This took me so long because, as usual, I was trying for the quadruple play: I was trying to cover all the bases and I was ineffective everywhere.

This is just the start of a new book. Many, many (shorter!) essays to follow. It's good now that the ice has finally been broken.

Well, let me be the first to say, it's nice to see some new material. I think the book is going to do well for you.

I couldn't help thinking, as I read the piece, that you show it to liberals, they read it, and then a miracle happens and they suddenly realize that continuing to follow policies because they feel right, whether or not they have any measureable success, is a grave error. However, miracles seem to be few and far between. I see little miracles often, but big miracles seem non-existant at times.

The voters in Spain just voted in the appeasers. Let's hope the citizens of this country don't do the same in November.

When there's a socialist revolution, the expectation of a miracle is easier to point out. Its much harder to see when it sneaks up on you a year at a time. I hope that "Its a Trap" deals with this - the whole "frog in the pan of water" deal. Anyone who hasn't picked up John Roth's _Unintended Consequences_ definitely should.

Re: That Tech Bubble - sure was fun while it lasted!! I have two friends in Silicon Valley who were planning their retirement - one was expecting to have to pay $1 mil in taxes.

All gone now :(

Oo, this is gonna' be fun... the essays AND the comments. Hoo-HOO!

A fine opener, Mr. Whittle. Fine indeed.

Now if everyone will just agree to LISTEN -- to ALL the on-topic voices here -- a miracle just might occur.

Oh yeh. This is gonna' be fun.

GHS

It is John Ross'
Unintended Consequences and more than worth the read. Fiction laced with more history and most history books.

Excellent. Most excellent, Bill.

Although, when I read "It's a trap," I'll mentally see an image of Admiral Ackbar...

Oh goody! I love looking at maps and trying to figure out where the hell I am. Did a bunch of that last week in Berlin (c:
If I understand correctly, we're traveling by ship rather than car, yes? That's a relief, 'cause I can't imagine *everyone* holding maps, riding shotgun and serving as navigator. We all won't fit in the passenger seat!

Yes! Yes! The start of a great new series. I've never trusted people who don't love maps. Now I know why...

The Short and Sweet Version:

Very well done.

I'm really looking forward to this new series. I am sooo tired of "He said, she said" politics (see the new Bush ads use of 9/11 as a recent example). I think it was Lileks who said, "We live in a world where we choose up sides first, then decide who to believe." Imagine if you tried to navigate that way...

As Steven Covey put it, "Imagine trying to get around the city of Chicago. You have a Detroit map, improperly labelled 'Chicago.' Good luck."

Waiting for the next installment...

"Never dismiss a good idea simply because you don't like the source."

This is a saying I heard many years ago and I try very hard to remember it. I have never claimed to know all...merely know what I feel in me is the right thing to do.

The problem is, many do not do this. They follow whomever they think is the smartest or conducts themselves most closely to how they would like to see the world.

You ask us to give up what we wish to be true in exchange for that which is true.

Bill, I did this a long, long time ago. It was a few years of absolute misery when I realized, when I grew up and realized the world was not going to ever be the way I wished it would be.

But to ask that of millions of people...to ask millions of people to give up their ideologies in exchange for accepting reality and forging ahead with that knowledge....THAT is where the miracle occurs.

Human nature just isn't going to do that and we have to accept that.

Maybe I missed the point of this post. This is all I could think while I read this. I'll have to think about this and read it again later to see if I catch another meaning from it.

Communism requires everyone to agree for it to succeed, but only one person to disagree for it to fail. Unless you kill that guy.

Bill W. -
Great to have another piece. Well written as always. It’s unfortunate that so many people simply muddle through life, pushed this way and that by every random fad and current, mouthing words without ever examining their meaning, and consequences, directionless, without a map.
But I’m afraid that even among the thinking public, the so-called “left” and “right” will never be able to sit down together, apply their intelligence, and collectively pick the map that best corresponds to the actual coastline. I don’t believe that men of good will from both right and left can just sit down and apply our common sense and come to an agreement upon the correct (best risk/benefit) solution. The left and the right use different metrics when measuring reality and history. Quantum physics tells us that one can accurately measure either the position of an partical OR its velocity (momentum), but not both. Some of us observe reality emphasizing accurate measurement of velocity, and others optimize the measure of position.

Faced with human greed and foolishness, some see the need for an incentive based system that rewards effort, and punishes the lack of it. Faced with these same facts, others see the need to use the police power of government to forcibly compel charity, in order to construct “safety nets” for those who make poor choices, or who suffer a setback through plain bad luck.
Some look at Cuba and see jails full of dissidents imprisoned for questioning orthodoxy. Some look at Cuba and see high literacy rates and universal health care. Both viewpoints are factually correct. Some people in formerly communist eastern Europe look back at their history and see repression and empty store shelves, while others look back and see job security. Both maps correctly describe the coastline.

It is not so much a conflict of reality versus wishful thinking, but of conflicting of value systems and priorities. When freedom and security are in direct conflict, which direction does your first instinct make you lean? History gives us innumerable examples of market crashes and tyrannies, depressions and despots. Which do you fear the most: blind fate, or armed agents with overwhelming firepower and a writ from the State? When considering the cost/risk/benefit of a course of action, how much weight do you give to liberty, how much to physical security, how much to financial security? How much public good out-weighs curtailing a liberty? Is it better to create the maximum amount of wealth so that the most people are better off, or to guarantee that no one will be below some arbitrary standard of living, knowing that less wealth is created for everyone?

To win the argument of whose map to use, the ideological cartographer must first convince the other side that our perspective, priorities, and values are superior.

Dear Jumper,

Excellent post.

I know it is impossible to move the mountain. That would take a ... well, a miracle. HOWEVER, it might just be possible for a few of us to move just enough weight to tip the scales, and that is surely worth the effort.

Think of the effect on wold history those five hundred Florida Republicans had.

Cuba is a great example, for here is the general tone of my thesis: yes, some see jailed dissidents and others see health care. My point is this: cast away all that nonsense. WHICH WAY ARE THE RAFTS HEADING?

See? Not so hard after all.

Good to have you here with all these other fine folk.

Are they not heading to yet another ideology? How many times have we heard misconceptions about this country from foreigners?

Sure, the reality here in America is much better than the reality in Cuba...to me anyway...but how much do these people know that before they come here?

