As usual with such discussions, I see we don’t have a shared definition of the keyword ‘arrogance.’
As for my own take on this, with ‘arrogance’ being defined as ‘overbearing behavior combined with self-proclaimed superiority,’ I don’t see any ‘arrogant’ belief systems. Only arrogant individuals.
And the most insufferably arrogant individuals I’ve run across, have always been whoever is proclaiming that they believe in ‘freedom of the individual’ more than anyone else does.
In my youth, the most arrogant, were those who claimed they didn’t obey ANY ‘ism’ at all, on the grounds that if it was a SYSTEM of belief, that it prevented the spontaneity they prized.
So I suppose my hierarchy of arrogance would go something like
self-proclaimed ‘free thinkers/free lifers,’ the ones who insist that NO system has anything positive to offer;
anyone who proclaimed that there was only ONE aspect of life which showed who was ‘the best,’ and who thought they epitomized same;
all political/religious/philosophy extremists, including self-proclaimed ‘independents;’
self-proclaimed geniuses.
self-proclaimed ‘servants of humanity;’
From there, it gets boring.
But again, I think we should stipulate that it doesn’t qualify as arrogance, if it’s just claims of superiority, or unique knowledge.
It isn’t arrogance, until it includes the overbearing behavior, and a refusal to moderate same, even when the person KNOWS they are trampling others.
I don’t think we’re talking about people being arrogant-- people can be arrogant while holding any political philosophy. I think the idea is which philosophy is based on the most arrogant idea. The poster who mentioned Absolute Monarch was, I believe, on the right track. The idea is based on the notion that one person is better than everyone else in the country. That the country is, literally, bound up in the personage of the monarch.
This right here is all find and good, and very honest, but most libertarians I’ve encountered do not stop there. If it was just a sterile preference for individual rights separate and apart from how such models of governance actually affects the prosperity and happiness and lives in a society, that would be one thing. But no, they make STRONGER claims, with ZERO empirical evidence, that libertarian policies like relying on the free market ALWAYS produce the best outcomes.
Private schools, including the funding of schools (yes, k-12 too)
healthcare - we just need less regulation and more CHOICE !!! Yes, because there is nothing different between something like cosmetic surgery that is less regulated and general healthcare that seeks to patch people up or saved their lives. Cosmetics vs you pay this fee or YOU DIE !!! Nope, nothing at ALL different about THOSE kinds of markets, just let them be free and things will be fine. You can see how obviously false this is with increasing Vet costs, as pets have become increasingly valued and the options to keep them alive increases, you see ever increasing costs for vet care. Not a lot of “oppressive” constraints and regulation there, so why the increases in costs? Nevermind, I’m just blabbering, magical pixue dust free markets must not be totally active.
/prays 5 times a day to the market fairy
They make claims about the world without evidence, assert it’s true because it must be true because it aligns with their internal models of an ideal economic system. They need to stop being suck fucking pussies.
IF it’s really just about property rights and a moral argument, they need to stop pretending they give a damn about outcomes and just come out and say that is irrelevant to them. If it’s coupled to some vision that libertarian policies produce the best results, then they need to be slapped across the face with the humility stick because their assertions about reality are out of control.
IMHO, universal nihilism escapes being arrogant, because the believer thinks he, himself, is “nothing” as much as everyone else, the universe, reality, etc.
Social nihilists get some of the same excuse: if “everyone is powerless to change the system,” then the speaker himself is powerless and insignificant.
It’s the egoists – “I’m the only important factor in my own life” – that are arrogant.
Okay, let’s approach this from the other direction. If you’re disputing the idea that majority rule is the basis of our government, then what do you feel is the basis of it? It can’t be the President or Congress (or Governors or state legislatures) - those are all chosen by majority rule.
So who’s running the country in your view? If the majority of Americans want school prayer, who’s the individual or individuals who are saying no to school prayer? Does America have a King, a House of Lords, a Guardian Council, a Beloved Leader, or a Committee of Public Safety?
Yes, well you see, that goes to the point I am trying to make. I do NOT find the assertion of Divine Right, to be inherently "arrogant." In human history, the idea of a King having the Divine Right to Rule, that Divine Right was ALWAYS seen as being linked to a Divine requirement of great responsibility to rule WELL. A king LOST their "divine right," if they did a bad job of things.
The purpose of declaring a Divine Right of Kings, was a practical one. It has repeatedly been discarded by societies, precisely because, as useful as it is to establish the most efficient form of government, it is also the easiest form of government to just as efficiently fail.
I assert that there is zero difference in “Arrogance Quotient” between the claim that The King is the be all end all of power and rights, and the claim that “The People” are the exact same thing.
The constitution “runs things.” It takes much more than a majority to get around it. So long as pretty much everyone agrees that the constitution sets the ultimate limits – and it takes a pretty damn gutsy politician to deny that – then we do not operate under “majority rule,” but under “majority rule within limits.”
Seems like that’s more hypocrisy than arrogance, but you know him so maybe it’s both.
In general though I don’t buy the idea that somebody is necessarily hypocritical (or arrogant) not to believe in a public benefit they themselves access. I can see the point where the gap is really yawning as your example, the person not only opposes in theory a pretty high end welfare state benefit they’re taking advantage of, but says the govt should just build roads etc. But many times I’ve seen people accused of hypocrisy if eg. they pay X tax rate or take Y deduction per the rules though they say they believe in higher tax rates or eliminating that deduction (‘then why aren’t paying more voluntarily, or refusing to take that deduction?’). There has to be some leeway for the idea of following the rules as written, even to your benefit when not compelled to, but believing those rules should be changed.
Listen to how liberals relate to, and talk about, conservatives. They dismiss “flyover country” as being largely irrelevant, and frequently consider conservatives evil, stupid, and otherwise unacceptable for the mere fact of being conservative. It happens all over this board. Always has.
Never seen it once. Conservative ideas are frequently described as stupid and evil, but surely you see the difference? And the whole “liberals dismiss flyover country” narrative only exists in RW media, not real life.
