Though I thought it had died, I see that the absurd theory that Nazism and fascism are "on the right" has reared its ugly head once more. In some ways it is an easy theory to refute, one need only look at the political composition of the Nazi party, or the name itself ("German Worker's National Socialist Party"). On the other hand, it can be troublesome, as the whole notion of a "political spectrum" is so fluid that it provides evidence for event he most absurd claims.

The problem is that "right" and "left" were developed to describe French politics of the early Revolution, was adopted by a British government whose philosophical debates could fit it only by analogy, was then imported to a US, where the parties were an even worse fit, and then survived two dramatic changes of political philosophy which left the terms not only reversed, but nonsensically so, at least after the changes of the FDR administration.And to make matters worse, the same terminology continued to be used by European governments, but int heir original sense, which left an apparent affinity between the completely unrelated European "right" and the American "right". In recent years European usage has come to more closely mirror that of the US, but for quite some time, especially the mid-20th century, the "right" in Europe had little to do with the "right" in America, especially not the new definition of "right" that was just then emerging in the US.

The one consistent factor is that the right is defined as "conservative", while the left is "liberal". But there one can see the problem in a nutshell. In 19th century Europe and America, "liberal" was what one would today call "libertarian", a position in favor of free and unfettered markets, small, local government, and rigid restrictions on political power.Granted, even at the time of the French Revolution some proto-socialists would blur the lines between political and economic power and argue that their philosophy was "liberal", but by and large those advocating such positions were not seen as liberal. Liberalism was the philosophy of Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, the Jacksonians, and the Democrat Party before the merger with Bryant's Populists.

On the other hand, "conservative" was not so well defined, at least in the US. The European conservatives at least were fighting to keep something, the privileges of the aristocracy and nobility. They were "conserving" the state as it existed prior to the democratic revolutions of the ages of enlightenment and reason. They were also the natural home of nationalists, as the arguments for aristocratic government fit well with nationalist theories. Similarly, as nationalism tended to advocate some variety of mercantilism, they ended up the home of protectionists as well.

In the US there was no aristocratic tradition to maintain, sot eh term "conservative" made little sense. What traditions the US had were entirely liberal, so there was nothing to "conserve".Likewise, there was no home for nationalists in the conservative parties, as support for slavery, and later Jim Crow, was in the Democrat party*. So we were left in the US with a "conservative" position which had only the most tenuous connection to "conservatives" in Europe, that being an attachment to protectionism and inflationary "soft money" policies. Later, once the non-southern Democrats began to embrace immigrants they did develop a nationalist, anti-immigrant policy, and an elitist philosophy arguing the need to control the impulses fo working men through prohibition and other public morals laws, but, by and large, our conservatives had little to do, philosophically, with the European version.

Between 1890 and the 1930's this became even more obvious, as the Democrat party merged with the Populist Party and the definition of "liberal" imperceptibly changed from meaning one favoring small government to one favoring socially active government. As the Republicans of the same time were captured by the "reform" wing, and launched their own campaign against monopolies, "big business" and similar targets, there was little to distinguish left and right at the time. We need only look at the responses of Hoover and FDR to the depression to see this, as both tried the same things, differing only in scope. In fact, for this period the only real distinction was that the conservative largely supported prohibition and disliked immigrants, while only southern Democrats did among the liberals.

It was with FDR's redesign of the American political system that the modern meaning of liberal and conservative began to arise, though it would not really begin to take shape for another 20 years. Unlike past definitions, "conservatives" do not wish to retain the existing government, but rather to return tot he older state, in other words, the conservatives now fight for what was once "liberal", smaller government and free markets. Liberals, on the other hand, are the group now supporting the status quo, or, when they deviate from it, fighting for even more government and markets with less freedom. In other words, the right and left of today have nothing to do with the right and left as they were originally created.

To make matters worse, the term "right" is not used consistently. Besides the libertarian and federalist proponents of free markets and small government, the term "right" has been attached to many other groups, with definitions which are often incompatible. For example, some remnants of the old Republican party, the "paleo-cons" who fight for protectionism, coercive moral laws, and other positions that would seem familiar to a 19th century Republican, are often called "right" as well, as are the "social conservatives" who do not want protectionism, but often argue for intrusive government, at least in terms of public morals. This is confused even more by the existence of almost identical beliefs "on the left" in the form of calls for "Politically Correct" censorship, restrictions on "globalization", union protectionist policies, and many other duplications of positions some claim are "right wing".
 
Not even traditional "conservative" positions, in the European sense are obviously divided. If one includes the paleo-cons in the right, the right does have some nationalists and an elitist interest in reigning in "the common man's worst impulses", which were common to both 19th century conservatives here and 20th century conservatives in Europe. But he same philosophy exists "on the left", home of black and Hispanic nationalist, as well as many "nanny state" regulations, which seek to reign in all manner of "destructive impulses". If anything, elitism is more pronounced on the left, which often argues that we can't care for ourselves and need the state to do so.

And so you can see the problem. Were we to retain the 19th century definition, yes, it would be clear Nazis and Fascist were "on the right", but most Republicans of today would be on the left, and most liberals would be on a different branch of the right. Or, in the alternative, if we define the right as the small government, free market philosophy to which most of us subscribe, then it is obvious Fascism and Nazism have more to do with the left than the right. But as people insist on putting authoritarian philosophies such as that of the paleo-cons "on the right", we have a spectrum which is effectively meaningless. As I argued**, Pat Buchanan and Barack Obama's platform when he ran have almost no differences, yet one is left and one right. How can a spectrum which produces that result be meaningful in any sense?

I suppose we could try to salvage the political spectrum by redefining it, but what would be the point? Any redefinition would result in some who think themselves "right wing" being classed otherwise, so they would not recognize it. Similarly, as it would remove a confusion useful to many political arguments (when you can tar free market proponents by association with Pat Buchanan, why would you surrender such a tool?), many others would reject it as well. So any effort is doomed to failure.

Better we just forget all about the "spectrum". It is meaningless, and was always less useful than we imagined, and it is not getting any better. Just as the libertarian/Objectivist effort to restore the original definition of "liberal" has been a laughable failure, any efforts at restructuring the spectrum will fail, and without restructuring it is pointless, so best we just forget the spectrum, forget "right" and "left" and just define ourselves as "federalists" or "libertarians", or maybe "constitutionalists", and forget even the rather meaningless "conservative" tag.

