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...
There are two understandings of this; The Zachriels’, and everybody else’s. Such terms are used to convey ideas among people who come together from different backgrounds and with different values and biases, so before anybody can communicate about such things, there’s going to have to be an effort brought to a successful completion getting the entire world to use these terms the way The Zachriel do.
Thought I’d help them out.
My understanding of it is, there is this cartilaginous binding between conservative/liberal, and left/right; the two disagreements correlate somewhat, but are not synonymous. Their words:
“Conservatives” tend to believe that traditional values and institutions are the bulwark of society, that too fast of change can result in unintended consequences or even anarchy. Rational conservatives believe in change and reform, of course, but believe the change must be gradual and moderated. Conservatives tend to look to the past for inspiration, cultural stratifications being a consequence of natural order.
“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.
Right-wing “reactionaries”, such as fascists, believe in absolute inequality, and want to overthrow corrupt modern institutions and return to a mythological and heroic past.
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.
Among the reasons this doesn’t work:
Newt Gingrich’s “revolution” of 1994, according to this, would be “left wing radical,” and so would the American Revolution.
The definitions seem to have been internationalized, which really doesn’t work well in America. I would even venture to say this “cartilaginous” binding between those two disagreements is entirely unnecessary, and it’s safe to go ahead and fuse the bones together: Conservatives are right and liberals are left. I realize this creates problems when we look at other cultures in other countries. That is alright.
I have raised the point about the feminist movement, and the women who support it only insofar as the push for equal pay. Like my Mother, they jump off the bandwagon when it veers into man-bashing “men are the problem” territory. These definitions would make such women moderate lefties. I’ve never met one who self-identifies that way; they consider themselves to be, and seem to be, staunchly right-wing. So here, as well, the definitions don’t work.
The left-wing in America, for a very long time now, has actually championed disparate levels of privilege for different classes. The preservation of President Obama’s entrenched perks retains deep symbolic value for passionate and pie-eyed lefties. The definitions above would define that preservation to be “conservative.”
Adolf Hitler, according to the definitions above, would be a “left-wing” (on the “glorious future” part) “conservative.”
Liberals, in this day & age in America, hate. That is what they do. There’s always some bad guy, either a bad individual or a bad class, that has to be pruned down to size. The desire to make everyone equal, is incompatible with this mandatory hate.
Concerns about solvency, which would be necessary for a “glorious future,” are entirely ignored by the “left.” They only pretend to pay attention to it when a tax cut comes along that they don’t happen to like, and then they pretend it’s going to “cost” the treasury something. That’s the only time they show any concern. If any one of them shows some concern about something that really does cost something, that person ceases on the spot to be a proper leftist. Unless he’s talking about a military budget item.
In order for an egalitarian society to thrive, rights and responsibilities would have to be fastened together. Lefties in America are opposed to this; they want one set of people to have rights, and a different set of people to have responsibilities. In order to do that, you have to create classes that are different from one another. In this sense, and in others, I get the impression that I disagree with The Zachriel because they’re evaluating “the left” according to the left’s promises, and I’m evaluating that same thing according to deliveries made. I like my way better.
What might work better:
• In liberalism, nature has made something unfair and it is the job of people to make it fair
• In liberalism, there is always an oppressor and there is always a victim
• In liberalism, there is a “Dear Leader” who never makes mistakes because if he does, it stops being a mistake
• In liberalism, the people furthest away from the work make rules followed by people closest to the work
• In conservatism, a new rule has to be tried out in a “sandbox” and possibly revised
• In conservatism, it is desirable to provide for the possibility that a rule might turn out to be stupid
• Conservatives fear the eventuality that a dumb rule might lead to dumb decisions; liberals seem to count on this
• In conservatism, the elected should truly be servants, who serve for a limited time
• Liberalism is strongly associated, throughout history, with over-privileged dictators-for-life
• Conservatives tend to be motivated by profits, which they envision as the result of fulfilling someone’s demand
• Liberals tend to be motivated by the next revolution; therefore, by some kind of resentment or offense
• Conservatives favor a “legacy economy” in which people acquire by providing products or services to other people
• Liberals favor an “Occupy economy” in which people acquire by frustrating, annoying, or impeding the work of, others
• Liberalism favors change when it is not yet in power; once it is in power, it favors stasis
• Conservatism tries to preserve a linkage between rights and responsibilities
• Liberalism tries to push a new order in which some have rights, and others have responsibilities
• Conservatism advocates rewards, usually natural, for delayed gratification
• Liberalism advocates rewards, usually artifiical, for immediate gratification
• Liberalism pushes for more freedom in things that have something to do with sex, less freedom in everything else
• Conservatism pushes for more freedom in everything else
• Liberals are fatalists about net worth, standard of living, debt, and many other things within human control
• Conservatives are fatalists where fatalism makes the most sense, like salvation vs. damnation, and global climate
• Conservatism favors a strong national defense and limited government
• Liberalism favors internationalism, anemic defense, and a sprawling, out-of-control government
• Conservatism sees terrorism as an act of war
• Liberalism sees terrorism as a legal issue and, in John Kerry’s words, a “nuisance”
• Conservatism thinks charity should be a voluntary act
• Liberalism thinks charity should be a requirement, therefore stop being charity
• Conservatism favors thinking as an individual; an idea doesn’t make sense if it wouldn’t make sense to an individual
• Liberalism favors group-think; if a group can’t see a flaw that an individual could see, the flaw isn’t really there
• To a conservative, individual effort counts; the group merely coordinates, which can be useful for funding
• To a liberal, the group effort is everything and the individual effort is nothing (unless it’s Dear Leader’s effort)
• Conservatism sees a “right” as something that belongs to the individual
• Liberalism confers “rights” on classes of people
• Conservatism recognizes a “right” as something people have by virtue of their existence
• Conservatives, therefore, see the list of rights as something that changes very slowly or not at all
• Liberalism sees a “right” as something granted by the government
• Liberals, therefore, see the list of rights as something that changes all the time, shrinking and growing
• Conservatives believe in the right to private property
• Liberals believe everybody’s rights end wherever their feelings begin, and they feel someone has too much
• Conservatives learn from history
• Liberals are often caught trying out failed policies, behaving as if history only began this morning
• Conservatives understand people get tired of seeing the same things, and absence makes the heart grow fonder
• Liberals think people learn to like things they see often, and to loathe things that are restricted in supply
• Conservatives see commerce as a succession of transactions that tend to benefit both sides, so everyone wins
• Liberals see commerce as nothing more than a flurry of activity
• Conservatives predict the effect of new policies around realistic expectations of human incentive
• Liberals are consistently surprised when human incentive doesn’t go the way they wanted it to go
• Conservatives are concerned with outcome
• Liberals are concerned with process
• Conservatives value opportunity over security
• Liberals value security over opportunity
• Conservatives have more respect for occupations that create assets, and defend the realm
• Liberals somehow reserve their respect for occupations that do not do this
• To a conservative, a true contradiction is impossible; so an apparent contradiction is an opportunity for learning
• To a liberal, an apparent contradiction is just a problem, solved by discarding the least-desirable evidence that’s part of it
• If a conservative hears something on the radio he doesn’t like, he changes the station
• If a liberal hears something on the radio he doesn’t like, he wants it banned
• If a conservative’s most cherished theory is challenged by reality, he discards or reforms the theory
• If a liberal’s most cherished theory is challenged by reality, reality must yield and the theory must prevail
• Conservatives tend to be Architects, concerned primarily about matters of cause-and-effect
• Liberals tend to be Medicators, concerned primarily about their own momentary emotional state
If any authoritative reference material contradicts my bullet points above, I hold that such reference material is creating more confusion than it is curing; since, when people use the words, whether they be aware of it or not, the bullets above capture what they’re really trying to say. If The Zachriel want to reform or reverse that in some way, I wish them well.
What probably kicks the whole thing off:
• Conservatives seek to create and preserve things that create or preserve, and destroy things that destroy
• Liberals seek to create or preserve things that destroy, and destroy things that create or preserve
Another thing that might kick the whole thing off, as I believe I mentioned before, is the Conflict of Visions defined by Prof. Thomas Sowell in his book.
Cross-posted at Rotten Chestnuts.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
mkfreeberg: Newt Gingrich’s “revolution” of 1994, according to this, would be “left wing radical,”
Um, no. Among the promises made were balanced budgets, law-and-order provisions, cutting welfare, tax cuts, less regulation. These are generally conservative proposals.
mkfreeberg: … and so would the American Revolution.
The American revolutionaries were certainly to the political left of those who supported the crown, just as French revolutionaries were to the left of those who supported the crown.
mkfreeberg: The definitions seem to have been internationalized, which really doesn’t work well in America.
Well, conservative and right-wing tend to be conflated somewhat in the U.S.
mkfreeberg: I’ve never met one who self-identifies that way; they consider themselves to be, and seem to be, staunchly right-wing.
Perhaps on many issues, but if they advocate for changes to society that results in a more equal society with regards to women, then they would usually be placed on the left on that issue. You have only to look at the history of women’s political issues to understand that. Of course, something like women’s suffrage is mainstream now, though it was certainly on the left a hundred years ago. The center has moved left.
mkfreeberg: Adolf Hitler, according to the definitions above, would be a “left-wing” (on the “glorious future” part) “conservative.”
Hitler advocated absolute inequality. Furthermore, his future was based on a mythological heroic German past.
mkfreeberg: Concerns about solvency, which would be necessary for a “glorious future,” are entirely ignored by the “left.”
Um, no. You’re fighting a strawman.
mkfreeberg: In order for an egalitarian society to thrive, rights and responsibilities would have to be fastened together.
That’s the moderate view, one that balances competing factors.
mkfreeberg: Lefties in America are opposed to this; they want one set of people to have rights, and a different set of people to have responsibilities.
Um, no. You’re fighting a strawman.
mkfreeberg: • In liberalism, nature has made something unfair and it is the job of people to make it fair
Life is unfair, but liberals attempt to address injustice in society. For instance, liberals formed the core of the civil rights movement.
mkfreeberg: • Liberals seek to create or preserve things that destroy, and destroy things that create or preserve
- Zachriel | 08/14/2013 @ 12:27mkfreeberg: Another thing that might kick the whole thing off, as I believe I mentioned before, is the Conflict of Visions defined by Prof. Thomas Sowell in his book.
While human nature doesn’t change, it turns out that society can and does change.
- Zachriel | 08/14/2013 @ 12:31“Liberals, therefore, see the list of rights as something that changes all the time, shrinking and growing.”
Liberals believe that rights are only are created by man (and therefore can also be revoked by the pen), but they also have the added challenge that they have to be ranked in order of importance. Quite a few of the divisions for liberals come from different interpretations of ranking.
Now when they argue with conservatives, who don’t have this quandary, the issue is really that they want the conservative to accept their ranking and their authority to revoke a right due to a inferior rank. Witness any argument over the 2nd amendment by a liberal and you’ll see this in action.
- Wamphyr | 08/14/2013 @ 21:18Wamphyr: Liberals believe that rights are only are created by man (and therefore can also be revoked by the pen)
That’s an overgeneralization. Most liberals probably accept the notion of natural rights. In any case, it was liberals that formed the core of the civil rights movement, while conservatives generally opposed it. How does that affect your position?
- Zachriel | 08/15/2013 @ 04:50It wouldn’t affect it much, even if it was true.
- mkfreeberg | 08/15/2013 @ 06:34Among the promises made were balanced budgets, law-and-order provisions, cutting welfare, tax cuts, less regulation. These are generally conservative proposals.
But your definition says:
Don’t see anything about welfare reform or balanced budgets in there. My own definitions mention that, but yours don’t. The point is, the definitions you had would characterize Gingrich as a liberal, and perhaps also as a leftist (since he sought to drive power out of Washington and back into the hands of the people). They would characterize those who opposed him, and sought to keep the status-quo hard-line democrat sprawling-government institutions in place, as conservatives. So the criticism fits, if you’re correct in saying Gingrich was really a conservative — and I agree. When criticism fits, we accept it, fix what is broken, and move on. Glad to see you joining the effort.
The American revolutionaries were certainly to the political left of those who supported the crown, just as French revolutionaries were to the left of those who supported the crown.
You need to go back and re-read Sowell. The American Revolution revolved around the constrained vision, the French Revolution around the unconstrained. That’s why one revolution is now celebrated, and the other one is now an historical blight.
Well, conservative and right-wing tend to be conflated somewhat in the U.S.
Yup, agreed. The distinction isn’t generally made, because there isn’t much reason for it.
While human nature doesn’t change, it turns out that society can and does change.
“Turns out,” eh? Well it turns out that liberals have goals that aren’t ever reached, mostly due to this unanticipated consistency in human nature. But we’re not here to hash out which vision is right & which one is wrong; that’s a bit off-topic. The point is to help you sell your definitions that are at odds with everyone else’s, or else get hold of some new ones — either way, to restore these crucial words to their power to communicate ideas across different communities, something words are supposed to be able to do.
- mkfreeberg | 08/15/2013 @ 06:43• If a liberal hears something on the
radiorodeo, he doesn’t like, (s)he wants it banned.Fixed it for ya!
- CaptDMO | 08/15/2013 @ 06:45mkfreeberg: It wouldn’t affect it much, even if it was true.
You’re conflating Democrats with liberals. At the time of the Civil Rights Acts, both parties had liberal and conservative factions. Liberals constituted the core of the Civil Rights movement. For instance, George Wallace on liberals:
Keep in mind that Wallace is railing against the Civil Right Act of 1964, that Wallace is a Democrat, but certainly not a liberal. Indeed, this speech could be given today by some elements of the political right.
- Zachriel | 08/15/2013 @ 06:47Good article about how the two revolutions fit into Sowell’s differentiation, here.
The point has to do with something I think all thinking persons implicitly realize already: Revolutions can be conservative. The definition of “conservative,” therefore, should be able to reflect that.
- mkfreeberg | 08/15/2013 @ 06:51I’m afraid you’re trying to bend reality around to make it seem like liberals have something to do with equality.
We don’t even need to go back into history to upset that apple-cart. Just look at the people who are most proud to self-identify as “liberal”: Look at what they’re proposing. Someone should be given special status to enjoy special protections and special privileges. And this is across the board. Affirmative Action is a liberal proposal, is it not? Dianne Feinstein wants protection only for “real reporters.” The list goes on and on.
Liberals aren’t for equality. They’re for the opposite. Liberals are for talking about equality.
- mkfreeberg | 08/15/2013 @ 06:54mkfreeberg: Revolutions can be conservative.
A fundamental difference is that the Americans already had working legislatures, and they merely had to remove the top. The French were under an absolute monarchy, so there were no workable replacements. Furthermore, the success of the nascent American republic was hardly guaranteed. If Washington hadn’t survived the war, the result may have been much different, nor did the French revolution necessarily have to descend into anarchy.
But yes, the American revolution was more conservative than the French revolution, though both were far to the right of the monarchists.
mkfreeberg: I’m afraid you’re trying to bend reality around to make it seem like liberals have something to do with equality.
Because that’s what liberalism means in political science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
mkfreeberg: We don’t even need to go back into history to upset that apple-cart. Just look at the people who are most proud to self-identify as “liberal”
mkfreeberg: Affirmative Action is a liberal proposal, is it not?
- Zachriel | 08/15/2013 @ 08:04Because that’s what liberalism means in political science.
Right, I’ve addressed this already. Liberalism is deceit, by its very nature; its promise must always be different from what it will ultimately deliver, because you cannot embrace equality while building your movement around butt-hurt hate against some targeted class.
Most people can recognize the problems with defining a deceptive movement around its promises, when it’s well known the ultimate delivery will have to be different. For the people who can recognize this, there are my definitions. For people who cannot or will not recognize this, there are your definitions.
For example, without debating the merits of Affirmative Actions, or whether MLK would approve of how it has been implemented following his demise, it is by its very nature unequal treatment. And it is, by ideology, a liberal initiative in the United States. That illustrates, not only the pattern, but how it works. You can’t champion equality when you’re seeing the citizenry in terms of victims and oppressors.
Liberalism, therefore, IS inequality. It murmurs a bunch of stuff about equality, but does not deliver and cannot deliver. It is woven from the fabric of broken promises.
- mkfreeberg | 08/15/2013 @ 08:24mkfreeberg: Liberalism is deceit, by its very nature; its promise must always be different from what it will ultimately deliver, because you cannot embrace equality while building your movement around butt-hurt hate against some targeted class.
Perhaps, but the consequences of the belief is not the belief itself. Someone may espouse the Marxist dream of a system where all goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed, and chasing this dream may lead to all sorts of unintended consequences, but that doesn’t change the definition of Marxism.
mkfreeberg: For example, without debating the merits of Affirmative Actions, or whether MLK would approve of how it has been implemented following his demise, it is by its very nature unequal treatment.
It’s intent is equalization.
- Zachriel | 08/15/2013 @ 08:39Perhaps, but the consequences of the belief is not the belief itself.
In this case, it is. The belief itself entails hatred. You can’t hate one class, sympathize with another class it is ostensibly oppressing, and believe in equality.
- mkfreeberg | 08/15/2013 @ 08:43mkfreeberg: In this case, it is. The belief itself entails hatred. You can’t hate one class, sympathize with another class it is ostensibly oppressing, and believe in equality.
Of course you can. For instance, many French revolutionaries hated the nobility. They were on the political left—by the very definition of the term.
- Zachriel | 08/15/2013 @ 08:50Of course you can. For instance, many French revolutionaries hated the nobility. They were on the political left—by the very definition of the term.
Well, there you have it — you can hate, and actively seek to destroy, an entire group of people, and still somehow believe in equality. All those aristocrats were guillotined for equality.
At this point, what else needs to be said?
- Severian | 08/15/2013 @ 09:40Right, and they were not for equality.
Unless you consider “missing your head” to be equal to having it.
It seems you’re trying to introduce a difficulty creating a working definition — because you don’t like the ones I’ve found — by way of cause-and-effect incompetence on the part of the thing being defined. Liberals achieve inequality, and they have a passion for inequality because they’re filled with hate. But, so goes the argument, somewhere there is at least a cosmetic intent toward equality.
We do not define “addictions” this way; we do not think of them in terms of, getting rid of this craving I have and making me feel good. Only the afflicted envisions his pursuit that way, and only in the moments before he gets hold of his next fix. It would be ludicrous to define what he’s doing according to that instantaneous impulse, though. And that is the only relationship liberals have to equality.
Affirmative Action, a liberal initiative, is not about making people equal, it’s about unequal treatment with unequal effect. It’s failed, and if it were practiced a hundred times, it would fail a hundred times for the same reason. Rev. King was a smart guy, so if he were around to watch these hundred exercises, he probably would realize his mistake no later than the second or third round. Most liberals would watch all hundred and never learn the lesson, though. In fact, some would start celebrating that it was “failing” to heal racial divisions so gloriously.
- mkfreeberg | 08/15/2013 @ 09:42Severian: Well, there you have it — you can hate, and actively seek to destroy, an entire group of people, and still somehow believe in equality. All those aristocrats were guillotined for equality.
That’s right. Pour liberté, égalité, fraternité. Many aristocrats were seen as enemies of liberty and equality.
- Zachriel | 08/15/2013 @ 09:49Lopping off heads, for sake of égalité.
Yeah, that does kind of sum it up, right there.
- mkfreeberg | 08/15/2013 @ 09:53mkfreeberg: Right, and they were not for equality.
Of course they were. They saw many aristocrats as enemies of equality.
mkfreeberg: Affirmative Action, a liberal initiative, is not about making people equal, it’s about unequal treatment with unequal effect. It’s failed, and if it were practiced a hundred times, it would fail a hundred times for the same reason.
Whether it failed or not is irrelevant as to whether it was intended to foster greater equality.
mkfreeberg: Rev. King was a smart guy, so if he were around to watch these hundred exercises, he probably would realize his mistake no later than the second or third round.
You have to argue that Martin Luther King was against equality because he was for affirmative action. Is that your argument?
- Zachriel | 08/15/2013 @ 10:02Whether it failed or not is irrelevant as to whether it was intended to foster greater equality.
So the intent is to “foster greater equality” when the movement is in support of policies that treat people unequally?
It seems you’re trying to introduce a difficulty creating a working definition — because you don’t like the ones I’ve found — by way of cause-and-effect incompetence on the part of the thing being defined. You’re trying to “sanity-check” a definition of the motives of an insane thing.
- mkfreeberg | 08/15/2013 @ 10:29mkfreeberg: So the intent is to “foster greater equality” when the movement is in support of policies that treat people unequally?
Sure that can happen. For instance, in the extreme, it can mean taking the property of the rich and distributing it to the poor. It the ironic extreme, it could mean Harrison Bergeron.
- Zachriel | 08/15/2013 @ 10:38Sure that can happen. For instance, in the extreme, it can mean taking the property of the rich and distributing it to the poor.
And making Detroit.
First step toward curing inequality, is to appreciate the difference between inequality and equality. Since the left doesn’t even successfully reach that first step, it cannot be defined according to the cosmetics of its intent.
To do so, is to measure sanely an insane thing. That would be like precisely measuring distance or size with a stretchy rubber ruler.
- mkfreeberg | 08/15/2013 @ 10:46mkfreeberg: And making Detroit.
Perhaps, but left-right, liberal-conservative, are political and ideological positions, not results.
- Zachriel | 08/15/2013 @ 10:56As has been repeatedly explained to you now, this is not an issue with wanting one thing, and supporting policies that repeatedly culminate in the opposite. This is an issue with wanting that opposite, and lying to new recruits about what the true objective is.
- mkfreeberg | 08/15/2013 @ 11:10mkfreeberg: This is an issue with wanting that opposite, and lying to new recruits about what the true objective is.
Right, so Mao wasn’t a leftist. Sure.
In any case, the millions of people who self-identify as liberals have certain views they consider liberal. Those views don’t include “seeking to create or preserve things that destroy, and destroy things that create or preserve”. That’s just silly.
Sure some liberal and conservative leaders pander by mouthing liberal and conservative views, but this doesn’t change the nature of what we mean by liberal or conservative.
- Zachriel | 08/15/2013 @ 11:25Right, so Mao wasn’t a leftist. Sure.
It’s news to me that Mao enjoyed a standard of living that was equal to those under his rule. Is that what you are trying to say?
In any case, the millions of people who self-identify as liberals have certain views they consider liberal. Those views don’t include “seeking to create or preserve things that destroy, and destroy things that create or preserve”. That’s just silly.
I agree. They should stop that.
Sure some liberal and conservative leaders pander by mouthing liberal and conservative views, but this doesn’t change the nature of what we mean by liberal or conservative.
Then, y’all are the ones out of step with everyone else. If liberals were about equality, they’d be doing a lot of things very differently.
Try introducing the bill to require members of Congress to use the same health care plans everyone else is required to use. See how many liberals line up to support it.
Liberalism, in America today, is about preserving caste systems, and creating new ones. Equality doesn’t enter into it, and is the opposite of what they want to do.
- mkfreeberg | 08/15/2013 @ 11:33mkfreeberg: It’s news to me that Mao enjoyed a standard of living that was equal to those under his rule.
Heh. Mao not a leftist! Doesn’t that indicate somehow that you aren’t using the term like others use it? What about Mao’s millions of followers?
mkfreeberg: I agree. They should stop that.
Ha! You have a way of avoiding the clear implications of your own position. Millions of people call themselves liberals, often holding views quite similar to Kennedy’s stated above. Maybe they should stop, but that doesn’t change the meaning of liberalism.
- Zachriel | 08/15/2013 @ 11:48Heh. Mao not a leftist! Doesn’t that indicate somehow that you aren’t using the term like others use it? What about Mao’s millions of followers?
My understand is that Mao was a leftist…most people say he was a leftist…when it came to equality, he was opposed to it. Sorry, was this supposed to be some brilliant final smackdown you’re doing here? Looks like you’re proving my point, and in fact, doing a great job of it.
Ha! You have a way of avoiding the clear implications of your own position. Millions of people call themselves liberals, often holding views quite similar to Kennedy’s stated above. Maybe they should stop, but that doesn’t change the meaning of liberalism.
Would those people be in favor of Barack and Michelle Obama going as long without vacations as the average American family right now?
You know what I find funny: Millions of people who call themselves conservatives, are in fact not in favor of perpetuating inequality. If you were to ask them, they’d say yes, there is an idea for getting rid of the inequality, to be controlled by a bunch of government strangers they’re never going to meet, and they just don’t trust the proposal. They aren’t anti-equality, they’re pro-freedom. And they know a bad deal when they see one.
It seems these book-definitions you’ve been reading, were written by liberals exclusively, or those who are more sympathetic to them. That’s clearly not a good way to read up on the meaning of political ideologies. It’s a better idea to look at what the advocates do, and what seems to be motivating them. I’m right about that, aren’t I?
- mkfreeberg | 08/15/2013 @ 11:54Wow, this is fascinating….
It appears that the Z are all up in arms that you won’t type the words “Mao was a leftist.” Meanwhile, they have no problem with Robespierre chopping off heads for “equality.”
Hating another entire group of people, and doing your best to destroy them = perfectly ok, as long as you make some noises about “equality.”
Pointing out the banal historical truth that Mao’s actions didn’t line up with his words == foam-flecked outrage.
Interesting set of morals y’all have there.
- Severian | 08/15/2013 @ 12:00mkfreeberg: My understand is that Mao was a leftist…most people say he was a leftist…when it came to equality, he was opposed to it.
Mao was a leftist. That contradicts Severian, by the way.
Mao was a communist, that is, he advocated for a process that would result in a classless, stateless social order based on the common ownership of property. He collectivized agriculture and industry. He fought against the ruling classes, even those that developed within his own government. He empowered ordinary people to purge authorities at all levels. This created chaos, but the purpose was to eventually create greater equality.
- Zachriel | 08/15/2013 @ 12:05He empowered ordinary people to purge authorities at all levels. This created chaos, but the purpose was to eventually create greater equality.
And Mao lived more-or-less like the people over whom he had authority? As a true proponent of equality would?
- mkfreeberg | 08/15/2013 @ 12:06mkfreeberg: And Mao lived more-or-less like the people over whom he had authority? As a true proponent of equality would?
John Kennedy advocated for the poor and dispossessed even though he wasn’t poor or dispossessed. Nevertheless, he would be called a liberal for his advocacy.
What about the millions of Mao’s communist followers? Were they on the political left?
- Zachriel | 08/15/2013 @ 12:14What a cool pad. Wow. Awesome. Gotta love that “equality.”
John Kennedy advocated for the poor and dispossessed even though he wasn’t poor or dispossessed. Nevertheless, he would be called a liberal for his advocacy.
It’s a false argument. I don’t know of anyone who advocates against the poor/dispossessed. The issue is liberals supporting equality. Are you saying JFK was an example of this?
What about the millions of Mao’s communist followers? Were they on the political left?
Of course. And if anyone tried to take some of Mao’s money away and distribute it, they’d probably have fought against that, just like any one of Obama’s followers would resist an effort to redistribute the Obamas’ vacation time & resources among American citizens. Because the left is opposed to equality. They always want their star-children and false deities to be elevated above all else. It’s been a constant in leftist regimes.
Cute how y’all keep trying to make the truth go away, though. Think it’s time to change the water in your bowl.
- mkfreeberg | 08/15/2013 @ 12:20mkfreeberg: It’s a false argument. I don’t know of anyone who advocates against the poor/dispossessed.
Turns out that it is a common current in history to keep down minorities and peasants.
mkfreeberg: Are you saying JFK was an example of this?
Kennedy was a liberal, and supported the extension of civil rights protections to blacks. And yes, there were plenty of advocates against black rights.
mkfreeberg: Because the left is opposed to equality.
So the millions of poor peasants who followed the communist banner weren’t hoping for a more equitable world? You must live on another planet, because on Earth there was a great period of ideological struggle, and millions of people did believe that communism would lead to a more equitable world.
- Zachriel | 08/15/2013 @ 12:32You do understand that the modern age evolved from a previous period in history where there were hereditary political and economic powers, as well as a long period of colonization where lands were often consolidated in the hands of a few? As such, the last few centuries has been to change that gross inequality. At the extreme left, we have communism where everyone has an equal share; but most people understand that robust markets along with a strong public sector to act as referee and to provide a safety net are the most effective system.
- Zachriel | 08/15/2013 @ 12:46<b.Mao was a leftist. That contradicts Severian, by the way.
Does it now? Perhaps you’d like to explain how. with citations from the text?
(Amazing how good they get at finding a point that was otherwise so bafflingly opaque when they feel they’ve got some kind of “gotcha,” ain’t it?)
I guess the important thing here, Morgan, is not what they do, but what they say. You can live like the most decadent sultan while your people starve and still get love from liberals, so long as you make some noise about “equality.” To paraphrase Robespierre: “perish whole classes of people, but let us have real equality!”
Which, ummm…. ok, I guess. So we’re to take it as read that a whole bunch of murderous despots were on the left, and that the murders are ok, so long as they’re in the service of “equality.” That’s quite the morality you’ve got there, guys. I can feel the compassion through my monitor.
Maybe you should add that to your list, Morgan: When a conservative sees heads start to roll in the name of his so-called principles, he steps back and reevaluates the fundamentals; a liberal figures those aristocrats just must’ve had it comin.’
- Severian | 08/15/2013 @ 12:56Turns out that it is a common current in history to keep down minorities and peasants.
You keep saying “turns out.” It turns out leftist dictators are about as good at keeping down minorities and peasants, as anyone else.
Kennedy was a liberal, and supported the extension of civil rights protections to blacks. And yes, there were plenty of advocates against black rights.
Kennedy was a supply-sider.
So the millions of poor peasants who followed the communist banner weren’t hoping for a more equitable world? You must live on another planet, because on Earth there was a great period of ideological struggle, and millions of people did believe that communism would lead to a more equitable world.
They were motivated by resentment. As has been explained to you many times now, it is impossible to be working toward equality while being motivated by resentment.
You do understand that the modern age evolved from a previous period in history where there were hereditary political and economic powers, as well as a long period of colonization where lands were often consolidated in the hands of a few? As such, the last few centuries has been to change that gross inequality. At the extreme left, we have communism where everyone has an equal share; but most people understand that robust markets along with a strong public sector to act as referee and to provide a safety net are the most effective system.
And it’s pretty hard to find more gross examples of inequality, than where leftists have been in charge. The truth is that they’re not interested in equality, they’re interested in inequality.
Put a leftist in charge on a Monday, and by Friday you’ll have a Gini coefficient very close to 1.0. The Obamas go on all the vacations; Mao gets to live in his big villa; Castro gets the best medical attention; Saddam Hussein lives in the big palaces; the entire nation revolves around the wants and whims of Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim-Jong, Stalin, Lenin, Idi Amin.
There’s always a top-of-pyramid guy who enjoys all the perks and privileges. Gini 1.0 is a constant fixture with modern-liberal-leftist regimes, because in the modern age liberalism is not about equality. It’s about the opposite.
- mkfreeberg | 08/15/2013 @ 13:01Severian: Does it now?
Z: Or are you saying the distinction left-right is incoherent?
S: Yes. That is exactly, explicitly what I am saying, in those words, when — pay attention, this is crucial — applied to people at the tippy-top.
mkfreeberg: As has been explained to you many times now, it is impossible to be working toward equality while being motivated by resentment.
Well, no. You haven’t explained anything. You made a claim. We provided reasons why your claim wasn’t correct. You repeated your claim. We provided examples where your claim wasn’t correct. You repeated your claim.
mkfreeberg: “The Gini coefficient measures the inequality among values of a frequency distribution (for example levels of income).”
Here’s the Gini coefficient for a few countries:
Guatemala 56%
Brazil 55%
Nigeria 49%
China 47%
U.S. 45%
Russia 40%
Japan 38%
Vietnam 36%
U.K. 34%
France 33%
Germany 28%
Sweden 25%
Most countries with very high Gini coefficients are developing. The U.S. is among the highest for developed economies. Sweden is considered well to the left of the U.S. in terms of political and economic policy. Does the fact that the data are contrary to your preconceptions cause you to reevaluate your position?
- Zachriel | 08/15/2013 @ 13:38Hey, looky there! Y’all actually managed to identify a clearly stated point in less than three tries. Score one for the cut-n-paste kids. I award you one gold star on your reading homework. For your next project, read and memorize the definitions of “resentment” and “equality,” ’cause you’re still failing ethics.
- Severian | 08/15/2013 @ 13:48Is there any reason we should pay more attention to the “please invade us” European Union states, than to, let’s say, China, which is also well to the left of the United States?
I think Orwell had something to say about all this…
In the final analysis, we’re not really noodling out anything here above-and-beyond the evil, dangerous, hated fictional book by Emmanuel Goldstein. You have the high and the low, the very existence of which create your “inequality”; the middle comes in and says “put us in charge, we will make everything equal”; the low provide the middle with the support needed, the high is put out of favor and the middle becomes the new high. The inequality remains, and “the Low are never even temporarily successful in achieving their aims.”
And — you have your various tools of intentional misunderstanding, and mockery, to try to “un-notice” what Goldstein/Orwell and I have been pointing out. Y’all need a “memory hole,” looks like.
- mkfreeberg | 08/15/2013 @ 15:25mkfreeberg: Is there any reason we should pay more attention to the “please invade us” European Union states, than to, let’s say, China, which is also well to the left of the United States?
It has nothing to do with “paying attention to EU states. You made the claim that if leftists are in charge income inequality rapidly rises to 1. We pointed out that other developed countries, which have political and economic policies to the left of the U.S. have *lower* income inequality. This contradicts your claim.
mkfreeberg: I think Orwell had something to say about all this…
In Orwell’s fictional world of 1984, low people resent the social order and want to “abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal”. The low are being used to establish a new boss same as the old boss, nevertheless, the low, which constitutes a huge multitude, advocate equality. They are on the political left.
- Zachriel | 08/15/2013 @ 15:59Is there any reason we should pay more attention to the “please invade us” European Union states, than to, let’s say, China, which is also well to the left of the United States?
I can answer that one: Because China is “developing,” and so doesn’t count. Remember, these are the folks the Z awarded a free pass on “climate change,” their ultimate bugaboo; letting them off the hook for a few million political prisoners is no big deal to them.
- Severian | 08/15/2013 @ 16:00Severian: Because China is “developing,”
That’s right. Most countries with very high Gini coefficients are developing. The U.S. is among the highest for developed economies.
- Zachriel | 08/15/2013 @ 16:04That’s right. Most countries with very high Gini coefficients are developing. The U.S. is among the highest for developed economies.
Well, at least all the folks in the labor camps can take solace from this. I know I’m feeling the love. Fascinating morality you people have.
- Severian | 08/15/2013 @ 16:09Severian: letting them off the hook for a few million political prisoners is no big deal to them.
There should be no political prisoners, but that has nothing to do with mkfreeberg’s false claim about Gini coefficients.
- Zachriel | 08/15/2013 @ 16:36False in what way? I provided many examples.
- mkfreeberg | 08/15/2013 @ 17:01You made the claim that if leftists are in charge income inequality rapidly rises to 1. We pointed out that other developed countries which have political and economic policies to the left of the U.S. have *lower* income inequality. This contradicts your claim.
- Zachriel | 08/15/2013 @ 17:58Most of the regimes you mentioned no longer exist. You claimed they had a Gini index of 100%, which means you don’t have any actual data. We provided data. Cuba, at 30% or so, has a lower Gini index than the U.S
- Zachriel | 08/15/2013 @ 18:07You made the claim that if leftists are in charge income inequality rapidly rises to 1.
Right. I’ve provided several examples.
We pointed out that other developed countries which have political and economic policies to the left of the U.S. have *lower* income inequality. This contradicts your claim.
Actually, the list you provided is, at best, a mixed bag.
Most of the regimes you mentioned no longer exist. You claimed they had a Gini index of 100%, which means you don’t have any actual data.
No, I said “very close to 1.0.” And I provided several examples. Some of them no longer exist, but so what? The examples are still good, are they not?
- mkfreeberg | 08/15/2013 @ 18:35The list we provided shows that the U.S. has a higher Gini index than countries with governments well to the left. That contradicts your claim.
As for your examples, you provided no data. We provided data from the World Bank. Cuba once had a very high Gini index, but it dropped rapidly after the revolution, and is lower than the U.S.
- Zachriel | 08/15/2013 @ 18:43And yet, China’s Gini is higher. Are you maintaining that China is to the right of the U.S.?
Not that the Gini number is definitive. You need to look into how it is calculated, it seems…there’s also an issue with its stability across time.
All this going on while Fidel is living like a typical lefty dictator. As I have pointed out, this is a constant in lefty revolution-making: One magical guy at the top of the pyramid who can’t make any mistakes, because whatever he does stops being a mistake. My point, if you’ll recall, is that lefties are not for equality, they are for the opposite. And however you want to calculate the Gini, Cuba, along with all my other examples, supports the point.
Meanwhile, it seems you’ve got some dirty data that says in a country where some people are in a position to buy motorcycles and DVD players, and the “average” makes an equivalent of $17/mo., things are more equal than they are here in The States. The sensible among your “readers” are going to doubt this, as do I.
- mkfreeberg | 08/15/2013 @ 19:08mkfreeberg: And yet, China’s Gini is higher.
Yes, they are developing rapidly, and have instituted market reforms.
mkfreeberg: Are you maintaining that China is to the right of the U.S.?
No, but we’re not the one who claimed that government on the left inevitably leads to high Gini coefficients.
mkfreeberg: Not that the Gini number is definitive.
Of course not. But it’s your claim!
mkfreeberg: You need to look into how it is calculated, it seems…there’s also an issue with its stability across time.
Let’s read your article! “Cuba’s Gini index of income inequality rose from .24 in 1986 to .38 in 2000”. Cuba is an island nation under an economic embargo, nor do they take into account their system of universal education and health care, and Cuba still has a lower Gini coefficient than the U.S.
mkfreeberg: The sensible among your “readers” are going to doubt this, as do I.
You made the claim that if leftists are in charge income inequality rapidly rises to close to 1. That was false. Take Sweden, for instance.
- Zachriel | 08/16/2013 @ 03:26Cuba is an island nation under an economic embargo, nor do they take into account their system of universal education and health care, and Cuba still has a lower Gini coefficient than the U.S.
I know all the political prisoners do! Those folks jailed and tortured for homosexuality, for instance — their healthcare is wonderful. And of course
[the Chinese] are developing rapidly, and have instituted market reforms.
Which I know keeps the folks in the labor camps warm at night.
But that’s ok, though, because they’re on the political left, and therefore advocating for more equality, right? Oh, wait:
There should be no political prisoners…
But the whole point of the Chinese labor camp system — and the Soviet system to, for that matter — is to “build socialism.” Seems the folks who end up in the gulags or the laogai are “wreckers,” “counterrevolutionaries,” those who just won’t get with the communist program of…. increased equality. “Thought reform” is the phrase in the Chinese system.
You insist these people are on the left. Got quite upset about it, in fact, when Morgan and I implied that Mao might not be. Ok. fine — they’re all on the political left. And they’re torturing and working people to death in the name of “increased equality.” And you’re giving them a pass for that because they’re “developing” (the same reason you gave them a blanket exemption from your plans to save the Earth from “global warming”). Just like you gave Robespierre a pass for murdering people because he hated the aristocracy, those enemies of equality.
That’s quite some morality you’ve got there. You’re rather fond of those little apes we call humans…. I can tell. I’m feeling the love from here.
….but that has nothing to do with mkfreeberg’s false claim about Gini coefficients.
It has at least as much to do with it as “Cuba is an island nation under an economic embargo, nor do they take into account their system of universal education and health care.” If you get to point out Cuba’s “universal education and health care” [rofl] as something that mitigates or modifies their Gini rating, then “the systematic torture of dissidents” counts too.
Since, you know, the land of “universal education and free health care” also holds perhaps the highest number of political prisoners per capita in the world.
Although now that I think about it…. I suppose that is “advocating for greater equality” in its way. Who, after all, are more equal than dissidents being worked to death in a labor camp?
- Severian | 08/16/2013 @ 05:40Let’s read your article! “Cuba’s Gini index of income inequality rose from .24 in 1986 to .38 in 2000″. Cuba is an island nation under an economic embargo, nor do they take into account their system of universal education and health care, and Cuba still has a lower Gini coefficient than the U.S.
It seems that you like to point out what was taken into account, only when it helps your argument. When things weren’t taken into account that might have a diminishing effect on your argument, you’re not the least bit bothered that they weren’t taken into account. You said Cuba has a Gini of 30 or so. You did not specify the year. But Cuba is known to be a caricature of inequality. In fact, the ultimate illustration of a 1.0 Gini would be one guy who has all of the loot, and Cuba has been very close to that.
I’m sure there are subtly different ways to tabulate the Gini so the process can seem honest, with the number produced at the end altered drastically. Leaving out Castro from the survey, for instance.
Let’s read your article! “Cuba’s Gini index of income inequality rose from .24 in 1986 to .38 in 2000″.
You know what, I think that’s quite a swing. Don’t you? And, the fact that it changed so significantly might not be entirely due to facts on the ground, it might have to do with methodologies in how the result was calculated. Perhaps we should inspect that. After all, as a Gini is higher, it becomes possible to depress the final number, by way of leaving out fewer and fewer people. Here in the United States, of course, everyone has to report income every year. Also, we’d need to establish whether we’re talking about income or wealth, since if one guy has all the wealth, his situation would substantiate my statement, while if the Gini were to be tabulated according to income, his income might come in at zero. So your pigeon-chessboard walk might be jumping the gun here, and most university professors would give it a failing grade since all you’ve provided is a column of numbers, and some rationale for why the numbers that don’t harm my argument, should be ignored. What are your sources?
- mkfreeberg | 08/16/2013 @ 06:17[…] How Goes That Settled Science? Oldest Living Person Ever Documented The Rodeo Clown Brawley Liberals and Conservatives, Left and Right Cutter vs. Cupp Bo Rode Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? The Doctrine of Liberal Privilege In Real […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 08/16/2013 @ 12:05Severian: You insist these people are on the left.
Castro is certainly on the political left.
Severian: Since, you know, the land of “universal education and free health care” also holds perhaps the highest number of political prisoners per capita in the world.
According to the article you linked, Cuba has about 300 political prisoners. That’s 300 too many. Nevertheless, that’s irrelevant to mkfreeberg’s claim about the Gini coefficient.
mkfreeberg: I’m sure there are subtly different ways to tabulate the Gini so the process can seem honest, with the number produced at the end altered drastically.
That’s fine, but we used the numbers you provided. “Cuba’s Gini index of income inequality rose from .24 in 1986 to .38 in 2000″, after they began some market reforms, and which is still less the the U.S.
Nor did you respond concerning developed countries with mixed economies to the left. Take Sweden, for instance.
- Zachriel | 08/17/2013 @ 03:25Sweden is a bit of an odd place. It’s filled with Swedes.
If you’re trying to assert that Sweden somehow represents a rule, as opposed to an exception, this would necessarily rely on the idea that Swedes look at money the same way as non-Swedes. Which, of course, they don’t.
But let us say you can pull that off. The measured Gini coefficient in Sweden therefore is an indicator that they have achieved some measure of equality there, we should expect…well, unfortunately reality doesn’t support that viewpoint.
The wealthiest Swede is worth the equivalent of $28 billion. The second-wealthiest doesn’t have even half that much, and most of the people on the Swedish-billionaire list are worth somewhere in the vicinity of $9B. Unlike other statistics, the Gini purports to represent the extremes as part of its measurements. But when we look at the extremes of Sweden we do indeed find what I said. Gini 1.0 would be, one guy has all the loot, nobody else has anything; and I said “close to.”
Why do the statistics say otherwise? We’d have to look at how they were compiled, and the first step to doing that would be better definition of what we’re trying to discuss. You have not yet distinguished between income and net worth, to the best I can recall. That would be the first thing to define.
- mkfreeberg | 08/17/2013 @ 04:45unfortunately reality doesn’t support that viewpoint.
Oh, but it doesn’t matter, you see, because that’s irrelevant to the Gini coefficient. “Universal education and free health care” are–or, at least according to the cuttlefish, should be — but demonstrable disparities between those preaching equality and the masses aren’t, and shouldn’t be, because… well, because.
You have not yet distinguished between income and net worth, to the best I can recall. That would be the first thing to define.
I’d actually go further back than that. I’d be very interested in what the cuttlefish think “equality” actually is.
[Or, really, I’m not at all interested, because they’re incapable of speaking in anything but platitudes on the subject. And it’s quite obvious why — any definition of “equality” you care to give, if you actually try to put it into practice, leads to political prisons in fairly short order. History is not kind to “equality”].
- Severian | 08/17/2013 @ 07:43mkfreeberg: Sweden is a bit of an odd place. It’s filled with Swedes.
And America is filled with Americans. And there’s a heck of a lot of Italians in Italy for some reason.
mkfreeberg: If you’re trying to assert that Sweden somehow represents a rule, as opposed to an exception,
Among developed economies, the U.S. has a very high Gini coefficient, so it doesn’t seem that Sweden is an exception.
mkfreeberg: The wealthiest Swede is worth the equivalent of $28 billion.
Sure, but overall inequality is lower than in the U.S. — per your own measure. Do you understand how Gini is calculated? Are you retracting your original claim?
Severian: History is not kind to “equality”
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”
- Zachriel | 08/17/2013 @ 08:37http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration.html
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”
So…. mission accomplished, then? Then what was the point of women’s suffrage and all that other stuff y’all are always going on about?
It helps to actually argue from a position, instead of trying to come up with gotchas. You might contradict yourselves less, for one thing.
- Severian | 08/17/2013 @ 08:43Severian: So…. mission accomplished, then? Then what was the point of women’s suffrage and all that other stuff y’all are always going on about?
Your point was that history was not kind to equality.
Severian: It helps to actually argue from a position, instead of trying to come up with gotchas.
Mkfreeberg’s claim was that leftist governments lead to very high Gini coefficients. That’s clearly not true, as we have shown. You were diverting, as you have a wont to do.
- Zachriel | 08/17/2013 @ 08:48You were diverting, as you have a wont to do.
Now that’s funny. Accusing others of doing what you yourself do is called “projection,” and it’s not a sign of psychological health.
- Severian | 08/17/2013 @ 08:59Do you understand how Gini is calculated? Are you retracting your original claim?
Not at all. Do you understand what things look like when the Gini is very high? And do you understand the history of left-wing governments? And did you notice something about the list of Swedish billionaires?
You have yet to clarify along what lines are you disagreeing with me. Net worth, or income. Or is it political power? If you’re going to challenge a point someone is making, it’s important to understand what you’re challenging so you can understand what your rebuttal is supposed to be. Y’all seem to have skipped this step.
Are you trying to say everyone in Sweden is more-or-less equally powerful, or equally wealthy, or equally compensated? Or that they have an equal standard of living? Which one of those is it that you think your Gini coefficient measures? And which of the others does it not measure?
- mkfreeberg | 08/17/2013 @ 09:00Severian: It helps to actually argue from a position, instead of trying to come up with gotchas. You might contradict yourselves less, for one thing.
One of these days, I should make a decent attempt at writing with brevity in mind.
There really isn’t any necessity for saying anything beyond that one thing. Captures it all.
- mkfreeberg | 08/17/2013 @ 09:06To be fair (though at this point god alone knows why I should be), I think they think they are arguing from a position: Two legs bad, four legs good; but some animals are more equal than others. It’s just that this position is incoherent, and can only be defended incoherently.
