Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's fine. I happen to prefer more liberty even if it isn't explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution; that is the position generally described (including by Judge Bork, who doesn't share it) as "libertarian."
I prefer we do not have activist judges, even if they agree with my point of view on what the law "should" be.
Have you read any of his books? Yes, Sowell does dummy himself down for the mainstream audience. There are no mainstream intellectuals because the vast majority of Americans prefer the Franken and Hannitty propaganda to the writings of those with Phds.
I guess I am from an earlier age when Galbraith and Friedman could make the bestsellers list. Sowell's books are quite impressive, his newspaper articles less so. Sowell is just maximizing his income; sound economics on his part.
William Buckley's show would not have been renewed for a second season in the current environment.
I couldn't agree with you more. But the fact is that one cannot be both a pundit and a public intellectual. They are antithetical. In taking on the role of pundit, Sowell has sacrificed what was once his clear position as a public intellectual. Really a shame.
I prefer we do not have activist judges, even if they agree with my point of view on what the law "should" be.
That's your prerogative. But it is mere confusion to call an unswerving adherence to a 1787 Constitutional interpretation "libertarian", and Judge Bork at least is not confused about this. He knows he's not a libertarian. He dislikes libertarians. He takes pains to say so.
I couldn't agree with you more. But the fact is that one cannot be both a pundit and a public intellectual. They are antithetical. In taking on the role of pundit, Sowell has sacrificed what was once his clear position as a public intellectual. Really a shame.
I can see your point there. For people like myself, who have never seen him on Fox, his work is pretty impressive.
That's your prerogative. But it is mere confusion to call an unswerving adherence to a 1787 Constitutional interpretation "libertarian", and Judge Bork at least is not confused about this. He knows he's not a libertarian. He dislikes libertarians. He takes pains to say so.
A judges role is to give an impartial reading of the law. Bork comes closer than any judge I know to doing this.
I find it kind of funny that you mention Paul and Perot in reference to Sowell's social stances and brought up abortion and drugs. Funny because Perot was pro-choice and wanted to expand the War on Drugs and Paul is pro-life and open to the legalization of drugs.
I don't mean that as a jab against you. I just found the politicians and specific stances to be funny.
Another good example of a conservative intellectual (although one who was also very libertarian leaning) was William F. Buckley.
True. I was thinking wider in the spirit of libertarianism and not specifics.
To Wm F Buckley, I also wonder if Tony Brown would've been around on PBS for long, if at all.
The main reason he isn't a mainstream intellectual is that he's not an intellectual.
He's an ideologue.
He wrote a good book on intellectuals and has a low opinion of them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