In the long run, it will save us a lot of confusion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Partly this is due to the states' rights position of the liberals, which argued in favor of allowing local decisions regarding race and slavery, but more it had to do with the dangers protectionism posed to southern agriculture, which relied on foreign commerce. Thus, economic accident more than strict philosophy kept the south Democrat and prevented nationalism form becoming the philosophy of conservative parties prior to the 20th century.

** I don't go into this point in great detail, but some of it can be read in "A Question for "Paelo-Conservatives"", "Deja Vu", "STOP BIG PORCELAIN NOW!" and "Right On One Issue Is Not Enough". I made the same argument in more detail in comments on various articles by the professional pundits, but I can't find those arguments at the moment. You can also see how much he has in common with many on the left by how often his position tracks with those denouncing the "neocons", many of who (though not all) are on the left. See "A Question to Defenders of Russia" and "Pat Buchanan Becomes Putin's Lord Haw Haw?" for examples.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

There have been proposals that we use a set of political spectra, each addressing one aspect of  politics (freedom, militarism, economics, etc.). This was even incorporated into the World War II strategy game Hearts of Iron II, where one's philosophy is shown as points on 8 different spectra. However I think this Minnesota Multiphasic approach to political science would in the end prove too confusing. The right/left division is popular because it is simple, anything more complex will just not be popular. And if it is not used popularly, then there is no point. The only reason to simplify political questions is to allow one more easily to identify politically sympathetic individuals. If people do not use this new set of spectra that way, then it is pointless, as why simplify in contexts where one could provide a more thorough description of one's political philosophy. So, the multiple spectrum approach just won't work. It is too complex for popular use, but too simplistic for formal use, which means it has no setting it can call home, making it pointless.

Well, except for strategic war simulations, where it does quite well.

POSTSCRIPT II

I made some of this argument before, notably in "Those Darn Jews" and "Amusing "Truths"", where I argued against the "Nazism is right wing" belief. Some of the historical bit also appeared in "Misplaced Blame and A Power Play".

POSTSCRIPT III

I am sure some social conservatives and paleo-cons will take exception to my description of them, but I have to ask, if you argue for protectionism and bigger government, what exactly is "conservatism"? If it is not fighting for smaller government within strict limits, then what distinguishes conservatives from liberals? That we would control X while they would control Y? Then who argues for freedom? I am sorry, I know it will upset some who read this, but in their belief in protectionism, censorship, prohibitions of "immoral" acts, many nominally conservative groups show themselves as allies of the left, not enemies. Once you admit government has the power to restrict our choices "for our own good", you have given the left all it needs. And once you admit the left's arguments you have given the stamp of approval to any government program at all, effectively opening the door to omnipotent government. See "The Citizen Dichotomy", "Man's Nature and Government", "Inescapable Logic", "Smaller Government , Fair Weather Friends and Special Cases" and "In A Nutshell".

I don't normally watch MSNBC, but judging from their ratings no one does, so I suppose that just makes me an average American. However, I happened to end up on the channel by mistake, and I was taken aback by one of their promos. Among the topic discussed "Republicans launch new attacks on the president's health care plans."

I know many think conservatives are overly sensitive, but could you imagine the press in 2006 saying "Democrats launch new attacks on the president's military plans"? No, it was always worded as "congress raises legitimate concerns about..." or "Congress highlights problems in the..." It seems only Republicans "attack" while Democrats "criticize" and "raise questions".

I am sure Media Matters has documented this and has fudged the numbers to show exactly how this is not the case, but I challenge anyone to sit through a half hour of MSNBC and not find a strong bias. CNN is a bit less open, but still biased. Oddly, the supposedly most biased channel, Fox, shows the least bias, mainly because they are so careful to avoid charges of bias. I grant their hosts are, for the most part, conservative and make conservative statements when they admit their personal views, but their handling of the news is still much more centrist than any MSM source.

As I said before, that we see Fox as "far right" just shows how far to the left the rest of the media is. (Kind of like Iran, the fact that a man like Mousavi is seen as a reformer shows just how corrupt their system is.)

In a response to one of my columns, a reader accused Israel of ethnic cleansing. This is hardly the first time I have heard this charge, but it does bring to mind a simple question of logic. If Israel were executing Palestinians, and given to ethnic cleansing, then why do we have a "Palestinian crisis" at all? After all, a vast majority of Palestinians reside within the territory controlled by Israel (well, non-Jordanian Palestinians), Israel has controlled all of the UN mandate since 1967, and most of it since 1948, that is a minimum of 42 years they have had control of most Palestinians. If they were committing genocide, why are there any Palestinians left? Arafat and his cronies and successors have certainly managed to remove a goodly number of Jews in a much shorter time, so why has Israel been unable to eliminate the Palestinians?

Actually, an even better question is why did Israel grant citizenship to those Palestinians who did not flee in 1948? Why are there Palestinian Israeli citizens and members of the Knesset? If Israel were committing genocide wouldn't they look like the PA, which drives out or kills Jews (and sometimes Christians)? Kills those who sell land to Jews or "collaborate"?

In short, if Israel is so genocidal, why do they behave as they do?

One other point, as it has been mentioned elsewhere as well, Israel never got "the majority of the land". Before the UN mandate was created, British Transjordan was divided once already, with about 80% forming the Palestinian Kingdom of Jordan. The remaining 20% was divided by the UN, with the Jewish parts of Israel forming just a bit more than 50%. That means just a bit more than 10% of British Transjordan, which hardly constitutes "most" of the territory.

In any event, the division was largely based on British partition plans which were hardly intended to be friendly to the Jews. Britain was not notoriously pro-Jewish in Palestine, and their original plans for division were certainly not drawn up with a bias in favor of Jews. The divisions, by and large, simply recognized where Jews had bought land and settled under the Ottoman and British reigns. They were drawn up to make partition as easy as possible, not to favor either side.

If those arguing this mean that the Jews ended up with a majority of the land in 1948, that is to be blames on those who attacked them, not the Jews. Israel had no plans to attack their neighbors, that was the Arab League and some Palestinians. Yes, Israel did revoke the citizenship of those who attacked them, and drive off aggressors, but I can't see how anyone could call this illegitimate just because it "violates the mandate". Didn't that attack "violate the mandate"? Should they have welcomed back aggressors with open arms again and again until they finally succeeded?

Again, as I said in my last post, I will never understand why Israel, and Israel alone, is held to such bizarre standards. In this case even being accused of violating the UN mandate by defending themselves, while those who attacked in the first place are to be returned to their land with no repercussions.

Would the critics of Israel impose this standard on any other nation?

POSTSCRIPT

Actually, I can answer my last question in the affirmative, as the comment in question pointed out the other popular charge of "genocide". The Indian tribes in the US get the same pass. They could attack each other and the Europeans, but when they lost, it was "genocide", and the settlers are guilty, even if acting in self defense. Somehow the Iroquois, for example, have better claim to land they took from other tribes, than Europeans have on land they took from the Iroquois. Apparently only Indian tribes may conquer one another, Europeans may not.

Some will argue what the US did was "different" than what the tribes did to one another, but if so, it was that the US was less brutal. The various tribes actually did commit genocide, in a meaningful sense, while the US, in most cases, forced relocation and assimilation, and did not engage in wholesale massacres for the most part. (Yes, there were massacres, but the Indians themselves engaged in massacre more regularly and as a matter of course, making it odd to hold the US guilty while exonerating the natives. Are those making this argument saying the Indians are somehow inferior and can't be held to the ethical standard they ask of Europeans? That seems rather racist and Eurocentric of them.)

So I suppose I do have a comparable double standard. But it doesn't help, as I never understood that one either.

I was skimming through some of the "libertarian left" sites, things like Boing Boing and some book review sites, and I discovered a bizarre intellectual mistake I never thought I would see.

Let me start by saying this is not going to be a post explaining why the words "libertarian" and "left" don't work together. It is a common enough perspective on the internet, probably the official philosophy of most "geek" sites and many teen and twenty-something pages, that strange mix of liberty worship, including and almost obsessive fascination with open source code, and a fear of "power". Unfortunately, by not distinguishing between economic and political power,t hey often try to take power form government with one hand, while giving it back in spades with the other, in order to "fight corporate power". I wrote about it once or twice in passing ("The Failure of Wikipedia", "Copyright as Politics", "Some Libertarian Analogies"), but I have yet to really delve into it and explain why it is a nonsensical position.

But this is not that post. Instead, this is a post about another error that seems to have become somewhat popular on the left, the use of the phrase "corporatism" to describe modern society. The term itself is unobjectionable, I think it is meaningless and provides no essential or meaningful insights, but it is not, in itself, offensive. However, the term does have one problem. Thanks to Mussolini's use of the term "stato corporativo" (formed form ideas taken from Gesell and others), many have tried to join their image of modern "corporatism" with mid 20th century fascism, and, indirectly Nazism as well.

What this misses is the simple fact that the coincidence of names is just that, the same way the word "magazine" sounds similar tot he Russian word for "store". There is a link, of course. In the case of Russian, a shared source in the French word "magasin", which was adopted into both English and Russian, though in English it came to be used more often in the publication context of "a storehouse of information".However, this in no way implies a connection between Elle magazine and boutiques in Omsk.

Similarly, the "corporate" in both stato corporativo and corporation comes from the same source, the Latin word for body, but that is where the relationship ends. corporation is a "body" because the entire venture is treated, legally, as an individual, a "body" and thus the term corporation. The stato corporativo is a state which acts as a single body, and this is corporativo. So, both are "corporate" in the sense that they are "like a body", the corporation int he sense of a venture being treated as a single individual, the fascist state as it is an economic which, theoretically, acts as a single body.

The use of the same word, or words which sound "kind of close" means nothing more than that. They have a common origin, that's it. Corporations, and the free market, have nothing to do with fascism.

Of course those on the "libertarian left" already bought into the "Nazis were conservative" trope, so it is not surprising that they would confuse the free market and fascism. Still, you would think that their "best and brightest", their "leading lights" and "intellectuals" would know better. But that too is the topic for another article. For now let me just say that a coincidence of terminology really proves nothing. And when a theory bases some sort of causal connection on nothing more than an accident of language (see Holy Blood, Holy Grail and the discussion of "King Bela" for a prime example), then that is a theory of which one should be most skeptical.

POSTSCRIPT

I know I have been promising a lot lately, mainly my lengthy post on the free market, and my argument about utopianism/ perfectionism and disasters, but I am now adding two more. In the immediate future I will try my best to write a sensible analysis of fascism and Nazi philosophy and point out how little they have to do with anything conservative, especially in the modern American, rather than early 20th century European meaning of that term. I also hope to write an analysis of the "libertarian left" philosophy so common on the internet, and so impossible in practice.

This one came up in a comment posted to one of my articles, but it comes up so often I feel the need to write on it. The problem I have is the use of the term "occupied territories" with regard to Israel.

First, let me ask, did anyone call Judea, Samaria and the Gaza strip "occupied territories" between 1948 and 1967 when they were occupied by Egypt and Jordan? No, they were just part of those two nations. Only when those nations attacked Israel and Israel defeated them and took the territories were they suddenly "occupied".

The second question is why we use this term only with regard to Israel. We do not call, for instance, the Chaco Boreal "Paraguayan Occupied Territory". We do not call Alsace and Lorraine "French Occupied Territories". We do not call Texas, California, and the entire southwest "US Occupied Territories". Or, to be accurate, maybe a handful do call each by those names, but we consider those who DO use such terms quite partisan and a bit daffy.

The reason is simple. We recognize that when a war takes place, ESPECIALLY a defensive war, that the land a nation wins in that war is part of the victorious nation. They have every right to settle their citizens in that land, to build, to found new cities and to generally treat it as they would their other territory.

For example, we do not call the suburbs of Dallas "settlements". We do not believe that moving to Sacramento is an act of aggression. And we do not see it as an illegitimate government action that we prevent (or we used to anyway) Mexicans from settling in the southwest without going through normal immigration procedures.

So, why on earth do we refuse to recognize land taken in a defensive war as part of Israel? They were attacked, after all. There is not even the excuse of an aggressive war. Unless you believe that Israel has no right to exist, there is absolutely no justification for thinking that Judea, Samaria and the Gaza area are not integral parts of Israel. Israel has a better claim than Paraguay does to the Chaco Boreal. Yet we persist in calling it "occupied territory", calling every new building a "settlement" and seeing normal activities as signs of aggression.

If we were to treat the southwest by the same rules we do Israel, the US has been guilty of horrible aggression against Mexico. And we have to resettle tens of millions of "settlers" from the region in order to retake the moral high ground.

Somehow I don't see anyone taking that claim seriously, yet such absurdities are accepted every day with regard to Israel. I just don't get it.

POSTSCRIPT

As I have heard a lot of absurd claims about the founding of Israel, please check out my earlier posts on the same topic, including "For Those Who Enjoy History", "Just Angry", "Moral Equivalence", "A Hypothetical Situation", "Correlation vs. Causation" and "The Failure of Negotiation". It may also be of use to refer to older essays on Islam in my posts "Thoughts on Islam and the Current Conflict", "Winning Over Moderates", "What About The Crusades?" and "Perceptions of Iraq". And finally, for those who love to mention the USS Liberty, read "Dismissing Conspiracy Theories" and "Conspiracy Theorists' False Logic" (or "False Flag Theories and 9/11" and linked articles for a more general treatment) before trying that approach. And finally, though not related to this topic directly, as many love to claim that "secular" Iraq and "religious" Al Qaida could not cooperate, read "Quote of the Day" for a brief response. (Actually, it is somewhat related, as religious and secular groups often fought jointly against Israel, at least when not at one another's throats. For that matter Sunni and Shia jointly attacked Israel from time to time. Clearly a coincidence of goals is enough to temporarily overcome any other differences, and Saddam and Al Qaida certainly had some goals in common.)

I haven't written a spelling nazi post in a while, but a perfect argument just came my way, and so I feel the need to comment once more.

For those unfamiliar with my spelling nazi posts, and who aren't likely to follow the inevitable links at the end of this post, let me make my argument very briefly. My problem is with those who argue that spelling and grammar "don't matter", that "so long as you understand what they mean" it is good enough. They will often show mock erudition by pointing to the colonial era and earlier when spelling was not standardized (ignoring the fact that even earlier, much Latin and Greek spelling, for example, WAS standardized)*.

My argument is simple. Allowing multiple spellings introduces the possibility of error, a point I am about to make with the example to follow. Nor is grammar any less significant. As English lacks the cases** which make clear function in other languages, grammar is essential to prevent confusion.

Of course some will say "Who cares about formal grammar if you can understand them?" But what may be "clear" to one is not always clear to another, making the subjective standard "makes sense" hard to decide. Just because you THINK others can understand you does not mean they can. Or perhaps they believe they can, but understand differently than you intended. Formal rules upon which all agree avoid this by imposing a single standard meaning. Without such rules, you may be convinced you are being understood, and your listener may be certain he understands, but in truth, you have failed to communicate***.

And having said that, allow me to point out a perfect example, perfect because it is not an example of extremely bad grammar, or of a contrived situation, as some of my previous examples have been, but is a real example and one using a very common error, confusing the homophones "hole" and "whole".

In the case in question, I was reading user comments on a driving game, and saw someone upset over the handling of the "hole thing". At first I assumed that this was meant to read "whole thing", and the writer was upset about the entire game. Later, I discovered there were issues with the way the physics engine worked, including the handling of falling objects and jumping cars, making me wonder if the "hole" could have really meant "hole". Nor did reading more posts make it any more clear, as people did actually write about holes. After reading through the whole set of responses, I came to the conclusion I was not alone in my confusion. There weren't many responses to the post that confused me, but the few who did seemed to be evenly split between those who thought "hole" really meant "hole" and those who thought "hole" meant "whole".

This may seem like a small issue, but consider how much trouble one little word caused in this context. Imagine several such errors in a crucial document, such as emergency instructions. Nor is this the only very simple error that can cause such problems.In the past I have been similarly puzzled by the misuse of the homophones "to", "too" and "two", especially if the writer gets lazy and uses "2" to represent all three. For example, "I am coming with u 2". Does this mean he is also coming or he is coming with two others? It is a small problem, but it is a common mistake and can bring about confusion if the context makes the choice of homophones unclear. "Their", "there" and "they're" has similar potential, though in most contexts it is pretty clear which is meant.

And it just gets worse the more peculiar the spelling becomes. These are pretty common errors, but as the spelling becomes more nonstandard the range of possible meanings becomes greater (as shown in my "monker" post -- "Why Spelling Matters (Again)"). But even with these simple and common misspellings the point should be clear. Once you accept that "spelling and grammar don't matter" you have set the stage for communication to break down. Nor does it matter if you add the caveat "so long as you are clear", because, once you eliminate agreed upon rules, there is no way to know whether you are clear or not.

Which brings me back to my point. Why add that "as long as you are clear" or "so long as they understand"? Isn't that in itself a rule? So what is the point of removing the whole set of rules, which work, to replace them with this vague and unworkable rule? Of course, in practice, this "so long as it is clear" is simply ignored, and we end up with no rules at all, but, if we imagine they are sincere in trying to impose this intelligibility rule, then wouldn't it make more sense to just retain the existing rules of standard spelling and grammar rather than trying to impose a new rule that allows any spelling or grammar but then attempts to impose this nebulous intelligibility rule?

After all, the only way to absolutely ensure intelligibility is to use an agreed upon set of rules. Any other solution leaves open the possibility of confusion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* My counter argument to that specific argument is that we also treated disease with mercury purgatives or bleeding,t hat doesn't mean it was a good idea. And just because Jefferson, Franklin, Paine and Hamilton were bright men does not mean they were right in all things. (See "The Conservative Trump Card") So just because they could function in an era which accepted alternate spellings does not mean that is the optimal system.

** English does technically have cases, but many words are the same in all cases. Even the few case distinctions which exist, mainly in pronouns, are often ignored, another error against which I argue.

*** As I have, in the past, made excuses for my own deviations from correct grammar, I feel I am as guilty as anyone. After thinking about it more I realized my distinction between formal and informal settings was artificial and nothing but an excuse for lazy habits. As such an artificial distinction is not consistent with my beliefs, I am now committed to following the rules of grammar in all settings, not just in my my more formal writing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

As promised here are my spelling and grammar nazi posts, as well as some unrelated posts touching on the topic:

Spelling Nazi
HILARIOS DANCEING CAT
Badly Chosen PC Words
Why Worry About Grammar?
Spelling Nazi Part 2
Why Spelling Matters (Again)
Spelling Nazi Part 3
It Warm's The Cockle's of my "Heart"
Tiny Grammar Gripe
Grammar Nazi Extra
Poor Grasp of the Meaning of Hypocrisy
Pronunciation Nazi
Grammar Nazi
A Grammar Nazi Rerun
Book Reviews? Calling All Readers
Oh No, Not Again
Conspiracy Theorists' False Logic (how bad spelling exposed a suspect document)
Oh No, Not Again
Why Spelling Matters, One More Time
Beyond Grammar and Spelling
A Thought on Iran (see footnote on transliteration)

As the two overlap so much, I have given up on past attempts to separate the spelling and grammar posts into two separate groups.

I am worried my son has a future in politics. At four he has already learned that he can win negotiations by accepting any "yes" he can get, then renegotiating later. If he wants five cookies, and I say "how about two?" he agrees, and then starts wheedling for one more, then another and another.

It is frightening to see him learning to do this so early, as it is the basic approach of politicians. Think about the banning of smoking, for example. There was no way they could have come out and said "we want to ban tobacco" back in the 70's or 80's. So the politicians started with banning smoking on flights, as "you can't avoid the smoke, even if you want to". Then on other transportation, like trains. Then mandated smoking move to enclosed areas in buildings. Then prohibited it in buildings entirely. Then tried to ban it outdoors in some cities. And so on and so on.

Politics works through the same principle my son discovered. Any "yes" is an opening. If you can get the public to agree to any prohibition, even the most minor, then they have agreed to your basic premise ("Inescapable Logic") and before too long you will be able to make them follow the logic to the total prohibition you desire.

This is why I so fear any steps toward government payment of medical costs, even the medicare/medicaid we have now. As we can see today, the logic of medicare/medicaid is used to justify more expansive coverage, maybe universal coverage. And once we admit to the government covering the uninsured, how to argue against a "single payer system"? And once we have that, what is to stop the state from nationalizing medicine entirely?

Unfortunately, while they are not quite as persistent as my son, they are much harder to thwart, as I can't send them to their rooms. At least they are nowhere near as cute as he is, so they lack that final secret weapon.

Well, Franken is in the senate. I was tempted to write something about how we have now learned the important lesson that if you whine enough and file lawsuits you will get what you want. But then I realized there would be someone who would argue that Bush did the same in 2000. Whether that is a fair comparison or not, and I think not, it does point to one important problem. Both ends of the political spectrum share in some of our problems.

So, without mentioning specifics, I think it is time we looked at our electoral system again. I know we are both a litigious society and one which has given up on the idea of principles behind laws, but do we really want to live in a world where the party in power can use its office to gerrymander districts, pass laws allowing select supporters more say in elections, encourage fraudulent votes, exclude legitimate votes, and then, when all else fails, turn tot he courts to decide elections?

For example, how on earth is it "unfair" to require ID to vote? You need ID to cash a check or buy alcohol, yet there are those who argue it is too great a burden for voting. Clearly this is not an honest complaint, but the argument of those who know ineligible voters will favor their party over the opposition.

But do we really want to open the polls to all and sundry? Allow rampant fraud? One party or the other favors it at the moment because it helps them get elected, but they forget that what is used in their favor today can be used against them tomorrow. Today illegals may favor the Democrats, but what if a third party began to offer more than the Democrats were willing to promise? Would the Democrats be as calm about fraud if the votes when to the La Raza candidate rather than the Democrat? Because at that point it will be too late to fix anything.

They need to keep that in mind when they turn a blind eye to fraud.

Similarly, I know every candidate who ends up in court to settle an election thinks he is in the right, but whether he is right or not, it sets a bad precedent. I hate to say it, but we might have been better off allowing Gore to steal an election* rather than set the precedent of deciding every election in the courts. The judiciary was never meant to be part of the electoral process, and adding them to the process just adds yet another layer of politicization to the process.

I think it is time for politicians to do something unfamiliar to them and realize they too are citizens, and what harms the country harms them, even if it grants them momentary partisan victories. Vote fraud, judiciary decided elections, and gerrymandered districts all can be sued against a party just as easily as for it, and as it introduces a huge uncertainty into elections, it makes the whole process less just. In addition, by causing voters to lose confidence in the system, it results in dropping confidence and government and increases the risk of political violence (see "Misunderstanding Democracy").

The point is, democratic government works because it provides a peaceful way to hand over the reins of government, and gives the citizens a voice in the selection of their government. If they think the government is no longer elected fairly, they may resort to the previous solutions, such as violent overthrow. Even if they don't go that far, the loss of confidence in representative government carries many ills with it.

So, please, politicians, can you agree to a few simple principles? Elections need to be reliable, and to that end, we need to ensure every voter is who he says he is, is eligible to vote, and votes only once. Once we establish a procedure to count votes, that is it. The procedure, as written, will be followed, and once it ends, the decision will stand, regardless of the outcome. Districts should be designed after the census by a non-partisan group, drawing them as evenly and uniformly as possible, without thought of advantage for a single party or for incumbents.

Finally, there will still be situations where, even following all these principles, you will see the chance to game the system and take advantage of a loophole, but please, think of yourself as a citizen first, and instead of exploiting this hole, propose a solution and see it is removed. I know it sounds suicidal, but in reality, if you prove yourself honorable, you will get more votes from the unexpected honesty than from all the dirty tricks imaginable.

Not that I expect even one politician to take me up on this. Seeing oneself as a citizen first and a politician second is a rare perspective among those hungering after power.

------------------------------------------------------------------

* I am not saying whether Gore or Bush was the first to go outside of the established appeal and recount procedure here. Though I do stand by the many post-election recounts which, no matter how they counted, found Bush winning. Sadly, for such an important question, my memory is faulty, and I don't recall precisely who first left behind official calls for recounts and hit the courts. I do think it was Bush, who rightly objected to recounts of select counties. But, even though he was in the right, going to the courts set a very bad precedent.

I have often wondered why people mistake "understanding" and "excusing".

For example, whenever we hear about a criminal on the news, some friend or family member will tell us how hard a childhood he had, what horrible abuse he suffered and so on, with the implication being that we should not punish him as harshly because of this. But why? Is it better to be murdered by someone who was abused as a child than by a coldblooded killer for hire? Are you any less dead if you killer had a troubled childhood? The truth is, everyone who does something wrong has a reason for it, many of them reasons which would elicit sympathy from someone, but it doesn't make their acts any less harmful to the victims. Whether you acted from simple greed, or uncontrollable rage, or from a bad childhood or a rotten marriage, you still did wrong, you are still the same threat regardless of motive, and I can't imagine why your reasons would change how you should be treated¹.

