Matthew Zink Rebutting All Articles
Matthew Zink (Socialism)
I’m in a very fortunate position as an editor in that I have the opportunity to thoroughly read and re-read all of the articles and rebuttals before publication multiple times. Unfortunately, that also leaves me in a bit of a pickle with this issue since all my objections to pieces have been raised by other authors in their rebuttals.
So, I’m going to do something a bit different this time around. I’m going to ask each author to expand on one point they raised that I think needs clarification or explanation.
Conor Barnes (Centrism) The New Paternalists:
At the end of his article, Mr. Barnes wrote: “We inoculate ourselves against the temptation to the hysterical violence of extremism by improving our civil institutions and by continuing to cultivate and teach the virtues necessary for a free society of individuals, such as intellectual humility and rationality.”
I think this is a great long term solution, but it fails to address the short term problem of people who aren’t willing to listen to each other or any critical views of their ideology (on the left and right). How exactly would you go about trying to reach these people and how would you try to cultivate the virtues you mentioned in future generations?
Mike Stuchbery (Liberalism) In Defense of Antifa:
You did an excellent job mounting a defence of Antifa, especially when so many others in this issue weren’t willing to. With this in mind, what part of Antifa do you find to be the least defensible?
Gregory J Zink (Libertarian-Right) Schizophrenic Idealism:
In his article Gregory states that “Would it not be easier to just scale back the state, grant people more autonomy, and encourage voluntary interactions in society?”
My question to you is: what if people were suddenly granted this newfound autonomy and used it to oppress another group on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, etc.? Libertarianism almost has to grant people and businesses the ability to discriminate on any grounds they see fit, so would there be any protections against this kind of discrimination?
Tore Lindeman (Nationalism) Antifa: Domestic Terrorists (Fascism 2.0):
In her article Tore seems to take issue with the idea that fascism is defined very subjectively by Antifa and that leads to a lot of problems. So, what would an objective definition of fascism in the 21st century look like?
Jerry Barnett (Libertarian-Left) A Betrayal of Anti-fascism:
Mr Barnett says that “[Antifa] seem to lack a basic understanding of what fascism is, or how it can be fought. What they lack in analysis, they make up for in willingness to punch people and shut down debate.”
With that in mind, how would you define fascism, and is there ever a time where you think violence is justified against fascists?
Matthew Zink (Socialism) A Radical Cure for Censorship:
I have no questions for you at this time good sir!
Katherine Revello (Classical Liberalism) The Implicit Danger of Moral Crusades:
In her piece, Katherine writes “In all of these actions, it has failed to respect the rule of law which others, regardless of their moral compunctions, obey when navigating public and private actions.”
My question to you is: can a person ever be justified in breaking an immoral law in your world-view? At various times throughout history (and certainly in the future when we look back on today) we seem to have come up against laws that were imperfect and/or immoral and often civil disobedience lead the path to change. Antifa seems to be operating under that same assumption that they are in the right and the rule of law is wrong. How would you parse out that argument?
Adam Buick (Anarcho-Socialism) Anti-Fascism and Fascism:
Mr. Buick writes that “The trouble is that most “anti-fascists”, even those calling themselves socialists (some are supporters of third-world dictatorships), are not anti-capitalism. They think that the problems ordinary people face can be solved within the profits-wages-money system that is capitalism.”
While that is certainly true, there are also many Antifa members who identify as anarchists of various sorts. What would you say is the biggest thing the anarchist branch of Antifa get wrong about the solution to problems of ordinary people?