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.
Traditional political labels
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.
Are libertarians 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.
Summing up
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.
#16: Deckard To: A K A Stone (#14)
MYTH: Smith-Amash incentivizes suspected terrorists to come to U.S. ...
You'll have to vote R.
Not a chance.
Deckard posted on 2019-08-10 16:21:52 Reply Private Reply
#17: BorisY To: Deckard (#0)
Wrong
180 over
higher up The fanTassy pole
Synchronized
WiTh assteroid liberals
Love
boris
BorisY posted on 2019-08-10 16:33:03 Reply Private Reply
#18: Gatlin To: Deckard (#15)
After all, the United States of America was founded on July 4, 1776 and “libertarian” was first used in 1857 to describe a new set of political positions.
So after all these many years, there is not one single libertarian in Congress.
Doesn’t that tell you something?
Doesn’t that just throw shit in you face?
If not – Then it should.
Gatlin posted on 2019-08-10 16:45:53 Reply Private Reply
#19: Gatlin To: Deckard (#15)
Your acting obsequiously in order to obtain creditability for libertarianism by invoking Trump’s name is out of character for you.
Pathetic …
Gatlin posted on 2019-08-10 16:51:59 Reply Private Reply
#20: Deckard To: Gatlin (#18)
Keep your scatological fetishes to yourself freakshow.
Deckard posted on 2019-08-10 16:53:05 Reply Private Reply
#21: Gatlin To: Deckard (#15)
No libertarians in Congress. It’s easy to understand why. It’s because you libertarians are categorically rejected since you are metaphysically mad. In not electing libertarians to Congress, the voters have shown that lunacy repels – and especially political lunacy.
Gatlin posted on 2019-08-10 16:59:24 Reply Private Reply
#22: Deckard To: Gatlin (#19)
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.
Deckard posted on 2019-08-10 17:03:16 Reply Private Reply
#23: Tooconservative To: Deckard, hondo68, Vicomte13, Gatlin (#13)
Sometimes, as with Churchill and a number of other Brit leaders like the Pitts and Disraeli, the time creates the man that history demands. And that seems like mere hindsights of dry historians but I think it really is true that, at times, a particular leader fits the times in which he/she lives. Such a person has the charisma to build confidence that great and unexpected victories can be won, even against a superior foe. Figures like Caesars Julius and Augustus, Constantine, Joan d'Arc, Napoleon, Churchill and others seemed almost to be chosen by history or fate to lead their nation at a crucial juncture. Others, like Hitler, tried to deliberately create that sense of themselves as a fated leader but I think at times a nation can come to see its ambitions and sensibilities uniquely reflected in just one leader who rules virtually by acclaim. At any rate, I think that is how people living at the time in those nations saw these leaders. That guy on the white horse, fulfilling national ambitions and a destiny as a Great Power, striding the earth as the British empire did rather uniquely.
Sometimes, you just can't get voters to vote for your policy alone. You have a better chance if you have the most appealing guy/gal, someone with a story the public connects with. Although he ran as a Republican, Trump is a good example of this. Trump had some deep appeal to a large segment of voters. And that was enough to win against Felonia Milhouse von Pantsuit.
Trump was, in many ways, the heir of the Ron Paul presidential campaigns of 2008 and 2012. Trump had considered running as a Reform Party candidate back in 2000 and in 2004 but decided against it. You still hear echoes of Ross Perot's speeches when Trump makes certain speeches and his actions on tariffs fits very well with both Perot and Ron Paul. And Trump, like Perot, focuses on trying to improve worker wages and employment. You may recall that Trump also flirted with a 2012 GOP run but chickened out on his maiden voyage as a candidate, up at an airport in NH where he apparently ordered his pilot to fly him back to NYC and Trump's first political rally with full press entourage was cancelled by Trump just deciding to fly away with no notice as to why. LOL
However, Ron Paul had demonstrated in 2008 and 2012 that a candidate could get a lot of attention and build a dedicated group of followers who would donate to the campaign if the candidate stood out from the pack of party-approved candidates. And Trump could not have failed to notice that Ron Paul did fairly well overall and had quite a nice little self-promotion machine. So Trump ran in 2016. I saw an interview with a few of his top campaign staff and they had delivered an estimate to Trump that about the best he could hope for in the GOP primary was to capture 12% of the GOP vote, maybe enough to give a speech at the GOP convention. And Trump and Stone were satisfied if they could get that 12%, perhaps hoping to parlay that into a political network that could rival Fox News, maybe with Trump on TV 24 hours a day, telling the world what he thinks of it. So, with the goal of 12% Or Bust, Trump charged into the primary, under attack from the first minutes of the first debates and his support quickly grew. Like cancer it grew. And he saw the structure of the field was weak and that he would win if he stayed aggressive. And that's what he did. The man, the era, the opportunity. You can't separate them.
