Pharyngula

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 5, 2009 11:59 PM

It's a good idea, since if nothing else, it keeps the rapscallions off the street doing something entirely unproductive

Exactly. Sitting at home and babbling at yourself is hardly an effective social change strategy. But, it does keep them from enacting their desire of fucking up other people's lives.

Posted by: Thomas | October 6, 2009 12:04 AM

PZ i do truly pray for you....everyone needs prayer...

Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 6, 2009 12:07 AM

Oh, I'm sure you've been condemned by the smarmy promise to "pray for you," PZ.

I doubt any will waste too much time praying. Just saying that they'll pray for you is the ad hominem attack that they're going for, so that they will know that they needn't listen to you or any other "evolutionist."

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Jack | October 6, 2009 12:09 AM

They won't pray for you, PZ. They hate you too much!

I had a great time on Saturday night and it was nice to chat with you. I felt sorry for poor Viktor, though. His room was in a hell of a state by the time I left. Not that I had anything to do with that.

Posted by: Kobra | October 6, 2009 12:20 AM

Actually PZ, Barry Lynn has leveled up and now gets a +6 to his saving throws against hostile prayers. Not that it really matters since failing your saving throw against a prayer affects precisely dick.

Posted by: steve | October 6, 2009 12:24 AM

In my experience, when someone tells you they're praying for you, it either means they think you are a vile character, or they think you're in a situation that has no chance of successful resolution. In short, wither you suck or the fix you're in sucks.

Posted by: Sean3:16 | October 6, 2009 1:05 AM

only where "cultural liberalism" means "not conservative enough for me!"

Schwarzenegger is not liberal by any other definition than that of "he doesn't want to turn the country into a neo-con-ish theocracy"

I don't know any definition of conservatism that would include bodybuilding, philandering, pot-smoking, green technology bolstering, or sycophancy. Maybe you get your political definitions from tv? Certain policies mesh with conservatism, like his stance on immigration, but not for conservative reasons. In any case, conservatism would also exclude those who pray for liberals, so they are rightly mocked no matter how you slice it.

Posted by: Sean3:16 | October 6, 2009 1:18 AM

I don't know what you're driving at Jadehawk. Do you have thoughts on conservatism you'd like to share?

Posted by: Ragutis | October 6, 2009 1:32 AM

green technology bolstering

What exactly is "liberal" about encouraging an untapped branch of industry with massive potential?

And do you have any idea how small the republican party would be if you tossed out all the philanderers?

The rest of your post makes no sense whatsoever. WTF does marijuana consumption or a personal fitness regime have to do with one's political leanings?

Posted by: Sean3:16 | October 6, 2009 1:37 AM

i don't think Schwarzenegger qualitifes as conservative. Liberal? quite so. Flag-burning hippie? not so much, but that's not what we're talking about.

Praying for liberals is not conservative, but religious zealoutry, and is not saved just because they profess themselves to be conservative. Reactionary yes, but what are they conserving?

Both categorically don't come under the conservative banner. The scotsman fallacy is understandably emotionally invoked, but not reasonably, as I'm fitting definitions, not preferences.

Posted by: Sean3:16 | October 6, 2009 2:08 AM

rudely reduced definitions:

liberalism is the political expression of individualism released from arbitrary authority.

conservatism is less a political philosophy than a moral one, and often marked by suspicion of progress.

Posted by: rock-biologist | October 6, 2009 2:22 AM

"I am a conservative Republican, but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process."

-Barry Goldwater, apparently a commie pinko liberal

Posted by: Sean3:16 | October 6, 2009 3:22 AM

-Barry Goldwater, apparently a commie pinko liberal

would it be a satisfactory reply to say Goldman's definition is more libertarian than conservative, and used to contrast socialism more than liberalism? What distinguishes conservatism from "scotsman" is that the former is rooted in principle, the latter rather necessarily ad hoc. I fully admit conservative is used in many ad hoc situations, but that's really the problem I'm pointing out.

as an example, consider the following:
a: all circles are 2 dimensional.
b: but my dog "Circle" is 3 dimensional.
a: I'm talking about Real circles.

doesn't fail scotsman. neither do I.

Posted by: the_ignored | October 6, 2009 3:56 AM

Ok, is it just me, or has the religous right become totally &%$#@! unhinged since Obama got elected? "Adopt a Liberal"? Rewriting the bible (from Conservapedia)? The Rapture Ready crowd being afraid that Obama will shut down their forum? People comparing Obama to Hitler? The regular insanity of Glen Beck?

What in hell's going on here?

This can't be just normal adversarial politics. They've gone nuts.

Posted by: Peter Ashby | October 6, 2009 4:37 AM

@Sean3:16

I am sorry to hear about the demise of your dog. Are you going to replace it with a new 4 dimensional dog or did you get it stuffed?

Posted by: Walton | October 6, 2009 4:41 AM

Re the debate about whether Arnold Schwarzenegger and Olympia Snowe are "liberals": I think you're confusing, as Americans tend to do, different senses of the word "liberal".

"Liberal", in the political context, has tended to be used in America as a general epithet for the social-democratic left: those who, while not opposing capitalism in general, tend to support an extensive welfare state and relatively high taxation and public spending. In Europe, many of these people would fit into centre-left parties that are called "socialist", "social democratic" or "labour" parties - but those terms tend not to be used in America except by the radical left. So they call themselves, and are labelled, "liberals" or "progressives". Usually, when a centre-left politician in the US is labelled a "socialist", it's a term of abuse by his or her opponents. "Liberal" and "progressive" are the only words available.

At the same time, "liberal" has another, much broader, meaning in the philosophical and socio-cultural sense. In this broader sense, a "liberal" is anyone who believes in limited government, civil liberties, individual freedom and self-determination, and doesn't want government to impose a set of moral values on everyone.

Those who are sometimes called "liberal" Republicans, like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Rudy Giuliani, are really liberals in the second sense, not the first. They're "liberals" in that they don't support hardline Christian conservatism, believe the state should be secular, and are moderate on issues like abortion and gay marriage. (Though Schwarzenegger doesn't fit totally even within this view of "liberalism", given his strong support for the death penalty.) But both of them are fairly fiscally and economically conservative - both were elected, in NY and California respectively, on platforms of lower taxes and balancing the budget.

Likewise, Christian conservatives tend to refer to the likes of Andrew Sullivan as "liberals". (Andrew Sullivan is, I would say, the blogger whose views most closely correspond to my own.) Again, Sullivan is a "liberal" in the socio-cultural sense - he supports gay marriage, civil liberties and a secular state - but he is a conservative in virtually every other sense. I would call him a conservative, just as I would call myself a (libertarian) conservative; but Andrew Schlafly would doubtless call both of us "liberals".

Posted by: Sean3:16 | October 6, 2009 5:44 AM

Walton, you're quite right about that. That is how the terms are commonly applied. They've become so cliche as to meaningless though, I find. (probably we all find that).

Peter: Circle never died. He retired from silly hypotheticals, and is enjoying a comfortable living in limericks with his pal Steve Urkel;P

Posted by: bobxxxx | October 6, 2009 6:11 AM

When a Christian says "I will pray for you", that's an insult and the Christian knows it's an insult. My reply is always "go fuck yourself".

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 6, 2009 7:51 AM

Meanwhile, Pharyngula's "adopt a conservative" initiative has shown considerable success: in less than 2 years, Walton has been cured of Christianity and AGW-denialism, and admits the need for at least a minimal welfare state!

Posted by: Cheezits | October 6, 2009 8:19 AM

Adopt a *liberal*?? So now we know that all their talk of God and Jesus is just a phony cover-up. No, they aren't on a mission to bring non-Christians to Jesus. It'a all about demented right-wing Americentric politics.

Posted by: Peter Ashby | October 6, 2009 8:46 AM

@Sean3:16

Circle cannot be living unless he lives in flatland. In our universe to be alive is to be four dimensional. You are never as strongly 4 dimensional as when you are an embryo, it slows down when you become a foetus and even more as an adult, but you and are still 4 dimensional even though the effects of the arrow of time are harder to detect from day to day.

Posted by: macleodcartoons | October 6, 2009 9:17 AM

Kevin Roose's book, 'The Unlikely Disciple', about a Brown University student who spends a semester at Liberty undercover, is a pretty interesting insight into the life and attitudes there. Falwell died just before the end of the semester, which made his time even more fascinating. I'm pretty sure we could get him to get his friends there to organize a mass prayer for PZ.

Posted by: Rob | October 6, 2009 9:21 AM

One of the most perplexing things to me about American christians is this belief that anything seen as a liberal cause: nature, the environment, renewable energy, health care, or just helping your fellow man, are somehow evil, nasty, devilish causes. Seriously, wtf!?!? To quote Barack Obama, "people haven't been reading their bibles". These people need to seriously ask themselves, what would Jesus do?

Posted by: Alyson Miers | October 6, 2009 9:51 AM

Hey, Liberty University! Pray for me, I'm a dangerous liberal! I take mass transit, don't eat red meat, don't go to church, speak at least one foreign language learned from hanging out with a bunch of secular Muslims (double whammy!), donated to Obama's campaign, haul my own furniture without a man's help, and I lick godless pussy! Don't you want to draw your Skydaddy's attention to me, before my novels get published and I become really dangerous?! I need to be adopted and saved! I think just four, maybe five hours of prayer per day, per believer ought to do. Don't worry about your other obligations; the Skydaddy'll take care of all those when he sees you praying so hard for my heathen feminist ass.

Posted by: ereador | October 6, 2009 2:45 PM

Alyson Myers, that made me laugh -- a much better feeling than anybody's prayer could ever give me.

Posted by: Nova | October 6, 2009 3:14 PM

PZ:

Unfortunately, looking at their list of liberals, most of 'em ain't. Olympia Snowe? Arnold Schwarzenegger? Hilary Clinton? Barack Obama? They're moderate to conservative.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 6, 2009 3:44 PM

OT, anybody know why when I sign in with movable type I'm told I'm "Forbidden" and don't have permission to access comments on this server about 20 times before being let in?

Because the ScienceBorg Overminds totally fucked up the commenting system.

Posted by: nothing's sacred | October 6, 2009 5:09 PM

I'll give them Barney Frank and Barry Lynn, but even there, they aren't exactly bomb-throwing radicals out to overthrow the government and replace it with communism, free love, and LSD in the water supply.

As opposed to more typical liberals?

Posted by: Dreamer | October 6, 2009 7:11 PM

In this corporatocracy, real liberals don't have much authority.

I can't imagine that a bomb-throwing PETA commie nutjob would call herself a "liberal". She'd call herself a "revolutionary" or a "freedom fighter", maybe. Free the chickens! Liberate the lamb chops! (Great, now I'm hungry.)

I don't think of Hillary as a liberal, no. But Obama? Yep. Definitely a liberal, just one who panders to the religious right with his Office of Faith-Based Idiocy and aversion to gay marriage.

But PZ, I will pray for you! I will pray that Cthulhu eats YOU first, not me. K?

Posted by: Walton | October 7, 2009 3:49 AM

Actually, the less power leftists have, the less civilized nations tend to be.

As a blanket statement, that's absolute bullshit. So Cuba and North Korea are more "civilised", in your eyes, than the United States? East Germany was more "civilised" than West Germany?

I will tentatively guess that you meant to claim that "Western Europe" (which liberal Americans often seem to regard, wrongly, as some sort of homogeneous politico-economic utopia) is more "civilised" in your eyes than the United States. That's a reasonable claim to make, although I don't agree with it. But saying "the less power leftists have, the less civilized nations tend to be" is indefensible hyperbole.

Posted by: nothing's sacred | October 7, 2009 7:10 AM

Let me also point out that leftists don't have any power in North Korea, you pathetic fool. Nor did they have any in East Germany, and their power in Cuba is limited -- but to the degree that they do, it's civilizing. Of course, this is under the assumption that "leftist" refers only to people who actually practice leftist principles.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | October 7, 2009 7:44 AM

Let me also point out that leftists don't have any power in North Korea, you pathetic fool. Nor did they have any in East Germany, and their power in Cuba is limited -- but to the degree that they do, it's civilizing. Of course, this is under the assumption that "leftist" refers only to people who actually practice leftist principles.

So Marxist-Leninists, North Korean Juche supporters, and the like are No True Scotsmen Leftists in your eyes? Despite the fact that these groups regard themselves, quite explicitly, as left-wing, and characterise their opponents as right-wing? Stalin, for one, labelled his moderate opponents "right-deviationists."

You sound rather like a liberal Christian whining "But Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson aren't real Christians!" You don't get to exclude certain groups of professed leftists from the definition of "leftist" simply because you find them embarrassing. That's intellectually dishonest.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 7, 2009 8:04 AM

Actually, Walton, you should look up who Lenin and Trotsky (and presumably Stalin following them) denounced as "too far left."

There is a real reason we talk about the right and left wings of communism.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | October 7, 2009 8:57 AM

Glenn Beck says he is a libertarian. Does that make him a libertarian?

Yes. Unlike "nothing's sacred", I don't arrogate to myself the exclusive right to define political terms.

Glenn Beck is a blithering idiot, and I disagree with the majority of his views. However, "libertarian" is a broad term without a universally agreed definition - just like "leftist" or "Christian" - and so I acknowledge that he is as entitled as I am to call himself a libertarian. I don't play No True Scotsman games. I defend my own views, not anyone else's; and I don't, therefore, seek to redefine the term "libertarian" so as to only include people with whom I agree.

