Skip to main content

The Four Reformers

Robert Louis Stevenson, 1888 Four Reformers met under a bramble bush. They were all agreed the world must be changed. "We must abolish property," said one. "We must abolish marriage," said the second. "We must abolish God," said the third. "I wish we could abolish work," said the fourth. "Do not let us get beyond practical politics," said the first. "The first thing is to reduce men to a common level." "The first thing," said the second, "is to give freedom to the sexes." "The first thing," said the third, "is to find out how to do it." "The first step," said the first, "is to abolish the Bible." "The first thing," said the second, "is to abolish the laws." "The first thing," said the third, "is to abolish mankind." In the 1880's they were 'Reformers.' In the 1920's and 30's, they were 'Planners.' In the 1950's and 1960's, they were "Liberals." Now they are "Progressives." I know Lefties live in the moment and love things that are "new," and "now," etc. (even if only in name), but do you think that just maybe they are re-naming the Titanic in the hope that this time, this time for sure, it won't sink? Conservatives are still Conservative, however. There's been lots of debate and movement under that umbrella, some good and some bad, but nothing as disastrous as Fascism, Communism or National Socialism. Perhaps that is because Conservatives have a better methodology. They are less likely to saw off the legs they stand on. I'm pretty sure, btw, that Reformer number three is an engineer; I can see it in his reductionism. I also suspect that Stevenson had the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse in mind when he chose to use four voices. And speaking of the Apocalypse, I regret that I wasn't able to join the Red Ensign bash in T.O. on the weekend. You see, I have this thing about flying. It costs money. Speaking of the Red Ensign, Bound by Gravity has the latest roundup. The Four Reformers is taken from The Portable Conservative Reader, edited by Russell Kirk.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi