Here's the way it really works.

Liberals think poor people are stupid and need social workers to guide them to work.

Conservatives think poor people are lazy and need slavedrivers to force them to work.

It's been my experience that very few liberals (at least of the "yeah, let's talk politics!" crowd) know very much about economics, or even about comparative political philosophies.

If/when I enter into political discussion with such a liberal, talk invariably turns to economics, or at least to the systemic, downstream effects of actions taken today for results tomorrow but in ignorance of the longer-term consequences. It turns that way because I steer it that way, because, for me, the act of consideration of the complete set of economic and social downstream effects of any governing act is the sine qua non of competent and effective governing, and liberals are just really, really bad at it.

Point being, though, in a thoughtful discussion of economic or financial policy, most liberals run out of slogans in the first two minutes, and then have nothing to fall back on. Mention velocity of money to a liberal, and she'll probably duck. Mention multiplier effects, or stimulus, and she'll likely take you wrong and she'll either slap you or get very friendly.

All of which leaves them unable, with any amount of credibility, to call you stupid.

So, instead, they'll call you "evil", because that lets them off the hook - they don't need to be able to refute your logic concerning, say, where money ought to go or be left alone, they don't have to understand M1 v M2, and they can comfortably ignore discussion of the beneficial effects of capital growth for those with no capital.

If the argument you oppose is logical, reasonable, and intuitive, still, you can sneer and walk away from it unanswered if you know that it only serves evil, that its root motivation stems from a desire to own slaves, that anyone professing it seeks only to hold on to her ill-gotten blood money in the face of huge and awful need of "the people."

chocolatier--

Libertarians are like Bhuddists: if you're hungry, get something to eat. If you are stupid or lazy, that may be a more difficult task, but not everyone is suited for success. By the degree to which it is ones choice, one must take responsibility for those choices.

bobby--I agree. When someone wants to engage me in a "political" discussion, one of the first questions I ask them is "where does money come from?" If they can't answer that question, why would I care what their opinion is?
.

I've always thought this bloom county cartoon perfectly represented the relationship between conservatives, liberals and libertarians.

http://www.yasharbooks.com/ears01.gif

Heresy? The only heresy that frosts my bonnet is when smug self-satisfied elites commit the heresy of claiming scotch is superior to bourbon. For shame!

I'm a conservative because when conservative policies fail, the consequences are short term and correctable. When left-wing policies fail, the consequences are long term and difficult to fix: People die. And that's why I'm a card-carryin' member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Far from an elite here, but a mediocre scotch is superior to a mediocre bourbon! When you get into the better stuff, it gets more difficult to decide. Further tasting is usually required.

Vin Suprynowicz, a libertarian columnist for the Las Vegas Review-Journal here and also
here, apparently decided that McCain/Palin was the best choice in the last election, in spite of usually going for the Libertarian ticket.

I don't like the sweetish taste that bourbon has in comparison to scotch, but I never knew that was a form of elitism -- any more than the fact that I can't stand port wine!

Wouldn't mind being in bed with Ann Coulter, at least that way I could get her to shut up a minute.

Sorry, I've been out here in the desert too long.

Bourbon v.s. scotch?

That's like asking Chainsaw v.s. Axe, or Shotgun v.s. SMG. Different tasks, different tools.

When you want to sit peacefully and conteplate a good book with a nice piece of dark chocolate then a good scotch is CLEARLY the choice.

However, if you're going to adulterate...I mean mix anything in with it (ice, water, coke, 7up etc.) then you MUST NOT use a singlemalt, Bourbon, especially the lesser stuff (JD, Jim Beam, Ole Grandad) is particularly well suited to this role.

There are areas of overlap--just as it's a matter of preference (or department policy, but that's a quibble) between a Benelli M4 and a "normal" M4 for the entry guy, so too is it a choice between single cask bourbons and single malts scotches for after dinner drinks or with desert (other than dark chocolates)...

I did mention being out here too long, right?

Poor Billy. I've been trying for years to figure out a way to upload chocolate and booze.

Donna: try

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandy_Alexander

I was a liberal when I mostly read Newsweek and newspapers. I was young. I didn't think, I emoted. I was something between atheist and agnostic.

Later I stumbled across Ann Coulter and Mona Charen and realized I'd been given only half the story my whole life, and it was mostly the wrong half. I was a Protestant.

Finally, I found libertarians on the Internet and quickly realized they were the only logically consistent and empirically supportable of the modern philosophers. I became a libertarian and a Deist.

I expect my next incarnation will involve only caring about what will please my nanobot masters who have rewired my brain to serve them.