Is There a Psychology of Liberty?


George H. Smith

Recommended Posts

So are you now saying that you are neither a minarchist nor an anarchist? So what kind of government do you advocate? A government that does in fact violate individual rights?

I've never claimed to be a minarchist. I agree with your characterization of Rand's minarchism, it's (implicitly) a kind of nationalism, or in my terms, totalitarianism. From Rand's point of view, I'm an anarchist, precisely because I believe that unless you had violated someone's rights, consent is required for there to be any restraint whatever on your action, including the action of forming your own government. However, practically speaking, I do not see an anarcho-capitalist "subscription"-oriented government emerging. I neither see that as desirable or as generally desired by those who would have to consent. Rather, I see our current systems of government winnowing back to a point where consent is actually respected but where they still resemble the systems we currently have in substantial respects, and possibly with some anarchist hillbillies doing their own thing off yonder, and being left to their own devices as a matter of principle.

All I have asked of you is that you read what anarchists have actually said and advocated, rather than making stuff up as you go along.

You don't know what I have or haven't read; on the contrary, you're the one refusing to read what I've written. Which is OK with me, you'd probably misrepresent it anyway.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So are you now saying that you are neither a minarchist nor an anarchist? So what kind of government do you advocate? A government that does in fact violate individual rights?

I've never claimed to be a minarchist.

So you don't advocate a "limited" government? That's all the term, which was coined by Sam Konkin, means. It is simply a convenient shorthand for "minimal government." Randian minarchism is merely a subset of this general category. Lockean minarchism is another subset, Benthamite minarchism another, Jeffersonian minarchism another, and so forth.

I agree with your characterization of Rand's minarchism, it's (implicitly) a kind of nationalism, or in my terms, totalitarianism.

It is absurd and insulting to call Randian minarchism a kind of totalitarianism. It is light years away from any such conception. Your comment is yet another example of how you will completely distort the meaning of words to score imaginary points against people who disagree with you.

If you want to make up your own language, go ahead, but you will be speaking gibberish. No one gives a damn about your "terms."

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't know what I have or haven't read; on the contrary, you're the one refusing to read what I've written. Which is OK with me, you'd probably misrepresent it anyway.

As you well know, after I read your caricature of anarchism in your book, I stopped reading. There was no point in going on, since you clearly had no understanding of the subject matter.

Suppose someone claims to have proven the existence of God and insists that I read his book on the subject. Okay, I look over his book and find that by "God," he actually means "cats." I would stop reading immediately.

Suppose this person then complained that I refused to take his ideas seriously. I would reply by saying that there is no reason why anyone should take such nonsense seriously.

Suppose further that I suggest that this fool read some books on theology and the philosophy of religion to learn how the term "God" has been used by major theologians. This person curtly refuses, claiming that he doesn't need to pay attention to what any philosopher or theologian has ever said about the meaning of "God." He has his own terms, and he will assign to them any meaning he likes.

I would say to him, as I have said to you: Fine, invent your own Alice in Wonderland language, if you like, but don't expect anyone to follow you down the rabbit hole.

This guy then complains that I have refused to read what he has written on the subject. I would say to him, as I would say to you: I don't need to burrow through a mountain of shit to know that I am dealing with shit. My first whiff was more than sufficient to tell me what I am dealing with.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we have to put up with more of your childish crap? Please stop.

A call for censorship from George? Wow.

Sharon is an anarchist, btw. If you disagree with her, then criticize her in a reasonable fashion. But I would strongly recommend that you not lecture Sharon about a "healthy epistemology." She will cut you to ribbons.

I didn't criticize Sharon. I merely observe that anarchists generally have plenty in the category of having a high regard for their own opinions, and that the last thing they need, generally, is something that would further encourage that aspect of their mentality. What I have observed that they are weak in is in the area of epistemology, not psychology -- unless we are talking about the anarchist's tendency to have an overly high regard for his own opinions. Does she talk about that in the book? If so then I'm all for it.

