Illiberal “Liberals”

So-called liberal have a particular perspective on politics reflecting to a fair extent a Marxist influence.

This manifests in a great concern about corporate power based on a subtext of profit-making as "evil".

Yet they show relatively little concern about the nature and effect of political power. Is this merely because political power is relieved of the necessity of being concerned about "profits"?

Or is it because they envision political power steered by the beneficent hand of the liberal conception of "good" intentions with the bad effects of political power due only to the influence of profit seeking?

The equations can be simplified: political power + liberal "good intentions" = the best of all worlds

Thus they see no possibility of bad results by their hands and those who say otherwise are evil and not to be believed.

a. The liberal doesn't think he is being condescending when he is being condescending, because he thinks conservatives are ignorant liars;
b. The liberal doesn't think other liberals are being condescending when they are being condescending, because he just thinks they're right;
c. If you can't recognize the condescension in Thomas Frank, Krugman, Frank Rich, E.J. Dionne, Ezra Klein, Miloutsis, Keith Olbermann, Barack Obama, Rachel Maddow, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi, that tells me one thing about you: you are a liberal.

I basically agree that liberals are more condescending than conservatives.

I think that is because liberals want to hurt more people than conservatives do. Bad to hurt people; so better to make up stories about how some people are bad. Use this as an excuse to hurt them. Better still to make up stories about how the hurting helps someone. Be sure to charge, preferably those being hurt.

Generally, conservatives want to hurt fewer people: gays (people who prefer same sex partners), foreigners (people born across some arbitrary border), drug users/growers/distributors(people consuming producing distributing without harming nor planning to harm anyone), …

Liberal list of targets goes on and on and on and on. They want to hurt more people(and charge for it) so they make up more stories about more people being bad.

Libertarians are the least condescending because we want to hurt fewer people: those who initiate force or fraud against others.

Do ad hominem attacks like this really help any sort of healthy debate?

Let's agree to the following:

Lots of liberals and lots of conservatives and lots of libertarians have all sorts of flaws. Their personal flaws have absolutely nothing to do with the merits of their philosophical approaches and arguments.

Is it any wonder that our politicians have devolved to campaigning on the flaws of their opponents?

Thank you. I agree entirely. I especially find it comical how people on this blog try to complain about liberal condescension. Commenters above were literally highlighting to me the condescension of liberals while calling me an idiot.

Condescension is what the other guy does.

Bullshit.

Let's assume strict adherence to philosophy of conservatism/capitalism, or theological adherence to the religion of socialism, just for the sake of making a point.

In such a scenario exactly what in the philosophy of conservatism/capitalism will intentionally, as a designed feature of the beliefs, harm or deny another person opportunity or freedom?

In such a scenario exactly what in the theology of socialism will intentionally, as a designed feature of the faith, harm or deny another person opportunity or freedom?

My answer, and the answer history has given us is:
The former, nothing.
The latter, everything.

To compare the two as equally desirable to men and women is totally preposterous, only thumbsucking takers are attracted to the latter.

Politicians have not devolved to their current tactics, it is by design, U.S. Constitution, Art 1, Sec 5, Para 2, 1st phrase, "Each House May Determine its own Rules of Proceedings," In your apparent absence of education, intellectual capability, and lack of imagination, I'll simply tell you that when you can write yourself out of law or oversight, then everything others think stands between you and corruption, is a moot point to you. You can't be stopped, you can't be punished, and even if tossed out of office you retire at full salary and benefits. How F.cking sweet it is!

No event in human history has been studied as thoroughly and carefully than the Holocaust. Thousands of thesis and dissertations papers have poured over all of the evidence, from anecdotal testimony to captured German war documents. Virtually every historian with a PhD in European History agrees that millions of Jews were systematically exterminated by Nazi Germany. One can no more "revise" this fact than one can revise the existence of gravity. Captured German documents alone account for enough evidence to convict Nazi Germany of mass genocide in any civil (not Islamic) court. You can suggest that 5.6 million Jews were killed, instead of six million. But, you cannot deny that millions of innocent Jews were murdered. The Wannsee Conference planned the killing. Nazi concentration camp records prove that it was carried out.

Whenever we stand up to those who deny or minimize genocide we send a critical message to the world. As we continue to live in an age of genocide and ethnic cleansing, we must repel the broken ethics of our ancestors, or risk a dreadful repeat of past transgressions. We know from captured German war records that millions of innocent Jews were systematically exterminated by Nazi Germany - most in gas chambers. These facts have been proven repeatedly through countless thesis and dissertation research papers. Virtually every PhD in the world will stake their career on the veracity of known Holocaust facts. Despite this knowledge, Holocaust deniers ply their mendacious poison everywhere, especially with young people on the Internet. Such deniers have only one agenda - to distort the truth in a way that promotes antagonism against the object of their hatred, or to deny the culpability of their ancestors and heroes.

Museums and mandatory public education are tools to dispel bigotry, especially racial and ethnic hatred. Books, films and presentations can reinforce the veracity of past and present genocides. They help to tell the true story of the perpetrators of genocide; and they reveal the abject terror, humiliation and degradation resulting from prejudice. It is therefore essential that we disclose the factual brutality and horror of genocide, combating the deniers’ virulent, inaccurate historical revision. We must protect vulnerable future generations from making the same mistakes.

A world that continues to allow genocide requires ethical remediation. We must show the world that religious, racial, ethnic, gender and orientation persecution is wrong; and that tolerance is our progeny's only hope. Only through such efforts can we reveal the true horror of genocide and promote the triumphant spirit of humankind.

Charles Weinblatt
Author, "Jacob's Courage"
http://jacobscourage.wordpress.com/

Everyone hates the Gypsies.

"We must show the world that religious, racial, ethnic, gender and orientation persecution is wrong;"

You forgot economic. I'd say that a good case could be made that economic persecution (exploitation) is the root of all the rest.

Welp... I guess he's showed us who the condescending jerk is.

Honestly, please do NOT lump me in with the average mouth-breathing teabagger. I only mouth-breath when I have a cold and my nose is stuffed up.

Surely, thy jest.

Without doubt there are left-wing extremists who have, and do, demonstrate the arrogance and intolerance described here. But it is from the *base* of the Republican party and many Rs in Congress and even the immediate-past R vice president that these accusations against Democrats have come:

* proposing death panels in hc reform
* seeking to encourage the death of seniors through Medicare reforms
* treason (for all manner of reasons)
* that Obama is the second coming of Hilter, a Muslim, not a citizen
* that the Ds are either communists or fascists depending on convenience
* that "bailing out" banks and auto manufacturers amounts to seizure of private assets--"socialism"
* that the O admin is purposely undermining national security (by any number of sins of omission or commission)

I could go on.

Cite to me accusations of similar intemperance, irresponsibility, repetition and intensity that have come from senior elected and party officials of the D party in any years of the Bush II admin.

And how does this claim about the inflexible ideology of the Ds square with the fact that Rs have en masse opposed virtually all of the Ds' legislation over the past year, even preventing most of it from getting to debate by means of multiple holds and filibusters in the Senate, while D support for cornerstones in the Bush II and Reagan agendas was crucial to their enactment by Congress?

"Cite to me accusations of similar intemperance, irresponsibility, repetition and intensity that have come from senior elected and party officials of the D party in any years of the Bush II admin."


Are you kidding me? did you sleep through the 2004 election?

Did you also sleep through Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Dennis Kucinich, and Bernie Sanders among other leaders of the democratic party from 2006 thru 2008.

Not to mention the flame throwers of the left media spectrum such as rachel maddow, stephanie miller, democraticunderground.org, dailykos.org, al franken, and kieth olberman, etc., etc., etc.,

A day later and still no examples, hey, mark?

Me: "Cite to me accusations of similar intemperance, irresponsibility, repetition and intensity that have come from senior elected and party officials of the D party in any years of the Bush II admin."

You: "Did you also sleep through Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Dennis Kucinich, and Bernie Sanders among other leaders of the democratic party from 2006 thru 2008."

You're just making an accusation without any evidence, mark. I said to "cite to me" (these aren't citations) any statements that match the level of fabrication and vitriol of the examples I provided.

No cigar. ;)

I see no reason to defend the political types of either party. They all exploit people like me, and until they stop I have no use for any of them. The way I understand politicians is to believe all the negative things their opponents say of them, and to disbelieve all the positive things they say of themselves.

Well, that helps to explain why we have so many scumbags in Congress these days. This kind of overly broad generalization tends to be self-fulfilling. I've worked on Capital Hill and there are very good people as well as some scumbags up there of both parties.

A chocolate chip cookie is a good thing. Throw that cookie into an open cesspool and you aren't going to touch it again, the cookie can not help but become that which it is in.

No lobby can buy if no congressscum can sell.

How do congressscum get the power to sell?

U.S. Constitution, Art 1, Sec 5, para 2, 1st phrase, "Each House May Determine the Rules of its Proceedings",

That begat the committee system, which begat absolute control to the majority party, and that became the open corral gate out of which the congressional herd stampeded. It works to the advantage of members of all parties, while serving the majority most.

Power to sell, total deniability of responsibility, unlimited ability to change the Rules of Proceedings as time dictates is necessary, No auditing of those Rules of Proceedings at the beginning nor at any time since, and no public oversight of congressional proceedings: And, then you retire, or are booted out after one term, with full pay for the rest of your life.

And scumbags are a surprise? Not if you know the game.

Tell me, v, who would you have set the rules of proceedings in the House and Senate? I mean in a democracy?

How is it you're so outraged by the buying and selling of political influence? Isn't this just another marketplace, directed by micro-economic incentives and governed by the the invisible hand?

No? Maybe that's because you bring some moral or ethical (i.e., "irrational" in economic terms) expectations about behavioral constraints individuals should apply to themselves in the marketplace of politics. As in any market, some do and some don't. But if "enough" don't, and the market fails or falls short of our expectations, what are our alternatives?

(1) We can throw the rascals out. But obviously, we haven't changed the market structure so it won't take long before we have another round of rascals to toss.

(2) In the face of these market failures, we could impose (by law or regulation) limits on total campaign spending (demand), advertising rates (prices), the sources and amounts of campaign contributions and lobbying expenses (supply), or reguire exclusive public financing of campaigns (subsidies). But then we'd have to worry about the capture of regulators (the FEC) by the big money campaign contributors and lobbyists, right?

(3) We could place our hopes in laissez faire political economics. How would that make things better?

(4) We could replace the Constitution with some other form of government.

What's your preference?

Why didn't you include in your list, (5) Fix Art 1, Sec 5, para 2?

OK, who do you propose to have set the rules of procedure in Congress?

And if it's such a big problem, why hasn't it ever come up as a serious proposal for amendment?

Because, with the possible exception of a few wingnuts, no one thinks it's a significant problem.

What explains the number of scumbags is that political behavior is inherently exploitive. I can understand your desire to view this as "an overly broad generalization", even politicians have a need to see themselves as honorable, but it is nonetheless a fact.

I'm not a politician so have no need to see myself as honorable.


Randy, I'll respond the same way I did with v:

How is it you're so outraged by the buying and selling of political influence? Isn't this just another marketplace, directed by micro-economic incentives and governed by the the invisible hand?

No? Maybe that's because you bring some moral or ethical (i.e., "irrational" in economic terms) expectations about behavioral constraints individuals should apply to themselves in the marketplace of politics. As in any market, some do and some don't. But if "enough" don't, and the market fails or falls short of our expectations, what are our alternatives?

(1) We can throw the rascals out. But obviously, we haven't changed the market structure so it won't take long before we have another round of rascals to toss.

(2) In the face of these market failures, we could impose (by law or regulation) limits on total campaign spending (demand), advertising rates (prices), the sources and amounts of campaign contributions and lobbying expenses (supply), or reguire exclusive public financing of campaigns (subsidies). But then we'd have to worry about the capture of regulators (the FEC) by the big money campaign contributors and lobbyists, right?

(3) We could place our hopes in laissez faire political economics. How would that make things better?

(4) We could replace the Constitution with some other form of government.

What's your preference?

"How is it you're so outraged by the buying and selling of political influence?"

Not sure how you're getting that from anything I said. I don't care about it at all. I'm not a member of the political class, so I have no part in it. My role is just to be exploited by whoever is in charge, and my only concern is to somehow, any how, limit their ability to exploit me.

Re; Options. I choose option (5) Disrespect. That is, disrespect for those who exploit. These "brahmin" have promoted themselves as leaders, protectors, intellectual elites, spritual guides, etc., for so long, that they actually believe it. And they have controlled the propaganda for so long that much of the population believes it as well. What they actually are is what they have always been thoughout history, exploiters, manipulators and thieves. This must be repeated over, and over, and over again, until it is known and understood - until it becomes an embarrasment to be known as a politician.

Ah, yes. Disrespect. The illegitimate second cousin of moral outrage.

And inaction.

I suppose this way you keep your hands clean by refusing to participate in the system, even to reform it.

Yes. Clean. But I disagree that disrespect has no value for reform. Disrespect has ended the reigns of theists, kings, and communists. It can bring down the Progressives.

"Disrespect" ended which regime? King George in America, the monarchy and Napoleon in France, the slavocracy in the South, the Kaiser and the Nazis in Germany, Mussolini in Italy, Hirohito in Japan, Franco in Spain, Communism in the USSR and eastern Europe, Saddam in Irag, the Taliban in Afganistan?

Really. "Disrespect" never accomplished anything so monumental.

You have a very curious understanding of the commitment and sacrifice required to accomplish such things in the real world.

If I'm wrong, then why are you here? Why do you care what we think? Why did the Catholics need their Aquinas, the kings need their Hobbes, and the socialists need their Hegel? Why do the the Progressives spend many billions of dollars every year to disseminate their rationalizations? In a word, legitimacy. Their rationalizations all depend on the perception of legitimacy - and disrespect is the agent which corrodes legitimacy. Add a significant measure of disrespect and the pope becomes an agent of satan, the king a tyrant, the socialist a pig, and the progressive a thief in the shadows.

Just like libertarians have their Hayek, Mise, Anne Rand, Gillespie, Spencer, etc.

You don't seem to be capable of a reasoned discussion.

I'm not much of a libertarian. More of a radical individualist. I'm also partial to the idea of neo-marxism. If by a "reasoned discussion" you mean one that follows the ground rules as laid down by the progressive political class, then no, I have no interest in such discussion. I want to end their exploitation - period. I see no point to discussion until that happens. Much as there is no point to discussion with someone who breaks into my home. First they gotta go. Then maybe we can talk.

Randy, I'm not "in your house". So if you can't have a reasoned discussion, perhaps you have difficulty reasoning with someone who disagrees with you.

I have no difficulty with reason. I have difficulty with those who prioritize the rights of the political class over the rights of the individual. Of course these would like to classify me as "unreasonable", "anti-social", or whatever - any box they can put me in which will allow them to dismiss me. Its not going to be that easy.

Yea, actually, it *is* going to be that easy. Deservedly or not, you come across as an inflexible ideologue who opposes fundamental democratic insitutions like the vote, believes that violenece will be required to end the current US governmental regime, and just generally doesn't do his homework. Which, outside your circle of like-thinkers, makes you easy to dismiss, if not considered a kook.

You're fortunate you live under a system that so strongly respects the right to free speech and to criticize the government. In other systems, what you say would be considered treasonous.

I prefer subversion. But someday, probably in the not too distant future, it will be treason. And on that day, everyone will know that they have become desperate.

The truth, Tex, is that I didn't start this war, they did. And who knows, maybe they will back down. Its not the historical pattern, but its not impossible.

P.S. You are correct, of course, that violence is often necessary to complete the task. Tyrants nearly nearly always hold to power to the bitter end. They seldom have a viable alternative. Will the progressives do the same? Probably. So be it.

So violence will be necessary to end the form of government that progressives have used to create the current regime that you find objectionable?

Is this what you're getting at?

I just want to make sure I'm understanding you.

In time, almost certainly. I assume you've read a bit of history. How many exceptions to the pattern can you name? Why do you imagine that the progressives will be an exception? If they haven't already over stepped their bounds, they will. They always do.

Yea, I've read a lot of history over many years, and what you say about the authoritarian/totalitarian nature of unrestrained governments is true. But you are ignoring the last 300 years of history.

So here are my examples.

(1) The Brits, Canada, Australia: they have a long history more than 300 years) of movement away from monarchy to a limited government in the form of a representative democracy,
(2) The US: 230 years under the Constitution, which I know, you think is trash, (3) The French, for almost 200 years after throwing out the king and then Napoleon,
(4) Japan, Germany, Austria, Italy since throwing off totalitarian governments after WWII, and
(5) more recently, Chile (post-Pinochet), Spain post-Franco), India (post-Ghandi ), S. Korea (since 1970 or so), and East Germany, the Check Republic, Poland since the wall fell.

I could name more, but you'll accept none of these because none of them meet your requirements for "perfect" freedom.

However, the arc of history is not guaranteed to always more forward, so yes, these freedoms could be lost.

But they won't be lost to "progressives" (by which I take it you mean the classical liberals who founded our government and their progency who have fought and died to preserve and extend our freedoms).

They will be lost to those who ridicule the freedoms we've won as far too "imperfect" and seek to impose their own vision of perfect liberty through non-democratic means.

Like you say, by violence.

"However, the arc of history is not guaranteed to always more forward, so yes, these freedoms could be lost."

Could be? They are being lost.

"But they won't be lost to "progressives" (by which I take it you mean the classical liberals who founded our government and their progency who have fought and died to preserve and extend our freedoms)."

For every Locke there's a Hobbes waiting for an opportunity. The Articles of Confederation was a good attempt to establish a liberal system. The Constitution opened the door to Hobbes - and now Hegel. Its an evolution. I'd say the modern Progressive system has much more in common with the Catholic system of the 12th century than with the liberal ideas of the 18th.

"They will be lost to those who ridicule the freedoms we've won as far too "imperfect" and seek to impose their own vision of perfect liberty through non-democratic means."

Individualism is naturally in conflict with the collective, and with those who claim the right to speak for the collective - and these never seem to know when to back off. So yes, violence is generally the result. Imperfect? The modern Hobbesians are willing to settle for an idea of liberty as serfdom. That's not just "imperfect". That's unacceptable.

P.S. This seems a good place to include the closing line from Hayek's "Road to Serfdom"; "The guiding principle that a policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy remains as true today as it was in the nineteenth century."

I am offended by the purchase and sale of political influence because what is being exchanged for money is the application of the government’s monopoly on the use of organized violence in order to coerce certain preferred types of behaviors. This exchange follows the rules of economics (a’ la Public Choice Theory) but so what? Guns follow the rules of physics, but that doesn’t provide me with a justification rooted in the natural sciences for shooting you.

So I repeat.

What's your preference for how to address this, other that objecting, complaining, railing, whining, bitching (your choice):

(1) We could throw the rascals out. But obviously, we haven't changed the market structure so it won't take long before we have another round of rascals to toss.

(2) In the face of these market failures, we could impose (by law or regulation) limits on total campaign spending (demand), advertising rates (prices), the sources and amounts of campaign contributions and lobbying expenses (supply), or reguire exclusive public financing of campaigns (subsidies). But then we'd have to worry about the capture of regulators (the FEC) by the big money campaign contributors and lobbyists, right?

(3) We could place our hopes in laissez faire political economics. How would that make things better?

(4) We could replace the Constitution with some other form of government.

Much of what you have written is nonsense. I chose to respond to only one example - your intimation that belief in the theories of economics somehow logically requires one to accept government's auctioning its coercive power to the highest bidder. Your reference to ethics and morals as economically irrational is also profoundly ignorant. Then you invoke "market failure" where you haven't shown that there is one. After that you insist that we select from a set of alternatives that are not collectively exhaustive.

Sorry. This is a transparent attempt to set a trap, and I'm not silly enough to walk into it.

I apologize, txslr, for writing something you could make no sense of.

And I meant to set no trap for you. Feel free to offer another alternative. You're not confined to the four I offered.

This is the kind of condescending disingenuous crap that Alexander was addressing:

Let's deal the last of your stupidities first:
#1. the R's have been unable to hold anything much less filibuster because they did not have enough numbers to do so. So you're full o'shit on that one.

#2. The fact that D support for piolicy in the Reagan and Bush years speak to the practicality of their proposals and programs, as well as the acceptability of those programs to the majority of the people.

#3. The R's opposition to the policies of the D's since the 2008 elections is the only thing rational human beings can do in the face of the desire to:
a. nationalize industry
b. nationalize health care
c. impose ruinous legislation on business to accommodate the idiotic manufactured belief that man is causing disastrous global warming and the insane egotistical belief that man can fix global warming if nature runs amok.
d. Card check for unions instead of secret ballot.
e. Raising minimum wage to a "living wage" what ever-the-fu.k that is.

Next, reading upwards:
Accusations made by D's of R's inflexible and hateful policies:
#1 Republicans want to starve children to death by reducing increases in the free school breakfast and lunch programs.

#2. Republicans start wars for oil, even though after winning control no seizure of oil and its production occurs.

#3. Republicans hate poor people enough for the president to conjure up a cat 5 hurricane and direct it to New Orleans just to kill black folks.

#4. Bush hated black so much he denied funds to protect New Orleans from severe storms, in spite of there being 16 billion dollars sent to NO to repair and heighten the dikes protecting NO, in spite of that 16 billion being stolen by NO politicians and spent on pet projects and nest feathering by NO democrat councilmen.

It goes on and on, the utter stupidity of democrat accusations against those who aren't socialist are legend in number and stupidity.

* proposing death panels in hc reform------There was provision for death panels in HC deform. They weren't named that, but the ultimate purpose was the same, which is why R's correctly labeled them what they are.

* seeking to encourage the death of seniors through Medicare reforms----those provisions are in the proposals, again call them what you want it is the effect that counts. Correct in you face labeling by R's and their supporter were effective in getting people to look.

* treason (for all manner of reasons)-----it is almost treasonous, but really just plain stupid, to elect a man whose only qualification is skin color. However, the way Obama handled himself in meeting and dealing with foreign leaders on his trips abroad or here at home amount to, if not treason, a confirmation about his qualification being skin color. He has screwed this end of his job up so bad, just so bad, he is now a joke overseas with the people who count. Some of those people may not have liked Bush, but they sure as hell knew where he stood vis-a-vis this nation's interests.

* that Obama is the second coming of Hilter, a Muslim, not a citizen-----Obama would have to be the third coming of Hitler because the D's have already laid that 2nd coming label on Bush. Obama is a muslin, to deny it in the face of all the evidence is totally unreal. A citizen? With about the same sincerity as Jose who just slipped across the border.

* that the Ds are either communists or fascists depending on convenience-------no socialist for sure in the majority of cases, communist in the others.

Start a blog with muirduck, DK, Tex, et. al, they are on your level of intelligence, experience, and awareness.
* that "bailing out" banks and auto manufacturers amounts to seizure of private assets--"socialism"
* that the O admin is purposely undermining national security (by any number of sins of omission or commission)

Of course, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, is paving the way for the Anti-Christ. After all, he's a half-caste/mulatto - that's gives him a politically-correct skin colour for him to appeal to ordinary whites yet still be dark enough to appeal to blacks and slave-guilty whites (even though BHO isn't a slave descendant). He's highly presentable with a silver-tongue who makes things sounds good with any actual content. Being charming and silver-tongued has always been seen as in league with Satan than with God. He's of the Demo(n)crat Party - nuff said!

Gil, please stop! You're killing me. This goes way over the line making mockery of the excesses of the radical, paranoid, intolerant right. Really, you should apologize. :)

Baraka HUSSEIN Obama refuses to release his birth certificate because he is really the offspring of a demon and a jackal.

http://minnesotaindependent.com/wp-content/uplo...

Damn! And you've got the photo to prove it!

Yes, he's a "de-kal" or is it a "jackmon"?

Gil, you're a stich.

You should read what Gil thinks of Haitians.

Gil thinks?!!

Whew! Better get those meds checked, v. ;)

There you go once again the socialist method, make stupid claims and accusations, when nailed, shift to attempted denigration.

You're easy, dude. Just like muirduck, Tex, DK, et. al., touch a keyboard and you are known.

Excellent company to be in! I hope they will welcome me.

Exactly. They never let facts get in the way of a good (fake) narrative.

Alan Grayson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-usmvYOPfco

I'm sorry. This must not be the link you wanted to send. I didn't see Pelosi in it.

Pelosi??? All you asked for were "senior elected and party officials of the D party (Which is a great tactic on your part as it disregards anything from Huffpost, DailyKos, Keith "You're a fascist!" Olbermann, and any other places/people that traffic in political mudslinging on a daily basis) in any years of the Bush II admin." Though, admittedly, this video is post Bush II.

One of your colleagues cited Pelosi. Get a quote from her and it might qualify, depending on the substance.

You've cited a D who has been in Congress for one year as a "senior elected official" Not senior. Try again.

Yes, we should elimiinate the crazies in the media because for every Olberman there is a Rush, an O'Reilly, a Beck, for every Huffpost there is a Drudge. It could go on in finitum. And they're not party representatives.

Reid told a class of high school kids Bush was a "loser"

Interesting how you move the goal post. You cite things people from the "*base* of the Republican party and many Rs in Congress" have accused Obama of, and then want replies of thing ONLY SENIOR Ds said during Bush II's time in office.

