# Men's Vogue, a Liberal Rag...



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

I subscribed to this magazine after reading the first issue. Luckily my payment was only made with some orphaned airline miles.

The magazine is obviously a Liberal rag. Edwards is on the latest cover, and the many "green" articles as well as many of the people they profile are in the Left Wing and Communist ranks. I will not be renewing.

Too bad they could not steer themselves to be apolitical. I certainly hope that my new favorite magazine, _Classic Style_, does not follow suit.

Cheers,

M8


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*50% less political coverage*

I feel I must defend the current issue of Men's Vogue. I found the current copy on my desk when I got home last night. I was hoping for the current issue of Classic Style, but no. Of course I immediately noticed Edwards on the cover, and could not help thinking "Damn, another political issue". After reading through it, I owe the publisher, editor, or whomeverand apology. I would say there is at least 50% less political coverage in the current issue than in the last, and wonder of wonders, they have filled that space with articles about clothing.

Last month, we got that wonderful editorial about how Men's Vogue was making a difference in the political arena. I call it relevance envy. If the editor wishes to make a political difference, go work for Time or the Ecomonist or Newsweek. This is Men's Vogue for God's sake, and it at least pretends to a higher calling than politics.

One final comment about the current political coverage. The last issue of Men's Vogue profiled a centrist candidate as the most exciting thing happening in the French presidential election. I don't remember his name, because while Men's Vogue thought he was exciting, the French electorate did not find him exciting enough to even make the run-off, much less elect him. I fear that Men's Vogue has given Mr. Edwards their political kiss of death. He has less than a month before joining the French centrist as an historical footnote.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Martinis at 8 said:


> I subscribed to this magazine after reading the first issue. Luckily my payment was only made with some orphaned airline miles.
> 
> The magazine is obviously a Liberal rag. Edwards is on the latest cover, and the many "green" articles as well as many of the people they profile are in the Left Wing and Communist ranks. I will not be renewing.
> 
> ...


Give me a break! You flighty-righties see liberals under every bed and in every closet. In case you hadn't noticed, John Edwards is a legitimate candidate for POTUS, and therefore a very legitimate subject for a magazine cover. He's also one of the best dressed candidates; also, many even on the Christian far-right, have begun to not only acknowledge that there are serious environmental issues to be dealt with, but have actually become very active in the "Green" area:

_Aside from the new set of motivations, the Sierra Club and its partners have found a surprising new ally in the so-called Christian Right - an amalgam of groups long identified with Bush's conservative Republican party.

A group headlined by the recently elected president of the Christian Coalition, Reverend Dr Joel Hunter, as well as some board members of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), launched a Call to Action campaign last month including radio ads and a film documentary to advocate action on global warming among churches and congregations.

That follows the 'Evangelical Climate Initiative' launched in February and signed by 86 leaders of the Protestant Evangelical community. Evangelicals make up one quarter of US citizens, and in 2004 voted by a ratio of 4 to 1 for President Bush.

'We have to become the change agents within the Republican Party, and I believe we can and will,' Reverend Richard Cizik, Vice President of the NAE, told public broadcaster PBS_ ABC News

The position you come from is what could only be described as "the crazy right".


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

rip said:


> Give me a break! You flighty-righties see liberals under every bed and in every closet. In case you hadn't noticed, John Edwards is a legitimate candidate for POTUS, and therefore a very legitimate subject for a magazine cover; also, many even on the Christian far-right, have begun to not only acknowledge that there are serious environmental issues to be dealt with, but have actually become very active in the "Green" area:
> 
> _Aside from the new set of motivations, the Sierra Club and its partners have found a surprising new ally in the so-called Christian Right - an amalgam of groups long identified with Bush's conservative Republican party.
> 
> ...


Well since you list Czech and Russia as locations, I'm not surprised at your Left leaning reaction. Oh, just in case you didn't notice, Communism failed :icon_smile_big:

Nevertheless, MV would get the same slam from me if it were publishing about the Right as well.

