Daily Centrist: Why 'Conservatives' Like Candace Owens are Questionable

Welcome to TaraElla Daily News, where we discuss recent social and political issues from a centrist and moral libertarian viewpoint. Every Monday, Wednesday and Friday I talk about the frustrations of a centrist trying to navigate the deeply divided political landscape we happen to live in right now. I believe we need something like this to break up the echo chambers, which are threatening the health of our free market of ideas. If you agree with me, I highly recommend subscribing to this channel.

Who is Candace Owens? And Why Do People Question Her?

Candace Owens is one of the most controversial conservative commentators out there right now. It's not that her opinions are particularly controversial. They're often just mainstream conservative views. The controversy surrounding Owens is mainly around how she became a conservative, and how sincere she is in her views. You see, Owens used to be left-wing, and that was just about two or three years ago. She used to work with SJWs, and she used to dislike Donald Trump. Suddenly, she flipped to the other side of the political spectrum. Now, it's not that people can't change, it's just that when people change abruptly like that, others will logically question the transformation. This past week, with Owens appearing on Fox News to talk about the controversial anonymous New York Times article, The Majority Report and The Young Turks both turned their attention back to Owens. And it was just fair. I mean, if Owens can question the lack of transparency around the New York Times article, why can't others question the lack of transparency around her sudden political change and subsequent rise to fame?

It's Not About Her Politics. It's About Keeping People Honest.

And let's not make it about the conservative views she espouses nowadays, or the direction of her political shift. I'm only interested in keeping people honest, especially influential people. I mean, some conservatives have welcomed her wholeheartedly, because they want to believe it as a win for their side. But accepting her story so easily, and even letting her be a spokesperson for conservatism, I mean, this is conservatives letting a supposed culture war victory blind their judgement in my opinion. Again, I'm not saying that Owens's conversion isn't real, I'm saying that there needs to be more transparency, she needs to demonstrate her change of heart in a more convincing way, before we can truly believe her. It's not that the other side would be better either: I'm sure if Ben Shapiro or Ann Coulter announced overnight that they were defecting to the left, the left would embrace them just as unquestioningly. The culture wars blind both sides. This is why, in this political climate, cool-headed centrists are needed like never before.

The truth is, our current political climate encourages people to be dishonest about their politics. Just last week, a popular conservative commentator on YouTube released a video talking about her experiences with dishonest political commentators, influential people who were being dishonest about their political opinions for their personal gain. Now, this kind of behaviour impairs our free market of ideas, and endangers liberty and democracy itself. People are right to be especially vigilant about fake commentators in this climate. Therefore, people are right to question the likes of Candace Owens. If she wants to be taken seriously, perhaps she should give a bit more transparency to her story of conversion. Until that happens, I encourage the media, both mainstream and independent, to continue to press on about their concerns regarding her politics. Again, it's not that I think she's insincere, it's just that I don't even know what to think, because I don't know enough. The point is, we need more transparency, especially in a world where fake people are everywhere.

That's all for today. I'll be back with more Centrist commentary and drama in three days' time. Be sure to subscribe so you don't miss it.

Daily Moral Libertarian: Jordan Peterson and 'Postmodern neo-Marxism'

NOTE: I no longer support using the term 'neo-Marxism' to describe this ideology. For my latest thoughts on why criticalism isn't Marxism, see this 2021 post.

 

Welcome to TaraElla Daily News, where we discuss recent social and political issues from a centrist and moral libertarian viewpoint. Every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday I discuss a recent social or political issue from the moral libertarian viewpoint. I wish to build a sphere of conversation around our ideas, and to increase the dismal classical liberal representation. If freedom-centered, non-echo chamber commentary is your thing, I highly recommend subscribing to this channel.

The Moral Libertarian Ideal: Equal Moral Agency for Every Individual.

