Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Why can't liberals think for themselves Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord A)
    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.
    :lol: Mises in the same class as Burke, Hume and Coleridge?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    With all due respect, it sounds like it's you who hasn't read Road to Serfdom.

    Hayek said that, basically, the only role for government was in regulating crime, fraud, the environment, certain consumer protections (dangerous goods, etc).

    Anything else (i.e. social democracy, planning of any significant kind) was the road to serfdom. That hypothesis has been proved wrong by the history of the Western world over the last 70 years

    Are you saying you agree with the NHS?
    "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?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    :lol: Mises in the same class as Burke, Hume and Coleridge?
    He represents an opposing view. I do not so adamently dismiss those who disagree with me, I have read Marx, Mill and more moderate thinkers such as Bernstein as well as extremists on the other side such as Mises.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    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.
    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)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Messiah Complex)
    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
    amusing baseless appeal to authority, false authority actually since he occupied no position of authority in the subject

    I agree with the conclusion; that education makes the man, but one who appeals to authority to make such a claim has a lot to learn.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Also don't beleive the thatcheritees he was a liberal who didn't like the conservatives.
    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
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord A)
    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 of 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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Messiah Complex)
    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.
    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.

    If you have read Burke, would you be so kind to explain his main argument in defence of conservatism?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord A)
    "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?
    What it actually says is

    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.
    Gives a somewhat different message, no?

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

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    No, he predicted that centralisation and planning leads to totalitarianiasm.
    And he was right. He believed that centralisation was a habit, which allowed. To continue would lead to an overall command economy which required a totalitarian government. We've had a mix of Tory governments thrown in so it didn't happen. The fact that various governments kept the NHS doesn't prove anything Other than its popularity. If labour had stayed in power continuously and continued to nationalise as they would have done, we could well have a totalitarian government now.


    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)
    genuineley, I think if you've got to resort to ad hominem then it generally means that you are the one not intellectually up to it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord A)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    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?
    What edition do you have?

    Yes I support the NHS...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Messiah Complex)
    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.
    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'
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Messiah Complex)

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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord A)
    He represents an opposing view. I do not so adamently dismiss those who disagree with me
    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?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HigherMinion)
    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
    I didn't know Israel was owned by Saudi Oligarchs...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    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?
    You've already wrongly dismissed Hayek. I doubt you've read Mises either, his work while extreme is not bad at all. You would know if you bothered to actually read any of it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HigherMinion)
    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
    No he didn't. Your not helping.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord A)
    Yes I support the NHS...
    And you accept that the NHS inherently involves a degree of economic planning that has not lead to totalitarianism?
 
 
 
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.