• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

The party of Reagan has become the party of Putin.

The Supreme Court cannot be allowed to become the ultimate, unaccountable arbiter of everything.

“Jesus paying for the sins of everyone is an insult to those who paid for their own sins.”

Whatever happens next week, the fight doesn’t end.

Accused of treason; bitches about the ratings. I am in awe.

Let me eat cake. The rest of you could stand to lose some weight, frankly.

Well, whatever it is, it’s better than being a Republican.

We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. let’s win this.

We’ll be taking my thoughts and prayers to the ballot box.

The republican speaker is a slippery little devil.

Stamping your little feets and demanding that they see how important you are? Not working anymore.

The line between political reporting and fan fiction continues to blur.

No Justins, No Peace

… gradually, and then suddenly.

I’d try pessimism, but it probably wouldn’t work.

Republicans don’t lie to be believed, they lie to be repeated.

We’ve had enough carrots to last a lifetime. break out the sticks.

“What are Republicans afraid of?” Everything.

I did not have this on my fuck 2022 bingo card.

When do we start airlifting the women and children out of Texas?

Pelosi: “He either is stupid, or he thinks the rest of us are.” Why not both?

There is no right way to do the wrong thing.

Teach a man to fish, and he’ll sit in a boat all day drinking beer.

Wow, I can’t imagine what it was like to comment in morse code.

Mobile Menu

  • Four Directions Montana
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2024 Elections
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Glibertarianism / Another question

Another question

by DougJ|  February 8, 20116:04 pm| 45 Comments

This post is in: Glibertarianism, Going Galt

FacebookTweetEmail

Cato employee Jason Kuznicki found my questions about evolution and climate change “patronizing”, but he was kind enough to answer them. So I have another question for him: can he tell me why he thinks Will Wilkinson and Brink Lindsey are no longer at Cato?

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Christine O’Donnell: S.C.R.E.A.M. (Socialist Cash Rules Everything Around Me)
Next Post: What You Call a Caricature, I Call Reality »

Reader Interactions

45Comments

  1. 1.

    mistermix

    February 8, 2011 at 6:07 pm

    I believe that question has been asked and unanswered for a while over at the League.

  2. 2.

    DougJ®

    February 8, 2011 at 6:12 pm

    I’ve asked it at least once before.

  3. 3.

    BGinCHI

    February 8, 2011 at 6:14 pm

    He thinks “human activities” caused it?

    Like shuffleboard? Or a cake walk?

    It’s just like the pivot in question #1: evolution is correct, but it can’t tell us how life started.

    What is it with these fucking guys? They’re like high school contrarians who always have to disagree even if they agree, just to show that they have an identity.

  4. 4.

    eldorado

    February 8, 2011 at 6:15 pm

    i’m assuming brink linksey was fired for having the first name of brink.

  5. 5.

    Warren Terra

    February 8, 2011 at 6:18 pm

    You’re not being fair to him if you don’t include his follow-up comment:

    No, no, no. These are liberals. Let’s try this:
    __
    1. When was the last time you condemned Stalin? If it’s been longer than a year, will you now take the opportunity and do so?
    __
    2. The individual broccoli mandate: for or against?
    __
    3. The last time you bought coffee, was it fair trade? If not, why not? Justify your answer using Rawls’ difference principle.
    __
    And so on. Caricature is easy, isn’t it?

    And by “fair” I mean “just”, not “generous” or “kind”, because with that first one he gives the game away. The implication of DougJ’s comment was clear: the Conservative consensus, Doug implies, is that evolution is not true and (especially) that anthropogenic climate change is not true. It’s really pretty trivial to find dozens of elected Republicans and Conservative “thinkers” who enthusiastically promote these notions. Kuznicki’s rejoinder is to put forward the Stalin slander (can you find one elected Democrat who’s even inclined to the slightest ambiguity in their condemnation of Stalin? any significant opinion leader?); the “individual broccoli mandate” – but not in terms of its constitutionality, only its desirability, which essentially no-one will defend; and fair-trade coffee. Of all of these, only the last approaches reasonableness, and it’s not like one can’t buy cheaper coffee and apply the savings to social justice in other ways. Actually, I thought it’s the libertarians who are supposed to support the marketing of fair-trade coffee as an alternative to regulation.

  6. 6.

    gex

    February 8, 2011 at 6:19 pm

    @BGinCHI: As I said in the other thread. People on the conservative side of the spectrum believe that nothing can be really known except that which the Bible or their mangled version of Adam Smith tells them.

  7. 7.

    gex

    February 8, 2011 at 6:20 pm

    I’m pretty sure this winter’s extreme weather is because of extreme Stalinism that the Dems refuse to denounce. Those bastards!

  8. 8.

    freelancer

    February 8, 2011 at 6:22 pm

    @BGinCHI:

    It’s just like the pivot in question #1: evolution is correct, but it can’t tell us how life started.

    That’s actually not a hedge. There are many hypotheses on the origin of life: self-replicating molecules and such, just not proven (yet).

  9. 9.

    mr. whipple

    February 8, 2011 at 6:22 pm

    Cato employee Jason Kuznicki found my questions about evolution and climate change “patronizing”,

    Tough shit. Call the private sector whaaaambulance.

  10. 10.

    gex

    February 8, 2011 at 6:23 pm

    Geez, I’d denounce Stalinism if anyone on the left were advocating it. Libertarians don’t get to use the Tea Bagger redefined version of the word that makes anything on the communist spectrum exactly equivalent to whatever the Democrats are doing.

    I will, however, denounce willful obtuseness.

  11. 11.

    BGinCHI

    February 8, 2011 at 6:23 pm

    @Warren Terra: Shorter Kuznicki: Just because a majority of people on our side of the political fence are stupid doesn’t mean we’re stupid.

  12. 12.

    Superluminar

    February 8, 2011 at 6:24 pm

    Um…i’m not a libertarian by any means — in fact i identify as a socia1st — but here you’re asking someone to publically criticize their fucking employers for terminating other employees’ contracts. In what world do you think that would work out well for the person doing the complaining?
    I find much of JK’s writing to be glib, but I can’t blame him for not wanting to shit publically on his source of income.

  13. 13.

    BGinCHI

    February 8, 2011 at 6:25 pm

    @freelancer: What?

    It’s the Origin of Species, dude, not the Origin of Life. Darwin’s theories are about development.

  14. 14.

    Hunter Gathers

    February 8, 2011 at 6:25 pm

    We should start a “Let’s get these libertarians laid so they’ll finally shut the fuck up” fund. Since there is no way that we could convince their mothers to actually love them, getting them prostitutes is clearly the only way they’ll close their neck holes.

    By the way, when was the last time libertarians condemned slavery?

  15. 15.

    Steve

    February 8, 2011 at 6:25 pm

    Maybe DougJ’s post was a cheap shot at conservatives (not in my book, but what do I know). But why would someone who says “I’m not a conservative” be offended by it?

  16. 16.

    DougJ®

    February 8, 2011 at 6:27 pm

    @Superluminar:

    He opened himself up to it by going on and on about how he’s not paid to say what the Koch brothers want him to say and so on. He should have kept his mouth shut then if he’s going to keep his mouth shut now.

  17. 17.

    eyelessgame

    February 8, 2011 at 6:28 pm

    @Warren Terra: This. This this this.

    They really think creationism and AGW-denialism is equivalent, in political power, to pro-Stalinist communism. In this country.

    How can we even have a discussion with people who are that reality-disabled? What the fucking fuck?

  18. 18.

    gwangung

    February 8, 2011 at 6:29 pm

    @BGinCHI:

    Shorter Kuznicki: Just because a majority of people on our side of the political fence are stupid doesn’t mean we’re stupid.

    Quoted for truth.

    And that’s pretty much the attitude of the leaders of the Republican Party.

  19. 19.

    freelancer

    February 8, 2011 at 6:32 pm

    @Warren Terra:

    Well we’re talking to guys who write for the League, so it’s fair to ask…

    1. Do you reject Zoroaster?
    2. And all his works?

    The Stalin thing makes ZERO sense. I was going to say that Stalin has as much to do with the “Left” as Libertarianism has to do with Somalia, but then that doesn’t jive because the Libertarian/Somalia comparision is actually somewhat valid.