- Severian | 08/17/2013 @ 09:44mkfreeberg: And do you understand the history of left-wing governments?
Sure. Gini coefficients usually drop. We’ve provided the data.
mkfreeberg: And did you notice something about the list of Swedish billionaires?
You can have billionaires and still have low Gini coefficients.
mkfreeberg: You have yet to clarify along what lines are you disagreeing with me. Net worth, or income.
Gini coefficients are usually measured with respect to income. You’re the one who introduced the topic, and then made a false claim about their distribution.
mkfreeberg: Are you trying to say everyone in Sweden is more-or-less equally powerful, or equally wealthy, or equally compensated?
No. If they were, then the Gini coefficient would be close to zero instead of about 25%.
Let’s review:
mkfreeberg: Gini 1.0 is a constant fixture with modern-liberal-leftist regimes, because in the modern age liberalism is not about equality.
Zachriel: data showing the U.S. has the highest Gini for a developed economy, including many countries to the political left of the U.S., higher even than Cuba or Vietnam.
mkfreeberg: waves hands
- Zachriel | 08/17/2013 @ 14:17We’ve provided the data.
But not your source. Without that, it isn’t possible to determine how the coefficients were calculated.
You can have billionaires and still have low Gini coefficients.
Didn’t say otherwise.
Gini coefficients are usually measured with respect to income. You’re the one who introduced the topic, and then made a false claim about their distribution.
You have problems with reading comprehension. My claim was about the effect left-wing governance has on equitability. I provided many examples to substantiate the claim that I made, and pointedly, you have not responded to those.
mkfreeberg: Gini 1.0 is a constant fixture with modern-liberal-leftist regimes, because in the modern age liberalism is not about equality.
Zachriel: data showing the U.S. has the highest Gini for a developed economy, including many countries to the political left of the U.S., higher even than Cuba or Vietnam.
mkfreeberg: waves hands
Actually, I provided many examples to substantiate the claim I made, and pointedly, you have not responded to those.
- mkfreeberg | 08/17/2013 @ 14:24mkfreeberg: But not your source.
World Bank, but you can use USCIA or UNDP if you prefer. It won’t affect the basic results.
mkfreeberg: Without that, it isn’t possible to determine how the coefficients were calculated.
The Gini index is *defined* as a ratio of the areas on the Lorenz curve diagram.
mkfreeberg: I provided many examples to substantiate the claim that I made, and pointedly, you have not responded to those.
But we did respond, and will do so again.
1) You provided names of national leaders, not countries, and no Gini coefficients except to say “Gini 1.0 is a constant fixture with modern-liberal-leftist regimes”.
- Zachriel | 08/17/2013 @ 15:032) All the leaders are no longer in power, except Cuba.
3) Your own source indicated that Cuba’s Gini index was lower than the U.S.
1) You’re disputing the effect they had on overall equality?
2) Irrelevant, since the original claim had nothing to do with “effect of left-wing governance right now.” In view of that, historical examples should be perfectly adequate.
3) There are many ways to measure Gini. Are you saying Cuba, relative to the United States, represents the left-wing vision? If that is the case then it supports exactly what I was saying, since Cuba is a dictatorship in all the ways that matter.
Gini coefficients are usually measured with respect to income.
That being the case, then, I don’t see how you’re going to get to that coveted chessboard-waddling “gotcha” status with some smackdown-data about Gini coefficients. If the guy who has everything has an income of zero, while everybody else remains poor even though their income is substantial, then the Gini will misrepresent the true equality/inequality state. Is that not what is happening with your examples?
- mkfreeberg | 08/17/2013 @ 15:13mkfreeberg: 1) You’re disputing the effect they had on overall equality?
Well, for instance, Cuba’s Gini coefficient dropped dramatically after the revolution.
mkfreeberg: 2) Irrelevant, since the original claim had nothing to do with “effect of left-wing governance right now.” In view of that, historical examples should be perfectly adequate.
Except you didn’t provide any data. Furthermore, you also said that “Gini 1.0 is a constant fixture with modern-liberal-leftist regimes”. That means it applies almost universally, not just some instances, and that’s clearly not the case.
mkfreeberg: 3) There are many ways to measure Gini.
You responded several times to Gini for income. Then you said income or wealth. And now you say who knows what.
mkfreeberg: If the guy who has everything has an income of zero, while everybody else remains poor even though their income is substantial, then the Gini will misrepresent the true equality/inequality state.
Someone who has everything will generally have a substantial income. Someone with substantial income will generally have high assets.
- Zachriel | 08/17/2013 @ 18:40Well, for instance, Cuba’s Gini coefficient dropped dramatically after the revolution.
Right. It is remarkably unstable, which creates problems for your “waddle on the chessboard cooing in victory” moment. We don’t really have a good idea how it is measured. If we can look around and see things are in fact more equal in the United States than they are in Cuba…we don’t have a Castro, over here, for one thing…then there might be something wrong with the statistics. The wild swinging around by fourteen points in fourteen years would be another tip-off.
You responded several times to Gini for income. Then you said income or wealth. And now you say who knows what.
I say — that is another problem for your eagerly-anticipated waddle-on-chessboard moment. If you don’t know what you’re measuring, how do you know what you can coo about?
Someone who has everything will generally have a substantial income. Someone with substantial income will generally have high assets.
I’m sure, to someone motivated by resentment, that might seem to be the case. That’s one of many reasons why it’s a bad idea to get your political motivations out of resentment. It seems, when all’s said and done, you really don’t have a good idea of what you yourselves are arguing about, and you don’t care to learn. But you’ve got all this information about lefty politics, and who the oppressors are, who the victims are, what the Gini numbers are, and how this all means the left advocates for greater equality…but any of the information needed to translate this into reality so that good results could be achieved, you don’t have. And that’s somehow my fault. I find that interesting.
It might help to actually argue from a position, instead of trying to come up with gotchas. You might contradict yourselves less, for one thing.
- mkfreeberg | 08/18/2013 @ 04:18mkfreeberg: Right. It is remarkably unstable
Then you are retracting your previous claim that “Gini 1.0 is a constant fixture” of leftist regimes.
mkfreeberg: If we can look around and see things are in fact more equal in the United States than they are in Cuba
Not in terms of the Gini coefficient of incomes. You were simply wrong on your claim. The U.S. is highest among most developed economies, and still higher than Cuba or Vietnam.
mkfreeberg: If you don’t know what you’re measuring …
It’s your claim. Gini is normally used for income distribution.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gini-index.asp
Your followup comments confirmed this is what you meant. That lasted until you discovered that the U.S. has a high Gini. You might have taken the opportunity to reevaluate your beliefs based on discovering the facts contradicted those beliefs. Then a much more interesting discussion might have been possible.
Inequality is necessary for the proper workings of markets. That’s why China’s Gini has risen over the last generation, as they have liberalized their markets. There is a question as to the proper balance between equality and meritocracy, one that maximizes incentives, protects the vulnerable, and gives people the confidence to take risks. But all developed countries have mixed economies, and developing countries are moving in that direction.
- Zachriel | 08/18/2013 @ 07:11[…] House Of Eratosthenes doesn’t have Rule 5, but does explain conservatives and liberals. […]
- Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove | 08/18/2013 @ 07:32Then you are retracting your previous claim that “Gini 1.0 is a constant fixture” of leftist regimes.
As has been explained to you before, Gini 1.0 would be a situation in which one person has everything, and everyone else in the set, combined, have nothing.
Now, you have eventually ‘fessed up that the Gini measurements you are making, tend to factor in income and not wealth. Leftist regimes do indeed tend to create situations, though, very close to the caricature in which one person has everything. I’ve provided several examples. You have provided Sweden…
This amuses me. My ancestors happen to be Swedish. You simply don’t understand what’s going on there, and don’t know what you’re talking about.
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2013 @ 06:19[…] wonderful list says almost everything that needs to be said about the real differences between liberals and […]
- A Few More to the List | Rotten Chestnuts | 08/19/2013 @ 07:07mkfreeberg: As has been explained to you before, Gini 1.0 would be a situation in which one person has everything, and everyone else in the set, combined, have nothing.
Yes. Saying Gini is unstable contradicts “Gini 1.0 is a constant fixture”.
mkfreeberg: Now, you have eventually ‘fessed up that the Gini measurements you are making, tend to factor in income and not wealth.
Um, that’s what Gini nearly always refers to in economics.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gini-index.asp
And it is how you responded initially.
If we were to look at asset Gini for the U.S., do you think the U.S. would be high or low compared to other countries?
mkfreeberg: You have provided Sweden…
We provided a list of Ginis for diverse countries.
mkfreeberg: This amuses me. My ancestors happen to be Swedish.
You made a claim about Gini indexes. We provided data from a variety of countries that contradicts your claim.
- Zachriel | 08/19/2013 @ 08:11Here‘s where we first began discussing Gini. Here is my claim within that:
You wish to test this claim, pronounce it to be “false,” and then do your victorious-pigeon chessboard strut.
Logically, for you to do that, we would let me pick the places where “lefties have been in charge” — then, we would allow me to declare what characteristic is being measured by a Gini index. Refer again to the entry for Gini. The phrases “for example, where everyone has an exactly equal income” and “for example where only one person has all the income” are in parentheses, the attribute of income is not explicitly part of what Gini describes. The phrase “for example levels of income” is also in parentheses.
Do you often re-phrase the claims people make, so you can falsely debunk them when you don’t like them? In the other thread, you yourself have made an unsupportable claim, I’ve got you dead-to-rights on it, and you’re trying to swivel that around to make it the other person’s job to provide support for whatever contrary claim might emerge. Y’all have rather sneaky ways of doing this claim-debunking thing.
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2013 @ 08:29mkfreeberg: Logically, for you to do that, we would let me pick the places where “lefties have been in charge”
Well, no. If it’s a universal attribute of left wing governments, then it should apply to all (or nearly all) such governments.
mkfreeberg: then, we would allow me to declare what characteristic is being measured by a Gini index.
Sure. However, as you didn’t specify, it would default to income. We provided a citation to Investopedia to show how the term is normally used. Furthermore, you clearly were referring to income when you said, “Meanwhile, it seems you’ve got some dirty data that says in a country where some people are in a position to buy motorcycles and DVD players, and the “average” makes an equivalent of $17/mo., things are more equal than they are here in The States. ”
It’s clear you were talking about income. If you want to drop that claim and make a claim about some other measure, that would be fine. Some data in support of your claim would probably be helpful.
- Zachriel | 08/19/2013 @ 08:38Well, no.
Oh okay, now we’re getting to the heart of the matter. When you do this cuttlefish-debunking, you don’t think it’s important to figure out exactly what it was the person was saying. “Debunking” your own false interpretation is sufficient for you.
However, as you didn’t specify, it would default to income.
I disagree. As would anyone who would rely on the reference given, as it was very clear that income was being used as an “example.” The reference material stated this clearly.
Furthermore, you clearly were referring to income when you said…
Oh, I’m trapped now! Actually, no. You tried to pass Cuba off as a society more equal than the United States, based on the statistics that were gathered (somewhere) with regard to per-capita income there. There are actually many reasons why this doesn’t work, and common sense tells us that Cuba is a dictatorship anyway, so until the U.S. becomes one, it is only through deception that anyone could offer Cuba as an example of better/greater equality than the United States.
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2013 @ 08:45mkfreeberg: you don’t think it’s important to figure out exactly what it was the person was saying.
We relied on what you said, and then defended with thousands of words. You said, “Gini 1.0 is a constant fixture with modern-liberal-leftist regimes”. That seems to mean it should apply to all (or nearly all) leftist regimes. If you meant something different, then you should say so rather than defending the original claim.
mkfreeberg: I disagree.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gini-index.asp
And, indeed, you talked about income in reference to Gini. If you meant something else, then you should clarify your meaning.
mkfreeberg: You tried to pass Cuba off as a society more equal than the United States, based on the statistics that were gathered (somewhere) with regard to per-capita income there.
Somewhere? Your own citation.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/10/us-cuba-reform-inequality-idUSN1033501920080410
mkfreeberg: it is only through deception that anyone could offer Cuba as an example of better/greater equality than the United States.
Not sure if calculating a Gini coefficient for political equality is a tractable problem. Surely, that’s not what you meant above. Leaving Gini aside, is this your new claim?
- Zachriel | 08/19/2013 @ 09:01You said, “Gini 1.0 is a constant fixture with modern-liberal-leftist regimes”. That seems to mean it should apply to all (or nearly all) leftist regimes.
Perhaps this would be more edifying if we just tried to figure out your rules for debunking claims. The more we pursue this, the more it seems the rules are the real issue, and they’re quite unusual in places.
The word “all” makes a claim extremely forceful and fragile (as does “none). People should know what they’re doing when they put it in; they probably know what they’re doing when they leave it out. To virtually insert it on behalf of the person making the claim, so you can debunk it more easily, is a rather unusual practice and doesn’t do anything to support the credibility of the debunking.
So, my mistake. You weren’t intending to debunk my claim, you were debunking your interpretation of it…which, since that’s off, that somehow becomes my fault. Okay, I’m clear on that part of it now.
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2013 @ 09:13mkfreeberg: Perhaps this would be more edifying if we just tried to figure out your rules for debunking claims.
Simple. We read your words, determine their implications, then find data that contradicts the claim.
mkfreeberg: The word “all” makes a claim extremely forceful and fragile (as does “none).
That’s right. You should have conditioned your claim, or modified it when you discovered the error. You can still do that.
It’s hard to read this as anything but referring to all (or nearly all) leftist regimes: “Gini 1.0 is a constant fixture with modern-liberal-leftist regimes”.
- Zachriel | 08/19/2013 @ 09:46fixture: one that is invariably present in and long associated with a place or thing.
- Zachriel | 08/19/2013 @ 09:47We read your words, determine their implications, then find data that contradicts the claim.
And…mistakes y’all make, during the second of those three things, are the other person’s fault. It is important to include that.
mkfreeberg: The word “all” makes a claim extremely forceful and fragile (as does “none).
That’s right. You should have conditioned your claim, or modified it when you discovered the error. You can still do that.
I didn’t use the word “all.” Y’all sort of mistakenly inserted that out of wishful thinking that my claim would be more inflexible and fragile than it really is; and, according to y’all’s own rules, that then becomes my fault.
It’s hard to read this as anything but referring to all (or nearly all) leftist regimes: “Gini 1.0 is a constant fixture with modern-liberal-leftist regimes”.
fixture: one that is invariably present in and long associated with a place or thing.
“Invariably” doesn’t mean “all.” My intended meaning is nicely covered by the word “invariably.”
I could modify it to say, leftist regimes invariably possess the achievement, or the effort toward, Gini 1.0. But that would not be accurate. Valerie Jarrett said it was important for President Obama to rule from day one, and in so doing she captured this fixture that invariably appears in leftist regimes, which it’s easy to see is what I was really pointing out: The “Dear Leader” guy as I called him, the guy at the top of the hierarchy, is supposed to have all of — what you think of as income, because that’s what your uncited stats have chosen to measure with Gini, but is actually whatever commodity is coveted. The money already “earned,” or the palatial lifestyle, or the vacations Michelle likes to take, the authority, the power. The guy at the tippy-top is supposed to have a monopoly on it. And there is no long drawn-out effort toward this. The mindset is entrenched from, in Jarrett’s words, “day one.”
This is different from right-wing governments. George Washington did not seek this kind of “I win all the arguments” status in the new government.
But the point is, Gini measures disparities statistically. And leftists believe in that. They invest their passions in Gini 1.0, one guy they’ve agreed-upon has all of something. It is a constant fixture.
I can see how y’all misinterpret it when you try to; “try” meaning, as long as the job has not yet been done, y’all are going to work at it some more until it gets done, and the misinterpretation is accomplished. But I can’t really see a way to re-word it to make it clearer. It looks, now, the same way it looked at the beginning, that y’all didn’t like what I was pointing out and set out to sepia-squirt a bunch of confusion into what was clear before y’all did the sepia-squirting.
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2013 @ 10:04mkfreeberg: And…mistakes y’all make, during the second of those three things, are the other person’s fault. It is important to include that.
Well, sure. But in the case at hand, we have reviewed your comments, looked up the words, and can’t see any other way to read them. Nor did you provided a correction, in case you were being misunderstood.
mkfreeberg: I didn’t use the word “all.”
No, you used “fixture” which means something always found there. Again, we’re more than willing to consider a revised claim.
mkfreeberg: “Invariably” doesn’t mean “all.”
invariably, in every case or on every occasion; always.
mkfreeberg: I could modify it to say, leftist regimes invariably possess the achievement, or the effort toward, Gini 1.0.
Okay. At least that’s something. However, it still doesn’t work because Cuba’s income Gini was consciously decreased after the revolution and has been less than the U.S. ever since. Also, modern left-leaning developed economies tend to have low Ginis.
mkfreeberg: George Washington did not seek this kind of “I win all the arguments” status in the new government.
Washington was well to the left of King George, though to the right of Jefferson.
- Zachriel | 08/19/2013 @ 10:23mkfreeberg: The “Dear Leader” guy as I called him, the guy at the top of the hierarchy, is supposed to have all of …
Was King Louis XVI a leftist then?
- Zachriel | 08/19/2013 @ 10:37But in the case at hand, we have reviewed your comments, looked up the words, and can’t see any other way to read them.
I think your looking up the words isn’t the problem. When time came to interpret the definitions of those words, you polled each other, and managed to convince each other “Yup, that’s what he meant, we’ve got a ‘gotcha’ because we so desperately want to have one” — and it felt, in whatever room that was, physical or virtual, very convincing. Now the task remains to convince someone outside of the room, and you’re put in the position of trying to ply this soft peer-pressure influence through a nozzle into the Internet, and it isn’t working quite as well, so all you can do is try it over and over again.
Look, it’s clear what you’re trying to do. You wish I had made a “black swan theory” statement so you can find your one contrary example, play “gotcha” and proceed with your chessboard-pigeon strutting victory. “Gini 1.0 is a constant fixture with modern-liberal-leftist regimes” means, quite clearly, that if you show me a modern-liberal-leftist regime, I can show you a situation where one guy’s been designated as the one who’s supposed to have all-of-something. You provided a rebuttal to this by citing Cuba, which means not only does my observation hold up nicely according to the example y’all picked out, but y’all managed to miss the point, again, for the reason Severian was calling out: Too obsessed with the gotcha-moment, failing to argue from an actual position. The right place to abandon that as a pursuit would have been when it was exposed that you were taking Gini to have to mean income, as a matter of convenience, because your stats were built up around that. When the emphasis of my comment was clearly on the matter of disproportionality, not on that particular attribute, and the emphasis of “Gini coefficient” is also on that same thing.
It helps to actually argue from a position, instead of trying to come up with gotchas.
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2013 @ 12:02Was King Louis XVI a leftist then?
Actually according to the implications that have come into use in the modern era, which has always been my emphasis (“Gini 1.0 is a constant fixture with modern-liberal-leftist regimes”) he would be one. That’s what’s silly about the left wing: That ideology is a problem masquerading as its own solution. It travels in a circle and not a straight line…and, as your “gotcha” question makes clear, this somehow becomes everybody else’s fault.
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2013 @ 12:06mkfreeberg: I think your looking up the words isn’t the problem.
There’s no other reasonable way to read “Gini 1.0 is a constant fixture with modern-liberal-leftist regimes” than as something invariably found in leftist regimes.
mkfreeberg: You wish I had made a “black swan theory” statement so you can find your one contrary example …
Nor is that accurate. A single counterexample may have a multitude of explanations, so we allowed for exceptions. Rather, we provided a varied list of many different countries. We showed that the U.S. had a higher Gini than most other developed economies, even higher than Cuba.
We’re not interested in gotchas. Rather, you made a demonstrably false statement, then defended it even when shown it was incorrect.
- Zachriel | 08/19/2013 @ 12:10mkfreeberg: Actually according to the implications that have come into use in the modern era, which has always been my emphasis (“Gini 1.0 is a constant fixture with modern-liberal-leftist regimes”) he would be one.
Ha, ha, ha!
- Zachriel | 08/19/2013 @ 12:13Rather, you made a demonstrably false statement, then defended it even when shown it was incorrect.
If by that what you really mean to say is, “You made a statement and we were clever enough to interpret it in such a way that we could make it look false, to us, when we want it to look that way,” then I agree.
“Gini 1.0 is a constant fixture with modern-liberal-leftist regimes”
Let’s take the United States. Gini 1.0 means one guy has all of something — won’t share, isn’t expected to share, has it all. The one guy who has everything would be Obama. Am I wrong? Wins every argument. Even with a dictionary, the dictionary is wrong and Obama is right…under this “leftist regime.” You chose Cuba. Cuba has Castro. Does Castro ever lose arguments with anybody? Have to share his loot with anybody?
As I said, it is clear what you want to do. You say you’re not interested in gotchas, but whatever you’re trying to achieve here has blinded you to the plain meaning: Constant — continually occurring or recurring – fixture — a familiar or invariably present element or feature in some particular setting. With these meanings I have now selected for you, right out of on-line MW, I put it to you: Can you smack down such a statement by going off in search of that shining smackdown-inducing exception to it, and then pigeon-strutting away with your “look what we found,” as if you successfully stuck a needle into a balloon?
In sum, your interpretation of “constant” isn’t quite right, your interpretation of “fixture” isn’t quite right, your interpretation of “Gini” isn’t quite right. Other than those three minor problems, you’re understanding is right on.
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2013 @ 12:25Ha, ha, ha!
You got your gotcha! Too bad it’s against leftist movements in general…took down Louis, put up Napoleon in his place, meet the new boss same as the old boss. Been making the same silly circle-move ever since.
Rather like a Segway with one wheel bigger than the other.
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2013 @ 12:32mkfreeberg: took down Louis, put up Napoleon in his place, meet the new boss same as the old boss.
You just said Louis was on the left. That must mean Robespierre was on the right!
- Zachriel | 08/19/2013 @ 13:02You got your gotcha!
I suppose we should then them have this one…. poor little cuttlefish are getting so demoralized otherwise. They’re determined to assign various historical figures to categories. This is very important to them, like they got it wrong on a test once and have never really gotten over it. So:
They want to claim “Louis XVI was on the political right because he advocated greater inequality.” When you point out that he — and his supporters — didn’t “advocate” any such thing, they switch their claim to
“Louis XVI was on the political right because he defended existing inequalities.” When you point out that this hardly rises to the level of a political ideology, they switch their claim to
“Louis XVI was on the political right, because he was opposed by Robespierre, who was on the political left.” But when you point out that Robespierre, for all his talk, really just wanted to replace one dictator (Louis) with another (himself), they circle back to
“But Robespierre was too on the political left, because he advocated for greater equality.” GIGO.
Historians call this “presentism,” and its the sign of a biased scholar pushing an agenda. Joachim of Fiore “advocated for greater equality” too, as did all those cults Norman Cohn wrote about in The Pursuit of the Millennium…. you know, the ones where they thought they could bring Jesus back by slaughtering all the sinners. And of course the Gracchi “advocated for greater equality,” too, which must mean that there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the Roman Senate and Ronald Reagan….
It’s all just so silly. Results don’t matter; only the words. Assigning Louis XVI, or Robespierre, to either the “left” or the “right” tells us next to nothing about what actually happened during the French Revolution…. but it tells us a great deal about the people who so desperately try to label them.
- Severian | 08/19/2013 @ 13:37Yes, it’s been obvious for some time this “gotcha” you’ve been trying to put together. As has already been explained to you, yes there is something silly and ridiculous here, but it is within leftism itself which strongly resembles a two-wheeled vehicle with disparate sizes of wheel, going in a circle. Going in a circle involves directional change, of course, and when directions change, well…they change. It isn’t the fault of the person pointing it out.
The very first lefty revolution in modern times, had a real problem with “meet the new boss same as the old boss.” Subsequent lefty revolutions haven’t done much to fix the problem.
Hey, when do we get to the part where you clue me in on how concerned the left is about equality? I have to say, if you think you’re already laying that part of it down, you’re not doing that hot of a job.
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2013 @ 14:33Heh. Louis was a leftie! Ha!
When your position requires you to conclude that Louis XVI was on the political left, well, it should encourage you to rethink your position.
- Zachriel | 08/19/2013 @ 14:52When your position requires you to conclude that Louis XVI was on the political left, well, it should encourage you to rethink your position.
My position is that left-wing movements are nonsense. They are problems masquerading as their own solution.
I also have the position that leftists tend to blame others for their own problems. There’s a joke about this…
Left-wing revolutions, going all the way back to the storming of the Bastille, tend to end with a situation of “meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”
And as you have deftly illustrated…”but somehow, now, it’s MY fault.”
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2013 @ 15:21mkfreeberg: My position is that left-wing movements are nonsense.
You said Louis XVI was a leftie.
mkfreeberg: Left-wing revolutions, going all the way back to the storming of the Bastille, tend to end with a situation of “meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”
Didn’t know that Louis XVI stormed the Bastille. Think, mkfreeberg, think!
- Zachriel | 08/19/2013 @ 15:46Didn’t say he did.
But left-wing revolutions are nonsensical. They travel in circles.
And…”somehow, now, it’s MY fault.” Thanks y’all for proving my point!
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2013 @ 15:50mkfreeberg: Didn’t say he did.
But you did say he was on the political left. That’s nonsense. The very term refers to those that opposed the monarchy.
- Zachriel | 08/19/2013 @ 15:52The very term refers to those that opposed the monarchy.
And that’s, what, the fourth? fifth? definition for “political left” you’ve pulled out of your collective ass in this thread alone.
You want to assign historical figures to modern political categories based on ever-shifting idiosyncratic definitions. Their actions don’t matter, only their words. So I hereby decree that Moses was on the political right, because vests have no sleeves.
That’s fun and all, but it doesn’t add anything to our understanding of anything. As has been pointed out to you many times before, it’s hard to argue coherently when you’re just trying to yell “gotcha!” and proclaim victory. Try sticking to a position that you can define in under three tries.
- Severian | 08/19/2013 @ 15:58Severian: And that’s, what, the fourth? fifth? definition for “political left” you’ve pulled out of your collective ass in this thread alone.
It’s the very same definition we’ve used in all these discussion. The term was coined during the French revolutionary period. Those who supported the monarchy sat on the right of the Estates General, while those who opposed the monarchy and supported a republic sat on the left.
- Zachriel | 08/19/2013 @ 16:04http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics
Wait, is this the thread where we’re only supposed to count the “expertise” of people with PhDs and publications in their fields? Or is the “consensus” of anonymous editors on Wikipedia now sufficient?
Maybe you should publish a flowchart about whose opinion counts for what when.
- Severian | 08/19/2013 @ 16:09Severian: Or is the “consensus” of anonymous editors on Wikipedia now sufficient?
Words are defined by usage, especially by those within the field. For instance, see Bobbio & Cameron, Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction. University of Chicago Press; Thompson, The left in history: revolution and reform in twentieth-century politics, Pluto Press.
The basic concepts of political left and right have remained very similar to their original incarnation. Left refers to the those opposed to existing hierarchies, and supportive of greater equality.
- Zachriel | 08/19/2013 @ 16:24Like when Congress doesn’t want to be covered by ObamaCare, which they impose on the rest of us, whether we want it or not. THAT kind of “equality.”
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2013 @ 16:39mkfreeberg: Like when Congress doesn’t want to be covered by ObamaCare, which they impose on the rest of us, whether we want it or not. THAT kind of “equality.”
Passing the bill probably also meant some special benefits for certain key districts, but not others. It’s not perfect equality, just more equality. Congress already has healthcare, and Obamacare will provide healthcare for millions who didn’t have healthcare before.
We brought this up before. When the Americans formed a republic, it meant some people gained substantial political power who didn’t have political power before. However, the republic had more evenly distributed political power overall than under monarchy. Political equality is not a binary quality, but a distribution of political power across a population.
- Zachriel | 08/19/2013 @ 16:46Right, and we’ve achieved agreement on this before.
For your opinions to make sense, we need to make-believe the inequality is the same as equality.
In other words, your opinions depend — utterly and completely — on the proposition that a thing is equal to the opposite of itself.
In other words, your opinions fail. Automatically. Like a beached whale, they cannot support their own weight.
In other words, they’re just plain wrong.
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2013 @ 17:01mkfreeberg: For your opinions to make sense, we need to make-believe the inequality is the same as equality.
No. As we said, political equality refers to the distribution of political power across a population. Read our example closely. The colonies revolt and form a republic.
Do you agree that a republic has a more even distribution of power than a monarchy? Do you agree that establishing a republic will almost certainly mean that some people will gain substantial power?
- Zachriel | 08/19/2013 @ 17:08Can’t answer the question without the set being defined better. Under the monarchy, “even distribution” was not the problem; the problem was, the real power was out-of-scope, overseas, off in jolly ol’ Great Britain. “Virtual representation” and all that.
You seem to be laboring under the delusion that the American Revolution was about certain individuals gaining what you call “substantial power.” That was not the real issue. The real issue was that none of the power was over here, at all. The House of Commons could vote in a new tax to be paid on lead glass, or buckshot, or playing cards, or what-not, without so much as a how-d’ya-do or a thank-yew.
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2013 @ 17:15mkfreeberg: Under the monarchy, “even distribution” was not the problem; the problem was, the real power was out-of-scope, overseas, off in jolly ol’ Great Britain. “
They had no representation in parliament. The political power was concentrated elsewhere.
mkfreeberg: You seem to be laboring under the delusion that the American Revolution was about certain individuals gaining what you call “substantial power.”
No, but that’s the inevitable result of any practical government.
mkfreeberg: The real issue was that none of the power was over here, at all.
That’s right, and is certainly an unequal distribution of power. If you were to put it on the scales, the scale would tip towards Britain.
As you know, Americans under the British Crown couldn’t choose their head of state, nor did they have representation in parliament. An American republic had the ability to choose its own head of state, and to elect its own legislature. Do you agree that a republic has a more even distribution of power than the colonialists under the monarchy? Do you agree that establishing a republic will almost certainly mean that some people will gain substantial power?
- Zachriel | 08/19/2013 @ 17:32So we agree that the problem was not that the power was unequal; the problem was that the power was exported.
Or, to be more technically precise about it, the power was never imported.
Equality/inequality was never a part of it. That amounts to nothing more than a liberal/lefty obsession.
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2013 @ 17:34mkfreeberg: So we agree that the problem was not that the power was unequal; the problem was that the power was exported.
The political power was concentrated in Britain. The Americans didn’t have any. If you were to put it on balance scales, the scale would tip towards Britain. There was a very unequal distribution of political power.
You never answered the questions. As you know, Americans under the British Crown couldn’t choose their head of state, nor did they have representation in parliament. An American republic had the ability to choose its own head of state, and to elect its own legislature. Do you agree that a republic has a more even distribution of power than the colonialists under the monarchy? Do you agree that establishing a republic will almost certainly mean that some people will gain substantial power?
- Zachriel | 08/19/2013 @ 17:41mkfreeberg: Equality/inequality was never a part of it.
Gee. Thought they wrote their reasons down somewhere. Something about all men being created equal or something. Maybe you can google it.
- Zachriel | 08/19/2013 @ 18:04http://lmgtfy.com/?q=All+men+are+created+equal&l=1
You never answered the questions. As you know, Americans under the British Crown couldn’t choose their head of state, nor did they have representation in parliament. An American republic had the ability to choose its own head of state, and to elect its own legislature. Do you agree that a republic has a more even distribution of power than the colonialists under the monarchy? Do you agree that establishing a republic will almost certainly mean that some people will gain substantial power?
Can’t answer the question without the set being defined better. Under the monarchy, “even distribution” was not the problem; the problem was, the real power was out-of-scope, overseas, off in jolly ol’ Great Britain. “Virtual representation” and all that.
- mkfreeberg | 08/20/2013 @ 02:31mkfreeberg: Can’t answer the question without the set being defined better.
What set?
mkfreeberg: Under the monarchy, “even distribution” was not the problem; the problem was, the real power was out-of-scope, overseas, off in jolly ol’ Great Britain.
We responded to that. The distribution of power was uneven. Britain had power over the colonies. If you were to put political power on balance scales, the scale would tip towards Britain. Furthermore, the colonists couldn’t choose their head of state, which they could in a republic.
You also said the American revolution had nothing to do with equality. Perhaps they don’t teach American history in your country, but equality was a preeminent consideration in their declared causes. Indeed, it caused quite a stir!
- Zachriel | 08/20/2013 @ 04:46http://lmgtfy.com/?q=All+men+are+created+equal&l=1
What set?
Your “gotcha” examples so far have all had to do with ambiguously defined sets, societies of people that are parts of something bigger. European Union member states Denmark and Sweden, and the American colonies prior to the revolution. I think you don’t understand Gini coefficient. You seem to be thinking that when people bring it up, the definition has this rigid connection to the attribute of personal income that it doesn’t really have. What it measures is distribution. A clear and unambiguous definition of the set, within which each member may possess quantity of some attribute between 0 and some maximum value, is required. In the case of the American colonies you’re trying to create this set that is Britain “central,” one might say, plus the colonies. Evidently this is in service of an objective of re-writing history to make the American Revolution into any typical lefty “they have more than we do and that’s not fair” revolution.
The Gini problem is that this would make the number very hard to measure, in contemporary times, let alone disseminate to get people agitated into revolution. How would you travel between these two countries, by ship in 1776, to survey household income? It would also be a very dumb revolution, given that the goal was separation, not a toppling of George III. That would make the Founding Fathers look like, essentially, jealous dumpy housewives who don’t want to go to the gym unless the hotter younger gym members can be kept away. “Her perfect hot body makes me feel bad, make it so I don’t have to look at her.” Good, we were victorious at Yorktown, now everyone who makes more money than I do is in some other country and therefore doesn’t count, so I’m happy. You now say, since I don’t see the wisdom in that, I must not know my history. Yes, by all means, do “Google that” for me.
- mkfreeberg | 08/20/2013 @ 06:03mkfreeberg: What {Gini} measures is distribution.
Sure.
mkfreeberg: A clear and unambiguous definition of the set, within which each member may possess quantity of some attribute between 0 and some maximum value, is required.
Sure. And as you introduced Gini, it was up to you to provide the specifics, otherwise, we’re left to guess. And remember, you responded based on income distribution. You’ve never said what you meant. If you meant political power, then Gini probably isn’t an appropriate measure as it can’t be quantified in the same manner as income or wealth (though that would explain the confusion).
mkfreeberg: In the case of the American colonies you’re trying to create this set that is Britain “central,” one might say, plus the colonies.
As the colonies were ruled by Britain, and we were referring to distribution of political power, that is an appropriate grouping. Not only that, it was clearly stated. This has nothing to do with your mangled use of Gini above.
Are you saying that the British didn’t hold power over the colonies? If they did, then it was an unequal distribution of power. Are you saying a republic is not generally a more equal distribution of power than a monarchy? In a republic, they choose their head of state, as opposed to a heredity and entrenched nobility.
- Zachriel | 08/20/2013 @ 06:18And as you introduced Gini, it was up to you to provide the specifics, otherwise, we’re left to guess. And remember, you responded based on income distribution.
When did I respond that I was talking about income distribution?
As the colonies were ruled by Britain, and we were referring to distribution of political power, that is an appropriate grouping.
Okay well then if that’s the point you’re making, then we can see the right-wing revolution has had much better success achieving equality than the left-wing revolution. Although, again, it’s a bit of a silly revolution to have if “equality” is the primary goal, and the method by which it is achieved is separation.
This almost looks like an argument about semantics. The colonists did not throw a revolution because the distribution of political power was unequal; the colonists threw a revolution because, the distribution of political power as it was, left them without any. You could say the peasants in France were motivated by nothing too different when it came to food. That doesn’t really work, because with food, “the other guy has much more” is part of the resentment; if nobody has any food, anywhere, the solution to the problem is not to overthrow someone in a better-off class, the solution to the problem is to go hunting. With the uneven power distribution, “the other guy has more” was an intrinsic part of the problem, as the colonists were being oppressed.
- mkfreeberg | 08/20/2013 @ 06:48mkfreeberg: When did I respond that I was talking about income distribution?
You talked about vacations and palaces and other signs of economic prosperity. As you didn’t specify, we used the usual definition and provided income Ginis for a variety of countries showing the U.S. was high on the scale.
Then we said, “You made the claim that if leftists are in charge *income inequality* rapidly rises to 1.” You responded, “Right. I’ve provided several examples.” That’s a direct confirmation.
Then *you* pointed to an article that discussed income Gini, showing once again that Cuba has lower *income inequality* than the U.S.
Then you added, “Meanwhile, it seems you’ve got some dirty data that says in a country where some people are in a position to buy motorcycles and DVD players, and the “average” makes an equivalent of *$17/mo.*, things are more equal than they are here in The States,” again making reference to income.
mkfreeberg: Okay well then if that’s the point you’re making, then we can see the right-wing revolution has had much better success achieving equality than the left-wing revolution.
Um, the American revolutionaries were well to the political left of the monarchists. The French revolutionaries had very similar political goals, but the situation spun out of control. It could have happened in America too. America couldn’t resolve certain contradictions in its founding, and it led to civil war, and the risk of breakup.
mkfreeberg: The colonists did not throw a revolution because the distribution of political power was unequal; the colonists threw a revolution because, the distribution of political power as it was, left them without any.
Listen to yourself. Having zero political power and being under the thumb of the Crown is unequal by definition.
- Zachriel | 08/20/2013 @ 07:27From your own summary, it seems pretty clear that I was talking about “in general.” Y’all seem to have a problem with this.
I’m really not sure what point you’re trying to make about the American revolution. Kind of think y’all aren’t entirely sure either.
- mkfreeberg | 08/20/2013 @ 07:30mkfreeberg: From your own summary, it seems pretty clear that I was talking about “in general.”
Gee whiz.
Not sure how much more clear it could have been. But it’s not that important. Just restate your claim so it can be understood.
mkfreeberg: I’m really not sure what point you’re trying to make about the American revolution.
The colonialists said it was a struggle for political equality.
- Zachriel | 08/20/2013 @ 07:49A struggle for equality of anything, resolved by way of separation, would be silly.
“Hey, I’m one of the ugliest women in this gym. Kick out those young hot girls over there, make them work out somewhere else, so I can be more average.”
Unless you mean, they wanted the equality to be maintained across the new divide, after the separation…of course, that would be silly too. Is that what happened? Please Google it for me. Is there some forgotten amendment to the Constitution somewhere, providing for someone to sail over the Atlantic to this other country of which America was no longer a part, to make sure things were still equal?
- mkfreeberg | 08/20/2013 @ 07:57mkfreeberg: A struggle for equality of anything, resolved by way of separation, would be silly.
Ha! You’re arguing that equality was not a paramount issue in the American Revolution.
- Zachriel | 08/20/2013 @ 08:10http://lmgtfy.com/?q=All+men+are+created+equal&l=1
Pointedly, you didn’t answer the question.
Was it their aim to create this equality by way of the new separation, effectively kicking the Brits out of America because the Brits were too powerful and/or wealthy? Or was it their aim to (somehow) create equality within the duality of Great Britain and America, by way of this revolution that would…oh, I don’t know…force the rich British people to spend money, and bring their net worth down to the level of the average American colonist?
Either way, I don’t have the skills to Google up evidence that would support the theory, since if I did, I’m sure I would’ve managed to do it by now. I’m afraid I’ll have to rely on you cuttlefish to find it for me.
But perhaps this is an opportunity for y’all to learn something. You might start with the implications of all men being created equal…created.
- mkfreeberg | 08/20/2013 @ 08:17mkfreeberg: Pointedly, you didn’t answer the question.
You really are arguing that equality was not a paramount issue in the American Revolution!!
…
Sorry. We had to catch our breath. Heh.
mkfreeberg: Was it their aim to create this equality by way of the new separation, effectively kicking the Brits out of America because the Brits were too powerful and/or wealthy?
The revolution created a more equitable distribution of political power in two ways. Before the revolution, the British had power over themselves and over the Americans. After the revolution, the British had power over themselves, while Americans now had the power to regulate their own affairs. Furthermore, by establishing a republic, the Americans had a more equal distribution of power within American than the British had within Britain because the Americans could now choose their own head of state and government.
- Zachriel | 08/20/2013 @ 08:35Did you stop chortling long enough to take notice of the word “created“?
- mkfreeberg | 08/20/2013 @ 08:38mkfreeberg: Did you stop chortling long enough to take notice of the word “created“?
Of course. Do you understand that the Americans thought they were fighting for greater equality, that they wanted the same rights and privileges as other subjects of the crown, and failing that, wrested independence from the British?
- Zachriel | 08/20/2013 @ 09:00Did you stop chortling long enough to take notice of the word “created“?
Of course. Do you understand that the Americans thought they were fighting for greater equality, that they wanted the same rights and privileges as other subjects of the crown, and failing that, wrested independence from the British?
I’m going to take that as a “no.” Y’all don’t seem to understand the concept of “created equal,” just as y’all don’t seem to understand Gini coefficient. I get that y’all are feeling smug and stuff, but it’s a rather useless strain of smugness, roughly akin to the caveman who “knows” a calculator isn’t good for anything, because he went hunting with it and “when I hit animal over head with calklator, calklator break, animal no stop, calklator no good.”
You might start with the understanding that at the time the Founders fought the Revolution…they had already been created. So no, it’s not quite accurate to say they were fighting for “equality,” it’s much more on-point to say they were fighting for freedom:
- mkfreeberg | 08/20/2013 @ 09:15I just love watching the Cuttlefish flip every other canon of liberal dogma on its head in their neverending search for a gotcha. Yep, the Founding Fathers — those musket-waving, woman-beating, Indian-robbing, slaveholding elitists — were all in on equality.
- Severian | 08/20/2013 @ 09:33mkfreeberg: I’m going to take that as a “no.”
You asked if we noticed the word “created”. We said, “Of course”. That means yes, and we’re not sure why you read it wrong. Is English not your first language?
mkfreeberg: You might start with the understanding that at the time the Founders fought the Revolution…they had already been created. So no, it’s not quite accurate to say they were fighting for “equality,” it’s much more on-point to say they were fighting for freedom:
So that returns us to this: By establishing a republic, the Americans had a more equal distribution of power, because they could now choose their own head of state and government. Do you agree? If not, why not?
- Zachriel | 08/20/2013 @ 09:45Emphasis on “by birth.” You repeatedly demonstrate lack of comprehension of the implications. As is the case with the caveman in the calculator, in which all understanding is formed within the context of bashing an animal’s brains in so it can become dinner.
And your questions do indeed work within that limited context, of lefty revolutions making things more equal. I think, if you really do chafe at my pointing out that was not the point of the revolution, you’re much better off sticking to your derisive/dismissive chortling. It more efficiently serves your central objective of feeling superior and smug, and you’re not quite so quick to reveal your own ignorance that way.
- mkfreeberg | 08/20/2013 @ 10:19Meanwhile, here’s a decent example of a lefty working toward Gini 1.0:
You repeatedly demonstrate lack of comprehension of the implications.
It’s hard to see implications when you’re frantically sniffing for gotchas like a squirrel with ADD. Had you argued that the American Revolution is a great example of conservatism because it fostered greater local autonomy, the Cuttlefish would be in here squirting squid ink about how it was really all about consolidating power in the hands of patriarchal, slaveholding elites.
The first test of a good definition is, can it be used to describe and analyze phenomena? Theirs are pretty good at slapping a veneer of intellectualism on their prejudices, but that’s about it.
- Severian | 08/20/2013 @ 10:33mkfreeberg: Emphasis on “by birth.”
That’s right. That’s how America’s head of state was decided before the American Revolution.
mkfreeberg: I think, if you really do chafe at my pointing out that was not the point of the revolution
We quoted Thomas Paine. Paine’s thought was very influential during the period leading up to the American Revolution. The unequal treatment of colonialists compared to their peers in Britain was definitely an important cause of the independence movement, but some, like Paine, went further, and wanted to do away with monarchical rule altogether.
mkfreeberg: Clinton: “We just can’t trust the american people to make those types of choices”
It’s a secondary quote, and is in reference to inoculations. Most people think that preventive inoculations are less intrusive than quarantines after the fact.
–
- Zachriel | 08/20/2013 @ 10:35The revolution created a more equitable distribution of political power in two ways. Before the revolution, the British had power over themselves and over the Americans. After the revolution, the British had power over themselves, while Americans now had the power to regulate their own affairs. Furthermore, by establishing a republic, the Americans had a more equal distribution of power within American than the British had within Britain because the Americans could now choose their own head of state and government.
We quoted Thomas Paine. Paine’s thought was very influential during the period leading up to…
And…once again, you conveniently leave out the all-changing “by birth” thing. It’s all about the difference between “equality” and “freedom” and I’m not sure I can fill you in on it, without a broader field of interest on y’all’s part. It’s a good thing y’all aren’t really wanting to learn anything new. You’d be making it look like teaching the caveman all about square roots and trig, for much the same reason.
The revolution created a more equitable distribution…
Equality!
- mkfreeberg | 08/20/2013 @ 11:21mkfreeberg: And…once again, you conveniently leave out the all-changing “by birth” thing.
Paine was against a king having power by birth. It was contrary to his notions of equality.
mkfreeberg: Equality!
Not sure why you would link to a debunking of many of the claims from the “The Price They Paid”. In any case, it shows how an inequality in one place can be more than compensated for by greater equality elsewhere. So while King died pursuing civil rights, black Americans as a whole achieved greater political equality.
–
- Zachriel | 08/20/2013 @ 11:31The revolution created a more equitable distribution of political power in two ways. Before the revolution, the British had power over themselves and over the Americans. After the revolution, the British had power over themselves, while Americans now had the power to regulate their own affairs. Furthermore, by establishing a republic, the Americans had a more equal distribution of power within American than the British had within Britain because the Americans could now choose their own head of state and government. Do you agree? If not, why not?
Not sure why you would link to a debunking of many of the claims from the “The Price They Paid”.
To get to the truth, as best as it can be made out. When you’re done taking in ALL of the information, it seems at the end of it this was a rather crappy way to achieve equality. What they achieved was freedom.
Now, to say what “they” wanted at the outset, would be problematic because independence didn’t benefit from the approval of some crushing majority. If the point that you’re trying to make is that some of the colonists would have been happy doing away once and for all with the virtual representation, and having a representative slate actually sit in Parliament, then I would say you’re right about just those colonials who would’ve found favor with this. That would be “equality” in the ways consistent with the effort and achievement of the Revolution.
But the primary effect of it, and the primary drive for it, was freedom by way of independence. It seems like y’all are engaged in an effort to, not so much malign history or rationalize the Revolution as a typical lefty Occupy protest, but more like to avoid using those two particular words, freedom and independence. There isn’t much material we can use to clear up the confusion, because the British were being dicks about the whole thing (see Wiki link above) and it was a short time before the Continental Congress saw it was either independence, or nothing.
- mkfreeberg | 08/20/2013 @ 11:40mkfreeberg: Now, to say what “they” wanted at the outset, would be problematic
Except that they wrote it down.
mkfreeberg: But the primary effect of it, and the primary drive for it, was freedom by way of independence.
Independence was the method, not the purpose. They had originally petitioned for redress from the King. The vast majority of Americans would have been satisfied if they had been granted the same rights and privileges as their peers in Britain. It’s there in the Declaration.
mkfreeberg: it was a short time before the Continental Congress saw it was either independence, or nothing.
That’s right. Britain had to work hard to lose the American colonies. See Tuchman, The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam, Knopf 1984.
