Comedian John Fugelsang was on Comedy Central interviewed by Jordan Klepper (https://bit.ly/42LNWsg) talking about his best selling book Separation of Church and Hate: A Sane Person's Guide to Taking Back the Bible from Fundamentalists, Fascists, and Flock-Fleecing Frauds It’s a great short interview about the book that displays the consistent hypocrisy that the far right and the current Nazi regime exhibits every day and twice on Sunday
It's fun but also lays out the selfish hypocritical interpretation of the fascist Christian Nationalist Movement(CMN) that their interpretation is for political purposes not a spiritual one Orban rode this pony to power in Hungary and Hitler in Germany As Der Fuhrer said “We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity. Our movement is Christian.” Adolph Hitler 1928
I find myself a little confused by the semantics here: outcomes vs values. Couldn’t freedom and equality be considered values (plurality, maybe less so)? Can you specify the difference between what you term a value and an outcome?
The core values you suggest as a basis for a new paradigm sound intriguing (especially truth, in my opinion).
That's a crucial question, and the distinction between a foundational principle and an outcome is central to the entire argument. Thank you for giving me the chance to clarify it. The answer comes from applying what is arguably the most important foundational principle of all: Simplicity.
Simplicity is the principle we use to identify other principles. It dictates that a concept must be atomic—fundamental, irreducible, and directly applicable as a lens to interrogate a situation and yield a clear moral answer. If a concept passes this test, it's a foundational principle. If it fails, it's a composite outcome—a complex result built from other, simpler parts. Conversely, needless complexity is the natural camouflage of exploitation and the first sign that a system is failing. For instance, a right you need a lawyer to understand is a privilege, not a right.
In all my thought experiments, I have been able to boil everything I could think of down to the five principles I've delineated.
I think that bread provides a useful analogy for this. Water and flour are like principles—they pass the Simplicity test. The loaf of bread is like the outcome—a composite result. Our democracy promised everyone a perfect loaf without ever securing a reliable supply of flour and water or even agreeing that it takes flour and water in the first place for breadmaking before promising the bread.
Now, let's apply this lens to the actual concepts.
Outcome: Freedom (The Composite Loaf)
Freedom is a perfect example of a composite outcome that fails the Simplicity test. Its very existence depends on other principles being met:
- Is a person truly free if they are constantly consuming misinformation? No, because freedom depends on the principle of Truth.
- Is a person free if they can't afford housing or healthcare or reliable nutrition? No, because their "freedom" is constrained by a system that violates the principle of Fairness.
- Were Black Americans free after the Civil War, only to be trapped by Jim Crow? No, because the system lacked the Responsibility to protect their "freedom".
Freedom is what we hope to achieve, but because it's so complex, it's easily redefined and manipulated. And yet, in our current mode of unprincipled liberal democracy all the questions above are "debatable" even when considered in good faith, unless you begin to introduce the foundational principles.
Principle: Fairness (A Foundational Ingredient)
Now, compare that to a true principle like Fairness, which easily passes the Simplicity test. You can apply it directly and get a clear, almost visceral, answer.
- Is it fair that someone working 40 hours a week cannot afford shelter, healthcare, and nutrition? The answer is a simple, resounding No.
- Is it fair that a child's zip code, determined by decades of racist redlining, is a greater predictor of their success than their own effort? No.
Unlike "freedom," the meaning of "fairness" in these contexts isn't debatable for anyone arguing in good faith. It’s a foundational building block.
Principle: Truth (And how the combination of foundational principles ought to guide process)
You specifically asked about Truth, which also passes the Simplicity test. Truth as a principle isn't about knowing all the facts at once; it's a commitment to the process of determining what is real—a process best exemplified by the scientific method. It's a system of making claims, testing them against evidence, and refining our understanding.
But the principle of Truth is meaningless without its partners, Responsibility and Fairness.
- Responsibility dictates that intentionally spreading information you know to be false is not a neutral act; it is an act of harm. It’s the informational equivalent of polluting a river. Therefore, there must be a tangible cost for those who knowingly poison the information ecosystem for profit or power.
