We were asked:"What is contemporary Conservatism (now Right-Wing Politics)?." I responded to that question. No request was made to explain let alone understand it, you know.

Yeah, a piece of unargued crap like the below deserves no better response: — Agustino

Nope.

Nope. — Agustino

Damn. I really thought that's what it is. Ah well.

Most self-styled conservatists are fundamentally afraid of losing autonomy or of being left behind — Benkei

In this country, I think it's more likely the case that the fear is of loss of status, or power. The fear is that people unlike them will be treated like them in ways they think is inappropriate.

Conservatism was once a respectable political ideology. No longer. Contemporary conservatism (or at least what is called "conservatism") is:

Sanctimonious, maudlin, self-righteous, narrow, mean, petty, blustering, cretinous, jingoistic, hectoring, fearful, hateful, stupid, totalitarian and sectarian.

It's hardly surprising those involved in these disputes differ regarding values. I doubt there is anyone who would contend otherwise. Why is that significant, or even interesting?

Interesting to me is the place and uses of science, of critical reasoning and intelligence generally, in these disputes. My earlier post addressed what I think is a similarly insignificant and uninteresting claim made in the article you applaud, which I quoted. That claim is that there is always some room for doubt as to almost all scientific findings. This assertion, together with the fact that opponents of, e.g., evolution, vaccination and climate charge refer to science or at least scientists in doing so, is used to indicate that those opponents are not anti-science.

That there may be room for doubt as to scientific findings does nothing in itself to explain or justify this opposition. My point is that what should be considered in determining whether and to what extent scientific findings should be relied on i n making decisions on these issues should be what we lawyers like to call the weight of the evidence. In the case of evolution, for instance, we compare the scientific evidence supporting it and the scientific
evidence supporting intelligent design.

If the scientific evidence supporting the theory of evolution is of far greater quality and more reliable than the scientific evidence supporting the theory of intelligent design, then the fact that there may be "room for doubt" the evidence supporting evolution, and the fact that there may be some scientists who are critical of the theory of evolution and believe in intelligent design doesn't establish that those who criticize the theory of evolution and believe in intelligent design are not anti-science. It establishes instead that they refuse to accept that there is overwhelming evidence indicating that the theory of evolution is correct, regardless of the fact that there may be "room for doubt."

That refusal may very well be the result of the fact that they think the weight of the scientific evidence is of far less worth and value than something else. But, it also results from the fact that they maintain that the scientific evidence--science--should not be considered. That seems pretty anti-science to me.

Like General Ripper, I oppose all efforts to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids. But to be serious:

From the link in the OP: "[T]here is always some room for both doubt and confirmation bias in nearly all scientific findings." So what?

There's always some room to doubt, period. Hasn't philosophy thrived on doubt? Sometimes to the point of absurdity, I would say (e.g., Descartes).

But it's foolish to require absolute certainty, and so foolish to rely on the lack of absolute certainty as a guide to policy, or practical decisions of any kind. Probability is all we can reasonably require; the higher the better, of course. "There's always some reason to doubt" is no basis for decision-making.

Pythagoras, Aristotle and Archimedes all thought the world was a sphere. Pythagoras lived around 500 B.C.; Aristotle and Archimedes around 300 B.C. I'm not sure you can assume everyone, especially philosophers, thought the world was flat around that time.

I've always found it odd that people are impressed by such facts as, e.g., an ant isn't a human being (which seems to me to be all that's being said when it's noted an ant will "perceive" things differently than a human). I'm uncertain what view of this unremarkable fact was prevalent among philosophers around 300 B.C., but it may well be they thought it establishes that "life is but a dream."

interesting, how do you think it can be exploited? — Mr Phil O'Sophy

As to lawyers, it represents an opportunity. We see it exploited already. Just do a Google search of "gender law." An example, I would think, would be in what I like to call the Lex Lavacrum, the "Law of the Bath(room)", i.e. the disputes arising out of the use and alleged misuse of gender-specific bathrooms. Then, there are the questions arising from disputes as to the rights of transgender or transsexual people (e.g., serving in the military); whether the law should recognize the "third gender" option. Much money to be made by enterprising lawyers--Thar's gold in them thar genders.

As to academia, gender is and no doubt has been for some time the subject matter of courses historical, psychological, anthropological, sociological. You'll find academic journals devoted to gender, I'm sure. As to pundits and politicians, what do they do but exploit controversial issues? Gender certainly is one of them. Positions on gender will generate popularity, publicity, funding and votes.

As near as I can tell, which is to say by consultation with a dictionary, "gender" has to do with the state of being male or female, or the perception of being male or female, or perhaps the state or perception of being something else, but according to cultural and social differences and characteristics rather than biological.

I don't find this definition particularly enlightening. But whatever else "gender" may be, I think it's in any case something that certain lawyers (I'm a lawyer), academics, psychologists, sociologists, pundits and politicians will find a way to exploit for their own benefit as best they can.

The Takings Clause is limited to "public use" as I recall, so the justification would need to be to secure the weapons perhaps for use to defend the public, not just that they didn't want folks having guns. — Hanover

Well, yes. As I said, I've handled a few of these proceedings. That a public use/purpose is needed doesn't surprise me, and I haven't said guns can be taken by condemnation for any reason at all.

Blighted property may be taken, property posing a danger due to its condition, drug houses and such, may be taken for reasons of public health, welfare and safety. Perhaps a similar argument can be made regarding guns. I don't know; I don't expect the issue will arise, here in what Hunter S. Thompson called the Kingdom of Fear. Old Hunter was very much a gun man himself, even to the point of ending his own life with one.

As for costs, I know that this can be a factor. I defended a county against a claim for litigation expenses in an inverse condemnation proceeding. 2.6 acres of pasture land was said to have been taken; worth about $3,550. Litigation expenses claimed were in excess of $119,000. But, litigation expenses must be reasonable, and one of the factors taken into consideration in determining reasonableness, though not determinative in itself, is the value of the property at issue. Another is whether the matter has been over-litigated by the condemnee. The award was about $90,000 less than the amount claimed.

Certain guns can be expensive, certainly. But their worth is generally far less than that of real property. I wouldn't expect large awards of litigation expenses, relatively speaking.

I fear the day they try to apply "eminent domain" to forcefully confiscate a law abiding Americans' firearm. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

But, it has for many, many years been applied to lawfully acquire the property of law-abiding Americans. Generally, the law does not say that a law-abiding citizen cannot be deprived of his/her property by the government. What it does say is that a law-abiding citizen cannot be deprived of his/her property by the government without compensation.

So, it's undoubtedly true that government may lawfully acquire privately-owned property by condemnation. That's simply the case. One can claim it shouldn't be able to do so, but one can just as successfully claim it shouldn't be able to tax.

Guns are property. If they're property, why can't they be legally obtained by condemnation like other property? What would make their condemnation unlawful?

It's an interesting question. As the right to own property seems to be a fundamental right, it isn't clear to me that the Second Amendment "right to bear arms" is a greater right and so less subject to the power of eminent domain, but I've never researched the issue. Maybe its been addressed by some court somewhere. If it isn't a greater right, then opposing condemnation in the case of guns would have to be on some other basis. It would have to be maintained, for example, that there is no legitimate public purpose which would be satisfied in condemning guns. Or perhaps it would be argued that guns are a special kind of property, a kind for which no compensation is adequate. That would be getting rather peculiar, I think, but some may actually believe that's the case.

In the U.S. and I think in other countries, the government has the power of eminent domain, a/k/a condemnation. It's a process by which the government acquires private property for public purposes. The government must compensate the property owner for the fair market value of the property. I've been involved in several condemnation proceedings in my capacity as the World's Greatest Lawyer Living or Dead ("WGLLD").

The condemnation proceedings the WGLLD has been involved in have related to real property, that is to say real estate ("real property" has some potentially amusing philosophical implications). The power of condemnation isn't contingent on the consent of the property owner. Some common examples of the exercise of the power: acquiring property for transportation purposes, to install utilities and infrastructure, sites for public buildings. Here, the entity exercising the power must obtain an appraisal of the property, offer to pay for an appraisal obtained by the property owner, provide relocation assistance if needed (which sometimes means buying equivalent property for the property owner). There are rights of appeal regarding the legitimacy of the public purpose and the sufficiency of the compensation.

So, even here in God's favorite country there are instances where the government may "confiscate" property regardless of whether the property owner is agreeable, for a public purpose. It need only fairly compensate the owner for the value of the property.

As far as I know, that hasn't been applied to guns in the U.S. Perhaps that's how the Aussie government got them, though.

I tend to side with J.S. Mill when it comes to speech, so we may have similar views on that issue. But I acknowledge that restriction is appropriate in some instances (e.g. those exceptions to the protection of the First Amendment when government restriction is involved).

I certainly wouldn't call him anti-Semitic. I note only that he made a mistake in that instance, or more properly a misjudgment. If one is intent on voicing one's opinion in as public a manner as possible, regardless of whether it's solicited, chances are that now and then it will have unanticipated and undesirable consequences.

If it's possible to have a serious discussion about politics without involving Noam Chomsky, perhaps we'll have one some day. But I confess I'm inclined to poke fun at self-appointed guardians of morals,
of any stripe.

And yes, prominent people working in academia and activism take his politics very seriously (though they diverge from the mainstream) The idea that he's only well respected in linguistics and his outside political work only amounts to popular polemics is just being a silly ignoramus. He's done joint discussions and interviews with people like Yanis Varoufakis, Ha-Joon Chang, Stephen Zunes, Richard Falk, and many others. — Saphsin

How could "prominent people working in academia and activism" not take his politics seriously? It's not possible to consider politics (of a sort) without acknowledging at least the presence of Chomsky and his often-stated views. He's inserted himself into virtually every political/social/cultural issue imaginable, repeatedly. He's ubiquitous, omnipresent. He's made himself a gargantuan figure in the political landscape of opinion. And he's done so in a manner which redounds to his credit and standing. For the most part; his defense of the notorious Holocaust denier, Faurisson, for example, was a lapse in his extraordinary pursuit and acquisition of prominence. He's a marvel.

Even The Onion has recognized his hard-earned significance:
https://entertainment.theonion.com/noam-chomsky-announces-las-vegas-residency-1819578692

Ah, Noam Chomsky. When has someone with specialized knowledge of a relatively narrow, limited field more relentlessly, and successfully, promoted himself as expert, and indeed wise, in so many others? He's remarkable. They say that Talleyrand was such an inspired and artful master of duplicity that even his enemies couldn't help but admire him as a kind of colossus. I think I have a similar regard for Chomsky, though for the life of me I don't know why he's accepted so readily as an authority in anything but linguistics and cognitive science.

As for God's favorite country and imperialism, I see nothing surprising in the fact that Americans commonly think of America as exceptional and as force for good in the world. Most of the citizens of very powerful nations have always thought of their country as just that. In the West, all nations pretending to great power look back to the Roman Empire. The Romans thought of themselves as having a noble destiny. In Virgil's words:

Roman, remember by your strength to rule
Earth’s peoples—for your arts are to be these:
To pacify, to impose the rule of law,
To spare the conquered, battle down the proud.

So did the British during their imperial period. The Germans never were imperial, really, not in the same sense as the Romans and the British, or the French for that matter. But imperial powers look on themselves as a civilizing force. Here, we look on ourselves as making the world safe for democracy. We view those who think otherwise as ungrateful (listen to Randy Newman's song "Political Science). That's just the way of it. It will change when human beings change.

I'd say it's probably as likely as it is that "all this" was created by something good.

As I've mentioned, I'm a gun owner (shotguns). I feel no impulse to applaud myself for owning them, nor do I think I must justify owning them.

But I'm inclined to think that anyone buying a firearm like an AR-15 doesn't do so for hunting or sport. I personally am not over-concerned about what gun sellers like to call "home defense" but if I was, I don't think it reasonable to believe that requires use of a firearm which has the capacity to fire 45 to 60 rounds a minute depending on level of skill.

