TaraElla's Political Theory of Everything & Moral Libertarian Talk

'Cultural Appropriation' is back? Let's Talk About Social Justice Again | TaraElla Report S5 E14

NOTE: Marxian doesn't mean Marxist. It is an academic term, and here it means something like pseudo-Marxist or Marxist-like. For my latest thoughts on why criticalism isn't Marxism, see this 2021 post.

Hi everyone, welcome again to the fifth season of the TaraElla Report, where we dive deeper to take a real look at the issues underlying the toxic political environment we have throughout the West right now. This show is brought to you by my new book, The Moral Libertarian Idea, which is all about reimagining a positive and pro-community, pro-humanity classical liberalism for the 21st century.

Today, I'm going to talk about cultural appropriation, and social justice more generally. Do you remember the outrage around so-called 'cultural appropriation'? I certainly do. And while that has died down for some time now, I see signs of a revival on the horizon. For example, the other day, I saw a video talking about whether singer Billie Eilish was guilty of 'cultural appropriation'. So it's unfortunately important to talk about that again. I also think this is a good time to reflect again on the state of the social justice discussion as a whole.

Social Justice Got Hijacked By Theoretical Concerns

Cultural appropriation is one of those topics most people don't think of as important at all, for a good reason: there is almost never any injustice to any individual from the act of 'cultural appropriation'. Now, I'm not talking about blackface, which is actually offensive, but is not really relevant to most discussion about 'cultural appropriation'. I'm talking about things like a white person wearing an Asian dress; or a non-black person doing rap music. According to most people's common sense, there's simply nothing wrong with that, and they would be correct. In fact, 'cultural appropriation' is what I call a 'theoretical injustice', that is, a form of injustice that only exists in academic theories, and has no real bad consequence in the real world. Most of these 'theoretical injustices' seem to arise from the application of a pseudo-Marxian worldview, as I will discuss later in this video.

Anyway, the point is, in the past few years, the discussion of theoretical injustices have made the whole social justice idea look stupid, to the point where many young people simply stay away from social justice nowadays. Back when the conversation was starting to get ridiculous, I warned people that this was what was going to happen next, but they didn't listen. Oh, well, the social justice thing is now dead in the water, as I told you so! Back in Season 1 of the TaraElla Report, and even earlier than that, I was arguing for pulling back from the excesses of the social justice movement, but all I got was nasty comments from the most extreme activists. They accused me of not supporting social justice; but in fact, I was trying to save it. In truth, I care deeply about social justice. I care that people aren't treated unfairly because of their race, or that they aren't fired because they are LGBT. But by 2017 or so, the social justice movement had lost sight of what's important. Besides, they started promoting things like the 'progressive stack', where straight white men got less of an opportunity to speak, which was clearly unjust to many individuals! Ideas like these make a mockery of what social justice should be about.

The Pseudo-Marxian 'Cultural appropriation'

'Cultural appropriation' is one of the best examples I can use to explain the nonsense that is the pseudo-Marxian version of social justice. Under cultural appropriation theory, ethnicities or cultures are seen as analogous to the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, like everything in the pseudo-Marxian worldview. As usual, Western culture is seen as the oppressor and other cultures are seen as the oppressed. Therefore, a white person doing rap music would be seen as someone from the oppressor class taking something away from the oppressed class, like how capitalists bosses take what's produced by workers and sell it for a profit. That's what they mean by 'appropriation', it is literally used in a pseudo-Marxist sense. That's also why black people playing Baroque music doesn't count as 'cultural appropriation'. It's a 'logic' that only makes sense if you both understand and accept pseudo-Marxism in the first place, which most of us don't. Of course, the other problem is that, when you reduce everything to a pseudo-Marxian oppressor vs oppressed dynamic, there's really no room for freedom, creativity, individuality, or anything else. That's why most people can't accept this worldview.

As mentioned earlier, I think the reason why the social justice train got de-railed was that a pseudo-Marxian, worldview had taken hold in that movement, some time around the middle of the decade. Interestingly, it was also the reason the 1960s anti-war progressives got de-railed. In the most basic form, a pseudo-Marxian worldview is where people are seen as groups that are pitted against each other, oppressors vs the oppressed, plus the idea that we are all living in a structure that holds this oppression together, so traditions are bad and radical cultural change is needed. The problem with all this is that it doesn't afford any freedom or dignity to individuals. It's scary to see this kind of thinking getting mainstream in the West. That's why I welcomed the influence of Jordan Peterson back in 2017 or 18. I don't agree with everything he says, and I openly stated my disagreements with him, but I thought he could save social justice by removing the us-vs-them theories influence, and restoring the central role of individual dignity. I guess that didn't work.

What Needs To Happen From Now On

The experience of how social justice got de-railed in the 2010s has inspired the position I will take going forward: that I won't be ready, or interested, in another social justice movement, unless a framework that is rooted in individual dignity, like the Moral Libertarian principle of Equal and Maximum Moral Agency for every individual, is accepted a-priori. The fact is, there is no point to restart the social justice conversation, only to let the us-vs-them theories worldview hijack it again, to lead the movement to yet another trainwreck, which would probably discredit social justice for at least a generation. Given that I think there are still social injustices that need to be fixed, I really don't want that to happen. Therefore, from my point of view, it is better than the next social justice train only departs the station when there are enough safeguards to prevent it from de-railing again.

What if Joe Biden Picked a Feminist VP? | TaraElla Report S5 E13

Today, I'm going to talk about, well, Joe Biden's potential VP picks, and also feminism. In recent days, people have been talking about potential VP picks for Joe Biden, the Democratic front-runner. Biden has already said he would pick a women, and many of the women that are being talked about are also feminists, or at least appear to be feminists. This has made some people worry, because feminists generally haven't performed well at the ballot box in America and other Western countries. As the people say, there doesn't seem to be a problem with women as leaders, the late Margaret Thatcher was elected British Prime Minister as long ago as 1979, and she remains admired by conservatives even today. However, ever since Hillary 2016, it seems that feminists just can't make it far. And it's not just Hillary: the feminist Julia Gillard also fared badly in Australia a few years earlier, and Britain's Theresa May may also have been hampered by her feminist-type statements.

