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...
One of the most widely appreciated denizens of my blog goes by the name of Severian; no one has a clue who he really is, which is just the way he likes it. All I personally know of him is his first name, and I suppose if I bothered to check, his apparent IP address. This tells me nothing useful, save for that it’s probably safe to use masculine pronouns to refer to him.
The rest of us learn much, perhaps more than any of us would like to admit, when Severian engages those who are progressive of mind who have also seen fit to participate in greater frequency this summer. Out of the resulting fireworks, two observations have become eminent.
First: Many among those who are so passionately devoted to modern liberalism, especially those who claim to be able to provide logical support for the points they seek to make and then resoundingly fail to do so, are virtue junkies. The term means exactly what it seems to mean. You discuss the merits and possible pitfalls of a voter ID law with them, and things get strange when you ask them to describe reality as they perceive it. In our case, number of legitimate voters potentially “disenfranchised” by such a new law, ONE MILLION — in a single state, while the number of fraud incidents prevented or stopped, ZERO. And, the interested observer picks up the vibe: Hey why stop at a million? But reality, once measured reasonably, is probably not that way. The virtue junkies do not care, they want their fix. If you quibble about the million, all you get back is a bunch of tear-jerking prose about old ladies in wheelchairs who’ve voted non-stop since FDR, et cetera…
I warned you, things get strange. The virtue junkie, like all other junkies, has an unstable, flickering relationship with reality itself. He experiences the reality that you’re not open to the emotional arguments, and he reacts the way you should’ve expected: He doesn’t. He just recites the same arguments he just got done reciting. He’s tying it off, slamming it into the main vein. Not really discussing anything at all. All the impulses of a wild animal, with none of the comprehension of real objects and real events that all wild animals must acquire and sustain, in order to survive. The worst of both worlds.
The second thing to notice is a bit more complex, and is going to require a few more paragraphs. It is derivative of the first. The virtue-junkie is hooked on this virtue, which is actually a cosmetic display of virtue and not the real thing; this is to be concluded because the virtue is relative, not absolute. Example: Two election cycles ago, democrat presidential nominee and Massachussetts Senator John F. Kerry said something awkward about voting for an allocation before he voted against it…he was pilloried over this all summer long, mostly because it fit into the ongoing narrative that he’s a flip-flopper who cannot be relied-upon to stick to a position. During the first of three presidential debates, he acquitted himself of this in a most remarkable way:
…when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war, but the president made a mistake in invading Iraq…Which is worse?
Now, one may argue all sorts of things about this. Kerry lost the election, narrowly, and it’s certainly plausible that the mistake talking about the war was a deciding factor, so this defensive remark didn’t get the job done. One may further argue that presidential elections are all about highlighting differences. To those of us who are experienced in arguing with left-wingers, such objections, while legitimate, do not distract from the main point which is: Our friends on the left, far, far more often than those on the right, are seen to seek shelter through the exploration of personal virtue as measured in relative terms — when, according to logic and reason, it is not germane to the discussion at hand, and does very little to add persuasive weight to what they’re trying to argue. But they don’t care about any of that. They just keep doing it. Reflexively.
Very much like vampires retreating from sunlight.
It’s worse than losing track of the discussion, it comes across as an abandonment of it. After all, what does Kerry’s mistake-magnitude-comparison exercise do, to clarify his position on the $87 billion? You have no idea where he stands at the beginning of the debate, and certainly you haven’t learned a thing about it at the end. Also, when we vote for presidents, we are not trying to vote in the guy who’s been caught making a less-glaring, or less-damaging mistake. We’d prefer not to, anyway…and we’re not trying to vote in the guy who can, given a few months to mull it over, come up with a cutting, if childish, remark to throw down in defense of his mistake…we’re not supposed to vote that way, anyway…
This thing we’ve noticed is a problem that comes from measuring the virtue in relative terms. Severian, in an off-line e-mail to me, recollected a work of fiction he’d once read about vampires that made this point. I Googled and found a page that explains it over here: “The vampire population increases geometrically and the human population decreases geometrically.” I’ll try to summarize it briefly: The vampire, feeding on a human, changes the human into another vampire, and after a relatively brief time another feeding will be required by both the old vampire and the new vampire.
The vampire, by feeding, not only incrementally depletes the food supply, but in so doing manufactures a new competitor for consumption of this limited supply. That’s at each feeding. There isn’t any way for the math to work in the vampire’s favor, none at all. All scenarios considered, lead to an all-vampire-no-human planet, on which the vampires are starving to death.
Thus it is with our friends, the liberals. They have to get their virtue-fixes — which means, virtue in relative terms, playing up the fact that they have ascertained and asserted themselves to be morally superior to some “control” specimen. An act which is forbidden when a fellow liberal is the control specimen, just as vampires cannot feed on other vampires.
They enter these “discussions” supposedly to coolly, logically and rationally exchange ideas and win converts. They’re sincere about the “win converts” part of it, at least. But, vampire problem: What if it actually works??
This is exactly what I was noticing shortly after Obama was elected President: Liberals get a lot of ego gratification out of being superior, in their own definition of “morals” and their own definition of “education,” compared to others, and it is also part of their vision that all of the “others” should eventually be converted. Converted, or…well, let’s not go there. They want everyone, everywhere, to be like them. This represents a doublet of mutually-exclusive goals. They cannot both happen. It isn’t logically possible.
My two favorite quotes from The Incredibles, become apropos:
Helen: Everyone’s special, Dash.
Dash: Which is another way of saying no one is.
…
Syndrome: Oh, I’m real. Real enough to defeat you! And I did it without your precious gifts, your oh-so-special powers. I’ll give them heroics. I’ll give them the most spectacular heroics the world has ever seen! And when I’m old and I’ve had my fun, I’ll sell my inventions so that *everyone* can have powers. *Everyone* can be super! And when everyone’s super…[chuckles evilly] – no one will be.
That’s the trouble with everybody possessing some nifty new attribute…which is measured relatively and not absolutely. If everyone’s got it, then nobody does.
And then, the planet full of vampires is doomed to stagger around, starving to death.
Most problematic for them, the most likely outcome by far is that both objectives will fail: They won’t convert everybody, and in spite of this they still will be doomed to painful withdrawal symptoms. Because, it seems, deep down they understand the terrible truth that a virtue fix is not duly shot up, until the other party acknowledges this measurement of superior virtue.
Eventually, they will have converted everyone who might have been converted, leaving only the hardcore sloping-forehead types who aren’t going to grant this implicit-permission, this acquiescence of “Yes, you’re ethically better than I am and/or more truthy,” even in a sarcastic, “whatever” kind of tone.
And then, their frustration will be complete. They’ll be surrounded by, and very often outnumbered by, all these walking, talking unfinished-conversion tasks…and…starved for a fix, in an addiction from which there is no cure.
Perhaps our society has been in that state for quite some time now. Perhaps that is the real reason why they’re so agitated.
Cross-posted at Right Wing News and Washington Rebel.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Well said! And thanks for the kind words.
I’ve always seen “the vampire problem” as the key issue of progressivism — if you define yourselves exclusively in terms of the struggle, what happens when you win?
This is the blessing and the curse of the conservative worldview — human beings can’t get much better, but we can’t get much worse, either. Certain virtues can be made widespread at tremendous social cost (think of the bravery of the Spartans), as can certain vices (the ideology-driven cruelty of communists and Nazis), but left to our own devices, most human beings just muddle through. The most one can concretely do is work on oneself and one’s close relationships….
….which is why progressivism or something like it is indispensable to the virtue junkie. I don’t know Ed Darrell or the Zachriel personally; if I did, they’d be much more hesitant to lecture me on my manifest moral deficiencies, since I could fling their dirty laundry back in their faces. Nor is it sufficient for the virtue junkie to volunteer at the local homeless shelter, say, or do community outreach with a church group — it’s too easy to come back to the shelter a year later and see the same people with the same problems doing the same things, despite all one’s best efforts. A virtue fix requires an abstract victim class — one can shoot up at will by “helping” “brown people,” and if the “help” really doesn’t (or actually makes the situation worse), well, we’ll have to tie off again, and more. You know, for the children.
- Severian | 07/30/2012 @ 10:02Severian: I’ve always seen “the vampire problem” as the key issue of progressivism — if you define yourselves exclusively in terms of the struggle, what happens when you win?
That’s a problem not just with progressives, but any person motivated by a cause.
Severian: This is the blessing and the curse of the conservative worldview — human beings can’t get much better, but we can’t get much worse, either.
Quite so. People today aren’t much different than the people of Abraham’s time. However, we do know now that social institutions can change, and have changed substantially since the Renaissance.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html
Severian: they’d be much more hesitant to lecture me on my manifest moral deficiencies
We are unaware of any of your moral deficiencies.
- Zachriel | 07/31/2012 @ 08:46That’s a problem not just with progressives, but any person motivated by a cause.
No it isn’t. The school board meets to adopt a new textbook. The champions of one text get their book adopted. Their cause is completely vindicated…. and then the school board moves on to other business. The whole thing takes aobut twenty minutes.
It’s only the “progressive” — who defines his cause as something that cannot logically have an enpoint except in total conversion,, like “social justice” — who faces the vampire problem.
However, we do know now that social institutions can change, and have changed substantially since the Renaissance.
Again, a perfect illustration of the “fecktoid” / Ms. Applewhite maneuver. Social institutions changed at least as much from the time of Hammurabi to the Renaissance. Why the Renaissance, then? My guess is that it’s the old, tired, trite one — conservatives love the Middle Ages, when everybody did everything the Church told them, but the Renaissance was the birth of science, blah blah blah. But whatever: If I’m right, you’ll cut-and-paste “eppur si muove,” and if I’m wrong, you’ll link seventeen other fecktoids “proving” what a dumbass I am, while again changing the subject and missing the point.
We are unaware of any of your moral deficiencies.
Oh, sorry, it wasn’t you all who spent fifty or so posts claiming that I wanted orphans to stave and whole nations to suffer because I wouldn’t look at your endlessly-linked NOAA .gif?
Either way, guys…. either way. Gotta get that fix any way you can, I suppose.
- Severian | 07/31/2012 @ 09:50Zachriel: That’s a problem not just with progressives, but any person motivated by a cause.
Severian: No it isn’t.
People can have causes on the left or right. Success in something you have worked towards for a long time can often be deflating. It’s a psychological phenomena, and applies not just to political causes, but any significant and prolonged effort.
Severian: Social institutions changed at least as much from the time of Hammurabi to the Renaissance.
The rates of change were so slow that most people didn’t have a concept of social progress. That is quite different than the rate of change experienced in the modern world.
Severian: Oh, sorry, it wasn’t you all who spent fifty or so posts claiming that I wanted orphans to stave and whole nations to suffer because I wouldn’t look at your endlessly-linked NOAA .gif?
Nope. Never once thought you wanted orphans to starve or whole nations to suffer. Interesting that you admit to not looking at the evidence.
- Zachriel | 07/31/2012 @ 10:55The rates of change were so slow that most people didn’t have a concept of social progress.
This is either question-begging or abject, Eurocentric ignorance.
If by “a concept of social progress” you mean something like modern “progressivism,” then yes, this is true (though that concept dates to the Enlightenment, not the Renaissance) but question-begging — you’re assuming that social institutions can change only under the auspices of something like modern progressivism.
If you’re claiming this as some kind of historical fact about mentalities, you’re simply wrong. The Chinese of the Warring States period, just to take one example, had all the social change they could handle. Ditto most of the history of the Indian subcontinent, the Hellenistic Near East, the spread of Islam, the various dynastic shifts in Egypt….
Never once thought you wanted orphans to starve or whole nations to suffer.
Care to go revisit that thread, champ? I’m sure it’s here in the archives somewhere.
You really ought to stick to cut-and-pasting, comrade — it’s your best defense against saying something silly, dishonest, and/or racist.
- Severian | 07/31/2012 @ 14:06Severian: If by “a concept of social progress” you mean something like modern “progressivism,” then yes, this is true (though that concept dates to the Enlightenment, not the Renaissance) but question-begging — you’re assuming that social institutions can change only under the auspices of something like modern progressivism.
No, but you seem to have lost your own thread. You expressed the reasonable conservative view that people don’t change overall. We agreed with that, but pointed out that social institutions have changed dramatically since the Renaissance.
Severian: Care to go revisit that thread, champ?
Please point to where someone said you wanted orphans to starve.
- Zachriel | 07/31/2012 @ 16:35No, but you seem to have lost your own thread. You expressed the reasonable conservative view that people don’t change overall. We agreed with that, but pointed out that social institutions have changed dramatically since the Renaissance.
Ye gods, this is tiresome (which I assume is the point). A leftist says “A, therefore D, E, and F.” When you point out that D, E, and F don’t follow, they say “no no, we never said D, E, and F, we only said A; why can’t you wingnutz handle science?!?!”
You said
However, we do know now that social institutions can change, and have changed substantially since the Renaissance.
I pointed out that social institutions changed at least as much from the time of Hammurabi to the Renaissance. To which you replied:
The rates of change were so slow that most people didn’t have a concept of social progress. That is quite different than the rate of change experienced in the modern world.
which, as I pointed out, is either question-begging or false. And so, caught in dishonesty, ignorance, or both, you write
No, but you seem to have lost your own thread. You expressed the reasonable conservative view that people don’t change overall. We agreed with that, but pointed out that social institutions have changed dramatically since the Renaissance.
The thread was not “lost;” you deliberately, dishonestly tried to pull it into a direction you felt was more suitable for….well, whatever argument you seem to think you’re making.
Stick to cutting-and-pasting — it’s tedious and hackish, but at least you won’t be dishonest and wrong so often.
- Severian | 08/01/2012 @ 08:33Severian: I pointed out that social institutions changed at least as much from the time of Hammurabi to the Renaissance.
The period from Hammurabi to the Renaissance is about six times as long as from the Renaissance to today. And while there were periods of war and peace, empires rising and falling, life for most people remained much the same for most of that period, change so slow that there was no notion of progress.
Zachriel: The rates of change were so slow that most people didn’t have a concept of social progress. That is quite different than the rate of change experienced in the modern world.
Severian: which, as I pointed out, is either question-begging or false.
The modern world, by any reasonable measure, is changing much more quickly today than any previous period.
Severian: The thread was not “lost;”
While we agree with you that people don’t change, institutions can and have.
- Zachriel | 08/01/2012 @ 09:48Zachriels,
To the extent that I am able to assess, it seems to me the focus of your and Severian’s current disagreement has something to do with the concept of time, as in, the social institutions from the time of Hammurabi are this much different between that and the Renaissance, and an approximately similar magnitude of difference between Renaissance and now…I’m seeing at 7/31 10:55 you bring up the subject of the rate of change, and it isn’t clear how that has anything to do with anything. If the page you linked was supposed to clarify, well, it does make an attempt to define conservatives & liberals in terms of past and future — I’m not sure how that provides any foundation for what you’ve said, in fact, that whole thing cries out for further foundation for the delineation it has provided between said conservatives & liberals. Which, from my own personal experiences, isn’t likely to be forthcoming, since I know my share of conservatives and not too many among their number would support “absolute inequality, and want to overthrow corrupt modern institutions and return to a mythological and heroic past.”
I could start to see what you’re talking about if you affix the term “modern institution” to creepy mayors telling businesses “You’ll never open your doors in my city” because of the expressions of personal viewpoint of the owners/executives of those businesses…but, if that’s the case, it would be embiggening the definition of “modern institution” to the point of semantic dishonesty.
- mkfreeberg | 08/01/2012 @ 12:41mkfreeberg: To the extent that I am able to assess, it seems to me the focus of your and Severian’s current disagreement has something to do with the concept of time, as in, the social institutions from the time of Hammurabi are this much different between that and the Renaissance, and an approximately similar magnitude of difference between Renaissance and now
Actually, that is a diversion from the original point. While it is obvious that the world is changing much faster today than at any time in the past, Severian is correct that people don’t really change: people today have the same strengths and foibles as people of Abraham’s time. However, institutions can change, such as the spread of open, democratic societies in modern times. In other words, progress can occur even though human nature doesn’t change.
- Zachriel | 08/01/2012 @ 12:59Progress toward what, exactly?
- mkfreeberg | 08/01/2012 @ 13:06mkfreeberg: Progress toward what, exactly?
There’s been a lot of changes in society; technological and cultural; but what might be most relevant to this discussion would be the movement towards greater social equality and enhanced individual liberty.
- Zachriel | 08/01/2012 @ 13:55http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html
Progress toward what, exactly?
And there you have it. The Zachriels are rooting for some undefined “progress,” even after claiming that for most of history, most people had no concept of time.
In other words, the same problem they had in the Enlightenment — if all before us was darkness, how then did we alone come into the light?
It’s very flattering to the liberal ego to think that they alone came to possess special knowledge (funny, that), but then they’re faced with the problem most all liberal doctrines face, that David Stove called “the Ishmael Effect” — they want to make some grandiose claim about the nature of society, but the claim itself entails that they themselves couldn’t possibly make it. The most famous is probably Marxism — our entire mode of consciousness is determined by our class position, says Marx… except that Karl Marx himself was somehow able to transcend his class position enough to be able to see the whole thing from the outside.
But that’s getting too far afield. All I’m trying to illustrate is that the Zachriels are either self-contradictory — embedding a notion of “progress” into a period they claim didn’t have it — or they’re simply wrong. The modern world is NOT, “by any reasonable measure…changing much more quickly today than any previous period.” Political change is certainly a reasonable measure of change, is it not? And so I give you: the Warring States period in China, the collapse of Roman Britain, the Hyksos invasion of Egypt, the Archaic period in Greece, the conquests of Alexander, the re-pastoralization of the Indian Subcontinent after the Harrappan period. Economic change is another measure: one influential school of European history estimates that it took to the Industrial Revolution for the European economy to recover from the devastation of the last few waves of invaders into the Western Roman empire. Surely belief is another? Christianity went from a minor cult to the official religion of the world’s dominant empire in about 150 years. Islam spread even faster — from the flight to Medina to the Battle of Tours was 110 years. &c.
They’re simply wrong, and they know it (by now, anyways; like most liberals, they seem to be quite Eurocentric in their view of history…. rather odd, no? given what a sin it is for us if we do it). And they’ll try to get out of it, once again, by resorting to the “we never said D, E, and F; we only said A” maneuver (remember, we don’t know the measurements exactly, it’s probably in the 3 to 5 C range; but entire coasts will be wiped away, with mass starvation to follow, why won’t you look at the .gif?!).
It’s transparent and it’s tiresome and it’s sad…. but that’s what passes for “argument” among liberals, apparently.
- Severian | 08/01/2012 @ 13:58Well, if the point of disagreement is about society’s inner workings changing at a breakneck pace lately, as opposed to throughout the centuries before the Renaissance, I think I could go along with that in some ways. I do see what you’re saying — 1900-2000 might seem like a much greater change compared to 2000-1900 BC, because most of us were alive through part of the former and therefore we’re more sensitive to it. But some of the changes in that more recent century were meaningful, in a measurable, absolute way. Mass communication, for example; no matter when you happen to be alive, you’d have to agree there is something fundamental changing when one guy can say something, and instantly a million of his fellows hear it.
But I do think we dismiss things a bit too quickly without understanding them. Hand a caveman a calculator…he won’t figure it out, of course, but furthermore he’s likely to conclude “This thing is stupid! And so is anybody who uses it!” And sincerely so.
Hammurabi, by the way, is more of a turning point than reference point. He essentially established the scientific/workhorse discipline of architecture, by refusing to suffer liberals in his kingdom. You think you’ve fastened this wall to this ceiling at a right angle; you’d better be sure! Code 229 is a prohibition against liberals.
- mkfreeberg | 08/01/2012 @ 14:13I’ll go along with the notion that things certainly seem to change faster these days — instant mass communication, as you say, is a paradigm shift.
I’m just tired of liberals who clearly don’t know what they’re talking about spouting off with absolute certainty (and when don’t they?). The stuff they’re referring to as “the modern era” is actually the Enlightenment, for instance, not the Renaissance. “Renaissance” refers to the rediscovery of Latin and Greek (and pseudo-Egyptian) wisdom from “antiquity;” major Renaissance figures like Pico della Mirandola were obsessed with astrology and magic. The “challenging established authority,” especially church authority, science, etc. so beloved of liberals, is actually the Enlightenment. Ya juuuuuust missed it there, champ — by about 200-400 years.
Being a liberal does NOT make one an expert without portfolio, master of all branches of human knowledge. Which conceit, as you say, Hammurabi dealt with most effectively.
- Severian | 08/01/2012 @ 15:54Severian: The Zachriels are rooting for some undefined “progress,” even after claiming that for most of history, most people had no concept of time.
When starting an argument, it’s best not to start with a strawman. Time is not the same as progress.
Severian: The modern world is NOT, “by any reasonable measure…changing much more quickly today than any previous period.”
mkfreeberg: I do see what you’re saying — 1900-2000 might seem like a much greater change compared to 2000-1900 BC, because most of us were alive through part of the former and therefore we’re more sensitive to it.
Not merely due to proximity, but in fundamental ways. For most people across the globe, they lived their lives the same way in 2000 BCE as they did in 1900 BCE. Hammurabi’s rule only directly affected a small number of people, and while the Babylonian code of law changed the world, for most people that change only occurred over centuries.
mkfreeberg: Code 229 is a prohibition against liberals.
Um, no, but it is a government regulation of the marketplace.
Severian: The “challenging established authority,” especially church authority, science, etc. so beloved of liberals, is actually the Enlightenment.
Luther challenged the Church with his 95 Theses, during the Renaissance. Galileo was found by the Inquisition to be vehemently suspect of heresy for having held that the earth moved, during the Renaissance.
- Zachriel | 08/01/2012 @ 16:42Yup, they’re 24-bit color format, missing their alpha channel.
You could load them into an image editor and re-save them again in a format that supports transparency, but by then the per-pixel transparency information is lost. So every single pixel is 100% opaque (certain). Doubt, as a fundamental concept of human learning, has no meaning. Their whole world exists in a 24-bit RGB color palette, with no room for any information outside the three primary colors.
So there’s no such thing as something that’s 90% certain…or 99%…or 10% or 1%. They don’t comprehend such a thing. There are just things — as they are. Red 0-255, Green 0-255, Blue 0-255, and that’s it.
- mkfreeberg | 08/01/2012 @ 16:43mkfreeberg: Code 229 is a prohibition against liberals.
Um, no…
Yes. Yes, it is. The whole babbling-away about things that make you feel good, knowing not one thing about what you’re talking about, with impunity, completely apathetic to the actual real-life consequences. That is modern liberalism in a nutshell. Hammurabi banished it, and because of that we have architecture…useful architecture…architecture as we know it.
Which means — ironically — “roads and bridges”! Among other things.
- mkfreeberg | 08/01/2012 @ 16:46mkfreeberg: Yes. Yes, it is. The whole babbling-away about things that make you feel good, knowing not one thing about what you’re talking about, with impunity, completely apathetic to the actual real-life consequences.
Sorry, but code 229 does not regulate babbling. It only regulates building. In any case, we should be able to agree that it is government regulation of commerce.
mkfreeberg: That is modern liberalism in a nutshell.
Hard to even make sense of that. It’s not only liberals who babble. Doesn’t seem like you thought it through very carefully.
- Zachriel | 08/01/2012 @ 16:59As the debacle with Obama’s stimulus bill clearly illustrated, liberals are impervious to results. When theory conflicts with reality, they demand it is reality that must yield.
Code 229, while harsh by our standards, is obviously intended to obstruct that errant mindset. Hammurabi seems to have had some liberals in his time — building things that didn’t work. How else to state the necessity of it?
- mkfreeberg | 08/01/2012 @ 17:39Luther challenged the Church with his 95 Theses, during the Renaissance. Galileo was found by the Inquisition to be vehemently suspect of heresy for having held that the earth moved, during the Renaissance.
Yes, and Pico della Mirandola, greatest of the Renaissance humanists, wrote many long treatises in defense of alchemy and magic. The vast majority of Isaac Newton’s written output dealt with alchemy and the summoning of angels. Luther himself claimed to have fought with demons, and Galileo was a believing Catholic who dedicated an astronomical treatise to the Pope.
Again — you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. You have two fecktoids about the Renaissance that you half-remember, incorrectly, from that one class you took that one time in undergrad, and from this you claim all kinds of stuff. Maybe if I put it in .gif form and link it 27 times you’ll get it. Or should I cut-and-paste a huge bibliography of books you in all likelihood don’t have access to?
- Severian | 08/01/2012 @ 18:57mkfreeberg: As the debacle with Obama’s stimulus bill clearly illustrated, liberals are impervious to results.
According to most economists, including those at the CBO, the stimulus added to GDP and reduced unemployment from where it would otherwise have been.
mkfreeberg: Hammurabi seems to have had some liberals in his time — building things that didn’t work. How else to state the necessity of it?
So we agree that government regulation may have been necessary. It’s your ascribing the label “liberal” to architects of the period that isn’t supported. It comes across as empty rhetoric.
Severian: The “challenging established authority,” especially church authority, science, etc. so beloved of liberals, is actually the Enlightenment.
Luther directly confronted church doctrine, starting the Protestant Reformation. Galileo is considered the father of modern science and his work put him into direct confrontation with Church doctrine. They are seminal figures of the Renaissance, not the Enlightenment, and their challenge of authority shook the foundations of the established order. They are hardly footnotes (“fecktoids”).
- Zachriel | 08/02/2012 @ 05:02I really don’t have the stomach for another 400+ posts of this, so I will simply note that once again we have a leftist who refuses to concede anything to an opponent, and who doubles down on his “facts” even when his facts are dubious.
If you think Martin Luther is some kind of hero of free thought, I suggest you google the entire history of Germany, 1517-1660. Luther wanted the absolute spiritual authority of the Pope replaced with the absolute spiritual authority of Martin Luther (see, for instance, the Peasants’ War). Historians call the combined Reformation / Counter-Reformation the “Wars of Religion” period for a reason.
Galileo was attempting to prove the work of Nicholas Copernicus, who was…. wait for it…. a monk, whose book was published under the imprint of the Holy Roman Emperor and dedicated to the Pope. The Galileo affair was largely political, and, as I have noted, Galileo dedicated his works to the reigning Pope. (One did not get any book published in Italy in this time without getting it past the Papal censors).
I would further note that there is one other event that “shook the foundations of the established order” at least as much as these — the discovery of the New World by Christopher Columbus. But since he’s a) a Catholic and b) the subject of a polemic from Howard Zinn, leftists don’t ever talk about him. (Don’t bother coming back with “Columbus didn’t really discover America;” I know, dear hearts, I know).
So at this point, the best thing you can do is move on – we can simply say “ok, Renaissance, Enlightenment, whatever, let’s get on to the main point, which is….”; or you can keep going around and around getting busted. Your choice.
- Severian | 08/02/2012 @ 05:43Severian: If you think Martin Luther is some kind of hero of free thought, I suggest you google the entire history of Germany, 1517-1660.
Luther wrote “On the Jews and Their Lies”, and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Nevertheless, Luther was a seminal figure in the Reformation, just as Galileo was a seminal figure in the scientific revolution. They were both Renaissance figures, directly contradicting your claim that “‘challenging established authority’ especially church authority, science, etc. so beloved of liberals, is actually the Enlightenment”.
This process of breaking free of the strictures of Medieval thought began a long process of liberalization and the rise of humanism, resulting in our modern concepts of freedom of conscience, political liberty, and equality before the law.
So, yes. Even though people don’t change, culture does.
- Zachriel | 08/02/2012 @ 06:05our modern concepts of freedom of conscience, political liberty, and equality before the law.
All of which came from the Enlightenment, not the Renaissance. Care to provide citations for your position? You sure do seem to have a whole library of cut-and-paste links available. Perhaps you’d like to post transcripts of your graduate humanities coursework, your advanced degrees in Early Modern history?
And a fecktoid is not a footnote. This is a great example of a larger pattern of leftist dishonesty — they try to sneak in a nonstandard, hyperspecific definition of a common word, and if it goes unchallenged, they proceed as if theirs is the only commonsense definition. (If I hadn’t called it here, pretty soon we’d be hearing “stupid wingnutz think Galileo is a footnote in the history of science”).
In this case, there’s only one possible definition of “fecktoid,” since Morgan made it up (at least partially in response to your rather redundant debate style). A fecktoid is a fact that a leftist knows (or strongly believes) to be true, and which they use to make what they believe to be unfalsifiable statements about big grandiose themes, as you do here: They were both Renaissance figures, directly contradicting your claim that “‘challenging established authority’ especially church authority, science, etc. so beloved of liberals, is actually the Enlightenment.”
Yes, Galileo and Luther lived during the time of the Renaissance. But aside from the fact that Luther would in no way be classified as a “man of the Renaissance” in any sense other than chronological, the claims you want to make — i.e. resulting in our modern concepts of freedom of conscience, political liberty, and equality before the law — date from the Enlightenment. Nobody tracing the history of the concept of freedom of conscience would start with Luther (author of On the Bondage of the Will and the grandfather of the concept of predestination), just as nobody talking about modern political liberty would start with Galileo. The figures most responsible for the modern notions of these concepts are folks like Rousseau. Similarly, if we want to talk about “challenging Church authority,” we might start with the Arian/Athanasian split at the Council of Nicea (325 AD) and work up through the various explicitly anti-Church movements of the Middle Ages. See, for example, the Cathars — that one sure shook the foundations, as it took an entire crusade to put it down (and was a major factor in the development of the French nation-state to boot).
But again, you’re going to come with “Luther challenged Church authority in the chronological period known as Renaissance; that’s all we’re claiming.” And that, kiddos, is a fecktoid.
- Severian | 08/02/2012 @ 06:34For reference:
fektoid (n.):
A factual statement presented during a discussion that involves disagreement; its veracity would survive a diligent and skeptical inspection, but its relevance would not.
veractiy (n.):
Conformity with truth or fact.
relevance (n.):
Relation to the matter at hand.
It comes across as empty rhetoric.
I care how my interpretation of history comes across, about as much as Hammurabi cared how much his rules came across.
Someone fancied himself an architect, figured he could slap things together any ol’ silly way, some fine speechmaking at the end would provide an adequate substitute for sweating the details. Just like Obama and His failed stimulus plan. People died and the guy in charge saw a new law was necessary. You can call it “regulation” to try to swivel the whole discussion into a new dandelion-seed debate about the advantages of having alphabet-soup agencies tell me what kind of light bulbs I can’t buy…that has nothing to do with the point I made and you know it…the point is, people who don’t work with details, either don’t build things or we find out later that they shouldn’t have, and we’re better off if they don’t and just stick to empty, entirely ineffectual speech-making like the Good Lord intended.
When a column does or doesn’t support a load, or an angle is or is not correct, or the stone is or is not cracked, it doesn’t matter what someone says or how well they say it.
If anything, CoH229 is an opposition to regulation. It says the guy who does the building is ultimately responsible. Archi, tekton…master builder. Anyone who’s worked with regulators, understands that is not how regulation works at all. Regulation is, that door is supposed to be 33 inches wide and you’ve made it 34 and a half, so you have to tear off this side of the building at your own expense and do it all over again the way we say.
- mkfreeberg | 08/02/2012 @ 07:27Zachriel: {Severian snips} our modern concepts of freedom of conscience, political liberty, and equality before the law.
Severian: All of which came from the Enlightenment, not the Renaissance.
Notably, you snipped the relevant portion, “This process of breaking free of the strictures of Medieval thought began a long process of liberalization and the rise of humanism, resulting in our modern concepts of freedom of conscience, political liberty, and equality before the law. These steps didn’t occur at once, but over a long period of time. That’s the nature of progress.
Severian: Care to provide citations for your position?
“The laws of worldly government extend no farther than to life and property and what is external upon earth. For over the soul God can and will let no one rule but himself.”
On Secular Authority, The Freedom of a Christian, Temporal Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed, or his doctrine of two kingdoms. Luther very clearly and influentially argued that the state has no authority over the soul. It was a revolutionary idea that directly confronted the Church.
You also argued that the rapidity of social change today is no faster than the rate of social change in previous centuries. Everyone knows that simply isn’t supportable.
We make a policy of not arguing with someone who is right. What is your policy?
- Zachriel | 08/02/2012 @ 07:53We make a policy of not arguing with someone who is right. What is your policy?
WTH??
- mkfreeberg | 08/02/2012 @ 07:56mkfreeberg: I care how my interpretation of history comes across, about as much as Hammurabi cared how much his rules came across.
Makes one wonder why you comment when you don’t care if they convey the intended meaning.
mkfreeberg: Someone fancied himself an architect, figured he could slap things together any ol’ silly way, some fine speechmaking at the end would provide an adequate substitute for sweating the details.
That doesn’t make it liberalism, which is a political ideology based on liberty and equality (though these two principles can sometimes come into opposition).
mkfreeberg: Just like Obama and His failed stimulus plan. People died and the guy in charge saw a new law was necessary.
Or Bush and the debacle of the Iraq War, which was due to ideology and incompetence, a lethal combination. Blind ideology of any stripe can lead to disaster. Bad architects can just as easily be liberal or conservative. It has more to do with opportunity for profit and cutting corners.
mkfreeberg: You can call it “regulation” …
Um, it IS government regulation. Hammurabi’s code of law was a landmark of civilization.
mkfreeberg: If anything, CoH229 is an opposition to regulation. It says the guy who does the building is ultimately responsible.
And the entity that imposes the rule and the penalty is the government. And because it is a code, it doesn’t require Hammurabi’s person adjudication. A bureaucrat does the job.
- Zachriel | 08/02/2012 @ 08:02Makes one wonder why you comment when you don’t care if they convey the intended meaning.
To who? Someone who’s determined to misunderstand it? No, I don’t care about that. Why should I. Reminds me of the Tea Party sign, “It doesn’t matter what this sign says, you’re going to call it racist.”
Um, it IS government regulation. Hammurabi’s code of law was a landmark of civilization…the entity that imposes the rule and the penalty is the government. And because it is a code, it doesn’t require Hammurabi’s person adjudication. A bureaucrat does the job.
You don’t see the folly involved in confusing a law about outcome, with a law about process?
That is a very, very dangerous confusion to have.
- mkfreeberg | 08/02/2012 @ 08:07mkfreeberg: To who?
Check your stats. There are more readers than commenters. For some reason, a lot of people find your site when they search for ‘Obama eats dog’.
mkfreeberg: You don’t see the folly involved in confusing a law about outcome, with a law about process?
You seemed to be saying it wasn’t a government regulation. Sure, there’s a distinction that can be drawn. Today, most people expect a bit more. They want the light switches to be in the usual place so they can find them in the dark, and the toilets to meet their normal expectations.
You still haven’t substantiated why it would be considered a regulation against liberals.
- Zachriel | 08/02/2012 @ 08:29Read your regulations. A regulation existing today, that had something in common with Hammurabi’s code, would say “You will be blinded if the homeowner can’t find the light switch in the dark” — and then, leave the decision-making up to the guy installing the light switch.
Regulations will say…this far from the end of the wall, this high off the ground, and then just assume that it works. Regulation of outcome versus regulation of process. No, I accept absolutely no responsibility at all if you aren’t able, or willing, to see this meaningful distinction.
- mkfreeberg | 08/02/2012 @ 09:21mkfreeberg: “You will be blinded if the homeowner can’t find the light switch in the dark”
Interesting political position. Good luck with that.
- Zachriel | 08/02/2012 @ 09:29It’s not a political position. Please try to keep up.
- mkfreeberg | 08/02/2012 @ 09:45Luther very clearly and influentially argued that the state has no authority over the soul. It was a revolutionary idea that directly confronted the Church.b>
And so did Jesus himself, you ass — see “render unto Caesar those things which are Caesar’s.”
Try using something other than Wikipedia.
- Severian | 08/02/2012 @ 16:21Severian: And so did Jesus himself, you ass — see “render unto Caesar those things which are Caesar’s.”
Well, apparently, most people didn’t get the message for a few centuries. It took several hundred years just to establish a Christian empire, and when it was, they found Christians were no less corrupt in government than the pagans they replaced. The lives of ordinary people went on more-or-less as they always had.
Do you really maintain that the rapidity of social change today is no faster than the rate of social change in previous centuries?
- Zachriel | 08/02/2012 @ 17:10Do you really maintain that the rapidity of social change today is no faster than the rate of social change in previous centuries?
Do you really maintain that Luther was the first to argue that the state has no authority over the soul?
- Severian | 08/02/2012 @ 17:28Wait, let me answer my own question: “no, we only maintain that ‘Luther very clearly and influentially argued that the state has no authority over the soul.’ As we said, people remain the same, but society can change.”
That about the size of it?
At least you’re back to cutting-and-pasting, which is definitely the strongest part of your game (“when did we cut-and-paste? It was you who said…” etc. etc.).
- Severian | 08/02/2012 @ 17:32Severian: Do you really maintain that Luther was the first to argue that the state has no authority over the soul?
No, nor did we argue that he was. It took a long time for the idea to take root, an example of how slowly society changed in previous historical eras. Luther’s role was to push this idea to the forefront, which then initiated a number of other events, including the Protestant Reformation.
Do you still claim that Luther didn’t advocate freedom of conscience? “The laws of worldly government extend no farther than to life and property and what is external upon earth. For over the soul God can and will let no one rule but himself.”
Do you really maintain that the rapidity of social change today is no faster than the rate of social change in previous centuries?
- Zachriel | 08/03/2012 @ 05:37Do you still claim that Luther didn’t advocate freedom of conscience?
Yes, absolutely. My consicence says God doesn’t exist. Luther would have the secular authorities burn me at the stake. Google “the Peasant’s War.” Then google “Peace of Augsburg.”
Would you care to provide a bibliography for this claim of yours? You seem to have cut-and-paste bibliographies, links, etc. for your other claims…. As I have pointed out, Jesus himself would agree with the statement that “The laws of worldly government extend no farther than to life and property and what is external upon earth. For over the soul God can and will let no one rule but himself.” Surely you don’t count Jesus as an advocate of freedom of conscience?
- Severian | 08/03/2012 @ 10:06Severian: Yes, absolutely. My consicence says God doesn’t exist. Luther would have the secular authorities burn me at the stake.
Yes, and Jefferson owned slaves, yet he made one of the most important and influential arguments for liberty. Luther advocated that Jews be persecuted, but made one of the most important and influential arguments for freedom of conscience. Nonetheless, Luther opened the door, and within a generation, people were advocating for freedom of conscience, even for non-Christians. There is a long progression from Luther and Jefferson to modern notions of liberty and freedom. Again, that’s the whole point.
Do you still maintain that the rapidity of social change today is no faster than the rate of social change in previous centuries?
- Zachriel | 08/03/2012 @ 10:44Again, that’s the whole point.
No, it’s not — you’re claiming for Luther things he never said.
Jefferson owned slaves and advocated for political liberty. Luther never — not once, EVER — advocated for “freedom of conscience.” You’re simply incorrect, and you’re trying to evade this with false equivalence.
Luther wrote On the Bondage of the Will, which argued — explicitly, feel free to Google it — that humans DO NOT have freedom of conscience, because they have no real volition whatsoever. He did this in dialougue with Erasmus (On the Freedom of the Will),who argued a position much closer to the one you’d like to advocate…. but Erasums also defended Papal supremacy (if you even know who he is, which I doubt), and so he doesn’t fit into your neat (i.e. incorrect) taxonomy.
You are simply incorrect. I’d be happy to discuss the concept of historical change, provided you first acknowledge that you are misinformed about this issue.
- Severian | 08/03/2012 @ 11:48Zachriel: Again, that’s the whole point.
Severian: No, it’s not.
The point was that there was a social progression, in particular, towards a more egalitarian society. If society in Luther’s day was the same in this respect as today, then you would have a point. But it wasn’t. If it suddenly changed, you would have a point. It was a progression of changes. Luther wouldn’t be expected to have the same understanding of freedom as modern people do. That’s the whole point.
Severian: Luther never — not once, EVER — advocated for “freedom of conscience.”
“The laws of worldly government extend no farther than to life and property and what is external upon earth. For over the soul God can and will let no one rule but himself.”
Severian: Luther wrote On the Bondage of the Will, which argued — explicitly, feel free to Google it — that humans DO NOT have freedom of conscience, because they have no real volition whatsoever.
Oh, gee whiz. We’re talking about whether government should have to power to set religious doctrine.
Do you still maintain that the rapidity of social change today is no faster than the rate of social change in previous centuries?
- Zachriel | 08/03/2012 @ 14:22It seems to me you and Severian need to come to agreement about the direction of this social change before you can come to agreement about the speed thereof, or the change in the speed.
If I understand your argument, Zachriels, it is that this social change is linear, just like in Star Trek…village unification followed by national unification followed by international unification followed by galactic-wide unification, by means of progressively larger and more vastly-encompassing treaties and truces, led by diplomats and peace-seeking, pie-eyed liberals…somehow, the continuing advancement of technology is to be tied into that, even though, in our personal experiences we see the modern liberals opposed to technological advances (don’t drill there, the snail darter might be offended, and you didn’t build that somebody else made it happen)…
Point is, to someone who sees human “progress” as something cyclical, it’s rather silly to debate the rapidity of social change or change in the rapidity…unless one wants to discuss the rapidity with which it is spinning on a fixed axis.
- mkfreeberg | 08/03/2012 @ 15:12Whig History, it appears, would have something to do with the true point of dispute here…
- mkfreeberg | 08/03/2012 @ 15:14Some good points. We’re impressed.
mkfreeberg: If I understand your argument, Zachriels, it is that this social change is linear,
Basically, but not necessarily linear, not necessarily inevitable, still with an overall direction historically.
mkfreeberg: village unification followed by national unification followed by international unification followed by galactic-wide unification, by means of progressively larger and more vastly-encompassing treaties and truces, led by diplomats and peace-seeking, pie-eyed liberals…
Didn’t mention the future, but there has been a trend since the end of the Middle Ages towards a more egalitarian society.
mkfreeberg: we see the modern liberals opposed to technological advances
That’s certainly an overgeneralization. Steve Jobs would probably be classified as a liberal, but was hardly opposed to technological advances.
mkfreeberg: Point is, to someone who sees human “progress” as something cyclical, it’s rather silly to debate the rapidity of social change or change in the rapidity…unless one wants to discuss the rapidity with which it is spinning on a fixed axis.
That’s right. However, if we look at history since the Renaissance, there has been a decided trajectory towards a more egalitarian society; religious, political, economic. Think of it as a ratcheting effect. Once people experienced Republicanism, even after the excesses of Napoléon, there was no putting the old social order back together again.
Look at U.S. history. Over a period of generations suffrage was extended from propertied white men, to all white men, to all men, then eventually to everyone. And in the last generation, democratic governance has taken hold in nearly every area of the globe. It doesn’t appear to be cyclical, but progressive.
- Zachriel | 08/03/2012 @ 15:33But this regulation, of which you speak, consists of taking the authority needed to make real decisions, and separating it from the people who are truly accountable to the effects of those decisions.
If, for some reason, that is taken to be “egalitarian” then your position is mostly correct, overall. But there are valid reasons for not accepting that, for seeing that trend, in itself, as a return to one or several dictatorships. After all, if people do not like the regulation they have no more recourse available to them, than the serfs do. They can vote in politicians who are opposed to the regulation, but that hasn’t had much impact because the regulation itself benefits from a “ratcheting” effect all its own.
- mkfreeberg | 08/03/2012 @ 15:37mkfreeberg: But this regulation, of which you speak, …
Are you referring to Hammurabi?
mkfreeberg: … consists of taking the authority needed to make real decisions, and separating it from the people who are truly accountable to the effects of those decisions.
The two advantages associated with a code of law was that enforcement wasn’t at the leisure of the king, and that royal authority could be delegated, extending the reach of government. This allowed for a more complex civilization.
This isn’t relevant to the discussion concerning modern progress, which has to do with social changes since the end of the Middle Ages.
mkfreeberg: They can vote in politicians who are opposed to the regulation, but that hasn’t had much impact because the regulation itself benefits from a “ratcheting” effect all its own.
That’s another good point. Yes, regulations can have a ratcheting effect, however, it is possible for democratic societies to unwind those changes. The problem is that regulations intertwine, meaning it’s difficult to unwind one regulation without it affecting something else, and also, many regulations have a valid purpose.
- Zachriel | 08/03/2012 @ 15:53Thinking on this some more, I notice I’m hard-pressed to come up with an example of some organic object that truly matures in a straight line. Starting with the relatively instantaneous “evolution” of inhaling — at some point it has to be reversed and exhalation takes place. In a longer timeframe, you have ingestion and then defecation…being awake and being asleep…this is important when you consider all these things apply to many, perhaps all, of the various species in the animal kingdom, vertebrates and otherwise…
The same is true with inorganic things. You do not work in a linear fashion with changing the oil in your car, getting it cleaner and cleaner year by year, that’s not the way it works at all. It’s a cycle. You let out the old and put in the new.
So it only makes sense, thus it is with government, and history seems to back this up. You have a revolution; if it is like the French Revolution, you install a super-duper-awesome-wonderful-demigod guy, like Barack Obama or Napoleon Bonaparte, essentially trading one monarch for another one — then you have your Reign of Terror, in which the revolutionaries start guillotining each other for not being revolutionary enough. Or — you can have an American Revolution, in which the revolutionaries think like Architects, classifying things into objects (executive, legislative, judicial) and putting some quality thought into how things ought to work, to avoid having a monarch or giving rise to a future monarch…this effectively embiggens the cycle, but like Ben Franklin said, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it” — at some point we become encumbered by all the regulation, much of which is nonsensical, and have to contend with a thousand little Napoleons instead of one big one. And then, well, it’s like a Superman or Batman franchise, it has to be rebooted.
Hope we’re not headed there. Or, if we are, I hope many generations come and go before it is truly necessary. But eventually, the reality is that somewhere out there is a cycle much larger than all the others, concluded with an event so devastating it will end all the others…the sun going nova would be the ultimate example. And so, we must remind ourselves that all this stuff is temporary.
- mkfreeberg | 08/03/2012 @ 17:34mkfreeberg: Thinking on this some more, I notice I’m hard-pressed to come up with an example of some organic object that truly matures in a straight line.
Again, we’re not talking about a straight-line, but having an overall direction.
mkfreeberg: Starting with …
Human culture certainly has a direction. With technology, we have stone, bronze, iron; sword, musket, rockets; parchment, printing press, computers; etc. And since the Renaissance, we have had egalitarian ideals bringing about significant changes in society; freedom of conscience, political liberty, economic opportunity.
mkfreeberg: But eventually, the reality is that somewhere out there is a cycle much larger than all the others, concluded with an event so devastating it will end all the others
The world today is significantly different than in any previous posited cycles. Most people don’t rely on stone tools, or fight with pointy sticks, or farm with wooden plows.
mkfreeberg: the sun going nova would be the ultimate example.
That wouldn’t be an example of a cyclical process, but an evolutionary one. And while Republics may not be forever, it’s unlikely that people will return to the social structures of the Middle Ages. It’s too late for that. People know too much.
- Zachriel | 08/04/2012 @ 04:47Oh, gee whiz. We’re talking about whether government should have to power to set religious doctrine
WHICH LUTHER ADVOCATED. When peasants started rising all over Germany in response to his doctrine — the Peasants’ War, look it up– he urged the Holy Roman Empire to crush the rebellion speedily and with great brutality. I’ll quote Wikipedia, since you seem to trust that source: “Luther did not support further extension of the popularizing and equalizing facets of his religious ideas. He was afraid that the princes, burghers and the class of town patricians would all fall away from support of the new German church if he threathened their position. He based his position on St. Paul’s doctrine of Divine Right of Kings in his epistle to the Romans 13:1–7, which says that all authorities are appointed by God, and should not be resisted.” You should also Google “peace of Augsburg” and the doctrine of cuis regio, euis religio.
You are simply wrong. Which is ok — this is a common misconception, and unless you’ve recently studied the period or are familiar with the academic literature you’d have no reason to think otherwise. At this point, I’m just curious to see if a leftist can acknowledge that he/they are misinformed. It’s simple: “Ok, so I was wrong about Luther, but the larger point stands, which is….”
…but I doubt it’ll happen.
