Thomas Sowell on Intellectuals and Society: Chapter 3 of 5

[djbanizza]

His words are like crystallized intelligence ... 

[killerbee2k]

in norway we have the right to free heroin, isnt that cool man?

[100CommonCents]

@killerbee2k hahahaha... failed drug program? .. or is it working?

[SkepticThink]

@killerbee2k Only for addicts, right?

[daemonarc]

If you don't play by the rules, you don't get the protection of the rules. Nice one!

[dahoeb]

Damn this guy is good....

[EarlRegent]

@dahoeb How has he been so ignored? Probably the best economist I have ever heard.

[ThePenWolf]

"Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn't have to produce anything! You've never been out of college! You don't know what it's like out there! I've *worked* in the private sector. They expect *results*. "

-Dr. Ray Stantz; Ghostbusters.

That's why liberals infest academia. All of the accolade for no work.

[NAes12]

lol this is some serious old man logic. Not necessarily rigorous, however.

[AndroidPolitician]

I don't think liberals have any kind of "higher plain" when you consider that their for legalizing weed and nevada-style prostitution.

[rayyf69]

Wouldn't banning those two industries be consistent with socialism in that the state is restricting commerce?

[caferoflz]

This is fantastic, thanks for posting it.

[socalcraigster]

There is no specific right to life. If that were true, abortion would not be permitted. The Supreme Court has allowed certain things to fall under the umbrella of the right to privacy, like abortion. The right to privacy, however, is not an absolute right.

I always find it funny that people only want to use the Consitution when it is convenient for them. But when you do not lik the result, you want to cast it aside.

[CIAagent11]

@socalcraigster

That's circular logic. "If there were a right to life, abortion would not be permitted. Abortion is not permitted because there is no right to life."

Those courts think that killing your children falls under the right to privacy, but having them indoctrinated by angry feminists in schools does not.

[girzwald3]

There is no specific right to life?

Amendment 14. Right to life without due process.

Can you point at a time where a fetus has committed a crime that justifies taking its life? I don't think so.

[JFede32]

The constitution was inspired by Natural Law and Natural Law specifies that individuals have a right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and PROPERTY.

The stacked court used the 5th and 14th as is was convenient for them.

[captaindiesalot]

Socal:

Nah, what's REALLY funny is that The Constitution is ignored as frequently as it is, and yet, The United States still functions. One Day, those of us who believe that the document actually stands for something will decide that a new revolution is called for and waste people like you. (Since you have no rights anyway, you shouldn't have any problem with your demise for a revolutionary cause.)

[383jpark]

The same logic would apply to slavery vs. freedom in the 1800s. The Democrats (left wing even then) used that argument often.

[lucidcafe]

Makes me think of a favorite Voltaire quotation...Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

[383jpark]

oops; sorry mike--i did not comprehend "comment pending approval" qualifier. I only meant to say it once.

[oilhammer04]

Yes, he has what is so lacking in many of our present crop in Washington.

[TheProgressistViewer]

only a 104 views.. yet MSNBC has millions of viewers.. what is wrong with the world?

[TheProgressistViewer]

If you don't play by the rules you don't get the protections of the rules. Damn right

[discojoe3]

I've yet to hear a single thing this man has said that did not make perfect sense.

[mikepalomino]

@discojoe3 With all due respect, Thomas Sowell is undoubtedly an intelligent man but I can point out a number of glaring flaws in his argument, which makes me wonder if you're not just accepting what he says at face value without the benefit of analyzing it critically.

He calls Liberals thought "arbitrary" with respect to healthcare and legal rights for terror suspects but never backs up the argument. It appears to me that Mr. Sowell is being arbitrary himself.

[mikepalomino]

Moreover, he never addresses the most obvious claim to the "Right to Healthcare" - that it is an extension of the right to Life, which comes first of all other rights - i.e. "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" - which, without Life, none of the others rights matter.

He dismisses, like so many other Conservatives, as nonsense. But without a proper rebuttal then is Thomas Sowell not demonstrating his own arbitrary nature?

[LeGioNoFZioN]

@mikepalomino you make a solid argument, though I disagree with some of it. I have a question for you.... if health care would be an extension of the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness would it not be at immediate odds with abortion providers ? if everyone is guaranteed these rights, yet you have laws that negate or impact that "universal right", would those laws, hence even the practise of abortion be a subversion of that grand law ? In other words un-constitutional ?

[383jpark]

All laws require coercion/force for implementation. To what extent should one party be forced by the government to surrender assets to benefit another. If, by seizing the assets of one party, using whatever force is required to overcome instinctive resistance, are the principles of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness advanced? Would not this be an arbitrary pursuit--even if eternal life was secured to the beneficiaries/survivors?

[383jpark]

Make your case against the term "arbitrary" as applied in this context. The presumption that each person should be coerced (forced) by law to maintain the "health" of another citizen, is directly opposed to the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, etc. that each of us enjoy. To what extent should we be forced to contribute. . When seizing assets from one party to benefit another, how far should the State be willing to go to overcome instinctive resistance.

[383jpark]

mikepolomino: make your case against the term "arbitrary" in this context. If one party is coerced (forced) by law to surrender assets to benefit another, would not the principles of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" be compromised. To what extent should the state be empowered to seize such assets. Nature itself rebels against the concept--would the seizure of private property confer eternal life to the beneficiary? If so, how much force should be applied to overcome resistance?

[vorbeigehende]

@mikepalomino

those unalienable rights ("Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness") are, of course, negative rights (see also Amendment 14) If you try to interpret them as positive you immediately have a contradiction.

[fdny9682]

Right to healthcare is an extension of right to life? The right to life is the pursuit of your own life. If healthcare is the product of anothers work, why do I have the right to it. If noone choose to be a doctor then healthcare wouldnt exist, would the right to it still exist then?

[socalcraigster]

"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is not in the Constitution, it is in the Declaration of Independence.

The Bill or Rights (first 10 Amendments) is part of the Constituion. It protects certain rights, those properly created by law and those that are considered fundamental like the right to marry, have children and parent.

[Califacience]

@socalcraigster

"Life" and "Liberty" are in the Constitution, "property" replaces "the pursuit of happiness". In the list.

What the heck does the Constitution have to say about the right to marry or have children as specific rights?

it's moronic to speak of "the protection" of rights created by law....aren't the laws themselves designed to er..."protect" themselves.

This is positive rights theory trying to borrow the language of negative natural rights theory.

[LordVigeous666999]

you do remember, that the bill of rights aren't all of them right? Its just a special list of some of the founders favorites

They also didn't include the right to walk, does this mean I can break your legs?

Come'on, its not a complete list, and it should be pretty obvious to everyone, that is the case

[mikepalomino]

Political philosophy aside, Mr. Sowell is just dead wrong by claiming that trying terror suspects in American courts is "unprecedented."

Did Mr. Sowell forget that both Richard Reid (aka The Shoe Bomber) and Zacarias Moussaoui were both tried and convicted in Federal Courts?

This was either a gross oversight (ironic for someone deriding other intellectuals, considering academic integrity is the lifeblood of Academics) or an underhanded argument meant to score political points.