Incidentally, I think this is an area where the Randian/Peikovian tradition deserves compliments. In their tradition, they focus not only on psychological issues, but on epistemological ones, even to the point of being self-critical of harmful epistemological trends they noticed within their own movement (e.g. the Peikoff lecture on rationalism).

Shayne

Shayne

You have no idea what the book is about so why are you going on about it in such a pompous way? Perhaps you should investigate before you put your foot in your apparently copious mouth. My book is not a bunch of prattling about epistemology nor is is it some yada-yada about how great anarchists are. IT'S NOT POLITICAL AT ALL. It's simply a practical book about how to deal effectively with authority and experts in a wide range of areas such as lawyers, physicians, customer reps, teachers, police and so on. It offers a practical toolkit of techniques to, as the subtitle says, "avoid being intimidated, manipulated and abused" by experts and authorities. It was written for a general audience, though even anarchists could learn a thing or two.

Those interested in learning more about my book, including who endorsed it [e.g., Micahel Shermer, Peter Breggin] and the Table of Contents, can look at www.standuptoauthorities.com. Tomorrow I'll come back and discuss the actual topic , namely psychology and liberty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is absurd and insulting to call Randian minarchism a kind of totalitarianism. It is light years away from any such conception. Your comment is yet another example of how you will completely distort the meaning of words to score imaginary points against people who disagree with you.

But it's not absurd to call Rand's system "nationalism", as you just did above :rolleyes: You're the one trying to score points, but I suppose real ones given that you're surrounded by Objectivists here.

I call any system that asserts rights-violating laws onto a large swath of land "totalitarianism", because to whatever degree it does this, that is precisely its principle. The difference between Communist Russia and the USA (with respect to the totalitarian principle now at work) is only a matter of degree, and some might argue, time.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have no idea what the book is about so why are you going on about it in such a pompous way? Perhaps you should investigate before you put your foot in your apparently copious mouth.

I suggest you try out the ignore feature, you’re going to find that at least one person’s posts just aren’t worth reading, let alone responding to. It’s not going to get better. Believe me, we all know by now that this guy’s a moron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My book is not a bunch of prattling about epistemology

Yeah, I am completely unwarranted in thinking that anarchists generally have a strange disregard for epistemology. They've made off with part of Rand's message (liberty), and ignored the other part (reason). Of course, as she pointed out, these two things are corollaries. Without one, you can't consistently have the other.

Given that you claim that your book is not targeted to anarchists, I would point out that the culture in general has the problem of arrogance, instilled by the public school system. The interesting thing about this arrogance is that it feels to the individual that he is standing up for what he believes, when really he's (unconsciously) standing up for the herd's beliefs. It's an immune response, to keep out good ideas. Of course, as he trades one set of beliefs for another (say, statism for anarchism), the arrogant method remains, and with nothing to check it since he has never learned how to think straight.

Any medicine that adds more fuel to his arrogance, without guiding him regarding the use of us Reason, is bound to be dangerous medicine.

A person who cannot think straight should feel incompetent, inferior, unable to deal with things without expert help. So the first thing an expert should do is help clear up the competence problem. Of course, with the arrogance problem standing in the way, that will be problematic. Is there any advice regarding that in your book? Because, if you attempt to take the average public-school indoctrinated punk and tell them in any terms that they need to learn how to think, then by virtue of their arrogance, they're bound to scoff at you rather than buy your books. So it seems to me that if you want to sell books, maybe it's better to puff up their arrogance even more. The trouble is, if they aren't actually competent in (say) medicine, and then disregard a doctor's advice for the wrong reasons, it's bound to get themselves or their loved ones killed.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you don't advocate a "limited" government? That's all the term, which was coined by Sam Konkin, means. It is simply a convenient shorthand for "minimal government." Randian minarchism is merely a subset of this general category. Lockean minarchism is another subset, Benthamite minarchism another, Jeffersonian minarchism another, and so forth.

