OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Am I Alt-Right?

Entry 2113, on 2021-03-17 at 20:23:34 (Rating 4, Politics)

I am well known for my on-line commentary and debates. Often these interactions can become quite heated, and I might appear to some to have extreme views. I have been accused of being everything from a socialist hippy to a far-right fascist. But which is more accurate?

Well, I don't associate with any particular political agenda, because they are all flawed. And I certainly don't associate with a political party, because they are even more problematic. My voting record is generally more to the left, but in the previous election I voted for New Zealand's libertarian party, Act.

I was a little bit shocked recently when someone said they had been following me on Facebook and thought I was a member of the "alt-right" or "far right", or something similarly extreme and insulting. I guess the reason for this is that I see the left - and especially their agenda of political correctness and cancel culture - as being the biggest threat to society today, so I tend to be most critical of them. But note that in the past I thought right-wing economics was the biggest threat, so I tended to be more opposed to that.

Over the years I have debated many different groups and have received various abuse and threats from both sides, including the gun lobby on the right, and abortion rights people on the left. So this seems to indicate that I'm neither left nor right, since I get both of those groups upset over my views. Also, I tend to have nuanced views on most subjects, rather than the simplistic ideas held by people on the extremes.

So let's look at some of these subjects, and my reaction to them...

Education and school vouchers

Education has been a hopelessly politically correct and leftist dominated field for as long as I can remember. There has always been a lot of political interference, and one trendy teaching methodology is often used in place of a previous one which has fallen out of favour for no particular reason. None of it seems very scientific, but it does seem very ideological.

Also, education has been rather monolithic in its structure, and almost every school follows the leader and makes the same mistakes as every other one. The more libertarian types of government have tried to fix this by encouraging private schools and suggesting use of a school voucher system to create choice. But this has been rejected by teachers and their unions.

Why? I guess to protect the pay and conditions the teachers enjoy, but I think it also goes beyond that. I suspect it is as much to protect the leftist ideology pervading education. And that has to be bad.

I used to be on their side, but I now support choice and a greater variety of different schools with different methods of education. But I'm not so certain about the extremes. For example, is it OK for a religious school to teach creationism? I mean, creationism is obviously BS and "teaching" it might be better described as "inculcation", but choice is choice. If someone wants to learn BS which is likely to be useless to them in their life going forward, why shouldn't they?

Abortion

This is a really interesting issue with a lot of practical and philosophical nuance. Unfortunately, a significant fraction of people with strong opinions have conveniently ignored the nuance, and are convinced their side is right. Even more unfortunately, both sides are equally certain they are right, and both actually have good reason to think that.

So do I support the "pro-choice" or the "pro-life" side? These are both stated in positive terms, but they could also be called "pro-death" and "pro-repression" instead. Anyone who thinks the answer is easy really needs to examine their motivations, because this is anything but simple.

Trans rights

As a libertarian-leaning moderate I fully support free choice, so if people want to identify as a different gender than the one they were assigned at birth, or want to transition, or lead an alternative lifestyle of some sort, I won't object.

But (you knew there would be a "but", right?) that freedom shouldn't affect other people's lives in a significant way. For example, like Jordan Peterson, I don't support the compulsory use of new pronouns, although I think I would use them voluntarily in most cases.

And I don't support a trans person's automatic right to use facilities or enter competitions reserved for anything other than their true, biological gender (and yes, I know there are a small number of cases where that is ambiguous). If a woman wants to compete against a trans-woman (ex-man) voluntarily, that is fine, but there are separate competitions for the sexes for a reason, and that shouldn't be overridden by what is really just a personal preference (in most cases).

Social security vs business

All societies struggle with inequality, poverty, and the inability for some members to engage fully. What is the solution here? Should we improve economic outcomes for people by stimulating the economy and gaining more and better paid jobs? Or should we bypass the existing economic system (which presumably has caused this inequity) and offer government payments instead?

The answer is "yes". There are times when both of those options might be appropriate. In general, I favour a more free market approach, where the rules are set up in such a way that the market naturally provides better outcomes for everyone. But that often fails, so a government backed alternative is also sometimes necessary.

Immigration

I debated this subject with a friend recently and he made fun of the people at the extreme who reject all immigration. I pointed out that the people at the other extreme, who want open borders, are equally delusional.

So yet again, the moderate central position is the best. I support immigration for people who are likely to make the society in the country they are moving to better. I realise that is a very non-specific statement, but I think an approximation to something sensible is possible.

I would discourage automatic allocations of refugees, but I would encourage trying to solve the problems in the countries the refugees come from instead. I would also reject the idea of a social responsibility to require more immigration. In the end, the government should have the betterment of the lives of the citizens in the country they govern as their prime aim, not some ill-defined politically correct requirement dictated by (for example) UN bureaucrats.

Gun control

Well, we're having fun with all these contentious subjects, aren't we? Let's try another. I feel bad about repeating the same theme again, but many opinions on this subject come from ideology rather than common sense, science, or practicality.

The problem is that the people using guns in illegal ways tend to not be the fine, upstanding citizens who are likely to follow gun control laws. After the Christchurch mosque shooting New Zealand's government introduced new laws, including compulsory "buy backs" (actually confiscations), but since then gun crime here has increased. Should we consider that law - and others of its type - a failure? Similar laws in Australia, after a mass shooting there, superficially do seem to have worked. So are these laws always effective? Maybe, but maybe not.

So the correct way to handle this problem is certainly not obvious - at least, it shouldn't be.

Equality vs equity

And finally, the big one. The issue I see as being the primary point of difference between the modern left and right (loosely speaking). My interpretation of this is that one side wants equality, where everyone has the same opportunity to succeed; and the other wants equity, where everyone gets the same outcome.

An additional claim associated with this is that some groups, who don't succeed as much as others in the modern world, fail not because they are deficient in some way, but because society is biased against them. This leads to claims of systemic racism, sexism, etc.

In my opinion this is BS in most cases. Every group in society enjoys both benefits and disadvantages, no group is given extra privileges in law (except occasionally some minority groups), and most reasonable people do not discriminate significantly against minorities.

So, if one group is doing less well, that could more easily be caused by their attitude or culture, rather than societal bias (in other words, I *am* blaming the "victim"). Also, where the "majority" group isn't doing as well as expected, no one cares. For example, women outnumber men in universities, yet all the gender-based programs still favour women. This provides neither equity nor equality!

In summary, you can see that my views could be superficially seen as controversial, but in reality I do take a fairly reasonable and centrist approach to most subjects. So why do some people see me as extreme? It's their own attitudes they should look at: if a centrist like me seems extreme compared with them, then it is they who must be somewhere off on the fringe, not me!

Comment 1 (6409) by Anonymous on 2021-03-18 at 13:54:02: (view recent only)

"If someone wants to learn BS" - have you heard of informed consent? Imagine that a new generation of kids is schooled in Brian Tamaki's doctrine - and once they had jobs, a good portion of their incomes will be directed to Apostle Brian. Sounds fair. A caring society needs to ensure that an educational institution has standards and core curriculum. The state doesn't need to control everything, but completely opening up eduction is a bad idea - worked so well for tertiary institutions didn't it?

"I would discourage automatic allocations of refugees, but I would encourage trying to solve the problems in the countries the refugees come from instead."
Sounds great, but the "problems in the countries the refugees come from" aren't easily or quickly solved (can't see you suggesting any solutions), so what do you do in the meantime? Let people be tortured, starve and die? Now economic refugees are another issue...

Comment 2 (6411) by OJB on 2021-03-18 at 19:09:15:

Kids are already schooled without consent. It's just a matter of who is providing the unconsented teaching. At least, if there are a variety of options, the kids (or their parents) can choose, which increases the level of consent, I would have thought. I agree that certain basic standards imposed by the state might be a good - at least interim - idea. The question is, how much should be imposed by the state.

There are far more refugees than places in "civilised" countries to take them, so there will always be torture, starvation, and death. Maybe the cost of accepting and processing refugees would be better aimed at long term solutions in the countries of origin. And yes, I do have some ideas, but that's a bit much to discuss here.

Comment 3 (6412) by Anonymous on 2021-03-19 at 10:36:08:

No, it is not "It's just a matter of who is providing the unconsented teaching", it's also the nature of the content (intelligent design, for example).

"There will always be torture, starvation, and death", so your solution is to ignore the temporary suffering of people until their bigger problem is solved? If you are suggesting that the (relatively) small cost of taking refugees would make a dent in the large-scale problems some countries face (let alone suggesting that throwing money at these problems will solve anything), I think you are wrong.

Comment 4 (6413) by OJB on 2021-03-19 at 12:29:05:

There are some facts which are already decided for most people. For example, ID and creationism are clearly wrong, and evolution is right. But even then, alternative views should not be shut down. And many other subjects are very much more controversial. For example, I would have no faith that the new NZ history curriculum will be unbiased. So I think alternative views should be acceptable in every case, even though some of them seem almost entirely without merit to us.

I'm suggesting that by putting a temporary solution in place it is much easier to ignore the bigger problem. If we concentrated entirely on the bigger problem I think the long term outcomes would be better, even if there was some short term negative consequences.

This "small cost" you speak of is misleading. It is a small cost because only a small part of the problem is being tackled. There are millions of refugees and a few thousand are being accepted into other countries. Fix the inherent issues in the country of origin and they will all be helped.

Comment 5 (6414) by Anonymous on 2021-03-19 at 16:48:52:

"For example, I would have no faith that the new NZ history curriculum will be unbiased". Hmm, you may be right, maybe you are alt-right after all.

"I think the long term outcomes would be better", - so easy to say when it's not your life at risk. Try to exercise some understanding and remember these are people's lives you are referring to when you use the sanitised term "short term negative consequences".

Tackling a small part of the problem is better than not tackling it at all.

Actually, the term I used was "relatively small cost". Small work, but important. Tell me, how is it misleading?

Comment 6 (6415) by OJB on 2021-03-19 at 21:24:08:

It's possible, I suppose. But I know a lot of leftist people who are sick of the pro-Maori, delusional agenda we see with this government. Of course, I am not saying the curriculum *will* be biased - I'll wait until it is released to judge - just that I have little confidence it will be.

If we concentrated on the bigger picture, and tried to fix the political issues in the countries of origin, more people would have better lives. Short term thinking, like letting a few refugees in, is really just an easy way to feel good now.

I'm not advocating not tackling the problem; quite the contrary. I want it to be tackled properly.

It's sort of like saying we can make a significant change for small cost, but really it's just doing very little which is why it's cheap.

Comment 7 (6416) by OJB on 2021-03-20 at 10:06:42:

Yeah, I noticed I insinuated that being alt-right was a bad thing in the initial post, but if I am, purely through being realistic and seeing through the woke BS we get so often, then it doesn't worry me. If there are some elements of the alt-right in my beliefs, but my beliefs are based on rationality and facts, then I guess it's OK.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.