Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
This morning I found the text in the headline, associated with this picture over on the Hello Kitty of Blogging:
Meanwhile: In the growing comment thread under that “The Vampire Problem” post, our resident lib gadfly is accusing me of making a muddled, incoherent critique about people on the left, failing to distinguish between leftists and liberals. The accusation itself is a bit muddled and incoherent, but from what I understand of it, by conflating these two memberships I am working a quality of incoherence into all of the comments I make about that set membership because I’ve qualified the set membership in a sloppy way. The evidence for this being, that liberals are generally leftists but everyone on the left is not necessarily a liberal.
Hmmm…I’m sure there are people who agree with that, maybe a textbook/encyclopedia definition or two that support it. It doesn’t impress me as an entirely uncontested truth, and even if it were, it does not necessarily follow that this distinction is important in any way. If leftism is the superset, therefore the criticisms become more fragile and easily challenged when applied to that larger group, is it not nevertheless a demonstrable assertion that individuality and dissent are generally greeted with hostility, and even rancor, on the left? And so statements like “The left believes in man-made climate change” — while perhaps they should become hazardous, they don’t. The leftist who is skeptical of the man-made climate change theory, while he may exist here and there, is an exception that proves the rule.
But also, notice: The man-made disaster theory, like so many other ideas on the left, is a narrative. And not just any narrative. Let’s inspect narratives a little bit. Quoting from myself, in some private correspondence I had to put together (on an entirely different subject) last week:
…we are dealing with, for lack of a better term, what could most precisely be called a “supremely persistent narrative.” Read that as a narrative that is “supreme” in the sense that it takes a back seat to nothing, not even reality itself. It therefore jeopardizes its own integrity by consistently prevailing over that reality rather than conforming to it, or yielding to it. Such narratives are often seen to proliferate and thrive like harmful bacteria, when people start to opine on scientific things without showing any semblance of scientific discipline…
:
Narratives like these take root, like weeds, in all sorts of thinking efforts in every day life. They do a three-step, to keep thriving: Ignore, Pounce and Dream. Facts inconvenient to the narrative are ignored, rationalized away, minimized, gutterballed. Then, when a fact comes along that might have have the opposite effect upon the narrative, which means to nourish it and strengthen it, the person clinging to the narrative pounces like a starving carnivore on this “fact,” lending it much greater weight, through more rationalization, than those other “facts” that were diminished and set aside. And finally, after that cycle has been repeated awhile, but the crown-jewel “fact” that would really slam-dunk this favored narrative fails to appear, the frustrated narrative-clinger simply makes it up.
The challenge to identifying these things is that science itself uses narratives in an entirely legitimate way. “Theory” is, when all’s said and done, just a fancy word to describe these; it’s an “I wonder if” idea with sufficient structure lent to it that it becomes testable. The difference is, if such a theory becomes, what did I say…”supremely persistent”…then, as a scientific theory, it becomes useless. The ignore-pounce-dream three-step is therefore not to be tolerated in science.
Or at least, that used to not be the case.
But anyway, however you define the political left in modern western civilization, whatever term you use, and whether or not you view this superset/subset relationship between left and liberals the way our leftist-liberal gadfly friend here has…none of it matters because we have had this “supremely persistent narrative” going on, on the left, for the last century or more. That the collage, above, is indeed a horror story; humans are a toxin, a sort of disease upon the planet.
Paradoxically, there is another supremely persistent narrative that we are in a process of evolution, and this evolution is toward perfection. The left believes in this with great gusto, and at first blush it seems to be a contradiction, and therefore, a problem. However — I notice this part is not too well fleshed out. You’ll notice when you talk to leftists, ideas themselves undergo an “evolution,” if you will, eventually achieving mobility among leftists, and in some cases hyper-mobility. A good example of this is “I just can’t explain what it is about Barack Obama, He’s so awesome.” The vision of human perfection, you’ll notice, never is quite elevated to this stage of hyper-mobility. You can find a leftist with such a vision, but you’ll have to get him drunk, or stoned, to pry it out of him, and then there isn’t too much chance you can find a hundred other leftists with the same vision. They are not syndicated on this idea, and they do not care to become so.
I believe the narrative about evolving toward perfection, is in fact a branch-off from the narrative about being a pestilence upon the planet. The perfection is a day-to-day neutral environmental effect; we are “evolving” in the sense that we are becoming cleaner, each generation hopefully doing less damage than we did the year before. When the effect is identical with our being here, to our not being here at all, that will be the perfection.
So the Star Trek universe with all the war and famine and disease having been ended — food replicators whipping up Earl Grey hot tea and fudge sundaes on a whim — that’s not quite it. We are to evolve toward a zero. Become more sophisticated, year by year, sure. Articulate, heck yeah. More well-read…only in written tomes upon which our friends, the leftists, have managed to jot in the final word, top to bottom…absolutely. We are to become more cerebral and maybe our heads will, physically, become more ballooned in shape and veined in texture to reflect this. But the ultimate intent is that our impact will be reduced to zero, since the only impact we can have is bad. Yes, even a “lightworker” like Barack Obama. He does good things, but only in the sense that He makes us better, and He makes us better in the sense that He doesn’t actually build things, He just protects the planet from the awful things we do, by putting some new rules on us that stop us from hurting it.
Now there are some certain classes, for the most part victim-classes, that are spared this; as far as the left is concerned, they can proliferate, prosper, achieve greater influence, and not only is that quite alright but that is evidence of this continued “progress.” The left likes to see greater numbers, they’re often observed equating higher numbers with some kind of achievement. Joe Biden famously embarrassed himself coming up with something good to say about East Indians, and managed to fill the bill by noticing you couldn’t go into a 7-11 or Dunkin’ Donuts anymore without having their accent, or something…viewing this remark most charitably, which is difficult, it seems to me that he was engaged in the tired old liberal trap of recognizing meaningful accomplishment in an ethnic group by way of simple population increase.
But that’s a special insult in its very own league, when you think about it. That’s the very best those people can do? Gosh, you’re so wonderful, there’s so many of you!
Of course, higher numbers can translate into more votes, and I suspect this is why liberals — excuse me, leftists — like to see higher numbers within these cherry-picked classes. We know this is true of Jews, women, poor people, their adoration for these higher numbers is strictly all about electoral outcome. There’s the old joke about “democrats love poor people, their policies make so many more of them.” It isn’t really a joke at all.
They’re still stumped when I ask my favorite ethical question: Who cares? If there’s no deity who put us here, no Higher Power who cares about us or what we do, we just sort of grew here like a fungus and someday we’re going to off ourselves, then the planet will spin away, disease free, awaiting its own inevitable demise…meanwhile, we abort some babies to make our wretched lives a bit more tolerable here, in this game of “I got here first, so I have all sorts of rights, you have to get sucked into a sink to make room for me” — what does any of this matter? We invade and depose Saddam Hussein who, right, got it, didn’t directly attack us. What of it? Discrimination? Just something we’re doing in the cosmic wink-of-an-eye, while we’re here. How is it of any consequence at all?
In fact, doesn’t war just hasten the much-anticipated sunset on this long dreary day of environmental damage? Means fewer of us.
Of course I don’t have an answer to that…I haven’t gotten one…it won’t happen. Any time you corner a lib, they look for some way to get morally outraged so they can change the subject. And that question, of course, gives them one in spades.
And so, no, I don’t recognize these delicate set memberships. I see that whole thing as more confusing, obfuscating, decoy squid-ink…and the idealogical split, the way I see it, is an either-or. Whether people see it or not, they’re really just answering the question that has confronted them, “Do humans do?” And, along that spectrum, the so-called “moderates” are just fooling themselves. We’re ultimately all in a centrifuge, bound to get yanked toward one extreme or the other, once we’ve answered that question for ourselves. “Moderate” just means “on the way there.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Cui bono?
Thanks to Stalin, Mao, Castro, and Kim, the word “leftist” is synonymous with “mass-murdering communist tyrant.” (It’s no coincidence that all those folks who carry ANSWER signs at protest rallies call themselves leftists, not liberals). “Liberal,” by contrast, still carries warm fuzzy I-care-about-the-children connotations (and “progressive” is all that plus I’ve-taken-a-grad-class).
This is why Obama’s not a socialist — he just wants to nationalize major industries. And ObamaCare “preserves insurance industry profits,” and is thus pro-free market; why can’t you ignorant wingers understand that?! It’s a tax, taxes pay for roads and schools, if you oppose ObamaCare you’re against firemen and police.
The purpose of all this is the precise calibration of a virtue fix. In arguing with conservatives, the point is that you’re stupid. They’re not arguing with you; in fact, they’re not “arguing” at all — to their intended audience of liberal (leftist, progressive) friends, they’re dancing intellectual circles around you, because you obviously don’t understand the differences between socialism as presented by the Third International and the syndicalism advocated by the IWW (but not the whole IWW, but a splinter faction which….) etc. etc.
Or whatever. When you argue about the tension between liberty and equality, say, you’re proceeding as if there’s a tension between liberty and equality. But that just proves you’re a racist, because there is no tension between liberty and equality — liberty is race quotas and mandatory sexual harassment training and taxpayer-funded contraception at Catholic hospitals and forcing bakers to make cakes celebrating gay weddings. If you’d paid attention in your Protest Studies seminar you’d know that, you dummy.
I’d wager the entire US national debt that our collective friends are pushing the reload button on that thread like monkeys for crack pellets — exact same mechanism, exact same purpose, exact same outcome.
- Severian | 08/15/2012 @ 07:35I don’t know….”The BIG LIE” works for me.
narritive, script, jurno,-list ….whatever.
- CaptDMO | 08/15/2012 @ 09:41*sigh* no comma after jurno
- CaptDMO | 08/15/2012 @ 09:44I swear, I’m gonna rip the Caps Lock button off.
Severian: When you argue about the tension between liberty and equality, say, you’re proceeding as if there’s a tension between liberty and equality.
That’s exactly right. And because these two principles are sometimes in conflict, liberals vary considerably in their views.
- Zachriel | 08/15/2012 @ 10:14…liberals vary considerably in their views.
Right, in the sense that there are many ways to “fit” a carpet measuring 12′ by 16′, into a room that measures ten by fifteen. The very selection creates a contradiction, and ultimately it isn’t going to work, but there are lots of different ways to play a game of pretend with it…and, if you’re sufficiently determined to refuse to recognize what needs to be done (just cut it down to size or get a different carpet), you can waste as many hours & days working the bubbles & wrinkles out of it as you care to.
In that sense, there are lots of views, but lots of commonalities on the liberal side of the spectrum as well. The oppressed have a greater right to property, liberty and other good things than the non-oppressed; central planning will result in more of this liberty (for the people who deserve to have it, anyway); humans are a disease; feelings of concern for our fellow man, can be forced through law. There are other common themes to it — that are equally wrong.
- mkfreeberg | 08/15/2012 @ 12:37mkfreeberg: The very selection creates a contradiction, and ultimately it isn’t going to work,
What actual people do (not your straw people) is try to strike a balance between different values. Each person places different emphasis on values depending on their personality and experience. So, someone might think it reasonable for the federal government to outlaw racial discrimination in public accommodation, believing it to be a reasonable restriction of personal liberty in the pursuit of equality. That doesn’t mean the person also thinks the government should control every aspect of people’s existence. It just doesn’t work that way with real people.
- Zachriel | 08/15/2012 @ 12:48What actual people do (not your straw people) is try to strike a balance between different values. Each person places different emphasis on values depending on their personality and experience. So, someone might think it reasonable for the federal government to outlaw racial discrimination in public accommodation, believing it to be a reasonable restriction of personal liberty in the pursuit of equality. That doesn’t mean the person also thinks the government should control every aspect of people’s existence. It just doesn’t work that way with real people.
Except when it does work that way. And, in fact, it does and has worked exactly that way over the past hundred years. “Striking a balance” to a leftist means simply cutting back on the greater value to match the lesser; it never means increasing the lower level. Cut too much? Just repeat with the other value. And even at that, well, why does a leftist have to increase anything? It never even occurs to the left to try letting people increase their own liberty or equality.
When what you’re doing is Fair and Good, you can never go too far. There’s no such thing as cutting too much, only “balance” or “imbalance.” And eventually, there’s no such thing as Fair and Good, either, only “modern” or “timely” or “enlightened,” and everything becomes sweeping vocabulary and leaders turned into heroic icons of progress. To use a lesser example, you’ll have noticed that ads for movies or books or such always have those sorts of quotes. The movie is “STUNNING” or “A CLASSIC” or “FOR OUR GENERATION” without saying why. Was it the great dialogue or cinematography or a particular performance? Usually the performance: “TOP OF HER GAME” or “GIVES AN OSCAR-WORTHY PERFORMANCE” or “IS DAZZLING.” And again, why? Uhhhhhh….
Sure, an ad isn’t a critique, and seeking out the critical evaluation does go into those details. So why is our political discourse following the advertising model, rather than the evaluation model?
Following the ad model, I hear nonsense like “You didn’t build that” and “Spread it around for everyone” and “At some point, you’ve made enough money” and “Some people bitterly cling to things like guns and religion” and so forth. Following the eval model, I see that every single one of those applause lines for the left is a desire to cut down something or someone, and never to increase something or someone. (It may look like giving, but giving other people’s stuff away doesn’t cut it.) And when I look at what has happened over the past hundred years, I see one party and one political philosophy following the same cycle: begin by refusing to dismiss any fringe idea; proceed to refuse to call such ideas fringe; move to saying that the fringe idea could be made to work, but of course not that other idea that is really out there (and that nobody even thought had any revelance to the case in point); give up on that and just accept the idea “for now”; and finally end up saying that the idea is not only viable but necessary and that all other alternatives are beyond the pale.
It happened with contraception, once a eugenic fever dream. It happened with abortion – “safe, rare, legal.” It happened with many of the items specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, and most definitely with the 9th and 10th amendments – written specifically because James Madison feared that listing the others would give people the notion that those rights were all there were, a fear that many of his latest successors have worked diligently to realize. It’s happening with civil unions and their successors. And each step further was justified by saying exactly what Z is saying here: “Of course we’re stopping here! Of course, not THAT next step. Sure a few people might want that, but not all of us.”
In the other thread, Z, you defined the political left as “advocacy of societal changes to bring about a more egalitarian society.” So why is the only agent for that societal change through government? It’s never up to the society as a whole, only the ever-growing portion of society that makes law and policy. The real societal change inherent in the Left is to co-opt every private affair and dictate terms in ever-wider areas, by redefining every personal act as political; the egalitarian model is realized by making ever non-government person and thing equally trod upon.
- nightfly | 08/15/2012 @ 14:28PS – sorry for the wall of text.
- nightfly | 08/15/2012 @ 14:28nightfly: “Striking a balance” to a leftist means simply cutting back on the greater value to match the lesser; it never means increasing the lower level.
That is not correct. Many on the political left work on human rights issues, including freedom of speech, the right of assembly, minority protection, etc. In other words, they push for individual liberties before other considerations.
nightfly: In the other thread, Z, you defined the political left as “advocacy of societal changes to bring about a more egalitarian society.”
Yes, that is the conventional definition. Notice that this is somewhat different from liberalism, which is the advocacy of liberty *and* equality. Progressivism is the advocacy of government reform to address societal problems.
nightfly: So why is the only agent for that societal change through government?
It’s not. Some organizations try to effect change directly, such as providing medical care for the poor.
nightfly: The real societal change inherent in the Left is to co-opt every private affair and dictate terms in ever-wider areas, by redefining every personal act as political; the egalitarian model is realized by making ever non-government person and thing equally trod upon.
Except that not everyone on the political left agrees with that model. Again, just because someone thinks there should be a law against discrimination in public accommodations doesn’t mean they also think every personal act is political or that government should be all-encompassing.
We had suggested in the previous thread that perhaps the claim could be argued about leftism as a political force, though not about all the shades of leftists as individuals; but no one took up that idea. We had also discussed that the political center has been moving generally left since the Renaissance, which would seem to support the view, but that met with resistance.
- Zachriel | 08/15/2012 @ 14:59What actual people do (not your straw people) is try to strike a balance between different values. Each person places different emphasis on values depending on their personality and experience. So, someone might think it reasonable for the federal government to outlaw racial discrimination in public accommodation, believing it to be a reasonable restriction of personal liberty in the pursuit of equality. That doesn’t mean the person also thinks the government should control every aspect of people’s existence.
Exactly! That’s why my carpet-too-big-for-the-room analogy works so well, and is, in fact (if I dare say so myself) brilliant. You ever match up a room with a carpet that is too big for it?
Until you invest the time and the effort and the energy to devise a physical test, to see if the carpet fits flush, North-to-South-and-East-to-West, it can be easy to miss out on the true nature of the problem. And the confusion encountered by all of the whatever-ya-calls-em, the leftists, the liberals, the left-leaning, whatever, is this: They think they have experienced all the square footage of the room when they really haven’t. And so, within “their personality and experience” as you call it…read that as, some 50 square feet out of the 200 in the room…their way of fitting the carpet works awesomely. It’s perfect, look at it hugging the floor there! B-u-u-u-t…and this is the part that all of you seem to keep missing…you still have not installed the carpet properly, to the point where you can staple it or glue it in place, clock out, go home, have a cold beer, and reflect with confidence that you will not be showing up to a complaint from the customer in the morning. Note, that to identify this problem with liberalism/leftism, I do not need to distinguish amongst these various shades-of-bolshevik upon which you wish to opine; the deficit is endemic to general left-ism.
The whole ideology is dedicated to offering the inexperienced dictatorial power over the experienced, and whatever problems that result from that will just — aw, heck, ignore them and they’ll go away. That’s left-wing politics in a nutshell right there. The non-producers should have superior rank over the producers, and we’re pretty sure it’ll all work out in the end. If it doesn’t, then don’t write it down whatever you do.
We had suggested in the previous thread that perhaps the claim could be argued about leftism as a political force, though not about all the shades of leftists as individuals; but no one took up that idea.
Did this not suffice?:
The oppressed have a greater right to property, liberty and other good things than the non-oppressed; central planning will result in more of this liberty (for the people who deserve to have it, anyway); humans are a disease; feelings of concern for our fellow man, can be forced through law.
- mkfreeberg | 08/15/2012 @ 16:09mkfreeberg: That’s why my carpet-too-big-for-the-room analogy works so well, and is, in fact (if I dare say so myself) brilliant.
So brilliant, that your point is lost. Please try it without the analogy.
Are you trying to say that people trying to balance liberty and equality must inevitably choose liberty or equality, and that no compromise is possible? So if someone chooses to support ending discrimination in public accommodation, they are endorsing Stalin or something?
But not all liberals share those views. Indeed, those are largely illiberal views. As for humans being a disease, liberals usually view people as a product of their environment, hence perfectible to some degree. Perhaps that view might be found on the extreme left sometimes. (The counterpart on the extreme right would be that some races are a disease.)
- Zachriel | 08/15/2012 @ 17:51(The counterpart on the extreme right would be that some races are a disease.)
Who, exactly, on this “extreme right”? Which races?
In my experience, the only persons discriminating on the basis of race have been on the left…
- mkfreeberg | 08/15/2012 @ 17:55Here’s an interesting story about a far right leader in Hungary.
“Anti-Semitic, right-wing Hungarian leader finds out he’s Jewish”
- Zachriel | 08/15/2012 @ 17:56http://www.dailynews.com/ci_21317509/anti-semitic-right-wing-hungarian-leader-finds-out
Anti-Semitic, right-wing Hungarian leader finds out he’s Jewish
What the almighty fuck has that got to do with anything? And here’s collection of very out-and-proud left wingers sporting awful anti-Semitic signs.
You know, it’s not even your dishonesty that offends me anymore; it’s the childishness. Do you really expect us to take this kind of argument seriously?
I read your link and looked up this politician’s party. Wiki quotes their mission statement that their “fundamental purpose” was the protection of “Hungarian values and interests.”
Hungarian. As in, “relating to Hungary.” As in, “not even remotely related to the USA.”
So: are we allowed to make cross-cultural determinations of what is, and is not, “right wing”? Are we now saying that “right-ism” is reducible to a broad category of worldwide applicability?
Think carefully before you answer, comrade….
- Severian | 08/15/2012 @ 18:59They were responding to my comment “In my experience, the only persons discriminating on the basis of race have been on the left,” which was a reply to “The counterpart on the extreme right would be that some races are a disease,” itself a reply to the subject of the post, that the left thinks humanity overall is a disease.
The task then became to travel outside of my experience and get me educated.
Which necessarily involved a trip outside of the country…therefore, outside of the subject…specifically, to Hungary.
It’s not a question of whether The Zachriel will “win” the argument, since they always will, it’s a question of how they go about doing it. I have to say, I didn’t expect that kind of intercontinental air-travel contortion.
- mkfreeberg | 08/15/2012 @ 23:42mkfreeberg: So: are we allowed to make cross-cultural determinations of what is, and is not, “right wing”? Are we now saying that “right-ism” is reducible to a broad category of worldwide applicability?
Of course it does. The term comes from the French Revolution. Those advocating égalité sat to the left of the president, the royalists to the right.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html
mkfreeberg: The task then became to travel outside of my experience and get me educated.
Which we did. National exceptionalism and jingoism are characteristics of those on the far right.
mkfreeberg: Which necessarily involved a trip outside of the country…therefore, outside of the subject…specifically, to Hungary.
It was a topical example.
- Zachriel | 08/16/2012 @ 04:13It was Sev who asked the question about reducibility, and he specifically suggested that you should think carefully before answering. Which you didn’t do if you can’t even keep track of who asked what.
Your “topical example” sucks butt, because it supports the position of your opposition much better than your own. The question now stands: What does supporting the royalists around the end of the eighteenth century, have to do with building a career in national antisemetic politics, and then making an ass out of oneself when one discovers he is legally Jewish?
Seems to me it would gel much better with the here-and-now to say: “Right-wingers assert power of the individual over (or in spite of) the institutions, left-wingers assert power of the institutions over the individual.” Examples abound…
- mkfreeberg | 08/16/2012 @ 05:35It was Sev who asked the question about reducibility, and he specifically suggested that you should think carefully before answering. Which you didn’t do if you can’t even keep track of who asked what.
Jesus, I can’t believe the fell for that. They really can’t help themselves.
So, to summarize: Right-ism is universally applicable, and all cross-cultural comparisons are relevant. The go-to example is…. the French Revolution. Left-ism, by contrast, is a glorious mosaic, and each individual must be evaluated absolutely context-free. Right-ism in America is therefore irrevocably tainted by some Hungarian anti-Semite, but Stalin, Che, Mao…. these guys have nothing whatsoever to do with American left-ism.
That would be funny if it weren’t so sad. Given that, you know, it was the French Revolutionary Left who promulgated the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. And if internationalism weren’t a core tenet of liberalism from its very founding — the Enlightenment (note carefully, The Enlightenment) was explicitly about the discovery and propagation of universal values. And if you all hadn’t been going on and on in this very thread about how liberals work for universal values like human rights.
Rousseau and Robespierre are two sides of the same coin, but internationalism and egalitarianism only matter when it’s good liberals working for human rights, not Lenin sending people to the Gulag in the name of those exact values. Got it.
[And now it’s time to play everyone’s favorite party game: Which ludicrous dodge will the Zachriel employ next? Will it be:
a) Some cut-and-paste about communism being hijacked by corrupt men? (with, of course, no explanation of how same logic doesn’t apply to the right, since of course we’re all Hungarian anti-Semites)
b) “of course there is a wide variety of beliefs on the left; that’s what we’ve been saying (cut-and-paste)” (petitio principii, kids)
c) “we never said anything about American liberalism; we were only making a point about the French Revolution” (cut-and-paste link to their own blog) (and for the record, when is that an admissible standard of evidence? I can link to lots of blogs that say lots of stuff I agree with)
d) cut-and-paste “the trend since the Renaissance has been toward greater liberty and equality, liberals believe in that, that’s all we’re saying”
e) some other kind of ludicrous squid ink, complete with (misattributed) cut-and-pastes of irrelevant snippets from somewhere upthread
Vote now! Win valuable prizes!]
- Severian | 08/16/2012 @ 07:02mkfreeberg: What does supporting the royalists around the end of the eighteenth century, have to do with building a career in national antisemetic politics, and then making an ass out of oneself when one discovers he is legally Jewish?
Because they both support traditional hierarchies and inequalities, the Ancien Régime or Hungarian exceptionalism. Why do YOU think everyone calls them a far right party?
mkfreeberg: “Right-wingers assert power of the individual over (or in spite of) the institutions, left-wingers assert power of the institutions over the individual.”
Well, no. Some of the most important organizations for protecting individual liberties are on the political left.
Left-right, that is, egalitarianism-to-hierarchy is orthogonal to liberty-to-authority. We’ve provided numerous citations. Left is defined as advocacy for egalitarianism. Right is defined as acceptance or support of social hierarchies. Liberalism is defined as support for both equality and liberty. Conservatism, in its normal sense, is defined as support for traditional institutions and wisdom. Progressivism is defined as advocacy of government reform to address social issues.
Severian: Stalin, Che, Mao…. these guys have nothing whatsoever to do with American left-ism.
Stalin, Che and Mao are all left wing extremists. Some people on the hard left in the U.S. have supported these extremists at various times in U.S. history. The hard left had significant influence during the early twentieth century, but has waned in influence in the generations since.
Severian: Given that, you know, it was the French Revolutionary Left who promulgated the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen.
That’s right. The Declaration extended rights to citizens, rather than rights being determined by proximity to the King.
Severian: And if internationalism weren’t a core tenet of liberalism from its very founding — the Enlightenment (note carefully, The Enlightenment) was explicitly about the discovery and propagation of universal values.
That’s right. The extension of rights to all people everywhere.
Severian: Rousseau and Robespierre are two sides of the same coin, but internationalism and egalitarianism only matter when it’s good liberals working for human rights, not Lenin sending people to the Gulag in the name of those exact values. Got it.
Of course it matters. Keep in mind that left-right, that is, egalitarianism-to-hierarchy is orthogonal to liberty-to-authority. Extremists on both left and right will use authoritarian methods. On the left, that means the destruction of the class system. On the right, the destruction of out-groups.
Severian: Some cut-and-paste about communism being hijacked by corrupt men?
Extremism means the ends justify the means, and it also means ideological ends that can’t be achieved in reality. So on the left, Stalin can get rid of his political enemies by denouncing them as fascists and purging the Kulaks. On the right, Hitler can get rid of his enemies by denouncing them as communists and purging the Jews.
Severian: Right-wingers assert power of the individual over (or in spite of) the institutions, left-wingers assert power of the institutions over the individual.
Only those on the hard right or hard left. Moderates don’t assert such power, but tend to try to balance liberty, equality and the value of traditional institutions.
- Zachriel | 08/16/2012 @ 07:39Extremism means the ends justify the means, and it also means ideological ends that can’t be achieved in reality. So on the left, Stalin can get rid of his political enemies by denouncing them as fascists and purging the Kulaks. On the right, Hitler can get rid of his enemies by denouncing them as communists and purging the Jews.
Ding ding ding!!!! We have a winner!!!! Everyone who voted for a), check your inboxes — your prizes are in the mail.
I think our work here is done.
- Severian | 08/16/2012 @ 08:04Severian: Everyone who voted for a), check your inboxes — your prizes are in the mail.
Severian: (with, of course, no explanation of how same logic doesn’t apply to the right, since of course we’re all Hungarian anti-Semites)
In fact, we drew a direct parallel between extreme left and extreme right.
- Zachriel | 08/16/2012 @ 08:58Because they both [right wing in Revolution-era France, and Hungarian bigot] support traditional hierarchies and inequalities…
We’ve provided numerous citations. Left is defined as advocacy for egalitarianism. Right is defined as acceptance or support of social hierarchies. Liberalism is defined as support for both equality and liberty. Conservatism, in its normal sense, is defined as support for traditional institutions and wisdom.
Question: According to your own definition, affirmative action should eventually become a “conservative” movement, unless the liberals have the restraint and sense of justice to say “Okay, the inequities have been resolved, mission accomplished.” Which, of course, they don’t.
Is this then a definition we’ll be able to keep around when that happens? When the liberals become advocates of “support of social hierarchies” (and, there are decent arguments to be made, that this has happened already)?
- mkfreeberg | 08/16/2012 @ 09:15You drew a parallel, but this stops precisely where Sev’s question starts – if those extreme examples are parallel to the left and right, then why do they not DEFINE the left, the way they do the right? Why are the left always to be thought of only as individuals, vs. the right being thought of as a group?
(Incidentally, this “judge the Left as individual persons” bit is quite delirious coming from a collective leftist identity, but we’ll leave it aside for the moment.)
You didn’t answer Sev’s question, you just reasserted the initial proposition, already much in dispute in two threads (and counting). In the same way, you didn’t answer the charge that moderation in leftist principles is a phantom, only a way station to extremism – one much supported by evidence, provided by our host and others. You merely reasserted that “The hard left had significant influence during the early twentieth century, but has waned in influence in the generations since.”
As is the pattern we’ve observed in the past: “upper limits are in the 3°-5° C range,”, “The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together,” et als, ad infinitum. Just like those claims, this recent one seems doomed. The hard left has had significant influence not only during the early 20th, but here in the early 21st. They have become mainstreamed, and everything dismissed as fringe has since been embraced as the social and legislative platform of the modern Left as represented by the Democrat Party – even to the extent that the social and legislative platforms are indistinguishable, because the only tool permitted to remake society is the force of law. (And that is itself a radical Left principle.) Your own chosen example – medical care to the poor – is a perfect case in point, as the entire process has been nationalized by Obamacare.
In fact, Obama himself is another case in point. You spent a great deal of time trying to convince us that his “you didn’t build that” speech was about government programs, not business. My reply was that to him they were one and the same thing: that he listed business in a long list of other things (including government services) that he obviously considered all members of the same category of things: Things You Didn’t Build. He then emphasized the point when it came to business, lest he be misunderstood. How is that not a radical Left position straight from the Communist Manifesto? And this is the Democrat Pary standard-bearer, their nominee to hold the office of President. How far to the left is he from men like Harry Truman, John F Kennedy, or Daniel Patrick Moynahan? Could any three of those guys be elected in a Democrat primary? Hell, there are some squishy-marshmallow Republican groups who would consider them too far to the right! But of course, the “hard left influence has waned recently” in your multiple sets of eyes.
- nightfly | 08/16/2012 @ 09:24mkfreeberg: Question: According to your own definition, affirmative action should eventually become a “conservative” movement, unless the liberals have the restraint and sense of justice to say “Okay, the inequities have been resolved, mission accomplished.” Which, of course, they don’t.
Affirmative action has already been reduced in the U.S., such as the elimination of quotas. It still remains a program on the left because the purpose is to reduce inequities. Perhaps, affirmative action is no longer a practical solution to the remaining inequities, but you surely aren’t saying all inequities have been resolved?
(You probably mean right wing, rather than conservative. Conservatives conserve. It’s doubtful anyone supports affirmative action only because it is a venerable institution, and not because of its purported effect on equity.)
mkfreeberg: When the liberals become advocates of “support of social hierarchies” (and, there are decent arguments to be made, that this has happened already)?
You keep equating a trend with its most extreme instantiation. Almost everyone supports hierarchies in one form or another, except for those on the extreme left. More particularly, liberals balance liberty and equality. Many liberals support hierarchies, such as those established by markets.
- Zachriel | 08/16/2012 @ 15:52nightfly: You drew a parallel, but this stops precisely where Sev’s question starts – if those extreme examples are parallel to the left and right, then why do they not DEFINE the left, the way they do the right?
Huh? Simplistically, left is defined as more egalitarian, less hierarchical; right is defined as less egalitarian, more hierarchical. People fall on different places on this spectrum, may vary on one issue or other, and balance this with other values.
nightfly: Why are the left always to be thought of only as individuals, vs. the right being thought of as a group?
Individual-group is orthogonal to egalitarian-hierarchical. There are statists on the left and right. There are left and right anarchists.
Or are you referring to an individual’s beliefs, which certainly vary on left and right, as people try to balance competing values.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html
nightfly: You didn’t answer Sev’s question, you just reasserted the initial proposition
What question is that?
nightfly: In the same way, you didn’t answer the charge that moderation in leftist principles is a phantom, only a way station to extremism
We did answer. Someone might think it reasonable for the federal government to outlaw racial discrimination in public accommodation, believing it to be a reasonable restriction of personal liberty in the pursuit of equality. That doesn’t mean the person also thinks the government should control every aspect of people’s existence.
nightfly: The hard left has had significant influence not only during the early 20th, but here in the early 21st. They have become mainstreamed,
We introduced this concept earlier, but there was great resistance to it, even though it might have support their point. “The history of Western Civilization since the Renaissance, and more recently the entire world, has tended towards greater social equality and enhanced individual liberty.”In other words, the political and social center has moved left over time. Things considered normal today; liberty of conscience, free speech, universal literacy, the end of slavery, the civil rights movements, women’s rights, social security; were once the ideas of reformers and visionaries.
nightfly: In fact, Obama himself is another case in point. You spent a great deal of time trying to convince us that his “you didn’t build that” speech was about government programs, not business.
It clearly was. But the larger point is that people succeed not only through their own efforts, but because of the support of their families, partners, customers and communities.
nightfly: How far to the left is he from men like Harry Truman, John F Kennedy, or Daniel Patrick Moynahan?
Not all that far. Teddy Roosevelt proposed universal healthcare. Truman and Kennedy supported universal healthcare. Every other developed country has universal healthcare in one form or another. Obama hasn’t proposed any other large restructuring.
nightfly: But of course, the “hard left influence has waned recently” in your multiple sets of eyes.
Well, things are relative, but hard left usually refers to socialists, often those influenced by Marxist ideas. There is no serious movement in the U.S. to nationalize the private sector. Almost the entire world has bought into markets.
- Zachriel | 08/16/2012 @ 16:23comment in moderation queue
- Zachriel | 08/16/2012 @ 17:23…but you surely aren’t saying all inequities have been resolved?
Thank you for proving my point. Liberals can not, will not, stop anything, ever, no matter what happens, because that would be heresy within the liberal movement. Therefore, this talk of “moderate liberals” or “moderate left wing” is just silly.
That question will never go away so long as there is a western civilization: “Surely you’re not saying the inequities have been resolved?” It’s just going to go on, and on, and on, because liberals don’t give a rat’s ass about fixing anything, they just want to morally preen.
You keep equating a trend with its most extreme instantiation.
Seems we need to catch you up on the basics of exchanging ideas with someone who has different opinions. If you have any experience in this at all, it isn’t showing. An important first step — actually, it is the whole point from beginning to end, is to define the area of dispute. Now I’m not sure if it is some among you, or all, but you seem to be completely oblivious to the plain fact that whether liberals/lefties have the restraint and discipline to eventually say “stop” is within the region of dispute. We do not agree on this.
And, it is worth commenting upon, that you have brought absolutely nothing substantial to sway me toward your point of view on this.
Another article of dispute is the question of whether there is any point, whatsoever, to distinguishing between liberals and lefties. Or conservative and right-wing. Or moderate and extreme.
- mkfreeberg | 08/16/2012 @ 21:01I notice something about this:
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html
It breaks down in this distinction it makes toward moderate and extreme. Let’s try to take it completely seriously, just as a mental exercise. On the left:
“Liberals” tend to believe that traditional values and institutions can impede progress, that too slow of change can result in cultural stagnation or even disintegration. Rational liberals believe in the preservation of traditional values and institutions, of course, but believe they must be pushed to adapt to modern times. Liberals tend to look to the future for inspiration, the progress of history being seen as a march towards a more egalitarian society.
Left-wing “radicals”, such as communists, believe in absolute equality, and want to overthrow corrupt ancient institutions and bring forth a mythological and glorious future.
So…”liberals” versus “left wing ‘radicals'”: “More egalitarian” versus “absolute equality.” If I take this one hundred percent seriously, the “rational liberals” stop short of being “radicals” because they want a more egalitarian society but don’t want absolute equality. Some measured dose of vestigial inequality would be just fine and peachy with them.
I think a lot of conservatives would agree more with my vision which is: The “rational liberal” is a creature of fantasy, the “left wing radical” has essentially the same goals but isn’t too worried about winning votes, would prefer to use force. And both want “absolute equality” — so do conservatives — but conservatives want equality of opportunity whereas liberals want equality of outcome.
It would be tough to produce decent, sincere evidence against this. Your own page of definitions, on the other hand, when evidence arises against the way you’ve summed it up, you pretty much just re-state the text and re-post the link, as if that addresses the evidence.
No, I don’t know any liberals who would want a “more egalitarian society” but would be cool with stopping short of “absolute equality.” Why would they? It’s a “right.” They’d be among the first to say so. Look at the gay marriage debate. “Absolute equality” is what it’s supposed to be about, and I doubt like the dickens you’d find too many “rational liberals” who would say, everyone on the left side of that particular issue must be a “left wing radical”; they’re going by this belief that it’s all about some civil right, a basic human right, that there’s some kind of intolerable oppression taking place if both sides of the marriage institution, hetero and homo, are not absolutely, positively, perfectly, totally equal.
- mkfreeberg | 08/16/2012 @ 22:24Zachriel: Perhaps, affirmative action is no longer a practical solution to the remaining inequities, but you surely aren’t saying all inequities have been resolved?
mkfreeberg: Thank you for proving my point. Liberals can not, will not, stop anything, ever, no matter what happens, because that would be heresy within the liberal movement. Therefore, this talk of “moderate liberals” or “moderate left wing” is just silly.
You didn’t answer the question. It was a reasonable question, as that determines whether there remains justification for affirmative action. You also ignored the preamble, which also seems relevant.
mkfreeberg: Now I’m not sure if it is some among you, or all, but you seem to be completely oblivious to the plain fact that whether liberals/lefties have the restraint and discipline to eventually say “stop” is within the region of dispute. We do not agree on this.
Right. Your claim is that if someone support a liberal position, such as ending discrimination in public accommodation, that this means they are Hitler.
mkfreeberg: Another article of dispute is the question of whether there is any point, whatsoever, to distinguishing between liberals and lefties. Or conservative and right-wing. Or moderate and extreme.
You don’t see any difference between a moderate and an extremist? Between someone who wants to preserve traditional institutions while allowing gradual reform and someone who wants to tear it all down and start over again?
mkfreeberg: If I take this one hundred percent seriously, the “rational liberals” stop short of being “radicals” because they want a more egalitarian society but don’t want absolute equality. Some measured dose of vestigial inequality would be just fine and peachy with them.
Yes, that’s right. John Kennedy was a liberal who saw meritocracy, as in markets, as a valid and important part of society, even if he also supported government action where required, and the social safety net for those who were left behind.
mkfreeberg: And both want “absolute equality” — so do conservatives — but conservatives want equality of opportunity whereas liberals want equality of outcome.
Absolute equality refers to equality of outcome. Liberals range in views. Most support the inequality that comes from markets, but support equality of opportunity. And conservatives range in views, as well. Not all support unbridled equality of opportunity. Most support at least some aspects of the social safety net.
- Zachriel | 08/17/2012 @ 04:27“I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man’s ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.
“I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.
“Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies.”
— John Kennedy
- Zachriel | 08/17/2012 @ 04:29John Kennedy: … justice and freedom and brotherhood …
Liberté, égalité, fraternité!
- Zachriel | 08/17/2012 @ 04:48You didn’t answer the question. It was a reasonable question, as that determines whether there remains justification for affirmative action. You also ignored the preamble, which also seems relevant.
The question is not reasonable since it is not on topic. The topic is, is there such a thing as a moderate liberal or is the very notion a silly one, since liberalism is extremist by definition. With that in mind, I did “answer” the question, in a sense, since I reconciled it with what we’re really supposed to be talking about: If social stigma is going to be used to continue a movement, with an incredulous “Surely you don’t think the inequities have been resolved, do you?”, then the movement is not going to end, ever, and it becomes extreme.
Right. Your claim is that if someone support a liberal position, such as ending discrimination in public accommodation, that this means they are Hitler.
Oh good, now I get to play the game too. Never said they are Hitler. (Also, according to Godwin Rule I just won, but we’ll let that go.) My claim is that liberalism is a grievance which will never, ever be satisfied, ever. You can’t affix the adverb “moderately” to that. Well you can, but when you do, what you have doesn’t really make too much sense, and it isn’t real.
You don’t see any difference between a moderate and an extremist?
Not where liberals are concerned, no.
Do you have examples to offer of when they wanted something changed in a certain way, got it, and then stopped? Over-and-done, like, let’s say, the “Glorious Revolution” of 1689? Even Obama’s revolution isn’t over. That’s a good example of the problem with modern liberalism, that the campaigning can’t ever end.
Yes, that’s right. John Kennedy was a liberal who saw meritocracy, as in markets, as a valid and important part of society, even if he also supported government action where required, and the social safety net for those who were left behind.
Right, JFK was a conservative with tax policy, a topic on which he was able to look down the road and see what the eventual consequences would be, and a progressive on civil rights, another topic on which he was not able to look down the road. Now we have the ACLU attorneys sending threatening letters to water park owners merely for offering discounted admission to church groups, and school officials who might allow prayer at graduation ceremonies, and bakery owners who do not want to bake wedding cakes for gay weddings. Not that he would have been able to do too much about any of that, but the civil rights revolution is certainly not over, and we have lost a lot of freedom…while lawyers got rich off the backs of the taxpayers. It is, after the dust has settled, less egalitarianism no matter how you cut it. In fact, it seems we have built a new class of aristocracy.
- mkfreeberg | 08/17/2012 @ 06:26Absolute equality refers to equality of outcome. Liberals range in views. Most support the inequality that comes from markets, but support equality of opportunity. And conservatives range in views, as well. Not all support unbridled equality of opportunity. Most support at least some aspects of the social safety net.
If liberals self-identify as liberals, but accept — not “support” — the inequality that comes from markets while they support equality of opportunity, that would mean the word “liberal” has been diminished into nothing more than a label. Now if they want to call themselves liberals so they can get along with some friends, somewhere, then they’re going to be faced with a choice eventually, because liberalism does not tolerate. As I’ve already demonstrated, with your assistance, they cannot say, to coin a phrase, “mission accomplished” nor will they accept anyone within their ranks agreeing to such a thing.
And the same is true of the self-identifying conservatives who accept — not necessarily “support” — the necessity of a social safety net. I would put myself in that crowd, actually. But, in doing so, we have a hope that the safety net will not be abused. Much like Sisyphus hoping the boulder will stay up this time.
- mkfreeberg | 08/17/2012 @ 06:33Morgan,
you nailed the problem exactly.
One of the few things the Zachriel did say clearly is that they believe liberal values are universal values. And right there we’ve entered the realm of incompatibles. For instance, here:
Absolute equality refers to equality of outcome. Liberals range in views. Most support the inequality that comes from markets, but support equality of opportunity.
Well, ok….. why? Why is “the inequality that comes from markets,” alone among the inequalities, acceptable?
Think carefully before you answer, because it’s very easy to make any inequality at all into a market-based inequality. To use their go-to example of discrimination in public institutions — that, too, is a market transaction. If I want to pay the price for discrimination — social ostracism, reduced revenue, etc. — then why shouldn’t I be able to? We could even pass a tax on not offering equal accommodations, since that seems to be the thing nowadays. This is, from the point of view of our hypothetical racist lunch counter manager, a perfectly rational economic decision. It is absolutely market-based. He believes the kind of clientele he will attract with his whites-only lunch counter will make up for the huge social and other disadvantages of admitting everybody.
Once again, we’re picking winners and losers in the “market.” This one is an acceptable market-based inequality; that one is unacceptable discrimination.
As you’ve shown, Morgan, the best way to determine if someone’s arguing in good faith is to take their pronouncements literally. So, then, Zachriels:
1) You claim that “Many liberals support hierarchies, such as those established by markets.” You then claim, in the very next post, that “Simplistically, left is defined as more egalitarian, less hierarchical; right is defined as less egalitarian, more hierarchical.” So: which specific market-based inequalities are ok? Which ones pass the “just-hierarchical-enough” test? Remember: SPECIFIC market-based inequalities. Simply cutting-and-pasting “we support market-based hierarchies” proves you’re a fraud.
2) Would those inequalities still be ok if one of the transacting parties were black, and the other white? Why or why not?
- Severian | 08/17/2012 @ 07:14And while we’re at it, let’s play “What’s Their Next Dodge?” Will it be:
a) you can’t discriminate in public accommodations because it’s unconstitutional (and therefore not “market based”); petition the government if you want to change that; good luck; it’s just the lousiest system….
b) a cut-and-paste JFK quote
c) a cut-and-paste citation to their own blog (which, as we’ve noted, is what led them into this trouble in the first place)
or
d) a blurry NOAA .gif, just for old times’ sake.
Vote now to receive valuable prizes!
- Severian | 08/17/2012 @ 07:31mkfreeberg: The question is not reasonable since it is not on topic.
Sure it was reasonable. Your point was that “Liberals can not, will not, stop anything, ever, no matter what happens, because that would be heresy within the liberal movement.” You used affirmative action as an example. It matters therefore whether affirmative action can still be justified, because you wouldn’t expect the program to be abandoned as long as 1) the need is there, 2) the means are effective.
mkfreeberg: Never said they are Hitler. (Also, according to Godwin Rule I just won, but we’ll let that go.)
As we are discussing political extremism, it’s not an invocation of Godwin’s Law.
mkfreeberg: My claim is that liberalism is a grievance which will never, ever be satisfied, ever. You can’t affix the adverb “moderately” to that.
You didn’t respond again. If someone supports a liberal position, such as ending discrimination in public accommodation, then Hitler. Is that your position or not?
mkfreeberg: JFK was a conservative with tax policy, a topic on which he was able to look down the road and see what the eventual consequences would be, and a progressive on civil rights, another topic on which he was not able to look down the road.
Kennedy was a self-described liberal. He even invoked the French motto, liberté, égalité, fraternité. So according to you, he was a liberal extremist, because there is no other kind.
mkfreeberg: If liberals self-identify as liberals, but accept — not “support” — the inequality that comes from markets while they support equality of opportunity, that would mean the word “liberal” has been diminished into nothing more than a label.
A liberal is someone who advocates liberty and equality. That’s what the word means. The principles are in tension.
Severian: Why is “the inequality that comes from markets,” alone among the inequalities, acceptable?
There are all sorts of inequalities in life. People are born with different abilities and in different circumstances.
Severian: If I want to pay the price for discrimination — social ostracism, reduced revenue, etc. — then why shouldn’t I be able to?
In Jim Crow society, it was integrators who were ostracized.
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/lunch-counter-sit-in-1963-granger.html
A liberal tries to balance the principals of equality and liberty. In the case of segregation in public accommodations, most liberals sided with ending the practice by federal action. Most people consider this one of the most important movements, not just in American history, but world history.
