My libertarian beliefs have not always served me well. Like most people who hold strong ideological convictions, I find that, too often, my beliefs trump the scientific facts. This is called motivated reasoning, in which our brain reasons our way to supporting what we want to be true. Knowing about the existence of motivated reasoning, however, can help us overcome it when it is at odds with evidence.His experience of trying to talk reason to the unreasonable:
Take gun control. I always accepted the libertarian position of minimum regulation in the sale and use of firearms because I placed guns under the beneficial rubric of minimal restrictions on individuals. Then I read the science on guns and homicides, suicides and accidental shootings (summarized in my May column) and realized that the freedom for me to swing my arms ends at your nose. The libertarian belief in the rule of law and a potent police and military to protect our rights won’t work if the citizens of a nation are better armed but have no training and few restraints. Although the data to convince me that we need some gun-control measures were there all along, I had ignored them because they didn’t fit my creed. In several recent debates with economist John R. Lott, Jr., author of More Guns, Less Crime, I saw a reflection of my former self in the cherry picking and data mining of studies to suit ideological convictions. We all do it, and when the science is complicated, the confirmation bias (a type of motivated reasoning) that directs the mind to seek and find confirming facts and ignore disconfirming evidence kicks in.
The clash between scientific facts and ideologies was on display at the 2013 FreedomFest conference in Las Vegas—the largest gathering of libertarians in the world—where I participated in two debates, one on gun control and the other on climate change. I love FreedomFest because it supercharges my belief engine. But this year I was so discouraged by the rampant denial of science that I wanted to turn in my libertarian membership card. At the gun-control debate (as in my debates with Lott around the country), proposing even modest measures that would have almost no effect on freedom—such as background checks—brought on opprobrium as if I had burned a copy of the U.S. Constitution on stage. In the climate debate, when I showed that between 90 and 98 percent of climate scientists accept anthropogenic global warming, someone shouted, “LIAR!” and stormed out of the room.
The funny thing is that Libertarians would like to see themselves as being reasonable, but they are unwilling to accept facts, even when given to them complete with citations. That makes it hard to argue with someone who parrots off a slogan thinking he has made a valid point, but they haven't really said much of anything of value.
more here
Clearly, this guy is not and never has been a small 'l' libertarian.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
I know I've asked you before, but do you live in a cave in Idaho where you steal electricity and the internet connection?
DeleteNo, I'm not with the government so I don't steal from people like they do.
Deleteorlin sellers
Classy, Mike. Launch an ad hominem attack against an opponent accusing him of doing things antithetical to his stated beliefs. Not only does that show an inability to argue rationally, but deliberate choice to misrepresent the beliefs of your opponents.
DeleteAnd you, T., pretend to not get my point. That's your typical dishonest MO. By teasing Orlin about his living habits I was highlighting the fact that in spite of all his anti-government blah blah blah, he's benefiting from the fed as much as the rest of us.
DeleteReally, Mike? That's the point you were trying to make? Because that doesn't even make sense--if he were stealing things he'd still be benefitting from their existence.
DeleteWe don't deny the government's effects on our lives--some of them are even beneficial. We just desire to see a smaller government with some of these functions a) performed at different levels (e.g. returned to the states or localities), b) performed by private institutions, and c) performed at the federal level under a constitutional amendment creating a new enumerated power rather than under a bastardized interpretation of the commerce clause.
For example, there's nothing wrong or hypocritical for me to be living here, under the protection afforded by our huge military's existence, benefiting from that, and yet still saying that I think we should look for a way to get back to a structure where we shrink the standing army significantly and rely more on the militia, saving federal dollars, requiring everyone to take responsibility, and possibly reducing the number of our foreign wars.
T., why do you work so hard to defend the other commenters?
DeleteYou would indeed be hypocritical if you lived the way you do and spouted such anti-government nonsense as Orlin does.
Mikeb, how am I benefiting from the feds? And please don't say something stupid like roads, the internet, or some other typical statist bullshit.
Deleteorlin sellers
Why is that stupid and "statist bullshit?" You live in a society of your fellows, you benefit in all the ways that free men benefit from a lawful society. The police and hospitals and schools all benefit you, to mention just a few, and yes the roads.
DeleteThere you go with your statist BS.
DeleteTo be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so.
To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.
P. J. Proudhon
orlin sellers
There's a difference between science and morality or science and public policy. Science tells us what is, but it cannot determine what we should do about it.
ReplyDeleteHow do we know what to do about anything if we don't accept the facts?
DeleteYou ask that of me as though you think I disagree. Why is that?
DeleteMaybe because of your belligerent stubbornness in these discussions.
DeleteMikeb, name one fact that I haven't accepted. I don't mean supposition, guess, inference, speculation, or interpretation. Name one fact.
DeleteFact: gun control measures work. American history proves that. You, as a typical toothless grin hillbilly, deny that.
