Thomas Sowell interview • Hacker News Board

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#231

Post by slowmovintarget » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:11 PM UTC

IanDrake wrote: post #83

schemy wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing simpler than misusing statistics. The right wing does it all the time. 53% of all prisoners are black, ergo blacks are criminals. Homosexuals represent 70% of all HIV infections, ergo homosexuality is inherently risky and should be treated the same way as hard drugs. Now Thomas Sowell doesn't say any of those things himself. His points are much more interesting ... to people who have been only expose…

You're projecting your bias into the causation. Most conservatives I know understand that disproportionate black crime has nothing to do with race and everything to do with disproportionately adopted negative value systems in the black community. Specifically, fatherless homes and lack of appreciation for education. These variables have the same impact on people of all races. Unfortunately, instead of correcting the…

"Disruption" of the "nuclear family" comes from the Marxist view that a monogamous family unit leads to the holding of property. In earlier non-monogamous societies, only the women knew for sure which children were theirs. That meant that property tended to accrue to communities formed around matriarchs, rather than single families.

As a father, if you didn't know who your child was, you protected them all, and had to cede property to the matriarchs.

Engels wrote that this was why "the patriarchy" should be fought and "dismantled" because it led to property ownership, and sensitivity against redistribution. Therefore, this remains a core value of modern Marxists, to move society back to fatherlessness so that establishment of redistribution mechanisms is more palatable.

Seems like a fairly horrific goal to me. Property rights have led to the single greatest increase in standard of living for all of Western civilization. Seems like we would want more people joining the system than tearing it down.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#232

Post by rmellow » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:12 PM UTC

htk wrote: post #155

Someone should create a list of books that comprise a beginners manual of living in a modern society, and “Basic Economics” would fit perfectly in this list.

I think a lot about this. Modern society is very different from what our ancestors grew up with.

Any other recommendations on how to do well?

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#233

Post by jrexilius » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:13 PM UTC

His writings do exactly what he states: Sowell insists that his work “stands or falls on its own merits or applicability” and is not “enhanced or reduced by [his] personal life.”.

And they will continue to stand, objectively, for a long time to come.

But his life and character are inspirational examples of self-determination and leadership that we need far more of. It is a shame he is not more often cited as an example that others can learn from in their personal lives.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#234

Post by haberman » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:14 PM UTC

ardy42 wrote: post #141

alexarnesen wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see you recommended the heavy work, not just the propaganda pamphlet - good. I haven't read Das Kapital and I should. However... My question: an oft repeated refrain, when Marx is touted as a reasonable alternative, is that any time anyone tried his ideas out, it was a total disaster (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Chavez). I have watched some Wolff on Youtube, as well as other lectures on Marxism, because I'm interested an…

> My question: an oft repeated refrain, when Marx is touted as a reasonable alternative, is that any time anyone tried his ideas out, it was a total disaster (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Chavez). I've not read Marx, nor am I a Marxist, but my understanding is that most of his work is a diagnosis of a problem, not a plan for a cure. IIRC, Marx's own "plan" was basically more capitalism harder until it collapses and somethin…

I don't think that analogy works: many people never get cancer which means we have a clear model for what a healthy, cancer-free life form looks like. "Curing cancer" just means returning a body to this healthy, pre-cancerous state.

But we have no model for what a healthy, capitalism-free society would look like. Every attempt at removing capitalism from the system has led to totalitarian results.

This doesn't prove that capitalism is the best possible system, but it strongly suggests that alternatives are worse.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#235

Post by jahaja » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:16 PM UTC

NateEag wrote: post #118

jahaja wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having "affairs" doesn't make someone a creep, and certainly doesn't deserve even the slightest mention when assessing the man.

How is whether he broke a solemn vow irrelevant to assessing him? Especially if it purportedly happened multiple times, and the religion he preached condemns that behavior so thoroughly?

