two dimensions of opinion
In November I linked to a “Political Compass” and mentioned some improvements I’d like to see. Chris Lightfoot apparently had already made them. Rather than assigning preconceived interpretations to the questions, Lightfoot waited until a large number of people had done his quiz, and then did a factor analysis to define the axes.
Lightfoot’s quiz was cited by Tim Lambert (Deltoid), who invites you to add your name to a chart. (I hope you will; only a few names on it are familiar to me.)
My score is {-1.37, +6.29}, near the top center of Lambert’s chart.
Popper on constitutional law
Trurl’s Machine explains:
. . . Popper said that it is reasonable to assume that sooner or later some rotten scoundrels will gain power. It’s not important who they will be precisely, but whatever your politcal views might be you must agree that a likelihood of such event is rather high. So whatever law you want to have in you country, don’t ask yourself the question “how this law can be used in good hands”. Ask the question “how this law can be used when the filthiest, dirtest, stupidest bastards will rule my country (and sooner or later they probably will)”. Only the law that cannot be used to anything wrong EVEN by the most vicious ruler is truly good. . . .
(Cited by Aaron Krowne.)
Over the years I have occasionally quoted the principle as “write your constitution as if your worst enemy were in power,” but without knowing where I picked it up. Popper, eh?
who stole whose concept?
Atheism and Unalienable Rights by Robert E. Meyer (also cited today on RRND):
Skeptics want to deny that rights come from God, but if they are correct, then there is no sound philosophical footings undergirding their perpetual claim to any rights. They are walking on a tenuous tightrope of conceptual fiat. Obviously they have not thought this issue through very carefully. . . .
In other words, atheists who speak of rights are guilty of what Ayn Rand (an atheist) called “the fallacy of the stolen concept”. Obviously Meyer has not taken the time to find a libertarian atheist (how hard can it be?) and ask a few questions. It would be amusing – for a few minutes – to hear him and an Objectivist debate the roots of rights. ( . . more . . )
liens du jour
Goodies from today’s Rational Review News Digest:
“Statist Joe” by Gil Guillory, a response to “Conservative Joe”, a Progressive satire that has been going around and is included as a footnote.
He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water which he bought from Ozarka, because the local government monopoly of water supply bears the comforting designation of “accepted” and also tastes funny.
He thinks back to going to church on Sunday. He is happy to have a community where he can participate with other like-minded people in ceremony. This was made possible by the long struggle to disentangle church and state, and his church enjoys the absence of taxation. He wishes other aspects of his life could be so free.
“Still the City Upon a Hill” by Olaf Gersemann
But the European model provides more fairness, more equal opportunity, right? Wrong. More than anything else, equal opportunity means equal access to education and the labor market. In both cases, the United States might not do as well as one might wish. But continental Europe’s Big Three are certainly doing considerably worse.