Rants and Ravings from Cogwheel’s Workshop
If I posted links to every interesting article, video, etc. that I come across on a daily basis, this would be a much livelier place. However, something about it makes me feel a bit cheap. And usually the really good stuff is already so well cross-posted that I'd just be spamming your RSS feeds (as if anyone subscribes to my blog).
That being said... I can't adequately describe how much this story gets under my skin. Luckily PZ Myers can!
As posted on the Richard Dawkins forums (click the post title to visit the thread)
When I joined this “clear-thinking oasis” late last year, I was shocked to see such strong negative reactions to those of us advocating a libertarian position. The first couple incarnations of “How Bad is Socialism Anyway?” are rife with personal attacks triggered by nothing more than a statement of a political belief.
The more I involved myself in the discussion, the more I realized the vitriol was coming from unabashed prejudice. Even just mentioning the L word is enough to send some people into a tizzy. Once you’re tagged as a libertarian, it seems everything you say is sent through a distortion filter in these people’s minds. I’ve seen some seriously deluded people on this forum treated with more respect than libertarians.
I spent some time reflecting on and refining my own views and came back to the conversation about a week ago. With my new outlook I was pretty optimistic that I’d be able to garner a warmer reception. At least we could have some polite conversation even if they disagreed. No such luck. As soon as I indicated libertarian leanings, I was immediately subjected to the same vitriol as before. But this time I was able to examine it more carefully, and I started to see some patterns behind the reactions.
The more I argued, the more I realized I was pointing out an awful lot of straw man fallacies. When I actually managed to chip away some of the barriers to communication, I found that many people hold an extraordinarily distorted perception of what it means to be libertarian. I don’t know where the blame lies for this problem. Could it be lack of exposure? Could it be lack of investigation? Could it simply be something that’s been passed down relatively uncontested through the years? Who knows? What I do know is that challenging these misperceptions can only help to bring rational discourse back to the forefront.
The negative connotations around the word “libertarian” cause the same sorts of problems you see with the word “atheist.” Nearly every atheist in my youtube subscriptions has at least one detailed explanation of exactly what it means to be an atheist. This is because you can’t even begin to have a polite, rational conversation about atheism until people understand what you mean. The darker side of this is that people become hesitant to apply the label to themselves even if they fit the description. “I don’t really believe, but I don’t disbelieve so I’m neither atheist nor theist.” This is exactly how frustrating it is to deal with anti-libertarian prejudice.
Enough of my rant. Here are the misconceptions I have for you so far.
This is as silly as saying liberals are extremists or conservatives are extremists. Libertarianism is a category of political beliefs which places emphasis on liberty in both economic and personal pursuits, and attempts to keep the scope of government to a minimum. To be considered a libertarian, your political views simply need to lean in this direction more than in another. The chart used by The World’s Smallest Political Quiz gives a pretty good approximation of where libertarians place themselves on the political landscape.
Of course, there are libertarian extremists, but this is no more significant than that there are left-wing and right-wing extremists. Libertarian extremists may sometimes be seen as more extreme than other extremists, but this is really just a side effect of the fact that most people are so unfamiliar with libertarianism to begin with.
As with extremism, some are, some aren’t. Strict adherence to the principle of minimum government would imply that every libertarian is an anarcho-capitalist. Many of their prominent figures and “role models” fit this description, but isn’t the same true for most other political philosophies? Moderate socialists still draw upon Marx even if they don’t agree with full-on communism. The idea here is persuasion with strong rhetoric, with pragmatism taking a back seat.
But this distracts us from the simple fact that not every libertarian is a fundie. Most of the libertarians I’ve met in person are a bit more left-leaning and minarchist rather than anarcho-capitalist. Again, libertarianism is a classification for a range of political views, not a strict set of criteria.
I’ll be honest here. This was something I had blocked from my perception when I was deeply involved in the libertarian movement. I was raised practically anti-theist (though definitely pro-woo... luckily I grew out of that at a young age) so religion has never been a big part of my life. It didn’t strike me as significant that so many libertarians had strong religious views. But this also meant that I developed my own appreciation for libertarianism without this sectarian influence.
And that alone proves my point. There is nothing inherently religious about Libertarianism. Some people may be motivated by religious influences, but that doesn’t automatically discredit the philosophy.
Some are, some aren’t (see a pattern? ;) ). I was when I was young. One of my childhood role models expressed his view of rights in a simple sentence: “You have the right to do anything you want as long as you do not infringe upon the life, liberty, or property of others.” This stuck with me through my high school years when I identified myself as “practically communist.” When I became interested in politics, I realized that communism wasn’t exactly compatible with this principle I held so dear. My first economics class was what finally did me in. Between learning about how economies actually work and investigating libertarianism after a fellow student asked about the teacher’s political orientation, I was hooked.
The dogma got me in, but the thing is, there are piles of literature justifying libertarianism in myriad ways. From utilitarian, to philosophical, to religious, to rationalist. Even when the literature is marginally well-known, though, it may not be well-understood (hence many of these misconceptions).
There are several reasons for believing this. Libertarian literature often uses the term “self-interest” in a positive light, and many people equate this with greed. However, the two terms have a specific differentiation: greed is acting in self-interest without regard for the rights of others. Libertarians believe that acting in self-interest generally promotes win-win situations. But acting greedily creates win-lose situations.
Another problem is that greed is associated with free-market capitalism (addressed next), so libertarians are guilty by association.
But the real problem is in the nature of the misconception itself: you’re making a statement about an individual’s personality based on their view of how the government should be structured. This is a blatant non sequitur. A libertarian could be the most generous person in the world and still believe that the state shouldn’t be providing universal health care. Libertarians simply feel generosity is better manifested by giving away your own money rather than giving away other people’s money.*
This isn’t a misconception so much as it is a misrepresentation (intentional or otherwise). Yes, libertarians do support deregulation and free-market capitalism, but making this statement gives a few false impressions.
First: There are plenty of perfectly rational defenses of free-market capitalism, even from non-libertarian types. This isn’t the place to get into that discussion though. ;)
Second: Many people assume everything about our current capitalist system would stay the same except for the regulations, therefore corporate greed and excess would be the new law of the land. I agree that if we suddenly dropped all regulations, all hell would break loose. However this ignores several important factors. All the power corporations have is derived from the government. The very idea of a corporation is a legally fictitious person, independent of the individuals who own it. Combine this government fiat with limited liability and you have a recipe for disaster. Another aspect of corporate excess is their grip on the government via lobbyists. With a libertarian system, the government wouldn’t have enough power to make it worth their while. These are just a couple examples. Regardless of whether you agree with them or not, I hope you can see we’re not dreaming dreams of sweat shops, dormitories, and oppressed masses.
Finally, and most importantly: Deregulation and free-market capitalism are conclusions drawn from a libertarian starting point, not core ideologies of the libertarian position. The core of libertarianism is minimizing the interference of government in the lives of its citizens. Capitalism is simply an emergent property of human interaction given the rights to liberty and property. Minimizing regulations follows from minimizing government interference.
This may seem a bit redundant, but I really feel it’s necessary to drive this point home. I’m sick and tired of being cornered into a little box and having to blow down straw man after straw man over many pages just to get in one meaningful argument. We are not just a mindless herd of sheeple. We are all individual people with unique thoughts, feelings, and motivations behind our libertarian beliefs. It’s been said that a libertarian is simply a liberal who understands economics. It’s been said that a libertarian is simply a conservative who’s had his ass kicked by a cop. All a libertarian really is is someone who values freedom over government interference, whatever their reasons may be.
* In fact, by some objective measures, libertarians (fiscal conservatives, in this case) are MORE generous than their liberal counterparts.
In order to give my rants a bit of consistency, I’m starting a new series of posts called Sheeple Reports. A large part of skeptical inquiry is pointing out the blind following of numerous trends from religion to homeopathy. Sheeple Reports will give me a chance to vent my frustration in dealing with the various followers all around me. First on the agenda is an update to my previous snippet of frustration:
_____’s boys are still super congested and coughing horribly, but praise God they’re in good moods!
Yes, praise God for smiting my children with illness but having the decency to keep their spirits up. Such a merciful, loving god. Oh but wait… Them being sick is all part of His plan, of course. So, what if they were miserable? Would you still be praising the Lord who made them suffer in the first place? Just goes to show there’s no room for honesty in religion. Hypocrisy is the rule.
Thankfully (to the outcome, not to some mystical cause of the outcome), the children are beginning to feel better. Less-than-thankfully, as you might have anticipated, the mother is thankful to some mystical cause of the outcome (you know, the same mystical cause of the problem itself):
_____’s boys are starting to get better! Thank you, Lord!
I’m trying to think of the best way to describe the image of God she’s painting here. Münchausen Syndrome by Proxy seems to fit pretty well. This megalomaniacal being manifests illness in His children for the sole purpose of curing them and “earning” the praise of His other children. Yeah, I really want to worship Him now…
Next up we have someone who sadly confuses his own inner strength with that of God:
“Even the youths shall faint and be weary, And the young men shall utterly fall, But those who wait on the LORD Shall renew their strength; They shall mount up with wings like eagles, They shall run and not be weary, They shall walk and not faint.” - Isaiah 40:30,31
Tonight after youth group I went to the gym and got on one of the recumbent-style exercise bikes and started going (Level 12ish, kept it to about 80 rpm). Had my iPod blasting worship music by Everybodyduck. My first goal was 20 minutes or five miles, whichever came second. At 17 minutes (about four and a quarter miles), both calves started quivering; threatening to cramp at any moment. I closed my eyes, grunted once, and recited the verses above to myself. I then prayed, “Lord, please be my strength. I know you are made perfect in my weakness. Let me get to 10 miles.” At about 19 minutes, I made it to five miles and kept going. At 22 minutes, my legs started hurting a little more. I noticed my legs were hurting more when there was slack in the peddling, so I bumped up the level to 15 to keep constant resistance against my legs and pressed on. For the last mile and a half, I closed my eyes, tuned out everything and just focused on the worship songs. I finally hit 10 miles at 35:06 minutes. Pressed the cool down button and continued peddling for another 5 minutes at Level 3. In all, I went 10.94 miles in 40:06 minutes and not once did my calves go into full-blown cramping.
Yay God!
Why are you selling yourself so short? I guarantee you it’s not the prayer itself that did the trick. Here, I’ll highlight the key phrase from your note:
For the last mile and a half, I closed my eyes, tuned out everything and just focused
Any time you do that—whether it’s focusing on a prayer from the bible, visualizing some new-age imaginary energy field around your body, or listening to the violent and misogynistic lyrics of some hard metal band that you happen to enjoy—you’re going to discover an inner strength without any intervention from a divine being. Ask yourself a few questions:
“Don’t sweat the small stuff,” they say. Taking each small thing in a vacuum, I couldn’t agree more. The sweat, of course, starts flowing when small thing piles on small thing, until you reach the proverbial backbreaking straw. A ton of feathers still weighs a ton. In order to wash off some of my sweat, here are a few small things that have me a bit riled up:
Why are Americans so offended by breasts? Save for the poor souls who grew up without a mother able or willing to breast feed, we’ve all sucked on them at one point or another. How can such a natural, normal part of life be perceived with such rage? My wife and I celebrated our seventh anniversary yesterday by taking lunch at our favorite Thai restaurant. We first dined here shortly after they opened, and were impressed by the remarkable atmosphere which included some beautiful—if possibly inauthentic—Asian paintings. Paintings with breasts. The horror. They’re gone now, replaced by mass-produced Pottery Barn-worthy “artwork.” The waiter confirmed it was due to a customer complaint. And this is in one of the most liberal towns in America.
Two of my friends’ recently-posted Facebook statuses have proven to be a great exercise in self-restraint. The first one appeared yesterday on the profile of a friend who recently injured his knee:
_____ is praying for healing. Being in constant pain is no fun.
Pray all you like, buddy. You’d have better luck with Vicodin. It was all I could do to keep myself from commenting with just that sentiment. And it’s definitely a good thing I didn’t… Three of his local (Bible Belt) friends responded with various “we’re praying for you too”s.
The other friend’s status is so wrong on so many levels:
_____'s boys are still super congested and coughing horribly, but praise God they're in good moods!
Yes, praise God for smiting my children with illness but having the decency to keep their spirits up. Such a merciful, loving god. Oh but wait… Them being sick is all part of His plan, of course. So, what if they were miserable? Would you still be praising the Lord who made them suffer in the first place? Just goes to show there’s no room for honesty in religion. Hypocrisy is the rule.
Celebrate your inner fish!
If you're in the Santa Rosa area, there's a party at 6:30 tonight at the Glaser Center/Unitarian Universalist Congregation. You can find more information on their website.
Having family members who come to me for my take on various issues makes for great blog fodder. This time we have someone asking for my thoughts on a petition going around to stop the FDA from approving a new genetically modified variety of corn. My response follows:
I love that you come to me for this sort of thing. It’s a great way to keep my brain exercised through the occasional stints of mindless tedium at work. Without spending the 4 hours of research I took on our last topic, I do have a few thoughts on the matter.
First of all, as mentioned in the article this is simply a preliminary approval. This means the FDA has seen research showing it’s safe, and it’s en route to general approval. This is exactly when public input is at its most meaningful, but the tone of the article makes it seem like they’re trying to pull one over on us. In spite of that attitude, I fully recommend people share their thoughts, scientifically based or otherwise. If there were indeed shenanigans during the Bush administration, now is the perfect time to ferret them out.
As to the science itself, you can probably imagine I’m less cynical about GMO and herbicides/pesticides (-cides) in general. One interesting side-effect of the organic food movement is that synthetic -cides have become safer for humans and more effective on the target organisms. Oftentimes, there is a far higher quantity of organic -cides on organic crops than there are synthetic -cides on conventional crops (i.e. you should still be washing all your produce). Another side effect of organic farming is that it takes many more acres to produce the same amount of food. Ironically, organic farming is a pretty big contributor to deforestation. But this is starting to get away from the topic...
Back to GMOs, a lot of the fear is simply fear of the unknown. New technology has scared people since the dawn of time (the church’s enforcement of this fear is known as the Dark Ages). If you understand the science behind GMOs, they lose a lot of their mystical ominousness. GM research is really nothing more than accelerated selective breeding and hybridization. Instead of selectively breeding whole organisms, though, they directly select an individual trait from one organism and incorporate it into the other. The vast majority of modifications are simply usurping otherwise naturally-occurring genes. If it’s safe in the original organism, there’s an extremely small chance that it would be dangerous in the new one. And the difference would likely be obvious in the rare case it did have a deleterious effect.
Even if we do design genes from scratch (I’m not sure we’re there yet, at least as far as work on GM food goes), the end result is nothing but the addition, removal, or modification of one or more proteins from the resulting organism. Proteins themselves are completely broken down by digestion. Since they can catalyze other chemical reactions in the organism they may end up producing unexpected substances, but these would be easily detected when comparing the GM organism with the original. Assuming the side effects are safe, the proteins themselves wouldn’t pose any threat.
To reiterate, if you take the message as a simple request to share your thoughts with the FDA, then have a blast. As for their points of fact, it’s worth being a bit cautious though. For what it’s worth, we always default to organic when shopping, but we aren’t afraid to fall back on conventional if selection or quality dictate.
