It's definitely worrying to see a presidential candidate saying that 'race matters', and a few months ago I did a video on that topic so I'm not revisiting it now. On the other hand, the right is far from free of identity politics either, and it would be a mistake to ignore that. In fact, a big part of the right's whole brand nowadays is that they are the opposite of the SJW-left, and if you define yourself against the SJW-left, that's enough reason to vote Republican or Conservative. Now, this could mean struggling middle class people who define themselves against those who they see as 'welfare queens', it could mean everyday working people who define themselves against Hollywood-style cultural elites, and it could even mean mainstream LGBT people who define themselves against a postmodernist activist establishment that pretends to speak for them, which I suspect Rubin can relate to. I know of people in each of these categories who support the right simply because of the aforementioned identifications. Now, this is clearly identity politics, even if it is a different kind to what we find on the left. I have yet to hear Rubin talk about this at all.

Another criticism raised in the article is that the some people in the free speech movement, as it stands, are too uncritical of ideas that are actually racist, homophobic, or otherwise pro-discrimination. This is reflected in Rubin's uncritical attitude towards his guests, some of whom have ideas that are clearly not compatible with the classical liberal demands of individual freedom, equality and dignity. As I made it clear in my comments on the recent Steven Crowder controversy, as classical liberals we should uphold everyone's right to free speech without punishment, but we also have a responsibility to use our free speech to advance classical liberal positions in the free market of ideas. I made it clear that, while I strongly disagree with attempts to de-platform Crowder, I won't shy away from pointing out the damage to his own credibility his so-called jokes have caused, and why he is not a good example for classical liberals. I also strongly disagree with almost everything he has said about LGBT people and issues, and I recommitted to using my own free speech to argue for the case of acceptance and inclusion. My point is that, we need to not just defend free speech itself, but also participate in the free market of ideas with our own conscience and our own passion, if we are to be credible. What the free speech movement needs is more disagreements, more blunt comments, and more heated arguments. If Rubin is serious about being a classical liberal intellectual, I think he should be less afraid to upset his guests or even his audience, because, well, the fact is that we disagree with each other a lot of the time, and since 'facts don't care about your feelings', we shouldn't withhold from saying something just because someone may get upset. After all, we wouldn't have a free market of ideas anymore if we had to care about others' feelings every time we wanted to say something.

Finally, and this ties in to the whole 'Rubin is too lenient on the right' thing, we need to recognize the authoritarian tendencies on both sides. In the past decade or so, the authoritarians have prevailed more on the cultural left, and the libertarians have prevailed more on the cultural right, but this is a liquid thing, something that could even change within two years. I even suspect where we are currently at is the result of the power balance that the Obama administration left behind, and things may start shifting quite soon. I still remember back when I was in college, which is like just over a decade ago, the right used to be the authoritarian ones, when they sought to ban gay marriage, censor video games, and even ban certain fashion items. Given that all this was less than 15 years ago, it would be unrealistic to think that the authoritarian side of the right is completely gone. In fact, just last month, conservative intellectual Sohrab Armani made the case for a return to the kind of conservatism where the right wouldn't shy away from using government power to fight the culture wars, taking aim at his fellow conservative intellectual David French for taking the libertarian route, which Armani says would lead to the Left's victory. Quite a few prominent conservative thinkers have reacted positively to Armani's piece, and I think it has been particularly well received in the religious right, the faction that was behind a lot of the right-wing authoritarianism during the Bush era. I think we need to keep in mind that the right isn't just Donald Trump, young internet libertarians and free market Never-Trumpers. There is still an ongoing battle for the future of the right, and the authoritarian types are far from defeated. Knowing this, I think liberty-minded people left, right and center should join forces to oppose authoritarianism everywhere.

That's all for today. I'll be back next time to discuss another big idea. Subscribe if you want to follow our story. The transcripts are available on my website, and my Medium profile. And remember to resist the hive mind and stay individualistic. The world depends on it.

Steven Crowder and the Classical Liberal Free Speech Lesson | Moral Libertarian View

Welcome to Moral Libertarian View, a podcast style program where we discuss big ideas to see if they can contribute to more individual liberty and equal opportunity, values that are at the heart of the Moral Libertarian idea. My aim is to untangle the confusions and seek the truth, in the areas of civilizational values, economic policy, and culture. I hope you subscribe if you are interested.

Today, I want to look at the recent controversy surrounding Steven Crowder.

As a free speech advocate, I am sad to see that free speech has become a culture war battleground again. Once a fundamental value of post-Enlightenment Western society, even enshrined in the first amendment of the US constitution, free speech clearly doesn't enjoy the same level of universal support nowadays. To reverse this trend, we need to look at what's actually gone wrong. So I had a chat with several of my friends who are not as into free speech as myself. So why don't they share my faith in free speech? It appears that they see free speech not as the enabler of a free market of ideas, but as an excuse to say things that harm certain people. In many of the free speech advocates who have come out to defend Crowder, my friends saw not free speech warriors, but people who want to encourage homophobia. Now, this view may not be correct, but rightly or wrongly, this appears to be a commonly held view out there. If we don't address this view, the future of free speech is in jeopardy.

