The Good Post Gallery

[Mechaman]

One aspect missing from this debate is that drone technology is fairly simple. Pretty soon a large number of states will be able to use them. What happens if 15-20 nations (think fx Turkey, Egypt, Israel, India, Iran, China and Russia) start using drones against people they perceive as terrorists?

Once you give up the idea that you have to declare war before you kill someone in a sovereign foreign country things become pretty complicated. So the Obama administration is setting a very dangerous example with their drone policy.

 

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The Puritan influence has always been moralistic, communitarian, and also relatively egalitarian.  Why New England doesn't look what most people would think of as "Puritan" today is because of the transformation from Calvinism to theological liberalism that happened here more than elsewhere, but those values remain in other forms to a great extent.  For example, something like gay rights then becomes a matter of importance for a more equal and moral community. 
The emphasis on educational pursuits goes back a long way too - colonial New England was possibly the most literate society in the world at its time.   More openness to social transformation over tradition has often gone along with that.

Why has the West side of the Connecticut River has switched so far to the Democrats - and apparently to the Left - in so short a time?  Why has New Hampshire always swam against the flow?   I'm not quite sure.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

The question itself is stupid of course.

I see them as equal.

To BRTD:
Those who oppose gay marriage(as I have always done and will never evolve or reconstruct on this) are not evil haters or bigots. I oppose it because it flies in the face of God's picture of how He wants to relate with humanity. It also flies in the face of medical wisdom and science. It also behooves me to also add that these are the same reasons that "gay couples" should never be able to adopt. As Benji Nolot, a modern day abolitionist, said recently on his twitter

Liberty without morality is anarchy

Is that what the proponents of ssm want? That is what they (supporters of ssm) adovcate for all intents and purposes. I know not many share my view on marriage on this site and think my view is extreme yet I have this view not because of religious belief (though that does influence it). Its because the best situation for a child to be raised is a home with a mom and a dad together and married to each other. Any situation less than that has shown significant negative consequences.

What ‘medical wisdom and science’? Since when did either of these things have anything to do with a marriage contract? However if you want to go down that route then let’s do it. We are humans but we are also animals. I know you like to think we are special and made in the likeness of god which undoubtedly means that god has too many teeth (which before the advent of basic ‘slam a door remove a tooth’ dentistry killed off most of our ancestors by the early 20’s), a redundant tailbone, an appendix that can kill us and sinuses that drain the wrong way. Like animals we have sex. Not all animals of course; sex by procreation; the male slamming or rubbing his bits against the female is actually the minority; we are natures ‘sexual deviants’ if it were. Anyhoo, in just about every observed animal that reproduces through procreation, some of these animals have sex with animals of the same sex. And you know it’s like that in animals separated by millions, even hundreds of millions of years of evolution. And you know what? It keeps happening! You could shoot every animal and every person who does it in the head until there were none left and a generation later it would start out all over again. So it’s pretty much here to stay. And like most things that are here to stay, like walking, eating and sh-tting there’s obviously a reason for it. So that’s your gods plan.

Now we humans constructed a thing called ‘marriage.’ It happened long before the Sumerian war god Jehovah was even on the scene. We did it because we formed societies; we learned how to farm, learned how to own and parcel land and needed a way to ensure it passed down. Humans like all animals who procreate form bonds with the person we f-ck. Some are fleeting, some are long term. It’s kind of taken us a while to get to the fact that gay people do it to. They have sex. They form relationships. And both of these are incredibly fulfilling. Male animals often thrust into the anuses of other male animals because they bang the prostate which is absolutely delightful. Best thing to do to a man if you ask me and thankfully the straights are realising that too. Now of course if your god has created man in his own likeness having such easy access to the male ‘g-spot’ inside the anus that can be stimulated by penile thrusting is far more beneficial than having upside down sinuses that require me to stick my head into a bowl with salts when I have a headcold. But, to be scatological for a second, you are no doubt arguing that the anus is for sh-tting. Which of course it is, just as much as the penis is for peeing and the lips are for talking. When it comes to sex, every part of the body is a sexual organ and if you were at all comfortable with sex you would realise that. But I digress. In short, there are gays and always will be gays. And it’s very much biological. So it seems stupid to deny something we’ve created like marriage, that is based solely on the on biological impulse to ‘mate’ to gays?

