[tomder55]

However, I have the feeling I have read something like this before in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.

The philosophical basis has not changed. Levin's book works because it makes the conservative message relevant to today;and he lays waste to some of the false assumptions about what conservatism means... and for that matter exposes the left argument for what it is ;a road to tyranny. .

[ETWolverine]

Elliot, You seemed to have summarized "Liberty and Tyranny" very well. I attempt to get a copy and read it. However, I have the feeling I have read something like this before in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.

Liberty and Tyranny is very much a distillation of Locke, Burke, Jefferson, Smith, Lincoln and all the other great conservative thinkers throughout history. Much of what you see in the book will be repetitive of those great thinkers. Levin admits that he hasn't created anything new with his book, he has simply retated the old thoughts in a new way and applied it to modern issues. The one great advance that the book makes over its predecessors is in its clear contrast between conservatism and statism, a contrast that, to my knowledge, has not been made in such a clear manner before.

It's STILL a terrific book for understanding the genesis of conservatism and how conservative thought can be applied to solve today's issues.

Elliot

[excon]

Hello T:

If you want to read about conservatism WITHOUT the moral/religious overtones, read Harry Browne's "How To Live Free In An Unfree World". Read Robert Ringer's "Restoring the American Dream", or read any of Ayn Rands stuff.

Read about the conservatism of Barry Goldwater, the Republican nominee for president in '64. His nickname WAS Mr. Conservative. Check out Ron Paul, Republican/Libertarian from Texas.

These sources'll give you a far broader idea about what conservatism is rather than the modern day narrow view presented on these pages.

excon

[ETWolverine]

These sources'll give you a far broader idea about what conservatism is rather than the modern day narrow view presented on these pages.

excon

The modern-day view, huh...

Like citations from Locke, Jefferson, Lincoln, Smith, Franklin, Burke, etc.

Perhaps you ought to read it before rejecting it.

But then again, by your own admission you don't read what WE write before rejecting it, so why should we be surprised that you would reject Levin's book that way?

Elliot

[excon]

But then again, by your own admission you don't read what WE write before rejecting it, so why should we be surprised that you would reject Levin's book that way?

Hello again, Elliot:

What I read was your synopsis of it above. That was enough. It's swill.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, Elliot:

What I read was your synopsis of it above. That was enough. It's swill.

excon

Actually, it wasn't my synopsis. It is taken verbatum from the final chapter of the book, from Levin's site.

But you don't seem to have any response to any of it. So all you've got is name-calling.

Sux being so badly outclassed, don't it.

Elliot

[tomder55]

Or if you want to read where socialist liberal statism leads to I suggest Friedrich von Hayek (recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1974) The Road to Serfdom (1944)

[excon]

But you don't seem to have any response to any of it. So all you've got is name-calling.

Hello again, Elliot:

I believe I mentioned above the moral/religious aspects of his/your conservatism. I believe any one who is capable of reading the kings English will be able to find them in your/his screed. They're glaringly obvious.

I was simply suggesting some conservative resources where those things are ABSENT.

That's what you could call a pre emptive response.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, Elliot:

I believe I mentioned above the moral/religious aspects of his/your conservatism. I believe any one who is capable of reading the kings English will be able to find them in your/his screed. They're glaringly obvious.

I was simply suggesting some conservative resources where those things are ABSENT.

That's what you could call a pre emptive response.

excon

Conservatism, REAL Conservatism, not the wishy-washy stuff that the moderate Republicans call conservatism, has morality and G-d at its core. At its core, Conservatism is about the G-d-given inalienable rights of man that is spoken of in the Declaration of Independence.

If it doesn't have G-d and morality at it's core, it isn't Conservatism. It MIGHT be libertarianism. It might share some opinions with Conservatism. But it ain't Conservatism.

That would be why you had to choose noted self-proclaimed LIBERTARIANS like Ayn Rand, Robert Ringer, Harry Browne, and RuPaul, instead of finding real Conservatives for people to read. You couldn't find any Conservatives, especially not classical ones, that don't mention G-d and morality. They don't exist.

As for Goldwater, here's my favorite Goldwater quote:

“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ``needed'' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests,'' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”

That quote pretty much matches the Levin citation I posted above.

Game, set and match.

Elliot

[excon]

You couldn't find any Conservatives, especially not classical ones, that don't mention G-d and morality. They don't exist.

Game, set and match.

Hello again, Elliot:

It pains me to keep reminding you of what I said. I mean, it wasn't more than a couple hours ago and you forgot already... Oh well, its my job.

I believe I DID mention the Republican candidate for president in 1964, Barry Goldwater, who was nicknamed MR. CONSERVATIVE. I don't expect that you'll accept him as a REAL conservative, however, simply because he doesn't share your bigotry.

But, no matter what you say, you don't get any more Conservative than Senator Goldwater...

