Yes, you can. Are they coherent, consistent, thought-out and hang together in a way that gives a complete picture of hte person's/group's moral thinking.
Again, you can disagree with the positions, but a more developed morality will have the hallmarks of any well-developed argument. If you don't think well-developed arguments are possible, then I concede. — AmadeusD

None of this is specific about why the group you're saying is "more developed" is more developed. It honestly just looks to me like, rather than them individually having "more developed mortality", you're getting the illusion of consistency because as a group they have a much more conforming, uniform morality.

But if course a group being more uniform doesn't mean the morality of the individuals in that group are more developed.

Hard to respond - feels (I know you're not) like you're ignoring:

but a more developed morality will have the hallmarks of any well-developed argument — AmadeusD

coherent, consistent, thought-out and hang together in a way that gives a complete picture of hte person's/group's moral thinking — AmadeusD

These are hallmarks of development and effort in assessing ones views. You do not need to agree with the views. I think Nietzsche is one of hte worse philosophers of all time. But calling his work "under-developed" is, i take it, a laugh.
If you're simply not capable of affording something like "well-developed" to something because of hte political flavour involved, that's fine. I don't ascribe to or enjoy the standard Conservative moral either. Even ignoring hte overly religious aspects. But it is patently wrong to say it is not well-developed (particularly as compared to the varied, hotch-potch (this is the real term) of random personal grievanced that "left wing morality" appears as.

I don't much care to use either group "as a group" though, in discussion. I'm just responding to what's been said in this thread.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Yes, I keep the same logic. — tim wood

Thank you; appreciate it.

The subject is statistics. Answering questions based on statistics is usually a fool's game unless there is at least some understanding of what the statistics are about. — tim wood

Definitely true.

And the present question was what you meant by "over-incarceration." — tim wood

I may have misunderstood, but it was quite loaded on the back of everything that came before it. I would also say it seems self-evident, but y'know, you're asking so I must be wrong.

Which is to say that an ordinance - a decree - with the force of law behind it, is not a law. — tim wood

It is not (quite). An ordinance is simply a law enacted by local government. Decree is the right word here. Law is just a broader term under which decrees also fall. They happen all the time.

I was asking Brendan about his usage. — tim wood

Weird way to ask lol (i'm jesting, entirely. He's a difficult character).

At fault for what? — tim wood

Not understanding what she's meant to be doing (in that particular context, anyway. She seems a totally stand up legislator generally).

you would not want to marginalize them, would you? — tim wood

I'm not quite sure what you mean. I don't want to harm anyway. But in this case the margin is that on one side, we use definitions for terms in law, and on the other we just do whatever the fuck we want and then expect law to protect us, I have no time for it. I'm not interested in protecting a minority if they are outwardly hostile to the majority and refuse social convention. They can sleep in that bed (as I do, along many lines for which I don't adhere to a social norm). I see nothing wrong with this. Law need be best applied to the middle ground, not the extreme.

what is a man? (Not looking for your answer.) — tim wood

Can't tell if you do want me to say what it is, or whether you don't LOL.

As you seem to be an apologist for him — tim wood

Haha is all i can say. I am not.
I am arguing points of my own, or in some other cases noting where you're saying something irrelevant to the OP (the Decree one is a good example. You were wrong, and he might not even know why). I am entitled to do so, to help a brotha out, as it were. He isn't doing too well.

At bottom, I found the OP very objectionable. — tim wood

Yes, clearly. And fair enough. It was a contentious OP with quite a bit to get through. Though, it is very much relevant that it goes against the general grain of thought here. It was always going to be contentious, even if in the wider world it isn't. So, yeah, that's totally normal stuff.

If you want to answer for him, then please do so substantively. Or raise your own Issues — tim wood

I feel (and it seems, in retrospect, fairly obvious) I have done both of these. I'm happy to take questions from the audience though (lol). However, there's a difference between jumping in to correct what seem obvious mistakes of either interpretation or reading/vocabulary and actually arguing the points therein. I agree with a lot of what he's said in the OP - I disagree with a lot. Hell, my second (i think) reply was pushing back.

My question to you is, how do you account for McConnell's specifically and explicitly making it the goal of the Republican party to obstruct, block, and thwart any initiatives of Obama's? — tim wood

They same way Dems want to do this to Trump. You do not need race to explain why life-long (and clearly indebted-to-party) Repubs would want a particularly effective, lightning-rod Democrat who took over from GWB at a time that, even plenty of Repub voters saw Obama as a watershed moment in US history. You only need one or more of stupidity, intense party affiliation and a lack of critical thinking. Additionally, Obama ran plenty of (now)conservative policies (think a couple of have been brought up recently). Perhaps he was a threat tot he two-party system?

