I would like to make something clear, not because I’ve been questioned, but because I feel it is worth addressing. Many people may think that I’m on the political right, but I’m not, I am a classical liberal (voluntaryist / ancap / Libertarian), which means I value individual rights, and I’m open to a wide range of viewpoints, and I synthesize them with systematic thinking into an overall worldview that works for me. I respect and admire many people, and listen to and consider their viewpoints, from the Marxist Libertarian Brendan O’Neill, the liberal Jonathan Haidt, the classical liberal Jordan Peterson, and the conservative Ben Shapiro.
Classical liberalism “advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property, and belief in laissez-faire economic policy.
Classical liberalism is built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, such as selected ideas of Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo.
It drew on a psychological understanding of individual liberty, the contradictory theories of natural law and utilitarianism, and a belief in progress.
Both modern American conservatism and social liberalism split from Classical Liberalism in the early 20th century.
At that time conservatives adopted the Classic Liberal beliefs in protecting economic civil liberties.
Conversely social liberals adopted the Classical Liberal belief in defending social civil liberties.” (Source)
I may seem to get along with those on the right more than those on the left, simply because they do tend to engage in meaningful dialogue more than many on the left do, although I’ve had some great conversations with a few of them as well. I don’t get called a Nazi, racist, bigot, homophobe, statist, or commie as often when I chat with those on the political right, but I have experienced it more often when engaging with those on the political left. To be clear, I have witnessed people from both political extremes employ this nasty tactic, it’s just more prevalent on the far left because they seem to dominate most of the media.
I’m all for a diversity of ideas, and the freedom to engage in meaningful conversations about them, but I’m not for defending myself against character assassinations when my viewpoints may differ from what is considered politically correct.
“No rational conversation is possible with someone who insists you are not worthy of debate. In fact, if your opponent thinks you’re not worthy of debating, he isn’t worthy of debating. If your opponent wants to enter a world in which we can have rational conversations about the costs and benefits of particular policies, you’re happy to do that. If not, the conversation is over. There will be no conversation in which you call me a racist, and I explain why I’m not a racist. That’s a conversation for idiots.” ~Ben Shapiro
I like to adhere to strict intellectual standards in my thinking, and I hold myself accountable to them, and this means that by extension, I’ll also hold those I engage with to these same minimum standards. Without such minimum standards, dialogue becomes problematic at best, and outright abusive at worst. I’m not into participating in abusive exchanges, but I will call out those who employ abusive rhetoric as a means of avoiding engaging the issues.
I’ve noticed that when dialogues between diverse viewpoints are engaged in, some wonderful insights and friendships can be forged. This builds lasting intimate connections, which is extremely important to me and where I’m headed in life.
~Nathan
