Max Keiser - "Libertarians are Intellectually Lazy & Idiots"

[Oinsane1]

i always find though he has a pretty good big picture.. he is a lay person in economics...  and his understanding of derivatives is a little spotty

and he believes in global warming...

but he is a good tv personality...  and when he says he invented?.. it means he hired programmers to implement his vague-ish ideas...

love the guy though.

[1714185104]

1714185104

[dree12]

and he believes in global warming...

Good thing or bad thing?

[benjamindees]

Besides, what is the point of taxes in a pure fiat money system?

This is simple.  It's obviously not to fund the government.  So the only meaningful aspect of taxation is the fact that taxes are "progressive".  The point is to stimulate constant economic "growth" by preventing anyone from becoming self-sufficient.

[conspirosphere.tk]

Besides, what is the point of taxes in a pure fiat money system?

This is simple.  It's obviously not to fund the government.  So the only meaningful aspect of taxation is the fact that taxes are "progressive".  The point is to stimulate constant economic "growth" by preventing anyone from becoming self-sufficient.

I would say that it is just to make seem that fiat money is worth something, and force ppl to work for the government (paying taxes to it).

[benjamindees]

Science tells us that Max Keiser is wrong about Libertarians being "intellectually lazy and idiots":

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0042366

The Need for Cognition scale [64] is a measure of the extent to which people engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive activities. People with high need for cognition are more likely to form their attitudes by paying close attention to relevant arguments, whereas people with low need for cognition are more likely to rely on peripheral cues, such as how attractive or credible a speaker is. The measure was completed by 8,035 participants (4,242 men; 5,888 liberals, 760 conservatives, and 657 libertarians).
Results.

Table 3 shows that libertarians scored slightly higher than liberals and moderately higher than conservatives on Need for Cognition (also see Figure 4).
Interpretation.

This pattern is consistent with the libertarian valuation of logic and reasoning over emotion. Libertarians may enjoy thinking about complex and abstract systems more than other groups, particularly more than conservatives.

[bb113]

Need for Cognition

The scale asks participants to describe the extent to which they agree with each statement using a 9-point scale with the following values:

    +4 = very strong agreement
    +3 = strong agreement
    +2 = moderate agreement
    +1 = slight agreement
      0 = neither agreement nor disagreement
     -1 = slight disagreement
     -2 = moderate disagreement
     -3 = strong disagreement
     -4 = very strong disagreement



1)    I would prefer complex to simple problems.
2)    I like to have the responsibility of handling a situation that requires a lot of thinking.
3)    Thinking is not my idea of fun.*
4)    I would rather do something that requires little thought than something that is sure to challenge my thinking abilities.*
5)    I try to anticipate and avoid situations where there is likely a chance I will have to think in depth about something.*
6)    I find satisfaction in deliberating hard and for long hours.
7)    I only think as hard as I have to.*
   I prefer to think about small, daily projects to long-term ones.*
9)    I like tasks that require little thought once I’ve learned them.*
10)    The idea of relying on thought to make my way to the top appeals to me.
11)    I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems.
12)    Learning new ways to think doesn’t excite me very much.*
13)    I prefer my life to be filled with puzzles that I must solve.
14)    The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me.
15)    I would prefer a task that is intellectual, difficult, and important to one that is somewhat important but does not require much thought.
16)    I feel relief rather than satisfaction after completing a task that required a lot of mental effort.*
17)    It’s enough for me that something gets the job done; I don’t care how or why it works.*
18)    I usually end up deliberating about issues even when they do not affect me personally.

* = Reverse Scored

Cognitive Reflection Task

(1) A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball.
How much does the ball cost? _____ cents

(2) If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets, how long would it take
100 machines to make 100 widgets? _____ minutes

(3) In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch doubles in size.
If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it
take for the patch to cover half of the lake? _____ days

[bb113]

Actually those methods don't make sense, even though that's what I found by following the references. The average score for libertarians is above 4 on the "Need for Cognition" test... So who knows.

[molecular]

That doesn't look statistically significant enough to me to draw any conclusions. What was the sample size?

[bb113]

The Need for Cognition scale [64] is a measure of the extent to which people engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive activities. People with high need for cognition are more likely to form their attitudes by paying close attention to relevant arguments, whereas people with low need for cognition are more likely to rely on peripheral cues, such as how attractive or credible a speaker is. The measure was completed by 8,035 participants (4,242 men; 5,888 liberals, 760 conservatives, and 657 libertarians).

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0042366


Note there are different samples for each measurement for some reason (cognitive reflection task = 9,721 participants). The authors also report a significant correlation between cognitive reflection score and need for cognition (r = .3, p <.001).  Talk about sampling to a foregone conclusion... cutoff  pearson's R at .001 for such large samples is like .15. Due to these silly errors in reporting methods and interpreting resutls, I would personally dismiss the paper as not worth studying or quoting further unless you are in the field.

[dree12]

The Need for Cognition scale [64] is a measure of the extent to which people engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive activities. People with high need for cognition are more likely to form their attitudes by paying close attention to relevant arguments, whereas people with low need for cognition are more likely to rely on peripheral cues, such as how attractive or credible a speaker is. The measure was completed by 8,035 participants (4,242 men; 5,888 liberals, 760 conservatives, and 657 libertarians).