Now go protest something. Okay? :icon_smile_big:

M8


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rip said:


> Give me a break! You flighty-righties see liberals under every bed and in every closet. In case you hadn't noticed, John Edwards is a legitimate candidate for POTUS, and therefore a very legitimate subject for a magazine cover. He's also one of the best dressed candidates; also, many even on the Christian far-right, have begun to not only acknowledge that there are serious environmental issues to be dealt with, but have actually become very active in the "Green" area:
> 
> _Aside from the new set of motivations, the Sierra Club and its partners have found a surprising new ally in the so-called Christian Right - an amalgam of groups long identified with Bush's conservative Republican party.
> 
> ...


Instead of insulting M8, you might consider the possibility that he is being facetious. Or just "accept and value him for who he is". I thought that's what liberals did?


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Instead of insulting M8, you might consider the possibility that he is being facetious. Or just "accept and value him for who he is". I thought that's what liberals did?


You thought wrong. They are the embodiment of non-tolerance :icon_smile_wink:

M8


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

THAT'S NOT FUNNY!!!


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Okay folks let's calm down. How 'bout we go save the bear population somewhere? :icon_smile_big:

M8


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Can you promise me Yogi will be there to meet us??


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Bear can be tasty.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> THAT'S NOT FUNNY!!!


Sorry. I mean "intolerance". Excuse my grammar :icon_smile_big:

M8


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Don't mind me. I celebrated last night's good weigh-in with a chocolate marshmallow sundae (for supper, not just for dessert.) 

I may be on a sugar buzz.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

M8,

While you are right to be skeptical of Rip's posts don't defame the reputation of the great Czech Republic! If not for French betrayal in 1938, Roosevelt's poor health and general unconcern for the people of Eastern Europe at Yalta and Soviet tanks in 1968, Czechoslovakia would have never been a Communist puppet of the USSR. 

Today the President of the Czech Republic Vaclav Klaus is one the last champions of the free market and economic liberity in Europe and former President Vaclav Havel has been a consistent champion of human rights around the world and one of the few Europeans willing to expose Castro for the fraud he is.

Karl


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> If not for French betrayal in 1938


Are you referring to Chamberlain? I was unaware of his nationality change.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> M8,
> 
> While you are right to be skeptical of Rip's posts don't defame the reputation of the great Czech Republic! If not for French betrayal in 1938, Roosevelt's poor health and general unconcern for the people of Eastern Europe at Yalta and Soviet tanks in 1968, Czechoslovakia would have never been a Communist puppet of the USSR.
> 
> ...


Hear, hear! +1


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

Has anyone else noticed that John Edwards suit jackets don't seem to fit? Like the waist is too high or something. When he buttons them, it seems as if there is way too much tie/shirt exposed below the button. Maybe the waist on his trousers is too low? I don't know, it just looks weird. I keep thinking, why doesn't anyone tell him? Who's dressing him?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Bear can be tasty.


An ice cold beer on a hot summer afternoon can be tasty but, bear meat can be greasy, contains an inordinate amount of gristle and can be tough if not cooked properly. Although it strikes me almost as poetic justice that some hunter might be eating "Yogi", after he stole all those "picinic" baskets! (winks)


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

The Cannibal!!!


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Today the President of the Czech Republic Vaclav Klaus is one the last champions of the free market and economic liberity in Europe and former President Vaclav Havel has been a consistent champion of human rights around the world and one of the few Europeans willing to expose Castro for the fraud he is.


I would quite agree with this.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

rip said:


> You flighty-righties see liberals under every bed and in every closet.


I think it's a bit of a pity that the U.S. leftists have managed to style themselves as "liberals".


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

Albert said:


> I think it's a bit of a pity that the U.S. leftists have managed to style themselves as "liberals".


It gets them more votes than "national socialists."


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Bear can be tasty.


I've never tried Bear before,How does it taste?


