Monthly Archives: February 2012

Ron Paul at His Very Best Confronting Ben Bernake

If Rep. Ron Paul has accomplished anything in his 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns it would be the way he has educated the American public about monetary policy and the Federal Reserve. I’ve listened to on line lectures from the Cato Institute and read about monetary policy but more often than not its either over my head or bores me to tears. Paul manages translate the Fed’s policy and put into language people like me can understand and keep it interesting.

Today’s hearing where Paul questioned Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernake is a case-in-point. My favorite part is when he asks Bernake if he does his own grocery shopping driving home the point about how his inflationary policies impact average people where it matters most (cost of groceries and fuel doesn’t go into determining the rate of inflation).

FacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponEmailWordPressShare

Rule of Thumb: If it Makes Santorum Sick, it’s Probably Good for Liberty

One of the more distressing things for me concerning this 2012 campaign is the religious test being imposed on some of the candidates by the voters and encouraged by other candidates. There are at least some voters who will not support Mitt Romney under any circumstances because he is a Mormon. Once upon a time, the idea of a Catholic being president was just as much of a scandal but today very few non-Catholics would consider this a deal breaker.

Ironically devout Catholic Rick Santorum, one candidate who benefits from fellow Catholic JFK’s election 52 years ago, says that when he heard JFK’s famous separation of church and state speech he “almost threw up.”

Here’s an excerpt from the speech that made Santorum almost hurl:

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured–perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again–not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me–but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute–where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners [sic] for whom to vote–where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference–and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish–where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source–where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials–and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew–or a Quaker–or a Unitarian–or a Baptist. It was Virginia’s harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson’s statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim- -but tomorrow it may be you–until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.

IMO this is JFK at his very best. This speech could just as easily apply to Mitt Romney; all he would have to do is replace the Catholic references with Mormon ones and it would have the same exact meaning. Kennedy had to give this speech because of the fear that he would impose his dogma on the country or bow to the Vatican. Now, 52 years later, we have another Catholic in Rick Santorum who has a very different attitude concerning his Catholic faith and how it relates to how he would govern.

It seems to me that if Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith is fair game, so is Rick Santorum’s Catholic faith. Does Santorum approve of how the Vatican has handled the pedophile priests? I think that’s a very fair question. Another good question might be why he apparently doesn’t agree with the Just War Theory (couldn’t it be argued that he’s just another cafeteria Catholic?).

I really couldn’t care less about the personal faiths for Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, or Barack Obama. They can believe in many gods or no gods if they neither pick my pocket* nor break my leg nor infringe on my freedoms by imposing his values on me. I do not get why this is so hard for some people to understand.

*A very real concern.

Penn Jillette, Seth McFarlane, And The “Stupid or Evil” Political Fallacy

Recently Chris has pointed out (here & here) the stupid/evil fallacy the left often uses* to paint the right. In short, the fallacy goes like this:

1) Republican policies are bad and designed purely to reward the current power structure.
2) If you are a Republican, you then must fall into one of two categories:
a) You’re stupid, and you’re being duped by the rulers of the party.
b) You’re one of the rulers of the party, and therefore evil.

Usually leftists assume the person they’re talking to — if their name isn’t Rove or Koch — falls into the “stupid” category. Interestingly, many of them actually think George W. Bush fell into the “stupid” category, being led around by Cheney, who was in the “evil” category.

Below, I’ve excerpted a passage from Penn Jillette’s book, God, No!**, where he touches on a similar fallacy. It’s more along the lines of the “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” fallacy, but the two are very closely related.

In the below, Penn was on Larry King with Seth McFarlane, discussing tax rates & the Tea Party:

Seth’s problem seemed to be that the Tea Party people were politically in favor of policies that Seth felt were against their own interests. This is a position I’ve heard others take before. Seth wasn’t hating the Tea Party people, he really wanted what he thought was best for them. His heart was in the right place. What bothered him so about the Tea Party was that they didn’t know what was best for their own damn selves. Seth is very talent and works hard, but he also seems to think he was lucky too. That seems reasonable. He had done well, and he didn’t need his taxes any lower. He wanted to pay his share, and he thought his share could be even higher. The Tea Party was pushing for things that would help Seth his own damn self and that were bad for the average Tea Party member. Seth explained that if the Tea Party got their way, Seth would, his own damn self, keep even more damn money. That really bugged him. He couldn’t dig that at all. How could tehse nuts possibly be pushing for things that weren’t in their own immediate self-interest? The Tea Party people were trying to stop the government from doing things that were financially good for the Tea Party individuals themselves. Seth didn’t want people who were much less well-off than he was pushing for things that were good for rich fucks like Seth. I understood taht Seth thought that anyone pushing for something politically not in their own financial self-interest was stupid and/or manipulated by big corproate rich-fuck money. This was my understanding of his position; those aren’t the words that he used. I might be unfairly lumping Seth in with other people I’ve heard talk about this. This is an argument I’ve heard a lot. It’s an argument some liberals I know seem comfortable with.

Huh?

As I see it, any person making this argument is kind of bragging taht his political position is so purely altruistic that it is against his own self-interest. He cares so much about other people, justice, and pure political ideology that he has the moral strength to argue for something that isn’t in his self-interest. I’ve heard a lot of rich Hollywood people make that argument. They seem very proud of it.

On the other hand, if a … I guess the word would be “peasant,” cares enough about other people, justice, and pure political ideology to argue for something that isn’t in his or her puny ignorant best interest, he or she is a manipulated idiot.

The only way this makes sense is if you think that rich people can argue against their own self-interest, but less rich people can’t. Seth, I love you, but this is the United States of America — one doesn’t have to be rich to be guided by what one thinks is right. Morality can trump self-interest in good people of all classes. If it’s good enough for you, it’s good enough for them. Me, well, I’d like my position to be moral and in my self-interest — and I think those aren’t that often mutually exclusive.

Seth and the Tea Party don’t disagree on doing the right thing, they disagree on what the right thing is. I just wish we could all remember that.

Assuming that your ideological opponents sincerely believe — and often have good reasons for believing — the views they espouse seems to be lost in modern political discourse. Perhaps I’m naive, but I find the best policy is always to assume my opponents are arguing in good faith. Only then can you show them why their policies are wrong, even if their goals are admirable. If you start out by impugning their goals, it’s nothing but a waste of words.
» Read more

Should We Force Women To Bear Disabled Children?

Rick Santorum believes that the Obama administration is in favor of some Gattaca-like dystopia, I suppose:

“One of the things that you don’t know about ObamaCare in one of the mandates is they require free prenatal testing,” Santorum began telling about 400 people here. “Why? Because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and, therefore, less care that has to be done, because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society. That too is part of ObamaCare — another hidden message as to what president Obama thinks of those who are less able than the elites who want to govern our country.”

Now, I’m in a weird position to discuss this, because I’m a bit of a pro-life libertarian, but at the same time I’m very libertarian about being pro-life. I think when it comes to my wife and I, I’m very strongly pro-life. But that said, I’m not sure I’m strong enough in the belief in being pro-life that I’d throw a woman or a doctor in a cage for aborting a pregnancy.

My wife and I have two kids, are expecting a third. For the first two, we deliberately declined the amniocentesis because we were willing to bear the child regardless of the results. It seemed that sticking a needle into my wife’s uterus is probably a silly risk to take [despite being a low-risk procedure] when we had no intention of letting the results change our behavior. With the third, it appears that medical technology has advanced to the point now where a blood test & ultrasound can now determine if there’s any major risk-factors, and luckily the results to date are that rather than being a 1 in 200 chance of having a baby with Down’s Syndrome, we’re happy to say that the odds are 1 in 11,000. It is nice to know that.

But do I want to force a woman to bear a child with Down’s? Do I think we should somehow cheer those women as being heroes, as folks like Santorum, who has a disabled child, and Palin, who has a disabled child, are cheered by the right? The responsibility of raising a child is huge, and it’s hard enough to do with a non-disabled child. Do we want to force that on people who are unwilling — or unable — to bear it?

This hits home for my wife and I. In October, we found out that our younger son was diagnosed with autism. We had some idea prior to this that something was amiss, as he wasn’t talking (nor showing much interest in starting, i.e. making the normal child “babble”). Autism is a scary diagnosis, especially with a 2 1/2 year old. With now 4 months of intensive speech therapy, at best we can say that we’re seeing improvement, but it’s slow going. Not a week goes by that my wife doesn’t ask me, “He’s going to talk eventually, right??” Well, I think he is, but we’re not seeing it happen so much yet. He has many of the characteristic behaviors — he’s very picky about environment and routine, not at all interested in interacting with other children [and will throw a fit when they encroach on his space]. Trying to get a haircut requires my wife and I to work together to hold him down in a seat as he screams and struggles while the lady at “Cool Cuts 4 Kids” tries not to cut his head, rather than his hair. At 2 1/2 years old, the first time he ever let me clip his fingernails was last Friday. And the worst thing of all is that he has no concept of language, so while you can sometimes soothe or explain what’s wrong to a 2 1/2 year old, nothing gets through. I believe it will be easier someday, due to all the work that we’re putting in now to intervene, but severe cases of autism sometimes never result in an adult who can function for themselves in society.

As I said, had my wife and I known this prior to his birth, we still would have had him. But had my wife and I known before she’d conceived that this was going to happen, I’m not ashamed to say we might have waited a month to avoid this outcome. I dearly love my son, and I can honestly say that he regularly brings great joy to my life. But it’s hard. It’s really hard. And I know that it’s going to be hard — that he’s going to face difficulties doing “normal” things — all his life. I wouldn’t tell prospective parents that I wish they have an autistic child. Every parent wants to have a child that they can mold into a success, emotionally and intellectually. This diagnosis is a disability that means that we’ll have to work that much harder to overcome. We want him to have all the success that my wife and I have had in life, and that his older brother [and his upcoming younger sibling] have in life. We know, as parents, that we and that he are going to have to work much harder than “typical” for him to achieve that success. We’re willing to take that on; but I can’t say it’s what we would have chosen, all things being equal.

Nor is it only an emotional and parental burden — it is financial. We’re lucky, as parents go. I have an excellent job with pretty good insurance, and a lot of what we’re doing is covered by my insurance or through non-profits funded by the State of CA. That said, I’m on an HSA-driven health care plan, so we’ve got a pretty sizable deductible, and we blew through it in 3 months of his therapy. All told, we’re talking about costs related to the diagnosis and associated other testing that would have cost close to $10K at “book” prices (obviously the insurance-negotiated rates are lower), and ongoing therapy that would cost at least $2K/month at “book” prices, and still at least $1K/month at insurance-negotiated prices. To give our son the level of care that we feel he needs without all the insurance might be possible, but would be extremely painful (likely requiring us to move out of our house to a cheaper rental, or for my wife to get a job outside the house, which we’d especially want to avoid as she needs to keep up with his care & therapy). And it would only be possible for us to do because I’m the exception, rather than the rule, when it comes to economics.

Rick Santorum suggests that Obama wants to “cull the disabled” as a cost-saving measure — it’s easy to say that when you have the level of wealth that Rick Santorum (and to a lesser extent, upper-middle-class folks like myself) have access to. When you don’t have access to the level of care that we can provide, you’re consigning your disabled children to a second-class life. I don’t think that’s a Republican value, nor do I think it’s a Christian value*, to bring people into this world and not be ready and able to give them the tools to succeed in life. Rick Santorum might say “well then you should be chaste and not produce a child” — but being ready and able to provide those tools for a normal child, and being ready and able to provide those tools to a disabled child, are two very different things. (*Full disclosure — I’m neither a Republican nor a Christian, so perhaps I can’t necessarily hold court on those two declarations)

When it comes to autism, unlike something like Down’s, though, the “typical” case can be “recovered”. It’s tough to describe, but I often say that autism is something that makes “normal” things a lot more difficult than they would be for non-disabled people. Most of these difficult things can be language-oriented, and we know that language development occurs in fury in the 0-3 year range. During this time, a child is developing mental pathways in the brain, and it’s much easier at these early years than later in life. One of the critical problems dealing with autism is that we don’t typically know a child is autistic until after he starts displaying speech delays, i.e. after the age of two. This means that the intervention after the age of two to get an autistic child to “catch up” to their more typical peers must be very intense — right now my son is in 8 hours of speech, OT, and ABA therapies every week, and we’re looking to get some of the hours increased. The goal is to slam those neural pathways into place through repetition, because they don’t come naturally.

What does this mean? It means that knowledge that a child is autistic prior to that child’s birth can be a signal to provide therapy for the autism at a much younger age. It means that instead of waiting for a delay to be prevalent, you’re working hard from day 1 to ensure a delay never develops. It still means there’s a lot more work than a typical child, as the neural pathways that the child would normally develop don’t happen on their own. But it means that you can be building those pathways earlier in life, and get better outcomes for those children — something that Rick Santorum and Barack Obama can agree is the goal.

Rick Santorum claims that Obama wants to provide this testing so those children will not be born. As much as I’m against Obamacare, I think Rick Santorum’s positions on abortion suggests that he cares a lot more about making sure those children are born than he cares about what life they’re born into. Those of us in the real world are trying to make good lives for our children — whether we choose to have them or choose not to because we cannot provide an adequate life — and prenatal testing gives valuable information whatever that choice might be.

Katy Bar the Door: Social Conservatives Want in Your Bedroom Too

Last week, I wrote a post about how the Left wants in the bedrooms of the people by mandating health insurance coverage for contraceptives. On the other extreme, we have Rick “every sperm is sacred” Santorum talking about the “dangers of contraceptives” and how non-procreative sex is somehow bad for society (as if concerns about “society” should trump the rights of the individual). I intended to write a full post devoted to making the opposite point (Does anyone really think that millions more unplanned births would actually be good for society?) and referencing a very interesting conclusion Steven Levitt made in a chapter his book Freakonomics called “It’s not Always a Wonderful Life.”

But I’m not going to do that. Santorum and his supporters’ antipathy for individuals making their own value judgments about sex has been documented on other blogs and I don’t know that I can really add much that hasn’t already been written. Having said that, I think Rick Moran at PJ Media nearly perfectly captures my concerns about Santorum and Social Conservatives more generally in his post: “The GOP’s Problem with Sex Could Cost Them in November.”

[Social Conservatives’] outdated, even primitive, critique of human sexuality that denies both the science and the cultural importance of sex and the sex act. Their main target appears to be women, and women’s sex lives, although the act of love itself is also to be placed in a strait jacket. No doubt the right will argue that their criticisms are only meant to help women, and nurture “healthy” attitudes toward sex. Nonsense. First of all, women don’t need that kind of help. They are capable of making their own choices without a bunch of ignorant busybodies telling them how to govern the most intimate and personal aspects of their lives.

Secondly, there is inherent in this critique a 19th century — or earlier — view of sex that seeks to keep the act of love within the confines of the marriage bed, and believes that physical intimacy should be primarily for one reason, and one reason only: procreation. At the very least, sex outside of marriage should be severely proscribed and limited to those who plan a long term relationship or eventual matrimony. Having sex because it’s fun, or because you’re bored, or because you crave physical intimacy, or for any other reason beyond traditional notions of “love” is grounds for disapprobation.

Certainly religion has much to do with this assault on sex. And if the extent of their critique stayed in the pews and pulpits of conservative churches, there would be no problem whatsoever. Christian denominations can tell their adherents how to live their lives, citing chapter and verse from the Bible, and nobody would care.

But when Republican politicians, and others associated with conservatism or the Republican Party, start echoing the various criticisms of contraception, of casual sex, of sex outside of marriage, the perception cannot be dismissed that the imprimatur of the entire party — and consequently, the government if they ever came to power — has been granted and that somebody, somewhere, might want to do something about it. As a voter making a political calculus on how to mark one’s ballot, the GOP is kidding itself if they don’t think this affects the decisions of millions of citizens.

Where do these people get off? Apparently they don’t…unless it’s for the purpose of procreation. No wonder they are so uptight!

Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Final Installment of “The Plain Truth”

As most of you are aware, Judge Andrew Napolitano’s final episode of “Freedom Watch” on Fox Business Channel aired earlier this week. The segment I will miss the most is the judge’s closing monologue he called “The Plain Truth.” Here is the final installment:

Either You Want Government Out of Your Bedroom or You Don’t

One way we libertarians often describe ourselves are individuals who don’t want the government in our bedroom or our boardrooms. Those on the Left typically agree with the former while disagreeing with the latter while those on the Right typically believe the reverse. Yet when it comes to the federal government mandating that all health insurance policies provide “free” contraception via Obamacare, suddenly the Left wants the government in the bedroom while the Right correctly wants no part of it.

President Obama seems to believe (or more likely, wants us to believe) that by decreeing that contraception be free that it will be. No, birth control devices cost no money to develop, test, produce, or distribute; somehow these products are immune from the notion that there is no such thing as a free lunch*. This is the kind of policy that causes health insurance to go up in price because now everyone pays just a little more on their premiums whether everyone wants or needs contraception or not.

Much of the debate on this mandate has centered around the idea that Catholic and other religious organizations should be forced to either directly or indirectly provide contraception in their healthcare plans. Like Brian Lehman writes at United Liberty, this is missing the point. As a pro-choice libertarian atheist, I too am offended by the notion that I must pay for coverage I don’t want or need**. Why don’t I have a right to choose the level of coverage that suits my family’s healthcare needs?

Some healthcare providers may determine that offering the coverage is more cost effective than covering unplanned pregnancies and all that entails. Others may come to a different conclusion. In a more perfect world, individuals would be able to shop around for the right coverage independent of employers or the government. This would take the politics out of the issue except for those who insist that contraception is a right. (Here’s a hint: it isn’t.)

Contraception is a good thing and we are very fortunate to live in a time when we can better plan if or when we want to have children but those who choose to be sexually active should take responsibility for providing it. Is it really too much to ask to buy your own condoms, pills, shots, or whatever? If for some reason you cannot afford contraception, there are organizations that offer these products and services at little or no cost. When did your orgasm become my responsibility?

I think it’s time for my friends particularly on the Left to make a decision: do you really want the government in your bedroom? I sure as hell don’t!

» Read more

Could a Santorum Nomination Bring About a Libertarian Renaissance in the GOP?

A Daily Caller headline caught my eye yesterday from the Cato Institute’s John Samples: Is there a libertarian case for Rick Santorum? If Samples aim was to write an outlandish headline to bring attention to his article, it certainly did the trick*.

In the article, Samples does not make the case that Rick Santorum is a libertarian in any way, shape, or form** but makes the opposite argument (as if there is any question). So if Santorum stands against everything libertarians are for, how can anyone possibly make a libertarian case for Santorum?

Samples explains:

I think he would drive more secular and independent voters away from the GOP ticket. A ten-point Republican loss in a year when economic weakness suggested a close race would be a political disaster not just for the candidate and his party but also for the ideas they embody. Rick Santorum could be the George McGovern of his party.

Such a disaster might open the door for a different kind of GOP along lines indicated earlier, a party of free markets, moral pluralism, and realism in foreign affairs. Ron Paul has taken some steps this year toward creating such a party. He has attracted votes and inspired activism. His son or another candidate might take up the cause in 2016 and build on Paul’s achievements. Fanciful thinking? Perhaps, but it may take an electoral disaster to free the GOP from the ideas and forces that Rick Santorum represents.

Though I supported Ron Paul in the caucus and encourage everyone to do likewise, I doubt he has a realistic chance of winning in 2012 (I hope I’m wrong). In the likely event that Paul does not win the nomination, my next move is to support the Libertarian Party nominee (who will probably be Gary Johnson, my preferred choice to begin with). IF a Santorum nomination lead to a purging of the socialcons, and a resurgence of libertarian, small government principles then I would say that in the long run Santorum’s nomination victory/general election defeat would be worth it. IF it all played out just as Samples thinks it could, 2016 could be the best opportunity for libertarians to make a comeback.

But that’s a big if.

This all assumes that the GOP establishment would finally learn its lesson; not at all a safe assumption. Then again, because the establishment really only cares about winning elections rather than principle, yet another defeat for the most coveted prize (i.e. the presidency) may force the establishment to reconsider libertarianism.

We also have to consider the possibility (however unlikely) of Santorum actually winning the general election. If fuel is north of $5.00 a gallon on election day and the economy is in worse shape than it is now, the independent voter may not be as concerned about social issues or civil liberties but rather economic issues. IF Rick Santorum becomes the next POTUS, what becomes of the modest libertarian gains made within the GOP?

I say forget about the Machiavellian calculations, vote your values, and let the chips fall where they may.

Related
Rick Santorum is Not as Pro-Family as He Would Have Us Believe

Rick Santorum, The Anti-Libertarian

Rick Santorum Revives The Lincoln-Douglas Debates; Unwittingly Takes Douglas’ Side

» Read more

Observations from the Colorado Republican Caucus

Just one day before the deadline late last year, I changed my party registration from Libertarian to Republican so I could participate in the caucus that took place yesterday evening (Colorado’s caucuses are closed to independent and third party voters). Being new to the caucus process, I didn’t know what to expect. Now that I’m no longer a caucus virgin (wow, that sounds dirty), I thought I would share some of my deflowering observations here.

The caucus itself was held at the elementary school all three of my children have attended. Once inside, I presented my voter I.D. and I was told to sit at the table with my precinct number on it. I was the first to be seated at the table but was joined by a nice elderly lady moments later followed by a young married couple. Not too long after that, the rest of those representing the precinct joined us at the table. By the time everyone was seated, there were just ten of us (there were probably three times as many people at the table representing the precinct next to us).

As we were getting acquainted, the leader of the caucus said a few words informing us what we were doing and not doing (no speeches on behalf of the presidential candidates – something I was looking forward to) and introduced the candidates running for the State House and State Senate and each made their pitch.

After these relatively short speeches it was time for the “presidential preference” vote. The caucus leader informed us that these votes were nonbinding (in other words, meaningless) with regard to how the delegates would be rewarded. Not only that, but she also explained that each precinct may or may not be eligible for delegates depending on how much support the precinct gave to the top of the ticket in the last election. As it turned out, our precinct received zero because too many voters had the audacity to not support the very sorry gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes in 2010.

Other than that, we were able to vote on who would be delegates to the less important conventions (in my judgment at least). None of these votes were contested as those who decided they wanted to be delegates did so reluctantly.

For the remainder of the evening, we discussed the primary race and who we were supporting and why. As it turned out, at least five at our table were for Mitt Romney – not because they particularly liked Romney but because he was the most “electable” vs. Obama. One was for Rick Santorum, two of us were for Ron Paul (myself and one other), one said he didn’t want to say who he was for and I don’t know who the last person supported.

While I did enjoy engaging others in conversation about the candidates and the issues, I don’t think this is the best way to choose a nominee for president. Having said that, I don’t know that the end result would have been any different had this been a primary as opposed to a caucus.

Impossible Ideology, False Dichotomy, and Unacceptable Conclusions

This post is a clarification of an ongoing theme I’ve addressed before… and which has been addressed many times before by myself, by other bloggers, and by scholars like Victor Davis Hanson, and Thomas Sowell.

I’m talking about the “Stupid or Evil” false dichotomy.

Those of us with a libertarian, or economic conservative bent (social conservatives seem to suffer from this tendency as much as liberals, just in a different area), frequently have a huge problem understanding why “Progressives”, liberals, socialists etc… keep advocating and even implementing clearly nonviable ideas, against all past results or evidence.

How anyone can still, not slightly, but whole heartedly, and with the entire force of a government behind them; implement socialist ideas? The entire 20th century stands as incontrovertible evidence that socialism, in any form, in any way, for any reason; is not just a failed political system, but a horrible idea in general.

And yet, millions of people around the world still advocate for it passionately… even kill or die for it.

When we oppose these people, or these ideas, they declare us to be “stupid” or “ignorant”, “delusional”, “defrauded and manipulated by evil/greedy masters” or simply “evil” ourselves.

The question here is not one of fact, it is one of ideology; in a belief structure where the political is the personal, and political ideology substitutes for tribal identity, or religious faith.

For these people evidence, and reality, are irrelevant. Something is true not because of evidence, reality, or history; but because their ideology says it must be true. Something is false not because evidence says so, or because it doesn’t work; it is false because it differs from the ideology.

This behavior is maddeningly baffling to those of us who attempt to use reality, history, logic, and a healthy appreciation for the law of unintended consequences; as a guide for our ideas and our actions.

Warren Meyer over at Coyote Blog, put up a post this morning, that put me in mind of this particular topic again (emphasis mine):

“I am perfectly capable of believing Drum honestly thinks that further deficit spending will improve the economy this year. I think he’s nuts, and working against all historic evidence, but never-the-less I believe he is sincere, and not merely pushing the idea as part of some dark donkey-team conspiracy. Why is it that he and his ilk, from both sides of the aisle, find it impossible to believe that their opponents have similarly honest intentions?

I mean, is it really so hard to believe — after spending a trillion dollars to no visible effect, after seeing Europe bankrupt itself, and after seeing the American economy begin to recover only after crazy stimulus programs have mostly stopped — that some folks have an honest desire to see economic improvement and think further stimulus programs are a bad idea”

Yes, it is impossible.

It is impossible, because they are arguing from ideology not from reality. They believe in what HAS to be true, because their ideology says so; not what reality, or experience, proves to be true.

Their ideology is core to their perception of their identity, and their sense both of self worth, and the worth of others. Their judgement and reason are based on it. Everything is filtered through this ideological prism, because it HAS to be, for the health of their own psyche.

For someone whose entire perception of self worth depends on their adherence to an ideological precept (“I am a good/better person because I believe this morally better thing”), then anyone who disagrees with this precept must be stupid, ignorant, defrauded, deluded, or evil.

There is no room for honest disagreement in this. To preserve their self worth, and sense of identity, there can be no doubt, and no acceptance of any possibility of error. There is one true path, which they follow, and anyone who deviates from it is apostate.

If therefore, one cannot dismiss opponents of their ideological precept as stupid, ignorant, defrauded, or deluded (and in the case of clearly intelligent, well informed people, presenting reasoned arguments against your precepts, you obviously cannot); the only thing you can challenge is their motives.

Your opponents MUST KNOW that you are right, that your ideology is right; since they are intelligent and well informed, and of course any intelligent and well informed person (such as yourself) can see your ideology is clearly morally superior (just as you did).

Therefore your opponents must be evil, or at best venal and self-interested.

It simply must be that way, because any other conclusion is unacceptable.

I am a cynically romantic optimistic pessimist. I am neither liberal, nor conservative. I am a (somewhat disgruntled) muscular minarchist… something like a constructive anarchist.

Basically what that means, is that I believe, all things being equal, responsible adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want to do, so long as nobody’s getting hurt, who isn’t paying extra