I'll Believe It…

By | October 12, 2010

…when Stephen Gordon gets a VW microbus and starts wearing tie-dyed shirts:

This is a memo to America’s hippies:

Tea Party values are hippie values.

Word of warning to Tea Partiers: if you really are the new Hippies, don’t let Eric Cartman find out.

Zombie presents an interesting four-quadrant diagram of political ideologies that (sort of) reminds me of my recent ponderings on the emergence of a new dichotomy.

One of the assumptions of the chart is the immutability of human nature. Zombie argues that collectivist systems assume that people can be changed while individualist systems assume they can’t. He quotes Bill Whittle outlining how one of the fundamental conservative ideas is the immutability of human nature.

I disagree that human nature is immutable. There’s a pretty good case to be made that human beings are growing kinder, less violent, more empathetic over time. Perhaps it isn’t our nature that’s changing, just attitudes and behaviors. (But then, what is our “nature?”)

This is my userpage image. Camera on a tripod....

Image via Wikipedia

Anyway, human ethical progress seems to correlate with human technological and economic progress. Today’s more affluent civilizations are more humane than the poorer ones of yesteryear. This is a correlation — it doesn’t necessarily imply causation. But hey, I say we might as well get more technology and wealth just in case.

I think the truth behind what Whittle is arguing is that changes in human nature can’t be forced. Libertarians (and Hippies) are ultimately opposed to all forms of coercion. Forcing people to be nice doesn’t make them really nice.

If the Tea Partiers truly are the new Hippies, some of them need to get hip to ideas like the Law of Accelerating Returns. Only squares think that human nature can’t be changed.  Or maybe they should read The Rational Optimist. It’s groovy, baby!

Enhanced by Zemanta
  • holyspiritdenier

    Libertarians tend to define “coercion” is a self-serving way. They call taxation “coercion” because men with guns show up at your door for not paying your taxes; yet they don’t call it “coercion” when the same men with guns show up at your door for not paying your rent, your mortgage or your child support. (How would a landlord or banker guarantee that he gets paid money owed to him otherwise?) In both kinds of situations, the men with guns don’t initiate “coercion,” but rather enforce contracts.

  • Phil

    Darn those evil libertarians twisting the meaning of the word “coercion!” I hope nobody tries anything like that with the word “contract.”

    Speaking as someone who is fine with the fact that the government makes us pay our taxes (ultimately) at gun point, I still think it’s legit to argue about what it is that we’re being coerced into paying for. Most everyone agrees that coercion to prevent violence and enforce contracts is okay. The question is whether coercion to create or enforce economic equality is okay.

    Actually, I can even leave that question alone and ask a more basic one — is coercion used to that end effective?

  • stephentg

    I haven’t ALWAYS been square… man.

    https://blog.speculist.com/stephen%20hippy.JPG