Friday, February 2, 2018

Jordan Peterson interviewed by Cathy Newman

 Jordan Peterson is a professor at the University of Toronto, a clinical psychologist and an author.  He was recently interviewed by Cathy Newman on British television broadcaster Channel 4.  This interview is interesting for several reasons.  I find the interviewer Cathy Newman's reactions to Jordan Peterson's answers fascinating.  Before watching the interview there is some background information that is required.

In case you are not familiar with "preferred gender pronouns" you should read this first:

At the University of Toronto, after receiving two written warnings, Jordan Peterson has been in danger of losing his job following his announcement that he would refuse to use the preferred gender pronouns of students and faculty who don’t identify with their biological gender, to the fury of radical transgender activists. The use of such pronouns is mandatory under a recently instituted Canadian law, Bill C-16. Peterson rejects the injunction on free speech grounds. ‘I’m not going to cede linguistic territory to post-modernist neo-Marxists,’ he says. He has expressed the view that he might use the preferred gender pronoun of a particular person, if asked by that individual, rather than having the decision foisted on him by the state.

This is the 1 min 23 sec TV interview that made Jordan Peterson famous:

Cognitive dissonance plays an important role in the Cathy Newman interview. Cognitive dissonance refers to a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs or behaviors. This produces a feeling of discomfort leading to an alteration in one of the attitudes, beliefs or behaviors to reduce the discomfort and restore balance, etc.

Scott Adams, the creator of the Dilbert comic, strip has interesting observations about cognitive dissonance in the Cathy Newman interview.  He discusses this subject in a 3 min 30 sec video:

And finally the full interview.  By some counts Cathy Newman says "so what you're saying is..." 36 times during this 30 minute interview:

Wednesday, January 24, 2018

Thursday, January 4, 2018

Andrew Cuomo's socialist delima

It appears that Gov. Andrew Cuomo has acknowledged that his socialist policies may run out of “other people’s money” if the federal tax code does not subsidize the taxpayers of New York State.

These paragraphs are from an Associated Press article dated 1/3/18:

New York state will take Washington to court to challenge the new Republican tax overhaul, Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Wednesday, calling the new law an unconstitutional assault on states' rights and New York in particular.

The new tax law caps a deduction for state and local taxes at $10,000, a move that will increase federal tax liabilities for many homeowners in high-tax states like New York. Cuomo says the change could increase tax liabilities for some New Yorkers by as much as 25 percent, potentially prompting some to leave for cheaper states and making the state less competitive economically.

Many of the governor's new proposals are aimed squarely at Washington, and a federal government that he says is seeking to set back progress in New York when it comes to the economy, equality, health care and the environment. Cuomo cited recent accomplishments such as a higher minimum wage, free college tuition and paid family leave as an alternative to the policies emerging on the national level.
Andrew Cuomo is correct that socialism is only possible if the state prevents productive citizens from leaving and then expropriates their property.

Saturday, October 21, 2017

How the Constitution Has Been Twisted to Undermine the Free Market

 Judge Andrew P. Napolitano was the opening night speaker of the Mises Institute 35th Anniversary Celebration.  The YouTube video of his speech is 52 minutes long and I recommend that you take the time out of our schedule to view all of it.

  Video of speech

The full transcript of the speech (that is auto generated by YouTube) is available at this link:

If you do not watch the entire speech you are doing yourself a great disservice.  But if that is your decision, then please at least read these highlights:

... when Jefferson writes in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights the reference to "by their creator" and "the inalienability of rights" is the recognition of the natural law, that our rights come from our humanity ... our rights come from our humanity and not from the government.  This is the theory of the natural law.

We fought a revolution and won the revolution and wrote the constitution, the purpose of which was to define the government and confine the government.  Define and confine at the same time.  There was of course in Philadelphia in 1787 a lot of disagreement over what the Constitution was going to look like.  In fact if you recall your history and I'm sure you do the delegates were sent to Philadelphia in 1787 not to write a constitution but to offer amendments to the Articles of Confederation.

The Commerce Clause [of the Constitution] which permits the government the federal government the Congress to regulate commerce among the several states is the favorite hook for the Congress today and the courts today to hang their hat on when they want to engage in expansive federal authority ... the original meaning of the Commerce Clause was to regulate the movement of goods between merchants as that crossed state lines stated differently to get rid of state tariffs.

Madisonian government ... that concept is that the federal government can only do what is specifically authorized to it in the Constitution.  Justice Scalia put a sort of tail on that with his theory of originalism, which means that the Constitution, if it is the supreme law the land, can't change with the passage of time and it must mean the same thing today as was the original public understanding of it at the time it was ratified.   If Little Jimmy [James Madison] and big Nino [Justice Scalia] had their way then the Commerce Clause would have its original public meaning which was giving only to Congress the power to regulate the movement of goods between merchants as they cross the interstate lines.

... a famous farmer named Roscoe Filburn in an infamous [supreme court] case during World War II decided that all the wheat in his backyard would not be sold, it would be ground by Mrs. Filburn into flour and she would bake it into baked goods for your family.  Can that be regulated by the federal government?  Answer, yes.  Because by not putting that wheat into interstate commerce there was theoretically an effect on Interstate Commerce and since Congress can regulate anything that affects interstate commerce and can regulate what Roscoe Filburn does with his wheat in his backyard.

Woodrow Wilson turned Madisonian democracy on its head.   [in the] Madisonian [theory] the government the federal government can only do what it is expressly authorized to do in the Constitution.  Wilsonian the federal government can do whatever it needs to address a national problem and for which there is political will except that which is expressly prohibited to it in the Constitution.  So these are really polar opposites and I'm sorry to tell you that every president of the United States since Woodrow Wilson no matter what the president has said, no matter what the times required, no matter what war was being fought, no matter how prosperous we may have been at the moment, has been a Wilsonian.

I expect that I will die, when I do, faithful to my first principles to our first principles in my bed in my house surrounded by people that love me.  But not all of you particularly the young people will have that luxury.  Some of you will die in a government prison faithful to first principles and some of you may die faithful to the first principles in a government Town Square to the sound of the government's trumpets blaring.  When the time comes to make that horrible decision, stay faithful to the first principles or give in to the government, you will know what to do because freedom lies in the human heart and while it is there, no tyranny of the majority and no tyrant can take it away, but you must exercise, it it must do more than lie there.