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: 18469
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 # 57.
#6. To: Deckard (#0)
As a proponent of libertarianism who is well versed in the actions libertarians have taken - Can you please list for me 10 sound economic policies the libertarians have placed in effect that are successful. If you need some time – I can check back later.
Deckard – As a proponent of libertarianism who is well versed in the actions libertarians have taken - ...9...?
There are no libertarians currently holding office in either the house or the senate. But you knew that already. Ironically, Trump has made some surprisingly libertarian moves. Trump Administration Pushes to Deregulate With Less Enforcement At the Environmental Protection Agency, where staffing has fallen to Reagan-era levels, there were 10,600 inspections last fiscal year, down from nearly 21,300 at the height of President Obama’s second term, and less than 60% of the annual average since 2001. Civil penalties and criminal prosecutions have hit the lowest levels in decades. Steve Forbes: Trump deregulation boosting our economy – Here’s one example Two big things have been propelling the U.S. economy forward in impressive fashion: the 2017 Trump tax cuts and the president’s relentless drive to reduce unnecessary regulations, which are another form of taxation. One example of the president delivering his deregulation promise came in late May when the U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Railroad Administration abandoned a costly regulatory proposal issued by President Barack Obama. Deregulation explodes under Trump, 13 regulations killed for every new one, $33B saved
Your acting obsequiously in order to obtain creditability for libertarianism by invoking Trump’s name is out of character for you. Pathetic …
Heavens to Betsy - you're claiming that I invoked Trump's name in vain. What's the penalty for that form of blasphemy according to Trump cultists? Oh, so you deny that Trump's deregulation policies are in essence libertarian. If you say so Parsons. Fewer laws, fewer regulations. Sure sounds libertarian to me and anyone else who isn't obsessively posting spittle-flecked, tiny-fisted emotional tirades against libertarians or anything that remotely smacks of liberty. Like you for instance.
Trump is TRUMP.
Fewer laws and regulations are what libertarians wish and hope for. Trump did that
Trump did that Under Donald Trump, it is: The Passing of the Libertarian Moment.
Typical Gatlin - using left-leaning websites to bolster his non-existent claims. At least you aren't posting links to Commie rags like you have done a few times in the past. The Trump Administration Is a Libertarian’s Worst Nightmare Although The Daily Beast maintains that they are “Independent,” their reporting has grown increasingly partisan. During the 2016 presidential election, AllSides started to note the shift, but waited to see if it was just a momentary phase. However, a year after the election of President Trump, the Daily Beast's articles are still heavily biased. The results of a May 2017 AllSides blind bias survey placed The Daily Beast's media bias as Far Left. We followed up on these results by conducting an Editorial Review. Our team found that the media bias of The Daily Beast's articles, headlines and images all fall under the Far Left rating. It’s unexpected to see a source's media bias jump so far in one update and in such a short period — this marks the first time this has happened with any of our media bias ratings.
Ron Paul: From A Libertarian Viewpoint There Is No Difference Between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Former Rep. Ron Paul tells CNN why a libertarian cannot endorse Trump's authoritarian approach. "My biggest beef is, from a libertarian viewpoint, there is absolutely no difference, meaningful difference, between Hillary and Trump. They both support the military industrial complex, the Federal Reserve, deficits, entitlements, invasion of our privacy. And it's super nationalistic populism versus socialism. That is so removed from what we need to be doing. We need to remove ourselves from tyranny," Paul said Monday on CNN. "From a libertarian viewpoint of limited government there is nothing they are offering that reduces the size and scope of the intrusion of government. Who offers any cuts in spending? Who offers protection of our liberty? Some of the top candidates want to carpet-bomb the world," Paul said. […] ROTFLMAO ...
Ron Paul: still speaking "truth to power".
Then he is correct in assessment of Trump and Trump is NOT fulfilling the libertarians' wishes and hopes. Glad you are learning ...
Not completely, but even a die-hard statist like you can admit that Trumps HAS embraced some libertarian ideas and policies.
I can admit reading about the paltry hopes of the libertarian Moment. Here are the carefully documented false hopes some libertarians originally had about Trump.
Aren't you like 90 years old? How can you write something like that? Obviously, Ron Paul has had a far more successful life than you have and he is, even in retirement as a House member, beloved to millions of Americans. Face it, Ron Paul is America's sweetheart. And they've never heard of you.
Some folks have a tendency to measure success using a comparison to others. But in doing that, their social comparison bias is a cognitive bias that skews their judgment. And some folks say that success should be measured in a way that informs you how to spend your time and effort. For if you measure success in any other way than in terms of what’s truly important to you – then you can’t work towards getting there. And remember to always focus on things that are within your control. Your “baiting” post was not so subtle. With that in mind, you must remember that in dealing with me – you are not dealing with Deckard. Since I had spare time – you gave me something to do. Catch you later …
He did get Rand interested in politics and retired after Rand got much more power in the Senate than Ron had ever had in the House. Keep in mind, Ron Paul never wanted to run for prez in 2008 or in 2012. Everyone just kept nudging him to do it (except his wife) until he did. Ron Paul and his good buddy, Murray Rothbard, had always expected that success in electing libertarians to public office widely could only occur in the mid-2020s when the Millennial generation started to become more decisive in election outcomes. A lot of people pledged a considerable amount of money just to get RP to announce he was running. And RP pioneered the use of online money bombs where RP would just get a fresh $5 million or $7 million for his campaign in the early primary states. Yes, Ron Paul is definitely a beloved politician even in retirement. A lot more so than losers like Dick Cheney or Bush Junior.
