The Left doesn’t support freedom of Art, except Art that supports the Left. It prefers to censor Art that it finds objectionable (supports the “wrong” politics, is sexist, racist, etc.)

The Left doesn’t support Freedom of Speech for people it disagrees with. (Go to a school with Leftist administration, and try to book an auditorium for a left-wing discussion. Then have someone try to book one for a right-wing discussion. Compare the treatment.)

Assembly? You mean like in “Free Speech Zones” supported by both major political parties to avoid protest near their conventions?

Religion? Like,for instance, the Left lets people choose whether or not to believe in environmentalism, and freely act on their beliefs?

Both the Left and the Right are about getting power for themselves. The only difference is a slight one in the ways they choose to exercise that power.

If this is so (and it might as well be), how come the left still supports (any) State intervention in the economy from profit redistribution to direct public investment and so on? Are there policies whose failures have been more abundantly shown than that?

“Read any liberals on drugs and they always refer to harm reduction and the rights of the indiviudal to do with his body as he or she sees fit.”

If this is so, and if Shannon’s argument on sex and drugs is correct, isn’t it revealing that one of the two policies where the left recognizes the autonomy of the individual is condemned by conservatives exactly because it restricts the autonomy of the individual (by making him/her chemically addicted to it)?

My point being, the justification for the left’s arguments may be found more easily in strategic gains than in logic reasoning, if one considers its paradoxes and inconsistencies.

I haven’t seen anybody put this forward, but it seems like connecting the dots is pretty obvious in the Imus firing:

(I believe) It was a White House dinner after the Wolenski scandal. Don Imus did a scathing (really, it was down and dirty) stand-up routine critical of Bill and Hillary in front of them and their guests. I am not a Clinton fan, to say the least, but I felt embarrassed for the couple.

Now, Imus is an influential commentator as well as funnyman (for those of you not familiar with his work, aside from the comedy he would occasionally review books and interview powerful and interesting people and is/was popular especially with middle aged white guys). Sharpton is an a very close ally of the Clintons. This being the case, the timing of Sharpton’s politically correct attack on Imus as Hillary began serious presidential campaigning makes sense. Revenge, and the dismissal of a powerful political satirist whose barbs hit home and hurt were what motivated the Imus dismissal. (It’s not clear to me about the thinking and motivation of network executives….political, currying future favor, just the same cocktail parties, fuzzy PC thinking vs a successful employee?)

Consider that NO NONE NADA film will be produced by Hollywood celebrating the courage of our troops in either Afghanistan or Iraq, instead various anti-war movies portraying them as brutal baby killers or dehumanized victims and robotic killers. Meanwhile NO NONE NADA film is produced showing the brutality and evil of Al Qaeda.

THAT would a thoughtcrime against the Hollywood modern blacklist.

What the Left is all about really is to create a Kingship (see their love for Castro, Chavez, Kim Jong-Il, and any other dictator for life). A kingship where they can as the King’s men hog all the resources and women. The women of course want to be the mistresses of powerful men: see Mirthala Salinas, Katie Couric, etc.

This is all about POWER. The Left hates hates hates ordinary people, democracy, and freedom. They want a king. With license to debauch themselves as much as possible. This is why sex alone is left untouched. I doubt you’d find a Leftist who’d argue against polygamy. Since they all want to practice it themselves.

The Left of course has SUPPRESSED Art or free expression when it violates PC: see the refusal to printthe Mohammed Cartoons but put on Dung Madonna or Piss Christ. The Left has “hate crime” hysterics about a Koran in a toilet but celebrates a crucifix in a urinal. The Left believes tramping on the Hezbollah flag is a crime, but burning Old Glory is a positive good.

Free Expression? The Left mau-maued Don Imus for saying what they pay money to hear rappers rap about. The Left got Imus fired, while paying KRS-One millions for the same thing.

Again this is all about naked, unadulterated power. The Left wants a society approaching Fidel’s Island Gulag or Kim Jong-Il’s prison nation. Because they see themselves as the jailers. [In 1940, with the Hitler-Stalin pact intact, the DAR gave Pete Seeger an Award for his record urging Americans to stay out of "Churchill and the Jews" war. The Left was enthusiastically pro-Hitler as long he was Stalin's buddy. In that they were allied with the anti-Semitic Isolationist Right, their traditional allies.]

The drug comment is correct. The left supports sex, drugs, and rock & roll. Big Whoop.

The fairness doctrine introduced by the democrats proves Shannon’s point. They try to censor an opposing opinion including legitimate forms of media.

Re The Speccie,no not offhand, but I’m sure it’s listed on their website. I don’t know anyone there, so I’m not speaking from any inside knowledge.

Shannon appears to have conceded.

I have not. You simply do not understand how true ideological commitment to freedom and liberty translates into real-world political policy.

An individual is free in any particular circumstance only if the legal environment grants the individual the authority to make decisions regarding that circumstance. Thomas Sowell called this “the locus of discretion” or, more simple, which real-world human being actually has the authority to make any particular decision. If that real-world human being is an ordinary citizen, then the individual is free. If that real-world human being is a government official, then they are not.

A political ideology supports freedom in any particular facet of life only if they believe that the locus of discretion sets squarely on the individual citizen. The counter-examples I gave you demonstrated that the Left did not believe that locus of discretion rested on the individual but rather that the Left only supported an individual’s right to choose in any particular circumstance if the individual made the “correct” choice. Otherwise, they support placing the locus of discretion with the state.

For example, in case of free speech I showed that the Left did not trust to the individual the authority to publish or read content they judge racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. In the case of the Red Scare, the Left did not ideologically object to the to granting to government officials the authority to decide whether or not to issue subpoenas, to compel testimony, or to imprison those who did not comply. They merely objected to the state directing such powers towards Leftist. They certainly did not object to the use of the same powers when the government went after rightwing groups in the early 60′s of mid-90′s.

Don’t confuse laws which compel state decision-makers to make benevolent decisions with laws that enhance or protect freedom. A well cared for and fairly treated slave is still a slave.

Now, can you think of any area of public policy beside sexual matters (and perhaps drugs) in which the Left ideological asserts that the locus of discretion rest on the individual?

Shannon, I was serious when I suggested you approach the editor of The Spectator…

I will look into it. Do you know the Deputy Editor’s name by chance?

Would these people finance the next GOP campaign? I pretty much doubt it.

So much for “Core Countries”, Lex.

(As a side issue,it’s interesting that the left on either side of the Atlantic don’t seem to dare take on Ronald Reagan.)

Odd that.