Liberal and Conservative Paradoxes

Regular commenter Zombiehero213 made these excellent remarks to the post Central Planning:

If you think about it, the people that give control over to a higher power [religion] have a much easier time accepting the chaotic free market, then those that don’t accept a higher power.

Spontaneous order is real interesting because, those that believe solely in evolution. You know, those liberals that are “so scientific” (Sarcasm implied), they cannot accept the idea of spontaneous order in the market. But they do (I doubt they really do, I think they are just trying to be scientific because it’s the hip thing to do) accept some spontaneous order if they want to keep their belief in evolution.

Basically, people who have no faith in evolution as the origin of life seems to put faith in evolutionary markets, while folks who believe in evolutionary life seem to be more skeptical of evolutionary markets.

I don’t know if this paradox is widely held.  I know people who have this paradox in their minds, but I know others on both sides of the spectrum that are more consistent in their thinking and I think it depends on your personal beliefs and how it’s worded.

For example, I know religious people who believe we are a creation of a higher power who used some method, perhaps evolution, but that we are also empowered with free will, endowed with inalienable rights and fallible.   That belief seems wholly consistent with believing that free markets work better than central decision-making (via some group of fallible mankind) to improve our lots.

But let’s say that we could somehow prove that the paradox is widely held.   I’d love to discuss reasoning.  Zombiehero213 suggests it’s the need for humans to feel they’re in control.  I think Sowell might suggest both beliefs are not subject to direct, consequential feedback so folks pay no consequences for holding beliefs that may not be true and may not be consistent.

Any other thoughts?

3 thoughts on “Liberal and Conservative Paradoxes

  1. Pingback: Wife Betrayed On Facebook: ‘Terrible Beyond Belief’ – | Buzzinusa

  2. I agree with you on Sowell. We know that people are not held accountable for their beliefs. I mean look at Paul Erhlich.

    The other thing about beliefs is that there is no cost to holding a certain belief, there is a huge cost of changing your beliefs. Going from a partisan democrat to a libertarian has shown me that. Peer pressure is a bitch and I’m sure accounts for why people hold inconsistent beliefs.

    Also I think lack of a quality education and critical thinking plays a part. I mean some of the people that hold the liberal/conservative/evolution/market paradox think that ad hominem is a proper debate tactic. They think human evolution was a straight line shot from single celled organism to humans. And on the economics front, some of them don’t beliefs are just absurd, like that the minimum wage increases employment. Or that trade isn’t a good thing. Or the most absurd belief, the paradox of thrift.

    • Excellent points. I think the reasons in your third paragraph stem from the second paragraph. There simply hasn’t been much consequence for the lack of critical thinking and poor reasoning. At some point, debate was turned into entertainment, in which the ability to zing your opponent was accepted as a win.

      I also think that people simply don’t care to have discussions, which also goes back to the consequences. There’s no real consequences for not having discussions to ferret out your views.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s