domain:nytimes.com
ActuallyATleilaxuGhola
Axolotl Tank Class of '24
10m ago
As any hiring manager knows nowadays, the job pool is mostly incompetents, liars, lazies, addicts, or otherwise unwanted because of a serious flaw.
As both a hiring manager and a grass-toucher, I really do not believe this. Yes, our recruiters, both internal and external, bring in a lot of garbage, but I don't think that's because there are no qualified applicants. It's because in the last ten years, then has been a sharp increase in the offensive capabilities of "bad actors" in the employment market (Indian tech consultancies gaming the visa system, Linkedin spammers) with an especially sharp increase in the last few years due to the adoption of LLMs. It's more difficult for me to judge the quality of an applicant before meeting them by checking their Linkedin, CV, cover letter, or email correspondence. Everyone has learned that all text-based communication can be polished by an LLM, and so typos, poor writing skills, and obvious bullshitting are all easier to avoid (although em-dashes and chatgpt-speak are still giveaways sometimes). I have a lot more screening interviews now that are a waste of time since it's more difficult to vet ahead of a video call.
However, this is probably a temporary state of affairs. Hiring managers and recruiters optimizing for quality will improve their defensive capabilities by inventing new, harder-to-fake vetting procedures. We just aren't there yet, the defense is still catching up.
Let's say the US has X amount of specialized talent and thus they can only do Y amount of productivity with in a year.
I dunno, man. This just does not pass the smell test for me. In a country of nearly 350 million people, there aren't enough bright, talented people to fill jobs? I get that companies want to hire a top 1% intelligence/conscientiousness person for their very important software role, but will it doom American industry and creativity if we force them to use the top 5% of the American talent pool instead of the top 1% of the global talent pool? We may move forward slightly slower, but we will also avoid the negative effects of creating a new class of alien elites who see America as merely an economic zone. If we tied work visas to renunciation of other citizenships and the ability to pass civics test or something, I might change my mind a little.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
12m ago
I just felt it was worth pointing out (and noting the boundaries of) the big exception where those interest groups are straight-up "the enemy".
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
12m ago
less forgiving than it used to be
I think Decarlos Brown Jr. is a pretty good example of the problem with being too forgiving.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
19m ago
This number includes social science major
Where are you getting that from? This would be a rather unconventional use of "STEM". Not saying you're wrong, but finding out would require a lot more clickung into his link, than I can do right now.
Southkraut
The rain fell gentlier.
37m ago
tl;dr: Not necessarily easier; it requires a different investment and the license you get works differently. But you can just get both.
Getting a Hunting license requires a course (about 80h worth, either spread over several weekends or done in two weeks) and an examination, in which the examiner has liberty to let you pass or fail as he sees fit. After this you can get several guns, of any type that you can convince your local buerocrat are useful for hunting.
Getting a sport shooter's license requires constant activity in a sports shooting club; you first need to be shooting in a given discipline for some length of time and for a minimum of X hours, then your club head needs to verify that you're a good'un, and then you can apply for a license which allows you to own a very limited number of guns that exactly suit the discipline you compete in.
And in either case, you still need to get an approved safe for storage, and a permit for each individual gun.
And from then on the police is permitted to search your house when they deem fit.
And if you break any law no matter how small, or none at all but your local buerocrat thinks your otherwise unfit to go armed, they can revoke your license.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
46m ago
How would modern industrial infrastructure, both hard and soft, run on traditional feudal principles?
I'd say, start with looking at the UAE and at Imperial Japan — the latter in particular shows combining rapid industrialization with predominantly feudal social structures. (I'll also remind people that the majority of marriages in Japan were arranged — either by families or through the traditional omiai matchmaking system — all the way until the late 1960s. I also recall at least one author comparing the lifetime employment, and loyalty to the company, of the 1980s Japanese salaryman to the feudal fealty of their ancestors a century or so prior.)
Now, I know people will argue that the UAE only works because of oil — I've encountered proponents of strict "deterministic" correlations of political forms and technological abilities who've baldly asserted that "the moment the oil runs out" every single modern building in Dubai will literally crumble into dust and the population will be "back to riding camels and living in 1800s conditions the very next day."