- Zachriel | 08/20/2013 @ 11:48–
- Zachriel | 08/20/2013 @ 11:48The revolution created a more equitable distribution of political power in two ways. Before the revolution, the British had power over themselves and over the Americans. After the revolution, the British had power over themselves, while Americans now had the power to regulate their own affairs. Furthermore, by establishing a republic, the Americans had a more equal distribution of power within American than the British had within Britain because the Americans could now choose their own head of state and government. Do you agree? If not, why not?
Furthermore, by establishing a republic, the Americans had a more equal distribution of power within American than the British had within Britain because the Americans could now choose their own head of state and government. Do you agree? If not, why not?
Are we factoring in the people within Great Britain who are part of the peerage? And Royalty?
If we’re talking only about commoners then I would have to say no. Citizens of a large state have much greater representation, on some matters, than citizens of a smaller state in the House of Representatives and (if the state is a swing state) in the presidential election as well. Citizens of a small state, on a per capita basis, have better representation in the Senate. Whereas, in Great Britain, everyone has equal say in determining whether the succession should skip over Charles and proceed to William. Unless they happen to personally know Prince Charles or something, and can advise him that he should step aside, their influence is zero. Nothing’s more equal than a bunch of zero values.
- mkfreeberg | 08/20/2013 @ 11:51Zachriel: Furthermore, by establishing a republic, the Americans had a more equal distribution of power within American than the British had within Britain because the Americans could now choose their own head of state and government. Do you agree? If not, why not?
mkfreeberg: Are we factoring in the people within Great Britain who are part of the peerage? And Royalty?
Of course. They’re the ones with most of the power at the time. Try answering with that in mind.
- Zachriel | 08/20/2013 @ 12:01Well then, it becomes debatable because if we’re factoring in the peerage in Great Britain, we must therefore be factoring in the Chairman of the House Ways and Means committee, the Senate President Pro Tem, Senate Minority Whip, all those guys. We would also have to factor in the way President Obama has done His part to demonstrate the truth of my statement, Gini 1.0 is a constant fixture in leftist regimes. We’d have to factor in all the unwritten rules that have emerged since he began to “rule from day one” as Ms. Jarrett has said.
Obama makes decisions, like whether to deploy troops to Afghanistan and how many, evidently in solitude, just kind of mullin’ it over. All year long, not that it’s a matter of some missing datum of information or anything. He appoints Czars, as many as He likes, for whatever reason He likes, without answering to Congress. Does the Queen of England and Great Britain do that? Her ancestors might have done something similar, up until the time of perhaps Queen Anne…or maybe as late as Queen Victoria. Or as early as Queen Elizabeth.
Hey, that’s another thing, they’ve had a lot of chicks in charge. Damn sexist yankees.
It emerges that there are many, many variables to be considered in answering your question, besides the ability to “choose their own head of state and government.”
- mkfreeberg | 08/20/2013 @ 12:10mkfreeberg: Well then, it becomes debatable because if we’re factoring in the peerage in Great Britain, we must therefore be factoring in the Chairman of the House Ways and Means committee, the Senate President Pro Tem, Senate Minority Whip, all those guys.
Of course! That’s exactly right! And they are roughly equivalent — except for the most powerful offices of the time, the presidency in the nascent American republic, and the monarchy in eighteenth century Britain.
- Zachriel | 08/20/2013 @ 12:31But we have to factor in Obama, too.
Haven’t heard anyone say Queen Elizabeth is sort of God.
- mkfreeberg | 08/20/2013 @ 12:40mkfreeberg: But we have to factor in Obama, too.
Obama was elected by a majority of the voters — twice. How many times was King George III elected King? In any case, the question concerned the time of the American Revolution. So to review, the Congress and Parliament were functionally equivalent, but the selection of the head of state was quite different.
Everyone knows that the republic was a radical departure. Try to avoid arguing once again something you know isn’t true.
- Zachriel | 08/20/2013 @ 12:48Obama was elected by a majority of the voters — twice.
Oh, right. Okay, so He doesn’t count after all. The “my pair beats your full house, because your cards aren’t real” thing. So you’re going to insist on comparing all of UK, including Queen Liz, to all of America minus the people who were elected because they’re merely extensions of the people who voted. Is that the formulation? Well then okay, I guess in that case things would be much, much more equitable in the United States.
But the question arises, is that a fair or accurate formulation. Does everything Obama does, find favor with the people who elected Him?
- mkfreeberg | 08/20/2013 @ 12:52mkfreeberg: Oh, right. Okay, so He doesn’t count after all.
Was Obama president in the eighteenth century? Didn’t know that.
mkfreeberg: So you’re going to insist on comparing all of UK, including Queen Liz, to all of America minus the people who were elected because they’re merely extensions of the people who voted. Is that the formulation?
Not sure why you wrangle so much over simple points. We’re clearly not discussing Queen Elizabeth II, who has just a ceremonial role, but the powerful monarchy of King George III. And yes, if you had read our comments, you would know to include all the people elected in Congress and Parliament, not merely as extensions of the voters, but powerful people in their own right.
Congress and Parliament of the period would be roughly equivalent. They are composed of generally rich persons from established families. Men of property comprise the electorate. The difference between the two systems is the head of state. In a monarchy, the position is inherited. In a republic, there are elections. Everyone knows that the republic was a radical departure. Try to avoid arguing, again, something you know isn’t true.
- Zachriel | 08/20/2013 @ 13:01It seems we’re having a disagreement because I’m looking at efforts & achievements, therefore reality, but you’re trying to stick to this Star Trek idea of “greater equality over time” and so forth…and to do that, you have to keep re-defining all this stuff as some kind of “equality.” Maybe we could agree that in the United States, we get to vote in elections for House, Senate, President, Vice-President and other positions, whereas in Great Britain, you don’t get to vote for the Monarch. Looks like y’all are trying to shoehorn that into the word “equality” so you can support your theory.
And I guess we’re supposed to discuss the American Revolution era only. Okay, nice to know that. Except you seem to think Washington’s administration qualifies as a “leftist regime”? Can’t agree on that one…so perhaps our consensus should be, “Given that leftist revolutions are what The Zachriel say they are, we can logically conclude leftist revolutions are what The Zachriel say they are.” I’d agree with that. But the argument, by concluding exactly where it begins and making a conclusion out of its very premise, isn’t very useful as it doesn’t prove much of anything.
The American Revolution was a right-wing revolution, conforming with Prof. Sowell’s description of the constrained vision. Since it was concerned with, and achieved, freedom, it did not compel the Gini coefficient of anything — power, wealth, income, charisma, sexual activity — toward either a 1.0 or a 0.0. It culminated in what might be called a “Gini-whatever,” which is the natural outcome of a revolutionary event based on freedom. This is what others were trying to point out to you about conservatives: They are not “pro-inequality,” they are pro-freedom, anti-regulation.
Some inequality is a necessary outcome of freedom, because we’re all going to be chasing after different lifestyles, therefore different standards of living. Some people (many Swedes, for example) are not that fond of material wealth, consider it sinful to make an actual profit on something, and plow a lot of energy into teaching their children that being poor is quite alright. Now I’m not inclined to agree with that, but if such a person wants to be lazy, well heck, I’m certainly not going to criticize him for that. Pay what you owe to other people, and if there’s no money left over, and you’re cool with that, then go ahead & sit back and have a cold one. With my blessings.
Your “greater equality” gets in the way of that, because someone (Hillary, from the above quote you think was taken out of context, emerges as an eager candidate for this) is going to have to declare the baseline-reference to which all others will have to work at being equal to. That’s why lefty revolutions tend to end up, like that first one did, with a dictator at the helm. Gini 1.0 is a constant fixture…
- mkfreeberg | 08/20/2013 @ 14:45mkfreeberg: Maybe we could agree that in the United States, we get to vote in elections for House, Senate, President, Vice-President and other positions, whereas in Great Britain, you don’t get to vote for the Monarch.
The difference is president in a republic vs. king in a monarchy, the most powerful political position in the respective societies. Political power is more evenly distributed in a republic because people have a say
mkfreeberg: And I guess we’re supposed to discuss the American Revolution era only.
No, it’s just one of a great many examples. There’s also social movements towards universal suffrage, abolition, universal literacy and education, women’s rights, civil rights. Consider suffrage in the U.S.; first propertied white men, then white men, then men, then universal. Each stage meant greater political equality.
mkfreeberg: The American Revolution was a right-wing revolution
So King George III was a leftie! Tee hee.
- Zachriel | 08/20/2013 @ 17:03The difference is president in a republic vs. king in a monarchy, the most powerful political position in the respective societies.
And a democracy is more “equal” than a constitutional republic, like what we have. But the democracy is not free. The two wolves and the sheep voting on what’s for lunch, and all that.
So King George III was a leftie! Tee hee.
Please stop being so mean to the lefty revolutionaries. I think deep down inside, they know they’re going around in circles; it was painfully obvious, by the beginning of the nineteenth century, that they’d just spun around in a 360 and did a “meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”
Oh wait, though, you’re tee-hee-ing at me. Right. The joke about the hot air balloon…everything is someone else’s fault. Yeah, you’re funny, but not for the reason you think.
- mkfreeberg | 08/20/2013 @ 17:09mkfreeberg: And a democracy is more “equal” than a constitutional republic, like what we have.
A democracy has a more equal distribution of political power. That’s right. That wasn’t so hard. All modern democracies have power balanced throughout the society, with power balanced at many levels throughout, from divided governments with executive, legislative and an independent judiciary, the rule of law, corporations, political parties, individuals, including the rights of free speech and free association, and the protection of private property.
mkfreeberg: But the democracy is not free.
If the people are not free, then it’s not a democracy. But you exaggerate. While there is always tensions as power ebbs and flows between different power centers, the U.S. system is hardly a tyranny.
mkfreeberg: Please stop being so mean to the lefty revolutionaries.
Heh. So King George III was a lefty revolutionary! When you position requires you to take such positions, you should reevaluate your precepts. Do you define left wing as statism?
mkfreeberg: I think deep down inside, they know they’re going around in circles; it was painfully obvious, by the beginning of the nineteenth century, that they’d just spun around in a 360 and did a “meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”
Right. The movement to extend suffrage or end Jim Crow were just other forms of tyranny.
- Zachriel | 08/20/2013 @ 17:24Heh. So King George III was a lefty revolutionary!
I’m still fascinated by this idea that the definition of “a left wing revolutionary” is “being opposed to anyone the Zachriel consider right wing.” Or vice versa. The Bolsheviks thought the Mensheviks — avowed socialist revolutionaries— were too soft and compromising. Therefore, the Mensheviks were “right wing revolutionaries.” Tee hee!! Bakunin, an anarchist, thought the Communists were too soft and compromising. Which makes Lenin a right-wing revolutionary. Tee hee!!
That’s just pathetic.
PS Morgan, I called it. The idea that the American Revolution was at least in part a conservative revolution is pretty widespread, and not particularly controversial among historians of the period. But that gets in the way of whatever gotcha they think they’re making, so we’ve got to pretend that George III was some kind of leftist, or whatever they’re on about now.
- Severian | 08/20/2013 @ 18:17A democracy has a more equal distribution of political power. That’s right. That wasn’t so hard. All modern democracies have power balanced throughout the society, with power balanced at many levels throughout, from divided governments with executive, legislative and an independent judiciary, the rule of law, corporations, political parties, individuals, including the rights of free speech and free association, and the protection of private property.
:
If the people are not free, then it’s not a democracy.
Oh, now it’s becoming clearer. We’re supposed to pretend Tyranny of the Majority does not exist, and is not a possibility.
This is looking more and more like a special brand of political science, that makes sense only to people who’ve never been in the minority on anything.
So King George III was a lefty revolutionary! When you position requires you to take such positions…
You keep saying it. I haven’t. What is this, some new variation on the “Here’s a bunny with a pancake on its head, your argument is invalid”?
Right. The movement to extend suffrage or end Jim Crow were just other forms of tyranny.
Was Napoleon a dictator?
- mkfreeberg | 08/21/2013 @ 01:24A democracy has a more equal distribution of political power. That’s right. That wasn’t so hard.
Republic vs. Democracy:
Severian: The idea that the American Revolution was at least in part a conservative revolution is pretty widespread, and not particularly controversial among historians of the period.
While most American revolutionaries certainly didn’t want to overturn all traditional institutions, replacing the monarchy with a republic was a radical notion. The conservative position was to to suffer, while evils were sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they were accustomed. Revolution could lead to anarchy. Large sectors of the American public were against revolution for this reason.
mkfreeberg: We’re supposed to pretend Tyranny of the Majority does not exist, and is not a possibility.
Sure it’s a possibility. It was one of the concerns of the founders, which is why they balanced power and included a bill of rights. This process can break down.
When discussing modern democracies, we have been referring to representative democracies with checks and balances, which we discussed in detail above. So are you claiming that the U.S. is now a ochlocracy? Does the mob include both Republicans and Democrats?
mkfreeberg: You keep saying it. I haven’t.
You said, “The American Revolution was a right-wing revolution”. Where would that put George III?
mkfreeberg: Was Napoleon a dictator?
Sure. The revolution lurched from instituting a constitutional monarchy to anarchy to dictatorship then back to monarchy. But once the mystique of the monarchy was broken, few took it too seriously again. Meanwhile, Napoléon transmitted the ideals of the Republic across Europe along with vast destruction.
mkfreeberg: Republic vs. Democracy
Of course, modern democracies are representative democracies. The U.S. is considered a modern democracy. It’s also a federal republic. They are not exclusive terms. The U.S. has evolved to become more democratic by extension of the franchise, from white men of property, to all white men, to all men, to everyone of age.
Merriam-Webster: democracy, a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
In any case, your video equates the left-right spectrum with the statism-anarchy spectrum. But we know this isn’t true, don’t we? Because if it were true, then Louis XVI would be on the far left, and that’s contrary to what people mean by the term. That would be just silly.
- Zachriel | 08/21/2013 @ 04:56You said, “The American Revolution was a right-wing revolution”. Where would that put George III?
Uh huh. The statement “the American Revolution was, in many senses, a conservative revolution” would go over with hardly a peep in a room full of professional historians, including impeccably progressive ones (a lot of them consider this a withering criticism of the Founding Fathers). The idea that this might not track exactly with the idiosyncratic binary definitions of some quarrelsome group blog on the internet wouldn’t bother them much, as historians look at what actually did happen, rather than what some theory they pulled out of their asses said should’ve happened. That’s really more of a “climate science” thing.
- Severian | 08/21/2013 @ 06:46The conservative position was to to suffer, while evils were sufferable…
Oh wow. So the conservative position is essentially to oppose any claim of “we can do better than this”…which is liberal. Does that include issues in which liberals have created a problem? For example, school vouchers in a district where the public school option is a bad one. Or, raising a family in a bad part of Detroit. Or trying to get a job when Obama is president. Are the people who insist in those contexts, let’s just nut up and suffer through it, conservatives?
When discussing modern democracies, we have been referring to representative democracies with checks and balances, which we discussed in detail above. So are you claiming that the U.S. is now a ochlocracy? Does the mob include both Republicans and Democrats?
Checks and balances are nothing more than a single cog within the machinery, and ochlocracy is only one of the evils of democracy. Before the legislative branch finishes up with a decision, and it is subject to the checks and balances, it is supposed to bring the benefit that Edmund Burke was talking about. So your more-equal distribution of power, as an end-goal, brings the mob rule that might be stringing the gunfighter up to the tree after the vote of 35-0 mentioned in the video. They have their passion, they have their ignorance of the facts, they have their apathy about their ignorance of the facts, as a consequence of this passion. Before sharing its power with the judicial and the executive, the legislative branch should be stripping all this out.
Now thanks to your more-equal-distribution, we can look to Dianne Feinstein and her ludicrous positions on the gun control issue, for a tip-off on how well Congress is stripping all that out. This daffy dame is out of control, making up rules about what rifles should be banned based on how scary-looking she thinks their pictures are in a gun & ammo catalog. The seventeenth amendment made that possible, since she’s now re-elected by popular vote, therefore by a bunch of soccer moms who really don’t know very much at all about guns and gun-related crime.
Would you say the seventeenth amendment continued your trend of greater equality? Because, under it, we now have this tyranny in which up to 49.9% of the public sentiment, in this case that portion of the population that knows more about guns than Dianne Feinstein does, is made a nullity.
This is important, since much of your rebuttal and tee-hee-ing has essentially amounted to an accusation that I’m confusing the goals of left and right (“You said, ‘The American Revolution was a right-wing revolution’. Where would that put George III?”) As has been repeatedly explained to you now, the problem is that the left wing is inherently confused. They’re the ones who are supposed to be laboring toward this more equitable distribution of power. And yet their consistent achievement is tyranny. And y’all seem stuck in the wagon rut of figuring, it must be the fault of the guy who’s noticing it…thereby acting out the hot air balloon joke. “You’re still lost, but somehow now it’s my fault.”
- mkfreeberg | 08/21/2013 @ 06:56Severian: The statement “the American Revolution was, in many senses, a conservative revolution” would go over with hardly a peep in a room full of professional historians
Certainly, the founders wrestled with their conservative and liberal impulses. They even made an important statement of the conservative impulse in the Declaration, the Prudence Clause. While, the revolutionaries certainly had many conservative values, including fear of anarchy, ochlocracy and war, the claim that the people were sovereign, then replacing the king with a republic, were a radical notions, certainly to the political left (as generally defined) of King George III.
You never answered, if the American Revolution was a right-wing revolution, where would that put George III?
- Zachriel | 08/21/2013 @ 06:57mkfreeberg: So the conservative position is essentially to oppose any claim of “we can do better than this”…which is liberal.
Rational conservatives support necessary change, but resist radical change due to the problem of unintended consequences and the inherent risk to traditional institutions. Do you disagree with the Prudence Clause?
mkfreeberg: Checks and balances are nothing more than a single cog within the machinery,
Checks and balances are not a single cog, but a plethora of interrelationships at all levels of society.
mkfreeberg: and ochlocracy is only one of the evils of democracy.
Ochlocracy is an extreme form of direct democracy. As an aside, it’s been a common theme that you use the most extreme interpretations of certain terms; such as a democracy is mob rule; or liberals are leftists and leftists are Stalin.
mkfreeberg: As has been repeatedly explained to you now, the problem is that the left wing is inherently confused.
Your video didn’t have any troubles. It would place King Louis XVI squarely on the left, which is just silly, but unambiguous.
mkfreeberg: Would you say the seventeenth amendment continued your trend of greater equality?
Sure.
mkfreeberg: Because, under it, we now have this tyranny in which up to 49.9% of the public sentiment, in this case that portion of the population that knows more about guns than Dianne Feinstein does, is made a nullity.
That’s certainly not correct. Gun-loving voters in Wyoming have far more influence in the U.S. Senate than Gun-control advocates in California; about 66x more. Or weren’t you aware to this?
- Zachriel | 08/21/2013 @ 07:13You never answered, if the American Revolution was a right-wing revolution, where would that put George III?
Sigh. Pay attention now: I don’t care. Since I guess it hasn’t been obvious from my dozens of comments explicitly stating this, I think the idea of assigning 18th century figures to modern left / right boxes is silly. People who want to learn something from the past look at what happened first, then construct ideas about it. People who crave reassurance about their prejudices construct the theory first, and then try to shoehorn in the facts.
You’re free to define things however you like, of course, and if you want to consider that some kind of gotcha, well, I’m glad I brought a little sunshine into your room down there in your Mom’s basement. If you want to argue that “the American Revolution was in many ways a conservative revolution” some kind of fringe position within modern scholarship, well, you can take it up with the American Historical Association.
- Severian | 08/21/2013 @ 07:14Severian: I think the idea of assigning 18th century figures to modern left / right boxes is silly.
The terms were coined in the 18th century in reference to divisions between monarchists and republicans. If you don’t use the terms, that would be fine, but we’re quite sure you have used them to make broad generalizations. Perhaps we are wrong.
Severian: you can take it up with the American Historical Association
We’d be happy to look at your citations.
- Zachriel | 08/21/2013 @ 07:22Do you disagree with the Prudence Clause?
Oh — wow. Since I know if I don’t answer, I’m going to repeatedly get back “you never answered” over and over again…I have to ask…where the heck did that come from??
Checks and balances are not a single cog, but a plethora of interrelationships at all levels of society.
Please see Edmund Burke’s quote again. That is an important factor in a government that properly represents its constituency; although, notably, it is antithetical to a strict interpretation of more equitable distribution of political power across a population. Here in the United States, we rely on it for our freedom. In addition to the checks and balances, which are just a single cog in the machinery.
mkfreeberg: and ochlocracy is only one of the evils of democracy.
Ochlocracy is an extreme form of direct democracy. As an aside, it’s been a common theme that you use the most extreme interpretations of certain terms; such as a democracy is mob rule; or liberals are leftists and leftists are Stalin.
It would be difficult to categorize the referendum process in California as “Ochlocracy.” There is no actual mob rule, no intimidation against legitimate authorities taking place, in fact the problem isn’t one of passion but rather the absence of it. Voters who are there at the polling place just to nominate Mitt Romney or re-elect DiFi, figuring out what to do levee bonds and arcane adjustments to sentencing laws, punching out maybe 35 chads on the ballot, five of which come from an actual opinion.
Your more equitable distribution of power is achieved. And so is the soft-tyranny. The decisions ultimately made, ironically, become unconnected from actual public sentiment.
Your video didn’t have any troubles. It would place King Louis XVI squarely on the left, which is just silly, but unambiguous.
As has been repeatedly explained to you now, the problem is that the left wing is inherently confused. They’re the ones who are supposed to be laboring toward this more equitable distribution of power. And yet their consistent achievement is tyranny. And y’all seem stuck in the wagon rut of figuring, it must be the fault of the guy who’s noticing it…thereby acting out the hot air balloon joke. “You’re still lost, but somehow now it’s my fault.”
Gun-loving voters in Wyoming have far more influence in the U.S. Senate than Gun-control advocates in California; about 66x more.
Because my remarks specifically address the re-election of a gun-control senator in California, I think it makes sense to compare the influence of pro- and anti-gun-control voters within California. Do you agree? Why or why not?
Or weren’t you aware to this?
Cute. Tee hee!
- mkfreeberg | 08/21/2013 @ 07:27We’d be happy to look at your citations.
Why don’t y’all go look ’em up? You might learn something… but I doubt it.
f you don’t use the terms, that would be fine, but we’re quite sure you have used them to make broad generalizations. Perhaps we are wrong.
We’d be happy to look at your citations. Or, you know, not, because there’s clearly a difference between “putting 18th century figures into modern left / right boxes is silly” and “the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ are meaningless and should never be used.” So long as we pretend that different things are the same, and similar things are different, you’ve got me dead to rights.
Good luck with the AHA.
- Severian | 08/21/2013 @ 07:38Zachriel: Do you disagree with the Prudence Clause?
mkfreeberg: Since I know if I don’t answer, I’m going to repeatedly get back “you never answered” over and over again
You parroted the Prudence Clause. We provided a reasoned response and asked a question hoping to clarify your position. Not sure why you are unwilling to answer simple questions. It does explain why the discussion rarely progresses, though.
mkfreeberg: That is an important factor in a government that properly represents its constituency; although, notably, it is antithetical to a strict interpretation of more equitable distribution of political power across a population.
Yes, we’re aware that a representative should use judgment. That’s one check against unruly majoritarianism.
mkfreeberg: As has been repeatedly explained to you now, the problem is that the left wing is inherently confused.
According to the video you provided, they place King Louis XVI squarely on the political left. That’s nonsense.
mkfreeberg: They’re the ones who are supposed to be laboring toward this more equitable distribution of power. And yet their consistent achievement is tyranny.
The results of the civil rights movement was tyranny? Women’s rights movement, oppression?
mkfreeberg: Because my remarks specifically address the re-election of a gun-control senator in California, I think it makes sense to compare the influence of pro- and anti-gun-control voters within California.
She is a U.S. Senator, and you complained about majoritarianism. In fact, the U.S. Senate is far from majoritarian with regards to voter representation, but slanted strongly towards rural, pro-gun states. Furthermore, any legislation has to be approved by the House, and is subject to judicial review.
Severian: Why don’t y’all go look ‘em up?
We’d be happy to look up your citations if you provided some rather than just waving your hands.
- Zachriel | 08/21/2013 @ 10:28It seems y’all have some very strong opinions about Louis XVI’s place on the political spectrum. What specific Louis-the-sixteenth positions do y’all have in mind?
- mkfreeberg | 08/21/2013 @ 11:05mkfreeberg: It seems y’all have some very strong opinions about Louis XVI’s place on the political spectrum. What specific Louis-the-sixteenth positions do y’all have in mind?
“The political terms Right and Left were coined during the French Revolution (1789–99), and referred to where politicians sat in the French parliament; those who sat to the right of the chair of the parliamentary president were broadly supportive of the institutions of the monarchist Ancien Régime.”
Happens that King Louis XVI was broadly supportive of the institutions of the monarchy.
- Zachriel | 08/21/2013 @ 11:51And yet; an Obama supporter is not necessarily in agreement with all of President Obama’s positions. This much is well known.
Are you asserting that those who “sat to the right of the chair” agreed with all of King Louis’ positions?
- mkfreeberg | 08/21/2013 @ 11:55mkfreeberg: Are you asserting that those who “sat to the right of the chair” agreed with all of King Louis’ positions?
Of course not, but they supported the continuation of the monarchist Ancien Régime. Those on the left favored a significant reduction in the power of the Church and of the monarchy, or even an end to the monarchy. “Vive la République!”
But the point is simple. You have said the Louis XVI was on the political left. You posted a video that made the same claim. But that notion is preposterous. The entire distinction was born of the conflict over monarchical rule.
- Zachriel | 08/21/2013 @ 12:01Those on the left favored a significant reduction in the power of the Church and of the monarchy, or even an end to the monarchy.
I can certainly see how a “royalist” would disagree with that, without necessarily agreeing to Louis XVI’s positions.
You have said the Louis XVI was on the political left. You posted a video that made the same claim. But that notion is preposterous.
Now that you have agreed that there is meaningful difference between advocating for the continuation of the monarchy, and agreeing with the positions of the monarch, how is the notion preposterous?
- mkfreeberg | 08/21/2013 @ 12:05mkfreeberg: I can certainly see how a “royalist” would disagree with that, without necessarily agreeing to Louis XVI’s positions.
Sure. One could be a reluctant monarchist, not agreeing with policy, but sitting on the right in support of the king.
mkfreeberg: Now that you have agreed that there is meaningful difference between advocating for the continuation of the monarchy, and agreeing with the positions of the monarch, how is the notion preposterous?
That doesn’t make a lot of sense. Unless you’re saying Louis XVI could have been a republican.
- Zachriel | 08/21/2013 @ 12:17That doesn’t make a lot of sense.
If by “doesn’t make a lot of sense” what you really mean is “isn’t convenient to the false argument and unreliable conflation we’re trying to present,” then I agree.
I personally know of many people “on the right” who would never, ever agree with the proposition that America’s health care system is good and perfect and right and efficient, and so forth; but they are not ready to go along with the reform ideas presented by the left. Prominent in their problems and objections, is the one against the idea that Barack Obama is somehow uniquely qualified to figure out the minutia of what ails this industry, and design effective solutions. I can easily envision that your “right wing” back in the day would have had similar concerns about the various leftist figureheads.
And they would have been right to have such concerns, would they not? Given that, how can you say it “doesn’t make a lot of sense” that they’d have residual problems with the policies of Louis XVI, just as moderate-to-extreme right-wingers today have residual problems with the workings of our health care industry, as it exists; while, in both situations, opposing the left wing’s reform ideas.
I think most people would say this is all perfectly plausible. Why are you dismissing it out of hand?
- mkfreeberg | 08/21/2013 @ 12:37mkfreeberg: Now that you have agreed that there is meaningful difference between advocating for the continuation of the monarchy, and agreeing with the positions of the monarch, how is the notion preposterous?
“The political terms Right and Left were coined during the French Revolution (1789–99), and referred to where politicians sat in the French parliament; those who sat to the right of the chair of the parliamentary president were broadly supportive of the institutions of the monarchist Ancien Régime.”
King Louis XVI supported the monarchist Ancien Régime. That puts him on the right.
- Zachriel | 08/21/2013 @ 12:54So your position is, one must support the health care system as it now exists in order to oppose reforms to it, in the same way that one must support King Louis XVI’s policies in order to oppose the reformers from 1789-1799? Or is your position that, one must not necessarily support the health care system status quo in order to oppose Obama’s reforms — but things are somehow different in the 1789-1799 timeframe, such that your overly simplistic “puts him on the right” is workable in that context?
It seems like you’re caricaturing “the right” in a way that reality doesn’t support, to make your theories more believable. Do you not agree that there are generally legitimate reasons to oppose reform, particularly when the reform ideas have taken shape, without necessarily supporting the status quo?
- mkfreeberg | 08/21/2013 @ 12:59mkfreeberg: So your position is, one must support the health care system as it now exists in order to oppose reforms to it, in the same way that one must support King Louis XVI’s policies in order to oppose the reformers from 1789-1799?
We’re not discussing healthcare reform. We’re discussing your claim that Louis XVI was on the political left. King Louis XVI supported the monarchist Ancien Régime. That puts him on the political right.
- Zachriel | 08/21/2013 @ 13:01King Louis XVI supported the monarchist Ancien Régime. That puts him on the political right.
Louis supported the monarchy he was monarch of. That’s some compelling logic right there.
Of course, Stalin supported remaining the vozhd, and Mao supported remaining the Chairman of the CCP. In which they enjoyed vast inequality, with no input from the people as to their leadership or form of government. And so that means…..Stalin and Mao were on the right. Tee hee!!
We’d be happy to look up your citations if you provided some rather than just waving your hands.
Surely I don’t have to teach you how to do a Google search?
- Severian | 08/21/2013 @ 13:23Severian: Louis supported the monarchy he was monarch of.
He could have abdicated. “Vive la République!”
Severian: And so that means…..Stalin and Mao were on the right.
Which shows that equating leftism is statism doesn’t comport with how people normally use the terms.
- Zachriel | 08/21/2013 @ 14:20He could have abdicated. “Vive la République!”
Uh huh. And Washington could’ve let the Newburgh conspirators proclaim him King of America. And slaveholders could’ve just freed their slaves voluntarily and avoided that whole Civil War thing. And you all could make a coherent point. But the likelihood of any of those things is vanishingly rare.
Which shows that equating leftism is [sic] statism doesn’t comport with how people normally use the terms.
I assume that [sic] goes there, anyway. I honestly don’t know what you’re trying to say here. You all said that “advocating for greater inequality” is the definition of the political right. You “proved” this by arguing that Louis XVI was on the political right, because he supported the regime that kept him in power. You even made some noise about George III being on the political right because he was opposed by people (you claimed were) on the political left. Well, Mao and Stalin advocated for the system that kept them in power, which was chock full of vast inequalities. That’s why they came up with their own -isms, as all commie despots do. And they were just as tough on “left deviationists” as on “right deviationists.”
Whether or not that “comports with how people normally use the terms,” their actions fit your ass-pulled definitions of “the political right” to a tee. Therefore, Mao and Stalin are right-wingers. Tee hee!
- Severian | 08/21/2013 @ 14:43There’s another way to look at this. Suppose the “Birthers” come back with a vengeance and want Obama impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate, toot-sweet. Or suppose they want to convene a constitutional convention to address this new situation in which the sitting president is proven (say they) to have been born in Kenya, so that Congress doesn’t have to sit in judgment of the matter, Our First Holy President can be run out of town on a rail because…Orly Taitz found a Kenyan birth certificate or something. And in Obama’s place, these birthers want to put some guy named…Napoleon Dynamite Bush or something.
Well shoot. They’d be on the political left. And this would put Obama on the political right. It would be risible to assert otherwise. Right? I mean, uh, correct?
- mkfreeberg | 08/21/2013 @ 14:53Severian: You “proved” this by arguing that Louis XVI was on the political right, because he supported the regime that kept him in power.
Louis XVI was not on the right simply because he supported the current regime, but because in the context of the time, he opposed moving toward greater political and social equality. Any reasonable definition of the political right has to put Louis XVI on the right, or it doesn’t comport with how the term is used.
mkfreeberg: And in Obama’s place, these birthers want to put some guy named…Napoleon Dynamite Bush or something. Well shoot. They’d be on the political left.
Have no idea why you’d think so.
- Zachriel | 08/21/2013 @ 15:02Louis XVI was not on the right simply because he supported the current regime, but because in the context of the time, he opposed moving toward greater political and social equality.
Which, in the context of the time, perfectly describes Mao’s and Stalin’s actions as well. They opposed any actions that would remove them from their positions at the tippy-top of a vastly unequal hierarchy, and they brutally suppressed the “left deviationists” who pointed this out. Which comports perfectly with your ass-pulled definitions of “the political right.”
You no longer agree with you, apparently. Which tends to happen, when you make up “definitions” to codify your prejudices, and argue for them via gotchas.
- Severian | 08/21/2013 @ 15:09Have no idea why you’d think so.
Obviously, under the Napoleon Dynamite Bush administration, Michelle Obama & crew would be forced to take vacations the way the rest of us do…paying for it themselves. Equality!
- mkfreeberg | 08/21/2013 @ 15:20I shall have to disclaim any credit that might come my way, for inventing this Michelle Obama Marie Antoinette parallel. It’s clear I’m not the first one to think of it.
Those right-wingers, I tell ya.
- mkfreeberg | 08/21/2013 @ 15:26At this point, it might be easier for the Zachriel to draw up lists of who they consider “left wing” and “right wing” throughout the whole of human history, and they can argue among themselves about it. Which pretty much seems to be what they’re doing anyway.
- Severian | 08/21/2013 @ 15:36Severian: Which, in the context of the time, perfectly describes Mao’s and Stalin’s actions as well.
No. Both Mao and Stalin were trying to create a classless society per Marxist theory.
Nearly all political scientists put Mao and Stalin on the left, and Louis XVI, of course, on the right. We’d be happy to hear your explanation.
mkfreeberg: Michelle Obama & crew would be forced to take vacations the way the rest of us do…paying for it themselves.
They already do. However, they are not responsible for the extra expenses due to the president’s constitutional role, such as Secret Service.
Severian: At this point, it might be easier for the Zachriel to draw up lists of who they consider “left wing” and “right wing” throughout the whole of human history
At this point, you guys seem to have choked on Louis XVI.
- Zachriel | 08/21/2013 @ 15:43At this point, you guys seem to have choked on Louis XVI.
Sure we have. So you’re saying, the above-named monarch was a right-winger but President Obama, in precisely the same situation minus the guillotine & all that other messy stuff…is a left-winger? Even though it is tee-hee and snort-n-chortle-worthy to even imply Louis XVI would be a left winger?
Or are you saying Obama is a right-winger, and it is similarly chortle-worthy to suggest Obama is on the left?
I can’t start choking until you make this stuff clear…which I’m not sure y’all can do…
- mkfreeberg | 08/21/2013 @ 15:50mkfreeberg: So you’re saying, the above-named monarch was a right-winger
Nearly all political scientists put Mao and Stalin on the left, and Louis XVI, of course, on the right. We’d be happy to hear your explanation.
- Zachriel | 08/21/2013 @ 15:54Nearly all political scientists put Mao and Stalin on the left, and Louis XVI, of course, on the right. We’d be happy to hear your explanation.
Can you name some meaningful differences about their political positions?
- mkfreeberg | 08/21/2013 @ 15:57mkfreeberg: Can you name some meaningful differences about their political positions?
Sure. Louis XVI tried to maintain class distinctions, while Mao and Stalin acted to eliminate class distinctions.
- Zachriel | 08/21/2013 @ 16:42Oh, I get it now. Mao, who sat atop a grossly unequal hierarchy and ruthlessly suppressed anyone who challenged it, made some noises about equality. He is to be judged by his words. Louis XVI, who sat atop a grossly unequal hierarchy and ruthlessly suppressed anyone who challenged it, also made some noises about equality, but he is to be judged by his actions. Whether words or actions form the basis of judgment shall be decided by the Zachriel on a case-by-case basis.
That about cover it?
- Severian | 08/21/2013 @ 17:04Severian: Mao, who sat atop a grossly unequal hierarchy and ruthlessly suppressed anyone who challenged it, made some noises about equality.
Mao certainly did more than talk about it. He acted ruthlessly to destroy the class structure of China. When a new structure arose within the communist system, he acted to destroy that too. It was disastrous. Marxism is based on a false premise, so it couldn’t result in the perfect equality of communist dreams. Nevertheless, that was their goal.
By the way, income Gini decreased after the revolution, though it has risen again since the Chinese liberalized their markets, and is now on a par with the U.S.
- Zachriel | 08/21/2013 @ 17:18http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/18/us-china-economy-income-gap-idUSBRE90H06L20130118
Nevertheless, that was their goal.
Uh huh. And that’s what they’re ultimately to be judged by. Each murdered a bunch of people, each resulted in a whole lot less equality than before, but the commies get a pass because their hearts were in the right place.
Since I like my definitions to actually describe stuff, I’ll stick with mine.
- Severian | 08/21/2013 @ 17:28Severian: Since I like my definitions to actually describe stuff, I’ll stick with mine.
What’s your definition of the political left and right? Where does Louis XVI fit on your spectrum?
Severian: And that’s what they’re ultimately to be judged by.
Not at all. People who think the ends justify the means often cause great human suffering. Mao should be judged harshly.
- Zachriel | 08/21/2013 @ 17:33To a conservative, a true contradiction is impossible; so an apparent contradiction is an opportunity for learning
To a liberal, an apparent contradiction is just a problem, solved by discarding the least-desirable evidence that’s part of it
Their pair of aces beats my full house, because they declare my cards to be as phony as what the taxpayers have to pay for Michelle’s vacations. What’s that thing Adam Savage says at the beginning of Mythbusters? “I reject your reality and replace it with my own” or something like that…
- mkfreeberg | 08/21/2013 @ 17:40mkfreeberg: To a liberal, an apparent contradiction is just a problem, solved by discarding the least-desirable evidence that’s part of it
Then you must be a liberal. You claim to be using terms as they are generally understood, but end up having to conclude that Louis XVI is on the political left. As this is contrary to how the term is used, your position is in contradiction. As a conservative might tell you, this is an opportunity to learn.
- Zachriel | 08/21/2013 @ 18:00Which I’m trying to do. But y’all haven’t come up with a truly meaningful differentiation between Mao and Louis XVI, or for that matter between Obama and Louis. So the best answer I can produce is that your definitions must be nonsense. In the sense that, should we elect to use them, we’d have to keep running back to The Zachriel to make sure we’re categorizing everybody properly.
Y’all were asked about how the political positions differed and you said something about how Mao had a goal of eliminating class distinctions. Which he failed to do, and arguably didn’t even try to do, so the only differentiation y’all managed to make was about murmuerings made by the dictators. Which, as Severian just pointed out, doesn’t do anything to distinguish Mao from Louis after all.
Do y’all have a better answer to provide?
- mkfreeberg | 08/21/2013 @ 18:11mkfreeberg: Y’all were asked about how the political positions differed and you said something about how Mao had a goal of eliminating class distinctions. Which he failed to do, and arguably didn’t even try to do
Mao certainly did more than talk about it. He acted ruthlessly to destroy the class structure of China. When a new structure arose within the communist system, he acted to destroy that too. It was disastrous. Marxism is based on a false premise, so it couldn’t result in the perfect equality of communist dreams. Nevertheless, that was their goal.
“Never forget class struggle.” – Mao Zedong
- Zachriel | 08/21/2013 @ 18:19Right-wing “reactionaries”, such as fascists, believe in absolute inequality, and want to overthrow corrupt modern institutions and return to a mythological and heroic past.
Like this guy.
Can you name some contemporary institutions Louis XVI wanted to overthrow? And to what part of the mythological and heroic past, specifically, did he want to return?
- mkfreeberg | 08/21/2013 @ 19:03Left-wing “radicals”, such as communists, believe in absolute equality, and want to overthrow corrupt ancient institutions and bring forth a mythological and glorious future.
Like this guy.
Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?
You know, it occurs to me, that one question is so powerful it can replace all of my bullet points, and yours too. This is the point Prof. Sowell was trying to make, I think. Humans, according to the constrained vision, are inherently flawed. The lefties will all have it in common that they don’t believe this, there’s some deity-being among us who can become the boss of all of us. Like Obama…and Mao…and Louis XVI. AND Napoleon, Pol Pot, Hitler, et al. Their answer to Reagan would be “Who among us? Uh, that guy, over there…because his speeches are just amazing.” The right-wing will consistently answer with something like, “You’re right, President Reagan…this whole thing is a load.”
So there’s your litmus test. You may not like it, but it beats chortling and tee-hee-ing at people over the Internet.
- mkfreeberg | 08/21/2013 @ 19:08mkfreeberg: Can you name some contemporary institutions Louis XVI wanted to overthrow? And to what part of the mythological and heroic past, specifically, did he want to return?
Louis XVI wanted to preserve the Ancien Régime.
mkfreeberg: Humans … are inherently flawed.
Yes. But while humans are the same as they always were, institutions can change.
mkfreeberg: The lefties will all have it in common that they don’t believe this, there’s some deity-being among us who can become the boss of all of us.
Again, you are using words in ways that are inconsistent with normal usage. You may as well say “The Jibber-Jabbers will all have it in common that they don’t believe this, there’s some deity-being among us who can become the boss of all of us.” Or people who believe “there’s some deity-being among us who can become the boss of all of us” believe “there’s some deity-being among us who can become the boss of all of us”. It’s just a bunch of words strung together to reach your preconceived conclusion.
mkfreeberg: Louis XVI
Any definition that puts Louis XVI on the political left is inconsistent with normal usage.
- Zachriel | 08/22/2013 @ 03:36Louis XVI wanted to preserve the Ancien Régime.
I like Reagan’s litmus test better. Obama, after all, would want to preserve the Obama regime; Mao wanted to preserve Mao’s regime; Pol Pot wanted to preserve Pol Pot’s regime.
Yes. But while humans are the same as they always were, institutions can change.
Reagan’s question stands. At any rate, the point here is not to determine whether his question is unanswerable, the point here is to differentiate left from right in a useful, reliable, reproducible way. To the left, the conundrum he posed is nothing but a big yawning “yeah, but”; they believe, although they might go along with the idea that no one among us is competent to manage his own affairs, nevertheless there is this super-duper magical all-wise demigod guy they’ve picked out who can manage everyone else’s. And I hold this is a direct result of resolving contradictions by simply figuring out which part of them is least desirable, and stripping it away. Whereas, to the right, the contradiction means something — that the “magical demigod guy” formula for solving all society’s problems, is just a big snow-job. To which you respond, with…
Any definition that puts Louis XVI on the political left is inconsistent with normal usage.
This is not adequate, as it is essentially passive-voice. It points to what someone else is doing, and doesn’t establish a valid, usable test.
- mkfreeberg | 08/22/2013 @ 03:49mkfreeberg: Obama, after all, would want to preserve the Obama regime; Mao wanted to preserve Mao’s regime; Pol Pot wanted to preserve Pol Pot’s regime.
And Reagan would want to preserve the Reagan regime. It still doesn’t explain why nearly everyone says that Mao is on the left and Louis XVI is on the right.
mkfreeberg: Reagan’s question stands. “Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?”
Reagan was president, and as such, he governed.
Zachriel: Any definition that puts Louis XVI on the political left is inconsistent with normal usage.
mkfreeberg: This is not adequate, as it is essentially passive-voice. It points to what someone else is doing, and doesn’t establish a valid, usable test.
The definition was yours, and it constitutes a test of your understanding of the term. You said Louis XVI was on the political left, which is just silly. It means your use of the term is inconsistent with how nearly everyone else uses the term. You may as well call a tail a leg.
- Zachriel | 08/22/2013 @ 04:05The definition was yours, and it constitutes a test of your understanding of the term. You said Louis XVI was on the political left, which is just silly. It means your use of the term is inconsistent with how nearly everyone else uses the term. You may as well call a tail a leg.
But you insist on using a passive-voice definition consisting of “everybody says.” This necessarily means your “understanding of the term” is zero.
It also leaves you unable to conduct tests, for the purpose of, as an example, determining the ideology of someone whose positioning might be disputed by some, like Adolph Hitler. And you can’t independently answer questions that might be posed, like for example: What, in the United States in 2013, is the Ancien Régime that the right wing would seek to preserve?
Do you think it is a possibility that some in the classic right wing in 18-century France, might have disagreed with many or all of Louis XVI’s positions, even as they advocated for preservation of the Ancien Régime for structural purposes?
- mkfreeberg | 08/22/2013 @ 04:13mkfreeberg: But you insist on using a passive-voice definition consisting of “everybody says.”
As repeatedly explained, the terms left and right were coined during the French revolutionary period. Those who supported the monarchy sat on the right of the Estates General, while those who opposed the monarchy and supported a republic sat on the left.
mkfreeberg: It also leaves you unable to conduct tests, for the purpose of, as an example, determining the ideology of someone whose positioning might be disputed by some, like Adolph Hitler.
Well, let’s see if we can resolve the simplest ones first. Let’s start with Louis XVI and his monarchist supporters.
mkfreeberg: Do you think it is a possibility that some in the classic right wing in 18-century France, might have disagreed with many or all of Louis XVI’s positions, even as they advocated for preservation of the Ancien Régime for structural purposes?
Notice how you use the term “right wing” in its conventional sense.
Yes. People on the right might have disagreed with many policies of the monarchy, but the issue with regards to civil equality was the role of the king in French society. Those who sat on the right supported continuation of the Ancien Régime, that is, the continuation of political, economic and social power concentrated in the nobility and the Church. Those who sat to the left wanted to redistribute power to a wider segment of the French people.
- Zachriel | 08/22/2013 @ 04:25As repeatedly explained, the terms left and right were coined during the French revolutionary period. Those who supported the monarchy sat on the right of the Estates General, while those who opposed the monarchy and supported a republic sat on the left.
Right. A passive-voice definition, with no internalizing of the reasoning process at all. And so when there is a disagreement, from where I come from we can test it, whereas it seems in your world all you can do is repeat things over and over.
Which poses a problem when we consider historical figures whose ideological positioning might be in dispute, like Adolf Hitler. There, your method becomes inadequate, because if we use it we’re each reduced to pointing to different “others” to show how right we must be. It doesn’t resolve conflict and it doesn’t result in increased understanding.
Yes.
Okay then, your use of right-wing must not apply to positions on issues. And so to respond to the casual observers who say “I’ve been wondering; what exactly does it mean when we say a politician’s positions are extremely right/left wing?” we can’t use your definitions, because they have to do with concerns about the structure of government and continuation of whatever came before.
Among many other implications, this also means your repeated query of “Do you think Louis XVI was on the left wing?” is just nonsense. You speak of how other people use the terms, and I think most other people would agree that if a public figure happens to have a lot of left-wing positions on issues, that would make him left wing, regardless of how some nameless group of people on the Internet might feel about that.
What, in the United States in 2013, is the Ancien Régime that the right wing would seek to preserve?
- mkfreeberg | 08/22/2013 @ 04:33mkfreeberg: A passive-voice definition, with no internalizing of the reasoning process at all.
Huh? It’s a direct definition. Those who supported the monarchy are on the right, those opposed are on the left. Furthermore, we provided the conventional explanation in terms of equality. Those who advocated greater equality are on the left.
mkfreeberg: Okay then, your use of right-wing must not apply to positions on issues.
It applies to advocacy of equality. Again, if your understanding of the term puts Louis XVI on the left, then your understanding of the term is clearly wrong.
- Zachriel | 08/22/2013 @ 04:49Huh? It’s a direct definition. Those who supported the monarchy are on the right, those opposed are on the left. Furthermore, we provided the conventional explanation in terms of equality. Those who advocated greater equality are on the left.
Yes, but as we’ve seen, in order to make that work you have to take all the examples where the right advocates for greater equality, and the left opposes it, and “Huh?” or phony-Monopoly-token it out of existence. So the definition really doesn’t work, all-around. Example: Al Gore says we should cut our carbon emissions, while he does a lot of flying and his mansion is enormous. I think most people familiar with the situation would agree with the following generalization: People on the right say, if Al Gore wants to continue lecturing us, he should bring his carbon emissions in line with those people he seeks to lecture, and people on the left say, hey what’s the big deal? Al Gore has a message to spread around so let him go ahead and be unequal.
So your distinction is not quite accurate, in some cases.
Also, as has been explained to you already, tyranny of the majority doesn’t result in greater equality. So by ignoring the consequences of that, the left doesn’t really advocate any such thing.
- mkfreeberg | 08/22/2013 @ 04:58Guns are the great equalizer. How does the left feel about people having guns?
People want to get school vouchers so their kids can have the same shot in life as kids in better school districts. How does the left deal with school vouchers?
Warren Buffett and George Soros have a lot more money than I do. Is the left okay with that?
On the teevee, black people can say the N-word and white people can’t. Is the left cool with this?
During a divorce, the mother is much more likely to end up with custody of the kids than the father, who will very likely have to pay spousal support even if the woman is better off financially. What does the left think of that?
The most dangerous occupations are overwhelmingly more likely to be held by men. Is the left working to cure that inequity?
Dianne Feinstein wants first-amendment protection only for “real reporters.” Does this make her a right-winger?
Women in Barack Obama’s White House were found to be paid $11,000 less, by median, than their male counterparts. So Obama is on the right wing, now?
The Citizens United Supreme Court decision granted the same free speech rights to corporations and labor unions as what was granted to individuals, which would be a move toward equality. If the left “advocates for equality,” then why isn’t it more supportive of this?
I’m afraid there are a lot of problems with the left-is-for-equality thing.
- mkfreeberg | 08/22/2013 @ 05:41I love this part:
Let’s break it down, John Madden-style.
So that would be a no, then.
So that would also be a no.
Well, I’m convinced!
Not to play armchair psychologist or anything, but it’s pretty clear to me that the Zachriel were assigned a few pages of Howard Zinn or something back in undergrad and never quite got over it. Hence the constant appeals to some distant, oracular authority who pronounces on “standard usage” (and we know how much they love their Authorities, both “scientific” and… other).
Personally, I like baseball. Time was, the only stats that mattered were ERA and batting average. But then savvy managers noticed that ERA and batting average didn’t fully capture a player’s performance. Winning teams and good scouts started looking at other things, and pretty soon a whole new package of stats proliferated that gave a much better profile of a player, and were much better predictors of how he’d do in the majors.
Good teams used the new stats. Bad teams, more often than not, had someone at a very high level saying “no, no, no; baseball has always used ERA as the way to measure a pitcher’s performance; it’s the only valid way.”
Those who wanted a more accurate projection — those who were interested in reality, the bottom line, winning — realized that the hoary old definitions weren’t cutting it. Those who were more concerned about the “purity of the game” stuck with the old. Their teams hit the cellar, but hey, at least they were doing “real baseball.”
I know which one I’d go with. But then again, sabermetrics is probably really left-wing or something….
- Severian | 08/22/2013 @ 06:31Severian: So that would be a no, then.
That’s correct. Louis XVI wouldn’t be considered a reactionary, because monarchy was the norm for the period. However, if someone wanted to reinstitute the monarchy today, then they would be considered a reactionary.
mkfreeberg: Yes, but as we’ve seen, in order to make that work you have to take all the examples where the right advocates for greater equality, and the left opposes it
While someone on the right may have some views from the left, generally, those on the right defend traditional hierarchies.
We’d be happy to discuss your examples, but let’s make sure we’re clear on this: Any definition based on common usage must place Louis XVI is on the political right, and Mao on the political left. Moreover, your equivalence between statism and the left is not accurate as it places Louis XVI on the political left. While many leftists are statists, so are many rightists. It’s not a defining characteristic.
- Zachriel | 08/22/2013 @ 08:17We’d be happy to discuss your examples, but let’s make sure we’re clear on this: Any definition based on common usage must place Louis XVI is on the political right, and Mao on the political left.
And, conclusive statements that can define the how & why of the conclusion reached, trump passive-voice, “all those other people say” statements that externalize the reasoning process, and fail to define this. At any rate, if we’re going by what-most-people-think, part of that would be the idea that ideology is defined by positions on the issues, with certain overarching ideas about what methodologies should be implemented in solving society’s various problems. You essentially contradict this with your obsession about the origin of the terms, apparently with an intractable determination against acknowledging that anything might have changed since then.
While all that’s going on, you insist on some meaningful distinction to be raised between the consequences at conclusion of a lefty effort, and the purportedly sincere intentions of the advocates at its inception. I do find some merit in this since there certainly are some “Dear Aunt May” types who bake delicious cherry pies and have been voting democrat since Roosevelt; they figure this will result in people being treated better and more “equally,” but what they know & understand is next to nothing. Rush Limbaugh calls them low-information-voters (although, overall, it seems he’s describing more of a junior with with this term, in the demographic brackets likely to watch tons and tons of teevee). There is some truth to what you say in the sense that, as one electoral cycle after another closes up & drifts by, and they find themselves repeating decade after decade “when so-and-so is elected, he’s finally gonna shore up Social Security,” with a bit of accumulated information they’d eventually figure out they’re on a silly merry-go-round; but, like the kitty being toyed with by way of a laser-pen they don’t learn much of anything at all, so they never seem to catch on.
After a generation or so, concerned relatives eventually have to wonder how this can be. And I speak from experience there…
But there are some real problems, aren’t there, with emphasizing the intentions of someone who learns so little about the consequences of such efforts from year to year. Whether it’s lack of intelligence, or insincerity in the stated motives, or lack of attention being mustered up decade by decade, or whether there is some ulterior motive they don’t want to discuss, or something else — it really doesn’t matter which of those it is, the intentions of the kitten-trying-to-catch-the-red-dot eventually have to fall by the wayside, don’t they?
I mean, when all’s said & done, Detroit is not a paradise. That should matter.
- mkfreeberg | 08/22/2013 @ 09:25mkfreeberg: And, conclusive statements that can define the how & why of the conclusion reached, trump passive-voice, “all those other people say” statements that externalize the reasoning process, and fail to define this.
Determining a definition is not a reasoning process, but an empirical one, that is, how most people actually use a word or term. Louis XVI is on the political right, the explanation already provided.
Well, it’s apparent that you want to use your personal definitions. Normally, that would be fine, as long as you use scare-quotes or some such. But to further compound the error, you conflate your definition with how others use to term to reach gross over-generalizations along the lines of liberals are leftists are Stalin.
mkfreeberg: Detroit is not a paradise.
That might make an interesting discussion; but we can’t be sure what you mean by “Detroit”, a city in Michigan or shoes with rosettes on them big as double dahlias.
- Zachriel | 08/22/2013 @ 13:38Determining a definition is not a reasoning process, but an empirical one, that is, how most people actually use a word or term. Louis XVI is on the political right, the explanation already provided.
And…most people don’t want to know where advocates for this-or-that eighteenth-century political faction sat. They want to know the meaning of the term, vis-a-vis methodologies to be implemented in solving society’s various problems. So it looks like y’all need to go off and have a conversation about whether “most people” matter, because it seems like sometimes y’all are saying they do, and other times y’all are saying they don’t.
While you’re working that out, I shall continue to observe the methodologies of left & right, in the context of what “most people” seek to have clarified when these terms are used.
Normally, that would be fine, as long as you use scare-quotes or some such. But to further compound the error, you conflate your definition with how others use to term to reach gross over-generalizations along the lines of liberals are leftists are Stalin.
You have already conceded that the left, at least in America, has a problem with failing to realize the goals they envision…I would say let’s strike that last word and replace it with “articulate”…at inception of the plan. And I would further say, the left has a problem understanding the pattern, often being caught putting the same failed plans into motion again and again, without so much as a whisper of acknowledgement of the failure that came about the previous go-’round. Given that, then, I’m not sure what’s the big problem with acknowledging that the left has a pattern of supporting statism at the expense of freedom for the individual. I think “most people” would agree that’s only obvious. Even a lot of lefties acknowledge that much. Here, it seems, y’all are the ones going off marching to your own drumbeat and making the communication tougher.
…but we can’t be sure what you mean by “Detroit”, a city in Michigan or shoes with rosettes on them big as double dahlias.
Uh yeah, I’m sure that’s a real toughie. You’d better go visit a fortune-teller or astrologer and get that worked out.
Those who advocated greater equality are on the left.
Yeah, they’re “for equality” in the same way Mr. Whiskers is looking after the welfare of his rodent pal:
mkfreeberg: And…most people don’t want to know where advocates for this-or-that eighteenth-century political faction sat.
No, but that’s how the term was coined, to distinguish the monarchists from the republicans, from those on the right who wanted to maintain traditional hierarchies, and those who advocated for a more egalitarian society. We provided a citation in support of this.
If you look at later history, the distinction continued to have the same general usage, for instance, the civil rights and women’s suffrage movements were seen as movements of the liberal left, while those who opposed were considered to be conservative right. We provided a citation for this also.
Regardless, any use of the terms that puts Louis XVI on the political left is contrary to the very root of the distinction.
mkfreeberg: they’re “for equality” in the same way Mr. Whiskers is looking after the welfare of his rodent pal
Sure, Dr. King and the civil rights marchers were just doing it for their health.
- Zachriel | 08/22/2013 @ 15:42No, but that’s how the term was coined, to distinguish the monarchists from the republicans, from those on the right who wanted to maintain traditional hierarchies, and those who advocated for a more egalitarian society. We provided a citation in support of this.
Nevertheless, as it has been explained to you already…when people say “I’m not quite getting this, what is ‘right wing’? And what is ‘left wing’?” …that really is not what they are wanting to know, and in the final end-game, your definitions really don’t help much. Again, it seems y’all are being rather choosy about when “what most people want” matters, and when it doesn’t. Most people really don’t give a fig where the “left wing” sat in French Parliament in 1789-1799. That really doesn’t clear up what they’re actually asking. Can y’all not see this? It seems kind of obvious.
If you look at later history, the distinction continued to have the same general usage, for instance, the civil rights and women’s suffrage movements were seen as movements of the liberal left, while those who opposed were considered to be conservative right. We provided a citation for this also.
And I’m sure it makes all kind of sense. IF you only talk to left-wingers.
Regardless, any use of the terms that puts Louis XVI on the political left is contrary to the very root of the distinction.
But, in context of the current times, could make some sense.
What’s the matter? Don’t y’all believe in evolution? What are y’all, some kind of young-earth creationists or something? I suppose y’all think Earth is only six thousand years old, and dinosaur fossils are just “Satan’s Lizards” like Sarah Palin said?
Sure, Dr. King and the civil rights marchers were just doing it for their health.
Like, for example, the Rev. Jesse Jackson.
- mkfreeberg | 08/22/2013 @ 15:51Zachriel: If you look at later history, the distinction continued to have the same general usage, for instance, the civil rights and women’s suffrage movements were seen as movements of the liberal left, while those who opposed were considered to be conservative right.
mkfreeberg: And I’m sure it makes all kind of sense. IF you only talk to left-wingers.
We provided historical support. You ignored it, and probably can’t even recount it.
mkfreeberg: Like, for example, the Rev. Jesse Jackson.
You ignored the point. Your claim was that those on the political left were predatory (cat, rodent). Dr. King was on the political left, so, according to your claim, his political activities were predatory.
- Zachriel | 08/22/2013 @ 16:02We provided historical support. You ignored it, and probably can’t even recount it.
Actually, I provided numerous examples about lefties being only fair-weather friends to the concept of “equality.” Y’all have yet to respond to that in any way, good, bad, other.
Dr. King was on the political left…
That’s debatable.
Y’all really need to talk to people, and read some good historical/reference material, that isn’t aligned with the left. Y’all need to expand y’all’s horizons. With the stuff y’all need to be learning, I’m repeatedly running into a “context” problem, like what y’all would run into if y’all tried to explain square roots and calculus to a caveman…”when I hit animal over head with calklator, calklator break, animal no stop, calklator no good.”
- mkfreeberg | 08/22/2013 @ 16:29Zachriel: Dr. King was on the political left…
mkfreeberg: That’s debatable.
At that time, he was regularly identified as being on the political left. Redefining words to suit your ideology is not an argument.
- Zachriel | 08/22/2013 @ 16:40But…y’all have no argument there. Other than where people sat on the benches, back in 1789-1799. That’s over two centuries ago.
Most people don’t want to know where advocates for this-or-that eighteenth-century political faction sat. They want to know the meaning of the term, vis-a-vis methodologies to be implemented in solving society’s various problems.
- mkfreeberg | 08/22/2013 @ 16:54You said it was debatable whether Dr. King was on the political left. We pointed out that King was regularly identified as being on the political left during his own time. You might check a few newspaper articles of the time.
- Zachriel | 08/22/2013 @ 17:00Dr. King sat on the left side of the French parliament from 1789-1799?
- mkfreeberg | 08/22/2013 @ 17:05mkfreeberg: Dr. King sat on the left side of the French parliament from 1789-1799?
As we said, King was regularly identified as being on the political left, as was the civil rights movement. Like the French left, he advocated for a more egalitarian society.
- Zachriel | 08/22/2013 @ 17:32Egalitarian!
- mkfreeberg | 08/22/2013 @ 17:50So, monarchists were identified as on the right in the time of Louis XVI’s time; while Dr. King was identified as on the left in his time. This is consistent with the standard definitions we provided above. The distinction between left and right has, therefore, been generally consistent from the eighteenth century at least until late in the twentieth century.
- Zachriel | 08/22/2013 @ 18:02If you artificially confer great weight on those two examples, and “yeah-but” away all others, and insist those two should be read only the way y’all want them to be, then yes that would logically follow. But those two are problematic. Was RFK being right wing when he ordered Dr. King’s phone to be tapped? Isn’t it a right wing idea to insist people should be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character?
Since you have declared our fixation should be on “how most people actually use a word or term,” should our resulting formulation not place the Tea Party on the right? Even to the right of George W. Bush?
When the Republican party was formed to end slavery, was that not right wing? What about the fourteenth amendment? In another thread, you seemed to go along with the idea that Affirmative Action is a left-wing idea, and for the obvious problem this creates for “the left is about equality,” your answer was to yeah-but away the observation that Affirmative Action is all about unequal treatment, with some kind of mumbo jumbo and Argumentum at Plausible about inequality being equality. And so I think you will concede, any argument that better respect should be paid to the Fourteenth Amendment, and people should be treated equally therefore Affirmative Action should be more tightly curtailed, is a right wing argument. Shouldn’t we keep noticing things, when what we’re noticing is that the left wing is attacking the Constitution and the right wing is trying to preserve it?
Isn’t it consistent with how “most people actually use a word or term” when we recall that Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic Republicans were to the right, and John Adams and the Federalists were on the left? Isn’t it generally considered a victory for the left, when decisions are made through the courts, and isn’t it generally considered a victory for the right, when people vote on the same thing at the ballot box? Isn’t it a right wing idea that better respect should be paid to the Tenth Amendment? Wasn’t the Trail of Tears a left-wing thing? Isn’t it a left-wing idea to say, abortion is not murder because babies are not people, whereas it’s a right-wing idea to say yes, babies are people, and since they can’t speak for themselves then someone else should?
Wasn’t it a left-wing idea to say, slavery is okay because slaves are property and not people, whereas it’s a right-wing idea to say yes slaves are people, and since they can’t speak for themselves someone else should? Notice: In this important sense, slavery and abortion are really the same issue, involving the same arguments, it’s really only the definition of the “people class” subject to the protections that is different between those two.
I think your “how most people use” litmus test is netting you a bunch of problems, because you’re falling for false consensus effect, confusing a universality of people with the “most people” y’all hang out with. With which you hang out. Out with which you hang. I’m sure there’s an elegant way to state that without ending a sentence with a preposition…but the point is, in addition to only hanging out with certain (lefty) people, y’all also have to only discuss certain aspects of U.S. and world history — then it seems to follow that the left is all about equality. What’s been demonstrated by the above is that with more information considered, this conclusion is dealt some damage, and suffers. This is how, by considering additional information, we gradually figure out that what once seemed right, is actually wrong.
That’s the right way to think it out. The wrong way — left way — would be to “yeah-but” the unwanted additional information out of existence, or out of serious consideration. “If a liberal’s most cherished theory is challenged by reality, reality must yield and the theory must prevail.”
- mkfreeberg | 08/23/2013 @ 01:09mkfreeberg: If you artificially confer great weight on those two examples, and “yeah-but” away all others
Not necessarily. We’re trying to find agreement in at least a few facts.
mkfreeberg: Was RFK being right wing when he ordered Dr. King’s phone to be tapped?
You seem to think every single act makes the person either exactly left or exactly right. It’s your typical black-and-white thinking. People often have a range of views on different issues, and you have to account for historical context. Women voting is considered normal now, but was a radical notion at one time.
mkfreeberg: Isn’t it a right wing idea to insist people should be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character?
That phrasing is Dr. King’s, and he was on the political left.
mkfreeberg: Since you have declared our fixation should be on “how most people actually use a word or term,” should our resulting formulation not place the Tea Party on the right? Even to the right of George W. Bush?
The modern Tea Party is on the populist right.
mkfreeberg: When the Republican party was formed to end slavery, was that not right wing?
No, Republicans formed as a left wing faction of the Whig party. During his presidency, Lincoln tried to steer a moderate course, but was often outflanked on the left by antislavery radicals. Abolition was a left wing position in Britain and France, as well. France abolished slavery during the First Republic, and then again during the Second Republic (after Napoléon had reinstituted it).
mkfreeberg: In another thread, you seemed to go along with the idea that Affirmative Action is a left-wing idea, and for the obvious problem this creates for “the left is about equality,”
Yes, affirmative action is seen as being on the left because it is meant address historical inequities.
mkfreeberg: people should be treated equally therefore Affirmative Action should be more tightly curtailed, is a right wing argument.
That’s correct. The right advocates leaving historical inequities intact. Whether you find the left’s position practical is immaterial as to why it is considered a left wing position.
mkfreeberg: Isn’t it consistent with how “most people actually use a word or term” when we recall that Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic Republicans were to the right, and John Adams and the Federalists were on the left?
Jefferson supported the French Revolution.
You spew a bunch of examples, but no reasonable discussion can occur as long as we can’t even establish even a few basic facts. Louis XVI was king of France? Do you agree or disagree? We’ll go from there.
- Zachriel | 08/23/2013 @ 05:19mkfreeberg: Black History Month
We didn’t watch the entire video, but it seems to be about the Democratic Party, not liberals or leftists.
- Zachriel | 08/23/2013 @ 05:56You seem to think every single act makes the person either exactly left or exactly right. It’s your typical black-and-white thinking.
There is a possibility you’ve observed this “typical black-and-white thinking” by way of incorrect conjecture about what I’m trying to say. It could be a problem with the writer, or with the reader. Since the name “Detroit” apparently packs enough ambiguity to get y’all confused about my meaning, I’m not exactly scrambling around for things to fix on this end.
I’m correctly identifying problems with the idea that Dr. King was on the left. In 1960 the nation made a decision that it would like to lurch overall toward the left, and the Kennedy administration was the vanguard of that movement. The democrat party domination of the Senate held firm at 64 seats, of the House Mr. Rayburn maintained a solid lock of 262 seats. Why was the Kennedy administration spying on this left-wing champion of equality? I don’t claim to understand all the nuances of what was going on there. But if they were both on the left I’d expect them to be a bit more chummy. So are you saying the Kennedy administration was on the right?
It seems like whenever I spot an unworkable consistency in y’all’s formulation, reliable as the next tick of the clock, you’re babbling away about complications or shades-of-gray or some such thing…and equally reliably, failing to explain the contradiction. Y’all are doing a rather splendid job of “modeling” what I said,
That phrasing is Dr. King’s, and he was on the political left.
So your argument is a tautology, that proves nothing, concluding exactly at the premise where it begins. Got it.
mkfreeberg: Since you have declared our fixation should be on “how most people actually use a word or term,” should our resulting formulation not place the Tea Party on the right? Even to the right of George W. Bush?
The modern Tea Party is on the populist right.
Now that is interesting. How do you make a connection between…
…and…
?
mkfreeberg: When the Republican party was formed to end slavery, was that not right wing?
No, Republicans formed as a left wing faction of the Whig party. During his presidency, Lincoln tried to steer a moderate course, but was often outflanked on the left by antislavery radicals. Abolition was a left wing position in Britain and France, as well. France abolished slavery during the First Republic, and then again during the Second Republic (after Napoléon had reinstituted it).
So according to your categorization, Abraham Lincoln was on the left, and years earlier, Napoléon would have been on the right. We’re trying to use these terms the way most people understand them?
mkfreeberg: In another thread, you seemed to go along with the idea that Affirmative Action is a left-wing idea, and for the obvious problem this creates for “the left is about equality,”
Yes, affirmative action is seen as being on the left because it is meant [to] address historical inequities.
Not everybody sees Affirmative Action that way. It’s looking more and more like your passive-voice statements about what “is seen” as what way, rely utterly on the makeup of the focus groups being surveyed or polled.
I don’t think there’s even broad agreement that it is meant to address historical inequities. I think if you were to broaden the cross-section of people you were polling about this, you might be just as surprised about the new opinions you’d be getting back, and how much thought had been put into forming them, as y’all have shown yourselves to be here.
Frankly, if I had to identify one single plank of logic within the rebuttals you’ve offered in this exploding thread, it would be one best summarized as: “That can’t possibly be right, because that isn’t what we’re used to seeing.” Sometimes learning new things causes consternation and discomfort; the stinging sensation is how you know the antiseptic is doing its job.
mkfreeberg: people should be treated equally therefore Affirmative Action should be more tightly curtailed, is a right wing argument.
That’s correct. The right advocates leaving historical inequities intact. Whether you find the left’s position practical is immaterial as to why it is considered a left wing position.
Right. We’re deliberating about the meaning of the terms, and leaving off the table the merits of the arguments.
And you just said the push for equality, in this context if in none other, is a right-wing push; with the left wing opposing this. An apparent contradiction lies there, since the left is supposed to be pushing for equality. So when the “glorious future” involves unequal treatment, I guess y’all are saying the “left is for the future and right is for the past” formulation trumps the contrary “left is for equality and right is for inequality” formulation. That seems to be your position. So I’m not sure why y’all are disagreeing with me and trying to yeah-but-away my examples, when they have to do with the right fighting for equality and the left opposing them. Turns out, according to y’all’s definition, this is a demonstrable possibility, since the right-past-left-future positioning takes precedent.
You spew a bunch of examples, but no reasonable discussion can occur as long as we can’t even establish even a few basic facts. Louis XVI was king of France? Do you agree or disagree? We’ll go from there.
That’s alright, y’all can just answer the question. We’ll go from there.
We didn’t watch the entire video, but it seems to be about the Democratic Party, not liberals or leftists.
I said in the post, up top, that it’s okay to lose these distinctions as long as we’re talking about the United States. Since then, y’all have contradicted a lot, but y’all haven’t contradicted that. Are we not in agreement that, so long as we confine our study to the United States, we can say (left == democrat party == liberals) && (right == Republican party == conservatives)? That is, after all, how most people understand the terms.
- mkfreeberg | 08/23/2013 @ 08:56mkfreeberg: There is a possibility you’ve observed this “typical black-and-white thinking” by way of incorrect conjecture about what I’m trying to say.
Sure it’s possible, but then when we ask questions about your position in order to clarify, you deflect and avoid answering.
mkfreeberg: I’m correctly identifying problems with the idea that Dr. King was on the left.
That’s how he was almost universally described at the time. Try looking at a few magazine or newspaper articles from the time.
mkfreeberg: In 1960 the nation made a decision that it would like to lurch overall toward the left, and the Kennedy administration was the vanguard of that movement.
Kennedy was considered a liberal, the center left. King was further to the left of Kennedy, and pressed for more immediate changes.
mkfreeberg: The democrat{ic} party domination of the Senate held firm at 64 seats, of the House Mr. Rayburn maintained a solid lock of 262 seats.
The Democratic Party was a coalition of labor, liberals and southern conservatives. They couldn’t move on civil rights because of southern obstruction in the Senate.
mkfreeberg: Why was the Kennedy administration spying on this left-wing champion of equality?
Because King was accused of associating with known communists.
mkfreeberg: So your argument is a tautology, that proves nothing, concluding exactly at the premise where it begins.
Add tautologies to things you don’t understand. If King didn’t advocate greater equality, he wouldn’t be placed on the political left. This is an empirical question. He dreamed of a time when race wouldn’t matter, but because it does, he advocated for laws against discrimination, affirmative action, and help for the poor and dispossessed.
Zachriel: The modern Tea Party is on the populist right.
mkfreeberg: Now that is interesting. “Right-wing “reactionaries”, such as fascists… “
Um, the Tea Party is not a fascist organization. Not sure what point you are making.
mkfreeberg: Abraham Lincoln was on the left, and years earlier, Napoléon would have been on the right.
Napoléon was no George Washington.
mkfreeberg: Not everybody sees Affirmative Action that way.
Of course not. People on the left believe it addresses inequities, while people on the right think they should lift themselves up by their own bootstraps.
mkfreeberg: Are we not in agreement that, so long as we confine our study to the United States, we can say (left == democrat party == liberals) && (right == Republican party == conservatives)?
No. The present highly partisan nature of the two political parties is a relatively recent occurrence. If, as in the video, you are talking about the past, such as whether democrat George Wallace was considered to be on the political left or right, then you can’t ignore this history. (Clue: Wallace wasn’t on the political left, even though he was a Democrat.)
- Zachriel | 08/23/2013 @ 09:35Zachriel: no reasonable discussion can occur as long as we can’t even establish even a few basic facts. Louis XVI was king of France? Do you agree or disagree? We’ll go from there.
mkfreeberg: That’s alright, y’all can just answer the question.
Case in point. We want to try and agree on a single fact, one that is indisputable, but you can’t bring yourself to address it directly. No progress can be made in such a discussion.
- Zachriel | 08/23/2013 @ 09:38Sure it’s possible, but then when we ask questions about your position in order to clarify, you deflect and avoid answering.
Who’s deflecting? Pretty sure if you said “Detroit” I wouldn’t be too inclined to uselessly question what you meant by that name.
The Democratic Party was a coalition of labor, liberals and southern conservatives. They couldn’t move on civil rights because of southern obstruction in the Senate.
Senate Republicans, you mean? The conservative right-wing Republicans obstructed the civil rights legislation?
mkfreeberg: Are we not in agreement that, so long as we confine our study to the United States, we can say (left == democrat party == liberals) && (right == Republican party == conservatives)?
No. The present highly partisan nature of the two political parties is a relatively recent occurrence. If, as in the video, you are talking about the past, such as whether democrat George Wallace was considered to be on the political left or right, then you can’t ignore this history. (Clue: Wallace wasn’t on the political left, even though he was a Democrat.)
And John McCain is not on the political right even though he is a Republican. I’m not asking, can we not safely assume every single R and every single D lines up on the spectrum as the party label would suggest. I’m asking generally. You say the left pushes for equality, “democrat” comes from the Greek word for The People, so this would suggest a general alignment that can be traced back to the very origin of the word.
And it seems to me, throughout the long history of the democrat party and its conflict with the Republican party, there is a consistency on the issue of control — the few dictating the actions, obligations, and customs of the many. Today we can see that this is consistent with what we now know to be “left wing”; the left wing likes ObamaCare and the right wing chafes at this situation with the few dictating what the many can & can’t do. This all provides foundation for my bullet points, above, and the sense that the real issue is not equality, but freedom. Freedom of the many, from the control by the few. This fits in with the history explained in the video.
Case in point. We want to try and agree on a single fact, one that is indisputable, but you can’t bring yourself to address it directly. No progress can be made in such a discussion.
Sure it can. Just answer the question.
Y’all say the fact is indisputable; if that is the case, then what’s the problem with just answering the question?
- mkfreeberg | 08/23/2013 @ 10:50mkfreeberg: Senate Republicans, you mean? The conservative right-wing Republicans obstructed the civil rights legislation?
No. Conservative “boll weevil” Democrats used the filibuster to bottle up legislation.
mkfreeberg: And John McCain is not on the political right even though he is a Republican.
McCain garners an 83% rating from the American Conservative Union. He has a moderate streak and occasionally votes with Democrats, or tries to find common ground. He’s to the right in American politics, but more moderate than many other Republicans currently in Congress.
mkfreeberg: And it seems to me, throughout the long history of the democrat party and its conflict with the Republican party, there is a consistency on the issue of control — the few dictating the actions, obligations, and customs of the many.
Really? Many southerners would strongly disagree. It was Lincoln, a Republican, who used military force to keep states in the Union, establishing federal hegemony once and for all. It was Democrats who rallied for states’ rights for much of American history, from Jefferson until the 20th century.
mkfreeberg: Sure it can. Just answer the question.
That’s funny. You really can’t bring it on yourself to agree to anything, not even that Louis XVI was king of France. Heh.
- Zachriel | 08/23/2013 @ 11:29Boll weevils
- Zachriel | 08/23/2013 @ 11:40http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boll_weevil_%28politics%29
Conservative “boll weevil” Democrats used the filibuster to bottle up legislation.
This was not that long ago, less than five decades ago. One should logically expect, if that effort truly deserved the moniker “conservative,” Republicans would have played a part.
Are you say Republicans were liberal in Lincoln’s time, they remained liberal a whole century after that, and then the polarity somehow got reversed?
McCain garners an 83% rating from the American Conservative Union. He has a moderate streak and occasionally votes with Democrats, or tries to find common ground. He’s to the right in American politics, but more moderate than many other Republicans currently in Congress.
Interesting. On what does the American Conservative Union base this 83% rating? Seems to me he has strong pro-life views, in that one sense he gels with my definition of conservative…although not necessarily with yours. Seems to me the statement “Liberals tend to look to the future for inspiration, the progress of history being seen as a march towards a more egalitarian society” would make liberals pro-life like John McCain, since the whole point of the pro-life movement is that the unborn deserve respect and representation for their interest in living.
Think y’all got a conflict with the American Conservative Union y’all need to work out.
Really? Many southerners would strongly disagree. It was Lincoln, a Republican, who used military force to keep states in the Union, establishing federal hegemony once and for all. It was Democrats who rallied for states’ rights for much of American history, from Jefferson until the 20th century.
Does the issue of control not come up in the master-to-slave relationship?
That’s funny. You really can’t bring it on yourself to agree to anything, not even that Louis XVI was king of France. Heh.
Says the anonymous Internet collective of don’t-know-how-many people, who won’t answer a simple question. Heh.
- mkfreeberg | 08/23/2013 @ 11:42mkfreeberg: One should logically expect, if that effort truly deserved the moniker “conservative,” Republicans would have played a part.
Some Republicans did resist civil rights legislation, notably, Barry Goldwater. However, there were also social liberals in the Republican Party in those days.
mkfreeberg: Are you say Republicans were liberal in Lincoln’s time, they remained liberal a whole century after that, and then the polarity somehow got reversed?
That’s right. You can see it in the electoral college. In the aftermath of the civil rights movement, disaffected southern whites moved from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. It was called the southern strategy. Meanwhile, socially liberal Republicans were sidelined, while blacks moved to the Democratic Party.
mkfreeberg: Seems to me the statement “Liberals tend to look to the future for inspiration, the progress of history being seen as a march towards a more egalitarian society” would make liberals pro-life like John McCain, since the whole point of the pro-life movement is that the unborn deserve respect and representation for their interest in living.
The left looks at abortion as a question of women’s autonomy and control of their own reproduction.
mkfreeberg: Think y’all got a conflict with the American Conservative Union y’all need to work out.
Instead of waving your hands, you should look at their methodology or provide another study.
mkfreeberg: Does the issue of control not come up in the master-to-slave relationship?
The history of the Republican party largely post-dates slavery.
mkfreeberg: Says the anonymous Internet collective of don’t-know-how-many people, who won’t answer a simple question.
We’ve referred to Louis XVI by title several times on this thread.
King Louis XVI was king of France.
Monarchists were seated on the right of the Estates General.
Monarchists were said to be on the right.
Republicans advocated liberté, égalité, fraternité.
Republicans were seated on the left of the Estates General.
Republicans were said to be on the left.
Glad we finally resolved that!
- Zachriel | 08/23/2013 @ 12:05Some Republicans did resist civil rights legislation, notably, Barry Goldwater. However, there were also social liberals in the Republican Party in those days.
Yeah. Now might be a good time to go back and watch the video all the way through.
The left looks at abortion as a question of women’s autonomy and control of their own reproduction.
And…there are a lot of people who see it much differently. Looks like y’all haven’t been talking to them. And your definitions do make an awful lot of sense — to people on the left.
Out in the real world though, as I’ve demonstrated, there are some real problems.
The history of the Republican party largely post-dates slavery.
Because the Republican party itself was formed to get rid of it. Mission accomplished.
Glad we finally resolved that!
It was never un-resolved.
mkfreeberg:
The Zachriel:
So we agree. If someone wanted to put Louis XVI back on the throne, today — not all decayed & decapitated & whatever else, but in the living flesh, with the cranium resting properly on his shoulders and so forth….such a movement would be reactionary, “ultraconservative in politics” (classic definition, not modern definition), and “left,” pushing for Gini 1.0, with one person having all the stuff.
President Obama, in fact — a modern liberal and leftist, “according to the implications that have come into use in the modern era” — has been compared on more than one occasion to Louis’ ancestor, the Sun King.
But I guess this is the part where we have to pretend inequality is the same as equality or something. And that’s really the issue when you get down to it. When you have to pretend inequality is the same as equality in order to maintain that the left and today’s liberals advocate for equality, that’s practically the same as conceding the argument.
- mkfreeberg | 08/23/2013 @ 16:44Zachriel: Some Republicans did resist civil rights legislation, notably, Barry Goldwater. However, there were also social liberals in the Republican Party in those days.
mkfreeberg: Yeah. Now might be a good time to go back and watch the video all the way through.
So we wasted eight minutes watching the entire video. It never mentioned Barry Goldwater, nor explained why the vast majority of blacks vote Democratic, sort of like Rand Paul schooling students at Howard University on black history.
“Yada, yada, yada.”
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/41851_Jon_Stewart_on_Rand_Pauls_Embarrassing_Howard_University_Fail
mkfreeberg: ….such a movement would be reactionary, “ultraconservative in politics” (classic definition, not modern definition), and “left,” pushing for Gini 1.0, with one person having all the stuff.
So, your own link contradicts you, and indicates that a reactionary is the opposite of liberal or progressive, and a near opposite of lefty.
By the way, was Louis XVI king of France?
- Zachriel | 08/24/2013 @ 05:17Fascinating.
So you acknowledge terms such as “Republican” and “democrat” have changed through the years, relative to “right” and “left.”
But you will not acknowledge that terms like “conservative” and “liberal” have changed.
Just fascinating.
- mkfreeberg | 08/24/2013 @ 05:26mkfreeberg: So you acknowledge terms such as “Republican” and “democrat” have changed through the years, relative to “right” and “left.”
That’s a very confused statement. We were discussing political parties. The terms haven’t change. The term “Republican Party” and “Democratic Party” still refer to the same political parties, however, the parties have changed alignment.
mkfreeberg: But you will not acknowledge that terms like “conservative” and “liberal” have changed.
Words certainly can and do change over time, however, the basic sense of these particular words has remained relatively constant, as your own citation should have made clear.
You have two main problems that we can see. You won’t make simple declaratives of agreement, rendering discussion almost impossible. And you won’t acknowledge errors, even when they are plain before you.
Concerning the latter, you just said that reactionary meant left, but your own cite contradicted you. This would be an opportunity for you to reconsider the argument you have been making over the last several months, but you simply ignore your error and continue with the same position.
Concerning the former, it’s usually best to start with agreed facts, build a case, until some fact or argue is exposed as a flaw in the argument or disagreement. We have many times attempted to do this,by stating facts and attempting to get a clear sense of agreement. But you refuse to grant even the most basic facts.
- Zachriel | 08/24/2013 @ 05:48That’s a very confused statement. We were discussing political parties. The terms haven’t change. The term “Republican Party” and “Democratic Party” still refer to the same political parties, however, the parties have changed alignment.
Since the parties have changed alignment, I’ll take it as a given that what you intend to do with the statement above, is AGREE with what I said. “…relative to ‘right’ and ‘left’.”
Words certainly can and do change over time, however, the basic sense of these particular words has remained relatively constant, as your own citation should have made clear.
Modern liberal == classic liberal? Don’t think so, chum.
You won’t make simple declaratives of agreement, rendering discussion almost impossible. And you won’t acknowledge errors, even when they are plain before you.
The agreement would be applicable within your own understanding, which is limited. It’s like agreeing with the caveman that the calculator has mass, and therefore can be used as a club. Or lacks it, and can’t be one. Here & there there are speckles of truth, but there’s so much missing and it seems, while investing so much of your opinion in what-other-people-think, y’all haven’t been talking much with anybody who isn’t an extreme leftist. So there’s a lot that is missing, and explaining it is like explaining trig to a caveman.
And how come y’all feel sufficiently informed about what’s being said, to pronounce things to be “errors” and fault the other for failing to acknowledge them — while also complaining about not understanding things?
- mkfreeberg | 08/24/2013 @ 06:27mkfreeberg: Since the parties have changed alignment, I’ll take it as a given that what you intend to do with the statement above, is AGREE with what I said. “…relative to ‘right’ and ‘left’.”
You said the terms changed meanings, which isn’t accurate. Democratic Party and Republican Party are proper names referring to political parties. The terms haven’t changed meanings. The parties changed their political alignments. We granted the point that words can change meanings, even though your example was flawed.
mkfreeberg: Modern liberal == classic liberal?
No. The modifiers make the difference. Classical liberals advocated greater equality in their time. Modern liberals advocate greater equality in their time. But the center has moved, so the particular policies advocated have changed. Do you understand the history involved in classical liberalism, and why it can be considered an advocacy of greater equality?
mkfreeberg: The agreement would be applicable within your own understanding, which is limited.
Everyone’s understanding is limited, but we should be able to agree that Louis XVI was king of France.
Notably, you still haven’t corrected your conflation of reactionary with left. Your own citation contradicted your claim.
- Zachriel | 08/24/2013 @ 06:52You said the terms changed meanings, which isn’t accurate. Democratic Party and Republican Party are proper names referring to political parties. The terms haven’t changed meanings. The parties changed their political alignments. We granted the point that words can change meanings, even though your example was flawed.
If by “flawed,” what you mean to say is “flawed, when we arbitrarily truncate what you put on to the end…’relative to “right” and “left”‘” then you’re right.
If you have to change what someone said to make it wrong, well…I guess you’re not so right, at the end, are you?
- mkfreeberg | 08/24/2013 @ 07:48mkfreeberg: If you have to change what someone said to make it wrong, well …
We responded to precisely what you said, which was “So you acknowledge terms such as ‘Republican’ and ‘democrat’ have changed through the years, relative to ‘right’ and ‘left.'” Republican Party and Democratic Party are proper names and the terms have not changed over time. However, the parties have changed over time.
In order to advance the conversation, we granted that words can and do change over time, and we also granted that the parties have shifted their ideological orientation over time.
We should be able to agree that Louis XVI was king of France. Notably, you still haven’t corrected your conflation of reactionary with left. Your own citation contradicted your claim.
- Zachriel | 08/24/2013 @ 08:00It’s like the blond insisting everyone else is stupid, for suggesting she needs to plug in her laptop, because “it’s wireless.”
When we read something written a long time ago about liberalism, or something that discusses liberalism from a long time ago…do we need to be concerned about the change of the word liberal over time? Is there anything more meaningful changed, through the generations, more significant than “Classical liberals advocated greater equality in their time, modern liberals advocate greater equality in their time”? Or are you saying the differences stop there?
It’s like you’re using every trick in the book to avoid acknowledging modern liberalism’s advocacy for the few dictating the actions, obligations, and customs of the many. Which is antithetical to equality. It’s like y’all got all your opinions formed by talking to lefties, and you can’t open them up for question because you don’t conceptually understand your own beliefs.
You need to drop this particular “gotcha,” because it relies on an axiom that the name “liberalism” has not changed over time.
- mkfreeberg | 08/24/2013 @ 08:12mkfreeberg :When we read something written a long time ago about liberalism, or something that discusses liberalism from a long time ago…do we need to be concerned about the change of the word liberal over time?
Sure, we need to understand how the word was used then, how it is used now, how it may have changed over time, and if there are commonalities in usage over time.
If we were to, in the political sense, say “liberal” in the 18th century, and “liberal” in the 20th century, we would be referring to a different set of policies. However, the common thread is that they would be advocating greater equality.
mkfreeberg :You need to drop this particular “gotcha,” because it relies on an axiom that the name “liberalism” has not changed over time.
The policies of liberalism have changed. However, the term has retained it’s original sense as the advocacy of liberty and equality. This is similar to your confusion of the term “Republican Party” with the Republican Party: The term hasn’t changed, but the thing itself has.
As for gotchas, what we want is for you to grant facts and acknowledge errors, so that the discussion can progress. You have yet to correct your conflation of reactionary with left, especially as your own citation contradicted your claim. And we should be able to agree that Louis XVI was king of France.
- Zachriel | 08/24/2013 @ 08:23Sure, we need to understand how the word was used then, how it is used now, how it may have changed over time, and if there are commonalities in usage over time.
If we were to, in the political sense, say “liberal” in the 18th century, and “liberal” in the 20th century, we would be referring to a different set of policies. However, the common thread is that they would be advocating greater equality.
You said “Classical liberals advocated greater equality in their time. Modern liberals advocate greater equality in their time. But the center has moved…” This seems to indicate that the difference between classic liberalism and modern liberalism ends there. It’s like you’re using every trick in the book to avoid acknowledging modern liberalism’s advocacy for the few dictating the actions, obligations, and customs of the many. Which is antithetical to equality.
However, the term has retained it’s original sense as the advocacy of liberty and equality.
This is debatable, at best, for the reason given above.
As for gotchas, what we want is for you to grant facts and acknowledge errors, so that the discussion can progress.
And you want to call out these errors, brooking no dissent…while claiming not to understand what the other person is saying. Interesting.
- mkfreeberg | 08/24/2013 @ 08:29mkfreeberg: It’s like you’re using every trick in the book to avoid acknowledging modern liberalism’s advocacy for the few dictating the actions, obligations, and customs of the many. Which is antithetical to equality.
Can you give a single clear example?
You have yet to correct your conflation of reactionary with left, especially as your own citation contradicted your claim. And we should be able to agree that Louis XVI was king of France. We keep pointing this out so that readers are aware of your inability to admit basic facts or correct obvious errors.
- Zachriel | 08/24/2013 @ 08:36Can you give a single clear example?
I’ve provided several.
Is it your position that there’s no difference between modern liberalism and classic liberalism, apart from the time in which this equality is being advocated?
This is the question that has to be resolved, for the discussion to move forward. Not who-was-King-of-France.
- mkfreeberg | 08/24/2013 @ 08:38mkfreeberg: I’ve provided several.
You’ll post thousands of words, but won’t even provide a single example when asked, even when we throw you a softball hoping to advance the discussion. Can you give a single clear example of modern liberalism’s advocacy for the few dictating the actions, obligations, and customs of the many.
mkfreeberg: Is it your position that there’s no difference between modern liberalism and classic liberalism, apart from the time in which this equality is being advocated?
Not the time per se, but the political environment, which has generally moved left over time. There’s a reason why classical liberalism was liberal in the sense we have been using the term. Do you understand the historical reasons why?
mkfreeberg: This is the question that has to be resolved, for the discussion to move forward. Not who-was-King-of-France.
The terms left and right were coined in France in the late 18th century. Was Louis XVI king of France during that period?
- Zachriel | 08/24/2013 @ 08:44mkfreeberg: the few dictating the actions, obligations, and customs of the many.
Alright, we’ll pick a liberal policy, the outlawing of legalized discrimination in public accommodations. It wasn’t the few, but a supermajority. It did dictate the actions, obligations, and customs of a minority of racists in the south. It was meant to create greater liberty equality for blacks and greater opportunities for free association, but it did infringe on the liberties of some.
Keep in mind that liberals balance liberty and equality, so some will side more on liberty, others on equality, and it may even vary on the issue. Also keep in mind that a liberal may take a conservative stance on some issues.
- Zachriel | 08/24/2013 @ 08:51Do you understand the historical reasons why?
Oh yeah. Some real productive discourse has tended to follow your “do you understand?’ shtick.
Here, let’s just save some time. The very first sentence makes clear what’s wrong with the conflating/muddling you’re trying to pull off here.
Is it your position that Barack Obama and the rest of the modern liberal movement, overall, advocates “securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government”?
- mkfreeberg | 08/24/2013 @ 09:29mkfreeberg: Here, let’s just save some time. The very first sentence makes clear what’s wrong with the conflating/muddling you’re trying to pull off here.
Let’s look.
Liberalism, from the link provided in your citation.
So, your own citation again contradicts your stance.
mkfreeberg: Is it your position that Barack Obama and the rest of the modern liberal movement, overall, advocates “securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government”?
Liberalism balances liberty and equality. Classical liberalism is a flavor of liberalism which achieves the twin goals of liberty and equality by limiting government. Do you understand the historical reasons why this is so?
Was Louis XVI king of France?
- Zachriel | 08/24/2013 @ 09:36So, your own citation again contradicts your stance.
Just like the blond with the laptop.
If you had bothered to actually talk with some self-identified conservatives and righties, you’d find their real concerns — very far from “believ[ing] in absolute inequality” — line up perfectly with classic liberalism. Furthermore, they believe…let’s call that notice…that today’s liberals are rather staunchly opposed to this. You say “liberalism balances liberty and equality” but, in the case of ObamaCare, we see just one out of many of their solutions that noticeably diminish both.
- mkfreeberg | 08/24/2013 @ 09:43mkfreeberg: If you had bothered to actually talk with some self-identified conservatives and righties, you’d find their real concerns — very far from “believ[ing] in absolute inequality” — line up perfectly with classic liberalism.
Notably, your citation treats classical liberalism largely in the past tense. Anyway, let’s start with the definition you provided of liberalism, “a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality”. As you provided the definition, we assume you are okay with this? From this, we can certainly discuss how it relates to classical liberalism and modern conservatism.
By the way, was Louis XVI king of France?
- Zachriel | 08/24/2013 @ 11:15Notably, your citation treats classical liberalism largely in the past tense.
Uh YEAH, that’s kinda the point.
By the way, was Louis XVI king of France?
Is Iron on the periodic table of elements?
- mkfreeberg | 08/24/2013 @ 12:12mkfreeberg: Is Iron on the periodic table of elements?