Dr Jordan Peterson is known for his commentary on what he calls Postmodern neo-Marxism. Many people familiar with leftist theory have commented that the two concepts cannot be combined into one, because Marxism has a grand narrative of history and postmodernism rejects it. Ever since popular YouTuber ContraPoints illustrated this point in a video that has since gone viral a few months ago, there has been even more discussion of this subject. So who is right? We'll have a rational look at it. And since this show is all about classical liberalism, another thing we'll be looking at is, is what Peterson calls postmodern neo-Marxism threatening to classical liberal values, and if it is, how should we respond to it?

Marxism has a Grand Narrative of History.
Postmodernism does not.
Can the two still go together? Yes.

If we look at it from a factual point of view, what ContraPoints said appears to be correct. It is a fact that Marxism has a grand narrative of history and postmodernism rejects all such narratives. Contra also made the observation that Peterson appears to have overlooked the range of different positions existing on the left. Again, this appears to be correct, at least to an extent. However, the fact also remains that many of us know exactly what Peterson is talking about when he says Postmodern Neo-Marxism. Therefore, even if the words used are not 100% technically correct, they do refer to something concrete. And even some people familiar with left have agreed with Peterson that the modern far-left is full of both postmodern and Marxist influences. This is possible because they reject certainty in the grand narrative of Marx, but use his worldview of class oppression and class struggle, as well as his view of dialectical materialism, as tools of analysis, alongside more postmodern tools of analysis provided by figures like Derrida and Foucault. This allows them to, for example, combine a Foucaldian analysis of power relationships in society with the Marxist view of culture being rooted in material conditions, and the need for class struggle. This also allows them to mix and match other thinkers as well, for example, the idea of cultural hegemony that comes from Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci, and ideas from schools of radical feminism that are deeply influenced by postmodernism, creating a concept of hegemonic patriarchy that oppresses women. Furthermore, many of these syncretic ideas of the New Left are deeply influenced by Critical Theory, which was invented by Marxist thinkers in the Frankfurt School.

Now, all this remains a loosely organised network of ideas, still without a clear label, but with a clear demographic where it has strong support, and therefore a rising level of influence in our politics and culture. Therefore, it can and should now be considered its own broad school of thought, independent of both classical Marxism and classical postmodernism. As you see, when ideas from a school of thought need to be discussed, we need a label for it. The more traditional label for this school of thought was 'Cultural Marxism', but as this has certain negative connotations, some have been looking for a new term, and Peterson's 'Postmodern neo-Marxism' seems to work for many. To avoid the controversy, I usually just use 'neo-Marxism'. I guess that term is still open to the attack that this new school of thought is not actually Marxism. Therefore, maybe the best word for it is 'neo-socialism'. I will stick with neo-Marxism for now, because that's what people understand.

Is Neo-Marxism Against our Liberal Values?
Unfortunately, yes.
We must have a Good Answer to it.

As a classical liberal, and in particular, as a moral libertarian, what I am concerned about neo-Marxism is that it appears to be a systematic attempt to invalidate, discredit and turn people away from classical liberal values, using theories derived from radical thinkers. The emphasis on systems of oppression being everywhere, which I believe comes from a combination of the Marxist idea of class oppression and Focauldian power dynamics, perhaps with some radical feminism thrown in there, is a clear attempt at discrediting the individualistic focus of classical liberalism. It attempts to show us that, the premesis of classical liberalism, individual-level equality, is untenable, because there will still be some inequality in some way. And because we can't disprove what they say, classical liberal values will fall in an academic debate, especially one where utilitarianism is the yardstick.

To this, my answer is that, yes, there's a grain of truth in what the neo-Marxist say. There's always a grain of truth in any idea that has some support, and to deny this is usually not fruitful. Life is suffering, the world is imperfect, and whatever system we have, there will always be some form of inequality. To emphasize one form of equality is perhaps to sacrifice equality in another domain. Classical liberalism emphasizes one form of equality, neo-Marxism perhaps emphasizes other forms. So what form of equality does classical liberalism emphasize? To answer this question, we must look at the roots of classical liberalism. Liberalism arose because there was a need for religious toleration, freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is thus the foundation liberalism is built on. Of course, in the modern world, there are many non-religious people, and many people's consciences aren't as tied to religion nowadays. Therefore, this principle needs to be expanded so that it can apply to the modern world.