By your terms I don't advocate government at all, because the fundamental political requirement I have is the same as you have: individual consent at every point during the organic evolution of a government. By your terms, no government can arise out of this. The structure that does arise, one which we would both sanction as a matter of ethical principle, is not in your terms a government. So you can't claim that I advocate any kind of government. The biggest difference between you and I is semantics (a subject you dogmatically refuse to discuss) and probably, predictions about what this structure would probably look like.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest you try out the ignore feature

This feature reminds me of the childish "silent treatment" kids play in high school. In the world of reasonable grownups, I tend to think it puts you at something of a disadvantage.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you well know, after I read your caricature of anarchism in your book, I stopped reading. There was no point in going on, since you clearly had no understanding of the subject matter.

So you judge a book by a small essay toward the end? Shame on you. I thought you were a more literate man than that. The book is not about anarchism, it's about natural rights.

Incidentally, another anarchist I've met was kind enough to read my book and came across with a generally positive view of it, in spite of the fact that he disagreed regarding the anarchism bit (and some other small issues). For him, his anarchism isn't so much a religion as it is a political conclusion, so he could take my view, separate the parts he couldn't swallow (which tended to be less fundamental) from the ones he could (which tended to be the fundamentals), and walk away with some new ideas that he thought were good. Also, he gave me several constructive criticisms that I would use in a future edition, as well as a far better impression of anarchists than I've gotten from interacting with you.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man_Mopping_A_Floor_Royalty_Free_Clipart_Picture_100907-165030-257048.jpg

Since all of you folks are faking reality, Shayne is "mopping" the floor with all your arguments!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is absurd and insulting to call Randian minarchism a kind of totalitarianism. It is light years away from any such conception. Your comment is yet another example of how you will completely distort the meaning of words to score imaginary points against people who disagree with you.

But it's not absurd to call Rand's system "nationalism", as you just did above :rolleyes: You're the one trying to score points, but I suppose real ones given that you're surrounded by Objectivists here.

I call any system that asserts rights-violating laws onto a large swath of land "totalitarianism", because to whatever degree it does this, that is precisely its principle. The difference between Communist Russia and the USA (with respect to the totalitarian principle now at work) is only a matter of degree, and some might argue, time.

Shayne

If you knew zilch about American history, you would know that "nationalism" refers to those, such as Alexander Hamilton and (the early) James Madison, who advocated a sovereign national government, i.e., a national government with final authority over the states. The nationalists were opposed by the "federalists," who favored a confederation of sovereign states, as was formed by the Articles of Confederation.

The term "federalist" got corrupted during the ratification debates when the nationalists, knowing that their position was unpopular among most Americans, co-opted the label "federalist" and assigned the label "anti-federalist" to their critics. This enraged critics of the Constitution, the true federalists, but it proved to be one of the most successful linguistic coups of all time.

The term "totalitarianism" has nothing to do, except in your imagination, with a "swath of territory." Rather, it refers to a government which claims coercive jurisdiction over the totality of human actions. In other words, a totalitarian government is one that recognizes no limits to its power, i.e., no spheres of individual autonomy, such as freedom of conscience and private property, in which it has no right to interfere.

Thus does a totalitarian government stand in direct contrast to a limited government, such as that advocated by Rand, whose jurisdiction is expressly limited to the protection of rights.

Therefore, for you to call Rand's limited government a type of totalitarianism makes as much sense as to say that her conception of laissez-faire capitalism is really a type of communism. Only an ignoramus or someone with no respect for the meaning of words would ever say such a thing. You appear to be both.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you knew zilch about American history, you would know that "nationalism" refers to those, such as Alexander Hamilton and (the early) James Madison, who advocated a sovereign national government, i.e., a national government with final authority over the states. The nationalists were opposed by the "federalists," who favored a confederation of sovereign states, as was formed by the Articles of Confederation.

