Glen wrote: "He who has the gold rules"
Yeah. I can't go along with that. I wonder how you and I might have an rational discussion of our difference? But then come to think of it, why would a libertarian WANT to have a rational discussion with somebody he disagrees with? That's not a rhetorical question. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of glen Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 2:19 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] right vs left On 01/09/2014 11:52 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > On 01/08/2014 06:56 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: >> >> Wouldn't be wonderful if one of the right wingers on the list would >> agree to explore the foundations of this value difference. >> > > I would say that many liberals would be willing to risk a few > murderers and rapists be left on the loose to avoid hanging even *one* > innocent person, while most conservatives (and libertarians?) would be > willing to risk hanging a few innocent persons (as long as they don't > look too much like themselves) to avoid allowing anyone to go > unpunished for their sins. The conversation will remain hopelessly befuddled as long as nobody makes an effort to define "right" vs. "left". Roger tried to do so in his Altemeyer posts. And I tried a different one in my Ukraine vs. US parties post awhile back. But those are incomplete efforts. For example, if we define "right" to mean no intentional market design/interference and "left" as government designed markets, then we're lead to some answers to these questions. But if we define "right" to mean status quo inertia and "left" to mean something like "change for the sake of change", then we're lead to different answers. From my perspective (as a libertarian who can't call himself libertarian anymore because that word has been hijacked by morons), no libertarian would ever risk a government sponsored hanging of an innocent person. We libertarians would much rather all criminals were set free to be handled by the implicit, systemic checks and balances of an undesigned society. In other words, if they're really a bad person, then they'll eventually have a run-in with another person who decides they're an @ssh0l3 and simply kills the jerk. I tend to think there's quite a bit of affinity with this perspective amongst most "right" leaning people I know, as well, even if they're not libertarian ... hence the tendency to cling to our guns (the means for implicit checks and balances) and religion (the justification for those checks and balances). "Of course, Jesus would want me to shoot that guy." From a different perspective, actual libertarians are completely willing to admit that life isn't fair. Plenty of people who earned stuff failed to retain that stuff or were never properly rewarded for their efforts. That's just how it all works! You not only have to be creative and _useful_. You also have to be willing to kick @ss and TAKE your share ... even if you sometimes take too much or too little. So, based on these two scenarios, I think it's safe to assume that libertarians (as I define the term) don't even play this "fair play" game. That aphorism is meaningless to us. A better aphorism is "He who has the gold rules." -- ⇒⇐ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
