The Left Loses Ground...

[Bfgrn]

Before you go any further, perhaps you should read this:

The Liberalism/Conservatism Of Edmund Burke and F. A. Hayek: A Critical Comparison

I read the whole article. You read the "title"... I don't find anything I disagree with or anything that supports your position.

Again, how embarrassing for you...

I often quote Edmund Burke...as a matter of fact, the US President who was "Burkean" was Woodrow Wilson.

"If I should claim any man as my master, that man would be Burke"
Woodrow Wilson

It's ironic that I find Burke quotes as some of the best antiseptic for modern conservatism.

Education is the cheap defense of nations.
Edmund Burke

If you can be well without health, you may be happy without virtue.
Edmund Burke

Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.
Edmund Burke

Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Edmund Burke

One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
Edmund Burke

People crushed by laws, have no hope but to evade power. If the laws are their enemies, they will be enemies to the law; and those who have most to hope and nothing to lose will always be dangerous.
Edmund Burke

There is but one law for all, namely that law which governs all law, the law of our Creator, the law of humanity, justice, equity - the law of nature and of nations.
Edmund Burke

Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.
Edmund Burke

To read without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

Toleration is good for all, or it is good for none.
Edmund Burke

Under the pressure of the cares and sorrows of our mortal condition, men have at all times, and in all countries, called in some physical aid to their moral consolations - wine, beer, opium, brandy, or tobacco.
Edmund Burke

We must all obey the great law of change. It is the most powerful law of nature.
Edmund Burke

A State without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.
Edmund Burke

Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe.
Edmund Burke

Of course, Hayek was a classical liberal. That is something you would naturally disagree with, no? Somehow you think he was a modern liberal. Sorry to burst your bubble.

And I don't give a flying rats ass what Edmund Burke says.

There is little or no difference between what I believe and what Hayek and Burke believed. Sorry to burst your bubble. I know it is easier to parrot the bullshit your handlers feed you.

 

[Bfgrn]

Maybe you should actually READ "Road to Serfdom"...

"There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, (the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance) should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. 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."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

Perhaps you should read his Wikipedia page:

"Hayek was concerned about the general view in Britain's academia that fascism was a capitalist reaction to socialism and The Road to Serfdom arose from those concerns. It was written between 1940 and 1943. The title was inspired by the French classical liberal thinker Alexis de Tocqueville's writings on the "road to servitude".[31] It was first published in Britain by Routledge in March 1944 and was quite popular, leading Hayek to call it "that unobtainable book", also due in part to wartime paper rationing.[32] When it was published in the United States by the University of Chicago in September of that year, it achieved greater popularity than in Britain.[33] At the arrangement of editor Max Eastman, the American magazine Reader's Digest also published an abridged version in April 1945, enabling The Road to Serfdom to reach a far wider audience than academics. The book is widely popular among those advocating individualism and classical liberalism.[citation needed]"

Friedrich Hayek - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You simply think his statements are an indictment of conservatism. But then again, I didn't see him trumpeting any of the successes of modern liberalism either.

Why I am Not a Conservative by Hayek IS an indictment of conservatism.

This brings me to the first point on which the conservative and the liberal dispositions differ radically. As has often been acknowledged by conservative writers, one of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such, while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead. There would not be much to object to if the conservatives merely disliked too rapid change in institutions and public policy; here the case for caution and slow process is indeed strong. But the conservatives are inclined to use the powers of government to prevent change or to limit its rate to whatever appeals to the more timid mind. In looking forward, they lack the faith in the spontaneous forces of adjustment which makes the liberal accept changes without apprehension, even though he does not know how the necessary adaptations will be brought about.

...

This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces. Since it distrusts both abstract theories and general principles, it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy. Order appears to the conservatives as the result of the continuous attention of authority, which, for this purpose, must be allowed to do what is required by the particular circumstances and not be tied to rigid rule. A commitment to principles presupposes an understanding of the general forces by which the efforts of society are co-ordinated, but it is such a theory of society and especially of the economic mechanism that conservatism conspicuously lacks. So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. Macaulay, Tocqueville, Lord Acton, and Lecky certainly considered themselves liberals, and with justice; and even Edmund Burke remained an Old Whig to the end and would have shuddered at the thought of being regarded as a Tory.

Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule—not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them. Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them. I have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as “concessions” to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one’s concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits. I sometimes feel that the most conspicuous attribute of liberalism that distinguishes it as much from conservatism as from socialism is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere of other persons do not justify coercion. This may also explain why it seems to be so much easier for the repentant socialist to find a new spiritual home in the conservative fold than in the liberal.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people—he is not an egalitarian—but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

Admittedly, it was only when power came into the hands of the majority that further limitation of the power of government was thought unnecessary. In this sense democracy and unlimited government are connected. But it is not democracy but unlimited government that is objectionable, and I do not see why the people should not learn to limit the scope of majority rule as well as that of any other form of government. At any rate, the advantages of democracy as a method of peaceful change and of political education seem to be so great compared with those of any other system that I can have no sympathy with the anti-democratic strain of conservatism. It is not who governs but what government is entitled to do that seems to me the essential problem.

But you somehow believe that throwing a sea of words will convince me that he somehow saw your brand of liberalism in a favorable light. Can you show me where he did that? The fact that he is a libertarian, neither modern conservative nor modern liberal, should tell you that he didn't care for your brand of ideology either.

To read without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

The "sea of words" were ALL written by Hayek, not me.

CLEARLY you didn't read the essay I posted...Hayek was an "old whig" who rejected the term “libertarian” to describe his beliefs. He found it "singularly unattractive. For my taste it carries too much the flavor of a manufactured term and of a substitute. What I should want is a word which describes the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution. But I have racked my brain unsuccessfully to find a descriptive term which commends itself."

How embarrassing for you...

Hayek was no libertarian. He was a big spending liberal. Mises called him a socialist.

You are so retarded I no longer consider anything you say to be 'human' in nature. I feel sorry for you.

 

[Bfgrn]

The whole thing here is that Hayek and Burke were essentially of the same brand, influenced by the same people. Naturally these two men should be the antithesis of what you believe in politically. I think it is you who sees what he wants to see, bellboy.

Why don't you try something unique and different...READ and comprehend what Hayek is saying.

 

[NYcarbineer]

PROOF of what conservatism REALLY is...

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

"In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles..."
Friedrich August von Hayek-Why I am Not a Conservative

But a picture is worth 1.000 words...

bripat, Rabbi and friends...

My friends, this is a textbook example of argumentum ad hominem. Hayek was a classical liberal who was influenced by Alexis de Tocqueville, another classical liberal thinker.

In short, he is nothing close to being your version of a liberal. Nor did his work "Road to Serfdom" endorse your brand of politics. But hey, keep calling people names...

Maybe you should actually READ "Road to Serfdom"...

"There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, (the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance) should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. 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."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

Perhaps you should read his Wikipedia page:

"Hayek was concerned about the general view in Britain's academia that fascism was a capitalist reaction to socialism and The Road to Serfdom arose from those concerns. It was written between 1940 and 1943. The title was inspired by the French classical liberal thinker Alexis de Tocqueville's writings on the "road to servitude".[31] It was first published in Britain by Routledge in March 1944 and was quite popular, leading Hayek to call it "that unobtainable book", also due in part to wartime paper rationing.[32] When it was published in the United States by the University of Chicago in September of that year, it achieved greater popularity than in Britain.[33] At the arrangement of editor Max Eastman, the American magazine Reader's Digest also published an abridged version in April 1945, enabling The Road to Serfdom to reach a far wider audience than academics. The book is widely popular among those advocating individualism and classical liberalism.[citation needed]"

Friedrich Hayek - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You simply think his statements are an indictment of conservatism. But then again, I didn't see him trumpeting any of the successes of modern liberalism either.

Why I am Not a Conservative by Hayek IS an indictment of conservatism.

This brings me to the first point on which the conservative and the liberal dispositions differ radically. As has often been acknowledged by conservative writers, one of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such, while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead. There would not be much to object to if the conservatives merely disliked too rapid change in institutions and public policy; here the case for caution and slow process is indeed strong. But the conservatives are inclined to use the powers of government to prevent change or to limit its rate to whatever appeals to the more timid mind. In looking forward, they lack the faith in the spontaneous forces of adjustment which makes the liberal accept changes without apprehension, even though he does not know how the necessary adaptations will be brought about.

...

This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces. Since it distrusts both abstract theories and general principles, it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy. Order appears to the conservatives as the result of the continuous attention of authority, which, for this purpose, must be allowed to do what is required by the particular circumstances and not be tied to rigid rule. A commitment to principles presupposes an understanding of the general forces by which the efforts of society are co-ordinated, but it is such a theory of society and especially of the economic mechanism that conservatism conspicuously lacks. So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. Macaulay, Tocqueville, Lord Acton, and Lecky certainly considered themselves liberals, and with justice; and even Edmund Burke remained an Old Whig to the end and would have shuddered at the thought of being regarded as a Tory.

Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule—not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them. Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them. I have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as “concessions” to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one’s concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits. I sometimes feel that the most conspicuous attribute of liberalism that distinguishes it as much from conservatism as from socialism is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere of other persons do not justify coercion. This may also explain why it seems to be so much easier for the repentant socialist to find a new spiritual home in the conservative fold than in the liberal.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people—he is not an egalitarian—but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

Admittedly, it was only when power came into the hands of the majority that further limitation of the power of government was thought unnecessary. In this sense democracy and unlimited government are connected. But it is not democracy but unlimited government that is objectionable, and I do not see why the people should not learn to limit the scope of majority rule as well as that of any other form of government. At any rate, the advantages of democracy as a method of peaceful change and of political education seem to be so great compared with those of any other system that I can have no sympathy with the anti-democratic strain of conservatism. It is not who governs but what government is entitled to do that seems to me the essential problem.

But you somehow believe that throwing a sea of words will convince me that he somehow saw your brand of liberalism in a favorable light. Can you show me where he did that? The fact that he is a libertarian, neither modern conservative nor modern liberal, should tell you that he didn't care for your brand of ideology either.

LOL, TK, PC's most loyal puppy, attacks some OTHER poster for being too wordy.

That's some elegant irony.

 

[bripat9643]

Before you go any further, perhaps you should read this:

The Liberalism/Conservatism Of Edmund Burke and F. A. Hayek: A Critical Comparison

I read the whole article. You read the "title"... I don't find anything I disagree with or anything that supports your position.

Again, how embarrassing for you...

I often quote Edmund Burke...as a matter of fact, the US President who was "Burkean" was Woodrow Wilson.

"If I should claim any man as my master, that man would be Burke"
Woodrow Wilson

It's ironic that I find Burke quotes as some of the best antiseptic for modern conservatism.

Education is the cheap defense of nations.
Edmund Burke

If you can be well without health, you may be happy without virtue.
Edmund Burke

Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.
Edmund Burke

Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Edmund Burke

One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
Edmund Burke

People crushed by laws, have no hope but to evade power. If the laws are their enemies, they will be enemies to the law; and those who have most to hope and nothing to lose will always be dangerous.
Edmund Burke

There is but one law for all, namely that law which governs all law, the law of our Creator, the law of humanity, justice, equity - the law of nature and of nations.
Edmund Burke

Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.
Edmund Burke

To read without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

Toleration is good for all, or it is good for none.
Edmund Burke

Under the pressure of the cares and sorrows of our mortal condition, men have at all times, and in all countries, called in some physical aid to their moral consolations - wine, beer, opium, brandy, or tobacco.
Edmund Burke

We must all obey the great law of change. It is the most powerful law of nature.
Edmund Burke

A State without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.
Edmund Burke

Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe.
Edmund Burke

Of course, Hayek was a classical liberal. That is something you would naturally disagree with, no? Somehow you think he was a modern liberal. Sorry to burst your bubble.

And I don't give a flying rats ass what Edmund Burke says.

There is little or no difference between what I believe and what Hayek and Burke believed.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Now that's funny!

You're a fucking communist. They would both be rolling all over the floor laughing if they read that.

 

[bripat9643]

Perhaps you should read his Wikipedia page:

"Hayek was concerned about the general view in Britain's academia that fascism was a capitalist reaction to socialism and The Road to Serfdom arose from those concerns. It was written between 1940 and 1943. The title was inspired by the French classical liberal thinker Alexis de Tocqueville's writings on the "road to servitude".[31] It was first published in Britain by Routledge in March 1944 and was quite popular, leading Hayek to call it "that unobtainable book", also due in part to wartime paper rationing.[32] When it was published in the United States by the University of Chicago in September of that year, it achieved greater popularity than in Britain.[33] At the arrangement of editor Max Eastman, the American magazine Reader's Digest also published an abridged version in April 1945, enabling The Road to Serfdom to reach a far wider audience than academics. The book is widely popular among those advocating individualism and classical liberalism.[citation needed]"

Friedrich Hayek - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You simply think his statements are an indictment of conservatism. But then again, I didn't see him trumpeting any of the successes of modern liberalism either.

Why I am Not a Conservative by Hayek IS an indictment of conservatism.

