On Viewing Ideas From Another Perspective

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell102998.asp

"IF YOU CAN'T BE BOTHERED to read things that are both pro and con on a candidate or an issue, then don't bother to vote. There is enough blind prejudice in the world already."

Thomas Sowell is among my favorite economics authors.  Everything he writes is concise and informative.  I have recently started to read through his archives.  FYI, here is the link to everything he has written since 1998: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell1.aspI highly suggest reading some of these short and insightful thoughts.  If you claim you don't have time, I ask you to stop reading just one article per day from your least favorite news source and read one of these instead.  At a minimum, you will be exposed to a well thought out, highly educated view that may be very different than yours.

https://fee.org/articles/want-cohesion-stop-talking-about-it/

This has been my view of the left for ages.  Despite rhetoric which sounds like unification, the political establishment splits us up and pits us against each other (ie. black lives, blue lives, Muslims, Mexicans, Wall Street versus Main Street.)

Since Obama taking office in 2009 (and me being old enough to really think about these things), I have believed the less we talk about race relations the better things will get.  The more we discuss the differences the more we focus on those differences rather than our common humanity. Simple social psychology of in and out groups shows us that where there are groups human nature will result in us viewing those in our group in a positive light and those outside our group in a negative light.  I am no psychologist or genius, but we might do better to view each other as human rather than black or white, male or female, etc.

We don't need government to HELP us be friendly with one another; we need government to get out of the way so we CAN be friendly with each other.  When is the last time you argued with someone? I'll bet it was over politics - nobody fights over non-politics.  See: https://fee.org/articles/and-the-election-winner-is-enmity/

https://fee.org/articles/is-a-free-range-chicken-a-happy-chicken/

Now this isn't something many of you thought you would be thinking about today. Neither did I, but here we are.  Why do we assume we are doing what is best for chickens by giving them free range in a cage?  Is the ability to move about as a chicken naturally morally superior to protecting the chicken from the dangers it faces in the daily life of being a chicken?  I don't know but food for thought (no pun intended).  I know more than a few parents that think that restricting the free range of their babies and toddlers is morally correct.  In fact, the children don't know enough yet so we have to protect them from themselves.  Like I said I don't have a dog in this fight but an interesting article with consequences for the government we ultimately prefer.

http://www.aei.org/publication/quotation-of-the-day-on-social-justice-bullies/

I have pasted this from Mark Perry at aei.org for your ease of reading.

Quotation of the day on “social justice bullies” is from economist Steve Horwitz, writing on Facebook:

I am increasingly convinced that so-called “social justice warriors” should instead be called “social justice bullies.”  Many of them are not really “warriors.” They don’t have that level of intellectual bravery. Rather they charge ahead, trying to shut down conversations by moral bullying with things like “check your privilege.” They bully smart people by saying they need more education. They bully well-intentioned people by calling them privileged rather than actually engaging them. And they bully us all by trying to monopolize the moral high ground when our differences are often more about means than ends.  And like every other kind of bully, the moment you stand up to them and call them on their bullying, they play the victim, astonished that you had the chutzpah to name it for what it is.

I can tell you I have experienced this “bullying” because I don't agree with the majority of the social justice warriors/bullies at UChicago.

http://www.aei.org/publication/higher-educations-infantilizing-paternalism-lack-of-intellectual-diversity-leaves-students-unprepared-for-reality/

Interesting in light of my alma mater’s long-standing belief in the power of intellectual curiosity.  I was incredibly proud that the University recently publicly acknowledged the hypocrisy of safe spaces at places of higher learning.  Unfortunately UChicago classrooms, like most other institutions, still suffer from lack of diversity in views and ideologies.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell110998.asp

Sowell does it again. An excerpt from the article:

"Hypocrisy as a principle leaves no common moral ground and no mutually acceptable framework of law, within which inevitable human differences can be worked out peacefully. All that this leaves us are tests of strength in the streets or assassinations from the shadows.  Unfortunately, there are too many groups or movements for whom morality is defined by what advances their cause. Some of these groups and movements are on the fringes of the political right, but more are on the political left --- and moving dangerously close to the mainstream of the left."

        https://fee.org/articles/fdr-was-another-president-with-a-greatness-plan/

The republicans don't have a monopoly on racism. Besides Andrew Jackson, perhaps the most racist president in history was the liberal left's champion FDR.