Evidence for God from Science

ultimate777 wrote:In the book, "Renegade History of the United States" by Thaddeus Russell, the author thinks American conservatives are in a bad way because in order to curb vice the market must be regulated and to have a free market vice must go largely unregulated. He thinks few conservatives have a clue this is so, and might be very chagrined if they did. He cites many examples in American history, especially from like 1750 to 1850 to prove his case.

Do you think its true?
If not, why not?
If so, what should be done?

I doubt I can explain things anywhere near as good as the author can, but if you have a question I can handle I may answer it
Very likely I will refer you to the book without comment.

- Huffington Post - Oct 2010

Five years ago, I had every reason to believe that my job as a history professor at Barnard College was secure. I had been teaching there for four years, I had published my dissertation with a major publisher, and because I had tripled the sizes of the introductory U.S. history course and the American Studies program, colleagues told me they "would be shocked" if I were not promoted to a tenure-track position.

But that was before my colleagues knew what I was teaching.

I had always been a misfit in academia, partly because of my background, partly because of my personality, and increasingly over the years because of my ideas -- ideas that are now a book called "A Renegade History of the United States."

I was raised by pot-smoking, nudist, socialist revolutionaries as an egghead white boy in black neighborhoods in Berkeley and Oakland. I nearly flunked eighth grade and finished high school with a C average. Then I went to the anarchist, ultra-hippy Antioch College in Ohio, which accepted all their applicants, didn't give grades, and didn't have a history department.

Jac3510 wrote:Can you share an example from the book about a vice that has to go unregulated? As stated, your question is too broad to comment on intelligently.

B. W. wrote:

ultimate777 wrote:In the book, "Renegade History of the United States" by Thaddeus Russell, the author thinks American conservatives are in a bad way because in order to curb vice the market must be regulated and to have a free market vice must go largely unregulated. He thinks few conservatives have a clue this is so, and might be very chagrined if they did. He cites many examples in American history, especially from like 1750 to 1850 to prove his case.

Do you think its true?
If not, why not?
If so, what should be done?

I doubt I can explain things anywhere near as good as the author can, but if you have a question I can handle I may answer it
Very likely I will refer you to the book without comment.

Here is an article by the author concerning himself in his own words from the Huffington Post:

- Huffington Post - Oct 2010

Five years ago, I had every reason to believe that my job as a history professor at Barnard College was secure. I had been teaching there for four years, I had published my dissertation with a major publisher, and because I had tripled the sizes of the introductory U.S. history course and the American Studies program, colleagues told me they "would be shocked" if I were not promoted to a tenure-track position.

But that was before my colleagues knew what I was teaching.

I had always been a misfit in academia, partly because of my background, partly because of my personality, and increasingly over the years because of my ideas -- ideas that are now a book called "A Renegade History of the United States."

I was raised by pot-smoking, nudist, socialist revolutionaries as an egghead white boy in black neighborhoods in Berkeley and Oakland. I nearly flunked eighth grade and finished high school with a C average. Then I went to the anarchist, ultra-hippy Antioch College in Ohio, which accepted all their applicants, didn't give grades, and didn't have a history department.

That spells bias and an an extreme agenda in whatever this person writes and I would say its hogwash and uber-liberal propaganda and revisionist history...

In other words - don't take him seriously, he hates America and his love for America is to destroy it.
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

ultimate777 wrote:In the book, "Renegade History of the United States" by Thaddeus Russell, the author thinks American conservatives are in a bad way because in order to curb vice the market must be regulated and to have a free market vice must go largely unregulated. He thinks few conservatives have a clue this is so, and might be very chagrined if they did. He cites many examples in American history, especially from like 1750 to 1850 to prove his case.

Do you think its true?
If not, why not?
If so, what should be done?

I doubt I can explain things anywhere near as good as the author can, but if you have a question I can handle I may answer it
Very likely I will refer you to the book without comment.

Here is an article by the author concerning himself in his own words from the Huffington Post:

- Huffington Post - Oct 2010

Five years ago, I had every reason to believe that my job as a history professor at Barnard College was secure. I had been teaching there for four years, I had published my dissertation with a major publisher, and because I had tripled the sizes of the introductory U.S. history course and the American Studies program, colleagues told me they "would be shocked" if I were not promoted to a tenure-track position.

But that was before my colleagues knew what I was teaching.

I had always been a misfit in academia, partly because of my background, partly because of my personality, and increasingly over the years because of my ideas -- ideas that are now a book called "A Renegade History of the United States."

I was raised by pot-smoking, nudist, socialist revolutionaries as an egghead white boy in black neighborhoods in Berkeley and Oakland. I nearly flunked eighth grade and finished high school with a C average. Then I went to the anarchist, ultra-hippy Antioch College in Ohio, which accepted all their applicants, didn't give grades, and didn't have a history department.

That spells bias and an an extreme agenda in whatever this person writes and I would say its hogwash and uber-liberal propaganda and revisionist history...

In other words - don't take him seriously, he hates America and his love for America is to destroy it.
-
-
-

ultimate777 wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Can you share an example from the book about a vice that has to go unregulated? As stated, your question is too broad to comment on intelligently.

How about four?
Prostitution, drugs, alchohol, gambling.

Jac3510 wrote:

ultimate777 wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Can you share an example from the book about a vice that has to go unregulated? As stated, your question is too broad to comment on intelligently.

How about four?
Prostitution, drugs, alchohol, gambling.

I don't understand. All four of those are regulated.

RickD wrote:I think Ultimate is saying that the author is saying they have to go unregulated.

Jac3510 wrote:

RickD wrote:I think Ultimate is saying that the author is saying they have to go unregulated.

Then I'm even more confused. If we are regulating them, then on what basis does the author say they have to go unregulated?

RickD wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

RickD wrote:I think Ultimate is saying that the author is saying they have to go unregulated.

Then I'm even more confused. If we are regulating them, then on what basis does the author say they have to go unregulated?

Ultimate,

Could you explain this? Why does the author want vices such as prostitution, drugs, alcohol, and gambling unregulated?

RickD wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

RickD wrote:I think Ultimate is saying that the author is saying they have to go unregulated.

Then I'm even more confused. If we are regulating them, then on what basis does the author say they have to go unregulated?

Ultimate,

Could you explain this? Why does the author want vices such as prostitution, drugs, alcohol, and gambling unregulated?

ultimate777 wrote:

RickD wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

RickD wrote:I think Ultimate is saying that the author is saying they have to go unregulated.

Then I'm even more confused. If we are regulating them, then on what basis does the author say they have to go unregulated?

Ultimate,

Could you explain this? Why does the author want vices such as prostitution, drugs, alcohol, and gambling unregulated?

The author says we have to choose, to the degree we regulate vice, we must regulate the market, make it less a free market. I may say some more in another reply to this message.

Jac3510 wrote:

ultimate777 wrote:

RickD wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

RickD wrote:I think Ultimate is saying that the author is saying they have to go unregulated.

Then I'm even more confused. If we are regulating them, then on what basis does the author say they have to go unregulated?

Ultimate,

Could you explain this? Why does the author want vices such as prostitution, drugs, alcohol, and gambling unregulated?

The author says we have to choose, to the degree we regulate vice, we must regulate the market, make it less a free market. I may say some more in another reply to this message.

You keep saying what the author says. I don't see any reason to think it's true.