This is the mindset of many conservatives, to compel things to exist only in a zero-sum system where another zero-sum system (money) must be used to exchange for other things (health care, food, living space, internet access, education).
This is why the concept of “free” is so anathema to conservatives. If people can get what they want/need for free, then zero-sum property/systems have no special value and in the limit have no value.
Please, let’s avoid polarizing this site, especially with vague negative comments about Those Hated Greenists like that. I don’t think we want any politcal affiliation to feel unwelcome here.
Maybe daedalus2u’s remarks are too sweeping: e.g. maybe “many conservatives” and “conservatives” should be replaced by “some conservatives.” I think it should be okay if he says “some conservatives”
I would like to think that members of the website are sufficiently rational so that when people say “some people in group X exhibit negative trait Y” it’s understood that this doesn’t carry the connotation “people in group X are in general wrong and bad” or “every member in group X exhibits negative trait Y.” Surely one can find examples of human biases in both of conservative positions and liberal positions—do you think it’s inappropriate to discuss them here?
I don’t see much of an implicit disclaimer in “This is why the concept of “free” is so anathema to conservatives.”—or at least, the vague generality seems to be there to make the criticism against conservatives stronger, not to make the writing smoother. Psychoanalyzing your opponents and making generalizations from one or two examples taken out of context is common and annoying in political advocacy, and I’ve seen it on all sides.
Random example found by googling “liberals think” restricted to blog posts in the last 24 hours:
Happiness is earned, not received. Liberals think it is the other way around.
[...]
Liberals try to make excuses for these people by saying “life happens to them”.
If daedalus2u thinks that there’s an implicit disclaimer in that blog post “of course this only applies to some liberals, not all”, but that the author skipped it to keep his writing terse, then I was wrong.
That was my first post on less wrong. I posted before understanding the ground rules and how karma worked, and how precise people like things to be. I will try to be more careful and will edit my comment.
I did mean only some conservatives and now realize that was not really the right term and did not really express what I was trying to convey. I was thinking about the free lemonade example. I was thinking much broader than money when I posted that, in particular I was thinking about social power, in a top-down social power hierarchy (which is always zero-sum), where money is only one of the fungible zero-sum exchange media.
Please, let’s avoid polarizing this site, especially with vague negative comments about Those Hated Greenists like that. I don’t think we want any politcal affiliation to feel unwelcome here.
Maybe daedalus2u’s remarks are too sweeping: e.g. maybe “many conservatives” and “conservatives” should be replaced by “some conservatives.” I think it should be okay if he says “some conservatives”
I would like to think that members of the website are sufficiently rational so that when people say “some people in group X exhibit negative trait Y” it’s understood that this doesn’t carry the connotation “people in group X are in general wrong and bad” or “every member in group X exhibits negative trait Y.” Surely one can find examples of human biases in both of conservative positions and liberal positions—do you think it’s inappropriate to discuss them here?
http://lesswrong.com/lw/bk/the_trouble_with_good/
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/against-disclai.html
I don’t see much of an implicit disclaimer in “This is why the concept of “free” is so anathema to conservatives.”—or at least, the vague generality seems to be there to make the criticism against conservatives stronger, not to make the writing smoother. Psychoanalyzing your opponents and making generalizations from one or two examples taken out of context is common and annoying in political advocacy, and I’ve seen it on all sides.
Random example found by googling “liberals think” restricted to blog posts in the last 24 hours:
http://theatleeappeal.com/2010/07/daily-rant-obamas-domestic-war-enemies-the-rich/″
If daedalus2u thinks that there’s an implicit disclaimer in that blog post “of course this only applies to some liberals, not all”, but that the author skipped it to keep his writing terse, then I was wrong.
Fair point, I retract my endorsement of this post unless daedalus2u qualifies his/her statement about conservatives.
That was my first post on less wrong. I posted before understanding the ground rules and how karma worked, and how precise people like things to be. I will try to be more careful and will edit my comment.
I did mean only some conservatives and now realize that was not really the right term and did not really express what I was trying to convey. I was thinking about the free lemonade example. I was thinking much broader than money when I posted that, in particular I was thinking about social power, in a top-down social power hierarchy (which is always zero-sum), where money is only one of the fungible zero-sum exchange media.