Yeah, Friedman isn’t a leftie. He lauds China because they have authoritarian efficiency (if the nation needs a massive interstate program, they just build it rather than having years of debate and regulation or corporate giveaways), not because they are communist. They are communist in name only anyway.
Friedman had a thing for authoritarianism, not communism.
But people on the right extol people like Franco or Pinochet. William Buckley started out as a Franco apologist.
How, exactly, are you able to divine the moral views held by the authors of such papers? I suspect that you are making assumptions based more on the fact that you don’t like the implications of such papers.
I don’t know if this is the one you are thinking of, but here’s the abstract to a recent paper from Science:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/321/5896/1667#REF13
Seems pretty straightforward to me. You ask people their views on various policies, and you also measure physiological reactions to fearful stimuli. Voila. What’s your beef with the methodology? And again, how do you know the views of the author? How is measuring startle-related eye blinks and skin conductance “disparaging to conservatives”?
There were a couple other interesting papers cited by the authors in the aforementioned Science paper:
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v10/n10/abs/nn1979.html
A particular brain region involved in the self-regulation of conflict monitoring (deciding when one’s typical response is at odds with the response that is called for in a given scenario), as measured by EEG, activates differently for liberals and conservatives when presented with a Go/No Go task. Also, conservatives performed significantly poorer in terms of employing a habitual response pattern in the face of cues that they should change. Again, no discernable indication of the attitudes or beliefs of the authors.
http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
Maybe it was this article you were thinking about. This one is actually a meta-analysis across 88 samples, so it is hard to argue simply that the investigators are biased. But once more, I invite you to tell me how you know what the orientation of the researchers is.
Given what we typically think about political values, why should it be surprising that they are associated with other personality traits, and with the biological underpinnings of those traits as well? It really shouldn’t.
I’d prefer a more thorough consideration of the empirical evidence from you, rather than having you simply handwave away the data with a dismissive and misinformative summary of the evidence, ‘along’ with a ‘bunch’ of ‘quote’ ‘marks’ .
I’m pro-gay (or if not pro pretty ambivalent on the subject), pro-choice, pro-equality in general and yet people here consider me “conservative”.
As has been mentioned in other threads on this board, the groups liberals and conservatives, broadly speaking, don’t make sense. In general, liberals are for freedom in the social sphere of human activity, but often against it in the economic sphere. Conservatives wish to conserve some aspects of society, but radically change others. The names don’t stick. Both are internally inconsistent, though they make sense when paired against each other as opponents, one siding with one issue and the other against.
More troubling is the fact that both liberals and conservatives are willing and ready to curtail liberty for their morals: fairness or justice in the case of liberals, or purity or safety in the case of conservatives. Both sides regularly see no problem with forcing others to live how they wish or support whom they like. Except when the other guy has the reigns. The highest moral - maximizing freedom so that people can enjoy themselves however they like - is constantly sacrificed on the altar of their pet causes.
This is the much more interesting divide: those that have few reservations when curtailing freedom, in the social or economic sphere, and those that do. At this point in American politics, no matter which party or ideology you pick, you’re going to see less freedom. And yes, likely more as well; each side seems a trade off one way or the other. For one decidedly on the side of more freedom, choosing a side is difficult. At times, I vote Democrat; at other times, Republican. And always Libertarian, if there’s an appropriate candidate.
This is an odd take.
Living in a society is all about curtailing freedoms. We all agree to restraints in the interests of a smoothly functioning society. We have to else we would have anarchy. The trick is deciding how to balance differing interests. Maybe your neighbor wants to start a circus in his backyard. You get to deal with the smell of poop and garbage blowing on your lawn and the noise and so on. Are you unduly curtailing your neighbor’s freedom if you get the city to stop him?
And it is also an odd take to say liberals are telling people how to live their lives. For the most part liberals want others out of meddling in their life. Assuming no harm and consenting adults then who they marry, what they do in the bedroom, whether they want to smoke a joint, what books they’d like to read and so on are no one else’s business. How is there a conflicting interest that conservatives feel put upon because two guys somewhere wanting to live together?
In cases like religion in schools the point is liberals do not want someone else to decide what religious indoctrination their kid should be exposed to in school. They are not saying do not go to church or don’t teach your kids about Jesus. Just do it on your own time and not “our” time.
I agree. The goal should be to maximize freedom, maximize choices for people, and minimize the use of force. I wasn’t clear about that last part in my previous post, my apologies, but it’s essential. Force is anathema to freedom.
Well it’s a good thing I didn’t say that, and it’s not harvest time 'round these parts. You’ll notice I wrote:
They aren’t telling you how to live your life; they are just about taking your money and providing fewer economic choices.
Until it comes to how we buy and sell. Look at health care reform, for some liberals, it’s not enough to improve health care access, they also want to keep people from selling insurance. Or look at import tariffs; they want to restrict people from buying goods at the market price. Or look at minimum wage laws–they prevent people from selling their labor at any price they want.
Of course, there may be good reasons for those restrictions, but it’s hypocritical to say those aren’t laws telling people how to live their lives.
Dio, this is ridiculous, even for you.
People in Iraq weren’t killed in service of conservatism–they were just killed in a war fought while a conservative was president.
You are being like those christians that want to chalk Stalin’s kills up to “people killed by atheists” to balance out the scales due to the Crusades, Inquisition, etc.
I’m a liberal, and I’ve never taken anyone’s money away from them. Nor am I in favor of providing fewer economic choices to anyone.
Besides, your frame was “curtailing liberty”. As a liberal, I am in favor of taxes necessary to support a strong social net. I believe this results in a net increase in economic liberty for Americans. I also believe that it generally results in greater household income levels for nearly all Americans. Thus, in that sense, the governmental practices I favor in regards to economics all serve a greater economic liberty.
“In service of”? No, probably not. But definitely as a function of conservatism.
Actually you did say that:
“Both sides regularly see no problem with forcing others to live how they wish or support whom they like.”
The Vietnamese? (JFK and LBJ were Democrats).
You’re more of a libertarian than a authoritarian fundamentalist. I think there are very few of the latter on SD and most of the conservatives here are the former. However for the national GOP it is the opposite.
As I already noted living in a society is all about rules on how we should live our lives. We have laws against murder which I think most people are ok with but it restrains you from the freedom to go kill someone if you are of a mind to.
As for the other stuff you miss the nuance that is all important and instead paint with a broad brush. You allow there may be good reasons to do various things so it is then right and appropriate to institute those good ideas. If murder was legal yesterday and outlawed today we’d have a new restriction on us but, since it is a good idea, we are ok with it. Merely to say a freedom was restricted or circumscribed makes it ipso facto bad is silly.
As for things like tariffs and labor there are good reasons for having many of them. It is not a matter of speculation to think what happens when there is no minimum wage and allowing people to sell their services more cheaply. We have seen it and it is not good. Saw it in the US and see it currently in many places around the world. Sweat shops, subsistence or lower wages and so on. You get a race to the bottom and the bottom is pretty awful. Is a tariff warranted when another country is willing to let its workers (including children) labor in hellish conditions, dump their toxic waste into the river, subsidize an industry then dump the goods at below market rates in the US driving out all competition?
And I do not know that tariffs are a liberal or conservative thing. Business wants whatever protections and advantages in their industry they can get. Ever see anyone seriously propose getting rid of farm subsidies? The subsidies that go to those hyper-partisan-ultra-liberal-hippie farmers? Or liberal refuges like Archer-Daniels-Midland?
But they were acting on behalf of a conservative cause (kill the commies), and Johnson recognized that it was a mistake after he got in there. They also didn’t lie their way into it. Plus Nixon was the one who escalated it and bombed Cambodia.
I am a conservative*, and I’ve never sent anyone to die in Iraq.
Well I thought you spoke for all liberals, everywhere, in all times. Glad we have that cleared up. Guess no liberals support economic decisions that are harmful and result in fewer and poorer choices for people.
And I believe that the best of intentions often lead to unexpected results which can do as much harm as good. I favor people keeping the fruits of their labor, and choosing to spend their money how they wish.
*I am not a conservative.
Err…does the Gulf of Tonkin Incident count?
I think you missed the nuance of my post. 
I wasn’t commenting on the value of my examples, but pointing out that they are restrictions on how people live their lives. And therefore that statements like “liberals don’t tell people how to live their lives” are false.
You’ll notice a very important conjunction in that sentence: “or”. It allows one to connect clauses that present alternatives. In the post above, I detailed what I see as the differences between liberals and conservatives: the conservatives want to control one’s social life, and the liberals one’s economic life. One of those alternatives applies to one of the groups I was discussing, the other alternative to the other. I have been quite clear; stop being obtuse.
Quite clear in getting caught out.
Face it, you got caught pretending you did not say something when you clearly did. That “or” does not in any way save or mitigate the sentence. Perhaps in your head you meant something different but we cannot know what that might be.
Stung you decide to lash out and call me names.
Suck it up and move on.