- Fairness demands that this cost be proportional. A media personality who repeatedly lies to an audience of millions should bear a far greater cost than a random citizen sharing a confusing article. The consequences must be scaled to the harm caused.
This principled approach is fundamentally different from treating "free speech" as a simple outcome that must be protected independent of context. Without the guardrails of Truth, Responsibility, and Fairness, a simplistic defense of "free speech" ends up protecting the polluters and sacrificing the public good.
Realistic sanity check: no system is completely immune to exploitation, but the atomic nature of these principles makes them far more resistant to it. An absolute "free speech" framework is a much greater threat than a principled commitment to Truth, Responsibility, and Fairness, because it is far simpler for any individual, arguing in good faith, to determine whether a statement is true and if someone is spreading disinformation for personal gain.
Looking back to freedom, a society that is truly and consistently fair, truthful, meritocratic and responsible, that doesn't lose sight of the importance of simplicity, will inevitably produce freedom as an outcome. And it all starts with a commitment to Simplicity—the bedrock upon which all other principles can be clearly understood and defended.
Thought provoking, need to sit with it more. First, reaction I had was to word merit. I get why you are choosing it but in capitalism merit gets used to designate distribution by creating myths of merit and non merit.so that someone is able to be designated as illegitimate or unworthy of distribution, Is this a capitalist structure you are recommending?
I also wondered if we can learn from other countries that learned from us, like Canada who built their constitution after witnessing our first 100years including our civil war.
I was chatting with another commenter on a different thread (https://americanmanifesto.news/p/the-death-of-liberal-democracy-and-what-comes-next-part-1/comment/158203732), and my take is that if you build a strong principled foundation, that the argument over economical organization (such as Capitalism v. Socialism) becomes moot as the balance between those values will inevitably coalesce the economical organization into something that delivers the same outcome regardless of process.
For instance: given that we currently have a Capitalist system and that humans have extreme social inertia, I envision one single change to our taxation system, and one single change to our welfare system (they are massive changes albeit single changes), which combined, would deliver a society very much akin to what Socialists would want, despite the fact that it would still be possible for people to become billionaires. And I know every socialist will say that's impossible, but I've modeled it and I know it's possible (working on the paper that I will put out soon including the models and the opensource python code that people can review for how the models run — I just wish the news cycle would slow down a bit so I can focus on finishing the paper). And at the core, it works because the taxation/welfare system I envision is driven precisely by the balance of the 5 values I picked.
On Merit specifically: I understand the reservations and think they are entirely valid given the way that "merit" has been used as a cudgel to hold people back. However, I believe that balanced with Fairness, Merit is perfectly fine and desirable. Here's what I mean:
I believe that Fairness demands that every human should have access to their inelastic needs. That means that the richest man in the world should not be able to get any better education for their children than the poorest man in the world. That the richest man in the world should not be able to get access to any better healthcare than the poorest man in the world. That nobody should be without access to a safe home that meets their basic needs. Etc. Additionally, I do not believe that people should be able to extract wealth from the world without proportionally giving back (this is at the core of the taxation system I'm working on). If you grant this definition of Fairness, then Merit becomes a non-issue: I think it's fine for someone who has excelled at something that meaningfully improves society in some way to become wealthier than others who have not because in such a system one's wealth can NEVER come at the sacrifice of the inelastic needs of others as those needs are safeguarded by the value of Fairness. In such a system, the Capitalist does not have the power to use the worker's survival as the bargaining chip that gives them the unfair advantage that is core to the Socialist critique of Capitalism. At the same time, by making Merit a foundational value, it safeguards against the Capitalist critique of Socialism that it may deliver an equality of outcome that would stifle innovation and motivation.
Put another way, I think that every economic system devised so far, whether Capitalism or Socialism or any combination of the two or alternative to the two, have suffered from the same problem that I point to with liberal democracy. These are all just tools that lack any inherent power to deliver a just society absent a foundational value system to guide the utilization of these tools. Socialism can turn just as evil as Capitalism when driven by the wrong principles, and vice-versa. Therefore, I think the argument over which can deliver the most just society borders on pointless and that it's unfortunate so much academic brain power has been spent trying to answer the question.
