Categories
Philosophy Politics Religion, Politics and Philosophy

On the PragerU Video that Follows the Post

So I’m watching this video from PragerU (with whom I tend to agree about ninety percent of the time—maybe a bit more), and I’m somewhat astounded—but not for the reasons the presenter might imagine.

I started to share the video, which overall, I still think to be quite good, since it presents a perspective I believe needs to be seen and challenged—again for reasons I’m sure to some will be all but “out of the blue,” when I was presented with an “interesting conundrum.”

As I started to type out my response, the ever-fickle Facebook (whether by intent or accident, and I tend to think the latter) decided to “reload my feed” in the middle of the response. To be clear, I had moved off the tab in which Facebook was open to do some minor research, when I came back my response had vanished, as had the post upon which I was going to make it. I was able to get back to the post with some work (it is no longer showing on my feed, and that I do not believe is accidental), so I had to go to the feed of the person who shared it to find it again.

All that having been said, allow me to reconstruct as best I’m able, the response I initially began to generate to the video in question. Here is—essentially—what I was going to say:

  1. Liberalism as it is now espoused and expressed in the United States, bears little to no resemblance to what Friedrich A. Von Hayek was talking about when he used the term “Classical Liberalism.” The two have little (if any) similarity. Hayek can be seen to talk much more, about the type of Liberalism with which the speaker claims to associate in the video in question, in his various writings (including the relatively well known “The Road to Serfdom.”).
  2. As a person who most directly associates with Libertarianism, but as a “close second” resonates next most with “true modern Conservatism” (which is not the thing currently bandied about by folks in Federal politics  and in fact, is probably one of the closer views to “Classical Liberalism” out there) and Republicanism, I can tell you that, for as long as I have paid attention to politics, the “right” has always supported the “right to be wrong” so long as, in doing so one did not do things that were illegal. That does not mean they refuse to call wrong, well, wrong, just that, unless you are in breach of law, you are not told you cannot be wrong in belief or action. Put another way, the “Right,” at least in the U.S., has pretty much always defended the idea of free speech, and, inasmuch as it was legal (disagreeable or not) freedom of action.
  3. Though present day “Liberalism” (more accurately termed Leftism) has become more rabid in its desire and intent to “shut down” freedom of speech and action—a thing I maintain is a result of a “serious slide to the left” (in which Communists and Socialists have become all but mainstream to the Left of the United States—well, frankly, ’twas ever thus. The only thing that has changed is degree. Not content to “work” to be tolerated—a thing that was largely already happening—by those with more conservative, right-leaning perspectives, they have sought to codify their own perspective as the “proper” one—a thing which has resulted in the speaker’s apparent chagrin. I might add to this that, though marriage is these days in the minds of many, a “legal contract” more than anything else, it is in its origins in the United States, a Christian belief and that belief does not include the idea of men marrying men or women marrying women (one of many reasons I do not support the state having a hand in marriage at all—there being other ways to deal with legal issues than marriage, but that’s a matter for another post).
  4. It is—as far as I am able to see, based on my interaction with folks of supposed Liberal bent—a common thing upon which to malign Conservatives, that they are authoritarian. As far as I can tell, little can be further from the truth. Put simply, most Conservatives are for less government. In case that doesn’t make things clear to you, consider this, if someone is for less government, they are necessarily for the limiting of the powers of said government. There is little way to make arguments then, that Conservatism or Republicanism, support authoritarianism.
  5. The move—largely by the U.S. Left—to “governmentalize” issues of supposed discrimination—and I used “supposed” advisedly here, as some are truly discrimination, and some not—can pretty much never but end in authoritarianism. Put another way, as you make more and more laws and larger and larger government, you more greatly reduce freedom for the supposed sake of “security.” This is a thing you will find the United States’ founders and framers spoke—in general—soundly and strongly against, and for good reason (which again, is a matter for another article). Those truly on the “right,” ought to have zero interest in getting government involved in discrimination, but not because they agree with it. Rather, their assumed disinterest would be based on their ideal that government is unlikely to “do the needed job” well for a variety of reasons (the resultant loss of liberty—intentional or unintentional—among them).

One more thought (related to the video, but not directly in response to it). The apparent assumption that the Left or the Right “changing its position on” some aspect of life, means that the supposed “opposing side” must also change their position, is  entirely non-sequitur.

For example, assume (as history shows) that the Left was (Democrats in particular) the entity out of which was “born” the KKK. Now assume that the Left no longer supports the KKK (which I think incorrect, in that the far Left in my view, still does). The afore made assumptions do not mean that the KKK is suddenly a component or artifact of the Right. If that was not the case before the Left disavowed the KKK, what on Earth would magically make it the case after that had occurred? I get that Neo Nazis and Klansmen seem to show up to rallies of people on the Right, that does not mean all (or even a few) around them support them.

In the same way that it’s not illegal for “mainstream Leftists” or Right leaning folks to express their beliefs and opinions and act as they choose (assuming their actions to be legal) it’s not illegal for members of the KKK to do likewise (regardless their ideas and actions very likely being wrong). That doesn’t mean they’re supported by those whose parties they “crash” (Left or Right)—I think I can fairly say, in general, they’re not (on both “sides”).

Okay, as has been my custom of late, I am slightly over my self-imposed “thousand word limit.” As such, I’ll call this good for now.

As usual, thanks for reading, and I hope your day is a good one, be you a Leftist, a rightist, or a somewhere between the two.

https://www.facebook.com/prageru/videos/1525840804125437/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Prove you're human *