It really is not a mystery to me at all why Trump likes to play golf with Rand Paul. They're both outsiders to the GOP swamp. Trump teaming up with Rand Paul to ridicule Lindsey Graham's warmongering right to his face on the golf course on a Sunday afternoon about a month back was a good example. Donald hadn't humiliated Lady Lindsey like that since the primary when Donald gave out Lindseys personal flipphone number at a press conference, just to be mean to him. Lindsey had to change his number and finally got a smartphone. It pretty much finished off any chance of Lindsey becoming our first non-binary gender-fluid president. Just think of the money we could save when Lindsey could be both president and his own First Lady, all at the same time!
And, no surprise, Trump is about as popular with the D.C. GOP and Dem establishment as Ron Paul was back in the day.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-08-10 17:04:23 Reply Private Reply
#24: Deckard To: Gatlin (#21)
Deckard posted on 2019-08-10 17:04:32 Reply Private Reply
#25: Tooconservative To: A K A Stone (#14)
A rare race with an unusual candidate.
I think Amash has at least 50% chance of beating both the GOP and Dem nominees for his seat.
Quite often, a congressman, like Bob Dornan or Tom Tancredo or Duncan Hunter Senior (or Ron Paul), manages to get established with the voters after a few elections and they can hang on to public office through some very tough times. The voters can be surprisingly loyal in some districts to independent candidates.
Justin Amash doesn't have to win an election in your district. And you don't get to vote in his district. And that is part of the design of the Founders in creating the Congress.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-08-10 17:09:46 Reply Private Reply
#26: Deckard To: Tooconservative (#23)
I disagree - it WAS Trump's policies that got Trump elected. Voters ignored the womanizing, the "grab 'em by the pussy" comments, whoremongering, marital infidelity and all of the negatives simply because he was "not as bad as" the alternative.
It really is not a mystery to me at all why Trump likes to play golf with Rand Paul. They're both outsiders to the GOP swamp. Trump teaming up with Rand Paul to ridicule Lindsey Graham's warmongering right to his face on the golf course on a Sunday afternoon about a month back was a good example.
Didn't know about the Lady Lindsey "incident", but you're right - The Donald and Rand do seem to share some common ground, with Trump even naming Rand as a special envoy to Iran in diplomatic talks with Iran's top diplomat amid heightened tensions between Washington and Tehran.
To me. that shows that Trump is trying his best to avoid getting involved in a military fiasco there.
Deckard posted on 2019-08-10 17:19:38 Reply Private Reply
#27: Gatlin To: Deckard (#22)
Trump is TRUMP.
Trump is the opposite of a Libertarian.
Gatlin posted on 2019-08-10 17:21:26 Reply Private Reply
#28: Deckard To: Gatlin (#27)
Trump did that
Deckard posted on 2019-08-10 17:24:03 Reply Private Reply
#29: Gatlin To: Deckard (#28)
Under Donald Trump, it is: The Passing of the Libertarian Moment.
Gatlin posted on 2019-08-10 17:46:36 Reply Private Reply
#30: Deckard To: Gatlin (#27)
Of course there's no mention at your link concerning Trump's recent libertarian-ish deregulation.
The article does point out some of Trump's more rabidly totalitarian rhetoric however.
Deckard posted on 2019-08-10 17:50:23 Reply Private Reply
#31: Gatlin To: Deckard (#30)
Gatlin posted on 2019-08-10 17:52:56 Reply Private Reply
#32: Deckard To: Gatlin (#29)
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.
Deckard posted on 2019-08-10 17:55:33 Reply Private Reply
#33: Gatlin To: Deckard (#32)
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 ...
Gatlin posted on 2019-08-10 17:57:42 Reply Private Reply
#34: Deckard To: Gatlin (#33)
Ron Paul: still speaking "truth to power".