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> M8,
> 
> While you are right to be skeptical of Rip's posts don't defame the reputation of the great Czech Republic! If not for French betrayal in 1938, Roosevelt's poor health and general unconcern for the people of Eastern Europe at Yalta and Soviet tanks in 1968, Czechoslovakia would have never been a Communist puppet of the USSR.
> 
> ...


Yeppers. All of the above is true.

Cheers,

M8


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Liberty Ship said:


> ...John Edwards...Like the waist is too high or something...


This is because he is from North Carolina. Mayberry is in North Carolina, and this is how Goober wore his pants. This is also why many of us have renamed Government as Gooberment :icon_smile_big:

M8


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Albert said:


> I think it's a bit of a pity that the U.S. leftists have managed to style themselves as "liberals".


Actually, that has been the action of the American right, to style leftists as liberals. Most true leftists I know totally eschew the fuzzy politics and all-inclusiveness of the liberal. Of course, the right has long shown their inability to discern subtle, or even grand differences of belief and behaviour. M8 stands as a perfect example of this: anyone to his left (probably most of the known world) is obviously a communist.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Howard said:


> I've never tried Bear before,How does it taste?


Somewhat indistinguishable from a Michelin tire.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> An ice cold beer on a hot summer afternoon can be tasty but, bear meat can be greasy, contains an inordinate amount of gristle and can be tough if not cooked properly. Although it strikes me almost as poetic justice that some hunter might be eating "Yogi", after he stole all those "picinic" baskets! (winks)


Eagle, I agree with all that, but when handled by a cook that knows what he/she is doing, it can be pretty good. Apparently diet of the bear comes into play too. My sister and her husband, both of whom live in northern Ontario, are quite good game cooks. From walleye shorelunch on an island in the middle of a jewel-like lake to moose steaks to bear ribs. Ribs and roast is usually how I have had bear. They usually do mainly steaks and hamburger/sausage with their moose.


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

bear: good stewed with prunes, carrots and port. Garlic mashed potatos, green salad and a *BIG* red.

-piggy piggy


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

rip said:


> Most true leftists I know totally eschew the fuzzy politics and all-inclusiveness of the liberal.


????

From my European experience, the liberals are the sharpest and most outspoken opponents of all the nice little socialist ambitions of our big leaders. In Germany, for example, the liberal party has to face much more contempt and social discrimination than even the commies for their distinctively liberal, civil and open-market stance.

Liberal and libertarian are two different things, I suppose.



rip said:


> Of course, the right has long shown their inability to discern subtle, or even grand differences of belief and behaviour. M8 stands as a perfect example of this: anyone to his left (probably most of the known world) is obviously a communist.


I am not sure whether I would necessarily agree. I, for example, consider myself a European liberal and find M8's political views quite sensible and well-informed (although I might not share all of them).


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Étienne said:


> Are you referring to Chamberlain? I was unaware of his nationality change.


+1 :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

rip said:


> ...M8 stands as a perfect example of this: anyone to his left (probably most of the known world) is obviously a communist.


Nonsense buddy-boy! :icon_smile_big:

You obviously don't digest enough of my posts. I'm a Libertarian, not a Rightie-Republican-Conservative. So there! :devil:

M8


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Étienne,

I assure you, despite my reputation, that my last post in this thread was not French bashing. Although Chamberlain did Czechoslovakia no favors at Munich (who could forget his dismissal of the Czechoslovak people as a faraway people, he knew little about?) it was Édouard Daladier's decision not to honor France's treaty obligations with Czechoslovakia that led to Prague's reluctant acquiesence of Hitler's terms. Of course a dismembered Czechoslovakia lumbered on for six more months until it was undone by radical Slovak nationalists (namely the Tiso faction) and Nazi war aims.

Karl


----------



## Tyto (Sep 22, 2004)

Albert said:


> ????
> 
> From my European experience, the liberals are the sharpest and most outspoken opponents of all the nice little socialist ambitions of our big leaders. In Germany, for example, the liberal party has to face much more contempt and social discrimination than even the commies for their distinctively liberal, civil and open-market stance.


