Brink and Glen both see Cass sunsteinn et. al. as being paternalistic and potentially scary in a slippery-slope sort of way. This really seems to miss the whole point of what behavioral economics is all about. the idea is that the DEFAULT settings should be the most socially responsible options. This still allows individuals to make all the same choices that were available before, its just that if they do nothing and make no decision - better things happen to the society. how is this a slippery slope to the "social controls" of Kubric or Orwells dystopias? Do you think that the current default settings came from God on high and its hubristic to change them? come on guys, that was weak, sloppy, paranoid thinking.
edit: after watching the rest of the DV, I think the title should have been:
"weak, sloppy, paranoid thinking"

If I may put in my two cents worth, why don't we separate out crimes of money (ie, those motivated by economic gain) from crimes of violence? Are not the vast majority of inmates in for the former? If so why don't they do their time learning skills and trades with which they can earn an honest living when they get out? Imagine reform schools-qua-schools of industrial arts -- or even whole penal colonies -- in which inmates are required to learn skills: masonry, carpentry, cooking, farming, plumbing, machinists, concrete finishing, manufacturing techniques, etc.? More than anything these people need, and should be given an opportunity, to work and earn money. Maybe their sentences should be in dollars they can keep instead of months and years of their lives that are wasted -- so that when they get out they have the wherewithal and the habits to make a new start. After all, why did they commit their crimes in the first place if not for reasons of need? I was also appalled by Brink Lindsey's canard on illegal immigration, namely, that our democracy should allow large numbers of low-skilled workers into this country to do the work Americans

Shorter Brink Lindsey:

I am not one of those who believes that climate change will mean any sort of apocalyptic disaster. Therefore, President Obama is a failure for not terrifying the American people about climate change.

Quoting popcorn_karate: Brink and Glen both see Cass sunsteinn et. al. as being paternalistic and potentially scary in a slippery-slope sort of way. This really seems to miss the whole point of what behavioral economics is all about.

the idea is that the DEFAULT settings should be the most socially responsible options. This still allows individuals to make all the same choices that were available before, its just that if they do nothing and make no decision - better things happen to the society.

how is this a slippery slope to the "social controls" of Kubric or Orwells dystopias? Do you think that the current default settings came from God on high and its hubristic to change them?

come on guys, that was weak, sloppy, paranoid thinking.

Yeah, that drives me crazy too. I think the "nudge" approach has a lot going for it. We're going to have laws, rules, norms, etc no matter what. We might as well make the default settings good.

Quoting bjkeefe: Shorter Brink Lindsey:

Last time Lindsey was on all he could talk about is how Obama needs to do every unpopular thing that Lindsey disagrees with. I guess he's still at it. Snooze.

To compare Palin to Barry is not fair. To Barry. When he wants to, he can govern well (as a councilman). He is a good politician. He has a horrible personal life, and yeah, he abuses his office, but he knows the ins and outs and the issues pretty well.

Shall I respond seriatim or wait until the end? Glenn, you are crazy! i love it!!!

The public is not going to buy "no free lunch" so the pols don't try to sell it. I can't say that I blame them. John

Quoting willmybasilgrow: To compare Palin to Barry is not fair.

To Barry.

Yeah. And can we get a chorus of howling protests from Lyle and jr565 and PaulL and MikeDrew and rcocean about how the media won't leave poor Marion Barry alone, particular those libtards at Wonkette?

Brink is one of my favs. Thanks for the terrific matchup.

Brink is for FREEDOM. The freedom of large corporations to import labor from anywhere in the world so as to keep wages low and profits high. The freedom of the rich to live without taxes. The freedom of a poor to move to the USA - so as to depress wages and if too poor and uneducated mooch off the tax payer. The freedom of foreign corporations to dump goods and drive US firms out of business. And of course the freedom of large financial institutions to loan money in order to maximize profit and to bribe congress for a bailout when they fail. IOW, the freedom of BoA to privatize profit and socialize their losses. Of course, don't get Blink wrong. He's in favor of the rule of law - he's no anarchist. So, all the laws protecting the rich and wealthy and men of property - well he's in favor of those - and "freedom" be damned.

Quoting rcocean: Brink is for FREEDOM. The freedom of large corporations to import labor from anywhere in the world so as to keep wages low and profits high. The freedom of the rich to live without taxes. The freedom of a poor to move to the USA - so as to depress wages and if too poor and uneducated mooch off the tax payer. The freedom of foreign corporations to dump goods and drive US firms out of business. And of course the freedom of large financial institutions to loan money in order to maximize profit and to bribe congress for a bailout when they fail. IOW, the freedom of BoA to privatize profit and socialize their losses.