(Indeed, there are many libertarians who would deny that I am a libertarian, since I support anti-discrimination laws, some level of public spending on education and welfare, and high military spending. All of these positions are in conflict with the views of most orthodox libertarians, but I still call myself a "libertarian" since, of the epithets available, it is the one that best describes my views.)

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 7, 2009 9:08 AM

Among other things Walton believes: North Korea really is a democratic republic.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 7, 2009 9:13 AM

East Germany

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | October 7, 2009 9:25 AM

strange gods: There are different wings to communism, true. And some ostensibly communist regimes are undoubtedly worse than others: the DPRK (which follows a local variant of Marxism called "Juche") is a worse place to live than Cuba.

But in my understanding, the moderate or progressive elements in communist nations - for example, those who advocated reform and liberalisation in the late years of the Soviet Union - are generally identified in those countries as right-wingers, whereas the hardline/reactionary Stalinists are identified as the left. The polarity is reversed from that of Western politics, where conservative elements seeking to uphold the traditional establishment are identified as right-wing, and their liberal/progressive opponents are generally identified as left-wing. There might be some exceptions to this, and I don't doubt that you'll take great pleasure in pointing some out to me.

But do you seriously deny that Communists, in general, identify themselves as left-wing? I wouldn't have thought that this is seriously up for dispute.

Among other things Walton believes: North Korea really is a democratic republic.

That depends on what one means by both terms. "Republic" can mean a number of different things. In the writings of political philosophers, it tends to refer to a specific kind of constitutional ideal, which is certainly not fulfilled by the DPRK's political system.

But in everyday political discourse, "republic" simply means "not a monarchy". Although North Korea shares many characteristics in common with an absolute monarchy - dynastic politics, for a start - it is not formally a monarchy, in the usual sense. Therefore, in the usual everyday use of the term, the DPRK is indeed a republic.

As to "democratic"; that is a term which does retain some kind of agreed meaning in constitutional theory. If we interpret "democratic" to mean "governed by the majority will of its citizens" - which, in itself, is a probably fairly uncontentious definition - then no country is fully democratic, since no political system gives absolute effect to the majority view on every issue. (And with good reason; such a system would be absolutely disastrous.) Our own countries are best described as liberal or constitutional democracies, not merely as democracies. However, it is undoubtedly the case, on this definition, that the DPRK has few or no elements of real democracy, since its "elections" are shams, and ordinary citizens have no input into the political process.

To call the DPRK "democratic", therefore, would be to deprive the term of any objective meaning. I suspect this was the point you were making: by allowing anyone to define themselves as "leftist", "libertarian", "Christian" or any other ideological identifier, without challenging their claim to be so, we deprive these epithets of any objective meaning. The answer, of course, is that ideological epithets don't have any objective meaning - especially not terms as nebulous and meaningless as "left" and "right". There is no objective, agreed definition of the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing", so there is no way of meaningfully distinguishing between "true" and "false" leftists or rightists.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 7, 2009 9:59 AM

The answer, of course, is that ideological epithets don't have any objective meaning - especially not terms as nebulous and meaningless as "left" and "right". There is no objective, agreed definition of the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing", so there is no way of meaningfully distinguishing between "true" and "false" leftists or rightists.

Consider the electromagnetic spectrum. It is perhaps arbitrary to put down a stake and declare that all the waves to one side are long, and those on the other are short. We choose visible light as our stake simply because it's what humans are most familiar with, but this is an artifact of contingent evolution.

But it is not arbitrary to say that certain waves are longer or shorter than others.

Similarly it is not arbitrary to say that a political stance is further to the left or the right than another political stance.

The Soviet Union put its stake down in early twentieth century communism. Lenin was to the right of this stake, Rosa Luxemburg to the left.

I put my stake down elsewhere. We can disagree about where the stake should go. But there is a spectrum.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 7, 2009 11:02 AM

For example, one could identify the left wing with collectivism and the right wing with individualism; or, similarly, the left wing with equality and the right wing with liberty.

If one were a proudly dishonest ideologue or an idiot libertarian who's never studied history, then yes, I suppose one could.

I see you've learned enough to discard that definition as bullshit, but I also note that you offered nothing else in its place. Somehow I'm not surprised that was the only thing you could come up with.

Furthermore, some of the most important issues - coercion, civil liberties and personal freedom - cut across the left-right dichotomy.

This is, I'm sorry to say, a genuinely stupid objection. I try to give you the benefit of the doubt, but right now you are squandering it.

You can't just start running away from the whole left-right system because you don't like the implications. I'm not saying it captures every single variable, but it doesn't capture nothing. Nobody ever said that the left-right spectrum captured everything. You might as well say that because the electromagnetic spectrum does not address intensity, it's meaningless.

There are some political variables that are not described by left and right. It is a non sequitur to say that left and right therefore describe zero variables.

If the terms were as meaningless as you claim, then we simply could not use them. It would just make no sense to say that I am further left than you. The conversation could not take place. If we really were not saying anything, then not only could we not understand each other -- as we sometimes don't -- we could not begin to understand where the misunderstandings arise.

Posted by: Hyperon | October 7, 2009 12:14 PM

We don't need to fit ideas into arbitrary categories of "left" and "right" in order to do that.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 7, 2009 12:46 PM

OK then - what does it capture? What is the specific variable which is measured by the left-right spectrum?

The answer is in any history book covering the Modern Era. Can you be bothered? You had one bad definition that you picked up from a Nolan chart, but you gave up when you realized that was obvious propaganda. Do a bit of scholarship for once. There's something more to be learned here, that I'm afraid you'll miss out on, if I just hand the answer to you.

To show at least that there is something there to discover, and I'm not sending you on a wild goose chase, recall that I already gave you evidence that there's something objective being measured. "I'm [not] acknowledging the left-right spectrum as genuinely meaningful" is already demonstrated to be an anti-empirical stance. You may not yet understand what the data is pointing toward, but it is pointing to something.

I suppose this discussion will be difficult to continue with the angry racist hanging around, though.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | October 7, 2009 1:22 PM

The answer is in any history book covering the Modern Era. Can you be bothered?

I don't know precisely what answer you're looking for here. As virtually everyone knows, the terms originated from the French Revolution; those who sat on the right of the Assembly were the monarchists, Catholic clerics and defenders of the traditional aristocratic establishment, while those who sat on the left were the radicals, democrats, anti-clericalists, and advocates of republican government. Insofar as the terms had any broader application in the early nineteenth century, the "Right" was the traditional establishment, who defended monarchy, aristocratic and clerical privilege, agricultural interests and protectionism, and opposed the extension of political power to the middle and working classes. By contrast, the liberals of the era (men like Cobden and Bright in England) advocated free trade and limited representative government, and tended to defend commercial and urban interests rather than the landowning aristocracy. This is interesting because the ideas of nineteenth-century liberals correspond very closely to those of modern libertarians; yet the latter are commonly perceived as being on the right, not the left.

In the late nineteenth century, with the rise of socialism, the "left" became identified with socialist and anarchist movements, who rejected the capitalist order and advocated radical social and economic change. Accordingly, the advocates of capitalism and free trade became the "right". This was further confused by the rise of fascism and Nazism in the 1930s, ideologies which were radically authoritarian and advocated "traditional" values and ultra-nationalism. Fascism and Nazism have always been identified, both by their proponents and detractors, as being "right-wing" (I don't subscribe to the heterodox view that Goldberg promoted in Liberal Fascism); but at the same time, they were economically Keynesian and corporatist, combining private ownership with massive state spending on public works and military expansion.

During the Cold War, the left-right spectrum became apparently clear, reflecting the bipolar nature of world politics at the time: capitalists were on the "right", communists and socialists on the "left". In between the two were left-liberal and social-democratic politicians, like Attlee in the UK or Kennedy and Johnson in the US; while strongly opposing Communism and promoting an anti-Soviet foreign policy, they also increased public spending and government intervention in the economy. Today, the "right" in the US and UK is generally identified with free-market liberal economic ideas and advocacy of capitalism, but also with the advocacy of "traditional values", patriotism and nationalism, and religion. Conversely, the "left" tends to be identified with social-democratic economic ideas, economic egalitarianism, internationalism, and social liberalism.

The only consistent thread which we can draw from this historical account is that "the right", in any given location and era, are those who defend the traditional establishment and the established socio-economic order, whatever it may be. By contrast, "the left" are those who challenge the traditional established order and want to replace it with a different form of socio-economic organisation, whatever it may be. On that view, "left" and "right" are relative terms, and have different meanings in different countries.

However, this doesn't fit all the available data. Firstly, what about the fact that in, say, modern China, the defenders of the traditional Maoist order are identified as "New Leftists", whereas those who advocate liberalisation and greater individual freedom are identified as being on the right? Secondly, where does it leave groups such as libertarians and anarchocapitalists - who are opposed to the status quo and advocate significant socio-economic change, yet are identified as right-wing?

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 7, 2009 2:37 PM

This is interesting because the ideas of nineteenth-century liberals correspond very closely to those of modern libertarians;

That's a misleading overgeneralization that amounts to modern right-wing libertarian propaganda. You know perfectly well that classical liberalism does not line up with modern right-wing libertarianism. You cherry pick the similarities and ignore the differences.

(I don't subscribe to the heterodox view that Goldberg promoted in Liberal Fascism)

That's all? Heterodox and you don't subscribe to it? Not, "Jonah Goldberg is a gibbering buffoon"?

The only consistent thread which we can draw from this historical account is that "the right", in any given location and era, are those who defend the traditional establishment and the established socio-economic order, whatever it may be. By contrast, "the left" are those who challenge the traditional established order and want to replace it with a different form of socio-economic organisation, whatever it may be. On that view, "left" and "right" are relative terms, and have different meanings in different countries.

Pretty close. And notably consistent with the premise that while there might not be a precise point that divides The left from The right, it is possible to identify directions which are more left or more right than another.

Secondly, where does it leave groups such as libertarians and anarchocapitalists - who are opposed to the status quo and advocate significant socio-economic change, yet are identified as right-wing?

On the right-wing, because they are still firmly in favor of entrenching the currently wealthy in their places. They want increasing economic stratification to reward the deserving rich and punish the undeserving poor, and in the case of anarchocapitalists, a return to traditional feudalism.

Compare this to left-wing libertarianism, subtract what they have in common (as whatever they have in common is not on the left-right spectrum), and you find on the one hand a commitment to keeping rich people rich, and on the other a desire to uproot the whole system of class privilege.

Of your two alleged counterexamples, this was obviously not. That leaves the slightly interesting one:

Firstly, what about the fact that in, say, modern China, the defenders of the traditional Maoist order are identified as "New Leftists", whereas those who advocate liberalisation and greater individual freedom are identified as being on the right?

There is no traditional Maoist order in China, though. Maoism existed for less than three decades, a tiny blip in history. Entrenched wealth ruled China for thousands of years before Mao, and entrenched wealth has returned to rule China since Mao died.

The established order in China is Deng Xiaoping's and his successors'. Under the short view, these are the right wing.

Under the long view, which I think makes more sense, a long-established archos does not die suddenly when it is defeated, but rather lies dreaming like Cthulhu in R'lyeh. Class stratification waited out the Mao years and returned. Medieval horrors still live inside Pilty. A regime changes faster than a culture, and these established ways remain the paths of least resistance for a long while.

Under the long view, Mao's plans were doomed as soon as he became complacent. Leftism must remain an active struggle against classism, patriarchy and white supremacy, until these establishments are completely and finally uprooted throughout the world.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 7, 2009 2:51 PM

I didn't pick this up at the time, but, actually, the graph to which you linked doesn't show anything of the sort.

Oh boy. You really should learn to ask questions when you have doubts, rather than asserting ignorant things.

But I also note that, among those who identified as "extremely liberal", "very liberal" or "liberal", an average of 22% though that taxes were too high or much too high.

Yeah. Not actually surprising. Did you know that not all liberals are liberals just because they want to raise taxes?

It seems likely that most of those 22% were libertarians;

No it does not. It is not likely that 22% of all people who call themselves liberals in the USA are actually libertarians.

Really. Think about that. Think about what you just said.

You were previously arguing that libertarians were probably too few to be pushing any of the numbers one way or another. That was actually a much more sane and reasonable objection.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | October 7, 2009 2:53 PM

strange gods,

A regime changes faster than a culture, and these established ways remain the paths of least resistance for a long while. Under the long view, Mao's plans were doomed as soon as he became complacent. Leftism must remain an active struggle against classism, patriarchy and white supremacy, until these establishments are completely and finally uprooted throughout the world.

So you're saying that Mao had the right idea, but didn't go far enough in destroying the established order of society? I would tentatively suggest that the millions of innocent victims of the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward might disagree...

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 7, 2009 3:09 PM

In any case, here is TAXRICH by PARTYID, so that you can fantasize about how many of those liberal Democrats are really right-wing libertarians lurking.

Posted by: Hyperon | October 7, 2009 3:52 PM

OK, I exaggerated.

Kill him! KILL THE PIG! CUT HIS THROAT! BASH HIM IN!

Posted by: Bobber | October 7, 2009 3:58 PM

Kill him! KILL THE PIG! CUT HIS THROAT! BASH HIM IN!

Is it a sandal, or a shoe?

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | October 7, 2009 4:36 PM

Under right-wing libertarianism, all other power structures are obstacles to classism. To the extent that they stand in the way of classism -- and they do not always; for example, witness your political indifference to racism after Jim Crow, but when they have government enforcement they may stand in the way -- these obstacles must be swept aside to make room for classism to be absolutely dominant.

What, exactly, do you mean by "classism" in this particular context? "Class" can have several different meanings, and so can "classism".

I don't deny that classism exists - for instance, when someone from a working-class background suffers discrimination in employment because he or she has a strong regional accent, or didn't go to the "right" school, or doesn't know the "right" people. Old boy networks are a real phenomenon. But this kind of prejudice is just as much of a problem in the public sector as in the private sector (indeed, the "old school tie" mentality is a stereotypical, if exaggerated, feature of the upper ranks of the British civil service).

But you seem to be using the term "classism", in this context, to mean "wealthier people enjoying more opportunities and/or a better quality of life than less wealthy people." If this is what you mean, then yes, it's certainly an inevitable consequence of libertarian policies. But it's also not "classism", as I understand the term. People are unequal; they have different levels of skill and talent, and they create different amounts of wealth. In a libertarian society, those who are more productive naturally accumulate more wealth and social advantage, and they inevitably seek to pass this on to their children. I don't see this as a problem in itself - as long as we have (a) a basic safety net, and (b) enough social mobility to allow people of outstanding ability, whatever their background, to rise to greater wealth and status. Inequality is not evil; some people’s skills and labour are more in demand than others, and the market rewards this accordingly. For the sake of humanitarianism and decency, we should have a reasonable level of welfare, so that people don’t starve to death in the street or drop dead from lack of medical attention. But beyond this, we should accept that some people will do better for themselves than others. And, yes, they will pass some of this advantage on to their children via inheritances, private schooling, establishment connections, and the like. This is inevitable; nepotism happens in any kind of society.

Posted by: nothing's sacred | October 7, 2009 4:55 PM

So Marxist-Leninists, North Korean Juche supporters, and the like are No True Scotsmen Leftists in your eyes? Despite the fact that these groups regard themselves, quite explicitly, as left-wing, and characterise their opponents as right-wing? Stalin, for one, labelled his moderate opponents "right-deviationists."

As Lincoln noted, calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't change the number of legs the dog has. I did not commit a No True Scotsman fallacy because I did not exclude people who are leftists by definition, which is the requirement of the fallacy.

Juche includes the principle "Policy must reflect the will and aspirations of the masses and employ them fully in revolution and construction." Are you going to argue that the authorities in NK actually practice that principle?

Idiot.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | October 7, 2009 5:18 PM

Your grossly intellectually dishonest position is "Look, those bad people call themselves leftists! Therefore leftism is bad!"

No, I didn't make such a claim. There are bad people who call themselves libertarians, too.

Rather, I was merely countering your claim that leftists are a uniformly "civilising" influence on politics. You didn't say that some leftists are a civilising influence; you made a blanket statement. I demonstrated the falsehood of this statement by pointing out a couple of counterexamples.

Posted by: nothing's sacred | October 7, 2009 5:41 PM

No, I didn't make such a claim.

You're lying. Or rather, you're evading the truth, which is that the claim is implied by the argument you made.

Rather, I was merely countering your claim that leftists are a uniformly "civilising" influence on politics. You didn't say that some leftists are a civilising influence; you made a blanket statement.

You're lying again. Go back and read what I wrote, idiot.

I demonstrated the falsehood of this statement by pointing out a couple of counterexamples.

Those aren't counterexamples to my claim, moron, even if you ignore (as you are doing) everything sgbm wrote. Go read my claim again, cretin.

Posted by: nothing's sacred | October 7, 2009 5:56 PM

No, I didn't make such a claim.

On second thought, I'll grant that; I overstated your claim. Rather, you claim is "Look, those bad people call themselves leftists! Therefore leftism isn't a civilizing influence!"

It's hard to overstate the intellectual dishonesty of someone who, in the context of a discussion of the effects of a political ideology, refers to people who label themselves as adherents of the ideology, independent of what they practice. Would you judge the effects of compassion by what George W. Bush practiced, just because he called himself a "compassionate conservative"? Do you really want to defend the value of libertarianism against those who define it as what Glenn Beck preaches, just because he calls himself a libertarian? You say you don't "arrogate" to yourself the meaning of these terms -- you're a pathetic liar; you do so (like everyone else) except when it serves your dishonest rhetorical purposes not to.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | October 8, 2009 4:29 AM

nothing's sacred, I'm just going to ignore you, since you're manifestly uninterested in having a meaningful or civilised conversation.

=====

Returning to the more interesting discussion: strange gods, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're essentially perceiving the left-right spectrum as being all about vested class and sectional interests. So, on your view, "the right" represents the interests of the current wealthy and privileged classes, established religions, and other groups who benefit from the existing order. On this view, disagreements between different groups on the right, while they may masquerade as philosophical, are really just, as you put it, "internecine warfare among the rulers". Conversely, on your view, "the left" represents the interests of the poor and working classes, and marginalised groups such as racial and religious minorities. So that perhaps explains why you get so angry with me from time to time; as far as you're concerned, you're fighting for the interests of the poor, downtrodden and oppressed, whereas you see me as defending the continuation of oppression and engaging in ideological warfare against the most vulnerable people in society. On that view, I must either be stupid and deluded by right-wing propaganda, or simply lying about my true motivations; either way, you see my vaunted philosophical principles as nothing more than window-dressing.

In the real world, there are, however, a lot of problems with this simplistic characterisation. Left-wing policies are not the only, nor the best, means of helping the poor. They do tend to achieve greater equality, but that's not the same thing. In highly capitalist countries, there tends to be high inequality, but even the poorest people have a higher standard of living than their counterparts under more socialist systems. Generally, the countries which have the strongest economies and best quality of life - New Zealand being a fantastic example - are those which have adopted free-market economic policies.

(The United States is not a counterexample, since - if you factor in federal, state and local activities - US government spending and regulation is just as extensive as anywhere in Europe. It's just more disorganised and less effective, because everything is a compromise. For example, US government spending on Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, veterans' hospitals and the IHS together is actually substantially more, adjusted for population, than is spent on health by many European nations with universal healthcare.)

There are a few countries which have high socio-economic equality and yet also maintain a high standard of living. Norway, for instance. But Norway is like Alaska or the Middle East; it has massive oil and gas wealth from the North Sea oilfields, so the Norwegian government doesn't really have to worry about revenues.