Some of you may not know this, but back when feminism was in the mainstream spotlight, back in the middle of the decade, I had actually been commenting on various cultural issues from the angle of a 'feminist who doesn't agree with contemporary feminism'. I even tried to save intersectionality by talking sense to the movement, until I concluded that it was fruitless, upon which I quit. You can see some of that stuff in Season 1 of the TaraElla Report, those were recorded when the feminist wave was just winding down. Anyway, my general point was, I still strongly agree with a traditional feminist ideal of gender equality, as it was supported by classical liberals like John Stuart Mill even back in the 19th century, but this wave of feminism seems to have lost sight of the goal. I also commented on how figures like Cassie Jaye, of 'The Red Pill' fame, quit feminism because of how the movement had become, on which I said I wouldn't quit feminism myself, but the movement really need to change. People are really sick and tired of blaming men for everything, all the negativity, and the extremist moves to 'de-platform' people, like the aforementioned Ms Jaye.

I guess it wouldn't be a problem if Biden chose a feminist VP, as long as she isn't the postmodernist and divisive type of feminist, like those who tried to de-platform Ms Jaye. As I commented repeatedly back in Season 1, the problem with contemporary feminism is that, since the 1970s or so, it has been affected by the pseudo-Marxian left, who had a worldview that pit groups against each other. There is feminist literature out there that literally describes women as a sex-class that is oppressed by men as a sex-class, using full Bolshevik-like language to describe the relationship. Now, that's really divisive and scary, I think. Not to mention unfair, because it would call a working class man the 'oppressor' but a rich woman 'oppressed', something that I think even Marx himself would not have allowed. It's also clearly not the kind of feminism that most of the suffragettes and their classical liberal allies from the earlier wave were about. So, we really have two kinds of feminism here: the truly equal rights type I call the modern-day suffragettes, and the pseudo-Marxian type who sees society as a continuous struggle between groups pit against each other. I guess a feminist VP would be widely acceptable if she was of the former type, but not of the latter type.

However, another thing is that, unfortunately, there probably is a general taboo around feminism in some circles by now, because of the confusion between the two types of feminism. That's why it's important to clarify the difference here. It's why I welcomed the intervention of Jordan Peterson back in 2017 or 18, when he wanted to start a conversation around what he called 'postmodern neo-Marxism'. While that term itself was controversial, what he was referring to was a real thing, and my hope was that the removal of the pseudo-Marxist element may help in rehabilitating feminism itself. After all, feminism has been around for more than a century, and has contributed to real improvements for humanity. It would be a shame if all that was overshadowed by a misguided fringe movement that originated as recently as the crazy 1970s. Don't get me wrong, I don't always agree with Jordan Peterson, and I have openly voiced my disagreements with him, but the thing is, I thought we needed an intervention ASAP, and I thought he could be the one to do it. Obviously, that didn't quite work out at the time.

Finally, the bottom line is that, a feminist VP pick would either be able to rehabilitate feminism, or it could lead to the whole ticket being sunk by the popular peception of feminism a la Hillary 2016, depending on what happens between now and November. As someone who wants to help save feminism rather than see it sink, you know what my hope is. I'm just not entirely confident that things would go the way I want them to, however.

Andrew Yang & UBI Supporters Can't Be Real Libertarians? | TaraElla Report S5 E12

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.

Libertarian is a really controversial word right now. Both when used as a label of pride and a smear, it carries a range of sometimes contradictory meanings. For example, the far-left has often accused Andrew Yang's UBI as a 'libertarian trojan horse'. I don't know what that is supposed to mean, but it's clearly something bad. Meanwhile, some self-identified libertarians have indeed been enthusiastic supporters of Yang during the past year. On the other hand, other self-identified libertarians have criticized those Yang supporters as 'not true libertarians', because they clearly aren't for drastically cutting government if they support a Democrat. Finally, some elements of the anarchist far-left have come out and said that, no, you are all fake libertarians, because the word 'libertarian' actually means anarchist in its original meaning.

So, who is a libertarian? It appears that we don't have a clear and agreed definition of the word. Some may point to the Non-Aggression Principle as the foundation of the whole idea, and most would agree. But then, how would you define what is an acceptable application of the NAP? I mean, there's the example where if you don't pay your taxes, somebody would take you to jail at gunpoint, so that's a violation of the NAP. However, even if the government were as small as only having a police force, law courts and a military, they would still need tax revenue, so the aforementioned situation would probably still happen to people who refuse to pay their taxes. And given that lower taxes are not really associated with lower tax evasion, it appears that the very existence of taxation would already violate the NAP, and a tax rate of 5% would likely violate the NAP as often as a tax rate of 50%. If we are to accept this logic, it would indeed lead to anarchism being the only acceptable libertarian position. However, as we all know, the majority of libertarians don't actually want anarchism!

Therefore, let me propose this: a libertarian is somebody who supports individual liberty as a core value, and supports the application of the NAP in some form. Now, this definition can encompass a wide range of people, and I don't think that's a bad thing either. For example, my support of practical individual liberty is the reason I support a UBI program, and for me, as a Moral Libertarian, I believe the best way to apply the NAP to its fullest spirit is to follow the principle of Equal Moral Agency for all on every policy issue. Now, another libertarian may not see things the same way, and that's fine. Freedom of conscience and diversity of thought are core values for every libertarian, and we should be able to respect our differences, as the NAP requires of us. Furthermore, I think if we define libertarian this way, it's much more useful and logical. For example, some definitions of libertarianism focused solely on low taxation or property rights would include people who clearly don't believe enough in individual liberty, while excluding those who have a more consequential model of liberty. It's how fans of Milo Yiannopoulos and Lauren Southern can define themselves as libertarians, while trying to exclude supporters of Andrew Yang. I think this is ridiculous, because there's clearly no way being neo-reactionary adjacent is actually more supportive of liberty than being a UBI fan.