Because his "religious points"-score is unrelated to his universal message and the moral panic of it is thoroughly outdated.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#236

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:17 PM UTC

markharper wrote: post #194

alexarnesen wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see you recommended the heavy work, not just the propaganda pamphlet - good. I haven't read Das Kapital and I should. However... My question: an oft repeated refrain, when Marx is touted as a reasonable alternative, is that any time anyone tried his ideas out, it was a total disaster (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Chavez). I have watched some Wolff on Youtube, as well as other lectures on Marxism, because I'm interested an…

> My question: an oft repeated refrain, when Marx is touted as a reasonable alternative, is that any time anyone tried his ideas out, it was a total disaster (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Chavez). A couple things. Chavez is of a different category from the other three just on the amount of death under the other regimes. The question of the results of socialism and capitalism is complex. It's worth reading both historical an…

[deleted]

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#237

Post by markdog12 » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:18 PM UTC

schemy wrote: post #52

vixen99 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be interesting to see where you think he's wrong especially where his arguments are based on some uncompromising statistical facts.

There is nothing simpler than misusing statistics. The right wing does it all the time. 53% of all prisoners are black, ergo blacks are criminals. Homosexuals represent 70% of all HIV infections, ergo homosexuality is inherently risky and should be treated the same way as hard drugs. Now Thomas Sowell doesn't say any of those things himself. His points are much more interesting ... to people who have been only expose…

> There is nothing simpler than misusing statistics

Lining up strawmen and knocking them down, maybe.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#238

Post by schoen » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:18 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #122

deiznof wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My opinion is no less helpful than anyone else's. I could even make the argument that it is more helpful, considering lots of people here apparently didn't realize how completely backward and awful Thomas Sowell's social views are and how helpful it is to tell them this.

Well, by no means am I trying to shut you down, I'm doing the opposite, asking for more details. For example another comment on this thread pointed out that apparently Republicans usually sign some kind of "loyalty oath" that's associated with him. I would consider that strong evidence for his association with traditional conservatism.

If you check that part of the thread again, you'll see that that "loyalty oath" is associated with Grover Norquist rather than Thomas Sowell (although I'm fairly sure Sowell also thinks that taxes and government expenditures in the U.S. are way too high).

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#239

Post by googthrowaway42 » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:21 PM UTC

jahaja wrote: post #229

googthrowaway42 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are righteous forms of hierarchy and tyrannical forms of hierarchy. What your argument boils down to is an attack on hierarchy qua hierarchy. Very common to see these days as it is a classic revolutionary/Marxist ideal but it's also entirely inconsistent with natural law. Even within the revolutionary ideal, every revolution has its leaders and its strongmen because that's just how people organize themselves an…

> it's also entirely inconsistent with natural law You're equating your subjective ideas with natural law? Seem a bit over-confident to say the least. > There are righteous forms of hierarchy Yes, a parent towards a their child. What other forms of righteous hierarchies are you thinking about? > think Lenin and Stalin vs the starving masses That would be the tyrannical form and completely illegitimate.

> What other forms of righteous hierarchies are you thinking about?

Head surgeon and other surgeons. CTO and other engineers. VP of sales and sales people, etc.

Other forms of hierarchy would be upper and lower courts.

Whether or not these are righteous is dependent on if, for example, the head surgeon is actually experienced and talented and a good leader. If he's just some shmuck they pulled off the street or if he's only in that position because he's friends with the hospital president then that would be a tyrannical or dysfunctional hierarchy.

>That would be the tyrannical form and completely illegitimate.

That's my point. But hierarchy itself is not illegitimate. That hierarchy itself is legitimate is a reflection of natural law. That was my assertion.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#240

Post by jkhdigital » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:21 PM UTC

I have read more books by Thomas Sowell than by any other author, by a very wide margin. The one which has influenced me the most is the one which best captures the fundamental principles underlying his view of the world: A Conflict of Visions. I'd suggest it as required reading for anyone who wants to fully appreciate Sowell's work, as it provides insight into how he makes normative judgments about the merits of economic policy choices.

In general Sowell does an excellent job of demonstrating through data that the outcomes of economic policies are often directly at odds with their stated objectives, but to really take a principled stand on what the proper objectives are in the first place you need a set of coherent first principles. A Conflict of Visions provides this backdrop, and once you understand that Sowell clearly adheres to the "constrained" vision of humankind then his other works fall into their proper context.

It's a great book, but not above criticism, so in the interest of thoughtful inquiry I'd encourage anyone to read the book as well as this review by Bryan Caplan, economics professor at George Mason University who is also an economic libertarian: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/sowell