Yes, he did know all about them since he wrote them and distributed them for free without any copyright claim as a service to constituents. Lots of those tiny town papers didn't have much content available so a free regular article from the congressman was good for them, good for him. Later on, various websites and a few antisemitic took advantage of the copyright disclaimer found on RP's newsletters and they published his articles as well. I recall that there was a stink over some antisemite newsletter that used to use his columns. I can't recall if RP denounced them or not. But he did refuse to stop them or anyone else from publishing his free newsletters just as he had always allowed any publisher to do. Ron Paul, like Donald Trump, may have gone on Alex Jones a time or two but he did not willingly associate with antisemitic publishers. And it was never for their benefit that he started issuing his congressional newsletters to the public copyright-free.
Yes, he did know all about them since he wrote them and distributed them for free without any copyright claim as a service to constituents. Some of Gatlin's posts lately seem to coming from a leftist, self-hating-white SJW. His attempts to diaparage those he hates with the "racist" moniker are getting more obvious.
I've heard about these "racist" newsletters before. What did he write that was deemed "racist"?
Maybe this will shed some light on what you asked ... Ron Paul’s Racist, Homophobic Newsletters Gain New Life On Twitter" It is but one source. There are many others if you care to look them up.
#66. To: Gatlin (#57)
Homophobe is a word faggots use to put down people who know right from wrong. Why do you use faggot terms. I mean you're not gay. Why are you siding with the degenerate weirdos using a made up term to go after Ron Paul.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest But in matters of pure economic policy, libertarians might be smarter than most.
Deckard –
#12. To: All (#6)
But in matters of pure economic policy, libertarians might be smarter than most.
Can you please list for me 10 sound economic policies the libertarians have placed in effect that are successful.
#15. To: Gatlin (#12)
Can you please list for me 10 sound economic policies the libertarians have placed in effect that are successful.
#19. To: Deckard (#15)
Ironically, Trump has made some surprisingly libertarian moves.
Quit groveling.
#22. To: Gatlin (#19)
Your acting obsequiously in order to obtain creditability for libertarianism by invoking Trump’s name is out of character for you.
#27. To: Deckard (#22)
Oh, so you deny that Trump's deregulation policies are in essence libertarian.
#28. To: Gatlin (#27)
#29. To: Deckard (#28)
Fewer laws and regulations are what libertarians wish and hope for.
#32. To: Gatlin (#29)
(Edited)
The Passing of the Libertarian Moment. (The Atlantic)
#33. To: Deckard (#32)
(Edited)
#34. To: Gatlin (#33)
"From a libertarian viewpoint of limited government there is nothing they are offering that reduces the size and scope of the intrusion of government. Who offers any cuts in spending? Who offers protection of our liberty? Some of the top candidates want to carpet-bomb the world," Paul said.
#35. To: Deckard (#34)
#36. To: Gatlin (#35)
Then he is correct in assessment of Trump and Trump is NOT fulfilling the libertarians' wishes and hopes.
#38. To: Deckard (#36)
(Edited)
... you can admit that Trumps HAS embraced some libertarian ideas and policies.
You’d expect more from those in the libertarian wing of the GOP, representing, as they claim to do, an unchanging body of principled beliefs about strictly limited government, the universal efficacy of markets, and the holiness of economic and (for some, at least) personal freedom. But after reading a meditation by Lucy Steigerwald about the greater meaning of Congressman Justin Amash’s libertarianish defection from Trump’s party, I can’t help but wonder about the future of any ideological tradition that depends for its vitality on a single House member in a single very unrepresentative district in Michigan.
The libertarian ideological tradition has never had any future.
#40. To: Gatlin (#38)
The libertarian ideological tradition has never had any future.
#42. To: Tooconservative (#40)
Aren't you like 90 years old?
No. How can you write something like that?
Facts have always had an easy way with me. Obviously, Ron Paul has had a far more successful life than you have …
By whose standard and how is that alleged “success” measured? … and he is, even in retirement as a House member, beloved to millions of Americans …
Yes, where roughly four out of five Americans disapproves of Congress’ job performance. Twenty five percent approval should never be classified that as “beloved.” Face it, Ron Paul is America's sweetheart -
You’re America’s sweetheart’s political career was a failure measured by having succeed in passing on one bill during all his many years in Congress and culminating with his2012 presidential campaign [being] a Disaster.
#44. To: Gatlin (#42)
You’re America’s sweetheart’s political career was a failure measured by having succeed in passing on one bill during all his many years in Congress and culminating with his2012 presidential campaign [being] a Disaster.
#47. To: Tooconservative (#44)
Yes, Ron Paul is definitely a beloved politician even in retirement. A lot more so than losers like Dick Cheney or Bush Junior.
“Beloved” – Yea.
#50. To: Gatlin (#47)
Ron Paul Knew All About His “Beloved” Racist Newsletters.
#52. To: Tooconservative (#50)
Ron Paul Knew All About His “Beloved” Racist Newsletters.
#54. To: Deckard, Gatlin, Tooconservative (#52)
#57. To: A K A Stone (#54)
I've heard about these "racist" newsletters before. What did he write that was deemed "racist"?
Replies to Comment # 57. Ron Paul’s Racist, Homophobic Newsletters Gain New Life On Twitter"
End Trace Mode for Comment # 57.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]