The End of Reason?

[Moonbeam]

I would go with the Anti-GMO folks on the left as the best example. But using that instead would inconvenient for your thesis that it is conservative ideology that is unreasonable.

What I think it comes down to is that everyone thinks there own ideology is the most rational one.

Of what relevance is that fact. Science has documented that if you challenge the rationality of a conservative he or she will become more convinced he or she is right and a liberal will adjust his or her opinion based on reasoned debate. One can't adapt and the other can.

Furthermore, you define reason when it comes to GMOs according to your understanding of reason. You see the evidence you want to see and dismiss as irrational folk who disagree. There are many reasons folk oppose GMOs that have nothing to do with an irrational fear they may harm people. It is a very conservative view that folk shouldn't put all their eggs in new technology and that folk should be able to exercise free choice in the market place by knowing what created what they buy to eat. The irrational fear is that the GMO corporations can't compete if folk are told what is Frankenfood and what is not. They must be kept ignorant for their own good.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Well, I think you buy into a marketing myth of libertarianism and do not begin to appreciate its flaws, so of course you have that response to the truth about it.

I've been reading about and discussing libertarianism for at least 20 years. (I can even prove it.) How about you?

Again, if you want to lay out how libertarianism is irrational, go for it. But I didn't just decide to be a libertarian last Tuesday or whatever. I am well aware of its flaws -- I even mentioned a big one in my prior post.

I think Libertarianism is one of the most dangerous and false ideologies, subject to use and abuse for the purposes of certain agendas that could never get popular support on their own, and so we're not going to resolve that any time soon and all we can do is politely recognize the different views.

Well, I recognize the "different views", but I can't put much stock in them if they aren't substantiated. So far all I've seen is variations on "it's bad", which isn't much to sink one's teeth into.

I'm not saying moderation is 'inherently irrational' - that's a straw many you put in my mouth - there are generally rational moderates.

Here's what you did say: "It's more visible on the right, but there's no shortage of ignorance and irrationality and excessive ideology across the political spectrum (next biggest 'moderate' or lLibertarian)."

That seems a pretty clear statement that you consider the right to be the most irrational with "moderates" or libertarians either tied or competing for second place.

And I'm saying that a general claim that moderates are the second most irrational group really makes little sense since by definition, moderates are a wide group that cannot be narrowly categorized in any way.

Again in my opinion we see irrational people in every group - but I tank the most on the right, fewer in the 'moderate' or 'Libertarian' factions, and the least on the left - but many.

Again here you are grouping moderates and libertarians, which really doesn't make sense, because they are orthogonal concepts. There are moderate libertarians and extreme libertarians, and there are plenty of moderates who aren't libertarians at all. There's no single ideological spectrum with left on the one side and right on the other and everyone else nebulously lumped into the middle.

But these two had such clear differences in huge areas, that the only people it's easy to imagine were undecided were ones with incredibly distorted misunderstandings of the issues such that by these warped views, the two candidates were somehow neck and neck on who had the right positions.

Being a moderate doesn't necessarily imply being undecided about any particular issue or election. It just means not automatically being decided about it based on ideology or party.

That person will generally - not understanding other factions - look at them and assume they're just ignorant partisans who only 'root for their team' irrationally.

I think everyone chooses their ideology believing it to be rational. Naturally those on opposite ends of the spectrum appear irrational, but that goes both ways, and part of the problem with extreme partisanship is an inability to recognize that.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I do not believe he has it right at all. The thrust of the OP is that we have entered an era in which the irrationality of the modern American conservative beliefs are a danger to the nation, a fact that science has revealed. It is the fact that the irrationality is dangerous and not the fact of where that dangerous thinking resides that is the primary issue. It is a fact that conservatives operate on a us vs. them mentality, that they make partisanship the issue, that can't be avoided with the wave of a wand, . It should not be and it isn't but that is the heart of their irrationality. , do you know a way to deal with it? Do you have a cure? What should or shouldn't be means nothing.

So if you find extremes on other sides of the political spectrum, imagine them all in a car with conservatives at the wheel and headed for a cliff. And if you can do nothing about it, do you begin to scream. When the situation is totally hopeless and every rational person can see it, what do you suggest they do? I would suggest that the only real thing to do with this topic, the only rational way to deal with the OP's topic, is to find a path that offers some hope. I believe this because I believe that without hope insanity will reign, the irrational will force the rational to respond, some how, some way, and ones that may not be pretty.

I believe we have the Taliban within our midsts.

i now have a chance to give more explanation. Rationality is not determined by the amount of legislation a party properties or opposes. That's a standard applied. It's not the only one, but it's a big part in this context.

Every now and again there are key moments in history, one where rational people can use. 9/11 was one. Immediately after the attack the US had more sympathy and good will than at any time since Pearl Harbor. Even Iran had demonstrations in support. We could have tracked out and appealed for solidarity against those using terrorism. We could have been rational, used reason. We could have gone and expended effort, gotten a good understanding of how things are. We could have made much of the ME our allies, put Iran onto a path towards democracy. No. We gave the Axis speech which in turn gave us today's hostile Iran and increasing fundamentalist area. What happened afterwards? The party and supporters trotted out experts. They acted for the greater good and gave us the Patriot act. They used other countries as models- israeli security works. Defenders beat others as being irrational. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Those stupid obstructionist Democrats. The Republicans are right in thought and with faith in rational solutions.

Then Obama had his chance. He had the eyes of the nation focused on health care. We could have had real reform, a chance to investigate, to understand. We got a 2k+ page abomination. Look at the thread I posted in this forum about prescription drug prices. A whole new model. That's rational. That's real reform. It got about no play. Which Republican came up with that? None. How about the Democrats? Obama would surely support such a thing. The left would be crying for it. What did the innovators say? That the American taliban were more willing to listen. Not only were they ignored but actively opposed. The rational side did just that.

But the Democrats will devote pages and pages defending Obamacare. They trot out experts. They act for the greater good. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. They'll show those stupid obstructionist Republicans.

I've dealt with what people have no knowledge of what care means for a quarter century or so. I've seen policy changes and well intentioned programs turn health care into a race away from the patient towards compliance to irrationality. I've seen less care and more hoops. An increase of the costs as a result. That's nothing. We'll have far more confusing regulations, more "compliance education. We'll have less time to provide care. More calls to make. More punishment by inspectors. More to spend on nonsense paperwork and less resources to do it with. When it fails, mark this, the logical rational people will blame everyone else and then appeal to other nations as models (remember Israel) and insist their foolishness means we can't do our jobs unless we are taken over by the ones who created the mess. How rational is that? I'm passionate about my ability to help others with what I do, but I hate what my job has become because it hinders my mission. That's what I object to. I object to intellect without discipline. I object to power without constructive purpose. I object to irrational clinging to old ways while opposing real progress, real purpose, real good in favor of the comfort of partisan defense and clinging to the fear of something better because those who haven't told those who tell them how to think haven't approved.

If my way of thinking, my goals, my desire to have what is best is irrational them I trust you to tell me being rational and empassioned isn't a mutually state. I think we don't have enough surrendering of oneself to act in such a way. I object to blindness and willful ignorance, to firing the heart and soul of an issue for petty adherence ideological concepts. When has helping another depended on being conservative? When has making a breakthrough which benefits humanity required a membership in the Democratic party? Why must we remain small and mean and not look at what we ask and why?

