Dear Mr. Rubin,
I am writing this letter to you in regards to your recent appearance at the University of New Hampshire.
Firstly, I would like to commend you for your overall egalitarian, reasonable approach to political discourse and discussion, specifically when visiting college campuses.
I would like to offer some criticism, however, on the extent at which you offer your patience and the possible ramifications of your being overtly sympathetic to heckling and disingenuous inquiry.
I am a freethinker and independent researcher of philosophy, political theory, scholarly refutations, science, religion and various schools of thought etc.
I am the co-founder of Maggie Street Magazine, which is a new publication that writes on various genres and subjects, from an intellectual perspective.
I have appreciation for the intellectual contributions of economic theorists such as Karl Marx & Chomsky, as much as I have for Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek.
Your antagonists (specifically those who offer no argument) at the University of New Hampshire, as it turns out, are not leftists. They are not radicals, revolutionaries or advocates of social justice either.
In order to lay claim to these titles one must first demonstrate a genuine desire to engage in political discourse, such is the responsibility of the “revolutionary”. The arena of intellectual war is the mind, and your opposition, in this particularly case, is clearly unprepared for battle.
I must implore then, Mr. Rubin, what is the purpose of the charade that you’ve exhibited at UNH? Why would you pander to the minuscule portion of your audience who showcased no sincerity or respect for the principles of philosophical debate?
I wonder, sir, if you were at a pub and decided, for recreation, to provoke a conversation with another gentleman and he began shaking a jar of pennies at you in a boisterous and infantile manner, would you continue to engage him?
Or would you realize that you had made a mistake in addressing him at all and promptly discontinue the efforts of conversation?
If you truly value the tenets of education, discussion, debate and expanding the compendium of human knowledge, then you owe it to your conviction not to entertain the notion of condescending to address the hecklers at your events.
By doing so you are reducing the arena of intellectual debate to a talk show standard, slightly above what you should expect from Jerry Springer.
You are also validating the behavior of the hecklers when you become sympathetic to them, even if your sympathy is manufactured for the cameras and the sponsored Facebook ads (where I learned about your performance.)
Please, for the sake of intellectualism itself, stop spotlighting those who have no interest in the sacred art of philosophical, intellectual and political debate.
I believe a University (and this nation in general) should be a free marketplace where individuals can solemnly present contrasting ideas; be it communists versus capitalists, atheists vs. Christians, or conservatives versus liberals etc.
From which we gain knowledge, new ideas and the expansion of the intellectual chronicles and compendiums. These have been the catalyst of our evolution and the very fulcrum upon which our civilization turns.
The antagonists who engage you and are willing to debate you are fine, they are within the parameter of virtue and value of the concept of debate.
It is folly, however, and a disservice to allot time and spotlight to those who merely wish to disrupt for reasons unbeknownst even to themselves.
Maggie Street Magazine.