So while I don't dispute that your definition of "left" and "right", and your understanding of left-right politics, corresponds to the way that many left-wingers view their own political activities, I don't think it's particularly fair to libertarians and free-market conservatives to characterise us as simply wanting to leap to the defence of existing entrenched wealth and privilege. Rather, we do have principled reasons, for the good of everyone in society, for promoting capitalist policies. We may be wrong, but that doesn't detract from the fact that we do have genuinely-held and defensible higher ideals, and are not simply window-dressing the pursuit of rampant self-interest.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 8, 2009 12:24 PM

Former right-wing libertarian, remember? You don't need to tell me why you think you believe what you believe.

There's a reason why Cato and Heritage are funded by massive business interests. They are not paying for nothing. And they are not paying for higher ideals and principles. The propaganda we receive is not being passed around by altruism.

There is no government that cannot be bought by the rich. That you cling to this fantasy is troubling. At the same time, though, governments can be made to hurt the poor.

Imagine if strange gods made up a philosophy which said that women must submit to their fathers and husbands, must not be allowed to use contraception, must not abort their pregnancies, and must not work outside the home. It sounds unfair at first, but wait! You haven't heard the good part yet. After these women die, if they followed all the commandments from their men, they will float up into the sky, where they will be served pie. That's fair, see? They have to be hurt, but they are also rewarded.

If I'm advocating one goal that is realistic, and one that is fantastic, is it because I really believe in both? Maybe. Does it matter? Only the realistic goal will be achieved. Regardless of whether or not I hate women, I will be using pie in the sky to cover for the realistic goal of hurting women.

You know that entrenched poverty is the real result of government non-intervention. This is not a defensible higher ideal.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 8, 2009 1:11 PM

For the reasons I have outlined above, I don't agree with you here.

So when you said "poverty tends to be self-perpetuating, and we need stronger government action in order to secure equality of opportunity," you were lying?

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 9, 2009 3:11 AM

You're fighting for a failed ideology, that has been rejected time and time again by the ordinary people who it was meant to benefit.

says the libertarian. good thing I stopped buying irony meters a while ago.

and in any case, the history of Latin America for example pretty much shows the exact opposite. it's never "the ordinary people" who reject socialized democracies.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 9, 2009 1:36 PM

Not lying, but, if I said that, I may have explained myself badly.

This is where you said it. You explained yourself clearly. And you called your own argument "basically socialist." Did you change your mind?

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | October 9, 2009 3:49 PM

And another point, for strange gods, on the left-right divide:

In RL, I have a frequent debate sparring-partner who is a traditional conservative, in a very nineteenth-century Tory sense. He strongly supports monarchy (he professes to believe in the Divine Right of Kings, though I'm not sure if this is really serious), the Established Church, "traditional" moral values, religion in schools, and the like. In keeping with the traditional "One Nation Tory" outlook, he also tends to support paternalistic social and economic policies which he sees as "compassionate", such as social welfare and the NHS; and, like many socialists, he blames "greedy bankers" and "materialist culture" for the economic crisis.

Would you say that he is further "left" than me, or further "right" than me? On the one hand, he is far less pro-free market than I am, and far more in favour of policies that foster economic equality. On the other hand, he is anti-secularist, reactionary on moral issues, and seeks to uphold "traditional values" and the orthodox social order of a bygone age. Both of us are perceived as being "on the right", in relation to the normal spectrum of British politics; yet this disguises the fact that, in practical terms, we disagree on virtually every issue. Don't you think this illustrates the essential bankruptcy of the left-right distinction?

Posted by: John Morales | October 9, 2009 9:56 PM

I disagree with many of Dr. Pournelle's opinions, but I consider that, for me, his political chart is the most conceptually useful.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | October 10, 2009 12:47 PM

I don't subscribe to any dogma

This is false. Observe:

the British economy was nearly destroyed, in the long run, by post-war policies of nationalisation and central planning, and was saved by the Thatcher government's market reforms. All of this is the mainstream, orthodox view.

This is a lie. This is not the mainstream, orthodox view. Thatcher was an extremist, and as the public became aware of this, the party suffered in polling until they forced her to resign.

It is not mainstream or orthodox to say that Thatcher saved Britain. That is the recital of a dogmatist.

But beyond that, your attempted defense of your views by saying that they are mainstream and orthodox represents the working of a dogmatic mind. Whether or not something is mainstream is no defense of it, and the very idea of orthodoxy is literally dogma.

You never had an empirical reason for flat taxation. You held it as dogma.

You never had an empirical reason for AGW denialism. You held it as dogma.

You never had an empirical reason for restricting abortion. You held it as dogma.

You never had an empirical reason for opposing gay marriage. You held it as dogma.

You do not have an empirical reason for opposing racial affirmative action. You hold it as dogma.

I recognize that it is possible to force you out of one dogma at a time. That this can only be accomplished by focusing for weeks on one issue to the exclusion of all others, is evidence for the general rule that you remain reflexively dogmatic in your default mode of thought.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 12, 2009 3:44 PM

This stands in direct contradiction to your own past statements. When we were discussing evolution and anthropogenic climate change, you asserted - correctly, I believe - that where there is a broad consensus among experts in a particular field, it is perfectly rational, in the absence of contrary evidence, to trust that the mainstream consensus view is likely to be correct.

Posted by: Walton | October 12, 2009 6:35 PM

you're confusing popular views (i.e. "mainstream" views") with the scientific consensus. apples and oranges. what has come to be accepted in the scientific community has gotten there by vastly different and more trustworthy means than what has become a popular, mainstream view among people in general.

No: I was referring to the consensus among professional economists and political scientists, not among the lay public.

I haven't replied yet because I know he likes to savor the thrill of feeling like he's caught me saying something irreconcilably stupid. He should enjoy the scent of victory before he tastes defeat.

No, I think I know what your reply will be. (Let me know if I'm right.) I think you're going to point out that the consensus for capitalist economics is far weaker than the consensus for evolution (which is true); that dissenting economists, unlike creationists, can marshal some empirical evidence in support of their positions (also true); and that economic theory, unlike biology, tends to be influenced by the economist's own ideological convictions about the desired nature of society (also true). If you're on true socialist form, you're then going to argue that, since most economists work for universities or think tanks - both of which tend to receive large donations from private business - mainstream economists are nothing more than propaganda mouthpieces for the interests of the rich. Obviously this is bullshit, but since you have already made clear that you believe left-right politics to be fundamentally a battle between the interests of established/privileged groups and those of marginalised/oppressed groups, this would be consistent with your theory.

However, my reply to this is as follows. In economics, as in biology, the arguments and the evidence are complex, and difficult for an ordinary layman to fully understand. Though I, as a layman, can grasp the essence of different economic theories just as I can grasp the essence of evolution by natural selection, I will never - or at least not without many years of study - be able to make a completely informed evaluation of all the facts. As such, it is reasonable enough for me to trust the broad majority view among economists that capitalism - albeit regulated capitalism - is a good thing.

This is further supported by the fact that, having grown up in the 90s just after the market reforms of the Thatcher era, I have seen and experienced the general prosperity and high standard of living, for ordinary people, that capitalism can bring. In material terms, I had a more prosperous and privileged childhood than my parents, and they in turn had a far more prosperous and privileged childhood than my grandparents (who grew up in working-class families in the post-WWII era). Yes, part of that is due to government programmes (particularly education funding) which facilitated social mobility; but it is also in large measure due to the fact that, unlike previous generations, I grew up in an environment where cheap consumer goods from around the world are widely available - a direct consequence of capitalism and world trade. So my own (albeit anecdotal) experience tallies with the view of mainstream economists.

You are right that uncritical trust in "the mainstream" view, merely because it is the mainstream view, would be an intellectually lazy and foolish position. The mass of the public is capable of believing all kinds of ridiculous things. But where the majority of relevant experts agree on an issue, and their position is also consistent with my own experience, I think it's reasonable for me to concur with that position.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | October 12, 2009 6:53 PM

The personal experience of people living in Cuba, by the way, is that socialism is a great thing that has saved their lives.

You can choose one of two consistent responses to this. Either:

You are both right; capitalism has improved your life and socialism has improved the lives of Cubans.

Or personal experience in any propaganda-heavy society is highly suspect, and your personal experience is no more admissible than the Cubans'.

(Or both of the above, in varying degrees. That would be my answer.)

Posted by: Walton | October 12, 2009 7:08 PM

No, I think I know what your reply will be. (Let me know if I'm right.)

Nope.

OK then. Maybe I inadvertently constructed a strawman. (I certainly didn't intend to.) So could you please tell me what your substantive response is? I'm tired of waiting, and you're making me rather nervous by dropping hints that you have some kind of great argument up your sleeve.

Posted by: Walton | October 13, 2009 6:31 AM

strange gods, if I wanted deep-sounding yet incomprehensible responses, I'd go to a Buddhist monastery, not Pharyngula. Please stop playing games.

If you're bored of discussing things with me, that's fair enough; just say so. But if you're trying to teach me some sort of lesson using bizarre, roundabout means, then it doesn't seem to be working. Perhaps I'm not bright enough to achieve enlightenment, or perhaps I'm too impatient. But I tend to prefer political debate to take place within parameters that I can actually understand.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | October 13, 2009 5:52 PM

Was that incomprehensible? All right, never mind. I'll try to have a fairly thorough reply for you by your dawn.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | October 15, 2009 7:25 AM

Well, I didn't mean to imply that I have some great argument. What I did mean was that you had not caught me in a contradiction, and your overeager claim to that effect was once again mistaken.

This stands in direct contradiction to your own past statements. When we were discussing evolution and anthropogenic climate change, you asserted - correctly, I believe - that where there is a broad consensus among experts in a particular field, it is perfectly rational, in the absence of contrary evidence, to trust that the mainstream consensus view is likely to be correct.

That's simplistic and naive. Not only have you made a hideous scarecrow of my words, you appear to have done it weeks ago, never understanding what I said in the first place.

[me:] I don't think I'd call it an appeal to authority. It is a rational trust that the checks and balances built into institutions of science can find problems and force issues to be readdressed, as they have done before.

I know for a fact that you can't say "as an explanation, general relativity makes sense to me." It makes sense to almost no one, perhaps literally no one, including Einstein when he did the math. Nor could you understand the objections to relativity that were raised in the early 1900s. Yet you rationally trust that if there were serious challenges to this explanation, you'd hear of them from lots of actual working physicists. And you have. As yet there is no unified theory that explains the observations of both relativity and quantum physics. This remains a problem, universally acknowledged among working physicists.

For instance, gravity. Gravity is well understood where relativistic effects dominate, but very poorly understood where quantum effects dominate. You could ask physicists who work in this area on their opinions about which field offers the most promising work toward a quantum theory of gravity. Many will say string theory, or M-theory. Many will say loop quantum gravity. Some will say causal sets, or causal dynamical triangulation. Many will say that no current models appear especially promising, and they'll give their good reasons for saying so. Suppose for the sake of argument that 70% of working physicists favor a string theory. Does that mean that string theory will turn out to be correct? Does that mean there's a 70% chance that string theory is correct? Does that mean we should make policy decisions to deprecate the study of loop quantum gravity?

The most it means is that you should take string theory seriously, and you should take loop quantum gravity seriously, and you should take causal sets seriously, and you should take seriously the possibility that they're all wrong. You can see -- you personally, Walton not a physicist, can verify -- that all of these theories are worth taking seriously, because you can skim the edited and peer reviewed journals and see for yourself that this is a problem in physics, a problem that is being openly and publicly addressed, and these are some of the solutions under discussion.

Not because "where there is a broad consensus among experts in a particular field, it is perfectly rational, in the absence of contrary evidence, to trust that the mainstream consensus view is likely to be correct." That would transparently be an argument from authority, the very thing you claimed you weren't doing with regard to biology, the very thing you are doing now in economics.

But because it is rational to expect that most of the time, the processes of open and public peer review can reveal the problems in a field. Quantum gravity is acknowledged in the literature to be a problem. You don't need to understand the details of the problem to be aware that there is a problem.

It is not rational to conclude that string theory is the answer. For that matter, it is not very rational to conclude that evolution is correct simply because every working biologist tells you it is correct. Maybe if you had nothing else to go on, and that was the best you could do, it would be understandable to settle for that. But in our world it is not very rational to simply take their word for it, when you have the easily available opportunity to do so much more. It is much more rational to check the peer reviewed literature and see whether there are problems with the theory.

Do this for evolution and you will find that there are no problems challenging the foundation of the theory. Do this for anthropogenic global warming and you will find there are no problems challenging the foundation of the theory. Do this for quantum gravity and you will find that there is not much agreement on what the foundation of the theory even ought to be, and this is openly, publicly, even proudly admitted. Do this for economics and you will find that there is tremendous disagreement on what the purpose of economics itself is even supposed to be, and this is openly, publicly, sometimes proudly admitted.

Understanding this distinction, between relying on the peer reviewed literature to bring problems to your attention, and mere fallacies of authority, it is not very rational for you to conclude that string theory is probably correct and its competitors probably wrong. It is more rational to take them all seriously.

It is not rational for you to conclude that you don't have to take Ha-Joon Chang seriously. Chang's work is regularly published in the Cambridge Journal of Economics. The peer reviewed literature of economics is where the serious problems of economics are brought to public light. If you are going to take any of the theories seriously, then you need to take the problems seriously as well. There simply is no intellectually honest way to take one without the other.