But this isn't what he was saying/ I was asking. Conservatives are not McConnell. They aren't even the party. They are the voters. And insinuating all conservative voters are overtly racist is absurd and hateful (not to mention patently false).

you are describing "well developed" in general, not saying why conservatives match that description. You're taking it for granted that your point of view is obvious, and not even attempting a justification.

You've said what well developed means, you've insisted that conservatives match it, but you haven't shown why you think that. Don't keep telling me what well developed means to you, show why conservatives match it and others don't.

You're taking it for granted that your point of view is obvious, and not even attempting a justification. — flannel jesus

What justification are you looking for my guy?
I look at the two sets of moral generalities - one seems cogent, the other not so. If you disagree, that's fine, but that's not what's being interrogated.

Your response would've made more sense in the form of something like
"Ah, i see. Well, in this case, I don't think conservatives are well-developed".

I'd have said "Cool. It's a difficult one, and I don't like their morality per se due to the religious overtones, so I can understand that".

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Hmm. I may not be getting where you want to go here, but the first section seems just an exegesis of sorts. Fair enough. You clearly do not see the Democratic party the way many do. That's fine. But we wont have a lot to talk about there, as you probably have intuited LOL.

And any tu quoqueism — tim wood

From you or me? I can't see the relation to our exchange there. Fwiw, I don't think we're comparing apples and oranges (partially, i assume, because the preceding paragraph doesn't illustrate it to me). They are two political parties that operate the same way, and always have.

I think I was pretty clear. Youre just saying it's obvious that it's well developed and everyone should agree, that's not good enough. That's just begging the question. Why do you think that? So far you've described what you mean by "well developed" twice, but have dedicated next to 0 words specifying what about conservative morality matches that description.

So I know what you mean by well developed, fantastic, I still don't know why you think conservative morality is more well developed. It's not obvious, I don't take it for granted like you do, so talking about it like it's an obvious fact anybody should agree with just doesn't make sense.

If the population has grown more heterogenous over time, then tribal disputes should become more prevalent. As in, if we're all in the same tribe, we have fewer disputes, but we're not less tribalistic. We just don't have any meaningful competitors. — Hanover

What I mean by tribal is that certain groups close themselves off from other competing ideas, essentially creating a bubble where their ideas are never questioned or criticized.

Disputes and competition are good things. They are the means by which progress is made - as long as individuals have the freedom to express their ideas on a fair playing field. Promote logic and reason, not an individuals' subjective feelings and truths, as the referees.

Not giving them public platforms on mass media sure would save a lot of money, time, better tv programming, more interesting social media as well as wear on the environment: all that travel, all those balloons...! Each candidate should campaign in their own district, on foot and in the town hall. The party platforms - however many apply - should be published in the news outlets of the states in which they have a candidate. Campaigns to run for one month prior to each election.
That way, people can vote for whoever they think comes closest to their own level of morality.
(must repaint keyboard.) — Vera Mont

Agreed. It depends on the type of election though. Presidential elections require the entire country to be involved. We could certainly shorten the length of the campaign and need to stop the flow of money into campaigns to get a balanced playing field. All candidates get equal time to express their ideas and vision for the future. No political parties. We vote in a preliminary election no more than 3 months out from the general election that determines the top 2-3 candidates and then we vote for the finals in the general.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

We could rid of every politician in the country and it wouldn’t have the slightest effect on the polarized split between worldviews. This is not about what politicians or political parties say. It is about fundamental differences in philosophical outlook. One doesnt derive such an outlook from politicians. It is formed through interactions within one’s family and social milieu. — Joshs

This cannot be completely true because there are people who have views that are the antithesis of what their family or friends hold.

I'd be willing to bet that many, if not most, Dems and Reps would not know who to vote for if there weren't Ds and Rs next to candidates names on the ballot. All you have to do is look at the hypocrisy on both sides where they support an idea or action if their own party proposes it, but if the other side were to propose the same idea, then it is a bad idea and must be opposed.

When you get into a debate with these people, you realize that they live in a bubble - unaware that their party has done the same thing they are blaming the other side on. They have turned their political party into a religion and after living in a these separate bubbles for so long - living in their truth, and not THE truth.