This brings me to the first point on which the conservative and the liberal dispositions differ radically. As has often been acknowledged by conservative writers, one of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such, while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead. There would not be much to object to if the conservatives merely disliked too rapid change in institutions and public policy; here the case for caution and slow process is indeed strong. But the conservatives are inclined to use the powers of government to prevent change or to limit its rate to whatever appeals to the more timid mind. In looking forward, they lack the faith in the spontaneous forces of adjustment which makes the liberal accept changes without apprehension, even though he does not know how the necessary adaptations will be brought about.

...

This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces. Since it distrusts both abstract theories and general principles, it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy. Order appears to the conservatives as the result of the continuous attention of authority, which, for this purpose, must be allowed to do what is required by the particular circumstances and not be tied to rigid rule. A commitment to principles presupposes an understanding of the general forces by which the efforts of society are co-ordinated, but it is such a theory of society and especially of the economic mechanism that conservatism conspicuously lacks. So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. Macaulay, Tocqueville, Lord Acton, and Lecky certainly considered themselves liberals, and with justice; and even Edmund Burke remained an Old Whig to the end and would have shuddered at the thought of being regarded as a Tory.

Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule—not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them. Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them. I have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as “concessions” to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one’s concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits. I sometimes feel that the most conspicuous attribute of liberalism that distinguishes it as much from conservatism as from socialism is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere of other persons do not justify coercion. This may also explain why it seems to be so much easier for the repentant socialist to find a new spiritual home in the conservative fold than in the liberal.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people—he is not an egalitarian—but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

Admittedly, it was only when power came into the hands of the majority that further limitation of the power of government was thought unnecessary. In this sense democracy and unlimited government are connected. But it is not democracy but unlimited government that is objectionable, and I do not see why the people should not learn to limit the scope of majority rule as well as that of any other form of government. At any rate, the advantages of democracy as a method of peaceful change and of political education seem to be so great compared with those of any other system that I can have no sympathy with the anti-democratic strain of conservatism. It is not who governs but what government is entitled to do that seems to me the essential problem.

But you somehow believe that throwing a sea of words will convince me that he somehow saw your brand of liberalism in a favorable light. Can you show me where he did that? The fact that he is a libertarian, neither modern conservative nor modern liberal, should tell you that he didn't care for your brand of ideology either.

To read without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

The "sea of words" were ALL written by Hayek, not me.

CLEARLY you didn't read the essay I posted...Hayek was an "old whig" who rejected the term “libertarian” to describe his beliefs. He found it "singularly unattractive. For my taste it carries too much the flavor of a manufactured term and of a substitute. What I should want is a word which describes the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution. But I have racked my brain unsuccessfully to find a descriptive term which commends itself."

How embarrassing for you...

Hayek was no libertarian. He was a big spending liberal. Mises called him a socialist.

You are so retarded I no longer consider anything you say to be 'human' in nature. I feel sorry for you.

Well that hurts . . . NOT.

I just consider you to be an imbecile who is totally out of touch with reality.

 

[Toro]

[Q

It has only been "debunked" by those whose grandchildren will be ashamed of them in coming years.

ROFLMNAO...

Reader, what the cultist is trying not to tell you, is that it believes that behavior: sexual deviancy equates to 'being black'.

See how that works?

Sexuality is hardwired, Pubes.

See how nature works?

Clearly false.

1. Prisons prove that.

2. As do the CDC studies.

a. "Moreover, even among those who describe themselves as homosexual or bisexual (a grand total of 3.7% of the 18-44 age group), overwhelming majorities (81%) say they've experienced sex with partners of the opposite gender. Among those who call themselves heterosexual, on the other hand, only a tiny minority (6%) ever engaged in physical intimacy of any kind with a member of the same sex These figure indicate that 94% of those living heterosexual lives felt no physical attraction to members of the same sex, but the great bulk of self-identified homosexuals and bisexuals feel enough intimate interest in the opposite gender to engage in erotic contact at some stage in their development."
Column Does it matter if only 1.4 of people are gay - USATODAY.com


b. "In light of this, it was not surprising that the recent findings of a survey released in March by the National Center for Health Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was largely ignored by the media. The survey is titled Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction, and Sexual Identity in the United States: Data From the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth. This prestigious and thorough federal study revealed that only 1.4% of Americans identify themselves as homosexual.

Further, it clearly showed homosexual activity to be more a matter of lifestyle than genetics."

 

[Bfgrn]

Why I am Not a Conservative by Hayek IS an indictment of conservatism.

This brings me to the first point on which the conservative and the liberal dispositions differ radically. As has often been acknowledged by conservative writers, one of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such, while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead. There would not be much to object to if the conservatives merely disliked too rapid change in institutions and public policy; here the case for caution and slow process is indeed strong. But the conservatives are inclined to use the powers of government to prevent change or to limit its rate to whatever appeals to the more timid mind. In looking forward, they lack the faith in the spontaneous forces of adjustment which makes the liberal accept changes without apprehension, even though he does not know how the necessary adaptations will be brought about.