- Severian | 08/04/2012 @ 07:27Again, we’re not talking about a straight-line, but having an overall direction.
Ah, you got me, I should have said “matures in a generally linear direction as opposed to a generally circular one” rather than “truly matures in a straight line. ”
Again, the point is regarding the true epicenter of disagreement: Technology — in the absence of some cataclysmic event that results in a truly lost bit of knowledge — is going to be a linear maturation process, but I don’t accept that it follows an egalitarian form of government and organization-of-society will move in the same way, especially as another part of some bundled package. I see these forces as opposites, and my own personal experiences, which have been shared by many others, have a lot to do with my seeing it that way. Governments, over time, come to represent those who do not produce, and are jealous, or seem to act out of jealousy, of those who do the producing.
President Obama was clearly trying to come up with some examples of government assisting/enabling in the production of goods and services…He’s pretty good at coming up with examples, gotta give Him that…what did He manage to put on His list. The Internet — Charles Krauthammer already pointed out how wrong He is about that. And then roads, and bridges. Same dishonest claptrap we’ve heard from leftists over and over again. When it comes time to differentiate the positions between left and right, nobody’s arguing about roads, bridges, police, fire, park benches, but when the statist types inform us of the glorious benefits of thicker and unaffordable federal government, they head there every time…avoiding, with the stubbornness found only in a pundit who knows he must avoid something for his argument to survive, the things that have really ticked off the other side. But there, Little Caesar’s list comes to an end, there’s nothing else to offer. That says something; it says a lot, actually. There just isn’t much factual basis for this idea.
Now, this is not an argument intended to persuade, quite so much as to define what it is that is being discussed…oftentimes, it is necessary to locate the place where the opinions diverge, in order to get the conversation on track (although I hope you guys don’t stop talking about Erasmus and Luther, that’s stuff’s interesting). The progressives seem to see society and government as a linear maturation process, with government somehow coupled-up with technology. Conservatives seem to see government the way Jefferson did, when he said “when injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty”: human progress is not joined at the hip with government, but rather with freedom, with government either opposing both or else trying to work itself into a position in which it can so oppose…the government situation therefore becomes cyclical, throughout all of human history. The point to the American Revolution, therefore, was to design and implement a system that would increase the size of such a cycle, so as many generations as possible could enjoy freedom.
If I do seek to persuade the other side to mine, I would point out that a linear trajectory, viewed with a better informed and broader perspective, is very often revealed to be, in fact, circular, but it is geometrically impossible for the reverse to happen. This is a case in which the conservatives, along with the Founding Fathers, have brought the broader and better informed perspective.
- mkfreeberg | 08/04/2012 @ 08:15Severian: He based his position on St. Paul’s doctrine of Divine Right of Kings
Which does not support your position. Nor would we expect, given the nature of progress, Luther, or others of his time, to have the same understanding of freedom of conscience as people in the modern world. That’s the whole point. It’s a progression!
mkfreeberg: I don’t accept that it follows an egalitarian form of government and organization-of-society will move in the same way, especially as another part of some bundled package.
The original claim was historical, regarding the trend since the Renaissance. Nevertheless, there are reasons to believe that technology has been integral to other social changes. For instance, the invention of the printing press meant the spread of literacy, so people could read the Bible for themselves. And pamphlets became a widespread form of political communication. Gunpowder turned peasants into citizens because a king might still enforce his power, but only at a cost.
mkfreeberg: I would point out that a linear trajectory, viewed with a better informed and broader perspective, is very often revealed to be, in fact, circular, but it is geometrically impossible for the reverse to happen.
Well, there’s all sorts of cycles in life, including the rise and fall of civilizations. However, the printing press and computers mean that this knowledge will not be lost, but built upon. Even if everything collapsed, people would not start from the same beginnings as before.
mkfreeberg: The point to the American Revolution, therefore, was to design and implement a system that would increase the size of such a cycle, so as many generations as possible could enjoy freedom.
Now that democracy has spread across the globe, government of the people, by the people, for the people, does not depend solely on the United States.
- Zachriel | 08/04/2012 @ 09:21Even if everything collapsed, people would not start from the same beginnings as before.
And yet this valuable human history, what we have managed to get ahold of it, is chock full of slaves who were once free. There’s a lot of negligence and public apathy involved in such events, they are not all inspired by a boat full of white guys touching down on a beach somewhere.
So it seems we have, successfully, defined the point of disagreement.
And, technology, absent some meaningful loss of knowledge due to some event resembling the fall of Rome in effect and in scale, is going to be a generally linear process of accumulation.
Freedom is not. It is gained, through events relatively frequent and meaningful; and also, lost through events relatively frequent and meaningful. That is a cyclical process.
I would further add that the positioning of mankind to drive this linear accumulation of knowledge/technology, is a cyclical process. Before the Renaissance, we had the Dark Ages; before that, we had Rome, and we had the much more ancient golden age with the trio of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle…this blog itself is named after one such figure from that time, and exists as a lamentation that this type of thinking is currently under attack and may be on the wane.
Since we do not all agree that technology, and egalitarian organizations of society, achieve robustness/maturity in the same pattern, and both sides do not necessarily agree with this “ratcheting effect” you have mentioned, it will be necessary to distinguish between technology concepts and freedom concepts if we are to further discuss it in a rational way.
- mkfreeberg | 08/04/2012 @ 09:30Which does not support your position.
Yes, it does. Luther did NOT advocate “freedom of conscience,” in either our understanding OR his.
You do not seem to understand the nuances of early modern intellectual history. Which, again, is ok — unless you’re a recent student of the period or an academic expert, you wouldn’t. Let’s just get that out of the way and move on to the other things you want to discuss.
Or…. QED. Either way (although I know which one my money’s on).
- Severian | 08/04/2012 @ 10:30mkfreeberg: And yet this valuable human history, what we have managed to get ahold of it, is chock full of slaves who were once free.
Good example. Slavery used to significant economic property, then movements were established to end the slave trade, then slavery itself. Then racial segregation, then movements towards equality under the law. And so on.
mkfreeberg: And, technology, absent some meaningful loss of knowledge due to some event resembling the fall of Rome in effect and in scale, is going to be a generally linear process of accumulation.
Even after the fall of Rome, people didn’t revert to wood plows. The technologies lost were mostly those of scale, such as concrete. Many technologies were not lost, but adapted to the new conditions.
mkfreeberg: Freedom is not. It is gained, through events relatively frequent and meaningful; and also, lost through events relatively frequent and meaningful. That is a cyclical process.
That does not appear to be the story of the last 500 years, which has a clear trajectory. We mentioned this above. Just look at U.S. history where suffrage started as only for propertied white men. Or look at British history. Or the history of the Church. Or more recently, the spread of democratic governance across most of the globe.
Severian: Luther did NOT advocate “freedom of conscience,” in either our understanding OR his.
“The laws of worldly government extend no farther than to life and property and what is external upon earth. For over the soul God can and will let no one rule but himself.”
- Zachriel | 08/04/2012 @ 11:15That [loss of freedom] does not appear to be the story of the last 500 years…
But then we have the United States. We have Great Britain. Things in previous generations that, if you wanted to do them, you could simply do them…build a gazebo in your backyard, here, or over there simply watch teevee. You need to apply for permits. Quotas. Annual license fees. And a clipboard-carrying guy knocking on the door of your “flat” to make sure you don’t have two teevees.
That isn’t slavery, but it certainly is the loss of “rights” — freedoms. Permit is a verb as well as a noun. If you have to do a mother-may-I, then, by definition, you don’t have the “right” that you used to have.
The tyrants will respond to this observation by saying, well yes, but look at the security we would lose if we were to strip down the process and restore the freedoms…but that is precisely the argument tyrants have always made. So we see freedom is won, with bloodshed usually, in large blocks and then given up again in smaller portions; it is a cyclical process. With that in mind, we see the last five hundred years, especially the last one hundred, is bursting with examples that show that changes in freedom occur along a cyclical trajectory.
- mkfreeberg | 08/04/2012 @ 11:24mkfreeberg: Things in previous generations that, if you wanted to do them, you could simply do them…
Ah, now we understand. You apparently think that modern Americans have less freedom than people in previous centuries. Odd that. At one time you could be arrested for having a heterodox notion of the Trinity. At one time there were slaves. At one time women couldn’t vote. At one time, a black man could be shot for the mere suspicion of whistling at a white woman. But you have to apply for a permit to build a gazebo! Tyranny!!
- Zachriel | 08/04/2012 @ 14:49Well yes, if you rationalize away all the more recent losses of freedom, you’re right — there aren’t any…because, you’ve rationalized them away.
Everything is one-sided if you simply pretend the other side doesn’t exist.
Whatever it takes, to make liberal ideas look like good ones….
- mkfreeberg | 08/04/2012 @ 19:47mkfreeberg: Well yes, if you rationalize away all the more recent losses of freedom, you’re right — there aren’t any…because, you’ve rationalized them away.
We didn’t rationalize away anything. You mentioned that you needed a building permit to build a gazebo. Building permits have been around for centuries. You mentioned the clipboard-carrying guy, who is just a tax auditor. Taxes have been around a long time, too.
You didn’t respond to the point, either. Five hundred years ago, most of the world lacked representative government, religion was determined and regulated by the state, speaking against the government or organizing politically was a crime, and slavery was common. Since then, a long progression of changes occurred so that today much of the world lives in open, democratic societies.
- Zachriel | 08/05/2012 @ 04:38[mkf] If you have to do a mother-may-I, then, by definition, you don’t have the “right” that you used to have.
I’m going to take it as a given that you do not disagree with this.
Now then, what exactly can we not do today, without getting that mother-may-I, that we could do a hundred years ago without getting it? Building structures on our land certainly counts. I’m sure it isn’t a big deal if you aren’t interested in building a gazebo, or a canopy over your porch, or a new deck…and, I’m sure it’s a much bigger deal if you’re that guy who wants to so build. This change is a loss of freedom. That is simple, straightforward logic — proceeding forward from a point of realization that, I’m assuming, is agreeable to both sides…
Maybe it isn’t. Maybe you think, as long as we all have an opportunity to vote, we have freedom even as our “representative” government continues to tell us we have to pay taxes for not buying this thing, that thing, some other thing…if that is the case then this is a quibble over semantics. But either way, I did address the point.
So tell me, what is up with this nervous-tic thing of “you didn’t address the point”? Is this one of you doing that, or all of you? It comes off looking like it comes out of a playbook somewhere, and frankly it would probably be more honest to say “if you did address the point, due to our different worldview, it seems to have slipped past us.”
Once we clarify that point, we should inspect this notion of freedom you have. There seems to be a group understanding that, as long as you get to vote, you still have all your freedoms. How does this square with something like the PATRIOT Act, I wonder?
- mkfreeberg | 08/05/2012 @ 06:35mkfreeberg: If you have to do a mother-may-I, then, by definition, you don’t have the “right” that you used to have.
mkfreeberg: I’m going to take it as a given that you do not disagree with this.
That’s right. You used to be able to lynch a black man you suspected had whistled at your wife. Now it’s against the law.
mkfreeberg: Now then, what exactly can we not do today, without getting that mother-may-I, that we could do a hundred years ago without getting it? Building structures on our land certainly counts.
There were building codes a hundred years ago. The are a number of reasons for building codes, the most important being safety.
“If a builder build a house for some one and complete it, he shall give him a fee of two shekels in money for each sar of surface.”
mkfreeberg: I’m sure it isn’t a big deal if you aren’t interested in building a gazebo, or a canopy over your porch, or a new deck…and, I’m sure it’s a much bigger deal if you’re that guy who wants to so build. This change is a loss of freedom.
And over the same supposed period of time, slaves were freed, women got the vote, segregation ended. Yes, there is a trade-off.
mkfreeberg: So tell me, what is up with this nervous-tic thing of “you didn’t address the point”?
Because you didn’t respond to the point. We pointed to five hundred years of progressive change, from monarchical rule and slavery to limited self-government to modern democratic institutions in most nations of the world. You pointed to having to get a building permit to put in a gazebo. You may as well point to traffic lights.
Your freedoms end at another’s nose. If you want to say that excessive regulation could eventually stifle basic liberties, that is certainly true. However, that is hardly the case today. When compared to previous periods, more people have far more freedom, and far more say in their lives, than most people have had over the last several centuries.
mkfreeberg: There seems to be a group understanding that, as long as you get to vote, you still have all your freedoms.
No. It still requires guarantees of individual liberties, even for minorities, — especially for minorities.
- Zachriel | 08/06/2012 @ 06:44That’s right. You used to be able to lynch a black man you suspected had whistled at your wife. Now it’s against the law.
:
No. It still requires guarantees of individual liberties, even for minorities, — especially for minorities.
Okay, then we aren’t really talking about freedom at all. In fact, in many of these situations you’re specifically making reference to taking freedoms away, and then justifying it with cosmetic concern for members of oppressed minority groups.
You defined the trend as “from monarchical rule and slavery to limited self-government to modern democratic institutions” — your point is that this is not cyclical. But once your argument is presented candidly and with clarity, it looks like a centuries-long process in exchanging one liege lord for another. Brings to mind the Mel Gibson quote from The Patriot, “Can you tell me please, why should I exchange one tyrant three thousand miles away, for three thousand tyrants, one mile away?” a script line which was lifted from the writings of Mather Byles.
This would be a cyclical process, by any reasonable interpretation.
This is a case in which the conservatives, along with the Founding Fathers, have brought the broader and better informed perspective.
Because you didn’t respond to the point.
I responded to the point, and you didn’t like my response.
- mkfreeberg | 08/06/2012 @ 07:07You used to be able to lynch a black man you suspected had whistled at your wife. Now it’s against the law.
Aren’t you the one who keeps cutting-and-pasting that remark about not being entitled to one’s own facts?
Lynching has NEVER been legal. You will search the law codes of all US states in vain to find the “it’s ok to hang black people from trees” statute. Such crimes were often not prosecuted, but they were ALWAYS crimes.
Words mean what they mean.
We pointed to five hundred years of progressive change, from monarchical rule and slavery to limited self-government to modern democratic institutions in most nations of the world.
This is the enabling fantasy of the virtue junkie — the misuse of the word “progress.” I could look at the same set of facts — slavery ending, more people voting — and conclude that this is the unfolding of God’s master plan, or the work of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or regressive change (monarchs certainly must’ve thought so), or sideways change (“they’re not better, just different”). Change, in itself, is neither progress nor good (nor regress or evil either).
We can describe changes that have happened, and we can debate whether those changes were good, bad, or indifferent. But they are entirely separate processes; you certainly don’t get to pat yourself on the back here in 2012 for something the British Navy did in 1840.
Words mean what they mean.
- Severian | 08/06/2012 @ 07:16There is another thing to be considered here: Now that I have pried out from the Zachriels exactly what it is they are defining as “progressive change,” and we look on that with an eye toward defining meaningfully and fundamentally what this change is, we see that not only is it a cyclical process, but that we are on a regressive, not progressive, side of that curve.
Five hundred years ago, the people who told us we could not do things, pressed to present their claim to this power over us, would say “I serve at the pleasure of His Majesty, King Henry”; King Henry would then say “I reign by divine right, and I am King by the grace of God.”
And now, thanks to the Constitution, we have this concept of “rule of law, not rule of men” — but our progressives don’t like that, they’d rather have a rule of men…busybodies have arbitrarily decided, in service to their own interests, that you should be required to purchase health insurance if you’re a citizen, but when you do other things citizens do you shouldn’t have to prove you’re a citizen…so some laws count, other laws don’t. Pressed to present their claim to this power over us, the modern aristocrats would say “I am appointed by President Obama” and President Obama, in turn, would then say “There’s something mega-super-wonderful and awesome about Me, nobody can quite explain what it is, it’s just generally understood and by the way you’re a racist for daring to question it.”
And that, from my reading of history over these last five hundred years, is really the progressive trend: The justification for the authority has been effectively obliterated. All these crackpot leftist governments, Castro, Pol Pot, Kim Jong, Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez, Coleman Young, they all have this super-duper-mega-awesome-shit-don’t-stink guy at the very top who says how things are going to be, about everything, and you’d better not question him because he’s above all of us — but these unique attributes possessed by this individual, obviously imbued with great and deep meaning, of necessity cannot ever be specifically mentioned. The King could at least say “The events that made me King occurred by the Grace of God, therefore The Almighty directed their confluence, therefore I am selected by no lesser power than Lord God Almighty.” Offensive to Michael Newdow, perhaps, but at least it’s specific and defined. The “progress” lusted after by our left-wing friends seems to be a return to monarchic rule, with this faith-based logical justification obliterated, leaving in place more of an anointing process based on “Once my hands are on the levers of power, they’re staying there, and don’t you try to change that or you’ll be sorry.” Based on what I can manage to find out about this, it seems to be a replacement of force from the Heavenly Kingdom, with force from the domain of man…which would mean good old-fashioned bullying. Nothing really more sophisticated than one caveman beating another caveman over the head with a club, having enjoyed the good fortune of being the first one to get hold of the club.
- mkfreeberg | 08/06/2012 @ 07:43Zachriel: You used to be able to lynch a black man you suspected had whistled at your wife.
mkfreeberg: Okay, then we aren’t really talking about freedom at all. In fact, in many of these situations you’re specifically making reference to taking freedoms away, and then justifying it with cosmetic concern for members of oppressed minority groups.
Laws against lynching are cosmetic? Do we understand that correctly?
mkfreeberg: You defined the trend as “from monarchical rule and slavery to limited self-government to modern democratic institutions” — your point is that this is not cyclical.
Yes.
mkfreeberg: But once your argument is presented candidly and with clarity, it looks like a centuries-long process in exchanging one liege lord for another.
In democracy, the people are sovereign.
mkfreeberg: Brings to mind the Mel Gibson quote from The Patriot, “Can you tell me please, why should I exchange one tyrant three thousand miles away, for three thousand tyrants, one mile away?”
Turns out that more tyrants means more balance of power. And local tyrants means more ability to influence them. And that led to even greater diffusion of power among the population. First, to propertied white men, then to white men generally, then to women and minorities.
mkfreeberg: This would be a cyclical process, by any reasonable interpretation.
Are you really saying that that nascent American Republic was the same as living under the British monarchy? Really?
Severian: Lynching has NEVER been legal.
Legal de facto. Gee whiz, they sold pictures of lynchings as postcards.
http://p2.la-img.com/241/22187/7691267_1_l.jpg
Severian: This is the enabling fantasy of the virtue junkie — the misuse of the word “progress.” I could look at the same set of facts — slavery ending, more people voting — and conclude that this is the unfolding of God’s master plan, or the work of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or regressive change (monarchs certainly must’ve thought so), or sideways change (”they’re not better, just different”). Change, in itself, is neither progress nor good (nor regress or evil either).
Sure. That would still mean there was a progression involved. We could and have pointed to technological progress, though for this discussion, we have pointed to increasing social egalitarianism. In the case of the nascent American Republic, that means that there is no titled classes. It’s “Mr. President”.
mkfreeberg: And now, thanks to the Constitution, we have this concept of “rule of law, not rule of men”
Rule of law predates the U.S. Constitution. You might look to British history for how people slowly wrested legal rights from the monarchy. Indeed, American colonialists can be said to have been fighting for their rights and privileges under British law.
mkfreeberg: but our progressives don’t like that, they’d rather have a rule of men…
Huh?
mkfreeberg: busybodies have arbitrarily decided, in service to their own interests, that you should be required to purchase health insurance if you’re a citizen,
Yes, they passed a law through an elected legislature. Rule of law and all that.
mkfreeberg: And that, from my reading of history over these last five hundred years, is really the progressive trend: The justification for the authority has been effectively obliterated.
In a modern constitutional democracy, people have a say in their government through the election of representatives. How did you think it worked?
- Zachriel | 08/06/2012 @ 08:19Laws against lynching are cosmetic? Do we understand that correctly?
No, I specifically said your concern for the minorities was cosmetic.
It’s being used as an excuse to measurably erode freedom. We’ve already seen several examples of left-wingers accusing the President’s critics of racism, when the criticism has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with race…care to enlighten me on what such a situation has to do with the lynchings, which, as Severian has pointed out, never were legal anyway?
The point is, when you talk about this linear trend, you aren’t talking about freedom; if you were to define that as “freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control,” or as “independence,” you would have to concede this is a cyclical process and you may even have to concede that we’re currently at a downturn in the cycle.
No, your point is pure sophistry. Your point is “There is this mysterious quality, and we will unilaterally determine what that quality is from moment to moment out of convenience to this argument we’re trying to make…anyway…whatever it is, it is on a continuous forward march. Let’s just say this quality is things being the way we progressives want them to be.” Even that doesn’t work, really. Progressives win elections, progressives lose elections. Back and forth. It’s all cyclical.
In democracy, the people are sovereign.
And they have the absolute right to make abortion illegal, right? To reject gay marriage? To repeal the regulations that destroy businesses? That is not the case; in these examples and many others, we see the progressives making a bee-line to the issues that can be decided by fiat, in a court somewhere, removing the power from the ballot box. Either they succeed, or they give it a real good try, but in either case the progressives are not on the side of democracy. The Will Of The People makes for a real nice bumper sticker slogan, by why let it get in the way of the proggies making the world the way they want it to be?
Are you really saying that that nascent American Republic was the same as living under the British monarchy? Really?
Only in the aspects I have specifically mentioned.
Legal de facto…
Lame. Not even worth addressing. You’ve been nailed, just admit it.
You might look to British history for how people slowly wrested legal rights from the monarchy.
I have. I made the decision that it wasn’t worth mentioning because it wasn’t made into a truly working model until the American Revolution. I already had a letter to the Editor of the paper rejected due to excessive word-count when I walked through this timeline you mention…why bother, is that some kind of “you didn’t build that, somebody else made it happen” thing? Stick to the subject.
Huh?
I provided the example already, that if you’re a citizen you must purchase health insurance, but non-citizens can do things only citizens should be able to do and it’s supposed to be illegal to ask them for proof of their citizenship. That is not rule of law, that is rule of modern aristocrats picking and choosing which laws count and which laws don’t.
Yes, they passed a law through an elected legislature. Rule of law and all that.
That is incorrect. The application of a regulation depends on the whim of the regulator. Unless the law is written with perfect specificity, zero room for ambiguity; that situation is all but mythical.
In a modern constitutional democracy, people have a say in their government through the election of representatives.
I’m on Barack Obama’s mailing list. He’s not thrilled with this part of it at all. The mantra of the left-wing dictator is “Of course The People can have a say, as long as they keep picking me.”
- mkfreeberg | 08/06/2012 @ 08:42mkfreeberg: It’s being
So ending slavery, extending the right to suffrage, “measurably erode freedom“.
mkfreeberg: The point is, when you talk about this linear trend, you aren’t talking about freedom; …
No, we specifically mentioned egalitarianism, which includes individual liberty.
mkfreeberg: … if you were to define that as “freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control,” or as “independence,” you would have to concede this is a cyclical process …
You haven’t made any reasonable argument that there isn’t a trend. You merely state that because you can’t build a gazebo, that overall, that somehow represents a backward step from monarchy.
mkfreeberg: … and you may even have to concede that we’re currently at a downturn in the cycle.
If you mean the trend isn’t monotonic, that’s already been noted above.
mkfreeberg: Your point is “There is this mysterious quality, and we will unilaterally determine what that quality is from moment to moment out of convenience to this argument we’re trying to make…anyway…whatever it is, it is on a continuous forward march. Let’s just say this quality is things being the way we progressives want them to be.”
How many strawmen can we count? The quality isn’t mysterious, it’s called egalitarianism. We didn’t unilaterally determine anything, but provided evidence and an argument, which you have yet to address. (You can’t address an argument, when you can’t even state it clearly.) The march isn’t continuous, though there is a clear trend over the last several centuries.
mkfreeberg: And they have the absolute right to make abortion illegal, right? To reject gay marriage? To repeal the regulations that destroy businesses?
In a constitutional system, there are typically several organs of government that balance one another. Hence, in the U.S., the courts have ruled you can’t force women to continue pregnancies (before viability) they don’t want; gay marriage is apparently being resolved through the legislative process; and regulations can certainly be repealed, but many regulations have benefits, for instance, a traffic light.
mkfreeberg: That is not the case; in these examples and many others, we see the progressives making a bee-line to the issues that can be decided by fiat, in a court somewhere, removing the power from the ballot box.
The ballot is not the only mechanism in a modern democracy. For instance, the courts have upheld the First Amendment, often in the face of majoritarian outrage.
mkfreeberg: Only in the aspects I have specifically mentioned.
So, in other words, the American Republic was more egalitarian than a monarchy.
mkfreeberg: I made the decision that it wasn’t worth mentioning because it wasn’t made into a truly working model until the American Revolution.
What?! The British established the right of representation in the parliament with the power to tax. Indeed, it was a battle cry of the Americans, “No taxation without representation”, a right as citizens of the crown they were being denied.
mkfreeberg: I provided the example already, that if you’re a citizen you must purchase health insurance, but non-citizens can do things only citizens should be able to do and it’s supposed to be illegal to ask them for proof of their citizenship.
You said it wasn’t the rule of law, and for an example you point to a law passed by an elected legislature. As for non-citizens doing things only citizens should be able to do, you would have to be specific.
mkfreeberg: The application of a regulation depends on the whim of the regulator.
Well, no. Regulators apply regulations. That’s where their power comes from. If they exceed their authority, they can either be challenged internally, criminally (if applicable), or taken to court.
mkfreeberg: Unless the law is written with perfect specificity, zero room for ambiguity; that situation is all but mythical.
There’s always ambiguity. That’s the nature of law, and that’s why there are courts.
mkfreeberg: The mantra of the left-wing dictator is “Of course The People can have a say, as long as they keep picking me.”
It’s doesn’t matter what you think Obama believes. What matters is that he has to face election, unlike King George.
- Zachriel | 08/06/2012 @ 09:31Legal de facto…
Lame. Not even worth addressing. You’ve been nailed, just admit it.
But they never will, because that would be conceding ground to the enemy. I believe we had 400+ posts of just this behavior out of them. My point remains: Words mean what they mean. Solipsism is one of the oldest tricks in the leftist playbook.
That would still mean there was a progression involved.
NO, it would NOT. Again, words mean what they mean, and “progress” is a transitive verb. It requires a direct object — progress towards what?
The “towards what?” is the heart of the matter, and that’s what politics is really about.
………
You know, it’s funny — our “progressives” believe that history is a linear narrative that can only end one way. Christian fundamentalists also believe this, but somehow “the reign of Christ” is abject superstitious nonsense, arrived at by question-begging, ignoring evidence, intimidating opponents, closed-mindedness, imperviousness to reason, etc. etc. The socialist utopia, on the other hand… well, Karl Marx did say that dialectical materialism comprises the Iron Law of History, and so….
What’s extra-funny is that not only can they not define the supposedly inevitable end goal (what does “social justice” look like, comrades?), but the whole notion of human happiness doesn’t even appear in the intermediate steps. I have no doubt that our progressives would say that they hope to make people happier, but I’ve never once heard that word used in a debate with a leftist. Which is funny, since our collective friends here are much closer to meliorism than they are to any definable political program….
….but note that this, too, is a philosophical argument, not a factual one. I note that slavery has been outlawed in the west. That is a fact. I note that I am happy about this, and believe this to be a good thing. Those are opinions. I do NOT get to define this as “progress” unless I specify a goal (“the complete elimination of slavery from the globe,” say), and I certainly don’t get to pat myself on the back for the actions of the 19th-century British navy and the Union army.
I can already see the Zachriel warming up the cut-and-paste: “Yes, we define our goal as the increase of human freedom.” Belay that, comrades. You also define your goal as increased democratic participation, and then you run smack into the rocks of the dilemma Morgan has so eloquently outlined — abolition came up for all kinds of votes in all kinds of places, and was rejected. De jure, not just de facto. It took an executive order, couched as a war measure and backed by the coercive force of the largest army ever assembled on North American soil, to make it happen in the US.
And those, comrades, are facts.
- Severian | 08/06/2012 @ 09:44By the bye, the word “egalitarian” is your cue to hold on to your wallet (and watch your back). There are only two types of equality possible in political society:
1) Equality before the law. If Alex Rodriguez and I end up in court, it doesn’t matter that he’s a multimillionaire famous baseball player (and Hispanic!) and I’m some schlub from the sticks;
2) Equality of outcome. Alex Rodriguez and I have to take turns playing third base for the Yankees, and we have to play my games on a tee ball field so I can hit as many home runs as he does.
The problem with 1) is that it by definition eliminates all the minority set-asides etc. that the Zachriel love. Laws are laws, and laws are blind, and we rely on the courts to sort it all out (and notice how much they love the court system when the subject is building regulations; not so much when it’s racial quotas or taxes on not buying insurance). The problem with 2) is that it’s manifestly incompatible with individual liberty — it would take a truly Stalinesque police state, for instance, to get me on par with Alex Rodriquez in just about any conceivable measure.
- Severian | 08/06/2012 @ 10:19Severian: 1) Equality before the law.
Equality before the law has been one of the fundamental changes in society. For instance, suffrage has gone through a progression of expansions, leading to modern democracy.
Severian: Equality of outcome.
Sure, but few advocate for equality of outcome. Even the Chinese Communist Party recognizes the value of markets.
You also have equality of opportunity, which could mean universal education for children, for instance.
Severian: The problem with 1) is that it by definition eliminates all the minority set-asides etc.
Not if the majority has ill-gotten gains. However,it’s simply not practical to unwind generations of bad actions. There no end to it.
Severian: Laws are laws, and laws are blind, and we rely on the courts to sort it all out (and notice how much they love the court system when the subject is building regulations; not so much when it’s racial quotas or taxes on not buying insurance).
Laws aren’t blind to tort, but there is no perfect justice. Hence, people seek political accommodation so that they can go on with their lives. Old-fashioned affirmative action is yielding to diversity—which is also good for the bottom line.
- Zachriel | 08/06/2012 @ 10:37Not if the majority has ill-gotten gains.
And who decides this, comrades? And who has the power to enforce the penalties?
- Severian | 08/06/2012 @ 10:51For instance, suffrage has gone through a progression of expansions, leading to modern democracy.
Cute. One could just as easily say “expanded” (or, just as easily, “changed”), but we have to slip “progress” in there somehow…..
See, this is why I still kinda suspect you’re a poorly-programmed spambot. Still, the alternative is more likely: Virtue junkies love the word “progressive,” because they can then define the entirety of human history as “progress” toward their preferred positions… which lets them bask in the reflected glory of people who lived hundreds of years ago.
[Even, as we’ve seen, when that’s not even close to historically correct, as with your increasingly desperate attempts to portray Luther as some kind of free-thought hero].
- Severian | 08/06/2012 @ 10:55Severian: And who decides this
Tort is decided by courts. Enforcement is by the executive branch. But again, it would simply not be practical to return America to the natives. Too much has happened, and to do so would be its own injustice.
Severian: One could just as easily say “expanded” (or, just as easily, “changed”), but we have to slip “progress” in there somehow
It wasn’t just change, but change with a direction, in particular, incremental expansion. Progress is the correct term, and the topic of the conversation.
- Zachriel | 08/06/2012 @ 11:07Severian: [Even, as we’ve seen, when that’s not even close to historically correct, as with your increasingly desperate attempts to portray Luther as some kind of free-thought hero].
As pointed out above, Luther had significant influence on the development of the concept of liberty of conscience, writing “The laws of worldly government extend no farther than to life and property and what is external upon earth. For over the soul God can and will let no one rule but himself.” He also wrote “On the Jews and Their Lies”, so Luther’s record is decidedly mixed. Then again, Jefferson owned slaves. Lincoln would be a racist by modern standards. And Franklin Roosevelt wore a top hat.
- Zachriel | 08/06/2012 @ 11:22What?! The British established the right of representation in the parliament with the power to tax…
For a listing of ways that this failed to bring about freedom, see: Declaration of Independence, where the grievances are listed, beginning with the words “He has…”
You haven’t made any reasonable argument that there isn’t a trend.
:
The quality isn’t mysterious, it’s called egalitarianism…The march isn’t continuous, though there is a clear trend over the last several centuries.
Egalitarianism (n.)
A belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs.
Okay then, egalitarianism. And, you seem to have a fondness for measuring this in terms of participation with the voting process…
Now that we’ve clarified this is only a fair-weather friendliness, at best, with freedom — and you think the trend is being continued, when supposedly “free” citizens find themselves sitting, as accused, in judgment by their fellow citizens about the thoughts in their heads, as a result of the relatively innocuous comments they have made…such witch hunts supposedly help to continue the slow and steady march of this “egalitarianism”…
“Around 510 BCE – The Ancient Athenians Invented Democracy”…
And, of course in the British example, they didn’t have democracy. True they did have Magna Carta, and they had parliament, but Magna Carta did a lot less than you suppose it did; parliament was also ineffectual in ways you don’t seem to understand. So, five centuries before the Birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, there was one-man-one-vote, and a millennium or so following His crucifixion, there was not. To the extent this direction of yours can be defined, your statement doesn’t seem to hold. But there is, of course, a limit to how well this direction of yours can be defined. As I said, it appears you’re just re-defining it from one moment to the next, in order to buttress your false argument.
It wasn’t just change, but change with a direction, in particular, incremental expansion. Progress is the correct term, and the topic of the conversation.
Progress that cannot be defined, cannot be measured. You say I haven’t addressed the point, but the point has not been made in real-life, concrete terms so that it can be supported or refuted.
It seems to me that my remarks are being graded not according to whether they demonstrate anything or challenge anything or counter anything, but rather according to how well they resemble something else you got out of Wikipedia or a textbook or something. You probably need to go do your own research, figure out what exactly it is you’re talking about, before we can discuss it further. I’m picking up a vibe that some among you have been educated beyond your hat size.
- mkfreeberg | 08/06/2012 @ 11:34mkfreeberg: For a listing of ways that this failed to bring about freedom, see: Declaration of Independence, where the grievances are listed, beginning with the words “He has…”
You’re getting the hang of this finally. It’s a progression. While the British parliamentary system after the Glorious Revolution was an improvement over the previous tentative system, it was still not as free as the American system which came after, which was not as democratic as either system today.
mkfreeberg: So, five centuries before the Birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, there was one-man-one-vote, and a millennium or so following His crucifixion, there was not.
Finally, you’re making a decent argument, which is that republican institutions rise, become corrupt, devolve into unstable dictatorships, and finally collapse, starting the cycle over again. That was the prevailing model circa 1775. Democratic rule was untenable. It had been tried and failed. Everyone knew that.
The differences in the modern era are multiple. We have the lesson of the previous failures. We have the heritage of British history with its balancing of powers. We have modern technologies, printing presses for encouraging literacy and communicating political ideas, peasants turned into citizens with muskets. Finally, modern societies are much more complex, with democratic institutions integrated throughout the culture; legislative, executive, judicial, central and local governments, political parties, corporations, lobbying groups, citizen groups, clubs, and individual liberties.
There is certainly no inevitability about the continuation of democracy, but there has been a clear progression since the Renaissance; blended and balanced democratic societies have been remarkably stable over time; and the global spread of democracy means experimentation with different models, and the failure in one place for a period of time means government of the people, by the people, for the people, no longer depends solely on one country, or the result of one battle in the Pennsylvania countryside.
mkfreeberg: Progress that cannot be defined, cannot be measured.
There’s no reasonable doubt that the early American Republic, despite its inequities, was more egalitarian than the class-based system of the British. There’s no reasonable doubt that ending slavery was more egalitarian than antebellum America, despite Jim Crow. There’s no reasonable doubt that extending the vote to more and more people was more egalitarian than only allowing white men of property to vote. There’s no reasonable doubt that the spread of democracy in modern times means more people have more say in their own affairs than at any time in history.
- Zachriel | 08/06/2012 @ 12:04You’re getting the hang of this finally. It’s a progression. While the British parliamentary system after the Glorious Revolution was an improvement over the previous tentative system, it was still not as free…
Woops! Okay now you’re back to saying the progression you seek to observe, has to do with “free.” That is something that is in measurable decline if, fifty years ago, I can engage in all sorts of politically incorrect behavior, without any consequence at all, and in Anno Domini Twenty Twelve my fellow citizens are sitting in judgment of my character for real & imagined offenses, applying some bizarre “Could Be Construed As” standard that nobody can actually meet. Or, we could revisit the gazebo thing again, but you’ll just sidestep that with your strange silly-putty “the mechanism was there for centuries” defense.
But “free” is measurable. It isn’t always a good thing, but free is free. You need to work on your terminology, because I’ve provided several examples where “freedom” is in decline — so have you — and your argument in response has been: That particular freedom was bad freedom, so it doesn’t refute what we said, and you, mkfreeberg, have still not addressed the point…
I don’t see how it’s my responsibility that you’re not using words correctly, or in keeping with your own argument. It seems the argument you’re really trying to make is: “Attributes of society that meet with our approval, whether they have to do with freedom or not, appear to be on a long-term crescendo, as long as we block out the many failures of leftist governments that we’d just as soon ignore thank you very much.”
There’s no reasonable doubt that the spread of democracy in modern times means more people have more say in their own affairs than at any time in history.
The trick is this: If my “own affairs” means buying a light bulb, and I am restricted from doing this due to regulations passed by legislators, a couple of whom are senators from my state, you say I “have more (or at least equal and sustained) say in [my] own affairs” with regard to this light bulb. Because each senator is forced to face my wrath every six years…
There’s no reasonable doubt that that’s balderdash. Either I can install the kind of light bulb I want, or I can’t, and in the last several decades there has been a measurable erosion in my ability to do things like this. You might have missed this, it’s only mentioned occasionally and it isn’t terribly conspicuous from my front page all the time, but I live in California. Here, if you can imagine a law saying “you’re not supposed to do that,” better-than-even-odds are, that there is one. So if you’re trying to sell the idea that We The People have control, just because we have a vote, this might explain why the argument isn’t resonating the way you believe it should.
- mkfreeberg | 08/06/2012 @ 12:20mkfreeberg: Okay now you’re back to saying the progression you seek to observe, has to do with “free.”
As we pointed out above (and you apparently forgot already), freedom is an important measure of equality. For instance, in a class-based society, your political freedom is largely determined by your position in society.
mkfreeberg: If my “own affairs” means buying a light bulb, and I am restricted from doing this due to regulations passed by legislators, a couple of whom are senators from my state, you say I “have more say in [my] own affairs” with regard to this light bulb.
You pick really poor examples. May as well complain you have to stop when the light is red. Turns out that your choice of lightbulbs has an impact on your neighbors, and your freedoms end at your neighbor’s nose. Politics is a means to resolve those conflicts. You just have to convince other people to change the law.
Do you really compare your choice of light bulbs or having to get a building permit to build a gazebo to slavery, to racial restrictions on voting, or to taxation without representation? Seriously? If you want to say that excessive regulation could eventually stifle basic liberties, that is certainly true. However, that is hardly the case today.
- Zachriel | 08/06/2012 @ 12:40As we pointed out above (and you apparently forgot already), freedom is an important measure of equality. For instance, in a class-based society, your political freedom is largely determined by your position in society.
Then, according to your own criteria and your own definitions, your observation fails.
Wow, that took long enough.
- mkfreeberg | 08/06/2012 @ 12:46mkfreeberg: Then, according to your own criteria and your own definitions, your observation fails.
Have no idea what you are talking about.
- Zachriel | 08/06/2012 @ 12:50freedom is an important measure of equality
Was the Soviet Union, therefore, freer than the USA? Is Cuba? Is North Korea? These places are explicitly, constitutionally designed to correct the evil inequalities of capitalism.
As here:
You pick really poor examples. May as well complain you have to stop when the light is red. Turns out that your choice of lightbulbs has an impact on your neighbors, and your freedoms end at your neighbor’s nose.
How you ever managed to type that without a brain hemisphere exploding from cognitive dissonance, I’ll never know. You completely contradict yourself within three sentences (which has to be some kind of record, even for a leftist), since any so-called “freedom” whatsoever can be construed to have an impact on my neighbors. If lightbulbs don’t pass the “doesn’t affect the neighbors” test, then neither does the tv I watch (the light flickers through the curtains while they’re trying to sleep); the music I listen to (my neighbors have exceptionally sensitive ears); the books I read (my neighbor really hates Danielle Steele); the car I drive (pollutes), my cat, my dog, my kids, my entire way of life.
Sorry I can’t come up with a cut-and-paste Luther quote for that (and you do know his collected works run over a dozen volumes, don’t you? And nice try trying to slip in “oh, he was important to the history of freedom of thought.” But no dice — you claimed he himself advocated freedom of conscience. Must you be dishonest about everything?)
- Severian | 08/06/2012 @ 14:18Severian: Was the Soviet Union, therefore, freer than the USA? Is Cuba? Is North Korea?
No.
Severian: These places are explicitly, constitutionally designed to correct the evil inequalities of capitalism.
They thought they could remake society, and believed that the ends justify the means. Because their goals were not tied to a clear understanding of human nature, they were coopted by those who sought power.
Severian: If lightbulbs don’t pass the “doesn’t affect the neighbors” test …
Lightbulbs require energy, which increases pollution, which affects the entire community. By reducing overall use of energy, it reduces overall pollution. In any case, you are free to convince your neighbors and vote for representatives who will change the law.
Severian: you claimed he himself advocated freedom of conscience.
“The laws of worldly government extend no farther than to life and property and what is external upon earth. For over the soul God can and will let no one rule but himself.”
- Zachriel | 08/06/2012 @ 14:38Severian: Was the Soviet Union, therefore, freer than the USA? Is Cuba? Is North Korea?
No.
And why not? The average citizens of North Korea are demonstrably more “equal” than American citizens. They have no choice in entertainment, work, food, schooling, leisure…. And you leftists are always going on about the vast income inequalities in America as if they’re the worst thing in the world. Well, aside from a tiny party elite, all North Korean citizens have exactly the same level of material possessions. If that isn’t equality, what is? And lest you be tempted to cut-and-paste “They thought they could remake society,” please note that the same situation applies in Haiti, which seems to have no government whatsoever, and in lots of subSaharan Africa…
Please do answer the question; your dodges are getting pathetic. (Although it is nice to finally hear a leftist admit that Cuba is a rotten police state).
Lightbulbs require energy, which increases pollution, which affects the entire community. By reducing overall use of energy, it reduces overall pollution. In any case, you are free to convince your neighbors and vote for representatives who will change the law.
Uh huh. So the only real “freedom” I have in this situation is to talk politics to my neighbors? That’s it? That is literally the only thing I can do?
But what if my neighbors don’t like being harangued about politics? Then I’m violating the lightbulb test there too, aren’t I?
Again: anything can be limited by your rationale. I buy superhero comics. Hollywood, seeing this, decides to make The Dark Knight Rises. And some maniac who thinks he’s the Joker shoots up a movie theater. I suppose I’m free to try to convince my neighbors to outlaw DC Comics?
What a fascist you are.
- Severian | 08/06/2012 @ 14:49Severian: The average citizens of North Korea are demonstrably more “equal” than American citizens.
That is incorrect. There is a huge disparity in personal liberty, political influence and wealth, between those few at the top and everyone else.
Severian: So the only real “freedom” I have in this situation is to talk politics to my neighbors?
Freedom of speech, the press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, are fundamental liberties.
Severian: I suppose I’m free to try to convince my neighbors to outlaw DC Comics?
Not if you live in North Korea.
- Zachriel | 08/06/2012 @ 15:18There is a huge disparity in personal liberty, political influence and wealth, between those few at the top and everyone else.
Which is what I explicitly said, here: aside from a tiny party elite, all North Korean citizens have exactly the same level of material possessions.” Precisely because I knew you’d attempt that pathetic dodge. Emphasis added this time to make sure you get it.
Nice try, but no. Excluding the tiny minority at the top (i.e. the explicit premise of the question) the 99% — and in North Korea it really is the 99% — all have exactly the same material possessions, political liberties, entertainment choices, lifestyle options, diet, etc. This is equality if nothing is. Is it therefore freedom? Are the North Korean 99% therefore freer than the American “99%,” who are all out there protesting economic, social, and political inequality?
Freedom of speech, the press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, are fundamental liberties.
Which, according to you, I can only use to talk to my neighbors about incandescent lightbulbs.
Not if you live in North Korea.
You’re really grasping at straws now. Did you run out of .gifs to cut and paste?
- Severian | 08/06/2012 @ 15:41Severian: Precisely because I knew you’d attempt that pathetic dodge. Emphasis added this time to make sure you get it.
If all the power, liberty and wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, then that means there is great inequality.
Severian: Which, according to you, I can only use to talk to my neighbors about incandescent lightbulbs.
If you live in an open, democratic society, you can talk about most anything. You can organize politically. You can even change your constitution.
- Zachriel | 08/06/2012 @ 15:56If all the power, liberty and wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, then that means there is great inequality.
We are specifically talking about the 99% here. Or, at least, I’m trying to — you’re dodging the question, because you’ve said something ridiculous and illogical and have been called out on it. Your equation of freedom with equality is untenable.
See here:
If you live in an open, democratic society, you can talk about most anything. You can organize politically. You can even change your constitution.
That does nothing to address the lightbulb problem, because it’s still subject to the lightbulb problem. Remember, you said that Turns out that your choice of lightbulbs has an impact on your neighbors, and your freedoms end at your neighbor’s nose. My neighbors don’t want to be harangued about politics. Therefore, by exercising my basic freedoms — speech, assembly, petition, which you said are the only ways to address this — I violate their basic freedoms. How is this conflict to be adjudicated?
Yes, yes, I know — “by the courts, via tort” — but what will the underlying principle be? I have a right to speech and petition, but those end at your nose. What sorts the claim out?
And that’s just lightbulbs. Does my right to petition the government and speak freely extend to gay marriage and abortion? Seems to me the good citizens of the several states do exercise said rights quite often, and with sizable public support, but they’re always somehow invalidated by these same courts who will be so vigilant of our freedoms to purchase incandescent lightbulbs. We’re not allowed to speak or enjoy the free exercise of our sacred franchise when it comes to literal life and death, but George Washington and the boys spilled their blood at Valley Forge so we could write letters to the editors about wattage requirements.
- Severian | 08/06/2012 @ 16:14Severian: We are specifically talking about the 99% here.
Yes, if you ignore all the inequality, then everything’s equal. It’s a silly point.
Severian: Your equation of freedom with equality is untenable.
They are not one and the same. However, we can talk about whether freedom, as a positive attribute, is equitably distributed.
Severian: Remember, you said that Turns out that your choice of lightbulbs has an impact on your neighbors, and your freedoms end at your neighbor’s nose.
Yes.
Severian: My neighbors don’t want to be harangued about politics.
Can’t blame them. For instance, calling people fascists is not usually an effective argument.
Severian: Therefore, by exercising my basic freedoms — speech, assembly, petition, which you said are the only ways to address this — I violate their basic freedoms. How is this conflict to be adjudicated?
You have every right to speak. And your neighbors have every right to ignore you.
Severian: Does my right to petition the government and speak freely extend to gay marriage and abortion?
Sure.
Severian: Seems to me the good citizens of the several states do exercise said rights quite often, and with sizable public support, but they’re always somehow invalidated by these same courts who will be so vigilant of our freedoms to purchase incandescent lightbulbs.
In the U.S., the courts have ruled that the constitution guarantees that the government can’t force a woman to to continue a pregnancy before viability. That means you would have to change the constitution. It’s doubtful you will convince enough people to make that sort of change, at least in the short term. Or it’s possible that the courts could rule differently in the future. Members of the high court are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Good luck with that.
Sorry, it’s the lousiest system …
- Zachriel | 08/06/2012 @ 16:32You have every right to speak. And your neighbors have every right to ignore you.
That is NOT what you said. You said that my freedom to speak — my right to speak– ends at my neighbor’s nose. Thus by speaking to them, I am violating their fundamental rights. Again, nice try, but no dice. You really should try to wait a few posts before trying to slip this kind of blatant dishonesty in; at least that way there’s a chance I won’t catch you.
Severian: Your equation of freedom with equality is untenable.
They are not one and the same.
