Corruption of Thomas Sowell

LibertyStudent:

...just wanted to point out, that romantisization of the future is a Marxist meme. "How do we reach utopia?"

False. Keep on studying. Libertarians are the real progressives. Marxists and other leftists stole the idea of progress from them.

I find futurism irrational and much more utopian than traditionalism.

Because you are a conservative after all.

And my point, is that progress doesn't not occur without predecessors and their influence.

I find that point irrelevant, and ultimately progress does not occur without some kind of deviation from past or current norms.

Right, and I find futurism irrational and much more utopian than traditionalism.  At least with traditionalism, we know the failures and issues.  Futurism allows the construction of realities where all problems are solved.

I don't even know what this "futurism" you speak of is; my only premises here are dynamism and creativity (the fundamental thing that traditionalism fails to properly take into account). Traditionalism is just an arbitrary appeal to the past; it creates no progress, just stagnation and a naive attempt to restore the obsolete. Trying something that has already clearly failed, or trying to bring about some romantisized past, is what's truly suicidal and utopian. Furthermore, the notion of realities where all problems are solved is simply a straw man that doesn't follow from anything I've said.

I can't answer for others.  They could be very wrong.  But as I do not know what the forms will be, I can also admit, they may be right.  They are making predictions, and I am listening to them as someone with an open mind.

You're clearly being selective and biased. You dispairage left-libertarians for having certain suspicions about the incentives or tendencies of a free society, and yet cheer the social conservatives on when they start defending a traditionalist or fuedal model.

Brainpolice:

You're clearly being selective and biased. You dispairage left-libertarians for having certain suspicions about the incentives or tendencies of a free society, and yet cheer the social conservatives on when they start defending a traditionalist or fuedal model.

Source?  Or are we back to posting strawmen and then abandoning discussions when called on it?

 

Juan:

False. Keep on studying. Libertarians are the real progressives. Marxists and other leftists stole the idea of progress from them.

It is not false, you are unable to understand it.

Juan:

Because you are a conservative after all.

I've already said I am socially conservative.  But that is a personal choice, not one I choose to impose on others.  I personally consider it incredibly rational.  Conservatism (as in being cautious, or to conserve) is a natural response to a world of scarce resources and tenuous alliances.  I don't get the same sense of enjoyment from being liberal socially or fiscally that others do.  Wired different.

As much as you try to use conservative as a shame word, as left libertarians try to use the word capitalism as a shame word, shame doesn't work on me.  I won't be shamed by ideologues or the state into rejecting what I consider to be true.

You need to check your premises Juan.  They are all jacked up.

 

 

My eyes sort of glaze over at some of these conversations.

I can't make heads or tails of any of it.  I learn a lot of new words -- so I guess there's that.

Brainpolice:

What "secularist brainwashing" are you speaking of?

Of the "let's drive religion out of everywhere". Did you notice you can't say "Merry Christmas" any more? You should say "Happy Holidays" or you risk offending the follower of other relgions (not that I've ever heard them complaining).

LS:

As much as you try to use conservative as a shame word,

No. I use it as a descriptive word.

Natalie:

Brainpolice:

What "secularist brainwashing" are you speaking of?

Of the "let's drive religion out of everywhere". Did you notice you can't say "Merry Christmas" any more? You should say "Happy Holidays" or you risk offending the follower of other relgions (not that I've ever heard them complaining).

I'm sorry, but this is the type of stuff one hears on Bill O'Rielly. I find the claim that religion is shunned in our society to be absurd. It's practically everywhere. In the ghettos, it's church-bar-church-bar, and in the rural areas, it's church-stripclub-church-stripclub.

BP, I am still waiting for you to provide sources for your assertions.  Strawmen or fact?  Let's stop playing the game.  Either fess up, or drop the fabrication of bogus positions for your opponents.

Juan:

LS:

As much as you try to use conservative as a shame word,

No. I use it as a descriptive word.

It's just more self-indulgent nonsense Juan.  Your whole routine rests upon fabricating a BS proposition, and then attacking over and over again with it.  I'm not a theist.  I am not a racist.  I am not a statist.  And I am still a conservative, socially and fiscally.  Until you can stretch your paradigm to accommodate that, you're just acting out on the forums for attention because I have yet to see one of your arguments actually go somewhere.

