I was hoping for similar examples from other political persuasions with which I am less familiar. However, it seems that there is some sort of unspoken rule that mentioning libertarianism in any sort of favorable way gets you downvoted, whereas making snarky comments about it that add nothing to the discussion gets you upvoted.
By the way, most pundits out there have zero political power, regardless of their political affiliations. Supporting someone who does have political power isn’t the same as having political power yourself.
I downvoted the great-grandparent, but not because the comment references libertarianism favorably; I view libertarianism favorably, as do lots of people on LessWrong (including Eliezer).
Here’s why I did downvote: politics is the mindkiller: (I downvote political comments unless they communicate some insight important enough to justify the political-ness). I don’t think that the “basic set of principles, from which positions on specific political issues are derived” explains the fact that some libertarians didn’t fall into this particular spiral. I also think it’s a bad habit to say, “Well, yeah, this is a bias a lot of other people fall prey to, but favorite cause doesn’t fall prey to that bias, because something good about favorite cause.” Libertarians are vulnerable to irrationality too (to be fair, your comment does not claim they are immune), and I don’t think “first principles” is a very strong first line of defense.
As for other political persuasions, communism comes from a very simple set of first principles. As I understand it, both American political parties started out with simple principles and then picked up baggage as they actually governed. Fascism also has a few core principles (though it could be argued those were rotten to begin with). The reason libertarianism hasn’t strayed to adopting contradictory positions is probably because they aren’t powerful enough to have a chance, which is the point lessdazed was getting at.
I was hoping for similar examples from other political persuasions with which I am less familiar. However, it seems that there is some sort of unspoken rule that mentioning libertarianism in any sort of favorable way gets you downvoted, whereas making snarky comments about it that add nothing to the discussion gets you upvoted.
By the way, most pundits out there have zero political power, regardless of their political affiliations. Supporting someone who does have political power isn’t the same as having political power yourself.
I downvoted the great-grandparent, but not because the comment references libertarianism favorably; I view libertarianism favorably, as do lots of people on LessWrong (including Eliezer).
Here’s why I did downvote: politics is the mindkiller: (I downvote political comments unless they communicate some insight important enough to justify the political-ness). I don’t think that the “basic set of principles, from which positions on specific political issues are derived” explains the fact that some libertarians didn’t fall into this particular spiral. I also think it’s a bad habit to say, “Well, yeah, this is a bias a lot of other people fall prey to, but favorite cause doesn’t fall prey to that bias, because something good about favorite cause.” Libertarians are vulnerable to irrationality too (to be fair, your comment does not claim they are immune), and I don’t think “first principles” is a very strong first line of defense.
As for other political persuasions, communism comes from a very simple set of first principles. As I understand it, both American political parties started out with simple principles and then picked up baggage as they actually governed. Fascism also has a few core principles (though it could be argued those were rotten to begin with). The reason libertarianism hasn’t strayed to adopting contradictory positions is probably because they aren’t powerful enough to have a chance, which is the point lessdazed was getting at.