In the work, Brooks claims that political differences are ripping our country apart because people suffer from something known as motive attribution asymmetry. In short, motive attribution asymmetry is a belief that one’s opponent’s views are based in hate while one's own are based in love. Thus, MAA breeds contempt for the other.Yeah nah. Brooks is wrong. Let us get that out of the way right from the start.
US citizens are fracturing for these reasons and these reasons alone:
Most have IQs between 90 and 109, but now have platforms, which let them broadcast their opinions. Thus most spew unlearned opinions with ease.
And this is why the greedy and those of low-grade intellects are so easily conned by politicians, especially Democrats. Because most have IQs that fall between 90 and 109, most only concern themselves with WIIFMRN — What's in it for me right now?
The right things (concepts; questions) are not being debated, discussed because most have no understanding of what girds under their opinions — jurisprudence.
Most have no idea what jurisprudence is. The concept is too abstract for them.
Because they do not know jurisprudence, they know nothing about law (matching duty and right), freedom (absence of law in the presence of lawgivers) and anarchy (no law, no lawgivers).
Fundamental Differences: Positive and Negative Rights
Because they do not know jurisprudence, they know nothing of rights, especially the key division of rights — negative rights and positive rights.For there to be law, there must be a duty and a matching right. So a positive right has a positive duty and a negative right has a negative duty.
A positive right is one that requires others, typically lawgivers, to do duty that will improve the position of the holder of such a right. Thus, a positive right entitles its holder to gain an advantage.
A negative right is one that requires a party to refrain from an act which would operate to the prejudice of the person entitled to the negative right. Thus, a negative right entitles its holder the present position of things.
Libby progs believe that a system of positive rights will maximize their well-being while a system of negative rights is too risky.
Positive rights is the riskless position to take.
So getting free housing, free food, etc., is better than having to work for it because if one must work for it, one might not earn enough to have the same standard as free housing, free food, even though one could earn more and thus have higher standards in food and housing.
So in short, it comes down to this: "They owe me a better life" (positive rights) vs "They have duty not to harm me" (negative rights).
The redistribution of income aspect of socialism, i.e., "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," which social democrats push, is a kind of positive right. That is why they advocate for the evils of income taxes and welfare programs.
Property and War
Because they do not know jurisprudence, most do not know what property is. Stupidly, they think it is their respective lawns. They do not know it means right of ownership and not what is owned.
Politics is disguised civil war albeit not a shooting one. All wars are wars for property. Property is the right of ownership and never what is owned, whether chattel, works or promises.Said another way, do you own yourself, your possessions, the efforts of your labor, your claims against others when you pay them now for future return.
That is what this is all about.
US citizens have been in a civil war for decades. One side consists of the advocates of positive rights. You know them as "the left" or "Democrats." The other side are the advocates of negative rights. You know them as "the right." Many of their ranks are found in the Republicans, but many more are among the libertarians.
The positive rights faction has been winning since their first major win of the 16th Amendment and their later wins of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, TANF, Pell Grants, and so on.
Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Republicanism, and Capitalism?
Most do not know what capital is (property put to production in hopes of profit), what wealth is (property traded in a purchase and sale), what an asset is (property that can be become wealth toward settling a debt), and so on.
Most have no idea about the doctrines they believe they support or should support:
- socialism — no individual capital, property in possession; individual is subordinate to the government; sovereignty in the government, not individuals
- communism — no individual capital, no property in possession; individual is subordinate to the government; sovereignty in the government, not individuals
- fascism — individual capital for government objectives, property in possession; individual is subordinate to the government; sovereignty in the government, not individuals
- republicanism — individual capital, representative democracy; government is subordinate to individuals; fractional, co-equal sovereignty in each individual
Capitalism does not even belong as a kind of government structure because all capitalism means is using capital (property put to production) in pursuit of profit in purchases and sales of wealth.
So How Did US Citizens Get Here?
Demographics is destiny. The USA has become far less white. Said another way, the USA has become far more colored. The consequence has been to lower the average intelligence of the population.
And because the average intelligence has been falling, educational standards have fallen. This way, educators can appear to be as successful today as educators were in the long ago past merely touting deceptive comparative statistics such as graduation rates.
US citizens and US residents today are incapable of grasping the key tenets that gave rise to the Republic of the United States of America and why those tenets made the USA successful between 1781 and 1912.
For more on USA demographics:
Gab It
