A good aphorism from Roy Edroso, in his Village Voice column which reviews what "rightbloggers" are saying, this time focusing on that NYT article "Has the 'Libertarian Moment' Finally Arrived?"
The moment for reading that article never arrived for me, but I'm seeing Edroso's piece because Instapundit linked to Matt Welch at Reason, who quarrels with Edroso about the relative extent of Reason magazine's advocacy of gay marriage and the religion-based rights of businessfolk to discriminate against gay people.
You guys can fight amongst yourselves. I liked the aphorism, but unlike the relative number of statements in Reason about gay marriage and religion-based rights, it's hard to figure out what to count to check its truth. My sense that it's true comes from the embodied intuition and empathy that I feel is relatively lacking in libertarians.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
65 comments:
Empathy for the left always involves coercion.
The "empathy" of the set who believes government should do the heavy lifting when it comes to helping those less fortunate is somewhat suspect. In the end it's deniable NIMBYism.
My sense that it's true comes from the embodied intuition and empathy that I feel is relatively lacking in libertarians.
Women's intution and empathy......
Repeal the 19th Amendment!
I don't understand your third paragraph, Professor ("You guys..."). It seems as though you deleted a sentence or a phrase.
Why do leftists insist on psycho-analyzing their opponents?
"conservatism for people with social anxieties..."
This isn't an argument. It is more like a social signal. I'm in the cool club, and these people who disagree with me have social anxieties...those other people who disagree are controlling...
It is what a True Believer would say about an Unbeliever.
"I don't understand your third paragraph, Professor ("You guys..."). It seems as though you deleted a sentence or a phrase."
The guys are Instapundit, Matt Welch, and Roy Edroso.
I think libertarianism is often a grudging refuge for actual liberals (as in "by definition") who have seen their preferred term for their views hijacked by large numbers of people who are actually anything but. It's a grudging refuge in that they don't completely agree with the full libertarian orthodoxy.
I say this as someone who has been erroneously and repeatedly termed a conservative or a libertarian by various people over the years (including my wife). When asked to self-identify when I reject those terms, I can only respond with "I think." Which should certainly not be confused with my believing I am always correct in my thinking. But I at least try. That is why I visit here every day. People think here. I don't always agree, but I do appreciate what they're doing.
How about "Libertarianism is for people who don't think they know how to run other people's lives better than they do"?
It's fine if you want to argue against libertarianism--you can argue that collective solutions can often be greater for the whole, or that freedom can create societal problems that ought to be corrected. But dismissing your opponents as if they have a personality flaw is a cheap way to avoid engaging their arguments on the merits.
What's the big deal about that article? Seems that it's more about Edroso pumping out clownish caricatures than anything else.
My sense that it's true comes from the embodied intuition and empathy that I feel is relatively lacking in libertarians."
I suppose empathy like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Every quarter when I send my coerced blood money to DC the only ones who seem to have any empathy for me are the Libertarians.
"embodied intuition and empathy"
Isn't that redundant? Is there such a thing as disembodied intuition or empathy?
"I think libertarianism is often a grudging refuge for actual liberals (as in "by definition") who have seen their preferred term for their views hijacked by large numbers of people who are actually anything but."
The nomenclature has been all wrong for a while. What's particularly "liberal" about wanting to exert more state control over individuals and society? What's "conservative" about wanting to reduce such control? And don't get me started on "progressive"!
The better breakdown is between "libertarian" and "collectivist". The former lean farther toward liberties on the spectrum, and the latter lean farther toward collective action. Some people may be more collectivist on economic matters and more libertarian on social issues, and vice versa. But "liberal" and "conservative" have been distorted over the years to the extent that people now have to explain further what they mean by those terms.
"[L]ibertarianism is basically conservatism for people with social anxieties."
A pretty typical clickbait statement, no evidence necessary.
The problem I have with libertarians is that their ideology is self-destructive. They don't seem to realize that letting people make more choices leads to more bad choices. The standard libertarian answer is to let people fail, but that's not what happens. If enough people fail they vote to be bailed out. Then we're all worse off.
What actually happens is the opposite of what libertarians say they want. We've liberated every aspect of life, and it's led to more government dependence. Maybe we need to ask why that happened.
"The problem I have with libertarians is that their ideology is self-destructive. They don't seem to realize that letting people speak more for themselves leads to more bad speech. The standard libertarian answer is to let people say bad things, but that's not what happens. If enough people say bad things they vote to restrict the 1st Amendment. Then we're all worse off."
fify
Lance-
And that's exactly what's happening, isn't it?
The expansion of the First Amendment after WW2 led to all the restrictions on speech we have today- campus speech codes, political correctness, etc. It's a direct result. Sure, there's less prior restraint, but if you can have your entire life ruined by an off-hand remark on the internet it's the same thing. Proves my point.
Unrestricted freedom isn't going to happen because enough people will lose and vote their way back in the game. Either we set the limits consciously, or we let them be set for us.
John Lynch said...
The problem I have with libertarians is that their ideology is self-destructive. They don't seem to realize that letting people make more choices leads to more bad choices. The standard libertarian answer is to let people fail, but that's not what happens. If enough people fail they vote to be bailed out. Then we're all worse off.
What actually happens is the opposite of what libertarians say they want. We've liberated every aspect of life, and it's led to more government dependence. Maybe we need to ask why that happened.
8/12/14, 8:36 AM
We need to limit voting to those who are actually are going to pay the bill. That solves your dilemma that results from privatizing the gain and socializing the loss. Charity isn't a government function.
"[L]ibertarianism is basically conservatism for people with social anxieties."
Considering conservatism's "paranoid strain" - not to mention waiting for the apocalypse which is ALWAYS right around the corner - that's saying something,...
Mark,
The "empathy" of the set who believes government should do the heavy lifting when it comes to helping those the government screwed over is an obvious conclusion.
FIFY
J,
"Why do leftists insist on psycho-analyzing their opponents?"
"Why do conservatives forget their own behavior when criticizing liberals?" would be a better question,...
I am a conservative Republican - Old school:
The party that freed the slaves and fights for, both, full black participation in this nation and the destruction of whatever influences stand in the way of that goal.
Libertarians think we'll somehow get that - without justice.
They're madder than a box of frogs,...
cubanbob,
"We need to limit voting to those who are actually are going to pay the bill."
Ahh - so the oppressed will be kept out and the oppressors make all the decisions.
Brilliant white analysis,...
"My sense that it's true comes from the embodied intuition and empathy that I feel is relatively lacking in libertarians."
I guess it's bash libertarian week..... Try this instead
My sense that it's true comes from the knowledge that I am a soft-headed liberal who is relatively lacking in ratiocination.
I'm libertarian. I have great empathy for the lives that have been ruined by government programs. As a young man, I didn't trust the government. As an older man I still don't trust the government. It doesn't matter who's in power. So, just where on the political spectrum should I be?
Libertarians, the people that understand all governments have only two real powers. The power to say "No" and the power to kill you when you disagree.
The rest of you idiots keep clamoring to give the government more control over our lives because you want an official "No" on the activities and beliefs of those with whom you disagree. Somehow, you people are continuously surprised when you're the one told, "No" (or simply just killed in the street).
Also, Empathy is terrible.
There's always some restriction on our behavior. Give people more sexual freedom, and families fall apart. They need more government assistance, which leads to more taxes. You have to pay for all the single parents and childless pensioners. That's less freedom for whoever is paying the taxes.
There's no such thing as being social liberal and economically conservative in the long run. They work against each other. Small government requires a strong civil society to regulate individual behavior. If you empower individuals by breaking down social conventions, then you are going to have to pick up after the failures.
In the version of the Article that I read, Edroso expends a sizable portion of it on complaints about the excessive number of libertarians who empathize with unborn children.
My reason for being identifying myself as a libertarian has to do with my observation that throughout history things seem to work better when people have more freedom and power remains diffuse. Conversely the more concentrated power becomes, the worse off things seem to be. I don't believe that observation makes me unempathetic, just rational.
But I certainly concede that Libertarianism has a PR problem with liberals who associate libertarian philosophies with sort of a cold, Vulcan-like hyperrationality. This impression is often aided by certain Libertarian's who seem to get a perverse pleasure from making very harsh, extreme statements about letting people fail for their own good.
While I do think there are certainly some Libertarians who could be easily be described as uncaring, I don't think it's fair or accurate to lump all of us together as unempathetic. If the ultimate goal of government is to ensure the most possible amount of happiness with the highest possible standard of living for the most possible people, then I believe that you have to look at history, what has worked in the past versus what hasn't. What forms of governments yielded the most happiness? And wanting as many people as possible to live better, happier lives doesn't strike me as unempathetic.
The Crack Emcee: "I am a conservative Republican - Old school"
No. You are a racist. We kicked you out. Go wander off in the wilderness or something.
Xmas,
The rest of you idiots keep clamoring to give the government more control over our lives because you want an official "No" on the activities and beliefs of whites who have the power (and a long-held desire) to kill you when you disagree, if there aren't laws and other barriers to make it too difficult.
FIFY
Is it just me, or do whites typically wrap their murderous ways in euphemisms like "those with whom you disagree"?
Funny, but since blacks started using government to keep whites off our backs, our lives are slowly improving.
Kinda puts a dent in the ol' conservative/libertarian theory-mongering,...
Fen,
"No. You are a racist. We kicked you out. Go wander off in the wilderness or something."
Sure - I got kicked out - that's why everyone agrees the Republican Party has been infiltrated by racists since the Tea Party "joined."
I swear, whites and lies are like bread and butter,...
Here is my political philosophy, in two related phrases.
1. I'm Pro-Choice
2. I'm Anti-monopoly
And unlike Progressives, who might claim the same phrases, I am consistent across the board.
#1 covers "abortion options should remain available"; "people should be able to opt out of public schools and into charters"; "legalized prostitution among consenting adults"; "legalized gambling among consenting adults"; etc. Choices everywhere.
#2 covers being against both business, government, and association (Unions) monopolies. A truly free market is self-correcting, and absent government intervention and favor granting, a monopoly there is temporary. Think Apple iPhone. #2 also covers being pro-government - just not one huge Federal 'monopoly' government that dwarfs and comes to dominate State and Locals. Instead, 50 interdependent State governments (and many more locals), so one can vote with one's feet. Choices, again.
So what is that? Conservative? Libertarian?
Empathy is useless.
I think if you're something of a Constitutionalist, classically liberal, a Jeffersonian liberal, interested in the conversation of liberty, not hostile to organized religion and the Natural Rights crowd, perhaps even if you're understanding of the importance of protecting and respecting religious liberty, you might identify with libertarians on some things.
Some conservatives may not be on board with the Republican platform right now or are bending with the culture and popular opinion on certain issues, so some might identify as libertarian/independent in polling, but that's more of a stretch, I'm guessing.
A lot of libertarian thinking is economic: From Mises to Hayek to the Chicago School etc. and a lot of the political philosophy could be boiled down to drawing a ring around the individual and proceeding from there.
You can get tired of the libertarian factions: The anti-religious and militant atheists identifying as libertarian, Randians\Objectivists, anarchists, anti-war absolutists, End The Fedders, Old Southern Secessionists etc.
Perhaps I now see why Althouse might not have an 'empathy bullshit' tag. So be it, but I see a lot of bullshit being poured into a word defining something very important to you.
'Whites and lies are like bread and butter...'
What about 'corn bread and peanut butter'?
That race tractor beam of yours seems to be converting the written language before our very eyes.
Powerful stuff.
Just because you can't have a rational discussion with libertarians without crying doesn't mean we lack empathy. :)
chrisnavin.com,
"What about 'corn bread and peanut butter'?"
That was Elvis - with fried banana on top.
"That race tractor beam of yours seems to be converting the written language before our very eyes."
Unfortunately, my white-derived education compels me to admit, I don't know what that means.
"Powerful stuff."
Meager weapons against a killing machine,...
Ann Althouse said...My sense that it's true comes from the embodied intuition and empathy that I feel is relatively lacking in libertarians.
Well, no arguing with that, I guess. Embodied intuition, yeah, I get that--ever test that intuition against objective reality and see how well it works (predictively)? For instance, the current President won his office in part by appealing to the feelings and intuition of a wide swath of voters. Have their feelings been justified? How often does one update their priors to tune their intuition?
I mean, if someone feels like a certain criticism is, I dunno, ugly, and asserts up front that this feeling isn't subject to rational argument or persuasion, how should someone who disagrees proceed? I can disagree with someone's values and even with their logic, but how do I deal wtih something so amorphous as their embodied intuition if I'd like to persuade them? Esepcially when, by definition, this intuitive feeling is in no way required to be consistent?
I can only speak for myself about the empathy thing here, but my take is this:
News media, politicos, and power seekers tend to use emotional appeals and intuition-based arguments rather than empirically founded arguments or conclusions.
Crimso said it well - many libertarians are liberals who changed labels after "liberal" was coopted by authoritarians.
That libertarians tend not to fall for "feelings trump facts" makes them seem cold.
SomeoneHasToSayIt - "Here is my political philosophy, in two related phrases.
1. I'm Pro-Choice
2. I'm Anti-monopoly"
I would say you're libertarian, mate.
I hold the same basic beliefs and find that "libertarian" works well.
However, I do use liberal often when discussing things with people whose only association with libertarians are Salon.com or NYT hit pieces.
"We need to limit voting to those who are actually are going to pay the bill."
Ahh - so the oppressed will be kept out and the oppressors make all the decisions.
Why do you equate "those who pay the bills" with "oppressors"?
Is that a tacit admission that it is mainly White men paying everybody's bills?
"our lives are slowly improving"
Whose lives? Blacks in general? The unemployment and poverty numbers do not support that assertion. Out of wedlock births, same story.
You personally?
What, did those sores on your face heal up?
"everyone agrees the Republican Party has been infiltrated by racists since the Tea Party "joined."
MSNBC hosts and the voices in the heads of poverty stricken bigots like Crack is not "everyone."
Crack,
You didn't fix that for me.
-Gun laws are used to keep guns out of the hands of blacks, so they cannot defend themselves.
-Drug laws are used to punish blacks (and the poor in general).
-Rent control promotes terrible housing for the poor.
-Eminent domain and "blight" laws are used to destroy black neighborhoods.
-Welfare laws promote single motherhood and erode the basic foundation of family.
-Being on Medicaid has statistically worse outcomes than having no insurance at all.
Libertarians look out and see local police forces getting APCs, M16s and grenades and fear for all citizens. Libertarians see the State used as a hammer to keep blacks oppressed and they want to remove power from the State. The rest of you clamor for more State, thinking that a bigger hammer will fix the problem this time.
"Liberals" (and by "liberals" I mean of course "tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State-fellators") almost never portray libertarianism accurately or say honestly what it is about a devotion to liberty that they actually object to. I can tell you--and I do--what I object to about "liberalism:" I don't like to be bullied; no "liberal" has ever explained to me logically why their gang has the right to force the rest of us what they want us to do; nor have they explained logically and convincingly why my life and propert don't belong to me but to them, to dispose of as they see it.
Could they not be as honest? Just say: "I hate libertarians because I like using the State to force people to do things I want them to do and spend their money the way I want it spent--and libertarians would quietly submit to that." Is that so difficult to say, State-fellators?
Correction: I meant "libertarians WON'T quietly submit to that."
Type in haste, repent at leisure.
Gahrie,
"Is that a tacit admission that it is mainly White men paying everybody's bills?"
As much as it's a tacit admission it was mainly white men who fucked everything up,...
President-Mom-Jeans,
"Whose lives?"
Jay-Z is a millionaire - from the projects to Paris - faster than almost anyone has a right to. That couldn't happen before Rap ripped a hole in the culture.
"Blacks in general?"
Are there bodies hanging in train stations, still? That's an improvement - at least in white behavior.
"The unemployment and poverty numbers do not support that assertion."
You judge an entire people by one factor? That's dumb.
"Out of wedlock births, same story."
You keep asserting that, like blacks have been walking a straight line they diverted from - it's a lie. Whites broke up black families, and we've been making them up ever since - just ask all of our "uncles" and "cousins."
You know so little, blacks shouldn't even be your topic of interest.
"You personally?"
I'm alright.
"What, did those sores on your face heal up?"
My getting dry skin really rocked your world, didn't it?
What a perv,...
President-Mom-Jeans,
"MSNBC hosts and the voices in the heads of poverty stricken bigots like Crack is not "everyone.""
Salon, Slate, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Last Week Tonight, ABC, NBC, CBS, liberals, blacks, Mexicans, most women, and anyone who grasps our culture when it's not deciphered through Red State.
That's ALMOST everyone,...
The Hate Whitey shtick is old.
What barriers are still in place keeping poor black people down, that aren't self inflicted and similar to ones that keep poor white people down?
Xmas,
"Libertarians look out and see local police forces getting APCs, M16s and grenades and fear for all citizens. Libertarians see the State used as a hammer to keep blacks oppressed and they want to remove power from the State. The rest of you clamor for more State, thinking that a bigger hammer will fix the problem this time."
