3 ms·

"The mission of the Manhattan Institute is to develop and disseminate new ideas that foster greater economic choice and individual responsibility." [1] That la

"The mission of the Manhattan Institute is to develop and disseminate new ideas that foster greater economic choice and individual responsibility." [1] That last part seems pretty antithetical to the idea that you should limit people's choices about alcohol, because of the negative consequences of those choices. That sort of seeming hypocrisy of course invites the question as to what this group's unstated motives are, and since it's a right wing American organization, I'm sure you can think of plenty of theories. [1] https://www.manhattan-institute.org/about https://www.manhattan-institute.org/about

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
The mission does not include anything to check that these are good ideas, or even practical. So it's pretty upfront about disseminating propaganda.
tibbetts 4y ago
I’m all for questioning a group’s motives. But protecting personal liberty for everyone sometimes requires limiting personal liberty. I like to be free to not be killed by a drunk driver, for example, and that means we cannot leave drunk driving up to “personal responsibility.” I generally think people should be free to not be assaulted on the street, or by their spouse, or by their parents. I’m not sure that restricting alcohol is the best way to do that. But if it were I don’t think a principle of individual responsibility would get in the way. The crimes they are discussing are not victimless, they impact both individuals and society.
choko 4y ago
Left and right wing definitions are becoming increasingly blurred. The big difference seems to be on exactly what they want to restrict. Neither seem to have personal freedoms or responsibility at the top of their lists and only use these phrases to hide motivation.
- orwin 4y ago
  Historically, at least in France post Napoléon and until ww2, the center was the current government, the right wanted to go back to a previous system/societal organisation (at first monarchism, privilege and landed nobility (to some degree, see Montesquieu), then to a parliamentary monarchy, then to 18th century capitalism... Etc) while the left wanted change never tested before (first parliamentary monarchy, then a republic, then allowing women to vote... Etc). The fact that left and right became more indiscernible might be because nowadays, most politicians wants untested changes in some domains, staying the course in others, and going back to a previous state in a few. So definition like 'the right wants more freedom, the left more equality' to me misses the point. The real interest of left and right is to discern what your endgoal society is. If you want to get back to guilds and corporatism, you are economically far right. If your policies help get back to the robber barons state by allowing monopolies and stop regulations on natural monopolies, you are right wing, idc if you are a democrat or a republican. Sometimes, it is just balancing the two.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

The mission does not include anything to check that these are good ideas, or even practical. So it's pretty upfront about disseminating propaganda.

tibbetts 4y ago

I’m all for questioning a group’s motives. But protecting personal liberty for everyone sometimes requires limiting personal liberty. I like to be free to not be killed by a drunk driver, for example, and that means we cannot leave drunk driving up to “personal responsibility.” I generally think people should be free to not be assaulted on the street, or by their spouse, or by their parents. I’m not sure that restricting alcohol is the best way to do that. But if it were I don’t think a principle of individual responsibility would get in the way. The crimes they are discussing are not victimless, they impact both individuals and society.

choko 4y ago

Left and right wing definitions are becoming increasingly blurred. The big difference seems to be on exactly what they want to restrict. Neither seem to have personal freedoms or responsibility at the top of their lists and only use these phrases to hide motivation.

orwin 4y ago
Historically, at least in France post Napoléon and until ww2, the center was the current government, the right wanted to go back to a previous system/societal organisation (at first monarchism, privilege and landed nobility (to some degree, see Montesquieu), then to a parliamentary monarchy, then to 18th century capitalism... Etc) while the left wanted change never tested before (first parliamentary monarchy, then a republic, then allowing women to vote... Etc). The fact that left and right became more indiscernible might be because nowadays, most politicians wants untested changes in some domains, staying the course in others, and going back to a previous state in a few. So definition like 'the right wants more freedom, the left more equality' to me misses the point. The real interest of left and right is to discern what your endgoal society is. If you want to get back to guilds and corporatism, you are economically far right. If your policies help get back to the robber barons state by allowing monopolies and stop regulations on natural monopolies, you are right wing, idc if you are a democrat or a republican. Sometimes, it is just balancing the two.