Yes. Iron has an atomic number of 26, and is symbolized by Fe. Was Louis XVI king of France? This question is relevant as it concerns the period of history when left and right as political terms, the subject of this thread, were coined.
Zachriel: Notably, your citation treats classical liberalism largely in the past tense
mkfreeberg: Uh YEAH, that’s kinda the point.
Not sure your point then.
Anyway, you didn’t answer the question. As you provided a definition of liberalism as “a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality”, we assume you are okay with this?
- Zachriel | 08/24/2013 @ 12:22Not sure your point then.
My point was stated clearly, that the term “liberal” doesn’t mean today what it did then, and arguably means the opposite. Your “gotcha” that you supposedly don’t care about…just wanting me to acknowledge my error…relies on an on an axiom that the name “liberalism” has not changed over time. Since it has, you should abandon this. And repeatedly demanding that I answer about Louis XVI is silly, and looks that way.
It helps to actually argue from a position, instead of trying to come up with gotchas. You might contradict yourselves less, for one thing.
Now, on to a question that truly matters. You say “liberalism balances liberty and equality” but, in the case of ObamaCare, we see just one out of many of their solutions that noticeably diminish both. Which is meaningful because you also say “Classical liberals advocated greater equality in their time. Modern liberals advocate greater equality in their time.” Is it your position that, apart from the issues of equality within the times in which they lived, this is the only difference? As you lifted excerpts from the definitions of liberalism, and classic-liberalism, you should have seen what kind of problem is in store for such an assertion.
- mkfreeberg | 08/24/2013 @ 12:32mkfreeberg: My point was stated clearly, that the term “liberal” doesn’t mean today what it did then, and arguably means the opposite.
When did it change?
mkfreeberg: You say “liberalism balances liberty and equality” but, in the case of ObamaCare, we see just one out of many of their solutions that noticeably diminish both.
The intent of the law is to increase access to healthcare, bringing the U.S. closer to universal coverage, that is, greater equality.
- Zachriel | 08/24/2013 @ 14:24When did it change?
When? That’s like asking when the woman you want to marry, got a kid. There are those who say modern liberalism is an offshoot of the classic. There are those who say it is a usurper-movement, that had its own names already, but wore those out and required a new one. What difference does it make?
The point is that “securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government” is the goal of those who resist liberalism, today. Modern liberalism is the opposite of that.
The intent of the law is to increase access to healthcare, bringing the U.S. closer to universal coverage, that is, greater equality.
So we see, in the actual achievements of ObamaCare, a good example of this? A good example of “securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government”? Because I’m also seeing good examples of what I’ve been talking about: The few dictating the actions, obligations, and customs of the many.
Once an idea requires a belief that two things are the same, when they’re demonstrably opposite, the time might have come to give that idea a serious re-think.
- mkfreeberg | 08/25/2013 @ 03:37mkfreeberg: When?
Heh. In other words, you can’t or won’t answer. Your citation provided a definition of liberalism, and gave no indication that the definition was obsolete.
mkfreeberg: The point is that “securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government” is the goal of those who resist liberalism, today. Modern liberalism is the opposite of that.
But you said, “My point was stated clearly, that the term ‘liberal’ doesn’t mean today what it did then, and arguably means the opposite.” That’s a historical claim, which you are unable or unwilling to support.
What you should probably argue is that some people have coopted the ideals of liberalism for illiberal ends, or that some liberal policies will have illiberal results. But that creates a problem in that you can’t smear by association.
By the way, was Louis XVI king of France?
- Zachriel | 08/25/2013 @ 06:24Heh. In other words, you can’t or won’t answer. Your citation provided a definition of liberalism, and gave no indication that the definition was obsolete.
Oh I get it, so you’re taking issue? You’re saying modern liberalism is about “securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government”?
I’m sorry, was this supposed to be some kind of a smackdown you were laying here?
What you should probably argue is that some people have coopted the ideals of liberalism for illiberal ends, or that some liberal policies will have illiberal results. But that creates a problem in that you can’t smear by association.
Cause and effect. If we’re all supposed to be free and equal, and we vote in some guy as more of a deity than a representative, and this magic-special-guy appoints all these “czars” and builds this bureaucracy to tell our employers what kind of health care plan we can & can’t be provided…then at the end, of course we aren’t going to be free, and of course there is no equality. It’s a rather durable and simple consequence, a rather plain truth. You may say some of the people who support this honestly didn’t see it coming, but at that point you’re just making opposites appear to be identical to one another, by way of some third-party’s incompetence, and we’re left debating whose incompetence it is. Or rather, which liberals are incompetent, and which liberals are deceptive. None of this changes the facts.
By the way, was Louis XVI king of France?
Who was the seventh avatar of Vishnu?
- mkfreeberg | 08/25/2013 @ 06:31mkfreeberg: You’re saying modern liberalism is about “securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government”?
No. Liberalism balances liberty *and* equality. The left advocates equality.
mkfreeberg: It’s a rather durable and simple consequence, a rather plain truth.
Perhaps, but left-right is defined by ideology, not by results. That’s why Marxists are put on the political left. They advocate the creation of a classless society, even if their means have never resulted in such a society.
mkfreeberg: Who was the seventh avatar of Vishnu?
Rama.
The political terms left-right were coined during the late 18th century in France, so here’s a relevant question: Was Louis XVI the king of France? (See the difference? We humor you in the hopes that you are actually trying to raise a relevant point, and that you will use the notion of Rama to explore the question raised in the original post. Perhaps our humor is in vain, yet Hope springs eternal.)
- Zachriel | 08/25/2013 @ 06:48No. Liberalism balances liberty *and* equality. The left advocates equality.
…especially when we approach one of the many, many junctions in real life, wherein we must choose. Then, modern liberalism, betraying the moniker they have appropriated, proclaims the liberty to be the problem.
Perhaps, but left-right is defined by ideology, not by results.
Yeah, and we probably have been failing, while fixating on questions that aren’t questionable like was-King-Louis-XVI-King-of-France, to give that thought the serious consideration it deserves. The epicenter of disagreement is likely under that plate. There are those who say you shouldn’t get a reduced sentence for only-attempted murder, since, why offer such a generous reward to a lousy shot?
Your formulation is a bit sillier than that, though. To extend a proper analogy to it, we would have to say…when someone is guilty of negligent homicide, we should pretend they saved someone’s life.
Besides, doesn’t the ideology become debatable? ObamaCare looms; health care premiums are going up and not down; I don’t see the modern liberal pondering, Oh Dear, what have we done wrong, and what can we do to achieve the results we want next time? All I see them doing is trying to control the message, and get the last word in, and blame things on Republicans.
They don’t act like responsible ideologues who’ve learned their ideology has produced bad results. They act like people who just plain want to win. That’s probably why Gini 1.0 is a constant fixture in leftist regimes. Everyone wants to be the one guy on the top of the pyramid after all the rearranging has been done.
We humor you in the hopes that you are actually trying to raise a relevant point…
Actually, it looks more like you’re trying to retread over the same ground we’ve already covered.
Because you don’t like how it worked out for your argument last time we went over it.
- mkfreeberg | 08/25/2013 @ 06:56mkfreeberg: …especially when we approach one of the many, many junctions in real life, wherein we must choose.
That’s right. That’s the tension in liberalism, and different people can seek a different balance of these values and still be considered liberals.
mkfreeberg: Then, modern liberalism, betraying the moniker they have appropriated, proclaims the liberty to be the problem.
Then they wouldn’t be liberals, though they would still be leftists if they advocate equality.
mkfreeberg: There are those who say you shouldn’t get a reduced sentence for only-attempted murder, since, why offer such a generous reward to a lousy shot?
We’re not discussing culpability. No matter how pure the motives of a communist, the ends are illusory, and the means destructive.
mkfreeberg: when someone is guilty of negligent homicide, we should pretend they saved someone’s life.
No. We define the homicide by motive. So negligent homicide is just that, the killing of a person through negligence.
mkfreeberg: They don’t act like responsible ideologues who’ve learned their ideology has produced bad results.
Perhaps, but their goal is still parity as far as healthcare goes.
mkfreeberg: That’s probably why Gini 1.0 is a constant fixture in leftist regimes.
Geez. Thought you gave that up. How are you calculating Gini? Is Norway a leftist regime?
- Zachriel | 08/25/2013 @ 07:10mkfreeberg: …especially when we approach one of the many, many junctions in real life, wherein we must choose.
Z: That’s right. That’s the tension in liberalism, and different people can seek a different balance of these values and still be considered liberals.
mkfreeberg: Then, modern liberalism, betraying the moniker they have appropriated, proclaims the liberty to be the problem.
Z: Then they wouldn’t be liberals, though they would still be leftists if they advocate equality.
I thought we were trying to use these terms in a way that reflects common usage.
I’m seeing enough people who’ve passed this point continue to self-identify as liberals, and to be called liberals, to inspire a meaningful and unworkable disparity between your use of the term “liberal,” and the common use. You say, in a pejorative or laudatory way, “Frank (or Joe or Mary or some guy you’ve never met) is a die hard liberal,” and the person listening doesn’t leap to the conclusion — oh, he/she/they must be a champion of liberty. Especially now with ACA.
Perhaps, but their goal is still parity as far as healthcare goes.
Better tell them that. And hurry!
Geez. Thought you gave that up. How are you calculating Gini? Is Norway a leftist regime?
Your counter-examples, I notice, are always parts of things.
To the person to whom you’re explaining Frank/Joe/Mary/their beliefs, the default premise would be that these named persons are supporters of a strong, centralized, kiosk-driven order of things, backed up by force and the threat of force, like Alexander Hamilton. That person may chafe at this, over his libertarian beliefs, or he may idolize it, over his modern-liberal-beliefs. But if what we’re chasing is common usage, that will be the assumption, as that is what the word means.
In modern times.
- mkfreeberg | 08/25/2013 @ 07:43mkfreeberg: I thought we were trying to use these terms in a way that reflects common usage.
Yes, and per your citation, liberals balance liberty and equality.
mkfreeberg: You say, in a pejorative or laudatory way, “Frank (or Joe or Mary or some guy you’ve never met) is a die hard liberal,” and the person listening doesn’t leap to the conclusion — oh, he/she/they must be a champion of liberty.
Outside the echo-chamber they do. For instance, civil rights, voting rights, gay rights, free speech, freedom of association, more open immigration, are often associated with liberals.
Zachriel: How are you calculating Gini? Is Norway a leftist regime?
mkfreeberg: … In modern times.
Um, you didn’t answer the question. Or are you saying Norway isn’t a modern country? Was Louis XVI king of France?
- Zachriel | 08/25/2013 @ 07:51Outside theInside our echo-chamber they do.FTFY.
- mkfreeberg | 08/25/2013 @ 07:58Common usage.
The definition of “extremism,” according to the DOD (from the .pdf link):
Huh. Sounds like the Founding Fathers were right-wingers after all. Sounds like y’all need to take it up with the Obama administration. You can team up and argue with the dictionary together.
- Severian | 08/25/2013 @ 08:02Severian: Common usage.
The purported document hardly conveys common usage.
Severian: Sounds like the Founding Fathers were right-wingers after all.
Of course, it doesn’t say that.
mkfreeberg: FTFY.
You forgot to answer some very basic questions about your claim concerning Gini and leftist regimes. How are you calculating Gini? Is Norway a leftist regime?
- Zachriel | 08/25/2013 @ 08:22Of course, it doesn’t say that.
Gosh, you’re right! It doesn’t! I don’t know where I got that idea…. oh, wait:
The Zachriel: The political right is defined as advocating greater inequality.
The DOD: The colonists were extremists.
The DOD: Extremist– A person who advocates the use of force or violence; advocates supremacist causes based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or national origin; or otherwise engages to illegally deprive individuals or groups of their civil rights.
The colonists were extremists; extremists engage to illegally deprive individuals or groups of their civil rights; such conspiracy to deprive = advocating for greater inequality; advocating greater inequality = being right wing.
I took your definition and applied it to new information. It’s called “active reading” (or, often, just plain “reading comprehension”) and it used to be a pretty basic part of elementary school education.
Add “elementary education” and “the Department of Defense” to the list of entities you’ll need to argue with to get the world to see it your way.
Personally, I just can’t see expending that amount of effort just to pat myself on the back for my enlightened views. Especially since it entails spending so much more effort missing points and being otherwise baffled by things (have you looked up the meaning of “Detroit” yet?). Have you considered getting another hobby? Gardening can be rewarding, and as a bonus, you can “define” things all you want to the tomato plants. They won’t talk back.
- Severian | 08/25/2013 @ 08:32Severian: The colonists were extremists; extremists engage to illegally deprive individuals or groups of their civil rights; such conspiracy to deprive = advocating for greater inequality; advocating greater inequality = being right wing.
The conjunction had three clauses, any one of which might apply in whole or in part. One can deprive some people of civil rights in order to advance the larger goal of equality. For instance, the French revolutionaries executed the royal family to prevent a restoration of the monarchy. Even though it didn’t work, the intention was to secure the cause of republicanism. It was murder, nonetheless. The Americans, in the cause of liberty, forced Loyalists to flee.
In any case, the purported document is rather muddled, nor does it represent common usage, as we said.
- Zachriel | 08/25/2013 @ 09:03One can deprive some people of civil rights in order to advance the larger goal of equality. For instance, the French revolutionaries executed the royal family to prevent a restoration of the monarchy. Even though it didn’t work, the intention was to secure the cause of republicanism.
And presumably, like Spock opining on Genesis, you’re not making any effort to assess the moral implications.
What you describe is more the rule than the exception. Life, itself, is inequality. You can only achieve complete equality in all things in a system that’s completely dead.
- mkfreeberg | 08/25/2013 @ 09:08mkfreeberg: And presumably, like Spock opining on Genesis, you’re not making any effort to assess the moral implications.
The means help determine the ends, so the ends can’t solely justify the means. But this discussion is about your gross overgeneralizations concerning leftism and liberalism, not whether equality or liberty are positive goods.
mkfreeberg: You can only achieve complete equality in all things in a system that’s completely dead.
Sure. But only extremists on the left advocate perfect equality. Political left just means more equality than society currently provides. Depending on the historical context, that might mean establishing a republic, women’s suffrage, gay rights, or universal healthcare.
- Zachriel | 08/25/2013 @ 09:15Depending on the historical context, that might mean establishing a republic, women’s suffrage, gay rights, or universal healthcare.
Universal healthcare…to be administered by our betters. As we achieve this equality.
This time, I managed to define the unworkable contradiction before my text even wrapped within the little window…which I think most of my readers will agree, is not a talent I have.
It takes so few real-life twists-and-turns to highlight such unworkable contradictions, one has to hesitate to credit simple confusion for the disparity between the achievement & the initial intent.
It’s like saying the cat just wants to make sure the guinea pig is comfortable, and anybody who says otherwise must not have been listening to the cat. What the heck is wrong with those retrogrades, don’t they know how to speak cat?
mkfreeberg: Universal healthcare…to be administered by our betters.
Actually, the U.S. is instituted a mixed system, of private providers, private insurers, and public exchanges. All major developed nations have some sort of universal coverage. In any case, for the purposes of this discussion, it doesn’t matter if you agree with it. It’s meant to increase equality by extending healthcare universally.
- Zachriel | 08/25/2013 @ 10:33Actually, the U.S. is instituted a mixed system, of private providers, private insurers, and public exchanges.
It shifted the power more toward a limited number of “betters.” Pressing forward on the modern-liberal vision of the few dictating the actions, obligations, and customs of the many.
Actions, obligations, customs…and lung transplants.
Gini 1.0 is a constant fixture…
- mkfreeberg | 08/25/2013 @ 11:35mkfreeberg: It shifted the power more toward a limited number of “betters.”
Last we checked, the U.S. was a representative democracy. That means the people elect representatives who pass laws, and a head of government who executes those laws. If that is what you mean by betters, well, that’s part of democratic governance. Next thing you know, the “betters” will want to regulate traffic, tell you when you have to stop! and when you can go!
If you mean there is a trade-off between perfect liberty and equality, sure. In the U.S., Reagan signed a law requiring hospitals to take in anyone with a medical emergency regardless of ability to pay. It reduced the independence of hospitals somewhat in order to meet what the people decided was a more pressing need. Or, if you run a public accommodation, you have to serve everyone regardless of race. Imagine that!
mkfreeberg: Gini 1.0 is a constant fixture…
How are you calculating Gini? Is Norway a leftist regime?
- Zachriel | 08/25/2013 @ 11:45mkfreeberg: lung transplants
Presumably, you would have the market decide who gets the few available cadaver lungs.
- Zachriel | 08/25/2013 @ 11:46Traffic.
Why do statists always compare it to traffic? Traffic, police, fire, sidewalks. Are these federal issues now?
- mkfreeberg | 08/25/2013 @ 11:54mkfreeberg: Why do statists always compare it to traffic?
Because it’s your “betters” telling you when to stop! and when you can go! When you take a position that allows no exceptions, then pointing to an exception undermines your position.
You never answered the questions. How are you calculating Gini? Is Norway a leftist regime?
- Zachriel | 08/25/2013 @ 13:55I’m not allowing exceptions?
I pointed to manufactured inequality, as part of a perceptible and enduring pattern. You took a position that equality was the goal. Seems to me your the position was the one that was undermined.
- mkfreeberg | 08/25/2013 @ 14:08You never answered the questions. How are you calculating Gini? Is Norway a leftist regime?
- Zachriel | 08/25/2013 @ 17:15I’m calculating Gini according to its definition.
And I addressed the Norway question adequately, so it’s alright if I don’t answer it directly.
- mkfreeberg | 08/25/2013 @ 21:38mkfreeberg: I’m calculating Gini according to its definition.
Good. Now can we see some numbers? We’re still unsure exactly what you are calculating. The Gini of what exactly? Income, wealth, political power?
mkfreeberg: And I addressed the Norway question adequately, so it’s alright if I don’t answer it directly.
We don’t see anything like an answer. Presumably, the answer is yes, but we can only guess. Is the U.S. currently a leftist regime? When Bush was president, was the U.S. a leftist regime?
Normally, we’d try to restate your position then ask you if we were close, but you can’t seem to bring yourself to answer any questions, even though you post thousands of words without answering. But here goes: Governments under leftist leadership tend to concentrate increasing power in bureaucracies.
- Zachriel | 08/26/2013 @ 04:51The definition of the word is not entirely specific on the what, although you’re correct in noting that when the studying agencies measure it, it is predominantly personal income. My meaning is really no more specific than the definition itself. “Gini 1.0” obviates the need for any sort of mathematical calculation, since at that extreme end the meaning ceases to be mathematical. One person has everything. That’s what 1.0 means, and that is what I meant.
This is why I question your understanding of the coefficient. To “gotcha” me on this thing…or let’s call it, force me to admit my error…you proceeded to cite as examples Norway, Denmark, Cuba…things that are parts of things. Maybe that’s a sincere mistake, or maybe you were in a bit too much of a hurry to get your gotcha; wanted to show your liberalism-to-equality in action, thought you had good examples. And hey, yeah you do, since if you take a place where the Gini is 1.0 and measure only a part of it, well yes, you’ll have equality. As long as the “man who has everything” is not part of your sample. This is all in the definition.
This should all be in partial fulfillment of your demand that we shouldn’t be judging liberalism based on consequences, since that isn’t fair or something…we should go by intent. Well the intent, as is obvious to anyone who watches it, is central planning and control.
Question is, when all the zombie-crawling-over-zombie struggling is done, who is at the tippy-top of the pyramid. Now I’m sure if you look around, you’ll be able to find some complete sets of leftist Utopia, in which the struggling is not yet done like it was with the Clinton administration, and is now with the Obama administration, and the zombies are still crawling over each other to get to the top spot like the zombies in World War Z. Then you can go “See Freeberg? Equality. Admit your error.” But common sense should tell us — if stated intent was so all-important in modern-liberal designs, then in the wake of the failure of those designs we’d see a re-grouping, re-planning, a re-tooling. But when we resolve to look at how they behave, with logic, reason and true scientific thinking as our guides, we notice that is not what we see. We just see more Obama vs. Clinton, King-of-the-Mountain, zombie-versus-zombie World War Z scrambling to the top of the pyramid.
They all agree we should live like insects, with a queen commanding the unquestioning drones. They’re just occasionally unsure of who the queen is supposed to be. But Gini 1.0 is a constant fixture…
- mkfreeberg | 08/26/2013 @ 06:42Governments under leftist leadership tend to concentrate increasing power in bureaucracies.
Yeah, pretty close.
And until they stabilize, read that as, having defined their apex-of-pyramid guy, they look like freaky wall-climbing zombies out of World War Z.
mkfreeberg: My meaning is really no more specific than the definition itself.
You can’t measure the distribution of a population of values unless you define the population of values.
mkfreeberg: “Gini 1.0″ obviates the need for any sort of mathematical calculation, since at that extreme end the meaning ceases to be mathematical.
The calculation may become trivial, but it never ceases to be mathematical.
mkfreeberg: One person has everything. That’s what 1.0 means, and that is what I meant.
Every-thing? That would imply wealth. Thought you meant something else.
mkfreeberg: you proceeded to cite as examples Norway, Denmark, Cuba
You talked about leftist regimes. It’s only reasonable to clarify what you meant. Is Norway a leftist regime?
mkfreeberg: And hey, yeah you do, since if you take a place where the Gini is 1.0 and measure only a part of it, well yes, you’ll have equality. As long as the “man who has everything” is not part of your sample. This is all in the definition.
So Norway is under the thumb of some all-powerful leftist ruler. Who is this all-powerful leftist ruler that controls the poor Norwegians?
mkfreeberg: This should all be in partial fulfillment of your demand that we shouldn’t be judging liberalism based on consequences, since that isn’t fair or something…we should go by intent.
We’ve corrected you on this many times. Communists are judged harshly because they advocate for a illusory perfect equality and use destructive means.
Zachriel: Governments under leftist leadership tend to concentrate increasing power in bureaucracies.
mkfreeberg: Yeah, pretty close.
Bureaucracies don’t have a Gini of 1. They are a form of distributed power.
mkfreeberg: Question is, when all the zombie-crawling-over-zombie struggling is done, who is at the tippy-top of the pyramid.
Not sure fear of the zombie-apocalypse is quite rational.
- Zachriel | 08/26/2013 @ 09:06Bureaucracies don’t have a Gini of 1. They are a form of distributed power.
Okay, well THAT is certainly a meaningful disagreement worth discussing.
Evidently y’all haven’t got much cumulative experience dealing with bureaucracies. So when they say…forget all about it until you fill out this form and get the sign-offs you’ll never be able to get, from that OTHER bureaucracy…there’s some sharing of power with you there? That they’ll maybe think about negotiating this with you?
Y’all must be in a complete fog about why the bureaucrats are being satirized in Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, and Futurama, and so forth. The point to all the lampooning is that bureaucracies lack common sense, and their ultimate effect is to allow one guy to take a hard-line stance, that can’t be appealed, on something that would otherwise be determined by way of mutual agreement. Some one single guy makes a decision. No appeal. Gini 1.0.
I’m confused by the way y’all argue. It seems your arguments are based on the idea that y’all, a consortium of some kind I don’t understand and I’m not supposed to understand, of persons who won’t tell me their names, or their base of knowledge, or even how many in number y’all are, have these perceptions…from this very respectable base of information, often cited only under protest…but y’all must really, really, really know what y’all are talking about.
But at the same time, y’all make it really, really, really hard to tell y’all anything. Did y’all ever get around to looking up “Detroit”?
As a general rule in life, people who can’t be told anything don’t know much.
- mkfreeberg | 08/26/2013 @ 09:46mkfreeberg: Evidently y’all haven’t got much cumulative experience dealing with bureaucracies. So when they say…forget all about it until you fill out this form and get the sign-offs you’ll never be able to get, from that OTHER bureaucracy…there’s some sharing of power with you there?
So this is what this is all about! The building department held up your permit because you wanted to use 2×2 for framing instead of 2×6. In any case, even if we posit that the bureaucracy has all the power in society, the power is still distributed throughout the bureaucracy. The stubborn bureaucrat who wouldn’t give you the permit only has power over a small locality and permitting process.
If Gini were 1, as you indicate, then the one building inspector would control everything, which isn’t accurate.
mkfreeberg: one guy to take a hard-line stance, that can’t be appealed, on something
For your example, you choose an action that is not binding on either the exchange or the insurance company. The exchange can reach their own decision, and the insurance company doesn’t have to sell in the exchanges.
You do realize that bureaucracies are as old as civilization?
- Zachriel | 08/26/2013 @ 10:24mkfreeberg: Gini 1.0 is a constant fixture with modern-liberal-leftist regimes, because in the modern age liberalism is not about equality. It’s about the opposite.
Z: …can we see some numbers? We’re still unsure exactly what you are calculating.
mkfreeberg: “Gini 1.0″ obviates the need for any sort of mathematical calculation, since at that extreme end the meaning ceases to be mathematical.
Z: The calculation may become trivial, but it never ceases to be mathematical.
Um, yeah…viewing this statement in context of the conversation overall, it’s clear y’all don’t understand Gini.
I have a hat. Nobody else in the town does. The Gini coefficient, with regard to hat-owning, is obviously 1.0. There may be a million people in the town, there may be two or three. Frodo has a ring. This juror is the jury foreman. None of that has anything to do with math. There’s no addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, logarithms, trigonometry, exponents, polynomials…there is ONLY a “which.”
Your statement is false.
- mkfreeberg | 08/26/2013 @ 10:25mkfreeberg: I have a hat. Nobody else in the town does. The Gini coefficient, with regard to hat-owning, is obviously 1.0.
Yes. Notice that you defined the population and the values.
mkfreeberg: There may be a million people in the town, there may be two or three.
There has to be more than one.
mkfreeberg: This juror is the jury foreman.
The Gini of juror power is very close to zero. The foreman has virtually no powers not allotted to the other jurors.
mkfreeberg: Your statement is false.
The calculation is trivial, but it’s still mathematical. Unless, for some odd reason, you don’t think 1.0 is a mathematical concept.
- Zachriel | 08/26/2013 @ 10:31(By the way, we’re letting you slide a little on the calculation. Gini is never exactly 100% for finite populations.)
- Zachriel | 08/26/2013 @ 10:46If Gini were 1, as you indicate, then the one building inspector would control everything, which isn’t accurate.
Never?
Yes it’s looking more and more like the issue here is your lack of experience and lack of understanding.
For your example, you choose an action that is not binding on either the exchange or the insurance company.
The bureaucrat has all sorts of power in this transaction-among-strangers he doesn’t know, that he didn’t have before. You have insisted that liberalism, classical and modern, is concerned with equality and the tension within it is between that equality and liberty. I said, the plans of modern liberals proceed in a demonstrable pattern of diminishing both. It is the few dictating the actions, obligations, and customs of the many.
And here you are, reliable as rain with an elaborate argument about why my example should not count. Your two-of-a-kind beats my full house because my cards aren’t real.
Creepy.
You do realize that bureaucracies are as old as civilization?
Yeah, and liberals are fond of the ones that diminish liberty, diminish equality, work that Gini up to 1.0, and empower the few to dictate the actions, obligations, and customs of the many.
Notice that you defined the population and the values.
Notice, it is a “which,” and there is no math involved. Frodo is the one who has the ring. Kirk is the one who commands the Enterprise.
Heck, during the 2008 campaign, Obama’s fans actually called Him “The One.”
What kind of math did Oprah do?
But it isn’t just Obama. Gini 1.0 is a constant fixture in leftist regimes.
There has to be more than one [other].
Uh huh. Maybe two or three others, maybe a billion others. Does Oprah look like she gives a fig?
The Gini of juror power is very close to zero. The foreman has virtually no powers not allotted to the other jurors.
R-E-A-D-I-N-G–C-O-M-P-R-E-H-E-N-S-I-O-N…in context of my statement, the value being measured is not “power,” it is, “are you the foreman.”
The calculation is trivial, but it’s still mathematical. Unless, for some odd reason, you don’t think 1.0 is a mathematical concept.
So is the calculation addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, or something else?
While we’re on math, how many other people in your group are imploring you “No, don’t go down that trail, this is a losing proposition”?
(By the way, we’re letting you slide a little on the calculation. Gini is never exactly 100% for finite populations.)
If I’m the only one who has a hat…
Y’all need to become better acquainted with the concept of Gini. It’s distribution, and if one person has all of something and everybody else has zero of it, it can’t be anything besides 1.0.
- mkfreeberg | 08/26/2013 @ 11:08mkfreeberg: Never?
No, your local building inspector doesn’t control everything.
mkfreeberg: The bureaucrat has all sorts of power in this transaction-among-strangers he doesn’t know, that he didn’t have before.
Sure, a bureaucrat has power, but it is limited in scope.
mkfreeberg: You have insisted that liberalism, classical and modern, is concerned with equality and the tension within it is between that equality and liberty.
That is correct.
mkfreeberg: I said, the plans of modern liberals proceed in a demonstrable pattern of diminishing both.
Your example was Obamacare, which is intended to increase equality in healthcare.
mkfreeberg: Notice, it is a “which,” and there is no math involved. Frodo is the one who has the ring. Kirk is the one who commands the Enterprise.
Middle Earth and the ring represent a defined population and value, as does Kirk and the Enterprise. You have to define the value in your use of Gini. Presumably, it is political or social power, or it might just be who can give mkfreeberg headaches.
mkfreeberg: So is the calculation addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, or something else?
Yes.
mkfreeberg: R-E-A-D-I-N-G–C-O-M-P-R-E-H-E-N-S-I-O-N…in context of my statement, the value being measured is not “power,” it is, “are you the foreman.”
If there are twelve jurors, one of which is foreman, the foreman Gini is 91.67%.
mkfreeberg: It’s distribution, and if one person has all of something and everybody else has zero of it, it can’t be anything besides 1.0.
That is incorrect. If there are two people, and only one has a hat, the hat Gini is 50%. Not sure it is important to the discussion, as long as the population is large, Gini will be near one in that situation.
- Zachriel | 08/26/2013 @ 11:24Not sure it is important to the discussion, as long as the population is large, Gini will be near one in that situation.
I’m pretty sure of the answer to that. It could be relevant within the fantasy you had that you’d get hold of my “calculations,” check them against a textbook you have, find a discrepancy and be able to type in something to the effect: Ah ha!
But the remark to which you’re trying to apply this “gotcha” obviously has nothing to do with the ratio between the concentration area and the maximum concentration area (see top of p. 7,here.
Libs want inequality. They use the advancement of equality as a pretext to achieve this, and they use the advancement of liberty as a pretext to achieve this. But the goal is one guy to have all-the-everything. If their goal is anything less than that at any given time, then that’s only because they’re on a stepping stone which, once that’s resolved, they’ll get back on track toward absolute unequal distribution. “Gini 1.0” is, in context, very clearly, an expression of this. If you have an alternative way of expressing it to suggest, I’m all ears, but you need to demonstrate conceptual understanding of the point first.
Maybe I should have said “dictatorship.” But my observation doesn’t only have to do with political power. If some guy getting interviewed in a newspaper doesn’t have a job, and you have a job that pays a dollar an hour and allows a day of vacation a year, I have a job that pays a million dollars an hour and allows four weeks of vacation a year, libs are ticked off; if later on, all three of us have jobs that pay the dollar an hour and allow the one day, then they’re happy. And, furthermore, if Barack and Michelle are swimming in cash and going on vacations whenever they want to…then, the libs are not only happy, they’re elated. The one individual, at the top of the pyramid. A constant in leftist regimes.
- mkfreeberg | 08/26/2013 @ 11:58mkfreeberg: Libs want inequality. They use the advancement of equality as a pretext to achieve this, and they use the advancement of liberty as a pretext to achieve this.
Oh gee whiz. Liberals have advocated for civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights, and universal healthcare. These are all clearly programs designed to create more equality.
mkfreeberg: Maybe I should have said “dictatorship.”
Except that most developed countries are representative democracies with strong social institutions and robust markets. Who’s the dictator with all the power over the poor oppressed Norwegians?
- Zachriel | 08/26/2013 @ 12:11Oh gee whiz. Liberals have advocated for civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights, and universal healthcare. These are all clearly programs designed to create more equality.
With the few dictating the actions, obligations, and customs of the many. Except for the civil rights, with conservatives also advocated, where they are consistent with the rights recognized as ours by the nation’s founding documents.
Except that most developed countries are representative democracies with strong social institutions and robust markets.
Y’all seem to be connecting modern liberals with development. That would be a misconception.
Who’s the dictator with all the power over the poor oppressed Norwegians?
The examples you offer by way of rebuttal, are all parts of things…
- mkfreeberg | 08/26/2013 @ 12:30mkfreeberg: With the few dictating the actions, obligations, and customs of the many.
Well, the people enacting laws through their elected representatives, you mean.
mkfreeberg: Except for the civil rights, with conservatives also advocated,
Many conservatives opposed civil rights legislation, including the Republican standard bearer in 1964, Barry Goldwater. This is a case where a little loss of liberty, bigots having to serve blacks, contributed to greater overall liberty and equality.
You don’t think women and gays deserve rights?
mkfreeberg: where they are consistent with the rights recognized as ours by the nation’s founding documents.
If you consider the 14th Amendment to be a founding document.
mkfreeberg: The examples you offer by way of rebuttal, are all parts of things…
Yes. You indicated Norway was part of a larger grouping with a Gini of 1. So somewhere there is someone who has power over the poor oppressed Norwegians. Who is that person? Or clarify your meaning at least.
- Zachriel | 08/26/2013 @ 12:48Is it your building inspector who is oppressing the Norwegians?
- Zachriel | 08/26/2013 @ 12:49Is it your building inspector who is oppressing the Norwegians?
Now that’s just sad.
- Severian | 08/26/2013 @ 13:21Not sure what this talk is of building inspectors. My example was a swaggering martinet of an insurance commissioner out here in the Golden State, deciding on behalf of insurance consumers he’ll never meet, that his wisdom was needed to stop future transactions from ever taking place that HE didn’t think he’d like.
Well, the people enacting laws through their elected representatives, you mean.
Huh? These are the building inspectors, now? Or someone else?
If you consider the 14th Amendment to be a founding document.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…
- mkfreeberg | 08/26/2013 @ 14:48Severian: Now that’s just sad.
Yes, yes it is sad. But it’s a necessary consequence of mkfreeberg’s position. He says the local bureaucrat is exercising power, and if all power is concentrated in a single person, then the local bureaucrat has all the power.
- Zachriel | 08/26/2013 @ 14:50mkfreeberg: Not sure what this talk is of building inspectors.
In reference to “forget all about it until you fill out this form and get the sign-offs you’ll never be able to get”.
mkfreeberg: My example was a swaggering martinet of an insurance commissioner out here in the Golden State, deciding on behalf of insurance consumers he’ll never meet, that his wisdom was needed to stop future transactions from ever taking place that HE didn’t think he’d like.
And as we pointed out, the commissioner doesn’t actually have that power. He only issues a recommendation, and then others have to decide whether or not to act. In other words, the power is distributed within the bureaucracy. Furthermore, the bureaucracy was established by a representative democracy working on a state and federal level, so power is distributed in that way as well. So, while you might complain that bureaucracies are too big, the Gini of social power within society is nowhere near one.
mkfreeberg: With the few dictating the actions, obligations, and customs of the many.
Zachriel: Well, the people enacting laws through their elected representatives, you mean.
mkfreeberg: Huh?
Bureaucracies are established and funded by governments, including representative democracies. There’s always a bureaucracy when there’s government, whether left or right.
- Zachriel | 08/26/2013 @ 15:03Yes, yes it is sad. But it’s a necessary consequence of mkfreeberg’s position.
Uh huh. ‘Cause that’s what I meant.
Pathetic.
Anybody else get that monkeys-on-typewriters feeling when it comes to the Zachriel Collective’s comments? Every once in a while they manage to bang out something that seems like it kinda makes sense, but then it’s back to blindly mashing keys in the neverending quest for a gotcha. It almost seems like the next kid at the keyboard is only allowed to read the immediately preceding comment before bashing away.
It’s fascinating, in a trainwrecky way. Kinda like Detroit (the city, not the other thing).
- Severian | 08/26/2013 @ 15:31Funny thing about logic is, it’s the weakest kind that can do the most. In this case, what they want to conclude with it is that liberals must be all about equality, just because the liberals say so. And since they’re using this weak, liquid, gumby-logic, they will get there…it’s a question of how.
So in this case, the liberals don’t want people negotiating with insurance companies to find an insurance deal they, the people, will find acceptable. So this swaggering martinet stops — oh dear, sorry, makes a recommendation, and then the commission meets to stop — Anthem from participating in the exchange. Liberté, égalité, fraternité! Or something.
Does that support what I said, about the few dictating the actions, obligations, and customs of the many? Well, uh…blah blah blah bureaucracies as old as mankind blah blah blah always a bureaucracy blah blah blah power equally spread around and stuff. Their words are for people who lack a long-term memory, and lack common sense.
Before ObamaCare there is freedom, after it there is less. Before, there is equality; after it there is less. You can complicate it a bit beyond that, but only in service of altering the conclusion, not in service of better observing & responding to reality.
- mkfreeberg | 08/26/2013 @ 15:57mkfreeberg: Funny thing about logic is, it’s the weakest kind that can do the most.
Actually, we merely read what you wrote, and then reached the inevitable conclusion. Some of what you say we would normally take as hyperbole, but you keep insisting otherwise. Hence, if all power is concentrated in one person, and if your local bureaucrat has any power whatsoever, then your local bureaucrat has all the power.
mkfreeberg: In this case, what they want to conclude with it is that liberals must be all about equality, just because the liberals say so.
Well, no. It has nothing to do with drawing a deductive conclusion. It’s because people use the term liberal to mean those who advocate liberty and equality.
You might make a reasonable argument that leftists have become more statist in the last half century. That doesn’t change the definition of leftism to statism, though. For instance, there are many statists who want to impose illiberal policies, such as social conservatives.
mkfreeberg: So in this case, the liberals don’t want people negotiating with insurance companies to find an insurance deal they, the people, will find acceptable.
The liberal goal is universal healthcare, as it has been for a century, and as other developed countries already have.
mkfreeberg: Before ObamaCare there is freedom, after it there is less. Before, there is equality; after it there is less.
The intent is to create more equality, even if the intent is misguided and will only result in another ineffective bureaucracy. As for freedom, while it can be argued it restricts some freedom in terms of insurers, it is hoped that will be compensated by greater freedom elsewhere as people can leave jobs without worrying about losing their health insurance. Again, you don’t have to agree with the proposal, or believe it will increase equality. The intent is to create more equality, which is why we consider proponents to be left wing.
- Zachriel | 08/26/2013 @ 16:44mkfreeberg: Funny thing about logic is, it’s the weakest kind that can do the most.
Z: Actually, we merely read what you wrote, and then reached the inevitable conclusion. Some of what you say we would normally take as hyperbole, but you keep insisting otherwise. Hence, if all power is concentrated in one person, and if your local bureaucrat has any power whatsoever, then your local bureaucrat has all the power.
One of the ways we know we’re looking at the weak kind of logic that can do the most, is that it can’t be followed. Now what you’ve just plotted through is essentially a “gotcha,” and that’s being charitable since it’s clear you’re interpreting things in whatever way you can to provide the greatest possible benefit to this feeble, runt-of-the-litter gotcha.
How would we follow our way through that as a rebuttal? Your contention is that liberals advocate for greater equality, and the tension within liberalism is between liberty and equality; I say classic liberalism is about the liberty, and modern liberals are essentially usurping the word, ideologically hostile toward both liberty and equality, their advocacy is consistently in support of policies that enable the few to dictate the actions, obligations, and customs of the many. It’s clear that my example of the swaggering oaf of an insurance commissioner provides good support for this, since without the reforms in place, the consumers get to decide for themselves whether they’re being ripped off, and vote with their feet.
Your rebuttal to this? Some kind of incoherent tut-tutting about the commissioner not really having the final word or something?
<sarc>Oh yes, that’s certainly a decent smackdown, thanks for clearing that up.</sarc>
The intent is to create more equality, even if the intent is misguided and will only result in another ineffective bureaucracy.
If the intent were to create more equality, and it accidentally resulted in just another ineffective bureaucracy…and then another and another and another and another and another…there are really only two possibilities for the next steps. One, someone would say “Hey this is achieving the exact opposite of what we want, we should change something,” and then that reform sentiment should gather momentum quickly within the “liberal” movement. The other possibility is what we have been seeing: No change of course whatsoever, not so much as a blip of slowdown in the momentum, and lots & lots of blaming-of-Republicans for any bad results.
Deductive reasoning should then tell us more-equality was never the intent.
- mkfreeberg | 08/26/2013 @ 21:37mkfreeberg: Now what you’ve just plotted through is essentially a “gotcha,” and that’s being charitable since it’s clear you’re interpreting things in whatever way you can to provide the greatest possible benefit to this feeble, runt-of-the-litter gotcha.
The problem is on your end. First you say it’s a Gini of 1. Then you say it’s close to 1. Then you say the calculate is trivial, but apparently never calculated it. You say it’s not mathematical, which is just silly. We ask you the Gini of what? Income? You argue as if that was your claim, then retreat. Wealth? Political power? If political power, how do you quantify it? But we never get answers. We’re left with these claims.
Gini is one or indistinguishable from one.
Therefore, power is concentrated in a single person.
The building inspector has some power.
Therefore, the building inspector must, as a necessity of the premises, have all power.
The problem is obviously in the premises, not in the logic. So please tell us which premise is incorrect.
mkfreeberg: I say classic liberalism is about the liberty, and modern liberals are essentially usurping the word, ideologically hostile toward both liberty and equality
“All men are created equal”. However, a classical liberal will distinguish between equality of rights and equality of results.
mkfreeberg: It’s clear that my example of the swaggering oaf of an insurance commissioner provides good support for this, since without the reforms in place, the consumers get to decide for themselves whether they’re being ripped off, and vote with their feet.
But you’re claiming that all power is concentrated in a single person, and the commissioner doesn’t even have the power you ascribe to him. If you mean the bureaucracy is overbloated and too powerful, then you might make a coherent argument, but the Gini wouldn’t be 1, and you would still have to account for checks-and-balances.
mkfreeberg: Some kind of incoherent tut-tutting about the commissioner not really having the final word or something?
It’s not incoherent. The commissioner doesn’t have the power. All he does is make a recommendation, and others make the decision.
mkfreeberg: One, someone would say “Hey this is achieving the exact opposite of what we want, we should change something,”
Except that history shows that sometimes laws to bring about greater equality are effective. Most people think the civil rights laws, social security, the GI Bill, women’s suffrage, and many other left wing policies, have been effective. Indeed, the end result may be overreaching by the left today, but that’s not your argument.
- Zachriel | 08/27/2013 @ 05:57The problem is on your end.
I’m not so sure. Seems like you have to keep restating my position into something it never was intended to be, and was never stated as, in order to find these problems with it.
Meanwhile, I”m picking up on this vibe of undisciplined thinking, this “baby porcupine playing with a balloon” thinking, this preoccupation that if you can find one little flaw — even an insignificant flaw, in semantics, when the gist of my intended meaning is outside the flaw and could be interpreted clearly — the whole thing will “pop” and y’all can stand victorious without having modified y’all’s position in the slightest, therefore not having learned anything.
The real tragedy is that y’all are trying to come off as educated and respectable, but y’all don’t seem to understand that the way people get to that point is by making it easy for them to be told things. Think this thread is now approaching the three-hundred-post mark; how easy, generally, would you say it has been to tell y’all things?
Didja ever get hold of a map and find out what “Detroit” means?
Except that history shows that sometimes laws to bring about greater equality are effective. Most people think the civil rights laws, social security, the GI Bill, women’s suffrage, and many other left wing policies, have been effective. Indeed, the end result may be overreaching by the left today, but that’s not your argument.
My arguments do tend to be devoid of “up is down” and “in is out” and “wet is dry” statements. I’m far from perfect, but I do try to keep them that way.
Meanwhile, how come it is we disagree so much about the inequality inherent to the situation in which a bureaucrat tells an “ordinary citizen” how it’s going to be, you’ve been selected for additional screening, are you getting smart with me, I don’t have to tell you if you’re being detained, I’ll ask the questions…when, with your “sometimes inequality is the path to equality” premise, it seems our real disagreement is in some other place? Is this part of that “never concede anything even for a moment, even just for the sake of argument” thing Severian was noticing?
- mkfreeberg | 08/27/2013 @ 06:35mkfreeberg: Seems like you have to keep restating my position into something it never was intended to be, and was never stated as, in order to find these problems with it.
We can only read your words. And ask questions which you are averse to answering.
mkfreeberg: Didja ever get hold of a map and find out what “Detroit” means?
We know when most people say “Detroit”, they mean the city in Michigan. However, with you, we can’t be sure, as you have a tendency to use words in idiosyncratic ways.
mkfreeberg: Meanwhile, how come it is we disagree so much about the inequality inherent to the situation in which a bureaucrat tells an “ordinary citizen” how it’s going to be, you’ve been selected for additional screening, are you getting smart with me, I don’t have to tell you if you’re being detained, I’ll ask the questions
That’s true of any legal system, regardless of whether it is on the left or the right. Hence, that’s not what distinguishes left and right.
mkfreeberg: “never concede anything even for a moment, even just for the sake of argument”
We’re more than willing to concede for the sake of argument, but with your position, they lead to contradictions. For instance, left and right governments can have bureaucracies and laws, so pointing to bureaucracies and laws doesn’t distinguish left and right governments. Another instance, you claim that leftists don’t want equality, yet women’s suffrage, the GI Bill, civil rights, social security, are all policies of the left that led to greater equality.
- Zachriel | 08/27/2013 @ 07:25We can only read your words. And ask questions which you are averse to answering.
Why yes, of course. It’s clearly a no-win scenario when I won’t clear up what I mean by “Detroit.”
That’s true of any legal system, regardless of whether it is on the left or the right. Hence, that’s not what distinguishes left and right.
Sure it is. Before the modern-liberal, leftist reformation, consumers decide for themselves they’re being ripped off and vote with their feet. Afterward, some busybody has to figure that out on their behalf, while the consumers wait to see what the outcome is from their mighty leaders mulling things over. This is, in fact, widely recognized as a distinguishing characteristic between right & left, and it isn’t just extremist right-wingers who so recognize it as such. So your statement isn’t quite accurate.
Another instance, you claim that leftists don’t want equality, yet women’s suffrage, the GI Bill, civil rights, social security, are all policies of the left that led to greater equality.
Womens’ Suffrage and Civil Rights were not identified with “the left” quite as much as, by way of example, the Eugenics movement. That was “left.” Those others were more like classic-liberal movements which, although y’all don’t want to admit it because of the damage it would do to your position, was very different from what we call “liberal” nowadays. There are many indications it was the opposite, for example, the attribute of classic liberalism that insists on limiting the powers of government, for greater individual freedom.
Was the Eugenics movement intended to foster greater equality?
- mkfreeberg | 08/27/2013 @ 09:52mkfreeberg: Before the modern-liberal, leftist reformation, consumers decide for themselves they’re being ripped off and vote with their feet.
When do you date “before”?
mkfreeberg: Womens’ Suffrage and Civil Rights were not identified with “the left” …
Of course they were. Do you require a citation?
mkfreeberg: … quite as much as, by way of example, the Eugenics movement.
The eugenics movement had support from the left and the right, including Winston Churchill, Theodore Roosevelt, and, of course, Hitler.
