Time to make another entry to my “Very Short Blogroll” on the left-side column. I’m honored to introduce Keith Burgess-Jackson, JD, PhD. He’s a licensed attorney in both Michigan and Arizona, and currently a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas. I’ve been reading his blog, on and off, for a few months and I find his depth on the general subject matter of philosophy, politics, and ethics to be noteworthy. He comes up with some very compelling and thought-provoking ideas.

He’s a former liberal and socialist himself, and so speaks with some authority on what he considers wrong-headed with respect to liberal ideology. He’s also far more polite, charitable and patient in characterizing his philosophical opponents than am I.

To wit, read here his post on liberal entitlement. Here’s an excerpt.

Liberals think that the means to world peace is negotiation (conciliation, compromise). No conservative opposes world peace. But not all conflicts are resolvable through negotiation, for that requires rational, self-interested agents. Our enemies today—radical Muslims—are irrational, at least by Western standards. They value destruction of their enemies more than their own lives or the lives of their loved ones. How do you negotiate with someone who is suicidal? How do you negotiate with someone who wants your death more than anything else? You have no leverage. The only way to deal with implacable, irrational enemies is through force. Conservatives, to their credit, understand this. Liberals do not.