It's my habit and joy to show that you are not only wrong, but even assuming that you had been right, you were fucking up by your own premises. I am fortunate to have this opportunity again.

I realise that politics and economics are not comparable to the physical and natural sciences, since the former deal with human behaviour and the structure of human society, meaning that one's moral evaluative judgments and ideological biases inevitably play a part. But I would suggest that it is still the case that, where most economists agree on an issue, and a small ideologically-motivated fringe group takes a radical heterodox view, we should trust the view of the consensus rather than the fringe.

Temporarily taking this argument from authority as a given, it stands in direct contradiction to your own past statements. You have never followed this rule of thumb on the subject of economics. And in fact you appear to be pretty well aware that you don't follow it, so it seems that you're being somewhat dishonest here.

Mainstream economists, to the extent that they have consensus on anything, are all Keynesians or neo-Keynesians. You know this. And yet you rely on a small, ideologically motivated fringe of non-Keynesians whenever you want to actually talk policy.

You blatantly rely on equivocation. You'll say something vague, like "the broad majority view among economists [is] that capitalism - albeit regulated capitalism - is a good thing." So broad as to be absolutely meaningless for policy discussions, but so far so good. Then you'll rely on this generality to say something ridiculous and extremist like "the British economy was nearly destroyed, in the long run, by post-war policies of nationalisation and central planning, and was saved by the Thatcher government's market reforms. All of this is the mainstream, orthodox view." That's not mainstream or orthodox. It's a lie. A blatant, indefensible, loud and proud lie.

It's as if I were to say that most people believe labor unions should be legal -- true -- and therefore most people currently believe that there should immediately be a workers' revolution to take companies away from investors without recompense and put them directly under the ownership of workers. I would not try anything of the sort. I am rather shocked that you have.

Your appeal to authority is fallacious, but even if it were not, you are bullshitting your way past your own standards.

If you are going to rely on mainstream economics for any argument, then you have to give up on libertarian economics. You don't get to rely on mainstream authority for one conclusion, and then turn right around and ignore it when it says something you don't like. There are areas of disagreement, and you can probably still weasel around those hedges if you can even begin to understand what the disagreements are about, but there is agreement on Keynesianism. Time for you to admit that Paul Krugman is far more mainstream than Milton Friedman.

So you can do the most rational thing, and start taking seriously the problems that come to light in the peer reviewed literature. This will be difficult but rewarding.

Or you can be consistent with your own argument from authority, and become a Keynesian. This will be easier, and not as stimulating, but at least it'll be an honest attempt at adherence to your own premises. Maybe if you're really lucky, even 'Tis Himself will find some patience for you (but don't hold me to that). Oh, and you'll also have to come right out and admit that you support Barack Obama, though you've very nearly done that already.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | October 15, 2009 3:20 PM

strange gods, I need to consider a number of your points further before replying in full, but I will address a couple of issues.

First of all, while I strongly supported McCain in the primaries - respecting his history of bipartisanship and independent thought, and viewing him as one of the saner Republicans - I did, over time, develop serious misgivings about the way he was running his campaign for the general election. Sarah Palin was (and is) a blithering idiot, and the entire campaign through September and October 2008 seemed to be aimed primarily at appealing to irrational prejudice and ignorance. I was more of a committed right-winger then than I am now (my views have shifted in a relatively short space of time - partly due, indeed, to the various events of '08 and '09) but even so, I was uncomfortable with it. I cannot say with certainty what I would have done in 2008 had I been an American - hindsight is 20/20 - but in retrospect, Obama as President has been much more reasonable and moderate than I had expected, and, if I were making the decision now, I would probably vote for him.

As for your more general comments at #137, I suppose you, as an American, can legitimately criticise me for throwing in my lot with the conservative movement despite knowing that most American conservatives do not share my support for gay rights. But I would point out that the Conservative Party in Britain does not promote anti-gay policies, and is fully in support of gay rights (we even have a gay Shadow Cabinet minister, Alan Duncan). As to "not lifting a finger in activism" for gay rights, I don't know what you'd like me to do; gay rights are far less threatened in the UK than in the US, and there are limits to how much I, not being a US national or US resident, can conceivably participate in any American political campaign. If I lived in California, I would have been active in campaigning against Proposition 8. If you can suggest something that I should do from the UK to further the cause of gay rights, then by all means do so.

I'll answer the rest of your points - particularly your post at #136 about consensus in economics, which I think is vitally important - later, when I've had a chance to consider them.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | October 16, 2009 6:49 AM

I listed among your dogmas flat taxation, AGW denialism, abortion restriction, and opposition to gay marriage. The only ones you denied as dogmas were flat taxation and opposition to gay marriage. Is that finally an admission that your AGW denialism and opposition to abortion was dogmatic?

Really, I just didn't want to return to those issues in-depth, since they're distractions from the main point here. I simply made a couple of points to illustrate that, while my views can and do change in response to new arguments and evidence, this does not mean that my previous ideas were all dogmatic and rationally indefensible. Indeed, quite the opposite; my political views are based on my understanding of empirical reality at any one time, but if new evidence challenges that understanding, I believe I have demonstrated that I am perfectly prepared to revise my perspective. Surely that is the opposite of dogmatism?

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | October 16, 2009 7:21 AM

At least you and I, Walton, have no reservations about freely admitting our ignorance whenever it becomes manifest.

Walton, yes. You, not so much.

Posted by: Walton | October 20, 2009 7:09 AM

Wrt economics: I find that, now I'm in the process of job-hunting, and looking increasingly likely to be unemployed this time next year, my economic views are mellowing somewhat. Really, I think a lot of orthodox libertarians focus too much on state coercion and ignore the reality of economic coercion; for most people, one's employer exerts a far greater degree of day-to-day control over one's life than does the government, and the need to find and keep a job is perhaps the biggest de facto constraint on individual autonomy. It is, perhaps, no accident that many of my libertarian and conservative friends are (unlike me) independently wealthy, and have never really had to worry about finding a job to make ends meet. So I think there is, perhaps, a legitimate role for the state in redressing the imbalance of power between employers and employees.

I suppose I'm not really much of a libertarian, any more. While I advocate free trade and a mostly capitalist economy, I'm increasingly moderate on economics, and recognise a legitimate role for the state in improving the position of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged. (At the same time, I'm growing more and more ardently liberal on socio-cultural issues.) So maybe I'd be better off calling myself a liberal than a libertarian, though the former term is just too vague and carries too many confusing connotations.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | October 20, 2009 7:42 AM

Walton,

I suppose I'm not really much of a libertarian, any more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfHX3mAbyrs#t=45s

:p