At this point, I think we should also return to the roots of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism arose as a response to the religious conflicts of the late middle ages, and its purpose was to allow people with different faiths to coexist in peace and cooperate. This arrangement only works where there is a robust social fabric supported by strong social institutions, especially strong families. One reason I particularly liked Andrew Yang's campaign was his emphasis on families. Having a UBI as well as free marriage counselling may somewhat detract from the goal of smaller government, but it's good for families, especially those with stay at home moms. Given that families are the most essential part of the social architecture supporting liberty, there is indeed nothing more libertarian than supporting strong families. Liberty is the best guarantor of the natural social fabric, and the natural social fabric is the best guarantor of liberty.

Three Theories Of Political Change: 2020 Primaries in Hindsight | TaraElla Report S5 E10-11

Hi everyone, welcome again to the fifth season of the TaraElla Report, where we dive deeper to take a real look at the issues underlying the toxic political environment we have throughout the West right now. This show is brought to you by my new book, The Moral Libertarian Idea, which is all about reimagining a positive and pro-community, pro-humanity classical liberalism for the 21st century.

Today, I'm going to talk about what it would take for a truly humanity centered, pro-liberty political movement to succeed. As you would know, during the past year on this show, I have often discussed the now withdrawn campaigns of Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard. Now that it's all over, let me say this: I always knew they were long-shot campaigns. The reason why they got me excited was because of their approach to change. During this past primary, we saw three different approaches to change, among the so-called 'progressive' candidates: the top-down, technocratic plan represented by Elizabeth Warren; the class warfare inspired, conflict driven approach represented by Bernie Sanders and his movement; and the broad-tent approach represented by Yang and Gabbard. Ultimately, all three failed this time around, but I still have the most faith in the broad-tent, consensus building approach. In the rest of this episode, I will explain why I support this approach, and what needs to happen for this approach to win the future.

What many of us agree is that structural economic and political change is needed. But where we are often divided is in our theory of how this change should come about, which I think reflects a deeper difference in worldview. For example, as Yang himself said, Bernie is the candidate of anger and revolution. The most extreme Bernie-aligned activists often have a Marxian worldivew, which is a worldview based on seeing people as fundamentally divided into groups of oppressors and the oppressed. They have a model of change via group-based struggle against a common enemy. The problem is that, where such a conflict based model is used, there needs to be an enemy, because the whole movement is powered by the idea of fighting an oppressive enemy. I think this is why some far-left people have been aggressive to supporters of several 2020 candidates, including Warren, Yang and Gabbard. As we've just seen, this kind of division leads to a lose-lose result. Furthermore, many extreme Marxians also have the pessmistic view that it might be best to burn it all down because it's all so oppressive and hopeless anyway, which is where the idea of accelerationism comes from. The desire to burn it all down comes from a long line of Marxist-type thinking, of course. Such thinking is clearly misguided, because it's always harmful for the social fabric, and harmful for families. It has always been only those who are out of touch with the common decency of everyday working people who would even entertain burning it all down. I think one reason why Bernie failed this year was because his movement had too many of this kind of people in it, which naturally alienates working people who are grounded in their family lives.

On the other hand, Yang and Gabbard represent another theory of change. If the most extreme Bernie Bros are the modern-day Bolsheviks, then Yang and Gabbard are the modern-day FDRs. FDR was able to build long-lasting structural change by having a broad coalition of support, as evidenced by winning the US presidency four times! FDR didn't need an enemy to struggle against, because he was able to build a broad consensus for change that was based on a commonly accepted vision of freedom. That was exactly what Yang and Gabbard set out to achieve, why they went on shows like Tucker Carlson, Dave Rubin, and more, to have a conversation. Only conversations where free speech is respected, where there is a sincere exchange of ideas, will build a new consensus and make the broad-tent model of change possible. Yet the Bolshevik-like activists accused them of talking to the enemy. It's similar to how they accused even Bernie of accepting Joe Rogan's endorsement. These people would prefer to have clear enemies to struggle against, because it's where their energy comes from. However, history has shown us that the FDR way was much more successful and much less harmful than the Bolshevik way. Furthermore, you can only have one or the other; you cannot logically pursue both, because having defined enemies to struggle against also means you can't have open conversations with them. If I believe in the FDR approach, I literally cannot entertain the Bolshevik approach at all.

The key to success for the broad-tent consensus approach to change is to be able to have those difficult conversations with people holding diverse views. Society-wide consensus doesn't come from just talking with people inside the your own bubble, so we all need to be brave enough to meet other people where they are, and be open to a sincere exchange of ideas with people who think differently from ourselves. The trouble is, the current toxic political atmosphere makes having these conversations difficult, as the Yang and Gabbard campaigns have demonstrated. Tulsi, in particular, was very mindful of the need to heal the divides of society, and her decisions stemming from that brought massive backlash from the modern-day Bolsheviks, who probably played an important role in burying her campaign. In short, Yang 2020 and Tulsi 2020 failed because there wasn't the right cultural environment for them to thrive, because the political landscape had already been thoroughly poisoned four or five years ago. What needs to happen before a similar campaign can thrive again, is that this toxicity needs to end, and society itself needs to heal. Which is why we certainly can't give into the 'burn it all down' fantasies of the modern-day Bolsheviks. If anything, we need to head in the opposite direction. I guess the lesson we should learn from the failure of Yang 2020 and Tulsi 2020 is that, without healing society itself first, there really is no good path to political and economic change at all.

Best For Humanity: Libertarianism Plus Communitarianism | Moral Libertarian Talk

Welcome to Moral Libertarian Talk, where we explore political ideas, issues and misunderstandings in depth, from the Moral Libertarian viewpoint. Subscribe if you are interested. This show is brought to you by my new book, The Moral Libertarian Idea, which is all about reimagining a positive and pro-community, pro-humanity classical liberalism for the 21st century. Link is in the description.

Libertarianism is all about individual liberty. Communitarianism is all about building strong communities. Libertarianism sees the key to human thriving in individual freedom. Communitarianism sees the key to human thriving in strong families, healthy communities, and shared bonds. With all these differences, libertarianism and communitarianism have sometimes been seen as opposites. However, they are actually not incompatible at all. In fact, they are complementary, with one enhancing the other.

