3 ms·

I'm not sure I'd agree with the OP, mainly because it's still seems too early to judge the actions of Musk and his team. They're just starting to figure out how

by cs702 4y ago

I'm not sure I'd agree with the OP, mainly because it's still seems too early to judge the actions of Musk and his team. They're just starting to figure out how the heck they're going to turn around Twitter into a sustainable business -- not exactly an easy task! Everything Twitter does is surely up-for-internal-debate currently. I'd wait to pass judgment until things start stabilizing. That said, I find the definition of conservatism quoted by the OP insightful: "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." The opposite of that is clearly worthwhile: We want laws that protect everyone because they bind everyone.

pixl97 4y ago
The linked site as a further post about this. https://kottke.org/21/02/conservatism-and-who-the-law-protects https://kottke.org/21/02/conservatism-and-who-the-law-protec... And the original blog post on the topic. https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288 https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progre...
- cs702 4y ago
  Thanks! I just submitted it as an OP: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34017545 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34017545
jkingsbery 4y ago
I'm not sure how a quote by a musical composer about how he imagines conservatives must think is very helpful or convincing. I agree that "the opposite is clearly worthwhile," but most conservatives I've read also agree. Of course, in some corners the word "conservative" has become meaningless, it just means "person I don't like."
- cs702 4y ago
  > I'm not sure how a quote by a musical composer about how he imagines conservatives must think is very helpful or convincing I don't think the OP claims to know what anyone is thinking. Please don't attack a straw-man. If your goal is to prove the OP wrong, you could try to find examples that contradict it. (Off the top of my head, I couldn't find any examples that contradict it.)
  - jkingsbery 4y ago
    I was referring of course, to the quote > Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. I'm not presenting a strawman - it's what the quote said. The quote makes a claim about the proposition made by conservatives. I suppose though I did make an ad hominem attack - the fact that the quote cited came from a musical composer (and not a political scientist of the same name) speaks in neither direction to its veracity. The quote claims that conservatives want laws to apply to some and not to others. That conservatives don't generally think this way can be seen by reading anything from Thomas Sowell, George Will, or Milton Friedman (for just a few examples). I could pull out particular examples from their books, but their books are dripping with examples - open to a random page in any of the three authors and you'll find one. The quote in question, however, is presenting a strawman, by not presenting any examples in support of it.
heurisko 4y ago
> That said, I find the definition of conservatism quoted by the OP insightful: "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." Insightful? I found it a straw man. I've long found left vs right to do more with personality traits. Tribalism is not reserved for either side. On the right, people are more likely to be conservative as they prefer stability and what is known. Those on the left are not as conservative, as they prefer openness and unpredictability. Both perspectives have merits.
- ohCh6zos 4y ago
  In my mind a conservative is anyone who would side with G.K. Chesterton concerning his fence, and a progressive is anyone who would side with his neighbor.
  - 082349872349872 4y ago
    Chesterton has another nice quote (which I will let you all find) to the effect that: the young man thinks the old man is wrong (and he is indeed) ... but the young man is wrong about what is wrong with him. of course GKC puts it much better than I do.
    - 082349872349872 4y ago
      Ach, never mind, don't worry about me, I'll just find it myself... GKC> I believe what really happens in history is this: the old man is always wrong; and the young people are always wrong about what is wrong with him.
  - pas 4y ago
    no, Chesterton's fence is just good strategy. radicalism is when people disregard that. the difference is where one looks for these fences, where one notices them, how much time one spends on understanding their reason for being, and how one responds after gaining that understanding. populism is loudly proclaiming that there are easy ways to get rid od the fence, and making "everyone" happy. chauvinist nationalism is blaming outsiders for the need for the fence, keeping it up, and claiming that our fence is the best, of course. fascism is palingenetic ultranationalism, claiming that our ancestors had the best fences, and we are destined for similar greatness, and the way to that greatness is whatever fences our great leader comes up with, because our great leader understands ancestral fences the best. ... now, what is conservativism? it's very similar to these, it's basically the claim that we need to respect the fences first and foremost and not understanding them. and the claim/belief that fences cannot be really removed anyway, so one should try to live and respect them, and eventually through this process one will also gain the understanding for their reason of being. liberalism is to allow people to put up their own fences, and get rid of the old big ancestral ones. neoliberalism is to set up markets where people can buy/sell ask/bid for fence rights. contemporary rationalism is to set up prediction markets, recruit superforecasters to participate, and then put the fences where they maximize the global fairness & happiness prediction market.

