I think that, given his later efforts in the thread, this is an unfair assessment.
It amazes me how you guys say that the Conservatives are "Furious Typers" when as I see it it is just the opposite. The Lefties on here drag on and on and on trying to make their point. If that verbage marathon is not enough you resort to cut and paste tactics. C'mon, do you guys really believe all you type and how you try to pound your views on others while totally negating theirs? Same old story from your side, do and think as I say and not as I do. "The problem is the definition of the word is", Sound familiar?
PS; My puter skills are not the best. I can see a BIG BLACK KETTLE but when posted it disappears. Another reason I don't engage in long battles of words.
Can you explain this comment, please?
Do you realize that Justice Scalia, before serving on the Supreme Court, was a Professor of Law there?
So was Obama, your point?
But, just off the top of my head, Milton Friedman, Richard Posner, F.A. Hayek, Gary S. Becker, Antonin Scalia, Robert Lucas, have all taught there.
impudent.
Whether one is a "senior lecturer" or a "professor" is of interest mainly to other academics.
Obama has never been a Professor of Law at any university, and certainly not at the University of Chicago.
He supposedly served as some sort of adjunct lecturer, but he has never held the title of "Professor" or even "Associate Professor" for that matter.
.................
True
bama lectured on Saul Alinsky - Rules for Radicals.
That's great!
All of this nonsense exists as a lame attempt to discredit Hayek, because people here continually refuse to respond to his arguments on their merits.
You ignore that Hayek, whom I respect immensely, is not the last word on American politics or what defines an American Conservative. Is it not to discredit Hayek, but to disagree with your blind adherence to a simplistic taxonomy he advanced. So, you read a book by Hayek, and now you're an expert on your new found hero. Great. What makes you think that everyone else must agree on those definitions. There are alternate definitions, for "Conservative," for example, I posted a link to one, that does not follow Hayek's model. The strawman of "Conservative" that Hayek used in that piece served his argument, but it doesn't describe what American Conservatives today. Throwing a tantrum about it won't make that one of Hayek's better rhetorical exercises.
I also don't see any evidence that he made a straw man argument. Conservatism has no unifying philosophy and never has.
If you have to call everyone else's assessment of "conservative" a straw man, perhaps it's not them, but you, that has a problem identifying what it means to be, "conservative."
I've been wondering for years what you're conserving if it's not the existing order.
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.
Plato's theory of forms discusses it, but thru out time it's always been noted that, your beliefs hold you back from true understanding as you can not hold two different beliefs on the same subject. So if you already hold a belief, anything said against that belief would be dismissed as false.
Most people think standing firm in your beliefs is something to be praised, it's sad we as a species have fallen so far. We have to change our beliefs as new evidence becomes known to us, our beliefs should always be changing if we are investigating that which is our passion.
If I see where someone elses viewpoint can make sense in their context, does it mean that mine is wrong, or is my context different