I value your opinion over so called Progressives because you want what is good. Not the subjects of my sig, who with their many words expect others to acknowledge their superiority bereft of originality, of passion except in hatred of their inferiors.

So tell me where I am wrong lest I become that which I despise. In what does my mind and heart, my desires and intelligence err?

 

[Anarchist420]

Again here you are grouping moderates and libertarians, which really doesn't make sense, because they are orthogonal concepts. There are moderate libertarians and extreme libertarians, and there are plenty of moderates who aren't libertarians at all.

There are good centrists and there are bad centrists.
Dr. Block came up with a good system and he talks about it here.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

There are good centrists and there are bad centrists.
Dr. Block came up with a good system and he talks about it here.

He's on the right track by having two dimensions, but when one of them is "good-bad" it's hard to take it seriously except by those who already agree with the author's views.

The Political Compass test uses "left-right" and "authoritarian-libertarian", which is similar, but less judgmental.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

He's on the right track by having two dimensions, but when one of them is "good-bad" it's hard to take it seriously except by those who already agree with the author's views.

The Political Compass test uses "left-right" and "authoritarian-libertarian", which is similar, but less judgmental.

Think about this for a moment before replying.

First what is key in the quality of healthcare? Parse that carefully so the answer isn't to something I didn't ask.

Second and relevant to care is "What is the most significant thing which can be done to provide maximal good outcomes, maximal savings and maximal satisfaction using technology no more advanced than half a century ago"?

Third, name two things to improve care.

 

[Craig234]

Not everyone can be expert on everything. Sometimes it's better to have ignorant people have one set of unjustified suspicions than another set.

For example, that maybe big agra is up to no good and we should support who watches them, rather than Obama wants to take your guns and we should support the NRA.

That doesn't fall in the traditional discussion that only praises 'rational decisions', but as a practical matter I think it's important about how people actually vote.

A lot of politics has little to do with informed opinions and a lot to do with who has more bias on their side.

That's why you might see a big jump after an issue like Newtown when the underlying facts of gun control haven't changed. And capitalizing on that makes sense.

You get the 'govermnent wants my guns to become Nazis' side against the 'I hate children being shot' side, neither exactly addressing the issue rationally.

So maybe the GMO fearing people aren't right rationally, but maybe the other side is motivated more by greed on various issues more than what's rationally right (from tobacco to chemicals industry has often spent a fortune to spread lies when rational positions were against them) and we benefit from people opposing them even if for bad reasons.

If you demand the only reason people support a position is well-informed rational reasons, the other side is going to wipe you out.

People don't honestly admit this sort of thing, but it's how politics largely works. "The Big Lie" of repetition convincing people still works well today.

"The Big Lie" of repetition convincing people still works well today.

"The Big Lie" of repetition convincing people still works well today.

"The Big Lie" of repetition convincing people still works well today.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Not everyone can be expert on everything. Sometimes it's better to have ignorant people have one set of unjustified suspicions than another set.

For example, that maybe big agra is up to no good and we should support who watches them, rather than Obama wants to take your guns and we should support the NRA.

That doesn't fall in the traditional discussion that only praises 'rational decisions', but as a practical matter I think it's important about how people actually vote.

A lot of politics has little to do with informed opinions and a lot to do with who has more bias on their side.

That's why you might see a big jump after an issue like Newtown when the underlying facts of gun control haven't changed. And capitalizing on that makes sense.

You get the 'govermnent wants my guns to become Nazis' side against the 'I hate children being shot' side, neither exactly addressing the issue rationally.

So maybe the GMO fearing people aren't right rationally, but maybe the other side is motivated more by greed on various issues more than what's rationally right (from tobacco to chemicals industry has often spent a fortune to spread lies when rational positions were against them) and we benefit from people opposing them even if for bad reasons.

If you demand the only reason people support a position is well-informed rational reasons, the other side is going to wipe you out.

People don't honestly admit this sort of thing, but it's how politics largely works. "The Big Lie" of repetition convincing people still works well today.

"The Big Lie" of repetition convincing people still works well today.

"The Big Lie" of repetition convincing people still works well today.

"The Big Lie" of repetition convincing people still works well today.

It is hardly possible to respond to ignorance with ignorance then claiming enlightenment. Besides, it's irrelevant to "the age of reason".

 

[Craig234]

This is at great risk of becoming a tedious exchange not really about the issues.

I've been reading about and discussing libertarianism for at least 20 years. (I can even prove it.) How about you?

I don't think it matters, but I guess yes, I can. I remember watching Bucky Fuller talk to people pretty sympathetic to that point of view, for an example.

I'm sure I haven't gone into the depth of the ideology nearly as much as you, but I don't think you have to to understand critical issues about it.

You don't need decades in the Koran to have a valid opinion about 9/11. And you don't need decades of the finer points of Trotsky versus Stalin for some views on communism.

Again, if you want to lay out how libertarianism is irrational, go for it. But I didn't just decide to be a libertarian last Tuesday or whatever. I am well aware of its flaws -- I even mentioned a big one in my prior post.

I think that's fair, and yes you did which I acknowledged - and I agreed with a point you made against other groups.

I'm not accusing you of being 'light' or uninformed factually about the ideology - it's more like, if you sat with Stalin or Mao to persuade them communism is wrong, the problem isn't that they don't know anything about the issue. That's more pejorative than I mean it to be, I'm just making a point that the issue isn't 'you don't factually know what it is'.

It's a difference of opinion about the issue, not any easier to resolve than it was to convinve a Stalinist his approach was pretty bad.

In the case of Libertarianism it's even harder, because you could point to the disasters of Stalinism while Libertaranism is still mostly claims what it would do if tried.

Well, I recognize the "different views", but I can't put much stock in them if they aren't substantiated. So far all I've seen is variations on "it's bad", which isn't much to sink one's teeth into.

There's more than that, but again, you're probably not going to hear it teribly well, it takes a long time. 'Convince me an ideology is wrong in ten sentences or less'. Well, ya, right.

There are people who will defend Maosim *today*. Not many, thankfully.

Here's what you did say: "It's more visible on the right, but there's no shortage of ignorance and irrationality and excessive ideology across the political spectrum (next biggest 'moderate' or lLibertarian)."

That seems a pretty clear statement that you consider the right to be the most irrational with "moderates" or libertarians either tied or competing for second place.

Definitely meaning less than the right. It was mainly to point out I think it's higher than the left, wich some guilty of false equivalency rush to wrongly claim.

And I'm saying that a general claim that moderates are the second most irrational group really makes little sense since by definition, moderates are a wide group that cannot be narrowly categorized in any way.

Yes and no. There are certain 'types' more common I will leave at that, the more important issue being, of course they can be 'categorized as a group'.

You can take the average wealth of right, left moderates. You can take their average scores on a test of political awareness, you can measure how much they weigh, there are countless weighs you can measure something about the groups and then categorize or rank them on the results.

The number of the type of peeople we're discussing might be largely opinion, but it's one of the ways.

When someone paints the left as a mirror of the right on how many people are like that, you have no protest, you may agree; but switch the order and you want to argue it.