Just an aside: there's no difference in principle between the Federal government being sovereign, and a multiplicity of smaller States being sovereign. So this dispute of theirs was just quibbling (neither the nation nor the state should be at the center; the individual's sovereignty should).

The term "totalitarianism" has nothing to do, except in your imagination, with a "swath of territory." Rather, it refers to a government which claims coercive jurisdiction over the totality of human actions.

This is literally impossible, obviously. Your "totalitarianism" is a fantasy that has never existed nor can ever exist. Somewhat like your "anarchism."

I on the other hand look at the principles of operation, and fundamentally, there is the principle that distinguishes natural law from man-made law, and the principle that says that one can assert man-made law on owned land, but only natural law on non-owned land. A breach of the latter principle is the fundamental evil possible by government, and I call any government that engages in this on purpose a "totalitarian" government, with all the sundry variations just matters of degree.

Why did I pick the word "totalitarian"? Well, I could use it to refer to your fantasy construct, but since there's no point in talking about fantasies, yes, I've co-opted the term for my own purposes, which is indeed a high purpose: to identify the particular evil at the root of rights-violating governments. I chose this term because it highlights the megalomania in this evil: to grab the whole earth unto oneself, and pretend to own it, and thus dictate the rules for everyone on it. (Whether a particular government actually claims the whole earth or just a smaller swath of it makes no difference.)

But you have heartburn over this. You insist that I must use your archaic definition of "totalitarianism", the one they teach you in school in order to get you to feel patriotic and not notice the creeping totalitarian beast thieving away your natural rights while at the same time pointing yonder at how much worse all the other totalitarian governments are. What is the cause of the heartburn? That I won't do it as you dictate? That I won't fall in line? The dictionary is filled with words that have multiple senses and meanings. Why do you insist that I can't invent my own sense of a term, and attach my own meaning? Why do I have to tow the line and follow the herd?

Therefore, for you to call Rand's limited government a type of totalitarianism makes as much sense as to say that her conception of laissez-faire capitalism is really a type of communism. Only an ignoramus or someone with no respect for the meaning of words would ever say such a thing. You appear to be both.

Ghs

"The meaning of words" -- i.e., the meaning which you wish to dictate that everyone use, without providing reasons and without defending your definitions or your methodology except by argument from authority. Your disdain for "semantics" bites you in the ass, once again.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have no idea what the book is about so why are you going on about it in such a pompous way? Perhaps you should investigate before you put your foot in your apparently copious mouth.

I suggest you try out the ignore feature, you're going to find that at least one person's posts just aren't worth reading, let alone responding to. It's not going to get better. Believe me, we all know by now that this guy's a moron.

Oh, I think you're entirely right in your assessment. But I didn't want to disappoint George after he warned this guy that he didn't want to tangle with me . :lol:

Re: ignore feature. I'm on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sharon is an anarchist, btw. If you disagree with her, then criticize her in a reasonable fashion. But I would strongly recommend that you not lecture Sharon about a "healthy epistemology." She will cut you to ribbons.

I was so looking forward to getting trounced in debate and taught a lesson, here you got my hopes up, and alas, I am thwarted. It seems the only lesson I'm ever taught is: it's better to be nice than to be right.

It's such a shame that Objectivism took its good traditions and threw them in the trash bin, because no other movement seems to have the courage and good sense to pick them up. We need a second renaissance, one where Reason is again put on the altar; we aren't going to get it with this current crop of anarchists, that's for certain.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://mises.org/dai...logy-of-Liberty

In his latest blog, Jeff Riggenbach discusses the work of Nathaniel Branden and Sharon Presley.

I will have more to say on this later.

Ghs

I intend to discuss the actual topic of this thread (ahem). Imagine that! :rolleyes:

First of all, I am very grateful to Jeff for such a complimentary article. It is indeed an honor to be mentioned together with Nathaniel Branden. Several years ago at a libertarian conference in New Hampshire, Nathan gave me a fantastic compliment when he told me that my essay, "Ayn Rand's Philosophy of Individualism: A Feminist Psychologist's Perspective" in Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand, was his favorite in the book. I'm trying to live up to that testimonial and continuing to explore the relationship between psychology and liberty!

