I thought you had already told me what i believe, so went would i stage my views. Well, i have but you told me i couldn't it and was wrong, so went should i bother to restate it?
Private property does not exist in animals in the sense that humans have it. It's a false equivalence. Animals defend territory I some instances, but generally on an individual basis with relatively evenly matched teeth and claws. Where there is not an even match (e.g. An individual versus a pack) then if there is competition for the same resource then the individual loses. Whilst the concept of private property can exist without government your ability to hold onto property is limited if there is an imbalance of power. Thus without structures to enforce the rule of law then much like a mugging in a park the unnamed individual loses to the gang with knives unless they are a particularly bloody mined yorkshireman in central park that convinces them via debate to leave him alone. When societal groups are small then family relationships can dominate,but in larger groups government of some form emerges to ensure rights.
The Liberal party was using a form of modern liberalism at the time, which would be considered centre right, much like the 1930s Democrat mainstream of the1930s. Not very fascist. Mussolini mostly got support in the UK from the harder right, although not exclusively along left-right lines. The same is true of eugenics, which had strong, and early support on the right (,e.g. Kitchener). You still seem eager to ascribe labels or behaviour to those you oppose politically that do not match reality or history. Burleighs book is one I like and would help you understand more and get over your new convert zealotry. I suspect you are originally from an Eastern block nation.
This seems to hardly be restricted to the left. In 1910 it was suggested by the Liberal party in the UK that the 'criminally feeble-minded' should be forced into new workhouses and sterilised. And that was from a party vehmently opposed to anarchism and Marxism, and was also enthusiastic in its support of free trade. Or maybe you think the solidly anti-communist South Africa of the 1980s was left wing. Or the USA prior to the 1860s? You seem to want to ascribe stuff to your bogeymen and ignore other evidence.
Comparison to the Nazis is extreme. To me, it is also painful as my wife's grandmother was a guest of that regime in Auschwitz. (My wife is very upset with this comparison) The game theory paper is essentially a review paper, and is only one example and would seem to be "a researcher believes", not even "researchers". In particular, it looks at animal studies but lacks human studies, rather appeals to political philosophers. If you seriously think that if you leave your front door open and dismantle the police you possessions will be respected, you are delusional. As for the word authoritarian, I like to use the dictionary term "favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom." as opposed to the definition "there are taxes". If you are just going to redefine words when it suits you then rational debate is impossible. Goodbye.
It is simply a short hand for having to dig through an present a larger boxy of evidence. It is not necessarily a logical fallacy unless the larger body of evidence does not exist. It's also a statement of fact in an of itself. This is seen informal internet forum so I'm not going to spend the effort to organise detailed citations as I would for an academic paper.
It's multi-factorial, I expect. Diet, healthcare, exercise, and more. It's a trend seen in other Western nations too. In China you have older people who have had to be active all their lives, and so that will be currently having benefits, but the 20-somethings in China might not have the same experience. In 30 or 40 years I expect China and the USA will be pretty much level for health lifespan. Note that it's healthy lifespan, not overall lifespan.
I consider the authoritarian label to be as insulting as it is incorrect.
Well, and again you demonstrate that you are not interested in rational discussion. To wit: (1) This discussion started with you calling me a "conservative"; I responded "I'm not a conservative, I'm a classical liberal, here is why the two are not the same:...
My response was to indicate that many believe that conservatism and classical liberalism to be the same thing. That seems like rational debate to me.
That's your opinion, not borne out by evidence, though.
There are many political scientists and economists that have proven that point.
You are confusing having opinions with evidence. It's not always backed by evidence.
Your ignorance of that work doesn't change the correctness of their arguments. While they make long argument, it's also pretty obvious: any political ideology that involves imposition of social norms, redistribution of income, government attempts to increase equality of outcome for different groups is necessarily authoritarian
There is some merit in this argument, however, I believe in the minimum amount of this to ensure people have reasonable lives, and the minimum interference of government in other areas of people's lives.
it involves government taking of private property
Private property would not exist in any meaningful way for an extended period without government backing it up, though. It would be nice if it didn't require this, but realistically it does.
and interference in freedom of association, if necessary at gunpoint, hence authoritarian.
Er, I don't see much interference of freedom of association from the libertarian left, so that seems to be inserting your prejudice and imposing it on what you believe to be the views of others, when it is not.
It's also quite obvious simply by looking at the economy: European conservatives, social democrats, and progressives have created systems in which the majority of economic activity is under state control; more than 50% of state control over economic interactions is reasonably considered authoritarian (with 100% being totalitarian).
If you think that, I don't think you know what authoritarian means, which is probably why we argue at cross-purposes.
You believe I am playing mindless word games, but to me it seems like you are also doing so. I am happy to agree to disagree, though.
I grew up in Europe and even voted there, became a registered Democrat after naturalization and then became an independent, so my political positions are rooted in ample experience and I have demonstrated my willingness to change my political positions based on rational arguments.
Yet you seem to have the close-minded views of a true believer, which baffles me. No matter what I say to say that I am not what you consider me to be, despite me indicating I am not, you are intransigent. I consider the authoritarian label to be as insulting as it is incorrect.
Been there, done that on the multi-dimensional aspect. Two dimensions are a start, if limiting. Often the questions lack sufficient context, though.
If you want to define classical liberalism as libertarianism with some understanding of human nature and consequences, I might agree with you.
anything outside the bottom right quadrant is authoritarian
That's your opinion, not borne out by evidence, though. I mentioned your suggestion that you considered me to be authoritarian on this basis, and I now need to clean tea off the bed sheets. She's American, by the way.
it is very hard to have a rational debate with someone who has such a binary view of the world which is apparently either unfettered capitalism or authoritarianism
Well, yes it is, and that is your view. After all, you hold the view that everybody to the right of center is a conservative.
I contrast, I recognize that there are many political viewpoints: classical liberal, libertarians, conservatives, democratic socialists, communists, etc. All of those groups are capable of rational discourse, even if they vehemently disagree. And then there are American progressives and American liberals, who are different from all the aforementioned groups.
No, I don't think everyone right-of-centre is a conservative. There are people who are part of the authoritarian right, and I have a right libertarian friend, and an American conservative friend. Your characterisation of the American left, though, seems very odd, especially given that it does not at all fit with American liberals that I know. Your view seems very close minded and partisan. And you also accused me of being left authoritarian, as that seems to fit your pre-conceived ideas, yet according to your own preferred test is not the case.
what I do believe is that American conservatism is currently the home of classical liberals. I would note that this it's not the same as saying the GOP, as to me it looks like Conservatism spans both major US parties, with some right libertarian and right authoritarians in the GOP, and modern liberals in the Democrats, and nuance half-a-dozen socialists, and even a few soft right authoritarians.
I think you need to work through the range of possible consequences in what is a complex system of feedbacks. Whilst i have a set of principles and hopes for outcomes (e.g. Individual liberty and personal fulfillment on small and large scales) , I believe that reducing things to simplistic slogans is unlikely to result in An evidence-backed answer.
The payroll taxes and economic stimulus of a dozen jobs are neither here nor there. Other stimulus would depend on parts suppliers, and taxes so on, compared to tax incentives or environmental effects. Net benefit is likely, but not a given.
I think you've missed the point. Bad Things (TM) that happened in another country are unlikely to be relevant.
Why? You can trace everybody's arc of history and find some "Bad Things". The point is that we don't play the forever oppressed game, when people all over have rose above their shitty starting position.
no, but it's not unreasonable to attribute things on a gross level, an an analogy being the causes of cancer.
I'd agree, though, that moving on and dealing with the causes (mostly poverty and discrimination)
That's your assumption and playing the victim, denying self-agency and assigning the blame to others.
Not at all, just a recognition that even given individual agency, which is vitally important, people have different life chances due to their initial circumstances. Indeed, some castigate poor people for making what are entirely rational choices in the face of poverty. An example would be financial risk aversion which means fewer chances taken which might be profitable as any failed chance could be world ending. My wife spent a lot of her life poor, so it might give me some perspective.
to make a comment about nationality that is wholly irrelevant
I didn't "make a comment about nationality"; I refered to "American liberalism" because. as a political movement, it is distinct from contemporary European liberalism, neo-liberalism, and classical liberalism. "American liberalism" is a label for an ideology, not your nationality. Many Europeans are "American liberals", they just call themselves something different in Europe.
My views fall closer to modern liberalism in many areas, and I value individual freedom and self-reliance, but also recognise value in collective action and social justice that it's unlikely to arise out of a free market.
If you believe that social justice is a valid political objective and that the free market needs to be restrained, you are an authoritarian leftist. Saying that you "value individual freedom and self-reliance" is just a fig leaf. As a classical liberal, I strongly oppose social justice as a political objective because it is in fundamental conflict with a just society and equality under the law (in addition, social justice is also a harmful policy for government to pursue).
it is entirely possible to have a rational debate with some modern liberals
It is certainly not possible to have a rational debate with you at this point because you haven't even stated a rational, consistent political or moral position. That's characteristic of the modern American left, which has rejected rationality and instead embraces critical theory, identity, and postmodernism. You even illustrate this nicely:
I believe though when you say you are a classical liberal, but in the USA, and to some extent in the UK, this is associated with conservatism.
For you, "association" with something is sufficient to identify me with that something, ignoring the clear explanation I gave of how conservatism and classical liberalism actually differ. That's what I was getting at with my hyperbolic statement "they will call you a Nazi and white supremacist": you don't reason and you ignore rational arguments, you just "associate".
So, yes, classical liberalism is "associated with" conservatism in the US, but they are still different ideologies. I am not a political conservative.
it is very hard to have a rational debate with someone who has such a binary view of the world which is apparently either unfettered capitalism or authoritarianism. So it seems that "they will call you a left wing authoritarian" is something I could say. You've accused me of that (without foundation), yet I have not launched any such attack on you.
Slashdot Mirror
What is deplorable about progressivism? Would you rather regression? Or what is good progress to you? Or is no progress good?
I thought you had already told me what i believe, so went would i stage my views. Well, i have but you told me i couldn't it and was wrong, so went should i bother to restate it?
Private property does not exist in animals in the sense that humans have it. It's a false equivalence. Animals defend territory I some instances, but generally on an individual basis with relatively evenly matched teeth and claws. Where there is not an even match (e.g. An individual versus a pack) then if there is competition for the same resource then the individual loses. Whilst the concept of private property can exist without government your ability to hold onto property is limited if there is an imbalance of power. Thus without structures to enforce the rule of law then much like a mugging in a park the unnamed individual loses to the gang with knives unless they are a particularly bloody mined yorkshireman in central park that convinces them via debate to leave him alone. When societal groups are small then family relationships can dominate,but in larger groups government of some form emerges to ensure rights.
The Liberal party was using a form of modern liberalism at the time, which would be considered centre right, much like the 1930s Democrat mainstream of the1930s. Not very fascist. Mussolini mostly got support in the UK from the harder right, although not exclusively along left-right lines. The same is true of eugenics, which had strong, and early support on the right (,e.g. Kitchener). You still seem eager to ascribe labels or behaviour to those you oppose politically that do not match reality or history. Burleighs book is one I like and would help you understand more and get over your new convert zealotry. I suspect you are originally from an Eastern block nation.
Death panels?
Not a convincing alternative? https://www.statista.com/stati...
Closely related ideologies often hate each other fiercely, for the simple reason that they are competing for the same pool of followers
You think the Liberal Party in the UK in 1910 was close to fascism????
categorized people into desirable/undesirable
This seems to hardly be restricted to the left. In 1910 it was suggested by the Liberal party in the UK that the 'criminally feeble-minded' should be forced into new workhouses and sterilised. And that was from a party vehmently opposed to anarchism and Marxism, and was also enthusiastic in its support of free trade. Or maybe you think the solidly anti-communist South Africa of the 1980s was left wing. Or the USA prior to the 1860s? You seem to want to ascribe stuff to your bogeymen and ignore other evidence.
Comparison to the Nazis is extreme. To me, it is also painful as my wife's grandmother was a guest of that regime in Auschwitz. (My wife is very upset with this comparison) The game theory paper is essentially a review paper, and is only one example and would seem to be "a researcher believes", not even "researchers". In particular, it looks at animal studies but lacks human studies, rather appeals to political philosophers. If you seriously think that if you leave your front door open and dismantle the police you possessions will be respected, you are delusional. As for the word authoritarian, I like to use the dictionary term "favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom." as opposed to the definition "there are taxes". If you are just going to redefine words when it suits you then rational debate is impossible. Goodbye.
It is simply a short hand for having to dig through an present a larger boxy of evidence. It is not necessarily a logical fallacy unless the larger body of evidence does not exist. It's also a statement of fact in an of itself. This is seen informal internet forum so I'm not going to spend the effort to organise detailed citations as I would for an academic paper.
It's multi-factorial, I expect. Diet, healthcare, exercise, and more. It's a trend seen in other Western nations too. In China you have older people who have had to be active all their lives, and so that will be currently having benefits, but the 20-somethings in China might not have the same experience. In 30 or 40 years I expect China and the USA will be pretty much level for health lifespan. Note that it's healthy lifespan, not overall lifespan.
Well, and again you demonstrate that you are not interested in rational discussion. To wit: (1) This discussion started with you calling me a "conservative"; I responded "I'm not a conservative, I'm a classical liberal, here is why the two are not the same: ...
My response was to indicate that many believe that conservatism and classical liberalism to be the same thing. That seems like rational debate to me.
There are many political scientists and economists that have proven that point.
You are confusing having opinions with evidence. It's not always backed by evidence.
Your ignorance of that work doesn't change the correctness of their arguments. While they make long argument, it's also pretty obvious: any political ideology that involves imposition of social norms, redistribution of income, government attempts to increase equality of outcome for different groups is necessarily authoritarian
There is some merit in this argument, however, I believe in the minimum amount of this to ensure people have reasonable lives, and the minimum interference of government in other areas of people's lives.
it involves government taking of private property
Private property would not exist in any meaningful way for an extended period without government backing it up, though. It would be nice if it didn't require this, but realistically it does.
and interference in freedom of association, if necessary at gunpoint, hence authoritarian.
Er, I don't see much interference of freedom of association from the libertarian left, so that seems to be inserting your prejudice and imposing it on what you believe to be the views of others, when it is not.
It's also quite obvious simply by looking at the economy: European conservatives, social democrats, and progressives have created systems in which the majority of economic activity is under state control; more than 50% of state control over economic interactions is reasonably considered authoritarian (with 100% being totalitarian).
If you think that, I don't think you know what authoritarian means, which is probably why we argue at cross-purposes.
And just like many privileged, American women
She grew up dirt poor.
You believe I am playing mindless word games, but to me it seems like you are also doing so. I am happy to agree to disagree, though.
I grew up in Europe and even voted there, became a registered Democrat after naturalization and then became an independent, so my political positions are rooted in ample experience and I have demonstrated my willingness to change my political positions based on rational arguments.
Yet you seem to have the close-minded views of a true believer, which baffles me. No matter what I say to say that I am not what you consider me to be, despite me indicating I am not, you are intransigent. I consider the authoritarian label to be as insulting as it is incorrect.
Been there, done that on the multi-dimensional aspect. Two dimensions are a start, if limiting. Often the questions lack sufficient context, though.
If you want to define classical liberalism as libertarianism with some understanding of human nature and consequences, I might agree with you.
anything outside the bottom right quadrant is authoritarian
That's your opinion, not borne out by evidence, though. I mentioned your suggestion that you considered me to be authoritarian on this basis, and I now need to clean tea off the bed sheets. She's American, by the way.
I don't think anyone has said its loss will destroy the world, but rather its lots is like a canary in a coalmine.
It seems unlikely that AI will change bread-and-butter HPC applications such as CFD and ab-initio chemistry for a while.
Well, yes it is, and that is your view. After all, you hold the view that everybody to the right of center is a conservative.
I contrast, I recognize that there are many political viewpoints: classical liberal, libertarians, conservatives, democratic socialists, communists, etc. All of those groups are capable of rational discourse, even if they vehemently disagree. And then there are American progressives and American liberals, who are different from all the aforementioned groups.
No, I don't think everyone right-of-centre is a conservative. There are people who are part of the authoritarian right, and I have a right libertarian friend, and an American conservative friend. Your characterisation of the American left, though, seems very odd, especially given that it does not at all fit with American liberals that I know. Your view seems very close minded and partisan. And you also accused me of being left authoritarian, as that seems to fit your pre-conceived ideas, yet according to your own preferred test is not the case.
what I do believe is that American conservatism is currently the home of classical liberals. I would note that this it's not the same as saying the GOP, as to me it looks like Conservatism spans both major US parties, with some right libertarian and right authoritarians in the GOP, and modern liberals in the Democrats, and nuance half-a-dozen socialists, and even a few soft right authoritarians.
I think you need to work through the range of possible consequences in what is a complex system of feedbacks. Whilst i have a set of principles and hopes for outcomes (e.g. Individual liberty and personal fulfillment on small and large scales) , I believe that reducing things to simplistic slogans is unlikely to result in An evidence-backed answer.
I've done these sort of tests before. They never categorise me as left authoritarian as you would pigeonhole me
The payroll taxes and economic stimulus of a dozen jobs are neither here nor there. Other stimulus would depend on parts suppliers, and taxes so on, compared to tax incentives or environmental effects. Net benefit is likely, but not a given.
I think you've missed the point. Bad Things (TM) that happened in another country are unlikely to be relevant.
Why? You can trace everybody's arc of history and find some "Bad Things". The point is that we don't play the forever oppressed game, when people all over have rose above their shitty starting position.
no, but it's not unreasonable to attribute things on a gross level, an an analogy being the causes of cancer.
I'd agree, though, that moving on and dealing with the causes (mostly poverty and discrimination)
That's your assumption and playing the victim, denying self-agency and assigning the blame to others.
Not at all, just a recognition that even given individual agency, which is vitally important, people have different life chances due to their initial circumstances. Indeed, some castigate poor people for making what are entirely rational choices in the face of poverty. An example would be financial risk aversion which means fewer chances taken which might be profitable as any failed chance could be world ending. My wife spent a lot of her life poor, so it might give me some perspective.
P.S. I can't demonstrate anything about the American left as I'm European.
I didn't "make a comment about nationality"; I refered to "American liberalism" because. as a political movement, it is distinct from contemporary European liberalism, neo-liberalism, and classical liberalism. "American liberalism" is a label for an ideology, not your nationality. Many Europeans are "American liberals", they just call themselves something different in Europe.
If you believe that social justice is a valid political objective and that the free market needs to be restrained, you are an authoritarian leftist. Saying that you "value individual freedom and self-reliance" is just a fig leaf. As a classical liberal, I strongly oppose social justice as a political objective because it is in fundamental conflict with a just society and equality under the law (in addition, social justice is also a harmful policy for government to pursue).
It is certainly not possible to have a rational debate with you at this point because you haven't even stated a rational, consistent political or moral position. That's characteristic of the modern American left, which has rejected rationality and instead embraces critical theory, identity, and postmodernism. You even illustrate this nicely:
For you, "association" with something is sufficient to identify me with that something, ignoring the clear explanation I gave of how conservatism and classical liberalism actually differ. That's what I was getting at with my hyperbolic statement "they will call you a Nazi and white supremacist": you don't reason and you ignore rational arguments, you just "associate".
So, yes, classical liberalism is "associated with" conservatism in the US, but they are still different ideologies. I am not a political conservative.
it is very hard to have a rational debate with someone who has such a binary view of the world which is apparently either unfettered capitalism or authoritarianism. So it seems that "they will call you a left wing authoritarian" is something I could say. You've accused me of that (without foundation), yet I have not launched any such attack on you.
.
You exactly made a comment about nationality referencing the fact that a commentator was British. Do you not remember?