 

liberty student:

BP, I am still waiting for you to provide sources for your assertions.  Strawmen or fact?  Let's stop playing the game.  Either fess up, or drop the fabrication of bogus positions for your opponents.

I haven't set up any straw men, I'm responding to people openly advocating their own conservative positions. Their positions already are bogus.

Brainpolice:

I haven't set up any straw men, I'm responding to people openly advocating their own conservative positions. Their positions already are bogus.

And you can source to backup your responses?  Please do.

Looking for source on this in particular,

and yet cheer the social conservatives on when they start defending a traditionalist or fuedal model.

I don't recall ever cheering on a trad or feudal model.  Where did you get this from if you are not erecting strawmen?

 

Juan:

Natalie:

If pre-state institutions exist today and many people are still religious despite all the secularist brainwashing by the state why would they disappear post-state?

For the same reason that today people don't believe the earth is flat.

How does this belief affect the society institutions? The church didn't disappear with the rise of the sicences. It just had to adapt.

 

Juan:

Middle Ages in Europe wasn't such a bad time in terms of personal freedom.

Yeah, yeah, we all love the inquisition, feudal slavery, religious wars, that kind of thing -- very libertarian.

You've cut the rest of my post. I said the worst of it happened later. 16, 17, even 18th century.

Serfs were not slaves. They weren't free but they weren't property like slaves were. They were bound to their land and had certain rights.

I was listening to one of the Freedom University lectures and they mentioned that serfs had to give a third of their income to their lord. Today we have to give up 50% or more. And we have to face a lot of restrictions on where we can live or what we can do. So who's more of the serf?

LS:

I'm not a theist.

Hm. That's kinda leftist.

I am not a racist.

That's lefty, too.

I am not a statist.

So you're an anarchist ?

And I am still a conservative, socially

What do you think social conservatism means ? Are you going to ostracize drug users, gays, people who cheat on their spouses, what ? I don't think you want to do that. I don't think you're a social conservative, buy maybe you can shed more light on what you mean when using the term...?

and fiscally.

A fiscal conservative ? You are an anarchist -- you don't believe in low taxes -- you believe in zero taxes...

Until you can stretch your paradigm to accommodate that,

Why do I need to stretch it ? All your positions sound to me like ordinary libertarian positions. Even left-libertarian positions...

On the other hand, it seems as if you want to side with conservatives because for some weird reason you're bent on attacking 'left' libertarians...well, have fun.

Juan, are you ever going to learn how to properly multi-quote a discussion?

On top of many of your posts being facetious and pointless, there is an additional time requirement to break them up for response.  It is a disincentive to respond to you, and seeing as how you thrive on arguments and conflict, I would think you would be more accommodating to your victims by making it easy for them to respond and indulge you.

Seriously, what is the problem?  Do you need a new computer, or is the issue between the monitor and your chair?

 

I already told you how to deal with my posts. You need to *copy* and *paste* -- is that too difficult for you ?

I take it you can't answer and are complaining about formatting as a(lame) excuse ?

Juan:

I already told you how to deal with my posts. You need to *copy* and *paste* -- is that too difficult for you ?

I take it you can't answer and are complaining about formatting as a(lame) excuse ?

Fix your post and I will respond.  I'm not putting in extra effort to respond to you.

Natalie:

You've cut the rest of my post. I said the worst of it happened later. 16, 17, even 18th century.

What about the way the holy and humanitarian catholic church dealt with the Albigenses and their heresy ? That was around the same time of the crusades...

Serfs were not slaves. They weren't free but they weren't property like slaves were.

They were not free, but they were not slaves ? I get it.

They were bound to their land and had certain rights.

Sounds like slavery to me...

I was listening to one of the Freedom University lectures and they mentioned that serfs had to give a third of their income to their lord. Today we have to give up 50% or more. And we have to face a lot of restrictions on where we can live or what we can do. So who's more of the serf?

So, things didn't change much. Still, that doesn't mean that conservatives and their love for feudalism, monarchy, tradition, revealed religion and the like, have anything to do with libertarianism.