See other Health Articles
Title: Study: Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives?
Source:
Time.Com
URL Source: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1968042,00.html
Published: Feb 27, 2010
Author: John Cloud
Post Date: 2010-02-27 13:22:37 by Ferret Mike
Keywords: None
Views: 874
Comments: 71
The notion that liberals are smarter than conservatives is familiar to anyone who has spent time on a college campus. The College Democrats are said to be ugly, smug and intellectual; the College Republicans, pretty, belligerent and dumb. There's enough truth in both stereotypes that the vast majority of college students opt not to join either club. But are liberals actually smarter? A libertarian (and, as such, nonpartisan) researcher, Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics and Political Science, has just written a paper that is set to be published in March by the journal Social Psychology Quarterly. The paper investigates not only whether conservatives are dumber than liberals but also why that might be so. The short answer: Kanazawa's paper shows that more-intelligent people are more likely to say they are liberal. They are also less likely to say they go to religious services. These aren't entirely new findings; last year, for example, a British team found that kids with higher intelligence scores were more likely to grow into adults who vote for Liberal Democrats, even after the researchers controlled for socioeconomics. What's new in Kanazawa's paper is a provocative theory about why intelligence might correlate with liberalism. He argues that smarter people are more willing to espouse "evolutionarily novel" values — that is, values that did not exist in our ancestral environment, including weird ideas about, say, helping genetically unrelated strangers (liberalism, as Kanazawa defines it), which never would have occurred to us back when we had to hunt to feed our own clan and our only real technology was fire. Kanazawa offers this view of how such novel values sprang up in our ancestors: Imagine you are a caveman (if it helps, you are wearing a loincloth and have never shaved). Lightning strikes a tree near your cave, and fire threatens. What do you do? Natural selection would have favored the smart specimen who could quickly conceive answers to such a problem (or other rare catastrophes like sudden drought or flood), even if — or maybe especially if — those answers were unusual ones that few others in your tribe could generate. So, the theory goes, genes for intelligence got wrapped up with genes for unnatural thinking. It's an elegant theory, but based on Kanazawa's own evidence, I'm not sure he's right. In his paper, Kanazawa begins by noting, accurately, that psychologists don't have a good understanding of why people embrace the values they do. Many kids share their parents' values, but at the same time many adolescents define themselves in opposition to what their parents believe. We know that most people firm up their values when they are in their 20s, but some people experience conversions to new religions, new political parties, new artistic tastes and even new cuisines after middle age. As Kanazawa notes, this multiplicity of views — a multiplicity you find within both cultures and individuals — is one reason economists have largely abandoned the study of values with a single Latin phrase, De gustibus non est disputandum: there's no accounting for taste. Kanazawa doesn't disagree, but he believes scientists can account for whether people like new tastes or old, radical tastes or Establishment ones. He points out that there's a strong correlation between liberalism and openness to new kinds of experiences. But openness to new experience isn't necessarily intelligent (cocaine is fun; accidental cocaine overdose is not). So are liberals smarter? Kanazawa quotes from two surveys that support the hypothesis that liberals are more intelligent. One is the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which is often called Add Health. The other is the General Social Survey (GSS). The Add Health study shows that the mean IQ of adolescents who identify themselves as "very liberal" is 106, compared with a mean IQ of 95 for those calling themselves "very conservative." The Add Health study is huge — more than 20,000 kids — and this difference is highly statistically significant. But self-identification is often misleading; do kids really know what it means to be liberal? The GSS data are instructive here: Kanazawa found that more-intelligent GSS respondents (as measured by a quick but highly reliable synonym test) were less likely to agree that the government has a responsibility to reduce income and wealth differences. In other words, intelligent people might like to portray themselves as liberal. But in the end, they know that it's good to be the king. The jury may be out on whether conservatives are less intelligent than liberals, but there's evidence that they may be physically stronger. Last year, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published a fascinating paper by Aaron Sell, John Tooby and Leda Cosmides of the Center for Evolutionary Psychology at the University of California at Santa Barbara. The authors measured the strength of 343 students using weight-lifting machines at a gym. The participating students completed questionnaires designed to measure, among other things, their proneness to anger, their history of fighting and their fondness for aggression as a way to solve both individual and geopolitical problems. Sell, Tooby and Cosmides found that men (but not women) with the most physical strength were the most likely to feel entitled to good treatment, anger easily, view themselves as successful in winning conflicts and believe in physical force as a tool for resolving interpersonal and international conflicts. Women who thought of themselves as pretty showed the same pattern of greater aggression. All of which means that if you are a liberal who believes you're smarter than conservatives, you probably shouldn't bring that up around them. You might not like them when they're angry. Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1968042,00.html#ixzz0glICTue6
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-19) not displayed.
.
.
.
#20. To: Deasy (#18)
Nonsense Complete,total and utter nonsense.
Show Me Obama's Birth Certificate!
You like libertarians. They're ultimately all about free trade, open borders, keeping the government off the backs of corporations so they can have their way with labor and the environment, and they like drugs and same-sex marriage. In other words, they're USELESS in the present situation we're in today.
Weasel You're still alive? That's disappointing (edit) kidding The weasel's not worth any of my RW time.
Show Me Obama's Birth Certificate!
Do you think Reagan won the cold war by outspending the Soviets? Do you? You're aware that free trade was a Goldwater/Reagan standby. NAFTA is a Reagan legacy, because that's what he wanted. It was good for "fighting communism," you see. Also, he made some treaties with the Russkies. Check out what they say. And look at what he did to the budget. He permitted gross over-expenditures that he could have prevented. Also, he signed the first amnesty.
Complete,total and utter nonsense." And you can take to the bank that if anyone knows nonsense, Flintie does. If you want to know what it is, one need only read a search of the screeds he has posted in here.
It's why I pinged him.
Actually, the speakers I've listened to at college Libertarian events do not hold those values. The do no support raping the environment or labor abuses or corporations being held at a lesser standard. However, they do support ending the welfare state, but this argument extends to corporate welfare along with individual welfare. Do you disagree? They support ending NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, WTO, UN and any other acronym that espouses to support "free trade" while ensuring that free trade never has a chance to work. Do you disagree? They don't like drugs or same sex marriage--they support the government staying out of individual lives. Do you disagree? How is the drug war working out for the taxpayer? IMHO, same sex marriage is a red-herring issue that liberals and conservatives use to wedge while the media cheerleads the importance on the sidelines. Do you disagree?
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
I'm getting tired of posting this but due to your total lack of understanding I guess I'll have to do it again.... I know for a fact that RR's Alzheimer's manifested itself early in the Great Helmsman's first term. This condition was aggravated by Hinckley's bullet and basically all the "bad" stuff attributed to RR was in fact the work of daddy Bush Have you ever wondered why Nancy Reagan will not speak to the Bushs' to this day? Ronald Reagan was a "Good Guy", and the last honest President we've had. These are facts, burden yourself with them. I'll be back. I've got RW stuff to do on a Sat afternoon
Show Me Obama's Birth Certificate!
You're denying that the Republicans were decidedly for free trade, and that Reagan somehow deviated from that pattern? In which speech did he "clarify" his views on protectionism? Can you explain why we had to "meet the enemy" in the first place with communism? Reagan thought he was doing God's work with the Afghan war, you know, letting the poor Islamists fight and die on our dime, and with Israeli-captured weapons. I don't buy this Alzheimer's excuse for everything Reagan did, going back to his salad days in California when he sent the State Patrol in to quell war protests. He was a big government conservative just like most of them over the past sixty years.
While Reagan was not without flaw his first two years were in the right direction but between Alzheimer's, the Bush Mob, and a Democrat Congress unwilling to let loose the shackles of tyrannous taxation the promise was cut short. The Reagan Tax Cut, contrary to liberal mythology, actually resulted in increased tax revenues as economic activity accelerated under the lower taxes. More people with incentive to do more things, because they kept more of what they earned, resulted in economic expansion and thus more taxable events. The Bush and Klinton years did just the opposite. By increasing the tax load and imposing greater burdens on small and medium business large international corporations, able to shelter income via a range of built in loop holes, expanded while the overall economy contracted.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Red Wine?
I think you're overestimating what "leaving industry alone" will accomplish. If these "libertarians" have something more articulate to say than that, please show me the regulations they've proposed that would be used to protect the environment and stop illegal aliens from being employed by their Laissez-faire ideas. I'm an optimist of an odd sort. If we finally get cynical enough, we can solve our problems. Believing in hype gets us nowhere.
Astute post, Deasy. I agree completely. Huge deficits with those tax cuts, increases in military spending, using communism as a guise to grow the empire.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
You're dreaming if you think Reagan wasn't a part of the New World Order.
The basic flaw with most liberals is, despite their protests, they really do not trust people, nor really like them - referring to them not as individuals but as "the masses", and believe, erroneously, that only through the use of government force can they achieve their egalitarian fantasies. In particular they loathe people who excel and achieve well beyond the average. The first victims of Mao, and Pol Pot, were the educated, the achievers, etc., .... In other words the desperate men and women who carried the society. When they were liquidated the society collapsed into sub-mediocrity. Of course the reality is that their egalitarian fantasies are unachievable through force and will only result in greater and greater tyranny. The Libertarian viewpoint is more that people can generally be trusted to do right when left free to make that decision of their own free will. They always conveniently ignore organizations such as Goodwill, Salvation Army, Red Cross, United Negro College Fund, etc., ... all founded freely without government mandate and supported by voluntary activities.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Reagan, I think, was given no option in the matter. George Bush, whom he despised, was forced on him at the convention. While he was still alert when he first took office - first the Hinckley assassination attempt, and later Alzheimer's, left him naught but a figurehead. George Bush was the defacto executive from the Hinckley attempt on. And it was primarily Bush not Reagan running the show from that point. Ronny still spoke purdy phrases in public but was no longer in control. And his onset of Alzheimer's became apparent, at least to me, from the end of his second year of his second term.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
I don't think he would have been considered for the job if he hadn't been known to be a willing servant of the New World Order. The entire cold war could be considered part of the New World Order. World War One and Two could be considered part of it. Reagan was a dupe. He may have been well meaning, but he was a dupe. I could argue that Obama is well-meaning, and plenty of people would agree with me. People don't get to be nominated by the GOP or the DNC unless it is believed that they will not seriously change the direction our society is heading. And mind you this is not a conspiratorial view. We all collectively decide these things together. It's called voting.
What they support is STATES making determination, not the federal government, on most issues. Do you disagree? I disagree with the premise of "leaving industry alone" as a stated platform for Libertarians. The principle argument is SMALL central government. Do you disagree? This is a premise that you ignore while making claims of about no regulation and no corporate oversight. What I hear is more states rights to make determinations and less federal government from Libertarian speakers. Let's be honest, there hasn't been any critical oversight into the effectiveness of the war on drugs. Billions spend year after year with no review. Two things go up--drug use and the costs. Sheesh, Reagan began the war on drugs and "just say no" with silly bumper sticker campaigns while ecstacy and meth went from coast to coast. What good has it done for the federal government to weigh in on same sex marriage? Why shouldn't this be a state rights issue? All the gays can live in states that promote and stay out of states that don't. Simple. I don't really understand the premise of your argument that the federal government expanding and getting involved in issues that step on states rights helps much......if at all. How has it helped Deasy? A bloated central government IS the problem and only Libertarians are taking a stand on this issue. Dems and Reps have proven to only be capable of expanding the federal government and the debt--despite the lame election round talking points that are tossed out the window after the votes are tallied.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
That is why Bush was forced on him. Reagan, I believe, was sincere in his beliefs stated. However, as you say he could not be allowed to implement them. To not allow him the nomination after the overwhelming support he had received would have stunk to high heaven. Thus Bush, who is a member of the cabal, was forced on him as a condition of receiving the nomination he had already won. It was Bush, not Reagan, who was author of much of what is villified of Reagan's term(s).
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
First of all, if the Constitution were a good document, and if it could have been followed, we would not be where we are today. Yes, the Constitution should have provided for states' rights, but the Civil War destroyed that. In fact, the Civil War was due to the same sociological conditions that have brought us where we are today (Christian humanism and universalism and western rugged individualism). However, states have borders. Should Texas be allowed to develop the NAFTA superhighway across its border with Mexico because it doesn't like the tariffs the Federal government is imposing on goods shipped in from China via California? Think about it. We're a union. There are times when the federal government needs authority to resolve disputes between states. In terms of forcing both states to do something neither state wants to do, that's a different issue. The wedge issues are there for the Libertarians as well. It keeps everyone off subject. Libertarians claim that our problems are caused by government. Liberals claim that we have the wrong type of government. We have the wrong culture. That's how we got where we are today. Changing government has to start by changing culture.
Are you a liberal? What is this culture that we, as a nation founded on individual rights, should adopt? Wrong type of government? What should replace our representative republic? That is your argument as to how we got where we are today? Blame "culture" seems like a scapegoat to me. Most people would agree that you have two opposed cultures, namely liberal and conservative, that have made the central government a major problem for the citizens, liberal and conservative alike. How do you propose any fundemental change by keeping the farse of Dems and Reps as the ONLY two "viable" choices will change anything? I say that will produce more of the same, more problems, more bloated central government. I agree with Libertarians that too much central government is a major problem. Scrap the two party fraud and bring in some fresh perspective if you want to change the divide and conquer culture. Wrong culture from the perspective of a liberal is the exact opposite of wrong culture according to conservatives. That's not change.......that's more circle jerk.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
I think your problems with libertarianism results primarily from not understanding the full spectrum of Libertarian thought. And there are different camps within libertarianism. Another misconception is that the NAFTA Superhighway was not a Federal initiative as it was. Rick Perry was just playing puppet and doing as his masters directed. For example as a Paleolibertarian I do not support open borders and free immigration, and do not oppose tariffs when intelligently applied to the betterment of the Republic as opposed to the betterment of a protected interest's profit margins. For what purpose and to what end? For Libertarians, such as myself, the function of the Federal Government in "Labor Relations" is to keep their fat nose out of it and side with neither management nor labor other than to maintain the peace. Unions were doing quite fine before government intrusion into such affairs - which it has no Constitutional duty to do. Such intrusions have been made on both sides. Federal Troops were once used, more than once, to massacre labor activists. The intrusion of the government in labor matters has very often been at the behest of management interests. As for natural resources - laws prohibiting the downstream pollution of other people's waters is quite effective at preventing dumping - and the right to sue, under just laws, quite capable of putting the offender out of business. Property owners, generally, have a vested interest in maintaining the viability and the welfare of their holdings. Where abuses have occurred they have generally been protected by the Feral Government. With that I concur, but it will not happen as a result of federal mandate.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Individual rights and open immigration is a recipe for disaster. Think about how the banks took over. Libertarians want to reset to 1796, but they'll get 1984 again before you know it. It's part of the way the world works. Regrettably, the original America was built on quicksand.
By today's standards Mill is regarded as a "Conservative" (meaning Liberal/Libertarian) in today's distorted lexicon where socialist/communist is now defined as "Liberal". Indeed, modern 'liberals', in effect, hijacked the term, so Classical Liberals had to go find a new term. lol
Has martial law been discreetly declared in Ireland? http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0114/garda.html "The Emergency Response Unit have been deployed at checkpoints in Dublin over the coming weeks as part of a garda initiative against gang-related crime." This shows what a complete brain dead 02 wasting idiot your are, how your pea brain cannot or will not comprehend the exact mechanism that RR used to get to the White House. Ronald Reagan was the last President to use pure "will" and popularity to get the nomination. He was not selected like your CFR lawn jockey boy Obama. RR did not chose Bush as a running mate. It was imposed on him, but you know this. You're only out to smear our last Great President. You're a lowlife traitor who's not fit to be an American. I'm sure you come from a family of genetic defects too.
Show Me Obama's Birth Certificate!
No, I understand it all too well. American individualism will always end up with an ethnically neutral empire. It's like clockwork as far as I can tell. All roads lead to a new Roman empire, and then collapse. It starts out with everyone being free, and then ends up with mayhem. The Greeks called it Hellenism, by the way.
Your ignorance and stupidity shines like a lighthouse visible for a thousand miles.
Show Me Obama's Birth Certificate!
The CFR is a symptom, not the disease. Reagan was not very much better than the rest. You're welcome to call me a traitor if you like. Does it make me even worse that I think Moslems are good people?
More nonsense How so?
Show Me Obama's Birth Certificate!
The recipe for the civil war was built into the Constitution. The original founders were confused about whether or not we had an American ethnicity. They actually were very confused. We're still dealing with the same basic struggle, and it will (and already almost has) destroyed this country. It's just a matter of time.
I disagree, individual rights are part of the solution. How shall you have liberty without it, Deasy? I don't support open immigration. Many libertarians share this perspective as well. For some reason, you deem this a blanket mantra for all libertarians. We already have 1984 from the Dems and Reps, Deasy. We already have the banks taking over with the Dems and the Reps. How are libertarians to blame? I get that you don't agree with Libertarian perspectives. What I don't get is what you do support. Furthermore, I don't get how you can blame libertarian philosophy for the sorry 1984 style bank run corpritocracy we have in this nation right now. Regrettably, this America TODAY is built on quicksand and libertarians sure can't be blamed for that Deasy.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
Wrong again. It is the disease. Not only was RR not a member, he vowed to run the CFR out of DC. He failed. You truly are stoopid, I could give a rat's ass about religion.
Show Me Obama's Birth Certificate!
How could Reagan legally run the CFR out of DC? Which constitutional law would permit that?
Whose liberty?
There you go again. Your ignorance is stunning and your stupidity blinding. Short lesson: "run out of DC" implies that the CFR lose their power and influence. Are you an American? Your viewpoints and lack of understanding of American colloquial English lead me to believe otherwise.
Show Me Obama's Birth Certificate!
The CFR will lose influence in DC when Americans decide that they don't want a global empire. Reagan increased our global influence, and always said that he wanted to do that. I could be from Mars. How would that change your opinion of my ideas?
Where are you from? Tell us. Maybe you could enlighten us.
Show Me Obama's Birth Certificate!
I'm from Baruchistan.
Oh, the government's of course......so that they can implement nanny state over the lot of us from cradle to grave. /sarc
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
Which is something that will never happen thanks to our open border policy. I know you know MacDonald's, "The Culture of Critique." To those who aren't familiar with it, read chapter 7 first. The answers to who, what, where, why and how regarding the Invasion are answered very clearly. I forget the exact reason I was booted from tFR but one reason was my fights with big L, Libertarians. OWKs (I believe he's now deceased? and I believe that was who I fought with) was particularly intransigent. The departed Burkman1 was just as disgusting re; American nationalism.
Do you think Americans should fight for others' freedom? Why or why not?
Comments (61 - 71) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestRonald Reagan wreaked havoc on America
#21. To: abraxas (#15)
#22. To: Ferret Mike, the Weasel (#19)
(Edited)
Thanks for not disappointing me.
#23. To: Flintlock (#20)
#24. To: Flintlock, Deasy (#20)
"Nonsense
Toruk Makto
#25. To: Ferret Mike (#24)
#26. To: Deasy (#21)
#27. To: Deasy (#23)
Do you think Reagan won the cold war by outspending the Soviets? Do you? You're aware that free trade was a Goldwater/Reagan standby. NAFTA is a Reagan legacy, because that's what he wanted. It was good for "fighting communism," you see. Also, he made some treaties with the Russkies. Check out what they say. And look at what he did to the budget. He permitted gross over-expenditures that he could have prevented. Also, he signed the first amnesty.
#28. To: Flintlock (#27)
#29. To: Deasy, Flintlock (#18)
It's all the same thing. Ronald Reagan wreaked havoc on America, and blue collar conservatives still think he was a minor god.
#30. To: Flintlock (#27)
"I'll be back. I've got RW stuff to do on a Sat afternoon"
Toruk Makto
#31. To: abraxas (#26)
Actually, the speakers I've listened to at college Libertarian events do not hold those values. The do no support raping the environment or labor abuses or corporations being held at a lesser standard. However, they do support ending the welfare state, but this argument extends to corporate welfare along with individual welfare. Do you disagree?
They support ending NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, WTO, UN and any other acronym that espouses to support "free trade" while ensuring that free trade never has a chance to work. Do you disagree?
How is that going to bring our industry back? Again, don't overestimate the power of just leaving industry alone. Capital has no borders. It has no culture. It has no ethnicity. It has no national loyalty. Libertarians think everything is solved by letting people do what they want with their labor, capital, and migratory preferences. In short, it's a pipe dream to think that we can protect our communities with such thinking. Even Adam Smith wasn't as blind as these internationalist libertarians. He believed that small communities could thrive under free market conditions because people would know one another and build trust. Globalization couldn't sustain such models. They don't like drugs or same sex marriage--they support the government staying out of individual lives. Do you disagree? How is the drug war working out for the taxpayer? IMHO, same sex marriage is a red-herring issue that liberals and conservatives use to wedge while the media cheerleads the importance on the sidelines. Do you disagree?
I'm just saying that by telling young folks that they don't want the government involved with marriage or drugs they're not really helping much. How has taking a position against the war on drugs done any good over the past 30 years?
#32. To: Deasy (#28)
He was a big government conservative just like most of them over the past sixty years.
#33. To: Original_Intent (#29)
#34. To: abraxas, Deasy (#26)
They don't like drugs or same sex marriage--they support the government staying out of individual lives. Do you disagree? How is the drug war working out for the taxpayer? IMHO, same sex marriage is a red-herring issue that liberals and conservatives use to wedge while the media cheerleads the importance on the sidelines. Do you disagree?
#35. To: Deasy (#33)
You're dreaming if you think Reagan wasn't a part of the New World Order.
#36. To: Original_Intent (#35)
#37. To: Deasy (#31)
#38. To: Deasy (#36)
People don't get to be nominated by the GOP or the DNC unless it is believed that they will not seriously change the direction our society is heading.
#39. To: abraxas (#37)
What they support is STATES making determination, not the federal government, on most issues. Do you disagree?
I disagree with the premise of "leaving industry alone" as a stated platform for Libertarians. The principle argument is SMALL central government. Do you disagree? This is a premise that you ignore while making claims of about no regulation and no corporate oversight. What I hear is more states rights to make determinations and less federal government from Libertarian speakers.
Show me the plans they've outlined for protecting natural resources, closing immigration, and protecting labor, please. This is the second time I've asked. I already know the answer: they don't have any, or if they do, it's outrageously naive or complicated. Corporations by their very definition can live past the age of an individual person, and can accumulate massive power through capital. Just "leaving them alone" will not work. And as I've mentioned, they are international by nature. They do not care about the people of this country. All they care about is shareholder value. So the government needs enough power to restrain corporate power, which inevitably will end up in abuse such as we have today with the banks. Let's be honest, there hasn't been any critical oversight into the effectiveness of the war on drugs. Billions spend year after year with no review. Two things go up--drug use and the costs. Sheesh, Reagan began the war on drugs and "just say no" with silly bumper sticker campaigns while ecstacy and meth went from coast to coast. What good has it done for the federal government to weigh in on same sex marriage? Why shouldn't this be a state rights issue? All the gays can live in states that promote and stay out of states that don't. Simple.
Libertarians tantalize kids and the elderly boomers by suggesting that an end could come to the war on drugs. This is part of their naivety. The war on drugs is a product of the warfare/welfare state, which is essentially what we've gotten from deciding to become an empire without ethnicity. Get to the root of our problems first. Then take up your pet causes. don't really understand the premise of your argument that the federal government expanding and getting involved in issues that step on states rights helps much......if at all. How has it helped Deasy? A bloated central government IS the problem and only Libertarians are taking a stand on this issue. Dems and Reps have proven to only be capable of expanding the federal government and the debt--despite the lame election round talking points that are tossed out the window after the votes are tallied.
My point is that the problem isn't government per se. We have the government we've asked for. The problem is what kind of government we have. That's a product of our loss of the Republic in exchange for an ethnically neutral empire. Now it's a Zionist empire. Both were the result of our culture.
#40. To: Deasy (#39)
Libertarians claim that our problems are caused by government. Liberals claim that we have the wrong type of government. We have the wrong culture. That's how we got where we are today. Changing government has to start by changing culture.
#41. To: Deasy, Rotara, abraxas (#39)
Show me the plans they've outlined for protecting natural resources, closing immigration, and protecting labor, please.
Libertarians claim that our problems are caused by government. Liberals claim that we have the wrong type of government. We have the wrong culture. That's how we got where we are today. Changing government has to start by changing culture.
#42. To: abraxas (#40)
What is this culture that we, as a nation founded on individual rights, should adopt? Wrong type of government? What should replace our representative republic?
#43. To: Original_Intent (#14)
However, if you have actually read Mill, and are aware of how the words were used in his time, "Liberal" meant "Libertarian" as we define it today, and a "Consevative" a "Reactionary" opposed to any change. So, without the correct context the quote loses its true meaning.
#44. To: Deasy (#36)
I don't think he (Reagan) would have been considered for the job if he hadn't been known to be a willing servant of the New World Order.
#45. To: Original_Intent (#41)
I think your problems with libertarianism results primarily from not understanding the full spectrum of Libertarian thought.
#46. To: Deasy (#33)
You're dreaming if you think Reagan wasn't a part of the New World Order.
#47. To: Flintlock (#44)
He was not selected like your CFR lawn jockey boy Obama.
#48. To: Deasy (#42)
the original America was built on quicksand.
#49. To: Flintlock (#48)
#50. To: Deasy (#42)
Individual rights and open immigration is a recipe for disaster. Think about how the banks took over. Libertarians want to reset to 1796, but they'll get 1984 again before you know it. It's part of the way the world works.
#51. To: Deasy (#47)
The CFR is a symptom, not the disease.
Does it make me even worse that I think Moslems are good people?
#52. To: Flintlock (#51)
#53. To: abraxas (#50)
I disagree, individual rights are part of the solution. How shall you have liberty without it, Deasy?
#54. To: Deasy (#52)
(Edited)
How could Reagan legally run the CFR out of DC?
#55. To: Flintlock (#54)
#56. To: Deasy (#55)
#57. To: Flintlock (#56)
#58. To: Deasy (#53)
Whose liberty?
#59. To: Deasy, all (#39)
Changing government has to start by changing culture.
#60. To: abraxas (#58)
.
.
.