Comments on: Get Your Hands Off My Spencer!

By: Dennis

Dennis — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 03:53:49 +0000

“I sometimes criticize police violence without pointing out that (freelance) armed robbery sucks, too.”

touche

By: Rad Geek People’s Daily 2008-06-19 – The Root Cause

Rad Geek People’s Daily 2008-06-19 – The Root Cause — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:55:31 +0000

[...] Roderick’s recent post on an unexpected footnoting links back to this essay against libertarianism by ridiculous conservative tool Jonah Goldberg. It’s an old essay, in blogging terms (i.e., it’s from back in June 2001), and mostly not worth mentioning, since it consists in little more of contemptuous abuse of people who are younger and smarter than Goldberg is, along with a series of very basic errors about anarchist complaints against the State. That said, I did notice this: [...]

By: JOR

JOR — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:56:13 +0000

“Steven, I agree that Pinochet deserves nothing but contempt from anyone who values liberty. But do you think it is possible that Allende might have instituted a police state and killed numerous innocent people had he stayed in power?”

I sometimes criticize police violence without pointing out that (freelance) armed robbery sucks, too.

By: Administrator

Administrator — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:20:11 +0000

Roderick, do you think that Darwin should be referred to as a “biological Spencerist?”

Not really, because Darwin developed in detail the mechanism of natural selection that Spencer didn’t really think of. (The idea glimmers at the edge of one of Spencer’s early essays, but — to his later chagrin — he didn’t fully focus on or develop it at that time; he was a relatively pure Lamarckian then, as opposed to the Lamarckian-Darwinian hybrid he became later.)

By: Dennis

Dennis — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:25:09 +0000

Roderick, do you think that Darwin should be referred to as a “biological Spencerist?”

By: Dennis

Dennis — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:20:07 +0000

Steven, I agree that Pinochet deserves nothing but contempt from anyone who values liberty. But do you think it is possible that Allende might have instituted a police state and killed numerous innocent people had he stayed in power? I realize that counter-factual speculation is almost always a road better left untraveled, but I only ask because I rarely see criticism of Pinochet accompanied with criticism of Allende, who was trying to gain dictatorial powers himself. For the record, I am in no way shape or form justifying anything done by Pinochet, nor even declaring that he was the lesser of two evils. I am merely pointing out that Allende sucked too.

By: steven

steven — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:54:11 +0000

“Pinochet’s abuses helped create a civil society.” Murder and torture helped create a civil society? That statement alone should disqualify Goldberg from being taken seriously as someone who values liberty. But, of course, he made so many other statements just as stupid in the few articles Roderick linked to.

By: scineram

scineram — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:31:18 +0000

The best he ever wrote:

“if you are open to the idea that sometimes government has no role (in the market)”
then
“sometimes it has a crucial role…(and, yes, issuing currency)”
in the next to last paragraph here:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDhlYTZhYWYwNGE5OTI1MDUwNTQ0NTAxM2ZlZDNlY2E=

By: Kevin Carson

Kevin Carson — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:06:29 +0000

For some reason, every time I watch the blowjob scene in Pink Flamingos it makes me think of Jonah and Lucianne.

By: Anon73

Anon73 — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 03:29:47 +0000

In that linked tirade against libertarianism, Goldberg makes an interesting hypothetical: If your friend is ‘hysterical, drunk, and suffering from depression’ and wants to commit suicide, would it be moral to restrain him/her for a few hours until the next morning? If the answer is ‘yes’ this would seem to legitimize state power in Goldberg’s view.

One of the funny things about the hypothetical is that there’s an unstated assumption: That the friend in question will actually thank you the next morning for restraining them. However, what if, instead, the friend rebukes you and rationally explains that they really, in fact, want to commit suicide? Further, suppose that for whatever reason, this same sequence of events is being repeated in thousands of places for centuries at a time. Then what would you call somebody who said “I have to restrain you – and you’ll thank me later” in such a situation? If you answered “a damned liar”, that’s right.

Of course the hypothetical has some other amusing elements – notice the restraint only happens “until the next morning” – it’s a good thing it always works that way in real life. And of course the person in question is “depressed” and “hysterical” – a word choice that reveals, ironically, that Goldberg is as blinded by his own fervent ideology the same way in which he accuses others.