...

This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces. Since it distrusts both abstract theories and general principles, it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy. Order appears to the conservatives as the result of the continuous attention of authority, which, for this purpose, must be allowed to do what is required by the particular circumstances and not be tied to rigid rule. A commitment to principles presupposes an understanding of the general forces by which the efforts of society are co-ordinated, but it is such a theory of society and especially of the economic mechanism that conservatism conspicuously lacks. So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. Macaulay, Tocqueville, Lord Acton, and Lecky certainly considered themselves liberals, and with justice; and even Edmund Burke remained an Old Whig to the end and would have shuddered at the thought of being regarded as a Tory.

Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule—not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them. Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them. I have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as “concessions” to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one’s concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits. I sometimes feel that the most conspicuous attribute of liberalism that distinguishes it as much from conservatism as from socialism is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere of other persons do not justify coercion. This may also explain why it seems to be so much easier for the repentant socialist to find a new spiritual home in the conservative fold than in the liberal.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people—he is not an egalitarian—but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

Admittedly, it was only when power came into the hands of the majority that further limitation of the power of government was thought unnecessary. In this sense democracy and unlimited government are connected. But it is not democracy but unlimited government that is objectionable, and I do not see why the people should not learn to limit the scope of majority rule as well as that of any other form of government. At any rate, the advantages of democracy as a method of peaceful change and of political education seem to be so great compared with those of any other system that I can have no sympathy with the anti-democratic strain of conservatism. It is not who governs but what government is entitled to do that seems to me the essential problem.

But you somehow believe that throwing a sea of words will convince me that he somehow saw your brand of liberalism in a favorable light. Can you show me where he did that? The fact that he is a libertarian, neither modern conservative nor modern liberal, should tell you that he didn't care for your brand of ideology either.

To read without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

The "sea of words" were ALL written by Hayek, not me.

CLEARLY you didn't read the essay I posted...Hayek was an "old whig" who rejected the term “libertarian” to describe his beliefs. He found it "singularly unattractive. For my taste it carries too much the flavor of a manufactured term and of a substitute. What I should want is a word which describes the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution. But I have racked my brain unsuccessfully to find a descriptive term which commends itself."

How embarrassing for you...

Hayek was no libertarian. He was a big spending liberal. Mises called him a socialist.

You are so retarded I no longer consider anything you say to be 'human' in nature. I feel sorry for you.

Well that hurts . . . NOT.

I just consider you to be an imbecile who is totally out of touch with reality.

Out of touch with "reality"? You mean like no one has ever died from pollution?

 

[PoliticalChic]

[Q

It has only been "debunked" by those whose grandchildren will be ashamed of them in coming years.

ROFLMNAO...

Reader, what the cultist is trying not to tell you, is that it believes that behavior: sexual deviancy equates to 'being black'.

See how that works?

Sexuality is hardwired, Pubes.

See how nature works?

Clearly false.

1. Prisons prove that.

2. As do the CDC studies.

a. "Moreover, even among those who describe themselves as homosexual or bisexual (a grand total of 3.7% of the 18-44 age group), overwhelming majorities (81%) say they've experienced sex with partners of the opposite gender. Among those who call themselves heterosexual, on the other hand, only a tiny minority (6%) ever engaged in physical intimacy of any kind with a member of the same sex These figure indicate that 94% of those living heterosexual lives felt no physical attraction to members of the same sex, but the great bulk of self-identified homosexuals and bisexuals feel enough intimate interest in the opposite gender to engage in erotic contact at some stage in their development."
Column Does it matter if only 1.4 of people are gay - USATODAY.com


b. "In light of this, it was not surprising that the recent findings of a survey released in March by the National Center for Health Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was largely ignored by the media. The survey is titled Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction, and Sexual Identity in the United States: Data From the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth. This prestigious and thorough federal study revealed that only 1.4% of Americans identify themselves as homosexual.

Further, it clearly showed homosexual activity to be more a matter of lifestyle than genetics."

I assume that your non-post means that you are now beginning to understand the subject, and will avoid the misnomer 'hardwired' in connection with homosexuality.

Excellent.



Go Rangers!

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Q

It has only been "debunked" by those whose grandchildren will be ashamed of them in coming years.

ROFLMNAO...