So, I think it's likely that AR-15s are acquired mostly by people who have other reasons for buying them; perhaps other uses for them.

Dammit, you quoted my post before I could claim Cicero is my ancestor (this may be an exaggeration) and use some Latin. Sometimes I don't act quickly enough when being silly and showing off.

It's all about money, really. In the end, this kind of thinking merely supports the sale of even more guns. More people with guns means more guns sold. The headline for this kind of advocacy should be: "PEOPLE WHO ALREADY HAVE GUNS WANT MORE PEOPLE TO HAVE GUNS TO STOP OTHER PEOPLE WHO ALREADY HAVE GUNS."

The purchase of guns is the end in view; it's the constant in this kind of "solution." The question to ask is: Cui bono (more accurately, cui bono fuisset)? Translation" "To whose benefit is it?" A maxim employed by my distant ancestor, Marcus Tullius Cicero, as an advocate, but which he ascribed to Lucius Cassius Longinus.

The leadership of the NRA was once in favor of gun control. That's hard to believe, I know, as that leadership has for some time been dominated by mere shills for gun manufacturers (they contribute millions to the NRA). It's become a kind of trade association, unfortunately. It was once quite different.

Semi-automatic and automatic weapons both reload automatically. In other words, it isn't necessary to reload the weapon each time it is fired. It will reload until its ammunition is exhausted. But as Maw said, regardless of the amount of ammo in a semi-automatic's magazine, it fires one shot only with each pull of the trigger. Automatics are made for rapid, multiple fire, and will fire as long as the trigger is held until the ammunition runs out.

1. prohibition on concealed weapons;
2. felony and mental health checks, no sale on a positive;
3. registration of gun owners;
4. qualification - a gun test like a driver's license, failed? you don't get a gun;
5. a limit to the number of guns one person can own;
6. prohibition to carry guns in public places;
7. prohibition on dangerous guns to include fully automatic rifles — Benkei

Regarding no. 7, by my understanding, sale of "fully automatic" rifles is prohibited already. But, sale of semi-automatics is not. Unfortunately, semi-automatics may function as automatics through use of the now widely-known bump stocks and by other means. The recoil of a semi-automatic weapon may be used to fire multiple shots. I have a semi-automatic shotgun. Because I shoot clay pigeons, not animals or people, I usually load no more than 2 shells. There is the ability to load more. It depends on the capacity of the weapon's magazine (that's where shells are stored). Most shotguns have 4 + 1; 4 in the magazine, 1 in the chamber. Rifles like the AR-15 can be equipped with magazines with 30 rounds, or more I believe.

Since I think (perhaps wrongly) that many who buy guns don't spend much time learning how to shoot accurately, or care for them generally, and since I think hanguns are very inaccurate, I'd be all for training. I don't think there's much of a legal argument to the contrary.

I think it takes a peculiar kind of person to carry a firearm in public (I've seen someone wearing a handgun in a restaurant), or walk around with them, concealed or not. I think most of us gun owners are registered already. Criminal and mental health checks simply make sense.

The legal rights set forth in the Constitution are always subject to reasonable restrictions. These seem reasonable to me.

This is a concept that may have its origin in Roman law, which in turn was influenced by the Stoic conception of natural law.

In natural law, all persons are equal. Slavery in Roman law was a legal status, imposed after birth, by the Civil Law. The Roman jurist Ulpian therefore described slavery as being contrary to nature. Slaves were people like everyone else, but by operation of law, as it were, they did not have the legal status of free persons. Their status was more similar to the status of property regarding what they could or could not do, and regarding what could or could not be done to them. But, in certain limited respects, over time, they came to be treated more as persons than property under the law.

When given their freedom, they attained full legal status as persons, not property (although former slaves, called freedmen, were considered social inferiors to those who had never been slaves). But a Roman citizen's status in the law was greater than that of free persons who were not citizens.

De gustibus non est disputandum, you know.

That one of Jackie strikes me as rather creepy, for example. She looks like nightmarish, ghastly doll. Others, apparently, think it's wonderful.

