Rachel Maddow just said she’s going to talk about the “creation and evolution” of the torture memos. A reconciliationist, evidently.
Rachel Maddow just said she’s going to talk about the “creation and evolution” of the torture memos. A reconciliationist, evidently.
Rachel Maddow deserves praise for this — whatever her unforgivable departure from Libertarian economics according to Roderick Long/Rothbard/Other oracles of wisdom ( :
You’ve shared your frustration with us in past posts! Without setting yourself up as an oracle.
Actually your own attempts at reconciliation are more frustrating to me than anything else – like when you tried to “reconcile” atheism and theism by identifying God with the “logical structure of the universe”. I’m almost as doubtful about some of the leftists you’d like to bring over to the libertarian side.
What are your objections to a) the atheism/theism reconciliation and b) the leftists in question?
Well a reconciliation has to be satisfactory to both sides of a dispute. You’re attempt to identify theism and atheism clearly favors the atheist side because you end up concluding that “God”, as the logical structure of the universe, is neither personal nor requires worship. I think you’ll few theists that would agree with that (except maybe Buddhists?).
I can’t think of specific leftists off the top of my head but broadly speaking people on the left will either be mainstream or radical. If they are in the mainstream left then they’ll have little passion for liberty, and if they are radical they will have passion for liberty but only if it’s liberty for palestinians, Mumia Abu-Jamal, and Hugo Chavez.
Re atheism/theism: since there is a long tradition within theism (ranging all the way from Thomas Aquinas to Mary Baker Eddy) of denying that God is personal except analogically, and of identifying God with something like the realm of logical forms, I don’t see how my solution favours the atheists over the theists.
Re leftists: while there are many who meet your description there are also many who don’t. Among mainstream leftists who don’t I’ll point to the ACLU and Amnesty International. Among radical leftists who don’t I’ll point, e.g., to Alexander Cockburn, Gore Vidal, and Carl Oglesby.
“When you tried to “reconcile” atheism and theism by identifying God with the “logical structure of the universe”
Sounds like pantheism to me…..
Pantheism is usually construed to identify God with the universe itself as opposed to it’s logical structure; I believe Roderick makes explicit use of this distinction in his treatment of the Ontological argument.
It sounds more like semantic pigeonholing to me.
Thanks for the names I’ll check them out, although I’d already heard of Gore Vidal.
I like Maddow, Rhodes scholar and all that jazz you know. I have had to go into lengthy defenses of my habit of watching Maddow and Olbermann to some of my libertarian friends on multiple occasions. I think that I will now take the easy way out and simply say “Dr. Long watches too.” haha
Do you ever get the impression that if she were to read some Austrian material that she would change her economic views?
She seems like she might be more open to rational argument than most of the tv pundits I’ve seen. But I don’t really know. She does love her some Keynes.
Professor Long,
Are you aware of any Leftist or Marxian critiques of Keynesian aggregate-demand management out there that might be pressed into service in arguing with well-meaning liberals such as Maddow who appear to have bought the myth of Roosevelt?
Thanks,
Araglin
I don’t know. (I do know that there are some interesting similarities between Marx and the Austrians on the business cycle.)
Sounds like something Kevin Carson would know.
Her being a Rhodes Scholar is a plus in your mind?
Hic Rhodus, hic salta.
Yes, Maddow has failed to jump.