So, in a way, you are correct. They have formed their ideas through their interactions. The problem is they segregated themselves by focusing on listening to one side, and one side only as a form of confirmation bias. If political parties were abolished there would be no more teams for the media to play on and be a mouthpiece for. It's time to pop the bubbles.,

Obama's election. Conservatives could not deal with a black man as president, so to cope they tried to "other" him and went down a rabbit hole of birtherism, qanon, pizzagate, antivax, stolen election nonsense where conspiracies and enemies are everywhere. They're still falling. — RogueAI

It seems to me that it started before that as your general label of all conservatives being racist is a symptom of the problem, not the cause.

Presidential elections require the entire country to be involved. — Harry Hindu

If there are no political parties, who says you need a special election for a president? You're a fan of voting for specific candidates, including independents, who will then enact legislation on your behalf. So why not let them elect one of their member as chief administrator and a second for backup? Also key cabinet positions that don't require special expertise. Review their performance after two years and replace them if the constituents want to.
And fps, stop making jurisprudence and law enforcement political!

Well, I think you're wrong and clearly in the grip of a bias. But whatever, that's not all that important. MTG is an absolute loon.

I've already done this, twice now. If you cannot grok it, that's not much my issue. I can only requote myself:

but a more developed morality will have the hallmarks of any well-developed argument
— AmadeusD

coherent, consistent, thought-out and hang together in a way that gives a complete picture of hte person's/group's moral thinking — AmadeusD

These are hallmarks of development and effort in assessing ones views — AmadeusD

If you're disagreeing, there's no conversation to be had. Your conception of 'well-developed' is alien to me. You don't want to afford "conservatives" the plain language whicih applies to them, maybe because its hard to admit given a left-leaning bias. I can understand this, but I cannot accept that this:

I still don't know why you think conservative morality is more well developed. It's not obvious, — flannel jesus

Isn't ignorance.

you just quoted yourself describing 'well developed' again, and once again NOT explaining which aspects of conservative morality make it more well developed than more lefty / liberal ideals.

That's like saying "saxophone players are obviously more kind than flute players", and I ask, "why do you think that? How is that obvious?" and you just keep replying with a definition of kindness, "the quality of being friendly, generous, and considerate"

Good, I get kindness is "the quality of being friendly, generous, and considerate", so WHY DO YOU THINK SAXOPHONE PLAYERS ARE MORE OF THAT!?!?!?!??! Don't keep repeating what kindness means, tell me why you think saxophone players are more kind than flutists. Repeating the definition doesn't explain why you think that. It's only the beginning of the explanation, you still have the entire rest of it to go.

I cannot deal with this level of non-comprehension. I have replied with those aspects of "well-developed" which apply (in my view) to conservative morality

coherent, consistent, thought-out and hang together in a way that gives a complete picture of hte person's/group's moral thinking — AmadeusD

This is what I see in Conservative morality. Those aspects come out when I speak to a conservative about their moral positions, despite disagreeing with a large proportion of the actual moral statements they would make (or, have, in the conversations I have had).

Can you be a bit clearer in what you actually want? I see this:

doesn't explain why you think tha — flannel jesus

which aspects of conservative morality make it more well developed — flannel jesus

And there's an answer right above this, which I gave in briefer form earlier.

What more do you need? I am not being disingenuous. I want to answer your question, but by "aspect" I can't tell what you mean, given i've told you what attributes give it the flavour I'm driving at.

Aside: This could be answered by pointing out a worse-developed "lefty" morality, rather than why Conservatives are per se more-developed so please do be clear what you want. Just explaining the various positions conservatives hold, and why they hang together wont give you what you want.

This is what I see in Conservative morality. Those aspects come out when I speak to a conservative about their moral positions, despite disagreeing with a large proportion of the actual moral statements they would make (or, have, in the conversations I have had). — AmadeusD

But you still aren't saying why. What about conservative morality matches those aspects specifically? What about non-conservative morality doen't match those aspects specifically?

If you define kindness as "the quality of being friendly, generous, and considerate", I still don't know why you think saxophonists are 'obviously more kind than flutists', right? I know what you think kindness means, but I don't know why you think it applies more to one group than another. Same thing is going on here. I know what you MEAN by 'more developed', but I don't know why you think that's true of that group, and it's certainly not obvious, any more than it should be obvious why saxophonists are more kind. Right? Is it obvious to you why I think saxophonists are more kind?