Last year I gave a talk at Libertopia titled "The Psychology of Freedom." The purpose of the talk was to briefly point out some of the considerable research literature in psychology concerning the conditions of freedom: why people thrive under conditions of freedom and autonomy, why obedience to unjust authority occurs and the conditions that encourage it, and other related issues. I talked about the research on individualism and freewill and the social psychological research on obedience to authority. I discussed forensic psychology research on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony and the polygraph, and the bias in the judicial process in favor of the death penalty. I also commented on more positive optimistic research: the vast literature on helping behavior, the neuroscience work that shows us that the brain is flexible and plastic even into old age. I ended with a few comments about the applied psychology work on "Positive Psychology" --optimism, self-esteem, etc. I'll be putting the video from Libertopia on YouTube soon, as well as writing up the talk. In the meantime, a reading list based on the talk can be found at http://www.rit.org/psychfreedom.php [ If you want to explore the rest of the site (Resources for Independent Thinking), start with http://www.rit.org because there is something wrong with the flash button links on some of the pages--we're working on it]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you knew zilch about American history, you would know that "nationalism" refers to those, such as Alexander Hamilton and (the early) James Madison, who advocated a sovereign national government, i.e., a national government with final authority over the states. The nationalists were opposed by the "federalists," who favored a confederation of sovereign states, as was formed by the Articles of Confederation.

Just an aside: there's no difference in principle between the Federal government being sovereign, and a multiplicity of smaller States being sovereign. So this dispute of theirs was just quibbling (neither the nation nor the state should be at the center; the individual's sovereignty should).

The term "totalitarianism" has nothing to do, except in your imagination, with a "swath of territory." Rather, it refers to a government which claims coercive jurisdiction over the totality of human actions.

This is literally impossible, obviously. Your "totalitarianism" is a fantasy that has never existed nor can ever exist. Somewhat like your "anarchism."

I on the other hand look at the principles of operation, and fundamentally, there is the principle that distinguishes natural law from man-made law, and the principle that says that one can assert man-made law on owned land, but only natural law on non-owned land. A breach of the latter principle is the fundamental evil possible by government, and I call any government that engages in this on purpose a "totalitarian" government, with all the sundry variations just matters of degree.

Why did I pick the word "totalitarian"? Well, I could use it to refer to your fantasy construct, but since there's no point in talking about fantasies, yes, I've co-opted the term for my own purposes, which is indeed a high purpose: to identify the particular evil at the root of rights-violating governments. I chose this term because it highlights the megalomania in this evil: to grab the whole earth unto oneself, and pretend to own it, and thus dictate the rules for everyone on it. (Whether a particular government actually claims the whole earth or just a smaller swath of it makes no difference.)

But you have heartburn over this. You insist that I must use your archaic definition of "totalitarianism", the one they teach you in school in order to get you to feel patriotic and not notice the creeping totalitarian beast thieving away your natural rights while at the same time pointing yonder at how much worse all the other totalitarian governments are. What is the cause of the heartburn? That I won't do it as you dictate? That I won't fall in line? The dictionary is filled with words that have multiple senses and meanings. Why do you insist that I can't invent my own sense of a term, and attach my own meaning? Why do I have to tow the line and follow the herd?

Therefore, for you to call Rand's limited government a type of totalitarianism makes as much sense as to say that her conception of laissez-faire capitalism is really a type of communism. Only an ignoramus or someone with no respect for the meaning of words would ever say such a thing. You appear to be both.

Ghs

"The meaning of words" -- i.e., the meaning which you wish to dictate that everyone use, without providing reasons and without defending your definitions or your methodology except by argument from authority. Your disdain for "semantics" bites you in the ass, once again.