Nope, they’re not. But again, you said –right here, at 12:40, that “freedom is an important measure of equality” (in fact, you chided Morgan for not recalling that you already said it). And I then pointed out that on any relevant measure, two North Korean average joes are far more equal than any two American average joes will ever be.
And you tried to dodge the subject. Unsuccessfully. Again.
Under conditions of complete equality, in fact, freedom would be useless. Whatever would we do with it? Part of the definition of freedom is the ability to use your own set of unique talents to improve your lot in life. Absent that, we really would be like the poor North Koreans, spending our evenings down at the party meeting endlessly debating about who loves Dear Leader more.
And that’s another word you never hear in these discussions from the left side of the aisle: happiness. It’s always you can’t do this, we’ll need to ban that, we’ll outlaw the other thing, you’ll be required to give up etc. etc. etc. (Always followed by “well we’re sorry if you’re so selfish and racist as to not want____ for the children, but we are above such yadda yadda yadda”). Lots of sanctimony, lots of aspersion cast on other peoples’ intelligence and emotional sensitivity, lots of hot virtue hits, right in the median cubital…. but the closest thing I’ve seen to a measurable consequence for another person in this whole discussion is something about “ill-gotten gains,” which sure does make the whole exercise sound a whole lot more about punishing “the rich” and far less about…. whatever it is you seem to think this discussion is about.
So: wanting to place severe limits on the freedoms of other people (always with the freedom to mutter under one’s breath about how lousy it all is scrupulously preserved), combined with completely unwarranted grandiosity and an urge to punish all one’s class enemies, characterization of opponents as stupid and beneath moral notice…. yeah, I’d say “fascist” fits pretty well. Words mean what they mean. It’s the lousiest system….
- Severian | 08/06/2012 @ 17:00Severian: That is NOT what you said. You said that my freedom to speak — my right to speak– ends at my neighbor’s nose.
They are not required to listen. It’s not difficult a concept. If you are obnoxious, and refuse to concede obvious points, then most people will ignore you.
Severian: Thus by speaking to them, I am violating their fundamental rights.
Barney: Howdy, Fred.
Fred: Hey, Barney.
Barney: Did you hear the Bedrock Dodgers beat the Green Bay Pachyderms?
Fred: Yabba-Dabba Do!
Don’t be silly. People manage to have conversations all the time without violating each other’s “fundamental rights“.
Severian: But again, you said –right here, at 12:40, that “freedom is an important measure of equality”
That’s right. Freedom is one of many measures of equality. Income and wealth are other measures. That doesn’t mean income = equality and wealth = equality so income = wealth.
Severian: Under conditions of complete equality, in fact, freedom would be useless.
Perhaps, but absolute equality can’t exist in human society, nor have we advocated such a thing, so the point is moot. You seem to be confusing an observation about a historical trend with holding an extreme position.
- Zachriel | 08/07/2012 @ 05:36And yet — you still haven’t defined the trend.
- mkfreeberg | 08/07/2012 @ 06:20mkfreeberg: And yet — you still haven’t defined the trend.
Sure we have, repeatedly.
- Zachriel | 08/07/2012 @ 06:27http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html
That page does not define the trend.
I agree you have identified it repeatedly, but that’s the problem with definitions; when the “repeated” definitions contradict each other, the definition itself has been effectively obliterated. You’ve said it has something to do with freedom, and then contradicted yourself, citing events in which both sides agree freedom has been necessarily decremented — and saying those events support the trend you’re identifying, rather than contradicting it.
So, like I said above, your point becomes sophistry because it becomes a point of “There is a unidirectional trend with a ratcheting effect, toward the kind of world we want to see, if we simply ignore the events that are not part of this trend”…something that is true of all trends.
How did the PATRIOT Act do, as far as sustaining this trend? How about the TSA itself? Are those part of this trend? It’s something that still exists in your mind(s) so you can provide pretty much any answer to this that you want…that’s the problem with your whole argument…but I’m still interested in seeing the answer.
- mkfreeberg | 08/07/2012 @ 06:32Actually if I understand your point, it is the shift to Tofler’s Second Wave (and Third Wave I suppose) that locks in this latest ratchet-click, embiggening our freedoms…except in cases where you don’t like the freedoms, in which case it gives our society a shove in the direction you happen to like, all the time, as long as we ignore the cases where it gives our society a shove in the direction you don’t like…
So: As we transitioned away from a global agricultural economy and toward a techno-industrial one, there was: The Russian Revolution, and Stalin’s Great Purge that came afterward. There were farmers in Europe who could no longer earn a livelihood, and immigrated to the United States and other modernized countries, inspiring great disaffection toward the immigrant classes among our intellectual elites — read that as, pie-eyed liberals, Sowell’s “intellectuals,” practitioners whose vocation began and ended with ideas — who began to fantasize about engineering the reproductive process among the undesirables, this lead to the highly popular industrial-age Eugenics movement. There is, of course, all the nastiness that caused, quite different from this perfect utopia dreamed up by Socialist H. G. Wells, and others. And then there’s the Khmer Rouge Massacre; technology, and modern political exigencies, leading to a free people becoming enslaved…
As I look over these and other examples directly linked to the growing pains of a modernizing world, one thing becomes clear: It doesn’t matter if you’re talking about greater freedom to do things at the individual level, or a greater participation in the political process by those individuals, to determine any given year’s creative new innovative ways for them to be restricted. Either way, your observation has some problems.
- mkfreeberg | 08/07/2012 @ 07:05mkfreeberg: That page does not define the trend.
“The history of Western Civilization since the Renaissance, and more recently the entire world, has tended towards greater social equality and enhanced individual liberty.”
mkfreeberg: You’ve said it has something to do with freedom, and then contradicted yourself, citing events in which both sides agree freedom has been necessarily decremented — and saying those events support the trend you’re identifying, rather than contradicting it.
Originally, a rigid and hereditary hierarchy controlled political power and individual liberties were severely curtailed. The Church defined matters of religion with the force of law. Over a period of time, the right to decide matters of conscience, the right of people to individual liberties, and the right of people to participate in government was distributed from that hierarchy to more and more people, until today with most of the world participating in democratic societies.
mkfreeberg: “There is a unidirectional trend with a ratcheting effect, toward the kind of world we want to see, if we simply ignore the events that are not part of this trend”
We didn’t say it was unidirectional, indeed, we specifically said otherwise. There has been a broad trend, but it is not monotonic, nor was it necessarily inevitable.
- Zachriel | 08/07/2012 @ 07:42Either way, your observation has some problems.
Boy howdy! Start with a seemingly inexhaustible ability to contradict themselves, and to deny saying what they clearly said, and work out from there.
What I find most interesting about this discussion is their underlying premises. They want to claim that change is an ipso facto good…. but when you point out that a lot of change is bad, they say that it’s progress that counts…. but when you point out that “progress” sure seems to have a slippery definition (and veers awfully close to the dreaded “Whig history,” which assumes that all previous human activity was divinely inspired to produce just such superior beings as ourselves)…. well, then “progress” means this but not that, and it changes with each post, and why can’t you see that you silly h8rs?! And then throw in the fact that actual human beings and their happiness never appears here at all (I’ve seen several hundred posts from the Zachriel collective; not once did they say or even imply that their position would increase human happiness)…. why would they do that?
….unless they’re just virtue junkies. I see this a lot when leftists discuss history. They honestly seem to feel some real kinship with historical figures who promoted what they consider “progress.” We’ve seen it here in the discussion of Luther, a really nasty guy by all accounts. But they’ve dug up a quote from him that they think proves he’s a free-thought hero, and so they keep obsessively cutting and pasting it (and notice that two sentences are sufficient to encapsulate an entire interpretation of early modern intellectual history, but it takes thousands of highly nuanced words to explain that “you didn’t build that” doesn’t mean “you didn’t build that”). Or watch how they can’t resist pointing out that the Democrats passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, even though that’s not actually true and the segregationist governments of the South were, and had been since the Civil War, entirely Democratic.
Or consider the things they don’t mention. <Thomas Muntzer was a contemporary of Luther, so radical that he broke with Luther for not being extreme enough — even under torture, he refused to recant his belief that “all things are in common.” He was held as a hero by the early socialists for this, in fact. And unlike Luther, he actually did it, setting up a commune in the imperial city of Mulhausen. He even argued that the inner light of the Holy Spirit would reveal truth — a far more direct challenge to priestly authority than Luther’s (and which in fact occasioned his break with Luther).
No love for him, though. Wonder why?
Normally I’d attribute it to simple ignorance of history — never a bad guess with leftists — but I think it’s even simpler: Muntzer lost. Like all the religious visionaries outlined in Norman Cohn’s The Pursuit of the Millenium, they were eventually crushed by the authorities. Lots of these folks were extremely “progressive” — shared property, free love, equality for women, the works — but they never show up anywhere leftists are getting self-righteous…. and when have you ever known that to happen?
Or take Brook Farm, the Oneida Community, etc. They were progressive litte utopias right here in the good ol’ US of A. But you hardly ever hear of them outside of academic literature; even general histories of the US don’t usually mention them. What could explain that?
The Soviets, the ChiComs…. they were powerful in their day (and of course, there are still lots of Lutherans around). Their doctrines almost don’t matter — they endured, they “won,” and so for the virtue junkie, who just needs to get that hit, they’re the go-to allusion. Similarly, though they love to talk about ending slavery, they never mention Wilberforce (too religious), Grant (too Republican), the British Navy or the Union Army (too military). They’re just trying to associate themselves with “success” in the virtue biz — getting a hit by proxy.
- Severian | 08/07/2012 @ 07:45Here’s our original comment:
Severian: This is the blessing and the curse of the conservative worldview — human beings can’t get much better, but we can’t get much worse, either.
Zachriel: People today aren’t much different than the people of Abraham’s time. However, we do know now that social institutions can change, and have changed substantially since the Renaissance.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html
Please note that we were agreeing with Severian. It is a tenet of conservative thought that humans have a fundamental nature, a nature that is often savage when not constrained by the strictures of civilization. Tampering with traditional mores can unleash unforeseen consequences.
- Zachriel | 08/07/2012 @ 07:50From 8/3, 15:33:
However, if we look at history since the Renaissance, there has been a decided trajectory towards a more egalitarian society; religious, political, economic. Think of it as a ratcheting effect. Once people experienced Republicanism, even after the excesses of Napoléon, there was no putting the old social order back together again.
Look at U.S. history. Over a period of generations suffrage was extended from propertied white men, to all white men, to all men, then eventually to everyone. And in the last generation, democratic governance has taken hold in nearly every area of the globe. It doesn’t appear to be cyclical, but progressive.
So, at this point, I don’t entirely know what it is you are trying to say. It seems to have something to do with “enhanced individual liberty.”
Liberty (n.):
1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
I think you’re after the third definition.
In which case, I would have to disagree since, again, I live in California. When a bunch of bored legislators have all but given up on trying to restore the state to fiscal strength, or even sanity, and are on a 24/7/365 hunt for the next “little law” they can make about battery disposal, light bulbs, wage constraints, sexual harassment, there is no tendency toward enhanced individual liberty, and there is in fact a clearly demonstrable trend away from such a thing.
My original counterpoint stands: We seem to be dealing here with a mindset that says, as long as everyone can take part in the voting process, the liberty isn’t being taken away — even when it is.
- mkfreeberg | 08/07/2012 @ 08:03Severian: They want to claim that change is an ipso facto good…. but when you point out that a lot of change is bad, they say that it’s progress that counts
Those are two separate questions. We have been using the term ‘progression’ in its neutral sense, though most people would agree that “greater social equality and enhanced individual liberty” compared to the Middle Ages has been a good thing overall.
Severian: I’ve seen several hundred posts from the Zachriel collective; not once did they say or even imply that their position would increase human happiness
We’re a bit old-fashioned. It’s the pursuit of happiness that liberty guarantees, not happiness.
Severian: We’ve seen it here in the discussion of Luther, a really nasty guy by all accounts.
Luther originally thought he could reason with the Jews, but then denounced them as a group. He retreated from his most revolutionary ideals, but that doesn’t change the influence those ideals had on Renaissance thought.
mkfreeberg: In which case, I would have to disagree since, again, I live in California. When a bunch of bored legislators have all but given up on trying to restore the state to fiscal strength, or even sanity, and are on a 24/7/365 hunt for the next “little law” they can make about battery disposal, light bulbs, wage constraints, sexual harassment, there is no tendency toward enhanced individual liberty, and there is in fact a clearly demonstrable trend away from such a thing.
Again, the trend isn’t monotonic, and the end result isn’t perfect liberty. Rather, there is a historical trend towards greater social equality and enhanced individual liberty. You no longer have the state telling you what you must believe about the Trinity. You have a right to speak and to petition the government. You have a right to vote, even if you are black or a woman. And these rights are widespread. These are all changes that have occurred incrementally over the last several centuries.
Just because your elected legislature passes laws you don’t like doesn’t mean that people have less social equality or less liberty overall than they did in 1800 or in 1600.
- Zachriel | 08/07/2012 @ 08:24No, but…we do have a lot less personal liberty than we did in, say, 1962, right before JFK’s assassination, half a century ago.
I don’t think “liberty” is the word you’re really wanting to use. “Social equality” doesn’t do the trick either, since at 8/6 06:44 you called for “guarantees of individual liberties, even for minorities, — especially for minorities,” in specific, undeniable opposition to the idea that all classes of individual should enjoy opportunities equal to those enjoyed by the other classes.
I would say if there is an historical trend at work, it is toward greater deftness and nimbleness involved in processing information — storing it, tabulating it, converting it, transmitting it, even convincingly altering it — and this works toward both the benefit and the detriment of personal liberty. Such a trend, once identified, could be traced back quite aways. The Domesday Book being compiled after the Norman Conquest, so that those landowners could really be shafted but good by William the Conqueror’s tax agents, that’s a good example since it’s just shy of a millennium ago. A more modern example would be these proposals for GPS taxes…which, when you think about it, are pretty much the same thing: Mining data, and setting up a process around using that data to give taxpayers the shaft, to really bleed ’em dry. That may be “progressive” in the sense that progressive governments are constantly looking for new improved ways to bleed taxpayers dry.
But these ideas do not enhance liberties; they erode them. They’re intended to.
I think your premise is flawed because you are assuming benign intent on the part of people exploiting and providing these superior and improved storehouses of information, toward the interests of those who are the subjects of the information. This particular point you are arguing in bad-faith, “stencil” fashion, simply masking off or in some other way obfuscating those bits of history that do not serve what the point is it is you are trying to substantiate.
- mkfreeberg | 08/07/2012 @ 09:31This (audio) is a cute way of making the point…
That, there, would be your historical trend.
- mkfreeberg | 08/07/2012 @ 09:39mkfreeberg: we do have a lot less personal liberty than we did in, say, 1 962, right before JFK’s assassination, half a century ago.
Jim Crow was still around in 1962. Interracial marriages were illegal in many states. Even contraceptives were often against the law. And that’s just in the U.S. Most of the rest of the world lived under dictatorships or communism.
However, as we said, progress isn’t monotonic, even if there has been an overall historical trend.
- Zachriel | 08/07/2012 @ 10:25And here once again we see the breathtaking circularity of leftist logic.
You can have all the personal freedoms you like, but if Sandra Fluke has to shell out $9 a month from her own pocket, it’s a police state. Private property is all fine and good… unless your light bulbs “cause pollution” (excuse me, use more energy that causes pollution), and then no measure at all is too coercive (but don’t worry, you can mutter under your breath about it, or even write a letter to a congressman).
“Freedom,” apparently, equals “a society in which all things are exactly the way leftists want them.” If one is missing, society isn’t free.
Just for the record, what is it that you find so bad about communism? You certainly seem to admire their methods… and their goals….
Eh, it doesn’t really matter — they’ll dodge and prevaricate and obfuscate like always. I’m through arguing with these dishonest little shits.
- Severian | 08/07/2012 @ 10:52Severian: You can have all the personal freedoms you like, but if Sandra Fluke has to shell out $9 a month from her own pocket, it’s a police state.
We didn’t say that, of course. While most people think that health insurance should cover contraception, many do not. Not covering contraception does not make the U.S. a police state.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/us/politics/americans-divided-on-birth-control-coverage-poll-finds.html
Severian: Private property is all fine and good… unless your light bulbs “cause pollution
Yes, you need to coexist with others. It’s a political question that, in democratic societies, is resolved by open debate and representative government. If you don’t think it’s right, then you should work to change the law.
Severian: Just for the record, what is it that you find so bad about communism? You certainly seem to admire their methods… and their goals….
Communists combined ideology with a belief that the ends justify the means. The idealists were inevitably coopted by those with a more accurate view of human nature. This led to tyranny in the name of the people. We neither admire their methods nor their goals.
- Zachriel | 08/07/2012 @ 11:06Yes, you need to coexist with others. It’s a political question that, in democratic societies, is resolved by open debate and representative government. If you don’t think it’s right, then you should work to change the law.
And as this delicate balance is found between personal liberty — which you insist is on an upward swing thanks to this “historical trend” — and this “need to coexist with others,” it is in fact a very rare situation indeed that our progressive friends are on the side of the personal liberty. Instead, they seem to be consistently using this “need to coexist with others” as an excuse to erode it.
Which, if it is an accurate observation to be made, is not at all inconsistent with…
Communists combined ideology with a belief that the ends justify the means. The idealists were inevitably coopted by those with a more accurate view of human nature. This led to tyranny in the name of the people. We neither admire their methods nor their goals.
Is it your position that “tyranny” is the situation when, and only when, we’re dealing with big things? Like…turn over this amount of money to the King, because he and his parliament just arbitrarily picked that number out of thin air, or lose your farm, and your freedom, and your children will be forced into slavery, for example…?
Because if you go so far as to concede that there can be such a thing as a “little tyranny” — like Severian has observed, you don’t seem to be willing to concede anything at all, but conceding that much seems only reasonable — then, it would be undeniable that we have lately been awash in all kinds of “little tyrannies.” Bloomberg’s famous obsessions with fats and sodas and breast-feeding will suffice as good examples, although there are also the light bulb bans and the battery disposal codes. To many among us, it seems a good progressive has never once run into any of these “little laws” that he didn’t happen to like…except maybe for ideologically charged situations slanted against their desires, like the George Bushes insisting that women had to be counseled on abortion before receiving the “benefits” of such a procedure at taxpayer expense.
But, again, it seems you can substantiate that there is been this historical trend toward greater “liberty,” if and only if you can define this term from one moment to the next, even periodically defining it to be the opposite of liberty. That effectively makes your observation non-functional, unremarkable and empty.
- mkfreeberg | 08/08/2012 @ 14:08mkfreeberg: And as this delicate balance is found between personal liberty — which you insist is on an upward swing thanks to this “historical trend”
Actually, we didn’t make that claim. Rather, we discussed the historical trend. That means what has already happened.
mkfreeberg: it is in fact a very rare situation indeed that our progressive friends are on the side of the personal liberty.
Progressives would claim that by government helping create equal opportunity, they are increasing personal liberty for the dispossessed. Ending segregation, for instance, is an act of government to help create equal opportunity.
mkfreeberg: Is it your position that “tyranny” is the situation when, and only when, we’re dealing with big things?
No. For instance, someone can be tyrannized in their own family. You may be referring to death by a thousand cuts, multiple regulations, that in isolation are not a problem, but when put together, can be oppressive.
The solution is simple. If you live in a democratic society, work to change the system. But you will find that while people don’t like regulation in theory, they rely on regulation in practice. There’s a reason for food and drug inspections. And there’s a reason you can’t just put up a structure in many localities without a permit. There’s a reason why there are traffic lights. Modern living is complicated.
mkfreeberg: Like…turn over this amount of money to the King, because he and his parliament just arbitrarily picked that number out of thin air, or lose your farm, and your freedom, and your children will be forced into slavery, for example…?
You seem a bit confused. The parliament was the check against arbitrary taxation by the monarch. That’s why the Americans revolted. They didn’t have representation in the parliament, so had no say in taxes levied against them. You have representation. Change your laws.
mkfreeberg: But, again, it seems you can substantiate that there is been this historical trend toward greater “liberty,” if and only if you can define this term from one moment to the next, even periodically defining it to be the opposite of liberty.
The history of Western Civilization since the Renaissance, and more recently the entire world, has tended towards greater social equality and enhanced individual liberty. The religious power of the Church to define matters of conscience was shattered by the Protestant Reformation, transferring power from Rome to the people generally, and to the individual specifically. The political power of the aristocracy was overthrown by war, such as by the American and French Revolutions, through reforms placing constitutional limitations on the royalty, with the rise of parliaments and legislatures, through modern civil rights movements, and the extension of the franchise to the entire population.
The claim that the average person today has less social equality and less individual liberty than the average person in the Middle Ages is not tenable.
- Zachriel | 08/08/2012 @ 16:40The claim that the average person today has less social equality and less individual liberty than the average person in the Middle Ages is not tenable.
And I don’t believe I’m on record saying that.
However…
The history of Western Civilization since the Renaissance, and more recently the entire world, has tended towards greater social equality and enhanced individual liberty.
I’m mostly hip to what you’re saying here, that when people are made free there is a “ratcheting effect,” they won’t go back to their prior position, and history generally supports that they won’t. But the thing is, you’re making a mistake in observing only one side of this. People take a more active role in the workings of their government — they won’t willingly lose it, and they will resist efforts to take this power from them. However, what happens simultaneously is that government uses various devices to encroach on their freedoms, and this process has in fact become much more potent and rapid in recent years.
I saw an essay somewhere about Orwell vs. Huxley and what they were saying; Orwell feared the people would be oppressed by means of a lack of information, Huxley prophesied that they would lose their rights through a deluge of information. Huxley, not Orwell, was correct, concluded the essay…and we lately see this is right. People are more involved in the process and therefore they have this “liberty.” But where are their heads? Everyone who shows up to support Chick-Fil-A must be a hater, Karl Rove outed Valerie Plame, Duke Lacrosse players gang-raped a stripper, and I wonder who’s gonna get booted off Dancing With The Stars tonight?
I think Thomas Jefferson wouldn’t think much of the observation you’re trying to make here. He said “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free…it expects what never was and never will be.” This is a consistent theme of his writings, that freedom, “liberty,” et al, are not natural, self-actuating or self-sustaining conditions, and are not assured. To preserve it, the populace has to remain informed and vigilant.
- mkfreeberg | 08/08/2012 @ 17:01Happy to see you are trying to grapple with the actual claim rather than a strawman version.
mkfreeberg: People take a more active role in the workings of their government — they won’t willingly lose it, and they will resist efforts to take this power from them.
Just as a reminder, these countervailing forces mean that sometimes the trend reverses, even though, historically, the direction has been towards greater equality.
mkfreeberg: However, what happens simultaneously is that government uses various devices to encroach on their freedoms, …
That is exactly right. Governments tend to crowd their way into the private sphere. Most every institution wants to expand their influence. Most every person wants to be noticed. Democratic societies work because they power is distributed throughout all levels of society.
mkfreeberg: … and this process has in fact become much more potent and rapid in recent years.
Possibly, but not nearly to the point as to undermine the basic trend. There’s always an ebb and flow in the progression.
mkfreeberg: Everyone who shows up to support Chick-Fil-A must be a hater, Karl Rove outed Valerie Plame, Duke Lacrosse players gang-raped a stripper, and I wonder who’s gonna get booted off Dancing With The Stars tonight?
Not one of those things is significant in the larger historical trend. Chick-Fil-A? Compared to the end of slavery or the defeat of fascism? Seriously!? Again, if you want to make a slippery slope argument, you might be on firmer ground (hee). But with regards to the larger trend, the slippery slope argument is part of the solution.
mkfreeberg: To preserve it, the populace has to remain informed and vigilant.
Agreed. People can now twitter the revolution.
- Zachriel | 08/09/2012 @ 05:02It’s interesting you complain about strawmen, while arguing against something I never said which is that the Chick-Fil-A thing is somehow equivalent to the end of slavery.
Also, it seems you’re using a zillion and one posts, again, to describe a “trend” — while complaining that people are not understanding the argument you’re making — which could easily be plotted on some kind of a graph. I have the impression that if you were to do this, your graph would be plotting the location of a single object/characteristic, dealing with how many among the population have “liberty,” which means, have the lawful right to vote. Even then, as I pointed out, statements like “the direction has been towards greater equality” would find problems in the Athens era being on the left side, Rome being not quite as far left (a bit later), the middle ages in the center…
Whereas Severian and I — and Thomas Jefferson as well — to flesh out the situation well enough to see how this egalitarian/stability is doing at any given point in time, would plot out many things. And this is a point I made previously: There are those who believe that if we enjoyed a trend toward greater equality in participation, greater personal liberty, we no longer are. We/they seem to be watching more parts of this than you are; it’s the difference between a multi-point inspection on the family car to figure out if it’s roadworthy, versus simply checking the air in the tires and calling it good. Thus it is with asking, who has the right to vote? There’s more to it than that.
Suffrage, in particular, has been associated with all kinds of losses of freedom in the United States. Not that I’m in favor of taking it away or anything. And that doesn’t mean there are more women to be found who despise freedom, than men. But in a democratic society such as ours, freedom is actually lost all the time, even though people have the right to vote, when they are energized to turn out to vote and they don’t understand what the candidates are really trying to do, or why this-or-that initiative ended up on the ballot.
Governments tend to crowd their way into the private sphere. Most every institution wants to expand their influence. Most every person wants to be noticed. Democratic societies work because [the] power is distributed throughout all levels of society.
If there is a trend, it seems to be that asphyxiation is a common cause of death in democratic societies, because power is not quite so much distributed throughout all levels, but concentrated in the government when the voters can no longer be bothered to pay attention.
- mkfreeberg | 08/09/2012 @ 07:01mkfreeberg: It’s interesting you complain about strawmen, while arguing against something I never saidwhich is that the Chick-Fil-A thing is somehow equivalent to the end of slavery.
The claim at issue: The history of Western Civilization since the Renaissance, and more recently the entire world, has tended towards greater social equality and enhanced individual liberty.
Counterexample you provided: Chick-Fil-A. Your argument seems to be death by a thousand cuts, yet the Chick-Fil-A imbroglio doesn’t seem to even support that, but rather that people are speaking out freely.
mkfreeberg: Even then, as I pointed out, statements like “the direction has been towards greater equality” would find problems in the Athens era being on the left side, Rome being not quite as far left (a bit later), the middle ages in the center…
The claim only concerned since the Renaissance, that is, the end of the Feudal Period. We even stated a possible cyclical theory above that might make sense, and responded to it, but you never took it up.
Here is one such theory: Republican institutions rise, become corrupt, devolve into {oligarchies then} unstable dictatorships, and finally collapse, starting the cycle over again. That was the prevailing model circa 1775. Democratic rule was untenable. It had been tried and failed. Everyone knew that. We then stated our reasons why this theory may not apply to the modern era.
You returned to building permits and gazebos. We suggested you meant to make a slippery slope argument, but you won’t even grant that.
mkfreeberg: There are those who believe that if we enjoyed a trend toward greater equality in participation, greater personal liberty, we no longer are.
Possibly, but for the vast majority of people, they are freer today than in previous centuries, despite your personal inconveniences.
mkfreeberg: Suffrage, in particular, has been associated with all kinds of losses of freedom in the United States.
How so? Are voters today less informed than voters in 1844?
mkfreeberg: If there is a trend, …
There has certainly been a historical trend as we have repeatedly supported.
mkfreeberg: If there is a trend, it seems to be that asphyxiation is a common cause of death in democratic societies, because power is not quite so much distributed throughout all levels, but concentrated in the government when the voters can no longer be bothered to pay attention.
Perhaps, but that doesn’t dispute the historical trend we noted, or argue for its inevitability.
- Zachriel | 08/09/2012 @ 07:36The claim only concerned since the Renaissance, that is, the end of the Feudal Period. We even stated a possible cyclical theory above that might make sense, and responded to it, but you never took it up.
I have already pointed out that it’s quite possible for someone with a narrowed perspective to see cyclical trends as linear, when they are in fact cyclical, but it is quite impossible for such a restricted perspective to trigger an illusion in the opposite direction.
So it seems the two issues here are: One, time. The time restriction to your viewpoint is one you seem to be accepting willingly, you’re now saying this five-century window, or whatever, is a hard limit to the argument you seek to make and it’s unfair of anyone to go outside of it…okay. And Two, Voting; if you can vote, you are “free.” Your argument is then that there is a trend toward more liberty, which if one is knowledgeable about your terms then one has to translate that into “more demographics taking part in the voting process.” Given those caveats, then yes I would have to agree. But the twentieth century in particular saw a lot of oppression going on, man against man, with the oppressed provided no means of escape — even though many among their number had a right to vote!
So your observation, while “true” if it is adjudicated through just the right lens, at the right angle, with the right perspective, and I’m picking up the vibe that it is being adjudicated the “right” way when & only when the adjudication results in approval…is lacking in form to such an extent, that it’s still unclear what you’re trying to say. You’ve pulled the time-honored time-tested lefty ruse of “That’s not what I’m saying, you need to parse it with more nuance” with: What shape of trend you’re identifying, what the characteristic is that defines the trend, and the time-frame within which it takes place. Also, with the point; I don’t know what kind of point you’re trying to make with this. When more people vote, people are more free? That can’t be it. There’s this “ratcheting effect” in place so that once people have the vote, they won’t give it up? Of course they won’t, but there are other ways to take away people’s freedoms. They can be outvoted, they can be encouraged toward ignorance, they can be encouraged toward apathy, they can be regulated into ineffectuality.
We suggested you meant to make a slippery slope argument, but you won’t even grant that.
Interesting. The other side makes “strawman” arguments, you “suggest” what the other side is arguing and the other side “won’t even grant that.”
My impression is that once you’re loaded down with the burden of someone considering your observation with logic in mind, rather than the emotional rush of “we’re all in this together,” you will concede that mankind’s history runs in a larger cycle and that “liberty” is currently on an upswing in the cycle. And my viewpoint is more like: The cosmetics of liberty are very often on an upswing, when real liberty is taking a nosedive, since tyrants have to be sneaky. They need a selling point. So Chavez’s country has these sham “elections,” so does Castro’s, so did Saddam Hussein’s. But the point is, it’s not too much harder to take the rights away from people who can vote, than it is to take the rights away from people who cannot. That is where we differ, it seems to me.
- mkfreeberg | 08/09/2012 @ 07:54mkfreeberg: I have already pointed out that it’s quite possible for someone with a narrowed perspective to see cyclical trends as linear, when they are in fact cyclical, but it is quite impossible for such a restricted perspective to trigger an illusion in the opposite direction.
Any curve will look flat when looked at closely. In this case, there is a definite, overall trend over the last five centuries. If it is cyclical, then the period is very long. Ironically, in light of your point, when you consider the evidence, you only look at very short term phenomena, gazebos and Chick-Fil-A. More reasonably, you point to Chavez and Saddam, but these are outliers in the modern world, rather than the norm, as they were in previous centuries.
You might argue the process is cyclical, and that we are near the cusp. However, democracy market economies have spread widely in the world just in the last generation, so government of the people is no longer dependent on what happens on a battlefield in rural Pennsylvania. We have also explained why the process may not be cyclical.
The differences in the modern era are multiple. We have the lesson of the previous failures. We have the heritage of British history with its balancing of powers. We have modern technologies, printing presses for encouraging literacy and communicating political ideas, peasants turned into citizens with muskets. Finally, modern societies are much more complex, with democratic institutions integrated throughout the culture; legislative, executive, judicial, central and local governments, political parties, corporations, lobbying groups, citizen groups, clubs, and individual liberties.
mkfreeberg: The time restriction to your viewpoint is one you seem to be accepting willingly, you’re now saying this five-century window, or whatever, is a hard limit to the argument you seek to make and it’s unfair of anyone to go outside of it…okay.
Not at all, but you have to make an actual argument, and not ignore what we have already written.
mkfreeberg: And Two, Voting; if you can vote, you are “free.”
Again, no, and not even consistent with what we have written in many places. We have discussed liberty of conscience, slavery, individual liberties, as well as the franchise. Keep in mind that the British didn’t have universal suffrage when Parliament wrested control of the purse-strings from the monarchy, but it still represented a great step forward in freedom.
- Zachriel | 08/09/2012 @ 08:37Okay so this doesn’t go back to 1512 or so, it actually goes back to 1215 and even further than that.
It has been repeatedly explained to you, with solid examples, how we are not necessarily on a current trend of more freedom, greater liberty, et al. Perhaps you’re the one not following the argument because you’ve chosen to marginalize the argument rather than deal with it directly: “Building codes, those have been in place for centuries.” And, perhaps, marginalization is a much better way to deal with your own deflections. The more I think on it, the more sense it makes: “Centuries? Fine. Make it millennia. Building codes have existed for thousands of years…but what of it…a century ago, building things on my own plot of land would have been respected as a right, as sacred as any other, and today it isn’t.” And that is indeed about as complicated as the situation gets, your observation doesn’t work.
It seems to be a constant that anytime someone doesn’t agree with what it is you’re trying to say, you’ve been “misunderstood” in some nuanced, surgically-precise way that hasn’t become important until that point. I’m not sure of the expanse of ideas that rely on such a tactic in order to appear reasonable. Probably not good ones.
- mkfreeberg | 08/09/2012 @ 09:16mkfreeberg: It has been repeatedly explained to you, with solid examples, how we are not necessarily on a current trend of more freedom, greater liberty, et al.
Let’s return to the beginning of the discussion. Severian said people don’t change. We agreed, adding that institutions do change. More particularly, “The history of Western Civilization since the Renaissance, and more recently the entire world, has tended towards greater social equality and enhanced individual liberty.”
We’re not ignoring your other point, but putting it into context. Yes, there is an ebb and flow. There are many countervailing influences. However, nothing you have said argues against our original claim, or even that the trajectory has changed.
mkfreeberg: a century ago, building things on my own plot of land would have been respected as a right, as sacred as any other, and today it isn’t.” And that is indeed about as complicated as the situation gets, your observation doesn’t work.
Yet, a hundred years ago, Jim Crow reigned in the American South, women couldn’t vote, and most of the world lived in tyrannical or colonial regimes. Now, put that in the balance with someone saying you need a building code for your gazebo so that when you sell your house, people know the gazebo meets minimum structural requirements. (By the way, there were building codes in the U.S. a hundred years ago.)
- Zachriel | 08/09/2012 @ 09:32I think I see the problem. Your idea along these lines never has been stated, directly word for word, and thus has never taken on the responsibility that is involved in being spelled out as an actual idea. The whole side-topic is a product of my attempt to clarify a disagreement you seemed to be having with Severian about the rapidity of social change; I was the one who noticed your perception is that this change is along some kind of linear track.
Since you then positioned yourself to defend this as a subsequent development of that, you have been spared the burden of actually spelling it out. And you’ve exploited this as exuberantly as is necessary for you to defend the position. So the “we never said that” sprinkled downward from that point, like pepperflakes on a potato, is just a natural consequence.
Why don’t you take a few words to say what it is you’re trying to say about this “trend.” Shoot for brevity, but also take whatever space is needed to eliminate caveats. Example: If by “egalitarianism” you really mean “more people voting,” then just say “more people voting.”
- mkfreeberg | 08/09/2012 @ 09:34(By the way, there were building codes in the U.S. a hundred years ago.)
But…I could build the gazebo. I could build the water tower. I could build the barn.
My point stands and always has stood. A century ago, I could just gather the lumber, grab the hammer and start swinging. Someone stopping by on my spread, telling me City Hall had a problem with it, would have been unthinkable (especially out here, in the Western states). That is a loss of freedom.
- mkfreeberg | 08/09/2012 @ 09:36mkfreeberg: Your idea along these lines never has been stated, directly word for word, and thus has never taken on the responsibility that is involved in being spelled out as an actual idea.
We have stated our position many times.
mkfreeberg: Why don’t you take a few words to say what it is you’re trying to say about this “trend.”
The history of Western Civilization since the Renaissance, and more recently the entire world, has tended towards greater social equality and enhanced individual liberty. The religious power of the Church to define matters of conscience was shattered by the Protestant Reformation, transferring power from Rome to the people generally, and to the individual specifically. The political power of the aristocracy was overthrown by war, such as by the American and French Revolutions, through reforms placing constitutional limitations on the royalty, with the rise of parliaments and legislatures, through modern civil rights movements, and the extension of the franchise to the entire population. This process of breaking free of the strictures of Medieval thought began a long process of liberalization and the rise of humanism, resulting in our modern concepts of freedom of conscience, political liberty, and equality before the law.
mkfreeberg: A century ago, I could just gather the lumber, grab the hammer and start swinging.
A century ago, you may have been living as a peasant who didn’t own lumber, hammer, or the land to build anything on. Or you may have lived as a free person in the U.S. where they had building codes in most cities.
mkfreeberg: Someone stopping by on my spread, telling me City Hall had a problem with it, would have been unthinkable (especially out here, in the Western states). That is a loss of freedom.
A hundred years ago, most people lived under tyranny or colonial powers. Racial discrimination was ubiquitous. In the balance, you point out that nowadays you have to get a permit to build a gazebo, because government has been charged by the electorate with making sure your gazebo meets minimum structural requirements. Really. You think that balances out? You think that your minor inconvenience meant to resolve common conflicts equals the end of state racism and billions of people escaping from tyranny?
- Zachriel | 08/09/2012 @ 10:34You think that balances out?
I think, if I can’t go ahead and build on my own land, when a hundred years ago that would have been recognized as a right…then that is a loss of a right, and therefore of freedom.
Anything that complicates it, beyond that, is nothing more than obfuscation. It’s like obfuscating away from the fact that three is an odd, prime number. There’s no comparison or weighing involved, it’s something that simply is.
- mkfreeberg | 08/09/2012 @ 11:59mkfreeberg: I think, if I can’t go ahead and build on my own land, when a hundred years ago that would have been recognized as a right…then that is a loss of a right, and therefore of freedom.
Yes, and traffic lights infringe on your ‘perfect freedom’. So does owning slaves, for that matter.
We pointed to a trend, not an absolute. Are you are saying that *overall* people have less social equality and less individual liberty because most people now have liberty of conscience, speech, petition, vote, slavery and serfdom ended, but have to apply for a building permit to put up a gazebo? Really?! Is that what you’re saying?
Meanwhile, you ignore valid reasons for building permits.
- Zachriel | 08/09/2012 @ 12:46Unlike you, I do not seek to ignore parts of the situation by using rhetoric to minimize them.
The trend that exists — it does not matter if you choose to point to it or not — is toward using these regulatory processes to paralyze people, bit by bit, until they cannot do anything without asking permission. If they have to ask permission, that is not liberty; that is not a right. A century ago, yes the process of acquiring building permits existed. But the process was not used to deny, by default, permission to build such structures on our own land. Now it is. You say it doesn’t count because the process was in place a century ago…so we were restricted from it in the same way, it was only the triggering ordinance that did not exist. Or, today, we have a vote in it so it doesn’t count. So we used to be restricted — and are no longer. Or something. Or if we were then, and are now, then it is outweighed in some way by the end of serfdom…or something…
None of this changes the plain fact that we did not have to acquire permission before, and now we do.
Meanwhile, you ignore valid reasons for building permits.
I don’t ignore it, it’s simply not relevant. There are “valid reasons” for lots of things. There are valid reasons for abortions, executions, keeping Chick-Fil-A out of Chicago, protesting on behalf of Chick-Fil-A, protesting against Chick-Fil-A, voting for Romney, voting for Obama…slavery itself…there are “valid reasons” for just about anything.
But the trend is for these absolute, unquestioned rights to deteriorate into “rights” we have once we have gone through the proper channels…then “rights” we have once we have asked for permission…then, further, into “rights” whose approval we should view as exceptionally rare events, with denial of the request to be the default, expected response from City Hall. That is a deterioration of freedom. The mindset that goes with it, that we should expect to be denied permission when we ask, so what’s the point — versus, a century ago, we should expect it to be alright to go ahead and build the gazebo or water tower — is a measurable deterioration of freedom.
This weighing of other things, with the John-Kerry-like “What’s more important, this thing or that other thing?”, is nothing more than a red herring.
- mkfreeberg | 08/09/2012 @ 13:48Didn’t see an answer. Are you are saying that *overall* people have less social equality and less individual liberty because most people now have liberty of conscience, speech, petition, vote, slavery and serfdom ended, but have to apply for a building permit to put up a gazebo?
Are you having trouble with the term “overall”?
- Zachriel | 08/09/2012 @ 16:18Are you having trouble with the term “overall”?
Yes, to be quite frank about it.
Freedom isn’t vegetable oil and it isn’t measured in gallons, quarts or liters. You either have a right to do things or you don’t, and if you have to get a mother-may-I in this generation, but didn’t have to in the one or two generations previous, you’ve lost it. All the rest is rationalization.
- mkfreeberg | 08/09/2012 @ 16:27mkfreeberg: You either have a right to do things or you don’t, and if you have to get a mother-may-I in this generation, but didn’t have to in the one or two generations previous, you’ve lost it. All the rest is rationalization.
Yes, and they didn’t have traffic lights once upon a time either.
So, having to get a building permit to build a gazebo reduces your individual liberty comparable to theocracy, slavery, and tyranny? Just so we are sure.
- Zachriel | 08/09/2012 @ 16:35Ah, so we’re playing a game of “Crystallize the opposition into the most extreme caricature of itself imaginable,” are we? Okay, well two can play at that game…
Suppose you were required to submit an application to city hall to…breathe. Well, that’s a requirement for living, so let’s make our hypothetical about everything else. Buying bananas. Scratching your butt when it itches. Packing your kid’s lunch. Painting your toenails.
G.e.t.t.i.n.g…a.n…a.b.o.r.t.i.o.n………
Washing your car, trimming your hedges, putting a political sign in your yard, watching television, drinking beer, washing out the beer bottles, making your kid do his homework, sparing your kid from doing his homework, vacuuming your carpet, burning your home videos to DVD, making a pot of coffee for tomorrow morning, grinding the beans for your coffee, buying the beans, downloading an app to your iPhone, reading a book…
How far could we take these little permit processes — none of which interfere with life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness in any direct way — before you would concede that some freedom had been lost?
- mkfreeberg | 08/09/2012 @ 17:09mkfreeberg: Suppose you were required to submit an application to city hall to…breathe
Then it would be tyranny. See how easy that was? And please note that most countries in the world now have some sort of working democracy with a modicum of civil liberties, and don’t require a permit to breathe.
mkfreeberg: Ah, so we’re playing a game of “Crystallize the opposition into the most extreme caricature of itself imaginable,” are we?
Um, it was a simple question. The answer is obvious. There is far more freedom today for more people than a century ago. It’s not that hard a concept, and something that could have been granted umpteen comments ago.
- Zachriel | 08/09/2012 @ 17:49mkfreeberg: How far could we take these little permit processes — none of which interfere with life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness in any direct way — before you would concede that some freedom had been lost?
We’ve already granted that point umpteen comments ago. Freedom can be lost through overregulation, death of liberty by a thousand cuts. But the examples you’ve provided, and the facts generally, don’t support that there is less freedom today than over the last few centuries. They used to burn people for their beliefs. Today, they require you to get a permit to build a gazebo.
- Zachriel | 08/09/2012 @ 17:57Freedom can be lost through overregulation, death of liberty by a thousand cuts. But the examples you’ve provided, and the facts generally, don’t support that there is less freedom today than over the last few centuries. They used to burn people for their beliefs. Today, they require you to get a permit to build a gazebo.
And that would be your “death of liberty by a thousand paper cuts.”
There is absolutely nothing, save for your personal preferences, to remove the permit/gazebo example from this phenomenon. It is happening, it is real, and it nullifies the observation you have tried to make.
In fact I will go further: Legislators, like the ones we have here in California, are bored…desperate to sell some rationale by which they could be re-elected…looking for new laws to make, about problems that do not really exist. You can see what I mean by browsing the newspaper columns around the end of the year, for “new laws taking effect Jan. 1 that you might not know about.” There, you will find tired retreads of what appeared in the year before. Child safety seat laws. Soda vending machines in or near the schools. The previously-mentioned recycling laws and battery disposable laws. Can you buy alcoholic beverages in a self-checkout lane. They’re like hamsters on spinning wheels with this stuff, year by year nothing changes in a linear fashion at all…save for one thing…we lose freedom.
That is your “trend since the Renaissance” right there, I’d say. Bored legislators looking for ways to distinguish themselves. And so we have new laws.
And our voter-participation in the process does about as much to halt or reverse the trend, I would suggest, as a few strands of spaghetti might do to push a bowl off the end of a table. Cooked spaghetti strands. So, no, we are not on a trend toward greater personal liberty.
- mkfreeberg | 08/09/2012 @ 19:00mkfreeberg: And that would be your “death of liberty by a thousand paper cuts.”
You never answered the question. So, having to get a building permit to build a gazebo reduces your individual liberty comparable to theocracy, slavery, and tyranny? Just so we are sure.
You have not shown that modern society is anything like getting burned for your beliefs. Not only is the inconvenience of modern society not nearly as oppressive as slavery, but people in modern society have the ability to effect change in the laws by organizing with their neighbors and seeking redress through the democratic process.
- Zachriel | 08/10/2012 @ 04:58You never answered the question. So, having to get a building permit to build a gazebo reduces your individual liberty comparable to theocracy, slavery, and tyranny? Just so we are sure.
If it’s about being sure, then we shall have to arrive at some methodology by which we can compare them.
And I don’t know how you’re going to do that.
Freedom isn’t vegetable oil and it isn’t measured in gallons, quarts or liters. You either have a right to do things or you don’t, and if you have to get a mother-may-I in this generation, but didn’t have to in the one or two generations previous, you’ve lost it. All the rest is rationalization.
- mkfreeberg | 08/10/2012 @ 07:28mkfreeberg: If it’s about being sure, then we shall have to arrive at some methodology by which we can compare them.
You really think you can’t compare the relative independence of nineteenth century slaves and modern Americans? Most readers will have little trouble understanding the difference, so will wonder why you can’t.
- Zachriel | 08/10/2012 @ 09:45It’s odd that when you and I bring a different perspective, you leap to the unwarranted conclusion that it must be an inability on my part to understand/envision something. This seems to be a constant with you.
It isn’t the way mature people evaluate differences in opinion/perspective/perception against others.
As far as the “This is a bushel, that is a teaspoon” thing with regard to freedom and gazebos and slavery, I don’t know any simpler way to put it. Freedom has to mean — if it means anything at all — get going, don’t ask for permission, don’t worry about it, you’re the owner of whatever-it-is so if anybody contests it, your ownership will surely carry the day…you know, like how progressives insist it should work when women want to abort. Like that. That’s “freedom.”
Only by excluding this from your use of the term “liberty,” can you insist liberty has been on a trend of expansion since the Renaissance. The trend in recent decades, particularly in the blue states, is toward the reverse; permission must be asked about all sorts of things, and while the application is being processed, the presumption must be toward rejection.
Freedom isn’t vegetable oil and it isn’t measured in gallons, quarts or liters. You either have a right to do things or you don’t, and if you have to get a mother-may-I in this generation, but didn’t have to in the one or two generations previous, you’ve lost it. All the rest is rationalization.
- mkfreeberg | 08/10/2012 @ 13:54mkfreeberg: Freedom has to mean — if it means anything at all — get going, don’t ask for permission, don’t worry about it, you’re the owner of whatever-it-is so if anybody contests it, your ownership will surely carry the day…
So, you might be able to do as you wish everything in the world, but if you have to stop at the traffic light, then you are not any freer than a cotton-picking slave in the antebellum South.
- Zachriel | 08/10/2012 @ 14:23I didn’t say that.
You’re trying to pretend I said things that are outside of what I really said…a sign of desperation if ever there was one.
Freedom isn’t vegetable oil and it isn’t measured in gallons, quarts or liters. You either have a right to do things or you don’t, and if you have to get a mother-may-I in this generation, but didn’t have to in the one or two generations previous, you’ve lost it. All the rest is rationalization.
- mkfreeberg | 08/10/2012 @ 14:32mkfreeberg: I didn’t say that.
Then try to clarify instead of avoiding.
mkfreeberg: Freedom isn’t vegetable oil and it isn’t measured in gallons, quarts or liters.