Where have any SENIOR R's ever accused Obama of:

* proposing death panels in hc reform
* seeking to encourage the death of seniors through Medicare reforms
* treason (for all manner of reasons)
* that Obama is the second coming of Hilter, a Muslim, not a citizen
* that the Ds are either communists or fascists depending on convenience

I meant the "crow" comment in lighthearted jest. I apologize if you took offense.

Yes, 15 hours ago I did provided you examples, lots of them. I'll copy it here. They're all available through Google.

Previous post:

You: "Reid told a class of high school kids Bush was a 'loser'."

Me: Really. "Loser" is the best you can come up with, heh.

You: "Where have any SENIOR R's ever accused Obama of:"

Me:

* proposing death panels in hc reform
Palin, Sen Grassley, Reps. Boehner, Cantor, Mica, Terry, Bachman; Newt Gingrich, among others

* seeking to encourage the death of seniors through Medicare reforms
Grassley, Behner

* treason (for all manner of reasons)
Sen Chamblis, Tom Delay, Ken Mehlman

* that Obama (or Clinton) is the second coming of Hilter, a Muslim, not a citizen
Palin, Sens DeMint and Shelby, Reps. Blunt, Schmidt, Paul Broun, Chenoweth, Shadegg, Dickey

* that the Ds are either communists or fascists depending on convenience
Sen DeMint, Rep. Paul Broun, RNC member James Bopp

MWG, I notice that you have not responded to all my example with any of your own. CCan't find any of the same outragousness from senior Dems can you.

Time to eat some crow, my firend.

Sorry, I don't closely follow the blog on a daily bases, especially posts that have dropped where the number of comments are no longer visible.

"Can't find any of the same outragousness from senior Dems can you."

I seem to be having no more luck than you... though I should probably dedicate more time.

"Time to eat some crow, my firend."

Who says libs aren't condescending?

You: "Reid told a class of high school kids Bush was a 'loser'."

Me: Really. "Loser" is the best you can come up with, heh.

You: "Where have any SENIOR R's ever accused Obama of:"

Me:

* proposing death panels in hc reform
Palin, Sen Grassley, Reps. Boehner, Cantor, Mica, Terry, Bachman; Newt Gingrich, among others

* seeking to encourage the death of seniors through Medicare reforms
Grassley, Behner

* treason (for all manner of reasons)
Sen Chamblis, Tom Delay, Ken Mehlman

* that Obama (or Clinton) is the second coming of Hilter, a Muslim, not a citizen
Palin, Sens DeMint and Shelby, Reps. Blunt, Schmidt, Paul Broun, Chenoweth, Shadegg, Dickey

* that the Ds are either communists or fascists depending on convenience
Sen DeMint, Rep. Paul Broun, RNC member James Bopp

What, no citations? And most of those (including Palin and Gingrich) are not senior Rs. Many of them don't even hold office.

So is my example of Grayson legit, or are you moving the goal post.

Let's see. Palin, if I'm not mistaken was the R vp candidate 18 months ago and is a leading prospect for the R presidential nomination in 2012.

And Gingrich was House Speaker and also a perenial candidate for the GOP pres. nomination.

And the current House minority leader and GOP whip, a former House GOP majority leader (whose quote was from when he held that position), the ranking R on the Finance Committee, numerous other senior GOP senators, and numerous House GOP members, many with significant seniority.

No I don't think I've moved the goal posts but it's clear that you haven't got past mid-field while I've scored at will.

Most Republican politicians aren't really conservative anymore, unless one defines conservative as Republican.

Cite to me accusations of similar intemperance, irresponsibility, repetition and intensity that have come from senior elected and party officials of the D party

Nancy Pelosi.

QED. Dumbass.

Your reasoning is underwhelming. Now tie her name to an accusation that matches the requirements.

So, are you completely ignorant?

Perhaps you missed the past 12 months health care “debate,” and her demonization of health insurers. Or her previous bungles and blunders (and extreme vitriol). Or her blatant elitist misuse of public resources, or her hypocritical bashing of investment banking (except her husband, of course), or her vapid, sycophantic endorsement of global warming tripe at the expense of private industry, or….

Do try to pay better attention. Thanks.

...or claiming 500 million Americans will lose their jobs (per month???)

Ridiculous. Give me a cite to support this nonsense.

Of course she's ridiculous, but nevertheless she said it. You can find evidence a dozen times on YouTube.

OK, I found it. Get real. It was clearly a mis-speak. And she said so.

I know libertarians and Republican are never wrong, so I can understand how you could misguided in this way---or use it to make a fallacious point.

She said 500 milion (per month), you say. What's the nation's population, truelib?

I've looked on YouTube. It''s not there.

Send me the link.

I grew up in liberal circles and still live in one.

One thing I have always noticed is that when a liberal cannot win an argument, they resort to calling the argument of the opposing side "all lies." without offering any evidence to support that accusation.

It has always been my observation that conservatives do this far less.

Hmmm. Could there be a selectivity bias in there somewhere?

You just answered your own question. Are you not biased?

Unless he's mark's next door neighbor, how did he answer his own question? How does posing the question of the prospect of selectivity bias reveal any bias in fact? It's a reasonable insight.

And I should say - it's a question worth asking of me or Publius or anyone else that tries to make a statement like that based on our own personal experience.

How so, AS?

There is selectivity bias in my statement. I grew up in liberal circles, I still live in one (albeit a different one). It is simply my observation that when liberals can no longer support their argument, they resort to calling the other side liars or accusing the other side of pushing "misinformation." Yet, they cannot exactly say why it is a lie or "misinformation," they just say as much becasue they read it somewhere or heard a friend say so.

Conservatives are guilty of this to, but it is simply my observation that they do it far less. I went to college at an agricultural school that was flush with farm-raised small town boy and girls, so I have seen both worlds.

At the same time, you should recognize that though there was selectivity bias in my statement, there was just as much selectivity bias in your response to it. ArrowSmith is correct.

I'm not sure what statement you're referencing re my selectivity bias, but otherwise I agree with you entirely. I've seen both libs and cons do this sort of thing, and either way it's offensive and demonstrates intolerance and an absence of substance behind their opinions.

Finally, liberals condescend to the rest of us when they say conservatives are driven purely by emotion and anxiety -- including fear of change -- whereas liberals have the harder task of appealing to evidence and logic.

This whole "liberal" dialog is calculated as an emotional appeal.

That’s backwards: modern liberals are purely emotion-driven (light rail, welfare state, global warming), and ignore contrary factual evidence (light rail, welfare state, global warming) that destroys their simpleton utopian worldview.

I do think that “fear of change” has some traction with “conservatives” (whoever they are this week), but it’s asinine to suggest that somehow they’re emotionally more susceptible than modern liberals.

Shows you how stupid these people really are – complete lack of self-awareness (see above).

Teabaggers are just as pure-emotion driven as lefties. 2 sides of the same anti-reasoning coin.

Yeah, teabaggers are weirdos:

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&defl=en&q...

Teabaggers are driven by the horrendous growth in government spending and the resulting generational debt (or theft). The only emotion is the regard for simple, logical thrift.

I agree that there is a significant emotional component there, and that is almost pure reactionary politics, but it is incorrect to assign “emotionalism” to right-leaning politics – in fact, it is the left’s usual criticism that right wingers are a collection of uncaring, self-serving, avaricious misers.

Come on most right-wingers are emotional Christian wrecks.

Um, sure. Whatever you say...

I don't like to let them have that label which was stolen by the left when the term "socialist" fell out of favor.

Liberal, they are not. Collectivist, they are.

They labor under the delusion that "good" intentions will produce desired results entirely unconnected from the means. Because they FEEL enlightened and reasoned, they then believe that they are.

Of course, for many, this attitude is mainly a product of socialization and not reasoned from evaluation of facts.

The U.S was well on its way to the glory land when the progressive movement endeavored to have the government take us there.
for those in power, however, the glory land is where they are in power.

When collectivists find their programs aren't working out, they usually excuse this with "If only we had the right people in charge...".

When conservatives find big programs aren't working out, they say "If only we could pay attention to the Constitution, and let private enterprise do this job".

For of course when government runs the show, it's a monopoly, and no political appointee wants or needs to take a risk. When private enterprise runs it, there's a competitor in the next block, and risks must be taken to survive. The successful risktaker pulls ahead, the unsuccessful leave the scene, and we're all better off.

Speaking of dim, the PBS News-thingy with what’s-his-name (and some new no-names, haven’t watched in a decade), ran a somewhat amusing piece on economic humor, from the AEA convention in Atlanta 2 days ago.

I was extremely disappointed that Russ Roberts was not featured for his cat-scimitar-spare tire juggling routine, but that’s as maybe.

Paul Correspondent-who-pretends-to-understand-economics asked numerous attendees what their favorite economics joke was.

Paul Krugman’s on camera response was: “Oh, good lord…..”

2 interesting thought bubbles formed above his head: 1) “You’re looking at him” and 2) “My NYT column.”

These may only have been visible on the .1 HD feeds (public TV requires at least 4 separate feeds, it’s for the children), paid for with your tax dollars, but its well worth a look.

That's an incredible piece. He outlines on four key points in good detail exactly why liberals MIGHT tend towards condescension. Namely because we are right. Being right is a good thing... condescension... not so much. But it is not our condescension that is dangerous. It is the issues of which we are right about and try to draw attention to that are dangerous. In a nutshell ... a corporate take over of our democracy. And then there's always the environmental collapse thing but that has now moved way down the list of priorities. But for some reason this author sees our condescension as the issue. I find that curious.

There IS a vast right wing conspiracy but it's apparently our condescension that needs to be addressed. The car is in free fall off a cliff and the driver is upset with my condescending attitude about his making an obvious wrong turn??? Our country is on the cusp of becoming (arguably already has been) a plutocracy. (see The Powell Memo, Jude Wanniski (2 Santa Clauses), Koch Foundation/ CATO institute, Predator State (by James K Gailbraith.... it's all there.) If you know these things you might be condescending towards those who are uninformed and ignorant of them. If you have read and researched these things and are called a liberal elitist or an intellectual elitist by some one who is vastly ignorant of them and has Fox News and Rush Limbaugh as their only sources you might tend towards condescension.

We have to debate these uniformed/ mis-informed people that it's good idea to teach evolution, that a woman's body is her own business, that climate change is a real threat supported by science, that their cancer was cured not because they stayed home and prayed but because they prayed and went to the hospital, that supply side economics is hogwash... we have to debate and somehow pull them through all their tendency for left brain thinking, all their years of ignorance, and indoctrination to convince them they are nothing but tools of a well thought out conspiracy of conservative thinking and planning that has little interest in theirs or their children's welfare.

We have to convince them that NO NO NO corporations are NOT people... THEY ARE RUN BY PEOPLE who want to take over your democracy and accumulate massive powers and control over YOU. We have to teach them that corporations have NO RIGHTS. NONE! They only have the privileges we wish to give them. Like a baby with a loaded gun in one hand, a scissor in the other walking at the top of the stairs we have to condescend and scold them, spank their silly bottoms and place them in an intellectual corner for their and our own protections.

We condescend... absolutely because indeed the conservatives leadership capitalizes on race, homophobia, gun rights, terrorism, abortion, bigotry, religion, nationalism , patriotism and all other fears to motivate their minions... its so obvious but they don't see they are being sold a "bill of goods". So we condescend. We condescend the idea as if there is a legitimate choice between a Sarah Palin ands some one like Barack Obama.

We condescend with such good insight and intellect and even righteousness but it doesn't work. It's a two way street but sadly we ARE the more condescending. It's true. It's not a good thing but there IS a reason for it... the reason IS reason. We do that seriously. We are frustrated when others do not. We are the liberals. We take nuance, facts, data, science and judgement seriously. We take the real world seriously. We know history. We fear it's repetitions and we heed the lessons it tells us. We pay close attention. We think independently. We are not concrete thinkers or do not do things in lock step. We know human nature. We fear the future going bad for our children based on the evidence.

The condescension directed at good hard working but ignorant, media indoctrinated conservative people is bad. It needs to stop. It needs to be re-channeled as we need these people just as they need us to help turn our condescension to wrath and anger towards our common abusers. That would be the leaders of the modern conservative movement who need to be crushed thoroughly for the evil that they are for attempting to take over with money our democracy. Condescension for these leaders is completely appropriate but far from sufficient. They deserve our all out revolt and overthrow just like the last time when this country was founded.

If our country does well it will be because the Tea Party Consevatives and the Condescending Liberals united and destroyed the Neo-Conservative Overlords.

You make your points well. Its obvious that you've given this some time and effort. But you're not a liberal. You're a propagandist for exploiters. So again, piss off.

