“Values” vs. science in the mind of a Liberal Democrat
Over the last year or so, I have had several conversations with various flavors of Liberal Democrats, who profess to be very upset about religious people, presumably Republican such. The Liberal Democrats seem particularly upset about the “science vs. creationism” debate, that religious Republicans in particular allegedly have rejected “science” in favor of “creationism,” which in their mind also carries over into “values” in a broader sense.
On those terms, I actually agree with the Liberal Democrats 100%. It is no news that I find all forms of religion – at least the way the word is typically defined – to be nonsense per definition. But that is not the only thing that’s bothering me in this debate. No, what I find incredibly hypocritical is that the people who rightly find “creationism” and “values” so deplorable are themselves rejecting at least as much science as do the prototypical religious Republicans!
What do I mean by that? Specifically, the Liberal Democrats have all rejected the science of economics! There is no remotely credible economist who says anything but that the most efficient – “scientific” – economic system is 100% pure laissez-faire. Free markets, free trade, the smallest possible government, if any at all. This is nothing but basic Economics 101.
Yet the Liberal Democrats are all rejecting economic science! They are all in favor of ever-increasing socialist intrusions in people’s freedom to own and trade on voluntary terms. Why? Well, the Liberal Democrats believe that their “values” trump the science of economics. In their world, Laissez-Faire economics is also the most efficient economic system, but government policy needs to be guided by their non-scientific “values” in favor of $2+ trillion worth of annual taxes and millions and millions of pages of red tape.
Yeah, the Liberal Democrats are right when they criticize some religious Republicans about “creationism,” but who are they to cast the first stone? At least the debate about creationism has to do with deeply historical nonsense – who cares what may or may not happened some 2000 or 2000 billion years ago? The Liberal Democrat rejection of economic science, however, means that not only I, but billions of people on planet Earth are suffering today and tomorrow from lack of economic freedom and prosperity.
posted by Anton Wahlman | 4:40 PM
1 Comments:
Anton
I was very pleased to find this blog as I have been following your stock analysis for years now.
Even though I tend to agree with you regarding the idea that mankind can advance only by using rational and constructive science-oriented thinking, I am not sure I agree to the comparison you made between religious "values" and socio-economical "values".
The term "belief" represents the fact that there is no logical base behind it. Therefore it's ok if someone believes that the world was created in 7 days and that evolution is just a myth. As long as that someone understands that this belief is unreachable for people who choose to only use rational and common sense in order to understand our world. That's why I find all the rationalization of religion, like finding scientific arguments in favor of creationism, to be a joke. If you believe in something (as opposed to think, presume, postulate, assume etc.), there is no logical element there. That's why you can never convince a creationist that creationism isn't possible, because belief and logical thinking exist in parallel universes.
Even if you assume that economy can be viewed as a scientific discipline with definite values and solutions, a decision you describe is subject to other considerations like moral values and ethics. What I am trying to say is that you examine "socialist intrusions" only from a scientific point of view whereas I, as a scientist, think (oops, almost used the word "believe" ) that such issues aren't just pure science and there are more parameters to look at. Perhaps, a laissez-faire attitude generates the most efficient economic systems, but that's not always what we, as a society strive to, especially when we're not dealing with pure experimental models.
Post a Comment
<< Home