Matthew Yglesias comments on the “non-conservative” lunch with Obama:
…everyone who’s not a card-carrying member of the conservative movement is counted, essentially, as a liberal. Or, rather, that the essential dichotomy is held to be between conservatives and not-conservatives rather than between conservatives and liberals. But this group isn’t at all the mirror image of the conservative roster we heard about last night. Some people on it are, but others really aren’t. It’s like the common description of Brookings (rather than, say, CAP/AF) as a “liberal” think tank simply because it’s not a conservative one
This might be a byproduct of the fact that almost anyone who acknowledges reality is kicked out of the conservative movement, and is labeled as a “liberal” by the grand poubahs of conservatism. This, I think can be a good thing for liberals and liberal ideas as conservatives seem willing to define most of their thoughtful members as liberals leaving nothing but the hardcore idiots as true conservatives.
Although I am finding that most liberals are unable to explain to me, a libertarian, how one can subscribe to both natural/sexual selection AND civil rights. Either rape is okay because of Darwin, or it is not okay because Someone endowed rights.
A human male is more likely to have reproductive success if he can stay out of jail, hence it is probably best from a reproductive success point of view to follow rules laid down by whatever society you happen to live in, and those rules come from societys leaders, although I have argued that the best way to really spread your genes is to become a sperm donor.
If you are arguing that rights come from a higher being would’t all societys have the same right if their was really one higher being, but different societys have different rules for behavior, because they have evolved in different sitautions..
So, JR, you are saying that rape is accpetable in some societies, based on their evolution?
I can’t think of a society that has rape as a norm. It seems like a society that allowed rape or other forms of violence would not be very stable and hence would not provide a survival advantage to its members.
So John, you are now denying that survival of species is scientifically relevant?
Hey Mr Bettor:
I am arguing that at least in humans they need a a stable society to thrive. Rape if it were allowed would destabilize society and probably lead to anarchy.
The only places I can think of that really allow rape are some christian sects in the southwestern united states, and Saudi Arabia where they have the child brides and neither society is very stable. Saudi Arabia survives by bribing the people not tot revolt and places like Colorado city Arizona seem to mostly survive with welfare fraud.
I am not pro-rape. Species survivalists are.