Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I've never thought of myself as a conservative

You're just about the last man standing on that question.

Posted by Jim Harris at February 2, 2007 08:45 AM

You're just about the last man standing on that question.

Even if true (it's nonsense), mine is the only opinion that counts.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 2, 2007 08:51 AM

But here's the contradiction in your statement: you list a whole bunch of things for which it would be impossible for outsiders to "guess" your position. Okay, why would it be impossible for people to figure out what you think about those things? The reason is that (for the most part) you don't discuss them on your blog. You have discussed a few of them, like ID. But for the most part, you use your blog to bash Democrats and liberals and to endorse primarily conservative causes. You may _claim_ that you're not fond of Bush, but you rarely ever really criticize him about anything--including his positions on the things on your list. If somebody was building up a list simply by counting your blog positions, your pro-Bush/Republican column would be full.

An example: you were pretty vociferous about the warrantless eavesdropping issue. A true libertarian would express major problems with the executive branch having unchecked powers to eavesdrop on people, especially American citizens. But you took the same stance as Bush. However, when Bush recently caved on this issue and _allowed_ a judicial role in the eavesdropping, you were completely silent. If you were interested in being consistent, one would have expected you to post a criticism of the Bush flip-flop. Your silence looks like you were more interested in towing the Bush administration line. And in no ways do you look libertarian on that subject.

So, because of the things you _do_ blog about, and the things that you remain silent about, it is very easy to label you pro-Bush, pro-conservative, essentially "Republican" (even if not registered as one). Your public stands define how people view you. You can deny it all you want, but unless you devote more time to cricizing Bush/conservatives/Republicans for their positions on such things, people are going to draw conclusions about where you stand. You can complain about it, but there is a reason for people to believe it. And if yours is the only opinion that counts, why do you keep bringing it up?

Posted by Terrence Greeling at February 2, 2007 10:56 AM

I often criticize the administration. I just don't do it in the nutty fashion that many would wish. If you don't notice it, and only see the times that I agree with them, that's your problem, not mine.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 2, 2007 11:10 AM

What is the point of using misleading, one-dimensional terms such as "conservative" when we can discuss actual issues? IME in Internet discussions, people who make a point of labeling me almost always do so tendentiously ("Bush Republican," "right-wing extremist" etc.). I assume that they do this to distract attention from their own weak arguments.

Posted by Jonathan at February 2, 2007 11:13 AM

IME in Internet discussions, people who make a point of labeling me almost always do so tendentiously ("Bush Republican," "right-wing extremist" etc.).

Yes, as already noted, it's quite mindless.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 2, 2007 11:36 AM

You're obviously a liberal, Rand, as only liberals - as we are interminably reminded - appreciate nuance, diversity and the heterodox.

Your detractors, OTOH, are equally obviously conservatives, as they demonstrate something else of which we are also ceaselessly reminded; namely, the conservative rigidity of thinking that everything is either black or white.

Well, I'm glad we got that cleared up.

Posted by Dick Eagleson at February 2, 2007 12:40 PM

Ooo, oo, let me try!

* gay marriage: Who cares? Wanting to marry another man sounds about as sensible and attractive as wanting to marry a block wood or a garter snake, but to each his own, I guess. It's better than bestia1ity, because at least the other party has to give consent.

* gay civil unions: Marriage, civil union, whatever. What matters is what it is, not what it's named.

* whether homosexuals are born or made: Almost certainly born, but perhaps the style of homosexuality (flaming fem or butch) is affected by the environment.

* whether ID should be taught along with evolution in science classes: Well...if the ID people weren't so damn annoying, it would depend on where the time to teach it came from. If it subtracted from teaching calculus, to heck with it. If it was merely added to the multicultural-studies curriculum, then who cares? But the ID people are so annoying they need to get it in the neck, so phooey on them. If ID is taught, teach it as a bad example to illustrate how the label "scientific" can be abused.

* human cloning: sounds a little silly if you're talking full-term clones for social or personal reasons. I mean, why make a copy of your imperfect self? Why not have a genetically re-engineered baby and try to do better? But if we're talking cloning of embryos for the purposes of some clever biomedical research, why not?

* whether abortion should be legal: Not only legal, but *encouraged* in certain cases, e.g. for any sad girl who might, somehow, find herself impregnated by Mr. Anonymous...

* whether or not there's a god: hardly worth wasting time debating, but a priori about as likely as the world resting on the back of a giant turtle.

* porngraphy censorship: Well...let us prevent it from being displayed in racks out front of the grade school, perhaps -- let us show some tact and good taste, and of course violence in the industry is already illegal for separate reasons and should be, but that's about it.

* blue laws: waste of time, useless, annoying.

* drug legalization: probably a useful source of revenue, assuming the sad sacks of unambitious low-value oxygen-stealers who choose to waste their life this way can be kept from behind the wheel, where they will endanger folks with larger goals in life going about their business.

How did I do??

Posted by Carl Pham at February 2, 2007 02:23 PM

Simberg,

what were you doing at the conservative summit?
Shouldn't you have been chairing the Neo-con Summit?

Posted by anonymous at February 2, 2007 02:43 PM

Anonymous Moron, Joe Klein and Mara Liaisson were at the Conservative Summit. I saw and talked to them.

What were they doing there? Are they conservatives?

Are you a moron?

That last question was rhetorical. Most people would recognize that, but I know you're a moron, so I thought I'd explain.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 2, 2007 02:46 PM

This laundry list of proof-that-I'm-not-conservative issues doesn't amount to a hill of beans if it never translates to a reason to vote liberal.

Certainly Kerry and Bush look quite different on the first four bullet points, to give one example. So would that have been a good reason to vote for Kerry over Bush? I was about to give Rand the benefit of the unstated answer, except that I see that he already did answer it: "I'll occasionally vote Republican, but I never vote for a Democrat for any office." (Emphasis in the original.)

As the post with that quote explains, any distance between Rand Simberg and conservatives is entirely hypothetical. As for Republicans, the biggest complain against them here is that they are too moderate. Like, that it's a shame that Bush probably won't bomb Iran.

It begs the question of what exactly is the point of supporting liberal positions in such a moot fashion. It reads like a petulant demand for credit, which is undoubtedly all that it is.

Posted by Jim Harris at February 2, 2007 04:50 PM

I know you're a moron

Sorry, even though you might suppose that a guy is a moron (or a conservative), his is the only opinion that counts.

Posted by Jim Harris at February 2, 2007 05:00 PM

Perhaps it would be more convenient to break the issues up into economic liberalism and social liberalism?

Posted by Adrasteia at February 2, 2007 05:09 PM

This laundry list of proof-that-I'm-not-conservative issues doesn't amount to a hill of beans if it never translates to a reason to vote liberal.

Oh, you mean all of the issues that collectivists have grabbed and arbitrarily called "liberal"?

Sorry, but that's another label that I'd like to take back from them.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 2, 2007 05:32 PM

Oh, you mean all of the issues that collectivists have grabbed and arbitrarily called "liberal"?

Actually, I meant vote for people who support the issues that you list here, which cannot be called "collectivist". But yes, you're making the point with your response: After listing your proof-that-I'm-not-conservative positions, in the next breath you wave it away by condemning the main supporters of those positions.

For that matter, nothing that the government is doing now is more collectivist than the war in Iraq. It is about as libertarian as...well I was going to say suspension of habeas corpus, but let me give another analogy. The war in Iraq is about as libertarian as the IRS. You're just as "collectivist" as anyone you accuse.

Posted by Jim Harris at February 2, 2007 05:47 PM

Hate to break it to you (apparently you weren't paying attention), but I took no "positions" on any of those issues. I simply asked what you thought they might be.

Thanks for playing, though, and demonstrating how mindless your labeling is.

Posted by at February 2, 2007 06:03 PM

Hate to break it to you (apparently you weren't paying attention), but I took no "positions" on any of those issues. I simply asked what you thought they might be.

Fine then, you (if this is the same "you") gave a laundry list of issues that might have indicated that you're not a conservative, but you didn't even go so far as to endorse a non-conservative position, while in the next breath you condemned the "collectivists" who vote for personal freedom on these issues. Oh wow, that's really convincing.

Anyway, since you asked what I think your position might be, here you go: You've already indicated the liberal position on most of them in the past. So I could say that you're clearly on that side for these questions, although I doubt that you ultimately care. The prospect of bombing Iran would surely sweep all of this little stuff off of the table.

Posted by Jim Harris at February 2, 2007 06:17 PM

Thank you for demonstrating the cherry-picking of my positions, to prove I'm a "conservative." No one could have done it better.

Posted by Rand SImberg at February 2, 2007 06:20 PM

Thank you for demonstrating the cherry-picking of my positions, to prove I'm a "conservative."

Dude, by your own admission in another post, you don't think that these social issues have legs. You're making noise about cherries that you think aren't on the tree.

Posted by Jim Harris at February 2, 2007 06:26 PM

Cherries got legs? I'm confused.

Posted by Carl Pham at February 2, 2007 06:58 PM

Cherries got legs? I'm confused.

Nowhere near as confused as "Jim Harris."

He apparently continues to be unable to function intellectually (and probably not even then) unless he can simplistically put people into neat little boxes. It's quite amusing, actually.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 2, 2007 07:09 PM

Simberg only acid test is attacking the arab world.

All that other stuff is just posturing.

Posted by anonymous at February 3, 2007 01:32 PM

On Rand's handy-dandy list, two of the selections are apolitical: whether homosexuals are born or made (a behavioral science issue) and the existence of God (a religious/philosophical issue).

The correct libertarian answer to #4 is "whatever the customer wants." In a free market, there will be more than four alternatives: ID but not evo, evo but not ID, both as science, both as philosophy and not as science. The count exceeds four when one takes into account for the old-earth-vs.-new-earth and big-bang-vs.-steady-state debates.

P0rn0 censorship needs to be broken down into specific situations - Internet, Wal-Mart, school, libraries, emails to Congressional pages who are underage by Internet standards but not DC standards, etc.

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at February 3, 2007 09:41 PM

Simberg only acid test is attacking the arab world.

Nonsense. Rand has made it abundantly clear on many occasions - and correctly so, I might add - that the Persian and Paki worlds need to be attacked too.

Posted by Dick Eagleson at February 4, 2007 01:36 AM

Post a comment