Ugh. Please don't indulge the left in their desire to be referred to by the self-congratulatory term "progressive." There's nothing progressive about leftism.
The fourth point doesn't follow at all from the first three. It may, strictly speaking, be true in that that's what leftists assume, but that's just another word for making something up. You don't understand the arguments against your position, so you just imagine something uncharitable.
As for how we fix the rigged system without a powerful activist government...well...the answer's right there in the question. Government is the most powerful rent-seeking tool known to man. How else do people rig the system, if not by lobbying the government to do it for them?
Eh. I've heard both justification for why it's okay to tax the hell out of the top 1%. But anyway, the point is that the vast majority of libertarians aren'tpart of the top 1% of income earners.
you keep resisting this sort of thing and the only thing we can think of is that you don’t want to benefit others at your expense
Okay, so basically you don't understand why we oppose your agenda, so you just make something up. Got it.
Because, to honestly engage with this idea means admitting that they will have to give up some of the inherent benefits they enjoy. Their lives would be harder, and they don’t want to hear that.
You guys on the left need to get your story straight. When you're trying to sell your program, you tell us that it will benefit the 99% at the expense of the 1%, and that they're so well off that they won't notice much of a difference anyway. But when you're trying to smear the opposition, we're a bunch of greedy bastards who don't support your agenda because it will benefit others at our expense.
This could be consistent if libertarians were all rich, but we're not. Given that neither most libertarians nor most leftists are rich, you have it backwards. Non-rich leftists are greedy, and non-rich libertarians are opposing handouts which would ostensibly benefit us.
Man is not wise. He is selfish and grasping because he is short-sighted and will not be enlightened to his true nature. He lives in fear of powers which might act in restraint of his selfishness. His self-interest is all-consuming, his powers of delusion very great.
This is one of the key arguments against activist government. Reckless though man may be in managing his own affairs, he is more reckless still in managing the affairs of others.
Leftism arises from the failure to apply this principle consistently.
So, presumably, Zimmerman chased Martin down and started attacking him, at which point Martin defended himself.
The "and started attacking him" is the point of contention, is it not? If that's true, hang him high. But to the best of my knowledge that remains speculative at this time.
It's not even clear that they're objectively inferior in all cases. For subjects where each lesson builds on previous lessons, it's very important that a student not fall behind, because then nothing makes sense for the rest of the semester. With online learning, a student can go at his own pace. Maybe if he's slow, he doesn't make it through all of the material by the end of the semester, but he gets through a lot more than he would if he fell behind on the third week and never caught up. Also, when listening to a lecture, my mind tends to wander. I would have found the ability to pause and rewind a lecture to be invaluable. For technical subjects, I would think that a well-designed online-learning program might be superior to traditional classroom education.
What I'm getting at is that :"Zimmerman approached Martin and started shoving him around, Martin fought back, and then Zimmerman shot him" is a perfectly plausible story, consistent with the facts as I understand them. But so is "Zimmerman approached Martin to question him, Martin took offense and attacked him, and then Zimmerman shot him."
And then he initiated a physical altercation. Even if he only shot Trayvon after Trayvon turned the tables and pinned him with his hands around Zimmerman’s throat, the only reason an altercation existed was because Zimmerman created one. Last I checked, it was illegal to walk up to people on the street and get physical with them.
Is it known for a fact that Zimmerman initiated a physical altercation? I haven't seen any confirmation of this.
We live in a world where a young black man knows that he could be shot dead while simply walking down the street...
To be clear on the statistics here, while this is technically true, odds are eleven to one that the guy doing it is black. "White(ish Hispanic) guy kills black guy" is indeed very much a man-bites-dog story. Note that Hispanics are lumped in with whites in those statistics, so non-Hispanic-white-on-black homicides are even rarer than suggested by that table.
Also, it's not entirely clear what happened at this point, and it may never be, but there is some evidence suggesting that he was shot while committing battery, not while simply walking down the street. Characterizing this as "Young black man shot dead while simply walking down the street" is premature and needlessly inflammatory. Zimmerman appears to have handled the situation badly, but the insinuation that he murdered Martin in cold blood is not supported by the facts.
Nobody's objecting to the development of new technology (well, unless it's genetic). The objection is to funding for research being allocated politically.
It doesn't strike me as particularly meaningful to say that nuclear energy is worse than coal in terms of efficiency. There's the heat loss, sure, but that's academic. What really matters are the material inputs and pollution per unit of usable energy.
Sorry--I meant over the course of a lifetime. Everybody is a taker in childhood. If not from the government, then from their parents. And that's not a problem. Being a taker is okay when you're too young or old to work. As long as you put in enough in between to make up for it.
That guy who said "Keep your government hands off my Medicare?" Total welfare queen.
