# No more drugs for the editors of The Economist **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 26, 2008, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339 "2008-09-26T15:03:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2008, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/41 "2008-10-01T14:45:24Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > There really isn’t any way of getting around it except to redefine liberal as “classical liberal” which is libertarian jargon for someone with his head up an imagined 200 year old ass. It’s a not a redefinition of “liberal”, it’s how the term is actually used in Britain and Europe. It’s us Americans who have redefined what the word means. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2008, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/42 "2008-10-01T14:50:23Z")
Well, if we’ve learned anything from this thread, it’s that attempting to define two- (or better, three-) dimensional political philosophies on a one-dimensional scale is really, really stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2008, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/43 "2008-10-01T14:55:01Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > In our civilization every person is actually equal before the law, rather than a mere 3/5s for counting enslaved negroes to offset against the more numerous electors of the north. Such a compromise would not have ever been discussed, much less embraced. You need to learn the history of the 3/5ths compromise. The pro-slavery states wanted to include the number of slaves when determining representation in Congress, but not include them for purposes of census-based taxes. That is, representation without taxation. The anti-slavery states said no way. You need to count slaves for both representation and taxation, or neither. The compromise was to count them at 3/5th weight for both purposes. What this has to with liberals is beyond me–all the politicians at the time were liberals (reduced government intervention in the economy, religion, and most facets of life). The conservatives at the time, who were in favor of taxation without representation among other things, had all fled to Canada. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2008, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/44 "2008-10-01T15:42:30Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > In our civilization every person is actually equal before the law, rather than a mere 3/5s for counting enslaved negroes to offset against the more numerous electors of the north. Such a compromise would not have ever been discussed, much less embraced. If your from England you might want to consider the fact that our civilization was voting in leaders while yours was still kissing King George’s ass. Besides the fourteenth amendment abolished the 3/5 compromise. Maybe we should examine the English treatment of Indians, Chinese, South Africans, Aborigines and various other colonized peoples. Careful up there on that horse, it’s pretty high… ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2008, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/45 "2008-10-01T15:57:07Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > If your from England you might want to consider the fact that our civilization was voting in leaders while yours was still kissing King George’s ass. Besides the fourteenth amendment abolished the 3/5 compromise. The democratically elected Prime Minister had replaced the monarch as chief executive seventy years prior to the first Constitutional Congress. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2008, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/46 "2008-10-01T16:03:02Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The democratically elected Prime Minister had replaced the monarch as chief executive seventy years prior to the first Constitutional Congress. So all the whining about King George in the Declaration of Independence was really misplaced because he was not the head of state? The point still stands, Europeans have no better track record than the US when it comes to people of color. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2008, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/47 "2008-10-01T21:21:56Z")
:Jaw drops, detaches from head, hits floor: By what possible measure of left/right would you call the Economist left-leaning? They’re classical liberals, which is right-wing by American standards. Is this like all the reversed noun genders in German? ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2008, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/48 "2008-10-01T23:43:58Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > If your from England you might want to consider the fact that our civilization was voting in leaders while yours was still kissing King George’s ass. Besides the fourteenth amendment abolished the 3/5 compromise. > > Maybe we should examine the English treatment of Indians, Chinese, South Africans, Aborigines and various other colonized peoples. > > Careful up there on that horse, it’s pretty high… What the hell makes you think this pillock is from England? Jesus, was there not enough moronic pigeonholing in this thread without you coming in here and a) arbitrarily deciding which country someone was from, and b) slagging off whole said nation based on said stupid assumption? Is there not already enough political stupidity here that we have to introduce nationalist idiocy? I mean, it’s quite possible he _is_ English; you guys have no monopoly on idiocy, that’s for sure; but what on earth in that terrible spiel of brain drool made you think The Second Twat is English? > [@foolsguinea](#): > > They’re classical liberals, which is right-wing by American standards. What, did we not cover this? You think classical liberals are right wing because they disagree with you on monetary policy. Republicans think classical liberals are left wing because they think gays should be able to marry, people ought to be able to take drugs and suchlike. Thus, utterly bizarrely, each “side” is able to think this large, independent group of people belongs to the other “side”, because they’re too ineffably stupid to envisage a world in which there exist more than two world views. Fuck me, this thread is depressingly stupid. Get over yourselves, for the love of fucking God. Yes, all of you. (Yes, you too, Dave. Especially you.) ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2008, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/49 "2008-10-02T00:51:47Z")
> [@Dead\_Badger](#): > > What the hell makes you think this pillock is from England? The funny accent I hear in my head when I read his posts. Hell, come to think of it I don’t even know if he is a he… ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2008, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/50 "2008-10-02T02:07:34Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > You need to learn the history of the 3/5ths compromise. The pro-slavery states wanted to include the number of slaves when determining representation in Congress, but not include them for purposes of census-based taxes. That is, representation without taxation. The anti-slavery states said no way. You need to count slaves for both representation and taxation, or neither. The compromise was to count them at 3/5th weight for both purposes. It would also have been representation without representation, so to speak, given that those slaves couldn’t vote either way; to go with 1 instead of 3/5 would just up the influence of the non-slave voters in slave-heavy states beyond their numbers. ---
**Author:** ![slaphead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@slaphead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slaphead)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2008, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/51 "2008-10-02T07:38:45Z")
> [@Dead\_Badger](#): > > Thus, utterly bizarrely, each “side” is able to think this large, independent group of people belongs to the other “side”, because they’re too ineffably stupid to envisage a world in which there exist more than two world views. Well, duh, knows that the human race is divided into two kinds of people. Those who believe gunsbadabortiongoodtaxesgood, and those who belive gunsgoodabortionbadtaxesbad. The weird furriners who don’t fit into either group aren’t really people, they’re just pretending. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2008, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/52 "2008-10-02T11:44:39Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > The funny accent I hear in my head when I read his posts. As a rule, English people don’t spell “civilization” with a z. Because we’re civilised, see? Pip pip. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2008, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/53 "2008-10-03T03:41:21Z")
> [@Discordia](#): > > I’m not American, I used the term as I know it. Should I write aluminum instead of aluminium too? > > And frankly, the American definition of liberal is an incoherent scare word, so I wouldn’t use it even if I gave a shit about adjusting my language to help poor Americans. > [@First Among Daves](#): > > I wasn’t aware there was more than one definition of “liberal”. Do you see the problem now **Discordia**? _Most_ Americans are wholly unaware of your European/British Isles definition of the word liberal. As for those familiar with such usage (like myself), many of us could not see your location and wondered what you meant originally. ## Based on the odds, I originally thought that you were probably American and therefore confused regarding the Economist. But only probably. By the way gang, the Economist supported the American attack on Iraq, and was a big cold warrior before the Soviet Union fell. Oh, and they endorsed George W. Bush. ## The Economist is a magazine directed at the global businessmen, though recently they have tried to expand their American audience. To call them “liberal” within a US context is confused. I thought their internet poll was amusing and every bit as revealing as any other internet poll (i.e. not at all). Still, I can’t see why the OP begrudges them or the rest of the world a little fun. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2008, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/54 "2008-10-03T03:49:38Z")
> [@slaphead](#): > > Well, duh, knows that the human race is divided into two kinds of people. Those who believe gunsbadabortiongoodtaxesgood, and those who belive gunsgoodabortionbadtaxesbad. The weird furriners who don’t fit into either group aren’t really people, they’re just pretending. Fortunately, there are no such people. All political thought fits neatly into one of the two camps. Or you get sent to a reeducation camp. ---
**Author:** ![slaphead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@slaphead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slaphead)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2008, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/55 "2008-10-03T07:53:54Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Or you get sent to a reeducation camp. Education? EDUCATION?? Only god-dammned Liberals believe in education. What you need is a good old-fashioned work camp. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339.md?page=2)