Hey, don’t be so dumb! Obviously, the way to heal a wound is to make the problem bigger, don’t you know that?
Government power being corrupted? Make government more powerful! What could go wrong! Its closely related to Mitchel’s law, which says roughly that problems created by government intervention are than used as justification for more government intervention.
Haha, I get frustrated with secular liberals who want the mantle of science and logical, but lack the ability to distinguish their factual views from their value judgments, or dive into serious issues they don’t understand with purely emotional arguments. See abortion, international trade, capitalism, inequality and corporate personhood.
I find that they only care about the short term, regardless of how serious the long term issues are or can be from a given action. Abortion is a great example. Regardless about how I feel about abortion, the fact remains that it is likely part of our countries problem when it comes to paying for things. Sounds great to be able to give women a choice months into their pregnancy. Sounds bad if you understand that you need population growth to be healthy.
It’s only part of the problem, but it is part.
Conservatives are guilty of similar things too Michael. Using emotional arguments where arguments on empirical evidence belong. Generally I think, and it may be just chance that has done this, the long term consequences are considered when it comes to conservative ideas, sometimes at the cost of the short term, but I’d rather deal with short term problems than long term ones.
I sometimes worry about diving into serious issues myself, Michael. I have no formal economics training, for example, and so I try to limit my statements in that field to what little I know about. (Broken windows, comparative advantage, the possible unintended consequences of regulation.) Ask me anything about monetary policy, I give you a blank look.
But then, I’m fortunate in that I know I don’t know anything about monetary policy. I’m more worried about the unknown unknowns. I’m really hoping that I’m not in the situation where I don’t know that I don’t know anything about the benefits of exchange.
I’ll be very happy when secular liberals as a group come to terms with the fact that public policy does not flow naturally and automatically from scientific truths. That the data suggest that the greenhouse effect exists does not mean that cap-and-trade is therefore a sensible policy, for instance.
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
~George Washington
Help control the regulation population. Please remember to spay or neuter your government.
~I can't remember
"The Founders didn't foresee modern weapons, so they shouldn't be covered by the second amendment?
Using that logic I would have to say that facebook, bumper stickers, ebooks and twitter shouldn't be covered by the first amendment. I mean really, the founders didn't foresee that shit coming."
Has it occurred to anyone else that perhaps all this talk of gun bans and such might drive crazies to go buy guns now, rather than later?
When in the course of human events... 
Leftist views of corporations and government power do seem a touch inconsistent, yes.
Very nice way of showing it.
Hey, don’t be so dumb! Obviously, the way to heal a wound is to make the problem bigger, don’t you know that?
Government power being corrupted? Make government more powerful! What could go wrong! Its closely related to Mitchel’s law, which says roughly that problems created by government intervention are than used as justification for more government intervention.
And holy crap! Another conservative atheist!?! What, are you guys breeding?
Haha, I do wonder sometimes. We all must’ve thought we were the only ones before the internet came along.
Love the blog, Nate, as well as your comments on Michael’s. Keep it up.
Out of the closets and into the …. blogs
Haha, I get frustrated with secular liberals who want the mantle of science and logical, but lack the ability to distinguish their factual views from their value judgments, or dive into serious issues they don’t understand with purely emotional arguments. See abortion, international trade, capitalism, inequality and corporate personhood.
I find that they only care about the short term, regardless of how serious the long term issues are or can be from a given action. Abortion is a great example. Regardless about how I feel about abortion, the fact remains that it is likely part of our countries problem when it comes to paying for things. Sounds great to be able to give women a choice months into their pregnancy. Sounds bad if you understand that you need population growth to be healthy.
It’s only part of the problem, but it is part.
Conservatives are guilty of similar things too Michael. Using emotional arguments where arguments on empirical evidence belong. Generally I think, and it may be just chance that has done this, the long term consequences are considered when it comes to conservative ideas, sometimes at the cost of the short term, but I’d rather deal with short term problems than long term ones.
I sometimes worry about diving into serious issues myself, Michael. I have no formal economics training, for example, and so I try to limit my statements in that field to what little I know about. (Broken windows, comparative advantage, the possible unintended consequences of regulation.) Ask me anything about monetary policy, I give you a blank look.
But then, I’m fortunate in that I know I don’t know anything about monetary policy. I’m more worried about the unknown unknowns. I’m really hoping that I’m not in the situation where I don’t know that I don’t know anything about the benefits of exchange.
I’ll be very happy when secular liberals as a group come to terms with the fact that public policy does not flow naturally and automatically from scientific truths. That the data suggest that the greenhouse effect exists does not mean that cap-and-trade is therefore a sensible policy, for instance.
You should look into the monetary world. “Economic facts and fallacies” by Tom Sowell is good for a little background and another book “Why everyone owes everyone and no one can pay” is another that has some great background. It’s by Jon Lanchester.
Basic economics can be had in “more sex is safer sex” by Steven Landsburg. That is a fantastically funny and interesting book.
Hmm. Thanks for the tips, Nate. I’ll look into them.
They are all good reads, not dry like often times happens with the dismal science.