If I'm not mistaken, the European and American definitions of liberal differ, in that European liberalism refers to market/regulatory liberalization and a more limited social role for government in general--more akin to American conservatism and to the right of the political "center." In the U.S., liberalism is left of center and is generally associated with, among other things, tighter economic regulation and a generally more expansive governmental role in society.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Albert said:


> ????
> 
> From my European experience, the liberals are the sharpest and most outspoken opponents of all the nice little socialist ambitions of our big leaders. In Germany, for example, the liberal party has to face much more contempt and social discrimination than even the commies for their distinctively liberal, civil and open-market stance.
> 
> ...


Albert,

Liberalism has been bastarized here in the states:

"Today the word "liberalism" is used differently in different countries. (See Liberalism worldwide.) One of the greatest contrasts is between the usage in the United States and usage in Continental Europe.[17] In the US, liberalism is usually understood to refer to modern liberalism, as contrasted with conservatism. American liberals endorse regulation for business, a limited social welfare state, and support broad racial, ethnic, sexual and religious tolerance, and thus more readily embrace pluralism, and affirmative action. In Europe, on the other hand, liberalism is not only contrasted with conservatism and Christian Democracy, but also with socialism and social democracy. In some countries, European liberals share common positions with Christian Democrats."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal

I personally prefer the Euro distinctions.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Tyto said:


> If I'm not mistaken, the European and American definitions of liberal differ, in that European liberalism refers to market/regulatory liberalization and a more limited social role for government in general--more akin to American conservatism and to the right of the political "center." In the U.S., liberalism is left of center and is generally associated with, among other things, tighter economic regulation and a generally more expansive governmental role in society.


There is no disparity in definition. What there has been in the U.S. since the rise of Ronald Reagan and the far right three decades ago, however, is a methodical campaign to corrupt the word to mean the exact opposite of its actual meaning. E.g. the tax-and-spend socialism we got from a Democratic Congress for forty years is now referred to as "liberalism".


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Tyto said:


> If I'm not mistaken, the European and American definitions of liberal differ, in that European liberalism refers to market/regulatory liberalization and a more limited social role for government in general--more akin to American conservatism and to the right of the political "center." In the U.S., liberalism is left of center and is generally associated with, among other things, tighter economic regulation and a generally more expansive governmental role in society.





JRR said:


> Albert,
> 
> Liberalism has been bastarized here in the states:
> 
> ...


Actually, both parties here are the same. They want to take your money and control your thoughts. They both tell big lies. One party is socialist, the other party is communist. Both parties hate the individual.

M8


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Tyto said:


> If I'm not mistaken, the European and American definitions of liberal differ, in that European liberalism refers to market/regulatory liberalization and a more limited social role for government in general--more akin to American conservatism and to the right of the political "center." In the U.S., liberalism is left of center and is generally associated with, among other things, tighter economic regulation and a generally more expansive governmental role in society.


I know. The reason why I am unprepared to accept the American definition is that it's simply wrong as it fully ignores the historical roots of the liberal movement. A liberal promoting an expansive governmental role (i.e. more government spending) is a contradictio in adjecto (at least concerning modern democratic societies).

A liberal endorses a free society, founded on civil responsibility, the rule of law, economic freedom and founded on old-fashioned, hard labour. Full stop.



JRR said:


> Liberalism has been bastarized here in the states:
> 
> "Today the word "liberalism" is used differently in different countries. (See Liberalism worldwide.) (..) American liberals endorse regulation for business, a limited social welfare state, and support broad racial, ethnic, sexual and religious tolerance, and thus more readily embrace pluralism, and affirmative action.


"Bastardization" is a rather correct description, from my point of view. A description of what Americans deem "liberal" always makes me feeling a bit unwell ... to put it mildly.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

It is not just the US. Canada's Liberal Party is certainly to the left of center and not shy about heavy government involvement. www.liberal.ca is the Party website:



> Our national health care system is a legacy that Liberals will never abandon.





> ...social justice for all...





> That is why the Liberal team has developed a plan to put Canada's large industrial polluters on a carbon budget...





> Each year more than 200,000 newcomers choose Canada as their home, and most of them settle in our major cities. The burden falls on those cities to help them build a new life, to raise their families, to help them succeed.


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

rip said:


> Actually, that has been the action of the American right, to style leftists as liberals. Most true leftists I know totally eschew the fuzzy politics and all-inclusiveness of the liberal. Of course, the right has long shown their inability to discern subtle, or even grand differences of belief and behaviour. M8 stands as a perfect example of this: anyone to his left (probably most of the known world) is obviously a communist.


Actually they syled themselves liberal, and marketed fuzzy/feel good socialism as liberalism, hense, "liberal" became a pejoritive to right of center folk. And Classic Liberals needed to find new labels: Libertarian, Consrvative.

As far as recognizing shades of gray on the left, most conservatives I know are acutely aware of the difference between the casual NYTimes reading "I need to vote dem to be a good person" liberals and the hard core Stalinists they gullibly follow. Hillary Clinton comes to mind for the latter.

In the words of John O'Sullivan, former editor of National Reveiw, I'm paraphrasing, "anyone not decidedly right wing will eventually always slide slide further left over time". Slippery slope if you will.

As far as MV, I would rather not see anything or anyone political on the cover or inside. Fine classic, and classic inspired mens clothing is what I buy it for. Hasnt been anything good since that edition with the English country shooting clothes.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I'm probably to M8's left, and he does not see me as a communist. Also, I think you can find far more strident conservatives in this mix of people.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Literide said:


> As far as recognizing shades of gray on the left, most conservatives I know are acutely aware of the difference between the casual NYTimes reading "I need to vote dem to be a good person" liberals and the hard core Stalinists they gullibly follow. Hillary Clinton comes to mind for the latter.


"Jesus may not be a Democrat, but he's certainly not a Republican."


----------



## chadn2000 (Aug 4, 2006)

*Men's Vogue*

Speaking of MV and politics, did anyone see their profile of "The Environmentalist" Paul Pelosi Jr.? He doesn't drive unless he absolutely has to, doesn't wash his clothes during peak energy hours, and views food as merely fuel. And he's solving all kinds of environmental problems before they're ever issues!

Couldn't they think of anyone else to profile? The self-righteousness of enviornmentalists is disgusting.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> "Jesus may not be a Democrat, but he's certainly not a Republican."


When I was in the Army they told me he was an Airborne-Ranger.

M8


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

M8,

Since it is well known that God works for the Mossad, wouldn't Jesus be an Israeli paratrooper then?

Karl


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Albert said:


> I know. The reason why I am unprepared to accept the American definition is that it's simply wrong as it fully ignores the historical roots of the liberal movement.


I don't exactly agree. The people we call "liberals" in Europe are only liberal in the economic sense. A true liberal would also be in favour of drug liberalization, homosexual marriage (actually he would probably be against state-sanctioned marriage period), etc. Typically Europeans "liberals" are actually conservative on social matters.

Americans apply the word to people that are only liberal in the social sense, and not liberal at all in the economic sense.

Both definitions ignore part of the historical roots of the liberal movement, I don't think you can say that any of them is worse than the other.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Although Chamberlain did Czechoslovakia no favors at Munich (who could forget his dismissal of the Czechoslovak people as a faraway people, he knew little about?) it was Édouard Daladier's decision not to honor France's treaty obligations with Czechoslovakia that led to Prague's reluctant acquiesence of Hitler's terms.


As far as I know Daladier went to Munich fully intending to protect Cechoslovakia. In the end he relented, in a large part because Chamberlain had already decided not to protect them, but also because he was impressed by Hitler and Mussolini's resolve and fully aware that the French army was not ready for a confrontation.

I am not absolving Daladier, but Chamberlain bears most of the blame in my opinion.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Étienne,

I have to disagree. The Free Democrats in Germany are the epitome of a classically liberal party and they support both economic freedom and are progressive on social issues - in fact their party leader, Guido Westerwelle, is openly gay.