Deckard posted on 2019-08-10 18:01:09 Reply Private Reply
#35: Gatlin To: Deckard (#34)
Glad you are learning ...
Gatlin posted on 2019-08-10 18:05:01 Reply Private Reply
#36: Deckard To: Gatlin (#35)
Not completely, but even a die-hard statist like you can admit that Trumps HAS embraced some libertarian ideas and policies.
Deckard posted on 2019-08-10 18:17:36 Reply Private Reply
#37: BorisY To: Deckard (#36)
Is The Train - joy ride
To The concenTraTion camps
Udopians
Love
boris
BorisY posted on 2019-08-10 18:38:13 Reply Private Reply
#38: Gatlin To: Deckard (#36)
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.
The libertarian ideological tradition has never had any future.Gatlin posted on 2019-08-10 20:01:18 Reply Private Reply
#39: Tooconservative To: Deckard (#32)
C'mon, don't spoil this.
I like it when Gatlin is approvingly quoting the Daily Worker just so he can post one more thread to bash Ron Paul.
I keep hoping he'll unearth the story about the POW pilot in Vietnam who hated Ron Paul with every fiber of his being but who died at the hands of the Viet Cong but who managed to get his buddy to smuggle his watch out by keeping it concealed internally on his person for years until his eventual release from a POW camp and then finally giving the watch to the dead hero's young son back in America with a stirring patriotic lecture about duty and sacrifice. Kind of like a scene from the movie Pulp Fiction.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-08-10 21:01:08 Reply Private Reply
#40: Tooconservative To: Gatlin (#38)
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.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-08-10 21:06:01 Reply Private Reply
#41: WWG1WWA To: BorisY (#37)
WWG1WWA posted on 2019-08-11 07:56:43 Reply Private Reply
#42: Gatlin To: Tooconservative (#40)
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.
Yes, where roughly four out of five Americans disapproves of Congress’ job performance. Twenty five percent approval should never be classified that as “beloved.” 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.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 …
Gatlin posted on 2019-08-11 12:37:15 Reply Private Reply
#43: buckeroo To: Gatlin, Deckard (#1)
We don't "hang-out" on chit-chat channels as you (gatlin) demonstrate on a daily basis. Instead, we form business(es) around the planet making money to ensure our well being into the future.
buckeroo posted on 2019-08-11 13:23:14 Reply Private Reply
#44: Tooconservative To: Gatlin (#42)
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.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-08-11 13:43:36 Reply Private Reply
#45: Gatlin To: buckeroo (#43)
But the discussions I have been involved in had nothing to do with “forming businesses or making money” – it had everything to do with discussing libertarian politics.
Therefore, while staying on topic – tell me, please, has there ever been a successful libertarian government? And why not?
Gatlin posted on 2019-08-11 14:46:19 Reply Private Reply
#46: Gatlin To: Tooconservative (#44)
Gatlin posted on 2019-08-11 14:56:17 Reply Private Reply
#47: Gatlin To: Tooconservative (#44)
Ron Paul Knew All About His “Beloved” Racist Newsletters.
Gatlin posted on 2019-08-11 15:00:15 Reply Private Reply
#48: Tooconservative To: Gatlin (#46)
Rand is relatively young with a national name. It isn't that hard to imagine him running for prez in 2024 or 2028 or 2032. So we don't know if Ron Paul will finally conquer America via his progeny for many years yet.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-08-11 15:21:03 Reply Private Reply
#49: A K A Stone To: Tooconservative (#48)
A K A Stone posted on 2019-08-11 15:25:45 Reply Private Reply
#50: Tooconservative To: Gatlin (#47)
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.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-08-11 15:26:10 Reply Private Reply
#51: Tooconservative To: A K A Stone (#49)
Stranger things have happened. Like Donald Trump getting elected.
Never say never.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-08-11 15:56:34 Reply Private Reply
#52: Deckard To: Tooconservative (#50)
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.
Deckard posted on 2019-08-11 18:39:07 Reply Private Reply
#53: Gatlin To: Deckard (#52)
George F. Will, a conservative American political columnist, wrote: "[White guilt is] a form of self-congratulation, where whites initiate 'compassionate policies' toward people of color, to showcase their innocence to racism."
