Why can't liberals think for themselves

Mises in the same class as Burke, Hume and Coleridge?

He predicted it it would turn into a financial drain minded by a clueless bureaucracy and that Britain would be better off adopting the superior German model. As somebody who comes from a frame,y with a big NHS background he was right in all points. Also don't beleive the thatcheritees he was a liberal who didn't like the conservatives.

Human nature isn't always great, but changing it by force leads to far worse consequences as we have seen. Humans are not machines that can be forced into doing what they're told by betters.

I'll definitely read it as I'm not ignorant enough to suggest I know 100% I am right but its just my viewpoint and beliefs at the moment. Thanks for the suggestion.

I would like to challenge the above point though. I am not suggesting doing it by force but through education. We should educate the masses to work towards social goals and collectivism as opposed to individualistic goals and self gain. Rather than work hard for yourself you work hard for your community and when the people see the benefits that is rewarding. I'm not suggesting forcing this on people but educating people to think in this way so that we can allow it to naturally happen over centuries. I don't believe its going to be easy or a quick fix but good things often come to those that wait.



If you disagree with me then you also disagree with Einstein and that's a pretty big thing. I think he is absolutely correct.

The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next
- A. Lincoln

The direction in which education starts a man will determine his future in life
- Plato

Education is the key to unlock the golden door to freedom.
- G. Washington

If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for 10 years, plant trees. If your plan is for 100 years, educate children.
- Confucius

Also don't beleive the thatcheritees he was a liberal who didn't like the conservatives.

WOW.

You're so objective. I notice you haven't included a single person on that list that disagrees with you. Have you read Oakeshott, Burke, Hume, Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Coledrige, Wordsworth? I could go on.

All your 'so called extensive reading' tells me is you are fool subject to confirmation bias.

Yes, I have read the works Burke, Hume and many others but none of them supported my argument further above. I also point you to where i said 'Please don't say I've not done research or thought this through. Of course this isn't the entire thing or I'd be here all night but I have thought about it and done loads of research'.

Why did you choose to ignore that statement? I could have went on for ages, citing quotes from books and wrote you a book myself if you wanted critically analysing it but the reality is, I don't have time to do that and I hazard a guess that over 99% of the people on this forum wouldn't read it if I did anyway. I'd be better off publishing a book.

You really shouldn't make assumptions about people you do not know one iota about.

"Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state's helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong.... Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make the provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken"

Chapter 9 by the way

Are you finished talking rubbish?

Nor is there any reason why the state should not
help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in
providing for those common hazards of life against which few can
make adequate provision.

It is planning for security of the second kind which has such
an insidious effect on liberty. It is planning designed to protect
individuals or groups against diminutions of their incomes.

No, he predicted that centralisation and planning leads to totalitarianiasm.

If you don't understand the difference between "a clueless bureaucracy" and totalitarianism, you really aren't worth debating (genuinely, I don't think you're intellectually up to it if you don't understand the distinction)

You shouldn't be looking for people who agree with you. I did not make an assumption, I infered you were looking for authorities that agreed with you, so far I have read three posts and in every single one of them you made a baseless appeal to authority.

What it actually says is



Gives a somewhat different message, no?

But can I take it you agree that planning for socialised medicine is perfectly acceptable?

More assumptions. I was not looking for people who agree with me. I read the works of many people and then I came to my conclusions. Those I did agree with I listed in my prior post. You made an assumption that I went looking for people who agreed with me. That assumption was completely wrong. Also, I will not be going into lengthy discussions about conservatism in this thread because this thread is nothing to do with that. If you wish for a discussion on the works of Burke and conservatism you are well within your rights to create that thread.

If you disagree with me then you also disagree with Einstein and that's a pretty big thing. I think he is absolutely correct.

He represents an opposing view. I do not so adamently dismiss those who disagree with me

I don't believe Thatcherites to be true conservatives, anyway. Too narrow-minded with their deregulations and free market God. What happens when the whole of England is bought up by Russian, American and Saudi oligarchs? Goodbye Britain, hello Israel 2.0

Oh dear, you're confusing a belief that Mises couldn't hold a candle to the others with the idea that I "dismiss those who disagree with me"

Can you offer any serious argument, any unimpeachable logic, that A leads to B in that case? Or is it just a laughable attempt at rhetoric on your part?

This is why liberals can't think for themselves. fyi, Einstein stole so much of the work he is famous for, it's not even funny.

/thread

Yes I support the NHS...

Inference: 'I looked for people to conform to my views, i'm not going to bother responding to your request to explain Burkes views because I havent actually got a clue'

This is why liberals can't think for themselves. fyi, Einstein stole so much of the work he is famous for, it's not even funny.
/thread

And you accept that the NHS inherently involves a degree of economic planning that has not lead to totalitarianism?