- Zachriel | 08/17/2012 @ 10:35http://www.history.com/photos/martin-luther-king-jr/photo5
A liberal is someone who advocates liberty and equality. That’s what the word means.
Then, they had better get together in a big convention somewhere, and figure out which one of those two mutually-exclusive principles they think is more important. If they want to engage in this self-contradiction and their platform ends up being one of nonsense, it isn’t my problem.
What is my problem, is this: The evidence appears to consistently show that they don’t really value either one. When liberty conflicts with equality they select equality, and then they re-define equality in this Animal-Farm way of “some are more equal than others.”
- mkfreeberg | 08/17/2012 @ 11:43mkfreeberg: Then, they had better get together in a big convention somewhere, and figure out which one of those two mutually-exclusive principles they think is more important.
Which is exactly the black-and-white thinking you have exhibited all along. They are not always mutually exclusive, and the degree of infringement of one or the other is a matter of degree. So again, if someone supports laws against discrimination in public accommodation, they are saying that the loss of liberty by a few is small compared to the inherent justice on the other. They weigh the merits and decide. There’s no perfect answer, because some people give more weight to liberty than to equality, but the perfect is the enemy of the good.
mkfreeberg: When liberty conflicts with equality they select equality, …
We have pointed to liberals who do not do so, but attempt to find a just balance between the two. If someone supports a liberal position, such as ending discrimination in public accommodation, does that make them an extremist? Was Kennedy an extremist? Was King Hitler?
- Zachriel | 08/17/2012 @ 13:20Huh…. whaddayknow, I was wrong. They went for e) the non sequitur followed by the Sanctimony Swerve.
In Jim Crow society, it was integrators who were ostracized.
Which is utterly beside the point. Because, of course, integration was the exact same kind of market transaction as discrimination.
And then
In the case of segregation in public accommodations, most liberals sided with ending the practice by federal action. Most people consider this one of the most important movements, not just in American history, but world history.
Which I’m sure gives you all the warm fuzzies –since you seem to think that the achievements of people you hope you would’ve agreed with 60 years ago somehow covers you in glory — but it’s irrelevant. The question was, why isn’t discrimination in lunch counter seating a “market-based inequality”?
As Morgan and the rest of us have noted several times, cutting-and-pasting “a liberal tries to balance the principals [sic] of equality and liberty” just doesn’t cut it, because you have no way to resolve conflicts between them. And they do conflict, all the time, as in the case of segregated lunch counters. Or in the case of religious bakers being sued if they refuse to make cakes for gay weddings. Or, in your absolute favorite example, the case of traffic lights — as Morgan notes, we make the tradeoff between “the complete liberty to go through intersections anytime we want” and “regulated stops and starts saves everybody time in the long run.”
More equality (everyone has to stop at the red light) pretty much inevitably leads to less liberty (we can’t go through intersections at our own pace). No conservative disputes this. The conservative argues that the accumulated social wisdom of ages and the experience of history gives us a pretty good idea how to adjudicate claims between equality and liberty, and fairly clear cut-off points.
Morgan’s point — and Nightfly’s, and mine (if I can presume to speak for those fine folks) — is that liberalism explicitly rejects such mechanisms. “That’s just Bible-thumping, white-privilege-encoding superstition,” they sniff. Which may be true, mind you, but then you’re forced to explain, from first principles, why forcing someone to buy health insurance via a tax on not doing so is a perfectly acceptable “market-based inequality,” but denying a business owner the right to refuse service to a customer isn’t.
[for the record, I like the Civil Rights Act, too…. I just don’t design my entire worldview around patting myself on the back for stuff other people did a thousand miles away sixty years ago].
- Severian | 08/17/2012 @ 13:21Severian: The question was, why isn’t discrimination in lunch counter seating a “market-based inequality”?
Not sure exactly what you’re saying. Blacks were not discriminated against because of market forces, but market forces were brought to bear against blacks. Racial hatred was an externality distorting the market. Racial discrimination not only limited opportunities for blacks, but provided cheap labor for whites.
Severian: And they do conflict, all the time, as in the case of segregated lunch counters.
That is exactly the point. It depends on how you weigh these competing values. Those who don’t think government should intervene might have chosen to vote against the Civil Rights Acts, as did Barry Goldwater.
Severian: More equality (everyone has to stop at the red light) pretty much inevitably leads to less liberty (we can’t go through intersections at our own pace). No conservative disputes this.
Not always (e.g. extending freedom of speech), but okay.
Severian: The conservative argues that the accumulated social wisdom of ages and the experience of history gives us a pretty good idea how to adjudicate claims between equality and liberty, and fairly clear cut-off points.
That’s right.
Severian: Morgan’s point — and Nightfly’s, and mine (if I can presume to speak for those fine folks) — is that liberalism explicitly rejects such mechanisms.
And that is why they are wrong. Liberalism balances liberty and equality. The political left is a continuum, with people placing more or less emphasis on equality.
Severian: explain, from first principles, why forcing someone to buy health insurance via a tax on not doing so is a perfectly acceptable “market-based inequality,” but denying a business owner the right to refuse service to a customer isn’t.
You can’t. It’s an individualized balance based on the relative weighting of competing values. While nearly everyone supports laws against racial discrimination (now), fewer support universal health care. This is the *expected situation* when people’s opinions vary on the balance of liberty and equality.
(By the way, business owners can refuse service. A bakery recently refused to serve Biden on a campaign stop. However, they can’t legally discriminate based on race.)
- Zachriel | 08/17/2012 @ 14:47Severian: Morgan’s point — and Nightfly’s, and mine (if I can presume to speak for those fine folks) — is that liberalism explicitly rejects such mechanisms.
And that is why they are wrong. Liberalism balances liberty and equality. The political left is a continuum, with people placing more or less emphasis on equality.
Being one of the persons in question, I feel qualified to say that Severian is correct about my point. In fact, I would say that the modern left has gone so far in rejecting moderating influences, that they no longer can be described as liberal. They are so wedded to equality of outcome that they will trample any notion of liberality in thought or action, if it leads to somebody somewhere having less than someone else.
I’m not wrong about this. Liberality may balance liberty and equality – the political left does not. It is not designed to balance anything, either in philosophy or in practice.
- nightfly | 08/17/2012 @ 19:05nightfly: Severian: Morgan’s point — and Nightfly’s, and mine (if I can presume to speak for those fine folks) — is that liberalism explicitly rejects such mechanisms.
And we provided counterexamples, such as Kennedy, Truman and Clinton. The Kennedy speech above explicitly states that liberalism is a balance between competing values; justice and freedom and brotherhood.
nightfly: In fact, I would say that the modern left has gone so far in rejecting moderating influences, that they no longer can be described as liberal.
Mkfreeberg stated it is inherent in any leftism, at least from the French Revolution on. Of course, he is confused thinking that it was the left that defined the class system of the time.
What do you mean by modern? After Kennedy, Truman and Clinton? If so, then you are in disagreement with mkfreeberg.
nightfly: Liberality may balance liberty and equality – the political left does not. It is not designed to balance anything, either in philosophy or in practice.
Do appreciate your clarity in your use of terminology. You are claiming that the modern left has abandoned the middle, moderate ground.
- Zachriel | 08/18/2012 @ 04:19Mkfreeberg stated it is inherent in any leftism, at least from the French Revolution on. Of course, he is confused thinking that it was the left that defined the class system of the time.
Ah, here we come to the heart of the matter. Has it not occurred to you all, that perhaps you’re the ones who are confused? Let us walk through the concepts that are so abstract and so fundamental, that we all must acknowledge they are constants.
Egalitarian-ness. Equality. We are liberals and we want equality; we perceive there must be some work to do toward this end, which logically must mean, currently we are lacking in equality. That in turn must logically mean there is inequality.
If there is inequality, there must be a class that has more and there must be a class that has less.
There has to be class-ism. It is logically unavoidable.
Borrowing a page from your book, though: All “moderate” liberals are liberals who have failed to think this all out; but all liberals who have failed to think this out, are not necessarily moderate liberals.
- mkfreeberg | 08/18/2012 @ 07:08mkfreeberg: There has to be class-ism. It is logically unavoidable.
You said “the left defines a special class — as it did in 1789”. But class distinctions predate 1789, and more important, they are something that existed in fact. They existed as much for the right as for the left.
- Zachriel | 08/18/2012 @ 07:18Walking through it, one item at a time:
But class distinctions predate 1789…
Not relevant to the observation I made, in any way.
they are something that existed in fact…
What does that mean, exactly? Your point is the left didn’t define them because they “existed in fact” so the left was only noticing them? That wouldn’t be relevant either.
They existed as much for the right as for the left.
This is only true in the sense of, the left comes up with a bad idea that has something to do with classes, and the right takes the position of “let’s not do that.”
The point is, the leftist position in 1789 was “You should support us because you are in our favored class; the people in that other class over there, have more stuff, and have it easier than you do; support our revolution we will elevate your standard of living to something closer to theirs (at their expense).” As we saw with the Occupy movement just last year, this has not changed even a smidgen.
The real tragedy is that it diminishes people. It’s only a natural human reaction to say, “Why yes, I would like to have more stuff and have an easier life.” But the at-their-expense part takes over, because it turns out that hatred and jealousy are more incandescent deadly sins than mere selfishness. Just listen to any Obama speech that mentions “millionaires and billionaires.” The movement becomes all about hostility, hate, and taking things away from others.
That, too, is a constant.
- mkfreeberg | 08/18/2012 @ 07:34mkfreeberg: the left defines a special class — as it did in 1789
Zachriel: But class distinctions predate 1789 {so the left didn’t define the class structure}.
mkfreeberg : Not relevant to the observation I made, in any way.