And – White guilt has been described as one of the psychosocial costs of racism for white individuals along with empathy (sadness and anger) for victims of racism and fear of non-whites.
For you to say that I as a white person have guilt for harm resulting from racist treatment of ethnic minorities by other white people is a ridiculous fabrication. You have seen no such thing in my posts. This is just a term you read someplace that you now maliciously, carelessly and inappropriately try to apply it against me. That will not work – it never will.
The information for my posts is coming from sources, none of which can be classified by white guilt.
As an example – The article from July last year posted below was published in Jewish Telegraphic Agency. And oh, these articles and my posts seem to greatly bother you as a libertarian. Why is that?
The article -
Gatlin posted on 2019-08-11 20:54:35 Reply Private Reply
#54: A K A Stone To: Deckard, Gatlin, Tooconservative (#52)
A K A Stone posted on 2019-08-11 21:16:38 Reply Private Reply
#55: A K A Stone To: Gatlin (#53)
A K A Stone posted on 2019-08-11 21:19:35 Reply Private Reply
#56: BorisY To: WWG1WWA (#41)
I Told him on The fr
TwenTy years ago
GlibTarians
Trivia freaks
RealiTy losers
Love
boris
BorisY posted on 2019-08-11 21:37:55 Reply Private Reply
#57: Gatlin To: A K A Stone (#54)
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.
Gatlin posted on 2019-08-11 21:53:27 Reply Private Reply
#58: Gatlin To: A K A Stone (#55)
Exactly whqt it It you like about seeing “images of a black man, a Latino, an Asian and a Jew punching Uncle Sam?” Many others thought it was because It depicted cultural offensive images of a black man, a Latino, an Asian and a Jew punching Uncle Sam with a single red fist as they shout: “Cultural Marxism!”And obviously Ron Paul also thought it was wrong since: Ron Paul Blames Shockingly Racist, Anti-Semitic Tweet On Staffer
Ron Paul replaced the post with the same attack on “cultural Marxism” but dropped the offensive cartoon.
Gatlin posted on 2019-08-11 22:14:50 Reply Private Reply
#59: Tooconservative To: Gatlin (#58)
Well, it does sound like a remarkably accurate depiction of Facebook, Google and Twitter.
If these organizations and other want to band blacks, Latinos, Asians and Jews to beat up white people, then isn't that just another flavor of racism, just not the white flavor?
This is why that cartoon offends the Lefties and Silicon Valley so much. It is because it is accurate, not because it is racist.
BTW, that cartoon was something drawn by a Latino cartoonist but someone on 4chan (I think) edited it up with the minorities' faces. You can see the Uncle Sam is a more modern style and the four minorities are caricatures from mid-20th century. It looks wrong because it's a provocative 4chan/8chan fake meme.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-08-12 00:26:16 Reply Private Reply
#60: A Pole To: Deckard (#0)
I am not sure if they are smarter, but they take bath less frequently. My sense of smell tells me that.
A Pole posted on 2019-08-12 02:25:38 Reply Private Reply
#61: Tooconservative To: A Pole (#60)
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.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-08-12 02:58:28 Reply Private Reply
#62: A Pole To: Tooconservative (#61)
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."
newrepublic.com/article/69239/wealthcare-0
A Pole posted on 2019-08-12 04:29:47 Reply Private Reply
#63: Tooconservative To: A Pole, Vicomte13 (#62)
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?
Tooconservative posted on 2019-08-12 06:18:02 Reply Private Reply
#64: Gatlin To: A Pole (#62)
The problem of libertarians having strong body odor [“stinking”] appears to be a fairly common one.
So much so that libertarian Lee McKitrick felt the problem with libertarians’ body odor needed to be addressed.
Christopher did that when he addressed the problem of their body odor to fellow libertarians in his article: Libertarians Just Aren’t Cool, Deal With It..
Here is an excerpt from the article where he is instructs fellow libertarians to “please bathe.”
Phew – What a disgustingly unpleasant smell that libertarian body odor must be. I can just imagine your disgust.Gatlin posted on 2019-08-12 07:13:54 Reply Private Reply
#65: A K A Stone To: Gatlin (#58)
Because it accurately shows what foreigners are doing to our country.
A K A Stone posted on 2019-08-12 07:23:58 Reply Private Reply