Shayne

A totalitarian government claims the totality of human existence and endeavor. It of course cannot take it all, just terrorize the general populace by taking arbitrary bites out of it here and there. One day you are there; the next day you are gone. Stalin's daughter was going to get married. All of a sudden, her man was gone. Show trials were his specialty. He starved, what, 20 million people to death in the Ukraine? He was getting ready to kill the Jews when he died.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The term "totalitarianism" has nothing to do, except in your imagination, with a "swath of territory." Rather, it refers to a government which claims coercive jurisdiction over the totality of human actions.

This is literally impossible, obviously. Your "totalitarianism" is a fantasy that has never existed nor can ever exist. Somewhat like your "anarchism."

Are you saying that no government has ever existed that has acknowledged no limitations on its legitimate use of power?

Are you serious?

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you knew zilch about American history, you would know that "nationalism" refers to those, such as Alexander Hamilton and (the early) James Madison, who advocated a sovereign national government, i.e., a national government with final authority over the states. The nationalists were opposed by the "federalists," who favored a confederation of sovereign states, as was formed by the Articles of Confederation.

Just an aside: there's no difference in principle between the Federal government being sovereign, and a multiplicity of smaller States being sovereign. So this dispute of theirs was just quibbling (neither the nation nor the state should be at the center; the individual's sovereignty should).

There was far more involved in this debate than mere quibbling, but there would be no point in explaining the details, to you at least.

The vast majority of the disputants agreed that individual sovereignty is the foundation of political authority. That was never a serious point of contention.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you knew zilch about American history, you would know that "nationalism" refers to those, such as Alexander Hamilton and (the early) James Madison, who advocated a sovereign national government, i.e., a national government with final authority over the states. The nationalists were opposed by the "federalists," who favored a confederation of sovereign states, as was formed by the Articles of Confederation.

Just an aside: there's no difference in principle between the Federal government being sovereign, and a multiplicity of smaller States being sovereign. So this dispute of theirs was just quibbling (neither the nation nor the state should be at the center; the individual's sovereignty should).

There was far more involved in this debate than mere quibbling, but there would be no point in explaining the details, to you at least.

The vast majority of the disputants agreed that individual sovereignty is the foundation of political authority. That was never a serious point of contention.

Ghs

George have you read Gordon Woods' new book? If you've mentioned it elsewhere, sorry I missed it, I saw a review of it and thought it looks like Ghs territory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George have you read Gordon Woods' new book? If you've mentioned it elsewhere, sorry I missed it, I saw a review of it and thought it looks like Ghs territory.

No, and I probably won't get around to it for quite a while, if ever.

I am not a fan of Gordon Wood, to say the least. Wood was a pioneer in what is called the "classical republican" or "civic humanist" interpretation of the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers. (The other pioneer was J.G.A. Pocock, especially in The Machiavellian Moment, but Pocock focuses on English rather than on American thought.)

Wood's most famous book is the 650-page volume, The Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787 (1969). This highly influential book did more to mislead historians and distort our understanding of 18th century American political thought than any other book ever published. Here are just a few samples of Wood's nonsense:

The sacrifice of the individual interests to the greater good of the whole formed the essence of republicanism and comprehended for Americans the idealistic goal of their revolution....By 1776 the Revolution came to represent a final attempt...to realize the traditional [i.e., Aristotelian rather than Lockean] Commonwealth ideal of a corporate society, in which the common good would be the only objective of government. (pp. 53-4)

Ideally, republicanism obliterated the individual. (p. 61)

Like Puritanism, of which it was a more relaxed, secularized version, republicanism was essentially anti-capitalistic, a final attempt to come to terms with the emergent individualistic society that threatened to destroy once and for all the communion and benevolence that civilized men had always considered to be the ideal of human behavior. (p. 418-19)

Although this kind of crap has been thoroughly demolished by many historians --including the libertarian Ronald Hamowy, professor of history emeritus at the University of Alberta -- it is still influential.

Ghs

Addendum: The best extended critique and correction of Wood is Jerome Huyler's superb book, Locke in America: The Moral Philosophy of the Founding Era (1995).

