fbpx

176. Answering Your Mailbag Questions

Today is mailbag day! So, I’ll be answering your Mailbag Questions. Before I dive into those questions, I’ll be talking about a tweet of mine that went viral and why I think it did. Plus, I’ll discuss how people misunderstood what I was getting at with the tweet. Then, I’ll talk about what I really was trying to get at.

After that, I’ll dive into the three mailbag questions I have. Have a question you want answered? Let me know on my contact page or on Twitter.

“Women’s natural role is to be a pillar of the family.”

Grace Kelly

I was trying. to show that the ideal we put forth was different in the 50’s than it is today. Not only that, but it is something that we have to choose as a society. We will have to choose which we encourage and promote, because if we don’t, others will choose for us. But, I think people took it as a broad statement about the 50’s versus today, which it wasn’t. I think the reason this struck a cord is that we have a strong faction trying to undermine the family, and push us into an asexual, single adult life.

Subscribe here to keep up with the Conversation of Our Generation:

The Mailbag Questions:

  1. In a more Christian society, would you support the repeal of the 19th Amendment? –Freed Feminism
  2. In a perfect world, what would each party do to not divide ourselves to a level of easy control?
  3. As a libertarian, where do you think conservatives like Russell Kirk and Roger Scruton go wrong? Do you find yourself becoming more conservative or libertarian as you read them? – @TheClassicalCon

Thoughts on Question 1

I think the ladies at Freed From Feminism posed this question, and I think it’s an “it depends” situation. If we lived in a Catholic theocracy, I’d say we wouldn’t need the 19th Amendment. But, the question is if I’d repeal it, and I can’t imagine taking that away.

Furthermore, they ask about the 19th Amendment specifically, so that would imply we’re talking about under our system. If that’s the case, I’d say no. The reason is that we live under a democratic republic, and I believe that all capable adults should be able to participate in our political process. We should limit who can participate by their understanding of the system, rather than any immutable characteristics. Not to mention, if women were in a more traditional role, as I think these ladies would like to see based on our conversation, I they would bring a different perspective to how we’re governed.

Thoughts on Question 2

There are a number of things we can do to push back against the divisiveness in our country. For an in depth look, check out this episode. But, to answer the question here, I think we need to have common assumptions about the world. Or, if that’s not possible, at least be able to have discussions that get to the level of our base assumptions. If we can’t share a framework, we need to be able at least to understand others’ frameworks and how they approach problem.

Thoughts on Question 3

As I read conservatives like Scruton (since I’ve not yet read Kirk), I do find myself becoming more conservative. I had strong libertarian leanings growing up because I believe we do have to hold liberty as a primary political value in our country. We’re based on liberty, listing it as the second thing a government is to protect after life itself. But, my understanding of conservatism has deepened as I learn the perspective from people who can steelman the position. Instead of a soft and politically partisan version of conservatism, people like Scruton, Kirk, and Chesterton put forth a conservatism rooted in Christianity and philosophy.

I reacted against a Republican Party that claimed to be conservative, but seemed to just ask liberals to slow their pace. And, they often turn their back on things they should want to conserve. However, they turn toward interventionism, abdicating legislative authority, and a strong central government.

212. Antitrust and Big Tech | Why Conservatives Should Tread Carefully Conversation of Our Generation

I had the chance to sit down and speak with Ashley Baker, an expert in antitrust. We discussed antitrust and big tech, and how conservatives should fight back against tech. Ashley is the Policy Director for the Committee for Justice, Expert at the Regulatory Transparency Project, and works with the Alliance on Antitrust. So, she knows what she's talking about, and it shows. Dive into the conversation below to learn more about these issues and what Ashley recommends. What is Antitrust? Antitrust is basically a set of legal principles, laws, and precedents that inform us on how to handle anti-competition behaviors of companies. Big businesses may work with other organizations to undermine competition in the economic landscape, which is what antitrust seeks to prevent. Since businesses are built to beat their competition, they can hinder their competition's ability to succeed. However, they cannot work to destroy competition itself. And, that is where antitrust comes into play. There are many examples of antitrust violations we can point to, but the basics of antitrust is that we want to promote a competitive environment. Antitrust Laws and How They Relate to Big Tech You may be familiar with antitrust laws like the Federal Trade Commission Act, which gave us the FTC, or the Sherman Act. But, antitrust law is much more than a couple acts passed by Congress. In fact, much of what governs antitrust policy is precedent, and that's where conservatives have to be careful. If we are to regulate big tech companies through antitrust policy, we need to beware of how it'll effect other aspects of law. That's why I am so grateful to Ashley for coming on to discuss the antitrust efforts and big tech. She shows how antitrust cases inform our laws, and how we might apply that to Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon. Antitrust and Big Tech We must do something about big tech need, but what? First we must understand a few things. Are big tech companies monopolies? Does big tech violate antitrust law in the United States? What can we do to regulate big tech? We'll find the answers to each of these questions in the particulars. There's no simple answer. Rather, the devil is in the details. How Conservatives Should Fight Back Against Big Tech Our politics leans towards slogans and partisanship, rather than real solutions. The answer to this problem won't fit neatly in a 10-point plan or some ideology. Instead, we have to grapple with the principles at play and the particulars of the situation. Through prudence, we can find a solution. Check out this episode: Antitrust and Big Tech | Why Conservatives Should Tread Carefully Subscribe to the Conversation of Our Generationersation of Our Generation Podcast here Check out the YouTube video here — Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/conofourgen/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/conofourgen/support
  1. 212. Antitrust and Big Tech | Why Conservatives Should Tread Carefully
  2. 211. Elitism and Prideful Disdain | A Nasty Story by Fyordor Dostoevsky
  3. 210. Political Action and the Call to "Do Something"
  4. 209. Breaking the Rules of Philosophy
  5. 208. Failures of Modernity and Rationality

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: