House of Eratosthenes

The point made here by Professor Sowell is so important, and weighs so heavily upon the election that is coming up in less than three months, that after pondering it I realized it had to be added to the list. That would be the list of three things upon which the election will be turning, or should turn…it doesn’t matter if the things are on the minds of voters as they punch out their chads, or not. Doesn’t matter. History is awaiting an answer to each of them, and right or wrong, history will be using the election results to determine those answers.

It Takes More Than Roads The socialists who are trying to turn America’s society upside-down, have been indulging in a sneaky trick here and they’ve been allowed to get away with it for a long time. The trick is a simple one: Define “greed,” at least in the emotional sense, without first defining “property.” It is as ludicrous and silly as it is clever; defining “greed” without defining “property” is like building a brick wall without bricks.

Our American election of Twenty Twelve turns on four things, and all four are a great deal more important than Michelle Obama’s vacations or Ann Romney’s blouse:

One. If you built a business, who really built it? Are you to receive some credit for the personal effort you have put in, the personal risks you have absorbed, the personal assets you had to liquidate to meet payroll during the years when it wasn’t profitable, the hours per week over forty that you had to put in before you could afford to expand that payroll?
Two. If you want to move the business into a community, what test do we apply to make sure the business’ values are compatible? Does the business find out about that, the hard way, when people vote with their feet — wow, just think about the magnitude of capital lost on such a failed venture, it’s staggering — or, is it somehow necessary to vote in mayors and “aldermen” to express this note of rejection that the potential patrons, and voters, are somehow unable to properly express?
Three. Why, exactly, do taxes exist? Are they for funding government’s vital services, or to whittle that Gini number down to size; to ensure that, at the end of it all, no one citizen among us has too much more or less loot than the next guy?
Four. How exactly do we define the word “greed” — does it have to do with wanting to hang on to what belongs to you, or does it have to do with taking possession of someone else’s property?

On that new, last one: The dictionary says it is

Excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions.

Merriam-Webster:

A selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed.

Those are not a lot of help, although the MW definition seems to lean left, implying that the attribute to be criticized has to do with desire for increased quantity, and that it has to do with a differential between the quantity desired and the quantity needed.

If that is to be the case, it is hard to see how we can put our energies behind an effort to drive “greed” out of our society, without the proggies ultimately winning; we would need to be sitting in judgment, in some way, of how much lucre our fellow citizens have managed to stash. We would have to pounce, like starving jaguars, upon any situation in which that amount was “excessive” and greater in quantity “than is needed” — situations in which, in all other respects, everything is above-board and legal.

The alternative being, to resign ourselves to “It meets the definition and that is a bad thing, but no laws were broken so no action will be taken.” But that, with all the passions swirling around, doesn’t seem too likely at this point.

Our current President is running on all four of these things, and has positioned Himself on the wrong side of each one, I think. He’s out there many times a week, saying silly things like this:

“It’s like Robin Hood in reverse,” Obama said of Romney’s tax plan, which would cut taxes across the board by 20 percent, during a fundraiser in Connecticut. “It’s Romney Hood.”

Obama’s quip [distills] an attack that he has repeated in the last week. “In order to afford just one $250,000 tax cut for somebody like Mr. Romney, 125 families like yours would have to pay another $2,000 in taxes each and every year,” the president said at another fundraiser last Wednesday.

His claim is based on a report from the Tax Policy Center, even though the authors — who include one former Obama aide and a former aide to President George H.W. Bush — preface their study by saying, “We do not score Governor Romney’s plan directly, as certain components of his plan are not specified in sufficient detail, nor do we make assumptions regarding what those components might be.”

The Tax Policy Center, according to Wikipedia, “is a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution.” One is well-advised, I think, not to trust the online encyclopedia too much after that sentence; I say that based on reviewing the talk pages for Tax Policy Center and, of course, for the very well-known lefty outfit Brookings. I note, further, that although we seem to be eyebrows-deep in noisy, self-appointed “fact checkers” following most other questionable claims from both Romney and Obama, it seems said fact checkers get sleepy when the President says Governor Romney wants to give X many dollars to rich people and take X many dollars away from poor people — the pattern, then, is that our noisy checkers fall suddenly quiet, perhaps sleep in a few extra hours, and it is up to each reader to do his or her own “checking.”

Cross-posted at Right Wing News and Washington Rebel.

Greed?
More than is needed?

What economic model generates the pay stubs for the “big thinkers of complicated issues” at (ie)Brookings? Do they have a really nice club house to play in?

Is there a noticable recurring trend in the CVs/resumes in such places?

“One is well-advised, I think, not to trust the online encyclopedia too much…”
But…but…it’s NOT an encyclo-pedia, it’s a WIKI-pedia. It’s um….Democratic.
Unless, of course, there’s an elite that “decides” what to allow, what to dismiss, and what words mean, citing “common ignorant usage” or something.

As with the Declaration/Constitution, one is usually best served by just hitting the “reset”, and consulting what the actual founders have cited, unless, of course, THAT doesn’t serve ones “greed” (pursuit of ease?) at all.

Sheesh, it’s so… complicated.
- CaptDMO | 08/08/2012 @ 09:50
“It’s like Robin Hood in reverse,” Obama said of Romney’s tax plan, which would cut taxes across the board by 20 percent, during a fundraiser in Connecticut. “It’s Romney Hood.”

I’ve been following politics for about 20 years now. And every single presidential election, it seems the Democrats have to trot out this tired old chestnut – same old class warfare rhetoric. Don’t they ever get tired of telling the same lies over and over?

It’s not even original. I think Al Gore said the same stupid thing about Robin Hood during the 1996 – he called it “Robin Hood in reverse; steal from the poor, give to the rich.” By the way, Robin Hood (if he existed at all) did not steal from the rich to give to the poor. He took from the nobility (the Sheriff of Nottingham) and returned it to the citizens of the town and countryside. The key word is “returned.” The Sheriff stole from THEM; Robin Hood merely stole it back and righted a wrong.

Obama’s quip [distills] an attack that he has repeated in the last week. “In order to afford just one $250,000 tax cut for somebody like Mr. Romney, 125 families like yours would have to pay another $2,000 in taxes each and every year,” the president said at another fundraiser last Wednesday.

I love how we have to talk about “paying” for tax cuts, but never “paying” for whatever socialist crusade the Left is trying push on us this week. It’s an unceasing source of amazement to me – how liberals suddenly become concerned about deficits the minute the subject turns to defense spending, border security (but I repeat myself, as the second is really part of the first), and tax cuts. 1.4 trillion to take over the health care system, no problem! A reduction in rates paid by the top 10% of earners? “WE CAN’T AFFORD IT!”

On and on it goes. I wouldn’t detest the Left so much if it didn’t have to lie all the time.
- cylarz | 08/10/2012 @ 23:09
[…] at House of Eratosthenes and Right Wing […]
- Four Things More Important Than Mitt Romney’s Tax Returns | Washington Rebel | 08/12/2012 @ 06:24
[…] Horror Story” Memo For File CLXVI Not Too Wild About Teevee What Kind of Community… Four Things More Important Than Mitt Romney’s Tax Returns “Gilbert Gottfried Reads Fifty Shades of Grey” Killing Derek Barnes Power of One: End […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 08/16/2012 @ 02:40
A few initial comments and questions.

mkfreeberg: One. If you built a business, who really built it?

“The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative …”

mkfreeberg: Two. If you want to move the business into a community, what test do we apply to make sure the business’ values are compatible?

What if a town gives the business an incentive?

mkfreeberg: Three. Why, exactly, do taxes exist? Are they for funding government’s vital services, or to whittle that Gini number down to size; to ensure that, at the end of it all, no one citizen among us has too much more or less loot than the next guy?

What if a progressive tax is used as an automatic stabilizer? What if taxes are used to increase the Gini wealth coefficient?

mkfreeberg: Four. How exactly do we define the word “greed” — does it have to do with wanting to hang on to what belongs to you, or does it have to do with taking possession of someone else’s property?

Greed is defined in the dictionary as intense and selfish desire for something, esp. wealth, power, or food. You can be greedy for other people’s wealth, or you can be greedy to hold on to your own, “for the love of money is the root of all evil.” Redefining greed doesn’t make for an argument.
- Zachriel | 08/22/2012 @ 16:47
“The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative …”

Then what’s with all the talk from the Left lately about how businesses owe everything to the government because of taxpayer-funded roads and bridges and whatnot? Why did the president say, “You didn’t build that?” The man is not only a liar, he can’t even keep his lies straight.

What if a town gives the business an incentive?

The best way to do that is to keep local taxes low and regulations light. That’s pretty much it. Government – whether federal, state, local – helps business by staying the hell out of the way.

What if a progressive tax is used as an automatic stabilizer? What if taxes are used to increase the Gini wealth coefficient?

What if progressive taxation were eliminated and everyone paid the same amount so as not to punish the successful? Why is this apparently okay for sales taxes but not income taxes?

Greed is defined in the dictionary as intense and selfish desire for something, esp. wealth, power, or food.

It doesn’t matter what the dictionary says greed is. In the political arena, the word is tossed around like a football and it means whatever the speaker wants it to mean. As Morgan has previously pointed out, the word has been effectively robbed of all objective meaning. By the measure of simply wanting more, I would suggest there’s not one person on Earth who isn’t greedy. Not even one.

The difference, then, boils down to the difference between the greed on the Right, versus the greed on the Left. The so-called greed of the Right is more accurately called ambition. They are willing to work for what they want and outsmart the competition.

The Left, on the other hand, simply wants to take what belongs to others. Their greed would more properly be called envy.

You can be greedy for other people’s wealth, or you can be greedy to hold on to your own, “for the love of money is the root of all evil.”

Point one: We’re discussing economic policy here, not Biblical morality, so spare us the high-handed lectures. Avarice is an issue between a man and his God.

Point two: What the hell does it mean to be “greedy to hold on to your own?” You just told us that the dictionary says the word means “as intense and selfish desire for something.” That refers to getting something, not having something. Your post just self-destructed, I’m afraid.

Redefining greed doesn’t make for an argument.

No kidding, so why are you trying to do it?
- cylarz | 08/22/2012 @ 18:27
cylarz,

mkfreeberg said the four points are the ‘definition’ of liberals, which he apparently conflates with the political left. We’re exploring the definition, not whether they are the best policy choices or not. Sorry that wasn’t clear.

cylarz: Then what’s with all the talk from the Left lately about how businesses owe everything to the government because of taxpayer-funded roads and bridges and whatnot?

Not everything to government, but some, certainly, to each other.

“The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. ” — President Obama in the same speech as the oft-quoted out-of-context quote.

cylarz: Why did the president say, “You didn’t build that?”

As has been pointed out, the quote is out of context. He was referring to the national infrastructure.

President Obama: If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.

cylarz: The best way to do that is to keep local taxes low and regulations light. That’s pretty much it. Government – whether federal, state, local – helps business by staying the hell out of the way.

The question is whether providing business incentives fills the definition or not.

cylarz: What if progressive taxation were eliminated and everyone paid the same amount so as not to punish the successful?

Then they wouldn’t act as automatic economic stabilizers. In any case, we’re concerned with whether it fills the definition or not.

cylarz: It doesn’t matter what the dictionary says greed is.

What matters is how people generally use a word, but the dictionary is a valid source of common usage.

cylarz: By the measure of simply wanting more, I would suggest there’s not one person on Earth who isn’t greedy. Not even one.

Wanting more is the basis of the market system, but greed is generally defined as intense or excessive. It’s when money becomes more important than all other values that we say someone is greedy. It’s not money, but the love of money that is the root of evil (Timothy).

cylarz: In the political arena, the word is tossed around like a football and it means whatever the speaker wants it to mean.

As we’ve noted on this blog. Without an example, it’s hard to be specific, but generally in politics, the word greed is used in its usual sense.

cylarz: The Left, on the other hand, simply wants to take what belongs to others.

Then that’s what the definition should say, rather than the muddled redefinition of greed.

cylarz: What the hell does it mean to be “greedy to hold on to your own?”

Ebenezer Scrooge was greedy.

cylarz: No kidding, so why are you trying to do it?

We use the conventional definition. That way people are more likely to understand what we mean.
- Zachriel | 08/23/2012 @ 04:56
Without an example, it’s hard to be specific, but generally in politics, the word greed is used in its usual sense.

No it isn’t. Your own definition,

It’s when money becomes more important than all other values that we say someone is greedy.

…is distinguishably different from the dictionary definitions, above.

Excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions.

A selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed.

You provided a litmus test that can be internally applied — does this person value money above all other things? — that is not present in the dictionary definitions, which sign a blank check over to an external observer who can then say, “That person’s desire for more money is greater than I believe it should be,” regardless of whether that person values money above all other things.

The Occupy Movement, which is on the left, perceived “greed” in the one percent and didn’t give a rip about whether anybody within the 1% regarded money as “more important than all other values,” so your definition would not work with their perception of greed in the 1%. See, they are liberals and they are left, because to them, the word “greed” has to do with a failure to spend. My definition works, and you should have taken the time to analyze it earlier before trying to find fault with it.

And now for a broader critique:

Your method of argumentation is overly reliant on a false syllogism:

1. Ah ha, I gotcha! (Nugget of history, or something out of a book we happen to like that contradicts what you said, or some perceived inconsistency…)
2. Therefore, [something completely unrelated.]

It starts to become hugely time-wasting when you don’t manage to find your “gotcha!” because, well, you aren’t capable of ever conceding anything, backing off anything. Might be because you’re actually a group and none among you want to lose face among each other. Or it might be medical. It looks medical, like a learning disability or something. That thing about “We never said all values come from feeling, we simply said all values are based on feeling” or whatever…that looks like something mentally disturbed.

But, in general, you are overly reliant on the “gotcha.” When you start having to dictate that these books about fascism over here are worth something, and Jonah Goldberg’s book is not worth anything because these critics don’t like it, it isn’t persuasive. It looks like some group of people back East somewhere, we know not who, maybe it’s a bunch of college drop-outs getting together to smoke pot or whatever, didn’t read the book that is under discussion, went looking for some negative reviews on it and managed to find some…and now these Internet strangers wish to dictate to me I should be reading this thing and not be reading that thing.

Or, maybe they’re still in college.

But that would mean college kids are not being taught how to actually argue anything, they just play these games of “gotcha.” And when they can’t even manage to get that done, they refuse to admit it. Day after day you’ve been insisting my definitions (for this year) of “liberal” and “left” are “incoherent” or don’t work somehow, and here you are actually trying them out for the first time, finding there was nothing wrong with them in the first place.

So your point is made: My comments are not well received, by people who have a tough time taking in new information. So noted.
- mkfreeberg | 08/23/2012 @ 06:07
mkfreeberg: No it isn’t. Your own definition,

It’s when money becomes more important than all other values that we say someone is greedy.

…is distinguishably different from the dictionary definitions, above.

Excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions.

A selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed.

That’s what most people mean by excessive, when it crowds out other values. This really isn’t something that people dispute, so it’s very odd that you would.

mkfreeberg: The Occupy Movement, which is on the left, perceived “greed” in the one percent and didn’t give a rip about whether anybody within the 1% regarded money as “more important than all other values,”

That is what they are saying, that the rich only care about generating wealth for themselves, and don’t care about values the Occupiers consider important. Whether that charge is justified or not can be debated, but they are using the word in its normal sense.

mkfreeberg: When you start having to dictate that these books about fascism over here are worth something, and Jonah Goldberg’s book is not worth anything because these critics don’t like it, it isn’t persuasive.

Because “Liberal Fascism” is an oxymoron. It might be useful as a polemic, but Goldberg actually tried to make a historical case, which is in direct contradiction to history, and completely rejected by historians.

Instead of redefining greed, you could have simply used cylarz’s attribute, “The Left, on the other hand, simply wants to take what belongs to others.”
- Zachriel | 08/23/2012 @ 06:20
That’s what most people mean by excessive, when it crowds out other values. This really isn’t something that people dispute, so it’s very odd that you would.

And now, being unable to concede anything, you’re going to pretend two things are the same when they’re really different, while simultaneously pretending two things are different when they’re really not. What I just did there is call out a meaningful discrepancy between the definition you provided and the definition I pulled out of the dictionary. Liberals, say I, see greed differently from the way normal people see it. You’ve got several weeks’ worth of arguing-ego invested in the idea that my definition of “liberal” doesn’t work, here you’re evaluating it seriously for the very first time so now you’re trying to take a trowel and putty over the difference hoping everyone will forget that you voiced your opinion first and applied the serious analysis much later…

That is what they are saying, that the rich only care about generating wealth for themselves, and don’t care about values the Occupiers consider important. Whether that charge is justified or not can be debated, but they are using the word in its normal sense.

The way they measure it has to do with how they’re using it. We don’t need to seriously start debating that, now, do we? And they’re measuring it according to: We have only this much and that other guy has a lot more. Presuming they know what they’re talking about, and they do seem very passionate about this so it’s reasonable to think they’ve put some thought into it, they would have to be defining it as “If you didn’t value money any more than we think you should, you would not have that money anymore because you would have spent it on the things we think you should be spending it on.” Conservatives don’t think that way; right-wingers don’t think that way; so my definition works. To much of the rest of America, lusting after property some other guy legitimately owns, earns you a lot more points toward being “greedy” than failing to put your money in places some other guy wants you to put it.

Because “Liberal Fascism” is an oxymoron. It might be useful as a polemic, but Goldberg actually tried to make a historical case, which is in direct contradiction to history, and completely rejected by historians.

Right. We have a disagreement about whether “fascism” inherently means “right wing,” you want to pretend there is no such disagreement, so everyone else should help you pretend this as well. Well, perhaps someone else will cooperate with that…

Goldberg sorts through all this stuff in his first twenty pages or so. By going down this road, you’re not just revealing that you haven’t read it, you’re revealing that you haven’t even bothered to skim.

Instead of redefining greed, you could have simply used cylarz’s attribute, “The Left, on the other hand, simply wants to take what belongs to others.”

Mkay, I could’ve, and I didn’t. So what. Liberals stand alone in saying you can be greedy simply for hanging on to your stuff, for failing to get rid of it. Conservatives do not join them in this, mainstream/moderates do not join them in this, and the dictionary does not join them in this. It is a useful definition of liberals AND left wingers: The concept that greed can be assessed by some external party, who feels passionate that the money you have, shouldn’t be in your wallet or purse, it should have been applied somewhere therefore you’re greedy. It is a uniquely liberal value.

I’m calling it out, that doesn’t mean I’m re-defining the word. It’s the liberals who are adding on some definition and subtracting some definition from another part of it. I’m just the guy noticing it.
- mkfreeberg | 08/23/2012 @ 06:38
mkfreeberg: What I just did there is call out a meaningful discrepancy between the definition you provided and the definition I pulled out of the dictionary.

There’s no discrepancy. The dictionary uses the term excessive, which itself requires explanation.

mkfreeberg: You’ve got several weeks’ worth of arguing-ego invested in the idea that my definition of “liberal” doesn’t work,

Your definition is muddled, and inconsistent with how most people use the term.

mkfreeberg: The way they measure it has to do with how they’re using it.

Yes, they are using it in its normal sense. Like saying Scrooge is greedy, because he only cares for his money, and not much else. That you may disagree with their claim doesn’t mean they are using the term in a different manner.

mkfreeberg: We have a disagreement about whether “fascism” inherently means “right wing,” you want to pretend there is no such disagreement, so everyone else should help you pretend this as well.

It’s a polemic, not a serious assertion. No one takes it seriously outside your echo chamber.

mkfreeberg: Liberals stand alone in saying you can be greedy simply for hanging on to your stuff, for failing to get rid of it.

Painting with a broad brush. Did John Kennedy say you were greedy for hanging on to your own stuff?

mkfreeberg: I’m calling it out, that doesn’t mean I’m re-defining the word.

Good, then we can use the orthodox definition, and then see if your list of attributes apply broadly across the group. Is that correct?
- Zachriel | 08/23/2012 @ 06:56
There’s no discrepancy. The dictionary uses the term excessive, which itself requires explanation.

Your definition is muddled, and inconsistent with how most people use the term.

Those two statements are in conflict. Once the dictionary is done defining the term, must some ancillary definition be applied before “greed” can be assessed against real-life situations — or not?

“Inconsistent with how most people use the term” is the entire point — we are defining “liberal” by inspecting this additional definition that must be added to the dictionary-definition of “greed.” Liberals do not do it the way normal people do it.

Painting with a broad brush. Did John Kennedy say you were greedy for hanging on to your own stuff?

Okay, now we’re getting somewhere, you’re finally testing this definition that you’ve been saying doesn’t work, without having first tested it to see if your criticism truly applied.

Again, these are definitions for this year. John Kennedy was assassinated in 1963. A lot of the liberal, left-wing tactics we see today came along after that. FDR went after the class-envy thing with gusto, of course, but American liberals were not shoulders-deep in this method they now use all the time today, which is “If you do not help to support our process, you must be in opposition to the most charitable interpretation of our goals.” That is an important component to this liberal re-definition of greed: Put your money where we tell you to put it, or else you’re “greedy.”

Conservatives do not stand with liberals in this definition of “greed.” Nor does mainstream America, nor does the dictionary. This is an understanding they and they alone have, thus it can be used to meaningfully distinguish them.

Honestly, what’s so hard about all this?
- mkfreeberg | 08/23/2012 @ 07:11
mkfreeberg: Those two statements are in conflict.

Not when the definition uses commonly known words in their normal sense. Ultimately, every definition relies on some understanding of the language, though.

mkfreeberg: Once the dictionary is done defining the term, must some ancillary definition be applied before “greed” can be assessed against real-life situations — or not?

You don’t understand the word “excessive”? Not even sure it is necessary to your point.

mkfreeberg: we are defining “liberal” by inspecting this additional definition that must be added to the dictionary-definition of “greed.”

Not only didn’t you use the standard definition of liberal, you defined it in terms of another word you also redefined. If you want to define a special category of your own, mk-liberal, that’s fine. Just make clear that is what you are doing, and don’t conflate it with how most people use the term.