I took a break for a day and now there are so many replies that I can't possibly reply to them all.

Years back I did a very unscientific analysis, gathered as much as I could regarding the convictions of politicians for crimes in the United States, and separated their crimes by political party. To my surprise the Democrats had more corruption convictions, while republicans excelled in sex-related crimes. Their respective leads were negligible, at best, so the analysis was fruitless, but the moral development seemed to be lacking in both just about the same. — NOS4A2

That is interesting. I'd never heard of that before, but it sounds possible.

You said that left/right are just pejorative's now. I think there is a difference between the politicians and the constituents. I would agree that I think all/most of the politicians are liars putting on an act, but I think the constituents are very different. I'm still of the opinion that the "left" just believes whatever the government/media tell them, and that their espoused moral beliefs are mostly for show. The "right" is anyone who is opposed to the urban monoculture, usually because they do have genuine moral beliefs, and any system of consistent sincere beliefs must be in opposition to an inconsistent and domineering philosophy. The right is fractured though, because there are many belief systems that are mostly internally consistent, but are not consistent with one-another.

This goes further than your comment, but I'll discuss my political beliefs a little more. I see all the politicians as liars putting on an act. I see the left as willingly going along with the bad things that the government is doing, and patting themselves on the back for their feigned righteousness. I see the right as seeing the problems, but mostly waiting for someone in government to fix the problems, which rarely happens. I have tried repeatedly to organize on a local level to do something like set up a community daycare, community watch, to preferentially hire people with similar political beliefs, etc, in order to do at least SOMETHING to deal with the dysfunction in society, but never got anywhere due to lack of interest from other people. I admire people who do manage to build alternative systems, like Satoshi Nakamoto, the people who made CrowdHealth, and local religious communities.

Some people have said that this only makes sense if you believe in right-wing conspiracy theories. I think if you can't see that things are going very badly, and that government is responsible for most of it, then you are willfully blind.

I will reply to some other comments that stood out to me.

My original post was about moral development with regards to Kohlberg's model, and I don't see the connection between Kohlberg and to women being in STEM. So far as I'm aware, intelligence, career choice, and education are not the same thing as moral development.

Someone said that because I don't know why women support abortion so strongly, I must not have any empathy for women wanting bodily autonomy. Would this argument also apply to women who are against abortion? I have done a little bit of research just now. I found a link saying that abortion is women's #1 political issue (https://apnews.com/article/younger-women-abortion-survey-c8c504a7b9b5a92b4c101a57a3e3a4dc). However, it appears that this is not the case for all times and for all groups of women. At any rate, abortion is very high on the priority list, at least sometimes beating ALL other topics, such as the economy, inflation, environment, cancer, war, etc. You suggested that women need abortion due to rape. I had ChatGPT look up some stats. Apparently, about 1 million abortions happen per year, but only about 130 thousand rapes happen per year. So, if every single rape caused a pregnancy, then 87% of abortions are still happening because women don't want to have to deal with the consequences of their own bad choices. If there were a rape epidemic, so that rape were a bigger issue to women than inflation/education/health/war etc, then I guess it would make sense to me that abortion would be among the first of women's issues (although I'd think that getting the streets safe should be #1 in that case). But when abortion is a woman's #1 issue, and +87% of abortions happen in order to avoid responsibility for their own choices, I guess I'll just leave it there. I do understand that if a woman got pregnant due to rape and was arbitrarily blocked from abortion, she'd likely be really angry. But that's not what happens most of the time.


Some people said some stuff that I thought was interesting, but I don't think anybody directly addressed my argument.

I think my main points were:
1. the "left" in the USA has a lower level of moral development than the "right"
2. Kohlberg was probably right that women on average have a lower level of moral development than men

These points would be consistent with:
1. The work of Kohlberg
2. The work of Jonathan Haidt
3. This study https://slate.com/technology/2006/01/men-women-and-the-joy-of-punishment.html
4. Female voting patterns
5. Evolutionary psychology, if patriarchy is rooted in our biology
6. The fact (if you have eyes to see) that a lot of the stuff the "left" does is nuts

Lots of people, as expected, took exception to my main points, but I didn't notice any real arguments trying to refute the supporting evidence.

I did notice that the guy to whom I said that liberals like to pretend they were born yesterday and make you explain everything to them then asked me, "What did BLM burn?" among other ignorant questions. I also noticed that after I said one side has arguments and the other has epithets, I think I saw at least half a dozen replies which quoted something I said and then gave a one sentence reply asserting that I was sexist/bigot/ignorant etc.