But that doesn’t we can’t make any comparisons whatsoever. Does someone who can do anything they wish except they have to stop at a traffic light have more freedom than a slave in the antebellum South?
- Zachriel | 08/10/2012 @ 17:35But that doesn’t [mean] we can’t make any comparisons whatsoever. Does someone who can do anything they wish except they have to stop at a traffic light have more freedom than a slave in the antebellum South?
My goodness, but you are obsessed with that traffic light aren’t you.
If only it applied. See, the traffic light lets people through, usually within thirty seconds, in highly unusual situations it may be placed on a cycle of two or three minutes. Ever see what happens when it takes longer than that? People just go ahead & go. So you see, there is giving up a little bit of convenience to play fair with others…which is what you’re trying to make it look like, when people have to give up their freedoms, when you happen to like the idea of them giving up their freedoms. And then, there is really giving up their freedoms. Like, no I should not throw these batteries away until you send that circular to me so I know where I can drop them off. Or, I shouldn’t build anything on my land until you tell me it’s okay. Which makes it…drum roll, please…NOT MY LAND!
How To Catch A Wild Pig…
It fits the gazebo and water tower situations…
…it does not fit the traffic light situation, in which people willingly exchange 120 seconds or so of their lives, to coexist peacefully with the next guy.
So your analogy doesn’t hold, and neither does your “greater-than less-than” math.
Freedom isn’t vegetable oil and it isn’t measured in gallons, quarts or liters. You either have a right to do things or you don’t, and if you have to get a mother-may-I in this generation, but didn’t have to in the one or two generations previous, you’ve lost it. All the rest is rationalization.
- mkfreeberg | 08/10/2012 @ 17:45mkfreeberg: How To Catch A Wild Pig…
Yes, it’s the slippery slope argument.
mkfreeberg: It fits the gazebo and water tower situations…
…it does not fit the traffic light situation, in which people willingly exchange 120 seconds or so of their lives, to coexist peacefully with the next guy.
What you seem to be saying, without being very clear about it, is that the building code will inevitably lead to slavery, so there is effectively no difference. Is that your position?
This is similar to the problem of taxation when you have no representation. But, in a democratic society, you DO have representation. Indeed, the U.S. is clearly not a country of slaves, yet they have had all sorts of regulations for generations, as do all other industrialized and democratic countries.
You might want to consider paying the fee for the building permit for your gazebo. Of course, you’ll have to avoid building it too close to the property line, and show the inspector that you have built it up to code, so it doesn’t fall down on the next owner’s kids. Because, you know, building codes are also meant for coexisting peacefully with the next guy.
- Zachriel | 08/10/2012 @ 18:13What you seem to be saying, without being very clear about it, is that the building code will inevitably lead to slavery, so there is effectively no difference. Is that your position?
If it’s code after code after code after code…dealing with personal jurisdictions, such as a man’s land, or a woman’s uterus perhaps? Yeah. Slippery slope. You use that term as if it’s supposed to debunk something. You have yet to demonstrate how this is to be the case; the pigs only contend with one wall at a time, but ultimately their freedom is entirely obliterated. How are we any different?
You might want to consider paying the fee for the building permit for your gazebo. Of course, you’ll have to avoid building it too close to the property line, and show the inspector that you have built it up to code, so it doesn’t fall down on the next owner’s kids.
…or…the building inspector could summarily flunk me, because I look a little bit like the guy who slept with his wife.
This traffic light that so captures your attention, doesn’t work that way. It lets people through in two minutes or less — or else, it is deemed to have flipped its lid, and then people just go through. No freedom lost there. Set a bale of hay in front of a cow, and she might just sit there all day long wondering what to do about it, eventually starving to death…but people are not cattle. If they want to get someplace, they’ll go there.
Unless you can manage to get a law in place telling them they can’t. That would be a loss of freedom. And such a situation is rather commonplace, during the time in which you say personal liberty has been on an increase — which is the real point.
- mkfreeberg | 08/10/2012 @ 19:05mkfreeberg: If it’s code after code after code after code
That’s right. It wasn’t the tea tax, it was that they had no control of taxation, and the power to tax had been used to subjugate people in the past.
The difference, of course, is representation.
- Zachriel | 08/11/2012 @ 05:48And as long as we have representation, we’re free.
Unless we’re not, in which case we should compare it to slavery in the antebellum south…and if we find one thing bigger than another thing, we are to find that we are still free. Is that it?
So the PATRIOT Act continued this post-Renaissance trend of greater liberty? The drones? The TSA? Or, going back further, the Russian Revolution? The Bolsheviks claimed to be representing “the people.” How about the rise of Hitler’s government?
Now if you had said, since the Renaissance there is a trend of hostility toward the classic monarchies, I would have agreed. That is probably what you really meant to say anyway; perhaps we should have started with that. From there, you seem to have pulled this idea out of thin air that wherever a monarchy was over thrown and some Napoleonic-complex dictator leapt in to fill the power vacuum, the people living there must have experienced increased freedom, because the dictator said so. But of course it’s far, far too late to ask any of the people who lived under both the monarchy and the dictator, which one availed those people of deeper more meaningful freedom, and greater liberty. History does not tend to preserve their remarks about it — which tells us something about how “free” those people felt they were, to make such comments…
It does, however, tell us these dictators were micro-managing assholes, not infrequently practicing actual genocide.
The problem you seem to be skirting past, is the problem in which a voter enjoys this control through representation, and yet is outvoted. Milton Friedman made this point in the ten-installment film “Free to Choose”: If he wants to buy a green tie and you want to buy a blue tie, he can buy what he wants and you can buy what you want; if you get together and vote on tie-color, the choice essentially disappears, majority-rule, and so forth…
http://youtu.be/D3N2sNnGwa4
http://youtu.be/PJWLt1TmAy4
http://youtu.be/jOO4kPSaD4Y
http://youtu.be/82SG_EpCsVs
http://youtu.be/YRLAKD-Vuvk
http://youtu.be/yx6-PHKzHvM
http://youtu.be/EU_4vanP04I
http://youtu.be/Gb6aqitTgOM
http://youtu.be/jE7zxo61Xc8
http://youtu.be/51abNVOQjOU
…complicating this further is the appearance of the labor unions and other left-wing election thievery mechanisms. We saw this here in California back in ’03, the labor unions and crackpot feminist groups had gotten together to make sure Gray Davis won re-election, and the very next year there was a recall. So the unions got out in full force and said: Hey look, this is a popularly-elected two-term Governor, the people have already spoken on this, the recall is nothing but a big, big waste of time…
History doesn’t record it that way, though. This “popularly-elected Governor,” it turns out, wasn’t even wanted by the people. The difference between the two elections was that with the “ordinary” one, the labor unions understood fully well enough how to manipulate it and get what they wanted, not what the people wanted — with the recall election, they didn’t know enough how to muck it up.
Lesson being: Representation is not necessarily control, therefore it is not necessarily freedom.
I’d say your trend, since the Renaissance era, is for this voting-representation to become more widespread in superficial appearance, and then people will sort themselves out on a spectrum between the interested and the apathetic — then the interested will find ways to tilt the balance of power. Which sends your “egalitarian” and “equality” theories straight out the window.
- mkfreeberg | 08/11/2012 @ 06:30mkfreeberg: And as long as we have representation, we’re free.
Not necessarily, but you can’t ignore that component of the equation.
mkfreeberg: So the PATRIOT Act continued this post-Renaissance trend of greater liberty?
Again, the trend we noted is neither monotonic nor inevitable.
mkfreeberg: Now if you had said, since the Renaissance there is a trend of hostility toward the classic monarchies, I would have agreed. That is probably what you really meant to say anyway; perhaps we should have started with that
Um, we did, in our very first comment on the thread.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html
This indicates you haven’t read for comprehension a single comment we have made. Why is that?
mkfreeberg: From there, you seem to have pulled this idea out of thin air that wherever a monarchy was over thrown and some Napoleonic-complex dictator leapt in to fill the power vacuum, the people living there must have experienced increased freedom, because the dictator said so.
Um, no. We also discussed that above.
mkfreeberg: History doesn’t record it that way, though.
Um, the governor was recalled, so apparently people did have a choice.
mkfreeberg: I’d say your trend, since the Renaissance era, is for this voting-representation to become more widespread in superficial appearance, and then people will sort themselves out on a spectrum between the interested and the apathetic — then the interested will find ways to tilt the balance of power.
They used to burn people for their beliefs. The Inquisition tried Galileo for his writings, the greatest scientist of the age.
–
- Zachriel | 08/11/2012 @ 07:19The way we understand your argument is that modern regulations are like taxation, they can eat away at liberty, or be used to oppress the people. Sure. That’s very possible. However, the check to tyranny by taxation or regulation is representation and constitutional liberties. Your response is that representation is not effective. Yet, we know it is somewhat effective by *your own example*. That it is not perfect isn’t the issue. It doesn’t have to be.
Um, we did, in our very first comment on the thread.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html
This indicates you haven’t read for comprehension a single comment we have made. Why is that?
Because the link you provided does not speak to this, in fact it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
It is the left-wing reactionaries who “believe in absolute inequality.” Check out “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg in which the author discusses in great detail the left-wing dictators from history such as Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Napoleon Bonaparte, Nicolae Ceaușescu, Fidel Castro, Mao Tse Tung, many more…they have lots of things in common. Centralized authority, at the expense of personal liberty, a grandiose display of their masculinity, cult of personality, aren’t-I-special, whatever the top dog says, goes…all left-wing. All claiming to speak with the voice of the people, every single one of ’em.
I don’t think you can quantify or explore your theory as well as Goldberg has, but I’d enjoy seeing you try. But again, your theory fails when you presume, since there is some superficial display put on with regard to “voting,” that the people must be “free.” Once again, I see you leap to this presumption, in contravention to the evidence, that our disagreement has to do with my lack of comprehension. It’s somehow summarily dismissed that I might have analyzed your argument, found out you don’t know what you’re talking about, and as a result of this your credibility suffered; even though, in this thread alone, you’ve had that same issue going on with many other people who’ve taken the time to reply to you, and who-knows-how-many who have not.
Um, the governor was recalled, so apparently people did have a choice.
Um, and before the governor was recalled, he was re-elected. Which raises questions about this reckless premise you have in place, if there’s an election there must be liberty. A curious and intellectual sort would ponder this. Someone just trying to sell bad ideas, would do what you’ve been doing, which is to ignore it and gloss over it.
Again, once a large one-man-one-vote demographic is made out of the mainstream, “people will sort themselves out on a spectrum between the interested and the apathetic — then the interested will find ways to tilt the balance of power.” You can certainly ignore that part of it, but it won’t go away. And it absolutely demolishes this “trend” you’ve been trying to identify. That’s not to say there isn’t one, but it isn’t the trend you’ve been trying to prop up here.
- mkfreeberg | 08/11/2012 @ 07:34mkfreeberg: Because the link you provided does not speak to this (the classic monarchies).
“The political power of the aristocracy was overthrown by war, such as by the American and French Revolutions, through reforms placing constitutional limitations on the royalty, with the rise of parliaments and legislatures, and through modern civil rights movements.”
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html
aristocracy, the highest class in certain societies, esp. those holding hereditary titles or offices.
mkfreeberg: It is the left-wing reactionaries who “believe in absolute inequality.”
Left wing politics is *defined* as advocating egalitarianism. The term comes from the time of the French Revolution where the commons sat to the left of the president of the National Assembly, while the nobility sat to the right.
mkfreeberg: Which raises questions about this reckless premise you have in place, if there’s an election there must be liberty.
We responded to this above.
Zachriel: Not necessarily, but you can’t ignore that component of the equation.
Why do you repeat the same misrepresentation of our position time after time? Notice that we have tried very hard to properly represent your position.
mkfreeberg: Again, once a large one-man-one-vote demographic is made out of the mainstream, “people will sort themselves out on a spectrum between the interested and the apathetic — then the interested will find ways to tilt the balance of power.”
Of course. That’s how democracy works. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have an influence, or that apathy doesn’t wax and wane depending on the circumstance. Furthermore, elections are not the only check on government. There is the division of power at all levels of civil society in a democracy.
It’s hard to believe you are still arguing that you have no more freedom than a slave in the antebellum South. Incomprehensible, really.
- Zachriel | 08/11/2012 @ 08:45Left wing politics is *defined* as advocating egalitarianism. The term comes from the time of the French Revolution where the commons sat to the left of the president of the National Assembly, while the nobility sat to the right.
No, it was the supporters of Napoleon who sat to the left and the royalists who sat on the right.
And what was Napoleon about: This guy over here is super-duper special so he should call all the shots.
Left wing politics have been about that ever since. A pyramid of power with one super-duper-awesome guy on the top, who calls all the shots. The opposite of “egalitarianism.”
You need to go read Goldberg’s book. His recitation of history makes sense. Yours doesn’t.
- mkfreeberg | 08/11/2012 @ 09:15mkfreeberg: No, it was the supporters of Napoleon who sat to the left and the royalists who sat on the right.
Um, that is not correct. Napoléon was not a major political figure at the time the revolutionary National Assembly was formed.
mkfreeberg: Left wing politics have been about that ever since. A pyramid of power with one super-duper-awesome guy on the top, who calls all the shots. The opposite of “egalitarianism.”
Redefining words does not make for an argument. The rallying cry of the French Revolutionary Left was Liberté, égalité, fraternité. The term “left wing politics” refers to the advocacy of egalitarianism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics
mkfreeberg: You need to go read Goldberg’s book. His recitation of history makes sense.
Sorry, but Goldberg is not a historian, and the vast majority historians have rejected his polemic. Here’s a few such reactions:
– Robert O. Paxton, professor emeritus at Columbia University and the author of The Anatomy of Fascism, “The Scholarly Flaws of Liberal Fascism.”
– Roger Griffin, professor of political science at Oxford Brookes and the author of The Nature of Fascism, “An Academic Book – Not!”
– Matthew Feldman, professor of history at University of Northampton, and a co-editor of several academic texts on fascism, “Poor Scholarship, Wrong Conclusions”.
– Chip Berlet, senior researcher at Political Research Associates and the co-author (with Matthew Lyons) of Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort, “The Roots of Liberal Fascism: The Book.”
It’s hard to believe you are still arguing that you have no more freedom than a slave in the antebellum South. Incomprehensible, really.
- Zachriel | 08/11/2012 @ 11:30See, this is one of the reason liberals aren’t open to reason. I’ve said before that for their ideas to make good sense, you have to make similar things look different, and different things identical. When you deal with cause-and-effect and they don’t like it, it gives rise to a situation in which consequential things are made to look different.
No, silly slope-foreheaded conservative, I said nothing about us diving off a cliff to our doom; I merely said, climb over the guardrail, face outward, and leap with all your might. Learn the nuance!
Liberte, egalite, fraternite you say? Nothing in there about a super-duper charismatic guy like Mr. Bonaparte taking charge…and yet, what ultimately happened? You seriously think if it were not for him, it wouldn’t have been somebody else stepping in, in place of King Louis? Not up on George Orwell’s Animal Farm are you?
Sorry, but Goldberg is not a historian, and the vast majority historians have rejected his polemic.
That’s the cool thing about history. Opinions only matter when you speculate about things like “Was Warren Harding poisoned”; when the incidents are outside the realm of question, and someone comes along to put the trend together — that’s what touched this whole thing off, remember, you want to identify a trend? — you can’t say it doesn’t count just because you happen to dislike it, or some big-name historian happens to dislike it. Well you can, in the sense that people are entitled to ideas that are wrong. But it only counts as a serious objection if you identify an oversight or some other mistake, like I’ve done with your post-Renaissance-trend thing with personal liberty.
Where is this identified oversight or mistake in Mr. Goldberg’s book, specifically?
- mkfreeberg | 08/11/2012 @ 14:56mkfreeberg: Liberte, egalite, fraternite you say? Nothing in there about a super-duper charismatic guy like Mr. Bonaparte taking charge…and yet, what ultimately happened?
That’s right. Unlike the American Revolution, most traditional institutions in France were tainted by association with the monarchy, so the French Revolution resulted in a complete upending of society. The resulting anarchy, and the military threat from monarchists abroad, led to the consolidation of power under Napoléon. Many revolutionaries accepted this as a means to the ends of Republicanism, but Napoléon was seen to betray that trust. The goal for leftists, however, remained liberté, égalité, fraternité.
mkfreeberg: You seriously think if it were not for him, it wouldn’t have been somebody else stepping in, in place of King Louis?
The American revolutionaries were to the political left of King George, but they had working local governments with legislatures. Even then, it was only because Washington showed restraint that the nascent U.S. didn’t end up with a dictator or king.
mkfreeberg: That’s the cool thing about history.
Goldberg didn’t write a history, but a polemic. It was written for you, not history.
mkfreeberg: Where is this identified oversight or mistake in Mr. Goldberg’s book, specifically?
Because Goldberg uses redefinition in place of argument. If he had used “Liberal Fascism” ironically, then his thesis may have worked. Then he could talk about instances of illiberality in those professing liberal views. But he tried to argue it literally, which was just silly. Liberalism is the virtual antonym of fascism.
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.
fascism, a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
- Zachriel | 08/12/2012 @ 06:37The goal for leftists, however, remained liberté, égalité, fraternité.
The goal.
What are we debating here then, the common characteristics of ultra-right, moderate-right, moderate-left and extreme-left movements? Or merely the goals?
On your page, you seem to have made the decision to summarize these four only according to the goals. I’ve criticized you already on the grounds that what you have doesn’t pass the test on the right side, you can’t show it to people who consider themselves “right-wing” and expect them to come back with “Yeah, that’s exactly what I’m all about!” Which certainly is the response you’d get back if you showed the page to self-identified left-wingers…the right-wingers would reply with “Huhwha?” It doesn’t describe what they’re really after. It looks like more evidence that right-wingers understand the intentions of left-wingers far better than left-wingers understand the intentions of right-wingers.
But anyway, the descriptive profile of a left-wing movement can be made very lengthy, rigid and precise and still fit most of the movements. Much of it concerns the guy on top. Time after time after time, we see he comes to resemble a replacement deity, and that includes Napoleon, Saddam Hussein, Mussolini and Obama. It is rather striking how consistent this is. You don’t like having it pointed out — but, it is a fair observation to make.
The American revolutionaries were to the political left of King George, but they had working local governments with legislatures. Even then, it was only because Washington showed restraint that the nascent U.S. didn’t end up with a dictator or king.
Yes, Thomas Sowell does a great job summarizing this contrast in his book A Conflict Of Visions. This is really where the French went wrong, and is the difference between left-wing and right-wing objectives, intentions and effects. Were the revolutionaries to the political left of King George? That would be an affirmative, if “left wing” refers to revolution and only to revolution. But it does not, and cannot; a revolution is an upheaval, based on a disagreement; to say a certain ideology represents disagreement, is to define an absolute thing in relative terms, which brings all sorts of problems. You would have to say the Republican Revolution of ’94 put Newt Gingrich to the “left” of the outgoing democrat-led House. See, it doesn’t work.
So, no, right-wing has to do with respect for institutions that make the people and the country great, which means among other things, prosperous, powerful, capable, adhering to a mindset that actually works. It refers to thinking through problems with maturity, taking responsibility for the outcome at an individual level. It is inextricably intertwined with the constrained vision.
Left wing movements will always have a Napoleon, because they are bound to the unconstrained vision: Mankind is capable of constant improvement, toward perfection, which means someone has to pick us all up and carry us there. This person is incapable of making mistakes, because if he ever does make a mistake it stops being a mistake. Barack Obama has shown this to be true a number of times.
- mkfreeberg | 08/12/2012 @ 06:55On the definition of fascism: I always feel a tinge of proxy embarrassment on behalf of people who criticize Goldberg for how he defines “fascist.” They’re demonstrating that they haven’t read the book, haven’t even skimmed over the first few pages. He lays out exactly how he is going to use this word, right up front, and goes over a complete history of the word and how & why it lacks the meaningful definition so many people seem to think it has. His rationale is completely logical.
By the time you’re done, it is true he has argued for a different definition than the way most people use it, but that’s because he’s right and they’re wrong. Sometimes the majority is mistaken.
Actually, if you were to take a survey of what most people think “fascism” means, and include a query into how they formed this understanding, you’d probably find they figured it out from the “political analyzer meter” over on FARK.
- mkfreeberg | 08/12/2012 @ 07:04It’s like you can’t read, or something.
mkfreeberg: The goal.
The goal is the definitional difference between left and right. They share means. Moderates use moderate means. Extremists use extreme means.
mkfreeberg: That would be an affirmative, if “left wing” refers to revolution and only to revolution.
It refers to the advocacy of greater equality. In this case, the Americans didn’t have representation in parliament. They replaced a hereditary king with an elected president. This distributed power: it was more egalitarian.
mkfreeberg: You would have to say the Republican Revolution of ‘94 put Newt Gingrich to the “left” of the outgoing democrat-led House. See, it doesn’t work.
No, because (generally) while Democrats wanted government to work harder towards a more egalitarian society (especially by helping the poor and dispossessed), Republicans wanted freer markets so that competition would determine economic reward. Hence, Republicans are to the political right.
It’s not that difficult a concept, and as we have repeated it several times, and provided citations, not sure why you keep misreading it.
mkfreeberg: right-wing has to do with respect for institutions that make the people and the country great, which means among other things, prosperous, powerful, capable, adhering to a mindset that actually works. It refers to thinking through problems with maturity, taking responsibility for the outcome at an individual level. It is inextricably intertwined with the constrained vision.
Yes, to all that.
mkfreeberg: Left wing movements will always have a Napoleon, because they are bound to the unconstrained vision: Mankind is capable of constant improvement, toward perfection, which means someone has to pick us all up and carry us there. This person is incapable of making mistakes, because if he ever does make a mistake it stops being a mistake. Barack Obama has shown this to be true a number of times.
No, to all that. You are confusing means with ends. Ideologues, left and right, have unconstrained visions. Extremists, left and right, believe that the ends justify the means. But moderates understand the limitations of their views and use moderate means to achieve their ends.
King was to the left of the segregationists. Gandhi was to the left of the colonialists. Washington was to the left of the monarchists. None of them became dictators, or left dictatorships in their wake.
More important, we *know* that institutions have changed over the last several centuries, and that open democratic government and free markets have made a great deal of different in the lives of people.
- Zachriel | 08/12/2012 @ 07:24It’s like you can’t read, or something.
Close, but not quite. I’m looking at the effects as well as the intentions. Since modern liberalism looks good only as its intentions are studied, you’re laying down this soft-rule that intentions are all that should be inspected here, and I’m not complying with that.
Ideologues, left and right, have unconstrained visions.
Not true. You need to go read Prof. Sowell’s book to find out what he meant by this term. “Constrained” and “unconstrained” do not apply to the movement itself, but to the people and their capacity for improvement and ultimately perfection.
From Sarah Palin’s book, Going Rogue, pp. 385-386:
It seems the disagreement comes from an insistence you’re imposing, that history is to be studied with an effort to divine will & intent of the left-wingers, but the deleterious effects of their efforts should be ignored entirely. Also, I’m picking up that you’re strangely obsessed with some contrast between moderates and extremists. You don’t seem to be accustomed to any challenges against the idea that there is such a thing as moderation, where modern liberalism is concerned…but it is an idea ripe for challenge. Modern liberalism will not allow anyone to accept just a little bit of liberalism. It is a journey toward absolute perfection, and the only compromise with it is a compromise between what they’ll take now, and what they’ll take later. It is extremist by definition.
- mkfreeberg | 08/12/2012 @ 07:36mkfreeberg: “Constrained” and “unconstrained” do not apply to the movement itself, but to the people and their capacity for improvement and ultimately perfection.
So a leftist ideologue might see no limit to human improvement. A rightist ideologue might see no possibility of human improvement.
mkfreeberg: Conservatives believe in the “constrained” political vision because we know that human nature is flawed and that there are limitations to what can be done in Washington to “fix” society’s problems.
Conservative is a different term than right wing, though they are often conflated in the U.S. because of the extremely partisan politics there. Yes, a conservative believes in constraints, not just in vision, but in action.
mkfreeberg: Commonsense Conservatives deal with human nature as it is — with its unavoidable weaknesses and its potential for goodness. We see the world as it is — imperfect but filled with beauty. We hope for the best. We believe people can change for the better, but we do not ignore history’s lessons and waste time chasing utopian pipe dreams.
Yes, to all that.
mkfreeberg: It seems the disagreement comes from an insistence you’re imposing, that history is to be studied with an effort to divine will & intent of the left-wingers, but the deleterious effects of their efforts should be ignored entirely.
You can’t interpret because you are a prisoner of semantics. You conflate left wing politics with left wing extremism. You generalize from the most extreme view.
mkfreeberg: Modern liberalism will not allow anyone to accept just a little bit of liberalism. It is a journey toward absolute perfection, and the only compromise with it is a compromise between what they’ll take now, and what they’ll take later. It is extremist by definition.
Not by definition, of course, but perhaps by practice. When did this era of ‘modern liberalism’ begin?
- Zachriel | 08/12/2012 @ 08:17You can’t interpret because you are a prisoner of semantics. You conflate left wing politics with left wing extremism. You generalize from the most extreme view.
How can that possibly not be appropriate? It is an extremist movement in the sense that limitations do not figure into it, save for compromises reached in the moment — which are always to be re-negotiated later. Such compromises, like I said, are between what they’ll take today and what they’ll take tomorrow. If their ambitions fall short of what I envision them to be, right now, they will not fall short of it at a later time. “Progressive.” “Forward.” Always capturing turf, never relinquishing any.
Why should I envision limits to a movement that will accept none, and is constantly looking for ways to push past the few limits that have been imposed upon it? The only reward I can see from such an exercise is to hallucinate about moderation where it doesn’t really exist.
When did this era of ‘modern liberalism’ begin?
My own theory is that it is from the very beginning. Look at the Reign of Terror; the revolutionaries guillotined the monarchy and the aristocrats, and hadn’t even had time to put the guillotine back in the storehouse before they were guillotining their own for not being revolutionary enough.
History shows this to be a constant with the unconstrained vision: Humankind can be made better and perhaps ultimately perfected; therefore, it is immoral not to try; therefore, when we discover these individuals who cannot be perfected, even though we know the species overall can be, they shall have to be eliminated from the equation just like bits of a pencil are to be removed as it is sharpened. The Eugenics movement was a leftist, progressive movement. You see it in the here and now, with leftists when they get into arguments on the Internet and on social networking — just a few exchanges pass before they deliver some monologue about “It is useless to argue this with someone who won’t acknowledge…”
And so it is a constant that their scheming should result in some “regulation” — a centralized program, impacting everybody, involuntarily, from which none can escape. It is also a constant that they want to draw a sharp periphery around the narrow band of elites who are permitted to discuss the details. When the policy affects everyone whether they want it to or not, and only a few are allowed influence in deciding and shaping what the policy is to be, that is not egalitarianism and that doesn’t have anything to do with liberty.
But the point is, left-wing politics, intentional or not, arrive at this point. It’s like a car engine or a light bulb producing heat — not designed or built to do it, maybe, but it will happen and it has to be anticipated. There’s no such thing as a “moderate” left-winger. Perhaps you could say there are left-wingers who don’t see this, and fail to anticipate it…I’ve met some who are decent enough, that they’d never back it if they knew where it eventually must lead. They just didn’t take the time to figure out where it eventually must lead.
- mkfreeberg | 08/12/2012 @ 10:02mkfreeberg: How can that possibly not be appropriate? It is an extremist movement in the sense that limitations do not figure into it, save for compromises reached in the moment — which are always to be re-negotiated later.
The vast majority of people on the left, including liberals, understand the limitations of people and institutions. Not everyone who is left of center subscribes to the most extreme views of the left, any more than someone who is right of center necessarily subscribes to the most extreme views of the right.
Zachriel: When did this era of ‘modern liberalism’ begin?
mkfreeberg: My own theory is that it is from the very beginning. Look at the Reign of Terror
King was to the left of the segregationists. Gandhi was to the left of the colonialists. Washington was to the left of the monarchists—no different than Robespierre.
- Zachriel | 08/12/2012 @ 13:14Incorrect. They were revolutionaries, but it does not follow from that that they were “left.” If that were a hard and fast rule, Newt Gingrich would be to the “left” of the 103rd Congress he displaced.
Not everyone who is left of center subscribes to the most extreme views of the left, any more than someone who is right of center necessarily subscribes to the most extreme views of the right.
Again, it is cause and effect. These moderates of whom you speak simply haven’t thought out the consequences of what they want.
The entire left absorbs much criticism for this from the right; the litany is that since their intentions are honorable, they figure the outcome must all fall into place, and when it doesn’t happen that way they learn nothing about it. This criticism is generally valid, and well supported by the evidence. The moderate leftists don’t escape the trap any better than the extremists do.
- mkfreeberg | 08/12/2012 @ 13:34mkfreeberg: They were revolutionaries, but it does not follow from that that they were “left.”
Of course they were on the left. Consider King. He advocated for the end of segregation, supported affirmative action, fought for public employees’ unions, demanded action to alleviate poverty, supported access to family planning, and was against the Vietnam War because he thought the U.S. shouldn’t decide the future of the Vietnamese people. For each position, he was advocating for a more egalitarian society. There’s no other way to characterize his position, but as on the left.
mkfreeberg: These moderates of whom you speak simply haven’t thought out the consequences of what they want.
Someone who thinks the U.S. should have universal healthcare, but thinks there is enough government regulation, is considered center-left in the U.S.
- Zachriel | 08/12/2012 @ 14:10“There is enough government regulation” is fairly meaningless. Are we to draw the line between those who think there is enough, and those who think we need more? There wouldn’t be many people who think we need more. Sure we have people saying “There ought to be a law,” but most of them would turn right around and say “yes, there is enough government regulation,” being fully unaware of the contradiction.
And that, too, is a criticism against the left: They don’t know how to budget finite resources, since they tend to weigh critical decisions in one-sided terms. Yes, the public debt is a very serious problem…Bush’s fault blah blah blah. Nevertheless, “support” this-or-that. Not spend the money, but “support” X. This criticism, too, is generally valid; among many on the left, if they had the ability to weigh both sides of a decision properly, they wouldn’t be leftists.
Research has come out confirming the idea that right wingers understand the intentions of left wingers, far more deeply and capably than left wingers understand the intentions of right wingers. Presently, the Wikipedia page on right-wing politics sez…
And…predictably…when you tab over to the “talk” page, you find a big mess. Meanwhile, how many right wingers can you find who will sign up and say “Yes! I see inequality as inevitable, natural, normal or desirable!” It’s a tragedy when people don’t know what they’re writing about, and insist on having the last word anyway, and that’s what has happened to the lefty “editors” at Wikipedia.
To the extent that the statement might have a glimmer of truth around the “inevitable” and “natural” adjectives, the motivation of the right-winger would be that the latest left-wing agitation is just plain silly, and not worth the upheaval. That’s what left-wing movements have been, since the storming of the Bastille: There is inequality, and addressing the inequity is worth the social upheaval. The “right wing” reaction to this is, no dice, sorry common sense must prevail at some point, a pre-op tranny doesn’t have a “right” to use the womens’ restroom. So the left wing is a sales pitch, for anarchy; the right wing is rejection of the sales pitch, or at least a hostility against the pitch…those who claim to be “moderates,” therefore, ultimately have to become “right wing” at some point, since to approve of social upheaval, all the time as a constant, is as decent a definition of extremism as any.
Now, you’re saying “Washington was…no different than Robespierre.” Quite a remarkable claim, and the latest in a long line of evidence to indicate the concept of freedom lacks meaning for you, which is a rather crippling blind spot to have in a discussion such as this one. We see, once again, to make a modern lefty idea look like a good one, it is necessary to make similar things look different, and different things look identical. A revolution based on an absolute thing — “We are not living as free men, and we should be” — is not identical to a revolution based on a relative thing — “You have more money than we do, and we should have some of that money.” The two are not even close.
- mkfreeberg | 08/12/2012 @ 14:27mkfreeberg: Are we to draw the line between those who think there is enough, and those who think we need more?
Yes, in point of fact, there are people who think there is too much government regulation, some who think there is too little, and some who think it is about right.
mkfreeberg: Now, you’re saying “Washington was…no different than Robespierre.”
Not big on irony, are you? Not everyone on the political left believes in absolute equality, indeed, most don’t.
mkfreeberg: Meanwhile, how many right wingers can you find who will sign up and say “Yes! I see inequality as inevitable, natural, normal or desirable!”
Most people recognize that some inequality is inevitable and natural. People aren’t all born with the same abilities or born in the same circumstances.
Please define what you mean by political left, and by liberalism.
- Zachriel | 08/12/2012 @ 14:43“Left” is liberalism. But the challenge here is that liberalism has undergone changes; you’ll notice I use the phrase “modern liberalism” to refer to liberalism after about 1992.
In this year, specifically, the best way to define liberalism would be the four distinctions identified in this recent post. All four have to do with fundamentally different ways of viewing the world and operating within it. To take the last one as an example: Someone starts a successful business and after that business reaches profitability, finds himself worth, let’s say, half a million times as much as you or me, but has broken no laws, pays his employees, all applicable taxes; I think most people would answer with a square “yes” or “no” to, “is this man greedy just because he has lots of money, and wants more?” Or, “is there something cockeyed about that situation that has to be addressed?” Very few among us would offer a gray-state hem-and-haw or I-don’t-know answer, and really mean it.
And most of the people who say no, he’s not greedy and he isn’t hurting anybody, would follow through and say — actually, if you want to call someone greedy, I’d use that word to describe the Occupy protesters demonstrating in front of his business.
All four of those issues have this characteristic; they would all service this definition well. For this year anyway.
Now regarding the regulation, I’ve mentioned before that I used to work in a specialized job in which I met with the regulators. It has generally been my experience that the people who want “more regulation,” misunderstand the process, and their comments are not quite so much that we need “more regulation” but that something needs to be regulated. They have not seen the sausage being made, you might say. They imagine these regulators who are, somehow, superior to the businesses they are regulating in terms of wisdom, foresight, good judgment…they fill in all those gaps from the initial impression that the regulators will represent an interest that would otherwise go unrepresented. This last is what those people really want, to make sure that something, somehow, is represented, be it the environment, labor, or the like. “More regulation” is more like the price to be paid for this, it is the method to their madness.
The people who want less regulation? They’re simply experienced, perceptive and attentive. They’ve flown on planes and they’ve waited in line and dealt with the TSA. They understand that this is not the solution to the problem, as the problem has been defined.
- mkfreeberg | 08/12/2012 @ 15:01mkfreeberg: In this year, specifically, the best way to define liberalism would be the four distinctions identified in this recent post.
Rather wordy for a definition.
mkfreeberg: To take the last one as an example …Someone starts a successful business and after that business reaches profitability, finds himself worth, let’s say, half a million times as much as you or me, but has broken no laws, pays his employees, all applicable taxes; I think most people would answer with a square “yes” or “no” to, “is this man greedy just because he has lots of money, and wants more?” Or, “is there something cockeyed about that situation that has to be addressed?” Very few among us would offer a gray-state hem-and-haw or I-don’t-know answer, and really mean it.
Most people do recognize gray areas. It would depend on how that money was made, and whether the laws allow for a level playing field, and provide reasonable protections for individuals. But in the usual situation, most people don’t think its a problem for people to make money.
You seem to be conflating the ordinary desire for wealth with the excessive desire for wealth. While most everyone wants money, most people consider it unhealthy to put money before all things.
In any case, you haven’t provide a usable definition of political left or liberal.
mkfreeberg: They have not seen the sausage being made, you might say.
Good example. Most people agree that sausage making should be regulated.
- Zachriel | 08/12/2012 @ 17:26Rather wordy for a definition.
Yeah, but that’s okay.
Most people do recognize gray areas. It would depend on how that money was made, and whether the laws allow for a level playing field, and provide reasonable protections for individuals. But in the usual situation, most people don’t think its a problem for people to make money.
President Obama, in those remarks He made, in context, did not allow for any of these variables. Yet liberals circle the wagons around Him without any reservation at all…which makes this definition adequate. If there are indeed gray areas recognized, they are not being applied.
You seem to be conflating the ordinary desire for wealth with the excessive desire for wealth.
Absent any laws being broken or any obviously gross acts of immorality being engaged to make the money, I don’t recognize the authority of any external party to draw such a line.
In any case, you haven’t provide a usable definition of political left or liberal.
That statement is false.
Most people agree that sausage making should be regulated.
It’s been my general life-experience that if there is any one occupation that is badly in need of being regulated…is it the job of the regulator.
- mkfreeberg | 08/12/2012 @ 17:33mkfreeberg: Absent any laws being broken or any obviously gross acts of immorality being engaged to make the money, I don’t recognize the authority of any external party to draw such a line.
When someone puts the love of money before everything else; family, friends, values, loyalty; then it is considered greed. Is it necessary to redefine every word in the dictionary to make your position consistent?
Zachriel: In any case, you haven’t provide a usable definition of political left or liberal.
mkfreeberg: That statement is false.
You think you’ve provided a usable definition, but your use of terminology is so vague and inconsistent, that you haven’t. Try to put it in a few words, because we’re not seeing it.
- Zachriel | 08/13/2012 @ 04:07When someone puts the love of money before everything else; family, friends, values, loyalty; then it is considered greed.
See, you specifically requested my definition, and now you’re quibbling because it doesn’t match yours.
I’ve detected a pattern here, it’s like my answers are being compared to some teacher’s textbook with a test key in it. You need to learn something about asking people for their opinions; when you get an answer back, it is what it is. And, like many other people, I don’t accept that when a property owner is determined to hang on to his own property, or maintain control over it, when some other guy doesn’t want him to — that’s considered “greed.” I recall one frustrated accountant who was trying to collect on a bill, groused about being able to “choose my charities,” I think that’s a good way of putting it.
You think you’ve provided a usable definition, but your use of terminology is so vague and inconsistent, that you haven’t.
Actually, if you bother to click through the link and read down to the word “One” you will see it’s already nicely broken down into statements like “I think…[thing]…versus…[opposite thing].” Four times. Using clear and concise terms that are not mine; crisp litmus tests to be applied to people’s ideas. It fits what you’re requesting here very nicely.
Again — that is for this year. To define the word itself throughout history, we would need to define it for >=1789, >=1932, >=1968 and >=1992. But that is outside of the scope of what you have requested, if I understand your request properly.
- mkfreeberg | 08/13/2012 @ 04:54One. If you built a business, who really built it? Are you to receive some credit for the personal effort you have put in, the personal risks you have absorbed, the personal assets you had to liquidate to meet payroll during the years when it wasn’t profitable, the hours per week over forty that you had to put in before you could afford to expand that payroll?
Two. If you want to move the business into a community, what test do we apply to make sure the business’ values are compatible? Does the business find out about that, the hard way, when people vote with their feet — wow, just think about the magnitude of capital lost on such a failed venture, it’s staggering — or, is it somehow necessary to vote in mayors and “aldermen” to express this note of rejection that the potential patrons, and voters, are somehow unable to properly express?
Three. Why, exactly, do taxes exist? Are they for funding government’s vital services, or to whittle that Gini number down to size; to ensure that, at the end of it all, no one citizen among us has too much more or less loot than the next guy?
Four. How exactly do we define the word “greed” — does it have to do with wanting to hang on to what belongs to you, or does it have to do with taking possession of someone else’s property?
Side note: It always amazes me how, in situations where some “Occupy” mentality starts grousing about how much wealth/income is being enjoyed by some total stranger, and monologuing about what that total stranger should be doing with it, the liberals who obsess over “greed” never seem to have any kind of alarm going off in their heads about it…
What statement could possibly be greedier than “I think that guy over there should give me some of his stuff, and if he doesn’t want to then he should be forced to”? If the word “greed” doesn’t apply to that then it has truly fallen out of functional use.
- mkfreeberg | 08/13/2012 @ 05:03mkfreeberg: See, you specifically requested my definition, and now you’re quibbling because it doesn’t match yours.
The problem is that you defined political left in terms you have also redefined. According to you, if a person pursues money at the expense of every thing else, then he isn’t greedy. That’s simply not the what people mean by greed. It means that there is no way to parse your definition into commonly accepted terminology.
You can see the conflation here:
mkfreeberg: If that is to be the case, it is hard to see how we can put our energies behind an effort to drive “greed” out of our society, without the proggies ultimately winning; we would need to be sitting in judgment, in some way, of how much lucre our fellow citizens have managed to stash.
Not all progressives are against people desiring money. Most accept that markets are the best means of distributing goods and even bringing out the best in people. A progressive might use the term greed to distinguish the rapacious acquisition of wealth at the expense of others, from people who balance their responsibilities between market necessities, family and community. Conflation.
mkfreeberg: One. If you built a business, who really built it?
Turns out that most people have a nuanced view, and acknowledge the role of others, their partners, their workers, their customers, their family, their mentors, and their community.
mkfreeberg: Two. If you want to move the business into a community, what test do we apply to make sure the business’ values are compatible?
Well, business usually refers to private enterprises. However, if you want a new road, then it is quite likely that it will a decision for the community as a whole.
mkfreeberg: Three. Why, exactly, do taxes exist? Are they for funding government’s vital services, or to whittle that Gini number down to size; to ensure that, at the end of it all, no one citizen among us has too much more or less loot than the next guy?
Just because you believe the rich should pay more doesn’t mean you want everyone to have the same net pay.
mkfreeberg: Four. How exactly do we define the word “greed” — does it have to do with wanting to hang on to what belongs to you, or does it have to do with taking possession of someone else’s property?
Greed refers to a human attribute, the love of money above other values.
mkfreeberg: Side note: It always amazes me how, in situations where some “Occupy” mentality starts grousing …
Again you are conflating the group with its more extreme members. Still no usable definition. Are you trying to say that if a person is on the political left, it means they advocate for absolute equality?
- Zachriel | 08/13/2012 @ 09:54In all these objections, you are conjuring up an illusion of moderation where it doesn’t really exist.
For example,
Just because you believe the rich should pay more doesn’t mean you want everyone to have the same net pay.
Let’s just take this one — pretend, for the moment, that there is some truth to it even though we know better.
What’s “rich”? What’s “more”? At what point will these rich people be paying enough that the progressives will say “Alright, that is done, social justice has been served…now on to the next issue.”
That doesn’t happen, of course. Left wingers are never ready for the “next issue,” never, ever. Since their arguments are based on emotion and not on reason, driven by the hormone surge instead of by the synapse, they act as Severian’s “virtue junkies” — chasing that high. And so it’s always time for a “make the rich pay their fair share” revolution. That’s the high. Anybody who’s deliberated anything with a dedicated proggie, knows there is no real amount, that’s just an illusion. Also, a negotiation tactic for lawmakers — have to put real numbers in the bill, so they can vote on it — but, like I said, this only marks off a difference between what they’ll take today and what they’ll take tomorrow. They always want more. It is extremist by definition, just like any other drug addiction.
Again you are conflating the group with its more extreme members. Still no usable definition. Are you trying to say that if a person is on the political left, it means they advocate for absolute equality?
Eventually, yes. It’s just a fact, if someone is motivated to demand “more equality” in the name of “social justice” or some such — you can give them as much equality as you care to, they will NEVER be happy.
Prove me wrong.
- mkfreeberg | 08/13/2012 @ 10:38mkfreeberg: Left wingers are never ready for the “next issue,” never, ever.
You’re still generalizing from the most extreme members of the group.
mkfreeberg: Eventually, yes. It’s just a fact, if someone is motivated to demand “more equality” in the name of “social justice” or some such — you can give them as much equality as you care to, they will NEVER be happy.
Of course they won’t. Your argument is similar to saying that everyone on the right wants to shrink government “down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub”. But that’s not accurate. Some certainly do, but many recognize the important functions government performs in a modern society, but just want a smaller and more nimble government. This creates a tension between left and right, where both sides are always clamoring for more or for less government.
Bill Clinton is left of center, but ran on welfare reform and “ended welfare as we know it”.
- Zachriel | 08/13/2012 @ 11:38http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/welfare/stories/wf082396.htm
This policy change helped move millions of Americans off welfare into the workforce.
…and…here it is a few years later, Barack Obama undid the work requirement.
So a decent understanding of history, coupled with the example YOU have selected, reveals my summation to be the correct one. Lefties always want more, and will always insist on it, it’s part of being a lefty.
They must be tyrants, they have no choice in the matter, because their mission is to make the reality that “ought to be” into the reality that “is.” That’s the way it’s gotta be.
So we agree that the lefties will never be happy. You somehow want to nuance this into it being possible for them to be moderate in any meaningful way…which is nonsense, of course.
- mkfreeberg | 08/13/2012 @ 11:51mkfreeberg: …and…here it is a few years later, Barack Obama undid the work requirement.
No, he didn’t, but even if he did, that just proves the point that people on the left vary in their views. We have shown you at least one left of center politician who campaigned to reduce the number of people on welfare, who reduced the growth of government, and left structural cash surpluses.
- Zachriel | 08/13/2012 @ 12:09Yes, he did.
And people on the left may vary in their understanding of how far the leftist agenda may be taken before compromise is necessary — this year. They do not vary in their understanding of the direction in which the agenda is to be taken; it is toward greater and greater centralization, fewer and fewer people managing the details of the lives of more and more.
And once the compromise is reached, they do not vary in their idea of what is to be done next. After all, their revolution is glorious; it has to do with “social justice”; it is treason against their own movement, for any among them to not want more of it. This is why the Reign of Terror happened. The revolutionaries guillotined their own for not being revolutionary enough. Robespierre, whom you say was indistinguishable from Washington, et al, was all in favor of it. He ended up reaping the rewards of his own work. But you yourself pointed out Washington was not like this. Transferring the power to the new President Adams and Vice President Jefferson, he insisted on walking behind the other two, instead of ahead of them. That’s because the revolution over here had to do with Sowell’s constrained vision, and the one over there had to do with the unconstrained. The one here worked, the one over there was a bloodbath and a comedy of errors. Professor Sowell goes into this in great detail in his book.
Leftism is extremism, by nature. It reaches compromise with others only out of necessity, always with an eye toward revisiting the compromise at a later time, soon, to get more. It has nothing to do with defining a partial distance, and everything to do with the direction and the ultimate goal.
It is the timeless human drive to seize all control, and all credit for things going right, while dealing with none of the associated responsibilities or blame for when things go wrong. It is childishness.
- mkfreeberg | 08/13/2012 @ 16:44mkfreeberg: Leftism is extremism, by nature.
You seem to have abandoned any pretense of making an argument and devolved into incoherent rhetoric. Good luck with that.
- Zachriel | 08/13/2012 @ 17:04Right you are.
If by “incoherent rhetoric” you mean, making reference to bits of real history, and some thoughtful books abut what it all means, that you don’t find pleasing…”inconvenient truth,” to coin a phrase?
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- mkfreeberg | 08/13/2012 @ 17:31mkfreeberg: If by “incoherent rhetoric” you mean, …
What we mean is that you are using fallacies to support your position, then you can’t seem to understand comments directed at your position, so you just start over from the same starting place. It would help if you could provide a reasonable definition of political left, but you haven’t even been able to do this.
mkfreeberg: “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
We’re quite aware of the plethora of views. Of course, that’s the whole point.
–
- Zachriel | 08/14/2012 @ 05:10Let’s try again. Can you provide a concise definition of political left? It doesn’t have to be perfect, just workable.
What we mean is that you are using fallacies to support your position, then you can’t seem to understand comments directed at your position, so you just start over from the same starting place.
No, what you mean is you don’t like my absolutely sound and logical point that leftism is extremism by its very nature, so out of thin air you’re conjuring up this idea that there’s some inconsistency or incoherence somewhere. But you can’t say where, or what, it is; so you just sort of repeat that a few times like an Obama talking point.
This one is a bit of a new low even for you. It’s like you’re relying on the twentieth-century method of printing out the thread in hardcopy and showing it to potential new-recruits who won’t be able to click through the links, to find that my definitions are in fact sound, concise, reasonable and consistent with the experience of history — so they’ll be forced to just accept your word for it.
But let’s offer you the benefit of the doubt. State in clear, understandable terms where you failed to follow along, if you can; and I shall clarify. There are four good litmus tests to be applied to liberals, which you dislike because they would correctly call out “moderates”…the new-recruits…as ripe for the destructive, modern-liberal way of thinking. I’ll be happy to excerpt the four definitions again, if you need me to do so. What part, within those, is giving you trouble?
Bonus demerit points awarded if the answer is “Well, everything.” C’mon, get specific for once.
- mkfreeberg | 08/14/2012 @ 05:52mkfreeberg: I’ll be happy to excerpt the four definitions again, if you need me to do so.
Four definitions!? Frankly, you keep talking about the left, but we have no idea what you mean by the term. We know what the term means in political science, but that is apparently not your intended meaning. Indeed, you seem to be confusing a definition of a belief with its consequences.
We are asking for a single definition of how you are using the term throughout the thread. Instead of excerpting the same gobbledygook again, why don’t you simply provide a concise definition. We’ll understand if it isn’t perfect, just usable, a point of discussion. You can freely clarify it as necessary.
Let’s start with the standard definition, the political left is the advocacy of societal changes to bring about a more egalitarian society. See how easy that was?
- Zachriel | 08/14/2012 @ 06:11Indeed, you seem to be confusing a definition of a belief with its consequences.
++blink++
Yeah, how unfair of me to consider something about what the uninformed do, besides & beyond their oh so noble intentions.
Let’s start with the standard definition, the political left is the advocacy of societal changes to bring about a more egalitarian society. See how easy that was?
Yeah, you limited the discussion to the oh so noble intentions…to make it look oh so noble. Very easy. Too easy. That is the point.
Actions have consequences.
Perhaps the definition should be fleshed out a bit more to say…leftists have an unfriendly relationship with the concept of consequences, and believe intentions are all that matter. Rush Limbaugh has said so repeatedly, and you’re doing a fine job of demonstrating it.
But where’s this supposed incoherence? It’s looking more and more like what I said: You asked for a definition, I provided one that makes perfect sense and gels with the experience of history…and you just don’t like it. So now you’re going through the motions of having trouble understanding something trying to play “I win this argument because I’m not capable of understanding the other person.”
- mkfreeberg | 08/14/2012 @ 06:15mkfreeberg: Yeah, how unfair of me to consider something about what the uninformed do, besides & beyond their oh so noble intentions.
It’s quite alright, even important, to consider the implications of people’s beliefs. However, confusing the belief with its implication just indicates confused thinking.
mkfreeberg: leftists have an unfriendly relationship with the concept of consequences, and believe intentions are all that matter.
Okay. That works as a definition, though it is certainly not what most people mean by leftist. It’s certainly not what you would find as a definition in a dictionary or encyclopedia. According to your definition, anyone who thinks the ends justify the means is a ‘leftist’. Is that correct?
- Zachriel | 08/14/2012 @ 06:21That works as a definition, though it is certainly not what most people mean by leftist. It’s certainly not what you would find as a definition in a dictionary or encyclopedia. According to your definition, anyone who thinks the ends justify the means is a ‘leftist’. Is that correct?
I disagree that it’s a definition, I would characterize that as a descriptive attribute. Much like a dorsal fin is a descriptive attribute of a shark; a manifestation. But you wouldn’t say the definition of a shark is the fin.
However, confusing the belief with its implication just indicates confused thinking.
If considering the implication is all it takes to pull the observer that far afield from the intent — then I would say it is not the observer who is confused, it is the observed who is suffering from confusion.
This seems to be less an examination of definitions, than a protest on your part against inductive reasoning. Egalitarianism, while everlastingly listed as an intent of leftist political movements, is not a manifestation of it. For example, an egalitarian political movement dedicated to ever-increasing personal liberty, and more and more demographics being awarded more and more rights and having more and more of a say about their own lives — would have to be pro-life. The leftists we know today clearly are not.
- mkfreeberg | 08/14/2012 @ 06:29mkfreeberg: I disagree that it’s a definition, I would characterize that as a descriptive attribute.
Well, then what is the definition?
Someone who believes the ends justify the means *and* what?
mkfreeberg: Egalitarianism, while everlastingly listed as an intent of leftist political movements, is not a manifestation of it.
Okay. So a leftist is someone who believes the ends justify the means and wants a more (or absolute?) egalitarian society? You’re still not being clear.
- Zachriel | 08/14/2012 @ 06:37Well, then what is the definition?…You’re still not being clear.
I provided you four definitions, and tasked you to find something specific in them that was incoherent, confused or ambiguous. I predicted that you wouldn’t because your theatrical “I can’t understand” was nothing more than a rhetorical tactic.
I predicted correctly.
I will boil it down for you. In 2012…and probably for a chapter of time going into the future, by an election cycle (four years) or so…without regard to the history, today’s liberal believes:
– The owner of a business didn’t “build that”;
– If such a business wants to trade in a local community that has certain values that may present a compatibility problem, it is somehow up to the elected officials of that community to tell the business it shouldn’t be allowed to;
– The purpose of taxation has something to do with leveling-out the playing field, moreso than (perhaps in place of) the objective of funding vital government services;
– “Greedy” is a term you apply to people who want to hang on to their own property, but not to people who are lusting after somebody else’s.
Now, at least two of those issues have popped up only this year, as you know. They could have popped up any other year, in the past or future, with the same effect — thus, these are not causative definitions, if anything they are symptomatic. But they work well for the present time as litmus tests. Just like “if you show four or more of these ten symptoms you may be an alcoholic” or “if your child shows five or more of these fifteen symptoms he may have Autism.”
Perhaps you’re just pressing me for purely causative definitions. I can provide answers there, too, but you won’t like them any better since I regard modern liberalism as a problem with mental health and/or upbringing; I think these were the people who, as they say, were never spanked, and were given trophies just for participating.
- mkfreeberg | 08/14/2012 @ 06:52mkfreeberg: today’s liberal believes:
So there were no liberals before today? If it is a definition, it should describe liberals generally, not just a few attributes of modern liberals. Frankly, it doesn’t seem you can provide a definition, which is why your position is muddled and incoherent.
- Zachriel | 08/14/2012 @ 07:41Oh I see. The definition must be static since 1789 or else you say it is “muddled and incoherent.”
Do tell me more about this liberalism that has not changed since the very beginning.
- mkfreeberg | 08/14/2012 @ 07:42mkfreeberg: The definition must be static since 1789 or else you say it is “muddled and incoherent.”
It would be helpful to have some idea what you mean by the term, yes.
mkfreeberg: Do tell me more about this liberalism that has not changed since the very beginning.
You are confusing the word with the thing itself.
Here is a discussion using the standard sense of the word: “Liberalism is a broad political ideology or worldview founded on the ideas of liberty and equality.” Because these two principles are sometimes in conflict, liberals vary in their views. Early liberals stressed individual liberty, in particular, economic liberty. That’s because the monarchy often controlled the economy through official monopolies, and free markets put everyone on a more equal footing. Modern liberals, while still advocating for individual liberties, however, tend to stress equality through equal opportunity, such as free public education.
- Zachriel | 08/14/2012 @ 07:53Notice how we provided a simple definition of how we used the term (the word), then described changes in liberalism over history (the thing itself).
- Zachriel | 08/14/2012 @ 07:54Yeah, but it doesn’t work. The concern for liberty has been getting the short end of the stick, among self-identified liberals, rather consistently since at least 1932. Perhaps there was a conflict that could not have been anticipated in the days of the monarchy, when liberty and equality were both deprived.
However, one thing that has remained absolutely consistent since the beginning — notice, I am satisfying this requirement you pulled pretty much out of thin air, while your own definition fails it — is this narrative of upsetting the social order so that the standard of living of those who are beneath the median, can be improved, as the equality-of-outcome is enforced through this new order.
And because this narrative has to do with a revolution, and it is a constant, liberalism must be extremism…as I said. You didn’t like having it pointed out, but it is a logical necessity. When the next revolution coming, is the one that really counts, that is an addiction.
“Egalitarianism” doesn’t have much to do with liberals, and has not for quite some time. Rather, they have a defined list of classes whom they imagine are oppressed, and are to be helped; there will be no liberal movement to address the plight of disenfranchised or oppressed Christians, or white people, or straights, or anything of the sort. It is permissible for liberals to openly debate how much longer we need affirmative action, with quotas. It is not permissible for them to conclude that the time has come & gone.
On the other hand, there are lots of self-identifying conservatives who champion egalitarianism. When they say “equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome” that is an egalitarian sentiment. And the liberals will not support it because they want equality of outcome. I’m sure it would have been difficult to envision that distinction during the reign of Louis XVI, but now that that’s over, it’s a rather important distinction.
- mkfreeberg | 08/14/2012 @ 08:08Presumably, you are now using the standard definition.
mkfreeberg: The concern for liberty has been getting the short end of the stick, among self-identified liberals, rather consistently since at least 1932.
That’s right. Equality, especially economic equality, has been stressed more in modern times, however, most liberals still hold to individual liberty as an important value. Most also recognize the importance of markets. Again, there is a wide range of views within liberalism.
You do understand the distinction between liberal and the political left? Liberals are generally on the left, but not everyone on the left is a liberal.
mkfreeberg: narrative of upsetting the social order so that the standard of living of those who are beneath the median, can be improved, as the equality-of-outcome is enforced through this new order.
There are a wide range of views, as we said. For instance, free public education requires taking money from people and pooling it for the funding of schools. That’s certainly “enforced”, though the actual outcome varies depending on the child.
mkfreeberg: And because this narrative has to do with a revolution, and it is a constant, liberalism must be extremism…as I said.
Liberals are not generally revolutionaries, though, some leftists certainly are.
mkfreeberg: “Egalitarianism” doesn’t have much to do with liberals, and has not for quite some time.
Of course it does. That’s actually where liberal notions of equality may conflict with liberty. Again, to fund free public education, the government takes money from people through taxes, then distributes it to achieve the social goal of equality of opportunity. It can be said that modern liberals generally stress individual liberty, but economic equality.
mkfreeberg: Rather, they have a defined list of classes whom they imagine are oppressed, and are to be helped; there will be no liberal movement to address the plight of disenfranchised or oppressed Christians, or white people, or straights, or anything of the sort.
Most members of Congress are white, straight, male and Christian. There has only been one president who wasn’t white, none that were non-Christian, none were women, and none openly gay. Protecting white male Christian power has never been about a more equitable society.
mkfreeberg: It is not permissible for them to conclude that the time has come & gone.
Turns out that many liberals support the First Amendment (e.g. ACLU). In addition, some liberals have reached the conclusion that quotas are counterproductive.
mkfreeberg: On the other hand, there are lots of self-identifying conservatives who champion egalitarianism.
Yeah, and Louis Philippe hummed La Marseillaise. In any case, conservatism is also a spectrum of beliefs. Of course, some are more egalitarian than others.
mkfreeberg: When they say “equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome” that is an egalitarian sentiment.
It’s only when you see things in black-and-white, that you would see that as a problem. Some conservatives even support long-standing institutions, such as Social Security, which is a direct generational transfer.
- Zachriel | 08/14/2012 @ 08:47You do understand the distinction between liberal and the political left? Liberals are generally on the left, but not everyone on the left is a liberal.
Based on what I have seen and heard in the last several years, I disagree.
It seems you’re reading ideas out of books, whereas I’m commenting from real life. It is natural for a gulf of disagreement to remain between us, while I draw conclusions from observations made about reality, and you don’t.
Most also recognize the importance of markets. Again, there is a wide range of views within liberalism.
Nope, not seeing it, sorry. Liberalism began with intolerance against dissent within its own ranks, and this tradition is maintained to this day. If one liberal says it is important to take action because mankind is destroying the planet through carbon emission…or Ted Kennedy long ago redeemed himself for killing Mary Jo…or Obama never said “you didn’t build that,” — all liberals are required to echo that. Certainly, none are allowed to disagree.
They’re smoking what they’re selling, here: The great liberal deception is “If you really do care about X as you claim to, then you must support our idea which is Y.” Therefore whoever fails to support Y must not care about X. And so, while the guillotine may have been retired, the liberal Reign of Terror continues to this day.
Most members of Congress are white, straight, male and Christian. There has only been one president who wasn’t white, none that were non-Christian, none were women, and none openly gay. Protecting white male Christian power has never been about a more equitable society.
That’s just rationalization. Women are not a minority group, and currently, are not being hit by the recession as hard as men, in fact have for quite some time been enjoying a significant advantage in acquiring higher education and using it to enhance their earning power. My point here is not that women are due for a smackdown or that men need some kind of special help, my point is that the liberals’ championing of these pre-selected victim groups remains absolutely constant, class for class, it’s carved in stone and it doesn’t matter what is actually happening to these classes year to year in reality.
Turns out that many liberals support the First Amendment (e.g. ACLU). In addition, some liberals have reached the conclusion that quotas are counterproductive.
They will need your voice to make themselves known about this, having evidently been cudgeled into silence.
I’m not sure if you were looking for causative definitions when you received symptomatic definitions, or if you’re checking my definitions against some encyclopedia entry and raising flags because the two are different. Frankly, it seems your protests about my definitions being incoherent and muddled, are themselves incoherent and muddled. Meanwhile, my point still holds, in fact, hasn’t even been dented: If someone agrees to any of the four beliefs I posted earlier, we’re on safe ground labeling that person a liberal, and we will be on safe ground so labeling into the indefinite future.
- mkfreeberg | 08/14/2012 @ 09:12mkfreeberg: It seems you’re reading ideas out of books, whereas I’m commenting from real life.
What you mean is overgeneralizing from your limited personal experience, then ignoring any counterexamples brought to your attention.
mkfreeberg: Certainly, none are allowed to disagree.
Not allowed by whom? The ACLU is considered a liberal group, and they vehemently protect the right of free speech.
mkfreeberg: And so, while the guillotine may have been retired, the liberal Reign of Terror continues to this day.
How many liberals have been murdered in the U.S. by the commissariat on ideological purity recently, say, in the last year?
mkfreeberg: That’s just rationalization.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/colbert-paul-ryan-vp.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
mkfreeberg: I’m not sure if you were looking for causative definitions when you received symptomatic definitions, or if you’re checking my definitions against some encyclopedia entry and raising flags because the two are different.
Just trying to understand your position.
mkfreeberg: My point here is not that women are due for a smackdown or that men need some kind of special help,
Actually, you said you were looking for the “liberal movement to address the plight of disenfranchised or oppressed Christians, or white people, or straights, or anything of the sort.”
- Zachriel | 08/14/2012 @ 09:32What you mean is overgeneralizing from your limited personal experience, then ignoring any counterexamples brought to your attention.
You need to distinguish between classes and instantiations. You say “Liberals are generally on the left, but not everyone on the left is a liberal.” Which I would take to mean that leftism — generally — is a superset of liberalism and liberalism is a subset of leftism. The critique you then offer is that when I apply a criticism to leftists that I mean to apply to liberals, I’m recklessly including all these leftists who are not liberals and my critique then becomes incoherent, I guess…
Whereas, my position is very much on the record that this is never going to truly matter. The double-sticky-flypaper effect, once the leftist/liberals produce some consensus viewpoint, like for example we have to take action against climate change right now…none of them will be allowed to deviate, the stickum has stuck. I hold that individuality and the dissenting viewpoint simply aren’t valued enough to make this work. You say that’s a misunderstanding due to my “limited personal experience.” Okay. So, what examples have you to offer, specifically?
I mean I get what you’re saying, it’s unsafe to generalize across large numbers — somewhere there are liberals that don’t agree with the agenda. They may exist, say I, but they don’t matter because they won’t speak up, or the collective won’t allow them to. Now, where am I going wrong?
Instantiations, not classes. Who, specifically, did I categorize incorrectly, in such a way that it does damage to my observation? Thus far, all you’ve brought to this particular disagreement is a bunch of chiding that I’ve used reasoning methods outside the scope of what is allowed by some instruction manual you seem to be using. You haven’t done anything to provide a coherent or meaningful rebuttal.
- mkfreeberg | 08/14/2012 @ 12:12mkfreeberg: You need to distinguish between classes and instantiations.
Of course.
mkfreeberg: You say “Liberals are generally on the left, but not everyone on the left is a liberal.” Which I would take to mean that leftism — generally — is a superset of liberalism and liberalism is a subset of leftism.
Yes. Nor are we trying to nitpick. Any categorization of something as complex as humans will necessarily have exceptions. (There is the question of classical liberals, who might be considered on the right of center today, but we can leave that aside for now.)
mkfreeberg: The critique you then offer is that when I apply a criticism to leftists that I mean to apply to liberals, I’m recklessly including all these leftists who are not liberals and my critique then becomes incoherent, I guess…
Well, the lack of clear definitions was the problem. We seem to have settled on something close to the conventional definition, which allows us to consider your overall claim.
mkfreeberg: The double-sticky-flypaper effect, once the leftist/liberals produce some consensus viewpoint, like for example we have to take action against climate change right now…none of them will be allowed to deviate, the stickum has stuck. I hold that individuality and the dissenting viewpoint simply aren’t valued enough to make this work.
We already provided an example. Bill Clinton, left of center, ran on reducing welfare roles by putting people to work. Clinton signed welfare reform, and millions were subsequently moved into the workforce. His administration also slowed the growth of government, and balanced the budget.
Many liberals recognize the limitations of government, and also recognize that there are unintended consequences from reform. People are not one dimensional. Most will consider both sides of a question, and while some will tend to side with reform, it would not be correct to say that someone who supports public schools or Social Security wants to overthrow the established order and set up an authoritarian government to force equality upon the populace. Frankly, it’s preposterous.
mkfreeberg: I mean I get what youre saying, it’s unsafe to generalize across large numbers …
One should be careful about forming generalizations, especially about people.
mkfreeberg: — somewhere there are liberals that don’t agree with the agenda.
Liberals are a highly diverse group, including liberty defenders, such as the ACLU and HRW, and more economically motivated reformers, who want to redistribute wealth. However, nearly all liberals in America recognize the importance of markets, and anyone who wants the government to take over the entire economy would not be considered a liberal, but a socialist.
We’ve provided several prominent examples of liberals that don’t fit into your schema. Indeed, most would not. Perhaps you meant to apply your theory to liberalism as a social force, and not to individual liberals. That would be a different argument.
- Zachriel | 08/14/2012 @ 12:41Previous comment stuck in moderation queue for some reason.
- Zachriel | 08/14/2012 @ 12:42We already provided an example. Bill Clinton, left of center, ran on reducing welfare roles by putting people to work.
Okay good, since you provided an example we can follow your argument.
By irresponsibly lumping liberals, the subset, with leftists, the superset…I am making an incoherent argument that doesn’t hold up, because I am recklessly presuming that Bill Clinton was a liberal just because he was a leftist…when in actuality, Clinton was a leftist and not a liberal.
Is that the underpinning to your objection? That Bill Clinton wasn’t a liberal?
- mkfreeberg | 08/14/2012 @ 12:45mkfreeberg: That Bill Clinton wasn’t a liberal?
Bill Clinton is reasonably considered a moderate liberal, who did not work to expand government, but to reduce its scope. In addition, he took considerable criticism from other liberals for his reforms to welfare. That rebuts your various claims.
Other examples include the ACLU and HRW, which are considered liberal organizations. The ACLU works to ensure freedom of speech, including those who question liberal orthodoxy or conservative viewpoints. HRW works to protect people from authoritarian governments without the right of due process.
- Zachriel | 08/14/2012 @ 12:54Dismissing the Travel Office without cause, while legally permissible, was not a moderate move.
The omnibus reconciliation act of 1993 was not a moderate move. Hillary’s national health care plan was not a moderate move. The Brady Bill certainly was not moderate. Clinton, himself, did not think “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was moderate or even reasonable. His cabinet picks were not moderate, his Supreme Court appointments were not moderate, inviting Profs. Cloward and Piven to a White House function and shaking their hands, that was not moderate…
How does he do with my litmus tests. Well the first two just became high-profile this year, as I said. But the first one, do businesses owe their success to the community more than they can claim their success for themselves, well, reviewing the tax policies, and the speeches that went with them at the time, while we’re labeling things with the word “reasonable,” a reasonable interpretation would say yes, Bill Clinton was on the left side of that dividing line. Second question, well to my knowledge, we didn’t have Chicago alderman or Boston mayors trying to keep Chick-Fil-A or any other business out of their burbs while Clinton was president…so that’s a nullity. Are taxes used to fund vital government services or to even out the playing field, well, Clinton made an awful lot of speeches about rich paying their fair share, never met a higher tax on the wealthy that he didn’t like, it seems rather silly to try to argue he wasn’t on the left side of that question…and “greed”…yes, that was the whole premise, Clinton was at war with those greedy rich people. Who tried to hang on to their own property.
You say this rebuts my various claims. In fact, I just took your argument seriously, and by imposing that minimal weight upon it I’ve caused it to collapse. Thus it is revealed: You’ve got this idea in mind of leftists who are not liberal, as a theory, but in practice it doesn’t really work. As I said, maybe it would if the left valued independent thought and dissent — but they don’t. So it doesn’t. Left is left.
- mkfreeberg | 08/14/2012 @ 13:24The pattern continues with the ACLU:
And then there is the ACLU’s lengthy history of filing motions to suppress religious expression. This is not a centrist or moderate stance. It never has been a reasonably minimalist interpretation of the First Amendment’s Establishment clause. This practice of setting up “defendants” to be arrested so that a court case can go forward, in my view and in the view of many, is entirely unreasonable and not the least bit moderate or centrist — or even in decent service of the objective of liberties. If you really respect liberties and want the law to work differently, work to change the law. The ACLU has been practicing these kinds of shenanigans since the Scopes Monkey Trial.
And that is a consistent trait of leftists: Work the system, not the ballot box, so that we can…quoting Anakin Skywalker right after his fall to the Dark Side — “Make things the way we want them to be.” Respect for liberty of others hasn’t had much to do with it, throughout history.
- mkfreeberg | 08/14/2012 @ 13:35mkfreeberg: Dismissing the Travel Office without cause, while legally permissible, was not a moderate move.
Right. It was an attack on the very foundations of the Republic—the White House Travel Office. (Travel Office staff serve at the pleasure of the president, who was exonerated by no less than Ken Starr.)
mkfreeberg: The omnibus reconciliation act of 1993 was not a moderate move.
It was fiscally responsible, and helped pave the way for the longest economic expansion in U.S. history. In any case, the Clinton Administration succeeded in reining in the growth of the federal government.
mkfreeberg: … was not moderate…
As to whether they were moderate or not, certainly they were liberal goals. So we have an example of someone who supports many liberal goals, but worked to limit the growth of government.
mkfreeberg: it seems rather silly to try to argue he wasn’t on the left side of that question
We didn’t. You just don’t listen.
Zachriel: Bill Clinton, left of center, ran on reducing welfare roles by putting people to work.
Zachriel: Bill Clinton is reasonably considered a moderate liberal, who did not work to expand government, but to reduce its scope.
Clinton is a liberal because he generally supports liberal causes. However, he recognized the importance of markets to prosperity, and worked to provide an environment conducive to business expansion. It even has a name, “The Third Way”. This is directly contrary to your characterization that leftism “is the timeless human drive to seize all control”.
- Zachriel | 08/14/2012 @ 16:26mkfreeberg: ACLU founder Roger Baldwin
That’s a genetic fallacy, of course. Baldwin advocated communism until he became aware of Stalin’s excesses, at which point he purged the ACLU of communists. The ACLU today is what it is.
mkfreeberg: And then there is the ACLU’s lengthy history of filing motions to suppress religious expression. This is not a centrist or moderate stance. It never has been a reasonably minimalist interpretation of the First Amendment’s Establishment clause.
You are apparently ignorant of the position of the ACLU.
“The ACLU works to protect public school students’ religious freedom by curbing the practice of school-sponsored religion and ensuring that students may freely express and exercise their faith. We also defend students’ free speech rights in the public schools and students’ rights to pray in the schools. Additionally, whenever a teacher allows children to choose their own topics for an assignment (such as which book to read or which topic to study for a presentation), students may choose religious themes and the ACLU has protected their right to do so.”
http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/religion-and-schools
mkfreeberg: If you really respect liberties and want the law to work differently, work to change the law.
You are also ignorant of your First Amendment. You can’t change the constitution by legislation. The ACLU goes to court to enforce the First Amendment. Ultimately, it’s up to the courts to decide whether they are right in a particular matter, or not.
- Zachriel | 08/14/2012 @ 16:26mkfreeberg: Dismissing the Travel Office without cause, while legally permissible, was not a moderate move.
{Zachriels} Right. It was an attack on the very foundations of the Republic—the White House Travel Office. (Travel Office staff serve at the pleasure of the president, who was exonerated by no less than Ken Starr.)
To repeat: While it was legally permissible, it was not a moderate move.
Question being, was Bill Clinton a liberal. That we should even have to debate it is evidence of what has been demonstrated in two or three other threads by now: You won’t concede anything even when you’ve been proven obviously wrong.
It was fiscally responsible, and helped pave the way for the longest economic expansion in U.S. history. In any case, the Clinton Administration succeeded in reining in the growth of the federal government.
To repeat: It was liberal, not moderate, just like any other Keynesian scheme. No, Keynesian schemes are not fiscally responsible, and the wonderful Clinton economy had more to do with the arrival of the Internet as we know it today, than anything Clinton or Congress did…one of my favorite questions for liberals who bring this up is, what was your e-mail address in 2001, and what was it in 1993. There were things going on outside of DC…rather extremist to forget about that…
Anyway, you’re oh-for-two trying to prop up this notion that Clinton was any kind of centrist. Let’s see what else you have.
That’s a genetic fallacy, of course [Baldwin/communism]. Baldwin advocated communism until he became aware of Stalin’s excesses, at which point he purged the ACLU of communists.
In other words, it is TRUE. “Became aware of Stalin’s excesses”? In other words, he ducked the plain truth about left-wing dictators in general — just as you’re doing now! There was a great commentary about this in Judgment at Nuremberg…the judge, played by Spencer Tracy, the oh so rational and reasonable Clarence Darrow in Inherit The Wind, mutters through a thick veil of exhaustion…something like, to hear everyone in this city tell it, not a single soul knew anything about what Hitler was doing. That’s the way it always is; when people who’ve caught on to the evils of left-wing politics, try to clue in the people who have not yet caught on, it looks a lot like the exchange you and I are having right now.
You are apparently ignorant of the position of the ACLU…
Oh, for crying out loud.
Conservative: Julius Rosenberg is a Soviet spy!
Liberal: I doubt it. Let’s check. Hey Julius Rosenberg, are you spying for the Soviets?
Rosenberg: Huh? No.
Liberal: There you have it, another conservative being wrong…
You are also ignorant of your First Amendment. You can’t change the constitution by legislation. The ACLU goes to court to enforce the First Amendment. Ultimately, it’s up to the courts to decide whether they are right in a particular matter, or not.
Oh, right, yes, that must be it…I had no idea that’s how it works…
No, seriously. If you want to make it a crime to pray in a public school, try to get Congress to vote in the legislation; and if it takes a constitutional amendment, yes those can be legislated, they are agreements between the federal government and the states. Thirty-eight state ratifications will do it. Or, you can hold a constitutional convention. Both are difficult, but neither is impossible, and both are more honest than doing essentially a closed-door sit-down with the courts to say “We think it should be interpreted this way, do you agree?”
Anyway, I rest my case. Clinton was a liberal, and a rather extreme one at that, arguably moreso than Carter or Truman. So your example doesn’t work, your argument was wrong, and for that matter so is this squid-ink-cloud of obfuscation about it. Every drop.
- mkfreeberg | 08/14/2012 @ 16:51mkfreeberg: Question being, was Bill Clinton a liberal. That we should even have to debate it is evidence of what has been demonstrated in two or three other threads by now: You won’t concede anything even when you’ve been proven obviously wrong.
Please learn to read. From above,
Zachriel: Bill Clinton, left of center, ran on reducing welfare roles by putting people to work.
- Zachriel | 08/14/2012 @ 17:18Zachriel: Bill Clinton is reasonably considered a moderate liberal, who did not work to expand government, but to reduce its scope.
Please learn to read. From above,
Zachriel: Bill Clinton, left of center, ran on reducing welfare roles by putting people to work.
Zachriel: Bill Clinton is reasonably considered a moderate liberal, who did not work to expand government, but to reduce its scope.
Oh wow. So, you tell people things that are plainly opposite from what they’d remember if they lived through the time…and you tell them they don’t know how to read if they don’t echo what you say.
So, were you born after this all went down? Or were your teachers?
- mkfreeberg | 08/14/2012 @ 17:24mkfreeberg: So, you tell people things that are plainly opposite from what they’d remember if they lived through the time…and you tell them they don’t know how to read if they don’t echo what you say.
This is why discussion is so often unproductive with you.
Z: Bill Clinton was a liberal who helped slow the growth of the central government.
m: You’re wrong! Bill Clinton was a liberal.
Z: Um, we said that Bill Clinton was a liberal. That’s sorta the point.
m: Question being, was Bill Clinton a liberal. That we should even have to debate it …
And so on.
- Zachriel | 08/15/2012 @ 04:34Me: Liberals are extremist by definition.
Your rebuttal: Bill Clinton: Left of center.
Then: Liberals are on the left, but everyone on the left is not necessarily a liberal.
Then: Bill Clinton is “reasonably considered” to be a moderate liberal, who did not expand government.
Now we have: “Um, we said that Bill Clinton was a liberal. That’s sorta the point.”
I think you need to go discuss amongst yourselves what the point really is. There is one among you who’s typing things in like “that’s sorta the point” and it seems you need to collaborate more on this than you have been doing.
I’m also gathering the impression that your group, generally, has fallen into the habit of accusing opposition of incoherence, after the group itself has lost the quality of coherence. I would expect that’s an easy trap for a bunch of people engaged in this “team blog commenting” and that might be why it’s an unusual practice…not all unusual ideas are good ones.
- mkfreeberg | 08/15/2012 @ 05:09[…] For File CLXV Virtue Junkie Goes to Chick-Fil-A Vindicated New Skyfall Trailer Memo For File CLXIV The Vampire Problem Rubber-Banding a Watermelon “C’Mon Man, I’m Serious” Memo For File CLXIII I […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 08/15/2012 @ 05:36Oh, gee whiz, mkfreeberg. We said Clinton was a liberal. You said we hadn’t. We repeated that Clinton was a liberal. You said again that we hadn’t.
Can we agree that Clinton was a liberal?
- Zachriel | 08/15/2012 @ 06:24You said liberals are on the left, but everyone on the left is not necessarily a liberal…and then (I thought) to offer an example of the difference, you cited Bill Clinton. Now you’re insisting Bill Clinton was a liberal, you have previously insisted he was a leftist.
I agree Clinton was both a liberal and a leftist. It seems some within your collective disagree on one of those points, possibly on both of them…if that is the case, I am not the person with whom you need to be doing this negotiating (if I was, that’s completed now)…nor do I think I’m the incoherent one. Some among your collective appear to be defining “incoherent” as “offering thoughts we find to be uncomfortable.”
As I said, I think the plurality of you need to go synchronize. I’m finding it a bit challenging trying to figure out what points you’re trying to make, absent a clarity forthcoming from you that it seems you’re not prepared to offer.
- mkfreeberg | 08/15/2012 @ 08:56mkfreeberg: Now you’re insisting Bill Clinton was a liberal, you have previously insisted he was a leftist.
Zachriel: Bill Clinton is reasonably considered a moderate liberal, who did not work to expand government, but to reduce its scope.
mkfreeberg: I agree Clinton was both a liberal and a leftist.
Yes, as we said. So, Clinton is a liberal, left of center, who worked to slow the growth of the central government, explicitly creating an environment conducive to free markets, and led the longest expansion of business in U.S. history.
- Zachriel | 08/15/2012 @ 09:34I don’t want to add too much to this as I find the historical stuff fascinating.
I will say that you do not seem to really understand how badly freedoms are currently curtailed. It all seems so rational, regulating lightbulbs and buildings. Is it rational to specify exactly what color of paint you can use on a house? Where you can place outdoor lighting? Those restrictions are placed on people living in the Columbia River Gorge, thanks to the National Scenic Act. And people have been sued by the Gorge Commission for not having one of the two approved paint colors (brown and green, which must be the exact match to what the Forest Service uses). The Gorge Commission is not elected and is accountable only to the Secretary of Agriculture. If you want to amuse yourself over how restricted development can be, search out some of the history of that Act.
In my county (Clark, in WA state), you cannot cut down a tree you planted if it is more thatn 6 inches in diameter. You must have the proper permits and have the approval of the Urban Forester. I’ve personally witnessed the County commissioners give away tidelands that were donated to them to the state DNR, after DNR threatened to drag them into a lawsuit I am involved in. You see, I bought property that has had a dock on it since the 20s, but for some reason now, DNR thinks it should be pulled up, despite the fact that it prevents the bank from being washed out by ship surges on the Columbia. It’s been a real education, reading what the bureaucrats really say in their documents. They actually expected my boyfriend to be able to remove the dock, dismantle two unoccupied houseboats and pull up three sunken boats while recovering from hip replacement surgery (his mom had the property previously and she had the lease with DNR). It’s unfortunate, Zachriel, that you can’t personally experience the joys of dealing with these bureaucrats. You would change your point of view in short order.
Let me tell you one really simple test of how free we are, that I learned from Hayek’s Road to Serfdom. Freedom is messy. If you look at pictures of my area from the 1800s, the river is a hive of activity. Same thing with old pictures of Portland, OR. There are all sorts of structures on the water, factories and boats, people everywhere. Pictures of these same areas today look like architect’s drawings. They are landscaped, cleaned up with only properly approved activities. Areas near the river are developed for the rich and well-to-do to use. And that is what central planning gives you.
- teripittman | 08/15/2012 @ 10:17The only environment of which I know that is “conducive to free markets” is the free market.
And you still haven’t made the case that there is any coherency, or argumentative structure, being compromised in any way when the terms “leftist” and “liberal” are conflated. An inspection of the thread comment-by-comment reveals the whole thing about Bill Clinton to be nothing more than a bunny-trail, and strongly suggests the two terms can indeed be used interchangeably, in most contexts, certainly within all the contexts in which they have been used.
Can you hear me from down in that smoking crater you’re in, now that Teri’s worked you over?
- mkfreeberg | 08/16/2012 @ 00:53teripittman: Freedom is messy.
And doesn’t apparently include protection of natural resources.
http://www.gorgecommission.org/national_scenic_act.cfm
You live in a protected area, so there are obviously going to be restrictions. Are you against setting aside natural areas for protection?
mkfreeberg: The only environment of which I know that is “conducive to free markets” is the free market.
Turns out that completely free markets have the seed of their own destruction as power consolidates into the hands of a few. In any case, the Clinton Administration removed many market impediments.
mkfreeberg: And you still haven’t made the case that there is any coherency, or argumentative structure, being compromised in any way when the terms “leftist” and “liberal” are conflated.
When speaking of the moderate left, they are closely allied terms. However, you have brought up extremism repeatedly. Indeed, you seem to be saying that any balance between liberty and equality is impossible, so if someone supports ending racial discrimination in public accommodation, they are Hitler or something.
- Zachriel | 08/16/2012 @ 08:00The stridents take over. Consistently. It happens by way of a smaller revolution within the revolutionary movement, as was the case with the Reign of Terror, and later in Russia with the squabbling between the Bolsheviks and the Menshiviks. Or else, it happens by attrition as was the case with Womens Lib; the leaders of the movement get old, and the successor(s) is/are chosen from among the strident. If the movement does not start out caustic, it becomes that way just as surely as milk spoiling.
There are other safe generalizations to make. The “left” movement, in search of this egalitarianism, defines a special class — the right is generally opposed to this. Your “equality” thing bites the mat right there, doesn’t matter if we’re talking moderates or extremists, the left defines a special class — as it did in 1789, and has ever since — that is not equality.
And then there is an oppressor that has to be taken down a peg or two. Again, happened in 1789, happened with Occupy Movement, it’s a consistent thing.
There’s no such thing as a moderate leftist, there are only leftists who haven’t put sufficient thought into where exactly it is they’re headed. That’s about as moderate as it gets.
- mkfreeberg | 08/16/2012 @ 09:28mkfreeberg: The stridents take over.
Happens on the right, too. Today, there are a lot of strident people pushing the Republican Party to the right. Now that you mention it, you seem pretty strident yourself.
mkfreeberg: There are other safe generalizations to make. The “left” movement, in search of this egalitarianism, defines a special class — the right is generally opposed to this. Your “equality” thing bites the mat right there, doesn’t matter if we’re talking moderates or extremists, the left defines a special class — as it did in 1789,
What special class did the left define in 1789?
Conservative southern Democrats (political right) defined blacks as a separate, lower class. Liberals (political left) organized against this discriminatory practice. Federal legislation finally ended Jim Crow.
- Zachriel | 08/16/2012 @ 16:35Happens on the right, too. Today, there are a lot of strident people pushing the Republican Party to the right. Now that you mention it, you seem pretty strident yourself.
Yeah…when “government should live within its means just like the taxpayers who fund it” is defined as an extremist position, something’s hosed.
Conservative southern Democrats (political right) defined blacks as a separate, lower class. Liberals (political left) organized against this discriminatory practice.
When you have to define things as the opposite of what they really are, for your point to stand, then your point shouldn’t stand. Or is that strident of me to say?
- mkfreeberg | 08/16/2012 @ 21:24mkfreeberg: Yeah…when “government should live within its means just like the taxpayers who fund it” is defined as an extremist position, something’s hosed.
Didn’t say it was extremist. Nor is stridency a political position. It can be found on the left or right.
strident, : characterized by harsh, insistent, and discordant sound {a strident voice}; also : commanding attention by a loud or obtrusive quality {strident slogans}.
mkfreeberg: When you have to define things as the opposite of what they really are, for your point to stand, then your point shouldn’t stand.
We have provided multiple citations to support our use of terminology. Often, you seem to agree to that usage. Other times, you retreat from it. We’d be happy to provide multiple citations that southern democrats were by-and-large considered conservative, while civil rights advocates were considered liberal, both at the time of Jim Crow, and by today’s historians.
What special class did the left define in 1789?
- Zachriel | 08/17/2012 @ 04:07Didn’t say it was extremist. Nor is stridency a political position. It can be found on the left or right.
strident, : characterized by harsh, insistent, and discordant sound {a strident voice}; also : commanding attention by a loud or obtrusive quality {strident slogans}.
Again: It isn’t enough to detect a subtle, or even a yawning and significant, gap in definitions. There is the matter of relevance. Relevance does not apply to this differential between extremist and strident, for stridents generally become extremists. Also, it is in the nature of extremists to become strident. So, reality. Relevance. If there is a lack of good examples of strident people who are not extreme, or vice-versa, and there are forces within human nature keeping it from happening, the terms become interchangeable in reality even if they are not so in the dictionary. The discussion is about reality and not about dictionary definitions.
We have provided multiple citations to support our use of terminology. Often, you seem to agree to that usage. Other times, you retreat from it. We’d be happy to provide multiple citations that southern democrats were by-and-large considered conservative, while civil rights advocates were considered liberal, both at the time of Jim Crow, and by today’s historians.
And, again, reality. “Considered conservative” — “multiple citations” — there is a pattern you have shown here to the effect of, if something is written or spoken somewhere, in some way, this somehow “proves” something. You don’t seem to be picking up on the fact that it takes a bit more. Such a dictum causes blindness because it essentially reviews history — and the future as well — through nothing more than idle chatter. In America, the left wing has a very solid and very pronounced history of racism and non-egalitarianism.
What special class did the left define in 1789?
The entirety of French citizenry, minus the aristocrats who had traditionally enjoyed special privileges; specifically the peasants, laborers and bourgeoisie. The French-revolution version of “the 99%” in the Occupy movement.
- mkfreeberg | 08/17/2012 @ 06:10mkfreeberg: Yeah…when “government should live within its means just like the taxpayers who fund it” is defined as an extremist position, something’s hosed.
Zachriel: Didn’t say it was extremist. Nor is stridency a political position. It can be found on the left or right.
mkfreeberg: Relevance does not apply to this differential between extremist and strident, for stridents generally become extremists.
Just because someone is strident doesn’t mean they are taking an extreme political position, or even that they will use extreme methods.
mkfreeberg: In America, the left wing has a very solid and very pronounced history of racism and non-egalitarianism.
Your link is about Democrats, not the left.
Zachriel: What special class did the left define in 1789?
mkfreeberg: The entirety of French citizenry, minus the aristocrats who had traditionally enjoyed special privileges; specifically the peasants, laborers and bourgeoisie.
The peasantry was not defined as a class in 1789. That’s just silly.
- Zachriel | 08/17/2012 @ 10:11Just because someone is strident doesn’t mean they are taking an extreme political position, or even that they will use extreme methods.
Interesting theory. I’ll bet it intersects with practice about as well as most of your other theories. Which is, to say, not.
To return to the original point: There are no moderate leftists, save for perhaps the well-intentioned ones who have not put their time and effort into figuring out where things are going to go. A leftist movement will invariably become more extreme, since as its leadership ages, the candidates for replacement will be elevated according to how strident they are.
Strident people are extremists and extremists are strident. If there are any real-life exceptions to this, they aren’t going to very much matter because their numbers are negligible. And, if you can manage to find some, I would offer that their suitability as working exceptions is going to be negligible as well.
Your link is about Democrats, not the left.
The democrat party is the partisan establishment of the left, is it not?
The peasantry was not defined as a class in 1789. That’s just silly.
The revolution was a classist movement. To try to insist there were no classes in a revolution that was all about classist gettin’-even-with-em-ism, is just silly.
From reading the thread top to bottom, it seems there is no substantial reason why we should not take all three — democrat party, liberals and leftists — and just dump them into a big huge hopper. You have offered absolutely no rational justification whatsoever for trying to keep them separate. It all comes down to “some unknown quantity of Internet commentators say, using a bunch of passive-voice statements, that such-and-such ‘has been defined as’ or ‘have been defined as’ something, and won’t cite their sources except to point back at their own blog.”
Meanwhile, liberals are doing the same thing in 2012 that they were doing in 1789: Identifying a class, singling it out as some smaller bogus re-definition of the concept of “everybody,” and telling that smaller faux-everybody the same thing across all these generations: “You’ve been robbed by the people who are better off than you are, and we’re here to see to it that you get even.” There has been no significant change to this message, all this time. None.
And the problem remains: The leftist revolution is fond of defining itself as a search for this “egalitarian society,” but since it is founded on resentment and hate, it will never get there. This is a constant.
Also, there is no need to use surgically-precise word definition games, Kerry’s “nuance,” around such passionate and angry movements. They are about a primal and destructive emotional drive, not about thought.
- mkfreeberg | 08/17/2012 @ 11:35I am against having a woman, direct descendant of early settlers in the area, be told that she cannot sell off or subdivide her property because it might it would set “a bad precedent”. I am against granting more rights to tourists passing through the area, than to the people that live there and pay taxes. (which is why you get the paint restrictions in the non-urban areas. I guess you didn’t take that seriously.)
And there’s this:
Bea house 1
gorge act after 25 years
Bea house 2, notice how someone hiking decided that seeing that house was unacceptable
bea house 3
The Beas had permits from Skamania County and from the Gorge Commission to build this house. A year into the work on it, the Gorge Commission objected to the house because it could be viewed from the other side of the river. They would accept nothing less than moving the house. (I was really surprised when I actually saw where they were located. It was on the back end of the Stevenson property at Cape Horn, where I used to live. There’s no way this house could have been obvious.)
Please explain to me why the Gorge was so in need of this governmental protection? The bulk of Skamania county is national forest. What happened after it went into place was an insane amount of development in the urban areas on the Oregon side. Because the counties on the Washington side opposed the act, development there was fought tooth and nail. There were efforts made to develop the Broughton Lumber Mill into a recreational spot, as it is right next to a popular wind surfing site. But it is not allowed under the act, as it is outside of the Urban area. Please explain if you can, why areas like Monterey California don’t need similar protection? I’m guessing it was because rich people live there.
I watched our local code enforcement on tv last night. A man bought property in 1998 that had two mobile homes already on it. He also owns all the other lots surrounding it. The county decided in 2011 that he needed to remove one of the mobiles because he didn’t have the right permits, even though it should have been grandfathered in. This sort of nonsense is going on all across America, petty bureaucrats pushing their weight around because they can get away with it. It’s not an issue of public safety, protecting the environment or any other nonsense you might want to mention. It’s about power and making the individuals powerless against the power of the state. I would say to you that if you have not had to deal with this, then it’s just because they haven’t gotten you in their radar yet. I’m sure that there is something you are doing or have done that a bureaucrat could object to, if only they knew.
- teripittman | 08/17/2012 @ 11:42mkfreeberg: Interesting theory.
Mitch Daniels’s case for a less strident conservatism — George Will
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/16/AR2011021605102.html
Do you think Will is saying Daniels is accusing Republicans of extremism, much less left wing extremism? No, he’s using the term the way everybody uses the term.
strident, : characterized by harsh, insistent, and discordant sound {a strident voice}; also : commanding attention by a loud or obtrusive quality {strident slogans}.
mkfreeberg: There are no moderate leftists, save for perhaps the well-intentioned ones who have not put their time and effort into figuring out where things are going to go.
So, you are saying Kennedy was well-intentioned, but had no idea the import of his ideas? King wasn’t Stalin, just a fellow-traveler? Clinton was just pretending to reduce the size of government, but got carried away?
mkfreeberg: The democrat party is the partisan establishment of the left, is it not?
Um, no. It’s a 200 year old political party, and as such has always been a coalition of various political forces. Only in the most recent times have the two parties been so clearly divided ideologically.
mkfreeberg: The revolution was a classist movement.
It was a revolt against a society strongly divided along class lines.
mkfreeberg: To try to insist there were no classes in a revolution that was all about classist gettin’-even-with-em-ism, is just silly.
But that’s not what we said. Rather, we said the classes were defined long before 1789. And it wasn’t the peasants who determined their lower class status.
mkfreeberg: It all comes down to “some unknown quantity of Internet commentators say, using a bunch of passive-voice statements, that such-and-such ‘has been defined as’ or ‘have been defined as’ something, and won’t cite their sources except to point back at their own blog.”
We’ve provided many independent citations. Here’s another:
Bobbio & Cameron, Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction, University of Chicago Press 1997.
But your argument isn’t with the definition, but that, in practice, there is no real distinction. Try to avoid making the same semantic arguments over and over again.
mkfreeberg: Meanwhile, liberals are doing the same thing in 2012 that they were doing in 1789: Identifying a class, singling it out as some smaller bogus re-definition of the concept of “everybody,” and telling that smaller faux-everybody the same thing across all these generations: “You’ve been robbed by the people who are better off than you are, and we’re here to see to it that you get even.”
Peasants didn’t make the class society. They didn’t make it so that power was concentrated and inherited within a few families. Are you really saying that French peasants in 1789 didn’t have a legitimate case against the inequities in their society?
- Zachriel | 08/17/2012 @ 13:44teripittman: I am against having a woman, direct descendant of early settlers in the area, be told that she cannot sell off or subdivide her property because it might it would set “a bad precedent”.
Your frustration is understandable, but you didn’t answer the question. Are you against setting aside natural areas for protection?
teripittman: This sort of nonsense is going on all across America, petty bureaucrats pushing their weight around because they can get away with it.
Perhaps, but yours is a special case, being a protected area, so it doesn’t represent a universal example.
- Zachriel | 08/17/2012 @ 13:47Am I against setting aside natural areas for protection? Yes, I am. It’s been abused way too much by environmentalists. Again, someone makes that decision as to what needs “protection”. And protecting it does not mean that they actually take care of it. If it belongs to the State, what incentive do they have to care for it? The state of California has ruined some of the most productive farmland in the country, in the San Joaquin Valley, in the name of protecting the snail darter. Do you feel that it’s okay for people to do without jobs in the name of protecting a small fish? Would you be willing to continue to pay taxes on property that you bought and paid for, but be told that you could not make any use of it because someone else felt it needed protection?
The Gorge was not a protected area until recently and it did just fine. In fact, all of the development came AFTER the National Scenic Act. The other example I gave of the man that purchased property in 1998 and is now being told that he somehow isn’t in complicance with a law passed in 2010 that is not retroactive, that was not in a protected area.
