Return to Luker and Rand
In addition to seconding Chris's remarks about Rand (whose conception of "self-interest" is by the way Aristotelean, not Hobbesian), I would also like to gripe about the inclusion of Thomas Woods' Politically Incorrect Guide to American History (on the first version of the list) and Herbert Spencer's Evolution of Society (on the second). I don't agree with everything in Tom's book (my version of libertarianism is more left-y than his) but on the whole it offers a welcome libertarian (not conservative) look at some aspects of American history that have been marginalised by the mainstream. What is the horrendous danger supposedly lurking within?
As for Herbert Spencer, one of history's greatest champions of peace, freedom, and toleration, his inclusion on this list strikes me as just another example of the ongoing defamation of Spencer which I have critiqued here, here, here, and passim. Including Spencer with the likes of Hitler is truly scandalous.
Incidentally, what is this book The Evolution of Society? I own every book Spencer wrote and he never published any book with that title. Does Luker mean The Principles of Sociology? And anyway, what on earth does he find harmful within?
I also find the inclusion of Freud bizarre; his theories are a mixture of truth and error, but he performed a useful service by opening up previously forbidden areas of discussion, and he paved the way for more salutary forms of psychoanalysis (e.g., Jung and Sartre).
As for Herbert Spencer, one of history's greatest champions of peace, freedom, and toleration, his inclusion on this list strikes me as just another example of the ongoing defamation of Spencer which I have critiqued here, here, here, and passim. Including Spencer with the likes of Hitler is truly scandalous.
Incidentally, what is this book The Evolution of Society? I own every book Spencer wrote and he never published any book with that title. Does Luker mean The Principles of Sociology? And anyway, what on earth does he find harmful within?
I also find the inclusion of Freud bizarre; his theories are a mixture of truth and error, but he performed a useful service by opening up previously forbidden areas of discussion, and he paved the way for more salutary forms of psychoanalysis (e.g., Jung and Sartre).
Re: Rand, Woods, Spencer, Freud?
(#62207)
by Ralph E. Luker on June 5, 2005 at 6:11 PM
by Ralph E. Luker on June 5, 2005 at 6:11 PM
I've replied to this at Cliopatria. You fellas have convinced me that libertarians -- at least the Objectivists among them -- have no sense of humor, at all. Compose your own list, if you like. Think about what harm is. You can be sure that I'd be among the first to oppose any banning of any book.
Re: Rand, Woods, Spencer, Freud?
(#62211)
by Roderick T. Long on June 5, 2005 at 6:43 PM
by Roderick T. Long on June 5, 2005 at 6:43 PM
Ditto to Irfan's remarks.
Re Luker, I've counter-replied at Cliopatra; as for libertarians lacking a sense of humor, being the constant target of smears and defamation for the past 350 years does tend to blunt the edge of our sense of humor, I'm afraid.
Re Luker, I've counter-replied at Cliopatra; as for libertarians lacking a sense of humor, being the constant target of smears and defamation for the past 350 years does tend to blunt the edge of our sense of humor, I'm afraid.
Re: Rand, Woods, Spencer, Freud?
(#62232)
by Ralph E. Luker on June 5, 2005 at 9:10 PM
by Ralph E. Luker on June 5, 2005 at 9:10 PM
If I were "the constant target of smears and defamation for the past 350 years," I'd think of it as "oppression" and be impressed with my own and its longevity, but in truth you aren't a part of some oppressed underclass, are you? Rather, you're given to vast overstatement and abbusive assault on those with whom you disagree, right?
Re: Rand, Woods, Spencer, Freud?
(#62215)
by Ralph E. Luker on June 5, 2005 at 6:57 PM
by Ralph E. Luker on June 5, 2005 at 6:57 PM
Rod, For goodness sake, do let us know who is oppressing you and I'll see what we can do about it.
I've already dealt with the matter of "equation". What's the point of replying to the same accusation again if you haven't followed what's already been said?
Frankly, I'm a little surprised by the outrage expressed over my opinions, when no one here -- none of the libertarians to my knowledge -- raised any complaint about Human Events original list of harmful books, which had a much broader circulation than anything I said. Only when I suggested a different list was there outrage by the so-called libertarians. Tells me a lot about where priorities lie for some people.
I've already dealt with the matter of "equation". What's the point of replying to the same accusation again if you haven't followed what's already been said?
Frankly, I'm a little surprised by the outrage expressed over my opinions, when no one here -- none of the libertarians to my knowledge -- raised any complaint about Human Events original list of harmful books, which had a much broader circulation than anything I said. Only when I suggested a different list was there outrage by the so-called libertarians. Tells me a lot about where priorities lie for some people.
Re: Rand, Woods, Spencer, Freud?
(#62218)
by Roderick T. Long on June 5, 2005 at 7:31 PM
by Roderick T. Long on June 5, 2005 at 7:31 PM
For one thing, I haven't seen the Human Events list.
Re: Rand, Woods, Spencer, Freud?
(#62221)
by Roderick T. Long on June 5, 2005 at 7:38 PM
by Roderick T. Long on June 5, 2005 at 7:38 PM
As for "who is oppressing us" -- I provided links re smears against Spencer (above), and re smears against Woods (on Cliopatra). Chris discussed smears against Rand and Hayek. And surely it's no secret that there has been a systematic pattern in the scholarly community of equating libertarianism with fascism. If you intended your list to be humorous rather than serious, you ought to have recognised that, given the existing context where libertarianism is routinely smeared as fascist, your post was unlikely to be recognised as humorous.
Re: Rand, Woods, Spencer, Freud?