While libertarianism prizes individual liberty above all, the fact is that individual liberty does not exist in a vacuum. Using a simple example to illustrate the point, in societies and times where there is a complete break down of social order, there is no room for individual liberty. In such situations, the basic need of security is required to be satisfied first, and in prioritizing safety and security above all, individual liberty is inevitably sacrificed. Likewise, where the social fabric is diseased and social trust is very low, people will also prioritize security and sacrifice liberty. Furthermore, the 'free market of ideas', as well as the whole process of free debate and democratic decision making, would become distrusted by many people, which would lead to the devaluation of associated values like free speech. The fact is, individual liberty is simply unsustainable without the right social environment. The project of communitarianism, in putting an emphasis on strong families, healthy communities and a strong and healthy social fabric, creates and maintains the social conditions under which individual liberty can thrive. This is why libertarianism ultimately needs communitarianism.

On the other hand, a community can only be strong if there is mutual respect and a healthy level of mutual trust between its members. This requires that there be as little 'power play' as possible, a condition that is effectively achieved if (and only if) there is maximum liberty for every individual, so that nobody can wield massive power over anyone else in any case. Furthermore, for a community to serve the needs of its members effectively over time, its culture must be adaptive. This would be achieved only where there is free debate for every issue. Finally, to ensure long term harmony among people with diverse values and ideas, everyone should be allowed to 'do their thing' as much as possible, as long as it doesn't harm another's right to do similarly. As we can see, for a communitarian project to be successful, especially in the longer term, a strong and fundamental respect for individual liberty is required.

The fact is, individual liberty and community building need each other. A libertarianism without communitarianism is unsustainable, and so is a communitarianism without libertarianism. This is why we must stop entertaining the notion that libertarianism and communitarianism are somehow opposites. The two ideals are stronger when they are linked together.

Why Free Speech is Morally Required At All Costs | Moral Libertarian Talk

A Morality Based Framing of Liberty | Moral Libertarian Talk

Welcome to Moral Libertarian Talk, where we explore political ideas, issues and misunderstandings in depth, from the Moral Libertarian viewpoint. Subscribe if you are interested. This show is brought to you by my new book, The Moral Libertarian Idea, which is all about reimagining a positive and pro-community, pro-humanity classical liberalism for the 21st century. Link is in the description.

Classical Liberalism is the ideology that is primarily concerned with liberty, above all else. Putting liberty first is the defining feature of liberalism, therefore. However, this cannot be liberalism's only feature, for liberty is also found in various forms in other ideologies. For example, in traditional feudal societies with absolute monarchies, the King had almost unlimited liberty. The lords also had an amount of liberty much greater than any citizen in a modern liberal democracy: for example, they had the 'liberty' to own and trade slaves. The unique thing about liberalism is that it aims to distribute as equally as possible the liberty of each person in society. Therefore, while nobody can have the liberties of kings and nobles past, everyone can have their fair share of liberty. While liberals disagree on how liberty can be distributed most equally, with some arguing for NAP-based libertarianism and others arguing for a strong welfare state, this often unspoken shared principle is what we have in common.

How does liberalism's dedication to distributing liberty equally make it a moral ideology? To answer this question, we need to first look at what liberty is. Liberty is the power an individual has over their own actions, their ability to put their ideas into action. Therefore, looking at it from a moral perspective, liberty is moral agency, i.e. the ability to act in accordance with one's moral compass. An equitable distribution of liberty therefore ensures an equitable distribution of moral agency. In this way, liberalism ensures that every individual in society has an equal share of moral agency.

At this point, we need to turn to the fact that liberty (and hence moral agency) are also finite resources: if some have more, others must have less. If lords can command slaves (therefore having more liberty), slaves will not be able to act according to their own moral compass, and thus have no moral agency. Therefore, in an equal distribution of liberty (and hence moral agency), everyone can have full moral agency over their own beliefs and actions, but nobody can have moral agency over another. This, I would argue, makes liberalism the ONLY morally valid ideology.

Since all human beings are morally flawed to some extent, allowing some humans to have moral agency over others is morally impermissible. Allowing a lord to command a slave as he pleases means that the slave must commit an immoral act even if the act is both objectively immoral (as in absolute truth) and known to be immoral by the slave, as long as the act is not known to be immoral by the lord (or alternatively he is a depraved lord and does not care). This has several consequences. On an individual level, the slave would be morally responsible (at least in his conscience, and also by the laws of religion for those of us who are religious) for committing a moral wrong, knowing that it is wrong, but not being able to resist anyway. On a societal level, it also means that those holding power can commit severe atrocities, without the moral consciences of other people acting as a brake. Which was actually how tragedies like the holocaust happened.

One may be tempted to argue that, as long as we prevent having bad governments by being vigilant voters and by putting in place national and international regulations, nothing as bad will happen again. But this is naive, because the ability to judge if governments are good is limited by the fact that politicians often lie their way into power and manipulate the political landscape once in office. It is also still true that no human being can perfectly know the absolute truth of what is morally right or wrong, and therefore, if we simply let those in power decide for everyone, there will still be plenty of injustices, even if nowhere as great as the holocaust. The principle of Equal Moral Agency is the only thing that will prevent such injustices.

Why Only Tulsi Gabbard & Andrew Yang are Truly Anti-Establishment in 2020 | TaraElla Report S5 E9

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.

Today, I am going to discuss the concept of anti-establishment, and why, contrary to popular belief, Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang are the only truly anti-establishment candidates for this year's US presidential elections. Yes, you've heard right. Neither Bernie Sanders nor Donald Trump are fully anti-establishment in the holistic picture, even if they have anti-establishment credentials in some areas. In fact, this difference explains why Trump is now President, Bernie is doing quite well and may yet be President next year, while Yang has already dropped out.

The thing is, to be truly anti-establishment, one has to refuse to accept any established ideological framework. This includes both economic ideology, as in corporate neo-liberalism or hawkish neo-conservatism for example, as well as cultural ideology, as in most of the stuff that is championed by activist establishments and/or comes out of academic humanities. One should also not be linked too strongly to any established political faction, left or right.