In some countries, as recently as the 90's, the citizens were told that Americans were poor, violent and that this was a terrible place to go...best to stay in Russia.

In some countries, America is viewed as flowing over with wealth and opportunity.

The reality is, it's a bit of both.

Yes, people are coming here...are they seeing what they expected when they get here?

I'm having a hard time with "make up your own mind" and then "maybe some of us can move the weight a little bit".

I'm definitely not trying to argue with you, I'm trying to understand what you are saying here.

It's people like you who scoff at the miracles that sustain us all.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" is a Communist perversion (Godless) of Christ's bible.

"Neither was there any among them that lacked: for those who were possessors
of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were
sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made
unto every man according as he had need." Acts 4:34-35

So sayeth the Lord. Hallejulah. And then a miracle occurs... He is risen! Rejoice! Amen!!!!

Angels Exist: There's nothing wrong with appreciating miracles that do occur. But you can't expect miracles in order to get out of actually planning for life. God gave us our brains for a reason.

Wrote a little something, page and a half, after I heard about Spain's little governmental change recently. Just thought I'd post a link to it here, for those who might be interested.

It's just something along the theme I think Bill and everyone here has always tried so hard to press forward, and I thought it might deserve some mention.

http://208.47.183.28/

Gee, Serenity, I am HOPING that if people learn to think more critically then they will move in a direction that we both probably agree is good for the country. Otherwise, why do we have these damn blog things?

Ah, it must be for the money!

To david and Russ Fletcher: thanks a lot for reminding me that it's presidential campaign season again. Aurgh! ;>) Time to throw the television into the street and hold the puppy real close. Nothing like 8 months of mud-slinging and self-polishing (hmmm -- THAT didn't sound right -- or maybe it did) to completely turn me away from governmental doin's.

To Serenity: I don't think Bill's suggesting that you have to GIVE UP "what we wish to be true in exchange for that which is true." I think that what you WISH to be true should always be a target goal. But ignoring reality and some hard truths along the way can get you killed.

I mean (for instance), everybody wants a world in which "killing," by universal definition, is no longer a viable solution to anything. What sane person WOULDN'T want that? But if you chose to act upon that noble principle RIGHT NOW -- ignoring the existing reality that bad people will gleefully squish good people if they're allowed -- then you've done nothing but blissfully steer yourself to destruction. As a personal choice, that's a decision that's all yours to make. But as a leader or a governing body, that's akin to leading your people to mass suicide. And we need "better thinking" than that.

I think that's what Bill's getting at. People believe they can "think, or idealize, or visualize, or pray for world peace, and POOF!, a miracle occurs -- WORLD PEACE!" What are the odds? What's an historical precedent for that? Sometimes -- USUALLY -- hell, just about ALWAYS you've got to weigh a bunch of damned ugly options, and just take the lesser of all the evils, or else settle for the mediocre certainty over the idyllic unlikelihood. It ain't pretty or perfect, but it works better -- as in "gets better results" -- than turning the other cheek to a loaded pistol. One way is nobler, but you'll actually survive the other way.

I don't know. I'm curious to see where he's going to go with this too.

And to Angels Exist: personally, I like the story about the old Jewish guy who'd spent a lifetime of daily devotions at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, who, when asked by an interviewer what it was like praying daily for peace and harmony and world unity for over fifty years, said, "It's like talking to a wall."

GHS

Ooooh. Ambitious. I think I'm going to love it. Though the repeated smacks on the sandbars of semantics here in the comments streams should be interesting...

Jumper and Bill are both right, and that actually makes me fairly optimistic. I believe there are fundamentally different values systems and that conflicts of interest are therefore inevitable. I also believe that said values are usually closer than is sometimes made out, at least among the majority; during times of prosperity, the Dems and the Repubs come to look like the same bunch of guys in suits and their speeches come to sound pretty much alike, and I think this is because the majority tends to fall mostly into the same "centrist" system of values. Most people want a measure of freedom, and a measure of security, and the chance to live their lives in relative peace without having to put up with a day-glo neighbor with a bullhorn and a dildo on the roof. Mostly, they just want to live their lives in the sort of prosperity that allows them to argue about tax structure and crosses in the town square over the paper at the breakfast table, then go to work and drop the kids off at school, and expect to repeat this tomorrow.

I also believe that as part of that fundamental human nature Bill spoke of, free men are never ever truly collective in their actions. They pull in a few different directions at once in times of crisis, and forty or so in times of prosperity. Bickering is actually a sign of a healthy system, and usually things get done anyway, sometimes in some surprisingly brilliant (or surprisingly half-assed) ways. I've always believed that the genius of the Founding Fathers was in constructing the American system around this quality rather than in a way that tries to stifle or control it.

FINALLY!

Good work Bill, nice intro. Keep it coming! ;)

"We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it."

Thomas Jefferson

Your essay reminded me of this quote. I think Mr. Jefferson would agree with you, Bill. Unfortunately, accepting the truth that is rather than the "truth" we want is one of the hardest things to do.

"Reality - what a concept!" A concept of which altogether too many people seem to have a very weak grasp.

Thanks, Bill.

Bill,

Thanks for yet another excellent piece. Hope it makes all of us think a bit more and with clarity.

I must say, your post in the comments:

Cuba is a great example, for here is the general tone of my thesis: yes, some see jailed dissidents and others see health care. My point is this: cast away all that nonsense. WHICH WAY ARE THE RAFTS HEADING?

See? Not so hard after all.

...is totally spot on. Unforntunately, I have made this same statement many a time and been called a reductivist. Even though the statement is quite clear and valid in it's logic.

I love anything you write... add to that the fantastic imagery that deals with maps (my favorite art form) and I am hooked for the next book!

I once had a professor who said 'We are the cartographers of our future. Don't draw the map until you have walked the path of your life, you can never be sure to follow the path you lay down in advance. Instead concentrate on only drawing the map of your experiences as a guide for those who may want to try and follow.'

Ahhh! I feel much better now.

Oh, and Cuba? It isn't just rafts. They're using classic cars!

Nice piece of writing, Bill, a pleasure as always. I have to vote against Bush, though, as they'll kick me out of the gay league if I vote for him. Since Bush backed amending the Constitution to specifically withhold marriage from gays, the term 'Gay Republican' has become synonymous with 'Jewish Nazi' and 'Black Klansman.' A local editorial suggested forming an extreme-middle of the road party, sounded a bit like what you propose. Looking fwd to seeing more.

let us all...make up our own minds about what to think in a world that depends on us...to give up what we wish to be true in exchange for that which is true.

GHS...I read that differently than you I suppose.
But I guess it doesn't matter in the end as I certainly don't want to smack the sandbar of semantics here in comments".

GHS, I know what you are saying...that is my point...it's the millions of other people who live in their fairy tale worlds, who are sucked into and believe every thing they hear in the media or buy everything their friends tell them, who need to hear this and won't.

As to why people have blogs Bill...many reasons for that...some people write books and sell them so yes, I guess money is in there somewhere in some cases. But in the end, again, from what I've seen, they all seem to preach to the choir and hardly anyone appears to be listening to the "other side".

My question is how do we get others to listen to our version of "that which is true"...but I'll save that for a rainy day.

Carry on...certainly didn't mean to interrupt anything.

Posted by: Jim on March 15, 2004 12:02 PM

Jim...that piece "The First Mistake" was superb. I should only write so well...

Cross posted to LGF...hope you don't mind

Well written, Bill Whittle.

I've found myself thinking along the same lines. The world is divided primarily by those who have expectations that, when unmet, drive them to righteous indignation, and those recognize that no matter how much we'd like life to be fair, the best guarantor of personal liberty and success is taking responsibility for one's own life.

I fall into what appears to be a growing political segment of secular conservatives. My political beliefs are drawn from a significant amount of research. Using Bill's metaphor, I have poured over many maps drawn by many people, and then charted the waters myself to determine the true lay of the land. This leads me in these times to vote predominantly along the republican ticket, but with a considerable mistrust of anything that smacks of law based on religious grounds.

You have to wonder about the motivations of some cartographers, given the all too relevent and RECENT examples of the USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam and on and on.

Bill et al. have hit the nail on the head: The problem with Socialism and Communism is not the noble theory. It is simply the less than noble human component that keeps on screwing it up. Simply willing all of humanity to develop a universal trait of altruism is not ever going to work, at least not overnight, nor even over many generations. China's limited economic success has stemmed solely from it's implementation of free market principles, and yet they still rank among the worst offenders of human-rights, with a slowly rising tide of a democratic movement those in power do their damndest to destroy.

I am often depressed when I think about how many otherwise brilliant people have declined to search out truth on their own, who instead march lockstep with their party. I dated a girl (a college english lit teacher in fact) who would end every debate with the caveat that she just hadn't researched this stuff, and it didn't interest her, and really, you can't believe what anyone tells you.

Believe it or not, I managed to convince her to vote for Bush in November. The argument that persuaded her was that there are people in this world who want to kill you simply because of who you are. They are among the fastest growing populations in the world. Their answer to the debates on public schools, gay marriage, free speech, and the role of religion is simple and deadly. They have openly declared war in word and in action. Given the statements of Gore, Kerry and the rest of the leaders of the Democrat party, do you really believe they understand this growing danger?

It's not about deciding who is the best presidential candidate in a perfect world. It's about deciding who is the best candidate in the world that exists.

To Serenity -- doesn't sound to me like we're in disagreement at all. And I don't doubt your assertion that those that don't want to hear this stuff, WON'T. Nothing new there. To a large extent, Bill IS preaching to the choir here -- but then, so's everybody else in the preachin' business. You reach who you can, you tickle the fancy of a curious extra few, and you're scoffed at by the rest, especially the ones who've never heard your sermon themselves, just the rumors. But sometimes it's just good to have the words out there.

And that's what I like about Bill's writing in particular. It's snappy and glib and CLEAR enough that even someone who is in utter opposition to his every word will still READ his every word, just because it's so danged entertaining.

I have to admit -- I've read a few excerpts from Al Franken's latest book, "Lying Liars and the something-something-something-or-other," I can't remember what. And as annoyingly shortsighted and smug and just plum "wrong" (in my opinion) as his points are to me, he's READABLE -- which means HE WILL BE READ. It's that simple.

And what better spokesman is there than that?

And to Krakatoa -- WOW! I liked THAT one. Every little bit of it. Thanks.

Keep it up, folks.

GHS

We'll create a society where a majority of the voting members of each geographical area elects a representative. We will trust these representatives to collect and spend tax money however they decide. And then a miracle occurs, and they use it to benefit us instead of themselves.

Advance and retreat, advance and retreat. You people are SO close to being right, but you back off at the last second.

Not to pick on GHS, but take this for example:
"It ain't pretty or perfect, but it works better -- as in 'gets better results' -- than turning the other cheek to a loaded pistol. One way is nobler, but you'll actually survive the other way."

Now, if something gets you killed for no good reason, is it really noble? Do I have to choose between morality and survival? Between altruism and hedonism?

Or this:
"Unfortunately, we also know the kind of people that will destroy such a system: venal, lazy, power-hungry louts, intellectuals who perceive thinking to be more valuable than manual labor, bullies, snitches, goldbrickers and all the rest."

The trouble with socialism is not that evil people destroy it. The trouble is that it turns honest, hard-working men into thieves. It MAKES the profit motive evil. It makes survival evil. It punishes ability and rewards need. Don't you see what such a system can DO to otherwise honest, upstanding people?

Everyone seems to believe socialism is a good idea that doesn't work. Sounds like a contradiction in terms to me. Check your premises.

Socialism and anarchy, altruism and hedonism, the sacrifice of the self and the sacrifice of others, are NOT good ideas that don't work. They are perverse theories of rights that are immoral, abhorrent, and downright stupid.

A good number of people here have read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Hell, this is where I first heard of the book. But the way you and others talk about socialism leads me to believe that you, Bill Whittle himself, have not read it. If anything I've said in this post makes sense, then you'd love it.

So, even if - gods forbid! - even if it should delay your writing, I implore you to read Atlas Shrugged as soon as you can get it.

That goes for the rest of you too.

And in the interim, pay a quick visit to Capitalism.org.

Do any of you recall the George Orwell book "Animal Farm"? Bill hit upon the theme of Orwell with this piece. I tend to evaluate people by their opinion of whether or not I should be able to own a weapon to defend myself. If I can't be trusted with a weapon, I surely shouldn't be trusted with a motor vehicle, or a vote!!

Roll-aid, I'm very glad you enjoyed it. And no, I don't mind the cross-referencing at all...I had hoped people would want to read it, the more the merrier :)

If there is a place on the internet where writing from the heart with your eyes wide open to the worlds truths exists, this is it. I figured Bill, who I have enjoyed from the beginning, and his readers, would be a great audience.

I personally find the reaction of otherwise sensible gay friends of mine to President Bush confounding, mostly because the President has no power whatsoever when it comes to the amendment process of the Constitution. All he can do is blow hot air, and airy it is, as the likelihood that the Constitution can successfully be amended- particularly on such a divisive issue where any majority of opinion is narrow- is virtually nil. (I will eat my hiking boots boiled with a little hot sauce if it goes through.) Foreign policy, however, is something the President has a great deal of power over.

Then again, single-issue voters have never been known for their cold clarity. But why follow the crowd even when you can see it's headed for a cliff? Can they take away your gay license?

My Dearest Duppy:

I should hope, by now, that my true feelings about socialism would be well known. TRINITY may be the clearest opinion I have on the subject, but it rears its hideous head in many places.

Here's how I see things: I'm not worried about how YOU are going to vote. I know I'll never convince The Children of the Noam. But somewhere in the middle there are people like myself whose minds can be changed. How many of those do we need? I don't know. I DO know that winning an argument of this magnitude is a slow, steady, step-by-step process. So all I ask of you standard-bearers is to give me the benefit of the doubt until this book is finished. By then, I hope to have demolished socialism, pacifism, and all the rest of that wreckage into a fine chalk dust. But you have to start out with an argument that is accessible.

A good prosecutor does not start his case by calling the jury a bunch of idiot bumpkins without the wit to make an informed decision. He carefully builds a case, plank by plank, each one airtight, each stage agreed upon, until the decision is a foregone conclusion. That is my goal. I don't know whether or not I'll achieve it, but I do know how to get my foot in the door of a certain mindset. I lived on the porch myself, once, before I started to think about things. I know where the defense arguments are, and I'm going a long way round -- a hail mary, you might say -- to outflank them.

Damn it, Lieutenant Duppy! I need 48 hours to crack this case wide open!

Ya got 24, Whittle! Then I'm sending it to the DA!

WARNING: Slightly off-topic.

For me the upcoming election is all about national security. Every other issue is subordinate to this one. For example: can you imagine how the Taliban deals with gay marriage? The fact that we can even debate gay marriage is a tribute to the freedoms we enjoy. Take away the freedoms, and the debate is moot.

That said, Al Queda has shown a very prescient understanding of democracy and voting. Blowing up trains right before the Spanish election? An attack timed at disgracing the ruling party and forcing them out of office?

In American politics, that's called an "October Surprise"--a damaging event timed for October to throw the election one way or another.

Think Al Queda knows this?

That's why, for me at least, this election is all about national security. Still.

Oh, and Russ, I might just add a thought to the indespensible LabRat's, and that is this: You may not like what GWB has to say about gay marriage. I don't think much of it either. But if you look a little further down the road, you might consider how shariah treats homosexuals. Who do those who stone women and homosexuals want to win, and why?

If I was an American Jew in 1940, and someone told me FDR was a raving anti-semite, I still vote for a raving anti-semite who meant to kick Hitler's ass over a perfectly endearing weakling determined to hand him the world.

That's just my two cents.

"My question is how do we get others to listen to our version of "that which is true"...but I'll save that for a rainy day."
Serenity:

That is the rub, eh?

We are a culture of convenience, demanding to be entertained and fulfilled RIGHT NOW. Mass movements to one particular political philosophy are almost universally short-lived, because our culture doesn’t have the patience for a rational debate on the issues of the day. They are persuaded by the initial passion, but then dissuaded by the details. So that leaves persuasion at the personal level.

Actually getting someone to listen to an idea, much less convincing someone of your point of view is truly a difficult task.

I think the best starting point is to actually respect those you are trying to convince. If someone doesn’t believe you respect them, I can pretty much guarantee that they will not respect you or your crazy theories about personal responsibility.

Engage people with hard data on what you believe to be misconceptions on their part. Most people haven’t researched their opinions. They have invested in their comfort zone however, and are reticent to do anything that might disturb their relative peace.

Try to avoid phrases like “how can you possibly believe that” and instead ask “why do you believe that?”, and “have you considered this…?”

Thanks for the nod, GHS. I only recently discovered this site, and am impressed by its highbrow discussion.

Lord Duppy: I haven’t read Rand yet. I caught an old interview of her and was very impressed with her argument that Altruism is a BAD thing. Now, being a fairly altruistic person, I take personal issue with her pronouncement, but I think I can agree that taken too far, Altruism is bad for both parties of an exchange. I certainly have taken it too far in the past and regretted it afterwards.

When in passing reference I say things like Socialism and Communism are nice theories, I suppose I am using a kind of verbal shorthand. Yes to all the points you make, they are true and historically accurate. All that aside though, in the world of whimsical what ifs, wouldn’t it be nice if we never had to work hard, had all our needs provided for, never had to worry about life’s curveballs, and always had someone watching benevolently over us? For people who place serious reverence in such a Utopia, the theory is a good and noble one. Furthermore, if all the people in the world were Altruists at heart, it is a theory that could work. So I cede the point that the theory is nice, in that it is such to many people, with the qualification that it CAN not and HAS not worked. In my book it doesn’t qualify as perverse or evil simply because it is the antithesis to what I consider a good system, or that it is based on a premise of humanity that is incorrect.

I honestly don’t think the debate in this country is over the merits of Socialism. In this country I think you would be hard put to find a sizeable voting block that would cast ballots for admitted Socialists.

The debate in this country as it refers to Socialism is: Are most Democrats, and some Republicans, closet Socialists? I guarantee you, if the majority of the public were of a mind that Democrats were Socialists at heart, you would witness a truly seismic shift towards the right.

All these school freinds of mine think that communism is the perfect scociety. Do they deserve death?

Before Copernicus, early astronomers performed truly impressive sets of mental gynmastics to explain a geocentric model of the universe. Faced with observations on stars and planets that made this model less and less likely, they developed elaborate modifications to Aristotle's geocentric paradigm (Brahe had a hybrid model in which the planets went around the sun, while the sun and moon went around the earth).

Although Copernicus was persecuted for his work, reality eventually set in and his theories paved the way for Kepler, Galileo, and others. Although it took decades, the heliocentric view of the solar system became widely recognized. One can hide from the truth for only so long.

