People are angry at individuals such as Charlie Kirk and Donald Trump.
The dispute centres on their opposition to allowing illegal immigrants into the country, their belief that everyone should be checked at the border and apply for permission to enter the country. They are also critical of abortion, believing that the removal of human foetuses should be minimised. They advocate the right of people to carry weapons for personal protection. They work for lower taxes and fewer regulations, as well as less government interference in people’s lives. Freedom of speech is also championed, even for those who sometimes have opinions that are not socially acceptable.
This is the dispute; and if you hold opinions like Charlie Kirk and Donald Trump, you can be murdered, and the murder will be accepted and cheered on by other angry people.
Kirk and Trump are described as evil, nasty and fascist monsters.
But in reality, there is no controversy.
Open borders do not work; you cannot build a country, law and order if you do not know who is in the country. The labour market and the judicial system are being undermined, and there is a risk that not only people will cross the border, but also drugs, dangerous goods, etc. It appears to be a real bonanza for organised crime.
As for the abortion issue, it can be debated at length. Aristotle believed that the foetus could be removed before it had a soul. The Spartans believed that even full-term living children could be thrown off a cliff if they were weak. Christians believed that all life was sacred and that the procedure was therefore against God’s plan.
Several modern advocates of abortion, such as Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, believe that there are too many people on Earth, that we are depleting its resources, and that the human race should be decimated in various ways. Abortion is less about women’s rights and a free lifestyle, and more about fewer people being born. As you can see, it is not particularly dangerous to debate abortion or to have different opinions; the debate has been going on for hundreds of years.
The right to bear arms and defend oneself can of course be questioned, but many countries and states in the US have free gun ownership and have had it for a very long time, so the issue is not really particularly controversial. It is a political issue that can be discussed calmly and peacefully, just like tax levels, the degree of bureaucracy and many other things. All of this is part of normal political discourse.
And when it comes to freedom of expression, it is a prerequisite for politics to function. If we cannot express our opinions, even if they are stupid, mean or outdated, we cannot have a meaningful political debate. The campaign against freedom of expression is largely about stopping people from saying certain words or spreading certain opinions; the real purpose is to silence political opponents.
Another hot topic that has been debated in recent years is the rights of transgender people, which also falls flat, as they have the same rights as everyone else. Whether children should be allowed to decide on gender reassignment surgery, or whether it is even possible to perform such surgery, is another matter. Minors do not have the same rights as adults, and there are natural reasons for this. This is not controversial either.
So why all this anger and disent?
It almost seems as if someone wants us to disagree and be angry with each other. Does it serve any purpose? Who knows, let’s not get too conspiratorial. Even though we know that many powerful think tanks and organisations are keen to encourage controversy and division. The authorities have always benefited from the people fighting internally, instead of opposing the real enemy.