Let me explain. Let's start with what 'the establishment' is. Almost everyone hates 'the establishment' these days, but nobody seems to be able to define it in a complete way. In particular, left-leaning people seem to define it as the 'economic establishment', including corporations and politicians who support corporate capitalist interests, and right-leaning people seem to define it as the 'cultural establishment', people who have been able to enforce a set of ideas onto society through their dominance in journalism, media, and certain sections of academia, for example. On the surface, these two definitions appear to be talking about very different things. Hence why leftist anti-establishment people and right-leaning anti-establishment people are rarely on talking terms. For example, when right-leaning anti-establishment people attack the ideological extremes coming out of college campus politics as a kind of 'elite establishment' thinking, left-leaning people often say they're only a distraction, and in turn criticize the right for focusing on immature college students without any formal power while ignoring the economic and political establishments.

In truth, this kind of debate misses the bigger picture. We're anti-establishment because we want individual freedom, and the establishment wants to control the masses as well as econmically exploit the masses. But the fact is that, in modern society, there's not only one establishment, or one kind of establishment. There are indeed multiple 'establishments' operating to control and exploit people for their own ends, each with their own power derived from their long history, which is what makes them 'the establishment' by definition. The other thing is, political, economic and cultural power all matter, and they are all linked. Therefore, criticizing the establishment, or more accurately, the establishments, in one dimension, while ignoring the other dimensions, provides an inadequate picture. This is because all three types of establishment power seek to limit the freedom of individuals, and they often act in concert to ensure that the people only have limited choice for change, often swapping more freedom in one domain for accepting the status quo or even more oppression in another, packaging these trade-offs in the form of ideology labelled as 'left-wing' or 'right-wing'. For example, they may make you choose between either having more free speech but less health care coverage, or more health care but less free speech. After multiple rounds of such choices, what generally happens is that the establishments retain all their power, and the people have none. That's why even partially anti-establishment choices are still playing into their trap, in many ways.

Let's take Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders for example. Political opposites in many ways, yet they are both anti-establishment in some areas but still cling to the establishment in others. Trump is certainly against the cultural establishment, which means he has had some effectiveness in taking a stand for free speech, for example. However, he still represents the establishment in many matters of economic interests, which has meant that he hasn't been able or willing to sufficiently make things better for many economically struggling people. Furthermore, while he's partially against the political establishment, including the pro-war neoconservative faction in his own party, he also partially leans on the political establishment and its polarized two-party system to get to where he is, which has hamstrung his ability to take on the neoconservative hawks or to enact a better health care plan. On the other hand, Bernie is thoroughly anti-establishment in economic matters, which is why he is able to be bolder in economic reform. However, he effectively relies on the institutionalized left, which overlaps a lot with the cultural establishment, to get to where he is, which is why he can't push back very much on postmodern, Marcusean or anti-free speech agendas that come from the cultural elite. It's why he's essentially much softer now on open borders, even though it hurts workers, and he knows it's bad. Furthermore, like Trump, he also partially leans on the polarized two-party system to get to where he is, which will again limit his ability to end the wars. So either way, the endless wars continue, you get a choice of tradeoff between freedom and oppression that is labelled 'left' or 'right', when you're tired of one you can pick the other, and the cycle goes on forever.

With someone like Tulsi Gabbard or Andrew Yang, you're not forced to make any trade-offs, or give anything up to any part of the establishment. You can have your economic reform, you can have your free speech, and with a big tent encompassing the whole political spectrum, there's hope for popular will to end the endless wars. In this way, this is neither the 'left' package nor the 'right' package of partial freedom, truly 'not left, not right, but foward' as Yang puts it. Of course, the downside is that, they don't get the institutional power of either the right-leaning economic establishment or the left-leaning cultural establishment to boost their campaign. It's why they've suffered from media blackouts, and it's why Yang has already dropped out and Tulsi is struggling. The establishment likes to control people, and it seems that in 2020, at least so far, they are succeeding in doing just that, using their multiple levers of power.

So what can we do now? I guess raising consciousness of the real nature of the establishment, as I've just described, is the first step. The more people realize that the so-called 'left' and 'right' choices are just the establishments' way to make us give up our agency and obey them in some way, the better. Even more importantly, we need to make people see that the left-right-left-right cycle, resulting from the action-reaction impulse, ultimately ends up with the establishment having even more power and control. When people realize all this, they will see why we need to go 'not left, not right, but forward'. They will fight the political, economic and cultural establishments simultaneously, and they will no longer only fight against one dimension but leave another alone. When this consciousness is firmly in place in the general population, I think that's when someone like Yang or Tulsi will be able to succeed without relying on any dimension of the establishment.

A 'Humanity First' View on the Bernie Sanders Movement, Part 2 | TaraElla Report S5 E8

TaraElla: Hi everyone, welcome again to the TaraElla Report. This show is brought to you by my new book, The Moral Libertarian Idea, which is all about reimagining a positive and pro-community, pro-humanity classical liberalism for the 21st century. Link is in the description.

As I said two episodes back, many of us feel particularly conflicted about Bernie the man vs the movement behind him. The fact is, many family orientated people, including some conservatives, like my friend Allison, have been warming to Bernie's economic reforms quite a bit. However, they often don't feel comfortable about the culture of the Bernie movement. That's why some of them have found the Tulsi Train much more hospitable, for example.

Allison: As a practical conservative, I clearly see that the past few decades of so-called conservative politics has produced results in direct opposition to the conservative goals of strong families, strong social fabric, and preservation of our cherished insitutions like marriage. Trickle-down economics has clearly failed, and they have left millions of broken families behind. Bernie's determination to take us away from this failed economics, and towards more humane policies that will help working families and repair our social fabric, is truly inspirational.

However, I have also seen people who claim to support Bernie having worldviews and goals that are incompatible with mine. For example, I have seen Bernie supporters who make jokes about free speech. That's very dangerous, I think. Another time, one Bernie supporter introduced me to some socialist literature, including a British publication about a 'future socialist society', which said that families would essentially be abolished under socialism because they would no longer be relevant. You can't deny that's scary stuff. Furthermore, there's the whole BreadTube subculture, and frankly they sometimes have culturally radical views like how family values should be deconstructed. Those people seem to often be Bernie supporters too. My concern is that, if I sign up to the Bernie movement, am I signing up for these things too?