But won’t somebody think of the children? You know, nine in ten of all sexual assaults on children happen in the family home by a family member. Probably a few blocks away from you there is probably a wholesome married father is f-cking his young daughter. It’s horrific but it’s true. You cannot judge a persons ability to be a good parent for their child or someone else’s based on the fact that they are married. There isn’t the evidence to support that. Stability is important, but stability can be found in a married home where there is love, a same sex home where there is love or with a single mother who takes her child out of the hell they’ve been living in and gives them stability. You don’t magically receive a ‘good parenting’ certificate when you marry. It doesn’t mean you’re going to be any good and it doesn’t mean it’s going to be a good environment for children. The amount of people I know who grew up in a married home where their parents despised each other or hurled things across the room and it f-ucked them up for life is horrifying. Divorce when it came was a blessing for everyone. I take it therefore, JCL, that if you meet someone who’s just wonderful, absolutely wonderful who was raised by two mums or two dads that you’re not going to argue that they are worse off than the daughter plowed weekly by her father or raised in a married family where plates were thrown at walls.

[Mechaman]

No, because most oppose SSM on religious grounds. If all those Christians who mistakenly believe gay marriage is immoral are bigots, than all Muslims are all anti-woman, and all Jews are pro Apartheid Zionists. Obviously, the latter two arguments are hateful, as is calling anyone who opposes gay marriage on religious grounds.

Of course, some people just use religion as an excuse so they can continue their hate. That is wrong, and those people are bigots.

I would argue otherwise.  

The second part is the majority, Sanchez.  

99.9% of religious people on this Earth ignore plenty of things about their faith.  Why does it always seem, then, that religious justification is used primarily against people that are different from the majority.  

In the U.S.

-Used to justify enslaving BLACKS, but never whites.

-When the Irish were considered different, it was anti-Catholicism

-When the issue was interracial marriage

-Now, when the issue is gay marriage

People, for whatever reason, have this natural tendency to dislike those that are different from them.  This tendency is undeniably becoming less and less powerful over time, and those societies that overcome it are better off.  It's best to encourage that.  Fact of the matter is, never did you see straight Anglo-Protestants using religion against straight Anglo-Protestants en mass in this country.  

[Mechaman]

I would love to hear the response from the "efficient war" hawks on this:

http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/human-rights-institute/COLUMBIACountingDronesFinalNotEmbargo.pdf

This study suggests that 50 civilians are killed in drone strikes for every 1 terrorist.

or...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Our government and our citizens need to drop this fantasy of an "easy" war  that we can fight remotely with surgical precision. It's a delusion -- our exceptionalism is still getting thousands of people killed.

[Bacon King]

I would like to think that I have a coherent set of beliefs and political opinions, even if they may change and even if I keep pretty quiet about them because I dislike political debate. I am not a Moderate Hero, I don't adapt my opinions to circumstances and in some cases I feel pretty strongly about certain issues. Push comes to shove, I lean more to the left than to the right.

But why is there an absolute necessity to attach a label to me? Why is there a need to conform to established ideological labels? One of the reasons I don't identify with any of the existing labels is because I feel that I do not 'conform' to the main ideological labels out there ('social democrat', 'social liberal' etc), in addition to the fact that those labels are pretty useless and increasingly devoid of meaning. Given that those ideologies (like most) are quite vague, what constitutes a 'coherent set of beliefs' which conforms to said ideology? I'm pretty sure there is no one 'coherent set of belief' which defines you as a social demcorat and nothing else.