The Moral Libertarian Ideal: Equal Moral Agency for Every Individual.

The classical liberal demand for equality is one of equality of consciences. It exists on the moral level, the highest level of humanity. From what I can see, the neo-Marxist demand for equality is one of group-based standing, that is, every group in society should have the same outcomes. This is focussing on lower level equality at the expense of higher level equality in my opinion. It is also focussing on class-level equality at the expense of individual-level equality. There is a clear incompatiblity of worldviews here, and I can't help but stand for what I believe to be a superior way. May the best ideas win in the free market of ideas.

That's all for today. I'll be back with more moral libertarian commentary in two days' time. Be sure to subscribe so you don't miss it.

Daily Centrist: Who is Faking Their Politics? Probably More People Than You Think.

Welcome to TaraElla Daily News, where we discuss recent social and political issues from a centrist and moral libertarian viewpoint. Every Monday, Wednesday and Friday I talk about the frustrations of a centrist trying to navigate the deeply divided political landscape we happen to live in right now. I believe we need something like this to break up the echo chambers, which are threatening the health of our free market of ideas. If you agree with me, I highly recommend subscribing to this channel.

Last week, a popular conservative commentator on YouTube said in her video that she knows of certain people who are being quite dishonest about their political opinions, because of financial incentives, or because they just say what their fans want. Some examples of very unacceptable behaviour were given in the video. People suddenly switching sides in their politics, likely because they were chasing the money, rather than because of a genuine change of heart. Fake opinions against LGBT people from someone who didn't actually believe what they were telling their fans. And even network news asking people to take a certain stance on their show, as well as to say certain things. In short, people were dishonest because they could benefit from it. The person making the video refused to name names, but in the comments section, speculation was all around, especially about famous centrist and conservative commentators who may be fake. Big names like Milo Yiannopoulos, Dave Rubin, Steve Crowder, Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens and many more were thrown into the speculation. Well, I'm pretty sure that Ben Shapiro is a real conservative seeing his long track record, the others I can't really comment on because they haven't been around long enough. It could be the case that none of these people are fake, but many more out there are.

So, who is FAKE? We'll probably never know. But it's the bigger picture that matters.

Anyway, from a realistic perspective, I'm too old to be surprised by any of that anymore. However, from the perspective of concerned citizens who demand a healthy democracy, all of this is rather worrying. A healthy democracy can only arise from a functional free market of ideas, and when you have people, very influential people, faking their opinions, and fanning non-existent culture wars, there really can't be anything close to a healthy democracy. In fact, playing to your fanbase, playing to the echo chamber, this is the kind of behaviour that has caused our dangerous polarization of politics. And why do people do it? Because there is money in it. While this time the focus has been on conservatives, I'm sure the left has similar problems too. Because, hey, the incentives to be dishonest exist on the other side too.

In fact, as long as we have political echo chambers, we can't avoid this madness. As long as people wish to listen to somebody who preaches to the choir, this will continue to happen. The only way to change this is to change how people think about politics. And there is a glimmer of hope. Increasingly, I'm seeing people who say they don't want to hear the same things over and over from the echo chambers anymore. I'm seeing people who say they want to hear genuine and original thoughts. And this is what people like myself, independent commentators who don't belong to the echo chamber, provide. Sadly, we generally don't have much financial backing either, and we often get drowned out by the big money that creates the echo chambers. What people need to remember is this: commentators who play within the echo chambers often do so for personal gain. But when they gain, democracy loses, and the rest of us lose. Keep this in mind, because it will turn you off echo chamber politics forever. It will red pill you to the point of no return. And the more people get red pilled this way, the better, because this means the echo chambers will lose their popularity. Of course, many lucrative careers will be put on the line too, but who cares? People who profit from the destruction of democracy deserve their career ruin once people wake up.

