You are a product of Gen X libertarianism -- economics-based and firmly grounded in reason.
The Millennial and Gen Z generations are products of psychology. They are reactions to the reason-based economics paradigm that dominated the neoliberal age. They are letting out all the emotions that that paradigm didn't accommodate.
You are a product of Gen X libertarianism -- economics-based and firmly grounded in reason.
The Millennial and Gen Z generations are products of psychology. They are reactions to the reason-based economics paradigm that dominated the neoliberal age. They are letting out all the emotions that that paradigm didn't accommodate.
But this development shouldn't lead you to doubt yourself. At all. The Millennial and Gen Z generations are wrong. As Hayek argued contra Freud, civilization depends in part on the suppression of emotion.* They are letting out repressed emotion because it's cathartic, but the effect is negative. Is the United States better off or worse off since Millennials became working age? Since they promoted both wokeism and the populist response? Millennials are at the heart of both of these emotional reactions. And most people perceive society as getting worse and becoming divided. Emotions lead to tribalism and conflict. It is reason that paves the way to cooperation and peace.
What we need is a rebirth of reason and the suppression of emotion once again. You may not live to see it, but it's something worth fighting for. We're witnessing generations with poor character undermine civilization. I'm for ultimately laying blame on individuals, but to the extent we can make collective judgements (and we should generally avoid doing so), the younger generations are emotionally immature and need to experience disapprobation.
*Hayek is seen as a critic of reason so his claim about emotion might seem confusing. But Hayek was a proponent of the part of reason he felt was unconscious and neglected. He thought we should place less value on conscious reason and more value on unconscious reason because markets operated using unconscious reason and conscious reason failed to plan economies. This is consistent with his opposition to cathartic expressions of emotion. It also explains how he could criticize reason, but also see its value in shaping society, without contradicting himself.
Actually, both younger and older generations embraced deeply misguided views of psychology by buying into the idea that being governed by one's reason and being in touch with one's emotions are mutually incompatible. For the older generation, this false dichotomy was symbolized in popular culture by the lead characters in the original _Star Trek_ series, particularly Spock as the emotion-suppressing champion of pure logic, McCoy as the logic-spurning emotionalist, and Kirk as trying to strike a balance between the two, though without ever being able to clearly articulate how one can systematically apply logic to an understanding one's psychological nature to formulate a rational hedonism.
For the older generation of libertarians (particularly the tail end of the boomer generation), this was manifested by a polarization between the followers of Ayn Rand (who championed a Spock-like rejection of emotions as a source of ethical guidance) versus various other libertarian tendencies that were seriously turned off by Rand's hyperrationalism and by her intolerance of anyone subscribing to philosophical deviations. While Bryan is not a Randian (at least not an orthodox one), he had enough early exposure to Rand that he still seems to equate reason with emotional suppression.
Generally speaking, younger generations haven't transcended this dichotomy; rather, they have been channeling McCoy and rejecting reason on the basis of New Left ideologies that have been festering since the 1960s. Such ideologies hold that emotional responses are arbitrary subjective constructs (often adopted unconsciously by individuals at the behest of more powerful groups and institutions in society) and/or are a product of one's genetic inheritance. Instead of appealing to reason, younger generations tend to prefer mob intimidation, censorship, and the circulation of unquestioned authoritarian propaganda, the premise being that you can't trust anyone to think things through for oneself or to think differently than yourself about anything and therefore must be cajoled not only into doing the right thing, but even to think and say the right things under the influence of the emotions of fear and shame.
Interesting take. However, I wonder how much you indulge in delivering disapprobation to younger generations. Older generations, even those in my own generation, still give in to emotion, or I feel that they do. But there are reasons behind emotions, reasons beyond the emotional beings' control. Underlying causes for their escapes from reality. It isn't all political religion at play; there are many people worried about their place in the world and how they could survive it. I have an uncle who wishes that all Americans would be forced to serve in the military, because of how good he thought it would be for everyone. In contrast, my father appreciated his military service (by choice, though he just barely missed the draft in the 1950s), because of of the good that it personally did for him. He didn't recommend the military to his family, though, and he always supported us furthering our educations, a drive that I continue to possess. Hard truths integrated into our sum of knowledge naturally without relentless hammering are easier to absorb and react to, and so few people recognize that.
Brian,
You are a product of Gen X libertarianism -- economics-based and firmly grounded in reason.
The Millennial and Gen Z generations are products of psychology. They are reactions to the reason-based economics paradigm that dominated the neoliberal age. They are letting out all the emotions that that paradigm didn't accommodate.
But this development shouldn't lead you to doubt yourself. At all. The Millennial and Gen Z generations are wrong. As Hayek argued contra Freud, civilization depends in part on the suppression of emotion.* They are letting out repressed emotion because it's cathartic, but the effect is negative. Is the United States better off or worse off since Millennials became working age? Since they promoted both wokeism and the populist response? Millennials are at the heart of both of these emotional reactions. And most people perceive society as getting worse and becoming divided. Emotions lead to tribalism and conflict. It is reason that paves the way to cooperation and peace.
What we need is a rebirth of reason and the suppression of emotion once again. You may not live to see it, but it's something worth fighting for. We're witnessing generations with poor character undermine civilization. I'm for ultimately laying blame on individuals, but to the extent we can make collective judgements (and we should generally avoid doing so), the younger generations are emotionally immature and need to experience disapprobation.
*Hayek is seen as a critic of reason so his claim about emotion might seem confusing. But Hayek was a proponent of the part of reason he felt was unconscious and neglected. He thought we should place less value on conscious reason and more value on unconscious reason because markets operated using unconscious reason and conscious reason failed to plan economies. This is consistent with his opposition to cathartic expressions of emotion. It also explains how he could criticize reason, but also see its value in shaping society, without contradicting himself.
Actually, both younger and older generations embraced deeply misguided views of psychology by buying into the idea that being governed by one's reason and being in touch with one's emotions are mutually incompatible. For the older generation, this false dichotomy was symbolized in popular culture by the lead characters in the original _Star Trek_ series, particularly Spock as the emotion-suppressing champion of pure logic, McCoy as the logic-spurning emotionalist, and Kirk as trying to strike a balance between the two, though without ever being able to clearly articulate how one can systematically apply logic to an understanding one's psychological nature to formulate a rational hedonism.
For the older generation of libertarians (particularly the tail end of the boomer generation), this was manifested by a polarization between the followers of Ayn Rand (who championed a Spock-like rejection of emotions as a source of ethical guidance) versus various other libertarian tendencies that were seriously turned off by Rand's hyperrationalism and by her intolerance of anyone subscribing to philosophical deviations. While Bryan is not a Randian (at least not an orthodox one), he had enough early exposure to Rand that he still seems to equate reason with emotional suppression.
Generally speaking, younger generations haven't transcended this dichotomy; rather, they have been channeling McCoy and rejecting reason on the basis of New Left ideologies that have been festering since the 1960s. Such ideologies hold that emotional responses are arbitrary subjective constructs (often adopted unconsciously by individuals at the behest of more powerful groups and institutions in society) and/or are a product of one's genetic inheritance. Instead of appealing to reason, younger generations tend to prefer mob intimidation, censorship, and the circulation of unquestioned authoritarian propaganda, the premise being that you can't trust anyone to think things through for oneself or to think differently than yourself about anything and therefore must be cajoled not only into doing the right thing, but even to think and say the right things under the influence of the emotions of fear and shame.
Interesting take. However, I wonder how much you indulge in delivering disapprobation to younger generations. Older generations, even those in my own generation, still give in to emotion, or I feel that they do. But there are reasons behind emotions, reasons beyond the emotional beings' control. Underlying causes for their escapes from reality. It isn't all political religion at play; there are many people worried about their place in the world and how they could survive it. I have an uncle who wishes that all Americans would be forced to serve in the military, because of how good he thought it would be for everyone. In contrast, my father appreciated his military service (by choice, though he just barely missed the draft in the 1950s), because of of the good that it personally did for him. He didn't recommend the military to his family, though, and he always supported us furthering our educations, a drive that I continue to possess. Hard truths integrated into our sum of knowledge naturally without relentless hammering are easier to absorb and react to, and so few people recognize that.