Recently I have seen an even more bizarre version of this error, arguing for special treatment of nations provided their motives are "understandable". Not that this is entirely unprecedented. How many countless students have learned that Germans was somehow "pushed" into World War II by the reparations of Versaiiles²? Even if this were true, does it make the subsequent war any different? Should Poland have failed to defend herself, or Britain withdrawn the AEF because Germany had understandable motives? Should we have refused to fight because reparations pushed Germany into war³?

Today, this argument takes the form of justifications of Iranian nuclear ambitions, Iranian support of terrorism and other Iranian efforts to either achieve regional dominance or threaten other nation states. The argument takes many forms, from arguing that Iran still feels threatened because of US meddling during the 1950's, to arguments that Iran is threatened by Israel, to arguments that our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq has driven them to extremes.

Whether any of these are valid or not, and some are rather suspect to say the least⁴,  my response is still "so what?" Whether Iran supports terrorism out of fears of US overthrow of her government, worries over Israeli power, a feeling of inferiority to Iraq or a desire to rule all her neighbors, does it matter? Should we respond differently to terrorism?

Let me return to World War II. When the Germans entered Poland, what should Poland have done? Does it matter if the war started because of reparations, nationalism, trade restrictions or economic collapse? Poland had one, and only one, response, to mobilize troops and drive the Germans out. The motives were irrelevant, actions were all that mattered.

And that is the case with Iran. We cannot care about motives. First, because we can never know motives with anything approaching certainty, only actions. Second, because by considering motives we give nations the incentive to obfuscate, to lie about their motives, in order to be able to act with impunity through sympathy. Just as our racial preference and pro-disability laws have created a victim-driven social order in some respects, a worry about international motives would create a victim-state system, whereby states which could claim to have been on the receiving end of past injustices would be able to carry out any acts they wanted, while those who did wrong, even centuries before, would be forced to pay in perpetuity⁵.

No, we cannot consider motive. It is irrelevant. What matters is deeds. Nations which behave, which respect their neighbors, engage in no hostilities and otherwise are good citizens will be safe. And those who do not, regardless of why, will need to be handled in the same way, no matter why they acted.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. For the same reason I oppose hate crime laws. If sympathy does not make an argument for less punishment, then having more repulsive motives also does not make for greater punishment. If I am consistent, and argue motives are irrelevant, it is the deed which counts, then I have to be so in both directions. And, from the point of view of society, I can't see arguing any differently. We want to keep the peace, and protect rights, regardless of why people violate those rights. So hate crimes, crimes of passion, premeditated and spur of the moment should all count the same. Then again, I have argued before that I never understood why killing out of rage is legally "better" than premeditated murder. (See "Compassionate Execution")

2. I haven't the space to argue this here, but this is a total lie. Without the expansive social programs and covert rearmament the government carried out throughout the 20's and 30's, as well as the irresponsible monetary policy that led tot he hyperinflation of the early 20's, reparations would have been burdensome but not crushing. In any case, the fact remains that a war initiated by Germany and Austria-Hungary destroyed much of France's industrial infrastructure. Someone was going to have to rebuild that. If there were no reparations, then it would fall to France to pay to rebuild what Germany destroyed. That hardly seems fair. To exonerate Germany on these grounds is like saying a man fined for shoplifting was thereby forced into more shoplifting. There were alternatives other than war, Germany simply chose to ignore them.

3. A similar myth exists about France's expansionist policies, especially under the Bourbon monarchs. The argument is apparently that, finding themselves surrounded by hostile alliances, France had no choice but establish her own web of alliances and start wars in self-defense. It not only is irrelevant to how the other nations should respond to those wars, but also ignores the fact that many of those "hostile alliances" arose precisely because of earlier French expansionist plans.

4. Much of Iran's activity predates 9/11 and our responses, making those unlikely causes. And as I argued in "Correlation vs. Causation", Israel may make a convenient scapegoat, but that is all. Actually, as the Shia-Sunni struggle dates back to the 8th century, while   Persian-Arab aggression dates back AT LEAST to the Ottoman Empire, and in many respects back to classical times, seeing the Iranian struggle with her neighbors in terms of the US and Israel is to be quite blind to history. Obviously Israel and the US may influence the foreign policy of Iran, but to blame all aggression on the US or Israel is absurd.

5. In some respects this did happen in Kossovo. Because of past Serb misdeeds, we were more inclined to believe the worst  and ignore problems with the KLA, including ties to organized crime, to Islamic militants, and worries about their own ethnic cleansing of groups such as the Roma, which did come to pass. (A similar problem occurred in many Balkan conflicts. In many cases, both sides were equally guilty of ethnic bigotry and persecution, but we chose sides based on preconceptions of the "right" side. -- Do not confuse this with other conflicts in which we knowingly chose bad guys for strategic reasons, such as our back and forth between Iran and Iraq in the 80's, where our main interest was keeping the Soviets out of the Persian Gulf. In these cases Clinton was arguing we were doing the "moral" thing.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

Some will challenge my assertion about motives by pointing to my support of preemptive war, or my opposition to Iranian nuclear plans, arguing that I am making assumptions about motive there. But that misses my point. In planning and intelligence we are free to guess as to motive, to fail to do so would be suicidal. My point is only that motive cannot be used as an excuse, not that we can never consider motive when deciding if actions are a threat to us. Just as an individual is not bound to respect "innocent until proven guilty", only the courts are so obligated, motive is only irrelevant in giving nations excuses, it can be considered in any other context, especially when it provides useful warning.

POSTSCRIPT II

I made the first part of this argument, concerning the criminal justice system, several months ago in "Motives Unimportant".

I have made a practice on my blog of welcoming everyone who comments, and thanking them for their comments, regardless of what those comments contain. Similarly, I have promised to respond to everyone who takes the time to comment, and to give the best response possible. I do make an exception for those who don't seem to be sincere, who simply post slurs or who accuse me of being a shill for the CPAs or the oil industry. However, provided a writer seems to sincerely wish to discuss the issues, I respond as civilly as possible. I may sometimes get a bit heated, but I also always try to maintain some degree of civility.

In the past, this insistence on treating political debate as a civilized undertaking has upset some, here and in the comment sections of other blogs. Some people have objected that it is not proper to "play at being nice" as this is "a matter of life and death". They allege that maintaining this civil tone make sit seem like this is all a game, and we are engaged in detached debate.