We can consciously reject echo chamber politics, and the self-interested liars who play the game. We can consciously reject the people who fan the flames of fake culture wars to divide us, while they make a profit. We can reject it all. And for the sake of our democracy, for the sake of liberty itself, we must.

That's all for today. I'll be back with more Centrist commentary and drama in two days' time. Be sure to subscribe so you don't miss it.

Daily Moral Libertarian: Tomi Lahren Cool Conservatism vs Cooler Free Speech

Welcome to TaraElla News, where we discuss recent social and political issues from a moral libertarian viewpoint. What I am trying to do is to take a stand for this particular brand of principled classical liberalism, to help build a sphere of conversation around our ideas, and to hopefully increase the currently dismal classical liberal representation in a world otherwise too full of identity politics and fake news. By the way, I talk about a new issue every weekday, so if truly freedom-centered, non-echo chamber political commentary is your thing, I highly recommend subscribing to this channel.

The Moral Libertarian Ideal: Equal Moral Agency for Every Individual.

In recent years, conservatives have been trying to make their movement sound cool and countercultural. Or rather, sound cool because it's countercultural. And to an extent, they do have a point. To be conservative is to be non-conformist among young people nowadays, and to be a conservative on college campuses is almost like breaking a taboo. And that's sort of brave. Last week, Fox News's Tomi Lahren drew on this theme, urging conservatives to speak out, in a pitch that strongly references free speech and being unafraid to be controversial. Also, in the same week there was this video from Michael Knowles at The Daily Wire, titled 'How Did I Become A Conservative'. In the video, Knowles pointed out that being conservative is contrarian, and of course, being a contrarian is cool.

But is being a conservative the most contrarian, the most non-conformist, and hence the coolest thing around? I doubt it. I mean, it's more non-conformist than being a lefty, but it's still conformist. To what extent is conservatism conformist? You only need to watch some Fox News, or follow some right-leaning YouTube channels, to know that they generally have a similar viewpoint. To express any sympathy to any left-leaning viewpoint would be seen as heresy in conservative circles. In fact, the conformism in conservative circles is not that different to leftist conformism, except for the fact that conservatives run against the dominant positions in the wider world. In other words, conservatives are still conformist, but slightly less so than leftists. So while they may be slightly cooler than leftists, they are not completely cool yet.

Conservative Free Speech is 50% Cool
Moral Libertarian Free Speech is 100% Cool

So what's completely non-conformist, and therefore completely cool? It would have to be moral libertarianism, with its focus on equal moral agency for all individuals, on an individual-by-individual, issue-by-issue level. Why? We support every individual having the freedom to make up their mind and speak their mind on every issue, without social pressure from the tribe. While conservative free speech focuses on the ability of conservatives to speak out on left-leaning college campuses, moral libertarian free speech includes not only that, but also the ability of conservatives to speak in support of unconventional ideas in conservative circles, and lefties to speak in support of conservative ideas in leftist circles alike. I mean, Tomi Lahren should at least understand the importance of this, having gotten into trouble with some conservative circles for her views.

Leftists Grow Up to be Conservatives?
Conservatives Grow Up to be Moral Libertarians!

In his video, Michael Knowles pointed out that there is this idea that when you don't know anything you are Republican; if you learn a bit you become Democrat; if you learn more you become Republican again. And he himself did go through a leftist phase in his youth, before turning rightwards. But then, how can he be sure that, if you learn more, you won't change again? I personally experienced many shifts in my politics in all sorts of unexpected directions through learning more and more. Therefore, I would argue that, if you have learned enough, you should become a moral libertarian just by looking back at your own history and realizing how wrong you were at every stage in the past. You realize that, no camp is correct all the time or even most of the time, and that is the very justification for demanding equal moral agency for every individual. The fact is, if you pick a camp, you are forced to stay there, and it stunts your growth. By being a moral libertarian, we allow ourselves to learn more, and grow accordingly.

That's all for today. I'll be back with more moral libertarian commentary tomorrow. Be sure to subscribe so you don't miss it.

