Jonathan Haidt on Socialism and Human Nature



Albert Einstein is reputed to have said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results now there are two problems with this quote the first is that that's a really bad definition of insanity I hope to god Einstein didn't say that that's really a better definition of foolishness fortunately Einstein didn't say it it might have been Charlie Brown I don't know but you know the internet just tends to get credit wrong like that anyway but it's a useful phrase and I think it's really what we've all three been in wrestling with here why is it that people embrace very very bad economic ideas generation after generation and I think evolution is crucial in understanding why that is and so the adapted mind and the work of John and Lita which really created the field or opened up the field for psychologists to use evolutionary thinking and evolutionary tools they made it possible for us to think about human nature as Walt Whitman would have said do I contradict myself very well then I contradict myself I am large I contain multitudes of apps and motives I think that's the way he put it I'm not sure I it was from memory now actually I didn't get the memo about the Swiss Army knife being out so I sorry that's outdated but thinking about our minds as having just lots of stuff in it which reflects our evolution preparedness for this lifelong camping trip that we were on and now we live in a different way is a very very helpful way to think about human nature and understand puzzles especially recurrent puzzles when the same puzzles and problems and foolishness crop up over and over again generation after generation it's a good idea to look to human nature to figure out why a very short summary would be that it's so clear to me study in moral psychology that we evolved to do tribalism we have an enormous evolutionary heritage for tribalism we also evolved to trade we do have that as well we don't have is any evolutionary heritage that helps us or makes it easy for us to understand economics or evolution now I'm going to talk more about some of these moral foundations john lee too both mentioned the importance of policies meshing or not meshing with our evolved moral intuitions moral foundations so I'll talk about these topics first the foundations of morality so my own research is on where morality comes from how it works how it develops across cultures and in my in my last book i boiled moral psychology down to three three principles if you understand these three principles you understand moral psychology I don't have time to go through all three today I'm going to focus on the middle one that there are six intuitive foundations of morality now when I was in graduate school I was just so amazed that morality is so different around the world yet bits and pieces are so similar even in communities the culture that could never have communicated and I tried to reconcile this how can the insights of anthropology about variation be reconciled with what I was reading in evolutionary psychology about human universals and I just tried to map out well what are the what are the issues that the anthropologists all talk about in the earth nog Rafi and that the evolutionists have a good explanation for how it came about I didn't want to make any just so stories myself I wanted to take off-the-shelf evolutionary thinking and connect it to anthropological variation and these are my colleagues and I believe are the best six candidates there's more but these are the six really clear cases where humanity seems to have something some sort of app that makes us sensitive to certain environmental conditions so I'll run through these actually for today I'm only going to focus on the first three that's what we need to understand economic policy I'll briefly mention the others so care we are mammals and what that means by definition is mammary glands which means that we nurse our young which means that not just the female body is adapted for this long childhood but the female mind is adapted and in humans and others that have male investment the male mind is adapted as well so we care we are moved we are hurt we we feel compassion when we see a helpless innocent creature suffering this is clearly part of human nature there's a lot of evolutionary writing about attachment theory from John Bowlby and others now does all of this all of this software all of these apps do they play a role in our political lives of course they do these are photos that Emily Eakins and I took at Occupy Wall Street and you see a lot of stuff that occupy about compassion free empathy compassion is our new currency I can't hurt another without hurting myself I'm not saying that conservatives don't feel compassion I'm not saying that they don't love their children or their dogs but they don't base their political ideology or program suggestions on empathy in the same way that the left does here is a quotes funny I just was I'm teaching business ethics course two days ago one of my students from India we were talking after class and he said I was surprised to find that so many MBA students here at Stern support Sanders they say his economic ideas are silly but we need someone empathetic and honest so again if you're on the Left empathy is the proper foundation for moral and political programs second foundation fairness and cheating long a lot of evolutionary writing on reciprocal altruism from Robert rivers and others on the Left fairness 10c fairness has many meanings but on the left one of the meanings that really comes to the fore politically is the idea of equality equality is a kind of fairness so if the one percent owned forty three percent that is if so facto prima-facie unfair and you don't even need to ask if maybe you know Steve Jobs created a billion times more value than I did another sign marching for the meek and weary hungry and homeless tax the wealthy fair and square net everybody believes that the rich should be taxed fairly but what does fairness mean according to this sign as you see on the bottom how can they let us go hungry every day so fair taxation is taxing until there is not hunger anymore that would be fair because that would lead to equality it's linked to care this is a cartoon that's made the rounds on the internet over the last few years if you just look at it it makes a lot of sense I find it very emotionally powerful I thought about this for a long time until I realized the reason it's so emotionally powerful I think is because it looks like they're brothers and within a family as as Lita said you know common pool resources communal sharing within a family of course you want to do whatever it takes that everybody gets to enjoy the game within families we are indeed collectivists on most matters but if we were to extend this out to the whole country or the whole planet it would mean that as long as there is someone who can't see we must take from those who can't see same thing with money so I think that if you understand the moral emotions you can see why certain images can be so powerful but sometimes they don't mean exactly what what you might think at first what we find empirically is that conservatives see fairness very differently they tend to focus on proportionality these are photos Emily took Emily kentuc at a tea party rally stop punishing success with a progressive tax rate stop rewarding failure with welfare and bailing people out so it seems much colder and harder but again if you're going to try to get cooperation going and you want to stop Free Riders this is the kind of fairness that you need third foundation Liberty and oppression and the key psychology here comes from a wonderful book by a Christopher Bohm called hierarchy in the forest he studied a variety of tribal groups as well as chimpanzees and he documents what he calls a reverse dominance hierarchy that even among chimpanzees but certainly among humans they're very human hunter-gatherer groups are very egalitarian but he says they were obsessive about anybody acting like an alpha one person rises up it's not that just that others dislike them it's that there's an urge to band together and take him down and once you understand that urge as it's like as an app as a response to bullying or aggressive alpha male now you can understand the flag of Virginia I moved to Ibis at UVA for 16 years it took me a while to notice that there's a dead person on the flag now why would there be a dead person on your flag because the flag was created in 1770 something when the American I should say the English people living in North America rebelled against the English king and they had to justify Sic Semper Tyrannis thus always to tyrants it's exactly what Boehm talks about the Declaration of Independence is a long list of the grievances justifying art taking him down getting rid of him and now you can understand this image from Occupy Wall Street if the 99% could get together they could crush and kill the 1% again it's exactly the mechanism that Boehm is talking about it's an app that gets triggered in some people not in others now here there's some real left-right symmetry the Tea Party sees government as the bully and oppressor and the while whereas the the left sees the rich and corporations so there's a lot of similarity you just to have a different oppressed we have a lot of data on this on how people vary but politically on these moral foundations at my if you go to your morals org you can take our surveys I'll just show you a summary of our major survey that gives you scores on all the different moral foundations and what you can see is that when when people come to our site and they register and they say that they're on the right they actually give fairly high scores on all of these foundations they endorse all of them now here I've graphed out fairness of proportionality if I put a quality with a slope of the other way but I don't think there's an equality foundation when people come to our site and they say they're on the Left they prioritize care very high scores on all questions about care and compassion and nurturing that is the dominant aspect of their morality fairness and liberty actually takes second place to care you can see this in a sign that Emily and I saw at at occupy equality now liberty later I found that libertarians love this sign they love to put it in all the magazines and things like that so if these are we all have the same moral foundations but for a variety of reasons be it personal differences or the ideological stories you buy into we build moralities on different sets of foundations let me now talk about libertarians because if our goal here is to understand the eternal attraction of socialism and we're actually saying it's sort of normal human psychology it's quite useful to turn it around and say well who are these libertarians what what's up with them why is it that they are so opposed to socialism and my group happens to have I think the best dataset in the world on libertarian psychology first I'll start by noting as we all know libertarians are not conservatives as Senator hatch said when he was challenged by some libertarians in a primary these people are not conservatives they're not Republicans there are radical libertarians and I'm doggone offended by it I despise these people now so my colleagues and I at your most org we have we have hundreds of surveys that we put up online we've had a half million people come to the site and fill them out which means that we have it's not nationally represented data so our sampling is terrible but our measurement is superb there's always that trade-off so we have data from lots of people and lots of studies so we were able to draw from that because we also do something that few other places do when you come and you register a lot of places don't even ask politics in fact I'd love to know in your data on the the variance whether you know left-right did you measure their politics in that studies in who go and whether they in the the Avatar game where they who do they reassigned to okay well you okay no but in all of your search I would urge you to do okay so at so at your morals when people come to register you can say that you are liberal or on the Left I try to say progressive nowadays what we used to say liberal or whether you're on the right and then we offer the option of saying libertarian because libertarians cannot easily be placed normally on that dimension as a result we have data from tens of thousands of libertarians which Gallup in other places generally don't they don't generally ask that so in the date I'm about to show you about twelve thousand libertarians eighty percent male and that is significant among the liberals it's only forty nine percent male so we made up a this is how we actually did our original research into the Liberty Foundation we generated a bunch of items about economic Liberty like people who are successful in business should have a right to enjoy their wealth lifestyle Liberty a little different I think everyone should be free to do as they choose so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others and what you see here is data graphed out by whether you're any of the left categories in blue the right categories in red or if you're libertarian and when we look at the lifestyle liberty we see that libertarians are highest they're highest on both kinds but their highest and joined by liberals in questions that have anything to do about sexual freedom LGBT rights things like that so libertarians and progressives are often allies but if we look at economic matters it's different they're libertarians are highest again but they're