I think this difference of perspective comes form one very simple cause. In my mind, when I debate someone, I am trying to convince them. Or, to be more accurate, I am arguing as forcefully as I can for what I believe, and seeing whether my positions or theirs will prove the more durable. Much as it may upset some,  who think it an idle intellectual game, I am still looking for truth. I am trying to show them that my beliefs are correct, while, at the same time, I am also seeing if their beliefs might not prove more consistent than my own. In short, I am not just trying to persuade them, but also testing my ideas each time, to see if they come up short.

However, that does not mean I am engaged solely in trying to find the truth for myself. I am also hoping that the other party might be persuaded to see my side, to find a more accurate understanding through the debate. In general I believe that most people want to know the truth and want to be guided by an accurate understanding of the world. Very rare is the individual who wants to do harm, or wishes to persist in error. Many of us came to conservatism from another belief, and were persuaded ourselves, and so many of those to whom we speak, even those most different from us, are possible future conservatives.

On the other hand, many of those who are so serious about their arguments, who think it is wrong to maintain a civil tone or to admit one may be in error, see themselves as engaged in a public debate, akin to the presidential debates. In their minds they are not looking for truth, they already posses it. Nor is their opponent sincerely seeking after truth, their opponent is an exemplar of an erroneous belief, actively trying to cause harm. In this Manichean political perspective, every debate is a public conflict in the struggle between light and dark, an effort to sway those not yet committed to one side or the other, and every opponent is not mistaken but evil.

And I suppose if one thinks this way it does make sense to be as obnoxious as one can to discredit the opposition. But I am not ready to believe that everyone who does not believe in the same things I do is a complete reprobate beyond redemption. Nor is it a good idea to write off even those farthest to the left. After all, which does more good, to win over a handful of "independents" whose behavior suggests their dedication is as deep as a saucer, if that, and who are likely to change sides again the moment they hear a more eloquent speech, or to win over a former believer from the other side? If you manage to convert the opposition, then you can stop worrying about the middle.

And, if that doesn't convince you that civility may be the way to go, recall that Reagan was himself once a Democrat, and among the ranks of the socialist and communists were once von Hayek and von Mises. Had not someone taken the time to persuade them, perhaps everyone I just mentioned, and many more, including me, would have spent their time and energy arguing for the other side.

POSTSCRIPT

I realize some may find a bit of a jarring disparity between my early talk of finding truth and my later talk of "the other side", but ti is not as strange as it might seem. Yes, I am open to the possibility that my beliefs may be false, at least in some specifics. However, I am also not so blind as to not realize I have tested my beliefs quite extensively, and the chance that the whole structure will be overthrown is small. Given that, then I am probably right in thinking the philosophy of the left will do harm if allowed to continue unchecked. Thus, speaking of the "other side" is not a contradiction of my statement that I am open to alternate philosophies. But until my philosophy proves false, I have to function as if it were true, and so there is, until proved otherwise, an "other side" against which to struggle.

POSTSCRIPT II

For those who are curious, my writing on evil and mistaken beliefs, see the following:

Life Without Villains
Evil and Greed
Enemies Into Villains
Rethinking My Earlier Position
The Nature of Evil

As you can see, my views have evolved somewhat, but even the early posts have quite a bit of truth to them.

Best of the Web has an amusing take on the NYT's insistence on "Al Qaida in Mesopotamia" being "mostly homegrown":

Boilerplate Gone Wild
From a New York Times report on Iraq:

Seizing on the desperation of Sunni insurgents, foreign fighters were able to entrench themselves in the neighborhood. Those fighters, who Ahmed said were aligned with Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a mostly homegrown Sunni insurgent group that American intelligence says is foreign-led, were not only brutal in battling Shiites but also in enforcing control over Sunni residents.

You almost have to admire the New York Times for sticking to its guns and continuing to use the "al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" trope when George W. Bush has been out of office nearly six months. But the reference to AQIM as "mostly homegrown" is especially awkward here, given that the whole paragraph is about "foreign fighters."

However, they miss one interesting aspect of this excerpt. They recognize that the focus is on the foreign fighters, but miss the other half of the equation. If AQIM is foreign led, and is staffed with foreign fighters, exactly where do the "homegrown" people figure into it at all? By this definition isn't the French Foreign Legion a native insurgency in north Africa?

I read on Best of the Web some who are arguing that there is no evidence that the election in Iran was rigged. This is amusing in itself, but I do have to ask, why anyone is upset at the thought the election results might have been fixed. After all, you can't run in Iran unless the religious leaders approve your candidacy, so who cares if the results are fixed? The WHOLE ELECTION is fixed. Does it matter if they jigger the results if they can prevent anyone they dislike from running?

Of course, this does make it seem less likely that Mousavi is a real reform candidate. But then again, Mousavi himself really doesn't matter any longer. The unrest in Iran has gone beyond putting Mousavi in office. However, should he end up in office, even if it is as the result of a popular uprising, I think we should keep in mind that he was acceptable enough to the religious authorities that he was allowed on the ballot.

On the other hand, that is not a reason to fail to support the current unrest. Mousavi himself may be less than an inspiring choice, but anything which reduces the power of the religious authorities can only be good for the people of Iran, and for the world in general.

POSTSCRIPT

While it is true that Mousavi is a creature of the religious government, every bit as much as Ahmadinajhad, it was a bad move for our president to say so immediately after the uprising started. Doing so basically was to cast his vote in support of the religious regime. For someone who is supposed to be such an adroit handler of foreign affairs, Obama showed a horrible tin ear in his handling of the whole Iranian affair.

Then again, the left insisted Reagan was an idiot who had nothing to do with the end of communism, at least until after he was dead when they pretended they supported him all along. And they still haven't admitted Bush had anything to do with Syria withdrawing form Lebanon or Libya's ending its WMD development. And they still think Oslo was a great idea. And...

Actually, I don't need to go through the whole list. All I need to say is this: "Nobel prize winner Jimmy Carter". Anyone who can look at the late 70's and imagine them a triumph of US diplomacy has lost any right to speak about foreign affairs.

NOTE: By the way, have the media settled on an official transliteration of the Iranian president's name? I try to use the same spelling every time, but he has almost as many spellings as Qaddafi/Ghadaffy/Qadhafi/Godhafi did throughout the 1980's. And, on a related note, have we decided how many M's Hammas/Hamas has in its name? Or how to spell Hezbollah/Hizballah/Hesbullah?

In some ways this reminds me of that stupid transliteration war among Greek scholars in the 80's arguing "Hektor" was somehow "better" than "Hector" or "Akhilleus" better than the familiar "Achilles". The second, I grant, is closer to the original, but the first, how is K "more like" Kappa than a hard C? Don't they both sound the same? I would happily accept a less "exact" transliteration if it would allow us to settle on just one spelling, even if it were a little inaccurate. After all, any transliteration will always be inaccurate. That is the nature of transliteration.

I have written many times about how Obama reminds me of Carter ("Yet More Flashbacks","Not a Flashback Yet","A Great Article", "Glad The World Loves Us"). However, it appears he is about to repeat a mistake which caused some of Carter's worst moments.. Granted, price controls were enacted by Nixon, and Nixon is also responsible for repealing most except the damaging oil rulings. But it was under Carter that they came to fruition, so they will always be associated with Carter, even if they aren't his fault. (Though to be fair, Ford was set to repeal them after reelection, and Carter stopped that action until he had nearly left office.)

What those laws did was to price oil from "new" wells lower than "old" wells. As this made it unprofitable to prospect for new oil, the US percentage of our oil consumption dropped, and we relied ever more on imports, giving OPEC ideal conditions to establish cartel prices. ("A Thought on Oil Reserves", "How the Government Fights Against Energy Independence")

Which makes the following description of the cap and trade bill frightening:

Refiners would have to buy allowances for carbon dioxide spewed from their plants and from vehicles when motorists burn their fuel. Imports would need permits only for the latter, which ConocoPhillips Chief Executive Officer Jim Mulva said would create a competitive imbalance.

"It will lead to the opportunity for foreign sources to bring in transportation fuels at a lower cost, which will have an adverse impact to our industry, potential shutdown of refineries and investment and, ultimately, employment," Mulva said in a June 16 interview in Detroit. . . .

The same amount of gasoline that would have $1 in carbon costs imposed if it were domestic would have 10 cents less added if it were imported, according to energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie in Houston.

In other words, the same conditions which set up the various oil embargoes of the 1970's are about to be repeated, at the same time we are at loggerheads with Iran and Venezuela.

Does anyone else feel a very eerie sense of deja vu?

POSTSCRIPT

I actually brought this up long ago, before Obama won the nomination in "How to Destroy the Economy" as well as "A Brief Look At Obama's Economic Plans", the second of which is mainly interesting in how few of Obama's promises have even been mentioned, much less seen any activity.

POSTSCRIPT II

Thanks to Best of the Web for providing this quote.

My recent posting has taught me one more thing, why conservatives have such a hard time winning. If anything, I have learned a great deal of sympathy for John McCain.

My regular readers know I am, if anything, obsessive about small government and federalism. My beliefs are so extreme I would end medical regulation and decriminalize drugs. In addition, many also know I am both devout and quite a moral individual. I believe in absolute ethics and have no problem expressing that.

So, it shocked me when my essay was greeted by people criticizing me for failing to believe in absolute "values" in ethics, or for failing to mention that government should be minimal.

My point was simple, so long as government undertakes actions, saying that a goal should be pursued at any cost is absurd. I gave some specific examples, arguing that we do not treat health and life as if they were worth any cost, and that was it. It was a simple economic analysis and argument against much of the nanny-state philosophy we see around us.

What surprised me was how angry conservatives can be unless you hit on their specific pet topic. From small government fanatics to the devout to the Objectivists, all took me to task because they thought I ran down their particular pet topic.

I know the left can be just as bad, with their enforced orthodoxies, racism/sexist/ageism/speciesism witch hunts, and periodic purges, but this was my first real run in with this on the right, outside of periodic spats with the Buchananites and a few Ron Paul fanciers.

Until we learn that conservatives can have a range of beliefs greater than "exactly like mine" we really are destined to take office only to lose it again. Oh, we will win, as the left self-destructs just as readily, but I doubt we will hold office long while we engage in such heated turf wars over such trifling differences. Yes, I have said we should expel the more far out moderates, and I stand by it, a smaller party is a good thing. But I think we should beware of the opposite, a party so small no one can belong.

In short, a party small enough to stay on topic is a good thing. A party which tears itself apart fighting over trifles is not.

POSTSCRIPT

Before anyone thinks I am making too much of a difference of opinions, this is hardly the first time I have thought this same thing. When many were threatening to walk out rather than support McCain I was just as critical. We, as a group, have a disturbing tendency to think we are each the "one true conservative" and everyone else is suspect unless they nod along with every word. That needs to end. No single one of us is perfect, we need to admit that others may have some ideas worthy of a hearing, even if they fail to say exactly what we would.

POSTSCRIPT II

Just realized this sounds as if I am complaining, but far from it. I had the time of my life having so many comments to which I could respond. I was just shocked to see so many with whom I would likely agree jumping to conclusions because I denounced "absolute values". I thought we were above that.

My experience with having a larger, and more mixed, audience has taught me something I did not know, that points I thought clear are far from it, at least among general readers.

The point in question is what "value" means. When I wrote about the idea of "absolute values" being the source of many problems, and the tendency of those on the left to ascribe "health" with absolute value status, I never expected the responses I received. Those on the left crowed about the right giving up "moral absolutism" and those on the right denounced me for turning against G-d.

The problem is, I did nothing of the kind. Ethics and economics are different beasts. Ethics tells us what we should value, economics is about putting those valuations (and others) into practice.

Which means my post had nothing to do with ethical relativism. Nor does it mean I deny absolute moral values. Well, to be fair, there is a bit of bleed-over, but only if one is far too rigid in their ethical absolutism. If you say "life is worth any cost", then logically you would spend every waking moment preserving your life to the exclusion of all else, every thought and deed would be focused on the one goal of extending your life.

That is not what most people when they speak of moral absolutes. They mean things such as "unjustified killing is always wrong" or "theft is always wrong', which is a fine rule. And both can be implemented without causing havoc with economics.

So, to make this brief. Many on the left have moral relativism and economic absolutism. They have no clear cut values, but once they latch onto something, for the time they hold it valuable, they tend to say it si worth any cost. To criticize this is neither to deny moral absolutes nor to engage in ethical relativism.

My post, in short, espoused nothing concerning ethics, and argued only for relative valuations in economics.

Is that clear now?