- Zachriel | 08/27/2013 @ 10:09Was Abraham Lincoln on the left when he supported emancipation?
Was Ulysses Grant on the left when he supported the Fifteenth Amendment?
- mkfreeberg | 08/27/2013 @ 10:10The eugenics movement had support from the left and the right, including Winston Churchill, Theodore Roosevelt, and, of course, Hitler.
The Civil Rights movement also had support from the left and the right.
It’s interesting that your threshold of proof of cross-ideology support, from the left supporting things popular today, is “had support from.” But your threshold of cross-ideology support, from the right supporting things unpopular today, is “a citation.” Most interesting.
- mkfreeberg | 08/27/2013 @ 10:12mkfreeberg: Was Abraham Lincoln on the left when he supported emancipation? Was Ulysses Grant on the left when he supported the Fifteenth Amendment?
Sure, though both being politicians tried to steer a more middle road, between the abolitionist radicals on their left, with moderates and supporters of the “peculiar institution” on their right.
mkfreeberg: The Civil Rights movement also had support from the left and the right.
Not all Republicans were conservative at that time, nor were all Democrats liberal. Conservatives, notably Barry Goldwater, were often against the Civil Rights Acts, the most transformative civil rights legislation since the Civil War. In any case, the civil rights movement was seen as a movement of the left by common usage of the term with moderates eventually joining to make up the required supermajority to enact the legislation.
- Zachriel | 08/27/2013 @ 10:46mkfreeberg: It’s interesting that your threshold of proof of cross-ideology support, from the left supporting things popular today, is “had support from.” But your threshold of cross-ideology support, from the right supporting things unpopular today, is “a citation.”
Have no idea what that means. We offered to provide a citation about how people used the terms during the time of the civil rights movement. Have to bothered to look at any old newspapers or speeches?
- Zachriel | 08/27/2013 @ 10:49Have [you] bothered to look at any old newspapers or speeches?
What I’ve bothered to do, is to notice trends and patterns and see how they jive with what people are told to think about leftists.
The widespread confusion about the meaning of left-versus-right, tells us this is a worthy effort to undertake.
Simple logic and common sense tells us, once we undertake it and pinpoint a contradiction between our findings, and what we’ve been told to think, the findings should prevail over what we were told, rather than the other way around.
Example. Y’all say the left is about equality. By this time, with pretty much any issue that has to do with localized action for purposes of self defense, “left” and “right” positions are well defined. Using a gun, versus calling nine one one. Which is right? Which is left? A man attempts to rape a woman, she can pull out the .38 and achieve “equality” with it, or she can cower and urinate all over herself so that maybe he’ll finish up with her quickly & move on. If it’s happening in the middle of an Occupy protest, maybe we can set up special tents…give up on this whole “equality” concept, but at least maybe then the women won’t be groped and violated. Which of those solutions is right? Which of those solutions is left?
Oh, but lefties like to think the Fifteenth Amendment was all their idea. So there’s a contradiction. With respect to all those who decide differently, I choose to internalize my reasoning processes…and it is not an altogether implausible thought to have, that if this puts me in conflict with some written reference material somewhere, maybe it’s the reference material that is wrong. Recognizing patterns is a powerful tool to use to find the truth, when the pattern is broad.
- mkfreeberg | 08/27/2013 @ 11:49mkfreeberg: Simple logic and common sense tells us, once we undertake it and pinpoint a contradiction between our findings, and what we’ve been told to think, the findings should prevail over what we were told, rather than the other way around.
Definitions of words are not determined by “findings” but by general usage. Was Dr. King considered to be on the political left or the political right by his contemporaries?
- Zachriel | 08/27/2013 @ 12:03Definitions of words are not determined by “findings” but by general usage.
And…they get all screwed up when the general usage contradicts itself. I think most people who’ve paid some attention would acknowledge this has been the case with “right” and “left.”
Have you clarified your position up there about modern liberal being the opposite of classic liberal, in the sense that classic-liberals advocate for more freedom for the individual by way of constraining the power of the state? Are you in complete disagreement about this? And based on something more than “We refuse to acknowledge the change”?
If you have clarified your position, and you agree that such a change has taken place, then what’s the focus of our disagreement again? And if you disagree, and are digging in your heels and insisting that liberal today means the same thing that classic liberal meant back in the day, then you should probably stop using words like “definitions.” That would be making a situation where, when people use the words, they have to keep running back to The Zachriel, or some knowledgeable authority respected & designated by The Zachriel, to repeatedly ask over and over again “Am I using these terms correctly?”
And if that is the case, then the task of defining has not been done.
It seems your point is that the definitions are not correct, unless they mirror the common usage; and the common usage is not correct, unless it meets with y’all’s approval.
Hey, are we going to have to do another three hundred posts on the proper definition of definition?
- mkfreeberg | 08/27/2013 @ 12:22What’s especially funny about this is that the people urging you to look at newspapers and speeches are bluffing. In the late 1950s / early 60s, the term “left” was usually applied to the Labor-n-Stalin “Old Left” or the Marcuse-n–Mao-n-bongs “New Left,” neither of which were all that appropriate for King (you’ll notice his name doesn’t appear anywhere in that article). King didn’t fit in well with the “New Left,” because he wanted greater integration into the square, respectable culture they were trying to bring down. He didn’t fit in well with the Old Left, as they considered the only real struggle to be class struggle, from which racial stuff was a distraction. Attorney General Robert Kennedy, a liberal, suspected King of being a communist; old-school civil rights activists like W.E.B. DuBois, a communist, considered him far too accomodationist. And, of course, black nationalists like Malcolm X considered him a race traitor.
So, you know, it’s complicated.
You could call King a classical liberal, of course, and many would agree with you…. like Ronald Reagan, for instance, who, like modern conservatives, believed it was better to judge on the content of the character rather than the color of the skin.
But that’s because words like “liberal” and “conservative” change over time, with modern conservatives espousing classical liberal positions and modern liberals acting like Maoists. Which is why it’s important to look at evidence and think for yourself, rather than trying to conjure gotchas out of historical commonplaces.
- Severian | 08/27/2013 @ 12:32mkfreeberg: Have you clarified your position up there about modern liberal being the opposite of classic liberal, in the sense that classic-liberals advocate for more freedom for the individual by way of constraining the power of the state?
Classical liberals were still liberals, they advocated liberty and equality. In the historical context, that meant reducing the special privileges of the monarchy, especially with regards to markets.
Was Dr. King considered to be on the political left or the political right by his contemporaries?
- Zachriel | 08/27/2013 @ 12:32It’s funny how when liberals (classic) advocate liberty over equality, you characterize that as some kind of “tension” within the liberal ranks, but when conservatives inconveniently support civil rights, you seem to more-or-less pretend that didn’t happen because of Goldwater the “Republican standard bearer.”
Is it y’all’s position that Barry Goldwater was some kind of a bigot? How about Thomas Jefferson?
Was Dr. King considered to be on the political left or the political right by his contemporaries?
I wasn’t around to have taken a survey. Did y’all?
And did y’all include some people who weren’t self-identified lefties? I noticed when y’all were called out on that thing with the right wing “believ[ing] in absolute inequality,” the ensuing discussion didn’t last long, and it seemed to go down as if y’all really didn’t have a foundation of belief to provide for this. It ended up looking like an example of “conservatives understand liberals, liberals really don’t understand conservatives.” Is that what that is?
- mkfreeberg | 08/27/2013 @ 12:44you characterize that as some kind of “tension” within the liberal ranks
Straight out of the Marxist playbook, my friend. Inconsistency or incoherence in their own theories are “tensions,” the “antithesis” that leads to the (wonderful, liberating) synthesis of Marxist metaphysics. Inconsistency or incoherence in their opponent’s positions are “contradictions” that will inevitably bring down The System. And, of course, someone’s preference for a policy other than what the theory says he must support is “false consciousness.”
Heads they win, tails you lose. Philosophy is fun.
- Severian | 08/27/2013 @ 12:58mkfreeberg: It’s funny how when liberals (classic) advocate liberty over equality, you characterize that as some kind of “tension” within the liberal ranks,
In classical liberalism, there was little tension, because liberty and equality worked hand-in-hand. The monarchy had inordinate power in the markets and society, so increasing personal freedom also increased equality. Jefferson would be considered a classical liberal, and he certainly advocated for equality.
mkfreeberg: Is it y’all’s position that Barry Goldwater was some kind of a bigot?
No. We just pointed out that he was the Republican standard-bearer, a staunch conservative, and was against the Civil Rights Act.
mkfreeberg: How about Thomas Jefferson?
Jefferson was certainly a bigot, as were most cultured people at that time.
mkfreeberg: I wasn’t around to have taken a survey. Did y’all?
Turns out they had writing in those days. People wrote things down. King was said to be on the political left. King advocated more equality, both social and economic. If the term political left changed meanings, it has changed since then. So when do you think the word changed meanings? And why?
mkfreeberg: I noticed when y’all were called out on that thing with the right wing “believ[ing] in absolute inequality,”
Most people on the right don’t advocate absolute inequality. That would be only on the extreme right. Most on the right merely want to preserve traditional hierarchies and institutions. And even people we would put on the right may have views that vary considerably depending on the issue.
mkfreeberg: It ended up looking like an example of “conservatives understand liberals, liberals really don’t understand conservatives.”
As for your indirect citation to Graham 2012, the authors suggest their sample may have been biased, so the asymmetry may be an artifact. They did find that liberals were most concerned with “caring for the weak, fairness, and liberty”, while conservatives were most concerned with “loyalty, respect for authorities and traditions”. This survey shows that our use of the terms is consistent with common usage, and that you are not correct in your redefinition.
- Zachriel | 08/27/2013 @ 13:06Turns out they had writing in those days. People wrote things down. King was said to be on the political left.
So y’all did take a survey. Did y’all include people who were not self-identified lefties?
Your passive-voice statement doesn’t make that clear. And forgive me, but from the previous 300 posts I’m not inclined to think y’all have given this much thought.
Most people on the right don’t advocate absolute inequality. That would be only on the extreme right. Most on the right merely want to preserve traditional hierarchies and institutions. And even people we would put on the right may have views that vary considerably depending on the issue.
So y’all are recanting the statement about the right actually believing in inequality?
There’s a character in one of my favorite movies, Rob Roy, played by William Hurt. Two or three times in the film, in an ingenious move of character-building, he starts droning on about people “remembering their place” and so forth. This captures the popular sentiment at the time within English aristocracy, at least within the context of how Hollywood historians understand it…and I take this to be in keeping with y’all’s understanding of “right wing,” that a person’s class determines his placement in all things in life. So y’all, the movie, and me, all three of us are more-or-less in agreement on that. Class-before-individuality, reflects that y’all have in mind. I only disagree on the label.
There are some lefties who become much more upset and agitated with Clarence Thomas than they are with Antonin Scalia, even though they can’t name from Thomas and Scalia opinions, why they should be any more angry with the one than with the other. They consider Thomas to be due for some especially heated invective as a traitor to his race. They’re more angry with Sarah Palin than they are with Sean Hannity because Palin is a traitor to her gender. If right wing means, inequality is okay, class before individuality, the classes have to be treated differently, “remember your place”…would that make these people “right wing”?
As for your indirect citation to Graham 2012, the authors suggest their sample may have been biased, so the asymmetry may be an artifact.
Yes! Once again, your pair beats my full house, because my cards aren’t real.
They did find that liberals were most concerned with “caring for the weak, fairness, and liberty”, while conservatives were most concerned with “loyalty, respect for authorities and traditions”. This survey shows that our use of the terms is consistent with common usage, and that you are not correct in your redefinition.
…oh…until, that is, y’all happen to like what they say, then they become real cards again. Magic!
Heads they win, tails you lose. Philosophy is fun.
Ain’t it a kick in the ol’ fanny?
Funny thing about logic is, it is the weak kind that can do the most.
- mkfreeberg | 08/27/2013 @ 13:17Severian: Inconsistency or incoherence in their own theories …
There are obvious tensions between equality and liberty. For instance, the Civil Rights Act made for more equality, but it meant that bigots no longer had the freedom to refuse service to blacks in public accommodations.
mkfreeberg: Did y’all include people who were not self-identified lefties?
Sure. Here’s a pretty typical example from the apoplectic right.
mkfreeberg: And forgive me, but from the previous 300 posts I’m not inclined to think y’all have given this much thought.
The problem is that you don’t read to understand. If you did, you would remember we already posted this.
mkfreeberg: Class-before-individuality, reflects that y’all have in mind. I only disagree on the label.
Who was on the left and who was on the right? The monarchists or the revolutionaries in 18th century France?
mkfreeberg: Once again, your pair beats my full house, because my cards aren’t real.
No, we didn’t disregard the whole study. Indeed, we read it to understand the results, including its limitations. The authors don’t say the sample is necessarily biased, only suggest that the urban population may not be perfectly representative. Nor does the bias imply that the results are invalid, especially with regards to the issue raised in this thread.
mkfreeberg: …oh…until, that is, y’all happen to like what they say, then they become real cards again.
Your own citation, a survey, indicates that liberals and conservatives largely agree that liberals are most concerned with “caring for the weak, fairness, and liberty”, while conservatives are most concerned with “loyalty, respect for authorities and traditions”.
This is a strong contradiction of your position, and directly validates our use of the terms.
- Zachriel | 08/27/2013 @ 14:40…only suggest that the urban population may not be perfectly representative.
Which is a possibility endemic to all surveys. Here though, y’all use the disclaimer to invalidate the results entirely, evidently because y’all don’t like them.
Perhaps we would be paying a decent respect to the scientific process, if we were to learn from the new information brought by this report — science is supposed to do that — and in so doing, as you continue to ply us with these passive-voice statements about left-wing and right-wing “is seen as” or “has been seen as,” we take any of your examples that rely on the opinions of these ignorant left-wing liberals, pitch those out, and see what we have…uh…”left.”
Not so sure your “left is for equality” idea would survive an exercise like that.
- mkfreeberg | 08/27/2013 @ 14:53mkfreeberg: Not so sure your “left is for equality” idea would survive an exercise like that.
The survey was on liberal and conservative, and both agreed that liberals are most concerned with “caring for the weak, fairness, and liberty”, while conservatives are most concerned with “loyalty, respect for authorities and traditions”. This directly contradicts your position.
- Zachriel | 08/27/2013 @ 15:06But according to your own words, the achievement of modern liberals is often in the opposite direction, so that only their intents can be credited with this. Which seems to be a concession that liberals are easily fooled. This creates real problems for the idea that the left is for equality. Especially in view of their lack of contrition or concern when they achieve the opposite of equality.
I have questions about their intents, as well, since as I’ve already explained to you, many of them hate Justice Thomas more than Justice Scalia. So where is the intent-toward-equality there?
Perhaps what makes the best sense is to say: Modern liberals use equality as a pretext for establishing and maintaining entrenched inequality. That seems to gel with everything, yes?
- mkfreeberg | 08/27/2013 @ 15:12mkfreeberg: But according to your own words, the achievement of modern liberals is often in the opposite direction, so that only their intents can be credited with this.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
mkfreeberg: I have questions about their intents, as well, since as I’ve already explained to you, many of them hate Justice Thomas more than Justice Scalia.
Scalia accepts stare decisis. Thomas does not, meaning Thomas’s decisions can be much more reactionary than Scalia’s.
mkfreeberg: Modern liberals use equality as a pretext for establishing and maintaining entrenched inequality.
That’s not what the survey found. Both liberals and conservatives agreed that liberals want fairness and liberty. That is a strong contradiction of your position.
There are many valid arguments against liberalism, but saying liberals are not for fairness and liberty is just not one of them. Indeed, you seem to among those in the survey that ascribed extreme views to their ideological opposites.
- Zachriel | 08/27/2013 @ 15:25Scalia accepts stare decisis. Thomas does not, meaning Thomas’s decisions can be much more reactionary than Scalia’s.
Yeah, I’m sure that’s it. And the anger directed toward Palin, Coulter and Malkin, that is not directed toward Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin? I guess that’s because the dudes accept stare decisis and the chicks have problems with this?
That’s not what the survey found. Both liberals and conservatives agreed that liberals want fairness and liberty. That is a strong contradiction of your position.
Unless, they were mistaken when they said that.
There are many valid arguments against liberalism, but saying liberals are not for fairness and liberty is just not one of them.
Then, y’all are the ones out of step with everyone else. If liberals were about equality, they’d be doing a lot of things very differently.
Try introducing the bill to require members of Congress to use the same health care plans everyone else is required to use. See how many liberals line up to support it.
Liberalism, in America today, is about preserving caste systems, and creating new ones. Equality doesn’t enter into it, and is the opposite of what they want to do.
- mkfreeberg | 08/27/2013 @ 15:37mkfreeberg: Unless, they were mistaken when they said that.
Words are defined by what people mean when they utter them, otherwise, they’re just sounds.
- Zachriel | 08/27/2013 @ 16:31Now consider your survey. The liberals want “fairness and liberty”, while the conservatives recognize that liberals want “fairness and liberty”. However, conservatives consider liberals to be misguided: Liberal policies are poorly designed and will not only not accomplish the goal of greater “fairness and liberty”, but could have drastic unintended consequences, including an increasingly bloated public sector. Some cynical liberal politicians may be aware of the problematic nature of the policies, but pursue them in order to satisfy their own need for political power. Previous liberal victories, of which there were certainly some, have led to overreaching, a desire to solve all problems for everybody, especially with the blunt tool of government. Conservatives recognize all this because they understand that real social change is hard and reforms rarely come without negative consequences.
This would be arguable, but at least it wouldn’t require redefining the vocabulary.
- Zachriel | 08/27/2013 @ 16:40If there is deception taking place within the liberal movement, it must logically follow that there is a split existing within, with the deceivers on one side and the deceived on the other.
Therefore, it is logical to think of “equality” not as an end-goal embraced by all of them, nor as an achievement realized by some, but more as a pretext by which the deceivers deceive the deceived.
But, again: If the liberal movement’s consistent achievement of inequality…and its consistent efforts toward inequality>…are to be dismissed, we first must assess how they have behaved, once they realize that they have achieved the exact opposite of this laudable “equality” goal about which they wax lyrically. There should be some contemplation, some mid-course-correction, some “back to the drawing board” moment.
Lately I’m not seeing anything of the like from our friends, the liberals. All I’ve seen is “Isn’t this awesome and isn’t Obama so wonderful for bringing us all these victories even though we don’t understand them?” And, “Those Republicans are so awful and everything is their fault.” I’m not seeing any correction to bearing, and I’m not seeing any correction to vector.
You?
Therefore, I conclude we can just about jettison this idea of liberals being for equality.
Example: hate crimes. That was supposed to be a race-neutral thing, as in: You could be charged with this if you were a black guy killing a white guy for being white, or if you were a white guy killing a black guy for being black. Or a straight guy killing a gay guy for being gay, or a gay guy killing a straight guy for being straight. It was supposed to be demographic-neutral. Obviously, it isn’t. Once again, our friends on the left are establishing, and maintaining, castes. “Equality” amounts to nothing more than a bumper-sticker slogan…
So why should their ideology be defined that way? When the rubber hits the road, it’s all just a bunch of special privileges for the classes that find their sympathy.
I just think, if we’re going to credit an ideological movement for being all about “equality,” they first should, every now & then, y’know, stick up for…uh…equality. Guess that’s old-fashioned of me.
- mkfreeberg | 08/27/2013 @ 17:23mkfreeberg: If there is deception taking place within the liberal movement, it must logically follow that there is a split existing within, with the deceivers on one side and the deceived on the other.
There are opportunists in every movement. That doesn’t change what the movement is trying to achieve.
mkfreeberg: If the liberal movement’s consistent achievement of inequality…
Except that’s not accurate. We’ve pointed to many examples of what most people would consider positive achievements towards equality by liberalism, including the Civil Rights Movement. If anything, it was these successes that might be the cause of overreaching.
mkfreeberg: Therefore, I conclude we can just about jettison this idea of liberals being for equality.
You can pretend all you want, but your own citation makes it clear that people use the term liberal to mean someone who wants “caring for the weak, fairness, and liberty”.
- Zachriel | 08/28/2013 @ 04:39Except that’s [liberalism’s achievement of inequality] not accurate. We’ve pointed to many examples of what most people would consider positive achievements towards…
Among those is affirmative action, which by its very design treats people unequally by class (or mandates that they be treated unequally in promotions, hiring, enrollment and contracting).
*sigh* Looks like it’s unavoidable…here we go…
Your definition fails to achieve what definitions are supposed to achieve. Using y’all’s passive-voice definition of “liberalism,” we’d have to keep running back with questions to the effect of “Hey The Zachriel, are we using it the right way — over here?” Since your definition makes it abundantly clear that liberals are for equality — except when they’re not — and they’re for liberty — except when they’re not.
The inequality, however, is more consistent than the equality. I tried to make this clear to y’all with the Gini 1.0 thing, but since y’all are actually guilty of “frantically sniffing for gotchas like a squirrel with ADD,” that one doesn’t seem to get the message across…since y’all didn’t want it to. Okay then, let’s dispense with the fine parsing of the Lorenz curve arithmetic and say: The effort to achieve supremacy of power and control, of one class over another, is a constant fixture in modern-liberal and leftist campaigns. Stating it more briefly, the inequality is there, if not always, then at least much more often than the equality. Even when the drive is ostensibly for equality, the real push is toward one class bullying another class. The phony “hate crime” equality, which from my link above we can see is entirely devoid of the virtue of equality, is one example; hate crime prosecution is all about supremacy of one class over another. The gay marriage movement is another example. The affirmative action, discussed above, is another example.
Seems y’all don’t dispute that, instead your rebuttal has something to do with making some hot locally to make cold globally, or something. When your argument presupposes that a thing is the opposite of itself, it’s time to give it up.
Also, when an ideology inherently relies on deception, it is necessary to separate the ulterior motives from the cosmetic ones. Seems y’all aren’t quite hip to this; can’t quite cotton to the idea of an ulterior motive. I’ll bet if we start inspecting the Tea Party though, and whether they’re truly opposed to Obama because of His skin color, y’all will be able to grasp ulterior motives just fine.
You can pretend all you want, but your own citation makes it clear that people use the term liberal to mean someone who wants “caring for the weak, fairness, and liberty”.
And…what are we to conclude when “people use” a term in a demonstrably false way? That the falsification never happened, because heck, they must know what they’re doing?
I find it snort-worthy amusing, in a sad kind of way, how y’all raise the credibility of complete strangers to the level of reference material, when those strangers happen to say something y’all like.
Your argument, frankly, is quickly diminishing into little more than a how-to guide that might as well be called “how to protect ignorance from the information that threatens to cure it.”
- mkfreeberg | 08/28/2013 @ 05:13mkfreeberg: Among those is affirmative action, which by its very design treats people unequally by class (or mandates that they be treated unequally in promotions, hiring, enrollment and contracting).
The purpose of affirmative action is greater equality. Consider a prominent example, A&P groceries. For years, they had discriminated against blacks, so that, even in black neighborhoods, the workforce was white. After passage of non-discrimination laws, they wouldn’t be able to discriminate, but they could still hire by reference from current employees. As society was segregated, that meant the vast majority of their hiring would still be whites. In other words, past discrimination was built into the structure of the work force.
King, on the political left, knew this, and that’s why he supported affirmative action. It doesn’t matter if you disagree or find the policy counterproductive, only that you understand this is the thinking of liberals.
mkfreeberg: Your definition fails to achieve what definitions are supposed to achieve.
The definition that’s relevant to our discussion is “a statement of the meaning of a word”. The meanings of words are determined by usage. A definition merely reflects that usage.
mkfreeberg: The phony “hate crime” equality, which from my link above we can see is entirely devoid of the virtue of equality
Blacks are often charged with hate crimes.
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/november/hatecrimes_111411/hatecrimes_111411
mkfreeberg: The gay marriage movement is another example.
As a public accommodation, they also have to serve blacks.
mkfreeberg: And…what are we to conclude when “people use” a term in a demonstrably false way?
But even most conservatives us it that way! Read your own citation, by Golly! When people say liberalism, they mean “caring for the weak, fairness, and liberty”.
- Zachriel | 08/28/2013 @ 05:33The purpose of affirmative action is greater equality.
Might wanna re-think that one.
The definition that’s relevant to our discussion is “a statement of the meaning of a word”. The meanings of words are determined by usage. A definition merely reflects that usage.
And when people use words in a way that do not reflect the experience of reality, there will inevitably set in a process of wising-up. They’ll stop using them that way.
Your so-called “definition” relies on the usage by people who are not yet in the process of wising-up. The people who haven’t noticed that modern liberals consistently promote inequality.
I notice, also, that my definitions fulfill your definition of a definition. Do we now need to go running to the dictionary to look up the definition of “meaning”?
As a public accommodation, they also have to serve blacks.
Ah remember now, we are not here to debate merits of arguments. We’re trying to figure out if the left is more consistently motivated by liberty & equality, or the elevation of one class over another. And whether there is any truth to…
…and here’s the left, elevating one class over another, and destroying things that create/preserve.
But even most conservatives us it that way!
And, for the reasons I’ve already given, that way is false. As in, it doesn’t work.
Liberals are for equality, except for those few cases where they’re opposed to it; and they’re nearly always opposed to it.
It seems there’s this bit of successful chicanery that’s been peddled for a few generations now, and now it’s being called out, your rebuttal is ultimately nothing more than “But they’ve been getting away with it for so long! Let it go!”
- mkfreeberg | 08/28/2013 @ 05:43mkfreeberg: And when people use words in a way that do not reflect the experience of reality, there will inevitably set in a process of wising-up. They’ll stop using them that way.
Perhaps. When that happens, let us know. Meanwhile, when people say “liberal”, they generally mean someone who supports “caring for the weak, fairness, and liberty”, as your own citation makes clear.
- Zachriel | 08/28/2013 @ 05:49Blacks are often charged with hate crimes.
Huh. Looking at your link there, I see this:
“Often,” eh? I recall vaguely similar numbers working the other way — blacks are accused of crimes (and incarcerated) at twice the rate of whites, gross inequality, institutional racism, biased justice system, yadda yadda yadda. (Interesting, too, the definition of a “hate crimes victim: “a “victim” can be an individual, a business, an institution, or society as a whole”).
It’s an interesting — by which I mean juvenile, boring, and pathetic — little semantic game The Zachriel are playing here. It’s the classic panic maneuver of the high-school debater: Get a citation into the record, so when you’re getting hammered on all the manifest absurdities of your position, you can fire back with “what about Garvin 2002? What about Garvin 2002? What about Garvin 2002?” Playing to not lose. Logic be damned.
For instance: Meanwhile, when people say “liberal”, they generally mean someone who supports “caring for the weak, fairness, and liberty”, as your own citation makes clear.
Classic. No, “people” generally don’t mean that. Ask any Republican voter — 48% of the electorate at last count — if that’s what they think of when they hear the word “liberal.” I’d suggest wearing a sneeze guard and football pads. But hey, Graham 2012 got a group of undergrads together and asked them about stereotypes, and so, you know, that pair beats a full house.
Another good one: There are obvious tensions between equality and liberty. For instance, the Civil Rights Act made for more equality, but it meant that bigots no longer had the freedom to refuse service to blacks in public accommodations.
Transparently inserting moral language into policy debates, another hoary old debate club move. Any definition of “freedom” worth defending includes the freedom to be a bigot, because that’s what “freedom” means — the right to act in accordance with one’s values, even if those values are unpopular. But when that comes into conflict with the state’s preferred value system… Equality uber alles. And now we’ve got people ““compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives” because “it is the price of citizenship.”
Unequal treatment of Christians to provide equal treatment for gays. Unequal treatment of whites to provide special advantages for blacks. You’re free to argue that these are moral necessities — those who passed the 14th, 15th, 19th, &c Amendments certainly did so — but you don’t get to unilaterally proclaim that your values trump other values because Graham 2012 says that’s how “people” (in reality, 2,212 people who clicked on a website) use the terms.
Values come into conflict all the time. When it comes to policy, we put them to a vote. Funny how it’s almost always the “liberals,” waving their endless binders full of “studies,” who lead the charge to have plebiscites overturned by unelectable, unaccountable bureaucrats. Inequality in the service of equality. Equality trumps liberty. Equality trumps religious freedom. Equality trumps everything…. as long as it’s our definition of equality, and it’s we who are deciding which animals are more equal than others. ]
If you’d just come right out and argue that — that we, The Zachriel Collective, are superior and should be empowered to decide — I’d actually respect you a little. As it is, I’ve seen better high school debate tricks pulled in… well, a high school debate.
- Severian | 08/28/2013 @ 06:36Perhaps. When that happens, let us know.
This post lets you know. Your reaction to this post, lets us know what your reaction is to new information.
In fact, there is a word to describe people who have wised up in the way I have described: Conservatives. Note the findings of the study, which say conservatives understand liberals much better than liberals understand conservatives.
It seems we agree on the basics: Modern liberalism, being an inherently deceptive ideology, possesses a duality of objectives, the fake and the real. Your repeated references to “common usage” refer to usage that is not quite so much “common,” but persisting in the darkness, prior to the dawn of an enlightenment that is now taking place.
Because of that, liberalism has two definitions: Mine, which is consistent with the understanding of those who have learned, and yours, which is consistent with the understanding of those who have not. You correctly note that some of these are conservatives. They may not be quite so much deluded, as toiling away trying to extend the benefit of the doubt to friends & relatives of theirs who self-identify as liberals, having been recruited under this delusion that liberal initiatives increase equality, liberty, or some combination of the two. They are therefore trying to explain not so much the motives of the movement, but the motives of their suckered-in friends & relatives. This would be consistent with what Larry Elder said (paraphrased), conservatives think liberals are misguided, and liberals think conservatives are really, really, really bad people.
That, in turn, would be consistent with the study I linked.
- mkfreeberg | 08/28/2013 @ 07:38“Of the 6,008 known offenders, 58.6 were white and 18.4 percent were black.”
Severian: “Often,” eh?
Blacks constitute only about 12% of the population, so they are being charged at a significantly higher rate in proportion to population. Mkfreeberg had suggested otherwise.
Severian: No, “people” generally don’t mean that.
Not according to the study mkfreeberg cited above. However, we’d be happy to look at any objective data you provide.
Severian: Any definition of “freedom” worth defending includes the freedom to be a bigot, because that’s what “freedom” means
That’s right. Which is why there is a tension between the goals of equality and liberty. While the Civil Rights Acts increase equality and freedom of association for many, it also limited to some degree the freedom of bigots.
Severian: Unequal treatment of Christians to provide equal treatment for gays.
That is incorrect. Civil rights laws generally require equal treatment in public accommodations regardless of race, religion or creed, and more recently sexual orientation. The photographers can’t open a business and refuse to serve blacks or Jews, for instance.
Severian: you don’t get to unilaterally proclaim that your values trump other values because Graham 2012 says that’s how “people” (in reality, 2,212 people who clicked on a website) use the terms.
The discussion of this thread is the use of the term liberal and conservative, left and right, without regard to the relative values of those positions.
Severian: Equality trumps liberty. Equality trumps religious freedom.
That would be the hard left, not a liberal, by definition.
- Zachriel | 08/28/2013 @ 08:45mkfreeberg: Note the findings of the study, which say conservatives understand liberals much better than liberals understand conservatives.
That’s right. Conservative were more likely to understand that liberals were more motivated by ”compassion and fairness”, while liberals were less likely to understand that conservatives were more concerned with “loyalty, respect for authorities and traditions”. Liberals were more likely to reach extreme conclusions about conservatives, but the reverse effect wasn’t absent among conservatives, as we see on this thread.
mkfreeberg: Modern liberalism, being an inherently deceptive ideology, possesses a duality of objectives, the fake and the real.
No, we don’t agree with that. While all political movements have their opportunists, it’s quite apparent that most liberals have liberal views. You might make the same conjecture about communists, seeing the results of communist revolutions, yet it’s obvious that millions were mobilized fully believing in the future of communism.
mkfreeberg: Because of that, liberalism has two definitions: Mine, which is consistent with the understanding of those who have learned, and yours, which is consistent with the understanding of those who have not.
The sounds that make up a word are just sounds unless people have some common understanding as their meaning. Your definition is only useful within the right wing echo chamber, and has no currency elsewhere. Your own citation shows that.
mkfreeberg: This would be consistent with what Larry Elder said (paraphrased), conservatives think liberals are misguided, and liberals think conservatives are really, really, really bad people. That, in turn, would be consistent with the study I linked.
“Conservatives consider liberals well-intentioned, but misguided. Liberals consider conservatives not only wrong, but really, really bad people.”
Elder’s statement would be an overgeneralization. It’s a tendency, not a rule. According to the study (and ignoring the problem of biasing in the data), more liberals have a false view of how conservatives see themselves, than the converse. But many liberals have a true view, and some conservatives have a false one; you, for instance.
In any case, the study directly contradicts your claim about the meaning of liberal and conservative.
- Zachriel | 08/28/2013 @ 09:10…yet it’s obvious that millions were mobilized fully believing in the future of communism.
Is it now? Based on what?
Your definition is only useful
within the right wing echo chamberamong those who have reached understanding, and has no currencyelsewhereamong the ignorant. Your own citation shows that.I admit my definition is a re-definition. But, and this is the problem with which y’all seen to be having some trouble…it’s a re-definition long overdue.
But many liberals have a true view, and some conservatives have a false one; you, for instance.
It’s a bad example, because in order to characterize my view as false, y’all need to counsel that the enlightened must take their cues from the ignorant, and aspire to hold opinions that comport with those of the ignorant.
In any case, the study directly contradicts your claim about the meaning of liberal and conservative.
If by “directly contradicts” what you mean is “does not contradict,” then you are correct.
- mkfreeberg | 08/28/2013 @ 11:46mkfreeberg: I admit my definition is a re-definition.
Well, when people start using your definition, let us know.
- Zachriel | 08/28/2013 @ 12:09There’s glory for you!
- Zachriel | 08/28/2013 @ 12:12Well, when people start using your definition, let us know.
If a self-identifying liberal conforms with your definition but not with mine, that person isn’t going to be a liberal very long.
But if he conforms with my definition, but not with yours, he’ll make a very good one. Like these guys for example.
- mkfreeberg | 08/28/2013 @ 12:24mkfreeberg: If a self-identifying liberal conforms with your definition but not with mine, that person isn’t going to be a liberal very long.
We just went through that. You cited a survey, and self-identified liberals said they were concerned about “caring for the weak, fairness, and liberty”. There’s glory for you!
- Zachriel | 08/28/2013 @ 12:29And — the Tea Party members are also concerned about those things.
So you see, a re-definition is needed, because granting your definition the benefit of EVERY doubt, it just doesn’t work.
Do we need to go looking up “doesn’t work” in the encyclopedia now?
- mkfreeberg | 08/28/2013 @ 12:40mkfreeberg: And — the Tea Party members are also concerned about those things.
Sure they are, but per your own cited survey, conservatives were *more* concerned with “loyalty, respect for authorities and traditions”.
mkfreeberg: So you see, a re-definition is needed, because granting your definition the benefit of EVERY doubt, it just doesn’t work.
It’s not our personal definition, but what most people mean by the term.
- Zachriel | 08/28/2013 @ 12:51Sure they are, but per your own cited survey, conservatives were *more* concerned with “loyalty, respect for authorities and traditions”.
Oh so now it’s ceased to be a “whether” the faction is concerned, and now it’s a “how much.” That creates a problem: We need a way to test that, outside of your tried-and-true “they insist they’re concerned about it” litmus test. After all, if we can’t go by anything else, we’re bound to be left with a conclusion of “they’re absolutely, positively, super-duper-duper concerned, infinity times infinity plus one plus one.”
It’s becoming clearer and clearer that that’s good enough for y’all. But common sense says, the way to test this is by ignoring what people say and watching what they do.
It’s not our personal definition, but what most people mean by the term.
This is a whole new experience for y’all, I can tell: Evaluating whether or not a definition works.
Y’all’s definition doesn’t work, because if a test subject “believe[s] in the preservation of traditional values and institutions…[but also] believes they must be pushed to adapt to modern times…look[ing] to the future for inspiration, the progress of history being seen as a march towards a more egalitarian society” — and — “want[s] to overthrow corrupt ancient institutions and bring forth a mythological and glorious future” — but — “[is] concerned primarily about matters of cause-and-effect” and “seek[s] to create and preserve things that create or preserve, and destroy things that destroy”…that person is almost certain to be an active and participating Tea Party member. If he is currently affiliated and demonstrating with liberal movements, he won’t likely be doing that for very long. That would be a Frederick Douglas. An Abraham Lincoln. A Ronald Reagan. A David Horowitz.
- mkfreeberg | 08/28/2013 @ 13:23per your own cited survey, conservatives were *more* concerned with “loyalty, respect for authorities and traditions”.
So now it’s about who self-identifies as more concerned about these things. I see. So a population of 2,000 mostly female (62%), immediately post-college (median age 28), US citizens is now “most people,” because they say they care more about such things. I must admit, y’all’s cardiovascular endurance is impressive — you’re sprinting with those goalposts.
Like here for example:
Which is the definition of “unequal treatment of Christians to provide equal treatment for gays.” Did you miss the part where the judge said that “the price of citizenship” is being “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives”? A judge is compelling people to violate their consciences in a private transaction (unless you’re somehow arguing that wedding photography is exactly the same as a post office or something). You can call them bigots if you like, but the fact remains that liberals always “resolve” the “tension” between equality and liberty by limiting freedom. And it’s never their freedom — again, witness all the Dem politicos and Obama donors who are getting exemptions from Obamacare. It’s always the freedom of others.
But then again, y’all have demonstrated time and again your unwillingness to recognize patterns when they conflict with your preconceptions. It’s easy to claim “most people” see things your way when contrary evidence doesn’t count. After all, nobody y’all know voted for Nixon…. which must mean McGovern won. After all, “most people” say so.
- Severian | 08/28/2013 @ 13:38mkfreeberg: Oh so now it’s ceased to be a “whether” the faction is concerned, and now it’s a “how much.”
Liberals care about loyalty and tradition too. There’s glory for you!
Severian: A judge is compelling people to violate their consciences in a private transaction (unless you’re somehow arguing that wedding photography is exactly the same as a post office or something).
Under civil rights laws, if they run a public accommodation, they have to serve blacks too, even if it violates their conscience.
- Zachriel | 08/28/2013 @ 14:33Uh hunh. And you’re sprinting away with those goalposts like Usain Bolt on crack. There’s glory for you!
(What a silly phrase. Still, I guess it beats endless cut-n-pastes of “was Louis XVI king of France?” and a temperature .gif. By the way, have you figured out what “Detroit” means yet?)
- Severian | 08/28/2013 @ 15:52Severian: Uh hunh.
We addressed your comment by pointing out that, if they offer public accommodations, they also have to serve blacks and Jews, even if it is against their consciences.
- Zachriel | 08/28/2013 @ 16:00http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/adaqa2.html
Civil Rights Act of 1964: Title II
- Zachriel | 08/28/2013 @ 16:03http://www.citizensource.com/History/20thCen/CRA1964/CRA2.htm
This is a whole new experience for y’all, I can tell: Evaluating whether or not a definition works.
The lads identified in the story I linked are not interested in fairness. They are not interested in equality. They are not interested in liberty. They do not fulfill your definition of leftist, or liberal, in any way. But Dylan Bleier and Matt Alden are “motivated by the next revolution; therefore, by some kind of resentment or offense.” Theirs is the proxy offense, of which we’ve seen so much lately, taken by guilty-straight-white-male liberals, who do not qualify in any way whatsoever for any sort of minority-class special-protection, and appear to resent that. They’re not looking forward to any kind of “glorious future.”
If you were to conduct some kind of a poll, among any audience you’d care to pick, you would find your much-vaunted “common usage” to peg these guys as lefties. You’d certainly have a tough time finding anyone, intelligent & following recent events, or otherwise, who’d insinuate that they are “conservatives.” Or Republicans. Or right-wingers. Or Tea Party people.
I’m right about that, right?
Messrs. Bleier and Alden fit very well into one of those bullets, and not the other. There’s glory for you!
- mkfreeberg | 08/28/2013 @ 16:45mkfreeberg: The lads identified in the story I linked are not interested in fairness.
Bleier doesn’t identify as a liberal, but an “atheist/pacifist/environmentalist/libertarian socialist/consequentialist.” In any case, we can agree that he would be classified somewhere on the far political left.
Even if you reject the shocking method, Bleier ‘s goal was to “eradicate structural racism”. Do you even bother to read your citations?
- Zachriel | 08/28/2013 @ 17:07Yes.
Is it your contention then that equality was part of Mr. Bleier’s goal?
If y’all agree, then I guess we must be in agreement that Mr. Bleier is, at least in some sense, a fool; and we’re running into the problem into which we already ran before, that liberals are a bit knuckle-headed when it comes to cause-&-effect, so it’s up to us as observers to tease out the nuances in figuring out what their goals are. After all, who but a knuckle-headed fool could have failed to predict that this would not result in your “increased equality.”
Morgan Freeman is certainly bright enough. Maybe the two guilty-white-straight-male liberal lads should have watched this.
Hint: Mr. Freeman solves the whole thing forty seconds in. And it’s the exact-opposite solution from the one these two knuckleheads chose.
It’s clear re-definition is overdue, but y’all don’t like the re-definition I posted above, because…well, your dislike has nothing to do with the question of whether my re-definition works or not, since y’all obviously aren’t familiar with the concept of definitions working. It looks like y’all’s protest is over whether the re-definition is flattering to liberals or not.
- mkfreeberg | 08/28/2013 @ 17:29Yes, equality was Bleier’s goal. Yes, his actions were foolish. But keep in mind that his actions were condemned by liberals among others. It isn’t necessary to mangle the language to reach the conclusion that Bleier is best defined as being on the political left. Nor should the extreme views of a single young person be considered representative of everyone on the left.
Freeman supported Obama, by the way.
- Zachriel | 08/28/2013 @ 18:23Yes, Freeman supported Obama. That is leftist, and liberal. And a bit daffy & dumb.
Freeman is also, in the clip, going after the low-drama approach to resolving these issues.
That is right-ist, and conservative. And wise.
- mkfreeberg | 08/28/2013 @ 18:24Egalité!
mkfreeberg: Egalité!
Other black members of Congress were invited.
Bleier: libertarian socialist/consequentialist.
According to our definition, Bleier is on the left, because he is a socialist (economic equality). According to your definition, he is on the right, because he is a libertarian (minimalist government). Consequentialism explains his hoax.
The survey you cited contradicts your position. Your chosen example contradicts your position.
- Zachriel | 08/29/2013 @ 05:00In both cases though, you picked up the nugget you wanted and ignored all the rest. I offered many other bullet points to distinguish right from left. A lot of these place Bleier on the left. Y’all chose to ignore those.
Your methodology, in determining that my definitions place Bleier on the right, contradicts the methodology you used in raising the irrelevant point “Other black members of Congress were invited.” And, the other irrelevant point “conservatives were *more* concerned with ‘loyalty, respect for authorities and traditions’. ”
And I notice this is a consistent technique y’all use. One of the ways weak logic is used to arrive at any conclusion desired, is to cherry-pick the bits of “real” data that will compel a neutral observer toward it; y’all seem to go beyond even that, by way of getting rid of whatever doesn’t fit the template, as opposed to adding in whatever does. Evidently seeking “to shape the emerging consensus by eliminating information rather than by gathering it, which is a tip-off that this consensus is being shaped by way of ignorance, rather than by learning.”
I thought it was a bit strange y’all were agreeing to the statement that, in y’all’s words, “Conservative were more likely to understand that liberals were more motivated by ‘compassion and fairness”, while liberals were less likely to understand that conservatives were more concerned with ‘loyalty, respect for authorities and traditions'” — and yet, at the same time, y’all’s definitions of liberal vs. conservative seem to be molded straight out of this less informed liberal understanding. But as y’all opine further, it makes more and more sense.
It’s as if y’all come from a strange land in which, as an opinion becomes better informed by way of an accumulation of information, the fear is that it will drift out of the template of what is “correct” and this is something that is to be avoided. Education is ignorance; ignorance is education. The true genesis of our conflict is that I believe one achieves greater understanding of the world around him as he channels his cumulative knowledge into his understanding, and y’all believe that’s the wrong way to do it, because his command of the concepts and his terminology would slip from “common usage.”
And so, to figure out the true definition of left, right, conservative, liberal, we should just ask the liberals for their opinions about it and ignore everybody else — because the liberals’ understanding is the lowest, involving the least amount of this cumulative knowledge, therefore least likely to wander afield from common usage. It’s an interesting way to look at education.
- mkfreeberg | 08/29/2013 @ 05:19mkfreeberg: y’all’s definitions of liberal vs. conservative seem to be molded straight out of this less informed liberal understanding.
As we’re discussing the meanings of the words, the definition is determined by how people in general use the term, liberals and conservatives and moderates.
The survey you provided asked people how they were using the term liberal. Self-identified liberals thought that caring for the weak, fairness and liberty were their most important concerns. Self-identified moderates and conservatives thought that liberals were most concerned about caring for the weak, fairness and liberty. So, it’s clear that’s how most people use the terms.
mkfreeberg: In both cases though, you picked up the nugget you wanted and ignored all the rest. I offered many other bullet points to distinguish right from left. A lot of these place Bleier on the left. Y’all chose to ignore those.
You still seem to be confusing an exhaustive list of characteristics with a definition. In any case, you have continually argued liberalism has to do with concentration of power and leadership. Is this no longer your position?
- Zachriel | 08/29/2013 @ 05:31As we’re discussing the meanings of the words, the definition is determined by how people in general use the term, liberals and conservatives and moderates.
The survey you provided asked people how they were using the term liberal. Self-identified liberals thought that caring for the weak, fairness and liberty were their most important concerns. Self-identified moderates and conservatives thought that liberals were most concerned about caring for the weak, fairness and liberty. So, it’s clear that’s how most people use the terms.
Right. So you champion the cause of defining things according by way of ignorance, as opposed to by way of knowledge. Since, with accumulated knowledge, we do know liberal policies do not help the weak, and liberals are not concerned with the weak.
And, we can also see “common usage” puts Mr. Bleier on the left. Most people would say that is where he is. Accumulated knowledge also puts Mr. Bleier on the left. But y’all seem to be insisting he’s on the right somehow? So y’all aren’t being consistent with this “how most people use the terms thing.” But you are being consistent in treating education as ignorance, and vice-versa.
You still seem to be confusing an exhaustive list of characteristics with a definition. In any case, you have continually argued liberalism has to do with concentration of power and leadership. Is this no longer your position?
Mr. Bleier, according to the article, is an Obama supporter.
Dylan Bleier, one of the two students, organized a voter registration drive on behalf of Obama before the 2008 election. That voter drive is still listed on the website for Organizing for Action, the non-profit group whose mission is to advance Obama’s agenda.
I’ll change my mind if the cumulative information warrants it, but that hasn’t happened here.
- mkfreeberg | 08/29/2013 @ 05:36mkfreeberg: So you champion the cause of defining things according by way of ignorance, as opposed to by way of knowledge.
The meanings of words are determined by usage. Definitions merely reflect this usage.
mkfreeberg: And, we can also see “common usage” puts Mr. Bleier on the left.
Sure. Bleier is a libertarian socialist, so he advocates economic equality. He is on the political left per the usual definition.
mkfreeberg: But y’all seem to be insisting he’s on the right somehow?