What about conservative morality matches those aspects specifically? What about non-conservative morality doen't match those aspects specifically? — flannel jesus

Its occurring to me I subconsciously saw the question as this, above and thought something like "Surely, that ambiguous of a question isn't being asked?" and perhaps my response "Well, I look at/hear about CM (conservative morality) and it appears more coherent, consistent and thought-out (again, even I feel the need to distance myself from defense of same on moral grounds). So, i apologise for the terseness of the last couple of replies. I should have been able to notice this and lay it out.

I think one aspect that strikes me as clear rather than esoteric as most are, is the incredibly widely shared nature of Conservative morality. One of the biggest things I've taken away from conversations is that whether fiscal or social, conservatives tend to stick together on their views and that appears a strategy rather than a failure of imagination, to me. One reason told to me is to counteract the very disparate and fracture "left" morally speaking(on this, I think they're overlooking a rather large elephant in their own room, but that's an aside - leftists stick together to avoid reproach from peers(whether true, no matter. This is the strategy)). I tend to agree that the Left is a bit more amorphous. An example (albeit, a relatively trivial one) would be that during COVID there was stark divide between right/left. In New Zealand, we had an entire campaign from the Labour (left, but only standard left. We have the fringe groups too) which hinged literally, and without my needing to fudge things: Be Kind. That was it. Be Kind. Nothing else.
They did exactly (and conveniently for me) what you've charged me with and they used the concept you used as an example, so I hope this hits in some way. What that campaign actually did was make leftists fearful, paranoid and extremely anti-social incapable of their own moral reasoning. Further, it incited other institutions (insurance companies, for instance) to push the exact same narrative as a response to the unsophisticated nature of leftist morality. The point was to grab that demographic in a moment of fear, with the phrase "Kindness Is Everything". Put frankly, this is fucking ridiculous and one of hte least-sophisticated responses to the moral crisis of COVID one could imagine (besides ignoring it which no one actually did, in aggregate). And I note that the facts of COVID aren't really, because they weren't the same as they are now, it seems (lab leak being a good example).

The point is that the entire movement hinged on an ill-defined cudgel used against anyone who even dared question the narrative or people's choices (question - not attack). It had nothing to do with the facts or what is 'best'. It was just an ideological move that kept people fearful of their neighbours.
The "right" narrative was "Hang on a minute, let's sort out some details before unilaterally legislating the reduction of freedom across the entire nation". The right were, admittedly, calling people stupid sheep for the above, which is not helpful, but it is at least reasoned on those facts.
But they were not calling people racist, bigoted, hateful and illiterate for asking the questions that have now been answered in a way that would have supported their position at the time.
The left was. I was called racist for thinking it perhaps a bit odd for Maori to be given full priority for vaccinations when the disease is novel, and we have no idea what markers might have an effect on the efficacy of the vaccine. Death threats were lobbed at those flouting the lockdown rules. Even when they posed no threat to anyone.

Now, these appear to be paradigmatic ways I see the two groups responding to issues. I do not see right-wingers trying to brow-beat people into conceding political ground. I don't see the use of personal attacks as a standard method for persuasion. I don't see a complete lack of unity. I don't see a total lack of coherent moral views within the same person (largely because of the singular source: religion. Notwithstanding - I just hate that aspect). I am currently trying to seek answers as to why the left are so hard-up for coherent moral systems within my phil classes at University. It is tough going.

The right have a simple answer: Religion. However, they will tell you outright where their religion fails to give 'correct' answers. The left say things like "All those who voted for Trump are Evil". This is cartoonish bullshit. I do see a lot of similar things (feminism is cancer, for one) among the right, but its small pockets and in most cases memery. The left doesn't have those to fall back on. They double down on the cartoonish stuff, where the right doesn't (IN MY EXPERIENCE. I AM NOT A SAGE).

Is this a bit closer to what you want to see? Again, I am not being disingenous.

"Surely, that ambiguous of a question isn't being asked?" — AmadeusD

You really think it's ambiguous? You say something is obviously true, I want it detailed why it's true, and asking "why do you think that's true" is ambiguous? I don't get it.

think one aspect that strikes me as clear rather than esoteric as most are, is the incredibly widely shared nature of Conservative morality — AmadeusD

So they're more conformist as a group, sure, I did anticipate that in a prior post, but that doesn't mean as individuals they have more well developed morality, does it? Two lefties could have very different senses of mortality from each other, but each individually have a well developed idea about what is and is not morally acceptable. You know what I mean?