DeleteJim, can you cite a data source that proves this fact please?
DeleteI already did more than once, but I guess you cannot read. Figures.
DeleteCan you narrow things down a bit closer than American history?
DeleteNo surprise you don't pay attention. After all you are an ass hole hillbilly.
DeleteJim, calling people names when they disagree with you isn't an effective debate technique.
DeleteI've never heard of someone from Minnesota being called a hillbilly before, but welcome to the tribe, Sarge.
DeleteOne fact for Greg: The number of crimes committed with guns far exceeds the number of PROVEN DGUs.
DeleteDo you accept this fact, yes or no?
Mike,
DeleteNice apples to oranges comparison there.
There you go again, trying to come to the rescue of the other commenters. And in this case making a fool of yourself. There was no false comparison, which is what apples and oranges implies. I was answering Greg's question to show him one FACT that he denies.
DeleteI haven't seen that proven as a fact, Mikeb. I've seen your speculative interpretation, but not proof that what you said is a fact.
DeleteYou were comparing all crimes, whether they could be proven or not--a number one would have to be omniscient to know, to DGU's we could prove within our limited frame of reference.
DeleteThat's an apples to oranges comparison.
It's the only debate technique you hillbillies use. Just responding in kind. Don't like it, don't do it. But it's irresistible for idiot hillbillies.
DeleteHe takes a basic tenet of libertarianism and applies it completely contrary to its intention: the right to swing my arms ends at your nose. Gun control is tying people's arms behind their back, or punishing those who swing their arms and DON'T hit anyone in the nose. The point of that tenet is to do what you want to do so long as you don't hurt anybody. How can he call himself a libertarian and not get that?
ReplyDeleteExactly! Additionally, he would propose using force to get people to do what he wants done.
Deleteorlin sellers
Liberal, conservative, libertarian, republican, democrat, independent,,,, WHO CARES! There are all of the above on both sides of the issue with guns, background checks, bans, freedoms, differing laws and on and on.
ReplyDeleteAnd be glad to help return those who appose Civil Rights back to private life, two faced bastards first.
I will support those who support the Constitution as intended to be law and appose those who don't, on ANY issue, not just guns.
Wrong. Haven't you seen the polls where huge percentages of Democrats favor gun control and much smaller percentages of Republicans do?
DeleteYes, but those polls don't show monolithic support--Hence Texas saying that there are people in all parties for and against us.
DeleteThats exactly right.
Delete"There are all of the above on both sides of the issue with guns"
DeleteSo if even one Republican agrees with the gun control side that's enough to make the statement you made? The fact that you said "all of the above" is a bit misleading, don't you think?
The truth is what I said, generally speaking, conservatives and Republicans go for gun rights and liberals and Democrats go for gun control.
Generally, Yes. Generally means there are exceptions. Yall have Christie, Peter King, etc. who go for gun control, and we have some Democrats who vote against it--like all the democrats who voted to recall their 2 legislators in Colorado.
DeleteWhy are you going after Texas as if he's being dishonest? All he said was that there are pro gun people, and generally pro freedom people, in all parties, and that he'll vote for people on the basis of their pro freedom views rather than on the basis of which party they belong to.
One would think someone holding himself up as a rationalist would applaud that, not tell him he's wrong, and then insist that he must only vote for Republicans. Looks like you're trying to polarize things so that you can divide and conquor. Tut, tut, tut.
Why are you defending Texas as if he can't speak for himself?
DeleteMike, Tennessean is making the same points that I would anyway. What else could I say. He is exactly right about my original comment.
DeleteIts not about the ratio between left or right, its about the individual politician that's pro or anti on the second civil right.
Some are RINOs, (Republican In Name Only)
Some are DINOs, (Democrat In Name Only)
So I don't care about right, left, center or other. I care about what they stand for.
Gee, Mike, I thought this was an open discussion among multiple parties. Why are you suddenly so defensive about people joining the discussion if they join on the side against you?
Deleteappose? did you mean oppose?
DeleteYes, I stand corrected. Hmm, I wonder why spell check didn't catch that.
DeleteCould be you are just a dumb fuck who cannot spell.
DeleteTexas Colt Carry strikes me as the kind of person I'd be proud to call a friend in real life. Anonymous, by contrast, is the sort of person I work to avoid.
DeleteGreg, I hope you're sitting down. I agree with you completely.
Delete"The libertarian belief in the rule of law and a potent police and military to protect our rights won’t work if the citizens of a nation are better armed but have no training and few restraints."
ReplyDeleteSo we must use force to disarm people so they aren't better armed than the police and the military. But Mikeb and Laci have gone to great lengths to assure me that the military and police are so much better armed than mere civilians that resistance is futile. So wouldn't that then mean that the arms we now possess don't need to be controlled as Mr. Shermer suggests.