politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Libertarians smarter?
Source:
Conservative News and Views
URL Source: https://www.conservativenewsandview ... ial/talk/libertarians-smarter/
Published: Feb 5, 2012
Author: Terry A. Hurlbut
Post Date: 2019-08-10 14:33:23 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 14827
Comments: 138
Are liberals really smarter than conservatives? Or are libertarians smarter than anyone else? A recent column in The Daily Mail suggests so. True or not, it shows that “liberal” and “conservative” are not the only two extremes of opinion. In fact, they are special cases of a far more general political landscape. By tradition, “conservative” and “liberal” (formerly “progressive”) stand for two different sets of freedoms on one hand, and entitlements on the other. This linear graph of left-of-center v. right-of-center dates from the National Assembly of Revolutionary France. The only thing that defined the “left” and the “right” then was change. The “left” wanted sweeping change, and the “right” wanted to keep things as they were. But neither side necessarily stood for more freedom than did the other. Instead, those things that a liberal wants to entitle some people to, a conservative does not. But: many of the things that a liberal wants people to be free to do, a conservative does not, either. The reason: a conservative favors a different set of entitlements that are not economic. The conservative would entitle most wives to expect their husbands to stay married to them, and not seek enjoyment elsewhere or end the marriage whenever they saw fit. “Moderates” are more likely to grant more entitlements in some areas, and more freedoms in others, than either side. But this line is a very special case. In fact, the possible mix of entitlements and freedoms should have at least two dimensions, not merely one. Michael Hanlon of The Daily Mail came close to recognizing this: The problem here is how we define ‘left’ and ‘right’ thinking, what this means socially and politically. A moment’s thought shows that the fault lines are not only blurred but they are legion, criss-crossing across traditional political strata and have changed through time. The square political leanings grid, from OnTheIssues.org. True, but incomplete. Many theorists, from Rand to Rothbard, have recognized two different “freedom scales” with which to chart one’s attitudes. One is the economic scale. Zero on this scale is a complete command economy, with input-output analysis dictating who produces what, and with Five-Year Plans, government stores, collective farms, the whole nine meters. At this end of the scale, everyone is entitled to a minimum economic standard but are free to do nothing to break out of that standard, or to take on any task unless the authorities approve. One hundred on this scale is total capitalism, with no role for government in production, distribution, or exchange. At this end, people are free to do anything but entitled to nothing. Whatever they want, they must work for. The other scale is the social scale. Zero on that scale means: throw homosexuals in prison, punish criminals severely, forbid immigration (that is, membership is by invitation only), etc. One hundred means to let everybody in, take all comers, let roommates (same-sex or opposite-, whether they share bed or not) form whatever contractual unions they care to form—but also recognize freedom of association (including the freedom not to associate), and the right of self-defense. Hanlon loses sight of one thing: many “social liberals” are damnably hypocritical along this line. They will not recognize freedom of association. They do not recognize a right of self-defense. They do not recognize any of the flip sides of increased tolerance of homosexuality, adultery, or criminality. As an example, they want to leave two men (or two women) free to be intimate, but then want to entitle this roommate pair to rooms, or an apartment, in any dwelling, whether the would-be host wants to offer them those rooms, or that apartment, or not. Once again: one person’s entitlement is another person’s loss of freedom. A libertarian, by contrast, would respect that host’s freedom. A libertarian would ask that the government leave those roommates free to be as intimate as they please, but not entitle them to rooms or apartment wherever they wish. For those, they must still make a voluntary arrangement with a host or landlord. If one plots his attitudes on the economic and social freedom scales on a square grid, instead of on a line segment, and orient this grid like a baseball diamond, then that grid will yield five different positions, not three. Home plate (zero, zero) is populism, or the Communism of the old Warsaw Pact, or Nazism in Germany. Conservatism lies at first base (100, 0). Liberalism or left-wing-ism lies at third base (0, 100). “Moderate-ism” is at the pitcher’s mound (50, 50). And Libertarianism is at second base (100, 100). So the old left-to-right line passes from third base to first, across the infield, allowing more freedom in economic areas, but insisting on more entitlement on the social, as it goes. Here is what Hanlon noticed: intelligence tracks with moving straight up on the political grid, and then tending toward perfect libertarianism. Lower intelligence tracks with falling straight down on the political grid, toward total populism. With the horizontal movement along the traditional left-right line, intelligence does not change. The implied result: Libertarians are smarter than everyone else. Purely abstract intelligence might track higher with libertarianism. That makes libertarians smarter than liberals or conservatives on that scale. A smart person (unless he hungers for power) wants to be free, either to make a living or to associate (or not) with anyone he pleases. But does common sense make libertarians smarter? Not necessarily. Abstract libertarianism works fine—for a voluntary association of voluntarily consenting adults. It does not work well for children. A child is an inherently dependent, even helpless person. Common sense demands that a society entitle a child to food, water, shelter, and education, that the parents, not the government, should give it. The parents are more likely to have the child’s best interests at heart than faceless bureaucrats would. But in addition, that same society also entitles the parents to a minimum level of “good examples” from other adults. That is why a sound society does not authorize two same-sex roommates sharing bed to adopt children. It is also why a business that caters to “the prurient interest” is not free to locate near enough to where a child might stray within sight. It is why a sound society classifies certain kinds of pastimes as “for adults only,” and recognizes a class of citizen or resident called the minor. As in: Sales of cigarettes to MINORS are FORBIDDEN by law. We support this law. Parents are urged to help prevent violations. The pure libertarian recognizes no such thing as a minor. That’s the equivalent of expecting a cub in the wild to fend for himself before he is ready. As any wildlife biologist knows, that’s not very smart. But in matters of pure economic policy, libertarians might be smarter than most. A sound society does let its children imitate the adults in one key area: business. Whether this business is selling lemonade from a front-yard stand, or offering lawn-and-garden services to his neighbors for a fee, a libertarian would have no problem with this. Nor would a conservative, so long as the child is doing something that he or she has already safely done at home. But a liberal won’t allow this. A liberal wants to entitle a perfect stranger to sell lawn-and-garden services, usually for a higher fee, without having the neighbor’s boy (or girl) compete with that service. The same seems to hold for selling lemonade, though that is even harder to justify. This makes both conservatives and libertarians smarter than liberals. They are smart enough to know that some entitlements have no justification, but only excuses. Are libertarians smarter? In some areas, yes. In others, no. But conservatives are smart to engage libertarians in a debate on how a society ought to run. Liberals haven’t done very well. Libertarians and conservatives might each be able to teach the other something.
Traditional political labels
Are libertarians smarter than everyone else?
Summing up
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 116.
#60. To: Deckard (#0)
I am not sure if they are smarter, but they take bath less frequently. My sense of smell tells me that.
You sniff a lot of libertarians? Rand died in 1982, Rothbard in the mid-Nineties. So you haven't sniffed those two in quite some time.
I worked with two (in IT, they were quite competent), and I had a neighbor next flat (he was a biochemist). They all smelled from a distance. Also I read that Ayn Rand was not so great about her personal hygiene. Perhaps as greater and smarter individuals, they were above petty customs and rules. ;) "Objectivism taught that intellectual parity is the sole legitimate basis for romantic or sexual attraction. Coincidentally enough, this doctrine cleared the way for Rand—a woman possessed of looks that could be charitably described as unusual, along with abysmal personal hygiene and grooming habits—to seduce young men in her orbit."
Maybe you just have a sensitive nose. Or they were single or lived with someone who had gone nose-blind to their body odor or they themselves had a poor sense of smell. I recall reading articles about the Hollyweird elite, that many of them are accused of non-bathing. One of the more notorious is Johnny Depp and his wife. Supposedly they can go weeks without bathing, co-stars begging him to take a shower because he stand so much on those Pirates movies. This info was found on a lot of websites. If it was libel, it was major libel. They also included his wife in the stinker category. I'm not sure why everyone always seems to believe that we all have exactly the same identical abilities to hear, see, smell, sense, etc. I know that I, for instance, don't have a strong sense of smell but I have exceptional hearing and always did. My skin is very sensitive to infrared heat. I know everyone is but my heat sensitivity is almost like a radar. I know that most people don't have that. I have a friend who has an almost frightening sense of smell. He knows when women are menstruating, up to a block away if there's a breeze. He has a super nose. To me, it doesn't sound like much fun. I always thought being a dog would suck because then you'd know just how bad the world smells. There is also a thing in recent years where some people are abandoning soaps and antiperspirants altogether. Including some doctors and science types. I Stopped Using Soap & Shampoo Six Months ago. Why you Should too. And it isn't unheard of here among LFers. Vicomte told us he gave up using these products years ago (unless he gets really dirty, like car grease kind of dirty). Maybe he wants to chime in. He was very early on this trend which is now becoming almost a movement. The No-Poo people who avoid shampoo has been around for a while now but the No-Soap and No-Antiperspirant movement are still growing. You'd be surprised how many videos you can find on this at YouBoob, how to transition to bathing with water only, how long until your body adjusts. It's familiar material for anyone who recalls Vic's posts on the subject, going back to several years before LP closed up. He's never gone back to using soaps or shampoos, thinks they're bad for his skin. Some people say their skin gets more oily and subject to blemishes using soap because it scrubs away natural oils which makes the skin go nuts trying to produce more oil, making the skin more oily than ever and subject to blemishes or even real acne. Supposedly it takes a little longer to get your hair to adjust to no-poo than it takes for your skin to adjust to no-soap. Apparently it does take weeks to get your body to adjust to no-antiperspirant but they claim their body odor is less once they get away from antiperspirant. They don't claim to 100% odor-free but they think they smell less without antiperspirant than they do if they use it, especially on a daily basis. I know that I have curtailed my own use. I will use a little antiperspirant if I'm going out, especially in summer. Otherwise, I really try to avoid it. I try to avoid really soaping up my body and have a very lightweight liquid soap with tiny abrasive particles (Men's Dove) which I use a half-dozen drops on a loofah to scrub with. I am a lot more gentle about scrubbing my face and try to avoid using soap since I think it does make my skin more dry which then makes my skin more oily as a result of my skin trying to cope. And your skin producing more oil means more chances for blocked pores, leading to blemishing (even tiny blemishes you can barely even see). Most of the no-soap/no-poo/no-antiperspirant types are very rigorous about daily showers with water. They claim that, other than sweating in warm weather, they have no problems and feel and look better. They say they like their hair and skin better or that they've solved some longstanding problems caused by using these products or at least overusing them. Look at YouTube, you'll find a lot of videos on this topic. And it is a lot harder to make money on YouTube selling people on the idea of using no products than it is to monetize videos by recommending the latest and greatest brand-name products. Yet the no-soaps movement just keeps growing. Maybe these stinky libertarians that you know just aren't diligent enough with their daily shower routines. Or they're trying to get away from soaps and haven't mastered their routine yet. I notice you don't mention liberals or conservatives or communists or fascists who smell bad to you. Are you saying that only libertarians smell bad? Are you saying that every libertarian you have known smells bad? BTW, how do you know that you don't stink to (some) other people? Are you that sure that you don't?
Aren't all normal people "rigorous" about taking daily showers with water, at least? Who can even wake up in the morning without showering? Wake up, drag self to bathroom. Sit down. Pee. Poo. Turn on shower, brush teeth while it gets hot, get into shower, and wash from nose to tail with water, hands and nails. Shave under the running water (no gels or shaving creams, just a disposable razor and the running water to wash the shaved hair away. No need for a mirror. Just feel your face with your hand, and shave anything you missed. Keep going until it's smooth as a baby's behind. Turn off water, dry. Iron shirt and put on. Iron pants and put on. (Underwear is useless.) Put on belt and cinch it. Put on socks. Slip on loafers (shoes one must tie are a waste of time), go get eggs (with black pepper) and rye toast (with butter) and steamed spinach (with butter), and drink water (with a couple of slices of lemon in it). That is how the day begins for everybody, isn't it? Who out there DOESN'T shower ever day?
I know. Especially during warm weather. The funk builds up so much faster in summer. In hot weather, two showers a day isn't a bad idea. And some people need it more than others do. I've read a few articles by doctors who say they don't shower every day in the colder months. It sounds like they do shower every day during hot weather, any time they've perspired. As for deodorant, do you think the product actually produces armpit stains on clothing from sweat or are those stains left by deodorant use as it is carried out of the armpit by perspiration. Some people say that they don't get sweat stains on their clothing nearly as much if they don't use deodorant. Deodorants - modern aluminum-based ones - essentially try to plug the pores in your underarms so you can't sweat as much so you are blocking your body's attempt to cool itself and to give that part of your skin proper respiration. So do you get sweat stains on the armpits of your summer shirts or has stopping deodorant use left your shirts with fewer sweat stains on them? How long did it take for you to transition from using deodorant before you noticed a reduction in the ranker kind of perspiration that most people seem to get if they stop using modern deodorants. Anyway, I get the impression that many people think they perspire more and stink a little more for 2-3 weeks after they give up deodorant. And most people are now saying that the natural non-aluminum deodorants you can buy in the yuppie boutiques or make for yourself don't work and actually makes them stink of the natural deodorant mixture they use. I know I'm being nosy but I have the feeling you're not shy on the subject. You didn't comment on the cold-showers people yet. So are you gung-ho for cold or cool or warm or hot showers? Do you think there are health benefits to cool or cold showers?
I sweat a lot. Always did. When I get hot, or I have the sun in my eyes (I'm designed to live on a glacier, not in sunny climes), the sweat starts to pour. Doesn't matter if I'm fat or skinny. Sweat pours on my. So my whole torso - chest, back, pits, plus crotch and ass - everything gets sweaty. When it dies, there's a white residue of salt on my clothes, and if I don't change them, that will make my armpits raw and give me terrible chafing down between my legs. The only way to stop that from happening is to get in a pool or wash off with lots of water, and change into clean dry clothes. Cotton is better than anything else. Synthetic fibers is worst of all, because that not only accumulates the sweat and damp and accelerates the chafing, but also starts to reek. Cotton is best. Synthetic is worst. Silk doesn't breath. Linen is heavy. Obviously, the BEST thing to do when it's hot is walk around naked, but you can generally only do that at home when the kids aren't around.
If I'm hot enough, I sweat heavy like anyone. But I don't sweat as quickly as others do in heat and I don't sweat as much doing the same amount of work. Probably there's a limit to the value of comparing an ectomorph like me with an endomorph like you. And genetics play a huge role, no doubt. Much of our physical being and potential is dictated from the moment of conception. There is no assembly line, turning out blank human clones, all identical copies. We all have significant enough differences in heritage that we can't pretend what works for one will work for another. Yet we so often think that there are universal answers. Even so, I obviously found your remarks on hygiene interesting enough to recall them after this long. And your diet ideas are interesting too though you go further than I would (like fasting more than 5 weeks). I would say that at my weight, trying to fast for 40 days would be reckless. Or your fondness for the more acrid foods like the old Nordic and French cheeses or sardines. I don't doubt they are probably good for you though. I think we can all agree at least that American cheeses are an abomination. I'm not a huge cheese fan but I think I should be able to buy unpasteurized cheeses. Certainly, with basic food precautions, they are far far safer than buying whole raw milk and drinking it unpasteurized. America needs to allow unpasteurized cheeses. They are not any more dangerous than, say, putting fresh mayonnaise in potato salads during warm weather. And that can make people sick. But only if they are careless about food safety. I'll bet you can find some shocking jars of old crusty mayonnaise in people's refrigerators but it doesn't seem to make anyone sick to allow mayonnaise made with eggs to be sold widely.
When it comes to dairy, my very favorite thing is a Caprice de Dieux - a French cheese that has only a touch less milkfat than butter. It looks like brie, with the white rind, but it is SOOOO rich and buttery, you just slice it and (nearly) spread it on a baguette. It doesn't QUITE spreqd, it does hold its shape, somewhat, but oh is it rich. Caprice des Dieux - Dieu que c'est bon. My second favorite dairy is thick sheep yogurt with a touch of fresh honey. After that, probably Greek yogurt. Then other cheeses. of the brie/Camembert variety. Then I think yellow cheese, like cheddar and gouda. Then goat milk. Regular milk is down around the bottom of my list, because it makes me fart, a lot. That doesn't really bother me, but it is stinky and horrible for the people trapped around me.
I just resent the fact that I've never even had an unpasteurized cheese, just to try it. The feds decided it's too dangerous for us. Because, you know, the feds just love and care about us all so much. Of course, it's another power and control thing, tied up with federal giveaway programs for school lunches and dairy subsidies and a bunch of unelected bureaucrats, many of whom may have enacted this stuff on the basis of very incomplete information at the time, or perhaps bribed by the industries they regulated. Or it might be another instance of industry rotating its managers in and out of political leadership of federal agencies, like we see in the DoD. None of it is actually beneficial to national security or health but it does protect the bottom line at a lot of companies.
If they could, they would ban breastfeeding. I guess it is a Puritan thing. Next would be the instant turkey. Now, there is a key point, one can look at a good real live cheese as an excellent bacterial culture supplement. The bad bugs simple have no chance to compete in this wonderful mini ecosystem.