If the purpose of portraiture is to create a physical likeness of a person, that of Michelle Obama probably doesn't meet that purpose. That of Obama does, but the leaves serving as background seem peculiar. It's not clear to me they evoke either Hawaii or Chicago. They seem only a bunch of closely-packed leaves, curiously unattached to any tree.

So, whites oppress blacks and men oppress women because resources are scarce, eh? Well, resources are just going to get more scarce. Unfortunate blacks! Unfortunate women!

Ok. But what can or cannot be done under the law is a consideration which should be addressed by those who own or control any forum here in the U.S.A, at least. When the First Amendment has application to a university, for example, the administrators of that university, if they're prudent, will consider whether and to what extent their desire or that of students or faculty or others that no word or thought considered evil be spoken on campus, or that no person considered evil be tolerated there, should be sated. That's because depending on the circumstances, barring such speech or people from those hallowed halls could violate the First Amendment and someone may try to enforce it and do so successfully, which would mean the loss of something even more hallowed. Money.

Simply put, the First Amendment's provision that Congress shall make no law "abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble" etc. applies throughout our Glorious Republic via the Fourteenth Amendment, and through court decisions has been determined to prohibit not only the federal government, but state and local governments, not only from making such laws, but also from making rules or policies which abridge the freedom of speech or acting in such a manner as to do so, through their agents, representatives and employees.

What that means is public universities and colleges are prohibited from "abridging freedom of speech" Doing so is a violation of the Constitution (and various state constitutions as well). But, although fans of the Second Amendment seem sometimes to think otherwise, the legal rights and prohibitions created by the Constitution are subject to exceptions; they're not absolute. Speech can be abridged in certain circumstances.

For example, the protection of speech under the First Amendment is subject to “regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.” How do you like that? In addition, speech is subject to the law of defamation. We can't defame each other freely, alas. We can use the courts to sue for defamation. Worse yet, we can be penalized if we threaten one another in some cases, incite riots, that sort of thing. Judges and lawyers and legislators have labored over the years, whittling away at the First Amendment and others.

So there may be circumstances where a public university or college can abridge free speech, but they must be careful to avoid legal action.

I think it's well settled that the First Amendment applies to public colleges and universities. Whether it does when private colleges and universities accept federal funding is unclear. Acceptance of that funding creates an obligation to comply with federal anti-discrimination laws; that much I know. As that's the case, would it create an obligation to comply with the Constitution? It seems to me there's an argument to be made to that effect.

private owners of venues can do whatever they want. — Benkei

Yes. From the legal standpoint It gets somewhat more complicated here in God's favorite country when those owners accept government funds, for example, in which case the First Amendment may be implicated.

"De-platforming" forsooth. Is it too difficult to say "Prohibit certain kinds of speech" or "Prohibit certain people from speaking"?

Well, a couple of questions, first.

What is meant by "right"? I think there are no rights but legal rights; those enshrined in the law and subject to enforcement under the law. When "rights" which are not legal rights are spoken of, they're spoken of as if they were legal rights, and their infringement prohibited in some real sense.

Is there a legal right not to be offended? No.

Is the question about something that isn't a legal right? I'm uncertain what that might be, but I think that what is usually meant when it's asked whether a non-legal "right" exists, is whether "there oughta be a law" or whether something shouldn't be done--in this case, whether we shouldn't do something which will offend others. And that answer to that inquiry is: "It depends."

He's a dimwitted, scatter-brained, ignorant, venal, vulgar, petty, mean, prick of a man. Such people will say such things. We were stupid enough to elect him, knowing what he is. We get what we deserve.

Long ago, I was a philosophy major. I became a lawyer.

The members of the philosophy department at the college I attended were devoted to analytic philosophy, ordinary language philosophy and pragmatism. That orientation wasn't uncommon at the time; perhaps it's not uncommon now. Regardless, the philosophy they taught emphasized the close study and careful use of language, logic and skillful argument. It's served me well in the practice of law.

From Wallace Stevens Esthetique du Mal:

XII

He disposes the world in categories, thus:
The peopled and the unpeopled. In both, he is
Alone. But in the peopled world, there is,
Besides the people, his knowledge of them. In
The unpeopled, there is his knowledge of himself.
Which is more desperate in the moments when
The will demands that what he thinks be true?

Is it himself in them that he knows or they
In him? If it is himself in them, they have
No secret from him. If it is they in him,
He has no secret from them. This knowledge
Of them and of himself destroys both worlds,
Except when he escapes from it. To be
Alone is not to know them or himself.

This creates a third world without knowledge,
In which no one peers, in which the will makes no
Demands. It accepts whatever is as true,
Including pain, which, otherwise, is false.
In the third world, then, there is no pain. Yes, but
What lover has one in such rocks, what woman,
However known, at the centre of the heart?

You know, the Leader is saying exactly what Plato's Philosopher-King would say, though far less succinctly.

Commodus is something of a problem for admirers of Marcus Aurelius.

He may not have been quite the monster he's made out to be. I think we have to take into account the fact that those contemporary sources we have may be prejudiced against him or otherwise deficient. He was disliked by the Senate, although and possibly because he popular with the people (the Roman "mob") and the legions, and the primary historian of his reign was Cassius Dio, son of a senator and a senator himself. He was apparently considered frivolous and decadent by the Senate and too fond of gladiatorial games.

He also earned the Senate's dislike by abandoning the conquests made in his father's reign (and those of Trajan and Hadrian) in Germany and modern Bohemia and the empire's eastern border with Parthia. The Senate for the most part liked conquest; it generally increased the wealth of its members and presented opportunities for advancement. But, some have maintained this was appropriate at least in the case of the eastern European conquests, and that the empire was overextended. And his reign saw the end of about twenty years of constant warfare by the empire.

His father apparently tried quite hard to provide for his education and prepare him for administrative and military duties, appointing tutors and making him co-Augustus with him. Perhaps Marcus felt that he would do well as a result; perhaps he did do well, for some time, at least. He was born of the union of Marcus and his first cousin Faustina; maybe that accounts for his growing megalomania and other problems.

This need to cultivate a new vision of what it means to live well is, perhaps, one of the most enduring challenges facing the world today. — StreetlightX

I agree with you (mirabile dictu). I would add it's probably the most urgent challenge.

The need you mention may account for the resurgence of interest in ancient philosophies like Stoicism, by the way, as a guide to how to live (well to some like me, in any case).

A problem, I think, is that the need may be too easily addressed by a vision that's attractive because it's thoughtless (in the sense that it is based on the willing, even eager, acceptance of simple, unquestionable, maxims), exclusive and intolerant. That seems to have been the case with other visions of what it is to live well that have been accepted in the past. I understand that's not what you mean, though.

How so? An interesting point to make in general. — Posty McPostface

They have their naturalism in common; both see human beings as parts of (and active participants in) nature rather than apart from it. Both consider nature to be all that is, or at least all that can be determined to be. Although the Stoics ascribed a divinity to it or to its Divine or Ruling Reason, that characteristic of the universe was thought by them to be a special kind of substance according to the limited physics of the time. Both eschew dualism. Both believe proper conduct is determined by an intelligent inquiry into nature (including human nature) rather than an appeal to transcendent ideals or beings. Both are devoted to addressing and resolving the "problems of men" rather than the problems of philosophy. Both emphasize the value of reason in life.

Ciceronianus, i.e. the Ciceronian; an admirer (for the most part) of Marcus Tullius Cicero and like him a lawyer with philosophical interests, and like Wallace Stevens a lawyer who admires poetry. Lawyers who manage to be more than lawyers interest me as I'm inclined to the view that lawyers are doomed to be lawyers, only and always.

St. Jerome's bad dream is my self-assessment--Ciceronianus sum, non Christianus. I'm an old Catholic, but am too fond of the pagan philosophy, culture and society of the ancient Mediterranean that Christianity, that great hodgepodge, assimilated to take it as anything more than an especially intolerant and oddly twisted derivation of what came before it. Not a pagan, myself, but more a Stoic who sees, like John Lachs, a connection between that ancient philosophical school and Deweyian pragmatism. Erstwhile sabre fencer, current clay shooter and chess player.