In an exchange between him and Grumpy Old Man he stated how labels cage us in in the minds of others. True. He described how conservatives may consider him liberal, and liberals may consider him conservative; libertarians may consider him statist, and average people may consider him libertarian, etc. That’s something we share in common as I come up against the same thing. In some ways I qualify as conservative, in others I qualify as liberal, and in others still I’m out in outfield. But depending on who I’m interacting with I’m commonly pigeonholed in one way or another, contradictions be damned. It does make communicating a pain in the ass sometimes.
But I think the question people are posing to him is what he personally stands for. Not only politically but personally — what is he about? And it’s that which he appears to dance around, and I don’t get it. The only things I know for certain about him is he’s pro-2nd Amendment, considers private education far superior to public education (which it likely very often is), and that he claims he was once upon a time a cop and is now an educator. But there’s much more to a person than that, and I think that’s what we’re requesting to hear fleshed out. What is he about? Yes, we know what most people are supporting or tolerating, but what does he personally feel inclined to support? What does he take exception to? Where does he think the lines could beneficially be drawn? Or does he not care too much either way?
People who make you go “hmmm”…
If people are aware of answers to these questions, links would be appreciated. Not about to watch 600+ videos in an effort to figure out where one person is coming from.
Personally, I get the impression he’s a sadist unconcerned about the plight of most humans, but maybe that’s just my biased view. [Or exercising what he thinks of as “tough love”? *shrugs*]
A comment of his that illustrates this sentiment was posted 12 hours ago in response to icandodgebullets86 on this video’s comment thread:
“I just don’t see how the alternative would work without me dying.”
That’s likely true for a lot of people, like those who couldn’t find a way to feed themselves if left in a garden. Indeed, a lot of people in contemporary society laugh at ‘survivalists’ for stockpiling: water, food, combustibles and the like. There are people who need to be fed and watered by others, and those who can feed and water themselves.Suppose we reach a technologically advanced society where the only jobs that exist require the kind of technological understanding one would get in a four year program studying technology. Companies won’t hire anyone who doesn’t have, at a minimum, that depth of understanding of technology. So, along comes some Luddite from some yonder region who wants to get a job, but no one will hire him. He in turn can find no home to live in, and can’t buy property because he has no money.Is there any problem if I don’t want to hire him? He has no viable options for survival, by his own refusal to learn how to use the tools and technology necessary to be able to procure the basics of existence.The fact that a person refuses to learn how to keep himself alive does not bind the hands of other people, and it doesn’t remove from the equation that this person had the choice all along to learn that but has refused to do it. That’s his choice, and he has no argument that others are ethically obligated to do for him what he wouldn’t do for himself, does he?
“Philosophically how bad must the alternative be before there is no choice?”
In an example of the type I described, this person’s death is pretty much a given, and he nevertheless decided, like most people do, to exploit every occasion possible to refuse to learn how to provide for himself.
As a matter of grace, or charity, he might well survive. But as a matter of his decisions forcing others to reward him for his willful ignorance, well, he can’t say that he didn’t see it coming.