Our goal is using logic and reason to establish a realistic worldview. It doesn't have to be convincing to everyone initially, it just has to stand up to repeated analysis. If our reasoning is correct, it will convince people eventually. We don't even need to convince everyone (though that would be nice), just enough of a majority to permit action. As the bombings in Madrid have unfortunately shown, a small number of people can have a big outcome in a country's direction. How different might things be if Gore had won in 2000, or Kerry wins this year?

They don't deserve death, but I'd say a smack upside the head with an economics textbook sounds fair. Future offenses are punishable by hour-long beatings with said textbook.

If all else fails you could just send them to Bill; I'm sure he'd be happy to fly them up to 5000, open the door, and throw....*ahem*....reduce the plane's gross weight.

Dave, I've given your question much thought over the years. Of course they do not deserve death. They only deserve to live under Communism -- for a year or two.

I never had any wooley-headed notions about the system, but I was lucky enough to have made very good friends with a Bulgarian poet who escaped from Communism, back when I was 16. The unbelievable hatred he had for it, and the story of how he risked his life to get away, make an impression that you really need to experience first-hand. The horror and petty degradations left such a mark on the person sitting next to me that I never, ever had any delusions about wanting to experience it for myself.

(GHS knows the guy almost as well as I do, by the way. )

Just ship them over to Cuba or North Korea, or even China for a while and see how they feel when they come back.

Whew! More good stuff.

To Lord Duppy -- that wasn't "picking on" me. That was just sharpening my pencil for me, narrowing my broad strokes. We are in agreement.

And LabRat's point, combined with Russ Fletcher's (and Bill's response to Russ), about sums up my voting strategy for November -- I'm still not a big fan of George Bush personally, but at present, he's the only one prosecuting the only fight that I consider important right now. Any substitute not willing to finish what he started, and finish it RIGHT, IMHO, is nothing but a trainwreck-to-be building up speed.

And Galen -- good analogy (the Copernicus thing). For me, you can't go wrong with a good astronomy reference (or even a good sci-fi plug, for that matter).

As for the Ayn Rand thing -- I bought, and TRIED to read "The Fountainhead," but drowned in the literary molasses before the first chapter was out. Is "Atlas Shrugged" any more readable? Seriously. If you think it is, I'll pick up a copy today.

Keep it up folks.

GHS

Dave the Australian,
As it is probably economically unviable to send your friends to a Communist country, have them try this:

They rent a house together. They pool ALL their money into one Account. Then, let each contribute cooking, cleaning, upkeep, money, etc, according to his ability. And each take from the Account according to his need. And if one takes more than he contributes, so be it.
This should illustrate in fairly short order how crappy it can get in a communist society.

GHS,

I recently reread Atlas Shrugged. It is *damn* readable -- a long slog but worth it. What I wouldn't give to trade places with Dagny...

Atlas and Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert M. Pirsig helped clarify matters in the last year. Anyone want to suggest similar guidebooks?

I really appreciated this article, just like most articles I've read here. Thanks again for the quality writing.

One point that I didn't see addressed in this one (but may be planned for future articles) is that even IF everyone could see the "perfect" map without bias or illusion, they could still choose to drive (or sail) in different directions. There are still occasional head-on collisions on the highway, not with known dangers (reality) but with other travelers. Even though the maps are quite accurate, there is also the issue of destination. Of course, there is drastically less chance of unforeseen dangers with an accurate map...

top Quality

Ahh the Breath of Common Sense. Gotta love it!

I am not comfortable going against everyone else here. (maybe I need a map myself:)

But it seems to me that Bill's essay starts by saying old maps are neat. (And we all agree.)

But then at the end he says traditional maps are no good, and we should set sail without them.

I move the white plastic object resting in my right hand. An arrow moves across the colourful pictures on the screen. I press the button on the far right-hand corner of the white plastic object.

And then a miracle occurrs...

And a week later a copy of Bill Whittle's book arrives in the post from amazon.com.

That miracle was of course the end result of several minor miracles - my computer, the internet, the logistical systems at Amazon, the printing press that printed the book, and the truck that took it to my local post office. And each of these minor miracles is not a miracle to someone who understands it.

But nobody understands it all. I am a physicist, so the truck and the priniting press are not miraculous to me (though I could not have built either of them). The computer, on the other hand, is. To a programmer, the computer would not be a miracle but the truck would be. And to both of them the doctor who can cure cancer is working a miracle.

In an advanced society where we can't understand everything, we have to believe in miracles. And the biggest miracle of all is the one that makes the whole system work.

250 million people with disparate skills are allowed to trade with each other on mutually agreed terms, and provided with a modicum of law and order, and courts to enforce contracts. And probably some things we don't fully understand yet as well.

And then a miracle occurs...

And without any central control they build the richest society in the world. And most people don't fully understand what happened in between. I know I don't. And unless everyone spends a semester hour taking Econ 101 (and we rewrite the textbook for Econ 101 to lose the socialist garbage) people will have to take this one on trust as well.

And even if people did take the time to understand free markets, they would still need to take the time to learn maths, physics, programming, and biochemistry at the very least to understand the miracles of technology. And even if we had the time and resources to teach everyone these things, we couldn't force them to pay attention - after all, they can survive in society fine while taking these things on trust.

In a world in which so much is miraculous to so many - and I doubt any of us could have built every piece of modern technology in their living room, or indeed any of them - how do we persuade people to believe in the miracles of the TRINITY rather than in Chomsky and crystals?

Mmmm. Thought.

Bill:
Of course, I do realize your position on socialism, having read Trinity and all your other essays here. I'll concede that an argument meant for persuasion needs to be respectful and accessible, but this "noble theory" idea is one of my pet peeves. Yes, the *supposed* end result of socialism sounds idyllic. But to attempt it means to turn our back on the very concept of individual rights. That's not noble, it's sick.

Dave the Australian:
That's an interesting question. Do they deserve to be shot? Well, no. They have a right to be stupid. But should they win, and end up disappearing in the middle of the night for getting in the government's way, I wouldn't start a war over it. I'd be long gone to Switzerland.

GHS:
As for whether Rand is readable, I can't really say. I've not read The Fountainhead yet but I've heard from several others that it's hard to get through. Maybe you'd find Atlas Shrugged boring too, but I couldn't stop reading it. It's not without flaws - Rand really couldn't sympathize with her antagonists enough to make them fully convincing - but on the whole I thought it was a great read. When the library refused to renew it for me and wouldn't give it back, I went out and bought it.

Hey, where's our dissident? We always have one. I need someone whom I can politely bash over the head with common sense.

Bill St.Clair
We'll create a society where a majority of the voting members of each geographical area elects a representative. We will trust these representatives to collect and spend tax money however they decide. And then a miracle occurs, and they use it to benefit us instead of themselves.
That's most assuredly not what they did. They imposed periodic re-election, so that a legislator would be required to answer to those they represent to continue in his position. They split the legislature into two houses, each representing different and often opposing interests: The several State's interest represented by the Senate, and the peoples' interest represented by the House. They then gave the legislature no executive power, and finally (in what I believe is an unprecedented step), they created a judiciary co-equal with the legislature and the executive, capable of striking down laws. They then added ten amendments that explicitly curtailed the powers of the entire contraption, one of which said that any power not specifically mentioned is reserved to the states and to the people.
A cursory reading of the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists papers shows that the founders were incredibly worried about the entire enterprise. Over and over the theme returns - the natural progression is for liberty to dwindle, and government to grow, the system will work only if the people are industrious and virtuous; if men acted like angels, we wouldn't need a government in the first place... (Forgive my paraphrasing. I'm at work on my lunch break, without ready access to my library).
Obviously, they didn't get it perfect (That whirrring sound? Jefferson spinning in his grave. The ghosts of founders can be heard banging their ethereal heads against the walls of the Supreme Court's chambers: "No, no, no, that is not what we meant!"). But then, politics (like engineering) is the art of the possible.

Krakatoa
I honestly don’t think the debate in this country is over the merits of Socialism. In this country I think you would be hard put to find a sizeable voting block that would cast ballots for admitted Socialists.
Your key word is "admitted". I would say that the people at large don't realize that the debate is over socialism (or more accurately, the degree of socialism). Intentionally or not, politicians of both major parties are in the act of boiling those metaphorical frogs, raising the temperature bit by bit: "NO!! I'm not a socialist!!” say the frogs. “Oh, you want the government to pay for my dad's heart medicine? Cool!"

Galen
Although Copernicus was persecuted for his work, reality eventually set in and his theories paved the way for Kepler, Galileo, and others. Although it took decades, the heliocentric view of the solar system became widely recognized. One can hide from the truth for only so long.
I caution against the expectation that Progress is inevitable. Progress can occur only when enough people are working their tails off to ensure progress (either consciously, or simply building better mousetraps to make a buck or two). History is full of genteel, learned, advanced societies that were subjugated or erased by less advanced societies who were more committed to their cause.

Jonathon
Look for economics books from so-called Austrian or Chicago schools of economics. I believe Von Mises and Hayek are the founders. Friedman is a much more friendly read. Less scholarly writing, but a very enjoyable read is Walter Williams.

J

I see two main points in this essay:

1) Substituting "I wish" for "It is" is a major error.
2) Liberalism is wrong because it doesn't merely make that error, but adopts it as its basic methodology.

Implied but not stated explicitly is a third point that conservativism is right because it doesn't make that error. An explicitly stated conclusion of the essay is that because of the above, there is a vast gulf between the left and right that didn't used to be there.

If I've gotten the main points wrong, please correct me.

Point one is most certainly true. The "I wish" vs. "It is" formulation, by the way, is Ayn Rand's. She identified that fifty years ago as the essence of a thinking method called "subjectivism". She used that identification (and others) to show in great detail that socialism and all other forms of leftist ideology are false, and are therefore ignoble, not noble ideas.

Point two is also true, but in my view, point three is not, and hence the conclusion is also incorrect. It is not the case that liberalism and conservativism are radically different - there is no wide gulf between the two. Those two are in fact the _same_ in fundamental terms. A concise way of putting it is that those two are opposite sides of the same counterfeit coin.

The ultimate proof of this lies in epistemology, not politics. To keep this short, though, here's a start on a political defense of this: the left and the right are the same in political terms because both reject the foundation of all legitimate forms of government: individual rights.

Both ideologies agree unanimously that our wealth is not ours by right, but only by permission. Both agree that we act not by right, but only by permission. The conservatives typically grant more permissions than the left in the material realm; the liberals more in the spiritual realm. Both sides are on the path of granting fewer and fewer permissions as time goes on.

Yes, some rights are recognized by both sides. The point is, however, that acceptance of even one exception to a principle is to reject the principle. _That_ is why the left and the right should be classified as essentially the same in political terms.

This means that in practice, the difference between the left and the right is also one of degree. So long as permissions are the ruling principle, America is going to keep going downhill no matter which party is in the Whitehouse. We will probably go downhill faster with the left in power, but hitting the bottom of the hill is inevitable either way.

This isn't my blog, so if this sort of challenge to Bill's essay is inappropriate, tell me and I'll shut up.

Mark Peters

Mark Peters, I mostly agree with you. Although I see most of Rand's followers as concieted, dogmatic moralizers, 99% of her original ideas are pure gold.

The general consensus here is that conservatives are the lesser of two evils. There are two breeds of conservatives, however. There is the religious right, about whom you are absolutely correct. Then there are the people here, the ones I call Liberal Rightists. Back in the good old days they (I hesitate to say we) were called liberals.

Choosing the lesser of two evils does not mean I must abandon my principals. Would I rather see a Libertarian win? Of course. But he's not going to.

So there is the question: whom should I vote for?

If Bush wins, he will continue his foreign policy of pre-emptive attack. This might sometimes be justified, but I find myself more and more convinced that Iraq was a mistake. He will continue to expand the federal budget. He will fight for backward, religious principles. He will fight to renew the (illegal) USA PATRIOT act.

If Kerry wins he will... he will do absolutely nothing. Republicans will still control congress. Maybe with a Democrat in the White House conservatives will return to their principles. Kerry won't have the guts to pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan, so we can finish what we started. He also won't attack Syria, which I hold to be a good thing. He won't raise taxes, because congress won't let him. All they'll let him do is hang out in the oval office and screw interns.

Which is the better deal? At risk of getting nailed by my own compatriots, I think it may be Kerry.

Okay. Bring on the noise.

