"Their defense is simple and unintellectual: "somebody will have power; it might as well be me." Glenn Reynolds, like Posner, like the neo-cons, like so many others, tries to create logical arguments for things he viscerally doesn't like. And he doesn't succeed. If he did, Max, you wouldn't have such an easy time with him. "
I posted this on the link at Maxspeak below. Aside from the obvious mistake- Posner et al. attempt logical arguments concerning, or against, but not 'for' things they don't like (sorry) I'd like to reiterate my second point, which I realized later I should treat as more than a throw-away. There is no intellectual defense of right wing politics. The only defense is the quote I imagined above. Every logical argument can be logically refuted, but that honest and simple line can not, because it nullifies all opposition. It says, in effect, the only definition of right and wrong is common sense, and that that definition can only be applied on an ad hoc basis, to be dealt with by the ruler 'justly' or not, accoring to how he weighs his priorities. There may be intellectuals who will argue for this 'realistic' position, but how many would admit that their argument againsts systems obviates their own position. Would George Will ever openly admit that his only desire is to serve his masters faithfully?