Besides, even I did have a label attached to me, what good would it be? An ideology is not like food and water, it is not something which I 'need' to have, it's not some kind of consumer product either. I'm some random poster on some internet forum who writes a blog. Why would anyone give a sh**t about what my ideology is? Certainly only few people are genuinely interested about your random opinions about political issues and even fewer people will reconsider their own random opinions based on my own random opinions. What purpose would it serve to have an ideological label attached to my beliefs? It's not like I'm a politician or something, there's no need for me to attach myself to labels.

Again, I do have an ideology: anti-reactionary Mustafinism-Komovism. It's not one of the prepackaged products on the markets? Well, that's really too bad.

What Hash said basically.

What I have learnt from this forum is really how rhetoric doesn't so much hug reality in some all embracing glow as rather strangle it violently trying to remove all life from it but, like in consentual BDSM, it needs the victim to keep breathing so it can keep on going.

[Torie]

Hey, I think I was first in launching a Jihad against ideology around here. How come I don't get any credit for that? 

[Bacon King]

Hey, I think I was first in launching a Jihad against ideology around here. How come I don't get any credit for that? 

didnt see the post

[Kitteh]

The Atlas has been somewhat important in that it's helped me realise that I don't like or particularly care about politics or even worse "policy". I think political "debate" is a sadistic waste of time, but I don't mean to imply I'm some kind of stoner nihilist or (although it's going to be hard to avoid that impression) but while obviously I care about some, even many 'issues' and like to think I have coherent views on those, I'm never going to formulate a list of 25 distinct political positions or whatever because I'm not and do not plan ever to be a candidate for elected office.

I have to concur with hash's wonderful post - over the years I've talked to him on here it's been clear we tend to be on more or less the same page politically and his post summarises my own views on "ideology" far more articulately than I could. I don't have any ideological affiliation, and that doesn't mean I'm some kind of "ideology is dead blah blah fiscally conservative socially liberal blah blah blah" moderate hero. It means I don't see the point in consciously choosing an identity because I have opinions on a few things I think are important. I'm not part of a movement because of things I believe, I'm just an unimportant and irrelevant person. I don't even bother voting any more because politics is just the art of massaging the public into believing in dehumanising institutions. Something something alienation something.

That said, I still think poor people should get to go to hospital and not starve to death, though, so if someone runs against that I will show up, and vote appropriately. So that's something.

TL;DR What hash said, F[Inks] THE SYSTEM MAAAAAAN 4/20, I don't believe in Beatles or Jesus.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I wouldn't just say pernicious, but in many cases, utterly pretentious. Labels for all things exist for a reason, they're not out to restrict growth and intellectual thought, they exist, like Xahar said, as clear and consistent shorthand for what you, with an exception or two, are.

I know it's very popular and almost edgy sounding to sit here and talk about how we "don't conform to what people want us to be, man, we're just free and independent" (which reminds me of people who do that "no labels" thing for sexuality, making me want to strangle them in their sleep) but opposing having an ideology just for the sake of it, while not Moderate Hero-esque, is just kind of stupid in it's own right.

If you don't perfectly fit into an ideology as a natural progression of how your beliefs fit together, that is fine. If you take from the outset a stubborn refusal to "fit in, man" then I kind of just think you need to get over yourself, because implicit in that belief is the idea that anyone who does fit in neatly within the confines of an ideology is somehow not legitimate or smart. It's a holier than thou sentiment that, like Xahar mentioned, just leads to the Max Baucuses or Francois Bayrous (who's entire persona consists of "centristcentristcentristcentristcentrist") of the world. Because I concisely and simply just refer to myself as a Socialist doesn't mean I'm not completely willing and capable to defend any aspect of my beliefs to anyone who challenges them, it is just the simplest way to describe my positions to an outsider and the best approximation of what my positions add up to.

I don't mean for it to sound like I feel like people have to pick an ideology to be taken seriously, because I don't, all I care about is people take clear and consistent positions (which Hash pretty much does), but we all need to get over our fascination with trying to come up with special sounding just-for-us alternative labels because it comes off as childish at best and aggressively snobbish at worst.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This is all a gross oversimplification for space.