Ashley: You know, the Bernie movement is a broad church, and there are all sorts of people in there. So, if you decide to support Bernie, you are definitely not signing up to the agenda of these fringe activists. The vast majority of Bernie supporters are not anti-free speech or anti-family, and they certainly don't want to deconstruct family values either. What gives me confidence about the Bernie movement is that it is popular, mass politics. The more people participate in a movement, the broader the tent, the less likely it is to be affected by fringe minorities. A truly popular mass movement will be dominated by the common sense of everyday working people, therefore fringe philosophies won't get too much of a hearing.

Allison: But I still have some lingering concern. You know, the most extreme fringes of movements often get to spread their ideas into the mainstream and end up controlling the mainstream agenda, simply because they are the loudest and the most committed. It's how many well-meaning movements end up getting derailed by extremism. With Tulsi, at least I can know that an extremist fringe doesn't exist. How can I have confidence that the Bernie movement won't be taken over by its extremist fringe?

TaraElla: Like I said two episodes back, unlike the Tulsi Train or the Yang Gang, the Bernie movement is much more firmly located in the leftist political superorganism, and is both much closer to and much more hospitable to certain fringe ideas that are bad for humanity and liberty. Once again, this isn't about Bernie himself, which I quite like as a person; this is about where the movement is situated in the broader political scene.

As for whether that would affect my view of the Bernie movement, I guess it will have to depend on whether the Bernie movement looks more like a real mass movement or an elitist movement dominated by people from certain cultural backgrounds. I guess a truly popular movement will always be kept sane by the common sense of everyday working people. There is perhaps no better way to keep the fringe and harmful ideas out. On the other hand, throughout history, there have been movements that claimed to represent the masses but clearly had an elite in control of the culture and the direction of the movement. Sometimes, they even made excuses like how the masses are not educated enough, and so on. This kind of movement is clearly not a real mass movement, but rather mass manipulation by a small cultural elite.

I guess for some people then, whether they could support Bernie would depend on whether the Bernie movement actually resembles a real broad based movement, that is responsive to the concerns, needs and desires of everyday working families, without being compromised by the agenda of fringe cultural elites like postmodernists and critical theorists. Right now, I think we're not entirely confident either way as yet. What I want to see is more people with diverse backgrounds and diverse cultural views supporting Bernie. I guess that's what will give us confidence.

Many Leftists Don't Understand 'Classical Liberalism' | Moral Libertarian Talk

Welcome to the first episode of Moral Libertarian Talk, where we explore political ideas, issues and misunderstandings in depth, from the Moral Libertarian viewpoint. Subscribe if you are interested. This show is brought to you by my new book, The Moral Libertarian Idea, which is all about reimagining a positive and pro-community, pro-humanity classical liberalism for the 21st century. Link is in the description.

Today, I want to talk about my understanding of the term 'classical liberalism', its relationship with the Moral Libertarian idea, and why I identify as a 'classical liberal'. Right now, in 2020, the word 'liberal' is pretty unpopular: both conservatives and leftists hate it. 'Liberal', without qualification, is associated with corporate power, elites trampling on everyday working people, neoliberal identity politics, and so on. The term 'classical liberal', increasingly popular in the past few years, is an attempt to reclaim the liberal heritage, the tradition of Locke, Smith, Mill and others, from these evils. In fact, 'classical liberalism' stands in stark contrast to the elitist, corporatist so-called 'liberalism' that the establishment embodies, and I believe we can expose and defeat that fake 'liberalism' by re-asserting the 'classical liberal' tradition.

For some reason, it appears that right-leaning people tend to get the meaning of 'classical liberalism' in this context, even if they don't fully embrace the actual ideals of classical liberalism. However, many leftists don't even seem to know that 'classical liberalism' is opposed to elitist establishment fake 'liberalism', and often bundle the two together. As a classical liberal, I oppose the market fundamentalism of establishment neo-liberals, because I strongly oppose the idea that humanity should be reduced to the logic of capitalist markets controlled by global elites. As a classical liberal, I also oppose the divisive identity politics and disrespect for free speech and rational discourse associated with those we increasingly call 'radlibs'. As a classical liberal, my vision is one of true individual liberty for all, and a communitarian spirit that I believe will thrive under conditions of true individual liberty. And it's not just me. Classical liberals throughout history have generally believed similarly.

Some leftists may be surprised that, wow, classical liberals share a lot of ideas with classical leftists. And that's true. I think the libertarian socialist Noam Chomsky once said that historical classical liberals shared a lot of his ideals, and I agree. In turn, I also admire leftist thinkers like Chomsky. In fact, all historical classical liberal thinkers were on the left of the political spectrum for their time. Furthermore, before the corruption of liberalism during the ultra-capitalist age starting in the 1980s, as well as the corrpution of academic leftism due to the influence of postmodernism and postmodernist-adjacent ideas starting in the late 1960s, old-school liberals and old-school lefists were often allies. It wasn't that long ago that libertarians were on the left of politics. In fact, as recently as my college days in the mid-2000s, about half of all Americans who identified as libertarians voted Democratic, this probably only changed when free speech became an issue starting from around 2013. And even today, I see the part of the left that is about liberty, workers' rights and so on, the part of the left that rejects postmodern philosophical nonsense, as allies.

As a classical liberal, I'm most interested in individual liberty, things like free speech, freedom of conscience, and so on. As a leftist, you may be more interested in the material wellbeing of workers, whether they have health care, whether they can enjoy a good standard of living even as we move into the fourth industrial revolution, and ultimately whether they have a fair and democratic say in the workplace. But then, one really cannot exist without the other. So where we're different is mostly a perspective thing. Surely, our political worldview could be quite different, with most leftists being materialists and classical liberals being idealists. But in the real world, this really doesn't matter, because our goals are really not in conflict as a result. The pursuit of health care coverage for all, a living wage for all, and increased workplace democracy doesn't care about if you are an idealist or a materialist.

In fact, I suspect why many lefists are skeptical towards idealist liberals, is because some self-identified liberals or libertarians have almost deliberately neglected the material conditions of everyday workers. Some so-called libertarians reduce everything down to smaller government, and the more extreme ones even say that they wouldn't have a problem with the whole world turning into private property, with all the anti-liberty consequences for those without property. From there, it's really just a small step into neoreactionarism. These people should really read some Adam Smith. Smith would be horrified by their idea of what counts as liberty! Indeed, The Wealth Of Nations is full of warnings against such a vision of theoretical liberty coupled with actual tyranny. Instead, all serious and sincere classical liberal thinkers focus on actual liberty for individuals, liberty of conscience, liberty of action, rather than liberty for the rich to accumulate as much private property as possible!

