Liberals do think more with their hearts than their heads:
I found this fascinating, I just wasn’t expecting such a wide divergence between liberals and conservatives, though I’m not surprised to see libertarians come out on top.
Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country
The idea that there is a method to gain rational and functional knowledge for ‘policy choices’ is in itself a fallacy.
YES THEY CAN!
The idea that there is a method to gain rational and functional knowledge for ‘policy choices’ is in itself a fallacy.
I know what you are saying, but I think the point we get from this is that the driving force behind leftism, more so than conservatism, is economic pipe-dreams.
Almost no one is educated as libertarian, you have to go out of your way to become it.
it makes sense that they are more aware of economics.
So does economic ignorance cause leftism, or leftism cause economic ignorance?
I’m inclined to think its the latter. Fashion trumps real personal development.
“The idea that there is a method to gain rational and functional knowledge for ‘policy choices’ is in itself a fallacy.”
Why?
The survery doesn’t ask anyone to choose the right policy, but rather to acertain some of its effects…
“So does economic ignorance cause leftism, or leftism cause economic ignorance?”
Both. If one is ignorant of economics then they are going to be drawn by the “humanitarian” policies of the left, whilst if you’re already leftist then its more likely that you will continue as such. However overall I would have to say the first it most true, considering that no one goes out of their way to unlearn their economics if they’re on the left already. That is to say if someone is ignorant of economics they are more likely to turn to the left, if somone is leftist then they’re not exactly going to necessarily shun economic teaching per se, they just aren’t likely to be exposed it it… Most of them at least
So does economic ignorance cause leftism, or leftism cause economic ignorance?
I’m inclined to think its the latter. Fashion trumps real personal development.
Sometime, read at least the first few pages of Spencer’s Education (free on mises.org IIRC) and think of the 2008 elections, or electoral politics in general.
the responses:
^ is this guy a marxist?
I didn’t read the Marxist? one but Nate Silver (538) is pretty reliable IMO. I didn’t realize the problems with some of the questions, or that they arbitrarily threw half of them out. Still, I think that even if you improved the poll, it would be roughly the same but not so bad for the leftists. You could further break down the “libertarian category” and approach zero too =)
the second one is interesting, but the first one isn’t worth a dime to read–he states that the minimum wage is a positive thing by citing the ultra-questionable Card & Kreuger “study”.
I’m glad to know a few points from the second one, namely the questions that were chucked completely, but there’s others that are unfairly criticized; for example the market share one–it’s fairly clear that the question is asking if a company is a monopoly merely by having the largest/majority market-share, meaning if you control 20% of the market and all your collective competitors controlled 80%, you could still be defined as a “monopoly” because you have the largest single market share.
Thanks for the info though.
On my intuition, I think the left has quite a bit of elitism, scientism,and subjectivism in its crowds. In fact any more I would think that they are the main fuel for the left. Yeah, they have their hippies and others who think with their hearts (and other parts of the body) but I don’t think the majority of them are in any position that matters.
I thought the monopoly question was strange, but not for the reasons that are brought up. Its like what is the point of the question. Who would get that wrong? I didn’t know that any reasonable person would think that was a monopoly.
I think it should have been framed more to expose fallacies like the 'monopolies can engage in price slashing to drive out their competitors and then raise prices"
Because states have an epistemic problem of systemic ignorance, not knowing what they do not know, which generates an arbitrariness in thier actions that is not suffered by markeet sectors.
What is the argument that free trade doesn’t lead to unemployment? Increased trade equals increased efficiency which means individuals will have more money to spend, and therefore increased demand for other goods/services?
Someone spell it out for me, please.
@Cal 0, here you go: http://www.amazon.com/Choice-Fable-Trade-Protectionism-Updated/dp/0130870528
Care to comment on my argument? I’m trying to win an e-debate on another forum. =D
I’m pretty sure the liberals didn’t have in mind the 1990 Card and Kreuger studies… which are seriously cooked