Again here you are grouping moderates and libertarians, which really doesn't make sense, because they are orthogonal concepts. There are moderate libertarians and extreme libertarians, and there are plenty of moderates who aren't libertarians at all. There's no single ideological spectrum with left on the one side and right on the other and everyone else nebulously lumped into the middle.

To be clear, I'm not grouping them - just listing them as two groups. It's like saying 'of the four most common races in the US, whites are at the top with 48%, Hispanics and blacks come next with about 20%, and then Asians with 5%'. Those numbers are inaccurate and made up for the example, but it's not groups Hispanics and blacks like they're the same thing, just listing each together.

Being a moderate doesn't necessarily imply being undecided about any particular issue or election. It just means not automatically being decided about it based on ideology or party.

That starts to get to an issue to discuss on these definitions. Do you "automatically" agree with the position of most Libertarians on every issue? No. But do you agree with them enough to be comfortable putting yourself in their group, expecting there's a good chance that on any given issue you're likely to agree, enough that you want to help advocate the Libertatian ideology against alternatives because you agree with it enough? I'd guess yes.

That doesn't make you a mindless blind 'automatic' follower of Libertarians - I don't think you are - but you seem more likely to wrongly make that assumption about other groups.

There are many 'types' of moderates - but many will fall into the categories I mentioned, of things like not being well informed enough, or being misinformed enough, that they have a hard enough time picking between 'sides' that none of them appeal enough to join. Heck, one small group are professional media people who are trying to maintain some sort of 'non-partisan' image for career reasons.

My experience is that most 'moderates' seem to have an especially high level of ignorance and/or misinformation, more on average than 'the left'.

Libertarians - while I also place them between right and left on that - are not the same, many are pretty well informed on facts; but they've adopted the ideology pretty much.

From their view, they are 'rational' about the issues.

I think everyone chooses their ideology believing it to be rational.

Funny how close that is to what I just said.

Naturally those on opposite ends of the spectrum appear irrational, but that goes both ways, and part of the problem with extreme partisanship is an inability to recognize that.

More like, 'those anywhere else on the spectrum appear irrational'; and for those in the 'middle', that would be the 'sides', and make them badly prone to false equivalency.

Believe it or not, a 'moderate' can be just as 'partisan' or 'ideological' as a Republican, Democrat or Libertarian who is those things - and those groups can not be.

That's a shock to most moderates to consider.

 

[Craig234]

I've always viewed the 'Political Compass Test' as libertarian propaganda, because as a very small percent of the population, it's nothing more than a recruitment tool and make themselves seem a lot larger, while telling people 'hey, you're one of us and didn't realize it' - the same technique used all over the place such as fringe religions.

I think it's weighted to get a disproportionate number of people to get called 'libertarian' by using a pretty warped political landscape. I bet Libertarians shockingly disagree.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Think about this for a moment before replying.

First what is key in the quality of healthcare? Parse that carefully so the answer isn't to something I didn't ask.

Second and relevant to care is "What is the most significant thing which can be done to provide maximal good outcomes, maximal savings and maximal satisfaction using technology no more advanced than half a century ago"?

Third, name two things to improve care.

I'm confused as to why you're asking me three-part questions about healthcare, HR. I never mentioned the subject and really don't have any good answers for you. I think our healthcare system is a mess. My only comment is that you say "Obama had his chance" but seem to not be recognizing all of the other people who had a say in the matter. I doubt Obamacare is what Obama would have done if he were the dictator some claim him to be.

For example, that maybe big agra is up to no good and we should support who watches them, rather than Obama wants to take your guns and we should support the NRA.

I see the irrational fear of gun confiscation on the right as the complement to the irrational fear of guns on the left.

 

[Craig234]

I see the irrational fear of gun confiscation on the right as the complement to the irrational fear of guns on the left.

I agree that those are an example of what I mentioned.

There is some 'irrational fear of guns' on the left. While we could debate all day the line where it starts to be justified, the point is, that politics can be more effective with irrational.

Good and bad on these things of course is highly correlated to our opinion on issues.

 

[Pulsar]

Hear hear. It happens as a matter of routine on this forum.

Back to topic - In the UK, it seems to happen on a regular basis that the government (Labour or the current coalition) will make an announcement, let's say a law they want to bring in, the logic of which goes against the consultation they did. Or they just didn't bother with any consultation at all.

Only with perhaps 2 or 3 people. One in particular.

I tend to agree that the age of reason is disappearing. A large portion of the population has been taught that they are perpetual victims, and giant social programs that don't end rationally (i.e. - get a job lose all the support) fuel the problem. All in the name of wooing a particular type of voter.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I'm sure I haven't gone into the depth of the ideology nearly as much as you, but I don't think you have to to understand critical issues about it.

I think you need to understand something reasonably well to dismiss it.

I also think that if you are not well read on a particular subject, such as libertarianism, you have no basis for telling someone who is well-informed on that subject that he "buy into a marketing myth" or "do[es] not begin to appreciate its flaws". That's not rational.

I'm not accusing you of being 'light' or uninformed factually about the ideology - it's more like, if you sat with Stalin or Mao to persuade them communism is wrong, the problem isn't that they don't know anything about the issue. That's more pejorative than I mean it to be, I'm just making a point that the issue isn't 'you don't factually know what it is'.

I have no idea what the point of bringing up communism is here. I only objected to your portrayals of libertarianism, which are unsupported and not consistent with what it stands for.

There's more than that, but again, you're probably not going to hear it teribly well, it takes a long time. 'Convince me an ideology is wrong in ten sentences or less'. Well, ya, right.

You don't seem to me to be terribly short on sentences. Write as many as you wish. Or don't, but do not expect anyone to take seriously such dismissals as "ilibertarianism" when you provide nothing to back it up.

Definitely meaning less than the right. It was mainly to point out I think it's higher than the left, wich some guilty of false equivalency rush to wrongly claim.

On what basis do you declare that libertarians are more irrational than liberals? As I said, the entire political viewpoint is based on rationality.

To be clear, I'm not grouping them - just listing them as two groups.

You're putting them both in the middle of a one-dimensional spectrum, which doesn't really work.

There are many 'types' of moderates - but many will fall into the categories I mentioned, of things like not being well informed enough, or being misinformed enough, that they have a hard enough time picking between 'sides' that none of them appeal enough to join. Heck, one small group are professional media people who are trying to maintain some sort of 'non-partisan' image for career reasons.

I see no reason to believe that moderates are automatically less informed than partisans. In fact, it's often the opposite, because moderates are at least willing to entertain ideas from both sides.

Libertarians - while I also place them between right and left on that - are not the same, many are pretty well informed on facts; but they've adopted the ideology pretty much.

All partisans adopt one ideology or another.

Believe it or not, a 'moderate' can be just as 'partisan' or 'ideological' as a Republican, Democrat or Libertarian who is those things - and those groups can not be.

No, actually, they can't. By definition, a moderate is one who is not strongly partisan.

 

[Pulsar]

I've always viewed the 'Political Compass Test' as libertarian propaganda, because as a very small percent of the population, it's nothing more than a recruitment tool and make themselves seem a lot larger, while telling people 'hey, you're one of us and didn't realize it' - the same technique used all over the place such as fringe religions.

