Has anyone here read Liberty and Tyranny?

jlew

jlew

CAGiversary!
Feedback
4 (100%)
Any particular sections you liked/disliked? Did you learn anything from reading it? On the variety of subjects written, do you think that it accuratley represents conservative views?

I found the section on the environment very informative albeit alarming. The history of DDT and its eventual ban is something I never knew took place.

Anyone else?
 
Masterfully written and researched book. If you want to have both an educated & balanced viewpoint and haven't read this book, you very much need to read it!
 
I haven't read it, because it looked like the usual conservative nonsense. Am I wrong? Do you recommend it?
 
[quote name='rickonker']I haven't read it, because it looked like the usual conservative nonsense. Am I wrong? Do you recommend it?[/QUOTE]

It is much more well-researched and is a lot smarter than the typical political book. A lot of interesting history is contained within, as well.
 
Read Liberal Fascism instead, or maybe start with The Road to Serfdom. They are much better, more concise, and cover the same basic historical concepts.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Read Liberal Fascism instead[/QUOTE]

Ah, yes. Nothing like the stunning research that brought Godwin's law to political books.

Hitler was vegetarian.
Liberals tend to be vegetarian.
Ergo...

:lol:
 
[quote name='evanft']Did bmulligan really suggest that book? What the fuck is wrong with him?[/QUOTE]

You should read it. You may learn something. Hitler's and Mussolini's ideas weren't born from conservative movements. Their philosophies haltered from the far left. The illusion that Fascism is a reactionary right leaning phenomenon is a deliberate falsehood.

It's a shame you don't even know the origins of your own philosophical movement. Either that, or you willingly choose to deny it. I'm guessing the latter from myke exemplified by his last statement, and the former for you.

All your fresh ideas, your progressive solutions, and your conception of social justice has already been tried, sentenced, and executed well before you were born.
 
[quote name='evanft']Did bmulligan really suggest that book? What the fuck is wrong with him?[/QUOTE]

He has that curious mix of idiocy and arrogance that is hardly uncommon among right wingers or their figureheads.

They fact that they have zero idea what they are talking about will never stop them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='bmulligan']You should read it. You may learn something. Hitler's and Mussolini's ideas weren't born from conservative movements. Their philosophies haltered from the far left. The illusion that Fascism is a reactionary right leaning phenomenon is a deliberate falsehood.

It's a shame you don't even know the origins of your own philosophical movement. Either that, or you willingly choose to deny it. I'm guessing the latter from myke exemplified by his last statement, and the former for you.

All your fresh ideas, your progressive solutions, and your conception of social justice has already been tried, sentenced, and executed well before you were born.[/QUOTE]

Don't all ideas fail if power is concentrated into the hands of the few?
 
[quote name='Msut77']He has that curious mix of idiocy and arrogance that is hardly uncommon among right wingers or their figureheads.

They fact that they have zero idea what they are talking about will never stop them.[/QUOTE]

Why such a mean remark?

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Don't all ideas fail if power is concentrated into the hands of the few?[/QUOTE]

How many is a few? 435?

I believe one of the core conservative values is a limited government. Not one that concentrates power to a few individuals but one that prioritizes citizens rights over government needs. Our founding documents were written with the individuals rights in mind. If citizens always rely on the government, then their dependance will become exploited. I imagine the fail would come after that.

Anyway, I found Liberty and Tyranny to be an excellent book. If you have different political views then of course you aren't going to like the book from the get-go. If you are on the fence about where you stand politically, reading the book may give you a better idea of conservative values. As said a previous post there is definitely some interesting history contained within it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='jlew']Why such a mean remark?[/quote]

I call it how I see it, I am sorry if you consider accurate descriptions mean.

FYI I have actually read quite a bit of "Liberal Fascism" and trust me when I say I am being nice in my previous remarks.
 
I think Liberal Fascism stretched the truth in an attempt to make a conclusion the author clearly wanted to reach. bmulligan, unlike most people here I actually have some idea of where you're coming from, but I would still say fascism is a right-wing movement. Of course, it wouldn't be surprising to find cases where fascists were influenced by leftist thought.
 
[quote name='jlew']I believe one of the core conservative values is a limited government. Not one that concentrates power to a few individuals but one that prioritizes citizens rights over government needs.[/QUOTE]

If you start with a false dichotomy you'll come to a false conclusion.

If you rationalize government action that is designed to dictate how people behave or don't behave (e.g., outlaw abortion, prohibit gay marriage, quash any conversation about right to death issues, ban media sources from covering military actions, wiretap citizens) as somehow being related to "protecting our freedoms" or "individual rights," then you're no longer engaging in thoughtful intellectual exercises. What you're doing then is merely filing away political platform stances as inherently related to "individual rights" or "government needs" (again, a false dichotomy) based on the political party that dared utter such a phrase.

