Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 13, 2019

March 12

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that complains about social media censoring conservative views such as those about sexuality. This appeared in Heidelblog

The censorship complained about above flows multiple ways. It sometimes strikes conservative views on issues while at other times it strikes leftist views. And it can be very defensive over statements made about Israel. And FB is not the only platform where the censors feel that they can strike at any post with impunity. At least, all of that has been a part of my experiences.

But some of the conservative complaint about how it is treated in social media seems to proceed without any self-awareness. That is especially true regarding LGBT issues. On the one hand, Clark complains about how those who oppose the sexual revolution are negatively portrayed as bigots. At the same time, he seems to be frustrated by the fact that the Millennials who now, according to Clark, seem to be in charge of the censorship, never knew of a time when homosexuality was considered to be immoral and illegal.

That combination causes some to question whether all who who oppose the sexual revolution form a monolith. Is a necessary part of rejecting the sexual revolution entail not just the marginalization of the LGBT community in society, but the opposition to the legalization of homosexual acts.

In one sense, I can't wait for Millennial Christians to take the place the current old guard. For the old guard, because of its past privileged place in society has learned to take much of its privilege status for granted. And thus it feels comfortable while living in denial of the harm it has caused to others.

Perhaps one more inconsistency should be pointed out here. While Clark has on more than one occasion complained about others censoring conservative views, he sees no inconsistency with him feeling very free in censoring comments that merely irritate him. He certainly has the right to censor comments on his blog; after all, it is his blog. But the inconsistency of complaining about others for doing what he himself feels free to do is inconsistent. One wonders whether the real reason for his complaints about conservative views being censored is that he believes that conservative views should receive privileged status over all other views.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Mark Malvasi and his blogpost progressivism in democracy. In that article, he made the case that only a strong centralized government could keep a strong corporate sector in check. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Those who say that size is the issue or on which sector, the public or private, we should primarily depend miss the real problems that confront us. Government is like love in that size is not the issue, fidelity is. So when voters vote for representatives whom they hope to ignore until the next election, they are strongly inviting our governmental officials to embrace infidelity.

Likewise, to dis government involvement in the business world and market in the name of individualism and freedom is to forget that the primary interest of business and the market in any capitalist system is to maximize personal profits. It's not that we won't see a number of exceptions to the pursuit of maximizing profits in the business world and market, it is that  the Capitalist economic system directs its participants to pursuing self-interest and profit at the expense of people especially when those people do not contribute to the maximization of profits.

And those dissing governmental intervention in the business world and free market forget that in a working democracy, the government acts as a representative of the people. Thus to limit the government's voice to businesses and the participants in the market is to mute the voice of the people as they speak to businesses and the market.
Power does follow wealth in a Capitalist economic system. So perhaps focusing on changing that basic truth could play a role in the solution. Noting that centralizing power only encourages making the pursuit of self-interest an ethic that becomes more prevalent in society, redistributing power so that those from different economic classes and other groups must learn to listen to each other is at least part of the solution. What could emerge from structures that require people from different economic classes to collaborate and cooperate is the production of more people who learn that they need to pursue the multiple interests of all stakeholders along with self-interest in order to produce both and adequately prosperous and just society. The sticky point here is whether enough people in society will be willing to trade an adequately prosperous economy in order to further social justice for the maximization of personal profits. Our survival here depends on us choosing wisely.

Malvasi's article is helpful but misses the important points made above to varying degrees. In addition, he seems to forget that his claim that Wilson used a strong centralized government to hold businesses in check does not account for the policy decision that increased the profits of many businesses the most during his tenure: it was his support for England and France beforehand and his eventual decision to enter the US into WW I. In defense of that entry, Wilson also used the powers of a strong centralized government to incarcerate many who opposed the war. And one of the biggest beneficiaries of the American entry into the war was American banks who stood to lose a lot of money if England and France lost the war.