No. We’re just applying *your* definition. You’ve continually argued that the left is defined by concentration of power. Bleier is a libertarian, and is against any but the most minimalist government. According to your definition, he would be on the political right, which doesn’t comport with how most people would classify him. Your definition is faulty.
- Zachriel | 08/29/2013 @ 05:51You’ve continually argued that the left is defined by concentration of power. Bleier is a libertarian, and is against any but the most minimalist government.
Bleier is supporting Obama, because Obama’s form of government is minimalist?
Somebody better hurry up and tell Uncle Joe!
- mkfreeberg | 08/29/2013 @ 06:01mkfreeberg: Bleier is supporting Obama, because Obama’s form of government is minimalist?
Well, we don’t have Bleier’s own opinion, but many libertarian socialists considered that a possible Romney presidency would lead to a far greater concentration of political and economic power due to the confluence of government and corporations.
- Zachriel | 08/29/2013 @ 06:10mkfreeberg: Somebody better hurry up and tell Uncle Joe!
That’s a misquote of Biden. You should really be more skeptical of what you read on the Internet.
- Zachriel | 08/29/2013 @ 06:12I won’t be able to find a video clip of him saying it? Promise?
- mkfreeberg | 08/29/2013 @ 06:16What a farce this has become! Now apparently we have to parse some college kid’s long list of “lookit me! I’m a dangerous rebel! (now will you please sleep with me?)” self-descriptors to find out which one of them “advocates for greater equality” and judge his knuckleheaded, narcissistic actions from that. We’ve got to dig into grammar like Panini to figure out something, anything where the self-described “liberal” is the good guy. Applicability in the real world be damned; we’ve got to get the syllables right. Hare krishna.
This is the problem with argumentum ad gotcha.
As anyone who spends most of his day outside his Mom’s basement knows, “Self-identified moderates and conservatives thought that liberals were most concerned about caring for the weak, fairness and liberty” is in no way incompatible with “those liberals don’t know what they’re talking about.” Especially because the study didn’t measure that, and wasn’t intended to measure that. Here’s the question as it was put to the study participants:
In other words, what do you think he thinks?
Now, I don’t dispute, and I don’t think Morgan disputes, that liberals certainly think they’re interested in helping the weak, &c. They seemingly can’t go five minutes without patting themselves on the back for their superior moral virtue. Problem is, what they think they’re doing doesn’t describe what they’re actually doing. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Those are not incompatible positions, and they’re not incompatible with the survey results. You’d get the same kind of response if you asked the respondents “When a typical narcissist decides…” I sincerely believe that a narcissist really, truly thinks he’s a famous international playboy. I also sincerely believe that he’s nuts, as his objective circumstances — sitting in his mom’s basement, arguing semantics on blogs, cutting-and-pasting little climate .gifs over and over again — do not at all conform to his image of himself.
It’s the difference between grasping knowledge that can be applied in the real world, versus endlessly debating which animals are more equal than others.
- Severian | 08/29/2013 @ 06:21mkfreeberg: I won’t be able to find a video clip of him saying it?
Tip: Learn to be skeptical. Support your claims before posting them.
- Zachriel | 08/29/2013 @ 06:22*sigh*
Okay, here we go.
Bleier supposedly fails to qualify as a liberal according to my definition, because my definitions say “Liberalism is strongly associated, throughout history, with over-privileged dictators-for-life” (I assume that is the bullet point that is at issue) — and Bleier is an anarchist, or thinks he is.
Bleier supports the Obama administration. The Obama administration, through its Vice President, is singing the song of tyrants “throughout history.” Now we have to parse between the meanings of “ordinary” and “law-abiding” I guess. Otherwise — where, exactly, would you say I got snookered because I haven’t learned to be skeptical?
It’s looking more and more like our real disagreement, is about the plain truth that people become more knowledgeable as they accumulate knowledge. I think that’s true; y’all disagree, and keep finding these excuses to keep the knowledge out, like it’s some kind of a bear or wolf at the village gates or something. Time after time, y’all have read something only insofar as y’all can find some little nugget by which you can discredit the whole thing, such that y’all can keep y’all’s existing understanding of the topic, static. In other words — not learn anything.
Look: You’re probably going to do the same thing with the Biden clip, too. You’ll avoid reaching the conclusion that I was right about what he said, and while y’all are avoiding that, y’all will avoid modifying your existing understanding in any other way. I’m getting more and more convinced that y’all see ignorance as knowledge.
- mkfreeberg | 08/29/2013 @ 06:34Severian: Now apparently we have to parse some college kid’s long list of “lookit me! I’m a dangerous rebel! (now will you please sleep with me?)” self-descriptors …
Take that up with mkfreeberg who introduced “some college kid” to the discussion.
Severian: “Self-identified moderates and conservatives thought that liberals were most concerned about caring for the weak, fairness and liberty” is in no way incompatible with “those liberals don’t know what they’re talking about.”
We agree. Saying they are misguided is a far better argument, and it wouldn’t require redefining the vocabulary.
http://www.peekinthewell.net/blog/liberals-and-conservatives-left-and-right/#comment-21012
Severian: In other words, what do you think he thinks?
That’s exactly right! In the survey, people tell us what they think liberals want. This defines how people use the term.
Severian: Now, I don’t dispute, and I don’t think Morgan disputes, that liberals certainly think they’re interested in helping the weak, &c.
Actually, mkfreeberg does dispute it. You can take that up with mkfreeberg, too.
Severian: Problem is, what they think they’re doing doesn’t describe what they’re actually doing. Quite the opposite, in fact.
That’s fine, but a different argument. This discussion is about what people mean when they say liberal and conservative, left and right.
- Zachriel | 08/29/2013 @ 06:37mkfreeberg: Bleier supposedly fails to qualify as a liberal according to my definition
That’s right, but nearly everybody would classify him on the left because he is a socialist. Your definition fails to capture what people mean by the term political left.
mkfreeberg: You’re probably going to do the same thing with the Biden clip, too.
It was a misquote that changed the meaning of what Biden said. Typical right wing echo chamber stuff.
mkfreeberg: I’m getting more and more convinced that y’all see ignorance as knowledge.
Marxism refers to a theory of economic socialism, even if the theory hasn’t worked out quite like Marx thought it would. A definition is not a value judgment. Equality is not always a positive good, if it ignores other essential human values, such as freedom. Nor is freedom always a positive good, if it ignores other essential human values, such as justice.
- Zachriel | 08/29/2013 @ 06:45Now, I don’t dispute, and I don’t think Morgan disputes, that liberals certainly think they’re interested in helping the weak, &c. They seemingly can’t go five minutes without patting themselves on the back for their superior moral virtue…
In a lot of cases, I don’t dispute that. It’s an inherently deceptive ideology, as I’ve said, and where there is deception taking place it stands to reason there is a deceiver and then there is the deceived. Because each of those two parties is involved, and their motives are necessarily different, we have to distinguish which one we’re discussing.
If helping the weak were a priority, though, they’d all be behaving differently. They would monitor the results and then modify the action accordingly, having learned from prior failure. Big time.
First time they get their plans working, ignorance is an excuse; we can say it’s alright that their stated intent goes in one direction, and their achievement is in the opposite direction. After they’ve been running things awhile, with the same programs put in place and the same results realized, that ceases to be an excuse. And nobody is going to be impressed with that, save for those who have dedicated themselves to keeping their command of knowledge static with the passage of time, learning nothing…like our friends, here.
- mkfreeberg | 08/29/2013 @ 06:46mkfreeberg: It’s an inherently deceptive ideology, as I’ve said, and where there is deception taking place it stands to reason there is a deceiver and then there is the deceived.
All movements have opportunists, and all politicians shade the truth, on the right as well as the left.
mkfreeberg: If helping the weak were a priority, though, they’d all be behaving differently.
The Civil Rights Movement was from the political left. Most would say it did help people.
- Zachriel | 08/29/2013 @ 06:50mkfreeberg: It’s an inherently deceptive ideology, as I’ve said, and where there is deception taking place it stands to reason there is a deceiver and then there is the deceived.
Z: All movements have opportunists, and all politicians shade the truth, on the right as well as the left.
Y’all seem confused on this point. I’m not making that observation to define liberalism as inferior. I have other ways of doing that. I’m seeking to broaden y’all’s understanding of my position on whether liberals truly care about the poor & weak. (Some do, but within such a brief span of time that they can’t figure out the policies they supported are actually hurting those poor & weak; others don’t give a rip at any time.)
While I’m seeking to explain my position, which is too complex to fit into your overly-simplified perceptions, y’all are seeking to avoid understanding — as y’all have always done. There’s always some excuse to avoid absorbing the new information. Just like an alcoholic has an excuse for the next drink.
Y’all have a special kind of “logic” that is at work, keeping new information at bay, like a vicious bear or wolf at the village gates. Education is ignorance; ignorance is education. There’s glory for you!
- mkfreeberg | 08/29/2013 @ 06:59mkfreeberg: I’m seeking to broaden y’all’s understanding of my position on whether liberals truly care about the poor & weak. (Some do, but within such a brief span of time that they can’t figure out the policies they supported are actually hurting those poor & weak; others don’t give a rip at any time.)
There’s a wide variety of views under the umbrella of liberalism, however, nearly all liberals advocate for social safety nets for the elderly and poor. Politicians, those who deal in power, may be more motivated by personal considerations, but that’s just as much true on the right. Most people recognize the weaknesses of politicians, but generally back politicians who support policies they also support.
It’s not that complicated. The liberal movement pushes liberal policies because liberals believe those policies are best for society. The conservative movement pushes conservative policies because conservatives believe those policies are best for society.
As for liberal policies never providing a benefit, we keep pointing to, and you keep ignoring, the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S., which most people consider largely successful in creating a more just society.
- Zachriel | 08/29/2013 @ 07:07The Civil Rights Movement was from the political left. Most would say it did help people.
It’s fascinating how y’all keep coming back to this as if it’s some kind of big knockout punch. Even if we grant for the sake of argument that it was on the left (which left? New Left? Old Left?), and only on the left (not even remotely true by your own admission, but whatevs), have you got anything that doesn’t date from 1965?
I mean, here we are, arguing that these things change over time, and that actions are more important than words, and here y’all are, saying no no, they’re always and forever static, and your big knockout proofs for this are…. the Civil Rights Act and, I guess, Robespierre.
Saying they are misguided is a far better argument, and it wouldn’t require redefining the vocabulary.
Your concern for the purity of the language is touching, but given your previous manifest failures at reading comprehension — have you figured out what “Detroit” means yet? — I’m not sure that’s gonna help you, slugger. As here:
That’s exactly right! In the survey, people tell us what they think liberals want. This defines how people use the term.
No, the survey measured what conservatives thought liberals think they want. It’s an imaginative exercise. For instance, I too think liberals think they want equality and justice and all that good stuff. Problem is, what you think you want — what you say you want — is often quite different from what you actually want. People often say one thing and do another. This can be conscious (hypocrisy), unconscious, or somewhere in between.
If one is interested in obtaining a picture of the world as it is, one focuses on actions, not words. If one is intellectually honest, one notices the disconnect between one’s stated beliefs and the consequences of one’s actions, and adjusts accordingly. If one is frantically shoring up the mental barricades to defend one’s ego, on the other hand, one engages in all sorts of self-deceptive behaviors. Like, you know, pretending not to know what “Detroit” means.
- Severian | 08/29/2013 @ 07:07There’s a wide variety of views under the umbrella of liberalism, however, nearly all liberals advocate for social safety nets for the elderly and poor.
…but aren’t too concerned about actually helping them, over the long term.
If they were, they’d say — hey this isn’t working, let’s do something different. Then they’d stop being liberals.
Your tautology works according to a false premise, that the liberals maintain a monopoly on caring for people. That comes from the weird article of faith in the copybook, which essentially says “Now that we’ve figured out what the solution is going to be, anybody who does not support our solution, must be opposed to what we’re trying to do.” Another great example is any randomly selected Obama comment about the Republicans who oppose ObamaCare. They must want the uninsured to die. It’s the only explanation!
There’s glory for you.
- mkfreeberg | 08/29/2013 @ 07:52Severian: It’s fascinating how y’all keep coming back to this as if it’s some kind of big knockout punch.
No, just something that can’t be ignored.
Severian: the Civil Rights Act and, I guess, Robespierre.
Sure, but mkfreeberg’s point is that liberalism uniformly fails to achieve its goals, so liberals can’t really be liberal. The premise is false. Indeed, it could be argued that the huge achievement of liberalism in the Civil Rights Movement has led to overreaching today, but that’s not his argument.
Severian: No, the survey measured what conservatives thought liberals think they want.
It also measured what liberals say they want. And visa versa. That’s how they determined accuracy. So all sides largely agreed that liberals were distinguished by a concern for caring for the weak, fairness and liberty.
Severian: If one is intellectually honest, one notices the disconnect between one’s stated beliefs and the consequences of one’s actions, and adjusts accordingly.
Again, whether or not liberals are intellectually honest, or just plain dumb, doesn’t change the definition.
- Zachriel | 08/29/2013 @ 07:52mkfreeberg: …but aren’t too concerned about actually helping them, over the long term.
Most people think the Civil Rights Movement had long term benefits for minorities, and society as a whole.
mkfreeberg: Your tautology works according to a false premise, that the liberals maintain a monopoly on caring for people.
We didn’t say liberals had a monopoly on caring, but conservatives generally held other values more highly, such as loyalty, authority and tradition.
- Zachriel | 08/29/2013 @ 08:02Most people think the Civil Rights Movement had long term benefits for minorities, and society as a whole.
Think Severian has already addressed that adequately. If this was truly meaningful to a distinction between conservatives & liberals in the present day — which is, after all, what “most people” really are trying to figure out — there’d be a more recent example.
The example is a pretty crappy one anyway, since there were conservatives and liberals who supported and opposed the CRA. Ironically, if you were to just allow the conservatives to articulate their positions themselves, back in ’64 as well as today, ,you’d find they supported the CRA and opposed the CRA because of their interpretations of liberty. Whereas liberals, then & now, tend to be motivated more by control. They want to know who is holding the Archimedian lever.
We didn’t say liberals had a monopoly on caring, but conservatives generally held other values more highly, such as loyalty, authority and tradition.
…and liberty.
Also, if you were to just allow the conservatives to articulate their positions themselves, rather than relying on liberals to interpret on their behalf, you’d find a lot of them are opposed to the liberal solution because they simply notice the outcome of the last liberal solution, and correctly note that the purported targets of the help, weren’t helped.
- mkfreeberg | 08/29/2013 @ 08:19mkfreeberg: If this was truly meaningful to a distinction between conservatives & liberals in the present day — which is, after all, what “most people” really are trying to figure out — there’d be a more recent example.
Many leading liberals today were young in the movement then. The struggle had a strong effect upon the liberal movement of today. So, no, you can’t just wave it away. It helps explain the power of the liberal message. Look at all the people on the Washington Mall yesterday. King’s speech was a seminal event in American history.
mkfreeberg: The example is a pretty crappy one anyway, since there were conservatives and liberals who supported and opposed the CRA.
Liberals were far more likely to support, and conservatives more likely to oppose, and moderates more likely to sit on the fence. There’s no doubt that people considered the movement liberal. We provided you a rather convincing citation. Indeed, it could have been written today!
mkfreeberg: Also, if you were to just allow the conservatives to articulate their positions themselves …
That’s in the survey you cited. Conservatives were more concerned with “loyalty, respect for authorities and traditions”.
- Zachriel | 08/29/2013 @ 08:39Z: It could have been written today!
- Zachriel | 08/29/2013 @ 08:43I would refer you to Severian‘s remarks about the survey. It doesn’t look like you’ve read them yet, or if y’all did, y’all didn’t understand them.
Seems y’all admit to the part about liberals not understanding conservatives. And it seems y’all might be going so far as to agree to the part about liberals failing to understand themselves. And yet your interpretations of the positions consistently come through the liberal lens, even y’all’s remarks about the survey. This adds support for my belief that y’all, for some reason, consider the most “enlightened” viewpoint on any particular issue to be the most ignorant one.
There’s no doubt that people considered the movement liberal.
The part of it that was considered liberal, did not have to do with the civil rights, the voting rights, or anything of the like. If the connection were there, then school voucher systems would be considered, today, a liberal solution.
The most contentious part of it was the relocation of control, toward a centralized authority. A great example of this is the VRA Section 4 which was just struck down. The few dictating the actions, obligations, and customs of the many. In fact, since blacks already had the right to vote, there were a lot of conservatives who supported the equal-rights aspect of it, but opposed the relocation of power toward the kiosk configuration liberals love so much. Section 4 has always been a contentious part of the VRA. Even ardent liberals often have a tough time making it look constitutionally plausible.
Newspapers which are run and operated by left-wing liberals, Communist sympathizers, and members of the Americans for Democratic Action and other Communist front organizations with high sounding names.
Was that written by a Republican, or a democrat?
It seems like you’re rejecting the natural order of things, that as liberals play their Robespierre World-War-Z zombie game of “now that the revolution has succeeded I’m the guy at the top of the pyramid,” they will inevitably start fighting among themselves. How else do y’all think this is done, by way of some peaceful, intra-liberal-wing voting process? So the split between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks never happened?
Because if that isn’t what you’re trying to assert, then I’m not sure how you get to the idea of “Anybody who resists a leftist must be a right-ist.” Internal squabbling among the left is the expected rule, not the unexpected exception.
- mkfreeberg | 08/29/2013 @ 09:22The most contentious part of it was the relocation of control, toward a centralized authority.
And that right there is one of the main reasons many who proclaimed “the civil rights movement is on the left” believed so. It tended to undermine local sovereignty in favor of an ever-expanding, ever-intrusive state. Conservatives and Republicans who supported black voting rights — and there were many — felt that enforcement of existing laws was better than handing over more power to an unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy. As leftism always does.
To make the Zachriel’s position work, we have to assume both their definition of the word “left” and their mad mind-readin’ skillz to tell us that no no, opposition to a huge new federal power must be based on a desire for greater inequality. Pass.
- Severian | 08/29/2013 @ 09:42Kinda like saying, opposition to ObamaCare must be all about wanting the uninsured to die.
- mkfreeberg | 08/29/2013 @ 09:43Pretty much, yeah. Although that’s more of an Ed Darrell-ish position — “why do you haaaaate poor people?!” The Zachriel have already informed us that ObamaCare is intended to equalize healthcare, and so of course that’s all that matters. So long as they’re the good guys.
At this point, I mainly just check in on this thread because it gives me an excuse to scroll past the picture of that knockout in the bikini behind the bar. (Where did you find that?) But I thought you’d get a kick out of this Edmund Burke quote I found over at The Other McCain.
Kinda says it all.
- Severian | 08/29/2013 @ 10:19I got it from William Teach’s blog, along with the story, but that one’s kicking around the web in all sorts of places.
Probably should’ve taken the time & effort to find a bigger one.
The liberal solution would be to force her to wear more clothes, and ugly her down somehow, so she is more equal to all the other bartenders, like straight out of Harrison Bergeron…the few dictating the actions, obligations, and customs of the many.
- mkfreeberg | 08/29/2013 @ 10:25The liberal solution would be to force her to wear more clothes, and ugly her down somehow, so she is more equal to all the other bartenders
And if you needed any more proof that liberalism is pure evil, there you go.
- Severian | 08/29/2013 @ 11:59mkfreeberg: It doesn’t look like you’ve read them yet
We did read the survey results. They show that liberals and conservatives have different moral concerns. Liberals are more concerned with “individualizing foundations” such as caring and fairness; while conservatives are more concerned with “binding foundations”, such as loyalty and authority.
mkfreeberg: Seems y’all admit to the part about liberals not understanding conservatives.
The survey found that everyone exaggerated the differences, with conservatives being somewhat more accurate overall.
mkfreeberg: If the connection were there, then school voucher systems would be considered, today, a liberal solution.
You may not be aware, but vouchers were used to resist integration in the South. Vouchers are considered on the political right today, because they undercut public education.
mkfreeberg: A great example of this is the VRA Section 4 which was just struck down.
It was struck down as no longer necessary, not that it was never necessary. Remember, the southern states were essentially found guilty of violating the rights of their citizens. They’ve been on supervised probation ever since.
mkfreeberg: In fact, since blacks already had the right to vote, there were a lot of conservatives who supported the equal-rights aspect of it, but opposed the relocation of power toward the kiosk configuration liberals love so much.
Blacks didn’t have a practical right to vote in many southern states.
mkfreeberg: Section 4 has always been a contentious part of the VRA.
Section II of the 1965 Act was always the more contentious. That’s the one that said public accommodations couldn’t discriminate.
mkfreeberg: Was that written by a Republican, or a democrat?
It was a speech by George Wallace, a conservative Democrat from Alabama. Wallace didn’t like liberal leftists pinknics very much. The speech could be given by a right wing politician today.
mkfreeberg: Because if that isn’t what you’re trying to assert,
We’re merely providing contemporaneous evidence that the Civil Rights Movement was seen as being on the political left.
Severian: Conservatives and Republicans who supported black voting rights — and there were many — felt that enforcement of existing laws was better than handing over more power to an unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy.
Existing laws apparently didn’t work. But we understand. You’re against the Civil Rights Acts. Most people find they transformed American society for the better.
Severian: The Zachriel have already informed us that ObamaCare is intended to equalize healthcare,
That is the intention. Universal healthcare has been on the left’s agenda since Teddy Roosevelt.
Severian: and so of course that’s all that matters.
It’s hardly all that matters. It’s merely how we decide if its supporters are on the political left.
Severian: So long as they’re the good guys.
Equality is not always a positive good, if it ignores other essential human values, such as freedom. Nor is freedom always a positive good, if it ignores other essential human values, such as justice.
mkfreeberg: The liberal solution would be to force her to wear more clothes, and ugly her down somehow…
Yet oddly enough, that rarely happens in liberal societies. The societies that typically enforce such dress codes are usually very conservative.
- Zachriel | 08/29/2013 @ 14:12It was struck down as no longer necessary, not that it was never necessary.
Uh huh.
Held: Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional; its formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to pre-clearance.
That’s from page two of the decision. Thanks for playing, better luck next time, there’s glory for you.
- mkfreeberg | 08/29/2013 @ 14:22mkfreeberg: That’s from page two of the decision.
You might want to read the decision.
- Zachriel | 08/29/2013 @ 14:39Oh yeah that’s right, it’s that weird universe where truth becomes stretchy and pliable if there are written instructions that say so.
Eh, actually NO…turns out that constitutional is constitutional, unconstitutional is unconstitutional. Not that it matters one way or another because it isn’t part of the point I was making anyway. But it’s silly to say “Okay, it’s constitutional because it’s needed, oh now it isn’t needed anymore so it’s become unconstitutional.” If that’s how they had to word it to make the medicine go down, fine, but that isn’t how it works.
- mkfreeberg | 08/29/2013 @ 14:42mkfreeberg: Eh, actually NO…turns out that constitutional is constitutional, unconstitutional is unconstitutional.
The court ruled in Katzenbach 1966 that the law was constitutional, based on exceptional circumstances. The Robert’s Court ruled, based on Katzenbach, that the exceptional circumstances that held in 1966 no longer apply. So no, they did not overturn Katzenbach.
Read the decision.
- Zachriel | 08/29/2013 @ 14:53The court ruled in Katzenbach 1966 that the law was constitutional, based on exceptional circumstances.
Right.
And that was a mistake. They were wrong.
A law is constitutional or else it isn’t. The only thing that changes that is…drum roll please…a change to the Constitution. Hence the word.
- mkfreeberg | 08/29/2013 @ 14:54mkfreeberg And that was a mistake. They were wrong.
The court did not overturn Katzenbach. Indeed, they used Katzenbach to reach their decision.
Congress had to show that the “exceptional circumstances” still applied. The conditions under which the law was passed is fundamental to the ruling.
- Zachriel | 08/29/2013 @ 15:10My comment was this: “A great example of this is the VRA Section 4 which was just struck down.”
It was struck down.
So I’m not sure what point it is you’re trying to make with this fine distinction. I have doubts that you’re too certain of it yourselves. But since you’re into reading Supreme Court decisions, y’all might start with Marbury vs. Madison 1803, in which SCOTUS appropriated this new power for themselves, to get a new sense of perspective on exactly what kind of power they were appropriating. “Exceptional circumstances demand that this statute must be constitutional, although ordinarily it would not be” is not part of it. Chief Justice Marshall identified this power to declare as a necessary prerequisite to applying smaller & greater laws, conflicting with one another, to specific incidents.
It’s almost like y’all get paid commission on making this kind of a f00k-up. There is logic, common sense, reason, objective measurements, that produce one answer — written instructions from some authority that produce a different answer, which is assured to be wrong, since it’s measurably the wrong answer. And like a moth to a flame, y’all go to the proper, written, authoritarian answer that is wrong. Then y’all insist I must be the problem because people like me don’t do the same thing.
Fact of the matter is, if the Constitution has not been changed, the question “Does this violate the Constitution?” doesn’t change either. If the Supreme Court says otherwise, the Supreme Court is (or was) wrong.
- mkfreeberg | 08/29/2013 @ 15:17mkfreeberg: Nation’s only black Senator not invited
According to march organizers, all members of congress were invited to attend.
http://www3.blogs.rollcall.com/goppers/boehner-cantor-turned-down-chance-to-speak-at-march-anniversary/
mkfreeberg: Exceptional circumstances demand that this statute must be constitutional, although ordinarily it would not be”
Obviously courts have decided that circumstances can impact the constitutionality of a law. We see that in Katzenbach, and we see that in Shelby County.
mkfreeberg: If the Supreme Court says otherwise, the Supreme Court is (or was) wrong.
Perhaps, but that’s what they determined in both Katzenbach and Shelby County, so it has quite a pedigree.
- Zachriel | 08/29/2013 @ 15:26http://bit.ly/19R2ogR
Obviously courts have decided that circumstances can impact the constitutionality of a law. We see that in Katzenbach, and we see that in Shelby County.
Yes, they can, they have, they will. They’re humans and they make mistakes. The Warren Court made way more than their share…but there ya go.
…so it has quite a pedigree.
“Katzenbach overturned” is an invention of yours. Again, my comment was about VRA Sec. 4. Refer, again, to page two of this decision you’re telling me to read.
And y’all might want to ponder exactly what point it is y’all are trying to make here. It helps to actually argue from a position, instead of trying to come up with gotchas. You might contradict yourselves less, for one thing.
- mkfreeberg | 08/29/2013 @ 15:32mkfreeberg: “Katzenbach overturned” is an invention of yours.
Your claim is that circumstances were irrelevant to the decision. If so, they overturned Katzenbach. But they didn’t. They *relied* on the Katzenbach decision to overturn Section 4. Katzenbach argued that the law required “exceptional circumstances”. The Roberts Court found those exceptional circumstances no longer exist. Read the decision.
This is a digression, in any case.
- Zachriel | 08/29/2013 @ 15:37Your claim is that circumstances were irrelevant to the decision. If so, they overturned Katzenbach.
Right, that makes perfect sense within your understanding. For me to explain that judicial activism is a problem wearing the disguise of its own solution, and that I don’t agree with it, would be like explaining depth to a creature from a two-dimensional universe. Or a calculator to a caveman.
I hit animal with calklater, animal no fall down. Calklater smash into pieces, me have to kill animal with rock. Calklater no good.
- mkfreeberg | 08/29/2013 @ 15:43mkfreeberg: For me to explain that judicial activism …
That’s fine. We will take that as a clarification, and you think they should have struck down Section 4 by overturning Katzenbach.
Notably, it’s the left that complaining of judicial activism in this case.
- Zachriel | 08/29/2013 @ 15:48Well it’s way in the past, but it would be much more accurate to say I think Katzenbach was a mistake, along with much of what the Warren Court decided. But at any rate, Section 4 has always been a constitutional problem. It was a boondoggle. To try to explain it to someone, you have to implore them to accept soothing and politically pliable nonsense.
Institutionalized nonsense, one way or the other, ultimately has to be jettisoned. Institutions that are forced to jettison their nonsense in order to continue surviving, of course, will go to the ends of the Earth to avoid admitting it. And there’s no up-side for the Roberts Court to admit in writing that they’re jettisoning the unsustainable Warren Court nonsense. It would be most sensible to expect them to take the route that they did take. But this section never benefited from the attribute of sensible sustainability because, going back to my original point about this, “The most contentious part of it was the relocation of control, toward a centralized authority. A great example of this is the VRA Sec. 4…” Your conservatives or “right wingers” were aligned against stuff like that, not against blacks voting.
Just like, today, they are opposed to the boondoggle of machinery in ObamaCare…although there are a lot of left-wing loudmouths sending out e-mails that say the issue is the poor people having access to medical care, and “right wingers” don’t want them to have it. They don’t seem to be able to comprehend that, uh no, the problem is the bureaucracy, the right wing doesn’t trust the bureaucracy. I’m subscribed to those e-mails, so I get to see them. It’s like a mental disease. “I want to go to the moon, so I’m going to put dynamite under my feet and blast myself there. Oh look, Mom doesn’t want me to do that, she must be trying to stop me from going to the moon. What does Mom have against me going to the moon?”
- mkfreeberg | 08/29/2013 @ 16:14mkfreeberg: Your conservatives or “right wingers” were aligned against stuff like that, not against blacks voting.
Of course many southern conservatives were against blacks voting. They used bureaucratic delays, arrests without cause, literacy tests, firing people from their jobs, and physical violence. Jim Crow not only restricted blacks from voting, but they were denied equal access to most public accommodations.
http://eastchestermhs.wikispaces.com/file/view/Elliott_Erwitt_Segregated_Water_Fountains_North_Carolina_1255_67.jpg
mkfreeberg: e-mails that say the issue is the poor people having access to medical care, and “right wingers” don’t want them to have it.
Sure, we understand the arguments about an overly intrusive federal government. In the current political climate, the left is often associated with larger government, but that’s not what the term means. There are statists on the right, and libertarians on the left, too. That’s why a Bleier can be a libertarian, but still be on the political left. It’s why Somoza and Franco can be authoritarian, but be on the political right. It’s important to understand the distinction.
- Zachriel | 08/29/2013 @ 16:45There are statists on the right, and libertarians on the left, too.
I’m sorry, I seem to have lost track. Is this particular passage supposed to prove a certain meaning of right-and-left, or is it supposed to presume a certain meaning while it proves something else?
Because if it does both, that’s a textbook case of circular reasoning.
- mkfreeberg | 08/29/2013 @ 17:10mkfreeberg: Is this particular passage supposed to prove a certain meaning of right-and-left, or is it supposed to presume a certain meaning while it proves something else?
It shows that equating left with statism, and right with libertarianism, does not comport with what people mean by the terms.
mkfreeberg: Because if it does both, that’s a textbook case of circular reasoning.
The meaning of words are determined by usage. If people talk about libertarians on the left and libertarians on the right, and talk about statists on the left and statists on the right; then left cannot be equivalent to statism, and right cannot be equivalent to libertarianism.
You yourself have introduced an example of a libertarian socialist. This is not some novel position, by the way, but one with a long history.
- Zachriel | 08/29/2013 @ 17:18http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#Political_roots
It shows that equating left with statism, and right with libertarianism, does not comport with what people mean by the terms.
Most people, actually, are wondering about the current meaning, since they understand a re-definition is long overdue. This is measurable. If we use the classic meanings, we need to keep running to some authority figure, which would be y’all or whoever y’all want to designate, for frequent questions to the effect of “are we using these terms correctly, over here?”
That is the same as having no definition at all. Hence, the job, currently, is not done.
- mkfreeberg | 08/29/2013 @ 17:21mkfreeberg: If we use the classic meanings, we need to keep running to some authority figure, which would be y’all or whoever y’all want to designate, for frequent questions to the effect of “are we using these terms correctly, over here?”
That’s not necessary at all. You already know a libertarian socialist belongs on the left. You also know that capitalist authoritarians belong on the right. You know the answer because the terms left and right are part of the vocabulary. It’s your definition that’s faulty.
mkfreeberg: Most people, actually, are wondering about the current meaning, since they understand a re-definition is long overdue.
The current definitions are quite serviceable. Left describes anarchist socialist students, as well as ObamaCare supporters. Right describes libertarian capitalists, and those who would use government to impose their religious values on others. If you think the current left in the U.S. is strongly statist, it doesn’t require redefining the words to make that argument. Otherwise, you would also have to put anarchist socialist students on the right, and tin-horn capitalist authoritarians on the left—and that makes no sense at all!
Sure, it’s possible, almost certain, that words will change with time, but it’s extremely doubtful that left and right will change to meet your fashion expectations, no matter how many times it echos in the right wing echo chamber.
- Zachriel | 08/29/2013 @ 17:34You also know that capitalist authoritarians belong on the right.
Is Warren Buffett a capitalist authoritarian? He wants everything done his way. So does George Soros. Is he a capitalist authoritarian? They’re both awfully insistent on dictating the details in the lives of complete strangers and I wouldn’t call either one a libertarian, nor do I think they’d self-identify that way.
- mkfreeberg | 08/29/2013 @ 17:51Have no idea why you think Buffett and Soros are authoritarians. If someone suggests to the town counsel that the town could use a traffic light, does that make them an authoritarian?
- Zachriel | 08/29/2013 @ 18:31Just trying to get an idea for how y’all’s definitions work. Specifically, trying to get an idea of why y’all don’t think an update is needed, when it appears the vocabulary y’all are using is vintage 1918.
So why don’t y’all proceed with y’all’s definition of “authoritarian.” I’m seeing “favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, esp. that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom,” which certainly seems to apply to Warren Buffett’s support of the Buffett Rule. At any rate, the two gentlemen certainly are no libertarians.
- mkfreeberg | 08/29/2013 @ 21:18mkfreeberg: Specifically, trying to get an idea of why y’all don’t think an update is needed, when it appears the vocabulary y’all are using is vintage 1918.
Actually, we provided evidence as to how the term was used in the 1790s, the 1960s, and contemporary usage. And you provided evidence as to how the term is used today. See Graham, Nosek & Haidt.
mkfreeberg: So why don’t y’all proceed with y’all’s definition of “authoritarian.” I’m seeing “favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, esp. that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom,”
Sure, that’s a broad definition. It politics, it typically refers to “favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people”.
mkfreeberg: which certainly seems to apply to Warren Buffett’s support of the Buffett Rule.
Proposing a tax on the very rich be at the same rate as what many middle class people pay isn’t authoritarian any more than advocating a traffic light is authoritarian.
mkfreeberg: At any rate, the two gentlemen certainly are no libertarians.
Agreed. See how easy that was.
- Zachriel | 08/30/2013 @ 04:31Actually, we provided evidence as to how the term was used in the 1790s, the 1960s, and contemporary usage. And you provided evidence as to how the term is used today.
Seems we’re talking past each other again; y’all are going after “evidence as to how” the terms are being used, while I’m going after what actually works. Is it y’all’s position that no update is needed? I get how you’re counseling against any change, but it seems your rationale is nothing more sturdy than “it’s too hard,” essentially that a new meaning for the terms would conflict with an existing widespread, plain & solidly established pre-existing understanding — whose existence, in that form, I have to question.
I recall seeing lately, on the socialism/communism question, someone posing an example of Facebook being nationalized — how would that happen? In the classic parlance, the state would come in and seize the “means of production.” Pretty easy to define when we talk about nationalizing flour. Soldiers come in, the corn field becomes state property, the mills become state property, and there ya go. With Facebook, what do they seize? The servers? The copyright to the distinctive “like” thumbs-up icon?
In the same way, while y’all’s definitions of “conservative” and “right wing” might have worked in 1918, there are many problems with them. I know of many right wing conservatives whose objectives have nothing to do with any point or range on the time stream whatsoever. If we’re after simplified generalizations we can make that are still safe, their passions are against whatever the latest bright idea is out of their left-wing liberal counterparts.
Sure, that’s a broad definition [of “authoritarian”]. It politics, it typically refers to “favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people”.
Well that would be highly objectionable, of course, and to the best of my knowledge Mr. Buffett does not favor that. (Although the case could be made that Mr. Soros does.)
But I personally know of quite a few moderate-to-extreme right wingers who don’t favor that either.
So I get how y’all are “conservative right wing” when we consider the question of re-defining these words. But, as is the often the criticism from left-wing liberals toward right-wing conservatives — it seems like the necessity that is inspiring the reform idea, is brought about by a problem that really does exist, and y’all aren’t acknowledging it’s there, let alone coming up with an idea of y’all’s own. Y’all’s argument boils down to nothing more than “because that’s the way we’ve always done it.”
- mkfreeberg | 08/30/2013 @ 04:50mkfreeberg: y’all are going after “evidence as to how” the terms are being used, while I’m going after what actually works.
Redefining words, then conflating them with standard usage is not an argument. If you have an argument, it’s that modern liberals are advocating policies that will have illiberal results.
mkfreeberg: With Facebook, what do they seize? The servers? The copyright to the distinctive “like” thumbs-up icon?
That’s right. The files, the copyrights, the images, the servers, the URLs.
mkfreeberg: Well that would be highly objectionable, of course, and to the best of my knowledge Mr. Buffett does not favor that.
Which is why he’s not called an authoritarian, but center-left.
mkfreeberg: But I personally know of quite a few moderate-to-extreme right wingers who don’t favor that either.
Sure. Right wing is not the same as statism. There are people on the right who support strong government, and people on the right who want limited government. Statism-libertarianism and left-right are orthogonal values.
mkfreeberg: Y’all’s argument boils down to nothing more than “because that’s the way we’ve always done it.”
If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog?
- Zachriel | 08/30/2013 @ 05:17Redefining words, then conflating them with standard usage is not an argument. If you have an argument, it’s that modern liberals are advocating policies that will have illiberal results.
“It doesn’t work” is not an argument?
“People are not too sure about that” is not a decent counter-argument to “that’s how everybody uses it”?
If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog?
I think, overall, people are much more sure of the difference between a tail and a leg, than they are of the difference between political right & left.
If a conservative comes up with an idea that’s never been seriously tried before — Newt Gingrich and colonies on the moon, for example — does he cease to be a conservative? Does he cease to be a right-winger? Does he become a left-winger?
With your definitions in place, we have to either declare such questions unanswerable, or embark on silly things.
- mkfreeberg | 08/30/2013 @ 05:23mkfreeberg: “It doesn’t work” is not an argument?
If a definition doesn’t work, it means it doesn’t represent what people mean by a word. A unicorn is a horse-like creature with a single horn.
mkfreeberg: If a conservative comes up with an idea that’s never been seriously tried before — Newt Gingrich and colonies on the moon, for example — does he cease to be a conservative?
No.
People typically have a variety of opinions on many issues, some left, some right, some even having nothing to do with politics. We classify Gingrich on the political right because he has generally advocated conservative policies.
- Zachriel | 08/30/2013 @ 05:32If a definition doesn’t work, it means it doesn’t represent what people mean by a word. A unicorn is a horse-like creature with a single horn.
I think, overall, people are much more sure of the difference between a unicorn and a horse, than they are of the difference between political right & left.
We classify Gingrich on the political right because he has generally advocated conservative policies.
See, that’s an example of your definition not working. We would then have to say, this is a right-wing politician coming up with a left-wing idea, for the moment…which is not consistent with what’s really happening. And then the problem escalates if the colonizing-the-moon issue takes center stage, and the country starts to balkanize over it. Newt’s supporters, then, would be left-wing, because of this exceptional out-of-the-norm idea he has, contrary to his typical, right-wing patterns. And his opponents would be right-wingers opposing a right-wing politician.
Then, if people wanted to continue to use the terms, they’d have to keep running to y’all, or some authority y’all designate, for their frequent inquiries about “are we using these terms correctly?” In other words — the job of defining hasn’t been done.
So it doesn’t work.
- mkfreeberg | 08/30/2013 @ 05:48I’ve got a bipartisan solution: How about we just say that “left wing” is “whatever make the Zachriel feel good about themselves” and “right wing” is “anything which challenges that notion.” This has several advantages:
It saves time. If we want to know something meaningful about the French Revolution, we won’t have to wade through scholarly tomes like Why Louis XVI Was Not a Leftist. Which is great, because books like that don’t exist, because historians have better things to do. If we want the definitive answer to that question, we’ll just go ask The Zachriel; in the meantime, if we want to know anything useful, we’ll go to a history book.
It’s got a high degree of predictive power. We have a pretty good idea of what they like by now (arguments from authority, question-begging, Word’s cut-n-paste feature) and what they don’t (reason, history, dictionaries). For most modern cases, we can decide what’s left or right with little problem.
It encapsulates most of the philosophical divide in American politics. If your self concept hinges on considering yourself an intellectual;
if you can’t tolerate — even for a second, even for the sake of argument — people questioning the way you’ve always understood things;
if, when challenged, you immediately start searching for gotchas instead of evaluating evidence;
if, in other words, winning the argument — and thus preserving your self-concept as some kind of deep thinker — is always and everywhere the most important thing;
Then it’s an almost 100% certainty you like all the things The Zachriel like, and dislike the things they don’t. If, on the other hand, you’re actually interested in how things work in the real world, you probably feel just the opposite. We could call these approaches “self esteem-oriented” and “results-oriented.” This would have the additional beneficial effect of clearing up things like “libertarian socialist,” which most people I know consider a silly college-kid oxymoron.
Who’s with me?
- Severian | 08/30/2013 @ 06:27That would be mostly consistent with my didn’t-bother-to-count-them bullet points…
- mkfreeberg | 08/30/2013 @ 06:40Severian: I’ve got a bipartisan solution: How about we just say that “left wing” is “whatever make the Zachriel feel good about themselves” and “right wing” is “anything which challenges that notion.”
Because that is not what the terms mean.
Severian: If we want to know something meaningful about the French Revolution, we won’t have to wade through scholarly tomes like Why Louis XVI Was Not a Leftist. Which is great, because books like that don’t exist, because historians have better things to do.
There are hundreds of references by historians to the origin of the distinction between the political left and right in the French revolutionary period.
- Zachriel | 08/30/2013 @ 07:00There are hundreds of references by historians to the origin of the distinction between the political left and right in the French revolutionary period.
Lots of words evolve, of necessity, away from their original meanings.
Last I checked, the revolution-era French Parliament had been disbanded, so it is reasonable to infer that “left” and “right” would be among these. Such an event would certainly make the cut as a word-re-defining event. If a bench sits to the left or right but no one’s sitting in it, is it there?
- mkfreeberg | 08/30/2013 @ 07:03mkfreeberg: Last I checked, the revolution-era French Parliament had been disbanded, so it is reasonable to infer that “left” and “right” would be among these.
We were responding to Severian’s comment about the lack of interest of historians in the political divisions between left and right in revolutionary France.
mkfreeberg: Lots of words evolve, of necessity, away from their original meanings.
Sure they do, but the survey you cited shows that people still use the terms liberal and conservative in very similar ways to the 1960s and before. There’s a strong continuity in these terms because of their long and broad usage, and their etymological origins. We speak of liberal societies as ones that allow freedom of expression, and artistic free rein. We speak of conservative societies that expect, either socially or legally, restraints on behavior.
- Zachriel | 08/30/2013 @ 07:11There’s a strong continuity in these terms because of their long and broad usage, and their etymological origins.
…within circles of liberal people, who ignore the problems with these definitions. Meanwhile, people who are willing to acknowledge such problems exist, don’t have to go looking too far.
I recall reading an article about Markos Moulitsas waxing lyrically of his time in the Army, calling it the “perfect society” in the sense that this ultimate-authoritarian centralized entity would provide for the needs of all troops, who in turn would put their individual passions aside and do what they were told, for the benefit of the community as a whole. My lifelong-democrat Uncle used to carry similar fond recollections of FDR’s leadership during the Great Depression. Your definitions would peg these guys as “conservatives” and “right,” even “reactionaries,” “look[ing] to the past for inspiration, cultural stratifications being a consequence of natural order,” and “want[ing] to overthrow corrupt modern institutions and return to a mythological and heroic past.”
Again, the issue is not common usage. If the terms worked, that might be a decent measurement, but since they don’t work, what we end up measuring is how many people are getting snookered by a meaning that doesn’t work. The issue is that they don’t work.
- mkfreeberg | 08/30/2013 @ 07:17Because that is not what the terms mean.
See? There you go! As we’ve noted several times, y’all seem to love arguments from authority, and dislike dictionaries. From this, I would’ve predicted that you’d dislike my definition, and like yours. Which means… ta da!… you’re on the left and I’m on the right. See, the system works!
There are hundreds of references by historians to the origin of the distinction between the political left and right in the French revolutionary period.
Uh huh. And yet, nobody writes books with titles like Why Louis XVI was Not a Leftist, because historians don’t go around sorting people into piles like flash cards. Robespierre? Left! Louis XVI! Right! Marat? Left! Charlotte Corday? Right! This might appeal to a certain type of personality*, but historians don’t bother with it, because they’re interested in the causes, courses, and consequences of things, not gotchas on blogs.
My definitions work better.
*the one that’s not typically allowed out of the house without a special helmet.
- Severian | 08/30/2013 @ 07:19mkfreeberg: I recall reading an article about Markos Moulitsas waxing lyrically of his time in the Army, calling it the “perfect society” in the sense that this ultimate-authoritarian centralized entity would provide for the needs of all troops, who in turn would put their individual passions aside and do what they were told, for the benefit of the community as a whole.
For some reason, we thought Moulitsas served in the U.S. army, with its due process and civilian leadership.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/05/04/Editorial-Opinion/Images/15976478.jpg
Severian: And yet, nobody writes books with titles like Why Louis XVI was Not a Leftist
Because scholars don’t write books simply rehashing established knowledge.
Severian: As we’ve noted several times, y’all seem to love arguments from authority, and dislike dictionaries.
Dictionaries are authorities.
liberalism, a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties
conservatism, a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
- Zachriel | 08/30/2013 @ 07:39Don’t see anything in those definitions about looking to the past for inspiration, cultural stratifications being a consequence of natural order, nor any fear on the liberal side of cultural stagnation/disintegration due to too slow of change.
Also, “autonomy of individual” doesn’t work, because if it did then de-funding ObamaCare would be a liberal effort, as would the desire to quit the U.N., kick them out of New York, and use the building as a munitions factory or prison cell. Markos’ Moulitsas’ fond memories of the collective configuration of the Army (what was that anyway, another attempted gotcha?), would be conservative fond memories, not only because they look to the past for inspiration but because they diminish the importance of autonomy of the individual.
It’s about definitions actually working. Part of the reason so many people have questions about the political left and political right, is that the definitions don’t work.
In fact, most of the people who don’t have such questions, don’t have them because they simply haven’t been paying attention.
- mkfreeberg | 08/30/2013 @ 07:48mkfreeberg: Don’t see anything in those definitions about looking to the past for inspiration, cultural stratifications being a consequence of natural order, nor any fear on the liberal side of cultural stagnation/disintegration due to too slow of change.
It wasn’t a definition, but an elaboration. However, a standard definition is provided on the same blog post, along with the etymology.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html
Tradition, social stability, established institutions encapsulate looking toward the past and cultural stratification, a tendency in conservative beliefs, which we can support with many historical examples. Indeed, your own cited survey supports these tendencies.
- Zachriel | 08/30/2013 @ 08:02And yet…it is the liberals who long for the mythical and heroic past, when FDR decided how much it should cost to tailor a shirt…
So the definitions don’t work. That is, customarily, when it becomes necessary to come up with new ones.
