I was thinking, in between my bouts of obsessive hurricane viewing and trawling conservapedia for gems of 'wisdom'1, about freedom.Now we all know that America loves freedom. And we know that nasty people with beards don't love freedom. Neither do people who blow up aeroplanes, or say that global warming is happening, or suggest that science alone be taught in science lessons. Richard Dawkins almost definitely hates freedom, and so does Gillian McKeith2.
The problem is this. And don't go expecting me to come up with any kind of argument or conclusion here because I'm just spouting crap to avoid having to go and write my hurricane essay.
Throughout time, there have been a lot of people who were not very intelligent, or easily misguided. The saving grace of the situation was the few such people (village idiots, that kind of thing) whos views were actually dangerous3 tended not to be born very often, and rarely get together to have a big think about the meaning of things. The views of the public and the views of the media moderated each other, with a good help of Government policy, finished with a hint of Patriotic bias. Then along came the internet.
It is a great thing, I believe, that through the internet information has become more readily available. The problem being that it is entirely unmoderated, and anyone can use it as a platform for their views. The climate of misinformation is merely a product of the climate of information freedom, and I for one do not believe it to be something that can be stopped.
I just wish they'd come up with something better than the Hurricane Katrina entry in Conservapedia.
---
1. And in one extreme case, typing in "hurricane" to conservapedia to see what came up. Unfortunately, all I got was Katrina. Conservapedia has a little way to go before people actually start to use it as a source for reference in my opinion.
2. Freedom hates Gillian McKeith.
3. Of course, this is entirely subjective. I think someone who thinks relativity has 'nothing to do with physics' is a hopeless, dribbling moron of epic proportions, but they are of little danger to me because if they ever come near me, I'll hit them with an SR textbook. However, if I told them that I do not believe that fossils are put there to fool unbelievers, to them I am the antichrist.
12 comments:
I find it interesting that people who consider themselves pro-freedom nonetheless seem to think that the government has a right to legislate on marriage, religion and reproduction.
Wait, does that make me a libertarian?
Also: I moderated your mother.
Nathan, you'd hate libertarians. They are radically free-trade, anti-minimum wage, anti-labor law, and - generally - pro-war/aggressive foreign policy. But yes, they are hands off with social issues, making them much more likable than conservatives.
Alyssa, your entire argument is refuted by the beliefs of the new prophet: Carl Everett. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/features/cover/news/2000/07/19/everett_flashback/
And his picture: http://seattle.mariners.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=113946
Gee, I consider my self pseudo egalitarian conservative libertarian... (which, contrary to what a number of people suggest, makes me a libertarian first, because that's the noun, then a conservative, then an egalitarian).
But yes, I am free-trade (but personally support fair trade), anti-minimun wage (but subscribe to the one rule for the industrialist) and a mix of Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian on foreign policy. Which is why I make so few friends when discussing politics. Everyone hates me, expcept my fellow libertarians. Thank god for my charming personality.
Can someone explain to me what a psuedo egalitarian conservative libertarian is?
Also, DON'T USE YOUR LABELS ON ME!! DON'T TRY TO PUT ME IN A BOX I AM MORE THAN A MACHINE!!11
I'd never judge someone by their heroes (Hey Tom, give my love to Sally) but wasn't Ford an, um, huge antisemite?
I guess the answer is that I'm fiercely pro-freedom when it comes to individuals and things you might do in your house, but less so for groups of people, for what I think are pretty good reasons.
I also don't believe in the Invisible hand, or at least in the benevolence of the inivisible hand.
I guess you could say I'm Old Labour- like, really old labour. Clement Atlee and Willaim Ewert Gladstone old labour.
Yes, yes Ford was a huge antisemite. But then there's a reason he deserves respect in the industrial arena, and not so much in the political. In the same way Tommy was a good President, and very eloquent, but blind(ed) and hypocritical. Good thing I don't respect either of them that much.
Me, my first instincts are for libertarian principles (like gay marriage), but not always (I accept what exists, and am loathe to change it unless a greater good comes from it), making my libertarianism tempered by conservatism. Assuming those, I'm all egalitarian, for those under 18 (once you're an adult, tough), hence the pseudo part. Basically, though I don't see why the government has a right to tell me what to do assuming I haven't harmed or harrassed anyone. Which is why I'm pro gay marriage, pro any possible religious practices, pro any possible discrimination (in the private domain), and anti drug war.
Oh, and I see no reason why I (personally) shouldn't be able to sell my vote in an election.
I can't stomach libertarianism because I have no faith in man's ability to compete without rules. If you don't think we need a minimum wage, check out the horrific number of states that had minimum wage below $6/hour. $5.15 an hour - like my great state - translates into $10,300/year BEFORE taxes. That is so beyond unlivable, I want to vomit. The sad thing is, I know people who work 2 of those jobs just to survive (of course, they're making around a whopping $7/hour - sweet, 80 hours a week, 50 weeks a year to make 28k before taxes). No regulations? Look at how well business takes care of our environment. Look at the horrendous working conditions during the industrial revolution (and in the third world today).
Since meritocracy is one of the more fair standards around, I find pure capitalism an easy idea to embrace ideologically. I get a nice picture in my head of hard-working (but still smiling) business men competing against each other with the best man winning. But unfortunately, with a pure invisible hand, society also loses - and so does the non-industrial class. And unionization alone is not the answer.
I can get behind you on all the social freedoms. Private affairs are exactly that: private.
I find it difficult to pick specific presidential ideologies that I endorse. I liked FDR's creation of the welfare state, Wilson's trustbusting, Kennedy/LBJ's civil rights legislation, and Washington's sheer studliness - seriously, could you pick a better human being to be the first president? Oh, and I hate Andrew Jackson with the fire of a thousand suns.
I generally like the idea of a strong Supreme Court - in conservative or liberal hands - because I am moderately terrified of the pressure of idiots and bankrollers on elected officials. Robert Dahl, a Harvard prof, wrote a book encouraging the U.S. to become more democratic. I couldn't disagree more. One of the reasons our government hasn't fallen is the wonderful, blessed amount of insulation. With the full-term campaign cycle, that insulation is lessening, and partisan politics (essential to win races) is overshadowing good policy-making. With this worry in mind, the Supreme Court is one bastion of safety; if anyone tries to go too crazy, at least the court will shut them down.
Wow, I shouted for joy when I read about your hatred of Jackson. And disagreement with a more democratic US (particularly with the fine specimens of people who don't vote, and the lovely 75% who vote straight party ticket).
As for minimum wage, I recognise that we have it, so can't really repeal it, but I do think that the feds should keep out of it. It's ridiculous to legislate for rural Wyoming and downtown LA at the same time. Just by jumping into the fray they've opened that can of worms. Leave the states be. Let their own citizens determine what works, assuming it complies with both thier own constitutions and the US one. $15,000 a year goes a lot futher in ND than in NY.
Also, I don't like wavering standards, imposition of beliefs in some sections but not the others. Which is why I think the government should get out of every aspect, not just some.
But I do see that the government should treat all people equal, but shouldn't force us to. If I want to be a racist, let me be. If I want to hire only young people, let me be. If I want to promote men over women, then I should be able to, assuming I'm in a private business.
God bless the Supreme Court, but I'm not liking a liberal one (expands the government a bit too much). I still prefer a liberal SC to a what we've had in DC since 1994 (I don't remember much before...).
And as for environment, I'm actually quite liberal in that stance, seeing the consequences have near immediate impact on the population, and affects those who have no say (Consider the children!). Same reason I like fiscal responsibility. Don't force your mistakes on others. Leave me be.
Wow. Your minimum wage uses the same numbers as ours. But ours is in pounds.
Post a Comment