Will Anti-Woke Go Too Far? Here's my Answer.

I think the most important thing to ensure that anti-wokeism doesn’t go ‘too far’ is to maintain a truly intellectual critique of wokeness. Both the right-wing culture warrior version of anti-wokeism, as well as the new Democratic-aligned avoidance-based anti-wokeism, are ultimately rooted in a knee jerk reaction judgement of whether things could be deemed ‘woke’, while never truly engaging with the phenomenon on an intellectual level. As I’ve said many times, the problem with wokeness is that it is ultimately rooted in postmodern critical theory ideology, and ultimately in a worldview that I would classify as ‘critical anarchism’: critical because it uses (bad faith) critique as its weapon, and anarchism because it ultimately wants to deconstruct all existing social structures, without differentiation as to whether those structures actually serve a useful function or not, because their ideological theories tell them that all such structures are oppressive. Radical identity politics, cancel culture and the rest are all strategies in service of this overarching goal.

To maintain an intellectual critique of wokeness, and importantly, to resist lumping normal liberalism into wokeness and hence becoming subconsciously opposed to liberalism itself, we must be able to differentiate between critical anarchism and liberalism. For example, supporting gay marriage and accepting LGBT people is liberalism. Attacking family values and deconstructing gender is critical anarchism. Acknowledging that racism is still a problem that needs to be dealt with, while insisting that racism is a problem that lives within individuals and that individual responsibility is key to ending racism is liberalism. Saying that racism is ‘systemic’ and the only way to fix it is to discredit entire systems of education, law enforcement and justice, as well as overturning the entire paradigm of individual merit and individual-level fairness, is critical anarchism. Critical anarchism’s agenda has been soundly rejected by the general public across the West because it is offensive to our long-standing values. On the other hand, liberalism is still broadly popular, and we should aim to revive a version of liberalism that is completely free of critical anarchist influences. Building a robust critique of critical anarchism is the first step to get there. 

My Disagreements with the Activist Left are about De-polarization and Free Speech

It's certainly not just arguing over ideology and philosophy

Tara: I'm actually very frustrated that the left seems to keep misunderstanding where I'm actually coming from. Sometimes, they even mistake me for those who pretend to be centrists but actually always sides with the right on purpose. Given my strong opposition to the 'populist right', I'm certainly not one of those people. But the left keeps misunderstanding me.

Katie: As I've said before, maybe it's because you keep criticizing the left all the time. The left already feels defeated, and fearful of the rise of the far-right. They're not going to take constant criticism well at the moment. Perhaps you just need to understand this.

Tara: I understand how they feel. But that doesn't mean I can stop critiquing where the left is going wrong. What I'm ultimately trying to do is to reduce the polarization, so that the center can hold. I believe that individual freedom is safest when a moderate politics prevails. As I've said before, a strong moderate presence in the political landscape is essential for safeguarding free speech. The problem with the activist left is that its tactics, based on its theory and worldview, are leading to more polarization. They have been both radicalizing young people to refuse to compromise, and also providing fuel for right-wing culture warriors. This is why I can't just stop critiquing the left.

Katie: Is your objection to the activist left based primarily around differences in ideology and worldview then? If so, how is it any different from all the pointless culture war-style debates out there? I mean, how is it different from those jumping up and down about people saying 'Seasons Greetings' instead of 'Merry Christmas'?

Tara: My objection to the activist left is because their ideology and their tactics are fuelling polarization, and in many cases, harmful to free speech. This, in turn, poisons the discourse, prevents a true understanding of the issues, and leads to either stalemate or bad outcomes. While I have fundamental philosophical differences with them, my objection is ultimately not rooted in philosophy, but rather rooted in practical outcomes. I personally believe that pointless squabble about language and philosophy, like the Merry Christmas vs Seasons Greetings example that you cited, are counterproductive. But being concerned about practical results, especially in terms of polarization, free speech and policy outcomes, is actually another thing. I think this needs particular clarification and emphasis.

This is why, going forward, I intend to describe more clearly where exactly my disagreements with the activist left's ideology are, and why I'm disagreeing for the sake of practical outcomes. I hope that this will show that I'm not arguing for the sake of language and philosophy. What I wish for most is a turnaround in the polarization of the Western political landscape generally, as well as the restoration of a healthy marketplace of ideas. Going forward, my critique is going to be focused on this vision, and what we need to do to get there.

 

Three New Arguments to Support a Libertarian Politics | Moral Libertarian Talk

One of the reasons why libertarianism isn't doing so well right now is because the application of the non-aggression principle (NAP) in real life isn't always straightforward. Don't get me wrong, I think the NAP is still valuable and important. But it appears that we really can't build a whole politics on that alone. Therefore, I suggest some other arguments that can be used to support a freedom-orientated politics:

1. The Truth Argument

This one is simple. People should be free to discover the truth, via debate and experimentation, free from undue influence or coercion. This is the only way we will get to know the objective truth better. Any prohibition on this process would necessarily distort the functioning of the marketplace of ideas, and hence our understanding of the truth. This alone should be enough to justify the case for maximizing freedom.

2. The Compassion Argument

Top-down rigid policy prescriptions often have unintended consequences, that actually harm people in real life. In Western two-party system states, the government tends to be biased towards one tribe in society or another, making this problem worse. On the other hand, when you give people freedom, they tend to know what to do with their lives most of the time, and they tend to know how to solve their own problems better than the government does. This is why it is almost always the objectively compassionate thing to do to give people more freedom.

3. The Extended Religious Freedom Argument

This is a more philosophical argument, and is closely aligned with the Moral Libertarian philosophy of 'equal moral agency'. Basically, freedom of religion traditionally requires the right to identify one's religious beliefs, to espouse one's religious beliefs, and to practice one's religious beliefs to the extent that other people's rights are not adversely affected. The reason why such a premium was placed on religious beliefs was because this idea came during a time when almost everyone was deeply religious, and the Western world was torn apart by sectarian religious conflicts. In this day and age, where not everyone is deeply religious, there is no reason to just prioritize religious beliefs. Moreover, while not everyone's beliefs are rooted in religion these days, the West remains a culture of competing beliefs, and if we don't extend the application of freedom of religion to non-religious beliefs, the historical problem of sectarian conflicts based on conflicting worldviews would likely recur. 

Therefore, I believe we should extend the religious freedom guarantee to all sincerely held philosophical beliefs, i.e. there should be a right for everyone to identify one's philosophical and moral beliefs, to espouse one's philosophical and moral beliefs, and to practice one's philosophical and moral beliefs to the extent that other people's rights are not adversely affected. If anything, I think this is the only way that we can maintain the peace in Western countries for the foreseeable future.