1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything."Liberal" meant something once!
2. Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.
3. Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed.
4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavour to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.,,,
५ डिसेंबर, २०११
"Perhaps the essence of the Liberal outlook could be summed up in a new decalogue..."
From a 1951 essay by Bertrand Russell:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१८३ टिप्पण्या:
Yes. We all long for those days again. It is so educated...we called it Liberal Arts.
Today's Progressives say use false pretenses of helping some fictional problem, use that as cover to steal what is there and then destroy everything left standing.
They are Nazis and not liberals at all.
Liberal ends are achievable, but Progressive ends never are. When we got to the fork in the road at the intersection of equality and freedom , we parted ways.
Rules For Radicals came out in '72, but Reveille For Radicals was published in '44, so Russell, Quisling that he was, was already swimming against the tide.
Russell also proposed a pre-emptive nuclear attack on the Soviet Union.
Muscular liberalism.
Russell, recommending hiring Wittgenstein, said Wittgenstein had some interesting ideas that Russell certainly hoped were wrong.
And conservatives used to respect authority. A lot has changed.
@jimspice--Legitimate authority merits respect. Not sure what kind you have in mind.
Controlling fellow humans seems to be a priority among the self identifying progressive peoples that I know.
What's with that?
Is this a condition that could be cured with a nice Christmas train set?
This is why I try to only use the term "leftist" to refer to members of the political left. Calling people like Obama "liberal" is an insult to liberalism.
Keep AGW, Climategate and Climategate 2 in mind whilst reading through those items.
Stunning.
A baleful reminder of the hateful theft of the once-meaningful and beautiful term "liberal" by leftists
@Revenant: T.H. Green begat H.H. Asquith and "liberalism" in its modern sense a long, long time ago.
And conservatives used to respect authority. A lot has changed.
Hysterical. If you're suggesting the small government movement is based on a lack of respect for authority, you're sadly off base. Lack of respect for overreaching authority, possibly. Unconstitutional authority, certainly.
If you're talking about local authority, which side filled out the forms, paid for facilities and security, and left the places they used cleaner than when they got there and which just showed up, squatted, loused up the place (literally) and tried to thwart authority constantly?
If you're simply talking about garden variety authority, which between conservatives and liberals do you suppose contains more advocates for spanking misbehaving children?
1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.
Why not? What's wrong with KNOWING things? I never understand that,...
2. Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.
I agree with this. Don't know anyone else who does, but yeah.
3. Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed.
Agree there, too. Unfortunately, thinking seems to looked down in some quarters, both liberal and conservative, these days.
4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavour to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.,,,
Whatever. Knock over all the tables in the bar, see if I care. Nobody's better than you are. Get out of here. Oh, helloooo Officer,...
Can the future get here soon enough?
"Liberal" meant something once!"
means the same thing today, that it did "back in the day" It means no brains. I should know, back when I thought I knew everything (40 years ago) I was one of those young ones with no brains. Good part about it, one can grow up and become a man
even if it should be from your husband or your children
Russell never let arguments from spouses stop him from doing the things he wanted to do. He was sure of that.
"Liberal" used to mean - 'you do your thing, I do mine,' not 'we get to dictate what kind of cereal you eat."
It used to mean tolerance for a variety of opinions. Not PC retaliation for every syllable one can construe to be offensive.
Frankly, my conservative friends are vastly more tolerant and open than the "liberal" ones, with very few exceptions
I still know some "real" Democrats, with NORMAL outlooks, but they get called "Republican stalking horses" and it makes the front page of the paper if we sit together (and no, I'm not famous.)
"Progressives" are regressive. They have set things back 20, maybe 30 years in terms of women and children's rights and protections. They're vicious, their politics are scorched earth and rotten with dirty-tricks. They win elections by lying about who they are and pretending to be more conservative than they are - they show up for church, they pretend to like law enforcement until elected, then it's "oh, you knew who and what I was, and you elected me so I have a mandate."
Liberal is anything but, and Progressive is like jettisoning us back centuries.
Attitudes toward this word "liberal" are fascinating. Conservatives resent the evolution of its meaning, and liberals reject it as a label.
What a joyless existance it must be to be a modern liberal. H.L Mencken would have a field day with these modern day puritans.
1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.
Why not? What's wrong with KNOWING things? I never understand that,...
if new data comes along, things you know might need to be reconsidered. if you are certain about things, you probably won't even consider that you might be wrong.
in my experience, the things i have been most certain about (especially while i was younger) are the things i was most likely to be wrong about.
I have a great deal of respect for Russell as a philosopher, and I say that as someone who had to read quite a few of his scholarly essays. His life was a mess, though.
Also, the problem with the liberal project is that dogma set in a long time ago, and violation of Russell's second law there above is commonly violated by leftists today.
Also, the left-right vernacular stems from the French Revolution. It was Burke, though -- the first conservative -- who demolished the revolutionaries by observing that the passions of people make the liberal project unachievable and undesirable.
That said, I agree with Rev in that I consciously try to avoid using the word liberal to describe leftists.
I consciously try to avoid using the word liberal to describe leftists.
I'm sure you see a substantive difference between Obama and Castro, so I wonder why you limit your political vocabulary in such a way as to make this distinction even slightly more difficult.
"Liberal" became the name of a political party a long time ago, and its meaning quite naturally followed the arc of that party's platforms. Before the Liberal Party became nearly irrelevant, its platform had pretty much become one of personal liberty within a welfare state--which is to say, modern small-l "liberalism".
I describe Castro as a communist. Obama is no communist. He's much too mealy for that. Just as I am too mealy to be a true libertarian or a cultish Randian.
Sure. But now you're distinguishing among varieties of leftists. My point is that you need a variety of terms to correspond to the variety of viewpoints, in the same way that "right winger" fails to distinguish between Rand and Chesterton.
"Liberal" seems a perfectly clear term for describingan easily definable political view.
The problem with liberal is that it doesn't mean anything any more, as Althouse's snippet of Russell demonstrates. I would refer to myself as a classical liberal -- a liberal right at the point when the French screwed it up, or perhaps a liberal on the American trajectory, as the whole of the world even today can be encapsulated by how you feel about the French and the American Revolutions. Many people would say classical liberal. I would even accept Jacksonian liberal.
But that means nothing, because the word liberal also means a statist of the worst big-government kind. If you have to throw adjectives in front the description, the description must not be a very good one.
It's better in my opinion to avoid it altogether, and I try to do so. I also would like avoid conservative, but I don't, probably because I identify so strongly with the term.
if new data comes along, things you know might need to be reconsidered. if you are certain about things, you probably won't even consider that you might be wrong.
And if the new data confirms the old data, what then? Also, how do you know the new data is any better than the old?
You've just restated what's already been said several times in this thread, and which is exactly what I'm challenging.
You're a "conservative." That's plain from your many comments here. Nothing wrong with that, to me, since I'm also a conservative, of the somewhat-libertarian strain.
What I'm questioning is the clear desire many conservatives have to claim the mantle of "classical liberal". It strikes me as an odd obsession--as though fans of the Cincinnati baseball team went around saying that they were the true "red stockings," and those Boston players were impostors who'd seized the precious good name of carmine hosiery.
Castro's a communist. Obama's a liberal. You're a conservative. Cedarford's a...well, um....
Simple, for the most part.
Lance -- An interesting point, and interestingly enough, in the course where there was so much Russell there was also a lot of pragmatism.
I chose to write a long paper on pragmatism. I have no idea what I said in that paper, but the thing I remember about pragmatism was the exhortation by William James (I think) that there are new facts every day. I thought that was really cool, and still do. I finally figured out, though, is that all those new facts do the same basic things as the old facts, for a whole host of reasons. The world is a river. The new facts are the new water that is new and different every day, but it's always the same river flowing the same basic way.
And that little parable properly understood, my friends, is conservatism in a nutshell.
Obama is a liberal under what the current meaning of the word liberal is. But the mantle of liberalism has changed many times in the last 200 odd years.
Words are important. The words you choose for yourself and for others are important. The federalists weren't really federalists at all. The anti-federalists were the federalists.
Burke was a liberal, too, you know -- a pre-1789 one. It's just that his critique of the French Revolution was so utterly devastating that the whole political vocabulary had to change.
And if the new data confirms the old data, what then?
Then you update your prior belief, like a good Bayesian. But once you accept the view that no other value but your prior belief is possible, no amount of data can budge your opinion. And you become a crank.
Here's a shot at some potted history: In Burke's era, and into the 19th century, about all it took to be a "liberal" was to favor republican government plus some Rights of Englishmen. As old-line Toryism fell by the wayside, the remaining rival factions could either call themselves "freedom-of-contract liberals" and "welfare-state liberals", or they could simply call themselves "conservatives" and "liberals" with the meanings abundantly clear to all concerned.
That's where we are today, and it strikes me as pointless antiquarianism to worry about what Burke considered himself.
But my original question pertained to the mentality of conservatives who long to take back the term "liberal." I just find it somewhat strange, for reasons I won't rehash.
I think you are confusing left and right with liberal and conservative. Left and right is antiquarian. Liberal and conservative are just hopelessly amorphous. But I'll take old over confusing any day.
I won't go into how the communists of the 20s, 30s, and 40s so deftly used the terms right and left to their political benefit -- how they would castigate various communists on the wrong side of the inner-circle as "right-wing elements."
I say -- often in these threads -- that if you are arguing semantics you have lost the battle. And if that's true, then clearly we are both defeated in a rout.
Liberal and conservative are just hopelessly amorphous.
Oh, I disagree with this, and I don't think it's a semantic quibble. Whatever else modern liberalism might consist of, its essential feature is a commitment to meliorism. Conservatism's essence is a Burkean deference to tradition, on the grounds that society is a complex structure that we do not generally understand well enough to restructure along purely rationalist lines.
I think that distinction is fundamental. If you want to argue that many of us struggle internally with the conflict between these views at times, I won't disagree. I think the threads on topics like gay marriage sit atop that fault line. But that's not amorphism, IMO. OTOH, that is a semantic point, so I'll shut up now.
Depends on how you are defining "liberal." Was Brandeis a liberal?
Other People's Money And How the
Bankers Use It. - Lewis Brandeis, 1914
"What I'm questioning is the clear desire many conservatives have to claim the mantle of "classical liberal"."
The definition of classic liberal economics is the theory based on Adam Smith/equilibrium/invisible hand.
Likewise, the concept of natural rights and contract/social theory.
In America, this theory is promoted by both the mainstream right and left, but in different ways. Simplistically, the right advocates economic liberalism and the left advocates social liberalism. ACLU and freedom of speech; Nazis marching in Skokie.
The concept of inalienable rights exists for parties on the right and left in America. This is not true of many countries.
jimspice said...
And conservatives used to respect authority.
Translation:
Shut up, while:
Incandescent light bulbs are banned, smoking is banned, SUV's are regulated out of existence, soda is banned, health care becomes more expensive, crappier, and run by the government, the economy is ruined to stop "global warming" etc, etc, etc...
if new data comes along, things you know might need to be reconsidered. if you are certain about things, you probably won't even consider that you might be wrong.
Which is why the AGW alarmists were busy hiding data.
Liberals are incapable of reconsidering their world view.
Unfortunately Russell didn't follow that advice himself. His history of philosophy is universally recognized as one of the most biased works in that field, his political philosophy is completely one-sided, and his philosophy of religion is nothing more than a collection of strawman and ad hominem arguments. Regarding the last, anyone who has studied the philosophy of religion and reads Russell ends up feeling embarassed for him. He clearly didn't even know the first thing about the subject.
"10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness."
I live by this one, always have. Kind of biblical, no? I'm guessing modern liberals dropped this one some time ago.
"Words are important. The words you choose for yourself and for others are important."
"I say -- often in these threads -- that if you are arguing semantics you have lost the battle. And if that's true, then clearly we are both defeated in a rout."
Circular self-argument may indicate early onset agoraphobia, or worse, rectal-cranial inversion.
Wow. Godwin's Law kicked in early on this thread.
Fun, isn't it?
Trying to have an honest discussion of the topic at hand....
When one spends half the time searching for the correct terminology to make your point.
Progressive word games-
A game of opposites...a game in which certain words cannot be used to communicate a thought--for they are "offensive".
Know this--anything "good" in America is summarily co-opted by the Progressives, and morphed--in surprising short order--into something "not so good"..
Whether it be a concept, political philosophy, or an institution.
BTW- One of the best explanations I've seen (simplified) on the American and French Revolutions, and their differences, is by Bill Whittle.
A Tale of Two Revolutions: The War of Ideas & the Tragedy of the Unconstrained Vision
Pajamas Media.
It's much easier to understand once you realize actual liberals are called libertarians now.
#4 seems more than a bit ironic considering the last couple days.
And conservatives used to respect authority. A lot has changed.
Thanks, Progressives! I don't think destroying institutions worked out the way they hoped.
1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.
Russell's comment is itself absolutist. I have to be open-minded on Nazism? Communism? Sucking on feces? I have to go through life as a flower child, open and innocent, a nihilist who doesn't know anything?
Why don't we apply rule #1 to rule #1? Maybe there are some things we should feel absolutely. Why qualify doubt as the dominant virtue?
Me: "What a retarded thing to say."
Russell: "It might be. I form no judgments on my own statement. I am open-minded and nice."
I would say rule #1 has dominated liberalism to such an extent that the only bad thing to a liberal is to be "close-minded" or "judgmental." So, for instance, instead of arguing, a liberal resorts to dismissing opponents as "racist, sexist, homophobe, Nazi" etc., all of which are another way of saying close-minded or judgmental.
In other words, Russell's conceit is that liberals are open-minded and conservatives are close-minded. This idea has so poisoned liberalism ("we're better than you"), liberals refuse to debate things with their opponents. Indeed, the whole notion of debate suggests that there is a correct result, a winner and a loser, a smart idea and a dumb idea, that we might find through hashing out the arguments as best we can. But why bother if judgment itself is shouted down as bad?
How about instead of castigating the close-minded, liberals try making a list of acts that are absolutely bad? For instance, rape is absolutely bad. Isn't it? Please give us some examples when rape might be okay. Infanticide. Slavery. The Holocaust.
Imagine Russell as God, laying down a Commandment on his people. "Do not feel absolutely certain of anything." Boy, you're an ugly god. I don't like you at all.
Me: "How is nihilism working out for you, liberals?"
Liberals: "Oh, it's okay. I have no strong feeling on it, one way or the other. My mind is open."
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
its platform had pretty much become one of personal liberty within a welfare state--which is to say, modern small-l "liberalism
Which is akin to discussing your monogamous relationship with your professional sex worker Significant Other. One cannot have a “Welfare State” AND Personal Liberty. One can have Personal Liberty, the right to smoke, drink, eat, have sex with, not hire any N!ggers, Kikes, Dagoes, O-Fays, Crackers, Rabi Blancoes, Gweilos/Gweilas as you see fit, AND to starve to death or die of gluttony, alcoholism, or AIDS, to be reviled and spat upon….