Non-means-tested programs are tricky to assess. Some people really are paying their fair shares. Someone at the 90th percentile of the lifetime income distribution for his age cohort would likely have been able to save all the money he paid in Medicare taxes and use that to pay for private medical insurance, if we didn't have Medicare. So in that sense, it's not really welfare. But someone at the tenth percentile, who paid in a fraction of what the other guy paid but gets the same benefits, is definitely getting a huge subsidy.
The reason conservatives want to cut butter but not guns is that the people who support gun spending think that it's necessary. It's not something that they support as a jobs program (well, some politicians probably do, but not the true believers).
Also, we don't spend about as much on guns as on butter. Military spending is about 1/6 of total government spending (including state). Police and prisons just don't add that much--5% of total government spending, tops. So we're looking at well under 25% of govenment spending going to guns. Most to almost all of the rest is butter, depending on whether you include things like civilian infrastructure and education.
How is it that people who are deeply concerned with the welfare of the poor, and who are totally not racist, regard sending jobs overseas as a bad thing?
Makers and takers is a real thing. There are people who get more in private government benefits than they pay in taxes, and there are people who get less in private government benefits than they pay in taxes.
The alleged proof by contradiction, wherein anyone who gets anything from the government ever must be a taker, and therefore everyone is a taker, and therefore the whole concept is just plain stupid, is a strawman. It's about net contributions or receipts, not about any one particular transaction.
Clinton, yes, Obama, no. Remember the Peace Dividend? Under Clinton, military spending declined in nominal terms from $298 billion in 1989 to $265 billion in 1996. It didn't exceed its 1989 peak of $304 billion until 2001. And remember, that's in nominal terms.
Military spending is vastly more expensive than social welfare spending.
This is probably true for a definition of "social welfare spending" tailored to create the illusion that government spends vastly more on the military than on social welfare spending. Military spending is roughly equal to the combined total of Medicare and Medicaid alone. Throw in all the other Federal and state welfare programs, and social welfare spending exceeds military spending by a considerable margin.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Quick, turn on E! so we can see if he’s dating JWoww!”
The waveform has not yet collapsed.
That usually doesn't set in until middle age.
"
I'm not a fan of Santorum, but in his defense, if that transcript is accurate, it was indeed bullshit.
On “Defining Liberalism: A deontological account”
Ugh. Please don't indulge the left in their desire to be referred to by the self-congratulatory term "progressive." There's nothing progressive about leftism.
"
Human nature evolves, and I don’t think the tribal impulse is a leading aspect of human nature in 2012.
Eh? Shouldn't be, sure. But isn't?
On “Cold Fusionism”
The fourth point doesn't follow at all from the first three. It may, strictly speaking, be true in that that's what leftists assume, but that's just another word for making something up. You don't understand the arguments against your position, so you just imagine something uncharitable.
As for how we fix the rigged system without a powerful activist government...well...the answer's right there in the question. Government is the most powerful rent-seeking tool known to man. How else do people rig the system, if not by lobbying the government to do it for them?
"
Eh. I've heard both justification for why it's okay to tax the hell out of the top 1%. But anyway, the point is that the vast majority of libertarians aren't part of the top 1% of income earners.
you keep resisting this sort of thing and the only thing we can think of is that you don’t want to benefit others at your expense
Okay, so basically you don't understand why we oppose your agenda, so you just make something up. Got it.
"
Because, to honestly engage with this idea means admitting that they will have to give up some of the inherent benefits they enjoy. Their lives would be harder, and they don’t want to hear that.
You guys on the left need to get your story straight. When you're trying to sell your program, you tell us that it will benefit the 99% at the expense of the 1%, and that they're so well off that they won't notice much of a difference anyway. But when you're trying to smear the opposition, we're a bunch of greedy bastards who don't support your agenda because it will benefit others at our expense.
This could be consistent if libertarians were all rich, but we're not. Given that neither most libertarians nor most leftists are rich, you have it backwards. Non-rich leftists are greedy, and non-rich libertarians are opposing handouts which would ostensibly benefit us.
"
But at least we stay off your lawn.
"
Man is not wise. He is selfish and grasping because he is short-sighted and will not be enlightened to his true nature. He lives in fear of powers which might act in restraint of his selfishness. His self-interest is all-consuming, his powers of delusion very great.
This is one of the key arguments against activist government. Reckless though man may be in managing his own affairs, he is more reckless still in managing the affairs of others.
Leftism arises from the failure to apply this principle consistently.
On “The Violent Gang Member in This Picture Is Easily Identifiable By His Tell-Tale Outerwear”
So, presumably, Zimmerman chased Martin down and started attacking him, at which point Martin defended himself.
The "and started attacking him" is the point of contention, is it not? If that's true, hang him high. But to the best of my knowledge that remains speculative at this time.
"
The first one is murder, the second is not. The distinction strikes me as somewhat important.
On “Log in, glaze over, tune out”
That's the problem with philosophy. All theory, no empiricism.
