Somebody needs to make the distinction between colonial slavery and the slavery of antiquity — Heister Eggcart

Genius! I actually agree, good point (Y)

Mew, csa and others already did.

I know. I'm planning to employ de-programmers for the lot of you. — Mongrel

Well you should always remember that if you can't beat us, you should join us (Y)

You see? This is that radicalization I was talking about. You've got to stop reading conservative websites. They're just fishing for suicide voters.

I will single handedly save humanity from itself... one deprogramming at a time.

You see? This is that radicalization I was talking about. You've got to stop reading conservative websites. They're just fishing for suicide voters. — Mongrel

>:O Right - move on to reading liberal progressive websites!

Just read my website: strawdogs.com

OMG. There really is a strawdogs.com

I lament that you were radicalized, — Mongrel

Ironically, the conservatism that I subscribe to is anti-radical and anti-ideological.

tip: see Democrats VS Republicans (the great Abe)

But this is a bad answer, for two simple reasons.

(1)If those who opposed slavery had read and agreed with this article, they wouldn't have tried to change things, because they would recognize they owed epistemic deference to the old institutions and lacked sure answers to replace it.

(2) Further, if you think the ending of an institution means that it was, in fact, intolerable, and therefore didn't deserve epistemic deference.....well essentially every institution ever has ended. And therefore none of them deserved epistemic deference. So, by your own logic, unless our own present institutions are unlike all past institutions (an idea which is astoundingly radical and reluctant to draw form the past) our institutions too will fail, and deserve no epistemic deference.

Again, the argument is blisteringly bad.

Okay, one thing is to read things, another thing is to understand.

What did the author say regarding changes. He mentions it throughout the entire paper, and even dedicates an entire chapter to it: A Precautionary Principle for Institutional Change. There is absolutely no way you could have missed it, if you read it.

Did you actually read it or just rush through it. I suspect the latter since the author has been explicit about how we should deal with changes. Slavery is such a silly (counter) example, because it is obviously intolerable. The author swept it away with such ease in the earlier chapters.

So, by your own logic — csalisbury

Note that I do not have to defend the author at all, I have my own political standings.

Again, the argument is blisteringly bad. — csalisbury

Probably because you're strawmanning it.

He thinks Xavier Marquez, BS in philosophy and mathematics, MA in political science, dissertation which won him the award Leo Strauss Award for Best Dissertation in Political Philosophy and well published author is unironically defending slavery. >:O

But he has got 800+ posts on The Philosophy Forum, that must count for something, so Marquez's arguments must be "blisteringly bad."

So you said your views diverge. What is your viewpoint?

He mentions it throughout the entire paper, and even dedicates an entire chapter to it: A Precautionary Principle for Institutional Change.

edit(2): I have read the paper as well up to page 14. — Emptyheady

A Precautionary Principle for Institutional Change starts at the bottom of page 14. The irony here is painful.

And the author, of course, does talk about change. A cautious change, where we have to know the risk we subject ourselves to in changing a system, to be quite sure that it will work better than the current one. Again, if everyone agreed with the author, emancipation never would have happened.

Slavery is such a silly (counter) example, because it is obviously intolerable. The author swept it away with such ease.

He doesn't 'sweep it away.' He literally doesn't deal with it, except to say he's not in favor of it. Which I believe, and have believed since reading the OP. I'm not, nor have I ever been, saying that I think the author is defending slavery. I'm saying that his argument for conservatism would apply perfect well to slave-owning systems. I'm saying his argument fails to explain why it would not apply to them. And that's a big problem.

So I guess we base legitimacy on tolerance so that we can argue that intolerance should never happen.

God we're so stupid.

He thinks Xavier Marquez, BS in philosophy and mathematics, MA in political science, dissertation which won him the award Leo Strauss Award for Best Dissertation in Political Philosophy and well published author is unironically defending slavery. >:O

But he has got 800+ posts on The Philosophy Forum, that must count for something, so Marquez's arguments must be "blisteringly bad."

Here's an idea. Let's begin the discussion of any philosopher on the boards with a list of the awards they've won. And then if people disagree, let's not address the substance of their disagreement, but list the awards that philosopher's won, and point out their hubris. Do you, for instance, agree with Chomsky's political views? Wait, but do you know the amount of awards he's won? Do you think you're smarter than Chomsky?

This is bad stuff emptyheady, and again, I've never stated that I think the author is defending slavery. I'm quite sure he's against it.

A Precautionary Principle for Institutional Change starts at the bottom of page 14. The irony here is painful. — csalisbury

It is impossible for me to continue reading after I stated that, right? You try too hard to antagonise. Go take a break, this is getting desperate.

I'm saying that his argument for conservatism would apply perfect well to slave-owning systems. I'm saying his argument fails to explain why it would not apply to them. — csalisbury

The argument applies to everything you dip.