OR one can have a Welfare State, where certain things, “Cost us all” and therefore have to be regulated or banned….where, in order, to ensure equality, one cannot do bad things to people you don’t like, but where the State CAN practice discrimination.
Or in the words of PJ O’Rourke, “Any state capable of giving you everything, is capable of taking it all away.” One has to choose between those two ideas, the Welfare State (and inequality) OR Personal Liberty (great inequality).
I'm seeing some clutter here! The clutter derision is funny to me. Having worked for attorneys for decades a red flag for me was an office that had no clutter. The attorney was often humorless, anal, and they thought everything was about "the law" and not "the facts"..a fatal flaw for a litigator. Conversely, some of the best attorneys I worked for, the kind I would hire, had clutter. My office is very cluttered.
I would be interested to know how all your offices/work sites look. Photos would be nice.
"Liberal" meant something once!
Still does. In today's world, it means "Conservative." Not all conservatvies are classical liberals, but all classical liberals are conservative.
Meanwhile, those who call themselves liberal today are far too simplistic in their thinking to be assigned anything so sophisticated as a philosophy.
In their ignorant arrogance, they are best described by Tom Lehrer:
We are the Folk Song Army
Everyone of us cares
We all hate poverty, war and injustice
Unlike the rest of you squares"
Liberalism has come a full 180 degrees since Russell's time.
Sound advice though perhaps a bit naive. But anyone who humped TS Eliot's gal can't be all bad .
Always expect some kumbayah moralist (right or left) to mention Russell's supposed recommendation of a "pre-emptive strike" against the USSR. Not what Russell said: he was discussing getting the Russians to the bargaining table, and made an offhanded remark. He was adamantly against nukes (and the US involvement in the Vietnam war).
Scott M wrote: Keep AGW, Climategate and Climategate 2 in mind whilst reading through those items.
Exactly what I thought. You couldn't come up with a better 4-point rebuttal of the IPCC's politics if you tried.
* * *
@J -- T.S. would have been better off without that "bag of ferrets around his neck" in Virginia Woolf's phrasing.
Russel only said those things because he thought it convenient to do so as a general theory. But when confronted by some of his grad students with the news that some of his social theories didn't jibe with the "facts" as measured in the real world, he famously replied: "Well, so much worse for the facts."
A typical "liberal" indeed..
"Liberal meant something once."
Yes it did. It meant "A free man"
Liberal comes from the root "liber" that also gives us "liberate" and "liberate"
As Hayek noted in 1944, "It is a good word that has been hijacked to mean the exact opposite in current political discourse." (Quoting from memory)
Freidman said something similar in his 1963 book "Capitalism and Freedom"
Some use the term "Classical liberal" as a synonym for libertarian or miniarchist.
Me, I ditch the classical and just call myself a liberal.
I believe in liberty.
John Henry
I signed up for a symbolic logic philosophy course in college. I withdrew after 2 classes..way too mathy for me.
OMG CHIA OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!
Yes and conservative used to mean something as David Jenkins pointed out in his article on Frum, but in today's political circus history and meaning has been emptied out and replaced by...whatever.
@RV -- There's no principle because everything is about personality. In an age of personality, the continued use of terms like liberal and conservative by the media, pundits, and observers is inane.
It helps to revisit the terms, so at least you can figure out what our current crop of morons isn't.
Wiki-Russell time at the Althouse auto parts store! Who? Ber-trand RUSSELL? Some English egghead sort. Wall you know anything some Brit. nerd says izz wrong, Bubba.
Lord Russell met with Joseph Conrad in his younger days and named his son Conrad.
"Please give us some examples when rape might be okay. Infanticide. Slavery. The Holocaust.
I think any number of leftists like Bill Maher, Ward Churchill, or our President's former pastor, could handle this easily, and then be well paid for the effort.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
I did NOT know who Bertrand Russell was until just now, being an “Alt-Tard”….
It still means that, Ann. like most modern conservatives You do not understand liberalism and base your views of it on the misrepresentations of the right wing radio ideologues.
An honest person might listen directly to liberals. Few con's base their views on listening to liberals, instead they listen only to each other. When you do, you do it on a mission to discredit.
We just have a bit more fight these days, in the face of rampant extremism on the right. (Which Althouse embraces).
Meanwhile, your hero Sarah Palin has been found guilty of ethics charges. No doubt you will ignore that story or blame it on someone else.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
It still means that, Ann. like most modern conservatives You do not understand liberalism and base your views of it on the misrepresentations of the right wing radio ideologues
Yeah watching “Liberals” and listening to them played NO part in the understanding of the Modern Liberal….
Meanwhile, your hero Sarah Palin has been found guilty of ethics charges. No doubt you will ignore that story or blame it on someone else
You have the link, of course…..
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Ah yes, she was found guilty of having established a Legal Defense Fund…funny how it’s OK for the Clinton’s but unethical for Palin…oh well.
Alpha. The same is true for your side of the spectrum.
An honest person might listen directly to liberals."
They dominate TV, music, newspapers, cinema, education and world politics. It's impossible not to hear them and their ideas. We all get educated by them. Reason is the only reason we aren't all leftists. Give it a taste, just once, and you won't go back.
AlphaLiberal said...
An honest person might listen directly to liberals. Few con's base their views on listening to liberals,
Hysterical.
Actually, we do listen to what the left says, and people like you come along and try and obfuscate it.
Which is why Democrats are always moaning about "messaging" when they lose elections.
And before you go crazy Alpha, I am closer to left than the right.
Liberals blah blah light bulbs blah blah blah AGW hoax blah blah blah
@AlphaLiberal -- All I do is listen to liberals. Some of this are open minded and thoughtful. Some aren't. Just like conservatives.
RV has a better insight than yours. The term has lost its meaning because it is applied indiscriminately. Is Obama a liberal? Our Robert Cook will tell you he's not, and Cook is right.
And yet Obama has aligned himself with an economic policy associated with those considered liberal (Russell was a socialist, after all) and with a set of prejudices common to a class of people who consider themselves liberal.
It's all marking now, these associations. It's all pee and no hydrant.
Russell's life span sure covered a lot of modern history. He watched humanity at all of it's absolute worst... so far. I'm surprised at what he didn't take away from that.
We just have a bit more fight these days, in the face of rampant extremism on the right. (Which Althouse embraces).
Exactly. Because the right doesn't have to face rampant extremism on the left. At all. Anywhere. Even in tents. With lice. And death. Nope. No leftist extremism at all. You would be reactionary to even suggest it.
garage. are you like mr. ed? your owners name isn't wilbur is it?
They dominate TV, music, newspapers, cinema, education and world politics.
Oh, bullshit. Every Sunday morning I watch as conservatives outnumber liberals - often without any liberals actually shown on Sunday morning on any show.
But, then, you probably consider a moderate Republican or a news reporter who doesn't regurgitate Fox News talking points to be a "liberal."
FZ:
Alpha. The same is true for your side of the spectrum.
False, false, false. By my presence here and that of others, I am an example of a liberal listening and engaging directly with con's. Media Matters directly quotes the words of conservatives.
OTOH, you have Mitt Romney quote Obama and completely distort what he said. As just one example.
Dialog is impossible anymore, though. the right wing has their own cocooned media and they won't listen to anything else. They lap up the false propaganda and go merrily on their way repeating the falsehoods and lies.
instead they listen only to each other.
