I could interpret that statement to mean that libertarianism, which holds few political beliefs at all, is correct. I could also interpret it to mean that pragmatism, which holds few -solid- political beliefs, is correct. I could also interpret it to mean that unchecked dictatorship, which holds few solid political beliefs (indeed, all it needs is one), is correct.
Indeed, I’m willing to warrant that any given person will be inclined to believe that statement applies to their own political beliefs.
I know Democrats whose sole intersectionality with Democrat politics is gay marriage; they have, for purposes of political -isms, exactly one political belief. That is too many?
The loudest voices on the Internet aren’t necessarily the best representatives of the groups they claim to represent.
I know Democrats whose sole intersectionality with Democrat politics is gay marriage; they have, for purposes of political -isms, exactly one political belief. That is too many?
Do you mean the single-issue voters who say “I’m a Democrat because I am pro-gay marriage, even though I support these mostly GOP or Libertarian economic policies, but they are not nearly as important to me as equal rights for all genders”?
The loudest voices on the Internet aren’t necessarily the best representatives of the groups they claim to represent.
I have trouble understanding how this is related to the whole discussion. Are you replying to some implicit argument?
Do you mean single-issue voters who say “I’m a Democrat because I am pro-gay marriage, even though I support these mostly GOP or Libertarian policies, but they are not nearly as important to me as equal rights for all genders”?
No. I mean single-issue voters who say “I’m a Democrat because I am pro-gay marriage.” The “Even though” doesn’t even need to enter into it.
I have trouble understanding how this is related to the whole discussion. Are you replying to some implicit argument?
I’m commenting on an implicit fact which may have a bearing on the argument. The loudest members of political groups tend to be those who believe in the political group itself, rather than its specific goals. (Which we should expect; somebody engaging in political signaling isn’t likely to do so quietly, as that defeats a large part of the signaling to begin with.)
That doesn’t sound like they identify as Democrats as a specific political -ism at all.
If they’re registered to vote democrat mainly because of their position on gay marriage, and I’m guessing also a negative opinion of the Republican party, and describe themselves as Democrats if asked about their political views because it’s a convenient answer, that’s not really the same thing.
You confuse party affilation with political beliefs. It’s a mistake that comes from living in a two party state and having a media that tries to convince everyone that red and blue are the two political beliefs that one can have.
It’s very worthile to have a mental concept of political beliefs that goes beyond party affilation.
George Orwell would say that the media tainted the language in a way that makes it impossible to analyse political beliefs in your vocabulary.
I don’t think it’s a no true scotsman thing, although as I was writing the comment I did worry that I was veering into that territory.
How one defines a Democrat varies, and only some ways of defining it make sense with the sort of Democrats you describe, and I don’t think the overlap of “Democrats” and “people who identify with a specific political -ism” contains those. This will vary a bit depending on how one is interpreting “identify with a specific political -ism”. I think this is where the disagreement lies.
I could interpret that statement to mean that libertarianism, which holds few political beliefs at all, is correct.
Where do you get the idea that libertarianism don’t have many political beliefs?
A liberatrian can usually tell you that a particular government program is bad without looking at the merits of the particular program.
Take minimum wage. I personally don’t know whether it’s a good policy. There are theoretical market based arguments that it’s a bad policy.
On the other hand the published empirical evidence suggest that it’s no bad policy. But then the data we have isn’t that good. We don’t have randomized control trials of mininum wage laws.
I don’t have a solid belief on the minimum wage. I have thought about the issue and I believe that the evidence to decide just isn’t there.
No. There are many motives why someone might promote a policy even when he doesn’t believe the policy is effective.
I would even find it plausible that most people promote or reject minimal wage laws based on a notion of fairness instead of effectiveness.
There are libertarians who believe that the state has no right to force a employer to pay a certain wage. On the other hand you have progressives who thinks it’s unfair for an employeer to pay 3$ per hour to his employee and for that reason the state has to intervene.
I could interpret that statement to mean that libertarianism, which holds few political beliefs at all, is correct. I could also interpret it to mean that pragmatism, which holds few -solid- political beliefs, is correct. I could also interpret it to mean that unchecked dictatorship, which holds few solid political beliefs (indeed, all it needs is one), is correct.
Indeed, I’m willing to warrant that any given person will be inclined to believe that statement applies to their own political beliefs.
A better interpretation is “if I identify with a specific political -ism, I have too many political beliefs”.
Taboo “-ism”.
Speaking of, don’t identify with tabooism, either :)
I know Democrats whose sole intersectionality with Democrat politics is gay marriage; they have, for purposes of political -isms, exactly one political belief. That is too many?
The loudest voices on the Internet aren’t necessarily the best representatives of the groups they claim to represent.
Do you mean the single-issue voters who say “I’m a Democrat because I am pro-gay marriage, even though I support these mostly GOP or Libertarian economic policies, but they are not nearly as important to me as equal rights for all genders”?
I have trouble understanding how this is related to the whole discussion. Are you replying to some implicit argument?
No. I mean single-issue voters who say “I’m a Democrat because I am pro-gay marriage.” The “Even though” doesn’t even need to enter into it.
I’m commenting on an implicit fact which may have a bearing on the argument. The loudest members of political groups tend to be those who believe in the political group itself, rather than its specific goals. (Which we should expect; somebody engaging in political signaling isn’t likely to do so quietly, as that defeats a large part of the signaling to begin with.)
That doesn’t sound like they identify as Democrats as a specific political -ism at all.
If they’re registered to vote democrat mainly because of their position on gay marriage, and I’m guessing also a negative opinion of the Republican party, and describe themselves as Democrats if asked about their political views because it’s a convenient answer, that’s not really the same thing.
Is that a No-True-Scottsman argument or is there something subtle I’m missing there?
You confuse party affilation with political beliefs. It’s a mistake that comes from living in a two party state and having a media that tries to convince everyone that red and blue are the two political beliefs that one can have.
It’s very worthile to have a mental concept of political beliefs that goes beyond party affilation.
George Orwell would say that the media tainted the language in a way that makes it impossible to analyse political beliefs in your vocabulary.
I don’t think it’s a no true scotsman thing, although as I was writing the comment I did worry that I was veering into that territory.
How one defines a Democrat varies, and only some ways of defining it make sense with the sort of Democrats you describe, and I don’t think the overlap of “Democrats” and “people who identify with a specific political -ism” contains those. This will vary a bit depending on how one is interpreting “identify with a specific political -ism”. I think this is where the disagreement lies.
Where do you get the idea that libertarianism don’t have many political beliefs?
A liberatrian can usually tell you that a particular government program is bad without looking at the merits of the particular program.
Take minimum wage. I personally don’t know whether it’s a good policy. There are theoretical market based arguments that it’s a bad policy. On the other hand the published empirical evidence suggest that it’s no bad policy. But then the data we have isn’t that good. We don’t have randomized control trials of mininum wage laws.
I don’t have a solid belief on the minimum wage. I have thought about the issue and I believe that the evidence to decide just isn’t there.
Do you think beliefs about the efficacy of minimum wage are necessary to promote or reject it?
No. There are many motives why someone might promote a policy even when he doesn’t believe the policy is effective.
I would even find it plausible that most people promote or reject minimal wage laws based on a notion of fairness instead of effectiveness.
There are libertarians who believe that the state has no right to force a employer to pay a certain wage. On the other hand you have progressives who thinks it’s unfair for an employeer to pay 3$ per hour to his employee and for that reason the state has to intervene.
I would interpret it to mean that people who have genuinely thought through all of their political beliefs aren’t very sure about anything political.