joined with conservatives this is and the gap with the left is huge on these economic Liberty items this is why I think libertarians more typically vote republican than democrat the other trait that I'll tell you about but we've looked at a lot of them this is the sort of the master trait that summarizes all the others I'd say Simon baron-cohen the leading autism researcher that we all start off as well as the fact we all start off as girls in utero but then if a Y chromosome is present a little bit of testosterone pulses out changes the body and brain when the brain has changed from the female pattern over to the male pattern it seems on average that the brain changes so that it gets a little better at systemising at thinking about analyzing variables in a system deriving underlying rules and it gets a little worse at empathizing about identifying another person's emotions thoughts and things like that so there is an average male female difference Baron Cohen says that autism is really just if you're really high on systemising and really low and empathizing that's what we call your at one end on the autism spectrum um so this is sort of a master personality variable for cognitive kinds of traits and here's the data so we took we took about half of his items it's a very long survey and what you see is that libertarians are the highest on systemising and libertarians are the lowest on empathizing those black bars in the middle libertarians in fact are the only group of the three groups for whom their scores on these surveys were actually higher on systemising than empathizing in terms of their absolute scores progressives are the opposite so libertarians have what you might call the most masculine cognitive style it doesn't mean they're macho it just means that on all the kinds of cognitive traits where you find a male/female difference libertarians are more male and we do these analyses with insects so even if you just look at women women who are attracted libertarianism have a much more masculine cognitive style than women who are attracted to progressivism in some libertarians are the highest on all traits related to rationality and intelligence but they are the lowest on all traits related to emotionality there's one exception there's one emotion on which libertarians rule that is the emotion of reactance reactance is the anger you feel when someone tells you that you can't do something or when they try to control you so here are the questions in the survey I find contradicting others stimulating I don't know about if how many people here from Cato but I would guess that Cato people who work at Cato probably will score higher on that then people who work at that other thing tanks when something is prohibited I usually think that's a exactly what I'm going to do like this so here's the sort of quintessential example of reactance when the soda ban was reversed so libertarians value Liberty more and they value most other moral values less compared to progressives or conservatives they rely on reason more and emotion less and they have the most masculine cognitive style so this I think helps us we can see how even though we all have the same apps they either have different settings or summer on the home screen others you know for progressive you'd have to kind of swipe swipe swipe swipe before you find so so and so that's all I'll say about libertarians now the third thing is let's talk briefly about collective narratives I think this helps why there's an enduring appeal and why a certain mindset takes over institutions such as the Academy or Wall Street for that matter so collective narratives my favorite quote in all of the social sciences if I had a pick one is this from Clifford Geertz paraphrasing Max Weber man is an animal suspended in webs of significance that he himself has spun that's what social life is we kind of make it up and then we live in it and many of you will recognize this is essentially what William Gibson was doing when he created those books and the movies about the matrix the matrix he said is a consensual hallucination as a social scientist as a social psychologist this is just beautiful because this is what we study is how do we hallucinate this and then why does it have such a grip on us but it does when I moved to the business school it's at NYU in 2011 I had no interest in business I just wanted to be in New York City to promote the righteous mind but I began learning about capitalism I'd know nothing about it before practically I began learning about capitalism and business and I discovered that there are two very very different stories being told there's the one which is dominant in most of the university and on Occupy Wall Street about capitalism is basically exploitation and then there's the one I was learning in the business school and I read a history of capitalism about no capitalism is is liberation its value creation and I thought it was fascinated by these because both are formed in two totally cohesive self-contained narratives that are demonstrably true all you have to do is look at the newspaper and you can see how true this story is but there are two different incompatible stories and over time I sort of animated these into a PowerPoint talk and then I hired somebody to turn that into a video so I'm going to show you now two ninety second videos just before we start please what you do is so reach into your heads that your switches turn your care and fairness settings up to 11 please and if you have a systemized this way turn that down to three okay got it all right roll the video please cord maybe I do it by here let's see Once Upon a Time work was real and authentic farmers raised crops and craftsmen made goods with their own hands but then capitalism was invented and darkness spread across the land as the smokestacks of the Industrial Revolution covered everything in soot the capitalists became ever more skilled at extracting productivity from workers and pocketing the gains from their labor the workers eventually fought back by unionizing in the early 20th century as the brutality and stupidity of capitalism were exposed many governments granted workers some protection their competitors democratic welfare states were born but the capitalists and the right-wing cronies were unrelenting and in many countries they have destroyed the unions slashed regulations and given the corporation's free rein to exploit at work so the rich get richer the rest of us get poor our democracy gets weaker and the planet gets hotter it is now the duty of every decent person to join the fight against global capitalism and the super predators it has unleashed upon us if that's a coherent story it has a once-upon-a-time and as a clear villain it has a trajectory and it tells you what we need to do now I'll show you the second story and what I want