Daily Moral Libertarian: Tribalism in Conservative and Anti-SJW Politics

Welcome to TaraElla News, where we discuss recent social and political issues from a moral libertarian viewpoint. What I am trying to do is to take a stand for this particular brand of principled classical liberalism, to help build a sphere of conversation around our ideas, and to hopefully increase the currently dismal classical liberal representation in a world otherwise too full of identity politics and fake news. By the way, I talk about a new issue every weekday, so if truly freedom-centered, non-echo chamber political commentary is your thing, I highly recommend subscribing to this channel.

The Moral Libertarian Ideal: Equal Moral Agency for Every Individual.

Today, I want to respond to two recent videos by Theryn Meyer, one of my favourite political commentators, although I get an impression that she may not do much political commentary anymore. I think her journey through our fractured political landscape holds an important lesson for everyone interested in politics, especially for us committed moral libertarians. The Moral Libertarian Ideal is that there should be Equal Moral Agency for every individual. Every individual should be able to live out their sincerely held moral views, on an equal basis with every other individual. Part of living out one's moral conviction is of course the ability to promote your beliefs in the free market of ideas, and everyone needs to be able to participate in a fair and square way. We should especially make sure that this applies to individuals that don't neatly fit into the established tribes of politics. Now, Theryn certainly doesn't fit in the established tribes, and I think her rise and fall so far is an important lesson for us all.

For those of you who don't know who Theryn is, she first came to prominence as one of the few LGBT supporters of Donald Trump, and is also known for having held an interesting discussion with Dr Jordan Peterson that was widely talked about. Now, I like Theryn because she is a political rebel. When we first knew her, she was the trans conservative, in a political landscape where the LGBT community was increasingly moving left. She was also a supporter of the men's rights movement, in an era where the LGBT community was all about intersectional feminism. The fact that intersectional feminism ignored her showed us how they didn't really want to hear minority voices per se, but just leftist minority voices. Later on, she gave a few hints that she was perhaps not entirely right wing, that she held some left wing beliefs too. Early this year, she made a video apologizing to gender non-binary individuals, outlining her change of mind on this issue. She received strong negative reactions from some of her former fans. She stopped making videos afterwards, and only returned to YouTube in the last two weeks.

Theryn's Difficult Journey is Our Collective Shame

In her latest videos, Theryn tells us that she is not a naturally conservative person. And if you saw the videos, you would get that impression too. From what I have observed, Theryn just happened to gain a huge conservative following because she said some conservative and anti-SJW things. From there, she found herself being forced to feed the appetite of the conservative echo chamber. Later on, when she tried to break free and speak her mind, she received a backlash so severe that it forced her to retreat from making any more videos for a while. And even now, I get the feeling that she isn't too keen to speak about politics anymore. You know, I know this feeling, because I actually went through something similar, except in the opposite direction. Back when I was in college, I was on the left, but one day I alienated many leftists by daring to discuss issues around abortion and divorce. For the next few years, I retreated to writing about my political opinions in my own blog, and instead mainly focused on commenting on Hollywood celebrities. I fully regret my retreat, but that's what people do, especially when they are in their early twenties and they don't know how to handle the backlash of the echo chamber.

Free Speech is Useless when you have an Echo Chamber Culture

Viewers of this show would know that I am almost obsessive about free speech. You all know that I regularly oppose the far-left on their attempts to no-platform people or introduce safe speech rules. But what's the use of having free speech when the world is divided into echo chambers, when people are socially pressured to toe certain party lines, be they left or right? As a Moral Libertarian, I support everyone being able to speak their minds equally because we are all inevitably wrong sometimes, and to allow anyone to dominate over another means we allow the wrong to shut up the right at least some of the time. This applies where there is an actual absence of free speech, but it also applies where there is an inability to speak one's moral conscience because of social pressure. In other words, an echo chamber culture allows the objective truth to be shut up by falsehoods, at least part of the time. Hence, echo chambers are immoral. Hence, I am committed to the dismantling of all echo chambers.

Of course, in our deeply divided political landscape today, to even challenge the echo chamber is difficult. Theryn found out the hard way. And it is unrewarding too. In our media landscape today, it is easy to rise to prominence if you always say what your intended audience wants to hear. It is easy to make lots of money that way. As for people like myself, who refuse to go along? You see what level of 'reward' somebody like myself gets. But anyway, I will stick to what I am doing, because I think the world needs it. Echo chambers have to die, and somebody needs to make it happen. If not me, then who else?

That's all for today. I'll be back with more moral libertarian commentary tomorrow. Be sure to subscribe so you don't miss it.

Daily Centrist: The Majority Report, Jordan Peterson the 'Right Wing Pundit', and Theryn Meyer

Welcome to the reborn Daily Centrist on TaraElla news. While I rebranded the main TaraElla news daily program to Daily Moral Libertarian as of last week, I have decided to revive the Daily Centrist name for something new: a daily segment looking at the frustrations of a centrist trying to navigate the deeply divided political landscape we happen to live in right now. I believe we need something like this to break up the echo chambers, which are threatening the health of our free market of ideas.

Recently, YouTube channel The Majority Report made another episode about how much they dislike Dr Jordan Peterson, titled 'Jordan Peterson's Right Wing Politics Will Sneak Up On You'. You know, the left has been going on and on about how Peterson is supposedly a deeply reactionary hard right wing person, without much evidence to back it up. And in this episode, I didn't find anything new either, aside from the annoying and offensive impersonation of the way Peterson speaks. And no, that was not funny at all. They may like to say how Peterson is 'just a right wing pundit', but rational thinking people like ourselves are still not convinced, because, hey, we need to have some evidence. Now, don't get me wrong, I am no blind Peterson fan, and I actually wrote a critique about Peterson back in April, pointing out areas where his beliefs are more conservative than liberal. Still, this doesn't mean he's hard right or reactionary. Besides, he is the biggest champion of some classical liberal ideals today, and that's why many liberals love him. Again, I don't ask that people agree with Peterson. I just ask them that they be fair to Peterson, so we can all have a constructive discussion about his ideas.

Predictably, the comments section for that video was full of accusations of Peterson being transphobic. Again, there is no evidence for this. His opposition to Canadian Bill C-16 was based on his fears for free speech, nothing else. Besides, he actually held a respectful and interesting conversation with trans woman Theryn Meyer in 2016. Which brings me onto my next topic. Theryn Meyer, who also is the subject of today's episode of Daily Moral Libertarian, recently returned to making videos after a seven month absence from YouTube. Once known as the trans conservative who supported Donald Trump, she says she is not conservative anymore in her latest videos. Anyway, she's always been sort of political non-conformist, and I like that. In this day and age of tribal politics, we need more political non-conformists to break up the echo chambers. Sadly, she hasn't had an easy time being an independent thinker. In today's episode of Daily Moral Libertarian, I explore her journey through the minefield of the YouTube political scene, and discuss the lessons we can all learn from her experience.

That's all for today. I'll be back with more Centrist commentary and drama tomorrow. Be sure to subscribe so you don't miss it.

Daily Moral Libertarian: On President Donald Trump vs Google, Facebook, CNN and NBC

NOTE: I don't agree with much of Alex Jones's views. But this is solely about free speech and censorship.

Welcome to TaraElla News, where we discuss recent social and political issues from a moral libertarian viewpoint. What I am trying to do is to take a stand for this particular brand of principled classical liberalism, to help build a sphere of conversation around our ideas, and to hopefully increase the currently dismal classical liberal representation in a world otherwise too full of identity politics and fake news. By the way, I talk about a new issue every weekday, so if freedom-centered political commentary is your thing, I highly recommend subscribing to this channel.

The Moral Libertarian Ideal: Equal Moral Agency for Every Individual.

The Moral Libertarian Ideal is that there should be Equal Moral Agency for every individual. Every individual should be able to live out their sincerely held moral views, on an equal basis with every other individual. There is also no exception for governments and elites, so there is no excuse for top-down social engineering. Now, from this perspective, let's look at the ongoing war between President Donald Trump, internet giants like Google, Twitter and Facebook, and left-leaning mainstream media outlets like CNN and NBC.

In recent days, perhaps since the banning of Alex Jones from multiple social media platforms, President Trump has been putting the pressure on internet giants like Google, Twitter and Facebook to uphold free speech, and to cease what he and many of us see as ideological censorship. Viewers of this show will know that I have been 100% behind Trump on this issue, even as I have had plenty of disagreements with him in the past. From a moral libertarian viewpoint, free speech and a working free market of ideas are indispensable for several reasons. Firstly, part of living out one's sincerely held moral views is to be able to promote them in the free market of ideas. Secondly, if every individual is to have equal moral agency, then there certainly shouldn't be some individual who gets to decide who gets to speak and who doesn't, which is what censorship is. Thirdly, the reason why we uphold equal moral agency is because we recognise that everyone is wrong at least some of the time. Therefore, our ideas need to be corrected and refined in the free market of ideas, so that they can become more correct. Now, this process needs to be unbiased and unrestricted to work properly.

In society, where we see something that's going wrong, it's our moral responsibility to speak out. And that's what President Trump was doing. So good on him for having done that. But now, the issue appears to be headed into a more problematic territory.

Skepticism of Government Intervention is in our DNA

With President Trump escalating his rhetoric over recent weeks, there is now speculation that the Trump administration may like to do something about the situation, using whatever power it has. Now, this idea has actually been brewing in many circles for a while. About two week ago, Sargon of Akkad released a video outlining his support for the government regulating social media, to controversial reception. I made a response video saying that I don't agree, because that would be supporting government intervention into ideological matters and essentially giving up on the free market. I also pointed out that administrations come and go, and one day you may regret giving the government this kind of power, because it would be used by an administration whose worldview you don't agree with. For example, I certainly wouldn't want a Jeremy Corbyn administration having any power to regulate social media.

Also, let's revisit the moral libertarian case against censorship. It rests on the fact that nobody should have the right to intervene as to what can be said, and what cannot. This is in recognition that, as human beings, we are all equally capable of being wrong. Now, I would argue that there should be no exception for the government, as they are just made up of human beings like you and me. Governments shouldn't be able to dictate the content provided by private platforms, even if their intentions are sincere. Of course, internet giants practising censorship is a major concern. But the proper way to get private corporations to change is by mechanisms of the free market. And to do that, we need to focus on winning the wider culture war on free speech. I don't feel like making this a government political issue, a political football, is going to help.

Applying John Rawls and The Veil of Ignorance

Political thinker John Rawls is perhaps most famous for his Veil of Ignorance. He believed that, if we are to make a fair decision regarding any issue, we must pretend that we do not know where our position in society is. For example, that we don't know what race we are, or what gender we are. Now, I would argue that we can apply this principle to any move to give the government more power, in that we should pretend we don't know whether the government in power is one we support or not. Now, many people on the right are, in my opinion, failing this test. We have the recent poll in which 43% of Republicans agreed that the President should be able to shut down misbehaving media outlets. We have people cheering for President Trump to take a more intrusive role in regulating our markets of ideas. Now, I believe most of them would have taken a very different stance to government regulation during the Obama administration. A recent piece in the New York Times said that the right are effectively arguing for their own form of affirmative action. And unfortunately, I have to agree here. This is a total meltdown of principles, I have to say.

Of course, this does not represent everyone on the right. Fox News analyst Howard Kurtz is one of the more principled people still standing. And he recently criticised President Trump for his remarks that the executives of CNN and NBC should be fired. Now, Kurtz has always supported Trump firing back at media outlets that have been unfair to him. But using the bully pulpit to suggest that private executives be fired is crossing the line, and as Kurtz pointed out, something Obama never did. If it's not OK for Obama, it's not OK for Trump, and it's not OK for anyone else.

That's all for today. I'll be back with more moral libertarian commentary tomorrow. Be sure to subscribe so you don't miss it.