I heard about a study not long ago ( by Jonathan Haidt) which showed that conservatives have a broader set of values. - I think the current political divide in the USA is really a divide in moral development. I don't think it was always this way though, or at least not to this degree. — Brendan Golledge

MAGA isn't a normal conservative movement. Sure, many leftist commentators will say that this is actual right-wing politics simply exposed to it's true nature, but this isn't so. Radical authoritarian populism is quite different from the typical right-wing politics, just as Jonathan Haidt isn't a believer in the MAGA cult.

I see the right as seeing the problems, but mostly waiting for someone in government to fix the problems, which rarely happens. — Brendan Golledge

Especially in the US the right doesn't assume for the government to fix the problems, that is more of a leftist view. I would say that many on the right think that with the government, they are simply buying a service as they do in the private sector for other services. So you pay taxes and get services like the police, legal system, fire department and so on. And when they get poor service, they are angry. And thus many libertarians think that many services could be simply be provided by the private sector.

This view totally underestimates the role and importance of the institutions that a government creates. The liberitarian might make an exception when it comes to national defense (as even they understand that going with private armies wouldn't be such a great idea), but otherwise everything is just a service.

2. Kohlberg was probably right that women on average have a lower level of moral development than men — Brendan Golledge

:brow:

If there are no political parties, who says you need a special election for a president? You're a fan of voting for specific candidates, including independents, who will then enact legislation on your behalf. So why not let them elect one of their member as chief administrator and a second for backup? Also key cabinet positions that don't require special expertise. Review their performance after two years and replace them if the constituents want to.
And fps, stop making jurisprudence and law enforcement political! — Vera Mont

Or let the 1st runner up be VP and the 2nd runner up get to be Sec of State to make compromise part of the system. I would rather have citizens vote rather than let them decide which would just create an environment where they work to enrich themselves by performing favors in return for positions of power.

All positions must max out at two terms, and Supreme Court Justices should be limited to 16 or 20 year terms.

Especially in the US the right doesn't assume for the government to fix the problems, that is more of a leftist view. — ssu

Sure they do. They want the government to "fix the problem" of gay marriage by defining it as a union between a man and a woman. The Libertarian's stance is, "Why are we looking to the government to define marriage in the first place?"

They want the government to "fix the problem" of abortion and God being eliminated from public schools.

Both sides look to the government to "fix problems", either economic or social, depending on which side you are on. So yours, and others, tactic to put Libertarians on the right side shows that you all really understand what Libertarianism is.

This view totally underestimates the role and importance of the institutions that a government creates. The liberitarian might make an exception when it comes to national defense (as even they understand that going with private armies wouldn't be such a great idea), but otherwise everything is just a service. — ssu

Libertarians support the ideas behind the Bill of Rights and the checks-and-balances system. We support the existence of a police force to protect individuals from other citizens that do not respect other people's rights as defined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and an independent body that monitors the actions of the police to ensure the same thing.

All positions must max out at two terms, and Supreme Court Justices should be limited to 16 or 20 year terms. — Harry Hindu

Okay on the first, though I prefer one 4-year term, staggered, with half of the incumbents overlapping with rookies, so there is both experience and fresh input and less opportunity to consolidate power. If there is no financial backing involved, one level of corruption is eliminated; if lobbying forbidden, there is another. Get rid of a third by not having elected officials award government contracts to corporations and a fourth if no lucrative or influental position is by political appointment. This is especially important as regards high court judges: all judges should be elected by their peers. When they retire depends on competence, health or personal choice. (Some people are worn by their sixties, some can still be going strong at 80) Likewise top civil service posts should be earned through work record, not favour.

You see? You and I would make a good team as President and VP, with me as Pres of course :cool:

Both sides look to the government to "fix problems", either economic or social, depending on which side you are on. — Harry Hindu

Yes, but most of the problems that need fixing were created by governments past, and/or a privileged class controlling some aspects of government.

So yours, and others, tactic to put Libertarians on the right side don't really understand what Libertarianism is. — Harry Hindu

What it is is naive. The ideology can maybe work with groups of a hundred people, not in a large, diverse population, not in a capitalist society and certainly not in a nation with international relations.

I'm too old too smart to want it.