The Objectivism Online Meta-Blog

By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I have attacked libertarianism for failing to offer a principled, intellectual defense of capitalism off and on pretty much ever since I started blogging. Through Arts and Letters Daily, we have a prime example of what I am talking about: Some libertarian theoreticians are attempting to use the work of egalitarian political philosopher John Rawls (most famous for his A Theory of Justice) as a philosophical framework for capitalism!

Before I get to how these theorists -- and I wince at having to use this term to describe these "Rawlesekians" -- came to make such a leap, it might be worthwhile to briefly go over the summary of Rawl's collectivist political philosophy offered by David Gordon of The American Conservative.

The most controversial part of Rawls’s theory is the famous difference principle. (More exactly, the second part of this principle. The first part calls for equal opportunity and will not affect our discussion.) Rawls contends that people in the original position would start by wanting to distribute wealth and income equally. Why should some get more than others? Equality is the default position, but this is soon modified. People realize that we respond to incentives. If unequal incomes are allowed, this might turn out to be to the advantage of everyone. To insist on absolute equality, even if this left everyone worse off, would be cutting off one's nose to spite one’s face.

To deal with this situation, Rawls proposes that all inequalities must be to the advantage of the least well off group. Rawls was not an extreme egalitarian, content that everyone should be miserable, as long as they were equally so. But we now arrive at the fundamental presupposition of Rawls's theory. Suppose that someone objects that the difference principle is unfair. "If I am talented and am able to earn more than most people, why should my income be limited to what turns out to be best for the worst off? Do I not have the right to benefit from my superior talents?" Rawls's theory does not rule out the competitive pursuit of excellence. But he believes individuals cannot justifiably complain if they do not benefit fully from the fruits of their superior achievement.

Rawls argues that people do not deserve to reap the rewards of these talents. Tiger Woods earns millions of dollars because he is superlatively good at golf. Yet his abilities do not stem from any special virtue on his part. He was just lucky that, by some combination of heredity and environment, he ended up with superior skills. He is lucky in another respect: market demand for golf enables his talent to achieve vast returns. Because market demand for checkers players is much less, the late Marion Tinsley, whose skill at checkers was comparable to that of Woods in golf, did not earn comparable returns on his talent.

One might object that luck is not the full story. However talented he may be, Woods had to practice countless hours from his early youth to get where he is today. Does he not deserve to benefit from his hard work? Rawls has an answer that I suspect readers will find surprising. He thinks that if you have the personality trait of working hard, this too is a matter of luck. Even though Woods practiced strenuously, he does not deserve to benefit from this trait. [link and bold added]

Before I continue, I must interject that A Theory of Justice would have to be in the running for one of the most ironically-titled books of all time!

From other background in the article, Rawls conjures up his imaginary "original position" and with it, a method for creating a "fair procedure" as a way of organizing a society whose individuals may have differing conceptions of the good.

The article in The American Conservative offers the following explanation of how the libertarian theorists came to make such a leap:

Despite this collectivist principle, it is possible to interpret Rawls in a way that is quite compatible with classical liberalism. (!) One might think that an unrestricted free market best promotes the interests of the least well off class. If so, the difference principle will forbid any egalitarian redistribution of wealth or income. Raymond Geuss, a disciple of Theodor Adorno stationed at Cambridge, has denounced Rawls for this reason. Can one not use the difference principle, he asks, to justify any degree of inequality? Rawls himself does not interpret his principle this way, but his theory does not rule it out. The Rawlsekians interpret the difference principle in exactly this fashion. (Incidentally, one writer who thinks Rawls can be read in a way consistent with conservatism is the philosopher's son, Alec Rawls, though he has so far not published much on this topic.)

How society should be organized -- the question that political philosophy sets out to answer -- is a legitimate problem, but building air castles and expecting everyone to buy into them -- while "put[ting] aside their own conceptions of the good" -- is not going to solve it.

It is this fundamental -- and demonstrably wrong -- approach to political philosophy which Rawls and the libertarians share, as the words of Murray Rothbard (whom Gordon cites at one point) himself show!

... Libertarianism is a coalition of adherents from all manner of philosophic (or nonphilosophic) positions, including emotivism, hedonism, Kantian a priorism, and many others. My own position grounds Libertarianism on a natural rights theory embedded in a wider system of Aristotelian-Lockean natural law and a realist ontology and metaphysics. But although those of us taking that position believe that only it provides a satisfactory groundwork as a basis for individual liberty, this is an argument within the libertarian camp about the proper basis and grounding of Libertarianism rather than about the doctrine itself. [as cited by Peter Schwartz in "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty", in The Voice of Reason, p. 315, his italics]

In other words, Rothbard, being too cowardly to make a moral stand for capitalism (or lacking one altogether), is not going to make a moral or intellectual argument in its favor. instead, he is going to pull a fast one and trick people whose views are anything but rational or pro-capitalist into "supporting" capitalism.

The article in The American Conservative conveys a sense of surprise that some libertarians would adopt Rawls's work as (what they imagine to be) a theoretical justification for (what they imagine to be) capitalism. Given how poorly-understood (via HBL) capitalism and its moral foundations generally are today, this surprise is understandable. But the only real cause for surprise is that this melding didn't occur long ago.

-- CAV

PS: The article never mentions Ayn Rand as a "libertarian" critic of Rawls. I don't know whether this is a proper omission (because she is not a libertarian) or happened for some other reason, but a few of her words on Rawls bear mention:

It is not against social institutions that Mr. Rawls ... rebels, but against the existence of human talent -- not against political privileges, but against reality -- not against governmental favors, but against nature (against "those who have been favored by nature," as if such a term as "favor" were applicable here) -- not against social injustice, but against metaphysical "injustice," against the fact that some men are born with better brains and make better use of them than others are and do.

The new "theory of justice" demands that men counteract the "injustice" of nature by instituting the most obscenely unthinkable injustice among men: deprive "those favored by nature" (i.e., the talented, the intelligent, the creative) of the right to the rewards they produce (i.e., the right to life) -- and grant to the incompetent, the stupid, the slothful a right to the effortless enjoyment of the rewards they could not produce, could not imagine, and would not know what to do with. ["An Untitled Letter" in The Ayn Rand Letter, vol. II, no. 10, p. 168, bold added]

As a note in proof of Rawls' regrettable, profound effect on contemporary society and of the correctness of Rand's interpretation of his philosophy, I refer you to a news story (via HBL) about a nine-year-old boy being driven from a baseball league.

As a partial excuse for the league's behavior is the fact that he is "too good". That boy's words, tragically, exemplify the "obscenely unthinkable injustice" Rand described: "I feel sad. I feel like it's all my fault nobody could play."

Memo to anyone who imagines libertarians to be allies in the fight for freedom: This and freedom are not fruits of the same tree.

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The premise behind modern conventions is that free TV time is too valuable to waste on anything but an infomercial for the candidate and the party. All that other boring stuff conventions used to do should now be done before the convention starts. All that matters is the show.

What a show the Democrats are putting on! After two nights it looks like they are determined to put a face of middle-class, traditional values normality on the party. I have not seen or heard anything remotely controversial -- no gay or lesbian antics, no minority grievances, no Native Americans bewailing the white man, no foreigners denouncing American imperialism, no illegal immigrants begging for amnesty, no stoners calling for the legalization of dope. All the left-wing stuff is left out with the anarchists on the streets. Inside the convention hall, you'd think it was a Republican convention.

Where are the nutcases raving that Bush and Cheney are war criminals who should be tried and hanged? Where are the truthers giving earnest demonstrations on how Bush was behind 9/11? Where are the calls to bring our troops home now? Where are Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore and Dennis Kucinich? Where are Al Gore and John Kerry?

This must be the phoniest convention in history. You don't think Barack and Michelle, when they're sipping white wine in Bill Ayer's radical salon, don't talk about "American imperialism," "social justice," "false consciousness," "alienation" and the rest of leftist terminology?

Remember this:

His mild-mannered style has thrown off even some angry black radicals, who want him to speak out more forcefully about the legacy of U.S. racism and economic inequality.

One is Princeton professor Cornel West, a militant black and self-described socialist. Reportedly, West was reluctant to join the refined Obama's presidential campaign until Obama took him aside and explained to him that he had to walk a rhetorical tightrope to reassure whites. West is now solidly on board his campaign as an adviser.

The Obamas are putting on a show to gain voters' trust. They're doing what they have to do to gain power.

I thought the Kossacks would be angry and disappointed at how boring and "white bread" the show is, but they're delighted by the convention. They are collecting their favorite attacks on Republicans like stamp collectors at a philately convention. Apparently, there had been just enough red meat to keep the angry base happy.

Everyone seems to understand that the Democrats need to hide their true leftist nature in order to appeal to the heartland. They already have the votes of the Upper West Side and Castro Street; in this convention they're going after the Reagan Democrats, FDR Democrats and independents. They want to assure religious, small-town Americans that Obama is just like them.

I expect the Republicans to attack this facade and expose it for the lie it is next week. I also expect them to be denounced for "swiftboating" and "throwing red meat to the rabid right-wingers." But if the Republicans don't tell the truth about the Democrats' Potemkin Village Convention, who will (aside from little blogs like this that few read)? The MSM cannot be depended on to do the job. Bring on the swift boats.

UPDATE: Revision.

By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Wine Spectator magazine was caught giving out its "Award of Excellence" to a non-existent Italian restaurant, which included on its featured wine list a vintage which the magazine itself once likened to "paint thinner and nail varnish".

Writer and wine critic Robin Goldstein created this fake restaurant (complete with realistic website and all) as a test to see if the magazine would simply pocket the $250 entrance fee and give out the Award, or if they would actually do some serious investigation of the restaurant before handing out their stamp of approval. He presented his results at the recent meeting of the American Association of Wine Economists. Here's more information on his methods.

So was the magazine acting fraudulently or in ignorance? And is it ethical for individuals or groups to use these sorts of deceptive methods to test the integrity of organizations which purport to offer a value to consumers by rating other businesses and products?

Decide for yourself after reading the article.

By Paula Hall from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

*** SPOILER ALERT - THIS POST DISCUSSES PLOT DETAILS OF THE MOVIE THE DARK KNIGHT ***

In the new Batman movie, The Dark Knight, there is a climactic scene, as follows. Gotham must be evacuated, and part of the evacuation is effected by putting 500 people on each of two ferries. One ferry is filled with civilians, and the other, with convicted felons and their guards. The Joker supplies a dilemma: he has provided each boat with a detonator, and unless one ferry uses its detonator to blow up the other before his deadline, the Joker will blow both ferries up. Hashing out what one would do in that situation became the focus of discussion on at least one blog, which managed to capture the attention of a blog published at the New York Times, "Freakonomics."

I enjoyed The Dark Knight as a well-made movie with some terrific performances (your mileage may vary). But the ferry dilemma didn't occupy any mental real estate in my brain once the movie was over, in terms of caring to figure out what I would do. So my reaction upon discovering the fuss about this scene in the movie was first amusement and then bemusement--why did some people still find it such a hot topic for discussion? Then I remembered what Ayn Rand wrote in one of her most famous articles, "The Ethics of Emergencies" (published in her anthology The Virtue of Selfishness).

The psychological results of altruism may be observed in the fact that a great many people approach the subject of ethics by asking such questions as: "Should one risk one's life to help a man who is: a) drowning, b) trapped in a fire, c) stepping in front of a speeding truck, d) hanging by his fingernails over an abyss?"

Her point was that altruism doesn't tell you how to live, but only under what conditions you're supposed to sacrifice your life. Rand explained this approach to ethics as follows:

If a man accepts the ethics of altruism, he suffers the following consequences (in proportion to the degree of his acceptance): ...

[A] lethargic indifference to ethics, a hopelessly cynical amorality--since his questions involve situations which he is not likely ever to encounter, which bear no relation to the actual problems of his own life and thus leave him to live without any moral principles whatever.

Altruism is the dominant morality in our culture, meaning there are a lot of people for whom morality is irrelevant, most of the time. Yet no-one wants to think of himself as amoral. So when can an altruist take morality seriously? In a hypothetical life-or-death situation. The ferry dilemma in The Dark Knight provides a perfect outlet for seeming to take seriously the morality of altruism--in a fantasy world where it doesn't matter if you practice what you preach.

For what it's worth, here's my take on the ferry dilemma--in 20/20 hindsight. When one is forced to make a decision under threat of violence, all bets are off. The world becomes a topsy-turvy, down-is-up, Alice-in-Wonderland kind of place, where it's impossible to know what actions would be in one's own best interest. Nothing the Joker said could be a guide to action; he might just as well have kept his mouth shut, for all the content to be found in the ravings of an irrational psychopath. Therefore, I think the movie sensibly resolved the dilemma: throw the detonator overboard. There was no way to make any rational decision about what to do with it; it was just as relevant to the situation as a rubber ducky. Strictly speaking, the scene didn't depict a moral dilemma at all. Where rationality is impossible, morality is impossible, too.

(An aside: just what does it say about the screenwriters that it was a criminal who made the correct choice? Inquiring minds want to know ...)

By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Is there a need for a "Black Google"? According to this article, there is.

In a free market, specialty search engines could be entirely reasonable and appropriate if there is a demand for such a service. For instance, a search engine catering towards physicians might properly give different sorts of results than a search engine catering towards patients.

But the business model would only succeed if there were a subpopulation that had distinctive and significantly different search engine results preferences from the population at large, and the business could get them to become dominant users of their alternative search engine.

Otherwise you end up with problems like this:

Since search engines learn from what people are clicking on, RushmoreDrive had a small problem immediately after its launch: So many white members of the media were visiting the site that the results became skewed and turned up more "white" results...

The article also struck an odd note when it stated that Google's search results "alienate the rest of the population" (i.e., the non-caucasians). It's not clear to me that the term "alienate" is warranted.

By Gina Liggett from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

They've arrived in Denver by the thousands, ready to take on America... and change it.

In "The Blueprint for Change," Barack Obama outlines just what he's going to do if elected President. In this way, he will "... put government back in your hands, where it belongs."

Just what does he mean? Is this blueprint a principled declaration of the proper role of government? Is it an acknowledgment that somehow that relationship between government and its citizens has been breached and that he is going to set it right?

Careful not to fall out of your chair when reading this blueprint, because the dizzying list of government fix-its often contains a dollar sign followed by the word, "billions," in the sentence.

And the man who boasts that he's only worked in "public service" (as opposed to the private sector) doesn't hesitate to usurp the capitalist term, "investment," to hide the wealth-bleeding expropriation of earnings that will be required to pay for this fantastical plan.

This blueprint represents evasion on a grand scale, "...a wish to negate existence, an attempt to wipe out reality," in the words of Ayn Rand.

The Democratic candidate for President is blanking out the fact that it is the individual who is the fundamental unit of a society. To Obama, we are globs of groups: the wealthy, working class families, lenders, borrowers, the bankrupt, the corrupt, seniors, veterans, women, volunteers, methamphetamine addicts, the underserved, students, employers, disadvantaged youth..."

So it is no surprise that his vision of government is to correct the ailments of the various groups... somehow. And to pay for it... somehow...

• "President Bush's policies of giving tax breaks for the wealthy will cost the nation over $2.3 trillion by the time they expire in 2009... Obama is committed to repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans."
  
  
• "Obama supports public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests."
  
  
• "Obama will also create an energy-focused Green Jobs Corps to connect disconnected and disadvantaged youth with job skills for a high-growth industry."
  
  
• "Obama will create a new American Opportunity Tax Credit that will make tuition at the nation's community colleges completely free and will cover up to two-thirds the cost of tuition at the nation's public colleges and universities."
  
  
• "Obama will create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to fill a critical gap in U.S. technology development. Obama will invest $10 billion per year into this fund for five years. The fund will partner with existing investment funds and our National Laboratories to ensure that promising technologies move beyond the lab and are commercialized in the U.S."
  
  
• "Obama will invest $1 billion over five years in transitional jobs and career pathway programs that implement proven methods of helping low-income Americans succeed in the workforce."
  
  
• "Obama will set a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year."
  
  
• "Obama will sign a universal health care plan into law by the end of his first term in office."

In this blueprint, there is no reference to the individual. Therefore, there is no understanding of what is required for life. Therefore there is no mention of freedom... no mention of a moral basis for individual rights... no mention of property rights... no mention of how wealth is created... no mention of the right to live one's life free from the violation of one's rights... no mention of pursuing happiness... no mention of limitations on governmental power.

This is because, to Barack Obama and his evaders, there is only the collective.

Even when Obama properly opposes any attempt to overturn a woman's right to abortion, it's not because abortion is a moral right, but because it fits into the category of his policies that pertain to women.

In order to carry out his blueprint, Obama will take on America's "enemies" -- a floating, disembodied melange of "lobbyists," "disparities," "agribusiness," "chronic disease," "special interests," and "workers falling behind."

This is what he will do for America. This is what he means by giving America back to the people.

I fear there will not be enough duct tape in the world to patchwork this country back together if Obama's blueprint becomes realized. And the tragedy is that the masters of evasion won't even notice.

By David Holcberg from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlog

ARC Debates Heritage Foundation
on Whether to Use Military Force Against Iran
August 20, 2008

The Ayn Rand Institute is pleased to announce that Elan Journo, writing for the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights (ARC), has been invited to debate the Heritage Foundation on Opposing Views, a new Web site that sponsors online debates on questions regarding current news and events.

The question posed in this debate is "Should the U.S. Use Military Force Against Iran?"  --to which Mr. Journo has responded "Yes" and presented his arguments for this position. Mr. Journo's objections to the Heritage Foundation's arguments have been posted and are available to readers.

ARC will also participate in future debates on important issues.

#########   ########

By Gina Liggett from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Political wives Michelle Obama and Jeannie Ritter, the wife of Colorado's Governor, wrote a Guest Commentary about "serving others" as being the American way. They echo Barack Obama's directive, "I am my brother's keeper. I am my sister's keeper."

Well, who is my big brother? Are we as Americans supposed to sit around while others "serve" us? Who pays the rent while we run around volunteering? What if I decide to define myself as "needy" and demand that others give me what I lack?

In fact, I think I'm going to quit my job and become needy so that rich liberals can serve me and feel good about themselves. (Drum roll and trumpets, please) I hereby heroically declare it my duty as a good and brave citizen to allow others the privilege of fulfilling their "American Way" by serving MOI! Gee, I feel really good about this....Now give me your money!!

All sarcasm aside, Obama's and Ritter's pernicious underlying message is this: that altruism should be one's primary purpose and responsibility in life, and that it is immoral to be left free to live one's life as an end in itself.

I've got news for the followers of this mandate: serving others out of altruism is not what made this country great. Our country is distinguished by the concept of freedom: freedom to pursue one's own life, goals, rational self-interest, relationships, and happiness. (Why the hell would millions leave everything behind in their dictatorial or poverty-infested countries to come to America?!)

Giving to a cause should be a secondary choice based on one's own values. It should not be a duty imposed by cultural pressure or law. The fact that Americans do volunteer and donate billions to various non-profits or community groups speaks of the generosity of Americans. It is a result of a natural benevolence that emerges when people are left free to choose their life path and relationships with others.

The alternative of "good equalling sacrifice" versus "bad equalling self-interest" is utterly fallacious. It disavows our nature as human beings. It ignores the historical fact that people pursuing their values without preventing others from doing the same leads to wealth, a higher standard of living and a healthier society.

The liberals are evading the natural consequence of their credo. Just look at the past horrors of regimes demanding sacrifice for the "people" or for the "state" (Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany) or sacrifice for God (Afghanistan under the Taliban).

We must reject the evil idea of altruism. A government that tells us we are responsible for the happiness and health of others is a government that will control us.

Whoever is my keeper is my master.

By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Via RealClear Politics is this article from MacLean's regarding the legacy of the Bush Presidency. Here are some highlights:

• Sixty-eight per cent. That is how much total federal spending rose under Bush. That is more than double the growth in federal spending over the eight years of Bill Clinton's presidency.
• Bush was aided and abetted by a Congress dominated by Republicans until 2006. Juicy spending bills were passed on everything from farm subsidies to health (up 44 per cent) and education (up 47 per cent). After all, Bush had run as a "compassionate conservative"; he introduced the largest new entitlement since the Great Society programs of the 1960s: a prescription drug benefit for seniors that will add a US$1.2-trillion liability over 10 years.
• Bush also asserted, and acted on, sweeping new claims of presidential power on issues to do with national security and foreign affairs. Rejecting the traditional division of power with Congress and the judiciary, Bush claimed that these areas were exclusively the province of the commander-in-chief. If Congress passed a statute to restrict or regulate his authority, he claimed the law would be unconstitutional and therefore not binding. ... He acted on his claim that the president can ignore statutes forbidding wiretapping of citizens in the U.S. without a prior judicial warrant, thereby setting a precedent that future presidents will be able to invoke if they, too, want to bypass a law.
• Bush tied his foreign policy to his faith: "From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the maker of Heaven and earth. So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." [So much for the notion of the government existing to protect the citizens from foreign threats. --ed]
• "I don't think anyone can say the Iraq war was worth it," says Matthew Duss, research associate at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank in Washington. "I think we have averted what could have been a major, major disaster -- but that is not the same as saying we won. Even if Iraq became a Jeffersonian democracy, I don't think we can look at the people killed, maimed, displaced, and the billions we have spent to do this, as an acceptable cost." [Savage should have noted that in addition to freedom for a foreign people being the wrong primary motivation for a war, that Iraq as a base of operations for eliminating Iran as a threat was never taken advantage of. --ed]
• [Bush] leaves behind little coherent policy toward the emerging economic and military power of China. The relationship with Russia is in crisis. It is unclear whether Iran's nuclear ambitions are being successfully contained. The de-nuclearization of North Korea is proceeding [Is it? --ed], though at a snail's pace, but stockpiles of nuclear weapons continue to pose a threat to the world. [This deserves an entire article of similar length on its own. --ed]
• In the year 2000, the U.S. was spending US$140 million on AIDS programs around the world. Today, it is spending US$6 billion, and most of it is going to Africa. [Savage -- who headlines her article by accusing Bush of being "shockingly liberal" -- praises this. Redistributing wealth is not the proper purpose of government, however. Ditto for his efforts in the Sudan. --ed]
• Despite his pledges to do so in both inaugural speeches, he did not manage to put either Social Security or Medicare on solid financial footing for the future. [Or, better yet, abolish them. --ed]
• The issue of climate change is also a blank slate for his successor. [But not in the way, I am afraid, that Savage might mean. Bush should have made a principled stand against the government doing anything on this, but he has failed to do so. --ed]

As you will gather from a few of my comments, I don't agree with author Luiza Savage about everything here. For example, I have no problems with the government torturing foreign combatants if that's what it takes to protect American citizens. And then, she is far easier on Bush's prosecution of the current war than he deserves. Most of all, her overall evaluation of Bush's legacy as "shockingly liberal" lets him off the hook for being a theocrat. (Regarding Bush's tying "his foreign policy to his faith", she seems to complains that he did not live up to his claims rather than expressing a proper degree of alarm about the very idea.) Nevertheless, this article is a must-read, although it is quite long.

If Bush's legacy is statist, it is because his ideology, Christian conservatism, is statist, and guides his actions. Savage, who I think is also a conservative, inadvertently demonstrates this in her own criticism of his presidency, which considers individual rights no better than Bush protected them. If Bush is "shockingly" liberal for increasing federal entitlement spending, how can he be praised for spending more of our money in Africa? Or is the flaw with "liberalism" that domestic spending is too "selfish", given that the money still hasn't left the country after having been lifted from our wallets?

If Savage's article is required reading for the facts it brings to our attention, I must once again point the interested reader to C. Bradley Thompson's "The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism" in The Objective Standard for its indispensable aid in the interpretation of those facts. Bush's failure as a president has not been because he wasn't conservative enough, it has been because conservatism is antithetical to individual rights.

-- CAV

By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The new Class of 2012 Beloit Mindset List is now out. I like this annual list because it helps concretize the cultural context of incoming college freshmen. Here are a few excerpts:

4. GPS satellite navigation systems have always been available.
10. Girls in head scarves have always been part of the school fashion scene.
19. Films have never been X rated, only NC-17.
20. The Warsaw Pact is as hazy for them as the League of Nations was for their parents.
22. Clarence Thomas has always sat on the Supreme Court.
33. The Tonight Show has always been hosted by Jay Leno and started at 11:35 EST.
46. The Green Bay Packers (almost) always had the same starting quarterback.
56. Michael Millken has always been a philanthropist promoting prostate cancer research.

If you want to feel old, read the whole thing.