Jonathan,

In a world in which so much is miraculous to so many - and I doubt any of us could have built every piece of modern technology in their living room, or indeed any of them - how do we persuade people to believe in the miracles of the TRINITY rather than in Chomsky and crystals?

We can only show them over and over that the miracles of technology are established facts, and that the idealogies needed for the societies they envision have never been demonstrated in the general population of humanity.

The difference in the viewpoint can be summed up in part by pointing out that one way of looking at the world deals with people the way they are, and the other deals with people the way we think they should be.

Mark Peters: An interesting take on the political spectrum--that left and right are equally moving our government to ruin.

Following Bush's SOTU speech in January I was in the company of a prominent Republican Senator. I mentioned to him that Bush's speech sounded nearly identical in tone and substance to Jimmy Carter's speeches as President. "Is this where conservativism has come?" I asked.

His answer was that the liberal perspective won the day on the important societal issues of the 60s and 70s. Liberals were right--right about equal rights for all races and genders, right about discrimination, right about lots of things.

What has happened is that, while being right, they ran out of important things to fight for. At the same time the "conservative" movement adopted the positions of the formerly liberal movement because they were right.

Now we have our Republican party that is considerably further left than its predecessors, occupying the "liberal" positions of previous decades. This, while staying true to a position of military strength. This leaves very little for today's Democratic left.

In m y opinion, this shift is what is responsible for the opinions of former liberals, such as Bill Whittle. While today's "left" continues to rail at previous generations' "right," our country tilts toward the Republican party.

In my lifetime I expect to see the demise of the current Democratic party as it continues to skew left. Eventually the Republican party will fracture into more "true" conservatives and more "moderate" liberals, restoring the two-party balance.

Summary: as Stephen den Beste puts it, "I am a conservative because I am a liberal." (Click here) Liberals won the day on the important social issues of the past. Their victory may be the beginning to their demise as a political power in this country.

Lord Duppy:
You're right...Kerry will probably not do anything. The problem with that is everyone outside the US knows this and will use it to their full advantage. Do you want any repeats of Libya? Forget it.

Even if Bush does not invade another country as proactive meaure in reshaping the middle east(which I seriously doubt he will) the possibility will always be there in the minds of the leaders, and it will influence their actions.

Talk is worthless without credible force. Force is useless without the will to use it.

Gee, my comment was worthy of response by not only LabRat but Bill Whittle himself? I'm flattered! This whole gay marriage thing has gotten way out of hand; Mass. was fine but the rebel mayors thing really screwed it up. Too much, too soon. Going to take years to get straightened out (pun intended.)

I realize Bush hasn't a single thing to do with the amendment process, but his call sends out a message to Americans that gays are 'less than' their heterosexual counterparts. Let's say, oh 3/5ths--sound familiar? Remember, slavery was a institution with 2000+ years of history, too.

Frankly, Bush's administration is prone to follow the folly of the religious right, who have managed over the past 20 years to become quite influential in the Republican party. Bush's stance may be 'compassionate conservative', but to the rel. right, his comment is validation that gays are inferior, and to treat them accordingly.

I'd like to see religion kept firmly out of my government (Chrst/Msln/Jew whatever), and Bush seems intent on basing his policy on his personal religious beliefs.

Now, I'm not saying I'm pro-gay marriage, but when the guy on one hand says we must fight religious terrorists, and on the other says we must encourage Christian values in our government and discourage views not in accordance with them (to the point of suggesting a constitutional amendment), it seems a bit awry.

Anywho, I may yet vote Bush if Bill keeps writing compelling arguements, but it's incredibly hard for me to support a person who would have a group of american citizens permanently excluded from the rights and priviledges afforded to the majority. And, in my opinion, the voice of the president is influential in shaping the psyche and opinions in the nation. And I don't like what he's voicing. It wreaks of politics too close in flavor to Hitler (yeah, I know, Bush is no Hitler, but then the process of marginalizing groups has to start somewhere.)

Okay, let me have it.

On a side note, I'm always out of my league when engaged in dialog here, so do understand I'm not an expert and my views are based on my life experiences, which may be wrong or right but are still valid concerns in my corner of the universe. I really need to get some political history books under my belt--hey Bill, got a list put together yet?

Jumper
An excellent point. I do not mean to imply that progress in inevitable...merely possible with both truth with the committment to pursue it. Copernicus fought for this against the church (a true 800 lb gorilla in terms of crushing dissent)and somehow managed to get his ideas across.

Couple a more things in response to Lab Rat:

I'm not so much a one-issue voter as my comments would suggest, however it certainly is more significant in my life than yours.

But regardless of how I choose to vote, most of the some-odd 500K gay voters who voted Bush in 2000 most definitely will vote against him in 2004, and it's precisely because of his endorsement of an enhanced DOMA.

I'll even allow that many of them are now feeling pulled into the far-left camp that will prevent ever changing their minds. I'm not that far gone yet. But could Bush really afford to piss off a half million supporters? Has his admin. forgotten how close the 2000 election was?

For Russ Fletcher (there are more russ's here than I've ever seen gathered in one place...)

Yes, I'm aware of the Taliban and their opinion of gays and women et. al. Were you aware that pre-Saddam, there was a flourishing gay 'industry' in Iraq? I've read that some signs of this are returning now that So-damned In-sane has been ousted.

But--pass a constitutional amendment and the debate would be moot, too, effectively making such debate useless. I still think it should be up to the states. The majority of these 'activist' judges (Mass. and U.S. Supreme)were appointed by Republican administrations. Not to mention they held sway on the 2000 election where things were decided in favor of Bush. 'Let the judges judge, quitcher bitchin when they don't vote to please you,' I'd tell the rel. right if they'd listen.

The nutshell (another pun? Yes?) here is Bush's actions have set the gay community firmly against him, and as the media continue to poke at his administration (news of a whistleblower today...), he needs all the support he can get.

thanks to all for your thoughts, looking forward to scathing rebuttals! (even if you only play checkers, a game of chess can be fun...)

"I realize Bush hasn't a single thing to do with the amendment process, but his call sends out a message to Americans that gays are 'less than' their heterosexual counterparts."

Yes. But with all due respect, so what? That's the prevailing opinion in America with or without the Shrub in office, which is why a savvy politician like him can say such things. And more than that, he has *done* absolutely nothing, merely said things. They made me angry too, but do you know what made me angrier? The Defense of Marriage Act. Which was signed by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat and ostensibly the most pro-gay president we've ever had. Why gays think they'll be better off with a leader that knows how to mouth the right words while stabbing them in the back (no, I don't think another Democrat would be any better, politicians are careful not to commit political suicide) is beyond me.

Lest you think I know not whereof I speak in how much being designated an underclass by our national leader hurts, I'm an atheist. Bush's daddy openly declared that I therefore cannot be considered a "real" American citizen, and I have no reason to think Junior feels any different, given that he has actually made active (and largely completely unsuccessful) efforts to degrade the separation of church and state. I loathed Bush for that and I still don't like it... but I swallowed it when I saw how things were unfolding post-9/11. The true believers who fly planes into buildings are much worse than the one in office who wants to open national funding to faith-based organizations.

When exactly did America cease to be a theocracy? Pretty much everything that “religious conservatives” talk about being good for the country was commonly practiced in this country in the past. But to hear the various atheists and agnostics wail about President Bush and “religious conservatives” one would think we are just one step away from the Christian equivalent of burkas and the Taliban/Mullahs.

If you know anything about how American’s religious beliefs has impacted society throughout the history of the U.S, you would know that President Bush’s religious comments are very mild compared to past Presidents comments.

I swear, you religious-phobes react to the mention of Christ and religious beliefs the same way a vampire reacts to a cross ;>)

Lord Duppy -

Your remarks remind me of a Dave Barry column from the 90's, in which he said something to the effect that a government in gridlock is a government not voting to spend fifty billion dollars on a study of catfish digestion.
More seriously... I have to disagree with your evaluation of the two candidates. I don't like Bush's position on many (most?) issues, but Kerry is not the man I want in charge of foriegn policy at this point in time. Whether we should've gone into Iraq or not can be debated, but now that we're there, we need to finish the job, and do it right. I don't trust Kerry not to cut and run. I don't want Kerry handling North Korea and its hairstyle-impaired little Stalinist tzar. With our current deployments and commitments, I don't think Bush can excersize preemption except in a very limitted mission scope. Also, I can easily see Kerry and a Republican congress cutting a deal for a renewed Patriot act that's the worst of all worlds. Kerry would salivate like one of Pavlov's dogs at the opportunity to legally define as a "Security Threat" any American citizen possessing the means to defend themself. ("Salivate" was not my first choice of metaphor, but I cleaned it up)

Galen -

I likely read more into your statement than you intended, over-reacting to a personal pet peeve. We North Americans (and members of the Common Wealth too) tend on average to be a very optimistic, forward-looking bunch. People talk about evolution as a perpetual climb upward from the slime, with mankind at the apex. Science and technology are on an ever-upward march of progress. Political and moral enlightenment is a long, successful forward march toward Truth...
Instead I see boom-bust cycles as being the norm - huge successes and great sprints forward followed by catastrophy and collapse, sometimes leading to a long, slow, painful recovery (post-Roman Europe), sometimes to utter oblivion (Carthage, the dinosaurs), sometimes to stagnation and limbo. Every step forward must be gaurded jealously. Every step backward must be fought tooth and nail. The barbarians are at the gate.

J

Homer, I am not religion-phobic. There are a lot of religious people I respect and admire, and I think people who get upset over nativity scenes are unbelievably silly. I think the ethics and integrity that can come from strong religion are wonderful. (I just don't think one has to be religious to have them, which puts me in opposition with a lot of religious folk.)

I believe the separation of church and state is necessary both for the health of the church and that of the state; if anything I think the church is MORE threatened by their blending. (In order to provide federally-funded services, you can't discriminate. Wouldn't that water down churches that have strong beliefs against certain practices just a hair?) I could not possibly care less that Bush is religious; I care about the possible consequences of federal funding for religious causes- remember, Scientology is a religion too, and once you open the government coffers law requires that you play fair. I care that it opens the door to funding for the many Muslim organizations that turn out to be fronts to funnel money to terrorist organizations.

I don't believe we're close to a theocracy. I just don't see how the fact that we're not is an argument for weakening the "wall of separation". Can you please tell me when we were better off when it was weaker, and why?

labrat:

Bill once posted a similar sentiment, saying that any such conservative legislation that passed wouldn't withstand judicial review. And, yes, most of my friends say 'who cares' to the issue, but it is infuriating to have him tout his narrowminded view and call for it to be added to our find Constitution. It's a bitter pill to try to swallow.

I'll see your Clinton DOMA with 'Don't ask, don't tell' another blunder (whose point is now mute since our troops have been working with the Brits who have openly gay servicemembers and it hasn't hurt our military in the least to be in proximity to them.) Clinton was no saint.

So onto another point that is influencing me:

I'm to understand that if Bush #1 didn't give into international pressure and abandon Iraq the first time, we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with (a friend's son was in the first conflict, he reports had they stayed less than 1 month more Saddam would have been taken out in '91-2 or there abouts.)

So, it's not illogical to see this as Bush fixing his dad's errors, and that's all well and good since So-damn was a nasty sort who wasn't going to change and play by the rules the rest of the world wanted him to play by.

But can we honestly say we're ever going to be safe from terrorists? I can probably hit Google and find a list of all the ingredients I'd need for making a bomb (probably several different kinds); there will always be wahoo's that will find that info and use it, be they al-Q or any other extremist group. And, though it was our abandonment in the first Gulf war that led (in large part) to the distain the Middle East feels toward us, even if we stay are we not pissing off some other countries by doing so? Creating new anti-American cells? Can you forsee some Spaniards being pretty anti-American right about now? Do you think these are problems that will ever be solved, especially in light of human nature? In other words, aren't we damned one way or another?

Your's is an opinion I respect, so I'd like to hear some of your views.

I'm going to be uncharacteristically short and sweet here and try for an analogy.

No, I don't believe we're ever going to be truly safe from terrorists. Humans use tactics that work, and terrorism has worked often enough that people will continue to try it for a long, long time if not forever.

I don't believe we'll ever conquer death either, but that doesn't mean I think the incredible cost in time and money for vaccines, antibiotics, medical equipment, drugs, and surgery setups is wasted, even if it results in things like virulent nosocomial (hospital-contracted) infections, drug-resistant strains of bacteria, and the ethical questions brought up by terminal patients.

Homer,

I'm not anti-religious, the institutions of religion by far have a positive impact on society. I am against using religious documents to define current law. Religious conservatives also were pro-slavery, pro-white