I think it's weighted to get a disproportionate number of people to get called 'libertarian' by using a pretty warped political landscape. I bet Libertarians shockingly disagree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Amazing how wide open the libertarian definition is in reality, as opposed to the very small definition you choose to use to portray them. I suppose actually understanding them is far more difficult than calling them propagandists.

I'm fairly certain the same could be said of many groups on the left.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now

 

[Craig234]

I think you need to understand something reasonably well to dismiss it.

I also think that if you are not well read on a particular subject, such as libertarianism, you have no basis for telling someone who is well-informed on that subject that he "buy into a marketing myth" or "do[es] not begin to appreciate its flaws". That's not rational.

No, you're trying to pretend that 'studied the intricate details having nothing to do with the main issues' is the same thing as knowing what you're talking about.

Or, if you can't tell me the top 50 measures passed during the progressive era a century ago paving the way for today's movement, you can't say one word about progressives.

I have no idea what the point of bringing up communism is here. I only objected to your portrayals of libertarianism, which are unsupported and not consistent with what it stands for.

No, you want to get to define what it stands for so that you can only have to argue one little flavor of it, your flavor, and dismiss anyone saying you might not fully appreciate what would and wouldn't work if it were implemented, or the different defintitions others (mostly less informed than you) have.

I can ask some Republicans or Democrats to define what those words stand for and get radically different answers. I don't get to pretend they don't exist, and while I'll say I disagree with another Democrat, even if my view is the 'correct' one supported by fact, I don't get to just say 'sorry, you can't discuss the differences because they don't agree with my definitions'. But this isn't much about different definitions, but different opinions of the effects.

If you response to *specific* cases where you think I'm unfair - and I don't say this meanly but I don't expect any good to come of it because that type of discussion with anyone strongly in favor of an ideology rarely does - it'll help the quality of the discussion more than generalizations about 'you didn't define it the way I agree at some point before'.

But really, can't I just let you have your view of Libertarianism and I have mine and not feel a need to try to get into something that will only waste a lot of time?

I say that still inviting you to raise the occassional specific concern. Maybe I'll be wrong on something and it'll be helpful.

You don't seem to me to be terribly short on sentences. Write as many as you wish. Or don't, but do not expect anyone to take seriously such dismissals as "ilibertarianism" when you provide nothing to back it up.

It's not 'nothing to back it up', but if you'd like to tell me the guideling you suggest for persuading adherents of a theoretical ideology about its flaws that's constructive...

How do you say that the only result practically of the ideology inevitably will be a terrible concentration of power resulting in tyranny, that you accept? So what's the point?

You can't argue against another position just with demands you have to have irrelevant details, or snide shots.

We disagree. Accept that prefereably, or at least raise something specific, which you don't.

On what basis do you declare that libertarians are more irrational than liberals? As I said, the entire political viewpoint is based on rationality.

That's not what I said, exactly. I said I think that there is a higher percentage of people who are the sort we were discussing that are Libertarians than that are liberals. IMO.

It shouldn't be a shock that people I would place in that category, many you wouldn't.

This stuff is tedious. For example, I mentioned how economists often, probably typcally, have one worldview that has all kinds of things that are correct about it, but which can be horribly lacking in something like morality or alternative views on what to do about the poor (they're just an ugly number in a column for some people).

I can't exactly call either side there 'ignorant' overall - you have to get into specifics.

And it's largely a waste of time.

I've posted that Robert Kennedy quote which it's hard to top for a couple paragraphs to make the point about economics on this. What more would help?

You're putting them both in the middle of a one-dimensional spectrum, which doesn't really work.

First, again, you didn't complain when the ordering fit your opinions. Second, it is not unreasonable that the number of people in a group is one-dimensional.

80%, 50%, 20%, it's linear list.

Now, there are all kinds of problems with it and I'm happy to not bother with those opinions by anyone, but I was responding to someone who did try to make that list.

I see no reason to believe that moderates are automatically less informed than partisans.

Neither do I. You sure like that word 'automatic' more than I do.

In fact, it's often the opposite, because moderates are at least willing to entertain ideas from both sides.

Often, they're not. And often people on the strong left especially, and sometimes on the right, are.

Being strongly on the left doesn't mean you agree with every position everyone on the left generally has, that you aren't as or more considering all sides. You just have opinions.

Your assumption otherwise is sort of a type of the blind error I was mentioning.

All partisans adopt one ideology or another.

Again, no, some do, some don't. Part of your ideology is that they all do.

No, actually, they can't. By definition, a moderate is one who is not strongly partisan.

You know, you're right. I'd say Moderates are ALWAYS more correct than anyone else. Moderate is the only legitimate political position - everyone else is pretty much a maniac. Moderates are morally better people, the most educated are always moderate, moderate people are better looking as well. But I'm not a partisan moderate at all.

You've just stumbled across the multiple definitions of partisan.

One is more this 'left right' where moderate isn't those. But another - the one I was using - means strongly favoring a group sort of like the firsti definition views right or left.

But people who are 'moderate' can be moderately so - while the above was a caricature to make the point, when you see a moderate stick their nose in the air and brag how much better they are than the 'partisans' who have views that tend to line up with the right or left, at the same time they have low information, bad logic, other problems - that's a partisan moderate. It's the same behavior and flaws as any other faction's partisans.

The wor partisan is pretty much useless when these two defintions get mixed up.

We're all 'partisans for freedom', simply meaning we support it and advocate it, while the word can also be a big insult to refer to someone who blindly takes positions on an issue.

Edit: it's also about time to stop making jabs about 'lots of sentences'. You've made the point about 241 times too many in the last week, and we disagree. Perhaps I should respond in kind with a jab that some people can be bothered to actually support their points - perhaps more fair than yours. It isn't adding anything to the discussion, it's just rudeness.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I missed that crack about the political compass test. Near as I can tell there's no evidence that the test is run by libertarians nor oriented towards them.

I just did the test and got -1.62, -6.21, which is pretty much dead on.

I redid the test pretending that I was a stereotypical young, idealist left-winger, and got -9.25, -6.67, which seems about right as well.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

No, you're trying to pretend that 'studied the intricate details having nothing to do with the main issues' is the same thing as knowing what you're talking about.

You're the one who seemed to be implying that you didn't know all that much about libertarianism, yet you're very dismissive towards it. So you tell me: how much does one need to know about something to generically denigrate it?

No, you want to get to define what it stands for so that you can only have to argue one little flavor of it, your flavor, and dismiss anyone saying you might not fully appreciate what would and wouldn't work if it were implemented, or the different defintitions others (mostly less informed than you) have.

You made the claims, it's up to you to back them up. So where is it? This is a thread on reason, after all.

If you response to *specific* cases where you think I'm unfair - and I don't say this meanly but I don't expect any good to come of it because that type of discussion with anyone strongly in favor of an ideology rarely does - it'll help the quality of the discussion more than generalizations about 'you didn't define it the way I agree at some point before'.

I can't respond to specific cases where you're unfair, because all I see is generic denunciation, such as saying libertarianism is less rational then liberalism, or comments you made in another thread suggesting that libertarians were the opposite of proponents for liberty.

But really, can't I just let you have your view of Libertarianism and I have mine and not feel a need to try to get into something that will only waste a lot of time?

It's a thread on reason. *shrug*

How do you say that the only result practically of the ideology inevitably will be a terrible concentration of power resulting in tyranny, that you accept? So what's the point?