"We condescend with such good insight and intellect and even righteousness but it doesn't work. It's a two way street but sadly we ARE the more condescending. It's true. It's not a good thing but there IS a reason for it... the reason IS reason. We do that seriously. We are frustrated when others do not. We are the liberals. We take nuance, facts, data, science and judgement seriously. We take the real world seriously. We know history. We fear it's repetitions and we heed the lessons it tells us. We pay close attention. We think independently. We are not concrete thinkers or do not do things in lock step. We know human nature. We fear the future going bad for our children based on the evidence."
________________

That's the funniest thing pixelated into the electronic record today. It's basically inverted 180 degrees.

Said the guy who thinks climate change science is a hoax. Oh by the way the Climate Gate scientist have all been exonerated by their peers.... ya condescending dope.

"Oh by the way the climate gate scientistst have all ben exonerated by their peers."

Whatever.

Al Capone was exonerated by his peers also. You are not saying much there, muirgeo.

Actually, let me rephrase: I'm sure there are ample apologists in academia for the inexcusable behavior of these pseudo-scientists, but their endorsement is no more valid or relevant than Goebbels' defense of Hitler.

The peer review process is itself now under scrutiny.

This fellow narrowly escaped prosecution (for now):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661...

And these people are going as far as ignoring the IPCC, because it cannot be trusted:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/cl...

[It should be noted that this is the home country of railroad engineer and IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri, who continues to embarrass himself with escalating idiotic commentary and even a racy novel.]

But other than that, the AGW case is airtight and solid...

Not to repeat myself, but

?

Nothing you stated in that post is true.

You are an elitist and as fascist as any right wing tyrant you can dream up.

Fighting hyperbole with hyperbole is pretty sad.

The fellow is an admitted fraud in at least two specifics.

I've spend a lot of keyboard time under the impression that he was here to learn, only to eventually find that he was here to learn how to attack liberal ideas.

He also admitted to fraudulently signing a petition with which he did not agree for the purpose of undermining the credibility of the petition.

I have found him immune to reasoned argument, so I have less patience for his spurious charges than in the past.

Probably going to regret this, but I’ll ask anyway: How is Sam’s comment hyperbolic? What, specifically, do you find over the top about his (correct) observation that muirgeo is both galactically ignorant and hypocritical?

Should he not make an observation at all? That’s pretty sad reasoning on your part, foolish boy.

I don't think Sam accused him of being ignorant and hypocritical.

What he accused him of was being elitist and fascist - specifically as fascist "as any right wing tyrant you can dream up". I hope I don't have to explain why that's over the top. Whatever muirgeo's faults, I'm sure he's capable of imagining a right-wing fascism that can far outpace his personal fascism.

Indeed, I think it would be hyperbolic to call muirgeo a fascist at all, but I don't even need to make that case here. I think it's sufficient to point out how hyperbolic the statement "as fascist as any right wing tyrant you can dream up" is.

What he accused him of was being elitist...

Our Dear Ducktor, just the other day, dismissed the intentional starvation of millions of Americans during the Depression as irrelevant in the face of righteous rule. Sounds elitist to me.

What a dumb answer.

He is elitist, as we all know from his comments and lack of insight, and he is most definitely a fascist, as is Obama. These are not disputable facts.

Go look it up. Here, I’ll do it for you:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

All of those conditions apply to Obama’s handling of GM, Chrysler, and muirgeo is more than willing to let his guys do as they please, as long as they fit his progressive pseudo-paradigm.

So Danny, you need to be a lot more careful about what you put out there, especially when it involves judgment calls based on well-established past tendencies, something you know nothing about.

He is elitist, as we all know from his comments and lack of insight, and he is most definitely a fascist, as is Obama. These are not disputable facts.

Go look it up. Here, I’ll do it for you:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html


I did look it up. And this is what it says,

"Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy."


Your silliness to confuse what we have with fascism and then to go on to claim "indisputable facts" is deserving of some condescension... ya dope!

Dear fraud: please refrain from talking. Thank you.

"Your very own reference REFUTED your claim.", said I very condescendingly.

This really doesn't warrant a response due to your cognitive inability, but I'll go out of my way (futilely) to help you with this information.

Obamalini's seizure of GM and Chrysler, the subsequent shafting of secured creditors, and the handing over of outright control of these companies to Obamalini's UAW patrons and other political allies is textbook fascism. Were it not for the US govt, no bankruptcy court in the world (non-communist or command govts) would have allowed this outrageous reshuffle and disbursement of assets. It was unprecedented, and extremely dangerous, as it threatens the foundation of capitalist society: private property ownership and contract law.

That is not a "mixed economy" "intervention" - it was seizure of control. The fact that you do not realize this is expected: you are exceptionally dim-witted, which I find strangely compelling.

He's going to twist anyting Obama says or does into something that does fit the definition, so there's no use arguing with him. His mind was made up before he even knew who Obama was. Anyone that affiliates with the Democratic Party and anyone who uses the buzzwords that Obama does was bound to piss him off.

btw - I like the FDR icon. Not sure how long you've had it, but I just noticed it.

I won't bother to enlarge the St Franklin of Roosevelt icon that Yasafi is sporting in support of his righteous ruler. But I'm curious if it includes the blood of the millions of Americans that this righteous ruler intentionally starved?

BTW: His righteous ruler was incredibly fond of Mussolini's policies, and of Uncle Joe Stalin as a man. Righteous rulers tend to form mutual admiration societies - until it's time to divvy up the spoils of their righteousness.

Not following you, DK. Please revise.

DK, are you insinuating I twist Obama's words to mean something that they clearly don't? His words speak for themselves: "I am not an idealogue." Riiiiight. Sure he's not. Paging Mr. Kettle....

Yes, I do believe Obama is a dangerous and irresponsible person, and that most of his policies are destructive to this country, as they amplify all of the mistakes of the past, but that's not really in this thread.

Of course you worship the guy most responsible for our current fiscal and economic conundrum.

See previous comment, fraud. Thanks.

And I should add - whatever muirgeo's faults, excesses, inaccuracies, or non sequitors, he is CLEARLY in the liberal tradition of political thought. The ease with which you can label and stigmatize others in the liberal tradition isn't very encouraging. That's the kind of attitude that instigates purges.

In fact, I imagine if any libertarian faction really did rise to power in any government, this sort of purge-proneness would rear it's head very quickly. It's the same as we've seen with the Marxists. Whenever you have a bunch of people with a ton of confidence in the righteousness of a logically deduced system (rather than a system built on experience and experimentation), you get violent tendancies that may lie dormant, but spring to prominence when the stakes are high enough.

Much of this conversation is a little bit depressing and not really worthy of response in my opinion, but I think that your imagining purges in the aftermath of the ascension of libertarianism borders on the bizarre. Do you really believe that a group which believes in expanding individual liberty to the maximum extent possible would find reason or justification for rounding up the recalcitrant and killing them? Surely you recognize that there was more to the murderous ideologies of the 20th century than confidence and logic!

It is also interesting to me that you, of all people, fall back on an expressly conservative position as a firewall against violent extremism!

I don't think many revolutionary movements that descend into bloodshed start out with violence as an explicit part of their philosophy. And I don't have the rose-tinted view of libertarianism that you do anyway. I've regularly remarked on the strong anti-democractic, anti-liberty undercurrents of a philosophy that so vehemently denies the legitimacy of a community's own self-governance (not to mention a movement that regularly demonstrates it's unwillingness to give it's detractors the benefit of the doubt).

What's more unlikely, I think, isn't that a libertarian regime would descend into violence - but that a libertarian regime would achieve power in the first place. I think there's too much in libertarians' own dispositions that militates against seeking power, and I think the movement itself is so intellectually bankrupt (despite what I freely acknowledge to be the good intentions of its' adherents) that no one would ever offer them any degree of power.

As for my "expressly conservative position" - I'm not sure what you're refering too, but I'm not really a liberal so I'm not sure why a "conservative" moment of mine would be surprising.

"a philosophy that so vehemently denies the legitimacy of a community's own self-governance"

I, for one, don't deny the legitimacy of community self governance. I deny that it is a reality. Three hundred million people are not ruled by a "community", but rather, by those who claim to speak for the community. The reality is the rule of an exploitive political class, and their exploitation speaks much louder to me than the sentiments of community that they so frequently express.

Rationalizing away the reality of self-governance is a good way to feel better about yourself when you tell the public that they can't govern themselves in certain ways, which is what the libertarian program would be. Constitutionally limiting government is a good thing - the point is the people should decide how much to limit their government. An abstract philosophy shouldn't dictate it.

I don't have to "rationalize" it away. It simply isn't true. The modern progressive state exists to exploit people like me and it allows me to exist only so long as I consent to the exploitation. The only question remaining is whether or not there is any way possible to limit the extent of the exploitation.

I hope I don't need to explain that if you were subconsciously rationalizing it, insisting that "it's true" would constitute further rationalization.

What do you mean "allow you to exist"? How is your existence contingent on the state? I think that's somewhat backwards, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding.

Do I really have to spell this out for you? I'm not a member of the political class. If I don't work, I don't eat, and neither does my family. And in order to work I have to pay them their protection money. And if I don't pay them, bad things happen to me. Yes, they have explanations, tomes even, which they go to great lengths to make me "understand". You can buy their rationalizations if it helps you sleep at night, but I don't.

I too have doubts about the likelihood of libertarians coming to power, but not for all the reasons you mention. Indeed, the comment about intellectual bankruptcy is simply gratuitous. Even if I were to stipulate that libertarianism is intellectually bankrupt, this hardly qualifies as a reason to conclude that the philosophy could not come to power. I offer Hugo Chavez as exhibit one. I offer Barack Obama as exhibit two.

It is your apparent relative faith in a "system built on experience and experimentation" that is conservative. Thousands of years of experience and experimentation yield a complex organic system that only the most criminally immodest would attempt to re-engineer. Positively Burkean.

Anyway, all of the philosophies that came to power and started in to killing had - and have - habits of mind in common, and the sanctity of the individual and his choices was never a part of any of them.

I think you take what Don and Russ write too uncritically if you think it's surprising that non-libertarians are strongly opposed to re-engineering society, and libertarians would hate such a thing.

Ah I see - yes, positively Burkean for sure. I'm not one for massive reengineering. It's one of the reasons why I'm so skeptical of libertarianism. I can appreciate the general thrust of libertarianism - and I once considered myself one. But I can't accept the program in total. You're probably right - intellectual bankruptcy wouldn't necessarily prevent a party from coming to power - and perhaps it was somewhat gratuitous (I wouldn't say "simply" gratuitous). Perhaps I should rephrase this way: when grand schemes with little substance or prospect of success are offered to voters, voters are understandably skeptical. If a party with such a scheme is to be elected, they'll need to play to the crowds in other ways - as socialists have commonly done. I think libertarians would have a hard time playing to the crowds because of their disposition, and since their ideas probably won't win too many over I think that lowers their chances of election. I could be wrong. You could construe the Tea Party movement as an example of libertarian populism - libertarians playing to the crowds. In that sense, it's been fairly successful. Successful enough to take the presidency one day? I don't know.

Re: "the sanctity of the individual and his choices was never a part of any of them" To repeat - I don't have the rose-tinted view of libertarians that you seem to. I also think it's quite possible they came to power with such principles and then lost them when the stakes were high enough.

I may be missing the thrust of your last comment, but I can assure you that neither the communists nor the fascists came to power extolling the virtues of highly limiting government involvement in the decisions of individuals.

libertarians will not come to power as their own political force.

The only way libertarian policies will gain influence is that if the republican party adopts a partly libertarian agenda.

This will only happen if there is another great conservative leader such as reagan, who succeeded in balancing the ideals of the libertarian wing of the party with the social conservative and hawkish wings of the party.

I read this morning that a recent poll showed Sarah Palin as a front runner for the Republican ticket. Though I do think she is a courageous person, I am not a fan of her politics, and she certainly will not be the next Reagan.

There is bad (the republicans) and there is worse (the democrats). I will vote for bad every time, but I am hopeful that with increasing public disgust with the Obama agenda, the republicans will have to adapt an economically libertarian agenda, making the platform of the party less bad.

"...and I think the movement itself is so intellectually bankrupt (despite what I freely acknowledge to be the good intentions of its' adherents) that no one would ever offer them any degree of power."

In light of what we've seen from the dems and repubs for the last 30-40 years, I'd love for you to expand on the above quote.

He is a fascist. You are a tool.

This is why I said I didn't even feel the need to make the point about whether he's a fascist or not. But even if I concede that point (which I don't), you can't possible make the case that he "as fascist as any right wing tyrant he could dream up". It's hyperbole and hysteria on Sam's part, plain and simple. And I find it telling that while you jump to challenge me on the question of whether muirgeo is a fascist (an issue I downplayed), you have no response for me on whether he's "as fascist as any right wing tyrant he could dream up".

Your head is filled with equivocating crap, that’s what’s telling, fool.

See previous answer. It’s in there.

Oh wow - equivocating crap. You've convinced me, man. What a brilliant point. Keep cranking those out.

Keep talking, idiot….

Please, don't call me that. I don't care how bluntly I tell you how unconvincing I find you, I've never extended that kind of discourtesy to you.

DK, can I call you DK?

You’re absolutely right DK, I should never insult children. It ruins their esteem.

Know what DK stands for, DK? Don’t Know. Very fitting for you.

DK = Disingenuous Kuhen

That works too.

?

“Liberals” are dim. All of them. And quite startlingly so. See next comment.

>> "Why are liberals so condescending?"

Because they are sure, absolutely sure, that they are our intellectual superiors. ;-)

Convinced of their superiority certainly, but mostly cowards in my experience. The type who talk a good game but refuse to make a decision without the support of a committee - and often not even then*. They exploit, not because they are actually superior, but because they are otherwise incapable.

*E.g., consider the Democrat's inability to pass health care, and then blaming their inability on Republicans (the committee).

And that because they believe they are reasonable and enlightened that they actually are. It's like the NPR cadence, if you sound reasonable, they you must be reasonable.

Yes. Hang out in academia for a while if there's any doubt.

Leftist find themselves to be very much superior to all other people. This is the distinction. So superior that they are convinced that everyone should submit to their totalitarian rule.

I read the DailyKos fairly regularly. This article describes perhaps 90% of the diaries, and responses to those diaries, on the site. Unfortunately the author doesn't really prove his points. Good article though.

I agree. But I wonder, have you ever read this site?

The reference to Paul Krugman was interesting. Clearly, Krugman is not a man greatly burdened by self doubt. I very much enjoyed his earlier works, such as Peddling Prosperity, The Accidental Theorist, and Pop Internationalism. But there has been an unmistakable shift in his tone. When he criticized faulty economics which were put forward by fellow liberals, such as Robert Reich, Lester Thurow, or John Kenneth Galbraith, he almost invariably attributed their flaws to them missing a few central points about economics. He didn't consider them foolish, per se, or ill intentioned, just wrong. And in Peddling Prosperity, he spoke respectfully and paid tribute to conservative or libertarian economic viewpoints which differed from and challenged his own. That very possibility seems to have disappeared. Now, if there is someone who disagrees with him who cannot be dismissed as stupid, they must be deliberately lying in service of an unnamed higher cause. Even Greg Mankiw, a fellow Keynesian, has been called remarkably ignorant, disingenuous, and deliberately obtuse, when he offers a different analysis than Krugman. I think Paul Krugman could benefit from a little more self doubt, and from the recognition that it is possible for intelligent and honest people to reach different conclusions. Lacking that, some basic manners might be called for.

"Even Greg Mankiw, a fellow Keynesian, has been called remarkably ignorant, disingenuous, and deliberately obtuse, when he offers a different analysis than Krugman."

Do you have a link or cite to support this?

Publius_Texus,

Apologies for the delay in my response; it's been a busy day. I remember a time when Saturdays were much more carefree.

Yes, I do have links I can pass along. The most convenient are to Greg Mankiw's Blog, where Mankiw links to Krugman making the statements and also responds to some of Krugman's assertations.

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/08/blanchar...

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/06/arbiter-...

I think we can agree to leave aside whether you agree with Krugman or Mankiw in the final analysis, because it's not strictly relevant to my point. The point I was making was that Krugman needlessly threw in a few nasty ad hominem attacks against Mankiw, which seemed to discount that it was even possible for Mankiw to honestly disagree.

I hope that helps.

Best,

Jack of Spades

Thanks for the links, Jack. Very helpful, esp. the second one with all the embedded links.

I note, however, that PK never accuses Makliw of "deliberate obtuseness" but says that in terms how the "root unit thing" is used re economic growth, as Makliw does.

Great appreciated.

Publius

Thanks, Jack. I'll take a look at these tomorrow. From the article I've already seen, I can agree that PK was over the line.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/11...

I know he's called him deliberately obtuse a number of time, which is pretty much the same thing as a disingenuous liar.

No, tjt. Obtuseness is being slow to understand. Lying is fabrication.

Words have meaning. Those who distort them or ignore their meaning can be either "obtuse" or "liars"--or both.

The observation is certainly nothing new to anyone who has paid attention over the last century, a good portion of which I have been paying attention.

Alexander appears to suffer that peculiar trait of many "independents" and a lot of so-called "conservatives", and that is there is something of value in, using his word, liberalism (I identify that to be a blanket word covering also democrats/regressives/socialist/communist) that perhaps should be listened seriously enough to consider implementing in a community or in government.

I just flat out disagree. If the left is talking about using the base of socialism for any policy or action, I want nothing to do with it because it carries its own seeds of destruction. Why do something you have solid historical proof is going to eventually fail though the path to that ultimate failure may be long and arduous, or it may be sudden and painful?

The left has loose or no standards but that does not mean they are flexible, because within the context of their own beliefs they can not tolerate change, innovation, or invention, that is too much of a threat to their dominance and control, therefore the left's ideas when implemented always will stagnate. Stagnation is death, long and arduous or quick and painful.

The right has tight standards, but within the context of those standards the right is capable of accepting, nay initiating, change, innovation, invention, and progress.

Now I know a liberal that is sometimes right, why just the other day he said, "You know the price of gas seems to be going up." Now on that level liberals can sometimes be correct.

I still believe, harking back to a recent thread about Frank and Freddie, I want an answer to the question I asked Tex.

What is a legitimate dissent to freedom, what form would that take? How could it be justified in any circumstance?

"The left has loose or no standards but that does not mean they are flexible, because within the context of their own beliefs they can not tolerate change, innovation, or invention, that is too much of a threat to their dominance and control, therefore the left's ideas when implemented always will stagnate. Stagnation is death, long and arduous or quick and painful."

Replace "the left" with "conservatives", and I bet you Alexander would complain that this statement is "condescending" too. It's certainly harsher than any statement he ever cited in the article.

Which isn't to say I think you're necessarily condescending here (you are when you call me "youngling"). I'm just saying by Alexander's very odd definition you are. What is this statement if not the belief that the left "are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration"? Or is this not Alexander's version of condescension because in this case you are right?

The one complaint that came to the forefront as I read his piece is that he retains the bipolar political paradigm; conservative vs liberal.

My complaint about the left is that if you don't agree with them, then you must be on the "right". The opposite used to be just as true of the right, but not quite so much lately.

Aw, 'right' apparently catch-all word apparently used by lefties to describe 'non-lefties'? Sounds familiar . . .

Oh yeah.
In 1978, the national Review published an article that "proved" libertarians were communist.

Of course the left accuses anyone that doesn't go along with them as being right wing nuts.

You'd think they'd never seen the quiz.

I had returned to edit my post but I see that function is now gone, so you'll have to suffice or else I just put a new post out there.

DK, at anytime the left uses their socialist beliefs as the bedrock on which to advance any idea of act, they are wrong. If Alexander is reluctant , or afraid, to say it I am not. Put all the core beliefs in a pot, turn the heat on them, and render them down to their essence and what you have left gooing up the pan is a thin layer of theft and force. Put water back in the pot and cook it back to its original volume and there is still only theft and force with the carrier added back in.

My point is that I am one who doesn't really care whether Alexander agrees or disagrees with me, nor do I care if you, Tex, Don, et. al. agree or disagree with me. You are free to be as wrong as you like as long as it does not curtail my freedom to exercise my natural rights.

What I was going to insert in my edit was this: What part of freedom are we, anyone, willing to give up, to have parsed out, to be inhibited by the decisions of others?

Now answer my question if you can. If you, or anyone, can't give a reasonable and rational answer and defend it with logic and fact supported by solid historical data, then I really just need to be left alone to enjoy acting as a freeman, an independent agent in all that I do, as long as I do no harm to another or to his property.

That's an excellent point. I've been focusing so much on how bad I thought Alexander's thoughts on condescension were that I missed the fact that really you and I agree on this whole notion of "condescension", despite our disagreement elsewhere.

I'm not sure about the context of the original question you posed, but my answer would be that I would only think it's legitimate to be expected to give up freedom when that freedom inhibits the freedom of others. You act as if freedoms are always synchronized and that they rarely or never clash. I'm not sure why you think that way. I think that in many cases the free choices of individuals inihibit the free choices of other individuals. In the most blatantly obvious cases I think you'd agree with me - if one person steals from another person the state can restrict the freedom of the thief. I'm just suggesting that the same logic applies to pollution, or to bank leverage. These are free choices by some individuals that inhibit the free choices of other individuals. The problem is magnified when property rights aren't complete, but even if property rights were complete these issues would still have to be fought out in court.

This is a very, very old understanding of human liberty, vidyohs. I'll quote Adam Smith for an example:

"To restrain private people, it may be said, from receiving in payment the promissory notes of a banker, for any sum whether great or small, when they themselves are willing to receive them, or to restrain a banker from issuing such notes, when all his neighbours are willing to accept of them, is a manifest violation of that natural liberty which it is the proper business of law not to infringe, but to support. Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respects a violation of natural liberty. But those exertions of the natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments, of the most free as well as of the most despotical. The obligation of building party walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire, is a violation of natural liberty exactly of the same kind with the regulations of the banking trade which are here proposed."

When I posted this the other day, Don mistook me for (irrelevantly) arguing that Smith's specific advice on financial markets applied to today's situation. What I was actually pointing out was that these sorts of regulatory approaches in general are very consistent with a classical liberal position.

This is why it's so frustrating to hear you, day after day, just dismiss this as being something other than classical liberal without any evidence or argument. It's a recognition of human liberty, vidyohs, and a recognition that individual liberty often contradicts or prevents the liberty of other individuals. The point is to ensure that liberty is preserved - not to destroy it. Your comparisons to something like socialism, which have no inherent respect for human liberty, come across as highly misinformed, not to mention simply irrelevant.

There's always the caveat that this kind of arbitration is hard and imperfect - hence my usually cautious approach to these sorts of things. But in many scenarios (certainly not all), simply leaving it to laissez faire is highly destructive of liberty, and as a classical liberal I can't accept that (at least not in all circumstances - obviously there's a huge range of human action where laissez faire does great and is the ideal policy).

You can think the case I made is wrong, but I don't think you can credibly call it irrational, illogical, unreasonable, or illiberal.

It's a recognition of human liberty, vidyohs, and a recognition that individual liberty often contradicts or prevents the liberty of other individuals.

No, it doesn't. You appear to have a non-libertarian definition of liberty.

If an action interferes with the equal liberty of another, then it is not an expression of liberty, it is a violation of the liberty of another.

Damn, DK! This is ele-mental. Since you have a non-libertarian definition of liberty you can't possibly have a legitimate opinion, correct or otherwise, because there is no other defensible definition of liberty.

That's a rather wild interpretation of what I said.

Bingo!

I'm supposing he hasn't made the effort to comprehend the libertarian definition of liberty which is why he misunderstands libertarianism in general.

:) the old "if he doesn't agree with me he must misunderstand me" rationalization.

People who argue different premises will naturally have a difficult time understanding each other.

I had quite a time understanding Martin until I figured out where he was arguing from.

I do have a non-libertarian definition of liberty, you're right - what I have is a (more or less) classical liberal definition of liberty. I hesitate to say even that, though, because (1.) I'm not a philosopher so my own conception of these abstract ideas is still somewhat hazy, and more importantly (2.) I'm sure there are lots of different classical liberal understandings of liberty to begin with.

As for your last paragraph - I think this is just getting into semantics. I'm happy to accept that definition too. It still wouldn't change any of my positions if I accepted that definition. I imagine I'd just understand certain "violations of the liberty of another" differently than you would. That would probably convince you that I'm not a friend of liberty - but just keep in mind that for precisely the same reason that's the impression I get from you every day.

And that's why I always argue, if you're going to have a state, then it should be kept minimal.

It's a long way from prohibiting interpersonal aggression to having a virtual empire.

Notice the "if".

The boundary for anyone's liberty of action is the equality of rights of another.

Liberty in a world with one individual may mean you can do anything you like, but in a world of many people, then you may do anything you like as long as you do not violate the rights of another.

This is founded in the idea of human equality, not equality of situation, but equality of rights and moral standing.

The issue for libertarians is the licensing of an agency with the power and sanction to violate the rights of individuals with great impunity.

I'm curious. Which political philosophers have you wrestled with in coming to this conclusion. Aristotle, Plato, Locke, Hume, Hobbes, Kant, Machiavelli, Rousseau, Montesquieu, (here's an Austrian for ya!) Popper, Burke, Levy, Gray, Bacon...

Or is it all drawn from some light reading of Hayek, Nozick and of course the lovely Ayn Rand.

This conversation did begin with an article about liberal condescension, didn't it? Interesting.

+1

I've read a few of the names you mention. Plato is a fool. Aristotle is boring. Locke and Hume have some good ideas, and some not so good ones. Hobbes is a blatant propagandist. Rousseau, another fool. And why do you not include Hegel and Marx? As for Hayek, yes, I'm impressed. And Rand's Atlas Shrugged opened my eyes, and pushed aside a mountain of propaganda.

And personally, I'd say forget philosophy and look to interest. The history of the political class is the progress of systems of exploitation This has few exceptions, and the modern American Progressive state is not one of them (Machiavelli explains the perspective of the political class well, by the way). The answer to exploitation does not require any great amount of study. Recognize it, then end it. Period.

I vaguely remember reading Plato, it's been a while.
I'm not buying the shadows in the cave description of our apprehension of reality anymore.

We have vastly more information available to us now, and experience.

I've observed that position in the hierarchy often corresponds to how strongly one defends established order.

Those who are well off like to keep it that way and so are about to produce many justifications for the edifice in which they enjoy comfortable advantage.

Exactly. E.g., Hobbes' defense of the Leviathan, or Hegel's defense of the divine state... or even Muirgeo's defense of the evolutionary state.

Good for you! You're clearly an educated man (woman?). (I can't tell because the name can go either way.)

I'm curious about the tenor of your question. Is it based on your assignment of validity to sources of philosophical argument?

Do you accept the arguments of others, or do you flesh out and test the arguments yourself?

I haven't read Hayek or Nozick. I find reading about philosophy to be rather tedious.

I once took a philosophy class, and found the concepts quite familiar due to their influence on modern society via numerous channels.

My own beginnings in defining liberty were pretty much my own internal arguments, but of course, I was influenced by the context of my experience.

My attachment to liberty was founded in public school indoctrination, which sought to secure my loyalty to the order because it provided me with liberty. I have since come to the conclusion that the existing order may well demolish liberty, not least by the expansion of public debt.

Just finished Hayek's "Road to Serfdom", and I highly recommend it. Sixty some years ago, he nailed it.

I'm fairly familiar with it.

Daniel,

If I'm not too much mistaken, I believe that your point basically boils down to the argument about externalities. It is, in my opinion, a legitimate point. But, as you also legitimately point out, it is a very tricky argument to apply and is easy to abuse. My main concern in this area is that even the most legitimate and necessary cases, there is an almost inevitable tendency for them to grow far beyond legitimate application and end up causing more harm than if they had never been implemented in the first instance. To use an example outside of economics, suppose it could be conclusively proven that society would be better off if Holocaust deniers were not allowed to peddle their rubbish any more. I would still oppose a law which said so, even though it could (for the purposes of this hypothetical) make everyone better off, because I see far too much potential for it to leak out of its original borders and start restricting more and more free speech elsewhere. So yes, the argument about where to draw that line is necessarily complicated and fraught with pitfalls. I suspect that I am more cautious than you, but the debate is always at least fun, and at best educational.

Best,

Jack of Spades

Why couldn't Holocaust Deniers be charged with fraud?

The Anne Frank Museum had a great interactive exhibit about free speech a few years ago. I don't know if it's still there but it did a wonderful job of making the participant feel just how difficult it is to protect people from genocidal maniacs while maintaining the right to free speech. The interactive nature of the exhibit drove home the difficulty.

Great point, 1776. But there's a small problem.

How would have Hitler been prevented from slaughtering all the Anne Franks in Europe and extending to everyone on the continent (and through his friend Hirohito, to all of Asia) his concepts of free speech and human rights, if the strong central governments of the UK and US had not existed?

Ditto for defeating communism.

I'm sorry, are you under the impression that communism was defeated by anything other than communism?

Other than that, defense of the realm is one of the roles of government. I don't understand what this has to do with the exhibit and what point you thought I was making other than to let people know that if they're in Amsterdam, the museum is worth checking out.

I apologize, too, Methinks, for failing to connect the dots for you.

another link

Sam, I was waiting for you to jump in. Maybe you should link him to the discussion you and tex had about this exact subject a number of threads ago.

People who think they know everything tend to be a bit disquieted when someone provides them with information that challenges what they think they know.
He can read Higgs and Breggin if he wants, I'm gonna shower.

Interesting how Tex dropped out of the conversation when I pointed out that he had failed to back up his claim about the "gutting of regulatory agencies" under Bush while I had provided citations of the opposite.

Yea, what ever happened to Tex???

I guess he ran out of ad hominuition.

And, of course, free speech becomes a great problem when it is used to advocate licensing violations of individuals via political action.

you think? I don't remember the exhibit exactly, but I think the most difficult part was when the participant was asked if he would curb the right to free speech when it is used as a call to murder. My first thought was to allow it but to remind any potential murderers of the consequences. Unfortunately, those consequences don't matter to, say, Islamists. Life is difficult.

Methinks1776,

I haven't ever been to the museum or seen the exhibit, but I can imagine that it must have been moving. If I ever have the chance I will check that out. Thanks for the tip.

Best,

Jack of Spades

I would agree with you on the Holocaust law. But let me be clear - "making things better" isn't the standard that I used. Practically speaking, "making things better" is obviously going to come up in the discussion, but that's not what justifies a violation of liberty. I don't know what liberties a person violates by denying the Holocaust, so I don't see how one could justify keeping them from denying the Holocaust. I don't even think that falls under the rubric of externalities or what Smith is refering to or anything else. You don't have a right to being unoffended. What rights or liberties are violated by Holocaust denial that might justify the restriction of Holocaust denial? I can't think of any. A better example is the classic yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

A better example is the classic yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

That's always been a lousy example. consider the application of property rights, common law application of fraud and threats to the safety of others.

It is not an expression of liberty to fraudulently shout fire in a crowded theater that leads to harm to other.

See my response to you below. It's just a circular semantic argument. If you want to start out by saying that the speech wasn't an expression of liberty to begin with, I'm 100% fine with defining it as such. It doesn't change my point at all. By saying it wasn't an expression of liberty in the first place you're just making the same point I'm making - that actions such as these justify state intervention and should not be construed as inconsistent with liberalism.

I don't agree that it justifies an arbitrary state.
Common law was a long established tradition to handle such matters.
For instance, whoever owns the movie theater is justified and within their rights to throw out someone who falsely yells "fire" in the theater.

Who ever stated that States form arbitrary rather than evolve over time? Oh yeah, Libertarians! That's who!

Could you make that into a coherent sentence?

Political power is arbitrary:

1 It determines its own boundary.
2 It is used even when not appropriate.
3 It tends to immunize itself from consequences
4 It sets a different standard for itself from that which it imposes upon others.

I agree entirely.

That's why we have a Constitution that enumerates certain powers to the states and the people, and every state has a conssitution that does likewise, and why the US Constitution has provisions that states must have a "republican" (i.e., democratic) form of government, and allows the Constitution to be changed over time as generations define liberty for themselves.

You could say it all went wrong with the Democratic/Republican notion of government/state. Land ownership was held in private families until the revolutionaries believe that land should be held in common with certain people to be representative of everyone and elections held to keep things stirring. Such 'common ownership' elsewhere is called Socialism.

"Land ownership was held in private families until the revolutionaries believe that land should be held in common with certain people to be representative of everyone and elections held to keep things stirring."

You talking about the American revolutionaries?

If so, where the hell do you get that?

And are we to take from this statement that you are opposed to elections?

I was actually referring primarily to the European monarchies.

"Well actually all we're talking of land theft - i.e. people think they have the right to kill and displace the previous landowners and taking the land for themselves and crowning themselves the new rulers. Heck virtually every revolution is really a coup d'etat - few Americans (~30%) wanted to break away from British rule but those who did were in it because they would profit by being the new elite."

We have a basic disagreement here. While I agree that economic motives were related to the Am revolution, this motivation reflected a very broad identification of property rights (more broad than just land property) with both political and economic liberty. The founders saw, I think rightly, that economic liberties were fundamental to political, religious and social liberty. I think libertarians, classic liberals, contemporary liberals, and conservatives all generally accept this connection between economic liberty and these other liberties.

But the founders were also realistic idealists as reflected by the Enlightenment sources (Locke, Hume, Montesque) for their political philosophy and theory as reflected in the Declaration and the Constitution. This is why Jefferson substituted "happiness" for "property" in his final version of the Declaration's "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Economic motives were not the only, or even primary, grounds of our revolution, or other democratic revolutions over the past 200 years. The best demonstration in support of this claim lies in the casuality statistics from the "Second Am Revolution" in which more than 400,000 died and 300,000 wounded in the struggle to save the union and end slavery.

"Every good Libertarian is opposed to elections as it is theft by majority rule."

If this were true, and I don't believe it is, libertarians would be a serious threat to democracy and return us to an undemocratic domination of a right-thinking elite who are not accountable to anyone but themselves.

No, Gil. Which revolutionaries were you talking about?

And, I repeat, are you opposed to elections?

Well actually all we're talking of land theft - i.e. people think they have the right to kill and displace the previous landowners and taking the land for themselves and crowning themselves the new rulers. Heck virtually every revolution is really a coup d'etat - few Americans (~30%) wanted to break away from British rule but those who did were in it because they would profit by being the new elite. Heck, is any revolution different from what happened in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe where the black revolutionaries displaced the old white rule to establish (conveniently) a new order with the revolutionaries owning the land they seized and the average person no better off (or even far worse off)?

Every good Libertarian is opposed to elections as it is theft by majority rule. Go to amazon.com and find "The Irrational Voter".

isn't Virginia often called "The commonwealth of Virginian"?

Sam, I see multiple references to "common law" in your posts.

Are you an attorney? Have you read Blackstone, Coke, Holmes and Gray? It's a lot of ground to cover: all the way back to 1154.

Back up the tree to make more room.

What about you?

Do you endorse the status quo?

Do you think the government should increase its already extensive involvement in the market?

Are you at all concerned about the public debt?

Do you endorse the status quo?

Nope. You must not be reading what I'm writing.

Do you think the government should increase its already extensive involvement in the market?

Sometimes, sometimes not.

Are you at all concerned about the public debt?

Yep.

I know. You have difficult understanding how all this could possibly the case. Check your ideological blinders, Sammy.

I'm now supposing that you are opposed to unlimited majority rule and suspect that you agree with the recent supreme court decision regarding political speech.

Half right.

Yes, I do oppose unlimited majority rule, for the very reason the founders did (see Federal #10 and others I'll cite if you want them). A majority can be just as tyrannical as any despot, as demonstrated repeatedly by the small-state democracies of classical Greece and the abuses against fundamental rights by the southern states before the Civil War.

No, I strongly oppose the SC's decision in United Citizens.

Half right.

Yes, I do oppose unlimited majority rule, for the very reason the founders did (see Federal #10 and others I'll cite if you want them). A majority can be just as tyrannical as any despot, as demonstrated repeatedly by the small-state democracies of classical Greece and the abuses against fundamental rights by the southern states before the Civil War.

No, I strongly oppose the SC's decision in United Citizens.

So you think the overturned law passed constitutional muster?

Sam, you can really test one's patience, my friend.

Have you looked at the 1st Amend recently? "The Press" is explicitly enumerated as a protected entity.. No other business organization or corporation is mentioned. If the founders had intended to extend the protection to other corporations, they would have done so, but they didn't because they thought freedom of the press was a special case crucial to the functioning of a democratic, limited government.

So what if Jefferson was opposed to a central (national)) bank. Washington disagreed with him and signed the bill into law and the Supreem Court has never found the bank to be unconstitutional.

And citing Jefferson on the bank is irrelevant to my citation of Jefferson on corporations as people. It WOULD be relevant if you could cite him FOR that interpreation of the 1st Amend.

Yes, the meaning is a subject for interpretation which depends greatly on one's philosophical perspective.

The founders didn't foresee the press as the agency of corporations either, yet that is what the major media is now.

Personally, I don't see the great threat of corporate influence on government. It has been with us for as long as there has been government and corporate interests and it will always exist.

As long as government takes an interest in corporations, corporations will take an interest in government.

The more it is attempted to increase the power of government to change that, the greater the threat political power becomes to liberty.

The issue is power.

Now I have to suppose you support the individual rights interpretation of the second amendment, which has long been argued on the left as only a "collective" right.

Sam, I'm responding to your last question here because the response field is so narrow "down there".

Yes, the 1st Amendment doesn't specify who the prohibition on Congress is designed to protect. But the context of ALL other protections in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is either "the people" or some specified entity, such as "the states" or "the press". Nowhere does the word "corporations" appear in the Constitution or any of the Amendments.

Using the argument that extends the 1st Amendment to corporations, one could just as readily argue that the free speech provision applies to any other non-human entity not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution (dogs, cats, etc.), and ironically enough, you could argue this point MORE easily than you could argue that the right to free speech applies to certain HUMANS, such as slaves and Indians.

Ironic, indeed, heh?

Moreover, it's clear from the Federalist Papers that Madison, Hamilton and the other primary authors of the Constitution intended to restrain as much as practical the political influence of "special interests", including business interests.

And to get a sense of how strong the founders' concern/opposition was to corporations. his a good quote from Jefferson:

"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the law of our country." (1816)

And yet, corporations labeled as "media" are exempt.

The Jefferson quote does not tie to the 1st amendment.

Jefferson also opposed a central bank, and yet, there is the FED.

The law overturned is of fairly recent vintage, I don't think it's presence did anything significant in preventing corporate influence.

Corporate influence is an issue of concern, but it is dwarfed by the issue of entitlements, the demographic shift, and the public debt.

Yea, that's what I mean when I say that "no" I don't agree, as you've assumed, with the CU decision. I agreed with the minority in the case that there is no basis in a strict constructionist reading of the Constitution (isn't that what this Court's philosophy allegedly is?) or in the historical documents that bear on the founders' intent, that a corporation can be read as "a person".

In fact, the evidence of founders' intent on this issue is overwhelmingly against such a reading.

This decision is likely to cause great harm to democratic government and will eventually be overturned.

I'd say that it depends on one's philosophical perspective.

There is no physical manifestation of a corporation that can have or speak opinions that can or need to be regulated.

Underlying such legal fictions, there is only people and their actions.

The relevant amendment does not say "shall make no law, except for non-media corporations".

It says "congress shall make NO law abridging..."
NO LAW is not ambiguous.

I know. You have difficult understanding how all this could possibly the case. Check your ideological blinders,

Not at all. I'm quite familiar with the reality that different people believe different things. You read too much into my questions.

I'm just asking you to explicate so I don't have to guess.

Check YOUR ideological blinders.

Are you an attorney?

Of course not, or my discourse would undoubtedly be more erudite.

Indeed. And perhaps more persuasive.

I take it then that you aren't an attorney either for you haven't persuaded me that what we've got is worth the cost.

And if you're worried about a life nasty, brutish, and short, just wait till the bill comes due.

I certainly question the assertion that the government is the reason why life isn't nasty, brutish, and short. There are many places with strong government where the lives of many are still nasty, brutish, ans short.

No, but then I'm not offering arguments based on "un-erudite" references to common law.

I'm am, however, a long time student of Constitutional law and history, and American history from the immediate pre-Revolutionary period through reconstuction. If you're interested I could refer you to some very good books on these matters.

There are well informed scholars on both sides of the debate. What it comes down to is interpretation and the interpretation rather depends on the premises of the interpreter.

You may claim that government has built civilization, but history also reveals that governments destroy civilizations.

The reality of economics cannot be long violated by arbitrary authority.

I've written nothing about "governments". I've written about the democratic-republican form of *our* government.

Tell me, Sam. Do you want to replace that government with some other form of govt? What would that be?

There's your republic...if you can keep it.


That's the trick, isn't it?

I understand now, Sam.

I'm not so much worried about an end pint as much as a direction.
I would be quite satisfied if our government were constrained to the boundaries defined by the constitution. However, that hasn't really worked because of pressure to do more.

So what needs to happen is get people to realize the threat of runaway political power by understanding how the system really works and why so that they realize that government that does more than defend individual rights will escape control by the people and instead of making dreams come true, will end up destroying dreams.

So when enough people decide that government shall be constrained, it will be.

Right now, I argue against where we may be headed which means arguing against the government as it currently manifests.

I do not argue against the idea of rules and limits on behavior.

I think government should be a limiter rather than a regulator.

Thanks, but I've already got books that I haven't time to read. I used to read extensively in my youth, but I have a hard time allocating the time lately. Not only am I a stay at home schooling dad, but I'm developing code for a project and it's amazingly difficult to focus on that with a sic year old around.

Perhaps you can tell me how wild the west was before the government came to tame it.

So you oppose a criminal law that prohibits a serial fire-shouter from being arrested (then tried) and prevented from continuing his practice. You would leave the matter to civil law and the extracting of monetary damages at some indefinite point in the future.

Do you go to movies? Have kids that do?

So you oppose a criminal law that prohibits a serial fire-shouter from being arrested (then tried) and prevented from continuing his practice. You would leave the matter to civil law and the extracting of monetary damages at some indefinite point in the future.

Do you go to movies? Have kids that do?

I support the right of a theater owner to prohibit such a person from the theater, I support the right of patrons to refuse to attend performances where the theater owner does not attend to safety.

I oppose a system that requires me to pay for the incarceration and upkeep of "serial FIRE shouters".

The government has no interest in extracting value from the shouter to recompense his victims.

Additionally, an agency with the sanction to force non-criminals to pay to feed, house, and provide care to those who violate the rights of others has, inevitably, become an agency that regularly violates the rights of individuals that likely far exceed the costs imposed by individual criminals.

"I support the right of a theater owner to prohibit such a person from the theater, I support the right of patrons to refuse to attend performances where the theater owner does not attend to safety."

Sure, who doesn't. That's not at issue.


"The government has no interest in extracting value from the shouter to recompense his victims."

That's not the issue either. We're talking about govt intervention to stop a series of crimes that destory life and property and to punish the perp.

I understand you fully. You don't think that's an appropriate role for govt.

What's the difference between what you believe in this regard and anarchism?

You don't think that's an appropriate role for govt.

It's understandable that you would jump to such a conclusion, but having recourse and recognized rights in property constitutes government.

I don't see how this shouter can continue to engage in his crime if theater and similar public venue operators see fit to bar him entry.

In any case, I don't see how the shouter's crime justifies an agency that is sanctioned to commit even greater crimes against individuals.

If the guy is really bad, it's likely that someone will shoot him in the act of committing an even more egregious crime against somebody.

It's not as if the government has been successful in preventing serial criminal behavior, the streets are rife with such people, in spite of the illegality of their behaviors.

But tell me how the occasional someone shouting FIRE in a theater justifies an agency that can wage war against people around the world, take value from producers and give it to millionaires (e.g. bailouts, ag subsidies, etc.), prop up dictators in other countries, create crime via prohibition, and so on. The list is very long.

Tell me how I'm better off with such an agency rather than accepting that jerks will do bad things (even with said agency available).

Me: "You don't think that's an appropriate role for govt."

You: "It's understandable that you would jump to such a conclusion, but having recourse and recognized rights in property constitutes government."

Sorry for the confusion. I wasn't refering to your clearly stated recognition of recourse related to rights in property as a legitimate role of government. I was refering to your clearly stated objection to the govt's use of police powers and law enforcement.

"I don't see how this shouter can continue to engage in his crime if theater and similar public venue operators see fit to bar him entry."

Are you suggesting the need for a (privately provided, I assume) univeral, nationwide identification system that allows any business to track individuals who have, what?, a widely recognized reputation for shouting "fire" in movie theaters? How else would this idea be implemented?

In pursuit of some idealized perfect world, you would end up giving us all lives that are indeed, "nasty, brutish and short".

Are you suggesting the need for a (privately provided, I assume) univeral, nationwide identification system that allows any business to track individuals who have, what?, a widely recognized reputation for shouting "fire" in movie theaters?

Are you saying this isn't an issue in any case?

Criminal frequently move to areas where they are less well known.
And your solution is still to have an agency that engages in all manner of evil as the smart, charismatic sociopaths discover they can obtain political power over decent folks. The solution you defend is exactly where we are with enormous debts, hostilities around the world, etc.

And you know what? I've never, ever heard anyone shout FIRE in a theater.

In pursuit of some idealized perfect world, you would end up giving us all lives that are indeed, "nasty, brutish and short".

Tearing down straw men is easy, isn't it?

I don't think it justifies an arbitrary state either, and I also recognize the value of common law to solve these problems.

As for the movie theater - if it was only the theater owners rights that were violated, your point would be of greater comfort to me.

In such a case, the theater owner's interest coincides with those of his paying customers. I don't think I have to explain how to you.

Also, individuals who are injured by a panic caused by a fraudulent shouting of "fire" may also sue the shouter.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. I'm agreeing with you that they should be able to sue the shouter. My point is it's precisely the principle on which they can justify suing the shouter that also justifies the state intervention as an intervention that is not in violation of the principles of classical liberalism.

Now, perhaps state intervention may be unadvisable in certain circumstances and common law remedies may be more advisable. But the underlying principle - the underlying justification - is identical.

We're not arguing about the justification for, not intervention actually, as there is no real way to prevent someone from hollering "fire" in a crowded theater, but for penalizing such behavior after the fact.

While the individuals involved have property rights in the issue, the state does not. The justification for intervention does not justify the creation of an agency with the sanction to violate property rights.

That is, none of the private actions above justifies forcing individuals unconnected to the situation to pay for said agency.

Daniel,

Upon reflection, I agree that the Holocaust denial bit was a clunky example. However, the shouting fire in a crowded theater one is a much better example of the point I was trying to make. Thank you for reminding me of that :)

When that phrase was coined by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (a man I largely respect), it was used as a justification for jailing a group of Russian Jewish immigrants for publishing pamphlets written in Yiddish protesting the entry of the United States into the Great War. (They had left Russia to get away from this conflict, ironically. Alan Dershowitz does a good job of demolishing this verdict in his book "America on Trail.") So even if we grant that falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater is a true externality of speech, the famous case with which that phrase is associated shows that principle is bound to abused. Actually, it was abused from its inception. There is a world of difference from falsely shouting fire and starting a panic, and protesting a war or the draft. But the first was equated with the second.

Incidentally, various groups will use an externality sounding argument regarding hate speech. The argument usually goes along the lines that hateful speech directed against minority group X can incite violence against X, therefore X's right to security is violated by such speech and therefore that speech should be restricted. So it's an appeal to the right to personal safety rather than the right to be unoffended. I don't find this argument persuasive, but it does exist.

Best,

Jack of Spades

Well we're in agreement on the ruling itself. The poor application of the principle doesn't invalidate the principle. And if the principle is important for preserving human freedom, then it certainly isn't a justification for violating the principle and thereby doing violence to human freedom.

The principle is good or it isn't. If it's good then what you're left with is misapplications that harm human freedom or omissions of application that harm human freedom. You'd not going to convince me that an omission that harms human freedom is justified by the risk a misapplication that's going to harm human freedom. They're BOTH antithetical to human freedom. So true liberals wouldn't embrace EITHER, and would take the route that seems most likely to avoid EITHER.

Daniel,

I feel like we are gaining some ground here. That's good.

I agree that the principle is either good or not, and even good principles can be misapplied in ways that make them harmful. So far, so good. I suspect that where we are stuck, though, is on the point of how to handle the risk of misapplication.

You say that I'm "not going to convince [you] that an omission that harms human freedom is justified by the risk a misapplication that's going to harm human freedom." If I am not going to convince you, I probably shouldn't be using too much more comment space on the subject. But nonetheless, that is a fairly accurate assessment of my view. I tend to view everything as a trade off, and incrementally rather than categorically. The question I ask is; how much harm to freedom will this omission cause, compared to how much harm to freedom will its misapplication cause? And, in my best judgment, history tends to show that the damage done my misapplication far outweighs the damage done by omission. And the attempts to frame laws in such a way that they will avoid damage to either almost inevitably get worked around, co-opted, or ignored by special interest groups, lobbyists, and politicians. So, generally, I tend to think that a greater degree of human freedom would be preserved without them. Not always, but usually. It's all well and good to say that we need to find a better way of applying them so that this sort of abuse won't come to pass, but given the legalistic stretching that has occurred so many times before (Kelo, anyone?) it strikes me as a bit utopian to try to build a strategy around that notion.

I won't say that I cannot be convinced otherwise though. But this line of inquiry has already wandered far beyond the original topic. (That tends to happen a lot, come to think of it.) Feel free to shoot me an email on the subject if you like. Bastiat_1850@yahoo.com

RE: "I suspect that where we are stuck, though, is on the point of how to handle the risk of misapplication."

I thought you would agree that's the heart of it. I do too, and I'm glad we can converge on that point. Too often here, people ask me why I don't recognize the risks I'm running with my views on the state. Indianajim inevitably pops up to remind me of Coase's reservations as if those reservations are lost on me. I understand this as a tradeoff too, and I think ultimately where people fall is a function of their assessment of the risks, not a fundamental disagreement on the principle or on liberty.

