Why I Am Not a Conservative

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • downzero

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 16, 2010
    2,965
    36
    Why I Am Not a Conservative

    Why I Am Not a Conservative

    By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek

    In het Nederlands

    In The Constitution of Liberty (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960)

    "At all times sincere friends of freedom have been rare, and its triumphs have been due to minorities, that have prevailed by associating themselves with auxiliaries whose objects often differed from their own; and this association, which is always dangerous, has sometimes been disastrous, by giving to opponents just grounds of opposition." - Lord Acton

    1. At a time when most movements that are thought to be progressive advocate further encroachments on individual liberty,[1] those who cherish freedom are likely to expend their energies in opposition. In this they find themselves much of the time on the same side as those who habitually resist change. In matters of current politics today they generally have little choice but to support the conservative parties. But, though the position I have tried to define is also often described as "conservative," it is very different from that to which this name has been traditionally attached. There is danger in the confused condition which brings the defenders of liberty and the true conservatives together in common opposition to developments which threaten their ideals equally. It is therefore important to distinguish clearly the position taken here from that which has long been known - perhaps more appropriately - as conservatism.

    Conservatism proper is a legitimate, probably necessary, and certainly widespread attitude of opposition to drastic change. It has, since the French Revolution, for a century and a half played an important role in European politics. Until the rise of socialism its opposite was liberalism. There is nothing corresponding to this conflict in the history of the United States, because what in Europe was called "liberalism" was here the common tradition on which the American polity had been built: thus the defender of the American tradition was a liberal in the European sense.[2] This already existing confusion was made worse by the recent attempt to transplant to America the European type of conservatism, which, being alien to the American tradition, has acquired a somewhat odd character. And some time before this, American radicals and socialists began calling themselves "liberals." I will nevertheless continue for the moment to describe as liberal the position which I hold and which I believe differs as much from true conservatism as from socialism. Let me say at once, however, that I do so with increasing misgivings, and I shall later have to consider what would be the appropriate name for the party of liberty. The reason for this is not only that the term "liberal" in the United States is the cause of constant misunderstandings today, but also that in Europe the predominant type of rationalistic liberalism has long been one of the pacemakers of socialism.

    Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments. But, though there is a need for a "brake on the vehicle of progress,"[3] I personally cannot be content with simply helping to apply the brake. What the liberal must ask, first of all, is not how fast or how far we should move, but where we should move. In fact, he differs much more from the collectivist radical of today than does the conservative. While the last generally holds merely a mild and moderate version of the prejudices of his time, the liberal today must more positively oppose some of the basic conceptions which most conservatives share with the socialists.

    2. The picture generally given of the relative position of the three parties does more to obscure than to elucidate their true relations. They are usually represented as different positions on a line, with the socialists on the left, the conservatives on the right, and the liberals somewhere in the middle. Nothing could be more misleading. If we want a diagram, it would be more appropriate to arrange them in a triangle with the conservatives occupying one corner, with the socialists pulling toward the second and the liberals toward the third. But, as the socialists have for a long time been able to pull harder, the conservatives have tended to follow the socialist rather than the liberal direction and have adopted at appropriate intervals of time those ideas made respectable by radical propaganda. It has been regularly the conservatives who have compromised with socialism and stolen its thunder. Advocates of the Middle Way[4] with no goal of their own, conservatives have been guided by the belief that the truth must lie somewhere between the extremes - with the result that they have shifted their position every time a more extreme movement appeared on either wing.

    The position which can be rightly described as conservative at any time depends, therefore, on the direction of existing tendencies. Since the development during the last decades has been generally in a socialist direction, it may seem that both conservatives and liberals have been mainly intent on retarding that movement. But the main point about liberalism is that it wants to go elsewhere, not to stand still. Though today the contrary impression may sometimes be caused by the fact that there was a time when liberalism was more widely accepted and some of its objectives closer to being achieved, it has never been a backward-looking doctrine. There has never been a time when liberal ideals were fully realized and when liberalism did not look forward to further improvement of institutions. Liberalism is not averse to evolution and change; and where spontaneous change has been smothered by government control, it wants a great deal of change of policy. So far as much of current governmental action is concerned, there is in the present world very little reason for the liberal to wish to preserve things as they are. It would seem to the liberal, indeed, that what is most urgently needed in most parts of the world is a thorough sweeping away of the obstacles to free growth.

    This difference between liberalism and conservatism must not be obscured by the fact that in the United States it is still possible to defend individual liberty by defending long-established institutions. To the liberal they are valuable not mainly because they are long established or because they are American but because they correspond to the ideals which he cherishes.

    3. Before I consider the main points on which the liberal attitude is sharply opposed to the conservative one, I ought to stress that there is much that the liberal might with advantage have learned from the work of some conservative thinkers. To their loving and reverential study of the value of grown institutions we owe (at least outside the field of economics) some profound insights which are real contributions to our understanding of a free society. However reactionary in politics such figures as Coleridge, Bonald, De Maistre, Justus Möser, or Donoso Cortès may have been, they did show an understanding of the meaning of spontaneously grown institutions such as language, law, morals, and conventions that anticipated modern scientific approaches and from which the liberals might have profited. But the admiration of the conservatives for free growth generally applies only to the past. They typically lack the courage to welcome the same undesigned change from which new tools of human endeavors will emerge.

    This brings me to the first point on which the conservative and the liberal dispositions differ radically. As has often been acknowledged by conservative writers, one of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such,[5] while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead. There would not be much to object to if the conservatives merely disliked too rapid change in institutions and public policy; here the case for caution and slow process is indeed strong. But the conservatives are inclined to use the powers of government to prevent change or to limit its rate to whatever appeals to the more timid mind. In looking forward, they lack the faith in the spontaneous forces of adjustment which makes the liberal accept changes without apprehension, even though he does not know how the necessary adaptations will be brought about. It is, indeed, part of the liberal attitude to assume that, especially in the economic field, the self-regulating forces of the market will somehow bring about the required adjustments to new conditions, although no one can foretell how they will do this in a particular instance. There is perhaps no single factor contributing so much to people's frequent reluctance to let the market work as their inability to conceive how some necessary balance, between demand and supply, between exports and imports, or the like, will be brought about without deliberate control. The conservative feels safe and content only if he is assured that some higher wisdom watches and supervises change, only if he knows that some authority is charged with keeping the change "orderly."

    This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces. Since it distrusts both abstract theories and general principles,[6] it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy. Order appears to the conservative as the result of the continuous attention of authority, which, for this purpose, must be allowed to do what is required by the particular circumstances and not be tied to rigid rule. A commitment to principles presupposes an understanding of the general forces by which the efforts of society are co-ordinated, but it is such a theory of society and especially of the economic mechanism that conservatism conspicuously lacks. So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. Macaulay, Tocqueville, Lord Acton, and Lecky certainly considered themselves liberals, and with justice; and even Edmund Burke remained an Old Whig to the end and would have shuddered at the thought of being regarded as a Tory.

    Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.[7] Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people.

    When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them. I have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as "concessions" to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

    It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits. I sometimes feel that the most conspicuous attribute of liberalism that distinguishes it as much from conservatism as from socialism is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere of other persons do not justify coercion. This may also explain why it seems to be so much easier for the repentant socialist to find a new spiritual home in the conservative fold than in the liberal.

    In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - bet he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

    Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power.[8] The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

    Admittedly, it was only when power came into the hands of the majority that further limitations of the power of government was thought unnecessary. In this sense democracy and unlimited government are connected. But it is not democracy but unlimited government that is objectionable, and I do not see why the people should not learn to limit the scope of majority rule as well as that of any other form of government. At any rate, the advantages of democracy as a method of peaceful change and of political education seem to be so great compared with those of any other system that I can have no sympathy with the antidemocratic strain of conservatism. It is not who governs but what government is entitled to do that seems to me the essential problem.

    That the conservative opposition to too much government control is not a matter of principle but is concerned with the particular aims of government is clearly shown in the economic sphere. Conservatives usually oppose collectivist and directivist measures in the industrial field, and here the liberals will often find allies in them. But at the same time conservatives are usually protectionists and have frequently supported socialist measures in agriculture. Indeed, though the restrictions which exist today in industry and commerce are mainly the result of socialist views, the equally important restrictions in agriculture were usually introduced by conservatives at an even earlier date. And in their efforts to discredit free enterprise many conservative leaders have vied with the socialists.[9]

    4. I have already referred to the differences between conservatism and liberalism in the purely intellectual field, but I must return to them because the characteristic conservative attitude here not only is a serious weakness of conservatism but tends to harm any cause which allies itself with it. Conservatives feel instinctively that it is new ideas more than anything else that cause change. But, from its point of view rightly, conservatism fears new ideas because it has no distinctive principles of its own to oppose them; and, by its distrust of theory and its lack of imagination concerning anything except that which experience has already proved, it deprives itself of the weapons needed in the struggle of ideas. Unlike liberalism, with its fundamental belief in the long-range power of ideas, conservatism is bound by the stock of ideas inherited at a given time. And since it does not really believe in the power of argument, its last resort is generally a claim to superior wisdom, based on some self-arrogated superior quality.

    The difference shows itself most clearly in the different attitudes of the two traditions to the advance of knowledge. Though the liberal certainly does not regard all change as progress, he does regard the advance of knowledge as one of the chief aims of human effort and expects from it the gradual solution of such problems and difficulties as we can hope to solve. Without preferring the new merely because it is new, the liberal is aware that it is of the essence of human achievement that it produces something new; and he is prepared to come to terms with new knowledge, whether he likes its immediate effects or not.

    Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it - or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. I will not deny that scientists as much as others are given to fads and fashions and that we have much reason to be cautious in accepting the conclusions that they draw from their latest theories. But the reasons for our reluctance must themselves be rational and must be kept separate from our regret that the new theories upset our cherished beliefs. I can have little patience with those who oppose, for instance, the theory of evolution or what are called "mechanistic" explanations of the phenomena of life because of certain moral consequences which at first seem to follow from these theories, and still less with those who regard it as irrelevant or impious to ask certain questions at all. By refusing to face the facts, the conservative only weakens his own position. Frequently the conclusions which rationalist presumption draws from new scientific insights do not at all follow from them. But only by actively taking part in the elaboration of the consequences of new discoveries do we learn whether or not they fit into our world picture and, if so, how. Should our moral beliefs really prove to be dependent on factual assumptions shown to be incorrect, it would hardly be moral to defend them by refusing to acknowledge facts.

    Connected with the conservative distrust if the new and the strange is its hostility to internationalism and its proneness to a strident nationalism. Here is another source of its weakness in the struggle of ideas. It cannot alter the fact that the ideas which are changing our civilization respect no boundaries. But refusal to acquaint one's self with new ideas merely deprives one of the power of effectively countering them when necessary. The growth of ideas is an international process, and only those who fully take part in the discussion will be able to exercise a significant influence. It is no real argument to say that an idea is un-American, or un-German, nor is a mistaken or vicious ideal better for having been conceived by one of our compatriots.

    A great deal more might be said about the close connection between conservatism and nationalism, but I shall not dwell on this point because it might be felt that my personal position makes me unable to sympathize with any form of nationalism. I will merely add that it is this nationalistic bias which frequently provides the bridge from conservatism to collectivism: to think in terms of "our" industry or resource is only a short step away from demanding that these national assets be directed in the national interest. But in this respect the Continental liberalism which derives from the French Revolution is little better than conservatism. I need hardly say that nationalism of this sort is something very different from patriotism and that an aversion to nationalism is fully compatible with a deep attachment to national traditions. But the fact that I prefer and feel reverence for some of the traditions of my society need not be the cause of hostility to what is strange and different.

    Only at first foes it seem paradoxical that the anti-internationalism of conservatism is so frequently associated with imperialism. But the more a person dislikes the strange and thinks his own ways superior, the more he tends to regard it as his mission to "civilize" other[10] - not by the voluntary and unhampered intercourse which the liberal favors, but by bringing them the blessings of efficient government. It is significant that here again we frequently find the conservatives joining hands with the socialists against the liberals - not only in England, where the Webbs and their Fabians were outspoken imperialists, or in Germany, where state socialism and colonial expansionism went together and found the support of the same group of "socialists of the chair," but also in the United States, where even at the time of the first Roosevelt it could be observed: "the Jingoes and the Social Reformers have gotten together; and have formed a political party, which threatened to capture the Government and use it for their program of Caesaristic paternalism, a danger which now seems to have been averted only by the other parties having adopted their program in a somewhat milder degree and form."[11]

    5. There is one respect, however, in which there is justification for saying that the liberal occupies a position midway between the socialist and the conservative: he is as far from the crude rationalism of the socialist, who wants to reconstruct all social institutions according to a pattern prescribed by his individual reason, as from the mysticism to which the conservative so frequently has to resort. What I have described as the liberal position shares with conservatism a distrust of reason to the extent that the liberal is very much aware that we do not know all the answers and that he is not sure that the answers he has are certainly the rights ones or even that we can find all the answers. He also does not disdain to seek assistance from whatever non-rational institutions or habits have proved their worth. The liberal differs from the conservative in his willingness to face this ignorance and to admit how little we know, without claiming the authority of supernatural forces of knowledge where his reason fails him. It has to be admitted that in some respects the liberal is fundamentally a skeptic[12] - but it seems to require a certain degree of diffidence to let others seek their happiness in their own fashion and to adhere consistently to that tolerance which is an essential characteristic of liberalism.

    There is no reason why this need mean an absence of religious belief on the part of the liberal. Unlike the rationalism of the French Revolution, true liberalism has no quarrel with religion, and I can only deplore the militant and essentially illiberal antireligionism which animated so much of nineteenth-century Continental liberalism. That this is not essential to liberalism is clearly shown by its English ancestors, the Old Whigs, who, if anything, were much too closely allied with a particular religious belief. What distinguishes the liberal from the conservative here is that, however profound his own spiritual beliefs, he will never regard himself as entitled to impose them on others and that for him the spiritual and the temporal are different sphere which ought not to be confused.

    6. What I have said should suffice to explain why I do not regard myself as a conservative. Many people will feel, however, that the position which emerges is hardly what they used to call "liberal." I must, therefore, now face the question of whether this name is today the appropriate name for the party of liberty. I have already indicated that, though I have all my life described myself as a liberal, I have done so recently with increasing misgivings - not only because in the United States this term constantly gives rise to misunderstandings, but also because I have become more and more aware of the great gulf that exists between my position and the rationalistic Continental liberalism or even the English liberalism of the utilitarians.

    If liberalism still meant what it meant to an English historian who in 1827 could speak of the revolution of 1688 as "the triumph of those principles which in the language of the present day are denominated liberal or constitutional" [13] or if one could still, with Lord Acton, speak of Burke, Macaulay, and Gladstone as the three greatest liberals, or if one could still, with Harold Laske, regard Tocqueville and Lord Acton as "the essential liberals of the nineteenth century,"[14] I should indeed be only too proud to describe myself by that name. But, much as I am tempted to call their liberalism true liberalism, I must recognize that the majority of Continental liberals stood for ideas to which these men were strongly opposed, and that they were led more by a desire to impose upon the world a preconceived rational pattern than to provide opportunity for free growth. The same is largely true of what has called itself Liberalism in England at least since the time of Lloyd George.

    It is thus necessary to recognize that what I have called "liberalism" has little to do with any political movement that goes under that name today. It is also questionable whether the historical associations which that name carries today are conducive to the success of any movement. Whether in these circumstances one ought to make an effort to rescue the term from what one feels is its misuse is a question on which opinions may well differ. I myself feel more and more that to use it without long explanations causes too much confusion and that as a label it has become more of a ballast than a source of strength.

    In the United States, where it has become almost impossible to use "liberal" in the sense in which I have used it, the term "libertarian" has been used instead. It may be the answer; but for my part I find it singularly unattractive. For my taste it carries too much the flavor of a manufactured term and of a substitute. What I should want is a word which describes the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution. But I have racked my brain unsuccessfully to find a descriptive term which commends itself.

    7. We should remember, however, that when the ideals which I have been trying to restate first began to spread through the Western world, the party which represented them had a generally recognized name. It was the ideals of the English Whigs that inspired what later came to be known as the liberal movement in the whole of Europe[15] and that provided the conceptions that the American colonists carried with them and which guided them in their struggle for independence and in the establishment of their constitution.[16] Indeed, until the character of this tradition was altered by the accretions due to the French Revolution, with its totalitarian democracy and socialist leanings, "Whig" was the name by which the party of liberty was generally known.

    The name died in the country of its birth partly because for a time the principles for which it stood were no longer distinctive of a particular party, and partly because the men who bore the name did not remain true to those principles. The Whig parties of the nineteenth century, in both Britain and the United States, finally brought discredit to the name among the radicals. But it is still true that, since liberalism took the place of Whiggism only after the movement for liberty had absorbed the crude and militant rationalism of the French Revolution, and since our task must largely be to free that tradition from the overrationalistic, nationalistic, and socialistic influences which have intruded into it, Whiggism is historically the correct name for the ideas in which I believe. The more I learn about the evolution of ideas, the more I have become aware that I am simply an unrepentant Old Whig - with the stress on the "old."

    To confess one's self as an Old Whig does not mean, of course, that one wants to go back to where we were at the end of the seventeenth century. It has been one of the purposes of this book to show that the doctrines then first stated continued to grow and develop until about seventy or eighty years ago, even though they were no longer the chief aim of a distinct party. We have since learned much that should enable us to restate them in a more satisfactory and effective form. But, though they require restatement in the light of our present knowledge, the basic principles are still those of the Old Whigs. True, the later history of the party that bore that name has made some historians doubt where there was a distinct body of Whig principles; but I can but agree with Lord Acton that, though some of "the patriarchs of the doctrine were the most infamous of men, the notion of a higher law above municipal codes, with which Whiggism began, is the supreme achievement of Englishmen and their bequest to the nation"[17] - and, we may add, to the world. It is the doctrine which is at the basis of the common tradition of the Anglo-Saxon countries. It is the doctrine from which Continental liberalism took what is valuable in it. It is the doctrine on which the American system of government is based. In its pure form it is represented in the United States, not by the radicalism of Jefferson, nor by the conservatism of Hamilton or even of John Adams, but by the ideas of James Madison, the "father of the Constitution."[18]

    I do not know whether to revive that old name is practical politics. That to the mass of people, both in the Anglo-Saxon world and elsewhere, it is today probably a term without definite associations is perhaps more an advantage than a drawback. To those familiar with the history of ideas it is probably the only name that quite expresses what the tradition means. That, both for the genuine conservative and still more for the many socialists turned conservative, Whiggism is the name for their pet aversion shows a sound instinct on their part. It has been the name for the only set of ideals that has consistently opposed all arbitrary power.

    8. It may well be asked whether the name really matters so much. In a country like the United States, which on the whole has free institutions and where, therefore, the defense of the existing is often a defense of freedom, it might not make so much difference if the defenders of freedom call themselves conservatives, although even here the association with the conservatives by disposition will often be embarrassing. Even when men approve of the same arrangements, it must be asked whether they approve of them because they exist or because they are desirable in themselves. The common resistance to the collectivist tide should not be allowed to obscure the fact that the belief in integral freedom is based on an essentially forward-looking attitude and not on any nostalgic longing for the past or a romantic admiration for what has been.

    The need for a clear distinction is absolutely imperative, however, where, as is true in many parts of Europe, the conservatives have already accepted a large part of the collectivist creed - a creed that has governed policy for so long that many of its institutions have come to be accepted as a matter of course and have become a source of pride to "conservative" parties who created them.[19] Here the believer in freedom cannot but conflict with the conservative and take an essentially radical position, directed against popular prejudices, entrenched positions, and firmly established privileges. Follies and abuses are no better for having long been established principles of folly.

    Though quieta non movere may at times be a wise maxim for the statesman it cannot satisfy the political philosopher. He may wish policy to proceed gingerly and not before public opinion is prepared to support it, but he cannot accept arrangements merely because current opinion sanctions them. In a world where the chief need is once more, as it was at the beginning of the nineteenth century, to free the process of spontaneous growth from the obstacles and encumbrances that human folly has erected, his hopes must rest on persuading and gaining the support of those who by disposition are "progressives," those who, though they may now be seeking change in the wrong direction, are at least willing to examine critically the existing and to change it wherever necessary.

    I hope I have not misled the reader by occasionally speaking of "party" when I was thinking of groups of men defending a set of intellectual and moral principles. Party politics of any one country has not been the concern of this book. The question of how the principles I have tried to reconstruct by piecing together the broken fragments of a tradition can be translated into a program with mass appeal, the political philosopher must leave to "that insidious and crafty animal, vulgarly called a statesman or politician, whose councils are directed by the momentary fluctuations of affairs."[20] The task of the political philosopher can only be to influence public opinion, not to organize people for action. He will do so effectively only if he is not concerned with what is now politically possible but consistently defends the "general principles which are always the same."[21] In this sense I doubt whether there can be such a thing as a conservative political philosophy. Conservatism may often be a useful practical maxim, but it does not give us any guiding principles which can influence long-range developments.

    Notes

    The quotation at the head of the Postscript is taken from Acton, Hist. of Freedom, p. 1.

    1. This has now been true for over a century, and as early as 1855 J. S. Mill could say (see my John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor [London and Chicago, 1951], p. 216) that "almost all the projects of social reformers of these days are really liberticide."

    2. B. Crick, "The Strange Quest for an American Conservatism," Review of Politics, XVII (1955), 365, says rightly that "the normal American who calls himself 'A Conservative' is, in fact, a liberal." It would appear that the reluctance of these conservatives to call themselves by the more appropriate name dates only from its abuse during the New Deal era.

    3. The expression is that of R. G. Collingwood, The New Leviathan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1942), p. 209.

    4. Cf. the characteristic choice of this title for the programmatic book by the present British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, The Middle Way (London, 1938).

    5. Cf. Lord Hugh Cecil, Conservatism ("Home University Library" [London, 1912], p. 9: "Natural Conservatism . . . is a disposition averse from change; and it springs partly from a distrust of the unknown."

    6. Cf. the revealing self-description of a conservative in K. Feiling, Sketches in Nineteenth Century Biography (London, 1930), p. 174: "Taken in bulk, the Right have a horror of ideas, for is not the practical man, in Disraeli's words, 'one who practices the blunders of his predecessors'? For long tracts of their history they have indiscriminately resisted improvement, and in claiming to reverence their ancestors often reduce opinion to aged individual prejudice. Their position becomes safer, but more complex, when we add that this Right wing is incessantly overtaking the Left; that it lives by repeated inoculation of liberal ideas, and thus suffers from a never-perfected state of compromise."

    7. I trust I shall be forgiven for repeating here the words in which on an earlier occasion I stated an important point: "The main merit of the individualism which [Adam Smith] and his contemporaries advocated is that it is a system under which bad men can do least harm. It is a social system which does not depend for its functioning on our finding good men for running it, or on all men becoming better than they now are, but which makes use of men in all their given variety and complexity, sometimes good and sometimes bad, sometimes intelligent and more often stupid." (Individualism and Economic Order [London and Chicago, 1948], p. 11).

    8. Cf. Lord Acton in Letters of Lord Acton to Mary Gladstone, ed. H. Paul (London, 1913), p. 73: "The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern. The law of liberty tends to abolish the reign of race over race, of faith over faith, of class over class."

    9. J. R. Hicks has rightly spoken in this connection of the "caricature drawn alike by the young Disraeli, by Marx and by Goebbels" ("The Pursuit of Economic Freedom," What We Defend, ed. E. F. Jacob [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1942], p. 96). On the role of the conservatives in this connection see also my Introduction to Capitalism and the Historians (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954), pp. 19 ff.

    10. Cf. J. S. Mill, On Liberty, ed. R. B. McCallum (Oxford, 1946), p. 83: "I am not aware that any community has a right to force another to be civilised."

    11. J. W. Burgess, The Reconciliation of Government with Liberty (New York, 1915), p. 380.

    12. Cf. Learned Hand, The Spirit of Liberty, ed. I. Dilliard (New York, 1952), p. 190: "The Spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right." See also Oliver Cromwell's often quoted statement is his Letter to the Assembly of the Church of Scotland, August 3, 1650: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." It is significant that this should be the probably best-remembered saying of the only "dictator" in British history!

    13. H. Hallam, Constitutional History (1827) ("Everyman" ed.), III, 90. It is often suggested that the term "liberal" derives from the early nineteenth-century Spanish party of the liberales. I am more inclined to believe that it derives from the use of that term by Adam Smith in such passages as W.o.N., II, 41: "the liberal system of free exportation and free importation" and p. 216: "allowing every man to pursue his own interest his own way, upon the liberal plan of equality, liberty, and justice."

    14. Lord Acton in Letters to Mary Gladstone, p. 44. Cf. also his judgment of Tocqueville in Lectures on the French Revolution (London, 1910), p. 357: "Tocqueville was a Liberal of the purest breed - a Liberal and nothing else, deeply suspicious of democracy and its kindred, equality, centralisation, and utilitarianism." Similarly in the Nineteenth Century, XXXIII (1892), 885. The statement by H. J. Laski occurs in "Alexis de Tocqueville and Democracy," in The Social and Political Ideas of Some Representative Thinkers of the Victorian Age, ed. F. J. C. Hearnshaw (London, 1933), p. 100, where he says that "a case of unanswerable power could, I think, be made out for the view that he [Tocqueville] and Lord Acton were the essential liberals of the nineteenth century."

    15. As early as the beginning of the eighteenth century, an English observer could remark that he "scarce ever knew a foreigner settled in England, whether of Dutch, German, French, Italian, or Turkish growth, but became a Whig in a little time after his mixing with us" (quoted by G. H. Guttridge, English Whiggism and the American Revolution [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1942], p. 3).

    16. In the United States the nineteenth-century use of the term "Whig" has unfortunately obliterated the memory of the fact that in the eighteenth it stood for the principles which guided the revolution, gained independence, and shaped the Constitution. It was in Whig societies that the young James Madison and John Adams developed their political ideals (cf. E. M. Burns, James Madison [New Brunnswick, N.J.; Rutgers University Press, 1938], p. 4); it was Whig principles which, as Jefferson tells us, guided all the lawyers who constituted such a strong majority among the signers of the Declaration of Independence and among the members of the Constitutional Convention (see Writings of Thomas Jefferson ["Memorial ed." (Washington, 1905)], XVI, 156). The profession of Whig principles was carried to such a point that even Washington's soldiers were clad in the traditional "blue and buff" colors of the Whigs, which they shared with the Foxites in the British Parliament and which was preserved down to our days on the covers of the Edinburgh Review. If a socialist generation has made Whiggism its favorite target, this is all the more reason for the opponents of socialism to vindicate its name. It is today the only name which correctly desribes the beliefs of the Gladstonian liberals, of the men of the generation of Maitland, Acton, and Bryce, and the last generation for whom liberty rather than equality or democracy was the main goal.

    17. Lord Acton, Lectures on Modern History (London, 1906), p. 218 (I have slightly rearranged Acton's clauses to reproduce briefly the sense of his statement).

    18. Cf. S. K. Padover in his Introduction to The Complete Madison (New York, 1953), p. 10: "In modern terminology, Madison would be labeled a middle-of-the-road liberal and Jefferson a radical." This is true and important, though we must remember what E. S. Corwin ("James Madison: Layman, Publicist, and Exegete," New York University Law Review, XXVII [1952], 285) has called Madison's later "surrender to the overwhelming influence of Jefferson."

    19. Cf. the British Conservative party's statement of policy, The Right Road for Britain (London, 1950), pp. 41-42, which claims, with considerable justification, that "this new conception [of the social services] was developed [by] the Coalition Government with a majority of Conservative Ministers and the full approval of the Conservative majority in the House of Commons . . . [We] set out the principle for the schemes of pensions, sickness and unemployment benefit, industrial injustices benefit and a national health scheme."

    20. A Smith, W.o.N., I, 432.
     

    Benny

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 66.7%
    2   1   0
    May 20, 2008
    21,037
    38
    Drinking your milkshake
    5w9oqd.gif
     

    downzero

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 16, 2010
    2,965
    36
    I started nodding off after the first paragraph. Is there a cliff-notes version?

    You really have to read it all to extract its eloquence. I couldn't do Hayek justice trying to explain this essay in a sentence or even a page for that matter.

    I will say, however, that if you read carefully, you'll find the root of most of the disagreements between conservatives and "liberals" (aka, libertarians) on this website.
     

    Delmar

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jun 2, 2009
    1,751
    38
    Goshen IN
    You really have to read it all to extract its eloquence. I couldn't do Hayek justice trying to explain this essay in a sentence or even a page for that matter.

    I will say, however, that if you read carefully, you'll find the root of most of the disagreements between conservatives and "liberals" (aka, libertarians) on this website.
    I tried skimming it, and I just didn't see anything that was going to grab my attention. Sorry!
     
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 7, 2010
    2,211
    38
    (INDY-BRipple)
    I read this, slightly entertaining as he drones on and on.


    I dont mind the Socialist, Communist, Liberal; Until Im demonized or my way of life, belief or simply ideology is attacked.

    I enjoyed the passages contrasting early Americanism to the era's European politic's. Perhaps to a degree one can agree.

    But nevermind that, we live in the here and now. Using that as a vechicle to push communism simply wont suffice to those who want the original American value and not some progressive agenda.


    Liberalism in recent eras has caused a rift, because of some unscrupulous bunches, and perhaps not not for the few bad eggs, or a maybe even with a homogenous society, liberalism would be nice.
    But when Liberalism ideologies attack Tradition, Religion and Family, I think the line in the sand is drawn by them, alone.


    One thing is clear, its certainly true, in America (atleast) Liberalism, was paraded around, and trumped up by minorities, and still is, largely and for obvious reasons.

    And another certaintity is this; NO GOOD EVER CAME OUT OF IT. Once again, I think a society must be homogenous to be applied correctly, with fairness.

    Another thing I've noticed, through my own personal experiences, and conversations with other is that the typical liberal mindset of feel goodism, in the real world simply doesnt exist; The mass, one world uteopia is a dream.
     

    downzero

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 16, 2010
    2,965
    36
    Yeah, no good ever came from liberty or anything. Not like we took the king out of power or ended slavery, extended suffrage to women and blacks, enacted NAFTA, or defeated Jim Crow/segregation.

    Oh, damn. We did all those things.

    Yep, I forgot. Nothing good ever came from liberal ideas at all.

    Socialist, communist, liberal, eh? I guess you couldn't read closely enough to realize that they're at odds with each other in the article. You probably missed his point about the socialists having more in common with conservatives than liberals, then, too.
     

    Colt556

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    65   0   0
    Feb 12, 2009
    8,859
    113
    Avon
    Glad to see that you bring substantive criticism, as usual.

    I did read it. In my opinion it's Drivel. I still have my right to an opinion, even if it's opposite of yours. I choose not to argue with those I totally disagree with. I truly don't understand why you, and a few others, continue to visit this sight when all you do is argue with the majority of posters. It has to be disheartening to have 90% of the members think your ideas are nuts. I've read much of what you have written in other threads and disagree with most of it. I didn't give you Neg Rep for your opinions though as you just did to me. Thanks so much for dinging me, reminds me of a child that strikes out at others b/c they don't want to play with them. :noway:
     

    lashicoN

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 2, 2009
    2,130
    38
    North
    I did read it. In my opinion it's Drivel. I still have my right to an opinion, even if it's opposite of yours. I choose not to argue with those I totally disagree with. I truly don't understand why you, and a few others, continue to visit this sight when all you do is argue with the majority of posters. It has to be disheartening to have 90% of the members think your ideas are nuts. I've read much of what you have written in other threads and disagree with most of it. I didn't give you Neg Rep for your opinions though as you just did to me. Thanks so much for dinging me, reminds me of a child that strikes out at others b/c they don't want to play with them. :noway:

    My friend told me, not too long ago, that the arguments we have on these forums aren't about you or I. We are the ones who are arguing, so obviously we've already chosen our sides of the argument, or we're at least already leaning to one side or the other. It is very rare on this forum, or any other, when one User1 says one thing and User2 says something else, then User1 reverses his original opinion and agrees with User2. The arguments we have are for the people who probably don't even have INGO accounts and come here to read, the undecided viewers who don't want to get into a heated debate, but like to hear more than -

    "If someone burns an American flag I'm going to hunt them down and burn their house down! Cause that's what freedom means to me!"

