Why I Am Not a Conservative

[Fletch]

New title "I do not write my own material nor have a cognition of my own (period)"

I think that, given his later efforts in the thread, this is an unfair assessment.

 

[downzero]

I think that, given his later efforts in the thread, this is an unfair assessment.

I actually think it's a personal attack. It's just a wordier way of saying that I'm a moron.

 

[IndyMonkey]

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.

 

[CarmelHP]

I was reading Hayek 30 years ago, but I don't think that he's the last word on defining what a Conservative is, especially an American Conservative, why is Hayek's definition any more valid than this guy?

 

[CarmelHP]

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?

 

[downzero]

So was Obama, your point?

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.

Nor has he published any scholarship under his name as far as I know. The Harvard Law Review does takes student submissions, but they have a policy of leaving the author's name off.

Not to mention that the University of Chicago Press publishes all kinds of books, not just those related to its professors.

Then again, this man, who I have personally met, used to teach there as well:
Lund, Nelson - George Mason Law

I guess everyone at the University of Chicago is an idiot, in your opinion. I'll let others take a look at the facts and decide for themselves.

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.

 

[rockhopper46038]

It's not the word, "liberal", that is the problem; it's the actions of those "Liberals" who profess to be open-minded, but only when you agree with them. That champion free speech; but not if it makes them uncomfortable. That denounce infringement on individual rights; until they wish to expand the reach of government. No, it's not the word "liberal", it's the corruption of the term that we see every day, who want to drive the bulk of America into their nanny-state arms until no one possesses any self-reliance anymore. And they don't even want to be called "Liberals" now; they want to hide behind the term "Progressive", and they've managed thus far to get most of their cronies in the MSM to go along with them on it. The only good thing that may come out of it is that perhaps true Libertarians can throw off the stigma of association with the "Liberals" we have come to loathe.

 

[CarmelHP]

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.

Whether one is a "senior lecturer" or a "professor" is of interest mainly to other academics. The courses they teach still go on the transcripts as credits toward that institution's degrees. Their scholarship, or lack of it, still reflect on the institution.

So your point is, again, what? That everyone's knee should bend before them? Some of us have actually been to top-tier law schools, are members of the bar in multiple jurisdictions, have "personally met" Scalia, and Posner, Lund, Lott and Easterbrook, and other jurist-professor types and find them somewhat interesting, bright, but not philosopher-kings. You, my dear boy, are merely impudent.

 

[IndyMonkey]

impudent.

I had to look that one up. I should of paid better attention in school.

 

[downzero]

Whether one is a "senior lecturer" or a "professor" is of interest mainly to other academics.

Nonsense. An "academic" who doesn't publish is not much of an academic at all.

He didn't produce any "scholarship" because he didn't publish. Teaching is irrelevant.]

All of which has nothing to do with what the publishing company that bears the University's name publishes, anyway.

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.

 

[printcraft]

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!

 

[downzero]

True

bama lectured on Saul Alinsky - Rules for Radicals.

That's great!

Thank you.

Now that the facts are out about Obama, let's get back to talking about Hayek, who pissed off the world so much by winning the Nobel Prize that he is perhaps the most hated economist ever (by the "left").

 

[groovatron]

You all smell bad and your mommys dress you funny.

 

[CarmelHP]

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.

 

[downzero]

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.

Actually I'm not much of a Hayek fan myself. So if you think my anger with the fact that people won't argue on the merits has something to do with my conclusions about him, I'm sorry to say that you're wrong.

Hayek has influenced people to think and learn, and I think that's a good thing. But there are many points on which I disagree with him, so he's not the kind of person with which I'd find broad agreement.

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.

 

[CarmelHP]

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.

Who is "everyone else." I see you love relying on the logical fallacies. I pointed out at least someone else that disagreed. Need I point out many more. No use for me to argue further with your such masterfully childish tautological rejoinders.

 

[Randall Flagg]

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 just have to say that while single beliefs might change, your belief system does not. Unless you cast aside all your beliefs and investigate each one for it's own merits and with no bias, then your views, are forever cloudy.

Do not take this to heart, no one has escaped this for their whole life, most have woke up later to this knowledge.

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.

Which is why no one wins an argument, and why getting into debates, although fun, is mainly useless to the people debating, but as pointed out, can provide views for the true open minded people reading the thread.

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.

 

[downzero]

Good post, Randall. I'd rep you but I'm out.

Mill's On Liberty talks about this at length.

 

[shibumiseeker]

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.

Even the most open mind will have their biases. Knowing where a bias colors judgement is important in learning. The broader a worldview one has the better the ability one has to integrate new facts, ideas, and understandings into the matrix of a personal belief structure. The challenge to the honest scientist is to devise a method which eliminates the researcher bias to the greatest degree possible, then to openly report findings even when they challenge the bias. That sort of rigor does not come easily.

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.

I think where people stumble is in what constitutes evidence. For some a voice in their head is evidence of a god or gods, for others they are dead relatives talking to them, and for yet other folks it's a sign of schizophrenia. 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?

 

[Randall Flagg]

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

I feel the context is different because of how we came about learning it(passed down,lived it,heard about it,etc) That being said, seeing others viewpoints dont makes yours wrong unless yours really is wrong. But with someones preconcieved notion, most views will not even be considered.

fox news did a study in which they showed a video to people with a preconcieved notion on the video subject. After showing them the false video, they went back and showed them the real video. people with the preconcieved notion believed the false video MORE, AFTER they saw the real video.


There has been a couple of studies along these lines, belief systems and preconcieved notions are imho, intellect killers. However i already know that 94% of the population wont change their views not matter if the evidence is true or not, which is why i try to stay away from online debates with "smart" guys...lol


I have no clue why i am rambling on, i think your post was spot on, thanks for your reply and i'll hit you with some rep now!