Reader, what the cultist is trying not to tell you, is that it believes that behavior: sexual deviancy equates to 'being black'.

See how that works?

Sexuality is hardwired, Pubes.

See how nature works?

Clearly false.

1. Prisons prove that.

2. As do the CDC studies.

a. "Moreover, even among those who describe themselves as homosexual or bisexual (a grand total of 3.7% of the 18-44 age group), overwhelming majorities (81%) say they've experienced sex with partners of the opposite gender. Among those who call themselves heterosexual, on the other hand, only a tiny minority (6%) ever engaged in physical intimacy of any kind with a member of the same sex These figure indicate that 94% of those living heterosexual lives felt no physical attraction to members of the same sex, but the great bulk of self-identified homosexuals and bisexuals feel enough intimate interest in the opposite gender to engage in erotic contact at some stage in their development."
Column Does it matter if only 1.4 of people are gay - USATODAY.com


b. "In light of this, it was not surprising that the recent findings of a survey released in March by the National Center for Health Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was largely ignored by the media. The survey is titled Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction, and Sexual Identity in the United States: Data From the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth. This prestigious and thorough federal study revealed that only 1.4% of Americans identify themselves as homosexual.

Further, it clearly showed homosexual activity to be more a matter of lifestyle than genetics."

I assume that your non-post means that you are now beginning to understand the subject, and will avoid the misnomer 'hardwired' in connection with homosexuality.

Excellent.



Go Rangers!

Then heterosexuality is not hardwired.

 

[Seawytch]

ROFLMNAO...

Reader, what the cultist is trying not to tell you, is that it believes that behavior: sexual deviancy equates to 'being black'.

See how that works?

Sexuality is hardwired, Pubes.

See how nature works?

Clearly false.

1. Prisons prove that.

2. As do the CDC studies.

a. "Moreover, even among those who describe themselves as homosexual or bisexual (a grand total of 3.7% of the 18-44 age group), overwhelming majorities (81%) say they've experienced sex with partners of the opposite gender. Among those who call themselves heterosexual, on the other hand, only a tiny minority (6%) ever engaged in physical intimacy of any kind with a member of the same sex These figure indicate that 94% of those living heterosexual lives felt no physical attraction to members of the same sex, but the great bulk of self-identified homosexuals and bisexuals feel enough intimate interest in the opposite gender to engage in erotic contact at some stage in their development."
Column Does it matter if only 1.4 of people are gay - USATODAY.com


b. "In light of this, it was not surprising that the recent findings of a survey released in March by the National Center for Health Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was largely ignored by the media. The survey is titled Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction, and Sexual Identity in the United States: Data From the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth. This prestigious and thorough federal study revealed that only 1.4% of Americans identify themselves as homosexual.

Further, it clearly showed homosexual activity to be more a matter of lifestyle than genetics."

I assume that your non-post means that you are now beginning to understand the subject, and will avoid the misnomer 'hardwired' in connection with homosexuality.

Excellent.



Go Rangers!

Then heterosexuality is not hardwired.

Bingo! Human sexuality is more fluid than our society currently allows. Sexuality is a scale...with some people way over on the right or left of the scale...and everyone else somewhere in between.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sexuality is hardwired, Pubes.

See how nature works?

Clearly false.

1. Prisons prove that.

2. As do the CDC studies.

a. "Moreover, even among those who describe themselves as homosexual or bisexual (a grand total of 3.7% of the 18-44 age group), overwhelming majorities (81%) say they've experienced sex with partners of the opposite gender. Among those who call themselves heterosexual, on the other hand, only a tiny minority (6%) ever engaged in physical intimacy of any kind with a member of the same sex These figure indicate that 94% of those living heterosexual lives felt no physical attraction to members of the same sex, but the great bulk of self-identified homosexuals and bisexuals feel enough intimate interest in the opposite gender to engage in erotic contact at some stage in their development."
Column Does it matter if only 1.4 of people are gay - USATODAY.com


b. "In light of this, it was not surprising that the recent findings of a survey released in March by the National Center for Health Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was largely ignored by the media. The survey is titled Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction, and Sexual Identity in the United States: Data From the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth. This prestigious and thorough federal study revealed that only 1.4% of Americans identify themselves as homosexual.

Further, it clearly showed homosexual activity to be more a matter of lifestyle than genetics."

I assume that your non-post means that you are now beginning to understand the subject, and will avoid the misnomer 'hardwired' in connection with homosexuality.

Excellent.



Go Rangers!

Then heterosexuality is not hardwired.

