Where the left and right should agree (but don't)

[Collin Li]

At the moment, I can think of two things where the left and right disagree on, but should co-operate on:

Evolution and free-markets
Huh? What's the similarity here? Equilibrium is the name of the game. Typically, the left are "open-minded" individuals who can come to believe in this bottom-up theory of evolution. They will accept it as a mechanism that could have brought about life without the need for a top-down creator. On the other hand, we have the religious conservatives, who seem to always side with the right-wing parties (Republicans, Liberal Party of Australia, etc.) who believe in the bottom-up workings of a free market to achieve better results than a top-down centrally planned system.

So to liberals (evolution believers): you know that bottom-up evolution stuff you believe in? Well, free markets are just like that, so ahh chill out dude.

To conservatives (free market believers): you know that bottom-up system of free enterprise you believe in? Well, evolution is just like that, so yeah..

Unions and CEOs
Unions: the left view them as a beacon of justice and fairness, the right view them as the scourge of inefficiency.
CEOs: the right view them as masterminds of efficiency, and the left view them as hoarding excessive wealth at the expense of the worker.

They're both just self-interested groups though. The fault does not lie with unions or the CEOs, it lies with the government that succumbs to the pleas of special interests. Unions who wish to further the protection of workers should seek to do it through their own means, rather than by an extension of power by the government. Similarly, CEOs who plea for tariffs and regulation against other competitors should not be granted it. Both are necessary and fully justified, as long as they act as fully voluntary and non-coercive entities.

[Eriny]

Kind of off topic: I listened to a talk by a guy who believed that the theory of evolution was only so widely accepted because it seemed to support the idea of free markets.

[bubble sunglasses]

 What's the definition of a free market? How much privatisation, little taxation etc do you have to be in favour of to be called a free-marketeer?

[bubble sunglasses]

 Anyway, the theory of evolution *describes* what happened. Accepting this as a theory doesn't imply that you advocate "surivival of the fittest" ie: not offering any help to, say, the mentally ill, or haemophilliacs, on the basis that their deaths will strengthen the gene pool. Hence the comparison is invalid.

[bubble sunglasses]

  -lefties generally opposed to war
  -righters like low taxes
 
   -lefties, as well as crying "stop the war" should campaign for zero taxpayer money to be spent on wars where the state's borders aren't threatened

[Collin Li]

 Anyway, the theory of evolution *describes* what happened. Accepting this as a theory doesn't imply that you advocate "surivival of the fittest" ie: not offering any help to, say, the mentally ill, or haemophilliacs, on the basis that their deaths will strengthen the gene pool. Hence the comparison is invalid.

You're right. It's a one way ticket for conservatives to believing evolution though. If they can understand how the free market works, then why can't they see evolution?

It still perplexes me why the mainstream social conservatives advocate a freer market than the leftists. Or is this premise incorrect?

[brendan]

Opponents of Evolution Are Adopting New Strategy
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/us/04evolution.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss