My Cato Essays

[George H. Smith]

No Cato Essay will posted today or next Tuesday. I am on a vacation, of sorts. I just finished a lengthy Introduction (23 single-spaced pages in manuscript) for "Anarchism and Justice" -- a collection of the early anarchist writings of Roy A. Childs, Jr. This will be published, possibly next month, by Cato as a Kindle e-book. A Roy Childs Week is planned, during which excerpts from my Introduction will be used for some Cato Essays. In addition, Cato has some videos of lectures by Roy (presumably from the old Cato Summer Seminars) that they plan to release. Some tributes by some of Roy's friends may also be posted.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Jack and Jill and Two Kinds of Freedom

"Smith analyzes two kinds of freedom, pragmatic and moral, and gives examples of how this distinction has been used in the history of libertarian thought."

My Cato Essay #44 is now up. Ayn Rand is quoted at the conclusion.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Jack and Jill and Two Kinds of Freedom

"Smith analyzes two kinds of freedom, pragmatic and moral, and gives examples of how this distinction has been used in the history of libertarian thought."

My Cato Essay #44 is now up. Ayn Rand is quoted at the conclusion.

Ghs

Jack pragmatically not using force to get Jill to do what he wants thus granting her freedom ignores possible consequences of his plan B. One might be Jill pulls a .38 out of her fanny pack and shoots him in the leg. Another, the cops come and take Jack off to jail. Economically, Jack's occasional use of force will ultimately get him a bad reputation and people will stop dealing with him--i.e., he will destroy his own credit. If all he does is use force he'll need a gang--a gang most often employed by the government--or he won't live very long. So Jill is never granted her freedom, not by Jack and not by government. That's not the nature of freedom.

Advocates of limited government want to seize the thugery to exclude and/or control the thugs. The idea is to keep the thugery/freedom ratio favorable to freedom. This requires a lot of dedication and work over time. After the American Constitutional Convention and the slo-mo dying off of the Founding Fathers, that died on the vine. Americans didn't know--or were too economically busy to care enough--that tyranny grows like a weed while freedom requires intense cultivation.

--Brant

the toleration of force in government respecting consent of the governed would seem to fall under the ethics of emergencies, if we think of that this way

[George H. Smith]

Introducing Anarchism & Justice, by Roy A. Childs, Jr., Part 1

"Smith begins his series on Roy A. Childs, Jr., with a look at the impact Childs’s anarchism had on his own thinking. Excerpted from Anarchism & Justice, published by Libertarianism.org Press."

My Cato Essay #45 is now up.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Introducing Anarchism & Justice, by Roy A. Childs, Jr., Part 2

"Smith discusses the influence of Robert LeFevre on the developing anarchism of Roy A. Childs, Jr."

My Cato Essay #46 was posted yesterday.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Introducing Anarchism & Justice, by Roy A. Childs, Jr., Part 3

"George H. Smith tackles several misconceptions about the theory of anarchism -- and contrasts it with the condition of anarchy."

My Cato Essay #47 is now up.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Instead of a Review: A Commentary on Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know, by Jason Brennan

"Smith begins his critical examination of Jason Brennan’s recent book with a discussion of the label “libertarianism” and its relationship to classical liberalism."

My Cato Essay #55 is now up.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Instead of a Review: A Commentary on Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know, by Jason Brennan

Part 2

Smith criticizes Jason Brennans view of the origin of hard libertarianism and his treatment of Ayn Rand.

My Cato Essay #56 is now up.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Negative and Positive Liberty: Further Comments on Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know, by Jason Brennan

Smith criticizes Jason Brennan's defense of positive liberty and his attempt to make positive liberty an essential part of libertarian theory.

My Cato Essay #57 is now up.

Ghs

[BaalChatzaf]

Jack and Jill and Two Kinds of Freedom

"Smith analyzes two kinds of freedom, pragmatic and moral, and gives examples of how this distinction has been used in the history of libertarian thought."

My Cato Essay #44 is now up. Ayn Rand is quoted at the conclusion.

Ghs

Tit-For-Tat is the strategy to use with regard to nihilists and would be tyrants. Do unto others as they do unto you. And if you get a bad report about someone, Do unto him -before- he does unto you.