Liberalism has its earliest philosophic roots with thinkers like John Locke and his Enlightenment heirs who believed that mankind had an unlimited set of rights from birth in the state of nature and surrendered certain rights to live in society (the social contact) and that governments only had the legitimate ability to restrict rights that infringed upon others (my "right" to murder you infringes on your right to live).  Philosophers like Rousseau elaborated on Locke's social contract and propounded a doctrine that government should be based on consent of the governed rather than divine right.  This dovetailed nicely with the lessons of England's 1688 "Glorious Revolution," a rejection of Stuart Absolutism, which culminated in the English Bill of Rights.  (This is a very positive view of these events, which were actually far more complicated and ambiguous, but I'm skimming).  Enlightenment projects like Cesare Beccaria's campaign to ban torture dovetailed nicely with this viewpoint.  Radical attempts by thinkers like Mary Woolstonecraft and Olympe de Gouges to lay claim to the liberal intellectual tradition in favor of equality for women met sharp ends (literally in Olympe de Gouges' case).  Against this doctrine, Edmund Burke would lay down his theory that rather than illusory fundamental rights, people should look towards their privileges granted in a murky medieval past and attempt to revive ancient privileges rather than destroy the order of society around them: Burke's reaction to the French Revolution was the founding of intellectual conservatism.

In the late 18th century, the followers of Adam Smith rejected the Mercantilist economic dogma that had dominated the 18th century.  Smith rejected the idea that there was a finite amount of wealth in the world and that economics was a zero-sum game of trying to amass the most gold bullion into your own treasury in favor of the idea that trade and mutual competitive advantage could leave both parties richer.  Smith's free-trade economic dogma, refined by David Ricardo in the early 19th century, merged with the political ideas of the Social Contract Theory to form the Classical Liberalism package: free markets and free men.  Jeremy Bentham and James and John Stuart Mill furthered the intellectual side of Liberalism into a new doctrine called "Philosophic Radicalism" which merged Liberalism's tenets with Bentham's moral philosophy of Utilitarianism, seeking the greatest good for the greatest number.  Philosophic Radicalism, at its worst, embraced a Malthusian disregard and contempt for the poor (Social Darwinism) and the notion that any recreational activity for the poor should be balanced with pain to encourage hard work in that group.  All the same, Mill advocated for religious tolerance and extension of political rights and female emancipation.

In most of Europe, Liberalism aped its British form, arguing for free trade and lassiez faire capitalism and against the privileges of the traditional aristocracy.  It had great appeal among the rising bourgeois orders and its promise of extended political rights appealed somewhat to the masses, but the rise of Social Democratic parties in the late 19th century came mostly at the expense of Liberalism's support among the working classes, and Conservatives also rapidly adapted to mass politics and did not suffer nearly as much from the increasing democratization of politics as Liberalism's (and Socialism's) partisans had assumed.

In the USA, Liberalism originally mostly shared that definition.  The word was associated with abolitionists and free traders alike (movements like the Free Soil Party, with its claims of Free Trade, Free Land, and Free Soil being as Liberal as a platform could get).  In the post-Civil War era, as the GOP embraced Protectionism, the Democratic Party, despite being opposed to many other tenets of Liberalism, fully embraced Free Trade and became associated with Liberalism as a result.  When Woodrow Wilson was elected president, he was a self-proclaimed liberal who was a firm believer in free trade, but was also a believer in massive government reform projects including the foundation of a central banking system.  Franklin Roosevelt took the word liberal with him when he assumed the Presidency, and it's under his administration, that greatly increased the size of the Federal government, that made it what it is today in the USA.  Liberalism became a light form of social democracy in the USA as a result of the "liberal" Roosevelt being a light social democrat and leaving such a huge imprint on American politics.

