Classical Values :: Spread, as in jam?

December 17, 2004

Spread, as in jam?

The statistics I cited in the last post will serve as a pretty good illustration of how science can be contaminated when people look for what they want instead of objectively pursuing the truth. An anti-gun activist will see guns as the primary cause of murder, while a feminist will see men as the cause and so on.

The principle (that people look for what they want) illustrates one of the most painful difficulties I have found in having a libertarian viewpoint: being a libertarian means letting most people down. That's because most people are liberal or conservative, and when they follow this natural tendency to see what they want, why, liberals often try to see a libertarian as a liberal, while conservatives will see him as a conservative. But then, once the libertarian is forced to let his new friends down (by saying stuff they don't want to hear), then liberals will call him conservative, and conservatives will call him liberal.

Which means that in real life, to be an honest libertarian means that you'll be at the very least letting most people down, at worst hated.

Unless you do what so many of us have had to do at one time or another: engage in selective reporting of one's thoughts and beliefs.

This touches on what I was saying yesterday about the blogosphere being like Ebay. And I think it expands upon what Glenn Reynolds said today:

....[P]eople blog so that they can express themselves -- to be producers, not consumers -- and we see this impulse across the world of new and alternative media. But it's not really new. Lots of musicians play music in spite of the fact that most of them won't get rich. (Most won't even do as well as my touring rock-musician brother, and believe me, he isn't rich). They do it because they like to play, and they want their music heard. I think the same kind of thing drives most bloggers, too. It's certainly what's driven me.

Ditto for me. And what's at least as important as being heard is knowing that you aren't alone.

Small "l" libertarians and other assorted non-conforming thinkers (as if there's such a thing as "conforming thinkers") are spread throughout the country, but until now they haven't had a practical way to discover each other. They're still spread throughout the country, but now they're spreading each other's thoughts as they expound and expand upon them. (A phenomenon known among musicians as "jamming.")

And they might be spreading too.

ADDITIONAL NOTE: I didn't really factor the liberal MSM into this post, but it's a phenomenon which tends to push libertarians and conservatives into a strategic alliance (if not exactly the same camp). The resultant anger explains, I think, why it seems that more liberals call libertarians "conservative" than do conservatives call libertarians "liberal." I don't know whether I prefer to be called "conservative" or "liberal"; I guess that depends on whether it's meant as a compliment or an insult.

posted by Eric on 12.17.04 at 12:53 PM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/1839

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Spread, as in jam?:

» Libertarians Against the World from Walter In Denver
Eric Scheie describes the libertarian viewpoint as it contrasts with mainstream political though: ...[O]ne of the most painful difficulties I have found in having a libertarian viewpoint: being a libertarian means letting most people down. That's beca... [Read More] Tracked on December 17, 2004 03:40 PM

» My mind's not always in the gutter, sometimes it comes out to feed... from Who Tends the Fires
The Word for the Day is: "The Reformationative President" Last DailySpam! til after the holidays. Enjoy, and Merry Xmass! ;] Heh. Stoller's Law: "No matter how unethical you expect the Republican Party to be, they will not only be worse, but they will ... [Read More] Tracked on December 21, 2004 07:43 PM

Comments

Totally anecdotal but this phrase

as the primary cause of murder

caught my eye and just thinking over all the murder cases I've worked on, I don't think there is a "primary charge" per se, that exists outside of the murderer him/herself. There just seems to come a point in the murderer's life where they don't look at their victim (or potential victim) as any "thing" of worth. Whether they murder out of financial gain, revenge, boredom or thrill, the fact they believe (even if unarticulated) the victim no longer possessed their own inherent right to live seems to be the only common trait amongst the murders.

Darleen · December 17, 2004 02:42 PM

oops... possessed = possesses

Darleen · December 17, 2004 02:43 PM

That is certainly true. And if we assume that murderers believe that "the victim no longer possesses their own inherent right to live," what does that suggest about others who have enemies who no longer possess the inherent right to live, but who never resort to murder (either out of fear of punishment or because they are morally opposed to murder)? Plenty of us have been angry enough to want to kill someone. Why don't we do it? I've been told by a number of liberals who'd never own a gun that they'd be afraid to own a gun because they might kill someone. (I own guns but I'd no more shoot someone I didn't like than I would cut his throat.)

Might we be talking about people unable to restrain themselves from acting on their passions? And might the blaming of guns only tend to excuse them?

Eric Scheie · December 17, 2004 03:32 PM

Oh. I agree! Yes... the 'gun' is a convenient excuse for someone who loses that internal censor that keeps one from crossing the line. It's just a variation of The Devil made me do it!.

I'd worry about those liberals you hang with ... at least keep 'em away from the cutlery if you're engaged in an argument with 'em.

;-)

Darleen · December 17, 2004 04:24 PM

The problem here is the difficulty in fitting libertarians into a spectrum where liberals are on one end and conservatives are on the other. I'm not totally hip on all the words you young folks use these days, but it would seem to me that there are two spectra, "liberal to conservative" and "libertarian to authoritarian." People on LGF have implied that I am an authoritarian liberal along the Mao Zedong. But the truth is that I do not know enough about liberal orthodoxy to really use that as a reference point for my own thought. Or "thoughts," as they are.

bink · December 17, 2004 06:13 PM

along the Mao Zedong = along the Mao Zedong model. Bah.

bink · December 17, 2004 06:14 PM

Eric, I seem to recall a Canadian study that tried to determine whether gun control could be correlated with a lower suicide rate.

Their result? No linkage. When handguns were not available, depressed Canadians improvised and made do, usually by jumping off of bridges.

Wish I could give you a reference, but that's all I remember. It may have been a cite from "The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy".

Justin

J. Case · December 17, 2004 06:36 PM

You call a libertarian liberal, I call a libertarian conservative, let's just call the whole thing off. (hint ... hint? ... anyone?)

mdmhvonpa · December 17, 2004 09:34 PM

Extremely interesting spectrumology once again. Excellent. Yes, I must have at least two spectra, axes, dimensions: "liberal" vs. "conservative", "libertarian" vs. "authoritarian". Or Samuel Brittan's "liberal" vs. "authoritarian", "egalitarian" vs. "elitist", "radical" vs. "orthodox".

Ties in with the Smith-Anderson spectrum dimensions: 1) blurring vs. glorifying differences, 2) glorifying vs. suppressing the different, 3) left hemisphere (rationalism) vs. right hemisphere (irrationalism).

Many, many tie-ins and spectra.... Most fascinating about it all....

Steven Malcolm Anderson (Cato theElder) the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · December 18, 2004 12:33 AM

" ...: being a libertarian means letting most people down." "... once the libertarian is forced to let his new friends down (by saying stuff they don't want to hear), then liberals will call him conservative, and conservatives will call him liberal."

So very true and so very well said! I think that I broke my moms heart with my views on drugs and abortion and pissed off my in-laws with my views on gun control.

bryan · December 18, 2004 01:36 AM

December 2006

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR

Search the Site

E-mail

Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link