And, progressives are somehow different? Not in my observation.
How much have you listened here and based your views on what you heard?
I've listened to liberals/progressives all my life and based much of my views on what I've heard. Since much of what I've heard is idiocy, my views run contrary to current day liberalism. Plus, I refuse to be as caught up in hate at the typical liberal as portrayed by yourself, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, OWS protesters, et al.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Liberals blah blah light bulbs blah blah blah AGW hoax blah blah blah
There’s that vaunted Liberal “Open mind.”
Liberals blah blah light bulbs blah blah blah AGW hoax blah blah blah
That's more erudite than usual for you, Garage. Did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?
nice hog scottm.
AlphaLiberal wrote: We just have a bit more fight these days, in the face of rampant extremism on the right. (Which Althouse embraces).
AL wouldn't be AL without the self-refuting hyperbole.
I'M OPEN MINDED YOU EXTREMIST!
"Liberals blah blah light bulbs blah blah blah AGW hoax blah blah blah"
The best definition of modern "liberal" is embedded in their finely crafted rhetoric, their intellectual pwowess writ small
"... Every Sunday morning I watch as conservatives outnumber liberals - often without any liberals actually shown on Sunday morning on any show...."
What color is the sky on your planet?
Every Sunday morning I watch as conservatives outnumber liberals - often without any liberals actually shown on Sunday morning on any show.
Hysterical. I suggest we canvas the marquee Sunday morning news shows for ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MS-NBC and FOX this coming and total them up. While one day does not a trend make, it might prove a bit more illuminating.
nice hog scottm.
Thanks.
@ Crack Emcee
Eric Holder, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Dick Nixon, man I could take up pages just naming politicians
As far as the po-po authority, how many times do cops go to a domestic disturbance until someone dies? Obeying authority is a personal choice. Integrity is what you do when no one else is looking.
@ Joe
You said "One has to choose between those two ideas, the Welfare State (and inequality) OR Personal Liberty (great inequality)."
You're mis-using a term here I hope. The Welfare state has by far greater inequality for it ensures an equal outcome based on disparate talents. The Personal Liberty state has everyone starting from the same page, and the outcome is what you make of it. Fairness doesn't apply either, so I can't suggest what term you did mean to use.
Russels' list is at best sophomoric. Several on here have already pointed out the fallacies involved in it.
The talent to weave words into a hynotizing lace does not make one a deep thinker, just a word smith. A used car dealer comes to mind.
As far as Liberal/Conservative labeling, the are pitfalls in labeling one person anything obviously. Groups I'll concede a maybe.
For example, I would be considered right of Atilla by most people in America today, but I agree with some of the OWS points. How could I not? I think people should suffer the consequences of their bad decisions ie, no bailouts for banks, car companies etc...
The "but" here is that OWS was also clammoring for forgiveness of their debts too. Huh?
One of Lifes rules I try to live by is the "Golden Rule", and I don't mean the one you see on tee-shirts about "he who has the gold..."
A few more,
If it seems to good to be true, it probably is
Trust, but verify
Don't pull a gun unless you intend to use it
Treat all people equally. Like royalty, or pieces of shit, but do it equally.
Everyone has troubles. Your neighbors troubles may seem silly to you, but they are HIS troubles
This might make for a nice separate thread. We can suggest some aphorisms, and vote up/down twinkles on them.
I'd wager that the Liberals and Conservatives would agree more often than not though.
Scott M:
Exactly. Because the right doesn't have to face rampant extremism on the left.
That's true. You don't.
Your argument is the equivalent of "I'm rubber and you're glue..."
Civil disobedience is a very American tradition, starting with the Boston Tea Party, which was a protest of a big abusive corporation, to MLK to OWS.
Then you have right wing extremism:
* Stripping people of their right to vote.
* Trying to remove the direct election of Senators.
* Running up huge budget deficits to borrow money to give tax breaks to the rich.
* Destroying unions.
* Destroying government's ability to regulate corporations and removing the ability of wronged citizens to sue corporations.
* Citizens United.
* Trying to establish a state-sponsored religion.
* Opposing many or all forms of birth control.
* Setting records in the use of the filibuster to stop legislation the Senate minority doesn't like.
* Trying to strip minorities of rights to marry, vote, and seek redress of grievances.
* Oh, let's not forget their efforts to repeal child freaking labor laws.
And on and on and on. Not that facts or data matter to a conservative. The only information they will accept is that which has been predigested and regurgitated to them by Fox News.
If Ann Althouse thinks a conservative open minded, she is far more deluded than I suspected.
"We just have a bit more fight these days.."
How adorably French. You get em tiger.
"... Dialog is impossible anymore, though..."
With close minded ideologies like yourself, yes it is. There are a few liberals, a few, who still posess enough self awareness to engage in meaningful debate but they're on the endangered species list.
Is it conservative or liberal philosophy that gets a nine year old boy suspended from school for sexual harassment for telling a classmate that a teacher is "fine" or "cute?"
http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t3#/video/bestoftv/2011/12/05/exp-pn-boy-suspended-sexual-harassment.hln
The teacher herself never heard the comment. A substitue teacher overheard the students' converstion.
Another fine example of the police state that progressives fully support. But, we're supposed to respect their authority and listen to them.
"Every Sunday morning I watch as conservatives outnumber liberals"
Change the channel, every single other one is just the opposite.
man o man, there's a lot of anger here. i heard this was a civil venue.
Hysterical. I suggest we canvas the marquee Sunday morning news shows for ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MS-NBC and FOX this coming and total them up. While one day does not a trend make, it might prove a bit more illuminating.
this has been done for years. The data is compiled. But you will not believe it if it is not from Fox News or Lush Windbag.
Of course, you'd probably categorize a new reporter as a liberal because they don't parrot propaganda. (Hint: Harold Ford is no freaking liberal).
It's a waste of time trying to reason with conservatives.
@The Crack Emcee: In the words of Oliver Cromwell:
-- I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.
Yes, know your shit. Yes, stand by what you know.
But always keep in mind the possibility that you might be wrong. And worse, that the other guy just might be right.
Is Alpha Liberal another Debbie Frisch/J sock puppet?
John Henry
this has been done for years. The data is compiled.
Ah...the science is settled, I suppose? Speaking of close-minded and a reluctance to be reasonable...I mention a harmless challenge and plan on doing it this Sunday whether you participate or not. Your response to that one, itty-bitty piece of completely unbiased engagement is met with you slamming the door because, for you, it's already been decided.
Thanks for illustrating the point so quickly.
Alpha -- Your screed is illuminating. You've taken marginal ideas and used them to smear all ideological foes. You've taken reasonable ideas and stripped them of their context.
You are an example of the thing you claim to oppose. Narrow minded, intolerant, anti-intellectual.
Attica! Attica! Attica!
That chauvinist bastid Russell! Telling a woman not to assert her authority in her own home!
i thought you were counting liberals and conservatives in church on sunday morning. i have to believe there are more conservatives in church. on tv sunday morning, meet the press has more liberals, fox has more conservatives and this week leans left but not like meet the press. i never watch schieffer so i can't say. i like fareed, he leans left and has a lot of international people.
Also, too, the era that Bertrand Russel wrote in was far different than today. Back then both parties accepted labor unions and the idea that the wealthy should pay a higher percentage of taxes than the rest.
Top tax rates under Dwight Eisenhower we above 90%. We did not have the glaring inequalities of wealth we have today. The idea then was that the wealthy should give back to the society that gave them so much. Today, they demand the ability to take, take, take and hoard, hoard, hoard.
But, today Dwight Eisenhower would be considered a liberal. Along with Ronald Reagan who raised taxes, what, nine times? Because he cared more about country than ideology.
I'm looking for an intellectually honest conservative. Perhaps one conservative here will admit that the Bush tax cuts did not create jobs as promised. We wound up with an economic crash of historic proportion.
So, here comes Ann Althouse to bash liberals over certitude while her beloved conservatives continue to demand that we return to the same policies that wrecked the economy!!
Althouse has no problem with that. Not especially consistent, her.
@Scott M -- Can you find the true Scotsman in Alpha's argument?
i have to believe there are more conservatives in church.
Given that modern Christianity has been hijacked by a political creed that is exactly opposite of what Jesus Christ preached, yes. Many liberals are disgusted with modern Christianity that has so little to do with what Jesus preached.
Jesus did not preach that the rich be served first and the poor ignored.
Jesus did not preach hatred as does the right wing, constantly.
Jesus preached welcoming the stranger, not making scapegoats of them, as con's do with immigrants.
Jesus never said a thing about gays. The only biblical passage is among the often bizarre and seldom-followed passages of Leviticus.
And then there is the organized crime that was systematic covering up of child sexual abuse by priests.
Ayn Rand, patron saint of modern Republicans, preached the complete opposite gospel of Jesus Christ.
conservatives these days for the most part worship a false prophet and you idolize the golden bull. I guess the golden calf grew up.
@Scott M -- Can you find the true Scotsman in Alpha's argument?
Not just this argument. Most of Alpha's writings are commando.
"Bush tax cuts did not create jobs as promised. We wound up with an economic crash of historic proportion. "
If you believe that, just how did that work? People (all incomes) got more money and so they stopped paying their mortgages? Is that it?
And, FZ, you know I was talking about Sunday morning talk shows.
From this past Sunday:
CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX); Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN); Sen. John McCain (R-AZ); Alice Rivlin, Brookings Institution; Douglas Holtz-Eakin, American Action Forum; Ron Brownstein, National Journal
One moderate Dem who still wants to cut Social Security, and one reporter. All the rest conservatives.
NBC’s Meet the Press with David Gregory: David Axelrod; RNC Chairman Reince Priebus; Joe McQuaid, Publisher of the New Hampshire Union Leader; Katty Kay, BBC; Fmr. Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (D-TN); Mark Halperin, Time Magazine.
Axelrod is only remotely liberal person. Harold Ford is a conservative Democrat, scorned by liberals.
The news media is owned and controlled by conservative media moguls. It ignores many issues would like covered and distort others.
Liberals do not understand economics.
That's why modern liberals, aka progressives, are not outraged at what their beloved leaders are doing to the economy. They simply don't understand.
I stopped when I got to John McCain on your list, Alpha. It renders anyone else you would list as a conservative suspect.
Bagoh:
If you believe that, just how did that work? People (all incomes) got more money and so they stopped paying their mortgages? Is that it?
Instead of filtering it through your world view, look at the facts. Basically the same number of jobs as when he started. In his final year in office, we were shedding jobs at a half million per month.
To your question: The rich don't get rich by letting money "trickle down." They do invest but are more likely to create jobs in Pac Rim than USA.
Our current economic crisis is due to a lack of demand. Corps are sitting on lots and lots of cash but it doesn't make sense for them to invest when they don't have customers.
Given their customers are cutting back and suffering declines in wages and benefits or unemployment, not much chance for demand to rise.
With governments, also, cutting back, overall demand falls more.
In fact we have had our times of lowest unemployment when we have had higher taxes on the wealthy. Look at the 1950s that Althouse hearkens back to!
Our rich rulers want high unemployment because it comes with very low inflation and low demands for higher wages. More lucre for them.
Scott, if you think John McCain is a liberal than you have a very very distorted world view.
I'm looking for an intellectually honest conservative.
A quest you never intend to complete. Your light has gone out, my friend.
The Personal Liberty state has everyone starting from the same page, and the outcome is what you make of it.
Steve Forbes says hi.
If your assertion were even remotely true, Beatrice Potter would have remained a devotee of Herbert Spencer. Instead, her study of poverty in London turned her to socialism and Sidney Webb.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Jesus never said a thing about gays. The only biblical passage is among the often bizarre and seldom-followed passages of Leviticus
Have ye not read that He who made them at the beginning, made them male and female and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and they two shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man divorce.
You don’t actually READ the Bible, much do you AL?
AprilApple:
Liberals do not understand economics.
Astounding. Conservative economic policies created a great recession that we are still trying to recover from.
But you guys still demand we adopt trickle down tax cuts after 10 years and one trillion dollars in trickle down tax cuts led to a massive jobs crisis.
You think deregulation is the cure, after Bush and Clinton lifted regulation on Wall Street and they looted and tanked our economy with their greed.
Conservatives refuse to admit that corporate executives are anything but noble and blameless. It's, at root, a childish view of the world that ignores the corruption and greed in the private sector today.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Our rich rulers want high unemployment because it comes with very low inflation and low demands for higher wages. More lucre for them
You also don’t remember Jim-muh Carter nor look at current economic data much do you?
Scott, if you think John McCain is a liberal than you have a very very distorted world view.
Please show me where I said anything of the sort. This statement by you reveals a not-so-startling truth about you, though. You have a very either-or worldview. Apparently there's no room for anything else other than conservatives and liberals in your mind.
And I thought you people were claimers of the nuance high ground...
On a final note...who is misrepresenting others' comments here?
"frankz said...
man o man, there's a lot of anger here. i heard this was a civil venue."
You cannot be civil with those whose only purpose is to disrupt your conversation. When AL, J, and Garage are posting it's a waste of time, which is exactly why they do it. Apparently their own contribution to society amounts to so little disrupting others exceeds any other effort they could make.
Our rich rulers want high unemployment because it comes with very low inflation and low demands for higher wages. More lucre for them.
Just remember the richest member of Congress are Democrats. Nancy Pelosi has made millions off of insider trading. Illegal immigration comes with lower demand for higher wages also.
Russell was a fairly competent economist (and teacher of Keynes). His comments on Jevons, Marshall and...marxism are rather good ( marxists didn't think so). He opposed laissez-faire at any cost.
Russell apparently didn't comment on the glibertarian klassix of Hayek, Rand etc., and I doubt he'd approve of a system based on...Randian axioms-- A is mutha-f-ing A
Joe, that passages is silent on gays. Has nothing to do with gays. Read it. It does not say "go forth and persecute those who choose a mate of the same gender."
Jesus Christ preached tolerance. Modern conservative openly scorn tolerance.
And, anyway, our public policy should not be based on your interpretation of the Bible. Or mine! This is not a theocracy and no-one has to live under the dictates of your religion or the Pope's.
Jesus Christ preached tolerance.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. You need to bone up a bit, Alpha. Your ignorance on this topic is showing quite starkly.
"frankz said...
man o man, there's a lot of anger here. i heard this was a civil venue."
It really is not. Look up above where Scott M refers to Occupy Wall street protesters as lice ridden and filthy. You think that's civil? I've been called every name in the book on this web site for simply making arguments contrary to conservative dogma.
Not to mention the frequent lies and insults against liberals all over this site, from the blogess and others. I know many people accept insults (for libs, not cons) but it is not civil. Even when done against libs.