I do not feel that bureaucrats have more knowledge than me and I don’t feel that they are in any better position to judge what should be done with property than the people that actually live and work in that place. Liberals are so concerned about getting the government out of their bedroom but sure seem to want them poking their noses into everything else.
- teripittman | 08/17/2012 @ 19:03teripittman: Am I against setting aside natural areas for protection? Yes, I am.
Okay. Just thought to ask.
Yellowstone National Park was established in 1872 by Ulysses S. Grant. Teddy Roosevelt was instrumental in the modern National Park system.
- Zachriel | 08/18/2012 @ 04:24http://www.nps.gov/history/history/hisnps/npshistory/teddy.htm
Grant shucked his mortal coil in 1885, and Roosevelt in 1919.
It often happens in human history, that what was previously thought to be an awesome and wonderful idea, has some unforeseen liabilities to it. In the three or four monster threads in which you have participated, you’ve shown a persistent gap in understanding this. Perhaps the two gentlemen from history you name, would realize a benefit from Teri’s knowledge. “Unintended consequences,” they call it.
- mkfreeberg | 08/18/2012 @ 07:12mkfreeberg: It often happens in human history, that what was previously thought to be an awesome and wonderful idea, has some unforeseen liabilities to it.
Sure. There are almost always unforeseen consequences. For instance, the monarch surrendered some modicum of his power in 13th century England, and it led to increasing demands for liberty until finally the British monarch is now completely neutered. All because of a few querulous barons.
Most people consider Yellowstone and the National Park system to be national treasures. But to each their own.
- Zachriel | 08/18/2012 @ 07:26Sure. There are almost always unforeseen consequences. For instance, the monarch surrendered some modicum of his power in 13th century England…
Okay, that’s just lame.
Teri knows more than Grant and Roosevelt, since she enjoys the advantage of living later and having a better understanding of the eventual consequences of this land set-aside. As far as the benefits involved in having them, few would deny this; I wouldn’t deny it; most “conservatives” I know, would not. The benefits are not the issue, it is the liabilities that are the issue.
Roosevelt and Grant were in favor of this because they had the ability to evaluate decisions from both sides, considering both the benefits and the liabilities of a plan. Were we to somehow revive their spirits and engage them in debate, the conservatives who see problems involved in setting aside the land, would be more kindred spirits of those gentlemen than the liberals, who consistently evaluate their own statist plans according to one perspective and not the other, consistently taking into account only the benefits and not the liabilities.
Teri has brought you a detailed accounting of the nonsensical red tape. I’m sure you think it makes you look sophisticated the way you slickly rationalize it away; it really doesn’t. If you knew how it made you look, you wouldn’t do it. It’s just more nightmare-liberal stuff, simplistic, childlike, one-sided evaluation of benefits and not liabilities.
- mkfreeberg | 08/18/2012 @ 07:42mkfreeberg: Teri has brought you a detailed accounting of the nonsensical red tape. I’m sure you think it makes you look sophisticated the way you slickly rationalize it away; it really doesn’t.
We said that it was not a generally applicable case. As we said, most people consider Yellowstone and the National Park system to be national treasures. But to each their own.
- Zachriel | 08/18/2012 @ 14:55We said that it was not a generally applicable case. As we said, most people consider Yellowstone and the National Park system to be national treasures.
To observe only the benefits of a decision, and rationalize away the liabilities, is not to evaluate the decision in any kind of a quality way. And it doesn’t make those liabilities “not generally applicable.” Red tape is about as generally applicable as things get.
If you click through on Teri’s links you’ll find the red tape is especially paralyzing because the state, the feds and the county are having a jurisdictional conflict about how the rules should be interpreted. Evidently there’s no clear-cut definition as to who has the final say. Wonder what Grant and Teddy would have to say about that. Probably not much by way of approval.
- mkfreeberg | 08/18/2012 @ 15:30mkfreeberg: To observe only the benefits of a decision, and rationalize away the liabilities, is not to evaluate the decision in any kind of a quality way.
We understand the liabilities. Teri also indicated that she would not support setting aside any natural resources for protection.
- Zachriel | 08/18/2012 @ 16:25Right, she is evaluating both sides of the equation and you are evaluating only the one side.
Also, you are presuming a resource is managed best when it’s managed according to rules made by bureaucrats literally thousands of miles away. You recall what Milton Friedman said about the Sahara, right?
- mkfreeberg | 08/18/2012 @ 17:18mkfreeberg: Right, she is evaluating both sides of the equation and you are evaluating only the one side.
We acknowledged the negative consequences, and noted that most people consider Yellowstone and the National Park system as treasures (meaning they are generally worth the trouble). We also pointed out that Teri’s experiences were not representative of problems with development in most places, as she lived in a protected area.
Oh, and Teri indicated she did not support setting aside any natural resources for protection.
- Zachriel | 08/18/2012 @ 18:24Right, she is evaluating both sides of the equation and you are evaluating only the one side.
- mkfreeberg | 08/18/2012 @ 20:59mkfreeberg: Right, she is evaluating both sides of the equation and you are evaluating only the one side.
We accepted Teri’s account, then pointed out it was not representative and that most people consider it worth the effort to preserve natural resources.
- Zachriel | 08/19/2012 @ 06:34We accepted Teri’s account, then pointed out it was not representative and that most people consider it worth the effort to preserve natural resources.
In other words, shunted it aside with a rationalization. One way or another, the liabilities which Teri thinks possess sufficient weight to make the plan a non-starter, you trivialized into insignificance.
The point is not that the two of you have different experiences with these liabilities leading to a disagreement about how grave they are; that would lead to two advocates logically pondering the situation and arriving at a rational disagreement. The fact is, if you didn’t find a way of trivializing her objection that sounded good, you’d come to some other way of trivializing her objection that sounded good. So we see liberalism has become a whole new way of thinking about things, in addition to being an approach to public policies. Simply put, you want the outcome you want, and you will not even consider the points against it.
Further, “Teri indicated she did not support setting aside any natural resources for protection” is nothing more than an acknowledgement that she disagrees with you about what is to be done. Unless you meant something else by that? Like, since she disagrees, she has become part of the loathed…you’re going to lay down some “There’s no use discussing this with a person who thinks X” monologue now?
Conservatives tend to weigh both sides of a decision, taking into account its benefits as well as its liabilities. Liberals tend to weigh only one side, because they just want what they want, when they want it.
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2012 @ 07:03Please define “preserve natural resources”. The examples you cited did not have significant populations living in the area when set aside. If I decide that you are living in a “natural resource”, can I come in and tell you that you can’t have outdoor lighting because someone passing by might notice your home? Can I “take” your property, by denying you any use of it, other than continuing to pay taxes on it? It is a lot different to decide to preserve natural resources when TR was president. Care to explain why the Gorge was not considered worthy of protection back then? They certainly knew about the area and considered it a natural resource. (And just out of curiosity, why is it only places with trees seem to be considered natural reasources? We have one state park that is devoted to preserving the grasslands that covered the mid-West at one point. Is it just not scenic enough to care about?)
You seem to feel that only the Government is capable of preserving anything. The truth is very different. The Government, all those bureaucrats, have no real stake in preserving anything. At my place on the river, ship surges throw smolt salmon up on the shore. My dock, the one that’s been there since the 20s, prevents the surges from pushing the salmon onto the shore and also prevents the surges from eroding the bank. Does DNR have to do an environmental study about what would happen if it was removed? Of course not. And that is because they do not care about either the salmon or the bankside. Their idea of “nature” seems to be similar to what you see in Yellowstone, where we “reintroduce” wolves with tracking collars and micromanage how they interact with other animals. Bureaucrats discourage deer hunting and then panic when the deer population explodes. (Of course, they don’t try encouraging more hunting. They just try and come up with deer birth control.) Bureaucrats introduced Roosevelt elk into the Gorge. Elk graze in cleared areas, so they did just fine when logging was allowed. But now we are not supposed to log so the areas that the elk once lived in are getting overgrown. It’s just another example of bureaucrats micromanaging the environment.
Here’s the main point I want to make for you: local people are capable of managing the local resources. They do not need a lot of environmental studies or a new building full of bureaucrats to decide how to take care of something. The Gorge was considered scenic and had tourists in the area long before the Scenic Act was created. The biggest difference between then and now is the amount of development that came AFTER the act and the loss of good paying logging jobs (exchanged for service jobs). And, of course, the other difference is the constant meddling in every day life by bureaucrats that are unelected and not accountable to the local residents.
Oh and one last little note of disclosure: my first presidential vote was for George McGovern and I voted a straight Democratic ticket right up through Clinton. It took awhile for me to stop just repeating what they wanted me to say and start paying attention to the results of Democratic policy. You might want to add “The Road to Serfdom” by Hayek to your reading, if you are in fact willing to read a different point of view from your own.
- teripittman | 08/19/2012 @ 07:11Short summary here, Z.
And you can check it out in cartoon form if your time is pressed.
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2012 @ 07:22mkfreeberg: In other words, shunted it aside with a rationalization.
Um, we provided specifics. Teri complained of overregulation, but lives in a protected area. Teri’s complaint is particular to her circumstance.
mkfreeberg: One way or another, the liabilities which Teri thinks possess sufficient weight to make the plan a non-starter, you trivialized into insignificance.
What Teri describes is hardly insignificant.
mkfreeberg: Further, “Teri indicated she did not support setting aside any natural resources for protection” is nothing more than an acknowledgement that she disagrees with you about what is to be done.
It highlights where Teri’s position differs from the great majority of people. Setting aside natural resources is costly, but can have very important long term benefits. Indeed, Teri is not “evaluating both sides of the equation”, but ignoring societal benefits of having protected areas.
teripittman: lease define “preserve natural resources”.
It means limiting development in natural areas so that future generations will be able to benefit from pristine environments, including the species that rely upon undisturbed environments.
teripittman: If I decide that you are living in a “natural resource”, can I come in and tell you that you can’t have outdoor lighting because someone passing by might notice your home?
Ultimately, it can mean not having anyone live there, and people should be compensated under eminent domain. The compromise is usually limiting future development.
teripittman: It is a lot different to decide to preserve natural resources when TR was president.
You said you were against all national parks, but your complaints seem to be very specific to your situation.
- Zachriel | 08/19/2012 @ 08:21mkfreeberg: Short summary here, Z. And you can check it out in cartoon form if your time is pressed.
Got it. Hitler.
- Zachriel | 08/19/2012 @ 08:23What Teri describes is hardly insignificant.
Why trivialize it then?
It highlights where Teri’s position differs from the great majority of people.
Assuming that is correct, so what? She can still be right, can’t she?
It means limiting development in natural areas so that future generations will be able to benefit from pristine environments, including the species that rely upon undisturbed environments.
Perhaps the real disagreement is there; some of us are worried about leaving a decent planet to our children, others are more worried about leaving decent children for the planet. It is the latter concern that makes more sense, since even those who worry far more about the other, have to concede it takes decent people to care for the planet.
You said you were against all national parks, but your complaints seem to be very specific to your situation.
Can’t speak for Teri, but it’s clear to me that what she’s trying to do, without success, is bring to your attention that bureaucrats don’t care and can’t care. If they are made the stewards of something that is to be preserved, and they manage to get it done, it is by accident.
While your group — true to form — leaps to the conclusion “if you are opposed to our methods for preserving the object in question, you must be opposed to the goal as well.”
Teri’s exact words were “Am I against setting aside natural areas for protection? Yes, I am. It’s been abused way too much by environmentalists.” [bold emphasis mine]
You have done absolutely nothing to mollify her concerns here. All you’ve done is “accept” her account (pfeh), pronounce her complaints to be “very specific to your situation” (How so? They seem to be applicable everywhere else and you’ve said nothing to compel anyone to believe otherwise) and jump to the conclusion that she must be opposed to the goal just because she sees problems with the methods.
I think the place where you wander off-course from truth and common sense, in all of these monster threads, is here: Disagreements results from your inability, or your refusal, to see things others can see, and yet you stick to a narrative unsupported by evidence, that says you can see things they can’t. You can’t name what those things are, you just complain about incoherence that is not really there, or cripplingly specific scope that isn’t really there.
You seem to be using your creative juices to imagine a world in which you know more than others, when it is really the reverse that is true. Have you no experience with bureaucratic inefficiency? If so, it would be more honest to stop this pretending you don’t know what people are talking about. If not, then it would be more honest to admit others are more qualified to speak on the subject than you are.
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2012 @ 08:34Got it. Hitler.
Actually, it applies to more than Hitler. Hitler died before World War II was really over…Hayek’s concern, much like Orwell’s and Huxley’s, was about the post-WWII world.
Must be nice not to be concerned about such things.
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2012 @ 08:36mkfreeberg: Why trivialize it then?
We didn’t. We said Teri’s situation was of limited applicability as she lives in a protected area.
mkfreeberg: Perhaps the real disagreement is there; some of us are worried about leaving a decent planet to our children, others are more worried about leaving decent children for the planet.
They’re both important, as children, too, have to live within the Earth’s ecosystem.
mkfreeberg: Can’t speak for Teri, but it’s clear to me that what she’s trying to do, without success, is bring to your attention that bureaucrats don’t care and can’t care.
Yes. But it’s unlikely the U.S. will abandon the National Park System, as it enjoys widespread public support.
mkfreeberg: While your group — true to form — leaps to the conclusion “if you are opposed to our methods for preserving the object in question, you must be opposed to the goal as well.”
Markets are not good at preserving commons. Consider a simple example, Central Park in New York City. If this land hadn’t been set aside by fiat, it would be covered in skyscrapers. Instead, it acts as the cultural heart of the city.
mkfreeberg: Teri’s exact words were “Am I against setting aside natural areas for protection? Yes, I am. It’s been abused way too much by environmentalists.”
Yes, we read that above.
mkfreeberg: You have done absolutely nothing to mollify her concerns here.
Nor has she mollified the concerns of conservationists.
mkfreeberg: Actually, it applies to more than Hitler.
It has to do with your black-and-white thinking. If someone supports ending racial discrimination in public accommodations, Hitler.
- Zachriel | 08/19/2012 @ 08:56We said Teri’s situation was of limited applicability as she lives in a protected area.
Right, you trivialized it.
You certainly didn’t address it!
But it’s unlikely the U.S. will abandon the National Park System, as it enjoys widespread public support.
Oh I see, so now it’s — the requirements are going to hang around forever whether we like ’em or not, so if you can’t lick ’em, join ’em.
How’s that hopey-changey quest for increased personal liberties workin’ out for ya?
Markets are not good at preserving commons. Consider a simple example, Central Park in New York City. If this land hadn’t been set aside by fiat, it would be covered in skyscrapers. Instead, it acts as the cultural heart of the city.
And make sure your ass is outta there before dark.
Nor has she mollified the concerns of conservationists.
Such as? If some land isn’t set aside, it will all be “covered in skyscrapers”? Is it your position that all privately held land is ugly and unmaintained?
It has to do with your black-and-white thinking. If someone supports ending racial discrimination in public accommodations, Hitler.
And where did I say that? Specifically.
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2012 @ 09:09mkfreeberg: Right, you trivialized it.
It doesn’t trivialize it. It just means it may not apply to others in much different situations.
mkfreeberg: And make sure your ass is outta there before dark.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/29/nyregion/as-crime-falls-central-parks-night-use-grows.html
Zachriel: If someone supports ending racial discrimination in public accommodations, Hitler.
mkfreeberg: And where did I say that? Specifically.
mkfreeberg: “{Liberalism} is extremist by definition.”
However, feel free to clarify our understanding of your position. If someone supports a liberal position, such as ending racial discrimination in public accommodation, are they extremists?
- Zachriel | 08/19/2012 @ 10:15It doesn’t trivialize it. It just means it may not apply to others in much different situations.
In Teri’s experience, it applies; in my experience, it applies; in the experience of many others, it applies — bureaucrats fail to deliver on this promise of enlightenment, wisdom and superior judgment that was imagined by voters, or officials, when they were delegated their power to make these decisions. Once it’s pointed out to you, you do more imagining. Unless you have an example to offer that would support this, by way of evidence? Until then, the sensible presumption is that it applies to all situations. It is anecdotal knowledge and understanding of how bureaucracies work.
mkfreeberg: “{Liberalism} is extremist by definition.”
However, feel free to clarify our understanding of your position. If someone supports a liberal position, such as ending racial discrimination in public accommodation, are they extremists?
If you can come up with some scenario by which they will self-restrain, then maybe not. Liberals aren’t capable of this because the whole ideology is driven by a hormone rush, which in turn is excited by the lust for yet another revolution.
Incidentally, history is chock full of extremists who were not Hitler.
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2012 @ 13:19mkfreeberg: In Teri’s experience, it applies; in my experience, it applies; in the experience of many others, it applies — bureaucrats fail to deliver on this promise of enlightenment, wisdom and superior judgment that was imagined by voters, or officials, when they were delegated their power to make these decisions.
If you are going to have protected areas, and people living within them, then you are going to have rules and bureaucrats to enforce them, and all that entails. Teri’s solution was to eliminate national parks.
mkfreeberg: If you can come up with some scenario by which they will self-restrain, then maybe not.
George Washington.
mkfreeberg: Incidentally, history is chock full of extremists who were not Hitler.
If someone supports a liberal position, such as ending racial discrimination in public accommodation, then Stalin.
- Zachriel | 08/19/2012 @ 14:33If you are going to have protected areas, and people living within them, then you are going to have rules and bureaucrats to enforce them, and all that entails.
Mmm hmmm, so it’s a package deal. Kinda like Doritos, can’t have just one.
George Washington.
Crazy wild-eyed right-winger.
If someone supports a liberal position…then Stalin.
Doritos!
Because libs don’t know when to stop.
I asked you to come up with an example of when they can exercise this restraint…and just stop. You can’t seem to come up with one.
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2012 @ 14:42mkfreeberg: Crazy wild-eyed right-winger.
George Washington advocated against the concentration of political power in Britain at the expense of the colonies. He would be considered to the left of loyalists and the crown as he advocated a more equal distribution of political power.
- Zachriel | 08/19/2012 @ 16:42Concentration of political power is a leftist value, is it not?
We look around now, and every single proposal to concentrate political power, is coming from the left.
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2012 @ 16:46mkfreeberg: Concentration of political power is a leftist value, is it not?
That’s funny. No, King George was not a leftist. Leftism is the support of egalitarianism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics
The authority-libertarian spectrum is orthogonal to the equality-hierarchy spectrum. There are left wing and right wing statists. There are left wing and right wing anarchists. And all manner in between.
- Zachriel | 08/19/2012 @ 19:02mkfreeberg: Concentration of political power is a leftist value, is it not?
That’s funny. No, King George was not a leftist. Leftism is the support of egalitarianism.
Then, how come whenever left-wingers put together the government they want, concentration of political power is the result? Russia…Cuba…Cambodia…Detroit…
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2012 @ 20:42mkfreeberg: Then, how come whenever left-wingers put together the government they want, concentration of political power is the result?
Obviously not, as the American colonialists wanted to decentralize power that was then concentrated in the British crown, just as their forebearers had fought for the independence of parliament.
- Zachriel | 08/20/2012 @ 04:17Looks like a great argument for George Washington being a right-winger.
Tenth amendment issues: The right is opposed to the concentration of power, the left supports it. Regulation, same. Tort reform, same. Tobacco settlement, same. Americans with Disabilities Act, affirmative action, Dale vs. Boy Scouts, Kelo vs. New London, the confirmation hearing of every Supreme Court justice who has been seated over the last fifty years or more, the American Reinvestment Act, the Affordable Care Act…time after time we see the left says “We came up with a nifty plan that’s got to do with these unelected bureaucrats making decisions about things”…and the right says “Uh, let’s not do that.” So there are obviously problems with the statement “leftism is the support of egalitarianism.” Leftism, lately, has rather consistently been the support of kiosk economies: Line up, have your proof of entitlement at the ready, receive your daily ration, and if we have to cut your allowance for the good of the community we’ll be sure and let you know.
Concentration of power was the issue in the American Revolution, in the French Revolution, in the split between Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans & Adams’ Federalists, and in the signing of the Magna Carta. That the left is consistently championing the accumulation of power in the hands of the few in these times, yet in antiquity not quite so much — but they consider themselves to be on the winning side of all these conflicts from history — just shows that they’re fond of re-writing history to suit themselves.
I’ll agree with you about the French Revolution. The left said then, as now, support our new bureaucracy and we’ll make everything equal equal equal. And the right said, um no, that looks like a bad idea and it looks like chaos, we envision you’re going to just have a bunch of murderous creeps in charge of everything. And they were right.
The arguments in the American Revolution were more like the arguments about invading Iraq, with the anti-war left making exactly the same arguments as the Tories: Aw no, it’s true the situation is intolerable but war won’t solve anything…the tyrant isn’t so bad…he’s actually a swell guy who hasn’t done anything to hurt us directly.
- mkfreeberg | 08/20/2012 @ 06:49mkfreeberg: Looks like a great argument for George Washington being a right-winger.
No, because Washington was for greater equality of power and rights, and for less power concentrated in the monarchy. Keep in mind that the monarchists sat to the right of the president.
mkfreeberg: The right is opposed to the concentration of power, the left supports it.
What do you think “monarch” means? It means power concentrated in a single individual. It means the greatest possible concentration of power. Monarchists sat to the right.
mkfreeberg: Leftism, lately, has rather consistently been the support of kiosk economies: Line up, have your proof of entitlement at the ready, receive your daily ration, and if we have to cut your allowance for the good of the community we’ll be sure and let you know.
Waiting in breadlines at the Soviet grocery is still leftism. You are confusing means and ends. The left-right dichotomy is defined by the desired goal, whether the practice matches the desired goal or not.
mkfreeberg: Concentration of power was the issue in the American Revolution, in the French Revolution, in the split between Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans & Adams’ Federalists, and in the signing of the Magna Carta.
Supporters of the crown were to the right of the colonialists, by the very etymology of the term, whether in America, France or England.
mkfreeberg: The arguments in the American Revolution were more like the arguments about invading Iraq, with the anti-war left making exactly the same arguments as the Tories:
Again, they may have both been against war, but they made very different arguments. The Tories supported the crown, the very definition of being on the political right. The American left were generally against the Iraq War, because they don’t think a single country should be solely responsible for making decisions that affect so many other people. The left generally supports international agreements that equalize the rights and powers of people around the world, that all people should have a say in their own futures, and not be beholden to actions by a single, powerful nation—no matter how benevolent.
- Zachriel | 08/20/2012 @ 07:18What do you think “monarch” means? It means power concentrated in a single individual. It means the greatest possible concentration of power. Monarchists sat to the right.
By the late eighteenth century monarchism didn’t have much at all to do with “greatest possible concentration of power.” The administration of justice and the fiduciary concerns of the realm had to be shared, and thus checked. “Greatest possible concentration,” as a concept, would be something more fairly applied to the Louis XIV era in France, and in England this would be something that would apply to the early Plantagenet era, going back to Saxon rule. Even then, going back to Charlemagne’s time there was a tradition of the sovereign dividing his land among all of his sons upon his demise, which was followed somewhat by the Dukes of Normandy including William the Conqueror, so there too “greatest possible concentration of power” doesn’t really work.
The left generally supports international agreements that equalize the rights and powers of people around the world, that all people should have a say in their own futures, and not be beholden to actions by a single, powerful nation—no matter how benevolent.
Where you’re going adrift from reality, is with the realization that these equality plans have to be administered by somebody. When someone is appointed to the position of administrator, the equality is lost. And this, too has been a constant. It’s rather difficult to assess the left’s position on much of anything when the whole movement is based on this misunderstanding. In the case of the French Revolution, your Bobbio paradigm falls apart just a few years in with the rise of Napoleon; if there’s a “concentration of power” anywhere in human history, is that not an example of it?
The left, today, certainly doesn’t consider Barack Obama to be equal to others. Lenin wasn’t equal to everybody else, nor was Stalin or Castro or Mao. During FDR’s administration, if you were in his “brain trust” you were better than everybody else. Obama has His unelected czars, Clinton wanted to have his health care panels…oh yes there’s Hitler and the Gestapo, but I suppose that’s not undisputed you’ll characterize Hitler as being on the right.
It seems from what I’m reading here, Allan Cameron is a translator and Noberto Bobbio is an Italian observer, writing in the mid to late 1990’s of a rather tumultuous time over there. Not sure if this is the best text for evaluating American politics. We seem to be having a lengthy exchange about your error in selecting source material for a distinction you wish to apply, worldwide. Even taking this into account, this differentiation between equality of outcome & equality of opportunity is a very important one — every single self-identifying “right-winger” I know, thinks it means something — and this does not seem to be within the scope of what has received Mr. Bobbio’s evaluation.
- mkfreeberg | 08/20/2012 @ 07:43mkfreeberg: By the late eighteenth century monarchism didn’t have much at all to do with “greatest possible concentration of power.”
While power was distributed in Britain between parliament and the crown, the colonialists did not have representation. Effectively, they had no power, which meant abuse and tyranny. They advocated for a more equitable distribution of power, through representation.
mkfreeberg: Where you’re going adrift from reality, is with the realization that these equality plans have to be administered by somebody.
Whether true or not, not all leftists agree with that. For instance, communists believed the state would wither away.
mkfreeberg: When someone is appointed to the position of administrator, the equality is lost. And this, too has been a constant.
But a democratic society is more equal than a dictatorship, even if they both have administrators. There is no perfect equality, and most people understand this.
mkfreeberg: In the case of the French Revolution, your Bobbio paradigm falls apart just a few years in with the rise of Napoleon; if there’s a “concentration of power” anywhere in human history, is that not an example of it?
Absolutely, which is why many consider that Napoléon betrayed the principles of the revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._3_%28Beethoven%29
mkfreeberg: Lenin wasn’t equal to everybody else, nor was Stalin or Castro or Mao.
No, but their ideology was egalitarian. Indeed, Marx posited a dictatorship of the proletariat. The belief that the ends justify the means, and the unachievability of the goals, led to great abuses.
mkfreeberg: During FDR’s administration, if you were in his “brain trust” you were better than everybody else. Obama has His unelected czars …
That’s right. Most on the left, such as liberals, understand that people differ naturally, and that there is no perfect equality. Hence, they might support universal education and a social safety net, but not a Harrison Bergeron society.
mkfreeberg: oh yes there’s Hitler and the Gestapo, but I suppose that’s not undisputed you’ll characterize Hitler as being on the right.
Of course he was. Hitler supported absolute inequality, with some nations and races being superior to others. We have already provided multiple citations.
mkfreeberg: every single self-identifying “right-winger” I know, thinks it means something
Please provide a concise definition of political right.
- Zachriel | 08/20/2012 @ 08:07mkfreeberg: It seems from what I’m reading here, Allan Cameron is a translator and Noberto Bobbio is an Italian observer, writing in the mid to late 1990’s of a rather tumultuous time over there.
Bobbio worked over a period of generations as a political historian. He is actually a counterexample to your overarching claim. He was a leftist, but strongly supported the rule of law and limitations of political powers. In any case, most political scientists define the left-right dichotomy as concerning egalitarianism.
mkfreeberg: Even taking this into account, this differentiation between equality of outcome & equality of opportunity is a very important one — every single self-identifying “right-winger” I know, thinks it means something
Sure it means something. Before the revolutionary period, many people supported hereditary aristocratic powers.Today, virtually no one does. The middle has moved. Now the primary argument among moderates on left and right is how to ensure equality of opportunity, as well as the extent of the social safety net.
- Zachriel | 08/20/2012 @ 08:21Let me get one thing out of the way here, before I hear another “you live in a protected area” comment. The area was “unprotected” until 1986. You got that? People have lived in the Gorge since the 1850s. This was a “protection” imposed in an area where people were already living, owned property and worked, prior to any idea that it needed to be “protected”. We had the so called protection imposed on us. This was not some barren, uninhabited place. This was a place where people had lived for years. And forget about compensation under eminent domain. You’ve not heard of legally authorized “takings”? You still own the land and pay taxes on it. You are just no longer allowed to develop it, remodel your house, (and in some cases, you’ve lost the ability to sell it as no one in their right minds would buy a property will all those restrictions on it.) All of this is why my example is so important. This is recent history and means it could be applied to any place in the country. And the bureaucrats here are not answerable to anyone but the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture. You are truly ruled by unelected officials. So, no, this is not something I should have just expected from living in a protected area. This would be like me deciding that San Francisco, today, is in need of protection and imposing all these regulations in place.
As for “the U.S. will abandon the National Park System, as it enjoys widespread public support”, I never suggested it. I’m fine with the existing National park areas. I oppose people in the lower 48 states going to Alaska and setting aside yet more areas of that state for new parks. Our government is supposed to protect minority rights, yet we allow people from populated areas to totally ignore the rights of people in rural areas. And one last question for ya here on the Park System, why is it that environmentalists are opposed to people being able to access the parks via motorized vehicles? They do not seem to realize that the elderly and disabled may not be up to hiking in for miles to see their pristine park. These folks have just as much right to use these parks as anyone and that access is going to mean powered vehicles in the parks. We should not have any National Parks in the system that restrict access.
And one last thing you seem to be ignoring here, environmental groups have deliberately decided to use laws like the Endangered Species Act to force through behavior that they achieve by legislative means. This is an abuse of the judicial system. If the changes they want to make are so popular (as you seem to be saying here), then they should be willing to go through the correct legislative processes to make those changes.
- teripittman | 08/20/2012 @ 09:25While power was distributed in Britain between parliament and the crown, the colonialists did not have representation. Effectively, they had no power, which meant abuse and tyranny. They advocated for a more equitable distribution of power, through representation.
Mkay, well your point was that the right-wing is about inequality, and the Tories must have been right-wing because monarchism was about the “greatest possible concentration of political power.” There is significance that you’re having to backpedal about this, because the Revolution was really about this “virtual representation” concept that the English Parliament pulled out of thin air, effectively meaning no representation; so if the Revolution was about some-representation versus no-representation, the revolutionaries become right wing, because the right wing has been rather consistently opposed to defining classes of people and then saying they should have no-representation. There is the abortion issue, the slavery issue, the American Revolution, Stimulus, ObamaCare, Obama telling businesses “you didn’t build that,” affirmative action, liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan, et cetera et cetera the list goes on and on. Throughout all of these current and historical issues, the left wing has strived to set up a new system of rules in which a pariah class is to be told “you have no voice and you have to learn to like it,” and the right wing opposes this.
Whether true or not, not all leftists agree with that. For instance, communists believed the state would wither away.
Again, there are challenges involved in defining an ideology based on misunderstanding, especially when the misunderstanding is engineered by those who are engaged in deceit. Regardless of that, it is fair to evaluate leftism according to where history has shown leftist movements eventually go, and it’s been quite consistent. No, it doesn’t lead to states withering away, except in the sense that the whole structure ultimately crumbles…in a way, the communists who said the state would wither away, were right.
But a democratic society is more equal than a dictatorship, even if they both have administrators. There is no perfect equality, and most people understand this.
Yeah, here’s a key part of your error. You seem to be pulling out of thin air this notion that right wingers support dictatorships. I’ve not met any self-identifying right-wingers who would agree with that, so where’d you get this? Bobbio?
Absolutely, which is why many consider that Napoléon betrayed the principles of the revolution.
Right, and banks engage in predatory lending when they expect mortgage payments to be made, “he said he’d marry me,” Ed McMahon said I’d won. Trickery. The bourgeoisie exchanged one dictator for another. They got fooled. Trickery.
No, but their ideology was egalitarian. Indeed, Marx posited a dictatorship of the proletariat. The belief that the ends justify the means, and the unachievability of the goals, led to great abuses.
We agree on this point, so I’m not sure why we disagree on the previous.
That’s right. Most on the left, such as liberals, understand that people differ naturally, and that there is no perfect equality. Hence, they might support universal education and a social safety net, but not a Harrison Bergeron society.
But when they do support a Harrison Bergeron society, that is a leftist ideal. And, the liberals who are willing to compromise are eventually subjugated and thus obstructed by the strident/extremist liberals who are not, as we saw with the feminist movement. Liberalism is extremism.
Anyway, what’s the difference between a Harrison Bergeron society and this non-stop rhetoric offered by the President, about socking it to the “millionaires and billionaires”? It’s all just a bunch of emotion-driven tall-poppy syndrome stuff, thus indistinguishable in the important parts, is it not?
Of course he was. Hitler supported absolute inequality, with some nations and races being superior to others. We have already provided multiple citations.
Some nations, classes and races being superior to and more deserving than others, is inherently a left-wing trope. It’s often rationalized by means of “We’re just trying to make everyone equal, and this class over here is due for a take-down and that one over there needs some help.” But that’s just more deception, and it’s easily tested. In the last half-century there have been classes of people in America whom, if an argument could have been made that they needed some help, said arguments have diminished in merit over time, perhaps the best example of this would be women in need of greater opportunities in higher education. A simple Google search easily pulls in link after link after link after link after link after link that offer substantial challenges to the idea that women need some kind of special help, going back a decade and more…don’t hold your breath waiting for the left to say “Okay, the girls don’t need special help anymore.” They like one class better than another class, and it isn’t just with regard to women and men. This is inherent in the ideology. It is a Brave New World ideology, it works by dividing people into classes just like a snake moves by slithering.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say — the left sells itself by means of a pie-eyed vision of equality. Like a Ponzi scheme sells itself by means of a vision of the jackpot. Again, there are natural challenges involved in identifying a value of the left, when the left works by means of deception. It would not be correct to say, when the California State Lottery reaches 150 million dollars, that it is a value of the California State Lottery that YOU should get the 150 million when you buy a ticket. It would be more correct to say, you have a dream when you buy the ticket and you are hopeful. By the same token, no, equality is not a left wing value; it is a false hope held by people who are fooled into supporting it.
But, no, Hitler did not address equality/inequality the way the right wing does, his vision was much closer to the left wing.
More on the Hitler/leftist thing here.
Please provide a concise definition of political right.
Placing it in context here, since you have specifically requested a concise definition, the political right in America understands the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome; it further recognizes that these two values are often in conflict with each other, and identifies “liberty” as equality of opportunity. Severian and others already tried repeatedly to see if you would recognize that liberty and equality (of outcome) are often in conflict, and that is the point here. The right wing is much more foresightful in anticipating manufactured inequalities of opportunity, and thus opposes centralized control of personal affairs and business transactions, favoring local control.
Bobbio worked over a period of generations as a political historian. He is actually a counterexample to your overarching claim. He was a leftist, but strongly supported the rule of law and limitations of political powers. In any case, most political scientists define the left-right dichotomy as concerning egalitarianism.
A lot of people on the left support “the rule of law and limitations of political powers” but fail to see anything wrong with Barack Obama when He skirts around Congress to appoint His czars or sign His executive orders. They’re buying lottery tickets. Failing to look down the road. Again, this equality would be more accurately described as a selling point, than an actual vision. In fact, it may surprise you to know that the left has a reputation, amongst the right, for manufacturing the very problems in society it purports to cure. This is often done through centralized planning, as we saw with Obama’s stimulus program.
You should watch the Atlas Shrugged movies if you haven’t got the time to read the book. That is the one over-arching theme to it all, that leftist central-planning presents itself as having the solution to some problem in society, and once the solution is implemented it creates more of the problem, which the left-wing central planners then use as a crisis that justifies the next stage of their planning. Which makes more of the problem…
Sure it means something. Before the revolutionary period, many people supported hereditary aristocratic powers.Today, virtually no one does. The middle has moved. Now the primary argument among moderates on left and right is how to ensure equality of opportunity, as well as the extent of the social safety net.
Right, they want more and more. It is extremism by nature. Eventually the whole thing travels in a full-circle and the left finds itself supporting a new monarchy. See: “Camelot,” a.k.a. the Kennedy First Family era. Also, Obama, B., and family.
- mkfreeberg | 08/20/2012 @ 09:27teripittman: Let me get one thing out of the way here, before I hear another “you live in a protected area” comment. The area was “unprotected” until 1986. You got that?
Yes.
teripittman: This was a “protection” imposed in an area where people were already living, owned property and worked, prior to any idea that it needed to be “protected”.
Yes.
teripittman: You still own the land and pay taxes on it. You are just no longer allowed to develop it, remodel your house,
Yes.
teripittman: And the bureaucrats here are not answerable to anyone but the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture. You are truly ruled by unelected officials.
The Secretary is appointed by an elected president, with the advice and consent of an elected Senate.
teripittman: As for “the U.S. will abandon the National Park System, as it enjoys widespread public support”, I never suggested it. I’m fine with the existing National park areas.
You said, “Am I against setting aside natural areas for protection? Yes, I am. It’s been abused way too much by environmentalists.” With your clarification, your problem appears to be specific to how it is being currently implemented. Your frustration is understandable. It’s not easy to fight city hall.
teripittman: And one last thing you seem to be ignoring here, environmental groups have deliberately decided to use laws like the Endangered Species Act to force through behavior that they achieve by legislative means. This is an abuse of the judicial system. If the changes they want to make are so popular (as you seem to be saying here), then they should be willing to go through the correct legislative processes to make those changes.
They already did. It’s called the Endangered Species Act.
- Zachriel | 08/20/2012 @ 09:39mkfreeberg: There is significance that you’re having to backpedal about this, because the Revolution was really about this “virtual representation” concept that the English Parliament pulled out of thin air, effectively meaning no representation; so if the Revolution was about some-representation versus no-representation, the revolutionaries become right wing, because the right wing has been rather consistently opposed to defining classes of people and then saying they should have no-representation.
The people on the right of the president of the National Assembly supported the aristocratic class system. Changing the meaning of terminology is not an argument.
mkfreeberg: You seem to be pulling out of thin air this notion that right wingers support dictatorships.
It’s incredible to think that you can’t absorb even the slightest outside information. People on the right vary from anarchists to authoritarians. The left-right continuum is orthogonal to the liberty-authority continuum. This was stated repeatedly over multiple threads.
mkfreeberg: But when they do support a Harrison Bergeron society, that is a leftist ideal.
Absolutely. But not everyone on the left is an absolutist. For instance, Kurt Vonnegut.
mkfreeberg: Liberalism is extremism.
So, as the U.S. is a liberal society, America is in the midst of the Reign of Terror. Nonsense.
mkfreeberg: Anyway, what’s the difference between a Harrison Bergeron society and this non-stop rhetoric offered by the President, about socking it to the “millionaires and billionaires”?
Mental handicap radios and huge spectacles.
mkfreeberg: Some nations, classes and races being superior to and more deserving than others, is inherently a left-wing trope.
Nope. The left advocates for egalitarianism.
mkfreeberg: But, no, Hitler did not address equality/inequality the way the right wing does, his vision was much closer to the left wing.
Virtually all historians place Hitler on the authoritarian right. Here’s a few typical citations:
–
Nazism and the Radical Right in Austria 1918-1934, Lauridsen.
The Routledge companion to fascism and the far right, Paul Davies.
The Culture of Fascism: Visions of the Far Right in Britain, edited by Gottlieb & Linehan.
Fascism Past and Present, West and East: An International Debate on Concepts and Cases in the Comparative Study of the Extreme Right, Griffin et al.
France in The Era of Fascism: Essays on the French Authoritarian Right, edited by Jenkins.
Fascism and Neofascism: Critical Writings on the Radical Right in Europe (Studies in European Culture and History), edited by Weitz & Fenner.
–
In Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, Winston Smith is not killed, but reeducated. Why not? And why is that relevant?
- Zachriel | 08/20/2012 @ 10:04mkfreeberg: Placing it in context here, since you have specifically requested a concise definition, the political right in America understands the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome; it further recognizes that these two values are often in conflict with each other, and identifies “liberty” as equality of opportunity.
Of course, the U.S. is not the only country in the world. In any case, the political right in the U.S. has often resisted equality of opportunity, such as women’s suffrage and child labor laws.
mkfreeberg: Severian and others already tried repeatedly to see if you would recognize that liberty and equality (of outcome) are often in conflict, and that is the point here.
Seriously. Is there something wrong with you?
Zachriel, 08/14/2012: “Liberalism is a broad political ideology or worldview founded on the ideas of liberty and equality.” Because these two principles are sometimes in conflict, liberals vary in their views.
Zachriel, 08/14/2012: That’s actually where liberal notions of equality may conflict with liberty.
Severian: When you argue about the tension between liberty and equality, say, you’re proceeding as if there’s a tension between liberty and equality.
Zachriel: 08/15/2012: That’s exactly right. And because these two principles are sometimes in conflict, liberals vary considerably in their views.
Zachriel, 08/17/2012: A liberal is someone who advocates liberty and equality. That’s what the word means. The principles are in tension.
Severian: And they do conflict, all the time, as in the case of segregated lunch counters.
Zachriel, 08/17/2012: That is exactly the point. It depends on how you weigh these competing values.
mkfreeberg: A lot of people on the left support “the rule of law and limitations of political powers” but fail to see anything wrong with Barack Obama when He skirts around Congress to appoint His czars or sign His executive orders.
Yes, and a lot of people on the left do see a problem, though it is worth pointing out that czars and executive orders are in most cases constitutional extensions of presidential power.
- Zachriel | 08/20/2012 @ 10:17The people on the right of the president of the National Assembly supported the aristocratic class system. Changing the meaning of terminology is not an argument.
They opposed the new order, just as today’s political right oppose what the left wants to do. The proposal is to give up one dictatorship to put another in place; one side says “Yes, because we cannot foresee the consequences” and the other side says no — for whatever reason. It doesn’t necessarily mean they support the old order. I’m sure you’d say it’s unfair to characterize the anti-war left from a few years ago, as “pro-Saddam.” How is it not equally unfair to say the right-wing favors a monarchy? You yourself have said nowadays hardly anybody would support inheritance by birthright, so your position here is self-contradictory and, well, it ends up being incoherent.
It’s incredible to think that you can’t absorb even the slightest outside information.
This, too, is a left-wing trope.
Lib: “What do you do when you’re in a wire canoe and the right front wheel falls off? Nothing, silly, ice cream has no bones!”
Conservative: “Okay, problems with that…um…where to begin…”
Lib: “It’s incredible to think that you can’t absorb even the slightest outside information!”
Absorption is not the problem. “Just let it all in, with no comprehension or concern for the problems it has” is a different order altogether.
People on the right vary from anarchists to authoritarians. The left-right continuum is orthogonal to the liberty-authority continuum. This was stated repeatedly over multiple threads.
Uh huh…and you also said:
It seems there is one/are some among you who want to make this point about monarchy == greater concentration == right, and there is another/are some others among you who want to make this point about “left-right continuum is orthogonal to the liberty-authority continuum.” That plurality needs to go off somewhere and coordinate better.
This is why it’s a bit of an unusual practice for multiple people to use one account and then use it to comment on a blog. Again, just because an idea is unusual doesn’t make it a good one. In this case, you’re trying to pass off your resulting confusion as the other side’s problem…which the other side can then accept or reject, and, well, it just isn’t flying. Your coordination problem is not my comprehension problem.
Absolutely. But not everyone on the left is an absolutist. For instance, Kurt Vonnegut.
Your own multiple-times-pasted Wikipedia link makes it quite clear, a number of times, that the term defies a fixed, all-encompassing definition. And the problem becomes even more pronounced when the politics in the United States are considered.
So, as the U.S. is a liberal society, America is in the midst of the Reign of Terror. Nonsense.
I didn’t say America was in the midst of the Reign of Terror, and like many others, I do not agree that it is a liberal society. If it was, then the first time liberalism was ever tried, the populace would say “Wow, this is wonderful, let’s keep it around forever!” Which is not what has been happening at all.
Nope. The left advocates for egalitarianism.
Uh, sells itself to people who can’t be bothered to pay attention, as egalitarianism. The left-wing Eugenics movement of the early 20th century was hardly egalitarian.
Virtually all historians place Hitler on the authoritarian right. Here’s a few typical citations:
Argumentum ad authoritarian, is not an argument. Well, not a decent one, anyway.
In Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, Winston Smith is not killed, but reeducated. Why not? And why is that relevant?
Uh, that’s not what I got out of the ending at all. And why is that relevant? Dunno. Why are you bringing it up?
- mkfreeberg | 08/20/2012 @ 10:20mkfreeberg: They opposed the new order, just as today’s political right oppose what the left wants to do.
Conservatives conserve. They tend to oppose change to traditional institutions, especially radical change due to their concern for unintended consequences. As traditional institutions are usually hierarchical, it means conservatives are generally on the political right.
mkfreeberg: The proposal is to give up one dictatorship to put another in place;
Most people on the political left are not authoritarian, but liberal.
mkfreeberg: It doesn’t necessarily mean they support the old order.
Conservativism (in its conventional sense) is the counterpart to liberalism. Conservatism balances the legitimate need for change with preserving traditional institutions and avoiding the pitfalls of radicalism on the left or right. Not everyone on the right is a conservative, just as not everyone on the left is a liberal.
mkfreeberg: How is it not equally unfair to say the right-wing favors a monarchy?
While the right favored the political prerogatives of the monarchy in 1789, few do now. The center has moved.
mkfreeberg: Absorption is not the problem.
We have been very clear on our use of terminology, and have provided support for that usage.
Left, equality
Right, hierarchy
Liberal, equality and liberty
Conservative, hierarchy and tradition
Progressive, government reform for social benefit
Nearly all rational people understand the need to balance various values, so these discrete categories don’t always fit every particular, but it is important to start with some understanding of the basics.
mkfreeberg: monarchy == greater concentration == right, and there is another/are some others among you who want to make this point about “left-right continuum is orthogonal to the liberty-authority continuum.”
Hierarchy implies an unequal distribution, but not all hierarchies are invested in law. Anarchic capitalism is hierarchical and non-authoritarian. Monarchical societies are hierarchical and authoritarian.
mkfreeberg: The left-wing Eugenics movement of the early 20th century was hardly egalitarian.
Eugenics was not just found on the left. It also found a home in authoritarian societies on the right. However, there certainly was a progressive strain that saw forcibly limiting reproduction as a means to better society as a whole. That’s a good example of progressivism run amok.
mkfreeberg: Argumentum ad authoritarian, is not an argument.
Appeal to authority is a valid argument, especially as the meaning of a term is defined by its usage.
Zachriel: In Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, Winston Smith is not killed, but reeducated. Why not? And why is that relevant?
mkfreeberg: Uh, that’s not what I got out of the ending at all.
Winston Smith grew to love Big Brother.
mkfreeberg: And why is that relevant? Dunno. Why are you bringing it up?
Because it illustrates a fundamental difference between left and right. A right wing extremist would kill or enslave an inferior race. They are unequal and always will be. A left wing extremist sees people as a product of their environment. Change the environment, and the person changes. Winston Smith grew to love Big Brother, sincerely love Big Brother.
- Zachriel | 08/20/2012 @ 12:39Conservatives conserve. They tend to oppose change to traditional institutions, especially radical change due to their concern for unintended consequences. As traditional institutions are usually hierarchical, it means conservatives are generally on the political right.
That statement breaks down the first time we find an example of a right-wing revolutionary. In this case, I utterly demolished it by offering the example of Newt Gingrich’s revolution, which was decidedly to the right of the 103rd Congress his new movement displaced.
Most people on the political left are not authoritarian, but liberal.
That statement suffers damage when we find repeated examples of authoritarian left-wingers, of which there are many, especially in the twentieth century.
Quoting George F. Will in Why Liberals Love Trains:
Simply put, they just love to tell other people what to do. I would argue it has been the case since the very beginning, at least since Napoleon; certainly this has been a constant since the later industrial revolution.
But now, a plurality among you need to go off and resolve this inconsistency about “authoritarian”; some among you have repeatedly cut-and-pasted the statement: “The authority-libertarian spectrum is orthogonal to the equality-hierarchy spectrum. There are left wing and right wing statists. There are left wing and right wing anarchists. And all manner in between.” To say “most people on the political left are not authoritarian” would seem to be at odds with this.
I believe William F. Buckley resolved this brilliantly with his often-cited quotation about (paraphrased) “Liberals claim to have tolerance for other views, then are shocked to discover there are other views.” This is precisely it: They haven’t an authoritarian bone in their whole bodies, until such time as they discover there are people who don’t want to do what they say. At that point, they need to force their views on the masses, for their (the mass’) own good.
One word of solid evidence: ObamaCare.
And, of course, trains.
We have been very clear on our use of terminology, and have provided support for that usage.
Left, equality
Right, hierarchy
Liberal, equality and liberty
Conservative, hierarchy and tradition
Progressive, government reform for social benefit
Nearly all rational people understand the need to balance various values, so these discrete categories don’t always fit every particular, but it is important to start with some understanding of the basics.
The left is about hierarchy. Lenin, leftist. Stalin, leftist. Hitler, leftist (although you won’t admit it, so let’s agree to disagree, fine I have other examples). Mao, leftist. Pol Pot, leftist. Kim Jong-Il, leftist. Saddam Hussein, leftist. Castro, leftist. Obama, leftist. All situated at the tippy top of their various hierarchies. All opposed to any separation of powers; their manner for dealing with decisions was & is to say “Okay, let me go off and think about it for awhile…I’ve thought about it…let’s do this.” No collaboration, just a dictator atop his hierarchical pyramid. So “Right == hierarchy” is fraught with all sorts of problems.
Now, we have another implementation of “hierarchy” that does fit the right, but it seems you haven’t been thinking about this one: A “higher” institution covers a broad scope and within that, a “lower” institution covers a narrower scope but in doing so, overrules the desires of the higher institution with the broader scope. Think of an object-oriented application with the methods of a subclass overruling the methods of a superclass; or, better yet, read up on the Tenth Amendment…
Whether our friends the liberals have entirely destroyed this, or not, is a constitutional law question; but the fact remains, it is a right-wing value to preserve, honor and cherish the values in this particular amendment. It is a left-wing value to try to gut the tenth amendment, come up with some good excuses to shoot it full of holes, abandon it. Their idea of hierarchy is that the top level should have the ultimate authority over everything. Dictatorships are inherently left-wing. You’ve heard right-wingers protest, repeatedly, “the United States is not a democracy, it is a representative republic of sovereign states.” They’re simply echoing the sentiments of Ben Franklin, another founding father who, perhaps it might come as news to you, was on the right.
Hierarchy implies an unequal distribution, but not all hierarchies are invested in law. Anarchic capitalism is hierarchical and non-authoritarian. Monarchical societies are hierarchical and authoritarian.
So which is it. Is the left-versus-right correlative to the liberty/authority continuum, or is it orthoganal? It seems whenever you’ve been nailed on a blatant and irreconcilable contradiction, you drag in some other term you’d rather debate. It comes off looking like a desirable alternative to just admitting you’ve been beaten. Why are we now discussing hierarchies all of a sudden?
Eugenics was not just found on the left. It also found a home in authoritarian societies on the right. However, there certainly was a progressive strain that saw forcibly limiting reproduction as a means to better society as a whole. That’s a good example of progressivism run amok.
“It also found a home in authoritarian societies on the right” is a non-sequitur at best, and circular reasoning at worst (more likely, the worst). Eugenics is a decidedly left-wing political movement.
Appeal to authority is a valid argument, especially as the meaning of a term is defined by its usage.
No, it isn’t, because if the point made by the argument is valid, there must be some other way to make it. If there isn’t any other way to make the point, then the point was learned only by instruction, which proves absolutely nothing. Doesn’t even strongly suggest anything really, only that one side of the argument has taken over the institutions. This is “right” about as often as, perhaps less often than, a decision-making process driven entirely by random chance.
A right wing extremist would kill or enslave an inferior race. They are unequal and always will be. A left wing extremist sees people as a product of their environment. Change the environment, and the person changes. Winston Smith grew to love Big Brother, sincerely love Big Brother.
Yeah, and they shot him anyway.
Then, at the very end…
It doesn’t even seem ambiguous, to me; I never read it any other way. But I’m still not understanding the point you’re trying to make.
- mkfreeberg | 08/20/2012 @ 14:27mkfreeberg:That statement breaks down the first time we find an example of a right-wing revolutionary.
Not everyone on the right is a conservative.
Zachriel:Most people on the political left are not authoritarian, but liberal.
mkfreeberg:That statement suffers damage when we find repeated examples of authoritarian left-wingers, of which there are many, especially in the twentieth century.
Sorry, you don’t dispute “most” with “examples”.
mkfreeberg:Simply put, they just love to tell other people what to do.
Not everyone on the left is authoritarian. Note that Will was referring to progressives, in particular.
mkfreeberg:To say “most people on the political left are not authoritarian” would seem to be at odds with this.
Not at all. Nowadays, most everyone on the left and on the right realizes the importance of liberty and markets.
mkfreeberg:One word of solid evidence: ObamaCare.
Reagan signed the first mandate that disallowed hospitals from refusing aid to emergency patients regardless of ability to pay.
mkfreeberg:The left is about hierarchy. Lenin, leftist. Stalin, leftist… Mao, leftist. Pol Pot, leftist. Kim Jong-Il, leftist.
Those are all communists, which is a political belief that results in absolute equality.
Others on the left include Kennedy, Truman, Gandhi, Clinton, and the vast majority of ordinary liberals who support the school lunch program, but don’t support purges of the intellectia.
Zachriel:Hierarchy implies an unequal distribution, but not all hierarchies are invested in law. Anarchic capitalism is hierarchical and non-authoritarian. Monarchical societies are hierarchical and authoritarian.
mkfreeberg:So which is it. Is the left-versus-right correlative to the liberty/authority continuum, or is it orthoganal?
Left-right is equality-hierarchy, and orthogonal to liberty-authority. So, monarchy and anarchic capitalism are both on the right, that is, they are hierarchical, but varying in degree of authority.
mkfreeberg:Eugenics is a decidedly left-wing political movement.
The Nazis used eugenics extensively and were on the right.
mkfreeberg:No, it isn’t, because if the point made by the argument is valid, there must be some other way to make it.
Words are defined by usage. We have pointed to multiple sources.
mkfreeberg: “The long-hoped-for bullet was entering his brain.”
It was a false memory. Not that it matters. He loved Big Brother. As usual, you ignored the point.
- Zachriel | 08/20/2012 @ 15:11Well, I think I’m done, considering that “The Secretary is appointed by an elected president, with the advice and consent of an elected Senate.”
We can now dispense with any sort of elected officials! We can all be ruled by a bureaucrat appointed by the President (and I’m guessing that our current one doesn’t much care if he’s re-elected or not. He’ll just stay on as we really don’t need to elect anyone else now that he’s in charge.) The fact that people living in the Gorge have real elected officials quite capable of passing laws without any help from unelected bureaucrats is of no consequence.
Followed by “They already did. It’s called the Endangered Species Act.” I guess I’m just mistaken. I thought that the purpose of the Endangered Species Act had something to do with protecting truly endangered species. I had no idea that the Congress voted that into effect so that we could use it to shut down agriculture in the San Joaquin valley. It’s so much better that we have people out of work than for the snail darter to suffer for a moment. One can only hope that someday, one of those jobs shut down by the Endangered Species Act might belong to Zachriel.
- teripittman | 08/20/2012 @ 15:23teripittman: Well, I think I’m done, considering that “The Secretary is appointed by an elected president, with the advice and consent of an elected Senate.”
The president was elected by a majority of the American people. He nominates people to his cabinet under his executive power. But even then, there is a check, as the nomination has to be approved by the Senate under its power of advice and consent. You’ll have a chance to change the president in a few months.
Sorry your political system isn’t working well for you. It’s the worst of all systems …
teripittman: I thought that the purpose of the Endangered Species Act had something to do with protecting truly endangered species.
It was. When there are disputes, they may go to court. And Congress is free to change the law at any time.
- Zachriel | 08/20/2012 @ 15:44Not everyone on the right is a conservative.
That may be true, but it’s not clear what that has to do with anything.
Sorry, you don’t dispute “most” with “examples”.
You do if they are repeated examples. Your paradigm suffers from some real problems.
Not everyone on the left is authoritarian. Note that Will was referring to progressives, in particular.
Actually, yes they are.
Not at all. Nowadays, most everyone on the left and on the right realizes the importance of liberty and markets.
Realizing is one thing; following through is another. The left doesn’t truly value liberty and markets, because as soon as those things conflict with the leftist agenda, the leftist agenda wins.
Reagan signed the first mandate that disallowed hospitals from refusing aid to emergency patients regardless of ability to pay.
Yes, because right-ism/conservatism is not inextricably intertwined with extremism, as is left-ism/liberalism.
Those are all communists, which is a political belief that results in absolute equality.
Others on the left include Kennedy, Truman, Gandhi, Clinton, and the vast majority of ordinary liberals who support the school lunch program, but don’t support purges of the intellectia.
They would if they had to. In fact, the intelligentsia has been very kind to the left in America, ever since the early twentieth century when the intelligentsia supported the leftist experiment with Eugenics.
Left-right is equality-hierarchy, and orthogonal to liberty-authority. So, monarchy and anarchic capitalism are both on the right, that is, they are hierarchical, but varying in degree of authority.
I’ve already defeated this by citing real life examples of leftists who insisted on hierarchical authority structures, like Obama. Your counter-argument is circular reasoning, since any time there is a terraced separation of authority you call it “right wing” just so you can prop up this empty, false paradigm. But it doesn’t work, since if you pursue this to its logical end you have to call Barack Obama a right-winger; He thinks He can make tax-dodging Turbo-Tax Timmy into an economic intellectual simply by appointing him to the post of Treasury Secretary. How many economic practitioners in the country, do you think, might be more qualified than Turbo-Tax Timmy? Thousands, if not tens of thousands, perhaps millions.
So if there is a pattern here, it isn’t quite so much that the left is about equality and the right is about inequality; more like, the right favors superior authority as an outcome of some trial based on merit, whereas the left favors a network of super-important godlike people who possess the authority they possess, simply because they know each other.
The Nazis used eugenics extensively and were on the right.
It is logically unsustainable to insist that Eugenics was a leftist movement here in the states, and a rightist movement in another country. This is solid evidence of what I’ve been saying, that the left will own up to an idea up until the idea turns out to be on the wrong side of history, then spew a bunch of verbal-squid-ink to disclaim it. But breeding humans selectively as if they were horses, has always been a leftist idea, and that is what the Nazi movement was all about.
Words are defined by usage. We have pointed to multiple sources.
So you’ve listed a lot of people who were wrong. What of it?
It was a false memory. Not that it matters. He loved Big Brother. As usual, you ignored the point.
There’s no point to ignore. You’ll just define Big Brother as a right-wing dictator if you accept that Smith was executed, and lacking that, you’ll define Big Brother as a left-wing dictator who “educated” Smith to the correct way of thinking. Your argument is a circular-reasoning tautology.
But Orwell was writing about left-wing dictators; communist thugs. That was the point of the novel. Left wing politics are more than just intentions and consequences, they embody a whole method of thought. A diseased method of thought. You substantiate this every time you seek to show justification for some point, merely by repeating catch-phrases, buzz-words, argue with argumentum ad authoritarian. Those are all parts of this diseased thinking. Left-wing-ism is opposed to individualized thought processes and everlastingly hostile to true logical reasoning.
- mkfreeberg | 08/20/2012 @ 16:25Zachriel: Conservatives conserve. They tend to oppose change to traditional institutions, especially radical change due to their concern for unintended consequences. As traditional institutions are usually hierarchical, it means conservatives are generally on the political right.
mkfreeberg: That statement breaks down the first time we find an example of a right-wing revolutionary.
Zachriel: Not everyone on the right is a conservative.
mkfreeberg: That may be true, but it’s not clear what that has to do with anything.
Sigh.
C = conservative
R = political right
V = revolutionary
Z: C ⊂ R
m: (V ∈ R) ∧ (V ∉ C) ∴ C ⊄ R
Z: C ≠ R
m: Huh?
Your syllogism failed. Just because there are elements of the set R that are not elements of C does not mean that C is not a subset of R. There may be elements of R that are not C. Your argument that the statement C ⊂ R breaks down, because there is an instance V an element of R but not C, is false.
- Zachriel | 08/20/2012 @ 16:46Zachriel: Sorry, you don’t dispute “most” with “examples”.
mkfreeberg: You do if they are repeated examples.
Not even then. The contrary is most are not.
mkfreeberg: The left doesn’t truly value liberty and markets, because as soon as those things conflict with the leftist agenda, the leftist agenda wins.
Except that most people on the left, indeed most people, balance competing principles and values.
Zachriel: Others on the left include Kennedy, Truman, Gandhi, Clinton, and the vast majority of ordinary liberals who support the school lunch program, but don’t support purges of the intellectia.
mkfreeberg: They would if they had to.
Sure. Gandhi supported would have supported purges.
mkfreeberg: I’ve already defeated this by citing real life examples of leftists who insisted on hierarchical authority structures, like Obama.
Everybody realizes there are hierarchies in life. It is a question of their goals, whether more or less equality.
“…there is always inequity in life. Some men are killed in a war and some men are wounded, and some men never leave the country, and some men are stationed in the Antarctic and some are stationed in San Francisco. It’s very hard in the military or personal life to assure complete equality. Life is unfair.”
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Ready-Reference/JFK-Quotations.aspx
mkfreeberg: Your counter-argument is circular reasoning, since any time there is a terraced separation of authority you call it “right wing” just so you can prop up this empty, false paradigm.
Try to avoid making stuff up, and try to read carefully. The British monarchy in 1776 was a hierarchy. The American Revolution was an attempt to redistribute political power more equally. And while the U.S. was a political hierarchy after 1789, the new arrangement was more egalitarian.
That’s the very root of your black-and-white thinking. Just because the Americans wanted representation doesn’t mean they wanted anarchy or a left wing dictatorship.
mkfreeberg: the right favors superior authority as an outcome of some trial based on merit,
Yes. The right in 1789 was concerned with defending aristocratic birthright. But the middle has moved. Today, the right is primarily concerned with defending the natural inequalities of free markets, though national exceptionalism (a sort of birthright national aristocracy) still has great currency, especially but not exclusively within the U.S.
mkfreeberg: whereas the left favors a network of super-important godlike people who possess the authority they possess, simply because they know each other.
There have been plenty of authoritarians on the right.
mkfreeberg: It is logically unsustainable to insist that Eugenics was a leftist movement here in the states, and a rightist movement in another country.
As we said, it was popular among statists of both the left and the right.
mkfreeberg: So you’ve listed a lot of people who were wrong.
Words are defined by usage. If you use words in an idiosyncratic manner, then your meaning will be lost.
mkfreeberg: You’ll just define Big Brother as a right-wing dictator if you accept that Smith was executed, and lacking that, you’ll define Big Brother as a left-wing dictator who “educated” Smith to the correct way of thinking.
What? Nineteen Eighty-Four is a left wing dystopia. But they didn’t execute Smith. Perhaps they will eventually. But it was more important to reeducate him. Did Hitler try to reeducate the Jews? Of course not. They were inferior by birth. That’s a critical distinction in ideology.
- Zachriel | 08/20/2012 @ 17:17Your syllogism failed. Just because there are elements of the set R that are not elements of C does not mean that C is not a subset of R. There may be elements of R that are not C. Your argument that the statement C ⊂ R breaks down, because there is an instance V an element of R but not C, is false.
But the set arithmetic doesn’t apply, because I don’t accept that one is a subset of the other. You haven’t managed to bring any evidence that the two are different. You talk about JFK and other examples, but your examples are false because they’re only isolated examples of people who experienced mix results with succeeding, and failing, to look ahead at the wreckage that liberalism would ultimately bring.
So you comprehend set arithmetic as I would expect any competent tenth grader to, but you fail to comprehend the simple concept of time. George W. Bush might side with the “right wing” in invading Iraq, but then side with the “left wing” in spending oodles and oodles of money. People are not static.
Except that most people on the left, indeed most people, balance competing principles and values.
Not from what we have seen, no. Not even “some” people on the left. The left we have seen, over the last forty years or more, is opposed to balance. Liberalism is leftism is extremism.
Now, it seems there is some other version of “the left” living in your heads, rent-free, that is seeking some sort of balance. But that has nothing to do with reality.
- mkfreeberg | 08/20/2012 @ 18:20mkfreeberg: But the set arithmetic doesn’t apply, because I don’t accept that one is a subset of the other.
Perhaps you could make that argument, but the argument you did make was fallacious, typically.
m: (V ∈ R) ∧ (V ∉ C) ∴ C ⊄ R
mkfreeberg: You talk about JFK and other examples, but your examples are false because they’re only isolated examples of people who experienced mix results with succeeding, and failing, to look ahead at the wreckage that liberalism would ultimately bring.
Again, and this returns to our suggestion from weeks ago, liberals and liberalism as a political motive force are different things. You might have argued that liberalism has implications beyond what even the most tepid liberal believes.
Liberals have many different views, and most do not support purges and reigns of terror and complete government control of individuals. Indeed, liberals are defined as believing in two principles, liberty and equality.
mkfreeberg: George W. Bush might side with the “right wing” in invading Iraq, but then side with the “left wing” in spending oodles and oodles of money. People are not static.
That’s exactly right. As we said, people have a range of views, including liberals.
mkfreeberg: The left we have seen, over the last forty years or more, is opposed to balance.
That’s progress, we suppose. Now, you are limiting your argument to the last forty years. Mandela had an opportunity to purge his enemies. He could have had his bloody retribution. Instead, he invited his jailers to his inauguration.
- Zachriel | 08/21/2012 @ 03:53mkfreeberg: But the set arithmetic doesn’t apply, because I don’t accept that one is a subset of the other.
Perhaps you could make that argument, but the argument you did make was fallacious, typically.
m: (V ∈ R) ∧ (V ∉ C) ∴ C ⊄ R
But the set arithmetic doesn’t apply, because I don’t accept that one is a subset of the other.
What argument did I make that was fallacious? Specifically.
- mkfreeberg | 08/21/2012 @ 05:16mkfreeberg: What argument did I make that was fallacious? Specifically.
(V ∈ R) ∧ (V ∉ C) ∴ C ⊄ R
- Zachriel | 08/21/2012 @ 05:24Okay, well I didn’t make that argument.
What I have said, repeatedly, is that liberal arguments cannot be evaluated in mathematical or any kind of STEM-related terms, nor do they demand any of this refined slicing and dicing, because they’re nothing more than passion. Just feeling. “This class of people good, that class of people bad.”
And, it has been that way since 1789.
- mkfreeberg | 08/21/2012 @ 05:35mkfreeberg: Okay, well I didn’t make that argument.
Sure you did.
Zachriel: Conservatives conserve. They tend to oppose change to traditional institutions, especially radical change due to their concern for unintended consequences. As traditional institutions are usually hierarchical, it means conservatives are generally on the political right.
mkfreeberg: That statement breaks down the first time we find an example of a right-wing revolutionary.
Our statement is that conservers are a subset of the political right. Your claim is that our statement breaks down if you find an instance of someone on the right who does not conserve. In fact, such an instance demonstrates that conservers are a *proper* subset of the political right.
What you may have meant is if you can find an example of a ‘conservative’ revolutionary. But, of course, that’s just a semantic point, just air.
mkfreeberg: What I have said, repeatedly, is that liberal arguments cannot be evaluated in mathematical or any kind of STEM-related terms, nor do they demand any of this refined slicing and dicing, because they’re nothing more than passion. Just feeling.
All values are “just feeling”. That includes the desire for equality, justice, or a stable environment in which to raise children.
- Zachriel | 08/21/2012 @ 06:47Our statement is that conservers are a subset of the political right. Your claim is that our statement breaks down if you find an instance of someone on the right who does not conserve. In fact, such an instance demonstrates that conservers are a *proper* subset of the political right.
So your position with regard to Mr. Gingrich is that, as the incoming Speaker of the House, he was a right-winger but not a conservative? What about Hitler, who was also a revolutionary but, you insist, in contradiction to your own definitions, a right-winger?
All values are “just feeling”. That includes the desire for equality, justice, or a stable environment in which to raise children.
That is incorrect. “I should pay for this item at the check stand before I walk out of this store” isn’t just a feeling of “If I ran this store, I would not want people stealing my goods” or “I do not want to go to jail”; it is thought, reason, knowledge that stores like this cannot remain open if they are compelled to provide their things for free.
Actually, you yourself have occasionally referred to the “tragedy of the commons,” the whole point to which is that society must embrace values…thought-based values…out of a concern for the logical consequences involved if it does not.
- mkfreeberg | 08/21/2012 @ 08:31mkfreeberg: So your position with regard to Mr. Gingrich is that, as the incoming Speaker of the House, he was a right-winger but not a conservative?
That was *your* contention. Regardless, your reasoning was fallacious.
mkfreeberg: What about Hitler, who was also a revolutionary but, you insist, in contradiction to your own definitions, a right-winger?
No, Hitler was not a conservative as defined above. He was definitely on the right per the conventional definition. Hitler was reactionary.
mkfreeberg: “I should pay for this item at the check stand before I walk out of this store” isn’t just a feeling of “If I ran this store, I would not want people stealing my goods” or “I do not want to go to jail”; it is thought, reason, knowledge that stores like this cannot remain open if they are compelled to provide their things for free.
And why is that a good thing? You could then say so that you can buy more food tomorrow. But why is that a good thing? So you can live. Why is that a good thing? Because you don’t want to die. Without passion there is no action.
mkfreeberg: Actually, you yourself have occasionally referred to the “tragedy of the commons,” the whole point to which is that society must embrace values…thought-based values…out of a concern for the logical consequences involved if it does not.
But it presupposes certain values, which are presumably shared. For instance, that life is good, especially human life, that human suffering is bad and to be avoided. People desire freedom. They feel righteous when denied justice. And so on. That’s why it is important to find common ground. From there we can reason together.
We’re rather fond of the featherless bipeds. Call it a peccadillo is you like.
- Zachriel | 08/21/2012 @ 09:40That was *your* contention. Regardless, your reasoning was fallacious.
My contention is that with your definitions, which I’ve repeatedly said I do not accept, Newt Gingrich would have to be to the left of the 103rd Congress that his class was replacing. And you, yourself, are contradicting your definition when you label Hitler a right-winger. He was not trying to preserve legacy institutions, but establish new ones. Also, he fits Prof. Sowell’s definition of the unconstrained vision. And, as a dictator standing atop a hierarchical pyramid, being the super-special guy who can’t make a mistake, since when he makes one it stops being a mistake on the spot — he fits my definition. No matter how you cut it, Hitler governed from the left.
He even fulfills 2/3 of your own definition:
And why is that a good thing? You could then say so that you can buy more food tomorrow. But why is that a good thing? So you can live. Why is that a good thing? Because you don’t want to die. Without passion there is no action.
Okay, so when you say all values are driven by feeling, you’re basing this on passion…all values must come from passion. This still isn’t going to work in many cases, like the soldier throwing himself down on a grenade so his buddies can live. His feelings would be, entirely instinct of self-preservation, which he has to override with his logical pondering of the consequences. He has a value that his friends should live. It is motivated by thought and not by feeling. So your previous statement is, as I said, incorrect.
- mkfreeberg | 08/21/2012 @ 10:22mkfreeberg: My contention is that with your definitions, which I’ve repeatedly said I do not accept, Newt Gingrich would have to be to the left of the 103rd Congress that his class was replacing.
Please state the definition we have provided, then using the definition, why is Gingrich to the left of the 103rd Congress?
mkfreeberg: {Hitler} was not trying to preserve legacy institutions, but establish new ones.
Hitler was trying to revive the ideal German race and culture, before it was mixed with lesser races and cultures.
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.
mkfreeberg: Okay, so when you say all values are driven by feeling, you’re basing this on passion…all values must come from passion.
Yes. (Don’t read passion simplistically. Hunger is passion. So is ambition.)
mkfreeberg: This still isn’t going to work in many cases, like the soldier throwing himself down on a grenade so his buddies can live. His feelings would be, entirely instinct of self-preservation, which he has to override with his logical pondering of the consequences.
His feelings include loyalty, love of his fellow soldiers, fear, instinct, and the reflexes of his training. A grenade not a good example of rational thought, as it occurs so quickly. But there may be other cases of self-sacrifice that allow for contemplation. The thought process is really a balancing of values. How much does loyalty and duty matter compared to the sacrifice required? If loyalty and duty don’t tug on his heart, then there is no reason to endure pain and sacrifice.
- Zachriel | 08/21/2012 @ 10:59Please state the definition we have provided, then using the definition, why is Gingrich to the left of the 103rd Congress?
…Washington was for greater equality of power and rights, and for less power concentrated in the monarchy. Keep in mind that the monarchists sat to the right of the president.
And, as one looks over the ten planks of the Contract With America, one sees that they did, or would have had, exactly that effect. The 103rd Congress that his incoming Congress was replacing, on the other hand, was for an entrenched, beltway power structure, keeping in place the old system hierarchy; according to your definition, they would have been more conservative and more right-wing than that revolutionary game-changer Newt.
Hitler was trying to revive the ideal German race and culture, before it was mixed with lesser races and cultures.
By way of a new power structure. And he looked down on Jews, just like today’s left-winger looks down on Republicans. Blaming them for the country’s economic problems.
In October of last year Ben Shapiro wrote up an expose on the antisemitism in the Occupy Wall Street movement, as well as with leftist movements across the globe. It isn’t just Shapiro noticing it. The movement has been connected with anti-Jewish slogans and cartoons time after time. Antisemitism has always been strongly motivated by envy, and envy is one of the primary flash-impulse feelings fueling the feeling-driven left.
His feelings include loyalty, love of his fellow soldiers, fear, instinct, and the reflexes of his training. A grenade not a good example of rational thought, as it occurs so quickly. But there may be other cases of self-sacrifice that allow for contemplation. The thought process is really a balancing of values. How much does loyalty and duty matter compared to the sacrifice required? If loyalty and duty don’t tug on his heart, then there is no reason to endure pain and sacrifice.
You’re dodging. Your statement was that all values are driven by feeling; now you’re trying to erase the delineation between feeling and thought, because you’ve been nailed after you said something silly.
Okay fine, let’s pick another example that allows for more thought. Parents badgering their kids not to play with toys on the floor, in the entryway to a busy pizza parlor or coffee shop. There isn’t much by way of feeling to justify that, since the feeling is going to be one of: Let’s not interrupt social hour with the other parents, the pizza and beer taste good and I don’t feel like getting up. It is the thinking process that concludes: I’m not doing my job as a parent if I let this go. World’s got enough inconsiderate slobs in it, it doesn’t need more.
Frankly, I’m a grateful to whoever it is among you who chose to be so candid. And, just as frankly, I tremble in fear for the future of a world in which all values that anyone bothers to enforce, are motivated by feeling. From where do you think we have conjured up the adjective thoughtful? When we are driving in traffic, we want some of our fellow motorists to be thoughtful; if they’re all thoughtless, acting on their impulses and feelings, and we do the same, chaos is the result.
A society cannot function smoothly with everyone acting on their feelings. It would, ultimately, come apart.
- mkfreeberg | 08/21/2012 @ 17:34mkfreeberg: The 103rd Congress that his incoming Congress was replacing, on the other hand, was for an entrenched, beltway power structure, keeping in place the old system hierarchy;
But the entrenched power structure, for good or bad, was more egalitarian, and the purpose of the Republican revolution was to undermine that power structure.
mkfreeberg: Your statement was that all values are driven by feeling; now you’re trying to erase the delineation between feeling and thought
Of course there’s a distinction between feeling and thought. People think about their feelings. It’s a distinguishing characteristic of humans!
mkfreeberg: Parents badgering their kids not to play with toys on the floor, in the entryway to a busy pizza parlor or coffee shop. There isn’t much by way of feeling to justify that, since the feeling is going to be one of: Let’s not interrupt social hour with the other parents, the pizza and beer taste good and I don’t feel like getting up.
Yes, the parents feel responsible, embarrassed, put upon.
mkfreeberg: It is the thinking process that concludes: I’m not doing my job as a parent if I let this go.
And feel guilty if they don’t act.
mkfreeberg: From where do you think we have conjured up the adjective thoughtful?
That’s right. Someone might have an impulse to buy a piece of candy, but they don’t because they have *concerns* about the future. They *want* to be slim and healthy.
mkfreeberg: When we are driving in traffic, we want some of our fellow motorists to be thoughtful; if they’re all thoughtless, acting on their impulses and feelings, and we do the same, chaos is the result.
People drive thoughtfully out of *concern* for others.
mkfreeberg: A society cannot function smoothly with everyone acting on their feelings.
We mentioned above not to take a simplistic view of passion. Passion refers to all the various human motivations. Hunger, worry, love — not just momentary impulses.
- Zachriel | 08/22/2012 @ 05:22But the entrenched power structure, for good or bad, was more egalitarian, and the purpose of the Republican revolution was to undermine that power structure.
Not so. To have a centralized coterie of elites handing out “stimulus” money, opening the doors wide for ADA abuse, firing the White House Travel Office to make room for Bill Clinton’s relatives to work there, making rules about how doctors should administer health care, is not egalitarian. Gingrich drew up the Contract of America to, among other things, restore local control. His style of governance was more in the mold of Thomas Jefferson.
In fact, it seems we’re having an Inigo Montoya moment with that word “egalitarian“:
Your argument about left-wingers being egalitarian seems to rely increasingly and rather consistently on the idea that these top-down pyramid-apex dictators are being “egalitarian” when they do what left-wingers do, which is: Come up with ideas about how everyone should live, but only a very narrow band of elites should have any say in determining what that plan is. So it looks like, to make this work, we have to take that “equal in fundamental worth or social status” and twist it around to mean “equal in obligation to following our wonderful plan, once just a very few of us get done ironing out how it’s all going to work.”
Watch a right-winger argue with a left-winger, it isn’t long before the left-winger indulges in this monologue about “There isn’t any use discussing this with someone who.” Usually after the right-winger wins the argument. In recent years, this has been a constant: The left winger has a broader definition of “everybody” in terms of who is to be accountable to the plan, and a much narrower definition of “everybody” in terms of who the plan is supposed to benefit, and an even narrower still definition of “everybody” in terms of who is going to enjoy the privilege of fleshing out the details.
Very subtle gymastics we have to do to make Hitler look like he came from the opposite side of some political spectrum from the commies. But we do have to do them in order to conjure up that appearance.
Of course there’s a distinction between feeling and thought. People think about their feelings. It’s a distinguishing characteristic of humans!
Then you admit your previous statement was incorrect. There are many values that have to do with re-thinking feelings before they are acted-upon, and instead acting upon the thoughts with which the feelings were brought into conflict. Those values, then, would be based on thought and not on feeling.
We mentioned above not to take a simplistic view of passion. Passion refers to all the various human motivations. Hunger, worry, love — not just momentary impulses.
Right, you want to save face by glossing over this idea of values being based on thought. So, I can come up with a hundred examples of where your observation fails, because the feelings say one thing, our thoughts say the opposite, and are values are devised specifically to elevate the thought to a higher plane than the feeling. And you’ll counter-argue that these are all “concerns,” to sort of mish-mash the two together and erase this distinction.
I notice some of the other examples I could offer, that would cut off this escape avenue from your use, have to do with conservatism and you will therefore refuse to acknowledge their worth. I’m thinking that is, perhaps, where the disagreement really starts: Conservatives think. They think like economists — well, honest ones anyway. Like Friedman. “Hey wait a minute, if it works that way, how will X be motivated to do Y? He won’t, and that’s a problem.” What is to motivate doctors to stay in the business of doctoring if they can’t really be doctors…eventual result, a shortage of doctors. This often makes them resistant to change, which is where they come up under your definition, you see it as “longing for the past.” It’s more like, “seeing the problems with this spiffy new plan that the liberals refuse to see.”
I am truly, truly frightened of a society or social structure in which all values practiced, are derived from feeling and not thought.
- mkfreeberg | 08/22/2012 @ 06:41mkfreeberg: Not so.
Supposed corruption at the top doesn’t change the fact that the then current government supported continued support for the poor and elderly, minimal worker protections, and a progressive tax system. The Republicans opposed these programs designed to reduce inequality, so they were on the right.
You never did provide a concise definition of what you consider to be the left-right distinction.
mkfreeberg: Very subtle gymastics we have to do to make Hitler look like he came from the opposite side of some political spectrum from the commies.
Virtually all historians place Hitler on the authoritarian right. Here’s a few typical citations:
–
Nazism and the Radical Right in Austria 1918-1934, Lauridsen.
The Routledge companion to fascism and the far right, Paul Davies.
The Culture of Fascism: Visions of the Far Right in Britain, edited by Gottlieb & Linehan.
Fascism Past and Present, West and East: An International Debate on Concepts and Cases in the Comparative Study of the Extreme Right, Griffin et al.
France in The Era of Fascism: Essays on the French Authoritarian Right, edited by Jenkins.
Fascism and Neofascism: Critical Writings on the Radical Right in Europe (Studies in European Culture and History), edited by Weitz & Fenner.
mkfreeberg: Then you admit your previous statement was incorrect.
We’ve never said humans don’t think. It’s a characteristic of the species.
mkfreeberg: There are many values that have to do with re-thinking feelings before they are acted-upon, and instead acting upon the thoughts with which the feelings were brought into conflict. Those values, then, would be based on thought and not on feeling.
Those values are based on balancing the values which have their foundation in what people desire. Consider an extreme (fictional) example, Star Trek. The Vulcans based their philosophy upon what they considered rational thought, because their raw passions had led to violent conflict. But it presupposed that they wanted a life lived peacefully.
mkfreeberg: So, I can come up with a hundred examples of where your observation fails, because the feelings say one thing, our thoughts say the opposite, and are values are devised specifically to elevate the thought to a higher plane than the feeling.
Perhaps, but you haven’t been able to come up with just one.
mkfreeberg: What is to motivate doctors to stay in the business of doctoring if they can’t really be doctors…eventual result, a shortage of doctors.
So you’re saying people won’t become doctors if they have no *motivation*. Imagine that.
- Zachriel | 08/22/2012 @ 08:24The Republicans opposed these programs designed to reduce inequality, so they were on the right.
Yes…whoever opposes the progressive program, must be in opposition to the end goal. Nosiree, I can’t find any fault in that!
You never did provide a concise definition of what you consider to be the left-right distinction.
I provided four good definitions. You will not accept them because they are validated against reality, in the here-and-now; your own definitions seek to reconcile all the definitions that have ever existed, worldwide. There are problems with this. In fact, those problems are spelled out within many of the definitions one can browse, or lift, and these disclaimers are evident in some of the definitions you yourselves have so lifted.
If the left-wing has something to do with a search for equality, then Hitler was left-wing according to your own definition since it was part of his platform that rights should be enjoyed equally — within the German citizenry as he defined it, after you get rid of the Jews and other undesirables. And so, to shoehorn Hitler into this “right wing” mold, we have to come up with a new rule that says you’re right wing if you define undesirables? As I’ve mentioned repeatedly, the left that we know today, excels at this. Who should not have any say in determining what is taught in our public schools? who should not have a say in figuring out how health care should work? Who should not have a say in womens’ reproductive health? Who should not have a say in…this or that…the left, as we know it today, is just bursting with exciting new ideas for pariah classes to be defined.
They aren’t about egalitarianism or equality. Not even a little bit.
Virtually all historians place Hitler on the authoritarian right. Here’s a few typical citations:
Right, you have already clarified your position that argumentum ad authoritarian is entirely legitimate. Huh, so we seem to have a conflict between one guy who thinks for himself, and a plurality of people who do not think for themselves; and the disagreement seems to be, whether the idea should be shaped by current events, or whether the idea should be shaped by older ideas, with the current and older events rubberized, softened, pounded into place to fit the ideas. Not surprisingly, it is the guy who is disciplined to think for himself, who shapes the ideas to fit reality.
We’ve never said humans don’t think. It’s a characteristic of the species.
What you said is that all values come from feeling, which is demonstrably incorrect, when we find values — rigidly enforced, mainstream-accepted, cherished values — that directly contradict the most passionate feeling, and you’re left trying to rationalize away the difference with “the parents feel embarrassed” when their kid acts like a hellion in a pizza parlor.
It doesn’t work, because there are parents perfectly capable of feeling embarrassment, who fail to feel the right embarrassment at the right time. For social order to prevail, you need thought.
The Vulcans based their philosophy upon what they considered rational thought, because their raw passions had led to violent conflict. But it presupposed that they wanted a life lived peacefully.
In that sense, they were conservatives. Not according to your definition, but in the sense that they took it as a given that order was preferable to chaos, actions have consequences, and thought would be required to remedy the problems that your “passion” had caused.
Perhaps, but you haven’t been able to come up with just one.
Didn’t say anything about being unable to. We aren’t ready to meet that particular challenge.
So you’re saying people won’t become doctors if they have no *motivation*. Imagine that.
Yup. So, what do you think should be done with them in your “egalitarian” society since you clearly disapprove of their moral code. Perhaps a middle-of-the-night disappearing, like the left-wing dictator Stalin liked to do, in his? That probably has a most beneficial effect on the status of equality — among the people who remain!
- mkfreeberg | 08/22/2012 @ 09:09Oh look, speak of the devil…right on cue. The left, defining a pariah class, to be put down and rubbed out just like Old Yeller.
Egalitarian!
- mkfreeberg | 08/22/2012 @ 09:15mkfreeberg: Yes…whoever opposes the progressive program, must be in opposition to the end goal.
Try to read carefully. The Republicans were on the right because they wanted to limit or eliminate programs that provided minimum support for the poor and elderly, minimal worker protections, and a progressive tax system. That puts them on the political right.
mkfreeberg: I provided four good definitions. You will not accept them because they are validated against reality, …
They weren’t clear definitions. They were muddled and ambiguous. Try to rephrase your definition in a concise form.
mkfreeberg: If the left-wing has something to do with a search for equality, then Hitler was left-wing according to your own definition since it was part of his platform that rights should be enjoyed equally — within the German citizenry as he defined it, after you get rid of the Jews and other undesirables.
If the Jews were excluded, and even among Germans, bloodlines were determinative, then it was exactly the opposite of equality.
mkfreeberg: What you said is that all values come from feeling, …
What we said was “All values are ‘just feeling’. That includes the desire for equality, justice, or a stable environment in which to raise children.” Please note the scare-quotes.
mkfreeberg: For social order to prevail, you need thought.
Yes. We never said otherwise.
Zachriel: Perhaps, but you haven’t been able to come up with just one.
mkfreeberg: Didn’t say anything about being unable to. We aren’t ready to meet that particular challenge.
Um, so you won’t even try to give an example of a value that doesn’t have its root in some passion. To value something means to hold something as precious, whether the love of gold or the love of children.
mkfreeberg: So you’re saying people won’t become doctors if they have no *motivation*. Imagine that.
mkfreeberg: Yup.
So thought alone is not sufficient to motivate people to action. It requires some more fundamental motivation, a desire for wealth or status, or a desire to help others.
- Zachriel | 08/22/2012 @ 10:19Try to read carefully. The Republicans were on the right because they wanted to limit or eliminate programs that provided minimum support for the poor and elderly, minimal worker protections, and a progressive tax system. That puts them on the political right.
Right. And it becomes possible…even likely, I would say…that they can see a liability to the plan, that their opposition cannot or will not see. Somehow, you have very carelessly discarded that as a possibility, even as you carelessly discard the possibility that I might have read “carefully” enough as is needed.
You demand a single definition for left-wing, and it is very difficult to do when the entire movement is based on deceit, creating a situation in which left-wing subscribers are lulled into thinking they working for things that they really aren’t. We would have to sample what they end up doing, and work backwards from that to find out what their motivations are, and where they go awry. One common theme that could work into such a process is: Lefties always seem to think they know things the other side doesn’t know, even when they profess huge glaring gaps in their understanding of the opposition, and the frustration that results. Still, nevertheless, the conclusion is always that they know more and it is the other side that has missed some game-changing bit of information — which they can’t quite describe.
I sometimes use the analogy of a caveman and a calculator. Hand out a thousand calculators to a thousand cavemen thawed out from the stone age or thereabouts…sure as a sunrise, you’ll get back a thousand opinions that the calculator is the dumbest thing ever built, the guy who built the calculator is dumb, the guy who invented it is dumb, the guy who somehow thinks it’s a good thing to have, likewise is dumb. That’s exactly how lefties see righties; they fail to understand, so it must be dumb. Like a caveman with a calculator. Can’t use to stun wild animal or start fire, what good it?
They weren’t clear definitions. They were muddled and ambiguous. Try to rephrase your definition in a concise form.
They don’t gel with your textbooks, and they are taken from recent years. This is a necessity. Your quixotic pursuit of finding a definition that works across the ages isn’t going to work, especially with “left” and “right.” If you failed to pick that up, I’m afraid you’ve achieved so little by way of learning the relevant concepts that you may as well not have even started. Any European will tell you “right wing” has a different meaning over there than it does in the states.
If the Jews were excluded, and even among Germans, bloodlines were determinative, then it was exactly the opposite of equality.
2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in its dealings with other nations, and the revocation of the peace treaties of Versailles and Saint-Germain.
:
4. Only members of the nation may be citizens of the State. Only those of German blood, whatever be their creed, may be members of the nation. Accordingly, no Jew may be a member of the nation.
:
7. We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens. If it should prove impossible to feed the entire population, foreign nationals (non-citizens) must be deported from the Reich.
:
9. All citizens shall have equal rights and duties.
:
12. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits.
:
13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municiple orders.
:
24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations in the State, provided they do not threaten its existence not offend the moral feelings of the German race.
The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest.
This doesn’t look like a right-wing platform to me. It is bursting with examples of collectivist thinking.
What we said was “All values are ‘just feeling’. That includes the desire for equality, justice, or a stable environment in which to raise children.” Please note the scare-quotes.
I do. And I note your point here has something to do with a fine distinction between “All values are ‘just feeling’,” and “all values come from feeling.”
I submit that any point derived from such a trivial distinction, is a point not worth making.
Um, so you won’t even try to give an example of a value that doesn’t have its root in some passion.
Don’t need to. I have provided many examples of values which must come from thought, since the feelings felt most passionately in such situations run counter to the values. I can provide more. Getting up and going to work on time on a cold winter morning — when your job really isn’t in trouble, you just want to do it well. Such a desire is based on thought and nothing else. Lots of people feel like calling in sick, know darn good and well they could afford to do so with no ill consequence suffered at all, and go in to work anyway. So, your statement “all values are ‘just feeling'” is incorrect.
So thought alone is not sufficient to motivate people to action. It requires some more fundamental motivation, a desire for wealth or status, or a desire to help others.
Actually a lot of doctors have thought about it, and come to the rational conclusion that this is no longer the place where they can bring an optimal value to market, since their occupation no longer makes the use of their talents that they intended.
- mkfreeberg | 08/22/2012 @ 11:14mkfreeberg: And it becomes possible…even likely, I would say…that they can see a liability to the plan, that their opposition cannot or will not see.
The idea is that some inequality is necessary for the proper workings of markets, and that handouts create disincentives to work.
mkfreeberg: They don’t gel with your textbooks, and they are taken from recent years.
Words are defined by general usage.
mkfreeberg: Only those of German blood, whatever be their creed, may be members of the nation. Accordingly, no Jew may be a member of the nation.
Extreme inequality based on ancestry.
mkfreeberg: Getting up and going to work on time on a cold winter morning — when your job really isn’t in trouble, you just want to do it well. Such a desire is based on thought and nothing else.
Heh. You *want* to do it well.
- Zachriel | 08/22/2012 @ 14:50The idea is that some inequality is necessary for the proper workings of markets, and that handouts create disincentives to work.
Whose idea is that? That’s looking a lot like “best estimates are 3.5 to 5.0 degrees…” Never got an answer to the question “What makes them ‘best’?” What idea is this of which you speak?
Words are defined by general usage.
General usage within what environment, within what enclave? Are we all to vote on what a word means? It would make just as much sense to vote on the freezing temperature of water.
You have been quite dogmatic in your view of what the word conservatism means and what the word liberalism means; would you agree that if the “general usage” of these words were to disagree with your dictionary-lookup-definitions, you should accede?
As has been pointed out many times before, and has been mentioned repeatedly before, the terms “left wing” and “right wing” are most problematic, especially when viewed across multiple generations and multiple western civilizations. The trouble with your definitions is, they seem to have a lot to do with equality/inequality — but you refuse to acknowledge the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. In all too many situations, if equality of outcome is to be guaranteed, personal liberty will have to be eroded severely, with the consequence that equality of opportunity will have to be sacrificed. So which is it to be? Your differentiation is overly simplified because you’ve maintained the left wing is “for equality” and the right wing is “anti equality.” This is insufficiently complex to gel with reality, because it does not acknowledge the trade-off.
Extreme inequality based on ancestry.
Yup. Once the undesirables have been removed, absolute and total equality for whoever is left. A leftist political movement. Antisemitism doesn’t make it non-leftist, as the Occupy movement has aptly demonstrated for us; hyper-nationalism doesn’t do it. Local control might. But the Nazis, of course, weren’t about local control, not even in the slightest. Theirs was a centralized, fiat economy, full of commands from the home office, and price controls.
Hey, wouldn’t affirmative action be “extreme inequality based on ancestry”?
Heh. You *want* to do it well.
Right. So, your previous statement was incorrect. You have to move the goalposts around, to give it the merest semblance of making sense.
Now in spite of all the above, I would say you do ask a decent question: What is the definition of “left wing.” You do not define “define” the way I define it, since whether a definition works with current events, seems to be of very little concern to you.
We could probably start with your comprehension of value. All values come from feeling, you say…this would necessarily lead to the conclusion that the Nazis were indeed left-wing. They had bushels and bushels of “values,” that began with Adolf Hitler’s feelings.
In your backpedaling, you seem to be conflating the word “feeling” with the word “concern,” or “desire.” Perhaps we can agree that all values come from an objective or vision. I’d go along with that. From there, we could classify these values according to values based on absolute visions (I want to make enough money to buy a yacht) and relative visions (I want to make as much money as I possibly can). Hitler had lots of visions. But he was a left-wing dictator because his efforts became aligned with his values that were based purely on feelings, very primitive, destructive feelings: I want so-and-so to be obliterated.
Just like today’s liberals with Chick-Fil-A, or Rush Limbaugh, or Todd Akin, or Sarah Palin, or Ann Coulter, or John Boehner, or the “millionaires and billionaires flying around in their corporate jets.” They’ve forgotten entirely what it is that they want to build. The only know who it is they want to have destroyed. Like the gay-agenda shooter guy shooting up the Family Research Council. That supposedly is about marriage “equality” and that, in turn, is supposed to be about putting everybody on an even level. But when you’re carrying a gun into a crowded area and then opening fire on people, that isn’t going to result in putting people an an even level.
- mkfreeberg | 08/22/2012 @ 15:47Zachriel: The idea is that some inequality is necessary for the proper workings of markets, and that handouts create disincentives to work.
mkfreeberg: Whose idea is that?
That would be the conservative view of the time.
mkfreeberg: General usage within what environment, within what enclave?
We’ve provided citations to dictionaries, encyclopedias and scholarly work.
mkfreeberg: As has been pointed out many times before, and has been mentioned repeatedly before, the terms “left wing” and “right wing” are most problematic, especially when viewed across multiple generations and multiple western civilizations.
As with many categorizations, there is some ambiguity. That doesn’t mean they don’t have meaning, or that you can just make up a meaning to suit your argument. Nor is the semantics necessarily important, except when you conflate your definition with how most everyone else uses the term.
mkfreeberg: The trouble with your definitions is, they seem to have a lot to do with equality/inequality — but you refuse to acknowledge the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.
We haven’t ignored it. It’s key to understanding the historical transition, as the battle moved from political equality to economic equality.
mkfreeberg: In all too many situations, if equality of outcome is to be guaranteed, personal liberty will have to be eroded severely, with the consequence that equality of opportunity will have to be sacrificed.
That’s right. The extreme left sacrifices liberty for equality.
mkfreeberg: Yup. Once the undesirables have been removed, absolute and total equality for whoever is left.
That’s not equality. Nor is it accurate. The Nazis divided people by the purity of their bloodlines.
mkfreeberg: Hey, wouldn’t affirmative action be “extreme inequality based on ancestry”?
Affirmative action is meant to address the legacy of inequality.