"
It's not even clear that they're objectively inferior in all cases. For subjects where each lesson builds on previous lessons, it's very important that a student not fall behind, because then nothing makes sense for the rest of the semester. With online learning, a student can go at his own pace. Maybe if he's slow, he doesn't make it through all of the material by the end of the semester, but he gets through a lot more than he would if he fell behind on the third week and never caught up. Also, when listening to a lecture, my mind tends to wander. I would have found the ability to pause and rewind a lecture to be invaluable. For technical subjects, I would think that a well-designed online-learning program might be superior to traditional classroom education.
On “The Violent Gang Member in This Picture Is Easily Identifiable By His Tell-Tale Outerwear”
What I'm getting at is that :"Zimmerman approached Martin and started shoving him around, Martin fought back, and then Zimmerman shot him" is a perfectly plausible story, consistent with the facts as I understand them. But so is "Zimmerman approached Martin to question him, Martin took offense and attacked him, and then Zimmerman shot him."
"
And then he initiated a physical altercation. Even if he only shot Trayvon after Trayvon turned the tables and pinned him with his hands around Zimmerman’s throat, the only reason an altercation existed was because Zimmerman created one. Last I checked, it was illegal to walk up to people on the street and get physical with them.
Is it known for a fact that Zimmerman initiated a physical altercation? I haven't seen any confirmation of this.
"
It's not racism. It's Bayesianism.
"
We live in a world where a young black man knows that he could be shot dead while simply walking down the street...
To be clear on the statistics here, while this is technically true, odds are eleven to one that the guy doing it is black. "White(ish Hispanic) guy kills black guy" is indeed very much a man-bites-dog story. Note that Hispanics are lumped in with whites in those statistics, so non-Hispanic-white-on-black homicides are even rarer than suggested by that table.
Also, it's not entirely clear what happened at this point, and it may never be, but there is some evidence suggesting that he was shot while committing battery, not while simply walking down the street. Characterizing this as "Young black man shot dead while simply walking down the street" is premature and needlessly inflammatory. Zimmerman appears to have handled the situation badly, but the insinuation that he murdered Martin in cold blood is not supported by the facts.
On “Our Civilization’s Essence”
Nobody's objecting to the development of new technology (well, unless it's genetic). The objection is to funding for research being allocated politically.
"
It doesn't strike me as particularly meaningful to say that nuclear energy is worse than coal in terms of efficiency. There's the heat loss, sure, but that's academic. What really matters are the material inputs and pollution per unit of usable energy.
On “In Which I Posit the Theory that Fiscal Conservatives Should Vote for a Democrat POTUS – (and government spending advocates should vote GOP)”
Sorry--I meant over the course of a lifetime. Everybody is a taker in childhood. If not from the government, then from their parents. And that's not a problem. Being a taker is okay when you're too young or old to work. As long as you put in enough in between to make up for it.
"
That guy who said "Keep your government hands off my Medicare?" Total welfare queen.
Non-means-tested programs are tricky to assess. Some people really are paying their fair shares. Someone at the 90th percentile of the lifetime income distribution for his age cohort would likely have been able to save all the money he paid in Medicare taxes and use that to pay for private medical insurance, if we didn't have Medicare. So in that sense, it's not really welfare. But someone at the tenth percentile, who paid in a fraction of what the other guy paid but gets the same benefits, is definitely getting a huge subsidy.
The reason conservatives want to cut butter but not guns is that the people who support gun spending think that it's necessary. It's not something that they support as a jobs program (well, some politicians probably do, but not the true believers).
Also, we don't spend about as much on guns as on butter. Military spending is about 1/6 of total government spending (including state). Police and prisons just don't add that much--5% of total government spending, tops. So we're looking at well under 25% of govenment spending going to guns. Most to almost all of the rest is butter, depending on whether you include things like civilian infrastructure and education.
"
How is it that people who are deeply concerned with the welfare of the poor, and who are totally not racist, regard sending jobs overseas as a bad thing?
"
Makers and takers is a real thing. There are people who get more in private government benefits than they pay in taxes, and there are people who get less in private government benefits than they pay in taxes.
The alleged proof by contradiction, wherein anyone who gets anything from the government ever must be a taker, and therefore everyone is a taker, and therefore the whole concept is just plain stupid, is a strawman. It's about net contributions or receipts, not about any one particular transaction.
"
Clinton, yes, Obama, no. Remember the Peace Dividend? Under Clinton, military spending declined in nominal terms from $298 billion in 1989 to $265 billion in 1996. It didn't exceed its 1989 peak of $304 billion until 2001. And remember, that's in nominal terms.
"
Military spending is vastly more expensive than social welfare spending.
This is probably true for a definition of "social welfare spending" tailored to create the illusion that government spends vastly more on the military than on social welfare spending. Military spending is roughly equal to the combined total of Medicare and Medicaid alone. Throw in all the other Federal and state welfare programs, and social welfare spending exceeds military spending by a considerable margin.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.