In Europe, the aftermath of World War I and the subsequent Depression had left lassiez faire economics and the liberal political order both borderline discredited, as solutions relying more on planned economies and dictatorial fiat became more and more attractive.  Even in Britain, the Liberal Party nearly died in the 1920s as its nature of being "Conservatives but anti-tariff" simply wasn't enough to maintain broad popular support outside of a few minor demographics.  Until the 1980s (when it was reborn as neo-liberalism), the lassiez-faire liberal idea in Europe made way in the democratic ideological scene for social democracy on the left and a heavily government-oriented Christian Democratic/Gaullist ideal on the right.

In the USA, the turmoil of the 1960s on race and the war in Vietnam left the traditional liberal political class, with their faith in the government's ability to solve any economic or social problem, seriously discredited.  Many in the liberal government class like Daniel Patrick Moynihan embraced the social ideals of conservatism without losing their faith in government as a major transformative actor and agent for their ideals: they would be the pioneers of "neoconservatism" (a word that's since been majorly trashed...Moynihan wouldn't embrace that label today if he were still alive).

Neoliberalism, arising in both Europe and the USA, was a reaction to the Keynesian consensus and argued that the most deregulated and unfettered global economy would be the most productive one.  Following the collapse of the USSR, neoliberal economists had disastrous spells as advisers in several Eastern Bloc countries, overseeing the firesale divestment of those states' huge public sectors and the creation of bandit billionaires all over the former Communist Bloc.

[Oakvale]

This is all a gross oversimplification for space.

Liberalism has its earliest philosophic roots with thinkers like John Locke and his Enlightenment heirs who believed that mankind had an unlimited set of rights from birth in the state of nature and surrendered certain rights to live in society (the social contact) and that governments only had the legitimate ability to restrict rights that infringed upon others (my "right" to murder you infringes on your right to live).  Philosophers like Rousseau elaborated on Locke's social contract and propounded a doctrine that government should be based on consent of the governed rather than divine right.  This dovetailed nicely with the lessons of England's 1688 "Glorious Revolution," a rejection of Stuart Absolutism, which culminated in the English Bill of Rights.  (This is a very positive view of these events, which were actually far more complicated and ambiguous, but I'm skimming).  Enlightenment projects like Cesare Beccaria's campaign to ban torture dovetailed nicely with this viewpoint.  Radical attempts by thinkers like Mary Woolstonecraft and Olympe de Gouges to lay claim to the liberal intellectual tradition in favor of equality for women met sharp ends (literally in Olympe de Gouges' case).  Against this doctrine, Edmund Burke would lay down his theory that rather than illusory fundamental rights, people should look towards their privileges granted in a murky medieval past and attempt to revive ancient privileges rather than destroy the order of society around them: Burke's reaction to the French Revolution was the founding of intellectual conservatism.

In the late 18th century, the followers of Adam Smith rejected the Mercantilist economic dogma that had dominated the 18th century.  Smith rejected the idea that there was a finite amount of wealth in the world and that economics was a zero-sum game of trying to amass the most gold bullion into your own treasury in favor of the idea that trade and mutual competitive advantage could leave both parties richer.  Smith's free-trade economic dogma, refined by David Ricardo in the early 19th century, merged with the political ideas of the Social Contract Theory to form the Classical Liberalism package: free markets and free men.  Jeremy Bentham and James and John Stuart Mill furthered the intellectual side of Liberalism into a new doctrine called "Philosophic Radicalism" which merged Liberalism's tenets with Bentham's moral philosophy of Utilitarianism, seeking the greatest good for the greatest number.  Philosophic Radicalism, at its worst, embraced a Malthusian disregard and contempt for the poor (Social Darwinism) and the notion that any recreational activity for the poor should be balanced with pain to encourage hard work in that group.  All the same, Mill advocated for religious tolerance and extension of political rights and female emancipation.