Karl


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> I have to disagree. The Free Democrats in Germany are the epitome of a classically liberal party and they support both economic freedom and are progressive on social issues - in fact their party leader, Guido Westerwelle, is openly gay.


I would call that an exception. In France I would be hard pressed to name more than one or two politicians that are really liberal. The ones we call "liberal" here are only economically liberal, if even that (even in economic matters they usually favour giving handouts to their corporate friends more than true liberal measures).


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Étienne,

I agree in principle with what you say about Munich. And clearly the French Army was not in a position to march on Germany in 1938 but two points - it was unknown by Germany and the rest of the world how badly the effectiveness of the French Army had deteriorated and had France come to the aid of Czechoslovakia there exists a possibility that Hitler would have backed down. Several high ranking German generals were aghast at Hitler's brinksmanship over the Sudetenland and some even, namely von Witzleben and Beck (maybe Bloomberg?) briefly considered an Army backed move against Hitler during the crisis.

So yes, Chamberlain put the French in a difficult position but the French treaty obligations to Prague were not conditional upon British actions. Hindsight is of course 20/20 but neither the British or French course of action worked out well for anyone in 1938.

Ain't Ask Andy grand? Where else can one discuss French defense treaty obligations circa 1938, bespoke suits and madras plaid at the same time?

Karl


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Étienne,

But in France has there ever been a classically liberal political tradition? Speaking of Daladier, would it be fair to say that the closest thing France has had to something classically liberal were the Radicals, who ultimately would not meet the criteria bc in their earlier form they were far too left of center?

Karl


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> The Free Democrats in Germany are the epitome of a classically liberal party and they support both economic freedom and are progressive on social issues - in fact their party leader, Guido Westerwelle, is openly gay.


Absolutely.

Étienne: liberal does not mean to promote the breakdown of civilized society. While homosexual marriages would not constitute a problem as such (and are indeed introduced to quite a few countries in Europe), legalization of drugs (esp. class A drugs) certainly would.

Liberal does not mean Libertarian. Indeed, these are two totally different concepts. Libertarianism might very well end up in a collectivist-hedonist model of society (just think about the hippies), subsidizing layabouts and criminals. Liberalism, on the contrary, means the rule of law and self-responsibility - which are robust and traditional values.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> had France come to the aid of Czechoslovakia there exists a possibility that Hitler would have backed down.


Indeed. But how could Daladier foresee that?

I try to put myself in his place. He is alone in Germany. He knows he cannot intervene militarily, and I doubt he knows how much the Germans ignore that fact. His allies don't back him, and he has the responsability to pull an enormous bluff and in all likelihood precipitate the world in a new World War. It takes nerves of steel to be the man who takes that decision.

Maybe a different politician (Reynaud or Blum) would have fared better, but that really is not sure. Even more importantly, if the politicians of the late 1930's had been backed by competent and resolved generals, things might have been different (even old-timer Weygand would have been better than Pétain, George and Gamelin, as was proved too late).

As it is, I agree with you that we can say in hindsight that France should have risked a world war to protect Czechoslovakia. I don't really agree to put all the blame on Daladier.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Albert said:


> Étienne: liberal does not mean to promote the breakdown of civilized society.


Usually, classic liberals don't trust a nanny State to know better than the individual.

I don't advocate liberalization of drugs, but I am convinced a true liberal would. As long as the people are fully informed of the consequences and bear the full financial impact of them, the State has no business preventing them from taking tobacco or cocaine.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Étienne said:


> I don't advocate liberalization of drugs, but I am convinced a true liberal would. As long as the people are fully informed of the consequences and bear the full financial impact of them, the State has no business preventing them from taking tobacco or cocaine.


Not if the external costs are too high.

That's like suggesting that a liberal state would not prevent the pollution of its lakes, rivers and forests because it would "impair personal freedom".

