I agree that the "choices" we have in this election are very poor. I also agree that they are not necessarily a lot more so than has often been the case for the last 100 years, which to me only shows how much we need better choices. 
 
I am encouraging as many people as possible to vote for third parties, so as to begin the process of builidng up genuine alternatives, to allow us real choices. The longer we fail to do this, the longer we will be left with the same situation, every time, two bad choices. 
 
We the people have already lost this election. Neither big party choice is good; our votes are already wasted. Voting the "lesser of two evils" is still voting for evils. So let's invest our votes in the future. 
 
I don't care right now which third party you like. Vote Libertarian Party, Green Party, Constitution Party, Ice Cream and Pony Party, whatever. The important part is that lots of us vote against BOTH big parties; that they all see that we will no longer accept the "lesser of two evils"; that we have figured out how to vote for people we actually would like to see in office. 
 
That'll scare them; indeed it's probably the only thing that would. 
 
PhilB

Herrick wrote: "It's the combination of eugenic ideas + guv'mint mandates that leads to the bad outcomes most folks worry about." 
 
:laugh: I'd argue that it's the combination of *anything* and government mandates that leads to the bad outcomes most folks worry about. 
 
PhilB

I was not, above, defending this particular study, nor saying anything about it's validity or any causation in any relationship that may exist between collectivism and pathogen load. The correlation they claim to have found may or may not be valid. 
 
I was just commenting on the comments of some on the fuzziness of the concept of collectivism. Yes, John, collectivism covers a wide variety of societies, with many other characteristics. That does not at all mean that the concept is useless. With regard to this study, the concept may be useful for identifying common behaviors (e.g. ethnocentrism, comformity) of various societies, that arise from their various approaches to collectivism (or individualism) and how those common behaviors may relate to environmental factors. 
 
Outside of this study, the concept is more useful for identifying societies (or aspects of a society) that respect individual rights and are thus positive for human liberty. If I am considering living in (or visiting, for that matter) a society, I care if it respects individual rights. If it doesn't, it matters little whether it fails to do so from a tribal, communist, feudal, or fascist viewpoint; the relevant parameter is collectivism vs. individualism. 
 
So all I'm saying here is that "collectivism vs. individualism" is a valid concept that can be compared between societies, and that investigation of the causes and effects of where societies position themselves on that continuum is reasonable. 
 
PhilB

Ethically and philosophically, the division between individualiam and collectivism is as clear as a philosophical issue can be. Is a person defined on his own individual merits, or mainly in reference to a group? Is society arranged primarily to serve the individual, or is the individual expected to serve the society? 
 
There are many aspects of this, and of course all societies are mixed with some balance of each. And as with any social or economic phenomenon, it is complex and not 100% quantifiable. But each aspect can be related back to those two questions, and an overall estimation of a society's balance point can be arrived at. Not precisely, but reasonably and comparatively, with enough substance for an intelligent conversation to be possible. 
 
It is clear that the Western societies have developed a more individualistic balance than in most other places; these people are exploring some possibilities as to *why*, and are looking to see if disease patterns may have contributed to that outcome. If a correlation can be established, then this does add to our data set on the subject. 
 
PhilB

Collectivism vs. individualism is far more than just a form-of-government phenomenon. It is tied up with a culture's basic philosophy. Pressure of conformity vs. allowance for non-conformist exrpession. View of people as individually responsible and autonomous vs. primarily as part of a family/group/tribe (does a heroic or heinous action bring honor/shame to the person of the family). Sense of duty to the society as a whole vs. freedom to take care of one's self. Sense of duty of society to the people vs. duty to care for one's self. And, as noted, acceptance vs. xenophobia. I'm not sure how this study measured such things, but they can be measured, and they are far more enduring in a culture than the form-of-government-du-jour (although of course they can drift over time, or be altered by widespread traumatic events such as wars, epidemics, or natural disasters). 
 
PhilB

I'd be most inclined to think of these as effects that are not really linked. My own observations are that people in major cities with families are no more conservative than otherwise similar people. Mothers in particular tend to liberalism, at least in CA. 
 
I would guess that it's more along the lines that (a) cities require more governance than rural areas, and so are more attractive to people who like (or at least can stand) more government, while those that chafe under that will stay in (or move to) less populated areas; and (b) cities are also more expensive to live in and raise kids in, and so people in them have fewer of them. 
 
I recognize this is speculation. But I'd be inclined to think that conservatism doesn't cause families, nor do familes cause conservatism, but rather that the geography affects both. 
===== 
?If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.? -- Winston Churchill 
 
Possibly another effect is that people do tend a bit more conservative as they age, and that this shift more or less coincides with family-making age, and that family making coincides with moving out of the city and into a suburb or other place where space is more affordable. 
 
PhilB

pconroy wrote: "Ron Paul is a non starter, as he is not electable." and "I'd only vote for contenders in elections, as ultimately they are the only ones who count." 
 
And this attitude is exactly why we keep winding up with the same crappy choices and practically dynastic series of the same bad choices. 
 
I can't even begin to count how many people tell that they like Ron Paul's ideas, but won't vote for him because he can't win. If all the people who say that had the guts and brains to vote for what they really want, he *would* be electable. But instead, most people are afraid to vote their own conscience, and wind up holding their noses and voting for yet another media-anointed self-fulfilling-prophecy puppet of the usual lobbyists. 
 
And I guess this will keep happening until people smarten up a bit. Maybe it will take a real crisis to shake people out of their obedience, but if Bush ==> Clinton ==> Bush ==> prospect of another Clinton doesn't count as a crisis, I hate to think how bad it will have to get to wake people up. 
 
PhilB

Of course they do, just as with any other incentives. Although that doesn't make it right to bully people into behaving how you like through stealing extra money from those you disapprove of. Even if it's "for their own good". 
 
PhilB

Democracy is all well and good, if kept in check by some guiding principles, preferably written down in a Constitution or some such. In that case, and if such a Constitution is followed, demcoracy may be a fine way to decide many things. Our system was not designed as a democracy, but rather a republic, and remains so at the federal level. Many states, however, have mixed systems, where most issues are handled by representatives, but some are directly handled democratically by initiative or some such. 
 
Pure democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner. But a pure republic is just 20 wolves and 10 sheep voting for a council of two wolves and one sheep who will then vote on what's for dinner. In both cases, there needs to be some guidelines to determine what is up for a vote and what is out of bounds, so that the rights of the minority don't get voted away by the majority. 
 
PhilB

Agreed. It's not about finding the thing you know you want; it's about finding the things you didn't know you wanted. The discoveries. 
 
This is also why I love printed dictionaries much better than online or CD-ROM versions. I was saddened to learn that the 3rd edition of the OED will not be issued in a print version, only on CD. 
 
Harrumph. 
 
PhilB

"religion is a conservative force. i don't think it is a progressive force, at least in this case. after all, it isn't like atheistic communism was heaven for homosexuals" 
 
But that's beside the point here. My point was relating directly to your point in the blog about you "suggesting that people should be relatively unconcerned by the rise of the evangelical Christian counter-culture". What I'm saying is that even if their institutions will "always get corrupted by Satan", that these institutions can still make life miserable for a lot of people until then, and thus some concern is appropriate. 
 
I fully agree that "atheistic communism" was hell for a great many people. (And note that this was because of the communism part; the atheistic part was mainly about ensuring that the all-controlling state had no viable rivals for power. There is no reason for atheism to generate or trend toward collectivism; many if not most libertarians are atheists as well.) But communism is not a big threat in America these days. Evangelical Christianity is one of the real concerns in America today. The others are increasing socialism, and and increasing "security" state. 
 
PhilB

I think that you are right in the long term. But the fact remains that in the short term, these efforts can have major influence on society, often to the detriment of members of the society who are not members of the faith. 
 
We do see that in this country to some extent, in how religion (particularly evangelical Christianity) still is working to deny rights for gay people, with a fair bit of success. They will lose eventually, but the lives of many gay people will have been made much harder in the interim. 
 
We see that in a much greater extent in certain Muslim countries, where in several cases the "effects on the society are much greater than the amount of message-fat that they have to cut to achieve it". I think that there, likewise, their efforts will ultimately fail, as the leaders inevitably cannot maintain their desired monopoly on sources of information to the people. But regardless of the outcome, a great deal of damage to a great many people will be done before that outcome is achieved. 
 
So, to relate this to your initial point, while yes we can say that these efforts to convert all of society are bound not to succeed, that does not mean that we can be complacent and not take the efforts seriously. They can still do real and significant damage on the way. 
 
PhilB

"What gambling bust? People found out he gambled, but he was never arrested or charged with doing anything illegal." 
 
Not a bust in the sense of a legal problem, but a bust in a more colloquial sense of a discovery of hypocrisy and attendant loss of credibility. He was caught behaving in ways that he had made a career out of denouncing. Likewise with Senator Larry (who also had a legal bust involved); the real career problem was the discovery that he was a person of the kind that he had spent decades reviling. Another variant of the TV-Preacher syndrome. 
 
PhilB

razib wrote: phil, for a lot of liberals glenn reynolds is the most prominent 'libertarian' they know of. for them libertarianism is rudi guliani, not ron paul. granted, it's a pretty big mistake, but we're an exotic little cult on the margins. 
 
That's just plain inaccurate. That's like saying Christianity is Fred Phelps, or saying that progressivism is Joe Leiberman. Way off the mark. 
 
PhilB

A common quote (which has been attributed to many people): 
If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart. 
If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain. 
 
PhilB

Perhaps GNXP libertarians are liberal, but on the whole, libertarians are just neo-cons in disguise. 
 
This is completely false. As a long term libertarian, and one who is active in the libertarian movement, no libertarians have very much in common with neoconservatives, and very much disagree with and look down on them. 
 
There are various flavors of libertarianism. Some are left-libertarians that focus more on personal liberty; some are right-libertarians that focus more on economic liberty. 
 
The purest libertarians have no more in common with conservatives than we have with liberals. We agree with each faction on a few issues, buit there are many issues that we disagree with both groups on. 
 
I suggest, K.A., that you make some effort to understand libertarians and what we stand for before you make comments that show such lack of understanding. 
 
PhilB