http://danielmiessler.com/blog/my-political-philosophy-in-two-sentences grep understanding Fri, 25 May 2012 02:15:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/my-political-philosophy-in-two-sentences/comment-page-1#comment-244520 cooperati Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:25:09 +0000 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/my-political-philosophy-in-two-sentences#comment-244520 <p>I see what you mean, but most people won't see it this way. The thing that will confuse others is your use of the term "liberal means". <br><br>You might think you can ride the fence on this one, but you've probably fallen on one side or the other, depending on the issue at hand.<br><br>-=T=-</p> I see what you mean, but most people won't see it this way. The thing that will confuse others is your use of the term “liberal means”.

You might think you can ride the fence on this one, but you've probably fallen on one side or the other, depending on the issue at hand.

-=T=-

]]> http://danielmiessler.com/blog/my-political-philosophy-in-two-sentences/comment-page-1#comment-243369 cooperati Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:25:09 +0000 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/my-political-philosophy-in-two-sentences#comment-243369 <p>I see what you mean, but most people won't see it this way. The thing that will confuse others is your use of the term "liberal means". <br><br>You might think you can ride the fence on this one, but you've probably fallen on one side or the other, depending on the issue at hand.<br><br>-=T=-</p> I see what you mean, but most people won't see it this way. The thing that will confuse others is your use of the term “liberal means”.

You might think you can ride the fence on this one, but you've probably fallen on one side or the other, depending on the issue at hand.

-=T=-

]]> http://danielmiessler.com/blog/my-political-philosophy-in-two-sentences/comment-page-1#comment-243365 CarlM Wed, 23 Sep 2009 04:01:43 +0000 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/my-political-philosophy-in-two-sentences#comment-243365 <p>I don't have a CLUE what you mean here.</p> I don't have a CLUE what you mean here.

]]> http://danielmiessler.com/blog/my-political-philosophy-in-two-sentences/comment-page-1#comment-243358 Daniel Miessler Wed, 23 Sep 2009 02:03:47 +0000 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/my-political-philosophy-in-two-sentences#comment-243358 <p>Nah, that's the thing. I'm willing to use logical methods to achieve liberal ends, which means I'm not a liberal. Liberals tend to use liberal means to achieve liberal ends, and that's why things often don't go well.</p> Nah, that's the thing. I'm willing to use logical methods to achieve liberal ends, which means I'm not a liberal. Liberals tend to use liberal means to achieve liberal ends, and that's why things often don't go well.

]]> http://danielmiessler.com/blog/my-political-philosophy-in-two-sentences/comment-page-1#comment-243357 CarlM Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:02:29 +0000 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/my-political-philosophy-in-two-sentences#comment-243357 <p>I believe that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are best left unused. The three of us (Daniel, cooperati, and myself) almost certainly have differing definitions of the terms (certainly my definitions differ from Daniel's). It's tough to have a discussion centering around words whose definitions aren't agreed upon. For example on the face of it, the following sentence makes perfect sense and would seem hard to argue with.<BR><BR>"If you hold liberal goals you are a liberal."<BR><BR>But, I'm not sure I agree with it. Perhaps I give people too much credit, but I don't actually believe that GOALS are what separate liberals from conservatives (I'd like to think that we ALL want everyone [everywhere in the world] to be as successful as they can be - that we all want peace and freedom and happiness and prosperity for all). Perhaps I'm wrong, but I can't imagine ANYONE arguing against those goals. The differences between conservatives and liberals are about how best to achieve those goals.<BR><BR>PLEASE correct me if you think I'm missing something here. I have long believed that political differences are more about process than ultimate goals. I have also long believed that there are multiple VALID ways to reach those goals. For example, I believe that there are times that the "conservative" and the "liberal" approach to reaching a goal would BOTH work. I also think that there are times that a compromise blend of the two approaches yields an approach that is worse than either approach on its own. I don't believe that compromise is always bad, just that it sometimes yields an inferior process. (Of course when compromise means the difference between implementing SOME process to acheive an important goal as opposed to doing nothing, then compromise serves an important purpose.)</BR></BR></BR></BR></BR></BR></p> I believe that the terms “liberal” and “conservative” are best left unused. The three of us (Daniel, cooperati, and myself) almost certainly have differing definitions of the terms (certainly my definitions differ from Daniel's). It's tough to have a discussion centering around words whose definitions aren't agreed upon. For example on the face of it, the following sentence makes perfect sense and would seem hard to argue with.

“If you hold liberal goals you are a liberal.”

But, I'm not sure I agree with it. Perhaps I give people too much credit, but I don't actually believe that GOALS are what separate liberals from conservatives (I'd like to think that we ALL want everyone [everywhere in the world] to be as successful as they can be – that we all want peace and freedom and happiness and prosperity for all). Perhaps I'm wrong, but I can't imagine ANYONE arguing against those goals. The differences between conservatives and liberals are about how best to achieve those goals.

PLEASE correct me if you think I'm missing something here. I have long believed that political differences are more about process than ultimate goals. I have also long believed that there are multiple VALID ways to reach those goals. For example, I believe that there are times that the “conservative” and the “liberal” approach to reaching a goal would BOTH work. I also think that there are times that a compromise blend of the two approaches yields an approach that is worse than either approach on its own. I don't believe that compromise is always bad, just that it sometimes yields an inferior process. (Of course when compromise means the difference between implementing SOME process to acheive an important goal as opposed to doing nothing, then compromise serves an important purpose.)

]]> http://danielmiessler.com/blog/my-political-philosophy-in-two-sentences/comment-page-1#comment-243354 CarlM Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:04:49 +0000 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/my-political-philosophy-in-two-sentences#comment-243354 <p>I wanted to keep that last reply on point, so I kept it brief (by my standards), but I wanted to point out that (excluding the nuts at the extremes) the political labels of liberal and conservative seem to me to have less to do with whether they want everyone to succeed (I think that just about everyone wants this) and more to do with the extent to which they think that government ought to be part of the solution.</p> I wanted to keep that last reply on point, so I kept it brief (by my standards), but I wanted to point out that (excluding the nuts at the extremes) the political labels of liberal and conservative seem to me to have less to do with whether they want everyone to succeed (I think that just about everyone wants this) and more to do with the extent to which they think that government ought to be part of the solution.

]]> http://danielmiessler.com/blog/my-political-philosophy-in-two-sentences/comment-page-1#comment-243353 CarlM Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:57:25 +0000 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/my-political-philosophy-in-two-sentences#comment-243353 <p>I'm not sure of the extent to which those who label themselves as conservatives or liberals would accept these definitions, but based on THESE definitions (with one tiny change) I'd unhesitatingly call myself a liberal.<br><br>The tiny change: "depends more on" --> "depends to some extent on"<br><br>I don't think that this changes your intended meaning, but I think that it clarifies things a bit. Of course one of the sources of disagreement is about the extent to which success (or access to success) depends on circumstances outside of ones control, but I'd be stunned if any rational individual argued that everyone has an equal access to success. <br><br>From the premise that we do not have equal access to success, rather simple logic tells us that two people who work equally hard and make the same decisions will not generally achieve the same level of success. From this it follows that one can't judge the amount of hard work a person has done or the quality of decisions that a person has made from the level of success that the person has achieved. <br><br>I would expect all rational people to agree with that. (Yes, I know that I'm calling some people irrational.)<br><br>On the other hand, I would not assume that all rational people would agree that the fact that we don't have equal access to success is something that needs to be fixed. I would also not assume that all rational people who DO think that this is a problem that needs fixing would conclude that the government ought to play a role in the solution. Personally, I am quite comfortable with the idea of government help and believe that evidence suggests that an unrestrained free market is not the most efficient way to increase equality of opportunity.</p> I'm not sure of the extent to which those who label themselves as conservatives or liberals would accept these definitions, but based on THESE definitions (with one tiny change) I'd unhesitatingly call myself a liberal.

The tiny change: “depends more on” –> “depends to some extent on”

I don't think that this changes your intended meaning, but I think that it clarifies things a bit. Of course one of the sources of disagreement is about the extent to which success (or access to success) depends on circumstances outside of ones control, but I'd be stunned if any rational individual argued that everyone has an equal access to success.

From the premise that we do not have equal access to success, rather simple logic tells us that two people who work equally hard and make the same decisions will not generally achieve the same level of success. From this it follows that one can't judge the amount of hard work a person has done or the quality of decisions that a person has made from the level of success that the person has achieved.

I would expect all rational people to agree with that. (Yes, I know that I'm calling some people irrational.)

On the other hand, I would not assume that all rational people would agree that the fact that we don't have equal access to success is something that needs to be fixed. I would also not assume that all rational people who DO think that this is a problem that needs fixing would conclude that the government ought to play a role in the solution. Personally, I am quite comfortable with the idea of government help and believe that evidence suggests that an unrestrained free market is not the most efficient way to increase equality of opportunity.

]]> http://danielmiessler.com/blog/my-political-philosophy-in-two-sentences/comment-page-1#comment-243355 cooperati Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:47:31 +0000 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/my-political-philosophy-in-two-sentences#comment-243355 <p>"I’m not a liberal because I believe it is necessary to implement a number of cold and non-liberal policies to achieve the liberal ideal. I am not a conservative because I seek the liberal ideal." <br><br>I believe that you contradict yourself here. If you hold liberal goals you are a liberal. If you are willing to pursue those goals using extreme measures you are a liberal extremist.<br><br>Perhaps you don't see your acceptable methods as extreme. (I wouldn't know, I'm not inside your head at the moment.) Extremists do not need to be terrorists, but they can skirt the will of the people using government bureaucracy to implement and enforce policy that the people would not choose, as an example of one method. <br><br>What policies do you mean in the phrase, "I believe it is necessary to implement a number of cold and non-liberal policies", ?<br><br>-=T=-</p> “I’m not a liberal because I believe it is necessary to implement a number of cold and non-liberal policies to achieve the liberal ideal. I am not a conservative because I seek the liberal ideal.”

I believe that you contradict yourself here. If you hold liberal goals you are a liberal. If you are willing to pursue those goals using extreme measures you are a liberal extremist.

Perhaps you don't see your acceptable methods as extreme. (I wouldn't know, I'm not inside your head at the moment.) Extremists do not need to be terrorists, but they can skirt the will of the people using government bureaucracy to implement and enforce policy that the people would not choose, as an example of one method.

What policies do you mean in the phrase, “I believe it is necessary to implement a number of cold and non-liberal policies”, ?

-=T=-

]]> http://danielmiessler.com/blog/my-political-philosophy-in-two-sentences/comment-page-1#comment-243350 Daniel Miessler Tue, 22 Sep 2009 04:36:33 +0000 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/my-political-philosophy-in-two-sentences#comment-243350 <p>Ok, first off, I acknowledge that the use of labels is bad. I also would say that any attempt to classify these two words with a short effort is bound to fail. That said, I'll try anyway:<br><br>Conservatism is a longing for the world of Leave it to Beaver, Christmas Story, and Babe Ruth. A world of everyone looking the same, talking the same, eating the same foods, and enjoying the same sports. Everyone loves Jesus, America, Baseball, and tries to work hard so he can be rich and enjoy well-deserved luxury. A core belief of this group is that those who are successful and rich deserve to live luxuriously because they are individually and personally responsible, through the making of good choices, for their own prosperity. And conversely, those who are not successful deserve, to some significant degree, their lower station because they failed to make the correct choices.<br><br>Liberals long for the world of Star Trek. This is a world of equality and exotic diversity, where there's no repulsion to being surrounded by people, foods, or ideas that are different than their own. It's a world where money has less value, and where art, science, and exploration are placed as the highest of cultural priorities. Those who hold this ideal tend to believe that ones success or failure, wealth or poverty, depends more on circumstances outside of their control, and thus see the elevation of the underprivileged to be a communal effort that should be willingly funded by those who have been fortunate enough to be successful.</p> Ok, first off, I acknowledge that the use of labels is bad. I also would say that any attempt to classify these two words with a short effort is bound to fail. That said, I'll try anyway:

Conservatism is a longing for the world of Leave it to Beaver, Christmas Story, and Babe Ruth. A world of everyone looking the same, talking the same, eating the same foods, and enjoying the same sports. Everyone loves Jesus, America, Baseball, and tries to work hard so he can be rich and enjoy well-deserved luxury. A core belief of this group is that those who are successful and rich deserve to live luxuriously because they are individually and personally responsible, through the making of good choices, for their own prosperity. And conversely, those who are not successful deserve, to some significant degree, their lower station because they failed to make the correct choices.

Liberals long for the world of Star Trek. This is a world of equality and exotic diversity, where there's no repulsion to being surrounded by people, foods, or ideas that are different than their own. It's a world where money has less value, and where art, science, and exploration are placed as the highest of cultural priorities. Those who hold this ideal tend to believe that ones success or failure, wealth or poverty, depends more on circumstances outside of their control, and thus see the elevation of the underprivileged to be a communal effort that should be willingly funded by those who have been fortunate enough to be successful.

]]> http://danielmiessler.com/blog/my-political-philosophy-in-two-sentences/comment-page-1#comment-243351 Daniel Miessler Tue, 22 Sep 2009 04:10:08 +0000 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/my-political-philosophy-in-two-sentences#comment-243351 <p>I realize I broke my label rule here, but I still think the message comes through fairly clearly. It seems to resonate with people despite the terms being weighted.</p> I realize I broke my label rule here, but I still think the message comes through fairly clearly. It seems to resonate with people despite the terms being weighted.

]]> http://danielmiessler.com/blog/my-political-philosophy-in-two-sentences/comment-page-1#comment-243349 CarlM Tue, 22 Sep 2009 01:41:42 +0000 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/my-political-philosophy-in-two-sentences#comment-243349 <p>What happened to your dislike of labels? What's wrong with just saying something like the following?<br><br>I prefer not to label myself as either conservative or liberal because neither term can possibly capture the richness of my political philosophy. Each is a baggage-laden term that has been wrongly demonized by a sizable fraction of the public. <br><br>----<br><br>That said, I suspect I know what you meant, but it certainly needs clarification.</p> What happened to your dislike of labels? What's wrong with just saying something like the following?

I prefer not to label myself as either conservative or liberal because neither term can possibly capture the richness of my political philosophy. Each is a baggage-laden term that has been wrongly demonized by a sizable fraction of the public.

—-

That said, I suspect I know what you meant, but it certainly needs clarification.

]]> http://danielmiessler.com/blog/my-political-philosophy-in-two-sentences/comment-page-1#comment-243348 CarlM Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:31:26 +0000 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/my-political-philosophy-in-two-sentences#comment-243348 <p>Ditto.</p> Ditto.

]]> http://danielmiessler.com/blog/my-political-philosophy-in-two-sentences/comment-page-1#comment-243346 cooperati Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:26:56 +0000 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/my-political-philosophy-in-two-sentences#comment-243346 <p>How do the liberal ideal and the conservative ideal differ? I would like to know your viewpoints on each.<br><br>-=T=-</p> How do the liberal ideal and the conservative ideal differ? I would like to know your viewpoints on each.

-=T=-

]]> http://danielmiessler.com/blog/my-political-philosophy-in-two-sentences/comment-page-1#comment-243345 Paul Parkinson Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:44:47 +0000 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/my-political-philosophy-in-two-sentences#comment-243345 <p>Genius. I've heard this (my viewpoint) expressed before but never so succinctly. Thanks.</p> Genius. I've heard this (my viewpoint) expressed before but never so succinctly. Thanks.

]]>