As a matter of fact, much of what you call conservatism today, is really LIBERALISM is disguise. You believe in using the power of government to enforce YOUR social agenda. You don't get more liberal than that. The DEA that your standard right wing Republican thinks is great is a good example, but is as LIBERAL a program as you get.

REAL conservatives, on the other hand, don't believe in imposing their morality on the masses.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Actually, I edited my comments above... I quoted Goldwater for you. And his citation pretty much matches what Levin wrote.

So what Goldwater believed and what Levin writes are EXACTLY THE SAME.

Which would mean that your "real conservative" and Levin believe the same thing. Which means that what Levin wrote is "real conservatism" even by YOUR standards.

Another one bites the dust.

Keep it coming...

Elliot

[excon]

Hello again, Elliot:

Here are some of my favorite Goldwater quotes:

''I see no harm at all with having gays in the military,'' Goldwater, the 1964 GOP presidential nominee, said on CNN's Larry King Live talk show.

''I think that if you left it up to the American people, the attitude would be, 'What the hell, there's nothing wrong with a gay as long as he doesn't misbehave himself,' '' Goldwater said.

"When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."

In response to Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell's opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, of which Falwell had said, "Every good Christian should be concerned", Goldwater retorted: "Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the a$$."

excon

[TUT317]

[QUOTE=ETWolverine;2058759]Conservatism, REAL Conservatism, not the wishy-washy stuff that the moderate Republicans call conservatism, has morality and G-d at its core. At its core, Conservatism is about the G-d-given inalienable rights of man that is spoken of in the Declaration of Independence.

If it doesn't have G-d and morality at it's core, it isn't Conservatism. It MIGHT be libertarianism. It might share some opinions with Conservatism. But it ain't Conservatism.

That would be why you had to choose noted self-proclaimed LIBERTARIANS like Ayn Rand, Robert Ringer, Harry Browne, and RuPaul, instead of finding real Conservatives for people to read. You couldn't find any Conservatives, especially not classical ones, that don't mention G-d and morality. They don't exist.

What you have said about some classical thinkers is probably correct, as far as Smith is concerned I am sure he would say that the,"invisible economic hand" which operates in the world comes from God. For Smith the, 'invisible had' works to create economic prosperity and there human happiness. This is pretty much Smith concept of morality.

The idea of religion and ethics being necessarily dependent on each other appears to have popped up again. In earlier posts I pointed out they don't have to be mutually inclusive, you can have one without the other.

Any economic theory which includes the rest of the world must have a naturalistic content.
Why? Because when dealing with the rest of the world we need to consider issues of economic morality and not just our God given right to economic freedom. I am not saying our God given right to economic freedom is not important, but it needs to be considered within context.

Adam smith wrote some 300 years ago when in a society which was less complex in terms of economics and politics. Smith was part of a minority who had wealth and privilege. Most people had very few rights afforded to them. The 'invisible hand' may have worked well in the past but this type of teleological approach can create problems when applied to modern society.

Why is Smith's 'invisible hand' teleological? In our experience the 'invisible hand' moves with a purpose towards a goal (economic prosperity). It does so without human interference. If we want to we can interfere with this process e.g.. Government restrictions. No doubt you would say that this is unnatural interference with the process and economics should be left to develop naturally.

This teleological approach leads to 'a means justifies the end' outcome. Why? Because positive interference needs to be implemented in order to redirect economic theory on its correct course.

As Smith would argue economic prosperity is derived from a set of circumstances through the work of, 'the invisible hand'. These circumstances promote freedom and happiness. Therefore, it seems to follow that individuals will pursue economic freedom.

If you actively work towards undoing what ever restrictions are in place in order to achieve the "true" outcome then you are saying that the means justifies the end.

[ETWolverine]

If you actively work towards undoing what ever restrictions are in place in order to achieve the "true" outcome then you are saying that the means justifies the end.

No, what I'm saying is that the restrictions themselves are justified by "the end justifies the means".

Take health care reform as an example. The supposed purpose of health care reform is to fix the injustices of the health care system in America. The means to do so is nationalization of health care in America. The ends, however, as shown in every case of health care nationalization around the world, is decreased wealth through increased taxation, decreased personal liberty in choosing medical coverage and medical procedures, rationing of assets within the medical system, higher costs and lower efficiency. This is UNIVERSAL in government-run health care systems. Additionally, the way it has been proposed here, it would result in small businesses being driven out of business, higher unemployment and negative economic growth. These are the means that are justified by the end of "universal health care".

By contrast, the Conservatives have proposed a number of methods of reforming health care to cover those who are not currently covered WITHOUT government intervention, and by limiting government interference that ALREADY exists. All of these solutions would serve to make health care more affordable, more accessible and more competitive across the board. And taken together, they would result in universal coverage without government interference. They are free market solutions to the problems of health care. They don't have to be forced... they occur naturally as long as nothing interferes with it.

So I disagree with you when you say that the Smith-style, invisible-hand, free-market economics needs to be justified. It simply happens of its own accord, as long as nothing interferes with it. The interference with the natural order is what needs justification, not the natural order itself.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, Elliot:

Here are some of my favorite Goldwater quotes:

''I see no harm at all with having gays in the military,'' Goldwater, the 1964 GOP presidential nominee, said on CNN's Larry King Live talk show.

''I think that if you left it up to the American people, the attitude would be, 'What the hell, there's nothing wrong with a gay as long as he doesn't misbehave himself,' '' Goldwater said.

"When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."

In response to Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell's opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, of which Falwell had said, "Every good Christian should be concerned", Goldwater retorted: "Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the a$$."

excon

None of these quotes disagrees with anything that Levin says in his book. And Goldwaters other quotes make it clear that he agreed with every single thing that Levin DID say in his book.

Sorry, you are wrong AGAIN. Aren't you getting tired of that?

Elliot

[excon]

It simply happens of its own accord, as long as nothing interferes with it. The interferance with the natural order is what needs justification, not the natural order itself.

Hello again:

The world has shifted, as I find myself in agreement yet again with my right winged friend...

In his insular world, nothing HAS interfered with it either... In theory, he's absolutely right. It used to be that the men who ran corporations ran them so that they offered the BEST product at the BEST price, and did their BEST to drive their competitors out of business...

When that happened, we ALL benefited...

But, of course, it DIDN'T happen. Somewhere along the way, corporations found out that they could make MORE money by lobbying congress to change the rules, than they could by competing in the free market. And, congress did just that.

Clearly, the corporations wouldn't be spending the billions they are on lobbyists if they weren't getting something in return... Nope. They'd be spending it on R&D, or customer service or one of those other old fashioned things they used to do to compete in the marketplace...

When corporations do that, we ALL get screwed. Of course, it's happening. The only who doesn't know about it, is the Wolverine.

So, when "free" market rules are BENT, government has to BEND 'em back.

excon

[George_1950]

One thing that is needed is 'reform' of the onerous tax code. Where is Obama, Pelosi, Reid? They resemble the Three Stooges, don't you think?

[ETWolverine]

So, when "free" market rules are BENT, government has to BEND 'em back.

excon

Why not let the PEOPLE bend them back? What is it in our 200+ year history that makes you believe that the cure for government intervention is MORE government intervention?

The REAL solution is to go back to the rules set forth in the Constitution.

If you eliminate the extra-Constitutional powers of the government, there will be nothing for lobbyists to lobby for because government won't have the power to grant them what they are lobbying for, and they will simply DISAPPEAR FROM EXISTENCE.

If you eliminate the extra-Constitutional powers of the government, THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO INTERVENE.

Both of these will bring back the true free-market system. And all it takes is following the Constitution as it was written.

Whereas INCREASING the extra-constitutional powers of government is what created this mess in the first place, and therefore cannot possibly be a solution to the problem.

Excon's solution is more of the same. The definition of "insanity" is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. That makes excon's solution insane.

Elliot

[excon]

Why not let the PEOPLE bend em back? What is it in our 200+ year history that makes you believe that the cure for government intervention is MORE government intervention?

The REAL solution is to go back to the rules set forth in the Constitution.

Hello again, Elliot:

We agree once again... Your solution, however, isn't going to happen in the real world. It's good in theory, but it's never going to happen on the ground. Once the corporations have congress's ear, they're NEVER going to let it go.

But, where I live, in the real world, good tight corporate regulation IS possible. Will it happen? I don't think so. I think corporate American hasn't had it's way with us enough yet.

excon

[TUT317]

Hello Elliot,

"So I disagree with you when you say that the Smith-style, invisible-hand, free-market economy needs to be justified. It simply happens of its own accord, as long as nothing interferes with it. The interference with the natural order is what needs justification, not the natural order itself."

I agree with what you are saying here in terms of how the free- market economy should work in theory. However, I have a problem with the theory itself. I am prepared to argue that this classical formulation is a teleological explanation of economic cause and effect. What is the problem with teleological explanations? Nothing, except when they are applied to cause and effect.

Teleological explanations explain "WHY" something has happened but don't deal very well with "HOW" something works. In other words, this type of classical theory explains why economic theory works in terms of psychology. In this case the psychology appears to be, what people naturally desire.

Economic theory needs to be more than just an expression of economic interest or desire. If not then it becomes an emotivist theory of economics. Emotivist theory also does not deal with facts ( the "how" of economic theory). Teleological explanations were still popular 250-300 years ago. There is nothing wrong with teleological explanations, but modern theories tend to incorporate facts, or the "how" as an integral part of theory.

There is also the possibility that such an approach will lead to an insular outlook in terms of politics and economics. Perhaps that is a matter for later discussion.