As for the criticisms I get on Japan as model, I must once again note that there is a huge difference between "you can't mix feudal social norms with industrial technology because social and technological determinism make them fundamentally incompatible and doom the attempt to collapse from the internal contradictions" and "you can't mix feudal social norms with industrial technology because the US will bomb you into submission if you try."
(Also, I might add that you're just not reading the right sci-fi.)
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
58m ago
Let's say the US has X amount of specialized talent and thus they can only do Y amount of productivity with in a year. If companies in (or investing in) our country are so productive and there's enough market demand that they want to do creation over Y, then limiting access to talent over X puts a cap on growth.
Now I know, the general response is "because those jobs should go to the locals!" but the thing is, talented local people already have jobs. If they're hard working and capable, then they're mostly already doing their part in achieving Y (or doing something else in another industry) because companies want them.
I think that this part of your argument is mistaken. My experience working in tech isn't that the H1B program is used to bring in high skilled immigrants to expand labor beyond what the native population can support. It's that the H1B program is used to bring in employees at below-market pay, rather than paying the native citizens market rates for their work. Not only that, but then the employer has an indentured servant to whom they can do whatever they want, because if he leaves the company he has to go back home (and while the pay may be below US market rates, it's above the rates in his home country). This isn't exactly a situation where employers are giving people a win-win fair deal. The ideal is certainly as you describe, but I don't think that the reality lives up to that (thanks to good old human greed).
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
58m ago
This is a bullshit false dichotomy. How about just incentivizing the 72% of STEM grads who don't work in a STEM job to actually work in STEM, if we have such a skills shortage?
This number includes social science majors (for whom there are no jobs in their chosen field) and people who work in management (who would not necessarily be better off as ICs).
Kevin_P
59m ago
A few thoughts:
-
Google Trends is about search traffic; content volume is a different product (ngrams). So this would be about people looking for "my framework", which wouldn't necessarily be linked to more people writing frameworks
-
Possibly incompatible with the first point, but a post-AI uptick in a particular word/phrasing doesn't always translate to more discussion of the relevant concept. There are just some words that LLMs really seem to like using, and I wouldn't be surprised if "framework" was in that category
-
When I think about the word "framework" I would usually associate it with coding rather than theories. So to the extent that it's really related to an increase in some activity, that could well be programming rather than theorising.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1hr ago
I don’t think you need step 2. A theory that passes the gates of "makes novel, interesting, and falsifiable predictions" and "and those predictions end up panning out" is already rare enough that the volume will remain manageable even with the deluge of AI slop. Most AI slop frameworks won't even pass the first of those two gates, and that's the easy one.
The irony of this is that the whole idea of a "nation" is an over-inclusion:
I'm not seeing it. "Overinclusion" was a shorthand for the latter part of the following statement:
But I think by far the bigger threat is a government that excludes people who indisputably share my creed, versus a government that would try and promote another creed.
The direct analogy to that would be a multiethnic empire promoting one ethnic group to the detriment of others, not one that attempts to merge multiple groups into a single one.
General rule: people have the right to allocate the use of their excludable property
We were talking about the creedal nation, you explicitly said you would have said creed enforced by the government, why the sudden switch to basic property rights?
Sorry, I meant that your description of my views was accurate.
Lol, ok. I had a whole paragraph ready to go, in case you meant that, but somehow convinced myself it's not possible.
If you'd be ok with importing a sizeable portion of Muslims without being able to force them to attend Church, how is that not a straightforward example of excluding allies (the few Christians sprinkled in) being to the advantage of the creedal nation? We've seen the deterioration of social cohesion that results from this, what is supposed to be the upside?
More importantly, how is it even a creedal nation if you don't exclude other creeds, and abandon the mechanism of enforcing your creed that you put forward yourself?
If it's true that my beliefs are beneficial, then that truth is asymmetric. Also some beliefs contain the sub-belief that they're guaranteed to be beneficial if [and sometimes only if] they're true. So long as I'm confident in the meta-belief that I'm maximising personal benefit, those beliefs have an asymmetric power over me (so long as they're true.)
Ok. My point was that something can be true and beneficial, and lose to the false and detrimental. Even the false/detrimental thing ultimately collapses, and you get to claim some metaphysical victory, the costs of letting it happen would be enormous, and that this kind of complecancy is not what I'd typically associate with Catholicism.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
1hr ago
I think this has pretty much always been the case. Apologetics is a very old discipline for this reason.
