Comments on: Milton Friedman Explains Free Markets http://www.theatlanticright.com/2008/12/12/milton-friedman-explains-free-markets/ Because Common Sense Transcends Distance Mon, 06 Feb 2012 06:43:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: John Lofton, Recovering Republican http://www.theatlanticright.com/2008/12/12/milton-friedman-explains-free-markets/comment-page-1/#comment-80846 John Lofton, Recovering Republican Mon, 15 Dec 2008 04:02:35 +0000 http://www.theatlanticright.com/?p=9572#comment-80846 Forget "conservatism," please. It has been Godless and thus irrelevant. As Stonewall Jackson's Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago: "[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It .is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth." Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2). John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com Recovering Republican JLof@aol.com Forget “conservatism,” please. It has been Godless and thus irrelevant. As Stonewall Jackson’s Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:

“[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It .is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth.”

Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).

John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com

]]> By: Andrew http://www.theatlanticright.com/2008/12/12/milton-friedman-explains-free-markets/comment-page-1/#comment-80765 Andrew Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:37:55 +0000 http://www.theatlanticright.com/?p=9572#comment-80765 About "Liberalism" and "Conservatism": Dr. Friedman often referenced himself as a Classical Liberal in the vein of Adam Smith. It is more of an economics label. Smith argued for a move toward a free market from one regulated by the British Empire. At the time, he was a true liberal. Also, generally speaking, a group that expresses the desire to "return" to a former status quo (status quo ante) are more accurately labeled reactionist. Modern labels of "liberal" and "conservative" are decades old political terms, referring to long passed political directions and definitely not to be applied as economic labels... even though the media often does. About “Liberalism” and “Conservatism”: Dr. Friedman often referenced himself as a Classical Liberal in the vein of Adam Smith. It is more of an economics label. Smith argued for a move toward a free market from one regulated by the British Empire. At the time, he was a true liberal.

Also, generally speaking, a group that expresses the desire to “return” to a former status quo (status quo ante) are more accurately labeled reactionist.

Modern labels of “liberal” and “conservative” are decades old political terms, referring to long passed political directions and definitely not to be applied as economic labels… even though the media often does.

]]>