It seems to me, nothing says I have an open mind, like a refusal to hear contradictory opinions… or so that is the green movement’s stand, when they outlaw debate about man made global warming. The joke about open minds notwithstanding, the closed mindedness of those in the progressive, Fabian, Frankfurt school, socialists, communists and Marxists, are not just laughing stock but is a very real and existential danger. The global warming scam is but one of the many examples, where those of the autocratic anti property faction (AAPF) blindly follow doctrine, when in all logic they should know better. They claim to be the heirs of the enlightenment movement but in fact they are the philosophical descendants of those the enlightenment movement defeated. Brass tacks is this, the real debate going on in the man made global warming scam, progressing us to ever and ever larger government, and all the other scams the new class AAPF are doing, is based on two basic arguments, do you favor arbitrary rule or limited government, and do we bow blindly to the power of authority or settle argument by debate and reason?
For some reason, the AAPF eschews reason when it comes to testable economic policies, instead adhering to their old doctrinal stance. Socialism has failed every time it has been tried, spectacularly in some instances, leading to the deaths directly related to the efforts to socialize the economy and usurp the power to implement those changes, of over a hundred million people in the twentieth century alone, and yet the AAPF in their hearts honestly believe it can work… this time. Every prediction of the man made global warming alarmists has shockingly, not come true, yet they still hold to the idea that unless government gets arbitrary rule and the supreme power of authority in all matters, the planet will burst into flame at any minute. If that is not religious fervor I don’t know what is! Their doctrine has been proven in the real world, over and over to be false, yet they cling to it like a drowning man a rope.
The debate about arbitrary rule or justice is not new to our time. The ancients debated these topics all the time, the difference is, the debate was withing the elite, since there were no means of mass dissemination information by books, mail, newspapers, email, etc… Also the debate was on topic, where today the debate is blurred by class warfare, false patriotism, fear, unending war, party loyalty, ignorance used as a weapon, etc… Moreover, the debate was settled in favor of justice. The weight of literature ancient and modern all take the side, both logical and philosophical, that justice is superior to arbitrary rule.
Plutarch’s Lives can be said to be a commentary on the debate between arbitrary rule and limited government as well as moral biographies. Plutarch’s epilogues to his biographies often balanced on the subject’s stance on arbitrary rule or justice. The life of Dion is illustrative of the open debate and gives ammo to both sides. Socrates actually debated Thrasymachus whether arbitrary rule or justice was best in The Republic. There has always been and always will be, a faction that believes arbitrary rule is best, that faction is always on the side of autocrats, dictators and tyrants, well, until they vie for the same power, then they become mortal enemies… Trump and Hillary for example.
The debate about relying on authority or argument as the final arbiter was supposed to have been settled by the Enlightenment. The advance was that the Church’s iron grip on what was acceptable to think, believe and say, was broken by academics, drinking in the new logic of the marketplace that instead argued, open debate and the free mingling of opinions, was the best way to answer questions, and voila, the age of enlightenment was born. Suddenly anything was possible. Scientific advances theretofore unimaginable were appearing in newspapers every day, the enlightenment freed humanity from the shackles of dogma, to endless possibilities.
You cannot convince someone who is closed minded to change their mind, that cannot be done, you debate a zealot to point out his closed mindedness, and thus show his arguments to be circular. The debate between arbitrary rule and justice has been settled and so it must be called something else, so those who support arbitrary rule can justify it by some other means, social justice (arbitrary rule by another name) trumping justice. Calls to authority, like banning debate on global warming, safe spaces in college where children never have to hear an opinion not sanctioned by new class intellectuals, double standards in criminal matters as well as every aspect of life, etc… will only get stronger the more the AAPF win the present debate and we get more arbitrary rule with less justice. Closed mindedness is a hallmark of those who defend arbitrary rule and authority, seeing who they are is as easy as looking at what they stand on. Anyone who demands we bow to authority and seeks arbitrary rule will have a closed mind and be zealous in their determination. Those are the people we must keep out of power.