Anger? Yes. I am angry. Very angry. angry that my religion was hijacked and betrayed, and likewise for my country. Angry at the rampant corruption. And angry that people like Ann Althouse lie about people like me.
Russell also said a few interesting things about the founding of Israel--not entirely positive (the state which his nemesis Churchill facilitated)
AL's not a leftist, Squatty. It's a sockpuppet--more than likely your TP crony, you know, byro-jay-sorepaw-titus, now doing his leftist schtick, ie the mockery of any authentic demo values. He's as venal and corrupt as the ordinary conservative.
alpha. i must say i see blindness from both sides here. regarding the snapshot of this past sunday. there are republican primaries coming up therefore the shows should have the candidates on so we can learn.
marshall, i just got here and i'm learning the people. i don't think i'll stay too long. i had enough anger with my family at thanksgiving. and christmas is coming up. serenity now.
Here is an example of defense of blatant lying by a Republican frontrunner, one who claims to be a religious person BTW. From a Romney spokesman, defending his lie about an Obama quote:
“First of all, ads are propaganda by definition. We are in the persuasion business, the propaganda business ... Ads are agitprop ... Ads are about hyperbole, they are about editing. It’s ludicrous for them to say that an ad is taking something out of context ... All ads do that. They are manipulative pieces of persuasive art.”
That's a Republican talking. The truth doesn't matter and people who think it should are losers.
I'm angry at the conservatives and moderates who go along with that sort of thing and will not criticize it because the speaker is a conservative.
And you should be, too.
Not to mention the frequent lies and insults against liberals all over this site,
Similar to your huge strawman argument concerning Christians and religion at 9:48?
Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
Robert A. Heinlein
Speaking of "liberals," evidently, Alpha has not used his absence from this site to resolve his cognitive dissonance by remedial study. He continues instead to resort to hyperbole, blame and self-delusion.
What a pity.
Forget Russell (unlikely anyone here has bothered with one essay, or checked the wiki). It's sockpup. j-o with itself time at the A-house
missed this one. Frank Z:
there are republican primaries coming up therefore the shows should have the candidates on so we can learn.
The same imbalance persists in all seasons, regardless of which party is in the majorities in Congress. When Dems controlled both chambers 2008-2010, we watched as week after week the talk shows were dominated by conservatives and Republicans.
We were observing on commenting on that dynamic back then.
Look who owns these networks! Conservatives! Rich ones!
He continues instead to resort to hyperbole, blame and self-delusion.
There you go. that's how conservatives roll. they cannot handle an argument on it's merits and engage in insults, instead.
The big question is how much longer the rightward lurch by Republicans can continue. They are now espousing 19th and 18th century policies. How will it end?
It really is not. Look up above where Scott M refers to Occupy Wall street protesters as lice ridden and filthy.
For someone who's widdle feewings got hurt because someone supposedly misrepresented what he wrote, you're doing a bang up job of embracing deh derp today. Please show me where I wrote lice-ridden "and filthy". That second part is YOUR characterization of what I said. I never said anything of the sort.
The lice part was widely reported and addressed by the protestors themselves. If you think, somehow, that the unsanitary conditions at the occupy squatter sites was part of some conservative cabal, you apparently weren't paying very close attention. Or you were, but with a hugely warped lens.
I'll wait your apology for being intellectually dishonest, but I not going to hold my breath.
"engage in insults"
Alpha, your entire contribution to this blog - ever, over many years - has been *nothing* but bile, hatred, and propaganda. You are a hysterical shrieking demagogue - the last person who should characterize themselves as "liberal".
"marshall, i just got here and i'm learning the people. i don't think i'll stay too long. i had enough anger with my family at thanksgiving. and christmas is coming up. serenity now."
I can't blame you, but this is exactly their strategy. Drive off anyone interested in a discussion by turning every thread into a raving lunatic contest. So when you reach 25 posts in a row with nothing but their spew there's it's pretty normal to move on.
Robert Swinelein, nixon man, pro-nuke, all around dreck.
Sure sign of Byro-sorepaw the AZ-acid head and McCainian.
".... Another fine example of the police state that progressives fully support. But, we're supposed to respect their authority and listen to them..."
Steyn linked to a Boston Globe article where a first grader got into a fight with another kid and kicked him in the nuts. The kid is now being investigated by the school for...wait for it...sexual assault.
Liberals at their finest.
Alpha (9:48): Jesus never said a thing about gays. The only biblical passage is among the often bizarre and seldom-followed passages of Leviticus.
You might want to visit St. Paul's epistles, particularly 1 Timothy 1:10. I don't think it is part of Leviticus.
You remember Paul, the guy Jesus commissioned to take the Good News, etc., to the gentiles.
WARNING: Exposure to facts may create dissonance!
"... Conservative economic policies created a great recession that we are still trying to recover from..."
Interesting. Just a few posts up you said our economic malaise was due to low consumer demand.
Hard to keep your talking points straight ain't it?
I wonder how many times J has to accuse someone of being a sockpuppet of this evil puppetmaster "Byro" before it becomes "repetitive".
Thousands of times? Tens of thousands?
Anywho...Alpha, what do you think of the Russell essay that's the topic of the post -- how do you think self-identified liberals in the pro-AGW camp have measured up to Russell's criteria for liberalism?
John Burgess,
@The Crack Emcee: In the words of Oliver Cromwell:
-- I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.
Yes, know your shit. Yes, stand by what you know.
But always keep in mind the possibility that you might be wrong. And worse, that the other guy just might be right.
Of course, but knowing we're all capable of being fallible in our judgments is still KNOWING something. I see people, myself included, who get punished for confidently stating the obvious - and that's what's presented as our crime. "Be humble!" they scream - not you're wrong. To confidently stride the Earth, because you KNOW there's a very real planet beneath your feet, is "insulting" to such people. They demand others bow to their insecurities regarding their own ignorance and doubts - a flaw on their part they're hardly equipped to deal with, obviously.
It's a shame we eliminated the madhouse, if you asked me,...
Oh, and you guys have joined Alpha and J in the traditional Althouse domination of the thread. Considering what they bring to the table (has either ever conceded anything?) those of you with your critical faculties intact should be ashamed,...
J wrote: Robert Swinelein, nixon man, pro-nuke, all around dreck.
Really. And here I thought Heinlein was a highly regarded science fiction writer.
Oh, I see. You, like Alpha, are here to caricaturize the modern liberal.
Not exactly hombre-sockpup (more than likely byro-sorepaw). Nothin' to do with AL. But pointing out RA Swinelein's politics--Nixonian (McCarthyite as well), pro-war, capitalist..and an atheist and Darwinist. RAH was about like Ayn Rand (who he praised) who finished an engineering course or two (allegedly). A failed nurse compare to the likes of Lord Russell
And another Byro sockpuppet accusation.
Seems repetitive and boring to me.
J, perhaps you'd like to address the actual topic of the thread.
What do you think of liberal AGW advocates' performance with regard to these tenets of liberalism as put forward by this Lord Russell of yours?
Doesn't it seem as though they've not only violated every one of them, but they've shat upon Lord Russell's grave?
Liberalism used to be about "Freedoms," for people great and small.
During Gulf War I, Libwerals protested Bush's father b/c he did not use the US Military to bring democracy to the Middle East (I was there among the protests as a College student in NYC).
12 years later, they flipped when HW Bush's son took up that philossiphy after 9/11. Where was the Left on ridding the world of a dictator?
Hint: Whinging like AL, but quiet over Libya having no Congressional Authorization.
And know how you can modern progressives are unlike Liberal ideals?