One of the reasons I am concerned about the risk of omission is a point related to Bastiat (which perhaps you'll appreciate given your email address!). The risks of externalities from pollution, for example, are largely unseen and we don't connect them to the polluters. The atmosphere is the atmosphere, and we have no way of assigning blame and we've spent our entire lives just dealing with the costs. That very real violation of liberty and really property (our health) is "unseen". When the government regulates polluters that is very seen - very out in the open - very contentious. And in a democracy, very up for argument. So the "risk of omission" as we've taken to calling it - is very risky indeed because it's hard to identify the violatoin of liberty in the first place. The risk of state action is less because anything the state does to remedy the problem is very much out in the open. There are always risks of unintended consequences - Coase's concern. I acknowledge that. But in a lot of cases I think the risks of omission are risky precisely because they are often the "unseen" costs.

I really do think of myself as a classical liberal, but I don't recognize any solution as being clear-cut of obvious or guaranteed.

Anyway, this has been very enlightening for me - perhaps we shall carry on a correspondence. For now, I'm going off to read a little.

Thanks
Daniel

Daniel and Jack-

An excellent exchange here. Thank you.

Like Daniel, I consider myself to be a classical liberal and like Daniel (I'm assuming here), I defend a considerably stronger national govt than is tolerable for most folks on this site.

You have discussed one of the central questions that appears to separate the libertarians from the classic liberals who support a more active and powerful state: the cost of omission vs the risks of commission in the exercise of political power.

I believe this question has been addressed by some very smart fellows who conducted an interesting experiment. And it's worth noting that before they set up the laboratory, most of them tilted heavily to libertarian side. So if there was any experimental bias, it was to the libertarian view.

The experiment was the Articles of Confederation which instituted a very weak central government and failed so profoundly that within a decade that the country *overwhelmingly* chose by democractic means to end that experiment and try another one.

The new experiment was a Constitution that established a strong central government, restrained by certain powers reserved to the states and the people (in the Bill of Rights). And in the continuing experiment, the power of that govt was greatly expanded through an amendment process that also requires *overwhelming* popular support. These amendments have granted a series of additional powers to the fed govt. (see Amendments 13, 14, 15, 16 19, 23, 24 and 26.) Only one amendment ratified after 1795 restricted the power of the fed govt: the 27th, which prohibits a Congress from raising its own salary.

The "proof" of the success of the second experiment is the survival and flourishing of the US over the last 220 years, and the clear evidence that without the change from the more "libertarian" Articles to the more centralized power under the Constitution, the larger experiment in democracy would have almost certainly failed.

That evidence? I'll cite a few clear examples: the nation's rapid expansion westward, esp. with the Louisiana Purchase, the defeat of the British in the War of 1812, the limitations imposed on established economic and political elites during the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian periods of the 1800s, the preservation of the nation through the slavery crisis and the Civil War, and the defeat of Nazism and Communism.

Certainly, there are still questions surrounding "omission costs vs commission risk" that remain open today But from the point of view of popular democracy in the US, the verdict is in on the largest questions involved, many of which are nevertheless still debated on this sites and others like it.

That verdict is printed in black and white.

And it's very important that you point out that the expansions of federal power have been expansions that have been achieved through the original Constitutional framework, and it's interpretation. This is essential to the distinction that James Buchanan made in his Nobel lecture between the constitutional and legislative stages of economic policymaking - a distinction that he felt was essential to the preservation of "peace, prosperity, and harmony, while retaining our liberties as autonomous individuals who can, and must, create our own values".

Moreover, these constitutional changes which have allowed for the evolution of federal power have been reactions to the changing nature of society and of the economy - the increasing relevance of externalities and market failures, compared to the relatively negligble role they played in the 18th century. The changes happened in reaction to the growing importance of certain public goods: infrastructure, education, national defense, etc. - relative to earlier times. The point is that the Constitution acknowledged the full spectrum of human liberty: not just the liberty to do what one pleases, but also the liberty to act in concert and self-government to respond to externalities and to provide public goods. And it acknowledged this liberty in a way that allowed citizens to respond to new problems as they arose.

The problem with the libertarian perspective is that it recognizes only a small frame of human liberty, and it assumes that human liberty has very simple properties. Complications like externalities and public goods, which emerge when property rights regimes aren't complete (as they inevitably aren't), or when individual incentives conflict are just assumed away.

I agree with you - the proof is in the pudding. What the libertarians have been reduced to is arguing that the single greatest example of human liberty and self-government that is consistent not with libertarian, but with classical liberal principles - the example of the United States - is actually not a guarantor of liberty at all, but an affront to liberty. This argument is comical and the evidence is clearly against it. I just wonder when they'll realize that.

And notice what they're often reduced to - pointing out bureaucratic idiosyncracies or goofy laws or statements passed by misguided public officials. These sorts of problems are bound to happen in any polity, but for libertarians they take on new significance as being indicative of how anti-liberty the modern U.S. has become. I personally don't buy it, and I'm glad you don't either. The basic framework of the U.S. Constitution has stood the test of time as the most dependable guarantor of human liberty. And it's done that not as a libertarian document, but as a document that expresses classical liberalism's concern with how a state can best arbitrate between the complicated, messy problems that are posed when free individuals attempt to live together in a harmonious, productive society.

I can say nothing more than "yes".

This is precisely why I found the comment section for Yglesias' confederate flag post in response to you so tedious.

She has the right to carry a symbol some people find offensive and Yglesias has the right to voice his disapproval. Freedom is a great thing.

I think I'm missing something because I unequivocally agree with your second paragraph. And I'd add that I have a right to point out what I perceive to be the flaws in the criticism that Yglesias (and his commenters, for that matter) leveled against her.

You're not missing anything. You're reading into my comment. If I think that she has the right to hoist the flag and Yglesias has the right to criticize her, then it stands to reason that I also think you have the right to criticize his criticism.

No - I would have anticipated you would have thought that. It would be a strange libertarian indeed that wouldn't acknowledge my right to dispute a point.

What I'm wondering if I'm missing something on is why you think I was so tedious if we see eye to eye on this. I was trying to connect your first and second paragraph, but perhaps they weren't meant to be connected in such a way.

DK
I am going to be busy for the rest of the day, I have baby back ribs to prepare and I have a loaf of Italian Feather bread in construction, now I have to run off to the regulated market and see if I can find some fresh peaches so I can make some peach sorbet, so I am just going to keep this short as I can and I won't be back to address it unless I see you just went totally outrageously crazy on me.

No we don't agree about Alexander. He was not wrong and his presentation is not bad, it is exactly accurate. I see your problem as not having the perspective to see it. My problem with Alexander is obviously that he was fearful of nailing it to the wall as it should be done.

You have an uncanny ability to not see the points others are making.

I am consistent in my claim of and defense of natural rights.

My free choice can not in any way deny you a thing unless I cross the line into criminal acts of violation of those natural rights.

For instance, my free choice to open a magazine shop on the corner of Main and 1st, unknowingly and uncaringly, directly across from the empty space on Main and State St. where your free choice of opening a magazine shop was in the planning stage, in no way inhibits your free choice at all except in your own thinking. And, that is your problem.

In short, my free choices do not in anyway deny you free choice in anything, unless, for instance, you think you need protection from competition.

You have not made a case for a legitimate dissent to freedom. You've wandered in the empty intellectual desert.

I am gone.

OK - you seemed to be suggesting that Alexander's preoccupation with "condescension" was a preoccupation that seemed pointless to you. I must have misinterpreted.

RE: "My free choice can not in any way deny you a thing unless I cross the line into criminal acts of violation of those natural rights."

Criminal violation and violation of natural rights seem to be two very different things to me.

RE: "For instance, my free choice to open a magazine shop on the corner of Main and 1st, unknowingly and uncaringly, directly across from the empty space on Main and State St. where your free choice of opening a magazine shop was in the planning stage, in no way inhibits your free choice at all except in your own thinking."

I'm confused. I don't think that inhibits my freedom either. What doyou mean "except in your own thinking"?

RE: "You have not made a case for a legitimate dissent to freedom."

Because I don't dissent to freedom. The case I've made is that what you label as a dissent to freedom really isn't.

Aw shucks, I wasn't surprised you woud be saying Leftism is dangerous, maybe even an illness, and should be crime. Just as a one cancer cell left untouched causes havoc so too has Leftism caused a billion or two deaths in the 20th century whereas Rightism has created technology to make some 4 billion live in the same century. Right is right!

Gosh, Gil, have you ever attempted to confuse yourself with rational thought?

The historical record is pretty clear, to those of us with above-room-temperature IQs.

Oh, sorry, you didn’t get that memo? My bad….

He doesn't really make the case that liberals are more condescending than conservatives so much as he shares a bunch of anecdotes of liberals being "condescending".

And some of the anecdotes were bizarre. The one he lead with - where Obama asked that health reform be debated against more fairly than simply calling it a Bolshevik plot - isn't really an example of Obama being condescending and assuming it's "just a PR problem". It actually truly has been called socialism, Bolshevism, and a plot! That's a strange example to lead with - it seems to point out conservative condescension, not liberal condescension (although there are certainly examples of liberal condescension out there). In fact, in that very speech Obama pointed out lots of ideas that originated from Republicans that he appreciated. A very weird example to lead with indeed.

I think this is all silly. People believe things because they find those things convincing. Since they find what they believe convincing, they almost by definition find other arguments unconvincing. Labeling that disagreement over what is convincing and what isn't as "condescension" doesn't really make much sense.

This is ultimately just a list of things that rub Alexander the wrong way. I don't see any argument or case that this is something that liberals do more than conservatives. And for most of the things he lists my reaction is "wow - you really need to grow thicker skin".

It actually truly has been called socialism,

You mean that some of the called for reforms, and the desire of many on the left to implement single payer, and the assertion by some that the reforms will pave the way to single payer, is not indicative of a "socializing" trend in the HC reform front?

When Obama said that the argument against heathcare reform is that it is a Bolshevik plot, my though was, yes, he nailed it. That is exactly the argument.

Is it condescencion? I don't think so. Its just a matter of class, culture, perspective. Those in the political class do not see themselves as as exploiters, and those in the productive class do not see themselves as elements of policy.

OK, but if calling something a Bolshevik plot ISN'T condescension, but asking that a policy not be refered to as a Bolshevik plot IS indicative of an underlying condescension (Alexander's argument, not yours), then we are at a very strange place in our public discourse.

Either that, or Alexander is simply wrong.

The one difference I see is that right-wing complaints of "Socialism!" at least have a little to do with the policy points at hand (gov't encroachment on health care, taking over the auto industry, etc).

Its not good debate imo, but its different than simply calling the other person a liar, conspiracy theorist, or deliberate obstructionist. I thought the article made some good points and is the exact reason why I can not read Krugman any longer.

Not so strange. Again, it is just a matter of culture, class, and perspective.

From the perspective of the productive class, it is a bolshevik plot, that is, a plan to mold the elements of society (the productive class) to conform to the plans of the political class. Its not condescension to use a representative term.

From the perspective of the political class, it is "reform", that is, a plan to mold the elements of society (the productive class) to conform to the plans of the political class. And again, its not condescension to use a representative term.

Both terms are accurate from the perspective of those who use them. Its just that the political class has an interest in molding the productive class, but the productive class doesn't have an interest in being molded.

I'd be careful about trying to speak for the productive class. The Bolshevism line is one I've mostly heard from the political class. The productive class opposition to the reform usually isn't so hyperbolic.

Remember - this instance that Alexander cites comes from a dialogue within the political class.

Yes, there are politicians who play to the productive class. Sad, isn't it, that these are the best we can hope for. The world turned upside down...

My point was it's the politicians playing to themselves. True, there's a segment of the productive class that buys into it I guess. But for the most part it's the political class that is leveling these Bolshevisim charges, and it's the productive class that thinks that political class is just grandstanding and not making sense.

Even the "productive class" people I know (I'm not sure if I personally know anyone that counts as the "political class") who oppose the administration's plan generally think this Bolshevisim/socialism stuff is a lot of hot air from what you've been calling the political class.

"Labeling that disagreement over what is convincing and what isn't as "condescension" doesn't really make much sense."

And if Alexander were to read this, I'm sure he'd find my comment very hurtful, condescending, and meanspirited.

Sorry Alexander - I'm not condescending. I just find you unconvincing. There's a major difference.

Off topic. I thought, you might enjoy this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XbG6aIUlog

I gave up hope on Woods a long time ago :) I'm actually working on a paper now summing up a correspondence I've had with him over some major misconceptions of his about Keynesianism and it's relation to the 1921 depression. I'll listen to it and give it a shot, though.

Wow! What a breakthrough.

So, I see old Gerard has tenure going for him, but he better be careful or nobody will talk to him in the faculty lounge and he won't be invited to the cool parties.