by cs702 4y ago

pixl97 4y ago

The linked site as a further post about this. https://kottke.org/21/02/conservatism-and-who-the-law-protects https://kottke.org/21/02/conservatism-and-who-the-law-protec... And the original blog post on the topic. https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288 https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progre...

cs702 4y ago
Thanks! I just submitted it as an OP: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34017545 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34017545

jkingsbery 4y ago

I'm not sure how a quote by a musical composer about how he imagines conservatives must think is very helpful or convincing. I agree that "the opposite is clearly worthwhile," but most conservatives I've read also agree. Of course, in some corners the word "conservative" has become meaningless, it just means "person I don't like."

cs702 4y ago
> I'm not sure how a quote by a musical composer about how he imagines conservatives must think is very helpful or convincing I don't think the OP claims to know what anyone is thinking. Please don't attack a straw-man. If your goal is to prove the OP wrong, you could try to find examples that contradict it. (Off the top of my head, I couldn't find any examples that contradict it.)
- jkingsbery 4y ago
  I was referring of course, to the quote > Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. I'm not presenting a strawman - it's what the quote said. The quote makes a claim about the proposition made by conservatives. I suppose though I did make an ad hominem attack - the fact that the quote cited came from a musical composer (and not a political scientist of the same name) speaks in neither direction to its veracity. The quote claims that conservatives want laws to apply to some and not to others. That conservatives don't generally think this way can be seen by reading anything from Thomas Sowell, George Will, or Milton Friedman (for just a few examples). I could pull out particular examples from their books, but their books are dripping with examples - open to a random page in any of the three authors and you'll find one. The quote in question, however, is presenting a strawman, by not presenting any examples in support of it.

heurisko 4y ago

> That said, I find the definition of conservatism quoted by the OP insightful: "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." Insightful? I found it a straw man. I've long found left vs right to do more with personality traits. Tribalism is not reserved for either side. On the right, people are more likely to be conservative as they prefer stability and what is known. Those on the left are not as conservative, as they prefer openness and unpredictability. Both perspectives have merits.

ohCh6zos 4y ago
In my mind a conservative is anyone who would side with G.K. Chesterton concerning his fence, and a progressive is anyone who would side with his neighbor.
- 082349872349872 4y ago
  Chesterton has another nice quote (which I will let you all find) to the effect that: the young man thinks the old man is wrong (and he is indeed) ... but the young man is wrong about what is wrong with him. of course GKC puts it much better than I do.
  - 082349872349872 4y ago
    Ach, never mind, don't worry about me, I'll just find it myself... GKC> I believe what really happens in history is this: the old man is always wrong; and the young people are always wrong about what is wrong with him.
- pas 4y ago
  no, Chesterton's fence is just good strategy. radicalism is when people disregard that. the difference is where one looks for these fences, where one notices them, how much time one spends on understanding their reason for being, and how one responds after gaining that understanding. populism is loudly proclaiming that there are easy ways to get rid od the fence, and making "everyone" happy. chauvinist nationalism is blaming outsiders for the need for the fence, keeping it up, and claiming that our fence is the best, of course. fascism is palingenetic ultranationalism, claiming that our ancestors had the best fences, and we are destined for similar greatness, and the way to that greatness is whatever fences our great leader comes up with, because our great leader understands ancestral fences the best. ... now, what is conservativism? it's very similar to these, it's basically the claim that we need to respect the fences first and foremost and not understanding them. and the claim/belief that fences cannot be really removed anyway, so one should try to live and respect them, and eventually through this process one will also gain the understanding for their reason of being. liberalism is to allow people to put up their own fences, and get rid of the old big ancestral ones. neoliberalism is to set up markets where people can buy/sell ask/bid for fence rights. contemporary rationalism is to set up prediction markets, recruit superforecasters to participate, and then put the fences where they maximize the global fairness & happiness prediction market.