Here’s the Magic Button results by ideological self-identification. If you picked “other,” you’re lumped in with a bunch of people you probably hate. Cat-owners, Hansonians, Fascists, Extropians, Liberaltarians, Socialtarians, Conservative-libertarians, Anarchists, Classical Liberals etc. are all in this trashbin of nonconformism. Some of these labels got several write-ins, but I didn’t think any had enough to make it worthwhile to display the results separately. Sorry Cato-owner! A number of topics of discussion suggest themselves, but y’all can work it out. All the caveats from the prior post about the non-scientific nature of this apply.
Thanks again to Fiery Scribe, whose more detailed charts I simplified. If something is now screwed up, it’s certainly my fault.
Overall, these aren't extremely counterintuitive results, with two exceptions:
#1: It looks like only about 1 in 4 self-identified conservatives were willing to accept Canadian-style health care as the price of banning abortion. I would have thought it would be well over 50%. After all, the state is already into American health care to a considerable degree, but abortion isn't the least bit banned here – so the gains over the present situation would be greater than the losses. Moreover, if abortion is murder or something akin to it, surely this is a small price to pay, right? But maybe there's something I'm not getting.
#2: Admittedly, only 5% or so self-identified libertarians said they would ban abortion and accept Canadian-style health care. But why are there any at all? Why is there even one?
JasonL, About #1: I think my audience skews young, relative to the electorate, and my guess in young conservatives are less likely to care as much about abortion. Just a guess. About #2: Some libertarians think fetuses have rights and abortion is murder.
Also: I have met plenty of people who call themselves libertarians who in fact are actually conservatives, in that the only libertarian position they support is that of lower taxes. Self-labeling is always going to be a bit inaccurate, when judged against one's own conception of what those labels mean.
I am surprised how many people voted against the 1% boost in GDP. For this huge pot of money (trillions of dollars over the course of years) I would be willing to give up abortions or guns. Then again, I don't regularly avail myself of either.
Also interesting, liberals were less willing to part with abortion than conservatives were with handguns. It seems it is not only conservatives who have an emotional stake in the abortion issue.
WW, let me help you simplify your Other landscape. As a Hansonian, may i note that actually several of your categories collapse when analysed. For example, I believe Hanson owns 2 cats, so that's Cat-Owners. Further, altho' Hansonians tend to shun labels, all Hansonians are also likely Extropians.
Further, Hanson may share important interests with Anarchists via Futarchy and also elements of Classical Liberal thought. Some elements of his thought appear shared with the Liberaltarian position, as I understand that Venn diagram.
As best as I can tell there are now in fact upwards of 250+ open Hansonians, largely in California, New York, DC, the UK, Scandinavia, and Australia. There are a few also in Canada.
A Hansonian in Nashville commented to me last fall that there are now possibly more Hansonians than there were Randians at an equivalent stage of their careers. For example, at a recent gathering in Sunnyvale for Hanson's blog Overcoming Bias, I believe there were more than 60 people present all told throughout the evening, the majority under 30.
Overall I would say Hansonism has a toehold in technology – especially the internet – finance, philosophy, and economics. There appear to be a few mathematicians and harder scientists as well.
Certainly as time goes on Hansonians will continue to hemi-demi-semi-organize over the internet. Some actively seek financial support so Hanson can get a sabbatical from teaching and write The Book. As much as we talk among ourselves, I think there is some shared agreement that the next 5-7 years could be the break-out period.
Finally, i doubt tthat we Hansonians, to the extent we may self-identify as such,
“hate” any other Others. That would seem irrational.
I think these numbers are completely intuitive now. Except for #2, it's a lesser of two evils game for most libertarians, and they generally split, and then the liberal/conservative crowds cancel each other out too.
I believe I voted for the % growth in both of those questions because when people have money, there's always a way, and they're pretty small wedge issues in the grand scheme of everyday life. Had you said something like Freedom of Speech, Invade an Arab Nation, or Privacy, etc… different ball game.
How many votes were there in total?
What ever made you think liberals don't have an emotional stake in the abortion issue, we tend to take sexist policies that force women into back-alleys pretty seriously.
You're quite welcome, Wil. It was fun playing with that data. The simplified charts make it clear to me that I'm more of a liberal than a libertarian.
Can't wait for the next one.
One thing about the Econ growth+ gun control question. Obviously I can't speak for all liberals but my vote wasn't for banning hand guns- I'm actually opposed to a lot of gun control I just don't care about it enough to sacrifice the economic growth. But thats just me.
I wonder what would happen if we changed “1% YoY economic growth” to something more concrete that people could touch of similar magnitude. To me, if this many people are passing up the growth it means that either they think that a ban on handguns or abortion is so awful that cutting the economy in half well before 2100 is less important, or more likely they don't understand what economic growth entails (or how much of it 1% YoY represents). The other possibility is that people have much shorter time horizons than I thought they did.
Zvi, did you do a senior thesis on Nigerian music or something? I remember meeting a Mowshowitz at Columbia shabbat dinners, but I'm not sure if it was you.
I agree with you that “cutting economic growth” has a seen vs. unseen bias.
Not to be a smartass, but I had a National Review subscription for about a year, and couldn't figure out why I loved 50% of the content and hated the other 50%. I think there are also a lot of confused conservatives running around who are actually libertarians.