In most of Europe, Liberalism aped its British form, arguing for free trade and lassiez faire capitalism and against the privileges of the traditional aristocracy.  It had great appeal among the rising bourgeois orders and its promise of extended political rights appealed somewhat to the masses, but the rise of Social Democratic parties in the late 19th century came mostly at the expense of Liberalism's support among the working classes, and Conservatives also rapidly adapted to mass politics and did not suffer nearly as much from the increasing democratization of politics as Liberalism's (and Socialism's) partisans had assumed.

In the USA, Liberalism originally mostly shared that definition.  The word was associated with abolitionists and free traders alike (movements like the Free Soil Party, with its claims of Free Trade, Free Land, and Free Soil being as Liberal as a platform could get).  In the post-Civil War era, as the GOP embraced Protectionism, the Democratic Party, despite being opposed to many other tenets of Liberalism, fully embraced Free Trade and became associated with Liberalism as a result.  When Woodrow Wilson was elected president, he was a self-proclaimed liberal who was a firm believer in free trade, but was also a believer in massive government reform projects including the foundation of a central banking system.  Franklin Roosevelt took the word liberal with him when he assumed the Presidency, and it's under his administration, that greatly increased the size of the Federal government, that made it what it is today in the USA.  Liberalism became a light form of social democracy in the USA as a result of the "liberal" Roosevelt being a light social democrat and leaving such a huge imprint on American politics.

In Europe, the aftermath of World War I and the subsequent Depression had left lassiez faire economics and the liberal political order both borderline discredited, as solutions relying more on planned economies and dictatorial fiat became more and more attractive.  Even in Britain, the Liberal Party nearly died in the 1920s as its nature of being "Conservatives but anti-tariff" simply wasn't enough to maintain broad popular support outside of a few minor demographics.  Until the 1980s (when it was reborn as neo-liberalism), the lassiez-faire liberal idea in Europe made way in the democratic ideological scene for social democracy on the left and a heavily government-oriented Christian Democratic/Gaullist ideal on the right.

In the USA, the turmoil of the 1960s on race and the war in Vietnam left the traditional liberal political class, with their faith in the government's ability to solve any economic or social problem, seriously discredited.  Many in the liberal government class like Daniel Patrick Moynihan embraced the social ideals of conservatism without losing their faith in government as a major transformative actor and agent for their ideals: they would be the pioneers of "neoconservatism" (a word that's since been majorly trashed...Moynihan wouldn't embrace that label today if he were still alive).

Neoliberalism, arising in both Europe and the USA, was a reaction to the Keynesian consensus and argued that the most deregulated and unfettered global economy would be the most productive one.  Following the collapse of the USSR, neoliberal economists had disastrous spells as advisers in several Eastern Bloc countries, overseeing the firesale divestment of those states' huge public sectors and the creation of bandit billionaires all over the former Communist Bloc.

i didn't read all that but for everyone else i think he's saying that the different kind of liberals are BLUE DOGS AND PROGRESIVES

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

I don't think it is possible to dispute that Bacon King is best moderator.

[Lambsbread]

I don't think it is possible to dispute that Bacon King is best moderator.

I clicked on this and went "wut" and then I laughed loudly

BK wins

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't think it is possible to dispute that Bacon King is best moderator.

This is... beautiful.

[Mechaman]

Yes. If, that is, you want to know how much you think like a computer. But as we are humans, it is pretty much useless. And anyone who cares about their IQ is an idiot, end of.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I don't think it is possible to dispute that Bacon King is best moderator.

I clicked on this and went "wut" and then I laughed loudly

BK wins

BK always wins.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't think it is possible to dispute that Bacon King is best moderator.

I clicked on this and went "wut" and then I laughed loudly

BK wins

BK always wins.