you to note is it's exactly the same structure I literally wrote out a table with two columns in certain slots I just plugged in different content but it's the same structure oh and before you watch please turn your liberty and systemising up to eleven and turn care and empathizing down to three enjoy the show once upon a time almost everyone has a serf or a slave kings and feudal lords took most of what people produce so nobody has much reason to work but then in the 17th century capitalism was invented and the liberation began in England Holland in America they discovered that when you give people property rights the rule of law and free markets you turn on a switch in their hearts people want to work when they can keep the fruits of their labor they want to invent new products provide for their children and be useful to others free market capitalism enables them to do these things in the 20th century some countries embraced communism and centralized planning always with the same result shortages of everything including food and freedom put countries that embraced capitalism and grown prosperous in a single generation yet despite the evidence of history the left wing of Galit Aryans are unrelenting and whenever they get control of a government their first target is economic freedom the egalitarian don't want to live in a world in which people who create more value for others get to enjoy more wealth for themselves they'd rather that everyone be equal and equally poor it is now the duty of every decent person to join the fight to protect capitalism and to extend its blessings to all of humankind okay well I could take a vote on which one you prefer but I think that's probably not necessary all right so if there are these two coherent stories that are organizing political groups political parties will not necessarily parties but if there are these coherent stories out there what do we do is there a way forward do we need a third story I'm not sure what the answer is to that but I think that it's important for all of us to recognize that both of these stories actually have a lot of truth to them even if you even if you prefer one the other one does have some real truth to it what I'm finding is I'm traveling around many countries I'm writing a book on morality and capitalism and I'm finding that across countries the left generally stands for decency even at the cost of dynamism and the right generally stands for dynamism even at the cost of decency and so just from the last couple days while I was preparing this talk American capitalism has there's a lot of there's a lot of humiliation there is a lot of suffering there are a lot of people who fall through the cracks certainly from a European perspective we have embraced dynamism to the point of ignoring decency this was just this morning on the plane down I you know anew all these leaks going on some very clear examples in Wisconsin exactly how corporations bought legislation so there's a lot of truth to that first story and so I understand why they say look we you know if you just have unbridled freedom this is what you get is this kind of corruptions this is why we need to enforce we need to get more equality I understand that but I also came across while preparing this talk this quote from Milton Friedman a society that aims for equality before Liberty will end up with neither equality nor Liberty it always ends up when the initial efforts to force a quote to create equality don't work they end up pushing harder and harder and harder and a society that aims first for liberty will not end up with equality but it will end up with a closer approach to equality than any other kind of system that has ever been developed so I think it's certainly worth at least meditating on that it seems like it is true to me so what can we do so that we don't have this eternal Groundhog Day of recurrence of bad economic thinking I have four suggestions the first is boy it sure would help if we could reduce the role of money in politics and make that first story less true about how power and legislation happen in this country second I've been reading Yuval Evans a wonderful book fractured Republic and I'm now a big fan not just of his but of his eye of the importance of subsidiarity of having things dealt with at the lowest level possible not kicking it up to the federal government which has a terrible record of solving problems so subsidiarity combined with a general orientation towards experimentation let's try a program and if it really does undermine incent have perverse incentives we'll know it and then we'll stop we won't just roll it out to the whole country so subsidiarity plus experimentalism as the way to deal with social problems I think would give us much better economic economically sound policy and programs third if I were if I were king and there were no constitutional limits on what I could do I would reduce the amount of math we make kids learn it's a kind of a 19th century idea that if we make them exercise their brain on this they'll get smarter it's not true even scientists don't generally need that much math what we need is a populace that is literate in analytical thinking and so a year of Statistics and a year of economics would do wonders for economic thinking as we saw in in John's example of a single economics course as an undergraduate my fourth suggestion is that I think we need to increase viewpoint diversity in the Academy as we've heard the there's a kind of a very much pro socialist way of thinking in most two part in many departments at universities we need to expose students to at least a variety of ways of thinking this graph shows how the academy has changed in the last 20 or 30 years the left/right ratio used to be just two to one as late as 1996 if you're a representative sample of all professors in 1996 the blue line on top is people who said they were on the Left only twice as many people on the Left is the right and that's fine with me I don't care about equality I just want to make sure that if someone says something from a leftist or writers perspective someone out there will challenge it that's what I want but over the next 15 years things have changed now it's five to one and most of the non leftists there are in engineering schools or dental schools if you look at the core areas of the humanities and social scientists it's between ten to one and fifty to one left to right that's why I and some other colleagues started an organization called heterodox Academy Lita and John are members and any professors who are out there watching this talk I urge you to go to heterodox Academy org and join we're just trying to say diversity is good and we have diversity of thinking so if we can do those things I think and hope that we will have at least a little less foolishness going forward thank you