Of course, don't get Blink wrong. He's in favor of the rule of law - he's no anarchist. So, all the laws protecting the rich and wealthy and men of property - well he's in favor of those - and "freedom" be damned.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is a great post. (Except the immigration bit.)

Quoting claymisher: Yeah, that drives me crazy too. I think the "nudge" approach has a lot going for it. We're going to have laws, rules, norms, etc no matter what. We might as well make the default settings good.

Yea, what about nudging our politicians to stop spending our money without anybody's consent?

Quoting Unit: Yea, what about nudging our politicians to stop spending our money without anybody's consent?

First Tuesday after the first Monday of every November. Be there. Also ... &c.

Whorehouse indeed. Head whore Waxing poetic.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/210...3:48&out=23:54

Another sloppy or downright dishonest piece of rhetoric relating to green jobs is that the new bill/policies will create NEW jobs.
....
NEW jobs eh? What the hell does that mean? How about ADDITIONAL jobs? That would be something good. NEW jobs could well mean 5 new jobs added and 30 old jobs lost. Anytime someone says new jobs, there is a good chance they are talking air.

Quoting bjkeefe: First Tuesday after the first Monday of every November. Be there.

Also ...

&c.

Doesn't seem to be working: look at the Paulson-Bernanke bailout, they decided to give 700B to banks, people voted some new people in, and these new people kept on giving money to banks, and insurance companies, and car-makers, etc.... We're not being paternalistic enough towards our representatives. Too often all we can do is give them the keys and let them go on a wild ride. Yes of course we get to collectively decide specifically who will be allowed to go on the ride but rarely do we simply "say no" to the whole idea of rides.

Quoting Unit: Doesn't seem to be working: ...

As to the specifics of the bailout of the financial sector, I think you have to write that one off to the belief that were it not done, the entire economy would collapse. You may not agree with this belief, but I don't think the people in charge thought they had any other choice. As to the rest -- non-crisis spending -- you're forgetting the obvious explanation, aren't you? Generally speaking, people like their government spending money. On things they like. All you have to do is look at how worshiped Ronald Reagan was and is, by the very same people who are always yammering about "reducing government."

as i said before no one is gonna do anything about GW and even if they did it won't do much. also, goldman sachs is lobbying FOR cap and trade if that tells you anything. whorehouse indeed.

I have been patiently waiting for the 787 billion dollar porkathon inappropriately called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, or as the believers would have it the stimulus bill, to stimulate the economy but alas it seems my patience is beginning to wear thin. As many economic indicators are moving in a downward direction, under this stimulus, surpassing the worst case scenario we were told we would see if the porkathon wasn't passed, should we not now begin to consider that it is the porkathon that is causing the further deterioration? John Stewart is I think beginning to see the light.

Quoting piscivorous: I have been patiently waiting for the 787 billion dollar porkathon inappropriately called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, or as the believers would have it the stimulus bill, to stimulate the economy but alas it seems my patience is beginning to wear thin.

You need more patience. No plan can fix in less than five months the eight years of destruction Bush unleashed.

Quoting bjkeefe: Shorter Brink Lindsey:

He reminds me of how Michael Crichton was on global warming in terms of his attitudes towards it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AA5aIdOqlw#t=22m

It's pretty much common knowledge that the Stimulus was not designed to get us out of the economic doldrums we are now experiencing. If it was front loaded it may have but it wasn't so it hasn't. In fact, some are calling for a second one which has little chance of happening. John

In an ideal world, our politicians would be brutally honest. In the real world, the brutally honest don't get elected, and if they do get elected, their programs don't get passed.
So in the real world of actual political choices between actual candidates, you want to choose the MORE honest politician who still has a chance of getting something done.
Glenn reads political rhetoric as though it were part of a treatise (the bit about cap and trade and putting a man on the moon) and concludes that it's dishonest. If it were part of a treatise, it would be dishonest. If something like it were part of a talk psyching soldiers up to go into battle, it wouldn't be dishonest.
To me, Barack Obama seems MORE honest (and in his explanations of his actions, more genuinely respectful of the public) than nearly anyone who ran in Republican or Democratic primaries last year. Was Glenn's favorite, Hillary SO much more honest, so ready to go out there and tell the hard truth about tough choices? Wasn't she the one who went for the gas tax holiday???
This is what's so infuriating about Glenn's criticism both

By the way, Glenn, HOW exactly would stagflation be Obama's fault primarily, if indeed it materializes?
Bernanke's Fed has been pouring orders of magnitude more money out the door to prop up the banks than in the stimulus package -- at least that's what I understand. But Bernanke is a Bush appointee (which is not to say I have a problem with what he's doing). The whole bailout was going to have to be done one way or another at enormous cost, given what happened under Bush and Greenspan's watch. Perhaps there was some somewhat smarter way to do it than Obama has, but it was going to be up front even more expensive (and more likely to spur charges of "statism") if he'd actually taken the banks into receivership. Is Glenn really a serious intellectual, letting the criticisms fall where they may, or is he a boy throwing eggs?

I'm glad that at least some, one the left, have finally figured out just how bad the porkathon of a stimulus plan was and while some in government are beginning to cry we must spend more the House of Representatives has issued a report on the evolution of the housing bubble. According to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

The housing bubble that burst in 2007 and led to a financial crisis can be traced back to federal government intervention in the U.S. housing market intended to help provide homeownership opportunities for more Americans. This intervention began with two government-backed corporations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which privatized their profits but socialized their risks, creating powerful incentives for them to act recklessly and exposing taxpayers to tremendous losses. Government intervention also created “affordable” but dangerous lending policies which encouraged lower down payments, looser underwriting standards and higher leverage. Finally, government intervention created a nexus of vested interests – politicians, lenders and lobbyists – who profited from the “affordable” housing market and acted to kill reforms. In the short run, this government intervention was successful in its stated

Quoting bjkeefe: As to the specifics of the bailout of the financial sector, I think you have to write that one off to the belief that were it not done, the entire economy would collapse. You may not agree with this belief, but I don't think the people in charge thought they had any other choice.

As to the rest -- non-crisis spending -- you're forgetting the obvious explanation, aren't you? Generally speaking, people like their government spending money. On things they like. All you have to do is look at how worshiped Ronald Reagan was and is, by the very same people who are always yammering about "reducing government."

Yes but who's going to nudge the nudgers?

It seems that across the political spectrum no critique can be made of President Obama's policies without a five minute preface on his wonderfulness. This strikes me as an insidious form of racism.

Quoting bjkeefe: You need more patience. No plan can fix in less than five months the eight years of destruction Bush unleashed.

Yes, lets show the same patience that the libs, their leaders, and their media showed during Bush's first 4 years as he fought off the Clinton recession and the effects of 9/11. Unfortunately, the Obama administration in their perpetual ignorance (if not stupidity) set themselves up for this lack of patience. It was they who claimed that 3.5 million jobs would be "saved" before the end of the year and warned us that if we did nothing we would be seeing unemployment rates of 9%. Oops! I guess doing nothing would have saved us a few jobs...not to mention a few billion. Obama's plan was destined to fail being so packed with social programs that would do nothing to get people back to work with only about 5% be applied to infrastructure jobs. Pretty sure the right pointed that out from the beginning. So, on your way to the unemployment office do stop by at the smoking cessation clinic to recoup some of your stimulus money. Its great to watch the

Now comparing Palin to M Barry is unfair to Barry? Hilarious. 'A heartbeat away'? You mean like the guy who has made Obama walk behind him with a bucket and mop? Or the president himself, who can't put three words together without a teleprompter and seems to think the way out of the economic mess is to have the entire country mimic California? These are the intellectual giants who make Palin look like a crack-smoking multi-felon? Who's smoking the crack? There is a middle ground of people who do not support Palin but look at Obama and Biden and actually wonder what the difference is. The best article I've read so far on the Palin haters actually came from a liberal. "When McCain announced Palin as his choice for VP, I immediately tried to find out as much about her as I could. I wanted to know who she was, what she believed, what her politics were. It never occurred to me that this interest would make me in any way unusual among feminists, but apparently it did. Apparently most feminists — at least the ones online — are content to just take the

Enjoyed this one quite a bit. Agreed the bits against Thaler and Sunstein were unfair: we have to structure choices somehow. People just get paranoid when these choices are *consciously* framed rather than "natural" or non-reflective framing... except when it comes to the world of advertising. When private corporations engage in massive social engineering campaigns, it's somehow OK and not at all disrespectful to the individual because they're merely making emotional appeals to get your dollars, whereas government technocrats are supposedly attempting to maximize your welfare. Now go whiten your teeth, put on this smell to attract the right sex, eat & drink crap, wear Nikes because you need to exercise on account of eating too much crap, and get to the gym in this fashionable automobile. It's insane that we will never have a rational gas tax. Economists left, right, and center agree it's good policy, but who wants their name associated with paying an extra buck on the gallon at the pumps. Obama might as well re-name DMVs after himself, so instead we get muddled legislation on global warming. As for health-care... it's a primary good and it should be "free"ly available to

Quoting Cain: [...]

(*round of applause*) Great rant.

Quoting Unit: Yes but who's going to nudge the nudgers?

A good question. Perhaps the answer lies within yourself? I don't know what else to tell you. [Added] To clarify, I mean by the above that many of us feel exactly as you do: I know what would be the right thing for everyone else to do, and if they would only just do what I tell them to ...

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: [...]

Good post. You've touched on what bothers me about the way Glenn criticizes Obama -- he holds an unrealistic standard, and it seems, for Obama only. In his defense, we do need the idealists to point out where we ought to be heading, and I applaud a certain amount of that. But, like you, I'd like to hear at least some acknowledgment of the realities. It bears restating your words: Glenn seems disingenuous in treating the selling of a new program and the putting of positive spin on a new bill at a signing ceremony too literally. Even worse, as you hint at in your next post, he seems simplistic in laying all of his complaints at the feet of one person: it'd be one thing if the Dems in Congress marched in lockstep for Obama the way the GOP did for Bush. But the fact is, they don't. Some of them, on some issues, are as much the opposition party as any Republican.

Quoting cacimbo: It seems that across the political spectrum no critique can be made of President Obama's policies without a five minute preface on his wonderfulness. This strikes me as an insidious form of racism.

Dumb Comment of the Week. And given how much we've heard from the Cult of Sarah lately, that's saying something.

Quoting harkin: The best article I've read so far on the Palin haters actually came from a liberal.

This is hilarious: you're the third conservative commenter here (1, 2) to offer up that link as though it was some sort of gospel. "See? She calls herself a 'liberal!' Right there in the URL!! Case closed!!!1!" Big emailing from Wingnut Central, Talking Points Divisini, a couple of days ago, was there? Looks like.

Quoting Whatfur: Its great to watch the defensive, panic-filled gyrations of the "libtards" here ...

It's great to watch your imagination at work. I'm not sure how a response of "calm down" and "you should be a little more patient" shows panic, but then, everything you say strikes me as orthogonal to reality.

Quoting JonIrenicus: Another sloppy or downright dishonest piece of rhetoric relating to green jobs is that the new bill/policies will create NEW jobs.

NEW jobs eh?

What the hell does that mean?

How about ADDITIONAL jobs? That would be something good. NEW jobs could well mean 5 new jobs added and 30 old jobs lost.

Anytime someone says new jobs, there is a good chance they are talking air.

Or worse, they might actually mean it. Suppose "brown" energy employs x people and "green" energy employs y people. Unless incremental "green" energy eliminates jobs in the first category faster than it creates them in the second, all you've done is make energy production more labor-intensive--hence, more expensive at the margin on top of all the new capital requirements. There are many good reasons for a cleaner energy portolio, but this isn't one of them.

Quoting bjkeefe: It's great to watch your imagination at work.

I'm not sure how a response of "calm down" and "you should be a little more patient" shows panic, but then, everything you say strikes me as orthogonal to reality.

Pretty sure I pointed that comment at the "libtards here". If you wish to place yourself in that category then so be it. There were people on the Titanic screaming for calm too as they stood there in soiled shorts. Seems like old times though, you throwing out pejoratives without addressing anything I said. Yawn...

Quoting Whatfur: Pretty sure I pointed that comment at the "libtards here". If you wish to place yourself in that category then so be it.

Oh yes. I am a proud libtard, especially as you employ the label.

There were people on the Titanic screaming for calm too as they stood there in soiled shorts.

Excellent meaningless comparison. And almost as original as invoking Hitler.

Seems like old times though, you throwing out pejoratives without addressing anything I said. Yawn...

That's because you never say anything meaningful. The only thing you ever do here is spout wingnut talking points. You're never interested in actual discussion. You've got your mind made up about everything. Any time anyone tries to engage you seriously, particularly if they make some point that you can't comfortably dismiss, you let loose your inner eight-year-old and respond by spewing homophobic slurs and turning the other's name into something that you think is an insult. It's as worthwhile to try to talk to you as it would be to respond to some guy in the street sitting in his pee-stained trousers in a pile of his own vomit, clutching his bottle of

Quoting bjkeefe: Oh yes. I am a proud libtard...invoking Hitler.

Yawn...

Just another Barry.

The discussion about incarceration was the most useful part of this diavlog for me, especially Brink's description of Hawaii's parole system and Glen's long standing criticism of US drug policy and how it feeds our prison system and disproportionately impacts minority populations in lower income communities. I also agreed with Brinks points about how the drug trade and our national laws and policies directed at it are a severely destabilizing influence in Mexico, Central and South America.

Glenn's pledge not to trash President Obama in the opening segment didn't last too long. Also, Brink appears to have a serious case of buyers remorse since voting for President Obama. Nevertheless, I enjoy watching these two commentators. John

Quoting Whatfur: Originally Posted by bjkeefe
Oh yes. I am a proud libtard...invoking Hitler.

Yawn...

So you see why no one bothers to engage with you? All you can think to do is edit my comment to completely distort what I said and then add a juvenile afterthought. Enjoy your masturbating. I'll ignore you until you say something else mock-worthy.

Yeah, aside from the incarceration segment, I was pretty unimpressed by this effort. Obama wants to create a rosy picture...hello, he's a fuckin' politician guys. Why is political reality suddenly out of the discussion. I'm also curious as to where all the outrage is for the obstructionist congress (on both sides.) Obama was elected in a landslide and yet his agenda that he ran on, is not getting passed quickly because of the minority party refusing to budge from their extremist positioning, and many of the majority Dems who are cow-towing to their influential friends and thoughts of re-election. Politics as usual. But don't bother holding any of them accountable, it's all evil Obama's fault. PS Brink, please do a diavlog with somebody from Science Saturday about global warming. You're far too intelligent to be taking such a jack-ass stand on such a big issue.

Quoting bkjazfan: Glenn's pledge not to trash President Obama in the opening segment didn't last too long.

Yeah, Glenn's apparent animus toward Obama extends all the way back to his diavlogs with John McWhorter early in the campaign season. I speculate that he was so committed to Hillary Clinton during the primaries that he couldn't get past the loss of his candidate. He did make a criticism I agree with though. I think GM's bond holders were unfairly characterized by the President, and that they had a powerful contractual claim. I think you'd have to be a Pangloss to believe that the Obama administration can succeed in every struggle confronting us now, but I do think he was the very best we could possibly have hoped to hire under our system for dealing with the problems we face. I'd like to see Glen acknowledge that while continuing his more valid criticisms.

Quoting bjkeefe: So you see why no one bothers to engage with you? All you can think to do is edit my comment to completely distort what I said and then add a juvenile afterthought.

Enjoy your masturbating. I'll ignore you until you say something else mock-worthy.

I'm sorry ...What did I distort? Did you or did you not claim to be proud of your libtard status? Yep! Did you or did you not invoke Hitler? Yep! Now you don't even stand by your own posts...albeit that is completely understandable.

Quoting Whatfur: [...]

I know you'd love nothing better than to bicker about how you're not lying, but ... declined. You're boring.

Quoting bjkeefe: I know you'd love nothing better than to bicker about how you're not lying, but ... declined. You're boring.

Whatever Perez.

Quoting Whatfur: And you are a pompous faggot.

As predicted:

Quoting bjkeefe: ... you let loose your inner eight-year-old and respond by spewing homophobic slurs ...

Quoting metacodger: Yeah, Glenn's apparent animus toward Obama extends all the way back to his diavlogs with John McWhorter early in the campaign season. I speculate that he was so committed to Hillary Clinton during the primaries that he couldn't get past the loss of his candidate. He did make a criticism I agree with though. I think GM's bond holders were unfairly characterized by the President, and that they had a powerful contractual claim.

I think you'd have to be a Pangloss to believe that the Obama administration can succeed in every struggle confronting us now, but I do think he was the very best we could possibly have hoped to hire under our system for dealing with the problems we face.

I'd like to see Glen acknowledge that while continuing his more valid criticisms.

And how. Whatever problems I have with Obama, he's still as good as we're going to get. I wonder if GL's relentless pessimism is a little bit of a defense mechanism. He sure dials it up when it comes to Obama.

Quoting bjkeefe: As predicted:

Whatever Perez.

Quoting Whatfur: Whatever Perez.

Let's see ... another homophobic slur AND editing your previous comment after it's been replied to? There is no lower limit to your lameness, is there?

Or perhaps he see the damage that will be done if the the first black President turn out to be the flop that he worries, perhaps even thinks, he will be. I think Mr Loury isn't buying President Obama's sales pitch for his nationalization and spend our way out of it program.

My interpretation of what Glen and Brink were saying is that behavioral economics has the potential to be coercive if there is an economic penalty applied against the individuals who choose to actively "opt out" of the "socially engineered" default mode the economic behaviorists are promoting. It's one thing to coerce a convicted criminal to not perform illegal acts or not fraternize with other convicted criminals. It is quite another to try to force people to buy health insurance or invest their savings in a company retirement plan against their individual wills. A great example of this are the people who chose to invest their retirement funds themselves, very conservatively, as compared to folks who went with their company's 401K accounts and had their savings invested in stocks and bonds. The former may have accrued less interest during good economic times, due to the lower interest rates paid by their conservative investments, but certainly lost substantially less in this recession. The more extreme economic behaviorists advocate imposing economic penalties to coerce these conservative investors into following the conventional wisdom of what the behaviorists

Quoting Richard from Amherst: My interpretation of what Glen and Brink were saying is that behavioral economics has the potential to be coercive if there is an economic penalty applied against the individuals who choose to actively "opt out" of the "socially engineered" default mode the economic behaviorists are promoting.

It's one thing to coerce a convicted criminal to not perform illegal acts or not fraternize with other convicted criminals. It is quite another to try to force people to buy health insurance or invest their savings in a company retirement plan against their individual wills.

I think you're exaggerating here. In the retirement investment area, the behavioral economics suggestion that I've heard about is not at all coercive. It merely changes the default place where the contribution will go, so that those too lazy even to check a box on a form have their money going into a plan that is better for them in the long run. Nothing stops anyone with the least amount of initiative from changing the allocation. On the matter of forcing people to buy health insurance, I'm not sure what this has to do with behavioral economics, so I'll leave this one alone.

I love Brink's stuff, although I rarely agree with him. He's enjoyable to watch. And Glenn is definitely a smart guy with a lot of worthwhile things to say. And yet, I just can't bring myself to watch another diavlog where Glenn claims he'll try to be balanced with regard to Obama and then basically throws every conceivable criticism he can come up with at the wall in the slim chance that something might stick. At least 80% of it is going to be very silly and nonsensical. Obama doesn't highlight race enough- he unfairly won because he's Black, etc. I just don't have the energy to sift through the garbage to get to the 20% or so that might make sense.

Now that I've read the comments, I forgot what I wanted to say about the original conversation. But wait!!! First, I found it interesting that Lindsey, a libertarian describes himself as a liberal rather than a conservative. The nomenclature is changing again as we have seen lately with liberals calling themselves progressives. I stay away from anything that has to do with social conservatism and am all for legalizing drugs and letting anyone marry (who cares?) but I think the term conservative is still useful when describing the role of government in one's affairs. I always think that less is better. And so I agree with Lindsey that the cap and trade will become a whore house and won't do much if anything to ameliorate climate change. But it will give some entity much like Enron the opportunity to make tons of money. I just don't trust government schemes. But who do you trust, if not government? The capitalists have shown that they can't be trusted in the most public of ways. Naively I believed just as Greenspan did that it was in the banks' self interest to operate ethically. Now I don't believe there is anyone or

Quoting badhatharry: But mostly I don't trust the Democrats.

same here! I do trust the republicans to be a hell of a lot worse, though.

Quoting badhatharry: Now that I've read the comments, I forgot what I wanted to say about the original conversation. But wait!!!

First, I found it interesting that Lindsey, a libertarian describes himself as a liberal rather than a conservative. The nomenclature is changing again as we have seen lately with liberals calling themselves progressives.

In case you didn't know, Brink has been on a "liberaltarian" kick for a few years now. Here's where he first threw down the gauntlet, I think.

I stay away from anything that has to do with social conservatism and am all for legalizing drugs and letting anyone marry (who cares?) but I think the term conservative is still useful when describing the role of government in one's affairs.

That meaning, I think, is archaic, and in some senses, has always been illusory. Sure conservatives have always talked about "keeping the government off your back," but what have been conservative rallying cries since I can remember have often involved the government directly minding individuals' business; e.g., making and fighting to keep in place laws prohibiting what consenting adults choose to do in the privacy of their own homes (including between people of different sex), the anti-abortion crusading, the draconian laws related

South Carolina Serial Killer Has Residents Terrified, Holed Up Their Homes
Progressive call for more gun control.
Turns out he was just been released on parole.
Serial Killers on Parole

Quoting PaulL: South Carolina Serial Killer Has Residents Terrified, Holed Up Their Homes
Progressive call for more gun control.
Turns out he was just been released on parole.
Serial Killers on Parole

Boy, that conservative Republican governor Mark Sanford can't do anything right, can he? I thought conservatives were supposed to be the party of law and order. Have they thrown that away, too, along with the "family values" brand?

Quoting PaulL: South Carolina Serial Killer Has Residents Terrified, Holed Up Their Homes

P.S. You do know that's an old story, right? Get with the program. P.P.S. And note that he was killed by law enforcement officers, not some armed civilian. Let's be thankful no one coming home late at night got shot by accident.

Quoting badhatharry: But mostly I don't trust the Democrats.

How would feel about reporting this? "A Republican senator put ‘his hand on my inner thigh’ for a ‘whole’ dinner party." ;^) (h/t: norbizness)

Well, no I don't trust the Republicans but I don't trust the Democrats more. The fact, for me, is that no one is trustworthy. This really came home to me during California governor Davis's recall when Arnold was elected. There was a real live fiscal conservative running. He was a guy who I believe would have been able to turn the budget around. In fact, he spearheaded the recall effort and had a lot of support. His name is Tom McClintock and I think if the Republican party had backed him he could have won. But the Republicans threw him under the bus in favor of a movie star. That incident pretty much sealed my belief that there are absolutely no principles at work in any of this but instead expediency rules the day.
Except, I do think the Democrats have one principle which is at work all the time and that is that they know best and that they will fix things and this pretty much makes my skin crawl. (mine along with Loury's) As far as social conservatism goes, I actually think it has its place although I don't endorse its agenda. I think

Quoting badhatharry: Well, no I don't trust the Republicans but I don't trust the Democrats more.

The fact, for me, is that no one is trustworthy. This really came home to me during California governor Davis's recall when Arnold was elected. There was a real live fiscal conservative running. He was a guy who I believe would have been able to turn the budget around. In fact, he spearheaded the recall effort and had a lot of support. His name is Tom McClintock and I think if the Republican party had backed him he could have won. But the Republicans threw him under the bus in favor of a movie star.

That incident pretty much sealed my belief that there are absolutely no principles at work in any of this but instead expediency rules the day.
Except, I do think the Democrats have one principle which is at work all the time and that is that they know best and that they will fix things and this pretty much makes my skin crawl. (mine along with Loury's)

As far as social conservatism goes, I actually think it has its place although I don't endorse its agenda. I think

AEMJEFF said:"put our trust in people who have demonstrated that they behave according to an acceptable set of principles, regardless of whether we fully support their principles in particular, rather than in folks who have claimed to support the particular set of ideas to which we (as individuals) subscribe." Perhaps it would be good to develop a list of acceptable principles. For me honesty is the most essential of all. I suppose even the word "honesty" can be quibbled with because there are times when honesty is not the best policy. But I think because of the media's ability to cut and paste remarks, we don't ever get the full story. Because that's where most people get their information from, except CSPAN viewers, politicians have to always parse what they say, so we rarely get anything that doesn't sound like an advertisement. I liked what Loury and Linsey had to say about the administration not giving us the down side to their proposals. You'd think everyone would know there have to be one or two, but what we get is something like "there go those loser Republicans again, making things difficult for

Quoting badhatharry: Well, no I don't trust the Republicans but I don't trust the Democrats more.

The fact, for me, is that no one is trustworthy. This really came home to me during California governor Davis's recall when Arnold was elected. There was a real live fiscal conservative running. He was a guy who I believe would have been able to turn the budget around. In fact, he spearheaded the recall effort and had a lot of support. His name is Tom McClintock and I think if the Republican party had backed him he could have won. But the Republicans threw him under the bus in favor of a movie star.

Sounds like you don't even trust The People. ;^) Generally, I'm with you. Especially in this day and age, I don't trust politicians of any stripe, as a rule. The game is too nasty and too money-driven for most decent and honorable people to want to participate, let alone to allow them to succeed.

That incident pretty much sealed my belief that there are absolutely no principles at work in any of this but instead expediency rules the day.
Except, I do think the Democrats have one principle which is

Quoting badhatharry: But I think because of the media's ability to cut and paste remarks, we don't ever get the full story. Because that's where most people get their information from, except CSPAN viewers, politicians have to always parse what they say, so we rarely get anything that doesn't sound like an advertisement.

I liked what Loury and Linsey had to say about the administration not giving us the down side to their proposals. You'd think everyone would know there have to be one or two, but what we get is something like "there go those loser Republicans again, making things difficult for Obama's change machine...they should get out of the way"

As you observe, we live in a sound-bite driven culture. It would be the height of folly for any politician to mention the weaker aspects of a program he or she is trying to push through -- that would be the basis of an opposition ad within hours. It is the responsibility of the opposition to make the case against. The FSM knows, the GOP is never once going to admit any shortcomings of their own, so why should Dems have to play by a different set of rules?

BKeefe says:(banning creationism from science classes, once and for all, for example). Why not just ban religion and be done with it? The reason creationism isn't banned is because people don't know what science is. I've talked to people who think creationism should be taught in the interest of letting all opinions be heard. So then I try to explain why evolution isn't an opinion and their eyes glaze over and they wander away, happy that they are so tolerant of all ideas. I think a vast minority of people have a realistic view of the place humans hold in the scheme of things. Further, I think that if more of us had a more realistic view, many things could be bettered. For instance, our health care situation. If people understood that it is not a good thing to hold onto life no matter what, we could save zillions of dollars. As it is and as was mentioned, we believe we are entitled to extreme measures no matter what our condition or likelihood of survival. I think this comes from fear, of course, but also an unrealistic belief in our importance. Now certainly there is

Quoting badhatharry: BKeefe says:(banning creationism from science classes, once and for all, for example).

Why not just ban religion and be done with it?

Sheesh, badhat, if I next say I support a boost in the tax on gasoline, are you going to respond, "WHY NOT JUST BAN DRIVING AND NUKE SAUDI ARABIA???" I have no interest in telling people that they can't practice religion. I only care that it stay out of places where it has no business being.

The reason creationism isn't banned is because people don't know what science is. I've talked to people who think creationism should be taught in the interest of letting all opinions be heard. So then I try to explain why evolution isn't an opinion and their eyes glaze over and they wander away, happy that they are so tolerant of all ideas.

Exactly. The people who say "teach the controversy" (oops, that was last year's slogan) who say "all opinions should be heard" are either consciously using a snow-job to sneak religion into the science classroom, or they are utterly unqualified to make decisions about science education policy. As I'm sure you know, there is no "controversy" and there are no "opinions" about evolution at an introductory level. The fundamentals are as

Geez, keeping up with this blog is a full time job! Back to creationism....I think the main thing in the way of people believing that we evolved from a lower from of animal which ultimately evolved from the first emergence of life on this planet is that people just can't believe that we as a species are so insignificant to anyone other than ourselves. I wonder how the world would look without God.

Quoting badhatharry: Back to creationism....I think the main thing in the way of people believing that we evolved from a lower from of animal which ultimately evolved from the first emergence of life on this planet is that people just can't believe that we as a species are so insignificant to anyone other than ourselves.

Sounds right to me, though I would also emphasize the related argumanet that other species are just as significant as we are in many ways. To take this to heart is to agree at least somewhat with the philosophy of Peter Singer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer I considered it and decided that I do (agree somewhat). Just enough to stop eating meat, but not enough to think others are wrong to do so.

I wonder how the world would look without God.

I don't believe in God, but don't see the point in being unpleasant to those who do... unless they try to force it on you as you point out in your example about creationism or similar nonsense. Just for fun a few favorite quotes: What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
Christopher

Quoting badhatharry: Have you heard anyone talking about rationally rationing care? I bet not.

I think the argument goes that health care is rationed no matter what you do, so it's more a question of the rationing being publicly or privately accountable. In other words, you may not trust the government much with your health care, but I think there's reason to grant it more trust than you'd give to the shareholders of a private insurance company. A lot of us would rather see a little bloat than not enough fat, so to speak.

Quoting DoctorMoney: I think the argument goes that health care is rationed no matter what you do, so it's more a question of the rationing being publicly or privately accountable.

In other words, you may not trust the government much with your health care, but I think there's reason to grant it more trust than you'd give to the shareholders of a private insurance company. A lot of us would rather see a little bloat than not enough fat, so to speak.

Nice. That's the most concise way to make that argument I've seen so far. I'd like to borrow it with attribution.

Brink, don't you get tired talking into the phone? Get a head set!