Think about FISA and wiretapping; if you think this protects our individual rights - well, then you're wearing your right shoe on your left foot before you've even begun to walk.
 
[quote name='jlew']How many is a few? 435?[/QUOTE]

Less than 1% of the population. Maybe less than 25% of the population.

If one group of people is trying to control or is controlling another group of people for no obvious positive reason, that might be enough.

For example, Group A stops Group B from shitting in Group A's water supply is a good reason to exert control. However, Group A destroying Group B's houses because Group B used the wrong color of paint doesn't sound like a good reason.

...

Conservatism isn't really about smaller government. They're pushing towards a consumerist theocracy. You know, "one nation under God" and big business. Libertarianism is about smaller government, but that "party" has no real power and never will unless there is a major decentralizing event in this country.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
If you rationalize government action that is designed to dictate how people behave or don't behave ... as somehow being related to "protecting our freedoms" or "individual rights," then you're no longer engaging in thoughtful intellectual exercises....[/QUOTE]

For Mike's inherent dichotomy, see the above. It's ironic that someone who rails against government control of behavior on one hand would, on the other, willingly wield a government who controls all facets of society. A society, no doubt, run by the best minds of academia who can determine the best ratios of cultural and racial integration, the best uses of wealth, energy, and other resources. A government that can regulate how much you can earn, whom you can hire, whom you must serve, and to whom you must 'donate' your life, time, and wealth. All for the irrational, nonpalpable, government defined, common good of humanity.

By your own admission, your positions are intellectually bankrupt. You are a walking, breathing symbol of contradiction.
 
[quote name='jlew']Hey, no worries man. :grouphug:[/QUOTE]

In a generation or so cons will only be able to communicate via fart noises and grunting. Many are already there.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Less than 1% of the population. Maybe less than 25% of the population.

If one group of people is trying to control or is controlling another group of people for no obvious positive reason, that might be enough.

For example, Group A stops Group B from shitting in Group A's water supply is a good reason to exert control. However, Group A destroying Group B's houses because Group B used the wrong color of paint doesn't sound like a good reason.

[/QUOTE]
I think this is a good point, but doesn't our government have a system of checks and balances within the different branches to prevent one group from controlling another?

I believe the 3 branches were established to limit the power of the federal government and give the states and citizens a proper voice. Do you think it works?

Cited in Liberty and Tyranny, James Madison wrote in Federalist 51
"In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." Just a quote that I liked. :)

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Conservatism isn't really about smaller government. They're pushing towards a consumerist theocracy. You know, "one nation under God" and big business. Libertarianism is about smaller government, but that "party" has no real power and never will unless there is a major decentralizing event in this country.[/QUOTE]

I'm not really familiar with Libertarianism, but aren't some of the core beliefs in line with the rights outlined in the Declaration of Independance? Individual rights and small government sound like conservative values to me, however are they being implemented today? That is debatable.
 
[quote name='jlew']I think this is a good point, but doesn't our government have a system of checks and balances within the different branches to prevent one group from controlling another?

I believe the 3 branches were established to limit the power of the federal government and give the states and citizens a proper voice. Do you think it works? [/QUOTE]

This question wasn't directed to me, but no, it doesn't work. It was a flawed design from the start and was never going to work.
 
[quote name='rickonker']This question wasn't directed to me, but no, it doesn't work. It was a flawed design from the start and was never going to work.[/QUOTE]

The biggest problem with our current design is the party system. Everybody can be "whipped" into an ideology and that's that. Effectively, there are three entities controlling 300 million people: "left", "right" and "center".
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']The biggest problem with our current design is the party system. Everybody can be "whipped" into an ideology and that's that. Effectively, there are three entities controlling 300 million people: "left", "right" and "center".[/QUOTE]
The party system does suck, but I think it's just a consequence of the flawed design. The designers didn't intend for it to exist, but it was inevitable.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']bmulligan takes a laissez-faire approach to reading comprehension, I see.[/QUOTE]

If only you DIDN'T take a laissez-faire approach to your morality, myke...
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']The biggest problem with our current design is the party system. Everybody can be "whipped" into an ideology and that's that. Effectively, there are three entities controlling 300 million people: "left", "right" and "center".[/QUOTE]

The reason behind that is power. A person of one who wants X and is indifferent towards Y has some power.

When they're proposed with a political alliance framed as the promise of a little bit of X and likely some Y, as well, they're more prone to going with that group than standing on their own, waiting for X.

I don't see how you get away from political parties in that regard, then. How do you stop groups from forming based on shared interests? (I'd say you simply don't/can't).
 
I just finished reading A Conflict of Visions. I thought it was really good- I even underlined a few passages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top