  20. 20.

    freelancer

    February 8, 2011 at 6:35 pm

    @BGinCHI:

    Maybe you didn’t see it and we talked past each other, but you and I are arguing the same point.

  21. 21.

    Gin & Tonic

    February 8, 2011 at 6:37 pm

    Given that Stalin was more-or-less directly responsible for the deaths of many of my relatives, sure, I will denounce it. What is the motherfucking point, though? I haven’t heard anyone with a functioning brain cell advocating *for* Stalinism.

  22. 22.

    The Commenter on BJ formerly known as arguingwithsignposts

    February 8, 2011 at 6:39 pm

    I think there’s a misreading of JK’s followup response in the comments, as I mentioned on Cole’s follow-up post.

  23. 23.

    Warren Terra

    February 8, 2011 at 6:46 pm

    @The Commenter on BJ formerly known as arguingwithsignposts:

    I think there’s a misreading of JK’s followup response in the comments, as I mentioned on Cole’s follow-up post.

    Hey, Cole stole my comment!

    And Cole wrote a whole post about it complete with bar graphs, all inside five minute of my posting the comment! It is of course impossible that he independently had a reaction to JK’s absurd follow-up similar to my own.

  24. 24.

    Superluminar

    February 8, 2011 at 6:48 pm

    @DougJ
    jesus christ dude! Please look at that comment again and tell us how what you said constitutes a valid argument. I normally love your posts, and i see what you’re trying to do here strategically, but you are waaay off base with this shit dude.

  25. 25.

    joe from Lowell

    February 8, 2011 at 6:51 pm

    I’m sorry he finds them patronizing. It really should be true that those questions are incredibly easy for conservatives, that only a tiny fraction of them would have the slightest trouble getting them right, and that feeling the need to ask them demonstrates an unfair and inaccurate perception of most conservatives’ knowledge, intelligence, and reasonableness.

    But, you see, none of those things are true. Most – yes, most, the majority, over half – of conservatives can’t or won’t answer those questions correctly.

    That’s sad, but it’s not DougJ’s fault.

  26. 26.

    DougJ®

    February 8, 2011 at 7:42 pm

    @Superluminar:

    I’ve asked him this question before.

  27. 27.

    BGinCHI

    February 8, 2011 at 8:04 pm

    @freelancer: Oops. Apologies. Wasn’t trying to be snarky….

  28. 28.

    Arclite

    February 8, 2011 at 8:11 pm

    It was good of him to give sane answers to obvious questions. And good for him to recognize that the warming is anthropogenic.

    I AM VERY curious what the equiv questions are on the liberal side. Is there dogma that liberals take at face value that flies in the face of observed reality?

  29. 29.

    maus

    February 8, 2011 at 8:42 pm

    @joe from Lowell:

    I’m sorry he finds them patronizing.

    It’s the Andrew Sullivan brand of conservative libertarian. Oh gosh, we’re all smart! It’s those other guys, we’re the silent majority!

    No, you aren’t.

  30. 30.

    maus

    February 8, 2011 at 8:49 pm

    @Arclite:

    Is there dogma that liberals take at face value that flies in the face of observed reality?

    I appreciate that the only counter that they have is the huffpo brand of antivax and homeopathic bullshit, which the vast amount of Liberals don’t actually believe (the same percentages, I’m sure are found in Conservative circles.)

  31. 31.

    Arclite

    February 8, 2011 at 9:25 pm

    @maus: Is the anti vaccine stuff a liberal position? I guess you do see some “granolas” adopting the position, but definitely not majorities. Also, too: aren’t there religious conservatives that don’t get vaccinated (Jehovah’s Witnesses or something, I forget which ones refuse medical treatment)?

    But by and large, I thought Pro Vaccine was the pro science position, which is a “liberal” position.

  32. 32.

    themann1086

    February 9, 2011 at 12:08 am

    Also too, fuck him for bringing Rawls into this. He’s not fit to clean Rawls’ corpse.

  33. 33.

    E.D. Kain

    February 9, 2011 at 12:42 am

    @Superluminar: Yes, this. DougJ – do you publicly speculate about the decisions of your employers? Does it make you somehow less intellectually honest because you choose not to?

  34. 34.

    cthulhu

    February 9, 2011 at 12:55 am

    @maus: I have been trying to think what would be something that a majority or sizable minority of liberals believe counter to available facts and I couldn’t come up with anything. Now certainly there are such blocks when the facts are ambiguous or mixed or unavailable. For example, I would guess that most liberals assume some, maybe many, innocent people have been put to death in the recent era of capital punishment but one might be hard-pressed to PROVE this with available information (though certainly a few suggestive cases exist).

  35. 35.

    scarshapedstar

    February 9, 2011 at 2:43 am

    God, so much whining over there, and from ostensibly reasonable people who don’t even need to be asked these condescending questions. Y so sensitive?

    I don’t think I’ve seen “When did you stop beating your wife?” invoked so many times since the last time I trolled a pro-lifer with the classic “if you were in a burning fertility clinic and there was a petri dish containing 1,000 zygotes on one side and a three-year-old on the other, and you could only save one, which would you save?”

    The correct answers are “yes” and “yes”, guys. I thought these questions were meant to be an olive branch, as in “See? We’re united against the pants-on-head-retarded teabaggers!” Instead, they stirred up the Al Gore Is Fat Chorus.

  36. 36.

    scarshapedstar

    February 9, 2011 at 3:13 am

    @Superluminar:

    Let’s recap (paraphrasing)

    DougJ: You never say anything that might piss off your Koch overlords.
    JasonK: I’m free to write whatever I want.
    DougJ: Great! Then explain why they fired the last guys who pissed them off.
    Superluminar: Dude, he can’t explain THAT! Geez!
    DougJ: Then why’d he say he’s free to write whatever he wants?
    Superluminar: Whuh?

    At least that’s what I’ve taken from this exchange…

  37. 37.

    Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel)

    February 9, 2011 at 5:33 am

    @E.D. Kain: Yeah DougJ! Do you claim to be free to speculate about the motives of your employers and then coincidentally ‘choose’ clam up when touchy subjects arise?

    Huh? (pokes in the chest) Do ya?

    Does it make you somehow less intellectually honest because you choose not to?

    Given the quasi-journalist role political bloggers play and public-intellectual posturing that you pompous asses over @ LOOG traffic in, yes. Kuznicki is less intellectually honest. It makes him a quisling coward to boot.

  38. 38.

    chopper

    February 9, 2011 at 9:37 am

    @Gin & Tonic:

    yeah, this. that was one big fucking red herring outta kuznicki.

  39. 39.

    DougJ®

    February 9, 2011 at 9:47 am

    @E.D. Kain:

    I don’t go on and on defending them.

    Jason has two choices: not claim he’s free to say whatever he wants at Cato or not clam up when he’s asked a question about Cato he doesn’t like.

    He can’t have it both ways.

  40. 40.

    Pococurante

    February 9, 2011 at 10:19 am

    WTF is it with you these days DougJ.

    Jason Kuznicki February 9, 2011 at 6:48 amWait. It is condescending to ask a libertarian if he believes in anthropogenic global warming? When did that happen?It’s condescending to ask me, particularly when I’ve often written in this very space that I do. It’s sort of like asking moderate Muslims why they don’t just condemn terrorism, right after their repeated declarations to that effect.

    He’s right, he does.

    How lovely that BJ now has its own version of Jesse Watters.

  41. 41.

    chopper

    February 9, 2011 at 10:45 am

    @Pococurante:

    Jason Kuznicki February 9, 2011 at 6:48 amWait. It is condescending to ask a libertarian if he believes in anthropogenic global warming? When did that happen?It’s condescending to ask me, particularly when I’ve often written in this very space that I do. It’s sort of like asking moderate Muslims why they don’t just condemn terrorism, right after their repeated declarations to that effect.

    so dougj asks a general question of the entire league as well as ‘other conservative blogs’, and the fact that one dude at the league has already talked about the subject means doug is a big jerk.

    apparently jason thinks he is the entire LoOG. fits in with the holier-than-thou superiority bullshit that flies over there i guess.

  42. 42.

    scarshapedstar

    February 9, 2011 at 12:15 pm

    @Pococurante:

    He’s right, he does.

    He wasn’t directly addressed and, indeed, titled his post “I’m not a conservative…”

    But, sure, he can join the reasonable list. *dusts off hands* What about the rest of ’em? Their silence is deafening, and we can only hold back the Glennuendo for so long.

  43. 43.

    Jason Kuznicki

    February 9, 2011 at 12:18 pm

    Jason has two choices: not claim he’s free to say whatever he wants at Cato or not clam up when he’s asked a question about Cato he doesn’t like.
    He can’t have it both ways.

    But I can have it both ways. Everyone does!

    I am given wide discretion to comment on matters of public policy. See my most recent Cato Policy Analysis, in which I argue that there is a reasonable role for the state in the institution of marriage. “Privatize it” was for years the Cato line, and I dissented. That’s perfectly allowed.

    I am not, however, given wide discretion to comment on personnel matters at the Cato Institute, which are not matters of public policy.

    This is for three reasons.

    First, doing so would be terrible professional etiquette wherever I worked, as several people have already noted. I strongly agree with Superluminar @12.

    Second, I had no role whatsoever in the decision. This is not unusual when someone’s supervisor (Will) and their supervisor’s supervisor (Brink) depart. I know very little, what I have to go on is not necessarily reliable, and my responsibility in the matter was nil. You should be unsurprised that I have nothing much to add.

    Third, those who know more than I do are still free to comment, if they wish. If you’re honestly wanting answers, take it up with them. I believe Brink himself discussed it in a video on Bloggingheads. That might be a good place to start.

  44. 44.

    Jason Kuznicki

    February 9, 2011 at 12:32 pm

    @BGinCHI:

    the pivot in question #1: evolution is correct, but it can’t tell us how life started.

    What is it with these fucking guys? They’re like high school contrarians who always have to disagree even if they agree, just to show that they have an identity.

    If you’d read the entire comment on the origin of life, you would know that my “pivot” existed only as a setup to deny any possible form of Bible-based creationism.

    I wrote:

    I don’t have a clear idea of how life originated, but then again, no one else using the scientific paradigm does either. Still, I find it doubtful in the extreme that ancient near easterners with no knowledge of organic chemistry could have come up with an interesting or even slightly relevant answer to questions hereabouts.

    Read that last part again and again, quietly to yourself, until you understand. I’m an atheist, and I don’t think the Bible tells us anything useful about the for-now mysterious origins of life. If anything does eventually tell us, it will be science.

  45. 45.

    scarshapedstar

    February 9, 2011 at 1:17 pm

    Jason,

    I’d actually kinda quibble with

    I don’t have a clear idea of how life originated, but then again, no one else using the scientific paradigm does either.

    I think it’s quite unfair to tar as unscientific anyone who says they have a good theory as to the origin of life.

    It’s been demonstrated that nucleotides can form spontaneously and abiotically from numerous compounds (e.g. formamide) in the presence of heat and UV. It’s been demonstrated that you need at most (probably less, but nobody’s found a shorter sequence yet) 165 bases of RNA to create a self-replicating ribozyme which satisfies pretty much every requirement of life (after all, organisms are just temporary housing for genes).

    Sometimes people hedge so much that you can’t really be sure they believe what they’re saying, is all.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • RaflW on Wednesday Morning Open Thread: The GOP Insists There Will Be Blood Impeachment (Apr 17, 2024 @ 11:10am)
  • Soprano2 on Wednesday Morning Open Thread: The GOP Insists There Will Be Blood Impeachment (Apr 17, 2024 @ 11:10am)
  • lowtechcyclist on Arizona In The Crosshairs (Apr 17, 2024 @ 11:07am)
  • Baud on Wednesday Morning Open Thread: The GOP Insists There Will Be Blood Impeachment (Apr 17, 2024 @ 11:07am)
  • Soprano2 on Wednesday Morning Open Thread: The GOP Insists There Will Be Blood Impeachment (Apr 17, 2024 @ 11:07am)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning
Proposed BJ meetups list from frosty

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8
Virginia House Races
Four Directions – Montana
Worker Power AZ
Four Directions – Arizona
Four Directions – Nevada

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
Positive Climate News
War in Ukraine
Cole’s “Stories from the Road”
Classified Documents Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Political Action 2024

Postcard Writing Information

Balloon Juice for Four Directions AZ

Donate

Balloon Juice for Four Directions NV

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!