I gather that Huyler is an O'ist of some kind, perhaps even an orthodox one. In any case, unlike some O'ists, Huyler is a real historian who knows his stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George have you read Gordon Woods' new book? If you've mentioned it elsewhere, sorry I missed it, I saw a review of it and thought it looks like Ghs territory.

No, and I probably won't get around to it for quite a while, if ever.

I am not a fan of Gordon Wood, to say the least. Wood was a pioneer in what is called the "classical republican" or "civic humanist" interpretation of the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers. (The other pioneer was J.G.A. Pocock, especially in The Machiavellian Moment, but Pocock focuses on English rather than on American thought.)

Wood's most famous book is the 650-page volume, The Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787 (1969). This highly influential book did more to mislead historians and distort our understanding of 18th century American political thought than any other book ever published. Here are just a few samples of Wood's nonsense:

The sacrifice of the individual interests to the greater good of the whole formed the essence of republicanism and comprehended for Americans the idealistic goal of their revolution....By 1776 the Revolution came to represent a final attempt...to realize the traditional [i.e., Aristotelian rather than Lockean] Commonwealth ideal of a corporate society, in which the common good would be the only objective of government. (pp. 53-4)

Ideally, republicanism obliterated the individual. (p. 61)

Like Puritanism, of which it was a more relaxed, secularized version, republicanism was essentially anti-capitalistic, a final attempt to come to terms with the emergent individualistic society that threatened to destroy once and for all the communion and benevolence that civilized men had always considered to be the ideal of human behavior. (p. 418-19)

Although this kind of crap has been thoroughly demolished by many historians --including the libertarian Ronald Hamowy, professor of history emeritus at the University of Alberta -- it is still influential.

Ghs

Addendum: The best extended critique and correction of Wood is Jerome Huyler's superb book, Locke in America: The Moral Philosophy of the Founding Era (1995).

I gather than Huyler is an O'ist of some kind, perhaps even an orthodox one. In any case, unlike some O'ists, Huyler is a real historian who knows his stuff.

Thanks for the reply. The review I read was in the NYT review of books and was obviously by an admirer, maybe even a former student - what a quagmire book reviewing is!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply. The review I read was in the NYT review of books and was obviously by an admirer, maybe even a former student - what a quagmire book reviewing is!

I didn't mean to trash everything that Gordon Wood has written. Creation is a massive book, and it has some decent parts. Wood's 1992 book, The Radicalism of the American Revolution, is excellent in some respects as well.

A major problem with Creation is that it is peppered with thousands of quotations, and most of these are not block quotations but snippets that are integrated into Wood's text. Such snippets, while giving the appearance of massive erudition, can prove very misleading. Unless you are willing to check each one, you have no choice but to trust the historian to have provided the proper context.

I have read much of the literature cited by Wood first-hand -- I have reads many hundreds of pamphlets and books from that era -- so I became suspicious when Wood gave an interpretation of a given passage that made no sense to me. I therefore decided to check some specific fragments that Wood quotes from Thomas Paine's Rights of Man -- e.g., on the "public good" --and I was not surprised to find that Wood had selectively quoted Paine in a manner that seemed to support Wood's thesis, but which in fact did not.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The term "totalitarianism" has nothing to do, except in your imagination, with a "swath of territory." Rather, it refers to a government which claims coercive jurisdiction over the totality of human actions.

This is literally impossible, obviously. Your "totalitarianism" is a fantasy that has never existed nor can ever exist. Somewhat like your "anarchism."

Are you saying that no government has ever existed that has acknowledged no limitations on its legitimate use of power?

Are you serious?

Ghs

You misunderstand. I'm defining in terms of what governments actually do and according to what basic principle, not in terms of what they claim to be able to do. Certainly I am not saying there haven't been deluded dictators who think they can claim that they are Santa Claus and have magical powers, but the fact is that they don't have those powers.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now