Comments
  1. It would appear that balance between trains of thought would be a good place to start. One party hell-bent on eliminating the other goes against what has kept this country strong. We need the exchange of ideas because neither side is totally right. That means cooperation and right now we can't even talk to one another.

  2. Einstein never gave advice..he gave proof that is why he is respected! …OK , but NOT by purveyors of "TRUTH" such as Mr Haidt

  3. Did anyone else catch the info and about 9:23: equality has no foundation in "fairness". That's the take-away for me in this talk. Life is not fair, little snowflake.

  4. As much as you hear 'diversity is a good thing', there is a difference between 'good diversity' and 'bad diversity'… Just the same a difference between 'compromise' and 'reasoning'.

  5. please do not vilify capitalism if you own the clothes on your back, have a phone, tv, computer, radio, home, apt, not hungry…. It comes down to choice! just like Al Gore who yells global warming yet flies a gas guzzler and drives one as well on a property heated by fossil fuel….

  6. The strength in his work is his ability to synthesize information. I wish I could find a university course on solely synthesis. It is the back bone of string theory, plate tectonic theory, etc. Our goal on theories should be to pinpoint the meeting ground of logical positivism and constructivism.

  7. "Empathy" has it's limits and becomes harmful past a certain point, even unethical. If your helping platform is pure empathy, you will get nowhere and your charges will falter badly. It seems also to have much more to do with the feelings of those helping than those being helped. This is where it fails the motive test in the ethical analysis. While many cultural ethical systems have a strong emphasis on motive for action, it seems to be almost entirely absent in the western Christian model and discussion.

  8. Primate brains and mammalian subconscious executive function… collective unconscious, tacit motives. Seems to be a flawed function of this and consensus that takes hold of decision making.

  9. Jonathan talks a lot about the lack of representation of the right in education, what I never hear is why. He makes it sound as if the liberal wing at colleges drives out or refuses to higher conservatives, but I don't think I've seen him provide evidence for that. How much of it is that, how many conservative applications are rejected per year? How much is it conservatives abandoning the field for more lucrative business positions then education in social science fields provide? Etc.

  10. Not fooling anybody with this centrist schtick. Liberals in the US are center right wing. Haidts project is to build consensus between the right and the center in order to erase the actual left.

  11. I had 2 years of college calculus, but only used the first year for the next 30 years while designing power supplies and battery chargers.

  12. So-called conservatives have empathy in the sense that they are more interested in free market Commerce which benefits more than if we have a socialist based Market which benefits very few as the historical evidence indicates.

  13. On thing that puzzles me is why Progressives, with their emphasis on Care as a foundation of morality, do not appear to care about the victims of socialism. The 90m dead at the hand of communists, the starvation on the streets of Venezuela. I am not trying to fight socialism, just understand what appears to me to be a lack of empathy.

  14. My only complaint is that his division of political thought does not contain the Classical Liberal. Individual liberty, democracy, rule of law, free trade, freedom of speech, minimum government, low taxation. Conservatives share many of these values but not all.

  15. Idea: make paid lobbying illegal. If you want to lobby the government, you have to go there and do it yourself. That would take a lot of the money out of politics.