Bingo! Human sexuality is more fluid than our society currently allows. Sexuality is a scale...with some people way over on the right or left of the scale...and everyone else somewhere in between.

If heterosexuality is controlled by genetics, that is proof that sexuality is controlled by genetics,

which then proves that homosexuality can be controlled by genetics.

Anyone who claims that someone cannot be born homosexual is thus claiming that one cannot be born heterosexual.

 

[bripat9643]

But you somehow believe that throwing a sea of words will convince me that he somehow saw your brand of liberalism in a favorable light. Can you show me where he did that? The fact that he is a libertarian, neither modern conservative nor modern liberal, should tell you that he didn't care for your brand of ideology either.

To read without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

The "sea of words" were ALL written by Hayek, not me.

CLEARLY you didn't read the essay I posted...Hayek was an "old whig" who rejected the term “libertarian” to describe his beliefs. He found it "singularly unattractive. For my taste it carries too much the flavor of a manufactured term and of a substitute. What I should want is a word which describes the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution. But I have racked my brain unsuccessfully to find a descriptive term which commends itself."

How embarrassing for you...

Hayek was no libertarian. He was a big spending liberal. Mises called him a socialist.

You are so retarded I no longer consider anything you say to be 'human' in nature. I feel sorry for you.

Well that hurts . . . NOT.

I just consider you to be an imbecile who is totally out of touch with reality.

Out of touch with "reality"? You mean like no one has ever died from pollution?

That isn't what I said. Of course, you know that, but you're an ignominious poltroon who doesn't give a damn about the truth.

 

[bripat9643]

Sexuality is hardwired, Pubes.

See how nature works?

Clearly false.

1. Prisons prove that.

2. As do the CDC studies.

a. "Moreover, even among those who describe themselves as homosexual or bisexual (a grand total of 3.7% of the 18-44 age group), overwhelming majorities (81%) say they've experienced sex with partners of the opposite gender. Among those who call themselves heterosexual, on the other hand, only a tiny minority (6%) ever engaged in physical intimacy of any kind with a member of the same sex These figure indicate that 94% of those living heterosexual lives felt no physical attraction to members of the same sex, but the great bulk of self-identified homosexuals and bisexuals feel enough intimate interest in the opposite gender to engage in erotic contact at some stage in their development."
Column Does it matter if only 1.4 of people are gay - USATODAY.com


b. "In light of this, it was not surprising that the recent findings of a survey released in March by the National Center for Health Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was largely ignored by the media. The survey is titled Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction, and Sexual Identity in the United States: Data From the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth. This prestigious and thorough federal study revealed that only 1.4% of Americans identify themselves as homosexual.

Further, it clearly showed homosexual activity to be more a matter of lifestyle than genetics."

I assume that your non-post means that you are now beginning to understand the subject, and will avoid the misnomer 'hardwired' in connection with homosexuality.

Excellent.



Go Rangers!

Then heterosexuality is not hardwired.

Bingo! Human sexuality is more fluid than our society currently allows. Sexuality is a scale...with some people way over on the right or left of the scale...and everyone else somewhere in between.

98% of the population is heterosexual, just as more than 98% of the population doesn't suffer from autism.

 

[Seawytch]

Clearly false.

1. Prisons prove that.

2. As do the CDC studies.

a. "Moreover, even among those who describe themselves as homosexual or bisexual (a grand total of 3.7% of the 18-44 age group), overwhelming majorities (81%) say they've experienced sex with partners of the opposite gender. Among those who call themselves heterosexual, on the other hand, only a tiny minority (6%) ever engaged in physical intimacy of any kind with a member of the same sex These figure indicate that 94% of those living heterosexual lives felt no physical attraction to members of the same sex, but the great bulk of self-identified homosexuals and bisexuals feel enough intimate interest in the opposite gender to engage in erotic contact at some stage in their development."
Column Does it matter if only 1.4 of people are gay - USATODAY.com


b. "In light of this, it was not surprising that the recent findings of a survey released in March by the National Center for Health Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was largely ignored by the media. The survey is titled Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction, and Sexual Identity in the United States: Data From the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth. This prestigious and thorough federal study revealed that only 1.4% of Americans identify themselves as homosexual.

Further, it clearly showed homosexual activity to be more a matter of lifestyle than genetics."

I assume that your non-post means that you are now beginning to understand the subject, and will avoid the misnomer 'hardwired' in connection with homosexuality.

Excellent.



Go Rangers!

Then heterosexuality is not hardwired.

Bingo! Human sexuality is more fluid than our society currently allows. Sexuality is a scale...with some people way over on the right or left of the scale...and everyone else somewhere in between.