Quesiton: has anyone ever studied the relation between game theory and libertarian doctrine?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[merjet]

Quesiton: has anyone ever studied the relation between game theory and libertarian doctrine?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Liberty, Games and Contracts: Jan Narveson & the Defence of Libertarianism

Boydstun #1.

Boydstun #2.

Boydstun #3.

[BaalChatzaf]

Quesiton: has anyone ever studied the relation between game theory and libertarian doctrine?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Liberty, Games and Contracts: Jan Narveson & the Defence of Libertarianism

Boydstun #1.

Boydstun #2.

Boydstun #3.

Wow! What service! Thank you.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[George H. Smith]

http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/excursions/negative-positive-liberty-part-2'> Negative and Positive Liberty, Part 2: Further Comments on Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know, by Jason Brennan

Smith discusses some of the problems in libertarian theory caused by the many different conceptions of liberty.

My Cato Essay #58 is now up.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Negative and Positive Liberty: Some Historical Reflections

"Smith considers the different conceptions of freedom defended by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke."

My Cato Essay #61 is now up.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Freedom, Rights, and Political Philosophy, Part 1

"Smith broadens his discussion of a rights-based theory of freedom with an overview of modern political philosophy, especially its development during the seventeenth century."

My Cato Essay #62 is now up.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

That's awfully sophisticated, George. The idea of state rights--the right of kings--philosophically devolving into natural or human rights was one I had never considered or been taught. What is not being addressed, however, is the power of philosophy relative to other powers, such as economic, psychological and military. The Liberal Arts is hardly one field of integrated study though some great historians have made the attempt. So far I still experience philosophy, even political philosophy, as more the cart in back of the horse instead of the horse of dynamic human existence. The exception is when the philosophers slip in and temporarily take over, as when this country was founded.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

That's awfully sophisticated, George. The idea of state rights--the right of kings--philosophically devolving into natural or human rights was one I had never considered or been taught. What is not being addressed, however, is the power of philosophy relative to other powers, such as economic, psychological and military. The Liberal Arts is hardly one field of integrated study though some great historians have made the attempt. So far I still experience philosophy, even political philosophy, as more the cart in back of the horse instead of the horse of dynamic human existence. The exception is when the philosophers slip in and temporarily take over, as when this country was founded.

--Brant

I didn't mean to suggest that the idea of individual rights devolved from the assertion of state rights. Rather, the particular formulation of rights as some form of "self-sovereignty" was largely a response to the previous assertions of state sovereignty.

Prior to the Reformation, political debates also revolved around the idea of sovereignty, but many of those debates concerned the conflict between religious and secular authorities, i.e, who is the ultimate sovereign -- pope or prince. After Protestant theologians removed the pope from the picture, "papalism" was no longer an issue in England (and other Protestant countries), and the controversy shifted to arguments over the nature of state sovereignly per se and its relationship to the individual.

If this analysis is unfamiliar to you, that's because it is (largely) original with me, so far as I know.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Freedom, Rights, and Political Philosophy, Part 2

Smith discusses the major criticism of natural rights and the consent theory of government --that these doctrines will land us in anarchy.

My Cato Essay #63 is now up.

Ghs

[BaalChatzaf]

Freedom, Rights, and Political Philosophy, Part 2

Smith discusses the major criticism of natural rights and the consent theory of government --that these doctrines will land us in anarchy.

My Cato Essay #63 is now up.

Ghs

It was Thomas Hobbes who made the killer argument against anarchy in -Leviathan-.

I really enjoy your essays. I have recent acquired an appreciation of the theoretical aspects of politics.

Oddly enough it was Aristotle's -Politics- that led to that appreciation. I am not what you would call a fan of Aristotle because his Physics and Metaphysics are so damned wrong (or in many ways, not even wrong). However he hit the mark in Nichomachan Ethics and Politics.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Anarchy is for the individual in the context of natural rights theory. Non-anarchy is for the state. The compromise is delimited government for the individual has not the power to completely de-state--as opposed to over-throw--the state, but does have the power of righteousness, thus can obtain limited government of some sort in the name of freedom if not liberty. As it was so it will be: you must fight for what you want. It is the philosopher's job to give focus, moral locus and clarity.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Freedom, Rights, and Political Philosophy, Part 2

Smith discusses the major criticism of natural rights and the consent theory of government --that these doctrines will land us in anarchy.

My Cato Essay #63 is now up.

Ghs

It was Thomas Hobbes who made the killer argument against anarchy in -Leviathan-.

