Monthly Archives: June 2021

While considerable ink has been spilled describing how technology generally and applications such as Facebook and Twitter in particular reinforce tribalism, a curious related phenomenon has emerged recently, most clearly seen in social media. While less remarked upon, it is perhaps more revealing of the current state of the American political conversation.

When ideological flame wars erupt online, one can witness how well-informed people of goodwill frequently will set aside critical thinking and readily align with those with whom they share only the loosest of partisan affiliations. Typically, this arises in oppositional contexts, which didnt start (nor have they ended) with Donald TrumpDonald TrumpHouse passes bill to strengthen authority of federal watchdogs Supreme Court leaves CDC eviction moratorium intact How energy will steer the Alaska Senate race MORE.

That said, this dynamic achieved near-ubiquity during the Trump presidency, to wit: I oppose Trump (or President BidenJoe BidenCriminal justice group urges clemency for offenders released to home confinement during pandemic Progressive poll: Majority supports passing Biden agenda through reconciliation Transportation moves to ban airline ticket sales to Belarus amid arrest of opposition journalist MORE, or House Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiOmar says she doesn't regret past comments on Israel House panel votes to create plaque honoring police who served on Jan. 6 House passes bill to remove Confederate statues from Capitol MORE) and policy X, and believe Y, because of Z, and moreover, if you disagree, you are &%$#, and so on. Whatever the merits of the position offered, social media participants increasingly make common cause with strange philosophical bedfellows the center-left happily lying down with anarchists and Marxists, and the center-right embracing ethno-nationalists and populists.

While a demonstration of tribalism activated in and by the virtual commons, it is more than that. How is it that the center-left and center-right sitting far closer to one another along an ideological continuum than either do to extremists to their left and right, respectively fail to note this oddity?

The answer can be found in the Age of Enlightenment, more specifically through consideration of the philosophers Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. While each mans intellectual progression and range defy caricature, they are often held out as totems of rationalism (in the case of Voltaire) and romanticism (Rousseau). These respective traditions have informed ideological movements, partisan fervor and policy debates ever since.

Until recently, the American political scene of the past 50 years has been an ideological joust between liberals and conservatives, but with each grouping broadly classically liberal in outlook and equally possessed of an empirical, rationalist bent children of Voltaire. Though beliefs about the means best applied to achieve certain ends differed, or even the most desirable ends, a general agreement prevailed as to the meaning of language, understanding of history, and in objective truths that can be deduced from empirical evidence, as did a shared civic culture rooted in accountability, fair play and seeing the other side as opponents and not enemies.

Today, while the traditional notions of left and right still exist, under each of these tribal banners an increasing number of Rousseaunard anti-rationalists have emerged. On the right, this manifests as ethno-nationalism, populism and nativism. On the left, it takes the form of various shades of collectivism and adherence to pseudo-academic fads including critical theory/critical race theory and neo-Marxism. While often cast as fringe or extreme by partisans from the other camp, such ideological flags of convenience are notable less for extremity than for intrinsic anti-rationalism (by contrast, pure libertarianism, while extreme, is firmly planted in rationalism). These frameworks override or reject empirical lived experience and replace them with visceral, emotive mantras or laboratory constructs unsupported by logical deductions drawn from the world as it actually exists.

Tribal impulses cause otherwise Voltairean conservatives or liberals to sympathize with the anti-rational advocates of belief systems, which, in a more considered moment, they might adjudge unfavorably. As a relatively recent phenomenon, it remains to be seen how durable such alignments might prove, and whether the Rousseaunard wings on each end of the spectrum can tug formerly critical-thinking centrists more permanently to their side.

A separate consideration is why anti-rationalist voices are now in the ascendant. Is it that they have always existed and are merely amplified through the leveling, democratizing effects of distributed media, or have they multiplied and expanded their reach in reaction to the challenges and failures of globalism, some other explanation, or a combination of these?

Whatever the reason, good Voltaireans of any ideological stripe ought to stand against all forms of anti-rationalism, however attractively packaged to appeal to ones tribal proclivities. History is replete with examples of romantic, anti-rational projects gone awry; that way lies the gas chamber and the killing fields. For the two reasons I note below, however, the Rousseaunard left would appear to present the greater current existential threat.

First, anti-rationalism only recently has gained or regained political currency on the American political stage. In a cultural and political edifice constructed on a classically liberal, rational foundation, anti-rational movements typically pose as rational to avoid being dismissed as unserious or dangerous. In a media era where a group such as antifa can term anything it opposes as fascist and call itself anti-fascist, despite its own use of fascist tactics, and have this paradox accepted credulously by the commentariat, gaslighting can be a useful tactical tool. Thus, blood and soil nativism is more easily rejected by critical thinkers as antithetical to the founding and American values more generally, and seen for the emotive appeal that it is, while critical theory can masquerade as rationalist, notwithstanding its artificial, Marxian heritage.

Second, and more critically, is the fundamental distinction between the types of anti-rationalism promoted by right Rousseau and left Rousseau movements. Right Rousseau is an expression, typically of some visceral resentment or aspiration. It can do enormous harm if it finds the levers of political power Hitler being only one such example in history but, misdirected dystopian fiction like The Handmaids Tale notwithstanding, it is hard to see how the conditions conducive to its success exist in modern American society (the ascension to the presidency of a bombastic narcissist who implemented conventional center-right policies, while only lightly taking command of the instrumentation of government, is hardly evidence of the descent of the dark night of fascism). Right Rousseau is a spasm, an outburst, consistent only in its incoherence.

Left Rousseau, on the other hand, isnt an expression; its a project or projects. One need only look to the parroting of its maximalist language by mainstream figures of the contemporary left fundamental transformation, Build Back Better, the Great Reset to see the more comprehensive objectives of such projects. These slogans are not tethered to straightforward retrograde desires for things to be like they used to be or to live as we please, but are, rather, a programmatic imperative to reshape systems and human relations more broadly to fit an ideologically-derived construct. Such designs offer no shade or respite. Moreover, anti-rationalist Marxian ideologues are adept at infiltrating the institutions of free societies, using Alinskyite tactics to exploit such societies freedoms and turn institutions against themselves. Whereas Rousseaunards of the right tend to be buffoonish and self-immolate in plain sight, those on the left are more covert and thus of greater danger.

A key to avoiding the further polarization of American society is understanding the threat posed by these children of Rousseau, and seeing past superficial partisan alignment to the real threat such anti-rationalist philosophies and programs pose.

Richard J. Shinder is the founder of Theatine Partners, a financial consultancy, and a frequent lecturer, speaker and panelist on business and financial topics. He has written extensively on economic, financial, geopolitical, cultural and corporate governance-related issues.

The rest is here:

The very real threat in the rise of anti-rationalism | TheHill - The Hill

A recent school board meeting in Loudon County, Virginia, turned so heated that attendees faced off in dueling protests and people were hauled off in handcuffs. The main point of disagreement was over the teaching (real or imaginary) of critical race theory (CRT) in public school classrooms, and parents' feelings over that controversial nominally anti-racist but really racially obsessed ideology. The conflict represented an escalation in the ongoing national curriculum wars that, like all such battles, could be peacefully settled by recognizing families' rights to choose educational approaches instead of surrendering children to the whims of government bureaucrats.

"Parents protesting against critical race theory broke into the national anthem when the Loudoun Co., Virginia school board ended public comment because the crowd got too out of hand," Reuters' Gabriella Borter tweeted June 22. "The Loudoun County sheriff's office declared the school board meeting an unlawful assembly. Everyone told to get out or will be trespassing. Two arrests made."

The confrontation in Loudon County is part of a national debate over critical race theory (a subset of overarching critical theory) and related belief systems which, in the guise of deconstructing oppressive and hierarchical human relationships instead strip people of individuality and reduce them to representatives of group identities. This intellectual movement rejects rationalism and objectivity, and brands the West, in general, and the United States, in particular, as irredeemably racistbut its collectivism breeds racism every bit as pernicious as anything cooked up by the Ku Klux Klan.

In response, some states are banning the teaching of CRTan approach that threatens to turn advocates of the ideology into free speech martyrs fighting the entrenched establishment. Trinity College's Isaac Kamola argues that many Americans oppose the ideology "because academic, journalistic and movement efforts to critically interrogate the lasting impact of slavery and American racism fundamentally challenge the free market fundamentalist ideology." That's a wildly tendentious claim, but ideological bans lend it a gloss of credibility.

Bans also run afoul of the difficulty inherent in trying to filter ideas which can be taught without use of a red-flag brand name, or by teachers who unknowingly absorb assumptions which permeate academia and then pass them on to students without reference to specific scholarly sources. Removing ideas from their origins makes it easier to pretend the ideology has little presence in classrooms.

"No, 6-year-olds are not being taught Derrick Bell or forced to read Judith Butler, or God help them, Kimberl Crenshaw," observes writer Andrew Sullivan. "Of course they aren't and I don't know anyone who says they are. But they are being taught popularized terms, new words, and a whole new epistemology that is directly downstream of academic critical theory."

Sullivan compares the role of CRT in many schools' curricula to lessons in Catholic school, which don't dwell on theological intricacies but do pass along the religion's values. Also, he points out, CRT rejects the foundations of the liberal order in free and open societies. That ups the ante on the decades-long national battles over what is taught in public school classrooms.

"Rather than build bridges, public schooling often forces people into wrenching, zerosum conflict," notes the Cato Institute's Public Schooling Battle Map, which tracked such debates long before the current controversy. "Think creationism versus evolution, or assigned readings containing racial slurs. The conflicts are often intensely personal, and guarantee if one fundamental value wins, another loses."

That said, families that choose how their children learnmy own includedrather than defaulting to government-run institutions don't have to lose anything because we have largely escaped these battles. By homeschooling, or micro-schooling, or picking private or charter schools, we can avoid curricula permeated with ideas we find toxic and select those that present ideas of which we approve or, even better from my perspective, that encourage open debate among opposing perspectives.

"The kids break into two groups at lunch," my son tells me of his private high school. "The smaller group is really woke and always angry about something. I sit with the larger group of normal kids."

My wife and I aren't worried that the school will suddenly turn into a CRT seminary. We like and trust the administrators and teachers, but we also pay tuition. If the school abandons its open embrace of discussion and debate, we'll stop those payments and educate our son elsewhere.

That's not to say that we're emulating conservative lawmakers by trying to shield our kid from ideas we dislike. Our son is going to encounter them one way or another, so we prepare him to engage with CRT's advocates. This summer, alongside time devoted to fun activities, he's reading Cynical Theories by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, as well as materials that support enlightenment values, individualism, and open debate. You don't fight bad ideas by ignoring them; you have to understand them and their flaws.

Parents that reject liberalism and support CRT also have alternatives to battling over the content of schoolroom lessons. They can introduce their tykes to Ibram X. Kendi's Antiracist Baby Picture Book, marinate their kids in CRT-infused homeschooling, or send them to one of many private schools that offer willing families an education steeped in the ideology. That sounds like a tour through hell, to me, but if that's what they want their kids to learn, let them do so in peace, and without zero-sum arguments about what children are taught in shared institutions.

Then our kids can engage with each other's ideas in a society of diverse viewpoints.

The curriculum wars were nasty enough when they were over competing editions of textbooks spun for conservative school boards in Texas and liberal educators in California, or about whether to call the United States a "democracy" or a "republic." Now that the debate is escalating over more fundamental differences involving the value of liberal ideas, individualism, and rationality, it's difficult to see how Americans of opposing viewpoints can share tax-funded schools that fall on one side or the other of the ideological divide. So let's not even try when we can encourage the growing exodus from public schools to alternatives of all sorts.

We don't need to wage the curriculum wars at all. Instead, let's pick where and how our children are educated, and encourage others to do the same. Then they can hash out their ideas in a society that remains open to disagreement and debate.

Read the rest here:

The Critical Race Theory Debate Wouldn't Matter if We Had More School Choice - Reason

Claims such as science says we must lock down, follow the evidence and similar assertions have been thrown around as if they are a given. Yet, as the philosopher and polymath David Hume pointed out, there is a world of difference between statements about what is, and statements about whatought to be. Hume argued the point that how we move from the descriptive to the prescriptive is not all that clear, a quandary that has become known as Hume's guillotine.

Science, used to determine what exists concretely, does not make normative claims about that which ought to be.We have certain non-negotiable rights enshrined in the constitution for a reason. Good ends do not necessarily justify any and all means to achieve said ends. Paying attention to scientific evidence is crucial, but so too is not over-simplifying the crucial debates around ethics in public policy.

Science, while nearly invaluable in informing public policy, is not the sole determinant of what is ethical and what is not. One is guilty of the fallacy of begging the question when one presupposes consequentialist ethics, most notably utilitarianism, as the guiding framework, as the very question is around what is ethical and how we determine it.

Ethics is much more complex than X is, therefore Y ought to be. So are the numerous other debates in philosophy that are relevant here, such as the problem of induction in the philosophy of science, the metaphysical question of what evidence even is, and the epistemic question of whether empiricism, rationalism or both are appropriate to determine it.

None of this is denying science or ignoring evidence. Instead, it is acknowledging the complexities of our world, and that the empirical sciences are not a panacea to these issues indeed, what is more scientific than the process of asking uncomfortable questions?

If anything, the current pandemic has shown the need for scientists to embrace the right philosophical framework to inform their own approaches to the problems we face.

Jacques Jonker

Cape Town

JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an e-mail with your comments. Letters of more than 300 words will be edited for length. Send your letter by e-mail to letters@businesslive.co.za. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.

View original post here:

LETTER: We must not over-simplify the crucial debates around ethics in public policy - Business Day

Are you looking to buy an IPO? With Sofi Active Invest you can participate in upcoming IPOs before they trade on an exchange.

Following the 9/11 terror attack, transportation security at our airports underwent a dramatic paradigm shift. No longer was public trust a given. Instead, the federal government implemented multiple protective measures to shore up prior vulnerabilities and to prevent another catastrophic assault. From this dire circumstance, CLEAR Secure, Inc. made its debut to deliver both safety and convenience to the security infrastructure.

However, only an extremely small minority of people have ill intent. To help move the line along, CLEAR uses a proprietary frictionless system for trusted travelers, drawing much intrigue for the companys initial public offering (IPO).

Peruse the IPO calendar and youll see that analysts anticipate CLEAR Secure to make its public market debut on Wednesday, June 30, 2021. Shares will trade on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the ticker symbol YOU.

Under the terms of the IPO, CLEAR Secure will offer 13.2 million shares of its Class A common stock. Experts observing the proceedings expect YOU stock to price between $27 and $30 per share. At the high end of the pricing spectrum, the market debut will raise $396 million. At that level, the valuation will reach approximately $4.34 billion.

Acting as lead bookrunners for the IPO are Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS), JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM), Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC) and privately held Allen & Company.

One notable factor that makes the YOU stock debut distinct from other IPOs is that select Robinhood users can buy shares of CLEAR Secure at the initial offering price, just before trading begins on the secondary market (in this case, the NYSE).

In a program called IPO Access, Robinhood partners with investment banks, acting as an institutional client on behalf of regular retail investors. Upon acquiring pre-IPO shares, Robinhood later distributes these equity units to its own customers.

Though the end purpose is critical to transportation security, very few people, if any, enjoy the hassle of going through airport security procedures. Even in locations that feature quick wait times such as Salt Lake City International Airport with an average wait time of just over 9 minutes the inconvenience of removing (and then quickly wearing) articles of clothing can be stressful, to say the least.

But at airports where the wait times are longer for instance, Newark Liberty International and its 23.1-minute average wait the annoyance can compound quickly, resulting in diminished traveling experiences for consumers. Unsurprisingly, then, CLEAR Secure garnered much support from frequent flyers over the years, commanding 5.6 million members and over 100 unique locations and partners across the North American market.

In 2020, CLEAR generated revenue of $230.8 million, which is up 20% from 2019s result of $192.3 million. Just as notable, the companys pro forma net loss last year was $10.8 million, representing a substantial improvement over the loss of $54.2 million in 2019. Most impressively, the security management solutions provider delivered top-to-bottom progress in 2020 despite the initially catastrophic impact of the novel coronavirus pandemic.

At the worst of the crisis, air travel volume fell to single-digit percentages of pre-pandemic norms. According to International Civil Aviation Organization estimates, the airline industry lost more than $370 billion in 2020, a truly staggering amount of red ink. Therefore, the expectation was for travel-related industries to crumble in 2020, not move in a positive trajectory. Yet CLEARs subscription-based service continued to bring in the numbers, boding well for its IPO.

Multiple factors point to the upside potential of CLEAR Secure, beginning with its favorable positioning relative to the competition. As mentioned above, CLEAR Secure operates as a subscription-based service, charging $179 annually. In return, subscribers dont have to deal with the dignity of temporarily going shoeless. Yet the Transportation Security Administrations PreCheck service only costs $85. Youd think that consumers would opt for the cheaper option, but millions prefer CLEAR Secure.

And this preference segues into the second bullish argument supporting the YOU stock IPO. For starters, CLEARs system incorporates a touchless biometric scan, which is a massive advantage in the age of COVID-19. Also, the company isnt just an airport security platform. Rather, its clients identification is tied to a security network that is connected with multiple partners. Therefore, CLEAR subscribers can enjoy hassle-free admission to sports and entertainment facilities again, a huge benefit in the new normal.

Third, YOU stock could rise in value in the secondary market due to the retail revenge phenomenon. For a one-year period or longer, the pandemic denied consumers the ability to travel wherever they wanted and advantage the products and services they typically enjoy. With funds saved up, along with receiving federal stimulus checks, consumers have more money than ever and they want to spend it.

Finally, the dramatic rise of consumer sentiment may clog up transportation security infrastructures as they ramp up to meet demand. Even before the pandemic, security wait times cost the U.S. economy over $4 billion. As society normalizes, many frequent flyers will be unwilling to individually contribute to this cost, which will indirectly support the narrative for YOU stock.

Though the CLEAR Secure debut is distinct in that it allows retail investors to participate in the public offering via Robinhood, theres a lesson here that everyone should learn regarding traditional IPOs: Underwriters only have a limited number of shares to sell and therefore are incentivized to sell them to their choicest clients. Therefore, this economic rationalism prevents retail investors from participating in IPOs.

However, Robinhood also has a limited pre-IPO share count offering. Chances are, if you want to acquire YOU stock, you must do so at the open. While you likely wont receive the best price with this method, its the easiest approach. If you know how to buy stocks, you can jump right in. If not, follow the simple steps below.

Prior to the advent of connectivity technologies, investors had to spend significant time deciphering which brokerage to use. In the analog days, certain platforms would vary widely in price. But with the mass proliferation of mobile investing apps, most of the key financial incentives to join, such as commission-free trading, are now standard.

This dynamic allows you to pick a platform that best suits your needs and preferences. Below is a list of best brokers to help guide your research.

Why state the obvious? Your share count is actually critical because it determines your risk-reward profile. The more shares you own, the more profits you accrue should the underlying stock rise in value. Conversely, the opposite is true. Therefore, only ramp up your share count for your highest-conviction ideas.

Familiarize yourself with the below concepts before placing your first trade:

To execute a market order, follow these steps:

Follow the same steps for market orders, except that you must also enter your desired execution price.

Before jumping on an IPO opportunity, you should review the Financial Industry Regulatory Authoritys guidance on restricted persons, which prevents people with access to insider information from unfairly profiting from the market debut.

While the Robinhood access to pre-IPO shares is distinct for YOU stock, other companies such as ClickIPO offer similar services. In this case, ClickIPO buys blocks of select pre-IPO stocks and offers them to interested retail investors.

Post 9/11, the security paradigm for the U.S. transportation network changed dramatically to address asymmetric threats. While everybody travelers appreciate the underlying purpose of screening protocols, they are both cumbersome and economically draining.

Fortunately, CLEAR Secure provides an innovative solution, offering accurate and touchless biometric scans to its subscribers for easy access across multiple airports and entertainment facilities. Better yet, as the COVID-19 crisis fades, travel volume will return in earnest, boosting demand for YOU stock.

0 Commissions and no deposit minimums. Everyone gets smart tools for smart investing. Webull supports full extended hours trading, which includes full pre-market (4:00 AM - 9:30 AM ET) and after hours (4:00 PM - 8:00 PM ET) sessions. Webull Financial LLC is registered with and regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).It is also a member of the SIPC, which protects (up to $500,000, which includes a $250,000 limit for cash) against the loss of cash and securities held by a customer at a financially-troubled SIPC-member brokerage firm.

Go here to read the rest:

How to Buy CLEAR Secure IPO (YOU) Stock on the Open Benzinga - Benzinga