Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Reality-Based Community, My Ass, Part Three 33

Journal by pudge

A conservative libertarian friend of mine sent me a page that purports to show that Democrats are more libertartian than Republicans.

My friend is smart. He knows a lot and does his research. Usually. In this case, he did none. He did not notice, for example, that the data was compiled by a pro-Demcratic web site with the explicit goal of convincing libertarians to affiliate with the Democratic Party.

My friend noted that it was shameful that Hastert got a zero score. This should have at least raised a flag demanding further examination, since Hastert is pro-tax-cuts. In fact, Hastert did not vote on most of the bills in question (as the Speaker rarely votes), and was assumed to have voted against the scorecard if he did not vote at all.

Not that it would have mattered if Hastert did vote in favor of tax cuts, because those votes were specifically excluded from the scorecard, "because of the desire to place an emphasis on the importance of limiting the growth of government spending and ideally cutting spending as well." That's nonsense, of course: the point of having a scorecard is to incoroporate a broad range of votes, so you can get a really good idea of where they stand as a whole. If the vote in favor of tax cuts, but also in favor of government growth and against spending restraints, then you know the scorecard should reflect all that. He left off tax cut votes because it favored Republicans.

And this restraint did not apply to many other types of votes: the Iraq war alone shows up as 1/15th of the overall score, and they decided that a vote in favor of the war in any way is a vote against libertarianism. Also, a vote for any pro-life position is also against libertarianism. And a vote for protecting the borders with the armed forces is viewed as anti-libertatian. (Get that? It's against our liberty to use the military in other countries, and also to use it to protect us at home.)

And so on.

It's really a ridiculous pair of scorecards, designed to maximize the scores of Democrats, and minimize those of Republicans, in order to convince libertarians that the Democratic party is on their side.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Reality-Based Community, My Ass, Part Three More

Reality-Based Community, My Ass, Part Three

Comments Filter:
  • Libertarians are tend to side with Democrats on social issues (where money is not involved). Gun laws are a notable exception. They tend to side with Republicans on economic issues. In summary, they tend to be further left than the Democrats on social issues and further right than the republicans on economic issues.

    Libertarians tend to say "You want freedom. Great. Have all you want, but if you screw up, you're on your own". Not to say the don't favor social programs -- they do. Just not on the gove
    • I'm the guy who took Ferree's information and expanded on it [hammeroftruth.com] at HammerofTruth.com. To be fair to Ferree for a moment, he qualified [freedomdemocrats.org] (in the opening paragraph) that Hastert's lack of vote is not indicative of anything:

      The obvious exception to this was Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House, who does not traditionally vote. In the rare instances where he did vote, his vote was recorded by the scorecard and used to assign him a score.

      I'm not stating that Democrats are more (or less) libertarian than Republic

      • My assessment is that the Democrats are currently voting more libertarian at the moment, but this is because they are out of power.

        That's an interesting observation. I'm recognizing more and more how Republicans have sacrificed libertarian ideals. For example, in 1993 Republicans were jumping all over how wrong it was for Hilary Clinton to be establishing a socialized healthcare system. In 2000, George W. Bush promised increased prescription drug benefits. I definitely noticed, and chalked it up to

        • Only 2 of the 30 (if I recall correctly) questions dealt with the Iraq War. I'm sort of curious about that result and might dig into those votes when I get the time, as the WSPQ doens't deal much with foreign policy issues. While opposed to the war, I generally don't use that issue (or abortion) when trying to survey or poll on libertarianism as there is some much debate within the libertarian movement on them.
          • Only 2 of the 30 (if I recall correctly) questions dealt with the Iraq War.

            Right. Like I noted, 1/15th of the score.

            While opposed to the war, I generally don't use that issue (or abortion) when trying to survey or poll on libertarianism as there is some much debate within the libertarian movement on them.

            Exactly. But there is little-to-no disagreement on the benefits of tax cuts, yet that was left out of the scorecard, obviously because it hurt the Democratic position.
            • Dude - it wasn't my scorecard. I just reported on it. My point was that congress is out of step with America, and those were (albeit less than perfect) some data to amke the point.
              • Dude - it wasn't my scorecard. I just reported on it.

                Dude. I know.

                My point was that congress is out of step with America, and those were (albeit less than perfect) some data to amke the point.

                So if I think that liberals are the same as communists, and I cherry-pick their views in a survey that shows their views to be identical -- leaving out all the views that are different -- and say, hey, this data makes the point ... that's OK?

                The data is not "less than perfect," it's inherently flawed, highly biased an

            • there is little-to-no disagreement on the benefits of tax cuts

              I haven't read the page you linked to (it sounds boring to me).

              But I wanted to point out that even if you accept the (questionable) premise that a smaller government is always closer to what libertarians desire, tax cuts have nothing to do with it.

              Spending cuts (usually) shrink government.

              Tax cuts just change who's going to pay for the government we already have.

              You can argue that tax cuts have the "benefit" of back-loading payment

              • But I wanted to point out that even if you accept the (questionable) premise that a smaller government is always closer to what libertarians desire

                Compared to the size of government now, there's nothing remotely questionable about the premise.

                tax cuts have nothing to do with it.

                Yes, they do. A lot, in fact.

                Spending cuts (usually) shrink government. Tax cuts just change who's going to pay for the government we already have.

                Tax cuts change how much money is forcibly taken from the public.

                You can argue that

              • But I wanted to point out that even if you accept the (questionable) premise that a smaller government is always closer to what libertarians desire, tax cuts have nothing to do with it.

                I have trouble accepting the questionable premise that you understand what libertarians desire.

                • I'm very familiar with libertarianism.

                  Many libertarians profess to believe that the cheaper government is always the more libertarian government. That's obviously not true. If I run North Slashistan as a totalitarian dictatorship on a $10 billion tax budget, and you run South Slashistan as a free and open democracy on a $20 billion tax budget, obviously your country is more libertarian than mine.

                  For a more reality-based example, consider how the war on terror in Iraq might be fought. One approach would be

                  • For a more reality-based example ...

                    The real point here is that compared to the libertarian ideal, there is simply no doubt that our taxes are too high and government is too big. An honest scorecard would take into consideration both votes to decrease taxes AND votes to cut unnecessary government programs.
      • To be fair to Ferree for a moment, he qualified (in the opening paragraph) that Hastert's lack of vote is not indicative of anything

        Right, but then he counted all of Hastert's nonvotes against him!

        My assessment is that the Democrats are currently voting more libertarian at the moment

        That's based on an obviously skewed survey, though, so your assessment bears no weight with me.
        • Do you have a better source of data?

          • Do you have a better source of data?

            Bad data gives bad results. Shouldn't we avoid using bad data period? Does it somehow make it OK because there is an absences of good data?

            A better position would be to wait until there *IS* good data.

            Extreme example alert: Bad data was used in calculating the Mars Climate Orbiter's orbit. Using the "bad data" caused the poor thing to slam in to Mars.

            In a nutshell, what this "shows" is that when looking at areas where Democrats and Libertarians agree, they AGREE! A

          • Yeah, what Jhon said. That there's no "better" source of data does not justify drawing flawed conclusions as a result of bad data.

          • Whatever source was used to compile all those votes could presumably have been used without leaving some out.

  • The existance of Freedom Democrats is good news to me. It warms my heart to see Democrats misleading the public and misrepresenting their opponents in order to sway libertarians. I can only hope the Republicans join in the fight.

    Can you imagine? An all-out media war between Democrats and Republicans each trying to prove that they are the more libertarian party. The Libertarian party couldn't ask for anything more.

    • The existance of Freedom Democrats is good news to me.

      It would be great if it were true. But the whole point is that it isn't. It's only true if you pretend that libertarianism == opposition to the war. There are plenty of rational libertarians who support or else do not outright oppose the war (errr, assuming you consider any libertarian to be "irrational,") and a lot more to libertarianism than that.

      And in terms of the war issue the Democrats couldn't be more out of touch with the mainstream publ

      • The existance of Freedom Democrats is good news to me.

        It would be great if it were true. But the whole point is that it isn't.

        The Freedom Democrats are not a group of Democrats who believe in libertarian principles. That's okay. They are a group of Democrats who pretend to believe in libertarian principles. And that alone is good news.

  • Thankfully, most libertarians are libertarians because they are more intelligent than the average, so hopefully they should see through things like this. :) Most libertarians I know older than my age recognize that any time they hear the idea that Democrats are in some way more "libertarian" than the alternative they laugh and realize they are probably never going to get anything of value from that source. Those younger than me, I'm not so sure.

    Besides eliminating the tax-cut votes, it's interesting to

    • It appears that was supposed to be funny, insightful, or in some way entertaining. It wasn't. And it has nothing to do with the fact that the gentleman who compiled the "scorecards" intentionally skewed the results to make Democrats look more libertarian than Republicans, which directly implies that they are not.

  • There is no way to be a Libertarian and also be pro-Iraq war.

    Period.

    Now read that sentence again.

    From the National Platform of the Libertarian Party Adopted in Convention, May 2004, Atlanta Georgia [lp.org]:

    Statement of Principles

    ...(1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others;

    There you have it. The Libertarian Party lists as its first principle the prohibition of initiation of force. Who Initiated physical force against others in Ir

    • There is no way to be a Libertarian and also be pro-Iraq war. ... There you have it. The Libertarian Party lists as its first principle the prohibition of initiation of force.

      You are wrong on two counts.

      First, the discussion is not about the Libertarian Party, but about libertarianism. Ron Paul is, by any standard, a libertarian, but he is a Republican, not a Libertarian.

      Second, even if it were, you do not have to agree with the entire platform of the party in order to be a member of the party. That's jus
      • When I joined the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania, I had to sign a statement to the effect that I opposed the initiation of force. I didn't have to sign any other statements of belief, but I surely remember signing that one. What is more, the metric used to evaluate the Libertarian tendencies of the votes is the World's Smallest Political Quiz, a recruiting tool used by the Libertarian Party. We are talking about the Libertarian Party here. Finally, by 2003, it had been years since Iraq had used force
        • When I joined the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania, I had to sign a statement to the effect that I opposed the initiation of force.

          When I registered as a member of the Libertarian Party in Massachusetts, I had to sign nothing, except the voter registration form.

          Regardless, all of this is beside the point. This was specifically about which party members are more "libertarian," not more "Libertarian." The person compiling the data was a Democrat. He did not reference the Liberarian Party, and used a Repub
          • This has everything to do with the Libertarian Party. I know plenty of libertarians (small l) who have very strong opinions in favor of making a larger government with higher taxes. The Libertarian Party sees the purpose of government as having very little to do with social welfare. So we're dealing with the brand of libertarianism espoused by the Libertarian Party. The metric used to describe the Libertarian-ness is a metric invented by Libertarian Party founder David Nolan, and used almost exclusively
            • This has everything to do with the Libertarian Party.

              No, it does not. You know how I know? Because it's my journal and I said so.

              So we're dealing with the brand of libertarianism espoused by the Libertarian Party.

              Not in the case of the scorecard in question, no, we are not.

              The metric used to describe the Libertarian-ness is a metric invented by Libertarian Party founder David Nolan, and used almost exclusively by the Libertarian Party as a recruitiing tool.

              Not in this case, no. There was no metric used t
              • I thought that the topic was this web page [hammeroftruth.com]? That site refers to the metric in question as a Nolan chart. That metric is a metric invented by the founder of the Libertarian Party. Ergo, the question of how libertarian was defined by this web site has everything to do with the Libertarian Party, since its metrics the ones being used to determine Libertarian-ness.
                • I thought that the topic was this web page? That site refers to the metric in question as a Nolan chart.

                  Well, you were wrong. The topic was about the methodology of the data underneath that chart.

                  That metric is a metric invented by the founder of the Libertarian Party. Ergo, the question of how libertarian was defined by this web site has everything to do with the Libertarian Party, since its metrics the ones being used to determine Libertarian-ness.

                  No. The origins of the chart are irrelevant. The metr

                  • The methodology of the chart is skewed. It is wrong. It should have included votes on tax cuts (though I, and many other Libertarians suggest that spending is the greater foe).

                    libertarian is defined as being opposed to necessitarian [wikipedia.org]. That's not very helpful, but that's what the OED says. libertarianism is the philosophy that follows from it, and the OED provides as the earliest known use of the word a statement that Kant's system is not libertarian (which the categorical imperative certainly is not).

                    • The methodology of the chart is skewed. It is wrong. It should have included votes on tax cuts

                      Right.

                      though I, and many other Libertarians suggest that spending is the greater foe

                      Of course.

                      libertarian is defined as being opposed to necessitarian. That's not very helpful, but that's what the OED says.

                      I rarely find dictionaries to be helpful, so that's unsurprising.

                      My only comment is that the libertarian philosophy is that man has free will, and he should be allowed to use it--so the initiation of force should

Slashdot Top Deals

RADIO SHACK LEVEL II BASIC READY >_

Close