Friday, May 16, 2008

If it Feels Good, Do it

The Woodstock generation proclaimed:
“If it Feels Good, Do it”:

Some of that generation were fortunate enough to outgrow that hedonistic, self-absorbed, self-destructive “philosophy”. Others used it as the foundation of their political ideology well beyond the point where their ponytails turned gray.

Thomas Sowell, in a three part series, has now laid bare, for all to see, exactly why so-called “Liberals” repeatedly exercise their precious liberties in such a self-destructive manner:

1) Too "Complex"?

2) Too "Complex"?: Part II

3) Too "Complex"?: Part III

Basically, so-called “Liberals” never outgrew the “philosophy” of their Woodstock days. Worse still, all too many went on to become university professors indoctrinating the next generation in their self-destructive “philosophy”.


Greg Loutsenko said...

They also challenged traditionalism, social conservatism, racism, sexism and went on to do things like found Apple, become presidents considered (by the American people, through approval rating) the best for generations and generally allowed the later generations far more freedom compared to that on offer in 1950s (probably one of the most restrictive times in terms of personal liberty for centuries).

sbvor said...


Did you read the 3 part series from Thomas Sowell which I linked to?

Did you understand his arguments on the emotional approach to politics?

Does Timothy Leary embody your concept of “personal liberty”?

Narcissistic behavior is neither healthy nor productive. It does not produce happiness and is not representative of “personal liberty”.

Does the doctrine of “Political Correctness” embody your concept of “personal liberty”?

Greg Loutsenko said...

I was highlighting the fact that the counter culture of the 1960s have massive positive effects on the World. I do not disagree that there were negative effects as well. However the positives far outweigh the negatives in my opinion.

i can just as easily show you people on the right who i consider disturbed. jerry farwell and pat robertson certainly spring to mind.

i certainly believe in personal liberties. i have never heard of tim leary but from what i quickly read on him i find nothing wrong with him. i subscribe to classical liberalism, as outlined in "constitution of liberty" by frederick hayek, "on liberty" by John Stuart Mill and "wealth of nations" by adam smith. basically the argument goes like this: it is perfectly acceptable to do whatever one wishes as long as one does not impose on another's freedom to do the same.

it is interesting to note that the founding fathers of usa based the constitution on this principle of classical liberalism. e.g. in the deceleration of independence:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

in fact hayek argued that personal liberty must be as absolute as possible because that is the only way society progresses in the long run (read his book, you will be enlightened). so overall i believe tim leary's works and deeds are perfectly fine. all he did was take some LSD, write some books and sing some songs (the beatles did the same, and they are held in high regard).

on political correctness. it is interesting to note that it goes both ways. i noticed that conservatives in usa never criticise extreme christian views. it is considered quite appropriate to talk about the "gay agenda" and generally bash the gays. it is considered politicly incorrect in conservative circles to be called an intellectual or a scholar or be identified with any intelectual pursuit. the civil rights movement is never mentioned. so you see certain things are considered inappropriate in conservative circles while others are not. just like in more liberal circles. so you see i do not consider political correctness a concept of the left. it can just as easily be applied to the right.

sbvor said...


1) I embrace the philosophy of Classical Liberalism (and a few others). I favor the same authors you cite.

2) Today’s so-called “Liberals” (in the United States) have virtually nothing in common with Classical Liberalism. In fact, they are virtually the polar opposite of Classical Liberalism.

3) Having a theoretical “right” to indulge in behavior which is both self-destructive and destructive to the larger society does not make that behavior advisable. Drug abuse is a perfect example.

If we are to allow drug abusers the “right” to destroy their lives, we must be insulated from any harm they might do to the rest of us. As just one of many examples, we must not be expected to pay their medical bills.

Never confuse narcissistic, self-destructive self-indulgence with “the pursuit of happiness”. That is NOT the road to happiness.

4) If you read the speech on The Origins of Political Correctness, then you know that it is an objective and verifiable fact of history that Political Correctness was created by self-described Marxists as a means of specifically translating Marxist Class Warfare into cultural terms (as a means of achieving the goal of World Socialism).

You should also know that there is no “Moral Equivalence” in this regard between Marxists on The Left and anybody within the Conservative movement. Mostly, Conservatives simply object to being required by force of law to fund those things which offend them. That is altogether different from seeking, through force of law and other forms of intimidation, to utterly silence the opposition. But, The Myth of Moral Equivalence is always the argument from The Left when presented with irrefutable, objective, verifiable and damnable facts of history.

5) I am, culturally speaking, a recovering member of the 1960s Counter Culture. I was once a Democratic Socialist and an anti-war protestor. Like David Horowitz, I can personally attest to the fact that the Counter Culture was, on balance, enormously destructive (both at the individual level and the societal level). Emulating or even admiring that culture is a giant mistake.

Yes, there was some decent pop music that came from it. Yes, many from my generation went on to achieve great things. That attests to individual talent and drive. Culturally, it says more about Classical American culture and the Capitalist System than it does about the counterproductive Counter Culture and the associated Socialist System.

Greg Loutsenko said...

just a quick note. i still think 1960s were very beneficial to breaking down lots of barriers in the society, i think that is the american way, which is admirable. i certainly greatly enjoy reading books from that era (it makes me feel free). not exactly from the 1960s by Darma Bums and On the Road are some of my favourite books. thomas s hunter's observations of american society at the time (in his books Hell's Angels and Fear and Loathing in Los Vegas) is probably provides the deepest and clearest understanding of his chosen topics. his description of how one could see the wave of revolution extending from california and stopping just before Los Vegas was mesmerising.

as it says in constitution of liberty (chapter 2, or may be 3) you cannot have just the positive effects of liberty, negative effects must be allowed too. only through experimentation, and failure etc. do people learn. of course you have good points too. Drug use does create medical bills which someone has to pay. I have yet to hear LSD and weed doing anything as bad as some of the other drugs. Lets be honest, alcohol and smoking kills more people in a week than LSD and weed has killed in a century. I think prohibition is far more costlier than the costs would have been if the drugs were legal (

i do no think you quite got what i meant by political correctness. what i meant is that there are certain things people on the left do not want to talk about, just like there are certain things people on the right do not want to talk about. thats it, nothing to do with socialism vs democracy.

also you said "Conservatives simply object to being required by force of law to fund those things which offend them." i think this applies both ways. Liberals object to being required by force of law to fund those things which offend them. they do not like the 10 commandments on display on state courts for example. they think that gay marriage is a right (which i agree with). why should the conservatives override the liberals' preference. why is ok to force liberals to read religious laws written on state property while they do not agree with it.

Hot Topics:

BEST Data - No Warming Over Last Decade
The AMO as a Driver of Climate Change
Fact check - The wealthy already pay more taxes
Rare Earth Elements Spell Doom for Green Fantasies
Wikipedia’s Climate Doctor
ClimateGate - The latest updates
Dr. Tim Ball on ClimateGate - The end of AGW hysteria?
ClimateGate: The Musical - Hide The Decline!
Lindzen and Choi SHATTER the IPCC Computer models!
It’s OFFICIAL! We HAVE elected our own Hugo Chavez!
Health Care “Reform”
Cap & Trade - It’s just a giant tax (on EVERYBODY)
The Radicals in the White House
ACORN - The truth
Transparency - Obama promised it. So, where is it?
The Cause of the Housing Debacle
Fiscal Responsibility - In Obama’s Fantasy World
Atlas Shrugged: From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years
Iraq War Media Deceptions 101 - Why the Iraq invasion was justified and necessary
Climate Change 101 - Learn what the SCIENCE says about the biggest hoax EVER!
Obama - on Climate Change
Obama’s Climate Czar - The most dangerous politician in the United States
Obama’s Climate Czar - Her Socialist revolution has begun
Compare the current recession to previous recessions
Obama - Historic & Catastrophic!
Is Obama a Socialist? You BETCHA!
Makers & Takers - Spread the wealth
Obama = International Crisis
The economic case against Obama
The comprehensive case against Obama
The deficit case against the Dems
A Liberal Supermajority? Watch Out!
Examine the series you should have read before voting!
Maggie’s Totalitarian Political Religion
“Kill him!” - Just another media lie?
Journalistic Integrity? - WHERE?
The post about the TED Spread
Save the nation from the Entitlement binge!
Market Reaction to $700 Billion Bailout Vote
Drill Here, Drill Now - Quantitative Facts
ANWR - Drill There, Drill Now
ANWR Matters - Here’s why
Coal Liquefaction (Liquid Fuels From Coal)
The Ethanol Debacle
Pickens Plan - Don’t Fall For it!
Energy Tomorrow Radio - GOOD Stuff!
Economic Forecast