Tonight I’m reminded that Hayek was a gentleman and didn’t refute Keynes because

Tonight I’m reminded that Hayek was a gentleman and didn’t refute Keynes because he thought it was obvious, and that it would be ungentlemanly to criticize him too harshly.

Friedman was unapologetically argumentative, and Rothbard was radically so. Sowell is at least apologetically argumentative.

The conservatives have abandoned direct discourse and taken the debate to its constituency on moral grounds and entirely ignores debate with their opposition, focusing only on criticism.

Which of these approaches to political discourse is empirically superior? Which can we demonstrate has been more effective at altering the course of policy?

Politics is not nice. It is not sweet. It is a bloody, brutal, dishonest battle for control over teh means of extracting and distributing resources, profits, opportunity and privilege and the stakes are demonstrably high. Perhaps at the cost of the civilization itself.

The period where we could return to civil discourse is done. The empire must end. They tyranny of the majority must end. Either fight for freedom or lose what you have left of it.