I hear that - I've talked to my share of libertarians - but they all share a fatal flaw:
They think the answer, to what's happened to blacks, is to say "nuts" - like it's just bad luck and we should "move on" as NewAgers always advise.
Well, fuck that - it's crazytalk - if blacks need to use the weight of the government, to offset being outnumbered by whites (including white Libertarians) then fuck Libertarianism.
And, for all their big talk about supporting our ideals and identifying with our struggle, I've never met a Libertarian at a Civil Rights meeting,...
Libertarians don't vote in social liberalism and then vote in bailouts for the people's excesses, unless they're not thinking beyond stage one. But that's not saying as much as you might think - a lot people don't think beyond stage one.
I claim that those who think beyond stage one, will tend to be libertarians more often than not. They say, not only will I enjoy the fruits of my own freedom, I will also shoulder my own responsibilities, they might be tough, but that's a tradeoff I prefer. Moreover, I'd like everyone else to be able to make that trade, or not, as they prefer.
Some people have sexual freedom and get by fine, without outside assistance. They learn their own way to manage it and enjoy it at the same time, in a way that satisfies them and begs nothing from anyone else. Some manage divorce or bad marriages without hurting the children. Some smoke pot. Some make risky investments.
Some of them do this by adopting various social conservative practices. This does not make them social conservatives; that they wasted time and should have just been conservative all along. For one thing, they don't always adopt the entire value package. For two, they don't impose their preferred package on everyone else.
The PR problem I see with libertarians is that that Vulcan uncaring image is hard to justify to someone who won't think past stage one. Yes, there is wealth over there, and it could fix this problem over here. No, I won't take that wealth, even though it wouldn't help, because it's not mine to take.
It's tempting to question why the libertarian adheres so axiomatically to this rule about property and wealth. It is possible that for some of them, it is nothing beyond that axiom; it's a lazy moral shortcut. I would like to believe that most libertarians have thought beyond this and realize that if you take that wealth today, it will not be there tomorrow, and the problem here will be a problem again. Whether they think that far ahead or not, though, it is a fact. People cannot be milked for wealth like animals, in either a liberal or conservative moral framework.
"My sense that it's true comes from the embodied intuition and empathy that I feel is relatively lacking in libertarians."
*snort*
The statist has empathy for those who could be helped by government.
The libertarian has empathy for those who are hurt by government.
SGT Ted,
"The Hate Whitey shtick is old."
Gee, and it just started. ("The Hate Blackey shtick" lasted 400 years.) See, this is why blacks don't put our interests to a vote by whites - the historical record says whites like kangaroo courts - so we'd have to stop doing EVERYTHING if we relied on whether or not the SGT Ted's of the nation approved.
In the meantime, we'll try not to bore you.
"What barriers are still in place keeping poor black people down, that aren't self inflicted and similar to ones that keep poor white people down?"
White people are great:
Blacks got really, really, really strong laws in place, that stop us from really, really, really wanting to wantonly kill you anymore - for the heinous crime of making us uncomfortable - so, Jesus Christ, what more could you want?
Since we suffer from an inflicted poverty (which racists like Mom Jeans are having a wonderful time exploiting) I'd say the lack of reparations is the first barrier - so, unless you can prove the United States government, with the aid of it's white citizens, deliberately exploited and deprived it's white citizens of justice for centuries, that'll be one.
Anybody for two?
Paul brinkley,
"People cannot be milked for wealth like animals, in either a liberal or conservative moral framework."
They can in America - just ask the whites against reparations:
That's EXACTLY what they're fighting for,...
I think libertarianism (the concept, not the party) is rooted in a resistance to the authoritarian right and authoritarian left. If it is "empathy" that causes someone to become authoritarian, then I'll some less empathy please.
But when I hear about a lawful citizen killed by the police or about a business owner throttled by regulations that are promoted by crony capitalism, I feel a deep sense of empathy. When I see police abuse a certain class of people because of the color of their skin -- I feel a deep sense of pain. When I see a legal immigrant face abuse by a federal bureaucracy while illegal aliens can enter the country freely, I get angry.
It's not a lack of empathy that we share. It's a belief in the ability of each person to make the best of themselves -- for their own sake, their family's sake, and and for their community. We believe in a life as an expression of our values. And we see the wonderful ways man has escaped poverty by freely exchanging ideas and goods. Ultimately, the libertarian want's to promote the bounty of free minds and free markets while preventing a slip back in to man's natural state, abject poverty. Of course, some still say this political persuasion lacks empathy.
I think libertarianism (the concept, not the party) is rooted in a resistance to the authoritarian right and authoritarian left. If it is "empathy" that causes someone to become authoritarian, then I'll some less empathy please.
But when I hear about a lawful citizen killed by the police or about a business owner throttled by regulations that are promoted by crony capitalism, I feel a deep sense of empathy. When I see police abuse a certain class of people because of the color of their skin -- I feel a deep sense of pain. When I see a legal immigrant face abuse by a federal bureaucracy while illegal aliens can enter the country freely, I get angry.
It's not a lack of empathy that we share. It's a belief in the ability of each person to make the best of themselves -- for their own sake, their family's sake, and and for their community. We believe in a life as an expression of our values. And we see the wonderful ways man has escaped poverty by freely exchanging ideas and goods. Ultimately, the libertarian want's to promote the bounty of free minds and free markets while preventing a slip back in to man's natural state, abject poverty. Of course, some still say this political persuasion lacks empathy.
^^^^ it only lacks proper grammar
"My sense that it's true comes from the embodied intuition and empathy that I feel is relatively lacking in libertarians."
My sense is that libertarians are more insightful than you. Real people are hurt by liberal empathy and the conceit that they know how to help (not to mention the belief that anything is justified in the expression of their "empathy").
I've seen too much evidence of Ann's insights over the last ten years to believe she's merely not insightful about libertarianism. Although it's possible that she hasn't thought about libertarianism in specifically this way. I'd have to see her respond to it to be more sure.
I can't help but think she had a long-term nasty taste in her mouth about the whole philosophy as a result of being run out of a discussion by some overzealous defenders. (There's a real, specific incident I'm thinking of, that Ann wrote about; I no longer remember exactly when it happened.) They did their viewpoint a disservice in my opinion. I've seen causes I might have otherwise supported myself, except for that I simply couldn't stand the other supporters.
Or maybe she has a more principled opposition. I dare not rule that out, at least out of respect. Again, I'd need more information to be sure.
Keep in mind that libertarians have (or should have) no problem working for what they think is good for others. Or even pooling their resources to do so. And advertising it, and asking others to do likewise. There's nothing in the philosophy that opposes this. It's when it's taking resources by force that they don't own, that makes the difference.
Hey crack its a free country. Do what pleases you. You certainly don't need my approval and I have never demanded you seek it.
Just quit bitching about the logical results and natural consequences of your actions and attitude and quit blaming others that have nothing to do with your situation.
Your racist idiocy and projection is tiresome. Al and Jesse are embarrassed by your amateur hour racial guilt tripping hustle attempts. You should really leave it to those pros.
What I can say for Ann doesn't go for Roy Edroso, however, and presumably tVV by extension. From the article, it should be clear to anyone who understands libertarianism that he's much too caught up in the pyramid of his own premises, and isn't intent on inspecting them. The piece is a hackjob, a drive-by smear, a sermon to the Voice's own choir.
Time and again I encounter people who say libertarianism is bad, but will not come out and say all the consequences that necessarily follow from their belief that sometimes, it's considered okay to force people to do things they don't want to do. That it's okay to wait for someone to create wealth, and then come along and take it away. That it's okay to expect those same people to keep generating more wealth for you to come along and take the next day. That it's okay to force your morals on someone else, over and above the moral right to one's own existence.
It'd be refreshing even to see them admit such weaknesses and inspect them. Even libertarians struggle with externalities and the free rider problem. They have no choice but to at least address those.
Ann's comment struck a chord with me. During the rise of the tea party I spent time with the Libertarian party. I came away with a sense of them as being liberal divorced from a liberal's animating purpose. I've pondered it and will admit it something other than a mere opinion or just a feeling. But Ann's notion suggests what I came away with.
Another thread crackjacked.
Ann Althouse said...
My sense that it's true comes from the embodied intuition and empathy that I feel is relatively lacking in libertarians.
Do we really want a government that emotes as an official function? What could go wrong?
As for the author's perspective I would reply that back in the day the self described "liberals" were generally anti-authoritarian. Today, self described liberals (progressives is a better word) are authoritarian because they now hold the power. So much for principles.
Post a Comment