I agree with this. For example, look at Aquinas (though he was hardly the first of course) - dude spent a huge amount of effort trying to make rational arguments for tenets of the faith. And he was hardly a modern thinker, he was very much medieval! Moreover, I would go further and say that contra @coffee_enjoyer, the people who could be convinced without apologetics are not gone. There have always been, and will always be, people who don't engage with things on an intellectual level. They go based on vibes, or what is cool, or things like that. I think it's easy to figure that sort of person is gone because to most of us, they may as well not exist. Most people here exist in a very skewed bubble of smart people who like to discuss things intellectually, but there are definitely plenty of people today who don't enjoy that sort of thing (and who would even be put off by it).
Also, I think it's very much the case that even with apologetics one still has to take a leap of faith. I have my reasons for believing, but at the end of the day I don't know. I decided that the arguments for belief were stronger than those against, but the arguments for still could be mistaken. I'll only truly know when I die (if even then, because perhaps I'll go into an endless oblivion where I won't even exist to know I was wrong in this life). But I still believe, even so.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
1hr ago
But wait, didn't we enlightened Americans figure out a way for multiple people with a plurality of different ideologies and religions to live together in peace and harmony without society collapsing?
Good posts (both this and the previous one), but I just had to say that this bit in particular has amazing Jojo "to be continued" energy, lol.
Hieronymus
1hr ago
I don't know. Absent a revival, which is an act of God, I think by far the most likely outcome continues to be decadence as a state-enforced right.
Government policies that respect the natural law and seek to make obedience to it easier push back against this, and they have the potential to create a literally virtuous cycle between law and custom. They also facilitate human flourishing, which is no small thing. The state can't solve the problem, but it can do better than it has done. I am not optimistic about achieving this as a political matter, but I've been surprised before.
odd_primes
1hr ago
Let's say the US has X amount of specialized talent and thus they can only do Y amount of productivity with in a year. If companies in (or investing in) our country are so productive and there's enough market demand that they want to do creation over Y, then limiting access to talent over X puts a cap on growth.
This is a false premise on a number of levels. Productivity is the value generated per worker. Production is the total amount of goods and services created. Production is a function of a number of different inputs - labor, capital, land, etc. If a company needs to increase production in an environment with a constrained labor market, it can do that by increasing productivity. In other words, investing capital into technology, automation, and other labor-saving improvements. Production can also be increased by offshoring low-value components of the supply chain to other countries, like mineral extraction, textile manufacturing, etc. Of course as we have seen this needs to be done judiciously to avoid building our own competition in unfriendly countries.
Now I know, the general response is "because those jobs should go to the locals!" but the thing is, talented local people already have jobs. If they're hard working and capable, then they're mostly already doing their part in achieving Y (or doing something else in another industry) because companies want them.
If your new venture is creating more value than whatever these people are already doing, do the capitalist thing and poach them. That's the free market at work - businesses with higher margins can afford to attract labor from companies or industries that are generating less value. That's part of how productivity increases, generating more value per worker by having workers move to higher value positions.
As any hiring manager knows nowadays, the job pool is mostly incompetents, liars, lazies, addicts, or otherwise unwanted because of a serious flaw. It's the same way that dating apps like Tinder are mostly used by the unpleasant and unwanted, the good ones are already picked through.
The vast majority of employees are "on the market". Just offer them more money. It's that simple. People hop jobs all the time, especially in hot industries like tech. Even if they aren't officially looking, it's easy to put the word out that you're hiring and have your staff refer people into your hiring pipeline. What's more common is that companies have unrealistic expectations - they want 90th percentile employees at 50th percentile pay and mediocre benefits.
Now maybe that's what we as a society want, jobs programs for the lazy drug addicted idiots being put in roles above their worth, and we're willing to sacrifice efficiency in key industries for it.
This is a bullshit false dichotomy. How about just incentivizing the 72% of STEM grads who don't work in a STEM job to actually work in STEM, if we have such a skills shortage?
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1hr ago
He can retain all titles, just understood in a different sense than the literal. The power of his love and wisdom makes him king of kings; his obedience and piety made him the son of God; his all-importance makes him Lord; and so forth. You do not have to read the gospel in a literal lense, in fact the earliest interpretations find non-literal meanings in every literal detail (eg the Samaritan woman’s five husbands refer to the five books of the Torah; the paralytic refers to spiritual paralysis).