If, on the other hand, you want to say that modern American liberals have become more statist, undermining their own commitment to liberty, then make that argument. It doesn’t require changing the definition. That just leads to confusion.

mkfreeberg: That is an important component to this liberal re-definition of greed: Put your money where we tell you to put it, or else you’re “greedy.”

As long as you don’t conflate it with the usual meaning of the term. So mk-liberals want to use government to redistribute money to themselves. Or is it to the masses?
- Zachriel | 08/23/2012 @ 08:08
The dictionary uses the term excessive, which itself requires explanation.

You don’t understand the word “excessive”?

It would seem those two statements, as well, are in conflict. Does the term “excessive” require explanation or does it not?

Not even sure it is necessary to your point.

My point, which I think is clear from the very beginning, is that as liberals go about the task of defining “excessive” so that they can define “greed,” they don’t do it the way normal people do.

You seem to rely on consensus a lot, using phrases like “most people” with what might or might not be sufficient care…and I’m thinking not, but let’s let that go. I think “most people” would say a word like “excessive” can be defined in relative terms, as in, placed alongside some kind of standard — “excessive weight for his height and body style” — or, in absolute terms, measured according to the observer’s sense & sensibility. Either way, some standard has to be provided. It means to exceed something. To borrow one of your favorite cliches, that is what the word means.

exceeding what is usual, proper, necessary, or normal.

Well, as I’ve already described many times, liberals see “greed” with someone hanging onto his own property (or not applying it where the liberals would like to have it applied), but they do not see “greed” in an Occupy protester lusting after property that doesn’t belong to him. It’s a decent definition in that this sets them apart from the mainstream. “Most people,” in that phrase means anything at all, would agree more readily that “greed” is present in someone lusting after property that is not his, than that it is present in someone merely wanting to maintain control over what he has already earned.

Not only didn’t you use the standard definition of liberal, you defined it in terms of another word you also redefined.

Right; I am open to new information, and so I pay attention to current events, and how they affect the meanings of these words, which change over time.

You, on the other hand, seem to be clinging to definitions of words that do not have the same meaning in America as they do in other parts of the world, like “right wing,” “liberal,” et al, and then getting into this business of correcting anybody who doesn’t use those terms in the way you’ve decided they should be used. To back this up, you use books and dictionaries. That’s good, but it’s unsuitable for words that change in subtle ways, pretty much every time the United States has an election. Ultimately, your way doesn’t work — and mine does — because these are highly unstable, dynamic terms.

You’re not taking that into account. So you don’t want anybody else taking it into account either. Well, that isn’t going to work.

As long as you don’t conflate it with the usual meaning of the term. So mk-liberals want to use government to redistribute money to themselves. Or is it to the masses?

Actually, you’re the one feigning inability to comprehend things, stymied by ambiguity, incoherence and “muddled”-ness, when these problems don’t actually exist. Furthermore, you insist that liberals must be for equality, when we can plainly see that they are not, and self-professed liberals are constantly working to elevate different classes of people to different elevations of status and privilege. So maybe we should use a word like “z-liberals.”

“Z-Muddled” might be a good word to start using, as you’ve repeatedly referred to things being “muddled” that aren’t. I’ve been sitting here thinking, “muddled” must mean, some textbook was consulted somewhere — within your approved reading list, since Goldberg’s book is not on it — and when compared against the text, the target of criticism was found to produce a conflict. Or something. I’ve noticed your use of the word “muddled” has very little to do with clarity or lack thereof, it seems to deal more with conflict. So, z-muddled.

I’m sure a lot of my definitions are z-muddled. They take into account events from recent history…whether liberals want people paying attention to those events, or not. At any rate, this doesn’t seem unreasonable to me, at all, as our liberals have become exceptionally dogmatic in their views.
- mkfreeberg | 08/23/2012 @ 10:26
mkfreeberg: It would seem those two statements, as well, are in conflict.

One was a question. At least try to communicate. You’re getting more muddled, not less.

mkfreeberg: My point, which I think is clear from the very beginning, is that as liberals go about the task of defining “excessive” so that they can define “greed,” they don’t do it the way normal people do.

The claim is that Wall Street has abandoned community values in the pursuit of money. That is consistent with the conventional definition of greed. You don’t have to agree with the accusation to be able to understand it.

mkfreeberg: It’s a decent definition in that this sets them apart from the mainstream.

A lot more people than the Occupiers think that elements in the banking system had abandoned any pretense to ethical standards in their pursuit of fast money. In the common parlance, they got greedy.

You didn’t answer. Do you define mk-liberals as those who want to use government to redistribute money to themselves? Or is it to the masses? Or something else?
- Zachriel | 08/23/2012 @ 10:52
There seems to be a durable pattern here that when you fail to understand something, it somehow becomes the other person’s problem. I’m not sure how one gets there except by way of need and desire.

One was a question. At least try to communicate. You’re getting more muddled, not less.

Did I misinterpret it? How so, exactly?

The claim is that Wall Street has abandoned community values in the pursuit of money. That is consistent with the conventional definition of greed. You don’t have to agree with the accusation to be able to understand it.

There are many people in the “one percent” who are not part of Wall Street. And also, these do not read to “most people” like any kind of “community values,” nor do they represent any values that Wall Street has “abandoned,” since abandonment would imply a jettisoning of values that were previously upheld. Also, apart from demands #6 and #11, and those are arguable at best, they don’t look to me like demands that would be made on “Wall Street.”

You didn’t answer. Do you define mk-liberals as those who want to use government to redistribute money to themselves? Or is it to the masses? Or something else?

No answer is necessary, as I’ve been clear on this point all along. The periphery I have defined is people who apply the word “greed” to others who merely seek to maintain control over their own property, as opposed to the mainstream of Americans, who would be much more inclined to see “greed” in those who lust after control of things that are not theirs.

As is the case with most things that have to do with personal wealth, they key is not quite so much possession, as control. We see our liberals haven’t got much of a problem with George Soros hanging on to what’s his, or Warren Buffett hanging on to what’s his, as those gentlemen support the agenda. Mitt Romney gets into all sorts of trouble with them for possessing wealth, even though he doesn’t possess nearly as much. It is very plain to see their problem with Romney isn’t something like “He must not be as talented at making money, because he doesn’t have as much as Soros” — there is a different bee in their bonnets. They like money when it is spent on liberal things, plain and simple. They want to control others. Hope that answers your question.
- mkfreeberg | 08/23/2012 @ 11:06
mkfreeberg: Did I misinterpret it?

Two statements can’t be contradictory when there is only one statement.

mkfreeberg: The periphery I have defined is people who apply the word “greed” to others who merely seek to maintain control over their own property, as opposed to the mainstream of Americans, who would be much more inclined to see “greed” in those who lust after control of things that are not theirs.

Someone who “lusts after control of things that are not theirs”. Is that your definition of mk-liberal?
- Zachriel | 08/23/2012 @ 11:32
Two statements can’t be contradictory when there is only one statement.

Sorry, I inferred the question to be a statement. I don’t see any other way to interpret it. What was the true meaning?

Supposedly, I’m lacking the talent to make myself understood easily. Show me how much better you are at it; show me how it’s done.

Someone who “lusts after control of things that are not theirs”. Is that your definition of mk-liberal?

Actually, if you read my comments, you’ll see my definition applies to people who define “greed” in the special, liberal way. That is one of four definitions. It’s quite clear.
- mkfreeberg | 08/23/2012 @ 11:36
mkfreeberg: Actually, if you read my comments, you’ll see my definition applies to people who define “greed” in the special, liberal way.

So you define an mk-liberal by how they define a word.

So an mk-liberal is someone who defines greed as the desire to hold on to one’s own wealth? Is that correct? Do you mean what they consider to be their own property? Instead of wealth, could it be power or prestige instead?
- Zachriel | 08/23/2012 @ 11:52
Do you think Scrooge was greedy?
- Zachriel | 08/23/2012 @ 11:55
So an mk-liberal is someone who defines greed as the desire to hold on to one’s own wealth? Is that correct?

Why don’t you just go back and read the original comments, in the post itself? They’re clear enough.

Do you mean what they consider to be their own property?

Their own…you’d really have to go ask them. I’m not that good at relating to people who consider themselves entitled to control assets that they know they did nothing to earn, it contradicts the way I was raised. But from my observations, it does seem control is the big issue they have; they want the control. Whether they consider this property to belong to them or not, probably isn’t consequential to the definition. Michael Moore certainly is a liberal, and he’s on record saying that the private wealth possessed by the very rich is a “public resource.” So at least in some cases this would be in the affirmative. How’s it matter, specifically?

Instead of wealth, could it be power or prestige instead?

Again, I suppose you would have to ask them.
- mkfreeberg | 08/23/2012 @ 12:06
Do you think Scrooge was greedy?

Scrooge was a fictional character who, in his story, went to Hell (in the future that was left unchanged). So it’s beyond question that he had a problem with his soul, since God passed judgment. Of course in real life we don’t know of such things, and good Christians are not supposed to speculate because is not up to men to ponder such things about others.

I’ll go along with what you’re trying to say, if what you’re trying to say is that it’s a good thing to ask about ones own self. It may surprise you to learn that a lot of conservatives do just that.

One of Scrooge’s big mistakes, if you read Stave One, Marley’s Ghost, is: He did “donate” to help the poor, through the tax system. Not too much problem with the obligatory transfer of money, but he wanted to keep the personalization out of it, purge the process of human goodwill. Which is exactly the effect that is had by the programs many of our modern liberals want kept in place, and expanded; the decent human drive to help others, is displaced by this obligatory wealth-transfer administered by the state. Prisons, workhouses, and all that. That’s an important part of this story…which was written by an actual Victorian-era socialist.
- mkfreeberg | 08/23/2012 @ 12:19
Zachriel: So an mk-liberal is someone who defines greed as the desire to hold on to one’s own wealth? Is that correct?

mkfreeberg: Why don’t you just go back and read the original comments, in the post itself? They’re clear enough.

You can’t answer a simple question about your position?

Zachriel: Do you mean what they consider to be their own property?

mkfreeberg: Their own…

Okay.

mkfreeberg: Scrooge was a fictional character

So, was Scrooge greedy or not? (You might want to read the original Dickens, by the way.)
- Zachriel | 08/23/2012 @ 12:54
You can’t answer a simple question about your position?

Again, this has nothing to do with “can’t.” Unless we’re talking about your own inability to comprehend the four distinctions I already made.

So, was Scrooge greedy or not? (You might want to read the original Dickens, by the way.)

Again: Specifically, where do you find the citation inadequate? What, specifically, did I miss?

You really aren’t accustomed to communicating in these terms, are you?
- mkfreeberg | 08/23/2012 @ 14:07
These are very simple questions about your position:

So, per your definition, a ‘liberal’ is someone who defines greed as the desire to hold on to one’s own wealth? Is that correct?

Was Scrooge greedy or not?
- Zachriel | 08/23/2012 @ 14:34
I’m just going to play Robert Gibbs on this, and refer you to my previous comments.

And that goes for Scrooge, too. My answer has already been given…about this fictional character who really, truly, indisputably went to Hell. In one of the future-timelines in the story.

Hey, what, specifically, am I supposed to get out of “the original Dickens” that would change my viewpoint on this story? It seems to me that if you want a quality answer out of me about Scrooge, you should let me know where you’re going with this. That is only logical, right?
- mkfreeberg | 08/23/2012 @ 16:45
mkfreeberg: about this fictional character who really, truly, indisputably went to Hell.

In the Dickens novel, Scrooge never visited Hell, and his visions of the future were just “shadows of things that May be, only”.

“Before I draw nearer to that stone to which you point,” said Scrooge, “answer me one question. Are these the shadows of the things that Will be, or are they shadows of things that May be, only?”

While the ghost didn’t answer Scrooge’s question, we know from the story that it was just the “shadows of things that May be, only.”

mkfreeberg: Hey, what, specifically, am I supposed to get out of “the original Dickens” that would change my viewpoint on this story?

We expect nothing will likely change your mind. Then again, Scrooge changed. In any case, you didn’t answer either simple question about your position. These are very simple clarifications, and they seem to be unambiguous.

Per your definition, a ‘liberal’ is someone who defines greed as the desire to hold on to one’s own wealth? Is that correct?

Was Scrooge greedy or not?
- Zachriel | 08/23/2012 @ 17:25
We expect nothing will likely change your mind. Then again, Scrooge changed. In any case, you didn’t answer either simple question about your position.

Nothing will change my mind…that Scrooge, as a fictitious character, had a problem with his soul and was thus unambiguously greedy?

The event whereby Scrooge redeems himself by changing his course, is a constant through all of the recitations I’ve read, Dickens’ original script along with all the others. And so, as I suspected, this has no bearing at all. You’re a posturing phony. And my point stands: In the real world, it is unsuitable and unseemly for mortal men to go around judging each other.

That would probably explain why liberals tend to be secular in their beliefs.
- mkfreeberg | 08/23/2012 @ 17:56
mkfreeberg: Nothing will change my mind…that Scrooge, as a fictitious character, had a problem with his soul and was thus unambiguously greedy?

Okay. So you say Scrooge was greedy. One more question.

Per your definition, a ‘liberal’ is someone who defines greed as the desire to hold on to one’s own wealth? Is that correct?
- Zachriel | 08/24/2012 @ 04:15
It’s a bit more complicated than that, and there are three other definitions.

Like Robert Gibbs, I’m going to refer you to my previous answer. It is stated in the post itself, and is clear.
- mkfreeberg | 08/24/2012 @ 05:14
mkfreeberg: It’s a bit more complicated than that, and there are three other definitions.

You had claimed that any of them were a clear definition of what you meant by ‘liberal’. We’re working on the one concerning greed.

mkfreeberg: How exactly do we define the word “greed” — does it have to do with wanting to hang on to what belongs to you, or does it have to do with taking possession of someone else’s property?

This seems to say that how someone defines greed determines whether they are a ‘liberal’ or not, that is, most people define greed as wanting other people’s stuff, but a ‘liberal’ defines greed as wanting to keep their own stuff.

Remember, you are the one who offered this definition, saying it was unmuddled and broadly applicable. You seem to be avoiding answering simple questions about your position.
- Zachriel | 08/24/2012 @ 05:41
We’re working on the one concerning greed.

Well, I don’t think you have a lot of work to do. It’s pretty clear.

Remember, you are the one who offered this definition, saying it was unmuddled and broadly applicable. You seem to be avoiding answering simple questions about your position.

No, I’m just relying on my previous statements, which are clear.
- mkfreeberg | 08/24/2012 @ 05:44
mkfreeberg: No, I’m just relying on my previous statements, which are clear.

So clear, you can’t answer any simple questions.

Per your definition, a ‘liberal’ is someone who defines greed as the desire to hold on to one’s own wealth? Is that correct?
- Zachriel | 08/24/2012 @ 06:08
I’m relying on my previous statement. Robert Gibbs gets to do it, so do I.

What, you can’t go back and read? I would refer you to my previous statement.
- mkfreeberg | 08/24/2012 @ 06:25
mkfreeberg: Robert Gibbs gets to do it, so do I.

If the enemy is an ass and a fool and a prating
coxcomb, is it meet, think you, that we should also,
look you, be an ass and a fool and a prating
coxcomb?

mkfreeberg: What, you can’t go back and read?

Okay.

mkfreeberg: How exactly do we define the word “greed” — does it have to do with wanting to hang on to what belongs to you, or does it have to do with taking possession of someone else’s property?

Per your definition, a ‘liberal’ is someone who defines greed as the “wanting to hang on to what belongs to you”? Is that correct?
- Zachriel | 08/24/2012 @ 06:35
I would refer you to the comment I have already made.
- mkfreeberg | 08/24/2012 @ 08:58
mkfreeberg: I would refer you to the comment I have already made.

If you are referring to

“How exactly do we define the word “greed” — does it have to do with wanting to hang on to what belongs to you, or does it have to do with taking possession of someone else’s property?”,

we have a question. Are you saying a ‘liberal’ is someone who defines greed as the “wanting to hang on to what belongs to you”?
- Zachriel | 08/24/2012 @ 10:46
A liberal would be someone who thinks greed has to do with that, yes. They fail to see greed when it has to do with “taking possession (or control) of someone else’s property.”

That would be one definition out of four. These are “Foxworthy” types of definitions, as in “y’all might be a redneck if,” for this year. We can start up some discussions about what test overrides what other test, if & when we find some test subjects that return mixed results; it is generally assumed that such test subjects will be few & far between, this year. People seem to be generally steadfast on one side or the other.
- mkfreeberg | 08/24/2012 @ 11:39
mkfreeberg: A liberal would be someone who thinks greed has to do with that, yes.

Okay. Do only liberals think this way? That holding on to your own stuff is greed?

mkfreeberg: They fail to see greed when it has to do with “taking possession (or control) of someone else’s property.”

Well, they should see it if someone was taking their property, wouldn’t they? Maybe you mean they don’t see it in themselves, even when they should.

mkfreeberg: These are “Foxworthy” types of definitions, as in “y’all might be a redneck if,”

That’s all fine and dandy for fun, but we thought you were actually trying to make a legitimate point. So in the future, we’ll use the terms liberal and political left in their conventional senses.
- Zachriel | 08/24/2012 @ 11:56
Okay. Do only liberals think this way? That holding on to your own stuff is greed?

Not necessarily. There may be some exceptional circumstances in which even I would go along with it. Five-to-ten people adrift in a lifeboat, with no way to get food or water…a few days into that, if it was discovered one among us had his own stash of candy bars and purified water, yes that would be greedy.

Now, what’s the point to this? It seems I’m arguing with a group of people who build up their comprehension of the world around them by means of entrapment/trickery mind-games. I suppose this might look more impressive from your end than it does out here.

Well, they should see it if someone was taking their property, wouldn’t they? Maybe you mean they don’t see it in themselves, even when they should.

Interesting question. It’s usually pretty tough to get them to talk about this once they perceive their own words are about to damage the credibility of their ideology, though. So there’s a good measure of difficulty getting them to be candid about this, and again, I’m not really seeing the point to it.

But most Americans in the mainstream, will recognize greed in an Occupy protester who’s out protesting, demanding he be given free stuff, before they recognize greed in a wealthy countryman who thinks he’s already paying enough in taxes. The centrists stand with the conservatives on that. The liberals stand alone in turning that around, holding the Occupy protester blameless while regarding the wealthy guy as “greedy.”

So in the future, we’ll use the terms liberal and political left in their conventional senses.

You can do whatever you like. Just don’t expect me to emulate it. Some of us need to preserve and protect our fastening to reality, and I’ve already pointed out the problems with your definitions.

Within the plane of actual real-life experience, my definitions work much better, especially when we ponder my intended meaning as I use the terms. You asked what they were, and I gave them to you.
- mkfreeberg | 08/24/2012 @ 12:14
mkfreeberg: Not necessarily. There may be some exceptional circumstances in which even I would go along with it.

According to you, Scrooge was greedy, and he wasn’t hungry or cold or homeless. All he wanted to do was hold on to his stuff.

mkfreeberg: Five-to-ten people adrift in a lifeboat, with no way to get food or water…a few days into that, if it was discovered one among us had his own stash of candy bars and purified water, yes that would be greedy.

So you are for lifeboat socialism then?

mkfreeberg: Within the plane of actual real-life experience, my definitions work much better, especially when we ponder my intended meaning as I use the terms.

Frankly, there’s no way to know what you mean by liberal or political left. The definitions you provided, you now say, are just Foxworthy-type jokes. We’ve provided the conventional definitions, but you say those don’t apply. We would like to know what you mean, but it’s apparently a secret. Must be some sort of right-wing trope-code.
- Zachriel | 08/24/2012 @ 14:13
According to you, Scrooge was greedy, and he wasn’t hungry or cold or homeless. All he wanted to do was hold on to his stuff.

This has to be one of the most poorly-executed games of “gotcha” I ever did see, by far. You try and try to find a flaw in my definition, and you need to go to fiction before you can get there; and fiction written by a socialist, to boot.

So you are for lifeboat socialism then?

Point is, our liberals are for taking a value system that would make some sense in such a lifeboat, and applying it to a technologically advanced nation in which the poorest people suffer from obesity. Anyway, you conducted an experiment to find out if I’m unreasonably dogmatic about this; the evidence shows this is not the case; the experiment that confronts us now, is to see if you will allow the evidence to prevail over your prejudices. I’m predicting no.

Frankly, there’s no way to know what you mean by liberal or political left. The definitions you provided, you now say, are just Foxworthy-type jokes.

Not sure where you got the “joke” from, I never said anything about that…

We’ve provided the conventional definitions, but you say those don’t apply. We would like to know what you mean, but it’s apparently a secret. Must be some sort of right-wing trope-code.

As I’ve pointed out, and most political science authorities are going to agree with me here, these terms are highly charged and dynamic, and cannot be generalized internationally the way you seem intent on doing.

Furthermore, if one is reading up on these definitions in order to gain an understanding of reality, one is going to have to allow reality to triumph over the definitions when that is appropriate, something you don’t seem willing to do.

Looking over your own definitions, it seems the liberals wish to have a deliberation about where personal liberty should win out over equality and where equality should win out over liberty, whereas the conservatives are willing to accept inequality in some cases…so even taking your own definitions, the distinction between liberals and conservatives is partially-to-completely lost. But, when you’re exposed to a more structurally sound of making these differentiations, you respond by playing mind games, try to find a way to deflect the new information.

Let me see if I can encapsulate the argument you seek to make here: An unknown group of collaborating individuals, unknown in number, off in some room somewhere, has latched onto a definition of conservatives & liberals they happen to like, nevermind how much it leaves unexplained about liberals, and they’ve found a conflict between this definition and my definitions. Plus, Scrooge was greedy for wanting to hang on to his own stuff, so there.

Is there anything about this argument you’re trying to present that I have failed to capture here, or perhaps summarized incorrectly? Or, are you ready to hear my verdict on how much sense I think it makes…
- mkfreeberg | 08/24/2012 @ 14:27
mkfreeberg: This has to be one of the most poorly-executed games of “gotcha” I ever did see, by far.

We’re not trying to play gotcha, but trying to understand your definition. However, you’ve already said they’re not really definitions.

mkfreeberg: Looking over your own definitions, it seems the liberals wish to have a deliberation about where personal liberty should win out over equality and where equality should win out over liberty, …

Yes, that’s right, and liberals differ on the balance. Those who tend towards equality would be considered farther to the left. Those who think equality trumps liberty aren’t liberals, by definition.

mkfreeberg: … whereas the conservatives are willing to accept inequality in some cases…so even taking your own definitions, the distinction between liberals and conservatives is partially-to-completely lost.

Everyone, excepting ideologues, are willing to accept inequality in some cases. That’s because “life is unfair. However, a conservative is more likely to view inequality as a positive good.

“…there is always inequity in life. Some men are killed in a war and some men are wounded, and some men never leave the country, and some men are stationed in the Antarctic and some are stationed in San Francisco. It’s very hard in the military or personal life to assure complete equality. Life is unfair.”
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Ready-Reference/JFK-Quotations.aspx

mkfreeberg: An unknown group of collaborating individuals, unknown in number, off in some room somewhere, has latched onto a definition of conservatives & liberals they happen to like, …

The terms have been in use for a very long time, and still retain their fundamental meanings, though, like all words, there have been subtle changes. It’s hard to discuss those subtleties when you are still lost on the basic meanings. Kennedy gave a very good description of liberal principles, and how it is a balance between liberty and equality.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/jfk-nyliberal/

mkfreeberg: … nevermind how much it leaves unexplained about liberals, …

A definition doesn’t explain but states what is meant. In the case of terms like liberal or political left, it should give us some demarcation of what is included in the group and what is excluded. Shared use of terminology allows people to understand one another so that explanations can follow.
- Zachriel | 08/24/2012 @ 15:10
We’re not trying to play gotcha, but trying to understand your definition. However, you’ve already said they’re not really definitions.

No, I didn’t say that.

Everyone, excepting ideologues, are willing to accept inequality in some cases.

So your definition seeks to define liberals and conservatives, excepting ideologues…measuring ideology without taking ideology into account.

Shared use of terminology allows people to understand one another so that explanations can follow.

Well, it appears we’re not going to be using the same definitions. However, communication should still be possible, so long as the outliers are called out and mutually recognized by both sides — said outliers being, the topics of conversation that fall within one side’s use of a term, but not within the other side’s use of the term.

We know my terms work reasonably well, since it is necessary to go traipsing into the world of fiction written by Victorian-era socialists in order disrupt them. Your terms are probably going to require more explaining, case-by-case. Example: Conversation subject is willing to accept, JFK-style, that some inequality is necessary in the human condition. Does that make the subject a liberal or a conservative? Both your definitions apply.

With my definitions, it is necessary to ask some questions. That might be why you don’t like Foxworthy-style definitions. But, asking a question is the first step toward acquiring additional knowledge about the world and the things in it. It’s a good, healthy habit. I recommend it.
- mkfreeberg | 08/24/2012 @ 15:21
mkfreeberg: No, I didn’t say that.

You said, “These are ‘Foxworthy’ types of definition”. One hardly takes Foxworthy definitions as serious or suitable for extended discussion.

mkfreeberg: So your definition seeks to define liberals and conservatives, excepting ideologues…measuring ideology without taking ideology into account.

Ideology does matter, but liberals and conservatives (conventionally defined) are not ideologues, because they balance values. Ideologues are not liberals. Communists are not liberals. Fascists are not conservatives.

mkfreeberg: However, communication should still be possible, so long as the outliers are called out and mutually recognized by both sides — said outliers being, the topics of conversation that fall within one side’s use of a term, but not within the other side’s use of the term.

We have no idea what you mean when you utter “liberal”.

mkfreeberg: Conversation subject is willing to accept, JFK-style, that some inequality is necessary in the human condition. Does that make the subject a liberal or a conservative?

Hmm. Where did we put it, oh, here it is: Everyone, excepting ideologues, are willing to accept inequality in some cases. That means that, in isolation, saying someone is willing to accept inequality in some cases doesn’t distinguish between liberals and conservatives.

mkfreeberg: We know my terms work reasonably well, since it is necessary to go traipsing into the world of fiction written by Victorian-era socialists in order disrupt them.

No, we provided several examples of liberals not in fiction, such as Kennedy and Clinton.

mkfreeberg: With my definitions, it is necessary to ask some questions.

We tried that. Don’t you remember? You kept saying to refer to your previous comments. It doesn’t matter, though, as you said they were ‘Foxworthy’ types of definition, so they can hardly be considered seriously.
- Zachriel | 08/24/2012 @ 16:16
You said, “These are ‘Foxworthy’ types of definition”. One hardly takes Foxworthy definitions as serious or suitable for extended discussion.

Ah, but you said that I said they were actually jokes. I never said that.
- mkfreeberg | 08/24/2012 @ 17:37
mkfreeberg: Ah, but you said that I said they were actually jokes. I never said that.

In any case, Foxworthy’s observations are not definitions, and they are of the form “You may be a redneck if …” One hardly takes Foxworthy as a provider of a serious or suitable definition for extended discussion.

Thought you were trying to make an actual point. Our mistake.
- Zachriel | 08/25/2012 @ 05:05
One hardly takes Foxworthy as a provider of a serious or suitable definition for extended discussion.

Foxworthy’s jokes are funny because there is some truth involved. And, within the context of the “joke,” they at least purport to be distinguishing standards…litmus tests…”hash marks” if you will. Devices that can be used to gauge something, to measure a difference. Set membership. That is the whole point of his joke.

This is very odd; evidently, from your comments here and elsewhere, you don’t think definitions are suitable if they actually distinguish, something definitions are supposed to do. You’ve been going around and around about this thing and it’s clear it’s a case of “If we do something a certain way, we want everyone else to do it the same way (or be quiet).” But your own definitions aren’t even functional, because by the time we’re done fleshing them out it seems left-wingers are willing to accept some inequality as unavoidable, which effectively erases the distinction between left-wing and right-wing according to your own definitions. As far as conservative and liberal, your definitions are pretty much redundant with Thomas Sowell’s definition of constrained and unconstrained vision, respectively, but his definitions work better than yours because yours are concerned with time, as in past & future — which also doesn’t work, since today’s liberals are longing for the past of the glory days of Clinton, LBJ and FDR. So, again, your definition, wherever it came from, fails to define, which is something definitions are supposed to do.

Ultimately, though, the real test is: If my definition says a test subject is a liberal, and yours says the same test subject is not one, would common sense say this person is a liberal?

Circles the wagon around Skinny Nero with the “you didn’t build that” thing…wants the Chicago aldermen to keep Chick-Fil-A out because the customers are somehow powerless to communicate any disaffection for the franchise by buying their lunches elsewhere…thinks taxes exist to make everybody even, rather than to fund vital government operations…sees “greed” in people who want to hang on to their own stuff, but not in people who want to be given other people’s stuff. A-yup, that would certainly not be a conservative, or a moderate. Probably not going to vote for Romney. My definition works better. I’ll use mine.
- mkfreeberg | 08/25/2012 @ 07:46
mkfreeberg: Foxworthy’s jokes are funny because there is some truth involved.

Some, but they are not sufficient to form a definition sufficient for an extended discussion of the socioeconomics of life in Appalachia.

mkfreeberg: But your own definitions aren’t even functional, because by the time we’re done fleshing them out it seems left-wingers are willing to accept some inequality as unavoidable, which effectively erases the distinction between left-wing and right-wing according to your own definitions.

Well, no. It’s a continuum, like distance or brightness, not a strict dichotomy. Also, people will vary somewhat on their views, depending the issue, as they attempt to balance various values.

mkfreeberg: As far as conservative and liberal, your definitions are pretty much redundant with Thomas Sowell’s definition of constrained and unconstrained vision,

Those with unconstrained visions can be on the extreme left or the extreme right.

mkfreeberg: If my definition says a test subject is a liberal, and yours says the same test subject is not one, would common sense say this person is a liberal?

We have the example of John Kennedy. He claimed to be a liberal. He defined liberalism as a balance between the values of liberty and equality. He believed in a constrained vision of liberalism. He rejected misrepresentations of the liberal position. He explained why it was an important political philosophy in the modern world.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/jfk-nyliberal/

As for your so-called definition, we can’t make heads nor tails of it. If we try to apply it, apparently you think Scrooge was greedy because he wanted to hold on to his own stuff, so you are liberal per your definition. That doesn’t make sense.
- Zachriel | 08/25/2012 @ 08:14
Some, but they are not sufficient to form a definition sufficient for an extended discussion of the socioeconomics of life in Appalachia.

You are not arguing for sufficient definitions. It has been revealed that your whole problem with definitions is they don’t match up with some other definition you got from a book somewhere…which, when tested, we see your definitions don’t define. Something that definitions are supposed to do.

Well, no. It’s a continuum, like distance or brightness, not a strict dichotomy.

Not so. If a left-winger believes in greater authority of the state over less personal liberty, a right-winger will come along who disagrees on that issue, championing the personal liberty over the authority of the state. But, on another issue, the roles will change, with the left-winger opting for the liberty and the right-winger opting for the authority. It isn’t a continuum.

It’s more like, “lefties like personal liberty when it’s got something to do with sex, the rest of the time it will have to take a back seat to their grand vision of what the world should be.”

Those with unconstrained visions can be on the extreme left or the extreme right.

I have to keep in mind you think Hitler was a right-winger. So your statement is only true if we re-define right-wing to mean left-wing.

He [JFK] defined liberalism as a balance between the values of liberty and equality.

Conservatives could come back and say, with ample justification, that conservatism itself is a search for balance between liberty and equality. Their opposition to affirmative action is that it is unequal.

As for your so-called definition, we can’t make heads nor tails of it.

Well, if I were you I’d put some effort into arguing this honestly. You are not confused, and you do not object to my definitions because they are inadequate. You object to them because they actually define things, something definitions are supposed to do.

- mkfreeberg | 08/25/2012 @ 08:39
mkfreeberg: You are not arguing for sufficient definitions. It has been revealed that your whole problem with definitions is they don’t match up with some other definition you got from a book somewhere…

Yes, “books” written by “experts”.

In fact, we have attempted to understand the so-called definition you provided. For several days, you even refused to answer questions about it, which simply reinforces the impression that you aren’t really interested in discussion, but polemics.

mkfreeberg: I have to keep in mind you think Hitler was a right-winger. So your statement is only true if we re-define right-wing to mean left-wing.

As have generations of people, including most political scientists.

mkfreeberg: You are not confused, and you do not object to my definitions because they are inadequate.

You’re the one who said they were Foxworthy-type definitions. Again, we would direct you to John Kennedy’s definition of liberalism.

“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.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/jfk-nyliberal/
- Zachriel | 08/25/2012 @ 08:57
Yes, “books” written by “experts”.

Sowell has another book out which you should read, about “intellectuals.”

I wonder how you go about this task of figuring out who’s an “expert”? It seems your problem has a lot to do with assigning infinite weight to certain sources, and then effectively no weight at all to other sources, validating them based entirely on whether they agree with what you read earlier. The example under discussion is a good one, because this mode of thought has led you to conduct these mental exercises according to a premise that the terms “left-wing,” “right-wing,” “conservative” and “liberal” are static across time, which is demonstrably not true, and possess singular applicable meanings around the globe, which is also demonstrably not true.

In fact, interestingly enough, your “experts” would agree those premises are not true. So you’ve made two errors here, one is assigning infinite weight to an arbitrarily chosen sub-selection of these “experts,” and the second is stenciling off what those “experts” have to say, receiving some parts of it and blocking off other parts of it.

In fact, we have attempted to understand the so-called definition you provided. For several days, you even refused to answer questions about it, which simply reinforces the impression that you aren’t really interested in discussion, but polemics.

Ah, but I did answer questions about it; I referred you to my previous statements, which are clear.

Again, we would direct you to John Kennedy’s definition of liberalism.

Right, and again, Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 so if his definitions had any value at all, they no longer do. These are terms which change with the passage of time. The “experts” will agree on that.
- mkfreeberg | 08/25/2012 @ 09:21
mkfreeberg: So you’ve made two errors here, one is assigning infinite weight to an arbitrarily chosen sub-selection of these “experts,”

We’ve also repeatedly addressed the specifics.

mkfreeberg: Ah, but I did answer questions about it; I referred you to my previous statements, which are clear.

In other words, you wouldn’t answer simple questions about your position.

mkfreeberg: Right, and again, Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 so if his definitions had any value at all, they no longer do.

In other words, you won’t address the point. Alright, it’s pretty clear that you never intended to address any of the points raised. Good luck with that.
- Zachriel | 08/25/2012 @ 09:27
We’ve also repeatedly addressed the specifics.

It doesn’t matter. You, who recognize the folly of seeing the world in terms of “black and white,” do precisely that when you figure out which experts deserve credibility and which do not. The irony.

In other words, you wouldn’t answer simple questions about your position.

No, I referred you to my previous statements, which are clear.

In other words, you won’t address the point. Alright, it’s pretty clear that you never intended to address any of the points raised. Good luck with that.

No, not unless by “the point” you mean a definition put out half a century ago, on a term that in actuality is constantly changing. Good luck with that.
- mkfreeberg | 08/25/2012 @ 10:44
In other words, you won’t address the point. Alright, it’s pretty clear that you never intended to address any of the points raised. Good luck with that.

Tenacious, aren’t you?

Just go around and around and around and around, repeat the same crap over and over, demand that Morgan answer questions he already has, split hairs and argue over the meaning of simple everyday words.

Yeah. That’ll convince “other readers of this blog,” Z.
- cylarz | 08/25/2012 @ 12:27
I have to confess, I’ve learned something here about the tried ‘n’ true “for that, I would refer you to my previous statement” cliche. I always wondered why Jay Carney and Robert Gibbs kept spouting this over and over again, until they became caricatures of themselves, and then just kept right on saying it.

It does look silly, but there are advantages to it as well. Kind of like a citronella to put out when the “So is what you’re saying is…” pests come flying around.
- mkfreeberg | 08/25/2012 @ 12:35
[…] it is, can be defined in such a way. And whether a series of “Jeff Foxworthy” type of you-might-be-one-if tests would be an acceptable alternative…or could be taken seriously…or if that’s about […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 09/09/2012 @ 09:49

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Four Things More Important Than Mitt Romney’s Tax ReturnsWednesday, August 8th, 2012

Four Things More Important Than Mitt Romney’s Tax Returns
Wednesday, August 8th, 2012