98% of the population is heterosexual, just as more than 98% of the population doesn't suffer from autism.

Nope...that's just what our puritanical roots will allow.

 

[NYcarbineer]

To read without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

The "sea of words" were ALL written by Hayek, not me.

CLEARLY you didn't read the essay I posted...Hayek was an "old whig" who rejected the term “libertarian” to describe his beliefs. He found it "singularly unattractive. For my taste it carries too much the flavor of a manufactured term and of a substitute. What I should want is a word which describes the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution. But I have racked my brain unsuccessfully to find a descriptive term which commends itself."

How embarrassing for you...

Hayek was no libertarian. He was a big spending liberal. Mises called him a socialist.

You are so retarded I no longer consider anything you say to be 'human' in nature. I feel sorry for you.

Well that hurts . . . NOT.

I just consider you to be an imbecile who is totally out of touch with reality.

Out of touch with "reality"? You mean like no one has ever died from pollution?

That isn't what I said. Of course, you know that, but you're an ignominious poltroon who doesn't give a damn about the truth.

Somebody got a word-a-day vocabulary calendar for his birthday.

 

[bripat9643]

I assume that your non-post means that you are now beginning to understand the subject, and will avoid the misnomer 'hardwired' in connection with homosexuality.

Excellent.



Go Rangers!

Then heterosexuality is not hardwired.

Bingo! Human sexuality is more fluid than our society currently allows. Sexuality is a scale...with some people way over on the right or left of the scale...and everyone else somewhere in between.

98% of the population is heterosexual, just as more than 98% of the population doesn't suffer from autism.

Nope...that's just what our puritanical roots will allow.

ROLF! So you think there would be more homosexuals if society approved of homosexuality?

 

[bripat9643]

Hayek was no libertarian. He was a big spending liberal. Mises called him a socialist.

You are so retarded I no longer consider anything you say to be 'human' in nature. I feel sorry for you.

Well that hurts . . . NOT.

I just consider you to be an imbecile who is totally out of touch with reality.

Out of touch with "reality"? You mean like no one has ever died from pollution?

That isn't what I said. Of course, you know that, but you're an ignominious poltroon who doesn't give a damn about the truth.

Somebody got a word-a-day vocabulary calendar for his birthday.

Wrong. My reading hasn't been restricted to Nancy Drew and Marvel comics.

 

[Seawytch]

I assume that your non-post means that you are now beginning to understand the subject, and will avoid the misnomer 'hardwired' in connection with homosexuality.

Excellent.



Go Rangers!

Then heterosexuality is not hardwired.

Bingo! Human sexuality is more fluid than our society currently allows. Sexuality is a scale...with some people way over on the right or left of the scale...and everyone else somewhere in between.

98% of the population is heterosexual, just as more than 98% of the population doesn't suffer from autism.

Nope...that's just what our puritanical roots will allow.

ROLF! So you think there would be more homosexuals if society approved of homosexuality?

There would not be more...there would be more that are comfortable with their sexuality. You won't have gay men marrying (becoming evangelical self hating preachers), having kids AND a Grindr account.

We will have more people who are comfortable coming out as gay, bisexual, asexual, monosexual, transexual, transgendered and on and on.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I assume that your non-post means that you are now beginning to understand the subject, and will avoid the misnomer 'hardwired' in connection with homosexuality.

Excellent.



Go Rangers!

Then heterosexuality is not hardwired.

Bingo! Human sexuality is more fluid than our society currently allows. Sexuality is a scale...with some people way over on the right or left of the scale...and everyone else somewhere in between.

98% of the population is heterosexual, just as more than 98% of the population doesn't suffer from autism.

Nope...that's just what our puritanical roots will allow.

Are you disputing his number...98%?

Studies put homosexuals at 1.4%


"A new Gallup Poll shows Americans grossly over-estimating the percentage of homosexuals in the population. Most people assume that gays and lesbians represent more than 25% of adults. Among young people aged 18 to 29, only one percent—one percent!—correctly identified the real percentage as less than 5%. Actually, best estimates from a new federal study suggest only 1.4% identify as homosexual.

The wildly mistaken idea that one of four Americans pursues same sex relationships and, therefore, traditional marriage is dead, falsely suggests that the old American dream of mom and dad and kids is no longer widely desired. If a quarter of all adults can’t embrace that dream because they’re gay, that explains the desire to radically redefine marriage. But the truth is that not even the 1.4% who identify as gay would all require that redefinition."
Michael Medved - Political Conservative News Blog