I find these people to be the least able to think critically. Anyone here disagree?
A close second, I would say, but often a first for me since I was close to being one myself, once upon a time ago…
No; I find quite a number of RP followers equally if not more unreachable via critical thinking & logic. Then again, quite a number of them are burned without a home anti-war leftists…
Then again, I’m just remembering a recent visit with my friends a week or two ago, when they were discussing “politics”, whereby everyone pretty much just jabbered on about how great Obama is, with some good old lesser of the evil bashing @ the “alternatives”.
I was really tempted to walk out, but there was free beer so yea.
Yeah, ronpaulforums.com suspended my posting priveleges because I posted that I thought RP should drop out of the race. Most of the other board members simply flipped out on me instead of holding an intelligent discussion. Apparently, anything not 100% for Ron Paul staying in the running is a troll post. I would now retract my opinion, but oh well.
This seems to be consonant with my experience of them as well.
From what I’ve seen on leftist forums, leftists pride themselves in using emotion rather than critical thought. Anyone who thinks a $25 minimum wage would cure povery can’t be thinking too hard.
Nitro, some of the Ron Paul supporters were just nuts. I don’t know why the anti-war socialists chose Paul over Kucinich.
I do: Kucinich, despite becoming more vocal & aggressive, was never as well read as RP was concerning blowback & foreign policy. He also had a more stubborn (possibly hard line) demeanor in debates, and further stuck out because of his opponents. Also, Kucinich’s popularity peaked more or less, while RP’s was increasingly well before many leftists decided to hope on aboard.
They also realized that aside from his anti-war rhetoric, which was crystal clear compared to every other candidate (even Kucinich), that they corporatist, police state headed by the neo-conservatives needed trimming down, and eventually warmed to his calls for a smaller & leaner government as possibly being “the right time & place” for such an idea that would usually entirely contradict typical Leftist rhetoric & polices.
There is also the guerrilla campaigning that went on with the money bombs, fan made videos, etc. Despite eventually removing my support from RP, and my current apolitical libertarianism, that was really the only real material success (aside from 30 million raised via grassroots) his campaign had, and that was even despite his campaign, quite frankly, being run quite poorly (or de-centralized, if anyone is still looking for an excuse for his race baiting debacle & lack of leadership in his own campaign).
Grassroots revival was going to occur eventually with the Internet, and almost did with Dean’s 04 campaign, and RP’s 08 bid was simply the form it took. I doubt it’ll change much, but it will have implications in the future.
I actually see this grassroots success with the internet (using the RP 08 bid as a superficial vehicle or meme) as a foreshadow for possible future self-organization & self-governance that would be increasingly easy to utilize with advances in technology (or almost impossible, if you take the equally realistic view that the state will contort such advances for new methods of enslavement & obedience).
But when I say future, I mean well into a century ahead of us, assuming we’re still around (death by corporatist/neo-fuedal/socialistic governments, depopulation, 2029 & 2036 near miss meteor’s, possible nuclear war, etc…)
I can’t imagine libertarian supporting a socialist on the grounds that he’s more well-read, but I do see your point.
RP was a flawed candidate that didn’t even want to be there. The tragedy was that he had the cult of personality thing going (despite a relative lack of charisma and, in particular, a whiny voice and demeanor), which could have carried him a long way if he’d run a strong campaign. I mean really, what the hell did he spend all that money on anyway? IMO he obviously never really wanted to win, but I guess just spread the message. Which is a very valuable contribution, so I’m not complaining. His campaign also offers a valuable case study for the next go-around (hopefully with a better, richer candidate).
Cult of personality develops regardless of whether some indivduals desire it or not (example: Molyneux, Rick Astley, & Ted “It’s a series of Tubes!!” Stevens), and I largley view that as a memetical type occurrence (sociologically, if you need a general adjective).
However, I think RP was largley viewed as some sort of ‘anti-candidate’ because of those qualities; this and his rhetoric containing encyclopedic substance (compared to all other candidates) about his own platform, also helped. I know full well historians will have a field day in white-washing all of it, while any that actually do honest analyical work will be largley ignored.
I highly doubt his campaign would’ve gone further due to the GOP, while dying, still having it’s lovley influence over voting districts, bribery, tricky voting laws, manipulation & corecion, etc. Denial of death is a powerful force to rekon with, as RP (ironically, a doctor) found this out first hand.
I disagree with whether or not his activity has been valuable so far. I’ll wait for another election cycle to make a more solid judgement, otherwise I’m largley indifferent.
Admitelly, I’m also slightly jaded, because of remembering a small, un-offical meeting of RP followers online, and effectivley being swallowed by the simple minded shlock being spewed by many a Liberal & Conservative in denial of their blatant political opportunism; uttering the words “No”, “I think you’re all wrong”, and “collectivism” did not compute one bit.
Nevermind the odd fascination with almost everyone essentially denying their own xenophobia regarding immigration, which, while back then I was tenuosly against illegal immigration, I wasn’t stupid enough to think it was as simple as “Legal Immigrants following borders: Good; Illegal Immigrants disobeying borders: SCUM”. I never took so much Advil in my life.
Yes, I disagree.
As the “least able to think critically” there are legions who surpass them on this. One group in particular that does would be the antipode of the “bleeding heart”; someone who cheers at the suffering of the weak. The bleeding heart is constantly dissapointed with the State. They think that money spent on war could be spent on housing vagrants, healthcare, community centers or whatever. They view the police as persecuting minorities and will often oppose the State and Federal prison system as cruel, and instead favor state sponsored education and drug rehabilitation for criminals (and they are dissapointed that it doesn’t happen more).
The antipode of the bleeding heart (venting spleen?) tends to love the state and is only dissapointed when the power that they love wastes its potential on programs favored by the bleeding heart. They love prisons and think that torture is perfectly acceptable behavior if it is carried out with “official” sanction. They care little about reputation that an individual has earned through interacting in society and instead save their admiration for those with titles and authority and believe a government issued rank, title or badge usurps all, including rights to life and property.
The bleeding heart stands to see that their ideal world cannot be made with the state. They can see the well but may choose not to drink from it. Also since they are often dissapointed in the State for not doing what they would like it to do, they often form their own groups and charities to try to achieve their goals on a private level.
That has potential. That shows logical thought. That is a path towards opposing the state as an institution and not just the state as a partisan entity that must be changed.
Their opposite can also see the well and has contempt for it. The state is terrible at charity and compassion but it excells at war, imprisonment and aggression. The bleeding heart is possibly doomed to a life of hope and disapointment where the venting spleen is to have a state run life filled with fear and applause.
Neither can think critically, but the bleeding heart’s philosophy can lead them away from the evils of the state and there is potential in them. Their antipode is cursed by their own logic of admiration of state cruelty and they have no potential to emerge from it. They might be able to win an argument now and then but they will lose the war…even if they win.
On another note: I have seen many bleeding hearts step head first into kevlar clad cops bearing truncheons. Walking passive into a beatdown and arrest is not a sign of critical thought…but neither were the war-potatoes at home in front of their televisions who were calling them “cowards” for being at a peace rally.
Honestly, in terms of sheer irrational fanaticism, I’d have to go with the neo-cons. The ultra-Hannitized sort who are quite sure that they believe in free markets and limited government, but at the same time bellow for the government to save them from such DEADLY horrors as pot smokers, sodomites and brown-skinned people with box cutters and a deathwish.
You know, the people who think that liberty is the child of government surveillance.
MacFall, compare DemocraticUnderground.com to FreeRepublic.com and you’ll see how fanatical and cultish leftists are compared to their neocon-counterparts.
After the most recent debate, at least 60% of the posts were all caps, similar to the following:
That is a perfect description of them.
I have seen people on this forum who used to be neo-cons but became anarchists. I have yet to see one bleeding heart liberal.
Leftists think freedom is the enemy. Rightists just think other nations and druggies are the enemy.
I’d guess that the vast majority of libertarians come from the right, but there are plenty of former leftists on this board who now identify themselves as left-libertarian.
Most anarchists I know came from the left. Free trade is a natural human condition and a good one but so is sympathy and compassion. Both the right and the left corrupt those natural human needs to feed state power.
I would be interested to know whether more libertarians come from the right or left, but in your own personal circumstances it may have more to do with location than the likelihood of converting a right winger to anarchy as opposed to a left winger. If I lived in Sweden there would be more conversions of leftists to anarchists because there pratically are no right wingers in Sweden. Perhaps you just know more leftists.
Why doesn’t someone just do a poll on this? Can you do polls on mises.com?
As for myself, I now consider myself an anarchist, and I was a former neo-con. I eat up all that crap Hannity, O’Reilly, and Limbaugh gave out.
Well it doesn’t matter if they are supposedly unable to think critically. I think Mises would say that since humans act purposively, even liberals think and act rationally – and critical against other outcomes. Now, what they in the end come up with is a different matter. Too, many liberals are brilliant thinkers in other domains. I think people who don’t think critically about how government gets things done are pretty close to being libertarians. In fact, nobody knows how government will get anything done. They’ve just taken the idea that government needs more time and more money to correct things – maybe with trial and error. Who knows. Maybe some people would be different if they were exposed to an idea as an alternative to government. It doesn’t seem plausible to some. Think of all the people who think the only two options are the current income tax and the FlatTax or increased sales tax. Now if you take two bad ideas and are critical to those only existing false-choices, then you end up with what you have currently.
This has actually taught many to think that laissez faire is “irresponsible” – meanwhile the socialists and keynesians are the prudent ones. Go figure.
This isn’t entirely on topic, but at least in the United States, rightists give significantly more to charity than leftists, even among individuals earning the same amount.