I really enjoy your essays. I have recent acquired an appreciation of the theoretical aspects of politics.

Oddly enough it was Aristotle's -Politics- that led to that appreciation. I am not what you would call a fan of Aristotle because his Physics and Metaphysics are so damned wrong (or in many ways, not even wrong). However he hit the mark in Nichomachan Ethics and Politics.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I obviously disagree with you about Hobbes. His main concern was to justify a goverment with absolute power that could not be held accountable by subjects or citizens. Hobbes had no appreciation of the benefits of voluntary cooperation and no theory of spontaneous order.

I am also no fan of Aristotle's Politics. He was better than Plato, but not by much.

Ghs

[Roger Bissell]

George, I hope you have a deal with CATO to put these essays out in book form. Perhaps more than one book!

[George H. Smith]

George, I hope you have a deal with CATO to put these essays out in book form. Perhaps more than one book!

Some of essays, such as the most recent one, are based on material that I discuss at greater length in my forthcoming book, The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism, which is scheduled to be published by Cambridge University Press in April. In some cases I have taken excerpts from my book and rewritten them somewhat.

Other essays, such as my various essays on the history of state education, are based on material that I researched years ago but never had the opportunity to publish. However, at least half the essays, such as my lengthy series on Herbert Spencer's pessimism and another on Ayn Rand and altruism, were written entirely from scratch. I regard some of those Cato Essays as the best I have written so far. I am especially pleased with my series on Rand.

I have been asked by Cato whether I would be interested in publishing some of the essays in book form, beginning, perhaps, with the Kindle format. This is a little complicated, since any such book cannot include material that also appears in my Cambridge book. In any case, some of my most substantive and original material, such as a series on the Scottish Enlightenment and another series on the history of natural rights theory, will be written and posted over the next year. I prefer to wait until those essays are written before I seriously consider a book. I don't especially care to publish an anthology of articles on various topics. I would rather publish a book with an integrated theme, and I may have enough material for such a book (maybe two) in another year. Even then, the essays will need to be substantially rewritten for a book format.

One project that interests me is a book on Herbert Spencer, especially since I have yet to encounter a modern scholarly work on Spencer that does him justice. I've been a serious student of Spencer since the late 1970s, when I published a couple articles on him, including a very ambitious article in 1981, Herbert Spencer's Theory of Causation." (This was originally written for a Liberty Fund conference on Spencer.)

Over the last year I have included two series on Spencer for my Cato Essays: A 3-part series titled "Barack Obama, Social Darwinism, and Survival of the Fittest" (Part 1 can found here ); and a 7-part series titled "From Optimism to Pessimism: The Case of Herbert Spencer" (Part 1 can be found here .) There is a good deal of original material in those articles.

I'm also toying with the idea of writing a short book on Ayn Rand's moral and political theory, based on my 5-part series, "Ayn Rand and Altruism." (See the link below my signature for Part 1.) That series contains some points that, to my knowledge, have never been made before, or at least have not been sufficiently emphasized.

Writing articles is fairly easy for me -- though writing one substantive essay every week for over a year has been a challenge -- but books are an entirely different matter, which is why I have only published 4 (including the forthcoming CUP book) in my career. When you write a book, you are saying, in effect, "This is the best I can do," whereas articles are more ephemeral and may represent "thinking in progress." Funding is also a problem with books. Unless I can be assured of a secure income for at least a year, I won't even consider another book project. And given my lack of academic credentials, such funding is not easy to come by.

Ghs

[Guyau]

.

Congratulations, George, on your continuing scholarship, and on the forthcoming book in April. I have recently cited your 1981 essay on Spencer for a point pertinent to Rand here.

[George H. Smith]

.

Congratulations, George, on your continuing scholarship, and on the forthcoming book in April. I have recently cited your 1981 essay on Spencer for a point pertinent to Rand here.

Thanks, Stephen. I was very surprised that Cambridge agreed to publish my book, given my lack of credentials. I didn't even know, until after it was accepted, that Cato had even submitted it to CUP. A glowing recommendation by Randy Barnett brought the ms to their attention, after which the ms had to pass muster with two anonymous academic "readers" and then by two CUP committees -- one in the U.S. and one in England. This process consumed the better part of a year. CUP recommended a few changes, but nothing major.

Ghs