- mkfreeberg | 08/30/2013 @ 08:06President Obama, being a “conservative”:
You cited a survey that supports the conventional view of liberal and conservative, and contrary to your understanding. We’ve posted evidence from recent history. Not sure what else to do for you.
- Zachriel | 08/30/2013 @ 08:11Not sure what else to do for you.
I think the job’s done. Y’all can continue to use definitions that “work,” only for people who don’t pay attention, evaluating nothing, or only the bits of evidence that support the definitions. Which is the same as the definitions not working.
Meanwhile, the adults in the room will pay attention to the rest of it. Including the many, many, many examples of liberals, who being liberals according to my definition but not yours, long for a mythical and heroic past. There are quite a few of ’em running around, whether y’all wish to pay attention to it or not…
Also quite a few conservatives who are conservatives without believing in inequality, or stratification, or mythical/heroic pasts.
So if we want to drift away from reality, we’ll use your definitions, and if we want to engage reality you’ll understand why we have to use something else.
- mkfreeberg | 08/30/2013 @ 08:15mkfreeberg: Y’all can continue to use definitions that “work,” only for people who don’t pay attention, evaluating nothing, or only the bits of evidence that support the definitions.
You’re still confusing the meaning of a term and the implications of adopting a position. You should use terms in the way that people understand, and not conflate meanings in order to reach a preconceived conclusion.
- Zachriel | 08/30/2013 @ 08:19Well we’ve already established that when y’all say “people understand,” y’all aren’t talking about “all people” or even “most people.” Also, it seems that y’all don’t disagree with my observations that, in reality, there are many examples in which the terms just plain don’t work. And I note most of those examples have to do with current events. ObamaCare, gun control, Syria, soda bans…
Your argument has been reduced to a statement that when perception and reality are found to be in conflict, perception must prevail. That is nothing more or less than the championing of ignorance.
- mkfreeberg | 08/30/2013 @ 08:25mkfreeberg: Well we’ve already established that when y’all say “people understand,” y’all aren’t talking about “all people” or even “most people.”
Most people. There’s been a number of surveys on the question. See Graham et al., The Moral Stereotypes of Liberals and Conservatives: Exaggeration of Differences across the Political Divide, 2012.
mkfreeberg: Your argument has been reduced to a statement that when perception and reality are found to be in conflict, perception must prevail. That is nothing more or less than the championing of ignorance.
There’s glory for you!
- Zachriel | 08/30/2013 @ 08:33And yet, you’ve been provided with many & repeated examples of how your definitions don’t work.
Furthermore, it is not too implausible to theorize that, should these examples be presented to the survey-takers, the survey-conductors, and Graham et al, they would all agree that the definitions do not work in those cases, and that the cases are indeed important, especially in discussions of current events. Like de-funding ObamaCare, soda bans, gun control, membership in the U.N.
I think your definitions managed to achieve & maintain currency just because a lot of people get tired of arguing with liberals. That’s not how we make definitions, when we want them to actually work.
- mkfreeberg | 08/30/2013 @ 08:36Dictionaries are authorities.
So your preferences are incoherent. What else is new?
Morgan has said all that needs to be said. When there’s a conflict between facts and theory, you can either change the theory, or ignore the facts. Detroit is a good example of the latter approach (the city in Michigan, not the other thing).
- Severian | 08/30/2013 @ 08:41mkfreeberg: And yet, you’ve been provided with many & repeated examples of how your definitions don’t work.
Actually, your examples undermined your redefinition. For instance, the socialist libertarian would be placed on the political right per your redefinition, but most everyone would put him on the left. Your redefinition would certainly work with many examples, as long as the statist-libertarian axis aligns with the equality-hierarchy axis, but not when they don’t align.
mkfreeberg: I think your definitions managed to achieve & maintain currency just because a lot of people get tired of arguing with liberals.
The definitions have been reasonably stable for hundreds of years.
Severian: When there’s a conflict between facts and theory, you can either change the theory, or ignore the facts.
In the case of the meanings of the words, the facts are what most people mean when they use a word. Otherwise, they’re just sounds.
Severian: Detroit is a good example of the latter approach (the city in Michigan, not the other thing).
Yes, that’s a good example. When most people say Detroit, they mean the city in Michigan. That’s what makes communication possible. But when mkfreeberg says Detroit, we have no way to know what he means because he changes definitions to fit his theory. For all we know he might mean a nice knock-down argument.
- Zachriel | 08/30/2013 @ 08:53Your redefinition would certainly work with many examples, as long as the statist-libertarian axis aligns with the equality-hierarchy axis, but not when they don’t align.
I’ve noticed a lot of y’all’s observations about “equality-hierarchy” seem to be made-up. Like for instance, how many of today’s self-identifying liberals would support the idea that Obama is created equally with those He governs? I expect a lot of conservatives would actually support that. It is the liberals who have made a deity out of Him. It is liberals who call Him “sort of god” & so forth.
And you don’t have to listen to them talk about conservatives & Republicans for too long, to pick up that they don’t believe in equality. Wanda Sykes wasn’t being a “conservative” or a “right winger” when she said she wanted Rush Limbaugh’s kidneys to fail.
The definitions have been reasonably stable for hundreds of years.
During which time, people have consistently gotten sick of arguing with liberals, and given up. It’s only recently that the feeling has really started to set in, that maybe we can’t afford to keep doing that.
- mkfreeberg | 08/30/2013 @ 08:57Yes, that’s a good example. When most people say Detroit, they mean the city in Michigan.
Going out on a limb here, but I got a feeling that wasn’t quite where he was going with that…
- mkfreeberg | 08/30/2013 @ 08:59mkfreeberg: Like for instance, how many of today’s self-identifying liberals would support the idea that Obama is created equally with those He governs?
Very few people believe in absolute equality. Indeed, most accept some sort of meritocracy, though liberals would be more likely to support helping the weakest members of society.
mkfreeberg: And you don’t have to listen to them talk about conservatives & Republicans for too long, to pick up that they don’t believe in equality.
Conservatives are more likely to support a meritocracy, including letting people sink or swim. The idea is that if you give people fish, they’ll never learn to fish for themselves.
None of this is controversial.
- Zachriel | 08/30/2013 @ 09:03Very few people believe in absolute equality. Indeed, most accept some sort of meritocracy, though liberals would be more likely to support helping the weakest members of society.
Pause at this point to observe & reflect: I did not just indicate an example of aberration from total equality; The example I just pointed out was the opposite of equality.
In y’all’s own words, “look[ing] to the past for inspiration, cultural stratifications being a consequence of natural order.” Like the rest of us, underneath Obama. Conservatives, being beneath liberals and thus worthy of their scorn & contempt. Whoops, though, I’m describing (accurately) the prevailing & predominant mindset of liberals, and this quote is from your definition of conservatives.
The relationship between conservative-liberal, and placing faith in past-vs.-future, is orthogonal. Right now, a liberal is in charge, so the status quo is that liberals have the power. Those who believe in a glorious future after some eventful upset that topples the status quo, are more likely to be Obama opponents. There may be some anarchists among those, but Mr. Bleier would not be among them, and they would predominantly lean conservative. So your definitions are failing.
Conservatives are more likely to support a meritocracy, including letting people sink or swim. The idea is that if you give people fish, they’ll never learn to fish for themselves.
Actually a lot of liberals believe in that too. But they fear the day the people will learn to do their own fishing.
- mkfreeberg | 08/30/2013 @ 09:40mkfreeberg: I did not just indicate an example of aberration from total equality; The example I just pointed out was the opposite of equality.
mkfreeberg: It is the liberals who have made a deity out of Him.
That? The supposed deification of Obama? Now you’re just being silly.
- Zachriel | 08/30/2013 @ 09:56If by “silly” you mean, contrary to what…oh, how did Severian put it…
If statements that put y’all in that situation are what y’all mean by “silly” — and I think that this is correct — then this is a true statement.
But it’s more than making a deity out of Obama. It’s the social stratification all around. It’s in the sidebar graphic with the fat piggy telling the skinny taxpayer he has to learn to live with less. It’s in the public sector versus private sector.
It’s in the fast-food-worker strikes. One side can always “get by with less,” the other side should be given every advantage, not be held to any standard. It’s in the example of men and women going to family court. It’s in the example of affirmative action. It’s all inequality, justified with some “Yeah but this other thing happened before, so our side has to get even.”
That isn’t making equality out of inequality. That is excuse-making. Meanwhile, today’s modern liberals are no champions of equality.
So the definition doesn’t work.
- mkfreeberg | 08/30/2013 @ 10:12mkfreeberg: But it’s more than making a deity out of Obama.
Ha! You’re hilarious.
- Zachriel | 08/30/2013 @ 10:17Yeah, I crack myself up.
Giggle, snort.
- mkfreeberg | 08/30/2013 @ 10:27mkfreeberg: Yeah, I crack myself up.
Even funnier! Okay. You’ve been spoofing the whole time!
- Zachriel | 08/30/2013 @ 10:42I must say, I’m missing out on how you’re keeping this canard propped up about liberals being for equality, when we more-or-less constantly see them making graven-images and living idols out of these mere mortals within their little crusade…
Didn’t start with Obama either. JFK and crew. Come to think of it, “Camelot” was a rather splendid example of “return[ing] to a mythological and heroic past.”
Over and over again, it is shown that your definitions do not work. And your response to this is virtual inter-Internet chortling and snickering. I guess that’s a tacit admission that you have nothing to offer by way of counter-rebuttal?
Where’ve I seen that before? Ah, yes…
There’s glory for you.
- mkfreeberg | 08/30/2013 @ 11:58mkfreeberg: Didn’t start with Obama either. JFK and crew.
Obama wants to set up a theocracy with him as God! People admired MLK, so that must mean Gini is 1! JFK surely wanted to make American into a medieval monarchy like Camelot!
Come on, Loki! Quit with the spoofing.
- Zachriel | 08/30/2013 @ 12:58So we’ve scraped the absolute bottom of the rebuttal barrel, I see. Short of actually flinging poo like a chimpanzee, “you’re joking! haha!” is the lowest one can go.
I guess we’ve reached this point then….. sigh…. Last!
- Severian | 08/30/2013 @ 13:17Yeah,
…gonna keep this for awhile, though.
Severian: So we’ve scraped the absolute bottom of the rebuttal barrel, I see.
JFK wanted to bring back a medieval monarchy! Yeah, we should have caught on sooner.
- Zachriel | 08/30/2013 @ 14:21Y’all are trying to say, this weird effort to bring back the glory days of Camelot, is an example of liberal aspirations toward equality?
Or is this just another example of y’all not liking what’s being noticed or pointed-out, and are inclined to just hee-hee ho-ho your way out of it…as if that worked well or something…?
mkfreeberg: Y’all are trying to say, this weird effort to bring back the glory days of Camelot, is an example of liberal aspirations toward equality?
You’re not serious, are you?
There was this musical that was adapted in 1959 and produced in 1960 called Camelot. After Kennedy’s assassination, it became associated with the Kennedy Administration, perceived by some as a time of relative innocence. This is the first time we had heard that the Kennedy’s were planning on bringing back medieval monarchy. Do you have evidence of this?
- Zachriel | 08/30/2013 @ 14:37Well, I’ve changed my mind. Some unknown number of anonymous individuals is having trouble understanding my meaning, when I put up a link to the democrats trying to bring back the halcyon days of Jack & Jackie…I know the problem must be on my end, since they have trouble figuring out what “Detroit” means.
What other option is reasonably open to me, other than to acquiesce? It takes so much work to go the other way, and try to tell ’em anything. I might as well come ’round.
Besides, they’re laughin’ at me and stuff…
Egalite!!
JFK wanted to bring back a medieval monarchy! Yeah, we should have caught on sooner.
So… that’s humor, then? That’s what you’re doing there? Wow, kids. Bringin’ the funny, you are. I’d suggest not quitting your day job, but with your mad readin’ comprehension skillz, I’m assuming that’s not really a problem.
PS last!
- Severian | 08/30/2013 @ 15:26Severian: So… that’s humor, then?
You don’t mean he’s being serious? Really?? Well, we’ll try to answer then.
mkfreeberg: Some unknown number of anonymous individuals is having trouble understanding my meaning, when I put up a link to the democrats trying to bring back the halcyon days of Jack & Jackie
No, liberals are not trying to return to the political situation from before the Civil Rights Acts, much less the chaos of the early Middle Ages. No, imagining King as Moses doesn’t mean people want to wander the desert. No, liberals are not trying to set up a theocracy, much less with Obama as god.
This is your typical problem of black-and-white thinking. You’ll take some ill-thought statement by someone and take that as representative of all liberals. You cited a survey that shows that most liberals are concerned with caring for the weak, fairness and liberty. The same survey showed that most conservatives and moderates thought that liberals are concerned with caring for the weak, fairness and liberty. We’ve provided citations from recent American history with statements of liberal thought. Your own examples don’t fit your criteria.
Left-right, statism-libertarianism are orthogonal concepts. One can be a statist on the left or a statist on the right. One can be a libertarian on the left or a libertarian on the right. Most people are generally closer to the middle, and often have a variety of views, depending on the issue.
Even when shown all this, you simply ignore the evidence. You want a definition that “works”, but a definiens that works is one that fits how people use the term, that clarifies their intention. Otherwise, communication is fraught with misunderstanding.
You might argue, as many reasonable conservatives do, that liberals are misguided, that their policies will not achieve their goals. Your whole position is based on a redefinition, but redefining words is not an argument.
- Zachriel | 08/31/2013 @ 05:40If you criticize my thinking, you should criticize it for what it is. Now that you’ve decided to waltz back into the room where the grown-ups are doing real thinking, it seems y’all need to criticize what I said for things that are not part of it.
I’m not sure how we get from this…
…and this…
…to…this…
That last part is debatable and would likely benefit from increased knowledge; y’all seem to have imagined y’all-selves to have done some survey-taking y’all maybe didn’t actually do. The rest of it refutes things that, best I can recall, were never said. Straw man much?
Y’all have been presented with many examples of liberal initiatives, adhering to the pattern of the few dictating the actions, obligations, and customs of the many. This is not in service of equality, obviously, and thus creates a problem for y’all’s definitions. Time after time, y’all have addressed the contradiction by way of mocking, deriding, seeking to conceal, and seeking to in some way eject the least-desirable bit of knowledge that is part of the contradiction. Time after time y’all have championed ignorance over learning, in order to prop up these definitions that don’t work.
When your argument relies on a thing being perceived as the opposite of what it truly is, it’s time to pack it in.
It helps to actually argue from a position, instead of trying to come up with gotchas. You might contradict yourselves less, for one thing.
Even when shown all this, you simply ignore the evidence.
Now go back and read what y’all typed right before that. What appears there is not “evidence,” but opinions. Opinions charitable to this modern liberal movement, which pushes for inequality and stratification, calling it equality. In truth, it is y’all who have been shown evidence and chosen to “simply ignore” it.
Like a liberal politician or something.
Okay let us then agree on this: The Zachriel have a set of definitions. They work, perfectly, as long as we ignore or chortle-away any actual evidence that creates problems for those definitions — just as all definitions, real & phony alike, do.
In other words, maybe Severian is on to something. It’s all about making The Zachriel feel good and not about understanding reality as it actually exists. When we want to do that, we use The Zachriel’s definitions, and when we want to learn about how the world really works, we use mine.
- mkfreeberg | 08/31/2013 @ 06:05mkfreeberg: Come to think of it, “Camelot” was a rather splendid example of “return[ing] to a mythological and heroic past.”
Camelot was the court associated with King Arthur, a legendary king from 5th century Britain.
mkfreeberg: …to…this… “No, liberals are not trying to return to the political situation from before the Civil Rights Acts, much less the chaos of the early Middle Ages.”
It follows directly from your statement. Also, you are conflating our discussion of extreme political beliefs with the definition of left and right. You’ve done this repeatedly.
Zachriel: No, liberals are not trying to set up a theocracy, much less with Obama as god.
mkfreeberg: That last part is debatable
No, it’s not subject to reasonable debate. It’s just silly. But we’d be happy to see your survey data.
mkfreeberg: Y’all have been presented with many examples of liberal initiatives, adhering to the pattern of the few dictating the actions, obligations, and customs of the many.
Only the extreme left advocates perfect equality. Everyone else understands that some equality is not only going to occur, but is necessary. A simple example is the Civil Rights Act. Elected representatives in the federal government voted to intervene to end discrimination in public accommodations. This restricted the freedom of bigots to some degree, but increased freedom and equality overall.
mkfreeberg: The Zachriel have a set of definitions.
We use conventional definitions.
- Zachriel | 08/31/2013 @ 06:21It follows directly from your statement.
If by “follows” what you mean to say is “does not follow” then you are correct.
Also, if you check my link to the CNN transcript, y’all will refresh y’all’s memory that Camelot, as in JFK’s White House, was the theme to the 2002 democrat national convention.
This is a direct contradiction to the definition y’all put up.
Now, how do we deal with real-life-experience direct contradictions to definitions?
We use conventional definitions.
Which, for the reasons stated above, according to the evidence gathered in the real world…do not work.
- mkfreeberg | 08/31/2013 @ 06:30mkfreeberg: when we want to learn about how the world really works, we use mine
A definition is not an argument, and doesn’t tell us anything about how the world really works. It’s just a commonly agreed convention used to communicate ideas.
When you use words in unorthodox manners, it just leads to confusion. You should invent a new term. But you won’t, because your purpose is to conflate your definition with the conventional definition. If someone says they are a liberal, saying they are concerned about fairness and liberty, you will insist they “seek to create or preserve things that destroy, and destroy things that create or preserve”. That’s a perverse use of language.
It would be like us arguing elsewhere that all conservatives are daft because someone makes daft arguments. It’s not a valid generalization. There are plenty of valid conservative arguments. Yours isn’t one of them. All you are doing is calling a tail a leg.
- Zachriel | 08/31/2013 @ 06:33mkfreeberg: Also, if you check my link to the CNN transcript, y’all will refresh y’all’s memory that Camelot, as in JFK’s White House, was the theme to the 2002 democrat national convention. This is a direct contradiction to the definition y’all put up.
Definition of what exactly?
- Zachriel | 08/31/2013 @ 06:36A definition is not an argument, and doesn’t tell us anything about how the world really works. It’s just a commonly agreed convention used to communicate ideas.
Didn’t say definitions tell us how the world works. But it is true that definitions should reflect that, and they fail to do their job when they don’t.
When you use words in unorthodox manners, it just leads to confusion.
I’d rather have clarity than agreement.
Perhaps that is the real disagreement. Your definitions have the benefit of agreement…at least, after you’re done bludgeoning everyone around into using them, which I notice is a necessary step for y’all to take, and that makes a real problem for your “this is how everyone uses it” axiom. (If everyone is already using it that way, how come you have to keep correcting everyone, and why is there so much confusion before I start to use my definitions?)
But we cannot have clarity if the definitions do not reflect real-life experiences. Which, for the reasons already cited, yours don’t.
Definition of what exactly?
Your definition of right wing reactionaries:
Would you say the organizers and participants of the 2002 democratic national convention, were right wing reactionaries? They fulfilled every word of the definition y’all provided. They believed the Kennedy family was absolutely unequal to the hoi polloi, superior in every way, deserved to get away with all sorts of crimes, even negligent homicide. They wanted to overthrow a corrupt modern institution, in that case the Bush administration. And they certainly wanted to return to a mythological and heroic past.
So, were the organizers & participants right wing reactionaries?
Either they were, or your definition doesn’t work. One or the other of those; not both. There is no third alternative. So, which?
- mkfreeberg | 08/31/2013 @ 06:46mkfreeberg: Didn’t say definitions tell us how the world works. But it is true that definitions should reflect that, and they fail to do their job when they don’t.
Definitions reflect what people *mean* by the word. The word may be an abstraction, a non-existent entity, a feeling, anything. We know what people generally mean by the word liberal, because you cited a survey that made that determination. Liberals, moderates and conservatives all think that liberals are concerned with caring for the weak, fairness and liberty.
mkfreeberg: I’d rather have clarity than agreement.
Dead link. Funny. In any case, you can’t have clarity if you use words in heterodox fashions.
mkfreeberg: Your definition of right wing reactionaries
It’s not a definition, but a discussion. It assumes you already know the conventional definitions, which are provided on the same page.
mkfreeberg: Would you say the organizers and participants of the 2002 democratic national convention, were right wing reactionaries?
No. Of course not. Nor were they trying to return the political situation to a time before the Civil Rights Acts.
While reactionaries dwell on the past, everyone, including liberals consider the past and adapt it to current needs, while also recognizing periods of important change. For instance, the U.S. just celebrated the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. That doesn’t mean liberal Americans today are advocating a return to the political status of that period. And though liberals venerate King, that doesn’t mean they don’t believe in fairness and liberty. That’s a gross distortion.
- Zachriel | 08/31/2013 @ 07:07Dead link.
Fixed.
It’s not a definition, but a discussion. It assumes you already know the conventional definitions, which are provided on the same.
Okay…so the first two paragraphs are definitions, and then the last two are not definitions but instead are discussion. That was not my initial impression.
Definitions reflect what people *mean* by the word.
Please provide support for the idea that, when people use the word “liberal,” they mean “tend to look to the future for inspiration, the progress of history being seen as a march towards a more egalitarian society.”
I will provide context.
My liberal Uncle was nostalgic for the leadership of FDR, and pined for a time when people would put aside their differences, and follow the lead of Roosevelt’s “brain trust.” (Problem for looking to future, problem for egalitarian society.)
A liberal friend on Facebook let loose with a rant that Dick Cheney is Darth Vader, pure evil, should be tried for war crimes (problem for egalitarian society). Another liberal wishes Bill Clinton was still in charge because the economy was so much better (problem for looking to future).
Among those who believe the IRS deliberately targeted Tea Party groups, the common understanding is that it was liberals at the IRS who did this (problem for egalitarian society).
Liberals, as I have said before — using the word, I think, the same way most others would use it — consistently support initiatives that empower the few to dictate the actions, obligations, and customs of the many (problem for egalitarian society).
Now, these examples are all either taken from real life, or from reality as it is perceived by real people. They do not conform with your definition of the word “liberal.”
Now, how do we deal with real-life-experiences that offer direct contradictions to definitions?
Not that I think your definitions have always been wrong. I’m sure there was at one time a lot of truth to them. I said up above, though, that I think the vintage date on them might be somewhere around 1918. I might amend that to bring it as recent as maybe the 1930’s. I get that y’all insist that they still work today, for no better reason than y’all just want them to…even though they don’t, for the reasons I gave. So we won’t agree on that. But what would y’all offer as a date-of-last-update on those?
Because if y’all agree the early part of the twentieth century is somewhere in the ballpark, well, it just boggles the mind to think we can meaningfully exchange ideas using those terms, with the definitions remaining static. Just for starters, we still have some Affirmative Action being practiced in this country, with quotas, while our President is black. Also, we have people who were protesting against authority in the 1960’s, running things now, with the predictable confusion resulting. I think most people would agree situations such as these would necessitate an update.
- mkfreeberg | 08/31/2013 @ 07:30mkfreeberg: Okay…so the first two paragraphs are definitions, and then the last two are not definitions but instead are discussion.
The conventional definitions of liberal and conservative are at the bottom of the page. We are offering an elaboration.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html
mkfreeberg: Please provide support for the idea that, when people use the word “liberal,” they mean “tend to look to the future for inspiration, the progress of history being seen as a march towards a more egalitarian society.”
liberal, a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.
Do you understand the word “progress”?
mkfreeberg: My liberal Uncle was nostalgic for the leadership of FDR, and pined for a time …
Again with the black-and-white thinking. Do you understand the word “tend”?
mkfreeberg: A liberal friend on Facebook let loose with a rant that Dick Cheney is Darth Vader, pure evil, should be tried for war crimes (problem for egalitarian society).
Again with the black-and-white thinking. There is no problem for most liberals for someone to be tried for crimes.
mkfreeberg: Another liberal wishes Bill Clinton was still in charge because the economy was so much better (problem for looking to future).
Again with the black-and-white thinking. Progress isn’t monotonic, even in Marxism.
mkfreeberg: Among those who believe the IRS deliberately targeted Tea Party groups, the common understanding is that it was liberals at the IRS who did this (problem for egalitarian society).
Not necessarily. The left attacking the right isn’t necessarily a problem for those advocating a more egalitarian society. The Americans had a republican revolution, remember? In any case, the premise is most likely false.
mkfreeberg: Just for starters, we still have some Affirmative Action being practiced in this country, with quotas, while our President is black.
Darn that Martin Luther King and his affirmative action! Why did he hate equality so!?
mkfreeberg: Liberals, as I have said before — using the word, I think, the same way most others would use it —
Well, we know how most people use it. We have cited the dictionary, a number of liberal thinkers, and you have cited a survey. Liberals are concerned with caring for the weak, fairness and liberty.
mkfreeberg: Liberals … consistently support initiatives that empower the few to dictate the actions, obligations, and customs of the many (problem for egalitarian society).
Sounds like you are saying liberals are misguided and misled by hypocrites. That reads correctly. That wasn’t so hard, was it?
- Zachriel | 08/31/2013 @ 07:50Do you understand the word “progress”?
I would refer you to the graphic of the fish being carried “forward,” and the caption under it.
As far as the word “progress,” do you mean real progress, or as liberals perceive it? Example: Vote fraud going undetected, is not progress. Although liberals like it, because it helps them to control the outcome of elections. So it’s important to distinguish between the real kind and the phony kind that helps liberals, and no one else.
Darn that Martin Luther King and his affirmative action! Why did he hate equality so!?
Too late to ask him. Maybe he just got suckered. At any rate, when your argument presupposes that a thing is the opposite of itself, it’s time to pack it in.
Well, we know how most people use it.
Do y’all think when “most people use” the word liberal, they have this girl in mind?
Because it’s a lot of other people besides me putting the word “liberal” on her. Or to be more precise about it, they’re bringing her image, with their thoughts about her sentiments attached, to the word.
And I’m not seeing too many parallels between their thoughts about her sentiments — and your definition. Are y’all seeing that?
Sounds like you are saying liberals are misguided and misled by hypocrites. That reads correctly. That wasn’t so hard, was it?
When an ideology inherently relies on deception, it is necessary to separate the ulterior motives from the cosmetic ones. We then have to deal with the necessary task of distinguishing the deceivers from the people they’re deceiving.
Martin Luther King, backing affirmative action, was one of those or the other. I’d prefer to think he was deceived. Y’all might decide differently. But equality is not the same as inequality; they are opposites, and that’s a fact.
- mkfreeberg | 08/31/2013 @ 08:03mkfreeberg: I would refer you to the graphic of the fish being carried “forward,” and the caption under it.
Sure, but that’s not the issue. Of course, we would again point to the Civil Rights Movement, which most people (excepting Severian) think was a force for positive change, even if it meant bigots were restrained somewhat in their freedoms.
mkfreeberg: Vote fraud going undetected, is not progress. Although liberals like it, because it helps them to control the outcome of elections.
That’s a contentious issue, as you know, and liberals have reason to believe that such laws are crafted to reduce minority turnout.
mkfreeberg: Maybe he just got suckered.
But he was a liberal. So he must have been seeking to create or preserve things that destroy, and destroying things that create or preserve.
mkfreeberg: At any rate, when your argument presupposes that a thing is the opposite of itself, it’s time to pack it in.
And yet, King supported affirmative action. Can you explain his reasoning?
mkfreeberg: Do y’all think when “most people use” the word liberal, they have this girl in mind?
Most people would guess she’s on the political left by her dress, but not that she is necessarily representative of liberal opinion. (Left and liberal are not the same, by the way.)
mkfreeberg: Because it’s a lot of other people besides me putting the word “liberal” on her.
It’s a right wing echo chamber trope, if that is what you mean.
mkfreeberg: Or to be more precise about it, they’re bringing her image, with their thoughts about her sentiments attached, to the word.
You have no idea her actual sentiments.
mkfreeberg: We then have to deal with the necessary task of distinguishing the deceivers from the people they’re deceiving.
That doesn’t change the meaning of the term. Liberals, as a group, are still motivated by a concern for caring for the weak, fairness and liberty. We have the survey results to show that. Indeed, most conservatives agree that is the concern of liberals.
mkfreeberg: But equality is not the same as inequality; they are opposites, and that’s a fact.
When talking about distribution of power, overall equality can be increased while decreasing it elsewhere. A simple example is overthrowing a monarchy and replacing it with a republic. In the former, the king is sovereign. In the latter, the people are sovereign. So even though overall equality is greater in a republic, new leaders rise up, creating new arrangements of power.
- Zachriel | 08/31/2013 @ 08:16Sure, but that’s not the issue.
Of course it is. Y’all asked if I understood the concept of progress, and I correctly noted that more & better definition is required. Which the “fish being carried forward” graphic illustrates rather beautifully, I think, if somewhat morbidly.
But he was a liberal. So he must have been seeking to create or preserve things that destroy, and destroying things that create or preserve.
Has affirmative action not created & preserved things that destroy, and destroyed things that create & preserve?
In fact, in insisting that persons of all color be treated equally, and regarded as having been created equal, did MLK not look to the past and thus fulfill y’all’s definition of “conservative”?
And yet, King supported affirmative action. Can you explain his reasoning?
I would explain — in fact, I think most people would agree — that in insisting people be judged by the content of their character rather than by the color of their skin, King was acting like a conservative. In supporting affirmative action, thereby promoting inequality, he was acting like a liberal.
It’s a right wing echo chamber trope, if that is what you mean.
Oh! Okay! So…we are going by what “most people think,” but y’all want to reserve the privilege of defining who gets to be part of “most people.”
Hang on for a quick sec while I self-assess my level of surprise at this new development.
That doesn’t change the meaning of the term.
I’m afraid it does, and it has to.
When talking about distribution of power, overall equality can be increased while decreasing it elsewhere.
When your argument presupposes that a thing is equal to the opposite of itself, it’s time to pack it in.
- mkfreeberg | 08/31/2013 @ 08:31mkfreeberg: Of course it is.
The graphic doesn’t support your position. It’s a message to remind progressives that moving forward doesn’t necessarily mean moving to a better place. That presupposes they want to move to a better place. In any case, it is immaterial to what people mean when they say liberal.
You ignored our example of the Civil Rights Movement, again.
mkfreeberg: Has affirmative action not created & preserved things that destroy, and destroyed things that create & preserve?
Your ‘definition’ says “seek”.
mkfreeberg: In fact, in insisting that persons of all color be treated equally, and regarded as having been created equal, did MLK not look to the past and thus fulfill y’all’s definition of “conservative”?
Of course not. The past was not more equal, but less equal. There’s been a long struggle for black civil rights. He drew from the past, from the promise of the Declaration, but he certainly wasn’t trying to return America to 1776. Rather, he advocated overthrowing the existing power structures.
mkfreeberg: I would explain — in fact, I think most people would agree — that in insisting people be judged by the content of their character rather than by the color of their skin, King was acting like a conservative.
Sorry, but many conservatives of his day did not hold that position. Even if they did, they wanted much slower change.
mkfreeberg: In supporting affirmative action, thereby promoting inequality, he was acting like a liberal.
You didn’t explain his reasons.
mkfreeberg: So…we are going by what “most people think,” but y’all want to reserve the privilege of defining who gets to be part of “most people.”
Well, we could do a survey. Graham et al., The Moral Stereotypes of Liberals and Conservatives: Exaggeration of Differences across the Political Divide, 2012.
mkfreeberg: I’m afraid it does, and it has to.
Um, no. Meanings are changed when people change how they use a word. Graham et al., The Moral Stereotypes of Liberals and Conservatives: Exaggeration of Differences across the Political Divide, 2012.
mkfreeberg: When your argument presupposes that a thing is equal to the opposite of itself, it’s time to pack it in.
Sorry, but it’s obvious you are ignoring the argument.
When talking about distribution of power, overall equality can be increased while decreasing it elsewhere. A simple example is overthrowing a monarchy and replacing it with a republic. In the former, the king is sovereign. In the latter, the people are sovereign. So even though overall equality is greater in a republic, new leaders rise up, creating new arrangements of power.
–
Here’s a simple example using your hat analogy. If there are three people and only one has a hat, the hat Gini is 67%. Call the hatted person, the monarchy.
1, 0, 0
Now, the second person makes three hats and gives one to the third person. The hat Gini is now 17%.
1, 2, 1
Yet, there is a new inequality. The second person is highest now, even though the situation is more equal overall. Call him a politician.
- Zachriel | 08/31/2013 @ 08:48Here’s another example.
Monarchy, Gini 83%
1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
Revolution, Gini 17%
0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1
(former monarch made to go without his hat!)
Another clear example of how sometimes overall equality can increase, even if it is decreased in some places.
- Zachriel | 08/31/2013 @ 08:59The graphic doesn’t support your position.
To repeat, y’all asked if I understood the concept of progress, and I correctly noted that more & better definition is required. That isn’t a “position,” per se. But the graphic does support the idea that more & better definition of this word is required. I’m right about that, aren’t I?
You ignored our example of the Civil Rights Movement, again.
To repeat, your examples rely on how “most people” use certain terms, but y’all want to reserve the privilege of defining who gets to be part of “most people.” When your argument is based on an underlying foundation of “everyone who agrees with us, agrees with us” then it becomes a functional nullity, and then it’s unclear what good is to be served by looking at examples.
It helps to actually argue from a position…
Your ‘definition’ says “seek”.
And, iron exists in the periodic table of elements. My point stands.
mkfreeberg: In fact, in insisting that persons of all color be treated equally, and regarded as having been created equal, did MLK not look to the past and thus fulfill y’all’s definition of “conservative”?
Z: Of course not. The past was not more equal, but less equal. There’s been a long struggle for black civil rights. He drew from the past, from the promise of the Declaration, but he certainly wasn’t trying to return America to 1776. Rather, he advocated overthrowing the existing power structures.
Then it seems y’all’s definition needs modifying, according to y’all, unless I’m misreading something. “Conservatives tend to look to the past for inspiration” — that sounds more equivalent to “dr[a]w[ing] from the past, from the promise of the Declaration” than to “return[ing] America to 1776.”
Are y’all now revising your definition of the efforts of of conservatives, to returning a culture to some past eon?
Again, it seems like y’all’s grip on reality is being weakened by False Consensus effect. Y’all are going by what “most people think” and “how most people use the terms,” but when it comes time to figure out what that is, y’all are including in the survey only self-identifying liberals. Or, nobody, just kinda making it up as y’all go.
Sorry, but it’s obvious you are ignoring the argument. When talking about distribution of power, overall equality can be increased while decreasing it elsewhere.
And I’m sure that when the real estate “firm” calls my Dad with a hot house-flipping deal, if he just mails them a check for thousands of dollars they can make him a millionaire overnight.
Of course, that’s not a good example, because it doesn’t rely on an inherent unworkable contradiction. Your argument does. “We can have more equality if we just treat people unequally”; there are entirely valid reasons for “ignoring” this. “Not accepting” would probably be a more accurate descriptor. One, it’s nonsense. Two, it’s been tried and hasn’t worked. Those are the Big Two reasons, although there are others.
Here’s a simple example using your hat analogy. If there are three people and only one has a hat, the hat Gini is 67%. Call the hatted person, the monarchy.
1, 0, 0
Now, the second person makes three hats and gives one to the third person. The hat Gini is now 17%.
1, 2, 1
Yet, there is a new inequality. The second person is highest now, even though the situation is more equal overall. Call him a politician.
Because affirmative action judges people by the color of their skin, since the second and third guys are designated as beneficiaries of this artificial redistribution, they always will be the designated beneficiaries no matter what.
So you see your question “how are you calculating Gini” is entirely irrelevant. When the distribution is
1, 58, 132
…the program will still advocate for the first person to give up his hat, and for those hats to be redistributed among the guy who already has fifty-eight hats, and a hundred thirty-two hats. That is a true, fair and accurate illustration of how affirmative action works, in fact, the entire panoply of liberal initiatives work this way.
It is extremely rare for liberals to change their minds about who the beneficiaries are supposed to be. Changes in standard of living don’t do it. The only thing that seems to do it, is when a new member of a different designated-victim-class comes along, and that newcomer’s victim-credentials pull rank on the credentials of the victim that was there before.
Like Barack Obama, being someone with dark skin, coming along and taking the nomination from Hillary, a woman whose husband cheated on her. Wow, took the whole summer to decide that. Much consternation, much in-fighting. When it was done, the democrat party got their hierarchy all figured out and came to the conclusion…how did they put it? “Bros before hoes” or something?
Anyway. It is a hierarchy. The exact opposite of an egalitarian society. So, more information to upset your definitions…
…the answer will be, of course, to once again champion ignorance above knowledge. Somehow, in one way or another, your pair will beat my full house, because my cards aren’t real.
But it did happen. And we know, from that, that liberals are not about equality. They’re about the opposite.
- mkfreeberg | 08/31/2013 @ 09:10mkfreeberg: But the graphic does support the idea that more & better definition of this word is required. I’m right about that, aren’t I?
It doesn’t require a redefinition of the word. In politics, it typically means “gradual betterment; especially : the progressive development of humankind”. If you’re unclear on the sense, you can always ask. When you’re in the right wing echo chamber, then liberal = progressive = leftist = Hitler. But everywhere else, it means someone who thinks that institutions, especially government, should address social injustice.
mkfreeberg: To repeat, your examples rely on how “most people” use certain terms, but y’all want to reserve the privilege of defining who gets to be part of “most people.”
No. We rely on experts in semantics, important political thinkers, and survey results. That’s called evidence.
mkfreeberg: When your argument is based on an underlying foundation of “everyone who agrees with us, agrees with us” then it becomes a functional nullity, and then it’s unclear what good is to be served by looking at examples.
When the question is what do most people mean when they utter a word, then yes, what most people mean is the question.
mkfreeberg: And, iron exists in the periodic table of elements. My point stands.
So King sought to create or preserve things that destroy, and destroy things that create or preserve. Is that your conclusion? Most people would reject that conclusion. While King had his many faults, wanting to destroy the creative aspects of society was probably not one of them.
mkfreeberg: Then it seems y’all’s definition needs modifying, according to y’all, unless I’m misreading something.
Yes, you ignore the word “tend” and assume it means only. Conservatives don’t only look to the past, and liberals don’t only look to the future. But clearly, King was drawing a picture of a more equal society than America had yet achieved, not a return to a past culture, but envisioning a new one.
mkfreeberg: when it comes time to figure out what that is, y’all are including in the survey only self-identifying liberals.
No. Graham 2012 not only asks liberals what concern them, but asks moderates and conservatives what they think concerns liberals. They all generally agree that liberals are concerned with caring for the weak, fairness and liberty.
mkfreeberg: Because affirmative action judges
Our examples don’t address affirmative action. They address your categorical claim that overall equality can’t increase if equality decreases anywhere. That’s demonstrably false.
- Zachriel | 08/31/2013 @ 09:39Our examples don’t address affirmative action. They address your categorical claim that overall equality can’t increase if equality decreases anywhere. That’s demonstrably false.
My rebuttal, which you chose to ignore, addresses this nicely and in the context of how liberals form their so-called “solutions.”
- mkfreeberg | 08/31/2013 @ 09:40mkfreeberg: My rebuttal, which you chose to ignore, addresses this nicely and in the context of how liberals form their so-called “solutions.”
Sorry. We’ll look at it again.
mkfreeberg: Because affirmative action judges people by the color of their skin, since the second and third guys are designated as beneficiaries of this artificial redistribution, they always will be the designated beneficiaries no matter what.
Sorry, no. That does not address the argument. Your claim wasn’t empirical but logical, that overall equality can’t increase if equality decreases anywhere. That’s categorically false, as simple numerical examples show.
- Zachriel | 08/31/2013 @ 09:51Sorry, no. That does not address the argument. Your claim wasn’t empirical but logical, that overall equality can’t increase if equality decreases anywhere. That’s categorically false, as simple numerical examples show.
My claim was that liberals, far from advocating for the advancement of equality, are advocates for inequality. We may quibble about which ones have sincere motives with regard to equality and do not actually advance it because they’re too ignorant to pay attention to the results; or, which ones pay attention, and are insincere in their motives. None of this changes the fact that the movement itself advances inequality, and is supposed to. It picks winners, it picks losers, it is about taking from some and giving to others. And changes in standard of living across time do nothing to change their “targeting.”
That fits in well, by the way, with how most people use the term “liberal.” So you’re wrong there too.
By the way, my rebuttal does nicely address this, so you’re wrong there, too.
Other than those three minor issues — great comment.
- mkfreeberg | 08/31/2013 @ 10:01mkfreeberg: My claim was that liberals, far from advocating for the advancement of equality, are advocates for inequality.
That wasn’t the claim we were addressing, but to clarify: Do you agree that overall equality in a distribution can increase even if it decreases in places?
- Zachriel | 08/31/2013 @ 10:11That wasn’t the claim we were addressing…
It was. You think you can eke out some kind of “gotcha” by taking this smaller step. The issue is the definition of liberals, and I say liberals in modern times are proponents of inequality whether they know it or not. That is the issue.
By the way, what would y’all say is the vintage date on your definition of conservative-vs.-liberal? I think it’s about 1918.
- mkfreeberg | 08/31/2013 @ 10:23mkfreeberg: You think you can eke out some kind of “gotcha” by taking this smaller step.
It’s not a gotcha. Just because it is theoretically possible for greater equality to include areas of lesser equality doesn’t mean that it is practical or that it happens. It’s how one builds an argument. By refusing to concede obvious points, you undermine your own credibility.
When we brought up the concept of greater equality and the possibility that greater equality can be achieved even if it means less equality in places, you reply “But equality is not the same as inequality; they are opposites, and that’s a fact.” You can’t or won’t answer a simple question about your position.
(A simple example is the law against discrimination in public accommodations. The freedom of bigots is restricted somewhat in order to create greater freedom and equality overall.)
mkfreeberg: By the way, what would y’all say is the vintage date on your definition of conservative-vs.-liberal? I think it’s about 1918.
Nope. We’re relying on recent data. Graham et al., The Moral Stereotypes of Liberals and Conservatives: Exaggeration of Differences across the Political Divide, 2012.
- Zachriel | 08/31/2013 @ 12:14Just because it is theoretically possible for greater equality to include areas of lesser equality doesn’t mean that it is practical or that it happens. It’s how one builds an argument.
Decent, workable arguments don’t have to be “built.” Liberalism is either about fostering equality, about fostering inequality, or the relationship is non-correlative/orthogonal. Well it turns out, with a great many of the issues facing us in the here-and-now, the liberal side of that issue empowers the few to dictate the actions, obligations, and customs of the many. (With the rest of the issues, there tends to be more difficulty in defining “the liberal side”. Example: Should we invade Syria?)
When we brought up the concept of greater equality and the possibility that greater equality can be achieved even if it means less equality in places, you reply “But equality is not the same as inequality; they are opposites, and that’s a fact.” You can’t or won’t answer a simple question about your position.
(A simple example is the law against discrimination in public accommodations. The freedom of bigots is restricted somewhat in order to create greater freedom and equality overall.)
Yeah, I get it. Y’all don’t like the conclusion that the opposite of a thing is the opposite of that thing. So y’all seek to complicate it by means of some mumbo-jumbo. But meanwhile, even if y’all can make that convincing to someone, all that means is y’all succeeded in deceiving that someone. Because a thing is not the opposite of itself. It’s like North being the opposite of South. You can babble away with some mumbo jumbo about underground tunnels curving around extremely slowly, or “but what if you’re over the North Pole?” or “what if you’re in outer space” or some such…doesn’t change it. North and South are opposites. Equality and inequality are opposites.
Nope. We’re relying on recent data. Graham et al., The Moral Stereotypes of Liberals and Conservatives: Exaggeration of Differences across the Political Divide, 2012.
Cherry-picking, in other words, since there is other evidence in the here-and-now that people perceive liberals to advocate inequality. The caricatures of the “liberal college girl” meme, for example. It isn’t just the people meme-ing her that way who see liberals this way; the memes find currency, since they resonate with the popular view. This is direct conflict with what y’all have said, that this has no currency. It must have some.
- mkfreeberg | 08/31/2013 @ 13:10mkfreeberg: Decent, workable arguments don’t have to be “built.”
Of course they do. A simple argument is establishing premises of a syllogism in order to reach a conclusion. An example is the Declaration of Independence.
Sorry, but handwaving doesn’t substitute for an argument.
- Zachriel | 09/01/2013 @ 05:52Of course they do. A simple argument is establishing premises of a syllogism in order to reach a conclusion. An example is the Declaration of Independence.
…in which it is said…”We hold these truths to be self-evident.” By intent and design, an exceptional case.
I’ve always held the truth to be self-evident that while that was an entirely valid exercise in that circumstance, it wouldn’t do to make a habit of it. Generally you take the evidence wherever it leads you, every once in a great while you direct the evidence where you want it to go.
Responsible thinking compels people to, at the very least, know which one they’re doing at any given time. Metaphysical versus epistemological; faith vs. science.
Can y’all think of any other justification for “building” an argument, other than pursuing that faith-in-lieu-of-science, I-already-know-what-I-wanna-know, hold-these-truths-to-be-self-evident, bloodhound thinking? Whether y’all can or not, I’ve often had the idea that y’all’s arguments are constructed for consumption only by those who are predisposed to agree. A few minutes ago I merely suspected this. Now I know it for sure.
That, ironically, is a good example of going wherever the evidence takes you. Non-bloodhound thinking.
- mkfreeberg | 09/01/2013 @ 09:15mkfreeberg: By intent and design, an exceptional case.
The Declaration is a classical syllogism.
mkfreeberg: Decent, workable arguments don’t have to be “built.”
Sorry, but if you don’t even know what constitutes a valid argument, there is nothing to discuss. Good luck with that.
- Zachriel | 09/01/2013 @ 09:26The Declaration is a classical syllogism.
An exceptional document for an exceptional time. And the “hold these truths to be self evident” structure is exceptionally fitting for that particular situation…in which, the opposite of the axiom would necessarily have to be something like “slavery is cool and okay.”
Are y’all really taking the position that, because “hold these truths to be self-evident” worked in that case, it must work everywhere else? Wow.
Sorry, but if you don’t even know what constitutes a valid argument, there is nothing to discuss. Good luck with that.
People have to let y’all tell them what to think, in order to know what a valid argument is? Wow.
I see we’re still stuck in that bowling-alley-gutter, in which y’all treat ignorance as if it’s education, and education as if it is ignorance. To that, we add that y’all treat sensible skepticism as if it’s gullibility, and gullibility as if it is rugged, healthy skepticism.
Just wow. There’s glory for you.
- mkfreeberg | 09/01/2013 @ 12:55[…] by John Hawkins's 12 Unspoken Rules for Being a Liberal, via some of Morgan's latest dustups with the […]
- The Rule of Cool | Rotten Chestnuts | 09/02/2013 @ 10:06[…] sought, and found. My goodness, I thought Obama was a liberal and liberals, it has been said, have always been about equality. Again and again, we see evidence that if this was ever true, it […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 09/07/2013 @ 06:06[…] the cognitive misers is that we know what we don’t know, and we can — and do — distinguish between a creative process and a destructive […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 09/14/2013 @ 08:40Third Flower
My wife and i are already now delighted that Albert could perform his scientific studies on account of the suggestions he had by your web content. It is actually once in a while perplexing to simply often be giving away actions which some people could…
- 8MK4j5am9u | 12/04/2013 @ 16:48