Mark,
I read National Review Online regularly. I also find much that I agree and disagree with there. The attraction is that there is much (in theory) on the self-proclaimed conservative side to like. There is, however, much that I do not agree with such as the very rigid position on abortion. I am not a fan, but I do not feel it will ever be (Roe vs. Wade) overturned, I don't feel the government should rule on it and much energy is wasted on it, either for show or in vain.
Mark,
I read National Review Online regularly. I also find much that I agree and disagree with there. The attraction is that there is much (in theory) on the self-proclaimed conservative side to like. There is, however, much that I do not agree with such as the very rigid position on abortion. I am not a fan, but I do not feel it will ever be (Roe vs. Wade) overturned, I don't feel the government should rule on it and much energy is wasted on it, either for show or in vain.
Ceding control of the health care system (around 15% or so of GDP in US I believe) to me is clearly such a bigger infringement of individual liberty than is say, the drug war, that I cannot take any self-proclaimed libertarian who votes otherwise seriously. I cannot see this bloc as anything other than single-issue voters who may easily have been cast as extras in the filming of Half Baked. You would literally be conferring powers on matters of life and death to a centralized bureaucracy.
I think you're right about #2 – I've known a few (few!) pro-life libertarians, and you can see how you get there from a very specific view of rights. The numbers are so small on this poll, though, that it could be as easily explained by plain old error. (On the poll-takers' part.)
I'm not so sure about #1 – my general impression is that younger conservatives – though perhaps not the hip ones who like Cato more than Heritage – are at least as pro-life as older ones. A 2004 Gallup poll showed pro-life sentiment far stronger among 18-24-year old evangelicals (not identical to conservatives but strongly overlapping, perhaps) being far more pro-life than all other age groups in the evangelical subset, with 24-30-year-olds coming in second. This doesn't do much more than suggest, though, and it was 5 years ago. (And remember, we're talking about a completely unrepresentative sample here.) Anybody have any real data?
This was great fun nonetheless. You should do more polls!
Aaron, you know very little about Canadian health care.
Will, in reading your earlier posts, I noticed that you are conflating conservatives with Republicans and George W. Bush. Conservatives are equally disgusted with the spending profligacy that occurred in the past 8 years, and do not consider George W. Bush or, sadly, many Republicans, as being conservative. I have to say that I find the argument that liberals have more in common with libertarians than do conservatives flatly absurd. It is the type of relativism which, while it may be the sort of thing to curry favor at cocktail parties amongst the chattering classes, I find cowardly. Time to come out of the closet and recognize that the best way to affect change is to campaign and champion for candidates within the Republican Party who can best reflect your values. Arguments for limited foreign policy (Iraq) engagements (George Will, Buckley, etc.), abolition of the drug war, etc. already exist in the broad conservative tent. That is because they can easily be argued within the framework of a constitutionally-based limited government which values individual liberty (In other words, the government meant to be established by our Founding Fathers). To me, there is a clear, stark difference between the underlying principles of liberals and conservatives. It is the French Revolution vs. the U.S. Revolution.
I patiently await the next medical innovation fostered by the Canadian health care system.
This is too much fun. So…..
Conservatives (who favor abortion and drug controls and oppose Can. HC and gun control) oppose Can HC more than abortion rights and hold gun rights more important than extra growth.
Libertarians (who oppose all controls and Can. HC) hold gun rights more important than abortion rights and hate the drug war more than Can. HC.
Liberals hold abortion rights more important than Can HC or extra growth.
I think Libertarians are mainly folks who look for freedom on many fronts, both social and economic. It is difficult to find any candidate in either party who satisfies one in more than 50% of one's hot buttons. Making choices on who lines up on more issues is the reality of a two party system.
I think Libertarians are mainly folks who look for freedom on many fronts, both social and economic. It is difficult to find any candidate in either party who satisfies one in more than 50% of one's hot buttons. Making choices on who lines up on more issues is the reality of a two party system.
Aaron: “Arguments for limited foreign policy (Iraq) engagements (George Will, Buckley, etc.), abolition of the drug war, etc. already exist in the broad conservative tent.”
…and the influence those views have when it comes to actual policy would be _____?
Yea, because you can so quickly quote all those produced by the US yesterday.
No profit = no innovation
I have two words for anyone who voted against 1% growth: scope insensitivity.
You're thinking of my brother, Avi. I'm the math and economics guy. It also occurs to me that in addition to seen vs. unseen we might be able to alter the results by reversing the endowment effect.
As I said, you know little about Canadian Health care.
My guess is that a the drug trade would offer more to the economy than 1% growth.
How did you vote, Will?
Guns are a core issue for many people and many libertarians.
So many mass murders of civilians by the state have been preceded by gun control and gun confiscation.
It's my line in the sand. I become politically active the day the US government starts confiscating guns; I start shooting politicians and government officials.
I agree. Murder shouldn't be allowed in back alleys either.
Guns are a core issue for many people and many libertarians.
So many mass murders of civilians by the state have been preceded by gun control and gun confiscation.
It's my line in the sand. I become politically active the day the US government starts confiscating guns; I start shooting politicians and government officials.