Depends.  This BK is a loser:

[free my dawg]

I hope he (Thad Cochran) stays around for one more term. He's the South's elder statesman senator and he conducts himself with the civility and gravitas that de facto position entails. Roger Wicker has done a better job than I thought he would but he's still kind of a lightweight. Saxby is going to be replaced by a Tea Partier who will probably drag Isakson aboard the crazy train like Cruz did to John Cornyn in Texas. Vitter, Burr, Scott and Boozman are insubstantial. Bob Corker has talent but refuses to use it (or perhaps is in a party that won't let him use it). Lindsey Graham might as well be a senator from Arizona, joined to the hip as he is with John McCain as they decide which country we ought to invade next. That basically leaves Lamar Alexander as the beacon of sanity and competence among the Senate's Southern Republicans.

[Goldwater]

Because they believe other policies should have been pursued during his presidency; and that his influence on present-day policy is largely negative. It's important to learn that people can hold different opinions than you just as staunchly and stridently as you hold yours.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because they believe other policies should have been pursued during his presidency; and that his influence on present-day policy is largely negative. It's important to learn that people can hold different opinions than you just as staunchly and stridently as you hold yours.

You know you are bad when Vosem, of all people, is the one who utterly burns you.

[anvi]

Politicus is, rightly, getting lots of representation on this thread lately.

I guess the point is 1) Snowguy (and his ilk, like his useful idiot Torie) don't know what they are talking about when it comes to climate change, and they are as wrong and clueless as Palin was about, well - most everything, and 2) if we don't embrace the Green Revolution right this instant, and throw trillions at it, we are all going to die, or suffer grievously..

I know this is an old thread and you are being polemical here, but the idea that doing something about climate change is going to be extremely costly is plain wrong. Seen in a long term perspective the costs will be relatively limited. Not doing anything will be far more costly.

The changes related to creating a sustainable economy will create business opportunities in new industries (and is already doing so) and avoid economic loss related to loss of agricultural land, flooding, desert spread etc. in the future. Its economically prudent and vital for long term growth to do something about climate change.

The whole "this is just doomsday preaching" line is tiresome. 

Climate change will increase the over all conflict level in the world and make living conditions worse for large parts of the world, but we are obviously not all going to die. This demonising of concern for climate change as alarmist and Armageddon prophecies is plain wrong. We are talking about a rational estimation of a problem and its potentially very serious consequences, not doomsday preaching.

[Kitteh]

Well, I should probably preface this by saying that I'm not as reflexively abhorring of nationalistic overtones the way many on Atlas tend to be, but Abe has demonstrated a very serious attitude when it comes to structural reforms (some good, some bad) in a ferociousness that has eluded Japanese leaders for a long, long time, and his approach to the economy (which can basically be summed up as "grow the economy, at all cost") has been fairly effective thusfar.

It's hard to hate his moxie, I suppose. Japan faces a lot of challenges very unique to them, and Abe has presented an agenda that he seems to be completely serious about implementing, which, in it's own right, is hard to not be impressed by. I suppose the best way I can compliment him is that, while he has a lot of negatives, he seems like the kind of leader Japan desperately needs.

His nationalism is a concern, his proposals for Constitutional reform are a little scary, his cabinet is pretty right-wing, and his party doesn't exactly have an impressive record in the last couple decades, to put it mildly, but Abe is a very interesting high-risk/high-reward kind of figure at the moment. He's a radical, to be sure.. but sometimes you have to take a chance with a radical.

[The Mikado]

That's not a good post, Al's subsequent post that liberalism died as a coherent ideology with the start of the First World War was a much truer post, and something that made the last third of my thing much more difficult to write...the term lost much of its old meaning.  Trying to be a classical liberal today is about as hard as trying to be a divine-right monarchy royalist: at a certain point the absurdity of your position would wear you down.

[courts]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply to pre-monetary or Hunter-gatherer type societies or economies unless you have a very wide definition of trade and markets.

Not of course that that really matters in the context of this discussion.

Anyway, I'm with ag here - and Andre Gunder Frank of whom I believe ag shares little fondness but this is for you, anyway, Tweed:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In Feudalism, Capitalism, Socialism. I would share the view that those three terms of pretty meaningless and should be abandoned for the purpose of analysis. Think of it as eliminativist sociology.