I read your latest post and was so grateful. I am not in a position to become a paying subscriber at the moment, but I will continue to read with interest as you try and unpack this. I also read the comments section and LOVE the community of thoughtful people that you're bringing together. I have been wondering about this for quite a whi…
I read your latest post and was so grateful. I am not in a position to become a paying subscriber at the moment, but I will continue to read with interest as you try and unpack this. I also read the comments section and LOVE the community of thoughtful people that you're bringing together. I have been wondering about this for quite a while, and have not been able to crack the nut. I have been a fan of Brand's for many years (which is very uncharacteristic of me; I really think he's the only person about whom I've actually and legitimately called myself a "fan," even jokingly), and simply do not see the logic. FWIW, I do sense that there is some truth in the suggestion that it really does have something to do with ego. Not entirely, but it's there. In a culture that celebrates brilliance — and RB is undoubtedly brilliant — that brilliance needs somewhere to go, to see itself reflected and hear itself. It can't just fester in its own broth, it must be applied to something. If the left project starts to become untenable for a variety of reasons, and if the person has done a ton of spiritual work, then maybe there is just enough mental flexibility to do the contortions and make the "free speech" "individual liberty" persona stick, even if it means overlooking the very real ways that the biggest mouthpieces for such ideals, at the moment, drag a Santa's sleigh full of destructive behaviors along with them. It's a clean argument "free speech!" rather than the muddy Democratic vision, full of seemingly unresolvable contradictions.
My entire question, at this point, can be boiled down to: What is the proper role of government? A totally deregulated free-market society gives us self-audited Boeing planes falling out of the sky and rivers on fire. But government overreach, over-regulation is also a real thing. It's a conundrum, that's for sure. I wish I could take comfort in religion and Trump the way they seem to; sounds much easier, frankly.
Hmmm, not really. I definitely believe that there is much room for regulatory reform, but I think deregulation is not a good idea. See my example (or maybe it was in a different comment) about planes. I, for one, do not want to walk onto a plane that has been self-evaluated for safety and compliance by the very people who stand to gain the most by cutting corners. That, to me, is insane. Just an example. I also see the point where overburdensome regulations stifle any sort of progress and bury projects in paperwork, which is also untenable. But the swift decapitation of all regulations seems, to me, like a recipe for setting rivers on fire.
I read your latest post and was so grateful. I am not in a position to become a paying subscriber at the moment, but I will continue to read with interest as you try and unpack this. I also read the comments section and LOVE the community of thoughtful people that you're bringing together. I have been wondering about this for quite a while, and have not been able to crack the nut. I have been a fan of Brand's for many years (which is very uncharacteristic of me; I really think he's the only person about whom I've actually and legitimately called myself a "fan," even jokingly), and simply do not see the logic. FWIW, I do sense that there is some truth in the suggestion that it really does have something to do with ego. Not entirely, but it's there. In a culture that celebrates brilliance — and RB is undoubtedly brilliant — that brilliance needs somewhere to go, to see itself reflected and hear itself. It can't just fester in its own broth, it must be applied to something. If the left project starts to become untenable for a variety of reasons, and if the person has done a ton of spiritual work, then maybe there is just enough mental flexibility to do the contortions and make the "free speech" "individual liberty" persona stick, even if it means overlooking the very real ways that the biggest mouthpieces for such ideals, at the moment, drag a Santa's sleigh full of destructive behaviors along with them. It's a clean argument "free speech!" rather than the muddy Democratic vision, full of seemingly unresolvable contradictions.
My entire question, at this point, can be boiled down to: What is the proper role of government? A totally deregulated free-market society gives us self-audited Boeing planes falling out of the sky and rivers on fire. But government overreach, over-regulation is also a real thing. It's a conundrum, that's for sure. I wish I could take comfort in religion and Trump the way they seem to; sounds much easier, frankly.
maybe de-government regulation would make better sense. We dont need the government to do things right. See how this has failed?
Deregulation is what corporate America want. It's why Trump is going to scrap all environmental regulation in return for fhe oil money he's received.
Hmmm, not really. I definitely believe that there is much room for regulatory reform, but I think deregulation is not a good idea. See my example (or maybe it was in a different comment) about planes. I, for one, do not want to walk onto a plane that has been self-evaluated for safety and compliance by the very people who stand to gain the most by cutting corners. That, to me, is insane. Just an example. I also see the point where overburdensome regulations stifle any sort of progress and bury projects in paperwork, which is also untenable. But the swift decapitation of all regulations seems, to me, like a recipe for setting rivers on fire.