Only halfway through at the moment, but I am thoroughly enjoying the conversation. This is a terrific matchup. (...and I am of the firm opinion that the "Free Will" name should not be changed; it is catchy.) On the whole "liberaltarianism" thing; I find the pull from both the left and the right to be an interesting concept in and of itself. (apart from the actual merits of the arguments which themselves are also interesting) I understand why such ideas are entrenched on both sides (both historically and practically), but I often wish I could visit an alternate universe where most things were exactly the same as ours, but the two major parties (or ideologies or whatever) were defined in a different way, with libertarians in one party and whatever their counterpart ("populists" or something?) on the other side. In other words, have a socially progressive/fiscally conservative party vs. a socially conservative/fiscally progressive party.

Continuing on the theme, how can anyone take seriously this claim of homogeneity? The NYT op-ed page? You mean Brooks and Krugman sing from the same hymnal? Stanley Fish and Nick Kristof? And what about the daily guests? Do you even read this paper, Jonah, or do you just "know" from your mother's knee that it's the Evil Liberal New York Slimes? Harvard? Wanna talk to Greg Mankiw or Harvey Mansfield or Charles Fried about that, for example? Hollywood and the Brookings Institution share the same views? You mean, like, say, Kenneth Pollack and Sean Penn? Peter Singer and Susan Sarandon? E.J. Dionne and Gary Sinise? And I remind you, Mr. Kristol, oops, I mean, Mr. Goldberg, you work at the LA Times. Are you now claiming to be part of "the liberal establishment?"

Yet another addition of BloggingCats. I applaud the effort at continued on-screen appearances of our (distant) mammalian evolutionary cousins.

Quoting Nate: I applaud the effort at continued on-screen appearances of our (distant) mammalian evolutionary cousins.

Imperious Feline Overlords, you mean.

Quoting bjkeefe: Continuing on the theme, how can anyone take seriously this claim of homogeneity?

The NYT op-ed page? You mean Brooks and Krugman sing from the same hymnal? Stanley Fish and Nick Kristof? And what about the daily guests? Do you even read this paper, Jonah, or do you just "know" from your mother's knee that it's the Evil Liberal New York Slimes?

Harvard? Wanna talk to Greg Mankiw or Harvey Mansfield or Charles Fried about that, for example?

Hollywood and the Brookings Institution share the same views? You mean, like, say, Kenneth Pollack and Sean Penn? Peter Singer and Susan Sarandon? E.J. Dionne and Gary Sinise?

And I remind you, Mr. Kristol, oops, I mean, Mr. Goldberg, you work at the LA Times. Are you now claiming to be part of "the liberal establishment?"

The doughy pantload has soiled another set of nappies. While I would like to concede how my retort adds little to the high minded attempts of the dv participants, I also feel justified in expressing my displeasure in this fashion because it is what I believe - don't question my motives. As per Bob's request.

Note to Jonah - Sixties Music Lesson - It wasn't Arthur Ochs (Ox) singing "Love Me, I'm a Liberal", but Phil Ochs (Oaks) - take a listen, it was quite a slam on mainstream liberalism (though from a hard lefty side), certainly reflective of how the left was quick to dismiss its natural allies and lost them for at least a generation. Alas, the dismissive attitude is still there (e.g. Naomi Klein, Ralph Nader, etc).

I'm a big Will Wilkinson fan, but this cannot stand. Will, please: Read this.

Quoting bjkeefe: Continuing on the theme, how can anyone take seriously this claim of homogeneity?

The NYT op-ed page? You mean Brooks and Krugman sing from the same hymnal? Stanley Fish and Nick Kristof? And what about the daily guests? Do you even read this paper, Jonah, or do you just "know" from your mother's knee that it's the Evil Liberal New York Slimes?

Harvard? Wanna talk to Greg Mankiw or Harvey Mansfield or Charles Fried about that, for example?

Hollywood and the Brookings Institution share the same views? You mean, like, say, Kenneth Pollack and Sean Penn? Peter Singer and Susan Sarandon? E.J. Dionne and Gary Sinise?

And I remind you, Mr. Kristol, oops, I mean, Mr. Goldberg, you work at the LA Times. Are you now claiming to be part of "the liberal establishment?"

a couple of things: First, although there are indeed people like Mankiw, Fried, etc. at Harvard, you'd be crazy to think they're broadly representative of Harvard. Now, you might respond that there's no such thing broadly representative of Harvard, but I think that's too strong. By and large, most of the professors at Harvard are liberal and moderate Democrats; the remainder are leftists, conservatives, and libertarians. Just take a survey of professors' donations to political candidates. Here, for example, is a survey of top law professors' donations to Obama as compared

I really like reading and listening to Will, but I fear for the future of his book sales. While he makes lots of interesting points, he can't (or won't) sum things up in a way that's easily understood by the average person. Say what you like about Milton Friedman, you never have to read him twice to grasp his meaning. I think Will hurts his cause with too much academic jargon and philosophical references and not enough "here's some real-life ways my ideas can be applied" or "here's how I plan to sell this to the public." It would be amusing to put him in charge of a political campaign--the attack ads would probably need subtitles...

Quoting Mari Dupont: I really like reading and listening to Will, but I fear for the future of his book sales. While he makes lots of interesting points, he can't (or won't) sum things up in a way that's easily understood by the average person. Say what you like about Milton Friedman, you never have to read him twice to grasp his meaning. I think Will hurts his cause with too much academic jargon and philosophical references and not enough "here's some real-life ways my ideas can be applied" or "here's how I plan to sell this to the public." It would be amusing to put him in charge of a political campaign--the attack ads would probably need subtitles...

Granted, but isn't it nice to not be talked down to, on occasion? One of the nice things about BHTV is that they can do low volume (that is, one [err, two, I guess] to not-so-many), high information content broadcasts in a way that one rarely encounters. Personally, I love to listen to people going on, full bore, with topics in which I have an interest, but no real expertise. [Kind of like sounding a cave to see how empty it is ;-)] And obviously if I'm already pretty familiar with a topic, it's just nice to hear people tearing

Brendan: you've rated a mention (though anonymously) on the Corner. Added: Somehow, I really don't believe it was your reference to the NYT that rankled.

Quoting AemJeff: Brendan: you've rated a mention (though anonymously) on the Corner.

LOL! Thanks for letting me know.

Added: Somehow, I really don't believe it was your reference to the NYT that rankled.

Ya think? ;^)

Hi AemJeff,
I hear what you're saying, but these are desperate times for libertarians and we need to get our ideas out of academia (or the dark corners of the Reason comment section) and into the mainstream. And as much as I personally enjoy talks aimed at policy wonks, the marketing director in me keeps saying "ok this is nice, but WHAT's THE COMMERCIAL? (or bumper sticker, if you'd prefer.)
M

Quoting Bobby G: a couple of things:

First, although there are indeed people like Mankiw, Fried, etc. at Harvard, you'd be crazy to think they're broadly representative of Harvard. [...]

I would be willing to bet that Harvard professors as a group would lean more to the left than, say, a random sample drawn from the entire US population on most issues, sure. I was not trying to claim Mankiw, et al, were representative of the faculty, I was merely giving a few examples to illustrate that the Harvard profs, like all the other groups Jonah named,and like "the left" or "liberals" that he's always indicting, are not a monolith of thought or political affiliation. That liberals, broadly speaking, may be in the majority at some place like Harvard does not mean the same thing as Jonah said and always says. Further, among those who self-identify as liberals at Harvard, I would bet anything that you could start a fight between two randomly selected profs by running down a short list of issues. Point is, Harvard is not homogeneous, and neither is the left. And it's even more boneheaded to say that priorities among, say, Brookings and Hollywood denizens are identical. I get that it's relative, that if one looks from a

Quoting bjkeefe: Imperious Feline Overlords, you mean.

And I, for one, welcome our new Imperious Feline Overlords.

Quoting Nate: And I, for one, welcome our new Imperious Feline Overlords.

LOL! As do I, as I always have. As my father likes to say, dogs have masters, cats have staff.

Quoting bjkeefe: I would be willing to bet that Harvard professors as a group would lean more to the left than, say, a random sample drawn from the entire US population on most issues, sure.

Yeah, they probably lean slightly more left: From Huffington Post 3Q 2008: Just the law professors: Harvard: 100% ($23,632) to Democrats, 0% to Republicans
Chicago: 100% ($14,158) to Democrats, 0% to Republicans
Michigan: 100% ($11,653) to Democrats, 0% to Republicans
Stanford: 100% ($8,900) to Democrats, 0% to Republicans
Texas: 100% ($6,107) to Democrats, 0% to Republicans
UC-Berkeley: 100% ($4,850) to Democrats, 0% to Republicans
Pennsylvania: 100% ($2,711) to Democrats, 0% to Republicans
Duke: 93.8% ($15,188) to Democrats, 6.2% ($1,000) to Republicans
Columbia: 92.7% ($6,390) to Democrats, 7.3% ($500) to Republicans
Georgetown: 91.9% ($25,990) to Democrats, 8.1% ($2,300) to Republicans
NYU: 91.7% ($5,500) to Democrats, 8.3% ($500) to Republicans
Cornell: 91.5% ($3,250) to Democrats, 8.5% ($300) to Republicans
Yale: 91.2% ($3,630) to Democrats, 8.8% ($350) to Republicans From the same page for professors nationwide:

Good dialog, though from my point of reference that was likely due to Will W. doing most of the talking. I wish him well in his attempt to lay the foundations for a new political party or alignment since the two we have pretty much, well, suck. I was a little disappointed that he didn't push back against Jonah G.'s claim that "the Left" tries to make a religion of the state, whoever's definition of "Left" one may like. This seems like a common attack from "the Right", in which anything from atheism to humanism to the state is claimed to be a new religion pushed by the ungodly. More to the point however is that it has always been my observation that there is a much stronger quasi-religious veneration of the state from "the Right". (I hesitate to enter into an argument as to just what that term means either since I don't find much overlap between my concept of conservatism and the Republican party.) It is nearly always the political "Right" that attacks opponents for insufficient patriotism. It certainly wasn't the "Left" which went after Obama for insufficient obeisance

Quoting harkin: Yeah, they probably lean slightly more left: ... [table of data] ...

Are you going to claim because most people made the smart decision between Obama and McCain* that therefore, the institutions to which they belong are a monolith of liberal thought? (Well, given that you think all news outfits besides Fox are liberally biased ...

Quoting harkin: Regardless of your political views, there are valid points being made on Fox every day, just as there are on the news services which tilt heavily left (basically the others) ...

... I suppose you fit the description I gave above about someone looking from sufficiently far out to the right -- you can't see any differences from where you're standing.) But back to your data: What about all the people who didn't donate? What you've shown with those data is a division between people sufficiently motivated to contribute to a political campaign this year. You haven't shown what fraction of the overall respective populations the donors represent. Therefore, while suggestive, those data are not conclusive. ==========
* [Added] For another look at how giving skewed this year among some surprising groups, see this article (via). Anecdotal, but illustrative, I think. This past election featured a lot of Obamacons and Obamacans

In the end, I think Wilkinson has a constituency of one for his party. He's not helped by the fact that he can't give an elevator pitch for his project.

Quoting cragger: I understand that political parties give lip service to a lot of things they don't actually believe or plan to do. So far as freedom and individual liberty (the diavlog being about Liberaltarians after all) are concerned, the political Right seems to love to talk about it, but outside championing the ability of those with economic wealth and power to do with those as they please, I can't recall a single issue in my lifetime which has pitted the idea of individual rights vs. expanded government power, in which the Republican party has not been staunchly in favor of more government power.

To be fair, 2nd Amendment issues are ones they could legitimately claim to be on the side of the individual versus the gummint. Ditto opposition to affirmative action. One could also probably come up with a variety of opposition to regulation-type of stances, although, to your claim, it's arguable that these are primarily motivated by looking to serve the interests of the well-heeled. But once we change "none" to "almost none," your point is a good one.

I discussed a number of the issues Jonah, Will & Haidt were getting at in this post.

Quoting bjkeefe: Are you going to claim because most people made the smart decision between Obama and McCain that therefore, the institutions to which they belong are a monolith of liberal thought?

I hate to say it, Brendan, but I'd be hard pressed to agree that that isn't a pretty good empirical test - if what you're testing for is the probability of a slant, rather than the presence of a monolith.

Quoting blofeld42: In the end, I think Wilkinson has a constituency of one for his party. He's not helped by the fact that he can't give an elevator pitch for his project.

You and Mari may be right about the elevator pitch/bumper sticker problem, but I'd say (a) we liberals, too, have long had this problem (just ask Eric Alterman*), and (b) I am intrigued by many of the ideas of liberaltarianism, and Will's, in particular. I'd say that I agree with him far more often than I don't. So, we just doubled his constituency! ;^) ==========
* Starting at about 5:30

Quoting bjkeefe: ... I'd say that I agree with him far more often than I don't.

So, we just doubled his constituency!

Yup - make that tripled!

Quoting AemJeff: Yup - make that tripled!

Make it four.

Quoting AemJeff: I hate to say it, Brendan, but I'd be hard pressed to agree that that isn't a pretty good empirical test - if what you're testing for is the probability of a slant, rather than the presence of a monolith.

As I said, the data are suggestive, but they're not conclusive. Pretend for a moment we didn't already think what we think about those universities listed. What that table of data shows is that among people who gave money, far more gave to Dems/Obama than Reps/McCain. But we don't know from those data what percentage of the total population at those campuses those donors represent. It could be that 5% gave to D/O, 1% gave to R/M, and 94% did not give any money. Second point: remember that McCain funded his general election campaign with public monies, while Obama declined those. So, it could be that there were more people who would have given to McCain if he was set up to receive unlimited individual contributions in summer and fall of 2008. Now, of course I am inclined to believe that the faculty at those universities listed are likely more liberal, as a group, compared to the general population. But

As a person who occupies the space between liberalism and libertarianism and became a kind of default liberaltarian after reading Lindsey's article in college, I appreciate Will's project to develop it into a coherent political philosophy. I wish him much luck. Still, I disagree with the idea that he shares with Jonathan Haidt that there is a fundamental moral split or personality difference between liberals and conservatives. The quiz that Haidt uses to create empirical support for his theory does not address under Loyalty such issues as party loyalty or loyalty to a movement or cause, which are as much in evidence on the left as on the right. Similarly, Haidt does not include under Purity such issues as doctrinal purity, cultural purity, or purity of political groupings and commitments (everyone absolutely committed to the same worldview, speaking with one voice), shades of which can also be seen in liberal thought as well as conservative. It seems just as likely that we all, to a greater or lesser degree, share these moral foundations but manifest them in different ways. This is partly why I see so much hope for liberaltarianism

This was touched only briefly when they talked about religion: the effectiveness of govt action, which is more similar to the action of a single firm or corporation, albeit with monopoly power, as opposed to larger emergent phenomena where no one is in charge. In order to appreciate and develop a sensibility for the latter one must in some sense be more fatalist: too much focus and faith in personal rational purity too often translates in overconfidence towards govt real potential for effecting the desired changes. Hayek's famous line that we must live (psychologically) in two very different worlds simultaneously: the personal, small-scale one and the larger societal one, is at the root of the problem, and it's the reason why Hayekians don't find themselves at home on either side of the political spectrum. To sum up, yes, you can through introspection be able to decide if you're more liberal or more conservative, but your individual predisposition does not necessarily correlates with how you should be judging societal phenomena. We have to accept the fact that complex phenomena have very peculiar explanations and that knowledge of these

Interesting thoughts from Jack Ross of The American Conservative, excerpted by John Cole. (It appears that you have to be a subscriber to read the whole thing.) (Plus, if you start at JC's place, you get to learn about "birth control glasses," which is a new term to me, and hilarious.) So, you know, no matter how many times Jonah wants to say Dewey! You must know about Dewey!, his claim that liberalism is a monolith unchanged throughout history appears to be something less than a unanimously held view, even among conservatives.

Quoting bjkeefe: As I said, the data are suggestive, but they're not conclusive.

Pretend for a moment we didn't already think what we think about those universities listed. What that table of data shows is that among people who gave money, far more gave to Dems/Obama than Reps/McCain. But we don't know from those data what percentage of the total population at those campuses those donors represent. It could be that 5% gave to D/O, 1% gave to R/M, and 94% did not give any money.

Second point: remember that McCain funded his general election campaign with public monies, while Obama declined those. So, it could be that there were more people who would have given to McCain if he was set up to receive unlimited individual contributions in summer and fall of 2008.

Now, of course I am inclined to believe that the faculty at those universities listed are likely more liberal, as a group, compared to the general population. But I did want to point out that the data harkin gave were, in the abstract, the sort of thing one reaches for to confirm something one already believes, and not really as much of as slam dunk as

Quoting AemJeff: There's nothing much for me to disagree with here; I didn't like the argument prima facie - but with these qualifications I really don't have a problem.

Your point about what Jonah was saying is important. I was glad that Jonah copped to his tendency to keep his thumb on the scales in his argumentation, after being called on it a couple of time by Will. But that's an important point about him. He argues for a point of view that he's already decided is true. Any framing of the facts that supports his preordained conclusions, regardless, it seems, of whether it's a fair representation of those facts, is fair game to him.

It ought not surprise anyone, given the political demography of this country, that university professors might skew somewhat to the liberal side of the spectrum. (If you don't want your kids to grow up as liberals, don't provide them with an education and the opportunity to become financially secure. ;-> ) But there's a cottage industry on the right that takes this unsurprising fact and paints a dire picture - and Jonah, who it's obvious is capable of seeing what's true, is as

Quoting Unit: More to the point of the diavlog, data shows that the more people are educated the less of an anti-market bias they have, hence here academia is an outlier since it has a high concentration of highly educated people with a strong anti-market bias. [emph. added --bjk] In the overall picture, though, they're a small minority.

Is that true? How do you know that? Are you talking all professors? Because my college experience (mostly with math and science profs, admittedly) was that my teachers were all fairly strong supporters of a fairly free market system. They like getting research money from the government, and most of them probably favored some regulation in some areas, and some notion of a social safety net, and like that, but I can't think of any I met who were "strongly anti-market." Are you talking about liberal arts professors who still name-check Marx or something?

I've carried a lot of water for Goldberg in the past but as soon as he mentioned the fairness doctrine I turned the diavlog off and turned my back on him. It's one thing to have a (IMO) simplistic view of the left from viewing it from the outside, and another thing to just be a stooge.

Quoting bjkeefe: Is that true? How do you know that? Are you talking all professors? Because my college experience (mostly with math and science profs, admittedly) was that my teachers were all fairly strong supporters of a fairly free market system. They like getting research money from the government, and most of them probably favored some regulation in some areas, and some notion of a social safety net, and like that, but I can't think of any I met who were "strongly anti-market."

Are you talking about liberal arts professors who still name-check Marx or something?

I don't know if I can provide a link, it's from a study of the Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
The most pro-market professors are to be found in Econ dept obviously even though (?) the average Econ prof is a moderate Democrat.

Quoting bjkeefe: LOL! Thanks for letting me know.

ROFL. This is hilarious:

Quoting Doughy: One more example of why we look at adding blog comments with some skepticism around here.

Yep, that's right; If it wasn't for the likes of Brendan, we could comment on Doughy's blog!

Quoting TwinSwords: ROFL. This is hilarious:

Originally Posted by Doughy
One more example of why we look at adding blog comments with some skepticism around here.

Yep, that's right; If it wasn't for the likes of Brendan, we could comment on Doughy's blog!

The thing that kills me about Jonah railing about the NYT's op-ed page's supposed monolithic ideology is thinking of his gig at The Corner. Is there any other big site where conformity of opinion is more prized? Cripes, every time Derb goes on a rant about the Creationists you can almost see K-Lo directing her henchmen to toss him out the window. And no comments! Dissent is unpatriotic! (Which is why Krugman, Kristof, Fish, and a score or two of other blogs at the NYT all permit them -- clearly, the NYT hates America.)

Quoting TwinSwords: ... we could comment on Doughy's blog!

Fun coincidence department: Gavin M. begins a long essay on, among other things, conservative fake grass-roots movements,* thus:

When Glenn Reynolds does those Instapolls that he does, they’re Instahosted at pollcode.com. In other words, we have discovered a wormhole to an alternate universe where Instapundit allows comments…

If you visit the Ole Perfesser's post and vote (or view results), you can see the comments ... and probably why conservatives don't like to enable them. ===============
* [Added: cf.]

Quoting pampl: I've carried a lot of water for Goldberg in the past but as soon as he mentioned the fairness doctrine I turned the diavlog off and turned my back on him.

What's your objection to mentioning the fairness doctrine? It's pretty transparently an attempt by the institutional Democrats to shut down media that is a burr in their saddle.

Quoting bjkeefe: Is there any other big site where conformity of opinion is more prized? Cripes, every time Derb goes on a rant about the Creationists you can almost see K-Lo directing her henchmen to toss him out the window.

So the fact that an atheistic or agnostic Derb goes on at a heavily Catholic publication is evidence of conformity? Go on, go on. There are plenty of sharp disagreements there.

Quoting blofeld42: So the fact that an atheistic or agnostic Derb goes on at a heavily Catholic publication is evidence of conformity? Go on, go on.

My point was that he gets in trouble when he does, which, by the way, is what led to this.

There are plenty of sharp disagreements there.

You mean, besides "I hate Obama more than you do! No, I do! No, I do! ... I invented the word Porkulus. No, I did! No, I did! ... I never liked Bush! Or McCain! Yes you did! No I didn't! ...?"

blofeld: P.S. I just skimmed the most recent few dozen posts on The Corner. I see 0 disagreements. The only reference to each other's posts I saw were agreements or chiming in.

Quoting bjkeefe: and probably why conservatives don't like to enable them.

Because the comments are dumb and abusive? The same thing happens in just about any ideologically charged publication as the people on the other side of the movement show up. Since most people are (let's be honest) morons, the quality of the comments drops rapidly. As insty puts it, it's like allowing grafitti at your business. And anyway, if you try expressing a conservative viewpoint on Kos or DU or the other lefty sites and you'll be banned in an instant.

Quoting blofeld42: Because the comments are dumb and abusive? The same thing happens in just about any ideologically charged publication as the people on the other side of the movement show up. Since most people are (let's be honest) morons, the quality of the comments drops rapidly. As insty puts it, it's like allowing grafitti at your business.

How do you explain the NYT's allowing comments, then? Or, say, TNR? (Hint: Registration and comments moderation are known options.)

And anyway, if you try expressing a conservative viewpoint on Kos or DU or the other lefty sites and you'll be banned in an instant.

Don't know about those two sites -- I almost never visit them -- but I don't believe you unless you can show me evidence. And I don't mean of someone getting banned for just repeatedly posting moronic insults or whatever. I mean evidence of a reasonably coherent dissent leading to banning. If you look at the blogs I read (political ones mostly in the the "news," "faves," "second faves," and "poli/wonk" folders), you'll find that almost all permit comments, and in most cases, get dissenting viewpoints, and so far as I can tell, anything not an obvious troll post does not get deleted.

Quoting bjkeefe: My point was that he gets in trouble when he does, which, by the way, is what led to this.

Um, so? Derb still posts at the corner and writes for a lot of other places. Is this an example of permissive repression?

You mean, besides "I hate Obama more than you do! No, I do! No, I do! ... I invented the word Porkulus. No, I did! No, I did! ... I never liked Bush! Or McCain! Yes you did! No I didn't! ...?"

Schiavo case, Iraq, immigration, libertarian (ish) vs. social conservatives, drugs or not, etc. They are, more or less, fusionists, and the battle between the libertarians and the trads has been long and intense and stretches back decades. (Meyer vs. Kirk, and so on.)

Quoting blofeld42: Schiavo case, Iraq, immigration, libertarian (ish) vs. social conservatives, drugs or not, etc. They are, more or less, fusionists, and the battle between the libertarians and the trads has been long and intense and stretches back decades. (Meyer vs. Kirk, and so on.)

Okay. Most of that does ring a bell.

Quoting bjkeefe: How do you explain the NYT's allowing comments, then? Or, say, TNR? (Hint: Registration and comments moderation are known options.)

Moderation and registration also puts a workload on the maintainers of the site. And, in the end, you have to ask yourself whether it's worth it. These days it's not like it's difficult to put up a countervailing site at which you can criticize them to your heart's content. In the end, the idea of comments at a high traffic site basically doomed. Does anyone actually read NYT comments? I get the impression they're more a matter of giving the users a fantasy that they're participating.

Don't know about those two sites -- I almost never visit them -- but I don't believe you unless you can show me evidence.

It's in DU's and Kos's terms of service. Kos: "Do not troll rate people for expressing a contrary opinion, so long as it is expressed in a civilized fashion. The exceptions are for conservative talking points or debunked or false information; this isn't a site for conservatives, they have entire swaths of the internet in which they can regale each other with their reality-impaired fantasies." Trust me, they're quick to delete

Quoting blofeld42: What's your objection to mentioning the fairness doctrine? It's pretty transparently an attempt by the institutional Democrats to shut down media that is a burr in their saddle.

It's a paranoid delusion. It's roughly isomorphic to the claims in 2007 that labeling Hezbollah a terrorist organization was clearly a manufactured casus belli for the occupation of Iran.

Quoting blofeld42: Moderation and registration also puts a workload on the maintainers of the site. And, in the end, you have to ask yourself whether it's worth it. These days it's not like it's difficult to put up a countervailing site at which you can criticize them to your heart's content.

In the end, the idea of comments at a high traffic site basically doomed. Does anyone actually read NYT comments? I get the impression they're more a matter of giving the users a fantasy that they're participating.

Your arguments contradict each other -- on one hand, you're saying they're too much trouble, on the other, you're saying no one reads them, so they don't matter.

Quoting blofeld42: It's in DU's and Kos's terms of service.

Yeah, well, you can see why I don't spend time on those sites. Actually, I guess Kos's sounds reasonable enough, given what they're all about, and given that it sounds like the community essentially votes. DU's sounds like RedState's. Excerpt (emph. orig.):

A little clarification is in order. Pursuant to the mission statement, this site is explicitly meant to serve as a conservative and Republican community. Postings, comments, etc., contrary to this purpose fall under the rubric of "disruptive behavior" and will result in banning. You may

Quoting bjkeefe: blofeld:

P.S. I just skimmed the most recent few dozen posts on The Corner. I see 0 disagreements. The only reference to each other's posts I saw were agreements or chiming in.

They're dissing the Republican governor of California, Tory leader David Cameron, and a Republican senator from PA, asking whether Jindal screwed the pooch in his reply, and Charles Murray is disagreeing with Derb about the uselessness of social scientists.

Quoting blofeld42:

Quoting bjkeefe: blofeld:

P.S. I just skimmed the most recent few dozen posts on The Corner. I see 0 disagreements. The only reference to each other's posts I saw were agreements or chiming in.

They're dissing the Republican governor of California, Tory leader David Cameron, and a Republican senator from PA, asking whether Jindal screwed the pooch in his reply, and Charles Murray is disagreeing with Derb about the uselessness of social scientists.

Sounds like one, maybe two, disagreements to me, and the obvious disagreement has nothing to do with politics. Dissing others not part of the site isn't what I meant when I said they were an echo chamber. But, as I acknowledged to another of your posts, I grant that they do argue about some things, or at least, have in the past.

Quoting pampl: It's a paranoid delusion. It's roughly isomorphic to the claims in 2007 that labeling Hezbollah a terrorist organization was clearly a manufactured casus belli for the occupation of Iran.

It was part of the 2000 Democratic Party Platform. The 2004 Democratic presidential candidate was and is in favor of it. Many bigfoot Democratic senators are in favor of it. Nancy Pelosi is in favor of it. It is not exactly a fringe position.

Quoting bjkeefe: Your arguments contradict each other -- on one hand, you're saying they're too much trouble, on the other, you're saying no one reads them, so they don't matter.

It's no contradiction; it's work for the site and they add little to the discussion because they're often of low quality at high traffic and/or ideologically polarized sites. Lots of work for small gain. The NYT has Carlos Slim to fund their moderation, at least for a while, I think on the theory that the fantasy of participation will drive more web hits. Do you really think the editorialists or columnists at the NYT read the comments?

If people want to have their community sites, that's fine. The thing that bothers me more about Jonah is that he's always yammering on about "a debate worth having" and "substantive discussion" and "exchange of ideas" and all manner of pretend-intellectual motherhood and apple pie, but really, he wants no part of any backtalk.

He was usually linking to opposing views in his LF book blog.

Quoting blofeld42: It was part of the 2000 Democratic Party Platform. The 2004 Democratic presidential candidate was and is in favor of it. Many bigfoot Democratic senators are in favor of it. Nancy Pelosi is in favor of it. It is not exactly a fringe position.

As I noted elsewhere (from):

A spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said he was unaware of any plans to revive the policy. A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid went a bit further.

"We have enough real problems facing this country that we don't need to invent ones that don't exist," Reid spokesman Jim Manley said. "This is not even close to being on our radar screen."

Also, more recently (and note the source):

President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a spokesman told FOXNews.com Wednesday.

And as I said on this site not too long ago:

Trust me on this one: the Fairness Doctrine is never, ever, ever coming back. Liberals, by and large, don't support it, or certainly, wouldn't, if it ever became a serious matter for debate. No sane person thinks any longer that it's possible to "balance" viewpoints, especially in this age of media fragmentation. No one wants to set

Quoting blofeld42: It's no contradiction; it's work for the site and they add little to the discussion because they're often of low quality at high traffic and/or ideologically polarized sites. Lots of work for small gain. The NYT has Carlos Slim to fund their moderation, at least for a while, I think on the theory that the fantasy of participation will drive more web hits. Do you really think the editorialists or columnists at the NYT read the comments?

Registration and filtering can be automated. Your canard about Slim is ridiculous -- paying for moderation is an amount of money lost in the noise compared to the NYT's operating costs. And it's not like NRO doesn't have its own sugar daddies. And yes, I do think the comments get read by the senior stafff -- I see comments quoted and/or referred to in follow-up posts. Some more than others, granted.

He was usually linking to opposing views in his LF book blog.

Oh, please. There's no real exchange there, and what he addresses is in no way representative of the well-deserved takedowns that book has sparked. What Jonah does on that monument to onanism, when he's not just whining or pasting

Pelosi: "Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?'" I asked.
"Yes," the speaker replied, without hesitation. Harkin: “We need the Fairness Doctrine back.” Kerry: "I think the fairness doctrine ought to be there, and I also think equal time doctrine ought to come back" Feinstein: “I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.” Schumer: “The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.” It is not exactly Vince Foster conspiracy mongering to point out that many in the institutional Democratic party apparatus want the FD back, along with plenty of "progressives" who simply want to further their political power. It is not a fringe opinion when it shows up in the Democratic Party platform and

Quoting bjkeefe: And it's not like NRO doesn't have its own sugar daddies.

"Buckley said in 2005 that the magazine had lost about $25 million over 50 years." Like most political or ideas magazines, NRO is a shoestring operation, and usually a money-losing one. The money-losing part is a fairly new innovation for the NYT. I don't doubt that it's a small part of the NYT's budget, but it wouldn't be for NRO. From what I can see their web operations seem to be held together with spit and baling wire, with rather frequent glitches.

Quoting blofeld42: Pelosi: "Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?'" I asked.
"Yes," the speaker replied, without hesitation.

Harkin: “We need the Fairness Doctrine back.”

Kerry: "I think the fairness doctrine ought to be there, and I also think equal time doctrine ought to come back"

Feinstein: “I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”

Schumer: “The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

It is not exactly Vince Foster conspiracy mongering to point out that many in the institutional Democratic party apparatus want the FD back, along with plenty of "progressives" who simply want to further their political power. It is not a fringe opinion when it shows up in the Democratic Party platform and

I am absolutely appalled!
I can never take seriously anything Will Wilkinson ever says again.
Has he ever spent any time in Canada? Other than what he has read in various surveys
does he know anything about my country
(in which I was born
and have lived for 67 years
except for 4 years in the USA
and short periods abroad) Does he really believe
there is as much freedom of expression here
(or possibly more ??!!)
as in the USA?? Then how is it that I have to go to bloggingheads
and US talk radio
and FOX news
(which for a long time was not permitted in Canada
by the Canadian censors
aka the CRTC
the Canadian Radio and Television Commission
which presently is trying to seize control of the internet)
to hear anything other than the conventional liberal pap
that passes for discussion
in this intellectual
and moral wasteland of a country. Not only are there are no Rush Limbaughs
on the air in Canada
(that would not be permitted by 'public opinion')
there aren't even any Will Wilkinsons! Does Will Wilkinson have any idea
what the various 'Human Rights Commissions' have done
to free speech in Canada? (What there ever was of it
which wasn't much.) He

Quoting pampl: It is pretty much Vince Foster conspiracy mongering.

When the three immediately prior Democratic party presidential candidates, the current Democratic speaker of the house, and a host of bigfoot Democratic senators advocate a policy, it is a legitimate stick to beat the Democrats with. I'm sorry if so many Democratic leaders advocate stupid policies, but they don't get a pass, and should not get a pass.

Quoting bjkeefe: The thing that kills me about Jonah railing about the NYT's op-ed page's supposed monolithic ideology is thinking of his gig at The Corner. Is there any other big site where conformity of opinion is more prized? Cripes, every time Derb goes on a rant about the Creationists you can almost see K-Lo directing her henchmen to toss him out the window.

And no comments! Dissent is unpatriotic!

Agree. Given the overall disregard for the readers (i.e., no comments), and the inherent dismissal of scientists (wrt evolution by many of the NRO writers, on AGW by nearly all of the NRO writers), and so on, Jonah has no ground to stand on in criticizing other media about their supposed biases.

I look forward to reading Will's book and finding out how "liberaltarianism" will bridge the gaping hole in American politics between the two schools of freedom, but I agree with Jonah Goldberg and some other commenters here that political philosophy is a rather eccentric taste and only influences actual politics when it can be boiled down to memorable platitudes (most academic books are lucky if they sell a few thousand copies). It would also be interesting to hear a debate on Dewey and the transformation of liberalism that occurred during the New Deal. One thing that needs pointing out, and was not discussed by either speaker, is that the liberal-conservative debate has been shaped not only by ideology but also by the institutions and the history of the United States. For the first half of its existence the United States was a wide open frontier society, with an abundance of cheap land and a plentiful supply of poor immigrants in search of a new life, wealth and freedom, freedom above all from the social and political constraints they had experienced at first

Quoting blofeld42: When the three immediately prior Democratic party presidential candidates, the current Democratic speaker of the house, and a host of bigfoot Democratic senators advocate a policy, it is a legitimate stick to beat the Democrats with. I'm sorry if so many Democratic leaders advocate stupid policies, but they don't get a pass, and should not get a pass.

They haven't, though, and you'd have to be a sucker to think otherwise. That's the problem. Goldberg is either being a sucker or playing off them.

Yes, I tend to agree with you that Will may be living in a semi intellectual ghetto with taking these personality/moral tests and his affinity for liberaltarianism. I look forward to seeing if his philosophy ever takes hold with the general voting populace. Unfortunately, our system in the U.S. is a 2 party one which leaves little room for such a movement as he advocates. In fact, when it comes to Libertarians most would think of a modified Rothbardian model not the Wilkinson one. And that one in the last election didn't garner much attention even though they have been around for about 40 years. I wonder though about the future viability of a more powerful third party here. Say if the economy still tanks after the multi trillion dollar bailouts and the Democrats falter at the art of problem solving. Could a new force/party emerge to have a shot in 2012 or 2016? I just don't know but as a non partisan feel there is a possibility it could happen. P.S. The newscaster Paul Harvey passed over the weekend. While in broadcasting school in the early 70's an idol of mine, Dave

Quoting bjkeefe:
If people want to have their community sites, that's fine. The thing that bothers me more about Jonah is that he's always yammering on about "a debate worth having" and "substantive discussion" and "exchange of ideas" and all manner of pretend-intellectual motherhood and apple pie, but really, he wants no part of any backtalk.

"Motherhood and apple pie and not wanting part of any backtalk" are a package. I suggest you look for a better metaphor.

I have to say, one side of my screen has a Ferrari on it. It does, sure nuff.

Quoting Unit: Make it four.

Add one more... Great diavlog! Interesting topics and enjoyable interaction between Will and Jonah.

Quoting bkjazfan: Yes, I tend to agree with you that Will may be living in a semi intellectual ghetto with taking these personality/moral tests and his affinity for liberaltarianism.

So embarrassing, that whole segment. Not only does he fully inhere the preening self-regard of the libertarian, he uses the cheapest possible plastic ruler to measure himself. Still comes off better than Jonah, though! Will may be college sophomoric, but Jonah's pure high-school debate team weasel.

Quoting Ray: So embarrassing, that whole segment.

Not only does he fully inhere the preening self-regard of the libertarian, he uses the cheapest possible plastic ruler to measure himself.

Still comes off better than Jonah, though! Will may be college sophomoric, but Jonah's pure high-school debate team weasel.

I don't think you're being entirely fair to Will. He used the cheap plastic ruler (as it were) to create a visual aid to help illustrate a point, and used a caricature of himself in that illustration.

Quoting osmium: I have to say, one side of my screen has a Ferrari on it. It does, sure nuff.

Oz, that is the longest damned dingalink anybody has ever convinced me to sit all the way through. I have to say that even having done so (and, of course, I'd already been through the entire dvlog once) I only sort of understand your point. Would you care to present the "For Dummies" version?

Quoting blofeld42: "Buckley said in 2005 that the magazine had lost about $25 million over 50 years."

Like most political or ideas magazines, NRO is a shoestring operation, and usually a money-losing one. The money-losing part is a fairly new innovation for the NYT. I don't doubt that it's a small part of the NYT's budget, but it wouldn't be for NRO. From what I can see their web operations seem to be held together with spit and baling wire, with rather frequent glitches.

Fair enough. I still believe that money is not the primary reason that NRO permits no comments. That they've been able to absorb a $25 million loss speaks to the ongoing availability of financial support. Also, it would seem that (unpaid) interns could be given the task of moderating comments, as they are at various blogs run by lib organizations (like Think Progress and Media Matters, I think). And, as I said, a registration requirement can be automated with off-the-shelf software. This part, all by itself, goes a long way to cutting down the noise in comments sections, and costs virtually nothing once it's implemented. So, I believe that the NRO people really are driven by distaste for the amount of dissent they'd attract with the

Quoting Ocean: "Motherhood and apple pie and not wanting part of any backtalk" are a package. I suggest you look for a better metaphor.

Noted. I'll bear your suggestion in mind. Thanks.

Quoting bjkeefe: I believe that the NRO people really are driven by distaste for the amount of dissent they'd attract with a lot of the red meat they serve up daily.

Imagine K-Lo in a world where people could freely and publicly call her out on her logic and assumptions. I think that might be the cause of a messy explosion. If NRO ever does consider enabling comments, somebody ought to consider convincing Walter L. Wagner to file a suit in Geneva.

Quoting AemJeff: Oz, that is the longest damned dingalink anybody has ever convinced me to sit all the way through. I have to say that even having done so (and, of course, I'd already been through the entire dvlog once) I only sort of understand your point. Would you care to present the "For Dummies" version?

I'm sorry, AemJeff. I'm being a obtuse, and I'm sorry the dingalink didn't have anything to do with the Ferrari thing. I was saying I don't think Jonah and Will are talking at the same level, and I think Jonah should be prepared to respond on the same plane as Will, rather than saying something vague about John Dewey and that people like to go to church in response to the mapping of a political philosophy that Will is charting and elucidating in good faith. I'm saying Jonah needs to bring it, and he is not bringing it at all. When Jonah is on to discuss horserace politics and the news cycle, he is perfect. But for this diavlog, he added nothing, except possibly as a foil. So, I am torn on what to say: I enjoyed this a lot, and inasmuch as Jonah was half the diavlog

I'm glad I asked.

Quoting osmium: it was an interview of Will, with Jonah throwing softballs that, as Will batted them away, painted the outline of what Will is thinking.

My feelings exactly. I mentioned my opinion of Jonah's schtick elsewhere in this thread. Will is too clear, and far too quick, for those games to be worth much in a conversation with him, I think. But Jonah's game is good enough to provide somebody like Will a platform om which he can coherently present a point of view. I like Jonah (as I've said before), but I think his strengths are polemics and sophistry. Smoke and mirrors. If Will is a Ferrari, Jonah's more like a mid-seventies Corvette.

Quoting AemJeff: If Will is a Ferrari, Jonah's more like a mid-seventies Corvette.

Nah. He's more like Oldsmobile's first crack at putting 6-cylinder engines in their land yachts after the Arab oil embargo: overweight and underpowered.

Quoting bjkeefe: Nah. He's more like Oldsmobile's first crack at putting 6-cylinder engines in their land yachts after the Arab oil embargo: overweight and underpowered.

It actually almost the same metaphor. Those post '73 Vettes were just exactly as you describe the Oldsmobiles, just deceptively dressed up like they actually had some go in them.

Quoting AemJeff: It actually almost the same metaphor. Those post '73 Vettes were just exactly as you describe the Oldsmobiles, just deceptively dressed up like they actually had some go in them.

Crap. So much for my gearhead cred.

Quoting bjkeefe: Now, of course I am inclined to believe that the faculty at those universities listed are likely more liberal, as a group, compared to the general population. But I did want to point out that the data harkin gave were, in the abstract, the sort of thing one reaches for to confirm something one already believes, and not really as much of a slam dunk as a first glance might suggest.

And, anyway, my main beef still stands: that most people at Harvard, et al, preferred Obama is not the same as saying they all think alike, which is what Jonah said.

How would you respond to this claim: "The idea that the faculty at places like Wheaton, Biola, and other conservative Christian colleges are monolithic is silly. After all, many of them have a kenotic interpretation of the Incarnation, some of them are open theists, who think that God doesn't know the future with regard to the free decisions of human beings, some of them think that God is outside of time and changeless, some of them think that the Bible is inspired, but not inerrant, etc.
"Now, of course, on the following beliefs all agree: God exists; Jesus was God; the Bible, in

Quoting Bobby G: How would you respond to this claim: [...]

By recalling what I said elsewhere, about it being perfectly understandable to me that if one stands far enough off to the Right side, everything on the Left side of the spectrum appears indistinguishable. Replace Right with secular and Left with religious, obvs. I am not trying to say there is no meaning to a statement S like "the Harvard faculty is generally more liberal than a group of the same size drawn at random from the entire US population." My only two points in this thread (where I haven't allowed myself to get sidetracked, admittedly) have been these: (1) Statement S is not the same thing as saying "all Harvard professors think alike," and (2) Jonah has failed, in this diavlog and in everything else I've ever seen of his, to demonstrate his awareness of (1). The reason I won't shut up about this is because Jonah won't admit that he's merely a rigidly partisan polemicist who differs from the denizens of Hate Radio only by a few less flecks of spittle and a few more hours spent grubbing through his box of CliffsNotes. If he

Except if the authority is a survey by five social psychologists.

At this point, I'm getting confused as to what your claim is. Do you seriously think that Jonah Goldberg really thinks that all (or most) Harvard faculty think exactly the same on all (or most) political issues? If that's what you think, then I don't think you're being charitable to Jonah--and by "charitable" I don't mean nice; I mean "reasonably interpreting". Look, in conversation, people make universal claims; it's just what people tend to do, intellectuals or not. I've known many a philosopher to say Christians aren't smart, and then when confronted by obvious counterexamples, like Barack Obama, they say, "Well, most of them aren't." And that was obviously their point all along. And I'd be silly if I didn't know that. It's only when the argument is about whether the general or the universal claim is true that this question is very important. As for the perspective by which one evaluates these things, I think you're going too far with that. I'm a pretty fair observer of things, I'd like to think, and I understand the conversational claim that "everyone at Fox News is conservative" to be true. Most people are conservative there, although there are exceptions like Juan Williams and Ellis Hennicken, and even though

Quoting Bobby G: At this point, I'm getting confused as to what your claim is. Do you seriously think that Jonah Goldberg really thinks that all (or most) Harvard faculty think exactly the same on all (or most) political issues? If that's what you think, then I don't think you're being charitable to Jonah--and by "charitable" I don't mean nice; I mean "reasonably interpreting".

Look, in conversation, people make universal claims; it's just what people tend to do, intellectuals or not.

I invite you to review Jonah's diavlogs and his writings, and collect all the times he says "liberals this" and "the left that" and "liberalism the other thing." I fully concede people sometimes make "all"-sounding generalizations when they mean "most," in casual conversations, but Jonah is far beyond that, and he does it when he's supposed to be being Very Serious and Thoughtful. Review this diavlog and watch when Peter (finally) calls him on his ridiculously sweeping and shallow assessments, and note how Jonah reacts. Buh-stid.

As for the perspective by which one evaluates these things, I think you're going too far with that. I'm a pretty fair observer of things, I'd like to think, and I understand the conversational claim that "everyone at Fox News is conservative" to be

Quoting Nate: Only halfway through at the moment, but I am thoroughly enjoying the conversation. This is a terrific matchup. (...and I am of the firm opinion that the "Free Will" name should not be changed; it is catchy.)

On the whole "liberaltarianism" thing; I find the pull from both the left and the right to be an interesting concept in and of itself. (apart from the actual merits of the arguments which themselves are also interesting)

I understand why such ideas are entrenched on both sides (both historically and practically), but I often wish I could visit an alternate universe where most things were exactly the same as ours, but the two major parties (or ideologies or whatever) were defined in a different way, with libertarians in one party and whatever their counterpart ("populists" or something?) on the other side. In other words, have a socially progressive/fiscally conservative party vs. a socially conservative/fiscally progressive party.

You've hit on something. Libertarians are not a broad coalition, but a small force of people with a few important shared principles. All this talk of "liberaltarian" vs. "paleocon" is never going to get us anywhere. As libertarians, we all *must* be prepared to stand with any coalition from either party, shoulder

Quoting Tara Davis: New England (and Iowan) Liberaltarians who helped elect Obama, and instead pay much more attention to the important concepts which unite us.

People who couldn't even support Ron Paul because of bogus claims of racism. Libertarians don't exist: there are only small-government conservatives and there are their enemies - liberals.

Quoting JoeK: People who couldn't even support Ron Paul because of bogus claims of racism.

Libertarians don't exist: there are only small-government conservatives and there are their enemies - liberals.

Congratulations Joe! Not many people have the talent to befriend nearly everybody here while simultaneously solving all of our pesky problems with political nomenclature! Thanks man, we appreciate it.

Ron Paul seems to be getting more airtime now than when he ran for president. I wonder why? It could have something to do with his anti-Keynesian/Stimulus/Bailout Blues views. Wake me when the highly touted Stimulus starts to stimulate something other than talk and the Northern Virginia/government employment. John

Quoting AemJeff: Congratulations Joe! Not many people have the talent to befriend nearly everybody here while simultaneously solving all of our pesky problems with political nomenclature! Thanks man, we appreciate it.

It wasn't directed toward Tara personally. I do respect her a lot and think she is the smartest commenter here.
My blood just boils when I recall how bhtv libertarians acted in the campaign.
bhtv libertarians are: McArdle, Wellch, that silly silent-dancer with Mexican name who got arrested for his idiotic silent dancing in public, and of course our happily-ever-after couple of the how-to-do-top-down-social-engineering-libertarian-style kind.

Quoting bkjazfan: Ron Paul seems to be getting more airtime now than when he ran for president. I wonder why?

Because the GOP leadership still thought they still had something going on in spring 2008, and then after nominating Sarah Palin to run for VP, appointing "Joe" the "Plumber" as Spokesman-in-Chief, and realizing 98% of their guys in Congress believe they have to ask Rush Limbaugh for permission to pee, they finally decided, hey, what do we have to lose?

Who is the silly dancer? I got the others but am stumped with this one. John

Quoting bkjazfan: Who is the silly dancer? I got the others but am stumped with this one.

John

Julian Sanchez, here is the link: http://www.juliansanchez.com/2008/04/12/hijinks-ensue/ Now I am not sure if he danced himself or just thought it was a big deal they got arrested and wrote about it, which is equally stupid. But that's not the point. I am pretty sure he was very vocal in attacking Paul in the midst of the campaign.

Quoting JoeK: Julian Sanchez, here is the link: http://www.juliansanchez.com/2008/04/12/hijinks-ensue/

Now I am not sure if he danced himself or just thought it was a big deal they got arrested and wrote about it, which is equally stupid.

But that's not the point. I am pretty sure he was very vocal in attacking Paul in the midst of the campaign.

You're a conservative who thinks that making a big deal about peaceful people breaking no laws getting arrested is "stupid?"

Quoting AemJeff: You're a conservative who thinks that making a big deal about peaceful people breaking no laws getting arrested is "stupid?"

You are boring.

Quoting JoeK: You are boring.

Aw jeeze, Joe. I thought we were pals!

Quoting JoeK: You are boring.

Worst. Comeback. Ever. Someone take JoKe's keyboard away from him before he hurts himself. ========== (Stand by for harkin to pounce with "AHA! HE'S CALLING FOR BANNING AGAIN!!!1!" in 5... 4... 3...)

Quoting pampl: They haven't, though, and you'd have to be a sucker to think otherwise. That's the problem. Goldberg is either being a sucker or playing off them.

Um, excuse me, that's the prior FOUR democratic party presidential candidates that advocate the fairness doctrine: Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry. Plus the speaker of the house, plus the senate majority whip, plus a host of bigfoot senators, plus various planks in the Democratic part platform over the years, plus lots of "progressive" activists. At what point does it become legitimate to point out that lots of important Democrats support the fairness doctrine? Just wondering.

Quoting blofeld42: Um, excuse me, that's the prior FOUR democratic party presidential candidates that advocate the fairness doctrine: Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry. Plus the speaker of the house, plus the senate majority whip, plus a host of bigfoot senators, plus various planks in the Democratic part platform over the years, plus lots of "progressive" activists.

At what point does it become legitimate to point out that lots of important Democrats support the fairness doctrine? Just wondering.

Or, conversely, how long does a non-issue need to not acted on before it ceases to be an effective partisan piñata?

bhtv libertarians are: McArdle, Wellch, that silly silent-dancer with Mexican name who got arrested for his idiotic silent dancing in public,....

WTF is a "Mexican name?"

Quoting Wonderment: WTF is a "Mexican name?"

Obviously: "Julian."

Quoting AemJeff:

Quoting Wonderment: WTF is a "Mexican name?"

Obviously: "Julian."

You owe me a new keyboard and a fresh mouthful of coffee.

Quoting bjkeefe: .... and realizing 98% of their guys in Congress believe they have to ask Rush Limbaugh for permission to pee ...

And speaking of the ever-diminishing testicular fortitude of every Republican official in the nation, here is your brave new Chairman of the RNC!!! Saturday 28 February 2009:

Steele: Rush Isn't The GOP's Leader -- He's An Entertainer

Check out this interview Michael Steele did Saturday night with D.L. Hughley on CNN, in the wake of Rush Limbaugh's speech at CPAC proudly proclaiming that he wants President Obama to fail.

Finding himself in unfriendly territory, Steele said that Rush is not the leader of the Republican Party -- Steele is:

[video at link]

"Let's put it in the context here," said Steele. "Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment."

"Yes, it's incendiary," Steele added. "Yes, it's ugly."

Monday 2 March 2009:

Steele Apologizes To Limbaugh, Praises His Leadership

In the new game of chicken between Michael Steele and Rush Limbaugh, the loser is...Michael Steele, who now says he never meant to diminish the voice and leadership of Limbaugh.

In an interview with the Politico, Steele said: "My intent was not to go after Rush - I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh. I was maybe a little bit

Quoting bjkeefe: And speaking of the ever-diminishing testicular fortitude of every Republican official in the nation, here is your brave new Chairman of the RNC!!!

Saturday 28 February 2009:

Monday 2 March 2009:

If the GOP can't stand up to Rush Limbaugh, how will they ever stand up to the turrurists???

Steele should resign. To call what Rush does "ugly" is inexcusable. You can say Rush is fat, but not that he is ugly. Rush Limbaugh is a beautiful human being and Steele should have known better. Now, he should apologize once more and then resign. It’s enough to have one prominent political figure who gives blacks a bad name. We don’t need another one.

Quoting AemJeff: Or, conversely, how long does a non-issue need to not acted on before it ceases to be an effective partisan piñata?

Who says it's a non-issue? There are all these important democrats supporting it. It routinely crops up as a party platform plank, either at the national level or the state level. "Progressives" on the hustings demand it.

Quoting bjkeefe: [...]

Rush should be proud. Republican pathos is directly proportional to the size of his ego, at this point. It's a sad thing.

Quoting bjkeefe: Fun coincidence department: Gavin M. begins a long essay on, among other things, conservative fake grass-roots movements,* thus:

Sadly, no. Playboy and TPM have taken down the posts that allege the Konservative Konspiracy, likely lest they run afoul of libel law. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...pmhcs.asp?pg=1 for some actual reporting, rather than speculation.

If you visit the Ole Perfesser's post and vote (or view results), you can see the comments ... and probably why conservatives don't like to enable them.

I read the first page of comments. They're all either sophomoric sexual puns and stupid or just stupid. The second page was no better. If that's your argument for allowing comments at instapundit, you don't really have an argument.

Quoting blofeld42: Who says it's a non-issue? There are all these important democrats supporting it. It routinely crops up as a party platform plank, either at the national level or the state level. "Progressives" on the hustings demand it.

Man, are you still yammering on about this? Well, believe what you want, but it is my considered opinion that the Dems you so fretfully quote have pwned you.

Quoting blofeld42: Who says it's a non-issue? There are all these important democrats supporting it. It routinely crops up as a party platform plank, either at the national level or the state level. "Progressives" on the hustings demand it.

You mentioned names going to Dukakis, right? That's twenty years of nothing happening, during forty-percent of which there was a Democratic President, four or five years of a Democratic Congress, and more years with a mixed Congress. That's what says it's a non-issue. Show me the legislation on a track to an actual vote. Or show me some discernible movement in that direction. Then it will be an issue.

Quoting blofeld42: Um, excuse me, that's the prior FOUR democratic party presidential candidates that advocate the fairness doctrine: Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry. Plus the speaker of the house, plus the senate majority whip, plus a host of bigfoot senators, plus various planks in the Democratic part platform over the years, plus lots of "progressive" activists.

At what point does it become legitimate to point out that lots of important Democrats support the fairness doctrine? Just wondering.

Only one of the quotes was actual support. The rest were the vaguely related nonsense of any conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories about Diebold or accusations that the right is waging a war on Islam have vastly better reservoirs of out-of-context quotes and slightly less lack of perspective and ignorance of the political process. If Goldberg wants to spend his time talking at that level then he should partner himself with the kinds of people who believe in that stuff. The point it becomes legitimate to point out that lots of important Democrats support it is the point when it's actually true. This would probably not be the day after over 80% of Senate Democrats banned the possibility of even raising the issue.

Quoting blofeld42: Sadly, no. Playboy and TPM have taken down the posts that allege the Konservative Konspiracy, likely lest they run afoul of libel law.

Points to you on this one.*

I read the first page of comments. They're all either sophomoric sexual puns and stupid or just stupid. The second page was no better. If that's your argument for allowing comments at instapundit, you don't really have an argument.

And this one. ========== * [Added] And Lameness Awards for both of those sites for just taking the posts down, and not putting explanations at the same URL.

Quoting JoeK: Steele should resign. To call what Rush does "ugly" is inexcusable. You can say Rush is fat, but not that he is ugly. Rush Limbaugh is a beautiful human being and Steele should have known better. Now, he should apologize once more and then resign. It’s enough to have one prominent political figure who gives blacks a bad name. We don’t need another one.

By "we don't need," I presume you're talking about Alan Keyes.

So: Man uses "Goddamn America" analogy in a sermon (referring to a passage from the Bible, of all places) and he is demonized, and he anyone who went to his church has their Patriotism questioned. But the biggest radio personality in the country and figurehead of the GOP wishes that the stimulus package will fail, while nearly 4 Million of us are out of work, but that's not even "ugly" let alone un-patriotic. Interesting set of standards.

"Joe K" - one more drooling moron giving white people a bad name. What else is new ?

Quoting JoeK: Steele should resign. To call what Rush does "ugly" is inexcusable. You can say Rush is fat, but not that he is ugly. Rush Limbaugh is a beautiful human being and Steele should have known better. Now, he should apologize once more and then resign.

(We'll need the above for reference later on.)

Quoting AemJeff: Rush should be proud. Republican pathos is directly proportional to the size of his ego, at this point. It's a sad thing.

Indeed. On a related note, here's some interesting thinking from Steve M. at No More Mr. Nice Blog (written before Steele's weenie-ing out episode):

I'm not going to get too excited about the anti-Limbaugh apostasies of Michael Steele and Eric Cantor. This moment is probably just going to follow the pattern we recall from the period after John McCain won the nomination last year: movement conservatives are going to howl at the notion that someone who deviates from Correct Thinking is besmirching the Republican name, there'll be talk of mass defections from the party ... and then everyone's going to remember how unspeakably evil we Democrats and liberals are and they're all going to join hands and

Quoting pampl: Only one of the quotes was actual support. The rest were the vaguely related nonsense of any conspiracy theory.

Sigh. I hate engage in postmortem equine corporal punishment, but I feel I must in the face of such skepticism. 1. Pelosi. http://www.aim.org/aim-column/pelosi...ness-doctrine/

Talk radio’s suspicions of a movement to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine were confirmed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Tuesday June 24 during her comments at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast. When John Gizzi, an editor for Human Events asked Speaker Pelosi whether she favored a return of the Fairness Doctrine, she told him an unhesitating “yes,” reports Gizzi.

Moreover, when Gizzi asked if she supports the Broadcaster Freedom Act, “She added that ‘the interest in my caucus is the reverse’ and that New York Democratic Rep. ‘Louise Slaughter has been active behind this [revival of the Fairness Doctrine] for a while now,’ he writes.

Representative Slaughter (D-NY) introduced the 2004 MEDIA Act to bring back the Fairness Doctrine and reintroduced it in 2005 as the Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act.

(the Boradcaster Freedom Act would have prohibited the Fairness Doctrine from coming back.) 2. John Kerry. http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art..._Reimposed.php

Senator John Kerry is calling for reimposition of the fairness doctrine.

In a radio interview on WNYC's

Quoting bjkeefe: (We'll need the above for reference later on.)

Indeed.

On a related note, here's some interesting thinking from Steve M. at No More Mr. Nice Blog (written before Steele's weenie-ing out episode):

If JoeK is any measure, I'd say Steve understands that branch of the GOP pretty well.

So, what do you actually predict I am going to do. I don't get it. But, let me make one analytical point that is about the Limbaugh's speech and is at the same time even pertinent to a discussion on the so called liberalterianism, which was supposedly the reason why we all gathered together in the first place.
If you pay attention to what Limbaugh was saying in his speech on Saturday -- and I hope all of you listened to the speech carefully at least twice -- you will notice how Rush describes conservatism as almost exclusively pro free-market capitalism and pro individual liberty kind of ideology. He leaves other two pillars of the movement -- social conservatism and militaristic (aka strong) foreign policy -- completely out of the picture.
It is true that when quoting Jefferson he makes a pause after saying "Life,..", which was, observably, by those in

Alright, I listened to the whole thing. 1) Wilkinson on Canada was surprising and reasonable.
2) I'm more or less a standard-issue liberal, but I come to my liberalism by pretty much the same paradigm that Wilkinson is now working in. I wonder where it'll take him.
3) I'm a fan of Haidt and I think Wilkinson's angle of attack on him is really interesting.
4) I'd probably buy Wilkinson's book.
5) I decided to stop paying attention to libertarians recently (because they're really a bunch of glib utopian wind-up artists), but Wilkinson has gotten more interesting at the same time. Therefore, I must conclude he is no longer a libertarian.
6) I listened to the podcast, so I can't be sure, but I'm pretty sure I could hear Wilkinson rolling his eyes at Goldberg.

Quoting JoeK: So, what do you actually predict I am going to do. I don't get it.

But, let me make one analytical point that is about the Limbaugh's speech and is at the same time even pertinent to a discussion on the so called liberalterianism, which was supposedly the reason why we all gathered together in the first place.
If you pay attention to what Limbaugh was saying in his speech on Saturday -- and I hope all of you listened to the speech carefully at least twice -- you will notice how Rush describes conservatism as almost exclusively pro free-market capitalism and pro individual liberty kind of ideology. He leaves other two pillars of the movement -- social conservatism and militaristic (aka strong) foreign policy -- completely out of the picture.
It is true that when quoting Jefferson he makes a pause after saying "Life,..", which was, observably, by those in the audience understood as a reference to the anti-abortion agenda (that’s what you liberals call whistle blow, right?), but he never mentions pro-life program again.
It appears that where Rush wants to lead the party is strongly toward small-government conservatism and

An interesting discussion, where Mr. Goldberg has a much better grasp of the religiosity of ideology than Mr. Wilkinson does, even though political theory is Mr. Wilkinson's strong suit. From their discussion, I believe 'liberaltarianism' is essentially an attempt by atheist libertarians to make another secular ideology (civil religion) out of libertarian philosophy. Ooops. Once again, the libertarians reveal themselves to be hopelessy confused. Libertarianism is a philosophy about devolving power. Therefore, as an ideology about acquiring power it contains its suicidal, internal contradiction.
Mr. Wilkinson might want to consider the unintended results of imitating proselytizing priests in his call for a new think tank to promote his liberaltarian ideo/theology.

The Pelosi quotation is actually a positive response but unfortunately has no outside evidence for its existence or any record of what question she was actually responding positively to. The CSMonitor, the host of the event where this guy asked his question, has no record of this exchange. The only actual quotations there supporting its reinstatement are Durbin and Harkin, and Durbin explicitly disavows introducing legislation later in the very article you link to. The fact that the Dem platform changed nearly a decade ago to drop support of it actually works against your paranoid delusions. This is the standard stuff of inane conspiracy theories (usually the quotes are more plausibly in support of the theory, though) and has nothing to do with a reality where Senate Democrats voted overwhelmingly to ban the mere possibility of the fairness doctrine reoccurring. Note that this marks another year of "Fairness Doctrine" crackpots predicting the Fairness Doctrine being enacted or even introduced as legislation and, of course, it not happening.

Quoting claymisher: 5) I decided to stop paying attention to libertarians recently (because they're really a bunch of glib utopian wind-up artists), but Wilkinson has gotten more interesting at the same time. Therefore, I must conclude he is no longer a libertarian.

There is something in this statement that I imagine pushes the same button in libertarians as is pushed in me when Jonah makes statements about liberals. Now, by Will's own account, it is true that there are other self-identified libertarians who say he is not a "true" libertarian, and I agree with the need for the leading G to describe such people. However, just because any political philosophy can be carried to ludicrous extremes by zealots, I don't think it's right to assume these people represent all who believe in that philosophy when it's not propounded to the point of caricature. As to your #6, I watched on and off while listening, and while I did not see any eye-rolling, I can attest to visual moments of tongue-biting, jaw-clenching, and what appeared to be conscious suppression of gales of derisive laughter.

Quoting JoeK: So, what do you actually predict I am going to do. I don't get it.

What Jeff said.

But, let me make one analytical point that is about the Limbaugh's speech and is at the same time even pertinent to a discussion on the so called liberalterianism, which was supposedly the reason why we all gathered together in the first place.
If you pay attention to what Limbaugh was saying in his speech on Saturday -- and I hope all of you listened to the speech carefully at least twice -- ...

No. I did not, and will not, watch it even once. Respect is something that must be earned and can be lost, and Limbaugh lost all of mine decades ago. There is an uncountable list of better ways I have to spend my time.

... you will notice how Rush describes conservatism as almost exclusively pro free-market capitalism and pro individual liberty kind of ideology.

Amazing. I've never heard any other conservative say these things. No wonder you worship his intellect.

He leaves other two pillars of the movement -- social conservatism and militaristic (aka strong) foreign policy -- completely out of the picture.

Interesting. I wonder, given what he's said on

Quoting a Duoist: An interesting discussion, where Mr. Goldberg has a much better grasp of the religiosity of ideology than Mr. Wilkinson does, even though political theory is Mr. Wilkinson's strong suit.

From their discussion, I believe 'liberaltarianism' is essentially an attempt by atheist libertarians to make another secular ideology (civil religion) out of libertarian philosophy. Ooops. Once again, the libertarians reveal themselves to be hopelessy confused.

Libertarianism is a philosophy about devolving power. Therefore, as an ideology about acquiring power it contains its suicidal, internal contradiction.
Mr. Wilkinson might want to consider the unintended results of imitating proselytizing priests in his call for a new think tank to promote his liberaltarian ideo/theology.

Calling belief in a philosophy you don't share "religious" and calling advocates for it "priests" is the height of lame oversimplification. You could say this about anybody you don't agree with who believes in anything, which renders your labels so broad as to be meaningless. (See also: fascism, liberal.)

I only have a second right now, but I thought this was a great exchange and that Will Wilkinson is exceedingly impressive and that Jonah Goldberg is no slouch. I hope to comment more fully if and when I have the time. But, right now, grubby reality calls. Itzik Basman

Quoting bjkeefe: There is something in this statement that I imagine pushes the same button in libertarians as is pushed in me when Jonah makes statements about liberals.

Now, by Will's own account, it is true that there are other self-identified libertarians who say he is not a "true" libertarian, and I agree with the need for the leading G to describe such people.

However, just because any political philosophy can be carried to ludicrous extremes by zealots, I don't think it's right to assume these people represent all who believe in that philosophy when it's not propounded to the point of caricature.

OK. You got me. But you gotta admit there's a difference between your average liberal and your average libertarian in levels of extremism.

mari - you're point of view is why we have a debased political discourse in this country. step-up to the plate and actually THINK about the IDEAS. great ideas are easy to sell.

Jonah misrepresents the Steyn case. yes, he was sued, and on quite a flimsy basis. He was also clear by the Canadian commission. So I am not sure what Jonah's complaint is exactly- that Canada is too litigious? Really?

Quoting miceelf: Jonah misrepresents the Steyn case. yes, he was sued, and on quite a flimsy basis. He was also clear by the Canadian commission. So I am not sure what Jonah's complaint is exactly- that Canada is too litigious?
Really?

Imagine--being upset about being dragged into court by the state and having to spend a lot of money on lawyers because you made critical claims about Islam, and facing the possibility of being banned from publishing in Canada. I can't possibly see how that would chill free speech.

What's with Dewey being history's greatest monster, anyway?

Quoting pampl: The Pelosi quotation is actually a positive response but unfortunately has no outside evidence for its existence or any record of what question she was actually responding positively to. The CSMonitor, the host of the event where this guy asked his question, has no record of this exchange.

The only actual quotations there supporting its reinstatement are Durbin and Harkin, and Durbin explicitly disavows introducing legislation later in the very article you link to.

I can only conclude that you can't read. As for Pelosi, the person who asked the question and got the response is here: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27185 As in direct participant in the exchange and reported in a reputable journal.

Quoting blofeld42: I can only conclude that you can't read.

As for Pelosi, the person who asked the question and got the response is here:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27185

As in direct participant in the exchange and reported in a reputable journal.

Do you have a link to the reputable journal? Because everything about that one screams "disreputable".

HUMAN EVENTS is the periodical in which the peerless Ann Coulter, author of the smash bestseller, Godless, drives multicultural defeatists up the wall. (Recent sample: "Baby formula doesn't kill people. Islamic fascists kill people.")

HUMAN EVENTS is the home of Jihad Watch - the fearless watchdog column that alerts you to the true intentions and deadly plots of the greatest threat to world peace since the fall of the Soviet Union. Hillary Watch, another exclusive service, keeps you fully informed of the ongoing schemes, intrigues and Clintonian machinations hatched in the name of the woman (and loving hubby) who want to return to the White House in 2008.

If you consider this "reputable" then no wonder you believe in insane conspiracy theories

Quoting claymisher: OK. You got me. But you gotta admit there's a difference between your average liberal and your average libertarian in levels of extremism.

I guess I might agree to that, since a lot of people who have sympathies to many libertarian principles often don't self-identify as libertarians, but instead just call themselves "independents."

Will, I think you are probably the bhead closest to me in terms of ideology, so don't mope too much about being completely isolated. Your project is great, god knows Libertarians need a good kick in the pants on occasion.

This is the first time I got a real sense of what the Wilkinsonian project is, and I like it, qua project, in principle. I don't see why we're wasting time by having him talk to Goldberg, though, who, by his own admission, is not a political philosopher, not a deep thinker. What Goldberg is, so it appears to me, is a fairly unscrupulous intellectual bomb-thrower who has toned things down a lot on bhtv. "That all seems fair, I just have a reservation here or there which we could discuss on another occasion." Wouldn't it really be a lot more interesting to have Wilkinson talking to one of the legion of "liberal" political philosophers who run rampant in the academy, because, as things stand, I don't understand why Wilkinson is not a "liberal?" Put another way, how many serious people support expanded federal government because they really like large bureaucracies? And put yet another way, how can fairness, to which Wilkinson is particularly attached, be reconciled with limited government? Doesn't the least regulated, least governed society tend to be a society in which the rule of the stronger prevails even more than it prevails in contemporary American society? One might say, with Callicles

Quoting ledocs: And put yet another way, how can fairness, to which Wilkinson is particularly attached, be reconciled with limited government? Doesn't the least regulated, least governed society tend to be a society in which the rule of the stronger prevails even more than it prevails in contemporary American society? One might say, with Callicles in Plato's "Gorgias," that the rule of the stronger is fair, but I don't get the sense that this is where Wilkinson is coming from.

That's a good question, and I share your view that it would be better to have someone whose heft was intellectual on to discuss such matters with Will. I am going to guess that he'd say something along the lines of seeking fairness of opportunity, not fairness of outcome. Possibly also: fairness of treatment at the hands of the government; e.g., in terms of punishment for crimes.

And speaking of the vulgar, what are those columns in the background of what appears to be Jonah Goldberg's house? I have an inordinate interest in how Jonah Goldberg got his money. I know he just wrote a successful book.

That Wingnut Welfare Gravy Train is a rich one, isn't it? He's made money

I was kinda surprised to see Will slumming with the likes of Jonah. I find Jonah interesting when he's not throwing around liberal stereotypes, but I think he's better matched with a different type of partner. Same goes for Will, minus the "liberal stereotypes" ;-)

Quoting ledocs: . What I fail to see is how decentralized and limited governance is going to conduce to more wealth and freedom for ever more people rather than to an authoritarian oligarchic rule by the vulgar.

That is a good point, but there is no historical evidence---so far--that more and more wealth and more and more "freedom" for more and more people are even compatible goals, let alone compatible with representative democracy. The modern liberal democratic state tends inevitably to become oligarchy, i.e. the direct or indirect rule of the wealthy few, vulgar or not, over all the rest. Periodic elections and/or outbreaks of populist rage do little to change this state of affairs. They only allow the oligarchy to recruit new members and play musical chairs. This has always been the main critique of "liberalism" from the European conservative AND socialist perspective. The two critiques often coincided in the period from the French Revolution to, say, WW II. When progress is defined as (1) economic growth; (2) acceleration of trade; (3) increase of population; (4) lowering of mortality rates; (5) increase of standard of living (=salaries in relation to cost of living) for more and more people, the state becomes mainly the

It is because of my interest in many of Will Wilkinson's conversations on Bloggingheads.TV that his rapt interest in floating still another American political river is saddens me. Wait a second - it bores me.

Quoting Francoamerican: "...There is no historical evidence---so far--that more and more wealth and more and more "freedom" for more and more people are even compatible goals, let alone compatible with representative democracy."

Do you not think that more people in France and Britain, for example, are both wealthier and more free than they were in the 19th century? I do, despite all the Marcusian/Chomskian critiques that can be made of the kind of freedom people have.

It just occurred to me, by the way, that the obvious pairing for Wilkinson is Joshua Cohen. BHTV already has a house liberal political philosopher. Another possibility is Cass Sunnstein, but he's rather busy now, I suppose. I would like to see a really competent liberal, a liberal political philosopher who knows something about economics, get into the weeds with McCardle or Wilkinson on the subject of classical liberal economics, the Chicago and Vienna schools and public choice theory, and so on.

I just read the most disgusting op-ed by Michael Boskin in the "Wall Street Journal" yesterday. He is trotting out the old chestnut about destroying the economy by raising marginal tax rates on the most productive citizens. Yeah, that would happen at some

Quoting ledocs: Do you not think that more people in France and Britain, for example, are both wealthier and more free than they were in the 19th century?I do, despite all the Marcusian/Chomskian critiques that can
be made of the kind of freedom people have.

Wealthier? Yes. Freer? Yes, if you mean that more and more people can buy more and more things and are freer to choose the kind of life they want to lead. The same goes for the US by the way: when you think that something like 90% of the American population was once involved in agriculture.... But my point was that we simply do not know--yet--whether wealth and freedom (=freedom of choice) can be increased for more and more people without running up against insuperable natural limits. There is also, of course, the question which philosophers have always raised (long before Chomsky and Marcuse): what is freedom? There may very well be a contradiction between the freedom of choice of the modern consumer and other kinds of freedom, for example, the freedom of the good citizen.

Quoting ledocs: It just occurred to me, by the way, that the obvious pairing for Wilkinson is Joshua