Return to Luker and Rand
Re: Taking This Seriously?
(#62163)
by Ralph E. Luker on June 5, 2005 at 3:36 AM
by Ralph E. Luker on June 5, 2005 at 3:36 AM
Do you object to the appearance of Freud on the list with Hitler? Harm is done in different ways and on different levels. I _said_ that and, yet, the Rand defenders continue to act as if I didn't. Why the Rand defenders and not the Freud defenders or the Mahan defenders?
Re: Taking This Seriously?
(#62176)
by Geoffrey Allan Plauche on June 5, 2005 at 12:08 PM
by Geoffrey Allan Plauche on June 5, 2005 at 12:08 PM
Now that you mention it Mr. Luker, why don't you justify including Spencer and Freud on your list as well? In case you're wondering, I am a fan of Rand and Spencer but not of Freud, though I do have my disagreements with the former at times. You see, I'm not objecting to the list as such but to the list sans any reasonable justification for the items on it.
Re: Taking This Seriously?
(#62197)
by Ralph E. Luker on June 5, 2005 at 5:02 PM
by Ralph E. Luker on June 5, 2005 at 5:02 PM
Grant, Read the discussion at Cliopatria. I refer you to the comments of Alan Allport, who influenced the revision of my "list." Of course, if you think that World War I was anything _other_ than a disaster for western civilization, you'll continue to be bothered by my inclusion of Mahan on the list.
Re: Taking This Seriously?
(#62188)
by Grant W Jones on June 5, 2005 at 2:33 PM
by Grant W Jones on June 5, 2005 at 2:33 PM
Ralph, what's the deal with A.T.Mahan?
Re: Taking This Seriously?
(#62168)
by Chris Matthew Sciabarra on June 5, 2005 at 10:34 AM
by Chris Matthew Sciabarra on June 5, 2005 at 10:34 AM
Ralph, let me answer that question; it's a legitimate one.
If you had listed Mises's Human Action or Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, I would have had the same reaction, and not out of any desire to defend "sacred texts." And, in fact, I also defended Spencer in my original post, but that point seems to have been lost. Mises left behind his library to escape from Nazi tyranny. Both Mises and Hayek were furiously opposed to Nazism, fascism, communism, and socialism (though there are differences of degree, I think, between Mises and Hayek concerning their positions on certain welfare-state regulations). So, any list that would have included Mises or Hayek along with Adolf Hitler would have ruffled my feathers as well. (And, apparently, you cite fellow "Cliopatriarch" Hugo Schwyzer, who came up with an "if only" mock list of banned books, and placed Hayek's works on that list.)
Libertarians have been defending against the charge that they are apologists for fascism for eons now. In the light of the fact that many libertarian theorists have developed a radical critique of fascism and contemporary neofascism, the charge is especially nonsensical.
Still, certain writers have been trying to pull this slipshod intellectual package-dealing of libertarianism and fascism for years. I've heard the same refrain for so long but I've never become anesthesized to it. So I speak up.
Now it's true: You did not say that you were necessarily comparing libertarians or Objectivists to Nazis, and you've made it clear that "Harm is done in different ways and on different levels." But the lack of any stated criterion or any reasoning for the inclusion of Rand, Spencer, etc., left this reader with a big Question Mark as to the nature of your assessment. And since I know too many people who are ready to declare that Mises, Hayek, and Rand were all fascists anyway, I decided to blog about it.
If this makes me especially defensive because my "sacred" authors are being attacked... well, fine. But sometimes I find it necessary to speak up when positions are not made clear, and comparative implications to Nazism are left dangling in the air like some lethal gas.
If you had listed Mises's Human Action or Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, I would have had the same reaction, and not out of any desire to defend "sacred texts." And, in fact, I also defended Spencer in my original post, but that point seems to have been lost. Mises left behind his library to escape from Nazi tyranny. Both Mises and Hayek were furiously opposed to Nazism, fascism, communism, and socialism (though there are differences of degree, I think, between Mises and Hayek concerning their positions on certain welfare-state regulations). So, any list that would have included Mises or Hayek along with Adolf Hitler would have ruffled my feathers as well. (And, apparently, you cite fellow "Cliopatriarch" Hugo Schwyzer, who came up with an "if only" mock list of banned books, and placed Hayek's works on that list.)
Libertarians have been defending against the charge that they are apologists for fascism for eons now. In the light of the fact that many libertarian theorists have developed a radical critique of fascism and contemporary neofascism, the charge is especially nonsensical.
Still, certain writers have been trying to pull this slipshod intellectual package-dealing of libertarianism and fascism for years. I've heard the same refrain for so long but I've never become anesthesized to it. So I speak up.
Now it's true: You did not say that you were necessarily comparing libertarians or Objectivists to Nazis, and you've made it clear that "Harm is done in different ways and on different levels." But the lack of any stated criterion or any reasoning for the inclusion of Rand, Spencer, etc., left this reader with a big Question Mark as to the nature of your assessment. And since I know too many people who are ready to declare that Mises, Hayek, and Rand were all fascists anyway, I decided to blog about it.
If this makes me especially defensive because my "sacred" authors are being attacked... well, fine. But sometimes I find it necessary to speak up when positions are not made clear, and comparative implications to Nazism are left dangling in the air like some lethal gas.
Return to Luker and Rand
by Geoffrey Allan Plauche on June 5, 2005 at 3:09 AM