EDIT: of course you can "assume" that people could be forced to bear the full financial impact of their drug abuse including all external costs and that it's possible to fully inform ALL people (including the illiterate and the feeble-minded). But do you think that's realistic? Aaah.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> Usually, classic liberals don't trust a nanny State to know better than the individual.
> 
> I don't advocate liberalization of drugs, but I am convinced a true liberal would. As long as the people are fully informed of the consequences and bear the full financial impact of them, the State has no business preventing them from taking tobacco or cocaine.


One of the things that I have problems dealing with in a true libertarian line of thinking, is drug use in minors. It is hard to stay consistent with libertarianism and also having state intervention is such things as childhood substance use. This does not bother my personal paradigm, as I am anything but libertarian, but I am curious how they handle such issues.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Albert said:


> EDIT: of course you can "assume" that people could be forced to bear the full financial impact of their drug abuse including all external costs and that it's possible to fully inform ALL people (including the illiterate and the feeble-minded). But do you think that's realistic? Aaah.


Damned. Now you've caught me red-handed: I am an economist, I breathe and live in unrealistic (but oh so elegant) assumptions.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> This does not bother my personal paradigm, as I am anything but libertarian, but I am curious how they handle such issues.


I assume the first step is to shoot the capitalists.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Étienne said:


> Damned. Now you've caught me red-handed: I am an economist, I breathe and live in unrealistic (but oh so elegant) assumptions.


Me too! )

But seriously: of course you can think of everything in a stylized way, but there are quite a few individuals in this world whose behaviour is rationally not quite explainable. I think that's the real difference between libertarians and liberals: the liberals accept that there is a number of people who do not fit their natural assumption of rationality and time-consistent behaviour.

EDIT: in aggregation, a few crackpots will level out via the Central Limit Theorem. The problem is, however, that you can't protect property and life of ALL your citizens by accepting a significant error tolerance. Especially because human society is so complex that it can behave in quite an unpredictable and nasty way, sometimes...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Albert said:


> I assume the first step is to shoot the capitalists.


You think libertarians are at that great odds with capitalists?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Albert said:


> But seriously: of course you can think of everything in a stylized way, but there are quite a few individuals in this world whose behaviour is rationally not quite explainable. I think that's the real difference between libertarians and liberals: the liberals accept that there is a number of people who do not fit their natural assumption of rationality and time-consistent behaviour.


It's all in your assumptions. I often chat with people that hold very low paying jobs and inquire into what I consider irrational behaviour. They always have a rationalization for their actions.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> It's all in your assumptions. I often chat with people that hold very low paying jobs and inquire into what I consider irrational behaviour. They always have a rationalization for their actions.


Yes, but I imagine that most of their choices are done under EXTREMELY incomplete information? Maybe partly due to constraints in information storage and processing capacity? That's at least my observation in those cases...

(And, yes, at least in Germany the libertarians are at great, great odds with the capitalists. They used to go to the streets and cheer up Ho Chi Min and Pol Pot and some of those fellows... ...I got to know some of them as my school teachers...)


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Albert said:


> Yes, but I imagine that most of their choices are done under EXTREMELY incomplete information? Maybe partly due to constraints in information storage and processing capacity? That's at least my observation in those cases...


Well, we all function with bounded rationality, but I agree with what you are very diplomatically saying: they ain't so smart! I often visit the smoking area I have set aside for employees and quiz the low paid smokers out there about who is contributing to the company retirement fund. Very few are and the usual response is they do not have "enough" money to contribute. I then inquire as to their smoking habits and it invariably turns out that they could contribute at least 2k per year simply by ceasing to smoke. I have only made one convert in about four years of trying.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Well, we all function with bounded rationality, but I agree with what you are very diplomatically saying: they ain't so smart! I often visit the smoking area I have set aside for employees and quiz the low paid smokers out there about who is contributing to the company retirement fund. Very few are and the usual response is they do not have "enough" money to contribute. I then inquire as to their smoking habits and it invariably turns out that they could contribute at least 2k per year simply by ceasing to smoke. I have only made one convert in about four years of trying.


Very plucky. I think this sort of behaviour might be a classical time inconsistency - something we all suffer from time and again (although the above is a rather massive case). But who knows? If they smoke enough, they might not need the retirement fund after all...


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Albert said:


> I think this sort of behaviour might be a classical time inconsistency


No need for time inconsistency. Have you read the various papers on rational addiction (see Gary Becker's classic one)?


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Étienne said:


> No need for time inconsistency. Have you read the various papers on rational addiction (see Gary Becker's classic one)?


Just found it. That's quite amazing! However, if you fail to contribute to your _retirement fund_ because of smoking, I would still intuitively presume some time inconsistency... ;-)

EDIT: What intrigues me most is the notion of a decision maker changing his own utility framework by entering the addiction. Well done, Étienne! (the analogy to entering Ask Andy's is totally accidental, of course... )


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Not having the academic resources you two do, can we get a synopsis on "rational addiction" or is the name fairly self-explanatory? That the pleasure derived from the addiction is such that with a paradigm shift, utility curves make feeding the addiction rational?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

rip said:


> Somewhat indistinguishable from a Michelin tire.


That doesn't sound too tasty.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Not having the academic resources you two do, can we get a synopsis on "rational addiction" or is the name fairly self-explanatory? That the pleasure derived from the addiction is such that with a paradigm shift, utility curves make feeding the addiction rational?


Have to read these papers, but I think you describe the basic notion perfectly all right (Étienne?). Moreover, I understand that even ex ante it might rationally make sense as you anticipate this paradigm shift. I think the problems really arise when you start analyzing the details of the theory and considering it in the wider framework of classical economics... (that's the fun part)

See this wikipedia-article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_addiction

Lots of good stuff to read during the summer vacation!


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Albert said:


> Have to read these papers, but I think you describe the basic notion perfectly all right (Étienne?).


Yup, that's a fairly good summary. Unfortunately you need a jstor subscription to download the article.

Concerning your original point Albert, you can also explain Wayfarer's employees' behaviour without time-inconsistency if you assume that they just have a huge preference for the present (a rather ad-hoc assumption, I agree).


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Becker's rational addiction framework is a warmed over, recycled version of the subjective theory of value and praxeology espoused by Mises half a century ago, as well as the "pure logic of choice" approach discussed by Hayek. 

They and their free-market contemporaries were the ones to demonstrate how pretty much everything dreamed up by the original Progressives of the 1900-1920 period (whose disastrous ideas reached full bloom in the 1930s) was dead wrong. Unfortunately, Progressivist ideas like Prohibition still linger today, and derivative economists like Becker make careers out of rehashing explanations of these policy failures that were worked out decades ago.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

A few decades ago a protective chain link fence and explanatory signs was erected encircling a ancient rock solar wheel back of beyond in the desert. I felt bad seeing it go up. I had walked the circle during the previous equinox with the last surviving member of the local band of native peoples. But even this remote area had been 'discovered' by OR clubs and it's preservation was in danger after being not only undisturbed, but honoured for a good 15,000 years easy. We shouldn't have bothered. Within a week bikers pulled down the fence as affront to their 'freedom and rights' tore the circle to pieces with deep tyre grooves and erected their own petrolythic monument in the form of a giant 2 word epitath. I really weary of them and us labels. And when you decry this publication or that organisation as communist or neocon or whatever you might as well draw a yellow star on the magazine or sing The International to muffle Rush or simply drop your pants and scent mark your perceived polical-eco niche on some endangered butterfly habitat. Then we can all return to small hunter gatherer bands of 'THE PEOPLE' which is what virtually every ethnic group's name first meant and be as parochial as the forgotten people who assembled that rock wheel. And then someday an unmarked sun will rise, not cuttng a groove on a astronomical devise, but reflecting off the helmets of yet new conquerors. Not in helmets of Conquistadores or bikers but a big outfit who will displace us all. Fools


----------