Which is why the Moral Libertarian idea is, I believe, the best embodiment of what classical liberals actually want. We want every individual to have equal and maximum moral agency. Sometimes this will require collective efforts to stop the whole world being turned into the private property of global elites, so that we can preserve freedom of movement and freedom of assembly. Sometimes this will require the provision of both Medicare For All and either a UBI or a job guarantee to individuals, so that their free speech isn't at the mercy of their employers. These decisions may in fact not produce the smallest government. Some conventional libertarians may even say they violate the NAP on the surface, but in my view, upholding the ideal of Equal Moral Agency for all is the best way to honor the NAP in its fullest spirit. Furthermore, these would be decisions that bring practical liberty, because they take into account everything that could affect liberty, including material factors. And this line of thinking, I believe, is the one most consistent with historical classical liberals like Locke, Smith and Mill.

Why the Bernie Sanders Joe Rogan Endorsement Drama Troubles Me A Lot | TaraElla News

Today, I will be looking at the recent drama surrounding Joe Rogan's announcement of his support for Bernie Sanders, the Bernie campaign's decision to publicly acknowledge this, and the unexpected backlash it generated. Basically, while most Bernie supporters are overjoyed that a popular media personality is endorsing their candidate at this crucial time, some people, not necessarily Bernie supporters, have attacked the Sanders campaign's decision to acknowledge it, because they see Joe Rogan as someone with views beyond the pale. Many people have interpreted this drama in the context of the Bernie vs Biden vs Warren race, but I think it's not so simple. Remember, I don't have a horse in this race: my favorites are Yang and Gabbard. But some of the stuff being said worries me.

Firstly, this drama essentially confirms my worst fears: the 2010s Left's practice of essentially categorizing people into 'wokes' and 'deplorables' and pushing everyone in the latter category away, is still alive and well. Despite the appearance of a calmer discourse in the past 2 years, the problem is still present. Now, I don't agree with some of the controversial things Rogan has said, but I don't think it should be a reason to push people away. I'm a realist in politics, which is why I acknowledge that not everyone is going to agree with me on every issue. But that doesn't mean they are the enemy. While I do sometimes have strong disagreements with Rogan, I also admire his independent thinking, his skepticism of mainstream media narratives, and his outspokenness. Plus the fact that, overall, I think he is acting in good faith. I really don't think we should push someone like that away, especially when we need to bring people from all walks of life together to enact some important structural economic change, in the face of the coming forth industrial revolution. I think there's a good reason why Yang, Tulsi and Bernie don't push people away over cultural disagreements, and I think it's something we should learn from.

Secondly, while some Bernie supporters have also essentially made the same argument that I just made, I still feel quite uncomfortable about perhaps most leftist discourse over this matter, because their overall tone strikes me as strategic and opportunistic. What I mean is that I feel like they defended not canceling Rogan this time only because he's good for Bernie's campaign at the moment, rather than that they think it's the right thing to do. My overall impression is that many of these people would have been comfortable labeling Rogan as a bigot and call for his cancellation, had he supported Biden or Warren instead, for example. They probably don't truly support free speech or even oppose cancel culture at all, but have simply made a strategic argument to help Bernie. I think this kind of insincerity is a big reason why many people, especially from the working class, have become skeptical of the left, broadly speaking. They suspect, and it's unfortunately correct to a great extent, that some so-called progressives sometimes only maintain a big tent for long enough to achieve specific political goals, after which they would start going full Hillary and label everyday working people as 'deplorables'. Naturally, nobody wants to join a movement that would keep you on board only for opportunistic purposes, so this kind of opportunistic thinking never works, especially in the face of working class common sense. Instead, the only way to build a big tent to achieve the necessary economic structural changes, is to commit to building a permanent big tent for real, with tolerance for viewpoint diversity and respect for free speech being absolute and guaranteed forever.

Community Minded: The Thing I Like About Pete Buttigieg | TaraElla News

Welcome to TaraElla News, where we use independent thinking to examine the latest political and cultural news, and attempt to stay positive despite the divisive negativity from mainstream media. Subscribe if you are interested.

Today, I want to continue my series on the three things I like about every major 2020 candidate. My aim is to spread the positivity around, to counter the negativity spiral that seems to accelerate with every election. It's something I'll be doing much more of this year. This episode, I'll be talking about Mayor Pete Buttigieg, a candidate that I have already discussed several times in the past. The three things I like most about Mayor Pete are his care to avoid unnecessary conflict, his keenness on bringing people together, and his honesty about his values and his faith, even when not everyone would like him for it. In turn, I think these aspects of him all link back to one theme, that is, being communitarian minded. It's an idea that I've been increasingly warming to in the past few years.

I guess one of the things I like most about Mayor Pete is his care to avoid unnecessary conflict. For example, he has refused to support the boycott of Chick-Fil-A over their position against gay marriage. He has refused to hate on people who say homophobic things about him. He has also refused to hate on people who say weird things about him, like how he is a 'boomer in Millennial skin', something that I had thoroughly debunked in a previous video. Pete is the kind of person who has social justice ideals, but won't use them to virtue signal or to try to create unnecessary conflict, and I like that. Anyway, Pete won't hate you if you disagree with him. He won't even hate the people who hate him. He won't start an unnecessary fight, and he won't participate in one. I like that because, frankly, we have too many petty fights going on at the moment, and this needs to change.

I think the reason why Mayor Pete doesn't want conflict is because he truly wants to bring people together, to heal the social fabric, to end the culture wars that have been plaguing the West for decades, and to create a new era of communitarian cooperation. I think this is actually very Millennial of him; you also see that attitude in other Millennial politicians like fellow 2020 candidate Tulsi Gabbard, and also Abby Finkenauer, the second youngest member of the US Congress, for example. In a previous video I did say that Pete wasn't as successful as my top two candidates in building a big tent, but that was only meant as constructive criticism. To be fair, Pete is still much more committed to being inclusive than most other politicians out there. Besides, I believe he could be even better in time, if he learned to listen to the voices and concerns of a broader sample of people out there. I have hope that he will do just that, as his career develops further.