#118. To: A Pole (#116)
Well, maybe. Despite the probiotics craze, scientists have done a fair amount of research now and say that trying to deliberately induce better gut bacteria via supplements is generally doomed to fail, mostly because people would have to take 100 times more of them to have any real effect. Apparently, the gut has considerable resistance to new flora being introduced. There was a recent success with a probiotic treatment tested in India, mentioned in The Atlantic: Since 2008, Panigrahi’s team has been running a large clinical trial in rural India, where they gave a probiotic of their own devising to thousands of randomly selected newborn babies. Their product contained a strain of Lactobacillus plantarum, chosen for its ability to attach to gut cells. The team also added a sugar, chosen to nourish the microbe and give it a foothold when it enters a baby’s gut. Together, this combination is called a synbiotic. And it was strikingly effective. The team found that babies who took this concoction had a significantly lower risk of developing sepsis—a life-threatening condition where infections trigger body-wide inflammation, restricted blood flow, and organ failure. Sepsis is one of the biggest killers of newborn babies, ending around 600,000 lives every year when they’ve barely begun. Some proportion of these cases begin in the gut, and probiotics might be able to prevent them by ousting harmful microbes, or by stopping benign ones from crossing into the bloodstream and causing infections. Sure enough, in Panigrahi’s trial, just 5.4 percent of the infants who took the synbiotic developed sepsis in their first two months of life, compared to 9 percent of those who received a placebo. That’s a reduction of 40 percent. Such estimates always come with a margin of error, but the team calculate that the reduction in risk should still be somewhere between 25 and 50 percent. The effect was twice as large as what the team expected, especially since the infants took daily doses of the synbiotic for just one week. And given the clear evidence of benefits, independent experts who were monitoring the study decided to stop the trial early: It would have been unethical to continue depriving half the newborns of the treatment. Panigrahi originally planned to enroll 8,000 babies into the study. He stopped at 4,557. . . . Of course, the probiotic effect may be greater in newborns who haven't really established an immune system and their own gut bacteria. No one seems to have anything comparable for adult subjects. Nevertheless, it was a large study that cut rates of infant sepsis in half with only some daily supplement given for a week. Perhaps adult probiotics merely need better strains of bacteria to have better penetration into the gut. But so far, it seems that current adult probiotics are a waste of time and can compromise your gut health. I and others have posted that map before. This Crescent has been Iran's foreign policy objective across the Mideast for at least 15 years. Sometimes a map or picture say more than pages of words.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"Many theorists, from Rand to Rothbard"
#61. To: A Pole (#60)
I am not sure if they are smarter, but they take bath less frequently. My sense of smell tells me that.
#62. To: Tooconservative (#61)
(Edited)
You sniff a lot of libertarians?
#63. To: A Pole, Vicomte13 (#62)
I worked with two (in IT, they were quite competent), and I had a neighbor next flat (he was a biochemist). They all smelled from a distance.
#77. To: Tooconservative (#63)
Most of the no-soap/no-poo/no-antiperspirant types are very rigorous about daily showers with water.
#79. To: Vicomte13 (#77)
Who out there DOESN'T shower ever day?
#86. To: Tooconservative (#79)
#89. To: Vicomte13, A Pole (#86)
(Edited)
I sweat a lot. Always did. When I get hot, or I have the sun in my eyes (I'm designed to live on a glacier, not in sunny climes), the sweat starts to pour.
#108. To: Tooconservative (#89)
#112. To: Vicomte13 (#108)
When it comes to dairy, my very favorite thing is a Caprice de Dieux - a French cheese that has only a touch less milkfat than butter. It looks like brie, with the white rind, but it is SOOOO rich and buttery, you just slice it and (nearly) spread it on a baguette. It doesn't QUITE spreqd, it does hold its shape, somewhat, but oh is it rich. Caprice des Dieux - Dieu que c'est bon.
#116. To: Tooconservative (#112)
I just resent the fact that I've never even had an unpasteurized cheese, just to try it. The feds decided it's too dangerous for us.
Replies to Comment # 116. Now, there is a key point, one can look at a good real live cheese as an excellent bacterial culture supplement. The bad bugs simple have no chance to compete in this wonderful mini ecosystem.
. . . Good map. This "Shi'a Crescent" remind me of Dien Bien Phu, but on a huge scale.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 116.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]