Zachriel: You *want* to do it well.
mkfreeberg: Right.
want, have a desire to possess or do (something)
mkfreeberg: What is the definition of “left wing.” You do not define “define” the way I define it, since whether a definition works with current events, seems to be of very little concern to you.
The conservative (political right) idea is that some inequality is necessary for the proper workings of markets, and that handouts, such as welfare, create disincentives to work. Conservatives believe that the modern government has moved too far left, and have therefore undermined market efficiency.
mkfreeberg: They had bushels and bushels of “values,” that began with Adolf Hitler’s feelings.
Everyone has values. Nazis wanted (desired) to create a pure German race, by eliminating any corrupting intermixing. They admired authority. They admired conquest. They thought other nations should be subjugated to Germany. They believed in absolute inequality. They were the extreme political right.
mkfreeberg: In your backpedaling, you seem to be conflating the word “feeling” with the word “concern,” or “desire.”
As we warned you several times, we’re not using “passion” in a simplistic manner, but in its Humean sense. It refers to the motivating force in people. Thought doesn’t motivate. Thought won’t get you off the couch. Hunger does. Thought doesn’t make you love your children, but thought will allow you to plan for their college education.
We’re going to try and make sense of your definitions.
- Zachriel | 08/22/2012 @ 16:39http://www.peekinthewell.net/blog/four-things-more-important-than-mitt-romneys-tax-returns/
“The conservative (political right) idea is that some inequality is necessary for the proper workings of markets, and that handouts, such as welfare, create disincentives to work. Conservatives believe that the modern government has moved too far left, and have therefore undermined market efficiency.”
No, conservatives recognize that inequality exists in the past, present and in the future. It’s rather foolish to pretend that there has ever been a time in human history when inequality did not exist. Handouts do create disincentives to work, as you would know if you have any poor friends. Poor people are not stupid. If they have a choice between hustling to get by and putting up with the unpleasantness of dealing with the state welfare bureaucrats, they’ll go with that free money. And the states have helpfully made it so that you no longer have to sit around in the employment or welfare office. You can do it all online! And since it’s free money, no one really even bothers to see if the money is needed or used properly. Why use food stamps to buy food for your kids, when you can use them for drugs, booze or cigarettes? They couldn’t pull that stuff back when people were given commodities. It’s hard to trade oatmeal for smokes.
The government has distorted the markets because they constantly meddle in them. If you can’t see that things like Solyndra and GM’s bailout are clear cases of the government picking winners and losers in the market, then you just aren’t paying attention.
And, just out of curiosity, is this: “We’re going to try and make sense of your definitions.” the royal “we”? Because I’ve not noticed anyone else joining in to support your particular point of view.
- teripittman | 08/22/2012 @ 17:27“The Zachriel,” as we call them, is a group of some (>=2) people logging in and using the same account, Teri. That would explain why when they accuse others of incoherence, it very often looks like projection; they have occasional trouble remaining consistent with what some others within their group have posted.
Thought does motivate, incidentally. And, it is most gracious to make the effort to make sense of my definitions; one would think such an effort would be obligatory, before criticizing the definitions for being inadequate in any way.
- mkfreeberg | 08/22/2012 @ 18:31Zachriel: The conservative (political right) idea is that some inequality is necessary for the proper workings of markets, and that handouts, such as welfare, create disincentives to work. Conservatives believe that the modern government has moved too far left, and have therefore undermined market efficiency.
teripittman: No,
“When free welfare is provided, people choose not to work.” — Newt Gingrich.
Do we really need to provide more citations for a fundamental principle of the modern conservative movement?
teripittman: conservatives recognize that inequality exists in the past, present and in the future.
So do liberals, and most everyone else, except the most extreme utopians — and dystopians. Even Marx recognized inequality, saying the ideal of communism was “From each according to their ability. To each according to their need.”
mkfreeberg: Thought does motivate, incidentally.
You have yet to provide an example that meets the criterion.
- Zachriel | 08/23/2012 @ 05:13You have yet to provide an example that meets the criterion.
False statement. Unless by “the criterion” you mean some standard you intend to move around to make sure it’s never met…
I said liberal values cannot be evaluated in hard-science terms, and there is no call for evaluating them in “this refined slicing and dicing” — referring to your frequent quasi-scientific dodges — because they’re just based on passion and feeling. And you said “all values are ‘just feeling’.”
“My kid is acting like a brat and requires correction” is not based on feeling. “Time to get up and go to work” is not based on feeling. You can’t ever concede anything, of course, so now we must debate the feelings of embarrassment felt by the parent that motivates her to act, and the feelings of fear of being fired from the job that motivate someone to get out of bed. It doesn’t work, as I’ve pointed out, because not everyone who gets out of bed to go to work is afraid of getting sacked. This is why liberals can’t understand conservatives: A lot of conservatives feel ripped off and exploited and abused, just like liberals, when they work a lifetime and find they have no savings, some other guy doesn’t work at all and has zillions. They have the same feelings as liberals but they understand this is not productive, so they don’t act on them, they act on thought instead.
Now, the liberals — if your comments are representative — don’t understand this because they can’t understand it, they figure feelings are just as legitimate a motivation as anything else because all values are based on feeling. They do not join the conservatives as the conservatives look down the road, with some possible policy change in mind, and ponder “what is the eventual consequence?” Why bother. All values are based on feeling.
- mkfreeberg | 08/23/2012 @ 06:21mkfreeberg: False statement. Unless by “the criterion” you mean some standard you intend to move around to make sure it’s never met…
We set a clear, concise standard, provided examples, and answered your objections. You have apparently misunderstood the philosophical use of the term “passion”, conflating it with a simple impulse or emotion. Hume used it to refer to desire generally. So you may work logically towards an end, but that end is at some point defined by a desire. You love your children, so make a plan for their education. You want the security of a better job, so you go to school.
mkfreeberg: I said liberal values cannot be evaluated in hard-science terms, and there is no call for evaluating them in “this refined slicing and dicing” — referring to your frequent quasi-scientific dodges — because they’re just based on passion and feeling.
It would be nice to have a definition that is clear, concise, and somewhat consistent with how everyone else uses the term. But at no time is it appropriate to conflate your idiosyncratic definition with the common definition. So you can’t say “I define liberals as stupid people”, then note where John Kennedy said he was a liberal, then argue from this that Kennedy was stupid. It doesn’t follow.
mkfreeberg: And you said “all values are ‘just feeling’.”
Note the scare-quotes. All values have a basis in human needs and desires. We often assume these values, that life is good, suffering is bad, and children are good. But these are actually just another name for human needs and desires. Take away the passion, then life is just life. Suffering is just something that happens. Children are just spawn.
mkfreeberg: It doesn’t work, as I’ve pointed out, because not everyone who gets out of bed to go to work is afraid of getting sacked.
Yes, and they balance the value of going to work against the value of sitting on the couch. Most people learn that they won’t get what they want by sitting on the couch. Note the word “want”.
mkfreeberg: They have the same feelings as liberals but they understand this is not productive, so they don’t act on them, they act on thought instead.
Well, everyone thinks. One person might learn the discipline of work from their parents, and do this to please their parents until it becomes satisfying in its own right, knowing that the results of hard work are fruitful. Another might learn from suffering, that laziness leads to hunger. But in each case, it is passion that motivates them. Passion to please. Passion to succeed. Passion of satisfaction of a job well-done. Passion to avoid suffering.
This philosophical point may be beyond your ken, and is probably not that closely related to your original point. It’s not a distinction between left and right because it applies generally to the human condition. You might read Hume is you are interested in exploring the point.
mkfreeberg: They do not join the conservatives as the conservatives look down the road, with some possible policy change in mind, and ponder “what is the eventual consequence?” Why bother. All values are based on feeling.
Because people see the future and fear it, or welcome it, or anticipate it. They want to avoid hunger in their old age. They want their children to succeed. They want more things. They want, they want, they want.
- Zachriel | 08/23/2012 @ 06:46We set a clear, concise standard, provided examples, and answered your objections. You have apparently misunderstood the philosophical use of the term “passion”, conflating it with a simple impulse or emotion.
A good example of you moving goalposts because you can’t concede anything.
Your original comment did not mention “passion,” your statement was that “all values are ‘just feeling’.” I’ve demonstrated that this is not true. Can you just admit it so we can move on…
- mkfreeberg | 08/23/2012 @ 06:59mkfreeberg: Your original comment did not mention “passion,” your statement was that “all values are ‘just feeling’.”
Note the scare-quotes. And we made every effort to clarify the point.
mkfreeberg: What I have said, repeatedly, is that liberal arguments cannot be evaluated in mathematical or any kind of STEM-related terms, nor do they demand any of this refined slicing and dicing, because they’re nothing more than passion. Just feeling.
Zachriel: All values are “just feeling”. That includes the desire for equality, justice, or a stable environment in which to raise children.
Zachriel: Without passion there is no action.
Zachriel: Don’t read passion simplistically. Hunger is passion. So is ambition.
Zachriel: We mentioned above not to take a simplistic view of passion. Passion refers to all the various human motivations. Hunger, worry, love — not just momentary impulses.
Zachriel: we’re not using “passion” in a simplistic manner, but in its Humean sense. It refers to the motivating force in people.
Zachriel: You have apparently misunderstood the philosophical use of the term “passion”, conflating it with a simple impulse or emotion. Hume used it to refer to desire generally. So you may work logically towards an end, but that end is at some point defined by a desire.
As we said, the philosophical point went over your head, and it was an unnecessary tangent on our part. We just thought it important to note that all values have a basis in the human passions.
Your original point was that liberal arguments were “nothing more than passion”, meaning lacking thought. But that’s not true. John Kennedy’s speech very thoughtfully explained the liberal philosophy, how it was a balance of equality and liberty, and how it could represent the best hope for the future.
- Zachriel | 08/23/2012 @ 08:24…the philosophical point went over your head, and it was an unnecessary tangent on our part. We just thought it important to note that all values have a basis in the human passions.
It’s looking more and more like the point went flying over your heads.
You can finely parse things that are genuinely based on thought…pondering of consequence…strategy. Things like “this conservative wants the budget surplus spent on tax breaks” versus “that conservative over there wants the budget surplus spent on paying down the deficit.” And, here and there, the conservatives do quibble amongst themselves over things like this. But we do not see liberals arguing about “we should have a stimulus program but only like FDR wanted, we should stop short of deficit spending” versus “we need to follow the Keynes/Krugman formula, spend huge, bigger every time, and deficits be damned.” We do not see that on any issue. We do not see it with progressive tax systems. Conservatives positively guffaw at the simplicity of the liberal mind, asking questions like — what’s “fair share” and what’s “rich”? Knowing full well that the liberals don’t have a coherent answer to such things.
Liberal passion is the definition of a direction without any reflection whatsoever on the distance to be traveled. It is a bearing and not a vector.
It holds all of the thought that a snake puts into a strike, after having decided to make it.
It is extremism, by nature.
Your original point was that liberal arguments were “nothing more than passion”, meaning lacking thought. But that’s not true.
Maybe, in this case, as in all other cases, it would have been wiser to simply say “we disagree” rather than heading down this bunny trail of “our comprehension is superior to yours.” It didn’t fit in this case, and as a result your whole argument ends up becoming rather nonsensical and…muddled.
No, I don’t think the scare quotes change anything. You’re just trying to putty over a difference that is genuine, and achieve an appearance of sameness that does not really exist. All values are not “just feeling,” that’s part of what separates humans from animals.
- mkfreeberg | 08/23/2012 @ 10:40mkfreeberg: “we need to follow the Keynes/Krugman formula, spend huge, bigger every time, and deficits be damned.”
Add Keynesian economic theory to the list of things you don’t understand. When you live in a world of straw men, you’re a true warrior.
For starters, state the basics of Keynesian countercyclical policy.
- Zachriel | 08/23/2012 @ 10:56We’ll get you corrected on that matter in due time. For now, the point is that liberal values are not sufficiently grounded in thought for them to be lent any semblance of structure, thus much of the slicing-and-dicing that applies to hard-science ideas, does not apply to them. It holds all of the thought that a snake puts into a strike, after having decided to make it. It is extremism, by nature.
- mkfreeberg | 08/23/2012 @ 11:13mkfreeberg: We’ll get you corrected on that matter in due time.
You brought up Keynesian economics. It’s telling that you can’t answer a simple question about the subject.
mkfreeberg: For now, the point is that liberal values …
Unfortunately, you still have the problem of what you mean by “liberal”.
- Zachriel | 08/23/2012 @ 11:26You brought up Keynesian economics. It’s telling that you can’t answer a simple question about the subject.
Actually, you brought up the idea that Keynes’ theory needs to be added “to the list of things you don’t understand,” from the statement, “we need to follow the Keynes/Krugman formula, spend huge, bigger every time, and deficits be damned.” You’ve already earned a reputation in these parts for play-acting like you understand things the other side doesn’t, when it isn’t true…the facts have borne this out time after time after time. We’ve seen how you flesh out this narrative that you’ve got some exclusive insight on things that other people lack, and we have observed that you don’t do it that well.
What would be refreshing, would be for you to pick up the burden of specifying something for a change. You’re great at expressing your theatrical consternation when you detect a conflict between what is said and what you’ve read (somewhere) — you’re not quite so brilliant at stating what it is.
So, dazzle me. What did I say that gave away my ignorance? How so? Specifically.
- mkfreeberg | 08/23/2012 @ 11:31Unfortunately, you still have the problem of what you mean by “liberal”.
And…no, we don’t. I’ve defined it crisply, clearly, and you’ve been complaining about a “muddled”-ness that isn’t really there — since long before you so much as lifted a finger to test the definition, or even read it in such a way that you understood it.
- mkfreeberg | 08/23/2012 @ 11:33mkfreeberg: Actually, you brought up the idea that Keynes’ theory needs to be added “to the list of things you don’t understand,” from the statement, “we need to follow the Keynes/Krugman formula, spend huge, bigger every time, and deficits be damned.”
You brought up Keynes, spending and deficits. That is a clear reference to Keynesian economics. What’s to be gained by pretending otherwise?
mkfreeberg: What did I say that gave away my ignorance?
Because Keynes didn’t recommend “spend huge, bigger every time, and deficits be damned”. Countercyclical policy is the run surpluses during expansions and deficits only during contractions, moderating the market cycle. This is contrary to classical, procyclical policy, which exacerbates the market cycle.
- Zachriel | 08/23/2012 @ 11:46What’s to be gained by pretending otherwise?
You have not demonstrated much need for assistance in getting dragged off-topic. If anything, you’ve demonstrated a need for assistance staying on.
Because Keynes didn’t recommend “spend huge, bigger every time, and deficits be damned”. Countercyclical policy is the run surpluses during expansions and deficits only during contractions, moderating the market cycle. This is contrary to classical, procyclical policy, which exacerbates the market cycle.
Keynesian economic went through a number of different permutations during the New Deal — because it didn’t work. What we saw in the wake of the Reinvestment Act stimulus was actually a handy model of what happens (notice I said “the Keynes/Krugman formula”): Just spend. If anybody criticizes or questions, just do what…well, what you do a lot of the time, play-act like you comprehend things the other person doesn’t. A favorite is “See, when the man in the street has a dollar he gives it to the butcher who gives it to the baker who gives it to the candlestick maker…” And then…it doesn’t work. And then you have a Krugman type coming out to say, well I’ll tell you why it didn’t work, you didn’t spend enough.
Now, do we have to debate that this is what Paul Krugman has been writing, do I have to go fetch some examples. Puh-leeze, that would be silly. The point is that liberalism is an impulse, just like a viper-strike, it doesn’t put any thought into extents, restraints, distance of travel in the desired direction. It doesn’t retain the semblance of structure of a hard science. It is extremism by nature.
- mkfreeberg | 08/23/2012 @ 12:00mkfreeberg: notice I said “the Keynes/Krugman formula”
Yes, you were wrong about Keynes. And you are wrong about Krugman, who advocates countercyclical policy.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/the-true-fiscal-cost-of-stimulus/
Clinton was the flip side of countercyclical, engineering cash surpluses to reduce the debt during the expansion.
- Zachriel | 08/23/2012 @ 12:20Thanks for the clarification of who/what we are talking to!
So Zachriel offers no real world examples to back up their point of view and spend a lot of time ignoring our real world examples or complaining that we haven’t bothered to give them real world examples.
What this all reminds me of is the 60s when you had to be on a particular kind of drug to make sense of certain music. I don’t think I’m on the right kind of drugs to make sense of Zachriel . It’s too much like some esoteric college discussion. I’m willing to read oppposing economic theories, because you are dealing with an attempt to make sense of markets and economies. But this discussion? Exactly what is Zachriel trying to make some sense of? It’s not about how conservatives think, because he/they could care less about that. All I can figure is this is an attempt to prove Zachriel ‘s intellectual superiority to us “peasants”. I suppose it has a lot to do with why I am less and less able to read liberal sources online. It’s just so tedious and so disconnected from most peoples’ lives.
- teripittman | 08/23/2012 @ 12:30teripittman: So Zachriel offers no real world examples to back up their point of view and spend a lot of time ignoring our real world examples or complaining that we haven’t bothered to give them real world examples.
We cited Newt Gingrich and Karl Marx.
Zachriel: The conservative (political right) idea is that some inequality is necessary for the proper workings of markets, and that handouts, such as welfare, create disincentives to work. Conservatives believe that the modern government has moved too far left, and have therefore undermined market efficiency.
You mentioned that conservatives recognize that inequality is inevitable, which is indisputable. Even Karl Marx agreed. Other than that, not sure the point of disagreement.
- Zachriel | 08/23/2012 @ 12:59Yes, you were wrong about Keynes. And you are wrong about Krugman, who advocates countercyclical policy.
Where, specifically, does Keynes advocate against debt-based stimulus spending? Where, specifically, does Krugman? The latter has been on record many times as saying the reason the Reinvestment Act didn’t work, was because it wasn’t big enough.
You seem to be continually lunging toward this narrative that you have keen and exclusive insight and your opposition is lacking it. As I’ve noticed before, pointing out the particulars that prop this up, doesn’t seem to be your strong suit. Your responses look more and more like the frenzied shrieks that greet new and different information, from a mind inhospitable to it. So, now we see you had a nice well-balanced Jenga Tower of understanding about Keynes and Krugman, and now I’ve knocked that over as well.
Exactly what is Zachriel trying to make some sense of?
The Zachriel, cumulatively, have amassed some experience reading (a selection of) books, and perhaps attending lectures and completing exams based on those books.
They take what is posted here, compare it to the books, and if there is a discrepancy then they start Zachriel-ing, meaning, to object…except the way they object is very refined, very precise. They launch into a narrative in which the purveyor of this unwelcome information must have missed out on some key, crucial detail. But, oftentimes it turns out the purveyor of this unwelcome information has books of his own, in addition to which, as you point out Teri there is useful, practical experience as well. And so they are then beset with the task of calling out exactly what is this important detail that their opposition has missed…which, you’ll notice, they very often can’t do. So they sort of arm-wave in a general direction with a subtext of “it’s over there somewhere,” like they did just now with Krugman’s selected blog posting.
No, they’re not trying to make sense of a single thing. They are Medicators, and that is their way of medicating: “Ah ha, you slope-foreheaded conservative, the point went over your head! Or, uh, something.” They thus put themselves into the laughable position of arguing
1. Their opposition cannot comprehend what it is they are trying to say, which means their opposition is lacking; and at the same time,
2. They cannot comprehend what it is their opposition is trying to say, which means — again, their opposition is lacking.
Eventually, it goes where all other liberal arguments go: “Agree with me, lock-step-wise, and unquestioningly, or else you are lacking.”
It is never, ever, The Zachriel’s problem. EVER. Even if they have to spend hundreds and hundreds of posts in a thread trying to “understand a definition” that was crystal-clear to everybody else from the get-go.
- mkfreeberg | 08/23/2012 @ 14:00mkfreeberg: Where, specifically, does Keynes advocate against debt-based stimulus spending?
Countercyclical policy means stimulus only during downturns, not “every time, and deficits be damned”. It was a Republican who said deficits don’t matter, not Keynes. Krugman we already cited. And as we mentioned, Clinton countercyclically structured the economy for cash surpluses during the expansion.
You misrepresented Keynes because you get your information from very limited sources that are more interested in polemics than understanding. In any case, do you now understand what countercyclical means as an economic policy?
- Zachriel | 08/23/2012 @ 14:33Your perception that there was a lack of understanding here, is, in itself, a polemic and a rather persistent one.
Countercyclical policy means stimulus only during downturns…
This is a needless complication of the issue. Look at the current government outlays and the current federal budget deficits. Unemployment 43 months over eight percent. In the 1930’s, the situation was similar; no need to quibble about the oscillations that are supposed to take place in the economy, if the economy is sucking and continuing to suck. So there’s supposed to be a cycle to it, according to the theory. It doesn’t very much matter if the theory isn’t working for us.
And, as my link shows, Krugman’s remedy is to spend bigger. So the point stands, but that isn’t the point I was making. My point was, disagreements like the ones that went on between Keynes and FDR, don’t count for very much where the liberals are concerned. Their ideas just aren’t that precise. They’re based on primitive feeling and not on thought. Conservatives, on the other hand, will actually disagree on these things; conservatives disagree on the notion that “deficits don’t matter.” They’ll argue about it for quite some time. Deficits, to a liberal? Pffft. They’re not the ones paying it, they don’t care.
And, underlining once again that you’re the one missing the point…you wish to inspect with surgical precision the minutia of countercyclical policy. Swing and a miss!
- mkfreeberg | 08/23/2012 @ 15:05mkfreeberg: It doesn’t very much matter if the theory isn’t working for us.
That’s right, because your claim misrepresented the theory whether the theory is valid or not.
- Zachriel | 08/23/2012 @ 15:15That’s right, because your claim misrepresented the theory whether the theory is valid or not.
In what way? Specifically.
Getting back to the original subject: It is only through the most superficial cosmetics that liberals desire equality, because they have a Vampire Problem. If everyone else in earshot and line-of-sight were to be made equal to the liberals, they would go nuts, just like real-life vampires would soon find themselves on a planet populated entirely by vampires — starving to death. Their ideology is dysfunctional, because like the vampires that can exist only in fiction, they rely on an everlasting inability to obtain the thing they are supposed to be seeking.
- mkfreeberg | 08/23/2012 @ 16:49When I ask for real world examples, I am asking about people you know, not someone you saw on tv or read about in a book. If you gave examples of people you personally know and how they behaved, it would be a lot more powerful argument that the examples you’ve been using.
For example, I’ve personally had friends that have been on welfare (one used to call her welfare check her “paycheck”). I’ve also had extensive experience with unemployment and food stamps as I used to do seasonal farm work. So, when I tell you that my friend Ted was very comfortable letting the government support him and his family until workfare came along, it makes the discussion about real people, rather than something Newt Gingrich said. (Ted magically managed to find a job at that point.) Real life experiences and stories are what other people relate to. That is why liberals have such a tough time trying to talk to them. And the other reason is, of course, that liberals look down on other people. It’s part of their exclusive club.
- teripittman | 08/23/2012 @ 16:57mkfreeberg: In what way? Specifically.
Countercyclical policy means stimulus only during downturns, not “every time, and deficits be damned”.
mkfreeberg: It is only through the most superficial cosmetics that liberals desire equality, because they have a Vampire Problem.
mkfreeberg: The vampire, by feeding, not only incrementally depletes the food supply, but in so doing manufactures a new competitor for consumption of this limited supply. That’s at each feeding. There isn’t any way for the math to work in the vampire’s favor, none at all. All scenarios considered, lead to an all-vampire-no-human planet, on which the vampires are starving to death.
Well, no. There are several defenses against vampires. As such, it’s a standard predator-prey or epidemiological relationship, and the populations may very well reach a dynamic equilibrium.
mkfreeberg: They have to get their virtue-fixes
That’s often true of anyone who has a cause, especially one that involves conflict; whether left, right, warfare, or whatever.
- Zachriel | 08/23/2012 @ 17:10Countercyclical policy means stimulus only during downturns, not “every time, and deficits be damned”.
Okay, so in other words there is no substantial difference between the policy as it exists, and my characterization of it. None. But it’s off-topic from my main point anyway.
As such, it’s a standard predator-prey or epidemiological relationship, and the populations may very well reach a dynamic equilibrium.
No, you need to go back and check the source. There’s math. And the math doesn’t work out well for the vampires.
That’s often true of anyone who has a cause, especially one that involves conflict; whether left, right, warfare, or whatever.
Yeah, but liberals are a special case. They’re not like just anybody else who has a cause. They cannot survive if they are given exactly the thing they seek; they rely on not getting it.
- mkfreeberg | 08/23/2012 @ 17:13mkfreeberg: Okay, so in other words there is no substantial difference between the policy as it exists, and my characterization of it. None. But it’s off-topic from my main point anyway.
You said that, per Keynes, it was deficits “every time”. That is false.
You said that, per Keynes, “deficits be damned”. And that is false.
mkfreeberg: And the math doesn’t work out well for the vampires.
It’s the same math for epidemics of all sorts. One person has plague. They give it to others. They give it to still others. The numbers explode exponentially. But people can resist, either with natural defenses, or by quarantine. As long as there are countermeasures, and there are several countermeasures to vampires, then it can reach a dynamic equilibrium.
mkfreeberg: Yeah, but liberals are a special case.
Can’t even get you to answer a few simple questions about your idiosyncratic definition of greed which underlies your idiosyncratic definition of liberal, so your statement just reads as so much gobbledygook.
- Zachriel | 08/23/2012 @ 17:34You said that, per Keynes, it was deficits “every time”. That is false.
You said that, per Keynes, “deficits be damned”. And that is false.
In context, they were not false at all. It was the Great Depression, the economy sucked, so your countercyclical plan would have called for deficit spending. And it did. And this led to a disagreement between Keynes and Roosevelt.
In context, the statements are true.
Context. Obama can use it, so can I.
an’t even get you to answer a few simple questions about your idiosyncratic definition of greed which underlies your idiosyncratic definition of liberal…
You need me to? You shouldn’t.
I stand on my previous statements. Robert Gibbs can do it, so can I.
- mkfreeberg | 08/23/2012 @ 18:09mkfreeberg: It was the Great Depression, the economy sucked, so your countercyclical plan would have called for deficit spending. And it did.
So Keynes called for deficits in one situation, but not another. So your statement that he called for deficits “every time” was incorrect, as was your statement that deficits “be damned” according to Keynes.
mkfreeberg: Context. Obama can use it, so can I.
Of course context is important, but the context doesn’t change your statement. We’ll take your recent comments as a correction or clarification.
mkfreeberg: You can finely parse things that are genuinely based on thought…pondering of consequence…strategy. Things like “this conservative wants the budget surplus spent on tax breaks” versus “that conservative over there wants the budget surplus spent on paying down the deficit.” And, here and there, the conservatives do quibble amongst themselves over things like this. But we do not see liberals arguing about “we should have a stimulus program but only like FDR wanted, we should stop short of deficit spending” versus “we need to follow the Keynes/Krugman formula, spend huge, bigger every time, and deficits be damned.”
You were simply wrong on Keynes. And using any conventional definition of liberal, they certainly do argue about deficits and other issues. Keep in mind that the only cash surpluses in recent U.S. history were engineered by a liberal president. The Clinton Administration explicitly worked to reduce deficits.
- Zachriel | 08/24/2012 @ 04:27So Keynes called for deficits in one situation, but not another. So your statement that he called for deficits “every time” was incorrect, as was your statement that deficits “be damned” according to Keynes.
In the situation that endured throughout the 1930’s, and has endured throughout the current administration, it is accurate. Relative to the contrasting philosophy of Sound Finance, it is a decent characterization.
Keynesian policy wonks worry about deficit spending, in the same way your liberals worry about balancing equality with liberty: They don’t, but they need to say something now and then to make it look like it’s on their radar. The common Keynesian comeback is “Don’t worry, there’s the multiplier effect, see when a dollar is handed to the butcher, he hands it to the baker…” et cetera. But, really, when’s the last time you heard of a Keynesian advocate take a position of “Stop! Don’t spend so much money! It’s causing a deficit”?
There’s a lesson here that applies to the rest of your…uh……….stuff. It’s one thing to detect a conflict between what’s said here & what you’ve read someplace. Quite another thing to articulate how such an anomaly creates an actual problem.
Of course context is important, but the context doesn’t change your statement.
No, but it absolutely invalidates your objection to it.
You were simply wrong on Keynes.
Nope. Obama can use context, so can I. Can you name when a Keynesian objected to deficit spending, as part of his Keynesian countercyclical policy proposals?
And using any conventional definition of liberal, they certainly do argue about deficits and other issues.
Maybe behind closed doors…although I doubt even that much. But their rep is, if there’s a way to spend money through the government that is not military, they’re for it — and they seem perfectly cool with that, through booms and busts. They just don’t worry about deficits, they represent the constituency that won’t be paying for them.
Keep in mind that the only cash surpluses in recent U.S. history were engineered by a liberal president. The Clinton Administration explicitly worked to reduce deficits.
About time we dealt with that. No, Virginia, Clinton did not work to reduce the deficits.
But since I already know you won’t concede that, what is your explanation as to why (the appearance of( an improving balance sheet should not be credited to the Gingrich Congress? Clinton was the trustee of a very briefly authorized line-item veto, which was struck down by the Supreme Court 6-3 in ’98. So the purse strings were & are held by Congress.
- mkfreeberg | 08/24/2012 @ 05:31mkfreeberg: In the situation that endured throughout the 1930’s, and has endured throughout the current administration, it is accurate. Relative to the contrasting philosophy of Sound Finance, it is a decent characterization.
That’s not what you said above, but we’ll take that as a clarification. Keynesian policy is countercyclical, which means deficits during economic downturns.
mkfreeberg: The common Keynesian comeback is “Don’t worry, there’s the multiplier effect, see when a dollar is handed to the butcher, he hands it to the baker…” et cetera.
More ignorance on your part. Multipliers are effective (>1) only when there is slack in the economy.
mkfreeberg: Can you name when a Keynesian objected to deficit spending, as part of his Keynesian countercyclical policy proposals?
Keynes, in General Theory.
mkfreeberg: Maybe behind closed doors…although I doubt even that much.
No. You simply close your mind to contrary evidence. For instance, when Clinton worked to reform welfare, he took a great deal of flak from other liberals.
mkfreeberg: No, Virginia, Clinton did not work to reduce the deficits.
Of course he did, and succeeded. The U.S. ran large cash surpluses, meaning the U.S. was paying off the publicly-held debt; and including the Social Security trust fund, was in near balance at the end of his term.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/historicaltables%5B1%5D.pdf
mkfreeberg: But since I already know you won’t concede that, what is your explanation as to why (the appearance of( an improving balance sheet should not be credited to the Gingrich Congress?
Clinton campaigned on reforming welfare and reducing the deficit. The Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 was passed in Congress with exactly zero Republican votes in either chamber of the congress. It passed only with the vote of V.P. Gore casting the deciding vote as President of the Senate. Republicans insisted it would destroy the U.S. economy. They were exactly wrong.
Republicans were crucial in the reform of welfare, though, and Gingrich worked closely with Clinton to find a way to move people from welfare to work by providing jobs in the expanding economy. As we said, Clinton took flak from the political left, which contradicts your claim above.
- Zachriel | 08/24/2012 @ 06:27That’s not what you said above, but we’ll take that as a clarification.
It is not within the scope of my comments above. If Obama is allowed context, then so am I.
Unless you’re arguing the context excuse doesn’t work? So you would be retracting your earlier apologia for Obama being “taken out of context”? I think you all need to go offline and sort this out…a little bit of consistency.
More ignorance on your part. Multipliers are effective (>1) only when there is slack in the economy.
Both of your objections to my summary of Keynes, acknowledge that I am correct in certain situations. So both of your objections have to do with applying conditions. In both cases, the conditions are not relevant to the context.
For instance, when Clinton worked to reform welfare, he took a great deal of flak from other liberals.
Yes, because he was forced to act in an un-liberal way. Liberalism is extremism by its very nature, as I’ve said many times. Glad you’re finally coming around on this.
…and including the Social Security trust fund, was in near balance at the end of his term.
Actually, Clinton was President for two terms. And the link I provided addresses this canard. To say Clinton ran a surplus, you have to count I.O.U.’s as assets, when the I.O.U.’s don’t represent any kind of future income because they have obligations attached to them.
Clinton campaigned on reforming welfare and reducing the deficit. The Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 was passed in Congress with exactly zero Republican votes in either chamber of the congress. It passed only with the vote of V.P. Gore casting the deciding vote as President of the Senate. Republicans insisted it would destroy the U.S. economy. They were exactly wrong.
The surpluses were not realized until well after Clinton had to contend with a Republican Congress. At any rate, if we are to rate presidents according to the government’s surpluses and deficits under their terms, and we are to count Social Security in those surpluses and deficits, then an adjustment would have to be made for the baby-boom generation, which was paying into the system during Clinton’s two terms, and starting to draw against it during Bush’s two terms. That’s just common sense. I’m sure you’ll agree with that?
As we said, Clinton took flak from the political left, which contradicts your claim above.
Actually, it supports many of the claims I made above. The left will not tolerate dissent in any shape or form.
Liberalism is extremism, by nature.
- mkfreeberg | 08/24/2012 @ 08:55mkfreeberg: Unless you’re arguing the context excuse doesn’t work?
We read your context. You were clearly unaware of how Keynesian countercyclical policy works.
mkfreeberg: In both cases, the conditions are not relevant to the context.
You said, in effect, that Keynes said to always use the accelerator, when, in fact, Keynes said to use the accelerator to speed up, and the brake to slow down in order to maintain a steady speed.
Zachriel: For instance, when Clinton worked to reform welfare, he took a great deal of flak from other liberals.
mkfreeberg: And the link I provided addresses this canard.
Your link confirms that the total national debt was virtually balanced near the end of the Clinton Administration, as we said. And there is no hiding the fact that U.S. publicly-held debt was reduced during the end of the Clinton Administration, as it is, well, public. That means the U.S. was running a cash surplus.
http://factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/
mkfreeberg: Yes, because he was forced to act in an un-liberal way.
So that directly contradicts your claim “we do not see liberals arguing about” deficits and stimulus spending. That is simply false.
- Zachriel | 08/24/2012 @ 11:06You were clearly unaware of how Keynesian countercyclical policy works.
If I may: Your track record in leaping to that assumption, is not good. You have leaped to this assumption without any basis whatsoever, and been nailed on it, time and time again. Frankly, you don’t know what you’re talking about, I don’t know any other way to put it.
- mkfreeberg | 08/24/2012 @ 11:48mkfreeberg: Frankly, you don’t know what you’re talking about, I don’t know any other way to put it.
Well, let’s look again.
mkfreeberg: the Keynes/Krugman formula, spend huge, bigger every time, and deficits be damned.”
But neither Keynes nor Krugman recommend “spending huge, bigger every time” or that “deficits be damned”. Both are countercyclicists, meaning the direction of government spending is inverse to the state of the economy. So your claim was false, but consistent with typical right-wing tropes.
Classically, the policy is to maintain the government budget in balance. So if the economy is growing, leading to increased tax receipts, cut taxes. If the economy is shrinking, causing reduced tax receipts, cut spending (or raise taxes). The problem is that this exacerbates the market cycle, leading to booms and busts. Cutting taxes while the economy grows causes it to grow faster, leading to a bubble. When the bubble bursts, cutting spending (or raising taxes) accelerates the decline, leading to a dangerous, downward spiral.
During the expansion of the Bush Era, for instance, taxes were cut leading to deficits, which helped overstimulate the economy. Instead of spending the money through tax cuts, the U.S. might have put that money aside for a rainy day, in a “lock box.” Even if there had still been a financial shock, the U.S. would have been in a much better position to respond to the crisis.
Countercyclical policy means to run a surplus during times of plenty, and run a deficit during times of famine. In a modern economy that means progressive taxes, which dampen growth as incomes rise, but reverses when the economy declines. Unemployment insurance and other safety net programs act as automatic stimuli. When there is a severe shock, this can require additional stimulus to stop the downward spiral in demand. Nevertheless, countercyclical policy can be and should be revenue neutral, with the money spent during the contraction being equal to the money saved during the expansion.
It even has a Biblical basis with the story of Joseph.
- Zachriel | 08/24/2012 @ 12:03It is plainly a situational observation.
You would agree there are situations in which a Sound Finance advocate would worry about a deficit, and a Keynesian advocate would not? If not, then you’re the one with the mistaken understanding about this. If so, then my summary accurately applies.
There is no in-between on that, it’s one or the other.
Again, I would point out this is not the first time you have leaped to the unfounded conclusion that the other side has misunderstood something, when that is not the case.
Countercyclical policy means to run a surplus during times of plenty, and run a deficit during times of famine. In a modern economy that means progressive taxes, which dampen growth as incomes rise, but reverses when the economy declines. Unemployment insurance and other safety net programs act as automatic stimuli. When there is a severe shock, this can require additional stimulus to stop the downward spiral in demand. Nevertheless, countercyclical policy can be and should be revenue neutral, with the money spent during the contraction being equal to the money saved during the expansion.
You’re making a classic liberal mistake confusing “is” with “should be.” As was the case in 1934 between FDR and Keynes, and in the past few years between the Obama administration and Krugman, when the rubber hits the road there are many different opinions about what should be done. As I’ve already demonstrated, Krugman has had his bouts of frustration with the folks in charge not spending as much as he’d like to have spent. He’s complained about this a number of times, during which time the government has run deficits around a trillion dollars annually.
So, in practice, the Keynesian cares as much about deficits as your average liberal does about liberty. He doesn’t.
- mkfreeberg | 08/24/2012 @ 12:25Here is your straight story about Clinton.
- mkfreeberg | 08/24/2012 @ 12:39I nominate this as the ultimate Zachriel statement:
Morgan asks if there were ever a Keynesian — a named individual — who objected to deficits as part of his Keynesian countercyclical policy proposals. This is a question about actual events — if there were such a Keynesian (Frances Perkins, maybe?), and that named individual did register an objection, it would be there in the historical record. Either there was or there wasn’t, and we can go to instant replay and find out.
But the Zachriel reply by citing a book of theory.
Kinda sums up liberalism in a nutshell, don’t it?
[Bonus question for the fast money round: One can discount the actions of actual Keynesians, explicitly following the theories of Keynes, by citing a prior work of Keynes. However, when you point out that the Nazis were clearly, explicitly a left-wing party by their own definition– you know, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party — this just shows you don’t understand history. Please explain. Feel free to use Eliason and Sorenson, eds., Fascism, Liberalism, and Social Democracy in Central Europe: Past and Present; A. James Gregor, Marxism, Fascism, and Totalitarianism: Chapters in the Intellectual History of Radicalism; and of course Allen Douglas, From Fascism to Libertarian Communism: George Valois Against the Third Republic. Aren’t Amazon searches great?]
- Severian | 08/24/2012 @ 13:19mkfreeberg: It is plainly a situational observation.
Yes, that was the point.
mkfreeberg: You would agree there are situations in which a Sound Finance advocate would worry about a deficit, and a Keynesian advocate would not?
You’re capitalizing “Sound Finance”, so not sure your use of terminology. Classical economics would try to avoid deficits. That means that, during a downturn when tax receipts are falling, the government would cut spending and raise taxes. (That, of course, can exacerbate the downturn, leading to more cuts, and a deeper downturn.)
Keynesian policy is aware of the effect of deficits, but consider that the benefits outweigh the negatives during an economic downturn.
mkfreeberg: There is no in-between on that, it’s one or the other.
Sorry, life isn’t always black-and-white. There is a balance struck between the positive value of a stimulus in the short run, and the negatives of deficits in the long run.
mkfreeberg: You’re making a classic liberal mistake confusing “is” with “should be.”
Nope.
mkfreeberg: As was the case in 1934 between FDR and Keynes, and in the past few years between the Obama administration and Krugman, when the rubber hits the road there are many different opinions about what should be done… So, in practice, the Keynesian cares as much about deficits as your average liberal does about liberty.
Your statement is self-contradictory. The liberal FDR was very worried about deficits, and those differing opinions occur because of the different weight people assign to the long term negatives of deficits compared to the short term benefits of stimulus.
mkfreeberg: Here is your straight story about Clinton.
Your own citation again shows that the unified budget was virtually balanced, ($16 billion in a $2 trillion budget); while the publicly-held debt decreased, meaning the U.S. government was taking in more than it was spending, the definition of a cash surplus.
- Zachriel | 08/24/2012 @ 14:05http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/historicaltables%5B1%5D.pdf
Sorry, life isn’t always black-and-white.
Well sorry, it isn’t always squishy and solid-gray either. Sometimes the Law of the Excluded Middle takes effect.
Nope.
Yep.
Your statement is self-contradictory. The liberal FDR was very worried about deficits, and those differing opinions occur because of the different weight people assign to the long term negatives of deficits compared to the short term benefits of stimulus.
Not sure what you’re talking about with the self-contradictory thing, but glad to see you agreeing with what is correct.
Your own citation again shows that the unified budget was virtually balanced, ($16 billion in a $2 trillion budget); while the publicly-held debt decreased, meaning the U.S. government was taking in more than it was spending, the definition of a cash surplus.
You’re getting your links mixed up. Here is what I linked:
Clinton ran deficits throught all 8 years of his term, and one can go to the US Treasury Department and looking through the history of the total outstanding debt through Clintons term.
Every year Clinton was in office, the total national debt continued to climb.
How Clinton managed to claim a surplus was that while the general operating budgets ran deficits but Clinton borrowed from numerous off budget funds to make the on budget fund a surplus.
For example, in 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed
$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others
Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed – $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).
If there is ever a true surplus, then the national debt will go down.
the national debt did not go down one year during the Clinton administration.
Boy, you can lead a horse to water…
- mkfreeberg | 08/24/2012 @ 14:14mkfreeberg: Not sure what you’re talking about with the self-contradictory thing,
You pointed to the liberal FDR, who was worried about deficits, just before saying liberals don’t care about deficits.
mkfreeberg: Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
That’s right, the unified budget was virtually balanced ($16 billion in a $2000 billion budget), while the publicly-held debt decreased, meaning the U.S. government was taking in more than it was spending, the definition of a cash surplus.
Year, cash surplus
1998, +69
1999 +126
2000 +236
2001 +128
Please refer to the CBO website here:
- Zachriel | 08/24/2012 @ 14:42http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/historicaltables%5B1%5D.pdf
In other words, the national debt did not go down one year during the Clinton administration.
- mkfreeberg | 08/24/2012 @ 15:11mkfreeberg: In other words, the national debt did not go down one year during the Clinton administration.
In other words, the unified budget was virtually balanced, while the publicly-held debt decreased, meaning the U.S. government was taking in more than it was spending, the definition of a cash surplus. Did you look at the CBO link, and do you understand why it is important that the U.S. was running cash surpluses.
Here is Greenspan (2001) expressing concern about the structural surpluses. Those were the days!
“The most recent projections from the OMB indicate that, if current policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach $800 billion in fiscal year 2011, including an on-budget surplus of $500 billion.”
- Zachriel | 08/24/2012 @ 15:25http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/2001/20010125/default.htm
Did you look at the CBO link, and do you understand why it is important that the U.S. was running cash surpluses.
Yup, my link addresses everything in your link, and explains why it is balderdash.
Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed – $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).
If there is ever a true surplus, then the national debt will go down.
the national debt did not go down one year during the Clinton administration.
But you’ve found a way to count it, and the CBO blessed this way of counting it, to make it look like Clinton left surpluses; the important weasel-wording being “cash surpluses.” This discounts the plain fact that the Social Security “fund” is not, in fact, bringing any assets to the accounting, just a bunch of IOUs that have (uncounted) future obligations attached to them, and thus are worthless.
But, we have the fantasy that Bill Clinton left “cash surpluses.” Good enough for lib propaganda.
mkfreeberg: Yup, my link addresses everything in your link, and explains why it is balderdash.
Really? Your argument is that the CBO report is balderdash, that they don’t know what is meant by the publicly-held debt?
mkfreeberg: But you’ve found a way to count it, and the CBO blessed this way of counting it, to make it look like Clinton left surpluses; the important weasel-wording being “cash surpluses.”
Cash accounting is a standard method of accounting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_method_of_accounting
Keep in mind that when economists talk about the surplus or deficit, they are referring to cash account basis. You do understand that the publicly-held debt was reduced during the late 1990s? You don’t have to trust the CBO, as publicly-held debt is, well, public.
- Zachriel | 08/24/2012 @ 16:22Really? Your argument is that the CBO report is balderdash, that they don’t know what is meant by the publicly-held debt?
Now your argument is that the CBO doesn’t know what it’s doing. Or your interpretation, rather…no, the CBO unfortunately is required to interpret these laws the way they are written, and they’re written by politicians who don’t live in the real world. So, whether they know what they’re doing or not, is immaterial; the fact is, worthless things are being counted as if they’re worth something.
Cash accounting is a standard method of accounting.
And, you just did it again. I don’t believe what you want me to, or I subject it to scrutiny/question/skepticism to which you don’t want me to subject it…I must not know the difference between cash and accrual basis. Evidently, everyone who doesn’t see things your way is automatically ignorant. Oh, it must be tough for you living in a society where other people who disagree with you have input on things.
You do understand that the publicly-held debt was reduced during the late 1990s? You don’t have to trust the CBO, as publicly-held debt is, well, public.
The national debt did not go down one year during the Clinton administration.
- mkfreeberg | 08/24/2012 @ 16:53mkfreeberg: Now your argument is that the CBO doesn’t know what it’s doing.
You really aren’t interested in a discussion, are you? You said,
mkfreeberg: Clinton did not work to reduce the deficits.
Not only did Clinton work to reduce the deficits, the deficits were, in fact, reduced.
Zachriel: …and including the Social Security trust fund, was in near balance at the end of his term.
mkfreeberg: the link I provided addresses this canard.
It’s not a canard as it is true per your own citations.
mkfreeberg: But you’ve found a way to count it, and the CBO blessed this way of counting it, to make it look like Clinton left surpluses; the important weasel-wording being “cash surpluses.”
When people, including economists, talk about deficits, they are talking about whether the government is taking in enough money to cover expenditures.
General Encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_budget_deficit
Investor Glossary
investorwords.com/601/budget_deficit.html
Dictionary
dictionary.reference.com/browse/budget+deficit
Business Encyclopedia
inc.com/encyclopedia/budget-deficit.html
In any case, running a cash surplus is generally preferable to running a cash deficit. If the U.S. had continued to pay down the publicly-held debt, it would have been in a much stronger position financially to weather any financial shocks. The U.S. chose a different path in 2000.
- Zachriel | 08/25/2012 @ 05:23Okay, now we have to use your own definitions of words to make your argument look reasonable. We already know you’re opposed to definitions actually defining things…
What is the point you’re trying to make about Clinton anyway? Are you trying to say he was a liberal who “worked to reduce deficits” or are you trying to say he must not have been a liberal, because the liberals were so upset with him? Or are you trying to make a distinction between liberal and left-wing?
I think you’ve lost track. But in any case, whatever example Bill Clinton is supposed to be of any kind of ideological passion, he’s not going to be a very good one. Bill Clinton cared about getting laid. He tried to expand government, got away with it for a little while, Newt Gingrich stopped him, Clinton shrugged and went back to his desk so he could take a “pizza delivery.” End of story. That’s the Clinton presidency as far as budgets and deficits are concerned.
- mkfreeberg | 08/25/2012 @ 07:52mkfreeberg: Okay, now we have to use your own definitions of words to make your argument look reasonable.
At the very least we have to use some unambiguous definition, so that when you say “liberal”, we have some idea what you mean.
- Zachriel | 08/25/2012 @ 08:00Your objection, it has been revealed, is not against definitions that are ambiguous; but, rather, against definitions that actually define things.
mkfreeberg: Your objection, it has been revealed, is not against definitions that are ambiguous; but, rather, against definitions that actually define things.
Um, actually, we want to know what you mean when you say “liberal”. Apparently, that is too difficult for you.
- Zachriel | 08/25/2012 @ 08:18You know perfectly well. You asked for my definitions, and I provided them. They are clear.
Your objection to my definitions is that they define things, something definitions are supposed to do.