When has Alpha Liberal defended the free speech of anyone whose views opposed hers?
In fact, when Althouse was under fire (and threatened), AL was no where to be found.
AL's beliefs are simple: Some Animals are more equal then others.
I see this thread went sideways-
Once a certain person started hammering.
To avoid further frustration, may I suggest a sort of "how to" when it comes to arguing with (Alpha) liberals-
....By Ann Coulter.
@J: So Heinlein wasn't a highly regarded science fiction writer? H-m-m.
Does "delusional revisionist" begin with a "J"?
Wow..boring clutter..I'm telling the teacher!
@J: So Heinlein wasn't a highly regarded science fiction writer? H-m-m.
On the positive side, there is another "Starship Troopers" being made and, thankfully, they're not going to let Verhoeven anywhere close to it.
Frankly, I highly doubt that the discussions by the Mr Dubois character are going to get much attention if any at all. However, if they do, maybe we'll see a generation of parents willing to spank their kids.
Amazing Cracki trying to act intellectual again. Im the one defending Russellian rationalism, little man (google it for a few weeks). What are you defending? Herman Cainism(tho sans.."God").
"Lord Russell" descended into mere crankery and became a parody of himself, thanks to his masturbatory Class Traitor liberalism (jealousy of his more charismatic and appealing brother, who bff'd around with Santayana in their salad days).
More awfully than the T. S. Eliot connection, he purportedly cuckolded Whitehead too. Some thanks on the Principia Mathematica.
Anglo-Analytic aspie types seem to have a thing for cuckolding their friends, though. Cf. A. J. Ayer.
Of course, to the end Russell thought himself a supreme bastion of sound sense. Wittgenstein, Moore, Whitehead-- all, all traitors to true philosophy!
No matter. They just all turned stuffy, like Aristotle, according to bonny Lord Russell.
Tell it to the ladies.
So Swinelein wasn't a highly regarded science fiction writer? .
Well, many 'Merikans think highly of Nixon and Kissinger too, don't they, yid
AlphaLiberal said...
Then you have right wing extremism:
* Running up huge budget deficits to borrow money to give tax breaks to the rich.
Um, Obama extended the Bush tax cuts and has run the largest deficits in the history of America.
Thanks for particpating.
Russell never claimed to have solved all logical problems. Indeed Goedel's proof of the completeness of first order logic mostly vindicated Russell and Whitehead's Principia (the incompleteness proofs applied to 2nd order, math. foundations, etc). And St. Wittgenstein? No comment, except that most of the Tractatus followed from Russell's logical writings (and Frege).
Re the other bio-jazz--you're getting the usual ad hominem on, Luc. ( both extreme right and left said nasty things about Russell.)
nice hog scottm.
Thanks.
Um, you're talking about his bike, right?
It's just a picture...of a bike...honest.
stick to yr harleyite fantasies, Squatty, and avoid the philosophy, teabug. Or rather your you and a young-boy on a Harley fantasy, Squat-warrior .
Heh heh
Imagine Russell as God, laying down a Commandment on his people. "Do not feel absolutely certain of anything."
I can see Russell touched a nerve among the Fundie class. Yes you fundies have your GOD and you are certain!
Liberals blah blah light bulbs blah blah blah AGW hoax blah blah blah
Conservatives blah blah blah Racists blah blah blah capitalism blah blah blah
There you go. that's how conservatives roll. they cannot handle an argument on it's merits and engage in insults, instead.
Projection, thy name is Alpha LibRUL.
Jesus preached tolerance? Not of sin, He didn't. And Matthew 10:34's "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace but a sword" doesn't sound too do-your-own-thing to me.
Alpha foamed, "Top tax rates under Dwight Eisenhower were above 90%."
Izzat so? Well, I can also point out that Ike's 1958 budget (his largest ever) was estimated at 73.3billion. In contrast, your Little Black Jesus' initial 2011 spending request was 3.83 TRILLION.
Give me an Eisenhower budget, AL, and you can have your precious 90% tax rate. But you won't. The left is incapable of cutting. Taxing the Dr. Evil super rich is all you know.
ScottM, You better make sure frankz isn't related to Titus.
I thought J was going to be a good boy since he got slapped on the wrist. He's been fairly civil the last couple days but you can't teach an old dogass new tricks.
Alpha/Debbie/J said:
"Top tax rates under Dwight Eisenhower were above 90%."
Are you concerned about tax rates or tax revenues, Alpha?
How much actually money was collected under the 90% rate?
What percentage of federal tax revenue came from the wealthy when they were supposedly paying the 90% rate?
Every time tax *rates* have been raised, tax *revenues* have fallen.
Under Coolidge, Under Kennedy, under Reagan, under Clinton.
Ditto many examples of state taxes.
Not just in the US either. 10-15 years ago Canada raised tobacco tax rates. Tobacco tax revenues dropped off so sharply that they had to rescind it.
Plenty of other examples.
John Henry
And Russell had nothing but hateful things to say for anybody . . . .
Well, he's either at your feet or at your throat.
One would think, tho, if first period Wittgenstein merely flows straight from Russell's limpid pool of brilliance, Russell wouldn't have John the Baptist-ed himself to Wittgenstein's Messiah.
Of all the things to derive from 200-level notes, the idea that Russell somehow stands supreme-- or more than barely standing on his feet--among 20th century intellectual titans, is curious, though not in the sense that it inspires further inquiry.
Not that his pre-WWI work is baleful. But fifty years is a long time to dedicate oneself to sophistical pedantry.
But then, some people start on that road from the crib, straight to momma's basement.
Better spent on something useful, like blowjob technique.
Christopher wrote: Jesus preached tolerance? Not of sin, He didn't.
Correct.
"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions."
Attributed, probably incorrectly, to GK Chesterton. Although, he might have been speaking to, or about, Russell.
Liberal means progress.
Conservative mean anti-progress.
Liberal means open minded.
Conservative means closed minded.
It's the classic north south divide. The south has all this honor and tradition but the north creates the jobs and keeps th4e economy going. The union forever. Progress. Yes.
Matt said...
Liberal means progress.
Conservative mean anti-progress.
Liberal means open minded.
Conservative means closed minded.
Laugh out loud funny.
Matt said...
Liberal means progress.
Conservative mean anti-progress.
Liberal means open minded.
Conservative means closed minded.
This silliness is on par with Alphaliberal's assertion that there are no left wing extremists.
How does it feel to tell yourself lies each day, Matt?
nice hog scottm.
He has a nice motorcycle, too, so I've been told.
A liberal today is a leveler, liberal with other people's money, and thinks that's virtuous.
"John said...
Alpha/Debbie/J said:
"Top tax rates under Dwight Eisenhower were above 90%."
Are you concerned about tax rates or tax revenues, Alpha?"
This is not the right question. Even more then than now the income tax code included myriad deductions allowing those who might have been subjected to the 90% rate to avoid income tax on the income which otherwise would have been confiscated. Virtually no one paid the 90% rate. The sole purpose for the 90% rate was to force rich Americans to spend money the way congress wanted, or their income would be confiscated.
It's no surprise modern leftists are envious.
Are ad hominem attacks the best you all can come up with?
Are ad hominem attacks the best you all can come up with?
That's a stupid question written by an idiot.
(lol)
The discourse is usually a bit higher caliber. We have a small (fortunately) stable of thread carpet bombers that can't help the ad hominem. Even if they make a valid point, they can't help throwing an unnecessary barb on the end of it. Granted, as with just about everything involving human endeavor, it's on a bell curve. The truly injane are outliers.
"Liberal once meant something"
So now it means what?? Is it devoid of meaning?
I, for one , have grown tired of this crap from both sides.
Bertram Russell in the New York Times magazine: "The best answer to fanaticism: Liberalism"
Woody Allen in Manhattan: "Has anybody read that Nazis are gonna march in New Jersey? Y'know, I read this in the newspaper. We should go down there, get some guys together, y'know, get some bricks and baseball bats and really explain things to them."
Party Guest: "There is this devastating satirical piece on that on the Op Ed page of the Times, it is devastating."
Woody Allen: "Well, a satirical piece in the Times is one thing, but bricks and baseball bats really gets right to the point."
Interesting to think of examples from the headlines that illustrate how far we have come adrift from these by-and-large sensible principles:
1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything. SEE: Global Warming
2. Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light. SEE: Eric Holder and Fast & Furious
3. Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed. SEE: Speech restrictions on university campuses
4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavour to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory. SEE: Obamacare, School Vouchers, Tax increases, . . .
5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found. SEE: Dissing allies and extending the hand of friendship to enemies.
6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you. SEE: MSM and the Tea Party
7. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric. SEE: Ayn Rand
8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent that in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter. SEE: Paul Ryan
9. Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it. SEE: Greece, Pensions, Federal Spending, . . .
10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness. SEE: OWS
There are right-wingers, from Plato to Bork, who think that free speech requires a moral relativism, or a moral nihilism, of the sort that Russell preached. These right-wingers, in my opinion, are utterly wrong. One can believe in moral absolutes, and still recognize that you shouldn't grant the government authority to lock people up for speaking out against it. Plato's assumption that the powerful and the righteous are always on the same side is laughable at best.
The free speech clause, like all of the Constitution, is best seen as procedural. It's a legal framework to divide up power and to keep a few people from amassing too much of it.
Thus Hugo Black (rightly) was unafraid to say that the free speech clause was "absolute." He fought like a dog to protect the rights of Communists, Nazis, etc. Not because they might be right, but because the people have not granted any authority to the government to lock up citizens for speaking out against it. Period.
Indeed, the so-called "liberal" (and unelected) jurist who denies any absolutes and creates a balancing test, secretly gives himself the power to decide if this or that speaker is to be punished.
And so-called "liberals" who are indoctrinated to be moderate, open-minded, unsure, and docile, watch all this happen and do nothing.
If you will not fight for what you believe in, then other, stronger people will impose their will upon you.
Indeed, the whole point of our liberal government is to keep power from accumulating in the hands of a tyrant. I do not see Russell, then, as a liberal in the classical sense of a Jefferson, who certainly was willing to fight for what he believed in. Would Russell have written the Declaration of Independence?
Or would he have voted "present"?
Alpha: Tax rates were 90% at the top. Do you know how many people actually paid at that rate given the cornucopia of deductions available at that time? I suspect you do not and I suspect I would waste my time in giving you the answers. Should you be curious you know how to find out.
Supposing you did look into this would you be willing to reinstitute the deductions and exemptions if we went back to the 90%?
I notice AL doesn't want to go back to 1958 spending levels or Jim Crow for that matter.
Does Russell's Rule 1 apply to Rules 2 thru 10 as well as to itself?
Ah yes, she was found guilty of having established a Legal Defense Fund…funny how it’s OK for the Clinton’s but unethical for Palin…oh well.
...remember, though, she is a "quitter" because she stepped down as Governor due to the exorbitant legal bills that she, OF COURSE, could've set up a Legal Defense Fund to help cover.
An honest person might listen directly to liberals.
Can we examine their actions? Those seem to be far more relevant.
OTOH, you have Mitt Romney quote Obama and completely distort what he said. As just one example.
Hint: Obama did the same thing.
He claimed McCain said that.
McCain never said that.
An unnamed source said that.
Just keeping you up to date.
Top tax rates under Dwight Eisenhower we above 90%. We did not have the glaring inequalities of wealth we have today.
We also had a good economy because the world was pretty well levelled. And I will go to a 90% tax rate when the federal budget becomes as small as it was under Eisenhower.
Deal?
Perhaps one conservative here will admit that the Bush tax cuts did not create jobs as promised.
Unemployment under 5% until Dems gained Congress and boned everything up.
Yeah, brutally unsuccessful.
Our current economic crisis is due to a lack of demand. Corps are sitting on lots and lots of cash but it doesn't make sense for them to invest when they don't have customers.
...or when they have no idea what it will cost to employ somebody next year due to government regulations...
Jesus Christ preached tolerance. Modern conservative openly scorn tolerance.
Says the self-professed liberal whose diatribes thus far would not qualify as "tolerant" by any rational measure.
All I want is an HONEST liberal. One who can explain how we're more free when the government most regulates every aspect of our life.
It really is not. Look up above where Scott M refers to Occupy Wall street protesters as lice ridden and filthy.
When authorities find Plots of fecal matter and bottles of urine lying around --- filthy is being generous.
Anger? Yes. I am angry. Very angry. angry that my religion was hijacked and betrayed, and likewise for my country. Angry at the rampant corruption.
Any concerns about Democrats who protected Corzine while he robbed billions upon billions from people?
How about Clinton people begging Bush to bail out Enron?
How about Frank protecting FNMA while boning an executive there?
How about Waters demanding money be given to a bank her husband is a stockholder in that didn't qualify for it under TARP?
How about Pelosi's Visa IPO business?
How about Obama's people leaning on Solyndra to not announce layoffs until after the elections?
I'm angry at the conservatives and moderates who go along with that sort of thing and will not criticize it because the speaker is a conservative.
Your rage at Obama falsely claiming McCain said that, I'm sure, was quite hot at the time.
they cannot handle an argument on it's merits
Your arguments have merit?
When did that start?
"Top tax rates under Dwight Eisenhower were above 90%."
Yes, so progressive to advocate for tax rates from 60 years ago!
Liberal means progress.
Conservative mean anti-progress.
Liberal means open minded.
Conservative means closed minded.
It's the classic north south divide. The south has all this honor and tradition but the north creates the jobs and keeps th4e economy going. The union forever. Progress. Yes.
I'm astonished at how incorrect everything you wrote here is.
Liberals are holding on to their failed system like grim death.
Liberals are incapable of entertaining a differing viewpoint. Conservatives can't avoid it and learned to deal with it long ago.
If not for the South producing as many jobs as we are --- care to guess how bad the unemployment rate would be?
Also, it's difficult to name a Southern hellhole that matches the sheer crappiness that is a Northern hellhole.
Atlanta isn't great...but dang, it sure as heck isn't Detroit.
BTW, why has nobody mentioned AL's brutal misogyny?
Anybody advocating returning to 50's policies means you HAVE to support women not being allowed to work and the removal of harassment law, right?
I don't call lefties "liberals" anymore. Most lefties are not worthy of the term "liberal" or "progressive".
There was value in the debate between conservatism and classic liberalism. Classic liberals were worthy opponents. There isn't much value in lefty politics nowadays, it is mostly about gaining and keeping power by relentlessly expanding the size and power of government.
I agree with Althouse that the left has mutated over the course of her life (mine, too, I'm about the same age as Althouse).
I would ascribe to all four rules, only the first rule invalidates the other three. I'm just not certain about them. I'm not even certain that I should not feel asolutely certain of anything.
I should never try to discourage thinking? Is bertrand absolutely certain about that? Isn't never a bit too strong a word? That would require certainty.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा