Up with Chris Hayes 5/5/2012 -- principles, intuition, reason and militarism

There were some good discussions on Up this morning, with Hayes' guests, John McWhorter, Michelle Goldberg, Chris Mooney, Jonathan Haidt and P.J. Crowley. At the beginning of the show the panel talked about the Left's battle for gay rights in places like NC, then how the Right, the Republican Party, is fighting against gay rights and women's rights and such. Later on in the show they explained that the Republican mind is simply different, that liberals are open to new experiences and new information, while conservatives circle the wagon on their wrong ideas and refuse to consider scientific information. Liberals love their junk political science. I think I'll start calling it political science -- it's faux-science designed to give dignity to the Left's conclusion that the Right is wrong about everything and won't admit it. It's cute watching young partisans like Chris Mooney playing grown-up intellectual with their theories, even a book!

It's so obvious that many on the Left are just as closeminded as many on the Right, that it destroys Mooney's credibility from the start. The idea that we first intuit certain aspects of reality then use reason to justify our intuitions is not a great revelation. It's what we discover with reason that counts -- if reason tells us our intuitions were incorrect, then we have to adjust. I'm not sure of the point Haidt and Mooney were trying to convey, but it appeared to be a denigration of reason as simply a method of justifying intuition and superstition and all types of emotional experiences that could be in line with reality or not. Those on the Left or Right who use reason properly, and who are unafraid of facts they find, and have studied the scientific method, and who objectively seek to understand reality, are closer to aligning their worldview with reality than those who attempt to create their own realities through designed perceptions or subjective desires. To divide Left and Right into hard-wired automatons who react automatically according to gentic instructions programmed into their minds is science gone awry. In this case, it's pseudo-science designed to create political advantage. All thinkers have to be aware of the political angle today because politics have consumed most of the nation -- each side of the political realm attempts to create their own political reality and denigrate anything outside that reality. One reason I adhere to the libertarian view is because of its fidelity to the enlightenment which first freed the human mind from elite control. Once freed from thought-control excercised by the elite few, the many can then interact and allow the market place of ideas to determine which ideas adhere to reality and which ideas are in conflict with reality. Reality always wins, so the closer we are in alignment with reality the better off we are. It seems that elite liberals are now angry that people outside the modern liberal mindset are having influence in the Information Age which transcends media control, and the liberal elites are trying everything they can to marginalize and demonize the outsiders. Conservatives who are only fighting for control of the State are just as bad, and they also are attempting to elevate the few over the many.

We need more free-thinkers who transcend the political realm and seek the best information available so that we can all work together as individuals, paying attention to our responsibility to adjust to reality, and to, as a result, improve the human condition.

One reason special interest groups like the gay rights groups in NC aren't getting traction is that they have become political and, as a result, have lost sight of over-arcing principles. There are many in the gay rights groups who wouldn't hestitate supporting the violation of individual rights of those they have no use for, like wealthy businesspeople or rednecks who hate gays, if they are vindictive and believe they are too stupid to have rights. The issue of rights is bigger than gay rights. Unless the issue is broadened to take into account the liberty of individuals to intereact with other individuals in freedom as long as they are not coercing others in any way or preventing others from practicing their freedom, then it's not the business of government, so, any two individuals who choose to express their bond by contracting with one another and calling it marriage should not be prevented by laws from doing so. It's simply no one else's business except the individuals involved in the relationship. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks of homosexuality, it's only a matter of freedom to associate and contract with one another and live freely as long as no rights are violated. I don't see how any opponent of SSM can establish that a marriage between two men or two women violates the rights of anyone. Just as anyone who wants to open a business that doesn't violate anyone's rights should not be prevented from opening the business. And just as any redneck who wants to express his revulsion regarding homosexuality should not be prevented from doing so as long no rights are violated.

There are thousands of nuances to discuss regarding these issues, but this is the basic principle that gays and women and others seeking liberty and fairness should stand on if they want to expand their moral positions -- but if they demand rights for themselves while willing to violate the rights of others they don't like or find repulsive, they have no credibility and their cause looks self-serving and petty.

Later on Up with Chris Hayes, they discussed Obama's bragging about killing Osama. Hayes stated he believes as a society we place too much value on militarism rather than peace-making. I totally agree. Crowley's presence was sickening -- he's a partisan hack who will express conflicting principles depending on who's in office.