  16. LOL – ROFLMAO If the 99% rose up and killed the 1% the 99% would starve! They like to eat their own. Anyone who is successful needs to be afraid. It's actually easier to steal from others than it is to do for yourself….over all, Millennials are more about Taking than Making.

  17. please insert a mild explosive devise up this mans sphincter before I even listen to what he may have to say

  18. I just don't get the examples. Obama a left-wing progressive? He's right of centre, surely. And a liberal is left wing? Churchill was a Liberal and as right wing as they come. Libertarians are not socialists? They can be. I understand what you are getting at but it all seems to be back to front with the examples and the names. Liberals want to LIBERALISE things = less regulation = right wing normally. Libertarians want LIBERTY. They are anti-authority – Ayn Rand is RIght wing libertarian, Noam Chompsky is a left wing libertarian.

  19. Using the term "progressives" is a term with an inherent bias towards promoting itself. It has an emotional appeal and is not "neutral". Wouldn't we all prefer to be considered "progressive" rather than "regressive" (shudder!!!). After all, what are you "progressing" towards? Surely all libs, cons, and Lt's are attempting to progress towards a determined outcome of their particular liking. DR. Haight (and others) please use the term liberal. It is descriptive without the left promoting inherent bias.

  20. Just keep in mind, that every pschologist is biast. It has a much bigger influence on there work than in natural sciences, cause nearly no psychologic study is undependent of the persons choosen for the test and persons variate a lot in their behaivor.

  21. "…turn you fair and careness settings to 11." Nice Spinal Tap reference. This guy is pretty good. He does say things similar to what Jordan Peterson says, but he's a bit more eloquant.

  22. Fire is a great benefit to humanity but one can't let it run amok; it must be carefully controlled or we lose everything. Same with capitalism!

  23. Corruption takes down everything. Even the rich are poor with the suicide rates to show the fact. The unions can become corrupt too and self destruct. I think man needs God to function and help restrain our tendency to lie . Foolish to keep trying without Him. Then we take religion and corrupt that!

  24. Another brainwashed liberal professor! Only liberal knows empathy? I think you need to look at which political party are inherently racist, slave owners, kkk, and mass murders.

  25. Cato institute is a good example of spending immense amounts of time and money to try to prop up trickle-down voodoo economics and conservative prejudices like racism and classism.

  26. The pillar idea that welfare rewards failure is not entirely wrong but it's certainly not well intentioned a lot of the time.

  27. Lets see, fairness and human nature. Well, to address the "cruelty" factor of capitalism that can ignore people that slip through the cracks, social programs were born (set up and administered by humans). Predictably, many people scam(ed) the social programs, and they and others think it "fair" that others support them. This tells me that you need to look a little harder at the so called value of "fairness" among humans – as it is practiced vs how it is understood. For example, a human that possesses a working voice box and that can speak a language can voice the words, "I care about the environment", and?

  28. 15:00 This is so true! I love to react and make people react. I'm a libertarian and vote for social freedom and economic restriction when it comes to the Government. I'm not pro-abortion, though I would be fine with a ban on 12-week abortions. The term 'pro-choice' is idiotic. You've chosen to risk pregnancy and you lost. That's your choice. If it's about the right to your own body then a man should be allowed to abort the baby because it was his body that gave its sperm. I am fine with State government exploring new ways to solve issues such as drugs, crime, and law enforcement unless it restricts the lives of its citizens. I am pro-gun, pro-legalization, and I am not an isolationist like so many libertarians are. I am also an environmentalist and will recycle something if I can and do not litter, but I do not force it onto others. I feel that forcing a choice onto others will cause a backlash. I am leaning more to allow for cities to have a smaller residential garbage bins to push them to recycle, but don't do this for towns or rural areas. The only gun-free zones should be private businesses (if they choose to), public schools (including universities), and hospitals; maybe one or two others. I think the best way to reduce shootings is to increase security and reduce gun-free zones and uphold gun laws. I don't think teachers should have a firearm unless it's a rural school and they choose to. Schools need better security. I would give Obama a D- only because he seemed to hit the emotion of the citizens correctly. I give Trump a B+ because of the opposite of Obama. Trump is doing his job extremely well but antagonizes his critics which splits apart the country more. I don't think he can appease his critics though. I do think there is "Fake News" but it's more so "Misleading News". I think the Democrats will lose big in the 2018 mid-terms and it will get worse. Civil War will not officially happen but will end up being more riots, more protesting, more shootings, more crime, all from the far-left.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *