Hacker News Reader

Comment by davidmathers | Hacker News Reader

He wants to protect "our most basic freedoms", right?

Matt Yglesias explains: Freedom’s Just Another Word for "I’m An Orthodox Conservative With Orthodox Conservative Views": http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/?p=41091

He also provides an example in: The Freedom to Build: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/02/the-freedom-to-bui...

Where freedom means the freedom to prevent a real estate developer from building what they want, on property they own, because you don't like it.

Also somewhat apropos: Freedom-Talk in Colonial Georgia: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/02/freedom-talk-in-co...

The Georgia dissidents rallied behind the revealing slogan “Liberty and Property without restrictions”—which explicitly linked the liberty of white men to their right to hold blacks as property. Until they could own slaves, the white Georgians considered themselves unfree.

View on HN

George Orwell's Politics and the English Language (which should be required reading for everyone) has a section titled "Meaningless words" which contains this wonderful sentence:

"The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another."

I try to keep it in mind whenever I see someone mentioning freedom, openness, rights, etc. Generally it seems like these are used for emotional appeal rather an actual clear definition.

Edit: Link to the essay. It's short, and very well worth the read. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

There is of course some truth to that, but in this case I think it's a bit unfair to conservatives. The words "freedom" and "liberty" do have reasonably consistent and coherent conservative meanings. They're just different than what libertarians, classical liberals, etc. mean when they use those words (negative liberty) and what liberals, social democrats, etc mean (positive liberty).

But I do agree that Politics and the English Language should be read by everyone, so I'm always glad to see it linked to.

"Negative liberty" and "positive liberty" are at least as much a matter of phrasing as they are anything real.

For instance, do I have the positive liberty to compel others not to point loaded firearms at me? Do government officials have the negative liberty to not be compelled to hold elections if they don't want to?

I agree that those concepts don't really hold up to philosophical scrutiny, but they're useful for political categories. Libertarians, social democrats, and conservatives all mean something real when they say "liberty" and they are 3 different meanings.

Very true - those Koch Brothers, often discussing freedom, really are just pushing orthodox conservative views.

Like decriminalizing drugs, legalizing gay marriage, and ending the patriot act (their #1 political position, based on money spent).

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/frrth/stop_the_koc...

The Koch brothers are libertarians, not conservatives. See "Why I am not a Conservative" by F. A. Hayek.

That was sarcasm.

I know it was sarcasm. Why are you pointing that out? And what does it have to do with my response?

Based on money spent, they gave an awful lot of money in 2010 to people who not only disagree with those positions, but disagree with them LOUDLY and will call you a godless heathen, communist, terrorist, muslim or all of the above if the subject comes up. Just saying.

Maybe the Koch brothers don't watch Fox News. Someone should write them a letter and tell them where their money's going. After all, they helped finance the guy who beat Russ Feingold, the lone vote in the senate against the Patriot act in 2001 (99-1).

Feingold said corporations don't have a right to free speech, so I hardly think he should be supported by libertarians.

And based on that lofty single-issue standard, have you refrained from supporting candidates who voted in opposition to your views on the Patriot Act?

Well, yes, I'm a firm Democrat, and every Republican in federal office favors the Patriot Act, so yeah, coincidentally, my single-issue ducks are in a row there.

Feingold was one of like maybe 10 honest senators. Down to less than that, now.

Also, the Koch brothers supported Michelle Bachmann. Again, they are not libertarian, they are conservative. "Libertarian" just gets better press on boards like HN.

Lastly, I love the amount of self-programming that has to go on for you to call campaign finance reform, quote, "limiting the free speech of corporations". After all, why shouldn't my voice count nearly as much as theirs? Ohh, I get it.

Has your senator been Feingold or a Republican since the passage of the Patriot Act? Or did you not vote for one? If an anti-patriot act Libertarian ran against a pro-patriot act Democrat, who would you support?

You can support the lesser of two evils without being called an evil, right? Who are we (Obama incl.) giving aid to in the Middle East? Why do you hold the Kochs to such a high standard? Bachmann has a higher pro-free trade rating than any of her viable opponents did... are they supposed to let her lose to someone they dislike more??

BTW, Rand Paul and Ron Paul are Republicans and against the Patriot Act.

Bachmann is straight up fucking crazy. End of story. (If you ask me to justify this, I'll just refer you to google for some of her crazier quotes).

The Koch brothers supporting someone like her says to me that they're either more interested in profit than sound public policy, or they're fucking crazy too. More likely the first.

Look, just own it. "Conservative". You are what you do. Nothing wrong with it, 45% of the country agrees with you and them.

Bachmann is straight up fucking crazy

Justify it. And don't use Media Matters as a source. They recently accused Huckabee of endorsing "ethnic cleansing" because he suggested that Arab states should offer land for a Palestinian state, and Jews have a right to settle the West Bank. Using "ethnic cleansing" in that way is crazy.

Own what? Which sane candidate were the Kochs supposed to support?

I assume you voted for Obama. Was that vote in favor of his open opposition to same-sex marriage? If you didn't vote for Obama, did 60 million other Americans cast an anti-same-sex ballot? No. They took the bad with the good.

In that same vein, why can't a libertarian vote for a candidate that shares 51% of his views versus one that supports 15% of his views????????

What I'm saying is that the Republicans do very little for you. Especially if you believe in things like science. They'll occasionally make noises about cutting the smallest pieces of the budget, and do nothing else whatsoever for the libertarian cause. Especially when it comes to the whole idea of state authoritarianism.

You just asked me to justify calling Bachmann crazy?

Can I get you on the record first as saying "she's not that crazy"? I'd like to see how strongly you endorse her before I waste 90 seconds googling.

Are you claiming to be a small-l libertarian, as opposed to a doctrinaire republican who supports Michelle Bachmann?

Do you believe in the separation of church and state? What about the separation of your bedroom and state? Or the separation of our government and forcing our ideals on other countries? Why is it OK to advocate that the government not be involved in those things, but when it comes to advocating that the government not be involved in advancing science and simple economic transactions between two adults, we're labeled as crazy? I'm not lumping Bachmann in with me, but plenty of comments here think libertarian positions are crazy.

Republicans advocate a smaller, less intrusive government. They suck royally at implementing it. Democrats, on the other hand, advocate a larger government and you can do about 10 seconds of googling to see how successful they've been. Given that reality, please tell me why a libertarian should for 1 second consider voting for a Democrat.

Republicans tend to work against the people who want to limit my economic freedom. That does a lot more for the the libertarian cause than Democrats could ever do. An overwhelming number of Democrats have voted for the Patriot Act, so you can't make the argument that they both want to expand the government in different ways. Dems want more control over our lives, period. Advocating smaller government while passing the Patriot Act, starting wars and expanding Medicare might be considered Orwellian, but I don't remember Dems working against Republicans for libertarian values like Republicans are working against Dems now.

Republicans don't advocate a smaller, less intrusive government. They advocate spending cuts in things that help poor people and HUGE SPENDING INCREASES in the military, the war on drugs, and anything authoritarian or anything that puts money into a large corporation's pocket. The end result? Clinton balances budget. Bush blows it up. Repeat.

So, if you want to know why you should for 1 second consider voting for a democrat, I'd point to the results. Fast forward 6 years and we'll be able to point to a successful Obama presidency as well.

Oh, I see, Republicans work for corporations and Democrats don't. Have you been following campaign financing the last few election cycles? Democrats received more from corporations. They both have been bought off. Goldman Sachs gave more to Obama than anyone else. Whoever is in power acts authoritarian. Obama could have repealed the Patriot Act. He could have expelled lobbyists out of Washington. But he didn't.

Fast forward 6 years and we'll be able to point to a successful Obama presidency as well

I suggest you taper your expectations back a little. The only way Obama can be successful is if he solves the debt crisis. Clinton did a great job starting in 95 when Republicans took congress. I believe in checks and balances. 93-95, 01-07, 09-11. What do those years have in common? Single party rule. No checks on power. Huge deficits (except for TARP in '08), huge problems. Why are you so gung-ho on Democrats? Social Security, Medicare can't be solved with what they advocate. We'll end up like Greece if they don't move to the center on government spending. Republicans too!

Clinton cut the budget by more in 1994 than any year with Republicans in congress.

I'll copy paste that for you, maybe it will stick:

Clinton cut the budget by more in 1994 than any year with Republicans in congress.

Here's the deal.. the deficit is bigger than the entire domestic discretionary budget. A political party that's only interested in cutting the domestic budget and has no desire to close tax loopholes or anything like that physically can't balance the budget. This is basic arithmetic.

3 words: Cold War over. Copy and paste all you want. It still doesn't change the fact the government will need to curtail spending, and perhaps raise taxes once the economy recovers if it doesn't want Greece II:

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/national-debt-skyroc...

I know it's a conservative web site, but the chart is generated from WH OMB data. I'm all for closing loopholes. Flat tax! We'll just need to fight fewer wars, subsidize fewer corporate farms, and not give 90 year olds hip replacements for free. Oh, and raise the retirement age.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com