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0042366


Note there are different samples for each measurement for some reason (cognitive reflection task = 9,721 participants). The authors also report a significant correlation between cognitive reflection score and need for cognition (r = .3, p <.001).  Talk about sampling to a foregone conclusion... cutoff  pearson's R at .001 for such large samples is like .15. Due to these silly errors in reporting methods and interpreting resutls, I would personally dismiss the paper as not worth studying or quoting further unless you are in the field.

Although I would not classify the paper as a reliable source, I would not be surprised if the result is accurate. Libertarians, due to the ideology's requirements, may indeed have higher need for cognition than people who affiliate with other ideologies.

[hashman]

The measure was completed by 8,035 participants (4,242 men; 5,888 liberals, 760 conservatives, and 657 libertarians).

Interesting set of numbers.  Nothing seems to ad up to any total.  

At least one of those categories has a fairly high selectability:  men.  
In most cases gender can be identified with a simple set of testable criteria.  
Compare that to the other qualifiers used in the study.  

Is there anyone here who thinks their political ideology places them clearly in one of those other three categories at the exclusion of the other two?  Didn't think so.  

Would any of those words be used by somebody who had a real quantitative statement to make?  Didn't think so.  

Not that I don't like poetry or drama..  just sayin, this obviously ain't exact science so it's funny when they pretend    

[Ragnar17]

Libertarians are the lazy ones?

Haha

[Matthew N. Wright]

Libertarians are the lazy ones?

Haha

Atlas spotted.

[Ragnar17]

Sorry but no. Anyway you are going to tell me that Libertarians are the intellectually lazy ones and that Republicans and Democrats are the ones who are really intelligent?

[myrkul]

That's not the Agorist's plan. Agorism looks more like this:

Where we are now (and all is wrong with the world).
|
|
|
V
Slowly replace State-run services with voluntary ones, on the black market, if necessary.
|
|
|
V
Governments will eventually get really pissed off about that, evade until it's weak enough to actually defend against.
|
|
|
V
Eventually things settle down and we end up here: LIBERTARIAN UTOPIA!! Hell Yeah!

One way this might go down is presented in the book "Alongside Night".

[bb113]

@Topic

How is that not insane? It's a recipe for a totalitarian nightmare!

That's why, in order to change certain things in today's society, and do it right, there has to be a strategy. Some realistic plan that goes step-by-step. Ask yourself, if you're getting a heart transplant, how would you want your doctor to approach the problem? Chop out the old one, kinda hope you don't die, and then speed-dial a new one for delivery?!

It is fine to plan for expected eventualities but a heart surgeon should not expect a surgery to go according to the step-by-step plan. A successful surgery depends on a robust system able to deal with the unknown things that will eventually go wrong. The plan is useless if the system it is dependent on cannot adjust to account for unexpected events.

[bb113]

@Topic

How is that not insane? It's a recipe for a totalitarian nightmare!

That's why, in order to change certain things in today's society, and do it right, there has to be a strategy. Some realistic plan that goes step-by-step. Ask yourself, if you're getting a heart transplant, how would you want your doctor to approach the problem? Chop out the old one, kinda hope you don't die, and then speed-dial a new one for delivery?!

It is fine to plan for expected eventualities but a heart surgeon should not expect a surgery to go according to the step-by-step plan. A successful surgery depends on a robust system able to deal with the unknown things that will eventually go wrong. The plan is useless if the system it is dependent on cannot adjust to account for unexpected events.

Totally fair comment. I guess when people sit down and think about various scenarios, most possibilities that would otherwise be unexpected, are actually predictable to a degree.

Maybe I'm being a bit harsh on the Libertarians. If there's some kind of super-secret underground resistance with the Libertarians collaborrating with the Military on some kind of massive coup (I'm trying to be open-minded here...), I'm sure we'd hear nothing about it until the day after.

Haha, I don't know about any coup...I think it is more like myrkul said. People are working on decentralized alternatives to government (and their spawns, the large corps) services so that they will be there as a robust backstop to the collapse the planned out system is doomed for. The first step of the plan is to maintain specialization of labor in the face of chaos. And even if no collapse occurs, these voluntary alternatives will eventually develop to be superior to those that people are currently being forced to use. Slowly states will become irrelevant.

[Ragnar17]

A system of government cannot work if it denies how PEOPLE work. Any system that needs "ideal" people or "ideal" rulers to govern is a system that does not work with real people.

You cannot force people to work how people "should" work. People will do as people do and you dont need a system of any kind to structure this. 

[420]

Sorry but no. Anyway you are going to tell me that Libertarians are the intellectually lazy ones and that Republicans and Democrats are the ones who are really intelligent?

max keisers did not mention liberals or conservatives nor compare libertarians to them, just the statement on libertarians

[dree12]

Sorry but no. Anyway you are going to tell me that Libertarians are the intellectually lazy ones and that Republicans and Democrats are the ones who are really intelligent?

max keisers did not mention liberals or conservatives nor compare libertarians to them, just the statement on libertarians

I think all humans are intellectually lazy and idiots. As a consequence, libertarians are all intellectually lazy and idiots.