Comedian Takes On Hypocrisy
Comedian John Fugelsang was on Comedy Central interviewed by Jordan Klepper (https://bit.ly/42LNWsg) talking about his best selling book Separation of Church and Hate: A Sane Person's Guide to Taking Back the Bible from Fundamentalists, Fascists, and Flock-Fleecing Frauds It’s a great short interview about the book that displays the consistent hypocrisy that the far right and the current Nazi regime exhibits every day and twice on Sunday
It's fun but also lays out the selfish hypocritical interpretation of the fascist Christian Nationalist Movement(CMN) that their interpretation is for political purposes not a spiritual one Orban rode this pony to power in Hungary and Hitler in Germany As Der Fuhrer said “We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity. Our movement is Christian.” Adolph Hitler 1928
We do need to make sure it's clear what we want from our government.
I find myself a little confused by the semantics here: outcomes vs values. Couldn’t freedom and equality be considered values (plurality, maybe less so)? Can you specify the difference between what you term a value and an outcome?
The core values you suggest as a basis for a new paradigm sound intriguing (especially truth, in my opinion).
That's a crucial question, and the distinction between a foundational principle and an outcome is central to the entire argument. Thank you for giving me the chance to clarify it. The answer comes from applying what is arguably the most important foundational principle of all: Simplicity.
Simplicity is the principle we use to identify other principles. It dictates that a concept must be atomic—fundamental, irreducible, and directly applicable as a lens to interrogate a situation and yield a clear moral answer. If a concept passes this test, it's a foundational principle. If it fails, it's a composite outcome—a complex result built from other, simpler parts. Conversely, needless complexity is the natural camouflage of exploitation and the first sign that a system is failing. For instance, a right you need a lawyer to understand is a privilege, not a right.
In all my thought experiments, I have been able to boil everything I could think of down to the five principles I've delineated.
I think that bread provides a useful analogy for this. Water and flour are like principles—they pass the Simplicity test. The loaf of bread is like the outcome—a composite result. Our democracy promised everyone a perfect loaf without ever securing a reliable supply of flour and water or even agreeing that it takes flour and water in the first place for breadmaking before promising the bread.
Now, let's apply this lens to the actual concepts.
Outcome: Freedom (The Composite Loaf)
Freedom is a perfect example of a composite outcome that fails the Simplicity test. Its very existence depends on other principles being met:
- Is a person truly free if they are constantly consuming misinformation? No, because freedom depends on the principle of Truth.
- Is a person free if they can't afford housing or healthcare or reliable nutrition? No, because their "freedom" is constrained by a system that violates the principle of Fairness.
- Were Black Americans free after the Civil War, only to be trapped by Jim Crow? No, because the system lacked the Responsibility to protect their "freedom".
Freedom is what we hope to achieve, but because it's so complex, it's easily redefined and manipulated. And yet, in our current mode of unprincipled liberal democracy all the questions above are "debatable" even when considered in good faith, unless you begin to introduce the foundational principles.
Principle: Fairness (A Foundational Ingredient)
Now, compare that to a true principle like Fairness, which easily passes the Simplicity test. You can apply it directly and get a clear, almost visceral, answer.
- Is it fair that someone working 40 hours a week cannot afford shelter, healthcare, and nutrition? The answer is a simple, resounding No.
- Is it fair that a child's zip code, determined by decades of racist redlining, is a greater predictor of their success than their own effort? No.
Unlike "freedom," the meaning of "fairness" in these contexts isn't debatable for anyone arguing in good faith. It’s a foundational building block.
Principle: Truth (And how the combination of foundational principles ought to guide process)
You specifically asked about Truth, which also passes the Simplicity test. Truth as a principle isn't about knowing all the facts at once; it's a commitment to the process of determining what is real—a process best exemplified by the scientific method. It's a system of making claims, testing them against evidence, and refining our understanding.
But the principle of Truth is meaningless without its partners, Responsibility and Fairness.
- Responsibility dictates that intentionally spreading information you know to be false is not a neutral act; it is an act of harm. It’s the informational equivalent of polluting a river. Therefore, there must be a tangible cost for those who knowingly poison the information ecosystem for profit or power.