If the gospel is a narrative of stories which indicate something deeper than the literal, then this makes it all the more the Word of God. It doesn’t make it untrue. Is it untrue that Christ cured the blind? But his wisdom has formed in mankind a vision of our ultimate altruistic priorities, billions of people have been cured of emotional or spiritual blindness from his life, and even the very Body of Christ today heals thousands of blind people yearly through charitable organizations. Is this less miraculous than a magical power? Seems pretty miraculous to me.
Judged purely by his personality characteristics and by the very limited record of his non-supernatural deeds, he does not come off as some great hero
Teaching the essence of moral wisdom while being hunted down by the leaders of your own nation is pretty heroic to me. Even just defeating the temptation to be pseudo intellectual and verbose is an act of heroism for intellectuals. So for a person who spent his life gaining wisdom to simplify his learning in digestible parables with incredible metaphorical import while living in poverty and genuinely seeking to improve the world? That’s more miraculous than rising from the dead. And doing all of this faced with the world’s worst torture, with devotion and obedience and love? I can’t think of a better hero.
nor even a stellar lifestyle role model
I don’t think Christ is supposed to be a role model for a lifestyle in that sense, but instead his inner life (spirit) is supposed to be imitated, and in regards to moral and wellbeing concerns. The ability to “carry one’s cross daily” is about inner life. Seeking the Kingdom of God is about inner life, perhaps. The inner life of Christ, namely the love and obedience and goodwill, is universally important. You can be a Christian and all the while imitate the fitness mindset of David Goggins. But the Christian part of you should drive your conscience and you should remember that you don’t want to be like Goggins in any area outside the gym.
that he was an example, among others, of a life path worth emulating
I think there’s cause to believe that, even devoid of the supernatural, a Christ-focused community is going to be greater than a community focused on any other figure. This is because civilization is driven by cooperation, and everything about Christ promotes cooperation, from the actual wisdom to the empathy of the cross to the fear of being a Judas or Pilate or Pharisee. This is a selfless hero who didn’t seek glory and simply desired the substantive good of Mankind. By absorbing the meaning of his story you can be a better unit of human, to put it in the driest way possible.
I would not be surprised if half of the workers were arguably violating the terms of their visas, but I expect the modal case here looks like "a worker for one of Hyundai's subcontractors was here on a B1 to suprvise the installation of equipment, and demonstrated to a worker on site how the machine was supposed to be hooked up when they're technically only allowed to describe" not like "Hyundai shipped in 500 Koreans on tourist visas to do unskilled construction work building the factory". In other words, I expect that the majority of detainees were authorized to work in the US, but I would be unsurprised if some were doing types of work they were not authorized to do, though I expect the majority were at least ambiguously authorized to do the sort of work they were doing.
Under my model I would be unsurprised if e.g. DOJ and Korean company disagree about whether work should fall under "contracted after-sales service" or "supervising installation of equipment". But under my model "chain them all up" is not a reasonable response to "people who are not flight risks were doing normal business things but we think they might have technically violated the terms of their visa, we'll find out in court".
I am unsure if there are any good and timely metrics but I would be quite surprised to see e.g. table 42d here showing 475 more (or even half that more) noncitizen enforcement returns to South Korea in 2025 than in 2024 - for reference the current latest data is 713 returns in 2022. (The latest available year here is 2022, so it might be a while before 2025 daya shows up). And my read is that DHS would enforce if they have even a vaguely plausible case of visa violation, so I think absence of this particular evidence would be evidence of absence of such a case.
There might be less janky ways to operationalize this, I'm open if you have ideas.
OliveTapenade
2hr ago
I can see nothing in the constitution that says that states or communities are not allowed to welcome migrants. I think you're reading a kind of racial bias into it? I know you didn't mention specifically, but I think it is significant that this conversation is about Korean migrants, and not white or black migrants from elsewhere in the US.
It seems to me that you are assuming, on a highly speculative basis, that Georgians are strongly opposed to living alongside Koreans. I see no evidence of that, nor that the democratic will of Georgians is to get rid of this Korean community, Koreans in general, or Asians in even more general.
