Posted on 04/06/2010 8:29:46 AM PDT by rightwingintelligentsia
Does the NEA hypnotize them or give them “special” vaccines?
If it is, it isn't the conservative philosophy. Conservatives trust people to make the right decisions about their own lives, liberals want a centralized authority to make all the decisions for everyone (as if one size actually fit all), as long as they're in control of that central authority. The paper is closer to backwards than right.
I’ll suggest Sowell’s “Conflict of Visions” and “Intellectuals and Society” to you as well.
The “tragic” view of humankind is why the founders established the limited nature of our government, because mankind, “tragically”, cannot be trusted with power over others, because they lack the _sufficient_ knowledge (no matter how “superior” their knowledge) to make everyone’s decisions for them.
This also leads to one believing that the individual can best make his own decisions better than another can make them for him.
The “unconstrained” vision of mankind says that some individuals have sufficient knowledge AND morality to substitute their own judgement for the judgement of others.
This belief leads to one believing that some “leader” or “elite” has the right and duty to make decisions for others; that these “elites” are “unconstrained” from human frailty.
You, too - #60.
I’m giving you the straight “Sowell Food”.
You’ll understand why the conservative view is “tragic” and the liberal view is “unconstrained” if you devour some Sowell.
I disagree that the liberal approach is the optimistic one. Liberals assume that people can’t help themselves so they have to help them or the world will collapse. I think that is a pretty pessimistic approach to life.
Conservatives believe that although people are flawed, they can provide for themselves. Liberals expect much less of others especially minorities. So they believe big brother govt. should be able to steal from others to provide for them.
Conservatives believe in fixing things when they break, not in changing things solely for the sake of progressivism. They also think things should be tested and if it does not work, replaced. Unlike what liberals believe, we should not continue to throw even greater sums of money at failure because it would put their friends out of work if they didn’t.
I do agree with them that conservatives don’t advocate utopian government, because we don’t live in a utopian (perfect) world filled with utopian people and we never will.
I’ve read the Sowell book you mention. The handout is still wrong.
Democrats are on the wrong side of each and every one of those dichotomies.
Liberals are more pessimistic of the human nature of the vast majority of people. They believe only in the human nature of a small minority - the ruling elite - and they believe the ruling elite should make decisions for everyone. Conservatives are pessimistic of a ruling elite.
Actually, it's no use disputing a handout that amounts to nothing more than a piece of propaganda. It attempts to explain nothing, and it's written in a dumbed-down fashion. It's laughable, especially with the juvenile clipart. And this class is supposed to be advanced placement. Then she talks about the concept of "original sin" - which has nothing to do with the topic - and makes sweeping generalizations for which she provides no basis.
Sowell’s Conflict of Visions was REMARKABLY “unpolemic”.
It really didn’t paint either vision as right or wrong.
This handout states the same “facts” about human nature as Sowell, but it does present them in a way that slants the
young skull full of mush toward thinking the Unconstrained view is a more favorable way of looking at the world,
while the Tragic view is painted as undesirable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.