I am done with this for now.

You're not very good at this are you? You lecture ppl about not having read the paper, admit to not having read all of the paper, and fail to give any other defense of it. Happy trails man

Business conservative and I lean more towards the pragmatic side of conservatism. With a background in industrial engineering and business management, economics and actually studied philosophy for a brief moment.

With influences of Anscombe, Foot, MacIntyre, Aristotle, Hume, Burke, Kekes, Oakeshott, Hobbes, Hayek, Friedman, Sowell -- and Pinker of course.

As an interesting side note, I am fully aware that many people think that 'slavery' and women's right to vote are good arguments against conservatism and in favour of change -- Burke was explicit on the crucial importance of change -- and people use this as an excuse for radical untested ideas that sound nice on paper. They have to realise that the opposite can also happen and things could get ugly:



Let alone the insane increase in homicides and rapes.

People are so extremely naive. Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world, and still manges to cock up -- ends up as the worst performing economy in the world. Now see how many people suffer, because of "change."

I learned statistical quality control from a dude who was involved in the Western Electric Hawthorne studies (ever come across that?)

I also observed how priceless things can be lost because somebody had a great new idea (in my time at AT&T.)

I'm that dot where the x/y axes cross.

Yeah, got plenty of statistics. I loved to use Excel for those things, especially with standard modules and formulas. God bless Microsoft.

My field is more managerial than analytical.

The argument applies to everything you dip. — Emptyheady

Which is why it fails. It cannot distinguish either a basic institution nor intolerable practices. All it amounts to is cheering for the present power. Empty rhetoric, aimed not at pointing out an upcoming catastrophe, but rather defending whatever structure or institution is present.

Un and csalisbury are correct that this argument defends slavery: it worships present institution without question, out fear of the change boogyman. Rather than pointing out the risk of a revolution (that's obvious to anyone who bothers to look the policies, usually missing, of the revolutionaries), it's nothing more than a banner saying change must be bad for change's sake.

Cool.

TheWillowOfDarkness — TheWillowOfDarkness

I remember you from the old PF. I will skip this one.

So Un made a very good post:

If the population regulated is helpless to reject the basic institution, as is nearly always the case, then their 'acceptance' as evidenced by the endurance of said institution has no value and no legitimacy, because everybody necessarily 'accepts' what they can do nothing about, however repugnant and illegitimate it is. — Un

This, to my mind, is a knock down argument.

Does anyone want to address it?

Or do we all agree Marquez is right based on his cv?

Par for the course. The irrationality of your brand of conservatism can't abide description of society and people. It works through mindless worship of past tradition, a philosophy not defined by restraint of revolutionary violence and destruction, but by a fear of anything different, such that one cannot even describe losses, gains or destruction that occur from change.

Just as Marquez argues, it's change that must be avoid, no matter what that might be. The philosophy which is the flip-side of the naive Marxist who thinks the destruction of revolution amounts to a social and economic progress. Change nothing, and the world will be functioning as smoothly and as well as it ever could.

Like the naive Marxist, to actually start describing the world, to specify basic institutions, to point out what it intolerable or not, to realise that institutions are always in flux and bettering them amounts to a change, would to destroy the vision of your wondrous utopia. You would, Marquez and Pinker forbid, actually have to do some work describing and maintaining society, rather than just running of a general principle of "no change."

You can grab some Tom Brown guides and head out to the wilderness. I know this because I used to be into it. I've spent enough time in the woods that billboards and roads just look weird.

Un thinks he's helpless. He thinks the world needs to be saved. Really not a happy combo for an atheist.

Well, idk, i grew up in Maine and spent plenty of time in the woods, and you spend enough time in the woods, and come back: people seem weird. Having been on the outside, you see people and their interactions (yourself included) in a new light. You get a sense of social patterns and why people do what they do. I know why you're sending me into the wilderness and that's fine.


In any case, people have presented good reasons to think the argument in the op is bunk and no one has addressed them except to say, as thornongil and emptyheady have, that theyre wrong bc the ppl presenting those arguments cant possibly poke a hole in the argument of someone with accolades, bc what gall. And that's fine, again, i know where that kind of rhetoric stems from, but it feels like vindication to me and that's where I'll leave things unless anyone wants to actually engage.

except to say he's not in favor of it. Which I believe, and have believed since reading the OP — csalisbury

That you clarify this now, albeit on page 6 of this thread, is most welcome.

And speaking for myself, I'm the last person to think a person's credentials immunizes them from criticism.

Again, if everyone agreed with the author, emancipation never would have happened. — csalisbury

That isn't clear.

The slave system in the american south was a basic institution. — csalisbury

According to Marquez? You're playing a crafty game here, which you must realize.

I did engage. It's like you're deaf.