Home › The Lodge
The real difference between the left and the right
Its not tax policy or abortion or the Donald. Not really. No, its the ageless debate between the immutability of nature v the Blank slate. The debate stretches back centuries. Here's a good read. Its dense, but its worth a look. Basically, the idea is that human nature has certain ageless unchanging features, which bound our choices and limits our politics, or it doesn't, and the world is whatever we make it. All political debates take place in this context, whether we acknowledge that fact or not.
https://niskanencenter.org/blog/why-not-give-neoliberalism-a-chance-to-save-the-world/
here's a shorter, easier-to-read summary, written by a liberal.
http://theweek.com/articles/601420/left-vs-realitybased-community?utm_source=links&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=twitter
https://niskanencenter.org/blog/why-not-give-neoliberalism-a-chance-to-save-the-world/
here's a shorter, easier-to-read summary, written by a liberal.
http://theweek.com/articles/601420/left-vs-realitybased-community?utm_source=links&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=twitter
Replies
None of my pio bait has worked thus far. Even pulling a speech from Atlas Shrugged didn't work.
ah yes. . .facebook. It has its virtues. And its drawback.
Yes, but it will be open book.
I wish that I had subscribed to that thread so that I could find it again. I read enough of it to get the gist though.
But this just presents the extremes. The actual argument is what takes place where the Venn circles overlap - how much can we and should we constrain the darker side of human nature and try to improve upon anarchy? (not Anarchy)
I don't agree. I think the argument at the margins is THE argument. Everything else is tinkering. If there's broad agreement on basic principles, then whether or not Marginal tax rates are at 31% or 35% seems trivial by comparison.
I hope this is relevant to this thread: I can never tell.
I'm just shaking my head here. It basically defines a conservative as someone who wants things to stay the same. Liberals are those who want a change. So by definition, this must be true.
So, are you saying it's either unregulated complete laissez-faire or a planned or state-owned economy and accompanying political structure - to the extent they can be separated? If so I can't agree. If not I misunderstand you.
Even not at the extremes I think there are arguments inside the big tent that are not quibbles over a few numbers, such as:
- flat, progressive or no taxation on income? And, what constitutes income?
- draft or all-volunteer military?
- what blend of monetary and fiscal policy?
- how much regulation?
- accounting for race, gender, etc. or not?
And many more. Actually, Keynes or Austria is a good example because it matters, and only at the extremes will you find positions endorsing one to the exclusion of the other.
Isn't that the definition of conservative?
oh yeah, this is good stuff.
(I hope you're typing a page long rebuttal)
Ha! Of geology.... not the deep thinker about civilization and politics that you are. Wait, that is you, isn't it?
Well, you know, I work out.
Were I not so fond of you and your intellect I might inquire if you have grown ever more conservative as more and more of your grey cells become red muscle.
Yes, but Creekguy presumes that the fault lines between "liberals" and "conservatives" is never changing.
I could easily argue that everything good in this country was driven by core beliefs of classical liberalism (democracy, individual rights, freedom of speech and religion, property rights, rule of law) as distinct from social liberalism or other political ideologies.
The impetus of the American Revolution - classical liberalism
The impetus for abolition - classical liberalism
The impetus for women's suffrage - classical liberalism
The rejection of fascism? Classical liberalism
The rejection of communism? Classical liberalism
Where is classical liberalism most embraced today? In the Republican Party.
So opposition to gay rights and reproductive rights is classical liberalism? How about opposition to Muslims and immigrants?
The Cato Institute has been in support since early in this century for example. Here's something from 2010:
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/moral-constitutional-case-right-gay-marriage
Richard Epstein has written reams supporting SSM, while at the same supporting the right of somebody to not support it.
As for immigrants, classical liberalism is for nothing if not for property rights - including the ownership and use of one's own abilities. The free movement of capital and labor is a core economic doctrine. That's why I'm the most pro-immigration of anybody who's ever been on this board.
As for women's reproductive rights, if a woman wants to use birth control, nobody at the Mises Institute is going to stop her. The problem arises when the government tells somebody else that they must pay for it.
ha. damning with faint praise?
And none of that is supported by the current GOP
I will wait to see what Sherb says so I know what to think.