Of course it’s relevant.
mkfreeberg : Your point is the left didn’t define them because they “existed in fact” so the left was only noticing them?
Everyone was aware of the class structure of society. The distinction between left and right was the response to class. The left wanted greater equality. The right supported the Ancien Régime.
mkfreeberg : This is only true in the sense of, the left comes up with a bad idea that has something to do with classes, and the right takes the position of “let’s not do that.”
This makes no sense whatsoever. Are you saying there were no class distinction in France in 1789? Or that it was so subtle no one noticed until the left made it an issue? Are you saying the peasants didn’t have a legitimate grievance?
- Zachriel | 08/18/2012 @ 14:53Everyone was aware of the class structure of society. The distinction between left and right was the response to class. The left wanted greater equality.
So we don’t disagree, even, and you’re just nit-picking to make a bunch of squid-ink noise.
The left, from the very beginning, has been a classist movement, built around the message “The next class up from you, is enjoying privileges at your expense and we’re going to even it out.” It was the case in 1789 and it was the case with the Occupy Movement last year. This is a constant.
This makes no sense whatsoever. Are you saying there were no class distinction in France in 1789? Or that it was so subtle no one noticed until the left made it an issue? Are you saying the peasants didn’t have a legitimate grievance?
I am saying that the left, from the very beginning, has been a classist movement, built around the message “The next class up from you, is enjoying privileges at your expense and we’re going to even it out.” It was the case in 1789 and it was the case with the Occupy Movement last year. This is a constant.
You seem to have a lot of trouble separating out observations about the way things really are or were, versus, moral judgments. You also have a lot of trouble identifying what might be the motivation of those who resist the change.
This, too, is a constant in leftist movements…the leftist sees only, those who support the movement, and those who support the situation that the leftist finds intolerable. No in-between. And these are the folks who speak of “shades of gray” and “nuance”; they can’t actually notice them themselves.
- mkfreeberg | 08/18/2012 @ 15:26mkfreeberg: The left, from the very beginning, has been a classist movement, built around the message “The next class up from you, is enjoying privileges at your expense and we’re going to even it out.”
The political left supports more equally. That’s what the term means. Now try to answer the questions.
Are you saying there were no class distinctions in France in 1789? Are you saying the peasants didn’t have a legitimate grievance?
- Zachriel | 08/18/2012 @ 16:20Now try to answer the questions. Are you saying there were no class distinctions in France in 1789?
No.
Are you saying the peasants didn’t have a legitimate grievance?
No.
I think, when liberals have these discussions, for them it’s a little bit like playing “Battleship” and trying really, really hard to suck at it. What, you win if you get enough misses?
- mkfreeberg | 08/18/2012 @ 17:16mkfreeberg: The left, from the very beginning, has been a classist movement, built around the message “The next class up from you, is enjoying privileges at your expense and we’re going to even it out.”
mkfreeberg: No… No.
According to your answers, then, they were right. There were class divisions in French society, with the upper classes having a monopoly on political power. The lower classes had legitimate grievances, and the left advocated extending political rights to all citizens, that is, “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights.”
- Zachriel | 08/18/2012 @ 18:28Exactly. The left, from the very beginning, has been a classist movement, built around the message “The next class up from you, is enjoying privileges at your expense and we’re going to even it out.” It was the case in 1789 and it was the case with the Occupy Movement last year. This is a constant.
The real tragedy is that it diminishes people. It’s only a natural human reaction to say, “Why yes, I would like to have more stuff and have an easier life.” But the at-their-expense part takes over, because it turns out that hatred and jealousy are more incandescent deadly sins than mere selfishness. Just listen to any Obama speech that mentions “millionaires and billionaires.” The movement becomes all about hostility, hate, and taking things away from others.
This, too, has been a constant.
- mkfreeberg | 08/18/2012 @ 21:01mkfreeberg: The left, from the very beginning, has been a classist movement, built around the message “The next class up from you, is enjoying privileges at your expense and we’re going to even it out.”
Your phrasing is clumsy, as most people today wouldn’t consider political self-determination to a privilege, but a natural right. Political self-determination has often been the point of contention, such as America in 1776, France in 1789, India in 1930, and in the U.S. 1964. For instance, in 1776, political power was concentrated in Britain at the expense of the colonies, such as taxation without representation.
mkfreeberg: The real tragedy is that it diminishes people.
Most people consider the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of the Rights of Man to be uplifting. To each their own.
- Zachriel | 08/19/2012 @ 06:49Your phrasing is clumsy, as most people today wouldn’t consider political self-determination to a privilege, but a natural right.
So? Now we have to quibble over the distinction between privileges and rights?
I agree that this can be important, in other contexts. How does it matter here? The discussion is how liberalism has remained the same all along, from the Storming of the Bastille to the Occupy Movement last year and into the future. It is a sales job, appealing to resentment against more privileged classes. Lots of things in life are easier when you have more money, and these elevations are not necessarily “natural rights,” in many cases they are privileges.
In fact, a lot of the deception that makes liberalism appealing, glosses over this. Many among the Occupy protesters would consider having more money in the bank, and being free from debt, to be a “natural right,” but before the healthy mind is saturated with protest-adrenaline and Tetrahydrocannabinol, it would not think such a thing.
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2012 @ 07:13mkfreeberg: So? Now we have to quibble over the distinction between privileges and rights?
Quite a quibble. The Americans considered them rights. King George considered them privileges.
mkfreeberg: It is a sales job, appealing to resentment against more privileged classes.
Thought you agreed that the peasants had legitimate grievances in 1789; and for that matter, the Americans in 1776, the Indians in 1930, and in the U.S. 1964.
mkfreeberg: Lots of things in life are easier when you have more money, and these elevations are not necessarily “natural rights,” in many cases they are privileges.
But your claim was that it applied as much in 1789 as it does today. We have cited multiple examples over two centuries of people demanding self-determination as a natural right.
- Zachriel | 08/19/2012 @ 08:27Quite a quibble. The Americans considered them rights. King George considered them privileges.
Thought you agreed that the peasants had legitimate grievances in 1789; and for that matter, the Americans in 1776, the Indians in 1930, and in the U.S. 1964.
And, the Occupy movement thinks a job, and forgiveness of student loans, is a “right.” It is a safe generalization to apply that revolutionaries think their grievances are “rights”; rather difficult proposition to get a revolution going, over an agitation for privileges.
Now, some of them are correct about this. That does not mean they all are. The American Revolution would have been similar to the French Revolution, and thus a worthy comparison if: They had sailed back to Great Britain, overthrown King George, chopped off his head and said “even though this is a country organized under the divinely chosen royal kingship of His Majesty, nevertheless, we think it ought to work like this…” Now, that is not what they did; they started a whole new country and then started to figure out what the new country’s government should look like. Whoever does not “hold these truths to be self-evident,” then (the Tories) could just go back home if they wanted to.
But your claim was that it applied as much in 1789 as it does today. We have cited multiple examples over two centuries of people demanding self-determination as a natural right.
Right. And many of those people go on to demand other things as a “natural right,” like for example, a livelihood.
See, liberalism is a revolution that is never over. You keep trying to justify it by means of the original grievance. It isn’t arguing in good faith and it isn’t honest, because liberalism always wants more. The Occupy movement wasn’t even able to stick to its original list…which, by the way, doesn’t look to me like a list of “natural rights”. What do you think?
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2012 @ 08:47mkfreeberg: Now, some of them are correct about this. That does not mean they all are.
Took a long time to get there.
So the Americans wanted greater equality, specifically representation. They did not free the slaves, though some of Americans (further to the political left) sure wanted to. The middle moved, and the fight over slavery was postponed. But you know those lefties, they kept at it, and eventually the slaves were freed.
Next think you know, women will want the vote.
- Zachriel | 08/19/2012 @ 09:02So the Americans wanted greater equality, specifically representation. They did not free the slaves, though some of Americans (further to the political left) sure wanted to. The middle moved, and the fight over slavery was postponed. But you know those lefties, they kept at it, and eventually the slaves were freed.
Question: If the left is about liberty, and we are always to identify “the left” at any chapter in history the way you want them identified, how come at some places the left are in favor of freedom and in other places the left is opposed to freedom?
Another question: Are you trying to say the Republicans, upon their founding, were to the left of the democrats? And you never did answer about Newt Gingrich and the 103rd Congress he was replacing by way of his “revolution.” Was he to the left of them?
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2012 @ 09:12Took a long time to get there.
We didn’t “get” here, we were always here. The issue is, if something is sometimes the case, must it always be so. You’ve been engaging in black-and-white thinking, and it seems you still are, by insisting on and recognizing only an “always” and a “never.”
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2012 @ 09:14They did not free the slaves, though some of Americans (further to the political left) sure wanted to.
This bit of chicanery calls for special inspection, the stuff inside the parentheses.
It is easy now to say “the people who wanted the slaves freed, they were the ones who would regard me as ideological kin” — they were on the right side of history. But their position was that the natural rights applied to all, not just some, and it was their opposition that was trying to get away with shenanigans by defining the slaves out of existence, saying yes the natural rights applied to all humans but the slaves didn’t count, because they weren’t humans, they were property.
This is exactly the same difference of opinion that we see happening with the abortion debate. The unborn don’t count as humans because they aren’t humans, they’re fetuses; they are tissue.
So, third question: Is it your position that the pro-life advocates are to the left of the so-called “pro-choice” lobby? Since the position of the pro-lifes is no different from the position of the abolitionists, and the position of the pro-choicers is no different from those who wanted to preserve the institution of slavery.
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2012 @ 09:34mkfreeberg: Question: If the left is about liberty, …
Do you have a problem with your memory? We’ve been discussing this for weeks. The political left is about egalitarianism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics
mkfreeberg: Question: If the left is about liberty, and we are always to identify “the left” at any chapter in history the way you want them identified, how come at some places the left are in favor of freedom and in other places the left is opposed to freedom?
Individual liberty has not always been equal available to all members of society, just as political equality and equality before the law were unequally distributed. . Liberty, representation and the rule of law were things that had to be fought for.
mkfreeberg: Another question: Are you trying to say the Republicans, upon their founding, were to the left of the democrats?
Sure. Certainly on the slave issue. They wanted to remake society in a much more egalitarian way. A large portion of the party were called Radical Republicans.
mkfreeberg: And you never did answer about Newt Gingrich and the 103rd Congress he was replacing by way of his “revolution.”
We did answer. No, because (generally) while Democrats wanted government to work harder towards a more egalitarian society (especially by helping the poor and dispossessed), Republicans wanted freer markets so that competition would determine economic reward. Hence, Republicans are to the political right.
mkfreeberg: So, third question: Is it your position that the pro-life advocates are to the left of the so-called “pro-choice” lobby?
Pro-choice is consider to the left because it provides women with the right to control their own bodies, as opposed to the previous system whereby men made those decisions on behalf of women. It springs from the same movement that made birth control legally available.
- Zachriel | 08/19/2012 @ 10:26Do you have a problem with your memory? We’ve been discussing this for weeks. The political left is about egalitarianism.
Oh sorry, perhaps I’m been thrown off by your comments in the other thread, “The Vampire Problem,” in which you make many comments to the effect that the left, and liberalism, are all about “enhanced” personal liberty.
It has been brought to your attention many times that issues have emerged in America, especially lately, on which the left has been opposed to this personal liberty. In reply to which, your point is…well, I’m not entirely sure what. It seems your definition of “left” is simply, whoever was on the right side of history in any given conflict…and your definition of “liberty’ is, I dunno, some kind of huge jumbled mess.
Pro-choice is consider[ed] to the left because it provides women with the right to control their own bodies, as opposed to the previous system whereby men made those decisions on behalf of women. It springs from the same movement that made birth control legally available.
So you accept my premise then, that the pro-choice lobby — on the left — is offering exactly the same argument that the pro-slavery “lobby” did a century and a half ago: That these human beings should not enjoy “rights” that apply to “real” human beings because they are not real human beings.
Logically, then, you would have to agree that the pro-slavery side would have been the “left” back in the mid-nineteenth century. Which would contradict your statement that the Republicans were on the “left” on this issue, with their abolitionist stance…so you would then have to reverse that. Agreed?
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2012 @ 13:34mkfreeberg: Oh sorry, perhaps I’m been thrown off by your comments in the other thread, “The Vampire Problem,” in which you make many comments to the effect that the left, and liberalism, are all about “enhanced” personal liberty.
Sigh. The left is conventionally defined as supporting greater equality. Liberalism is defined as supporting both equality and liberalism, hence is usually found on the moderate left.
mkfreeberg: It seems your definition of “left” is simply, whoever was on the right side of history in any given conflict…
Communism is on the left, but the wrong side of history.
- Zachriel | 08/20/2012 @ 04:14And, sigh. More passive-voice statements about “is defined as,” without sources.
“Liberalism supports liberalism” is not a very useful statement, which might explain why it isn’t receiving much weight.
But logically, you would have to agree that the pro-slavery side would have been the “left” back in the mid-nineteenth century. Which would contradict your statement that the Republicans were on the “left” on this issue, with their abolitionist stance…so you would then have to reverse that. Agreed?
- mkfreeberg | 08/20/2012 @ 06:34mkfreeberg: More passive-voice statements about “is defined as,” without sources.
We’ve provided multiple sources. And when we ask you for a concise definition, you provide a long, wordy list of ambiguous ‘tests’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics
Bobbio & Cameron, Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction, University of Chicago Press 1997.
mkfreeberg: “Liberalism supports liberalism” is not a very useful statement, which might explain why it isn’t receiving much weight.
Sorry, a typo. Of course, we have typed it many times correctly in our discussions, but you can’t seem to remember. Liberalism is defined as supporting equality and liberty.
mkfreeberg: But logically, you would have to agree that the pro-slavery side would have been the “left” back in the mid-nineteenth century.
No. Abolitionists supported greater overall equality, so they would be considered on the political left.
- Zachriel | 08/20/2012 @ 07:00And when we ask you for a concise definition, you provide a long, wordy list of ambiguous ‘tests’.
Yeah, major bummer. It’s like, I’m factoring in the record of real-life based experience, or something. How unfair of me.
Sorry, a typo. Of course, we have typed it many times correctly in our discussions, but you can’t seem to remember. Liberalism is defined as supporting equality and liberty.
Well, we all make typos of course, and I’m perfectly capable of figuring out your real meaning by way of logic and inductive reasoning. But the thing is, that’s what the whole discussion is about…you have your Bobbio & Cameron, and when I use inductive reasoning I find inconsistencies that you don’t want me to be finding.
No. Abolitionists supported greater overall equality, so they would be considered on the political left.
Okay so here’s where it gets interesting. Abolitionists, who say “poppycock to your ‘property’ argument, these are human beings and deserve to be treated as such” are on the political left…but the pro-choice constituency of today, whom you also say are on the political left, are applying precisely the same argument as the slaveholders.
Hey we’ve got a fantastic argument for you to mull over — it isn’t a baby at all, it’s just a lump of cells. Not a human, it has no rights.
Of course the choicers are indignant about their “rights” not to carry a child to term if they don’t want to…but the slaveholders, also, were indignant about their rights not to lose their “property.” They, too, had some wonderful arguments to offer about how the abolitionist’s ideas were going to trample their rights.
The arguments are exactly the same. So how come one argument in one century is representative of one end of the spectrum, and when applied to a slightly different situation in a different century, it becomes representative of the other side of the spectrum? Do Bobbio & Cameron say something to address this?
- mkfreeberg | 08/20/2012 @ 07:15mkfreeberg: But the thing is, that’s what the whole discussion is about…you have your Bobbio & Cameron, and when I use inductive reasoning I find inconsistencies that you don’t want me to be finding.
Terms are defined by usage, not by ‘inductive reasoning’. In your case, what you are trying to do is shoehorn a few particulars, then overgeneralize to cover those not actually covered by your definition.
mkfreeberg: Abolitionists, who say “poppycock to your ‘property’ argument, these are human beings and deserve to be treated as such” are on the political left…
That’s right. They want to extend the natural rights to include blacks. Instead of power being concentrated in whites, it is distributed more equally.
mkfreeberg: but the pro-choice constituency of today, whom you also say are on the political left, are applying precisely the same argument as the slaveholders.
That’s not their argument. They are claiming that women should have the right to control their own reproduction, which historically was controlled by men, providing women more equality. Those that oppose abortion rights, often oppose contraception, strongly support traditional marriage, and sometimes even the right of women to equality in the marketplace, which indicates their actual position on the right.
- Zachriel | 08/20/2012 @ 07:33They are claiming that women should have the right to control their own reproduction, which historically was controlled by men, providing women more equality.
Right. They are claiming to be entitled to control over their own bodies, just as the democrat slaveowners claimed to be entitled to control their own property. Both claim that human rights either should take a back seat to this, or are not applicable in the first place, due to the nimbleness with which “human being” is defined and re-defined.
It is exactly the same argument.
- mkfreeberg | 08/20/2012 @ 07:53mkfreeberg: It is exactly the same argument.
No. We understand what you are saying, but it simply doesn’t represent the political divide, as we already pointed out above.
For instance, while the American revolutionaries were to the left of the crown, they still left slavery in place. Left-right is not an absolute, but a spectrum of beliefs. So, even if you accept the argument that zygotes deserve human rights, abortion rights supporters are still on the left as they support greater equality for women against the right who support traditional roles and subservient social position for women.
- Zachriel | 08/20/2012 @ 08:26We understand what you are saying, but it simply doesn’t represent the political divide, as we already pointed out above.
You “pointed it out” in the sense that you rejected it because you don’t like it, but yes it absolutely represents the political divide in that it represents the highly personal passions involved, as well as the system of belief that channels/ed those passions into support for the respective political movements.
Support for or opposition to abortion, is largely driven by belief. Is the baby a human or is it not?
Support for or opposition to slavery, was largely driven by belief. Are the slaves humans or are they property?
This, on the other hand, was not driven by belief:
For instance, while the American revolutionaries were to the left of the crown, they still left slavery in place. Left-right is not an absolute, but a spectrum of beliefs.
It was a compromise that was politically necessary for the revolution to happen at all. Had the abolitionists of the time held their ground, the South would have rejected Independence; then the abolitionists would have had to fight a civil war while they were fighting the revolution. Now, anybody who has ever studied the military aspects of the Revolutionary War would recognize the impossibility of that, it would have made King Leonidas’ stand look like a casual little laundry or dishwashing session. It would have been suicide. But, in all likelihood, they would not have fought this civil war while they were fighting the British, they would have said “Well we held a vote on Independence and it flopped, that’s it then” and gone about their lives as British subjects.
The compromise on slavery was not an ideological statement of any kind. Except with regard to the slaveowners in the South…who became the southern democrats.
- mkfreeberg | 08/20/2012 @ 09:41