CertainlyWorse
No one is coming. It's just you.
2hr ago
I see so many migrants who make the simultaneous arguments of 'the locals aren't skilled enough to do high skilled work' as well as 'the locals find low skilled work beneath them', with the general theme being 'the locals are lazy and incompetent, so give all the jobs to migrants'.
OliveTapenade
2hr ago
Isn't the consequence of every individual seat's election a mandate for that elected congressperson? No individual congressperson is bound by a presidential mandate. They are responsible to the constituents below them, not to a president above them.
I repeat my position that Republicans in congress have zero obligation to be acquiescent to the will of a Democratic president, and Demicrats in congress have zero obligation to be acquiescent to the will of a Republican president. Mandates, if they exist at all, do not work like that.
faceh
2hr ago
Now maybe that's what we as a society want, jobs programs for the lazy drug addicted idiots being put in roles above their worth, and we're willing to sacrifice efficiency in key industries for it. And maybe it's worth it if we put hard limits on economic growth and only allow Y production no matter how much market demand exists. Maybe it's worth it in the same way that some leftists felt promoting some minorities above their skill level was worth it.
There's a strong argument that this has outsized effects in said 'key' industries when placing a lower-skill worker into the process results in higher-than-acceptable failure rates for complex products and complicated processes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-ring_theory_of_economic_development
And this gets worse if those 'key' industries feed into other industries. You know, like if power production gets spotty b/c your plants have too much downtime, which brings down every other industry. Or factories can't put out enough intermediate goods that are needed in other projects, and this bottlenecks productions in other areas.
Explained in excruciating detail here:
https://mgautreau.substack.com/p/nice-things-and-why-we-cant-have
So there's certainly an argument that you should pull in as many high-skill immigrants as possible.
But now there is the question of where to stick the low-performers were they won't do as much harm.
And perhaps the big one, what happens to the country you just brain-drained high skill immigrants from if they don't have enough such people left to maintain domestic industries...
But this also assumes there's no major risk of... deliberate interference/sabotage. Now I'm thinking of the especially high-sensitivity 'industries.' Who is maintaining nuclear arsenal? Building fighter jets and tanks? Keeping your government's communications and networked systems secure?
You NEED, as in NOT OPTIONAL, loyal, high skilled, 99% reliable workers in these industries. So does every other country. And they are also motivated to compromise.
So yeah, bringing in high-skill immigrants is almost conclusively a net good for all involved to the extent you can support more and more complex, high value, high-wage industries across the board and thus vastly improve the productivity of your entire economy.
This is, as I gather, the beautiful good intentions of the H1B program.
But this is a very fragile system at these important points of failure, if you let in lesser skilled immigrants (who present as high-skilled), this can break important stuff. If you let in high-skilled immigrants who ultimately want to benefit their home country over yours, they can steal or break important stuff intentionally.
And this will break many other things downstream of the initial failure.
And the more such critical industries your country depends on (i.e. the more developed/complex the economy) the more places where such breaks can occur.
Filtering. Filtering. Filtering. How good are you at it, and do you have the political stomach to do it as aggressively as necessary.
anti_dan
2hr ago
In a world where 16 year olds from time to time boost cars then leave them on the side of the road 30 feet from where they stole them, and then grow into productive citizens, this is how the criminal justice system should work.
In the world of the county I currently reside, this is instead the progression: 12-16 year olds regularly boost cars for their gangs. The gangs turn them into parts and they disappear into the black market and no owner ever sees them again. Then somewhere in the 16-21 year old age range they graduate to armed robbery and hijacking. Sometimes someone is shot, sometimes luckily not. If no one dies and they are 16 or 17, they get out in 3 years! If 18-21, 20 years. If they are the juvie, well they prolly do it again, or something else dumb like dealing drugs while armed. Then they get hit with a good 7-10. Now both sets of these juvies are lucky, they did no murders in their 20s, so they are likely about to age out of the violent crime demo. They are resigned to a life (mostly) of drug dealing, retail (or amazon delivery) thieving, and other antisocial, but usually nonviolent activities at this point. In any case the system that applied above makes no sense for the scenario here, and I gave a rosy scenario. No one has actually been shot or killed, merely placed in the extreme danger of being shot or killed.
The problem isn't that rehabilitation doesn't work as an absolute measure. Its that the places it would work are often the places where it is so rarely needed, no one even thinks about implementing it.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2hr ago
You’re underestimating how easy it was to do apologetics before the Age of Enlightenment. There was a time when you could say, “consider the phoenix of Arabia, the bird which resurrects itself every 500 years, as proof of resurrection”, and people were like “oh yeah, I mean that’s a good argument, everyone knows about the phoenix”. This is an argument that Clement makes, one of our first apologists, repeated by Origen and others. (It also happens to be an interesting topic of debate regarding the right meaning of monogenes). Augustine makes a similar argument in regards to the Pelican, which everyone knows feeds its young from its own flesh. When Paul argued about the resurrection of the dead, he pointed out that the stars are spiritual bodies with their own glory, and as you know these were once especially righteous mortals —
The stars overhead were thought to be divine or angelic intelligences (as we see reflected in James 1:17 and 2 Peter 2:10-11). And it was a conviction common to a good many pagans and Jews alike that the ultimate destiny of great or especially righteous souls was to be elevated into the heavens to shine as stars (as we see in Daniel 12:3 and Wisdom 3:7, and as may be hinted at in 1 Corinthians 15:30-41)
The first apologist we have is Justin Martyr, a former philosopher who studied Platonism, and while he begins his Dialogue of Trypho entertaining the notion of philosophy, he quickly discards it as being worthless entirely, with only the Prophets having knowledge of the divine.
There existed, long before this time, certain men more ancient than all those who are esteemed philosophers, both righteous and beloved by God, who spoke by the Divine Spirit, and foretold events which would take place, and which are now taking place. They are called prophets. These alone both saw and announced the truth to men [...] For they did not use demonstration in their treatises, seeing that they were witnesses to the truth above all demonstration, and worthy of belief; and those events which have happened, and those which are happening, compel you to assent to the utterances made by them […] for these things cannot be perceived or understood by all, but only by the man to whom God and His Christ have imparted wisdom.
And this is the whole beginning of apology: a disinterest in philosophy in favor of prophecy. The early Christians were blessed that they could point to 500 years of writings predicting Christ; this would have constituted excellent evidence for men who believed in phoenixes and spiritual stars. And the secrecy of the faith made it even more compelling. But who would be convinced by this today? We are 2000 years removed. We need something else.
Christ arguably tends to rain on utopian parades in favor of, well, the supernatural gift of everlasting life
There are many changes that a Christian is supposed to effect in the world, however, from reducing sin to increasing love and brotherhood to sharing in wealth. This is the Kingdom on Earth, the Kingdom within us, the God who is love and so forth. Why should these need to be done with eternal life in mind? 20th century social movements are evidence against that. And I wonder how important eternal life really is for establishing moral behavior. Where are the people selling all they have to be perfect, for an even greater reward in the life to come? They are so rare as to be essentially nonexistent. I don’t mean the ones who get free room and board at a beautiful monastery, that’s different. If a religion like Catholicism with all the bells and smells cannot actually induce the rich to depart from their wealth when this would confer perfection, extra rewards, and possibly even sainthood, then eternal life is probably useless for motivating righteous conduct. It may be very useful as palliative care for those whose lives are utter torment, but then so can thankful and gratitude and some other practices.
No conservative I've ever met has said he wants to tear down liberal institutions. But individual liberty doesn't perform very well when it comes to producing and sustaining constructive, civilizational habits. It has little to provide when it comes to guiding the broader optimality of society and optimizes solely for individual preference. Most of the western legal system over the course of centuries has been nothing short of codified tradition (which is exactly what 'law' is and is inherently what established tradition is). And no one person's personal experience will overturn the collective experience and collected wisdom of the millions among the generations that came before them. To quote a halfway intellectual idol of mine:
To this thesis I have never seen what I regard as an adequate refutation or substantial challenge to conservatism, defined as such.
I enjoy my liberty too, but it's a constrained liberty that exists within a very specific and particular context. I would in no way enjoy the every man for himself liberty that a local Somali warlord would have enjoyed decades ago. And most people generally overstate their love for freedom and liberty. If freedom entails responsibility, most people don't want to have 'anything' to do with it. Conservatism has never rejected the importance of liberty. It just doesn't regard it as the highest value and neither do I.
More options
Context Copy link