Why are neocon heros mostly Jews and atheists?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by billwald, Nov 14, 2011.

  1. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand, for example. And Thos. Jefferson.
     
  2. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think that first you need to document your supposition.
     
  3. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,264
    Likes Received:
    4
    Bill, do you like being a complete jerk, all the time ? Take a break.
     
  4. Arbo

    Arbo
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2010
    Messages:
    3,942
    Likes Received:
    1
    Bored today? :laugh:
     
  5. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    Unnecessary.

    Hook actually a big fan of FA Hayek. He'll be evaluated on NPR tomorrow so I'll look forward to hearing your case against him then.
     
  6. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not a neo-con, but I find it interesting that a Genetic Fallacy is used to begin this discussion. That says less about the neo-cons than it does about the author of this thread.

    BTW, Ayn Rand is not a neo-con by any stretch of the imagination. Friedman probably would not fit that category nor would Jefferson.
     
  7. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    The bigger issue with the NPR piece, which wasn't very good, was that objectivism has been withheld in many ways by the actions of both RNC and DNC. The reporter failed to flesh out the details of all of Rand's ideas and how they have been accepted, in part, and discarded, in part. Just because Rand wrote about A through Z doesn't mean the neo-cons today accept all the letters.

    I've read both Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead (I like the latter more) and didn't care for everything I read in the books. In Atlas there is an explicit argument against over-regulation, which is good, and an example of the cravenness of people who pursue pure capital. which is bad. The discerning reader knows how to eat the meat but spit out the bones.

    Now it is an over-generalization, especially pulling speech exerpts out of context, to say the RNC is devoted to Rand.

    As for Hayek, and I'm interested in hearing this one tomorrow, I'm a fan. I believe in that a laissez-faire approach to economics is best. Hayek's book,The Road to Serfdom, was formative for my growth and maturation as an intellectual.

    It is simple: free markets create free people.

    Now if NPR goes on to assert that John Maynard Keynes is the better economist we know what their game is about. In the struggle for the markets of today Hayek is rightfully more influential now than ever. Keynsian economics doesn't work. In free markets we create systems and opportunities for unparralleled prosperity.

    The argument that Hayek's system (well more Ludwig von Mises) ended up leading to our current state of economic distress isn't a coherent one. There are aspects of corruption which can leak into a free market and this kind of time which we are going through is a market-corrective.

    But to say that "neo-cons" love Jews and atheists is a fool's statement that shows you just want to bloviate without context.

    I challenge you bill to show back up and defend yourself. I will answer your charges and reply.
     
  8. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hayak, also Jewish? <G>



    From wiki:
    Early life

    Hayek was born in Vienna (then a capital of Austria-Hungary), and was the son of a doctor in the municipal health service. Hayek's grandfathers were prominent academics working in the fields of statistics and biology. His paternal line had been raised to the ranks of the Bohemian nobility for its services to the state.[7] Similarly, a generation before his maternal forebears had also been raised to the lower noble rank. However, after 1919 titles of nobility were banned by law in Austria, and the "von Hayek" family became simply the Hayek family. Hence, after 1919 Hayek's legal name became "Friedrich Hayek", not "Friedrich von Hayek". Hayek's father turned his work on regional botany into a highly esteemed botanical treatise, continuing the family's scholarly traditions.[citation needed]
    On his mother's side, Hayek was second-cousin to the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. His mother often played with Wittgenstein's sisters, and had known Ludwig well. As a result of their family relationship, Hayek became one of the first to read Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus when the book was published in its original German edition in 1921. Although Hayek only met Wittgenstein on a few occasions, Hayek said that Wittgenstein's philosophy and methods of analysis had a profound influence on his own life and thought.[8] In later years, Hayek recalled a discussion of philosophy with Wittgenstein, when both were officers during World War I.[9] After Wittgenstein's death, Hayek had intended to write a biography of Wittgenstein and worked on collecting family materials, and he later assisted biographers of Wittgenstein.[10]

    ------------

    Wittgenstein is also an interesting person, see "Wittgenstein's Poker," about an argument between Wittgenstein and Karl Popper.

    https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.ucalgary.ca/hic/files/hic/dhutto.pdf
     
  9. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    >Bored today?

    Never been bored. I can always pass time by trying to stir your collective pots.
     
  10. Arbo

    Arbo
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2010
    Messages:
    3,942
    Likes Received:
    1
    And here's me thinking you spent all your free time on Alternet. :laugh:
     
  11. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76
    Why are trolls racist, union loving, liberals?
     
  12. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,567
    Likes Received:
    276

    "Pretty interesting clip…even though it is 30 years old, the content is
    “timeless”"

    "If you don't think we have been going aroud on the same argument for years this
    will put it into perspective. Leave it to an economist to clear things up."

    "Wow! Talk about a clear cut look at the way the world operates."

    "This is Phil Donahue interviewing Milton Friedman thirty years ago.
    The audience is notably silent."

    [edit]....who says Friedman was a neocon? I would've never placed him in that class.
     
    #12 kyredneck, Nov 15, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 15, 2011
  13. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,963
    Likes Received:
    97
    Miltie would have made an excellent bushwacker.
     
  14. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,567
    Likes Received:
    276
    I don't know what you mean by 'bushwhacker'. Friedman was a Libertarian who apparently opposed the Iraq War, so I reiterate, I would never class him as a 'neocon':

    Libertarianism, the Iraq War, and the Division in the Friedman Household:

    "This interesting recent Wall Street Journal interview with Milton Friedman and his wife Rose (also a prominent libertarian economist) reveals a rare disagreement between them - over the Iraq War:

    Mr. Friedman here shifted focus. "What's really killed the Republican Party isn't spending, it's Iraq. As it happens, I was opposed to going into Iraq from the beginning. I think it was a mistake, for the simple reason that I do not believe the United States of America ought to be involved in aggression." Mrs. Friedman--listening to her husband with an ear cocked--was now muttering darkly.

    Milton: "Huh? What?" Rose: "This was not aggression!" Milton (exasperatedly): "It was aggression. Of course it was!" Rose: "You count it as aggression if it's against the people, not against the monster who's ruling them. We don't agree. This is the first thing to come along in our lives, of the deep things, that we don't agree on. We have disagreed on little things, obviously--such as, I don't want to go out to dinner, he wants to go out--but big issues, this is the first one!" Milton: "But, having said that, once we went in to Iraq, it seems to me very important that we make a success of it." Rose: "And we will!"

    [edit] Now that I think about it I guess I've always put him in the same class as Barry Goldwater, a conservative indeed.
     
    #14 kyredneck, Nov 15, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 15, 2011

Share This Page

Loading...