I think the problem with the way we defend free speech these days is that it is all about defending others' rights to speak, without also showcasing how, in the bigger picture, the free market of ideas actually works. I think our defense of free speech would be that much stronger if we also talked more about the free market of ideas, and how to participate in it. By extension, we also need to showcase examples where, despite agreeing with each others' right to free speech, we are unafraid to put our strong disagreements out there for all to see. The free speech movement and its associated entities like the Intellectual Dark Web have seen too much intra-movement agreement, too much avoidance of actually discussing our disagreements, and I think it has hurt our credibility.

So here it is. While I totally support Steven Crowder's right to free speech, and disagree with moves to punish him for his speech, I have to voice a strong disagreement with almost everything he has said to date regarding LGBT matters. Crowder's gay jokes are juvenile. As someone with a biological sciences background, I have also noticed that some of his views on LGBT matters are also not scientifically sound, and I believe it is my responsibility to point this out. Crowder's failure to properly respect other individuals, and engage in polite discourse with those he disagrees with, is also in direct opposition to the classical liberal tradition, where we are committed to treating each other with civility despite our disagreements. Civility is an important part of maintaining an effective free marketplace of ideas. Whether you agree with them or not, people like Ronald Reagan and John McCain had lots of civility, whereas people like Steven Crowder clearly don't, and that's a very important difference. Finally, I am personally committed to using my own free speech to make the world a better place for future generations of LGBT people. For the LGBT youth listening out there, it will get better in the future, because of people like us, who will use our free speech to argue the case for acceptance and respect. I am confident that our ideas will win in the free market of ideas, because I believe that our ideas are the sound ones, and sound ideas always win in the end. That's the motto of the free market of ideas: may the best ideas win.

That's all for today. I'll be back next time to discuss another big idea. Subscribe if you want to follow our story. The transcripts are available on my website, and my Medium profile. And remember to resist the hive mind and stay individualistic. The world depends on it.

Why Jeremy Corbyn is NOT the British Bernie Sanders | TaraElla Report Radio

Welcome to TaraElla Report Radio, where we revisit and Rethink the fundamental Classical Liberal ideals and values for the 21st century. We look at free speech, individual liberty, equal opportunity, civilizational values, economic policy, culture, and most importantly, maintaining a truly open minded stance on everything. I hope you subscribe if you are interested.

Today, I want to talk about British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, and why I don't really like him very much. Now, before you Corbyn fans start yelling at me, please hear me out. I understand that Jeremy Corbyn has a cult-like following in Britain, mainly among the young and well educated. His popularity is also beginning to be felt in America, where he is sometimes described as Britain's Bernie Sanders, something that I will dispute. Outside of his cult following, Corbyn is actually quite controversial. He certainly doesn't have the general goodwill and popularity that Bernie Sanders has. I mean, Corbyn certainly wouldn't be able to go on the British equivalent of Fox News and expect the warm reception that Bernie received a few weeks ago. In fact, even rank and file members of the British Labour Party are deeply divided on Corbyn.

I think the problem with Corbyn is that he is stuck in the past. And it is not just my view. A few weeks ago, a piece in the left-wing Guardian newspaper said that Corbyn had probably anticipated a revolution all his life, but he just isn't interested in the one actually going on in Britain right now, because it is not what he has in mind. His disinterest in all thing Brexit means that Labour is essentially paralyzed on this issue, hence its poor showing in the European elections. From what I see, Corbyn is disinterested in 2019 because he is stuck in the 1970s, when a different kind of revolution was in the air. Unlike Bernie Sanders, Corbyn's policies are old and stale, many of them recycled from the discredited radicalism of the May 1968 generation. Corbynism is straight out of a world where radicals thought that everyone should live in Yippie communes, and the internet wasn't a thing. Comparing Corbyn to someone like Andrew Yang further illustrates this point. I don't even know if Corbyn has ever considered a UBI, I really don't think he has, because I really don't think he graspes the problem we have with increasing automation at all. This, in turn, reflects a very narrow perspective on things overall. Instead of talking to people of diverse backgrounds like Sanders and Yang, Corbyn surrounds himself with other older socialists with similarly stale views, who probably haven't noticed that their ideology expired at least 30 years ago. No wonder his support among the British working class is actually quite low.

I guess the divide in politics today isn't so much progressive vs conservative, or even nationalist vs globalist, but in fact open-minded vs close-minded. There are close-minded people on both the left and the right, there are close-minded people on both the nationalist and globalist sides, and none of them are good for our future, because none of them have the willingness to listen to the diverse demands out there, and none of them have the creativity to come up with new solutions to balance and satisfy these demands. For me, the first and foremost thing I look for in someone is whether they are truly open-minded. As much as I love Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard for their open-mindedness; I feel really uncomfortable about the close-mindedness of people like Jeremy Corbyn. No, he is definitely not the British Bernie.

That's all for today. I'll be back next time to discuss another big idea. Subscribe if you want to follow our story. The transcripts are available on my website, and my Medium profile. And remember to resist the hive mind and stay individualistic. The world depends on it.