Finally, Mayor Pete is honest about his values, and where he comes from, even if some people may not like that. He is open about the fact that he is gay, the fact that he is in a same-sex marriage, and he is also open about his religious faith, for example. Indeed, he often uses examples from his life to illustrate his values, which makes him more relateable. More importantly, if we want a society with strong social trust, people need to be open about oneself, and be sincere and truthful in dealing with the rest of the world. Right now, there are too many grifters on both the Left and the Right, who pretend to be what they think their audience wants. While the conventional wisdom may be that people who support religious candidates may not like gay candidates, and vice versa, Pete is having none of that. He has instead chosen to present his real self, and that approach has apparently worked. By leading by example, I think this could have the effect of encouraging people to stop being beholden by factional stereotypes, and start being their real selves to the rest of the world.

'Settler Colonialism Is Behind Climate Denial'. REALLY? | Skeptic TaraElla #1

Vision, Honesty, Bravery: 3 Things I Like About Bernie Sanders | TaraElla News

Welcome to TaraElla News, where we use independent thinking to examine the latest political and cultural news, and attempt to stay positive despite the divisive negativity from mainstream media. Subscribe if you are interested.

Today, I want to continue my series on the three things I like about every major 2020 candidate. My aim is to spread the positivity around, to counter the negativity spiral that seems to accelerate with every election. It's something I'll be doing much more of this year. This episode, I'll be talking about Senator Bernie Sanders, currently the second front-runner in the polls, and a real favorite among younger people.

The first thing I admire about Bernie Sanders is his dedication to his vision. Bernie has believed in the same things for the whole of his political career, and he has never been swayed by the changing fashions of the day. This was especially true in the 1980s and 1990s, when Reaganomics dominated the mainstream, and many Democrats changed their tune to fit in. In a world where we see grifters trying to jump onto the next fashion every day, it is refreshing to see someone so dedicated to his own values no matter what. While I don't always agree with Bernie, I think we should all learn from his dedication to his own beliefs, and his unwillingness to be swayed by peer pressure.

The second thing I admire about Bernie is his honesty. Bernie has always been straightforward about what he believes in. He has never tried to hide aspects of his program that other people may not like. In particular, he has been honest about the costs of his policies, justifying them on the benefits they bring, but never denying the costs. This stands in contrast to several other candidates during this cycle, who promise to do some of the similar things that Bernie is proposing, while being evasive when asked about the costs. The fact is, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Everyone will see through that. Everyone appreciates an honest leader, and if you truly believe that something is worthwhile, you shouldn't be afraid of justifying the costs anyway. I think this is why Bernie has retained his support while several of his rivals have fallen away.

Finally, to do all that Bernie has done in his long career, to stand firm and be honest in the face of changing political winds for half a century, it all requires a lot of bravery. I think that even people who don't necessarily agree with Bernie have to acknowledge his bravery, a level of bravery that is rarely found in modern politics. I also think it's why Bernie receives a lot of respect from across the political spectrum, while politicians like Hillary do not. It's why people often say that Bernie could have won in 2016 where Hillary lost. Bravery is important because without brave leaders nothing ever gets done. This is why I think we should all learn from Bernie's bravery, and never shy away from standing for what we truly believe in.

Positive, Creative, Inclusive: 3 Things I Like About Andrew Yang | TaraElla News

Welcome to TaraElla News, where we use independent thinking to examine the latest political and cultural news, and attempt to stay positive despite the divisive negativity from mainstream media. Subscribe if you are interested.

Today, I want to start a new thing, where I will talk about the positive aspects of each of the main 2020 candidates. This is the first in a series of actions I'm talking this year to increase the positivity in political culture. In recent years across the West, every election cycle seems to increase the negativity to a whole new level, and the negativity just piles up over time. To break this cycle, I think it's especially important to spread the positivity around this year.

Today, I'm going to start by talking about Andrew Yang, one of my two favorite 2020 candidates. In my opinion, the best things about Yang are his positivity, his creativity, and his inclusiveness. Of the two dozen candidates running this time, Yang would have to be the most positive. While he understands the gravity of problems like automation and job loss, various economic driven social problems, and falling birth rates, he has proposed practical solutions to all of them. Yang's way is to fix the problems to bring about a better future, rather than to sit there and catastrophize about the end of the world. Consistent with this positive attitude, Yang also never personally attacks other candidates. Whether it's Democrats lining up to attack Trump, or other candidates on stage lining up to attack big names like Biden or Bernie, Yang never joins in. I guess when one is focused on real solutions for real problems, one simply doesn't have time for these petty games.

Andrew Yang is also the most creative and open-minded candidate, because he is able to think outside the box, and he is also able to articulate his ideas in new ways. For example, he can see that many social problems, like broken families and falling birth rates, have at least partially economic roots, and he proposes a universal basic income to help fix these problems. On the other hand, he also sees the UBI not just as a social safety net, but as a way to guarantee freedom, which is why he calls it the Freedom Dividend. In our modern world, the exercise of freedom often cannot be separated from having basic economic means, and Yang is one of only a few political leaders who have been able to effectively make this argument. Through his candidacy, he has been able to persuade many previously skeptical people of the necessity of a UBI, putting the issue on the mainstream agenda not just in America but in many developed countries across the world.

Finally, one of the things I like most about Andrew Yang is that he has run one of the most inclusive campaigns ever. Yang has run one of the most truly big tent campaigns in recent memory. His fans have come from former supporters of Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Gary Johnson and more, and inspired by the positive and inclusive message of Yang, they all work well together. As a result of having a big tent politically, the Yang Gang also contains people of all ages, from all walks of life, with all levels of educational and economic background, which is something that cannot be said of many other political camps nowadays. I believe this is an advantage because, to develop and implement workable solutions to many social problems, we need to first bring people from diverse backgrounds together. We need to be able to stop the factional fighting, respect each other, and treat each other as allies rather than enemies in life. The experience of the Yang Gang has shown that this is possible, even in the supposedly divided world of the modern West.