Jul 15, 2017
Progressives have adopted a “less is more” stance on just about everything. Apparently we must have less today so that generations to come can have more in the future.
For example, if we want our children to enjoy clean air, water and food in the distant future, we must sacrifice something today. But for some reason, the same logic of sustainability doesn’t apply to fiscal affairs and economics.
Progressives want more government debt to finance wasteful programs today without a slightest concern about the national debt burden that will be left to future generations. Where does such intellectually lazy economics emerge from?
At my alma mater, Brevard College, all students had to attend a variety of sustainability-themed courses in order to learn how to link personal decisions with environmental advocacy. Yet economics was an elective course even though coherent policy analysis — be it environmental or any other — requires sound understanding of economics.
Consequently, our education system produces supposedly highly educated individuals who base their policy analysis or advocacy on false “feel-good” emotional premises rather than rigorous economic reasoning.
Ironically, it sure would help if progressives in and outside university campuses would start from fiscal and economic sustainability today instead of tomorrow.
The Quantum State of Consent
Posted: 10 Feb 2018 04:34 PM PST
56% of younger millennials identify as Christian. 2% as Jewish or Muslim. 1% as Buddhist. And 36% as nothing. That's double the number that made up the "nones" among baby boomers. Being a "none" often means having no sense of purpose, except to seek personal happiness and make the world a better place by recycling, opposing Trump and calling out racism. It also means a moral code based on academic analysis of power relationships between races, genders and sexual orientations.
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom," Benjamin Franklin cautioned more simply.
These aren't abstractions. Nor are they measured on some vast scale of civilizations. They define how we live our ordinary lives. They are why this debate is taking place.
Free people consent. But freedom comes from virtue. Freedom without virtue is anarchy. And anarchy ends in brutality and tyranny. That outcome isn't only expressed in riots in the streets. It emerges in smaller and more intimate matters, like the debate over consent.
Freedom of consent is failing. The left wants to replace it with brutality and tyranny. The brutality of online smear campaigns and the tyranny of campus kangaroo courts. But a secular right has no replacement for it either except the more libertarian brutality and tyranny of the individual.
What we forgot is that we don't truly have freedom of consent, until we have purpose.