We Like Andrew Yang Because He's Truly Open-Minded | TaraElla Report S4 E2 (Redo)

NOTE: While I did support certain candidates in the 2019–20 Democratic primaries because of their ideas (e.g. UBI, anti-war, broad tent approach), it doesn't mean I endorse their other positions.

 

TaraElla: Welcome to the TaraElla Report, where I chat with my friends about cultural and political issues. All of us are individuals who are simply looking for more freedom. I believe that it is only through amplifying the conversations of everyday individuals that we can cut through the nonsense and bring back freedom.

Today's conversation is with Katie, an old friend of mine with whom I have had political conversations going back to our college days. Katie identifies as a progressive, whereas I identify as a classical liberal. I think we do share quite a lot of common ground, for example in our preference that our political leaders be truly open-minded. It's a quality that's becoming increasingly rare on both sides of politics, but fortunately we still find it in a few of the 2020 candidates, including Andrew Yang.

Katie: In fact, the reason why I identify as 'progressive' is because it signals an openness to new and creative solutions to solve our problems, and the adaptability this creates. Now, this is very different from how some people think of 'progressive' these days, whether this be a set of dogmatic policy positions that were bundled together for various historical reasons, or a set of beliefs that arise from social theory created in certain sections of academia. The main difference is that, my 'progressive' is open-minded, open-ended and practical, while theirs is dogmatic, rigid and narrow-minded. What I like most about Andrew Yang is that he is a 'progressive' in the open-minded mould. He is open to bold new ways to solve problems, such as the Universal Basic Income, which he calls the Freedom Dividend. This is necessary because the problems we experience at each stage in history is new. For example, the coming wave of automation will create a challenge that we have never seen before. No social theory from an intellectual establishment that is still tied down to a 1960s-based worldview will adequately address this challenge. And, let's face it, this 1960s-era worldview is also something that Hillary Clinton shared to a great extent, and ultimately what led to her being out of touch and running a campaign that didn't connect with today's problems.

TaraElla: It's interesting that you mentioned the 1960s worldview. I see it in supposedly progressive people everywhere. I think British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is a good example of this. The Corbyn cult thinks that he is the future, but actually he is the past. Similarly, the identity politics left, which Hillary Clinton is part of, is, from what I see, desperate to revisit the 1960s and 70s civil rights and second wave feminist battles, when the rest of the world has clearly moved on. I suspect Hillary Clinton imagined Trump supporters to be sexist men straight out of 1950s society and hence called them 'deplorables', when actual Trump supporters are people living in the here and now with real social and economic concerns that are nothing like the conservatives of the 1950s. While Hillary didn't get it, and probably still doesn't get it, Andrew Yang clearly gets it, and this is why he is winning over quite a large number of 2016 Trump supporters.

Katie: I think this is an important point. Unlike Hillary, Andrew Yang actually studies and addresses the problems people have in the present and the future, and he is not biased by the social theory that was developed in response to events in the 1960s and 70s. Hence, he has no problems seeing how rust belt workers are suffering from the loss of jobs, and he fully understands how increasing automation will make it even worse. He understands that Hillary's divisive identity politics is so yesterday, and going forward we are going to face unprecendented challenges, and we are all in the same boat here. This is why he proposes pragmatic, universal solutions that will serve the needs of everyone. Another great thing about Yang is his ability to go beyond the superficial, and come up with novel solutions for problems that nobody knows how to solve right now. For example, he is concerned about issues like rising suicide rates and dropping birth rates. But he doesn't just think it's a cultural problem like many others do. He links this to the economic situation, and proposes economic remedies. Will it work? We can't know for sure yet, but it's at least worth a try, given the dire situation we find ourselves in at the moment.

TaraElla: I think we should talk a bit about the rise of identity politics, on both the left and the right, as an example of a problem where pragmatic solutions that go beyond the superficial are needed. Identitarianism has been a matter of major concern for many people, and rightly so because it tears apart the classical liberal social contract. However, a lot of the analysis on this matter ignore the bigger picture. The post-war period was great for classical liberal values in general, but it did not exist in a vacuum. I think that a society where there is a weak social fabric and weak and unstable family structures is one prone to identity politics. This is because when people don't have the strong bonds of family and tradition to identify with, they turn to identification based on other things, like demographic characteristics or shared worldviews. The bonds of identity around race, gender, sexual orientation or political affiliation have become a substitute for the bonds of families and institutions. Therefore, to cure the identity politics problem, we need a strong social fabric made up of strong and stable families and institutions. Now, we all know that economic stress is a big contributor to family breakdown, and the past three decades of economic policy have increased the economic stress experienced by many families. I think this is the real cause of the rise of identity politics, and the breakdown of values like free speech and the free market of ideas that naturally follow. I believe we can't effectively restore classical liberal values across society without changing some of the economic parameters, to at least make families healthy again. That's why I think the Freedom Dividend is a great idea.

That's all for today. I'll be back next time to discuss another big idea. Subscribe if you want to follow our story. The transcripts are available on my website, and my Medium profile. And remember to resist the hive mind and stay individualistic. The world depends on it.