I might accept it if you had rational arguments to support it. If you're just going to throw it out there and let it dangle, well then, no, I am not going to accept it. Why would I?

That's not what I said, exactly. I said I think that there is a higher percentage of people who are the sort we were discussing that are Libertarians than that are liberals. IMO.

And so I ask again: based on what?

This stuff is tedious.

You can choose not to post in the thread, if you prefer.

I've posted that Robert Kennedy quote which it's hard to top for a couple paragraphs to make the point about economics on this. What more would help?

Don't know what quote you refer to here.

Neither do I. You sure like that word 'automatic' more than I do.

Then I thank you for revising your earlier comments.

Again, no, some do, some don't. Part of your ideology is that they all do.

You really do think you aren't ideological, don't you?

You know, you're right. I'd say Moderates are ALWAYS more correct than anyone else. Moderate is the only legitimate political position - everyone else is pretty much a maniac. Moderates are morally better people, the most educated are always moderate, moderate people are better looking as well. But I'm not a partisan moderate at all.

I honestly can't even tell if you're being serious or sarcastic here. The definition of a moderate is someone who isn't strongly partisan. This isn't complicated.

Edit: it's also about time to stop making jabs about 'lots of sentences'. You've made the point about 241 times too many in the last week, and we disagree. Perhaps I should respond in kind with a jab that some people can be bothered to actually support their points - perhaps more fair than yours. It isn't adding anything to the discussion, it's just rudeness.

You brought that up, not me: "There's more than that, but again, you're probably not going to hear it teribly well, it takes a long time. 'Convince me an ideology is wrong in ten sentences or less'. Well, ya, right."

Nobody is required to write anything here that they do not want to. But making allegations, such as the ones you've leveled against libertarianism, and then refusing to back them up because of a claim that "it takes a long time" is a coput. When it comes from someone who writes huge volumes of material every day, it's especially a copout.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm confused as to why you're asking me three-part questions about healthcare, HR. I never mentioned the subject and really don't have any good answers for you. I think our healthcare system is a mess. My only comment is that you say "Obama had his chance" but seem to not be recognizing all of the other people who had a say in the matter. I doubt Obamacare is what Obama would have done if he were the dictator some claim him to be.



I see the irrational fear of gun confiscation on the right as the complement to the irrational fear of guns on the left.

There was a point.

First you are among those least likely to pick answers based on party affiliation. If you could have given me something, even incorrectly you would have put more effort into understanding than seems to have been done. Even so did you irrationally pretend to understand the issues? No. Why therefore am I told by people that Obamacare is health care reform? It's not and THAT is what is needed. Get half a dozen members of the forums with comparable experience and knowledge as I have and we could come up with something far superior. You really think Obama knows much more than you? Hardly.

Now you can say the Republicans had a chance. They sure did and they blew it and I said as much. When this legislation was in process, when the moment of magic was upon us some suggested ways of approaching problems. We were accused of not wanting reform, wanting the status quo. Of financial self interests. People with no more knowledge and less sense than you. Explain the rationality of that.

To answer a few questions I asked, the most important thing is the patient/provider relationship. Both parties must establish an understanding of each other and the given situation. Without that any regulation is crap. How many times have you heard of that not happening? How many in and out appointments? Welcome to managed care and cost containment. The doc doesn't have time, the mill hasn't tolerance for wasring time. Productivity. Patients per unit time. Where was the proposal that fixed that? No where.

The other thing, the one seeming miracle that would eliminate so much trouble from misdiagnosis to unnecessary tests and treatments and more? One hour. Yep. Every patient should have a one hour interview with a highly trained and skilled individual who knows how to get needed information from the patient. That's not a long form and a pencil. It's an interactive process that unearths the unspoken. Ok the guy has a cough. Just treat it and next? Sure, except you missed that slur and asymmetrical movement. Congratulations the patient had had a stroke and you aren't treating it. Or that little spot on the skin which he'll be back for an expensive cancer treatment. Or he was confused and he has hypertension and takes meds and forgot to mention it. Well suggest decongestants, and he strokes out. What does that cost in money pain and suffering? Where does Obamacare pay for that intensive process? Indeed, who sounds like they ever thought of it? Bettet outcomes snd costs and no one wants to even know or support it. How about the other thread? The one that Wolff nailed in relevance? Where the current wise considerate administration are less willing to hear and indeed to obstruct where at least the Bush people would listen? Their words not mine. There is no age of reason. None of what is needed is even thought of. Irrational clinging to political ideologies.

My ideas? Find common sense on that political ideology test. It's not there and neither is reason. Please, go after the Republicans. They aren't any wiser.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I have a difficult time with health care because as a human being I don't want to see others suffer and die if it can be prevented, but at the same time, I don't support a system that provides unlimited health services to everyone just because they have figured out how to breathe.

The policy most consistent with traditional American ideals, IMO, is one where you deal with your own health care yourself. If you want insurance, you buy it; if you don't, you pay for it out of pocket or deal with the consequences.

But a few years ago we decided we didn't want people turned away from hospitals. Once we did that, we sent a message to everyone that they could just ignore the issue and go to the hospital if there was a problem. Of course, treatment in an ER is the most expensive kind in existence. And health care is one of those things where if you only treat problems you pay a lot more than if you avoid them.

So once we passed that bill, we were on the road to socialized medicine, whether we realized it or not, because a system where millions use the ER for primary care is a system doomed to failure.

The problem right now is that everyone wants to have something without paying the costs. Some people don't think there should be socialized medicine, but they don't want people dying on the hospital steps either, so then what? On the other side, some folks think everyone should have unlimited access to the best possible care. Well, that's impossible. So how do you ration it?

Nobody wants to answer the difficult questions.

We now are going to implement a system where everyone is covered regardless of pre-existing conditions. Well, that's lovely, but then it's not an insurance program, it's another welfare program. Telling a medical insurance company that they have to accept someone with serious medical problems is like telling a property insurance company that they have to allow people to call them up and sign up for new policies while a hurricane is bearing down on them.

If there's no risk assessment then it's not insurance, it's an entitlement.

On top of it all, you have a legislative system that's for sale to the highest bidder. How much less would medicine cost of we could pass laws saying, in effect "medicine is a risky business, and unless you can demonstrate *gross* incompetence, piss off"?

I could rant more on this, but as I said, I don't really have any answers. I wish I did.

ETA: My Obama comment was more related to the issue of Obama trying to get a bill through congress, rather than the GOP ignoring the issue when they were in power.

 

[Craig234]

You're the one who seemed to be implying that you didn't know all that much about libertarianism

No, I didn't. Are you going to misrepresent each statement, or only some? How will you select which? That sort of of unproductive tedious response is one more reason to say 'you have your opinion, I have my opinion, and it's a waste of my time to discuss that sort of response, enjoy posting your opinions'.

yet you're very dismissive towards it. So you tell me: how much does one need to know about something to generically denigrate it?

Enough.

Yes, that's the level of answer the question deserves. What's your answer?

If you think I said something wrong, you can post your disagreement with as much argument as you want.

I can respond agreeing with you, disagreeing where it seems discussion isn't useful, a lengthy discussion, whatever.

On a big and not very interesting topic like Libertarianism, that's like to be disagree and discussion isn't very useful.