- Fairness demands that this cost be proportional. A media personality who repeatedly lies to an audience of millions should bear a far greater cost than a random citizen sharing a confusing article. The consequences must be scaled to the harm caused.
This principled approach is fundamentally different from treating "free speech" as a simple outcome that must be protected independent of context. Without the guardrails of Truth, Responsibility, and Fairness, a simplistic defense of "free speech" ends up protecting the polluters and sacrificing the public good.
Realistic sanity check: no system is completely immune to exploitation, but the atomic nature of these principles makes them far more resistant to it. An absolute "free speech" framework is a much greater threat than a principled commitment to Truth, Responsibility, and Fairness, because it is far simpler for any individual, arguing in good faith, to determine whether a statement is true and if someone is spreading disinformation for personal gain.
Looking back to freedom, a society that is truly and consistently fair, truthful, meritocratic and responsible, that doesn't lose sight of the importance of simplicity, will inevitably produce freedom as an outcome. And it all starts with a commitment to Simplicity—the bedrock upon which all other principles can be clearly understood and defended.
Thought provoking, need to sit with it more. First, reaction I had was to word merit. I get why you are choosing it but in capitalism merit gets used to designate distribution by creating myths of merit and non merit.so that someone is able to be designated as illegitimate or unworthy of distribution, Is this a capitalist structure you are recommending?
I also wondered if we can learn from other countries that learned from us, like Canada who built their constitution after witnessing our first 100years including our civil war.
I was chatting with another commenter on a different thread (https://americanmanifesto.news/p/the-death-of-liberal-democracy-and-what-comes-next-part-1/comment/158203732), and my take is that if you build a strong principled foundation, that the argument over economical organization (such as Capitalism v. Socialism) becomes moot as the balance between those values will inevitably coalesce the economical organization into something that delivers the same outcome regardless of process.
For instance: given that we currently have a Capitalist system and that humans have extreme social inertia, I envision one single change to our taxation system, and one single change to our welfare system (they are massive changes albeit single changes), which combined, would deliver a society very much akin to what Socialists would want, despite the fact that it would still be possible for people to become billionaires. And I know every socialist will say that's impossible, but I've modeled it and I know it's possible (working on the paper that I will put out soon including the models and the opensource python code that people can review for how the models run — I just wish the news cycle would slow down a bit so I can focus on finishing the paper). And at the core, it works because the taxation/welfare system I envision is driven precisely by the balance of the 5 values I picked.
On Merit specifically: I understand the reservations and think they are entirely valid given the way that "merit" has been used as a cudgel to hold people back. However, I believe that balanced with Fairness, Merit is perfectly fine and desirable. Here's what I mean:
I believe that Fairness demands that every human should have access to their inelastic needs. That means that the richest man in the world should not be able to get any better education for their children than the poorest man in the world. That the richest man in the world should not be able to get access to any better healthcare than the poorest man in the world. That nobody should be without access to a safe home that meets their basic needs. Etc. Additionally, I do not believe that people should be able to extract wealth from the world without proportionally giving back (this is at the core of the taxation system I'm working on). If you grant this definition of Fairness, then Merit becomes a non-issue: I think it's fine for someone who has excelled at something that meaningfully improves society in some way to become wealthier than others who have not because in such a system one's wealth can NEVER come at the sacrifice of the inelastic needs of others as those needs are safeguarded by the value of Fairness. In such a system, the Capitalist does not have the power to use the worker's survival as the bargaining chip that gives them the unfair advantage that is core to the Socialist critique of Capitalism. At the same time, by making Merit a foundational value, it safeguards against the Capitalist critique of Socialism that it may deliver an equality of outcome that would stifle innovation and motivation.
Put another way, I think that every economic system devised so far, whether Capitalism or Socialism or any combination of the two or alternative to the two, have suffered from the same problem that I point to with liberal democracy. These are all just tools that lack any inherent power to deliver a just society absent a foundational value system to guide the utilization of these tools. Socialism can turn just as evil as Capitalism when driven by the wrong principles, and vice-versa. Therefore, I think the argument over which can deliver the most just society borders on pointless and that it's unfortunate so much academic brain power has been spent trying to answer the question.
Thank you, Lukium,
for your reasoned reply. I will sit with it and respond.