    So that's why a few of us argue with the other 90%. Not to sway you, or make friends with you, but because sensible people like to hear both sides of the argument, take them both in, and make an informed decision. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we don't, it doesn't matter. And of course, I'm only speaking for myself here. I don't have a clue why other people argue, I'll leave it up to them to explain themselves.

    Oh, and I'm a firearm enthusiast and enjoy talking about firearms, politics, and INGO is a great site to stay up to date on news/politics concerning America and/or firearms in America. Those are my reasons for returning to INGO.
     
    Last edited:

    downzero

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 16, 2010
    2,965
    36
    I did read it. In my opinion it's Drivel. I still have my right to an opinion, even if it's opposite of yours. I choose not to argue with those I totally disagree with. I truly don't understand why you, and a few others, continue to visit this sight when all you do is argue with the majority of posters. It has to be disheartening to have 90% of the members think your ideas are nuts. I've read much of what you have written in other threads and disagree with most of it. I didn't give you Neg Rep for your opinions though as you just did to me. Thanks so much for dinging me, reminds me of a child that strikes out at others b/c they don't want to play with them. :noway:

    You offer nothing to support your opinion, which is why I was critical of you in the first place. You offer no substantive criticism, only a single word comment that Hayek's work, which provides philosophical support for probably 50% of your political positions, is "drivel." I also suspect that you refuse to argue because you're incapable of doing so, but I could be wrong on that.

    The entire purpose of a forum is to argue with people
    . It seems that you disagree, but I'm not sure why. If everyone agreed, we wouldn't need a forum, or it'd look very different than this. Perhaps that's why you think you can come here, type the word, "drivel" and move on to agreeing with everyone else. There's nothing to discuss if you refuse to point out what you disagree about. You make comments like, "It has to be disheartening to have 90% of the members think your ideas are nuts," which are not only utterly false, but utterly without merit as they are contrary to empirical reality (I get posts of support on my rep page all day long). People may disagree with me that forums are for "discussion" or "debate" or whatever, but the underlying idea is the same thing and this is merely a semantic distinction. The conclusion still holds: without disagreement, there'd be no purpose for a forum at all.

    I gave you negative reputation points because you refuse to rationalize your "opinion." I really don't care what your opinion is, but I do care a lot about your reasoning for holding that opinion. You've apparently decided that all you owe the forum is your opinion, which as far as I'm concerned is totally pointless if it's conclusory. And if you think I'm unwilling to defend my, "opinions," feel free to start a thread about it, because I have no problems showing a rational basis for my conclusions, and it won't be some appeal to nostalgia or theology--you can bet on it.
     
    Last edited:

    downzero

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 16, 2010
    2,965
    36
    So that's why a few of us argue with the other 90%. Not to sway you, or make friends with you, but because sensible people like to hear both sides of the argument, take them both in, and make an informed decision. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we don't, it doesn't matter. And of course, I'm only speaking for myself here. I don't have a clue why other people argue, I'll leave it up to them to explain themselves.

    I find, on other forums especially, that when I search and read both or many sides to an issue, I am able to decide what I think for myself very easily.

    I think that you're spot on. In fact, that's almost straight out of On Liberty as to why we have free speech, and why unfettered debate is necessary. Good post.
     
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 7, 2010
    2,211
    38
    (INDY-BRipple)
    Yeah, no good ever came from liberty or anything. Not like we took the king out of power

    Monarchy's have ALWAYS existed, atleast through out Indo-European societies, coupled with a democracy, which is until Christianity appeared in Europe.

    Some might suggest Monarchies were quite effective; atleast more so than the crap we have today.

    What America and the West Owe Asatru


    Here’s a quick list of twelve American institutions and traditions that have their origin in the tribal societies of pre-Christian Europe:

    Trial by jury (dates back at least to the Vikings)

    Right to bear arms (carried by all freemen)

    Rights of women (declined drastically under Christianity)

    Local democracy (local assemblies, or Things)

    National representative republics (Iceland)

    Anglo-Saxon Common Law (the “rights of Englishmen”)

    System of “checks and balances” (structure of Germanic tribes included equivalent of an executive, a judicial, and a legislative branch)

    Kings subject to law (common in pre-Christian times, before “divine right”)

    Election of rulers (practiced by some tribes)

    Resistance to tyrants (required under law in some cases)

    Concept of free will (implied by Germanic concepts of time and causality)

    Specific limits on the powers of kings and chiefs (by law)


    Unfortunately, it can be argued that the pre-Christian Germanic heritage has been increasingly undermined with the passage of time as the power of government has grown at the expense of our rights.

    Freedom, balanced with responsibility...It's a Teutonic thing!

    Steve McNallen






    or ended slavery

    Really, Liberalism ended it?

    So why does it exist in South America, where Communism is rampent? Or Asia, where Communism is also king, and dare I mention even Africa? (Never talked about in Public Schools).

    I think perhaps Slavery was ended, not because of "liberalism" but because of of the repulsive nature slavery may have carried. If you give credit to Liberalism, then it also fair to give credit to Christianity, or perhaps even better Europeans.


    , extended suffrage to women

    What suffrage?:popcorn:

    and


    blacks,

    ROTFL :laugh: Too bad you guys never did anything about slavery in Africa. :rolleyes: Again, dont take credit for something which really wasnt about slavery, atleast in America.

    This actually goes against the Founders original idea of America.
    G. Washington, if he was living today would be considered a stark, raving homocidial racist nationalist.

    The first immigration act he passed, suggested only Free White people could immigrate and be called Citizens of the United States of America.

    Naturalization Act of 1790

    George Washington signed the Naturalization Act of 1790, which excluded non-white races from becoming naturalized citizens of the United States. This law established that "any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen" if "he is a person of good character." In 1795, the law was revised increasing the established residency to 5 years and included renunciation of "allegiance and fidelity" to their country of origin.

    https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/#cite_note-29


    This law was passed in order to prohibit freed African Americans from gaining citizenship.





    The 14th Amendment in 1868 allowed African Americans who were formerly slaves citizenship, however, the Naturalization Act continued to prohibit African Americans and Asian migrants from gaining citizenship. Senator Charles Sumner in the early 1870s had tried to amend the Act by ridding the word "white", but his bill was defeated by Congress.https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/#cite_note-30Native Americans were also excluded by the Naturalization Act, however, in 1923 President Calvin Coolidge signed a bill giving them full citizenship. It was not until 1943 that the Act was amended to allow certain non white immigrant groups into the U.S. to become citizens. It was not until 1953 that allowed all non white immigrants to become citizens. For 163 years after George Washington signed the Naturalization Act, non white immigrants were barred citizenship into the country.

    George Washington and slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Liberalism at it's finest DZ?

    But ofcourse since your going to cite how liberalism brought to us and triumped by our Founders, then perhaps you'd care to know the mindset of the Founders, too?

    "Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people [blacks] are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them." --Thomas Jefferson

    Liberalism at it's finest?

    Do you really want to equate Liberalism with that of our racist white founding Fathers? :laugh:

    Im just asking, since you attempted to make them look like something they werent with your post, that I am replying to.


    And if you want to bring up Lincoln, as a rock for your liberalism, I suggest you dont. That guy would be some sort of racist by today's standards.

    Since the 1840s Lincoln had been an advocate of the American Colonization Society program of colonizing blacks in Liberia. In an October 16, 1854[10]:a speech at Peoria, Illinois[11] (transcribed after the fact by Lincoln himself),[10]:b Lincoln points out the immense difficulties of such a task are an obstacle to finding an easy way to quickly end slavery.[10]:c [12]
    My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,—to their own native land. But a moment’s reflection would convince me that whatever of high hope (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible.[13] Lincoln mentioned colonization favorably in his first Emancipation Proclamation, and continued to support efforts at colonization throughout his presidency.[14] As late as Feb 1865 Congress was debating funding to ship blacks to Africa (Congression Record Feb 1865).



    Abraham Lincoln on slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Yep, Liberalism :rolleyes: :laugh:


    enacted NAFTA,

    Im not too familar with the in's and out's of NAFTA, but I see it's similar to the EU - WHICH HAS DONE NOTHING BUT DESTROY EUROPE.


    or defeated Jim Crow/segregation.

    Examples of Jim Crow Laws


    DownZero, I am down right ignorant of the Jim Crow Laws, they're meaning and history; So I googled them.

    And from the looks of it, nothing was really defeated. During the migrations from the South, into the North, Whites seemingly left the cities en mass, and into surrounding areas.

    Is that an example of Desegregation?

    Im always impressed to hear the liberals talk so fondly about Multiculturalism, while they live in areas which are nearly homogenous, with nice, tall scary looking gates, with private security etc. :rolleyes:

    I've sat at quicky/pickies, like Taco Bell and watched numerous times where the people seemingly, unnoticably self-segregated; Strange.

    I know one thing though, from speaking, reading and watching Black men talk, educated Black men; None of them had anything positive to say.
    It was mainly complaining about desegregation. Because when that occured, Black Money, meaning money of which Blacks invested into they're own communities, businesses crumbled under the weight of White business.

    You can find many who hold these views on Youtube, I believe one is tmotdrivetime.

    And Educationally speaking, for blacks the only thing I remember hearing gained was this.

    The researchers found that Blacks gained an average of .18 IQ points a year on Whites from 1972 to 2002 for a total gain of 5.4 IQ points. Further, Blacks have gained on Whites at all points in the distribution of ability, with gains being only modestly lower for those in the top 10 percent.

    Black-White Gap in IQ Scores Closing, Study Finds

    Which obviously isnt acknowledging how pathetic our Public School systam has become; instead it cites as you might aspects, which really havent played a part.

    But nevermind the that in 2005 or 7, Black children made up a total of 48% of the National high School drop out rate, with latino children in a close second place, followed by whites, then asians.

    I still havent seen the positives; and if the above is.. :laugh: Then Liberalism has a long way to go.



    Oh, damn. We did all those things.

    Yep, sure did. PLEASE TAKE THE CREDIT!!!! :yesway:

    Yep, I forgot. Nothing good ever came from liberal ideas at all.

    Atleast we can agree; and once again, I apologize for making you look like a fool, you may now go drone on about how grammatically wrong I am, how my spelling is crap. ;)

    Socialist, communist, liberal, eh? I guess you couldn't read closely enough to realize that they're at odds with each other in the article. You probably missed his point about the socialists having more in common with conservatives than liberals, then, too.

    Oh no. I saw that.. And I dispute it. Any conservative who adopts Liberal policies as we know them, understand them clearly isnt thinking with his head on too straight.

    I've shown you just how "liberal" the founders were.

    I've shown you how "liberalism" really hasnt benefited America.
    And the pathetic part is, I didnt really even touch on the more socially provocative issues of 'feel goodism' fantsey vs hard, cold reality, nor the multiple other aspects which are destroying this Nation.


    Ball is in your court, brother. I respect your opinion, though I think it is quite obviously historically incorrect, which does a grave injustice to you, but also Americans who stupor with your beliefs.
    I dont blame you, I think everyone is good hearted, and some want to be progressive; even if it's unconstitutional, or going against the grind which the Founding Fathers wanted, who would undoubtedly, had they maintained they're beliefs, certainly would be hated(Or seen with disdain) by just about everyone on INGO (Speculation!).

    Perhaps you can convince me on how attacking the religion of Christianity, an American heritage is good for Liberalism?

    Or Abortions?

    Perhaps the Liberal agenda on illegal immigration?

    Out-look on Media, control?

    Patriotism?

    Brother, the list never ends. I am perhaps more apologetic that you entertained the notions you did, with the fallacy of the public school teachings, without actually researching half the crap you said, from all points of view.


    Fox News and it's communist agenda wont fly, brother.
     
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 7, 2010
    2,211
    38
    (INDY-BRipple)
    It is very rare on this forum, or any other, when one User1 says one thing and User2 says something else, then User1 reverses his original opinion and agrees with User2. The arguments we have are for the people who probably don't even have INGO accounts and come here to read, the undecided viewers who don't want to get into a heated debate, but like to hear more than -

    "If someone burns an American flag I'm going to hunt them down and burn their house down! Cause that's what freedom means to me!"

    So that's why a few of us argue with the other 90%. Not to sway you, or make friends with you, but because sensible people like to hear both sides of the argument, take them both in, and make an informed decision. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we don't, it doesn't matter. And of course, I'm only speaking for myself here. I don't have a clue why other people argue, I'll leave it up to them to explain themselves.


    I have to disagree. Humans are not robots, we do not maintain the same beliefs throughout our entire life.

    As one grows older, learns and converses with other's, as you said opinions or "informed choices" are made; The suggest an evolution in thinking patterns.

    I know my beliefs have changed significantly since my daughter was born on issues such as Abortion.

    I know my beliefs on Christianity has changed, from being extremely anti-Christian to being a wilful defender.

    My beliefs on numerous other issues have changed; I guess Obama got his wish. Some "change" you can believe in.

    Point is, and I dont really call it 'arguing', but debating, with civil tones is not only good, but should be made a requirement.

    Until Downzero posted this thread, I would've never thought to compare our Founders to Liberal; Which in an essence, DZ's article is.... gasp... correct... to a degree :noway:

    Considering they buffed at every European system out there. Which in theoritical action, makes them liberals.

    Would we say they are remotely close to it, today? Heck no. But I dispute the objectivity of even comparing at all, because it's simply not reasonable, nor does it suggest who those founders would've sided with.
    The only thing we can do to see where they wanted this country to head to, is by reviewing they're actions, words and desires.:)
     

    SemperFiUSMC

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 23, 2009
    3,480
    38
    You offer nothing to support your opinion, which is why I was critical of you in the first place. You offer no substantive criticism, only a single word comment that Hayek's work, which provides philosophical support for probably 50% of your political positions, is "drivel." I also suspect that you refuse to argue because you're incapable of doing so, but I could be wrong on that.

    The entire purpose of a forum is to argue with people. It seems that you disagree, but I'm not sure why. If everyone agreed, we wouldn't need a forum, or it'd look very different than this. Perhaps that's why you think you can come here, type the word, "drivel" and move on to agreeing with everyone else. There's nothing to discuss if you refuse to point out what you disagree about. You make comments like, "It has to be disheartening to have 90% of the members think your ideas are nuts," which are not only utterly false, but utterly without merit as they are contrary to empirical reality (I get posts of support on my rep page all day long). People may disagree with me that forums are for "discussion" or "debate" or whatever, but the underlying idea is the same thing and this is merely a semantic distinction. The conclusion still holds: without disagreement, there'd be no purpose for a forum at all.

    I gave you negative reputation points because you refuse to rationalize your "opinion." I really don't care what your opinion is, but I do care a lot about your reasoning for holding that opinion. You've apparently decided that all you owe the forum is your opinion, which as far as I'm concerned is totally pointless if it's conclusory. And if you think I'm unwilling to defend my, "opinions," feel free to start a thread about it, because I have no problems showing a rational basis for my conclusions, and it won't be some appeal to nostalgia or theology--you can bet on it.

    So let me get this straight. You post a 4,000 word essay loaded with drival without so much as a single word of commentary. Then you neg rep someone who adds one more word of original thought than you do. My opinion? Troll.

    Colt, you're a better man than I. I neg repped him for you.
     

    Fletch

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 19, 2008
    6,379
    48
    Oklahoma
    I understand the distinction between libertarian-liberal and socialist-liberal, but for better or worse, I grew up in America and am used to "liberal" referring to socialists, so I will abandon the term as it applies to my own philosophy (and apparently downzero's) and use "libertarian", because this argument is tangling up my brain.

    I will also assume that Nordic's arguments are in fact aimed at libertarian-liberal rather than socialist-liberal, since the former is clearly what Hayek and downzero have been talking about.

    Perhaps you can convince me on how attacking the religion of Christianity, an American heritage is good for Liberalism?

    As a libertarian Christian, I have seen both vehemence and respect on the part of libertarians in general toward Christianity. Vehemence tends to be a reaction to the theocratic tendencies of various Christian groups, and falls in line with what Hayek writes above:

    When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions....

    It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits. I sometimes feel that the most conspicuous attribute of liberalism that distinguishes it as much from conservatism as from socialism is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere of other persons do not justify coercion....

    Or Abortions?

    Abortion is a difficult topic among libertarians, and one is not likely to find consensus between any two libertarians one engages on it. There are a few others like it, such as...

    ... illegal immigration?

    Granted, on immigration most libertarians will probably fall into the camp of expanding/relaxing it, but there are quite a few "defend the borders" types in our ranks.

    Out-look on Media, control?

    Not really sure what you're asking here. Media-as-business should certainly be left alone to do as it wishes, even if it attempts unsavory "guidance" of public opinion. Libertarians do not generally agree to the "public trust" model of the airwaves.

    Patriotism?

    Again, a divided topic. Libertarians politically love freedom, first and foremost, and there is much wrapped up in the concept of "patriotism" that is decidedly anti-freedom.

    Fox News and it's communist agenda wont fly, brother.

    The weird part about this is that I don't actually know a whole lot of libertarians who watch Fox News for anything more than a laugh, if they watch it at all. I do know a ton of conservatives who watch it as if it's the Old Time Gospel Hour.

    Generally speaking, I find that a person's opinion has worth proportionate to the amount of work they've put into it. Television and radio generally don't require any effort by the viewer/listener, and due to the format even hour-long "investigative journalism" shows on a single topic tend to be heavily simplified and extremely slanted. Reading, which can require a great deal of effort (depending on the material) tends to produce a more thoughtful and well-considered opinion.
     

    Ramen

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 9, 2009
    488
    16
    It would have helped had the original post started with some commentary about Hayek's use of the word liberal and what the original poster believes in comparison to the article. :twocents:

    Also, I disagree that 90% of this forum is "conservative". From what I see, it is about split even between libertarians and conservatives, with a hidden handful of modern day "liberals" who can barely type a post in this specific subforum without getting flamed. :flamethrower:

    Still, as much as I am a fan of Hayek, copy and posting a huge wall of text on a forum that people hop on and off of is not going to get a lot of good discussion. Maybe next time link a video or some bullet points with personal commentary and then link the article for others to read when they get a chance.

    I mean, many people on this forum who identify with conservatism are going to agree with Hayek if you give them something like this:

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk"]YouTube - "Fear the Boom and Bust" a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem[/ame]
     
    Last edited:
    Top Bottom