I post opinions that I disagree Obama ordered Benghazi, that fluoride in water is a communist plot, that I think austerity is generally a bad policy.

Of those, the only one I'm likely to care to discuss in more detail for various reasons is austerity. And I think that's fine. If you disagree on fluoride, I don't think discussion will help.

If the fluoride thing becomes a serious public issue and cities stop fluoridating water, I'll likely post more.

You made the claims, it's up to you to back them up. So where is it? This is a thread on reason, after all.

What backup do you want for informed opinions? Or did I mention any facts you are inquiring about? Specifcs, Charles, as I asked.

I can't respond to specific cases where you're unfair, because all I see is generic denunciation, such as saying libertarianism is less rational then liberalism, or comments you made in another thread suggesting that libertarians were the opposite of proponents for liberty.

Yes, an opinion, like the one I disagreed with you took no issue with presumably because you agree with it. Where's your post about the opinion liberalism comes our better?

These are opinions, and I choose to state my conclusions, rather than post thousands of lines educating about why I disagree with any number of ideologies.

Sometimes more details are relevant, sometimes not. I understand this is an important passion for you, but that doesn't make it a priority for me to discuss. I have opinions.

You don't agree with my opinions, but browbeating to prove opinions you disagree with isn't appropriate. You can't be specific? Then what is there to discuss?

It's a thread on reason. *shrug*

That's a cheap, inadequate response to the proper way to deal with this sort of disagreement.

You didn't demand I discuss why I disapprove of Stalinism or any number of other ideologies for good reason, and Libertarianism is the same, for good reason.

I've discussed it previously, it's a fringe topic I'm uninterested in spending much more time on that summarizing my position as my opinion.

If there's something specific you want to ask about, ask. If there's a factual issue in question, raise away. Otherwise, I'm stating my opinion. Take it or leave it.

I might accept it if you had rational arguments to support it. If you're just going to throw it out there and let it dangle, well then, no, I am not going to accept it. Why would I?

You shouldn't, as I explained. You won't accept anything without a whole lot of education exchanges here can't provide in my opinion.

That's why instead of wasting all kinds of time on some imaginary theoretical topic without empirical evidence since the human race has had the good sense not to try it, the appropriate course - like our opinions on 'what if the US nuked the rest of the world so we had no external enemies' or 'what if we fed eveeyone in the world, what would be the ramifications' or whatever speculative issue, we can discuss them to the point there's mutual interest in discussing them and then respect we each have our opinions.

Notice how many lines already in this exchange which have covered nothing of any use as a topic, including the good or bad of Libertarianism? You seem to want to waste that time.

And so I ask again: based on what?

My observations of samples of each group.

You can choose not to post in the thread, if you prefer.

We're about there. Note these are only responses, each with a suggestion that the topic be dropped for a variety of reasons, which you refuse.

You're welcome to the last word with your opinion on the topic, if you post about that.

Don't know what quote you refer to here.

I posted it prominently and have several times, but he explains why many thing that are bad for us we treat as having value in the GDP, and many important things, we do not.

It's a quote that goes a long way to add some perspective to the economist's tunnel vision, why there's more to good policy and politics than economics.

Then I thank you for revising your earlier comments.

No idea what you're talking about.

You really do think you aren't ideological, don't you?

I don't think you are able to make a reasonable judgement about it. So no point in our discussing the issue - either of us. Your opinion would be unneeded or insulting, depending.

Yet another of those we each have our opinion topics, where it might be worth discussing with some but not everyone.

I honestly can't even tell if you're being serious or sarcastic here. The definition of a moderate is someone who isn't strongly partisan. This isn't complicated.

I was giving an example of what a 'partisan moderate' can sound like. It wasn't literal or sarcastic, it was literative.

You brought that up, not me: "There's more than that, but again, you're probably not going to hear it teribly well, it takes a long time. 'Convince me an ideology is wrong in ten sentences or less'. Well, ya, right."

Nobody is required to write anything here that they do not want to. But making allegations, such as the ones you've leveled against libertarianism, and then refusing to back them up because of a claim that "it takes a long time" is a coput. When it comes from someone who writes huge volumes of material every day, it's especially a copout.

Let's say that we'll blame this time on my bringing it up, and that we agree on what I said otherwise.

I've written about what interests me or I think if helpful to people. Writing about one topic in more depth doesn't mean you can demand another and another and another.

The merits of Libretarianism is a very large topic, and summaries are more suited than the books needed for it.

If you're going to demand that every opinion on Republicans, Democrats, Libertarianis, or any other political faction get a book-long explanation, then be consistent.

The topic is not of much interest to me discuss in depth just as Scientology isn't. I could spend hours explaining why I have very negative opinions about Scientology, and I'll post some opinions on it (I just gave a big summary, I could mention all kinds of absurdities, dishonesty, cult problems, terrible things they do to whistleblowers, the history of Ron Hubbard including his having said a bit before inventing it that the way to get rich is to make up a religion, I could refer to his grandson's strongly-anti Scientology speeches recently, I could go through their leaked doctrines and stories of people all day, but you know what? I don't care to.

I have an informed opinion on it and don't care to waste much time.

And if some Scientologist comes here and baits me about it, saying why don't you prove every opinion you have in detail while they write thousands of lines disagreeing demanding more, and I respond to all of them, sorry, I'm not interested - and I'm not interested in a similar discussion with an adherent of what I view as a fundementally flawed ideology of Libertarianism, that I've discussed more previously. If they just want to bait with 'you didn't discuss all the details of Scientology, so I'll criticize your opinion', sorry, not interested.

I'm sure they can go on at great lengths about the finer points of Scientology that have nothing to do with my issues. I don't care to. At the end of the day, they are my opinions, I'll suport them reasonably as my opinions, but I don't need to convince the unconvincable Scientologist of my opinions.

I've had Seventh Day evangelists knock on my door. I've spent hours discussing our opinions. Other times, I've ended the discussion in seconds.

Not once have they yelled through the door, 'if you won't discuss why you have opinions about it, then they're not valid! I've spent years so I'm right and you're wrong! Defend it!'

I don't really need to spend a lot of time covering old fringe topics over and over and over.
They exist, if something related comes up I might post a sentence or two with my opinion.

Libertarnianism is more relvant, I've said more than a sentence or two, I might say more if something of interest comes up. In the meantime you can convince everyone.

I provided a summary of reasons for a negative opinion. If you want to discuss something reasonable for posts, state it specifically.

Otherwise, agree to disagree and state your opinions and let the readers reach their own opinions. Surely my summaries next to your thorough reasons will help you persuade.

Now I've wasted like an hour on this topic you keep insisting on that says nothing by either of us. Is there anything of value you want to bring up?

 

[sandorski]

It is not the end of Reason, but Reason and Faith are 2 positions that are coming to a point where after they meet one or the other will increase or decrease as a consequence. Faith has been undergoing a transition for the past 30ish years, it started between older liberal Protestants turning towards conservative Evangelicals, then it became a strong political force. That prompted a resurgence in Reason and though the Evangelical political force seems to have begun to wane and Reason has began to increase dramatically, the 2 positions have yet clearly to have defeated the other.

My hope is in Reason winning, it may have already won and the aftermath has yet to be fully seen. These struggles usually occur through gradual attrition and a slow changing of minds. The trend at this time is away from Faith. Whether that translates into Reason is yet to be seen.

 

[Craig234]

I have a difficult time with health care because as a human being I don't want to see others suffer and die if it can be prevented, but at the same time, I don't support a system that provides unlimited health services to everyone just because they have figured out how to breathe.

The policy most consistent with traditional American ideals, IMO, is one where you deal with your own health care yourself. If you want insurance, you buy it; if you don't, you pay for it out of pocket or deal with the consequences.

What traditional American ideals?

The one of the following?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

No, I think that one is pretty supportive of the general Welfare and the *Blessings* of Liberty that people having healthcare is better than them not, when it's reasonable.

Or are you referring to some traditional value - I'll let you quote and cite whatever you are referring to - that says since our forefathers paid for their doctor the old-fashioned way, and likely millions lost their lives who couldn't afford that, that as our economy - the Blessings of Liberty - comes to allow us to increase the welfare for people, there's some noble principle more important than Americans' good health?

I'm not talking about doing this a century ago when the economics couldn't support it, and I'm not talking about some impractical plan that will bankrupt the country causing far more harm than good to provide gold-plated healthcare for every citizen - though it'd be nice if the Blessings of Liberty continue to develop medical science to increase healthcare for all Americans. I'm talking about a practical and real benefit.

We're gonna use an analogy here. As the technology allowed, government has been able to ensure clean water is affordably availalbe to most Americans. That's a policy that, as technology and economics have allowed, we've been able to to for the general welfare of the citizens.

So, is that a mistake - should we say screw that priority, what's more important is a 'traditional American value' that if our forefathers had to get their own water, then we should too? Maybe not that, but there should be no government water policies - instead, water should be totally run by private companies, and whatever the higher cost to citizens or other problems that brings, the 'traditional American value' you will cite in your response is more valuable than the 'general welfare' of affordable clean water?

One of the basic flaws of right-wing and Libertarian positions, in my opinion, is how often the fixate on one so-called principle, and never finish their sentences - always leaving the consequences of some cost-cutting policy that will kill untold numbers of people with a vague end of the sentence saying in effect 'we could care less about them'.

You say "deal with the consequence", that's a pretty common version of "screw them".

But a few years ago we decided we didn't want people turned away from hospitals.

Did "we" decide that, or did some people over your ojections?

Once we did that, we sent a message to everyone that they could just ignore the issue and go to the hospital if there was a problem. Of course, treatment in an ER is the most expensive kind in existence. And health care is one of those things where if you only treat problems you pay a lot more than if you avoid them.

So once we passed that bill, we were on the road to socialized medicine, whether we realized it or not, because a system where millions use the ER for primary care is a system doomed to failure.

The problem right now is that everyone wants to have something without paying the costs. Some people don't think there should be socialized medicine, but they don't want people dying on the hospital steps either, so then what? On the other side, some folks think everyone should have unlimited access to the best possible care. Well, that's impossible. So how do you ration it?

Nobody wants to answer the difficult questions.

Sure, they do. You can't call not liking the answers their not answering.

Are those the questions?

The first one is you don't want "socialized medicine", but you don't want people allowed to not get help in trouble on the sidewalk. Answer to your hard question:

Get over your unjustified objections to "socialized medicine" and find the best way to provide care. As you like to say, this isn't rocket science.

Your other question is "how do we ration it"?

That of course does not have one simple answer, and the answer changes over time as what we can afford and the costs change.

I'd say the more important question is, who decides how we ration it?

Do we let a group of people who have a decades-long history of caring about the interests of the American people and initiated programs like Medicare and Medicaid - programs which have always been affordable, and they'll decide how to address the coming challenges on affordability - decide?

Or do we let people whose priority has for this entire period been to increase the wealth of the most wealthy by cutting any spending on the American people, who have opposed Medicare and Medicaid from day one, who have voted 38 times to repeal all the good and popular provisions of Obamacare, who recently advocated basically destroying Medicare by slashing its funding and replacing it with a voucher system, decide?

You know my answer.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

No, I didn't.

Didn't you? Seems to me you declared that you didn't need to "understand critical issues about it" in order to denigrate it. That doesn't make a great deal of sense to me, but then I prefer to understand the critical issues about something before passing judgment on it.

Enough.

Yes, that's the level of answer the question deserves. What's your answer?

That's not a very rational response. I thought the question was simple enough.

If you think I said something wrong, you can post your disagreement with as much argument as you want.

I can respond agreeing with you, disagreeing where it seems discussion isn't useful, a lengthy discussion, whatever.

On a big and not very interesting topic like Libertarianism, that's like to be disagree and discussion isn't very useful.

So..

In a thread about reason, you, as a liberal, have declared that libertarians are less rational than liberals, and you have decided to support that declaration with ... "because I said so"? That's what it seems like, which is amusingly ironic.

I post opinions that I disagree Obama ordered Benghazi, that fluoride in water is a communist plot, that I think austerity is generally a bad policy.

Of those, the only one I'm likely to care to discuss in more detail for various reasons is austerity. And I think that's fine. If you disagree on fluoride, I don't think discussion will help.

Again you are saying that you consider libertarians less rational than liberals but refuse to explain why and don't want to discuss it.

You don't seem to realize that you are undermining your own argument, do you? Again, it's rather funny in a way.

What backup do you want for informed opinions? Or did I mention any facts you are inquiring about? Specifcs, Charles, as I asked.

Happy to help out. Near the start of the thread, you said the following:

It's more visible on the right, but there's no shortage of ignorance and irrationality and excessive ideology across the political spectrum (next biggest 'moderate' or lLibertarian).

And later:

Again in my opinion we see irrational people in every group - but I tank the most on the right, fewer in the 'moderate' or 'Libertarian' factions, and the least on the left - but many.

And so I asked on what basis you decided that moderates and/or libertarians are the "next biggest" group of people where there's a "shortage of ignorance and irrationality", or why you think there are the "least on the left". Which is a pretty reasonable question given the comments you made.

Yet you have refused to explain yourself. That's not a great illustration of superior reasoning, is it?

These are opinions, and I choose to state my conclusions, rather than post thousands of lines educating about why I disagree with any number of ideologies.

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinions. However, in order for them to be considered rationally supported, they need to be, well, rationally supported. Just saying "I think X and Y and Z so there!" is all very nice, and you are certainly free to think whatever you want, but again, in a thread lamenting the decline of reason, I'd have expected better.

Sometimes more details are relevant, sometimes not. I understand this is an important passion for you, but that doesn't make it a priority for me to discuss. I have opinions.

Same again. It doesn't get any less amusing, fortunately.

You don't agree with my opinions, but browbeating to prove opinions you disagree with isn't appropriate. You can't be specific? Then what is there to discuss?

There's apparently nothing to discuss. Libertarians are less rational than liberals, which is clearly being proven by a libertarian asking for an explanation as to why that is the case, and the liberal responding saying that it's just his opinion and he doesn't want to explain why.

That's a cheap, inadequate response to the proper way to deal with this sort of disagreement.

I think it's an entirely adequate response. You made a claim, and I asked you the reason for it. That's the way discussion works.

You didn't demand I discuss why I disapprove of Stalinism or any number of other ideologies for good reason, and Libertarianism is the same, for good reason.

Well, I assume you are a reasonable and decent person who wouldn't approve of enslaving and/or murdering millions of people, so there's not really any need to ask why you disapprove of Stalinism. However, I'm not aware of libertarians ever having behaved in such a manner, so it's not a very good comparison, is it?

I've discussed it previously, it's a fringe topic I'm uninterested in spending much more time on that summarizing my position as my opinion.

If there's something specific you want to ask about, ask. If there's a factual issue in question, raise away. Otherwise, I'm stating my opinion. Take it or leave it.

Libertarians are less rational than liberals because you said so. Gotcha.

Notice how many lines already in this exchange which have covered nothing of any use as a topic, including the good or bad of Libertarianism? You seem to want to waste that time.

Yet again.. the thread is about the "end of reason". I fail to see how wanting to discuss how various groups deal with reasoning is anything but on topic, personally.

My observations of samples of each group.

And is it possible that your observations are at least somewhat colored by your own viewpoints and prejudices? I always leave open that possibility, myself. However, even that included, I wouldn't claim a group was less rational than another without a number of specific arguments to back it up. You clearly have different standards, and that's okay too.

We're about there. Note these are only responses, each with a suggestion that the topic be dropped for a variety of reasons, which you refuse.

You can drop it any time you like! Just stop responding to me, gosh, I'm not going to just keep replying to myself!

I posted it prominently and have several times, but he explains why many thing that are bad for us we treat as having value in the GDP, and many important things, we do not.

Well, the first instance of the word "Kennedy" in the thread was "I've posted that Robert Kennedy quote...". So I don't know what quote you mean. Wouldn't it have been easier to just tell me what you're talking about rather than paraphrasing him?

I don't think you are able to make a reasonable judgement about it. So no point in our discussing the issue - either of us. Your opinion would be unneeded or insulting, depending.

But I wasn't talking about me making any sort of judgment at all. I was asking you. Do you think you are ideological or not? It's a pretty simple question.

I freely admit that I have ideologies that I espouse, if that helps any.

Let's say that we'll blame this time on my bringing it up, and that we agree on what I said otherwise.

I can agree with the first part of that. The part before the comma.

If you're going to demand that every opinion on Republicans, Democrats, Libertarianis, or any other political faction get a book-long explanation, then be consistent.

Demand? I demand nothing. I simply ask. And then I respond. That's how discussion/debate works.

You are free to refuse to answer. And I am free to point out the irony of your refusal.

And if some Scientologist comes here and baits me about it, saying why don't you prove every opinion you have in detail while they write thousands of lines disagreeing demanding more, and I respond to all of them, sorry, I'm not interested - and I'm not interested in a similar discussion with an adherent of what I view as a fundementally flawed ideology of Libertarianism, that I've discussed more previously. If they just want to bait with 'you didn't discuss all the details of Scientology, so I'll criticize your opinion', sorry, not interested.

Actually, Craig, you are the one who did the baiting here. Complete with childishly changing "libertarianism" to "ilibertarianism" with an extra "I" on the front. It's directly quoted in this post.

That's why I'm asking you to prove reasons for such comments, here in this lovely thread all about reason.

I've had Seventh Day evangelists knock on my door. I've spent hours discussing our opinions. Other times, I've ended the discussion in seconds.

How lovely. Did I knock on your door? Or did you post in a public thread called "The End of Reason?" providing opinions you refuse to substantiate?

I'm pretty sure it was the latter.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

What traditional American ideals?

You know -- hard work, ingenuity, self-reliance. Those things that used to matter.

No, I think that one is pretty supportive of the general Welfare and the *Blessings* of Liberty that people having healthcare is better than them not, when it's reasonable.

That's a rather tortured reading of the Declaration of Independence. Yes, I realize you're using the typical liberal expansion of "general welfare", a fairly recent development applied to a term whose meaning was previously universally accepted as not applying to specific benefits for individuals. Even so, the idea that colonists who staged a revolt over a tea tax would have been in favor of massive income taxes to support giving health care benefits to strangers is, well, far-fetched would be an understatement.

The DoI mentions a right to the pursuit of happiness, not the right to happiness itself. And something is inconsistent with liberty if it requires someone be forced to work to provide it to another. The founders were not advocates of what we call "positive rights".

Or are you referring to some traditional value - I'll let you quote and cite whatever you are referring to - that says since our forefathers paid for their doctor the old-fashioned way, and likely millions lost their lives who couldn't afford that, that as our economy - the Blessings of Liberty - comes to allow us to increase the welfare for people, there's some noble principle more important than Americans' good health?

Yes, there is a noble principle more important than Americans' good health. It's called: if you want to have good health, arrange for it yourself. If you are concerned about the chance of a rare but debilitating illness, then buy insurance to cover that possibility -- real insurance, not a welfare program that pretends to be insurance.

If the American founders actually wanted all of these social programs, they would have encoded them in the Constitution and legislated them themselves. They did not, because the very idea would have been completely antithetical to them. They fought a war to secure their freedom. There wasn't even an income tax until 100 years ago.

They'd be shocked beyond belief at our current welfare state, with millions of people being wholly supported by the labor of others.

We're gonna use an analogy here. As the technology allowed, government has been able to ensure clean water is affordably availalbe to most Americans. That's a policy that, as technology and economics have allowed, we've been able to to for the general welfare of the citizens.

So, is that a mistake - should we say screw that priority, what's more important is a 'traditional American value' that if our forefathers had to get their own water, then we should too?

There efficiency of scale arguments with respect to certain public utilities that really do not apply to most other markets. And even in the case of water, what has providing cheap water for the "general welfare of the citizens" gotten us? Rapid depletion of fossil water resources, fighting over rivers while people put golf courses in the desert.

Maybe not that, but there should be no government water policies - instead, water should be totally run by private companies, and whatever the higher cost to citizens or other problems that brings, the 'traditional American value' you will cite in your response is more valuable than the 'general welfare' of affordable clean water?

Yes, because they're doing such a bang-up job that the only people who drink municipal water in many cities are those who can't afford anything better. Regardless of that, water is not comparable to health care. Health care is not a utility.

One of the basic flaws of right-wing and Libertarian positions, in my opinion, is how often the fixate on one so-called principle, and never finish their sentences - always leaving the consequences of some cost-cutting policy that will kill untold numbers of people with a vague end of the sentence saying in effect 'we could care less about them'.

Yes, I said in my post that people on all sides only talk about what they want and not the consequences.

In the case of people on the right and certain libertarians, it is the consequences of not having universal health care. And in the case of those on the left, it is the negative consequences of universal health care.

You say "deal with the consequence", that's a pretty common version of "screw them".

Yes, pretty much. I'd be okay with the government subsidizing basic health-disaster insurance and routine maintenance care for the poor. Otherwise? Pay for it yourself.

Sure, they do. You can't call not liking the answers their not answering.

Are those the questions?

No, they are not. I was speaking in general terms about the avoidance of the difficult issues by all sides.

The first one is you don't want "socialized medicine", but you don't want people allowed to not get help in trouble on the sidewalk. Answer to your hard question:

Again, I was speaking in general terms.

Get over your unjustified objections to "socialized medicine" and find the best way to provide care.

I never had any unjustified objections. Only justified ones. And using "get over it" as an argument in a thread called "The End of Reason?" just nicked my ironymeter yet again.