(#62228)
by Ralph E. Luker on June 5, 2005 at 8:50 PM
by Ralph E. Luker on June 5, 2005 at 8:50 PM
I think that your understanding of what constitutes "oppression" is, ah, well, a little expansive. Why not let's reserve it for people who are _really_ oppressed -- at least, just so's we don't wear the word out from overuse. A misinterpretation is not necessarily or even obviously a "smear" and hardly constitutes being "oppression."
Re: Rand, Woods, Spencer, Freud?
(#62230)
by Roderick T. Long on June 5, 2005 at 9:01 PM
by Roderick T. Long on June 5, 2005 at 9:01 PM
The term "oppression" was introduced by you, not me. I used the terms "smearing" and "defamation." And a smear is a smear whether it is perpetrated through malice or through an uncritical reliance on previous smear campaigns.
Re: Rand, Woods, Spencer, Freud?
(#62236)
by Steven Horwitz on June 5, 2005 at 9:33 PM
by Steven Horwitz on June 5, 2005 at 9:33 PM
FWIW Ralph, I chimed in on the comments on a Don Herzog thread at Left2Right where he ridiculed the original list, so it's not as if your comments alone moved me to outrage. I actually found the original exercise laughable (Kinsey?!), but yours pushed me beyond laughter for exactly the reasons Chris and Rod have noted: the long history of equating libertarianism with fascism. That's the historical context from which our outrage pours. I can certainly understand that you might have been unaware of that context, but when it was raised in this thread and the one at Cliopatria, you might have at least acknowledged that it has some legitimacy and let this all go, rather than continue to say that we have no sense of humor.
Re: Rand, Woods, Spencer, Freud?
(#62245)
by Ralph E. Luker on June 5, 2005 at 11:46 PM
by Ralph E. Luker on June 5, 2005 at 11:46 PM
Steve, fwiw, Despite your claim in the thread over on Cliopatria, there really is selective outrage over here at me. Count 'em: two posts by Sciabarra and long threads in both of them here and in two posts at Cliopatria -- odd, isn't it that it's all Horwitz, Sciabarra, Khawaja, and Long -- and you claim that _one_ comment by you at Left2Right _proves_ that there's no selective outrage against me and my opinion. But, I give it to you, you've proved that you have a sense of humor. If you or anyone at Liberty & Power had posted something about Human Events' list, you'd have a point to make.
Re: Rand, Woods, Spencer, Freud?
(#62251)
by Ralph E. Luker on June 6, 2005 at 3:54 AM
by Ralph E. Luker on June 6, 2005 at 3:54 AM
Ah, Chris, you may want to take a look at Jeff Lipkes's article about Woods's book over on HNN's mainpage. I really have little sympathy for the paleos' contempt for the abolitionists and soft-hearted attitude toward the Confederacy, on the one hand, and their benign judgment about Germany from 1914 to 1945 compared with the severe criticism of Wilson and FDR on the other. Call that libertarian if you will, but I see little libertarianism in ignoring slavery and soft-pedaling the Bismarckian and Nazi state against Anglo-American democracy.
Re: Rand, Woods, Spencer, Freud?
(#62289)
by Roderick T. Long on June 6, 2005 at 11:10 AM
by Roderick T. Long on June 6, 2005 at 11:10 AM
Paleos have contempt for the abolitionists? An odd claim to make about people who revere Lysander Spooner and William Lloyd Garrison. (Spooner was after all a supporter of John Brown, and the author of The Unconstitutionality of Slavery (which converted Frederick Douglass) -- but also a defender of secession and an opponent of Lincoln.) And "soft-pedaling Nazi Germany" is a tendentious way of describing the claim that the Anglo-Amerian side of the war was less than entirely innocent.
Re: Rand, Woods, Spencer, Freud?
(#62259)
by Chris Matthew Sciabarra on June 6, 2005 at 6:49 AM
by Chris Matthew Sciabarra on June 6, 2005 at 6:49 AM
Ralph, I wasn't the one who raised the issue of the Woods book. I actually have yet to read the Woods book.
BTW, you mention again the Human Events list. I hadn't read that list until you'd linked to it, but by the time I got to that list, it took a back seat to your list.
Looking over that list now, there is much to disagree with. I certainly would not have put the Kinsey Report or The Feminine Mystique on a list that includes Hitler and Mao. And the inclusion of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, for me, is problematic: Nietzsche is open to too much diverse interpretation and misinterpretation for any of his books to be listed unequivocally.
BTW, you mention again the Human Events list. I hadn't read that list until you'd linked to it, but by the time I got to that list, it took a back seat to your list.
Looking over that list now, there is much to disagree with. I certainly would not have put the Kinsey Report or The Feminine Mystique on a list that includes Hitler and Mao. And the inclusion of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, for me, is problematic: Nietzsche is open to too much diverse interpretation and misinterpretation for any of his books to be listed unequivocally.
Re: Rand, Woods, Spencer, Freud?
(#62288)
by Roderick T. Long on June 6, 2005 at 11:05 AM
by Roderick T. Long on June 6, 2005 at 11:05 AM
I finally got around to checking out the Human Events list. Most egregious inclusions: Friedan's Feminine Mystique and Beauvoir's Second Sex (I guess the bold claim that women are people too was too much for the Human Events crowd), Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil (the usual philosophically illiterate smear of Nietzsche as a proto-Nazi), Mill's On Liberty (so they don't like liberty?), Darwin's Origin of Species and Descent of Man (guess they don't like science either?), and Foucault's Madness and Civilisation (and psychiatric patients aren't people either -- got it).
There are plenty of other books on that list which I'm not a fan of, but they don't belong with Hitler et al.
There are plenty of other books on that list which I'm not a fan of, but they don't belong with Hitler et al.
Return to Luker and Rand
by Roderick T. Long on June 5, 2005 at 5:58 PM