A good one:
Old definitions:
Liberals: Favor social freedoms, but not economic freedoms.
Conservatives: Favor economic freedoms, but not social freedoms.
New definitions:
Liberals: Believe in evolution, but not biology.
Conservatives: Believe in biology, but not evolution.
This is by Patri Friedman on Catallarchy (via Bryan Caplan in EconLog). It is perhaps not surprising that Patri is aware of the importance of biology, since he is the son of David Friedman and the grandson of Milton Friedman.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
29 comments:
From the Devil's Dictionary:
CONSERVATIVE, n.
A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11388-species-evolve-faster-in-cooler-climes.html
I believe in evolution, but not Darwinism.
"I believe in evolution, but not Darwinism."
WTF?????????????
If it was good enough for the Soviets, it's good enough for me. Or did they believe in revolution, not evolution?
Liberals believe in social evolution. It's trendy for them to give lip service to biological evolution. Darwin's theme of "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" might give them pause - if they actually knew what they were talking about.
Fortunately for them, politics is about empty, trendy slogans instead of serious contemplation of issues.
Remember, there was a time when neo-conservatism (favouring social and economic freedoms) had a relatively good press in the liberal media. And it's Jew-ish character worked in its favour.
Conservatives support the idle rich; liberals, the idle poor.
I can't add anything to Ambrose Bierce's definition. But one feeling behind conservative attitudes is that things are the way they are for darned good reasons. Maybe not always for high-minded philosophical reasons, but because they happen to work. Not just work, they work reliably - they endure.
Conservatives are skeptics of the dogma of social progress. King Solomon said it, there's nothing new under the sun.
Liberals seem to Believe that with the right laws, the right propaganda, women will be just like men, the poor will be like the rich, and adults will be like children. Conservatives think: not only is that unrealistic, but it's also harmful.
Women are feminine for darned good reasons. Adults are not like children for darned good reason. Some people work hard, some people prefer not to, or can't. Some people treat sex as a game, some people treat sex as a way to bring new functional people into the world.
Liberals put their money on ideal people and practices. Conservatives put their money on actual people and practices.
Which one is really more cruel? That's the question.
The most fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives?
Liberal: Anything is possible.
Conservative: Most things are impossible.
Oh! I forgot neoconservatives. Their motto might be:
Dare to do the impossible.
The paleoconservative motto might be:
Few things are possible, fewer still are probable, and hardly any are worth a tax increase.
Tommy,
"The paleoconservative motto might be:
Few things are possible, fewer still are probable, and hardly any are worth a tax increase."
I doubt most paleoconseratives (of the Buchanan type) are terribly concerned about taxes because most of them are in lower tax brackets. They're more concerned with things like trade policy, which they think costs them manufacturing jobs (they never seem to acknowledge the negative effects of unionism on the productivity of American manufacturers or the number of manufacturing jobs created here by foreign companies like Toyota).
I'd agree with your statement if you were referring to the traditional middle ground of conservatives. I would guess 70-80% of conservatives would classify themselves as neither neo-cons nor paleocons.
Fred
what's up with steve not allowing comments on a bunch of his posts? and he doesn't offer any explanation. it doesn't make a whole lot of sense; either allow comments, or not, ferchrissake.
He didn't want us tearing David Brock, the little shitehawk, a new arsehole.
Anyway the latest posse too scared to come over here for a scrap is Matty Yglesias':
http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/03/barack_obama_african_warlord/#more
Bring it on, whiteboys.
\\"I doubt most paleoconseratives (of the Buchanan type) are terribly concerned about taxes because most of them are in lower tax brackets. They're more concerned with things like trade policy, which they think costs them manufacturing jobs (they never seem to acknowledge the negative effects of unionism on the productivity of American manufacturers or the number of manufacturing jobs created here by foreign companies like Toyota)."
Yes, it's true unionism hurts short term productivity. But that's true not only of the traditionally-considered blue collar unions, but also the professional "unions" such as the AMA, ABA, and the quasi-governmental organizations state legislators have universally rolled over for certifying accountants, pharmacists, and the like. Yet, we-probably correctly- have determined these latter in the long term interest of society, because...well, ultimately, as my namesake might have said, "What, are we libertarians? We are not libertarians yet." We do NOT trust "the market" to provide the standard of legal or medical practice, pharmacy (which in practice is no more than someone with a expensive license to make sure people can only buy those drugs doctors the state licenses say they can have).
In defense of unions, if the Teamsters, UAW and IAM had political power today, consumers would unquestionably pay more for cars, trucking services and electrical goods. But....we wouldn't have the current immigration problems, because no Administration would dare ignore the laws the unions wanted enforced. I'd pay twice as much for new cars if I never had to look at an illegal alien face again in my own community.
As far as higher taxes go, I think the superwealthy are substantially undertaxed myself. Because the policies of globalization have so reduced working class incomes and so bloated those of the Bill Gateses, they are the only ones who can afford to pay taxes. And collectibles and other pure luxury goods should be taxed: a person who can pay $300,000 for a car can certainly afford $400,000.
Conservatives of a certain kind might believe in biology (i.e., my kind of conservative) but I suspect that most believe in free will, period.
Fred,
I'd agree with your statement if you were referring to the traditional middle ground of conservatives. I would guess 70-80% of conservatives would classify themselves as neither neo-cons nor paleocons.
Yes, I would have to agree with that. It would more properly refer to in-the-middle-cons (mesoconservatives?) rather than paleocons.
This quote is retarded! Show me a liberal that doesn't beleive in biology. Or by "biology" do you mean "racism"?
"Anonymous said...
This quote is retarded! Show me a liberal that doesn't beleive in biology. Or by "biology" do you mean "racism"? "
What a silly little bitch you are. You don't even see that you verify the quote with your own little ass-clownish implication that so-called "racist" conclusions can't be drawn from biological data.
There is a standard deviation difference between average white IQ and average black IQ. A handful of recently-evolved genes have already been found that begin to account for this.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5741/1720
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5741/1717
An IQ of 115 (i.e. one standard deviation over white mean) is a minimal requirement for someone to do any kind of intellectually challenging work. Check out this graph: what per cent of blacks have an IQ over 115?
But if only the government would give them more money!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IQ-4races-rotate-highres.png
A liberal is a conservative who has been arrested.
A conservative is a liberal who been mugged.
1488,
On behalf of the hard-working Steve Sailer I ask you to stay off this thread. Steve is hated enough over there.
Thanks.
Fred
On behalf of the hard-working Steve Sailer I ask you to stay off this thread. Steve is hated enough over there.
Thanks.
Fred
I am not staying off this tread. The commenters on kike Matt's blog are idiots. Everything I say is true. I don't see what is so bad with being considered racist. The term is so overused that it has no more meaning anymore.
No one 'believes' in evolution. It is too harsh. The conservatives, however, are willing to suspend their disbelief when things are visibly headed in a bad direction.
Liberals give evolution lip-service because its trendy and seemed learned.
Seeing that Libertarianism is dead in the water atm, Ill take the conservatives over the Liberals anyday.
I find it rather dispiriting that everyone subjects themselves to a dichotomy when a continuum is more apt.
Conservatives generally supported desegregation, as late as the mid 1960's Nixon was viewed as sympathetic to the arguments of Civil Rights pioneers for equal treatment under the law. Which is profoundly conservative in it's arguments.
Leftists (now called Liberals though Liberalism has morphed from big-state interventionism but individual rights orientation like FDR-JFK) believe in collectivism. No individual rights, only group rights. Judge people not by the content of their character but membership in special/privileged groups (or not).
Sigh. I wish 1488 would just go away. Differences among groups does not equal superiority or inferiority. Different is just different.
1488 -- the biggest smack down to your beliefs can be found in Arlington or Crystal City VA malls. Walk around and see black/white couples (of all permutations), mostly military. In the most important and personal decisions, men and women of all races in the best and brightest (our Military) think you're insane.
Sailer of course misses the main point of the obvious dysfunction of poor African Americans. No one accuses poor whites of "not being White enough" and "acting black" yet that's the accusations leveled at upwardly mobile African Americans. INSTRUCTIVE.
The threat to the group identity, racial and cultural, is upward mobility. Look at Ice-T. The former hardest of hard-core rappers from NWA married possibly the whitest woman on the planet (Coco). Deliberate dysfunction and violence (which makes sense as a way to avoid intermarriage and gentrification) are the community's defense against absorption by the wider white community.
Deliberate anti-intellectual attitudes ("acting white") and constant violence depress IQ scores in poor blacks. Wow what a stunner.
Desegregation posed a massive risk, upward mobility, inter-marriage, and loss of group identity (as mostly happened with Jews, Italians, and Irish). African-Americans have decided not to go gently into that good night, though it's likely inevitable.
I'm shocked that this is not obvious to everyone concerned.
"I am shocked".....Jews lost a sense of group identity? Violence depresses I.Q. scores? Bull, sophistry. You clearly think you're on to something, you ain't.
Ive just been to have a look at that that thread where they hate Sailer. Read the comments, who cares what they think, its just a bunch of liberals jerking each other off. You cant learn anything there - except how certain groups love to jerk each other off - unlike here where there are many interesting comments.
Desegregation posed a massive risk, upward mobility, inter-marriage, and loss of group identity (as mostly happened with Jews, Italians, and Irish). African-Americans have decided not to go gently into that good night, though it's likely inevitable.
Is this group strategy conscious or unconscious? I urge you to write further on this intriguing thesis. You may become the Kevin MacDonald of Black Studies.
Liberals believe evolution exists, but that the Government should shield us from its consequences.
Post a Comment