Liberty & Power: Group Blog
Amy H. Sturgis
This volume provides a broad sample of the research presented at the "Past Watchful Dragons: Fantasy and Faith in the World of C.S. Lewis" international conference held at Belmont University on November 3-5, 2005. The contributing scholars reflect a truly interdisciplinary discussion representing the fields of literature, theology, history, and popular culture. The assembled essays offer insights on the messages of C.S. Lewis's fiction and nonfiction, the dramatic adaptations of his work, the influence of his faith, and his relevance to related fantasy literature and authors from J.R.R. Tolkien to J.K. Rowling.
Of particular interest to those at Liberty and Power may be chapters about Lewis's commentary on Empire, Lewis's conception of compensational justice, and J.K. Rowling's exploration of feminism in the Harry Potter book series.
Past Watchful Dragons is now available from Mythopoeic Press and Amazon.com.
Contents and Abstracts:
Part I: Introductory Words
By Darrell Gwaltney
Introductory words about the Past Watchful Dragons conference.
By Amy H. Sturgis
Introductory words about the contents of the book.
Part II: Keynote Speaker
3. “Apologetics in the Shadowlands: The Problem of Pain and Narnia”
By Bruce Edwards
Edwards explores the relationship between The Chronicles of Narnia and The Problem of Pain, and considers how these works by Lewis together form an awareness of humanity’s plight in a fallen world, an “Apologetics for the Shadowlands.”
Part III: The Chronicles of Narnia
4. Sons of Adam and Daughters of Eve: Lewisian Perspectives on the Human in The Chronicles of Narnia
By Donald T. Williams
It is a critical commonplace that in That Hideous Strength Lewis gives readers a fictional incarnation of the argument he made against reductionism and for a fully biblical concept of what is human in The Abolition of Man. What has been less fully realized is that The Chronicles of Narnia relate to Abolition in precisely the same way. Talking Beasts, much like the hnau of The Space Trilogy, form foils which allow Lewis to set off the essential characteristics of human nature. Willams shows that Abolition constitutes a most useful grid for interpreting The Chronicles, that the conception of human nature incarnated there is informed by a richly biblical anthropology, and that, together with The Abolition of Man, they offer an apologia for a biblical view of human nature that still provides good traction against contemporary forms of reductionism.
5. “Let the Villains Be Soundly Killed at the End of the Book”: C. S. Lewis’s Conception of Justice in The Chronicles of Narnia
By Marek Oziewicz
One of the most fundamental assumptions of Tolkien’s famous essay “On Fairy-Stories” is that fairy-stories, or mythopoeic fantasy as some critics would call the genre now, quench human spiritual thirsts. Among those, of paramount importance for a person’s spiritual well-being is human yearning for justice. Although Tolkien did not make it explicit, it is clear in his writings that he was aware of a conflict between people’s customary sense of justice, applied to and expected of them in ordinary human relations, and the legal sense of justice, imposed on them as citizens by the state. More outspoken in this respect, Lewis addressed the problem of justice in many of his essays and repeatedly criticized modern state’s conception of justice as degrading to human dignity. If Lewis and Tolkien thus demonstrated their allegiance to mythic or more traditional concepts of justice, it is nowhere as clear as in fantasy works they wrote. While all of their works reveal a specific conception of myth-derived justice, which Oziewicz calls a compensational one, Oziewicz argues that this concept is one of the many reasons for the lasting appeal of The Chronicles. Compensational justice is more satisfying to human spirit than any legal type of justice known in our world. Although it operates by the principle of “getting what one deserves,” compensational justice is not revenge, nor is it driven by the logic of vengeance. Contrary to faceless legal justice that depersonalizes human relations, it builds and fosters them by making characters face the hurts they caused others, understand the resulting pain, and learn not repeat their mistakes. Oziewicz demonstrates how compensational justice as “textualized” by Lewis involves a whole set of assumptions concerning guilt, crime, compensation and giving others their due. Most importantly, however, he argues that Lewis presents his conception of justice not as a utopian construct, but as a practical ideal to be sought and realized in actual life.
Part IV: Adaptations
6. “Sing, my tongue, the glorious battle”: Aslan’s Sacrifice in Adaptations of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
By Hugh H. Davis
As Walden Media prepared to release its adaptation of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, its early media machine’s emphasis focused on the novel’s final battle, with clips in its trailer of massive armies locked in combat. Early merchandise announcements, likewise, focused on centaur and ogre figures, suggesting significant attention on this battle and its warriors, despite the fact that this war lasts a mere few pages in Lewis’ text. While this conflict between the White Witch’s minions and Aslan’s supporters has narrative importance, allegorically, the more important sequence should be Aslan’s sacrifice in place of Edmund. Aslan’s murder at the hands of the White Witch and her hordes—the crucifixion of this Christ-figure—is the true “glorious battle” of LWW, providing readers with a fantastic/symbolic version of that mighty conflict celebrated in Christian tradition during Holy Week, with the hollow “Triumph of the Witch” (the title of Lewis’ fourteenth chapter) representing in truth the “triumph of the victim,” as sung of in a hymn by Fortunatus . It is on this event of “a magic deeper still” whereupon Lewis sets his supposal, with this lion’s sacrifice and resurrection the pivotal point in the novel upon which all other action relies. Davis considers how attempts to dramatize the novel have presented Aslan’s sacrifice in adaptations of the initial Chronicle of Narnia, considering the transformation of the text into audio drama and into both animated and live-action televised versions while also considering how it presents a story lasting as “eternal ages run."
7. Sometimes A Film May Say Best What’s to be Said
By Greg Wright
Both C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien voiced serious misgivings about the art of cinema. While Lewis speculated on the obsession with “sheer excitement” in film, and contrasted that with the “hushing spell of imagination” possible in literature, Tolkien went so far as to offer the opinion that the visual arts “outrun the mind,” even “overthrow it.” How, then, do we account for the current enthusiasm among fantasy fans for filmed versions of Middle-earth and Narnia? We might argue that today’s fanbase is woefully out of touch with the love of literature which inspired Tolkien and Lewis; but we might also argue that the Oxford dons were poorly suited to be critics of cinema. First, Tolkien and Lewis were both devoted to literature and steeped themselves in its history, its consumption and its production. Quite simply, they loved words. And while they both were inspired by visual art-Lewis finding most of his creative impetus in concrete visual imagery and Tolkien interpreting his own worlds through drawings and sketches-they could hardly have been described as lovers of film. According to Lewis’ own suggestions regarding criticism, then, the two were simultaneously eminently qualified as critics of literature and roundly disqualified as critics of the cinema. Second, the art of cinema could hardly have been described as mature in the 1930s. While the jury is still out on the ultimate role that film will play in our culture, there can be little doubt that Lewis and Tolkien would have a very different opinion of cinema in 2005 than they would have when their seminal fantasy works were initially published.
Part V: Lewis and Literature
8. Surprised, but Not by Joy: Political Comment in Out of the Silent Planet
By Karen Wright Hayes
George Orwell’s often-anthologized essay “Shooting an Elephant,” originally published in 1936, contains the line, “And my whole life, every white man’s life in the East, was one long struggle not to be laughed at.” Orwell experienced first hand the conflict of being a thinking human being acting as part of a colonial power, and made capital of it. C.S. Lewis published in 1938 the story of another attempted English colonization: Out of the Silent Planet. In chapters 19 and 20, Lewis offers a satirical comment on England’s interaction with “native” cultures, as Weston (”the great physicist”) attempts to communicate with — but more properly to intimidateâ€”the creatures of Malacandra. Lewis’s hero Ransom looks on with minimal reaction but is eventually drawn in to translate for Weston and Oyarsa in a juxtaposition of ideas that rivals another Orwell classic — “Politics and the English Language”– for pointed comment on the relationship between power and words. Lewis, however, makes his anti-colonialist comment in fiction, a form which often slips past the “watchful dragons” of pro-British, pro-Western sentiment, resulting in the assumption by many that he was either a supporter of Empire or oblivious to its existence.
9. The Four Loves of Dorian Gray
By Ernelle Fife
Abstract: Although C. S. Lewis’s works of fiction, particularly his Chronicles of Narnia, are slowly finding a niche in academia, his works of literary criticism seem to be ignored, replaced by more theoretical stances. And his overtly Christian works rarely, if ever, are incorporated into literature courses. However, much can be gained by using Lewis’s non-fictional works as a lens to re-examine canonical texts. Fife proposes that using The Four Loves in teaching Oscar Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray highlights the underlying morality of the novel. In his The Four Loves, Lewis distinguishes between Need-Love and Gift-Love. Both he concedes are necessary for human existence. Lewis believes that all human love can be categorized as one of four types: affection, friendship, eros, charity. Any type can be a Need-love or a Gift-love, and any type can be corrupted if we attempt to make that love into a Gift-love with the beloved as the object. What is really interesting in Lewis’s argument is that it is not pride or self-love that is the corrupting factor. Self-centeredness or self-indulgence may prevent one from loving anyone at all, but only “[A] faithful and genuinely self-sacrificing passion will speak to us with what seems the voice of God”. Where the danger lies, and what I contend to be the moral of Oscar Wilde’s Picture of Dorian Gray, is when the object of a healthy and necessary Need-love is mistaken for or substituted for what should be the object of Gift-love, God. Wilde’s novel incorporates all four types of love, and each is present as both Need-love and Gift-love. The novel’s inner morality centers upon all the characters creating sinful loves by altering a perfectly healthy and morally sound Need-love into a Gift-love, and thus, destroying both the love and the beloved.
10. A Cat Sat On A Mat: C.S. Lewis In A World Without Wonder
By Rev. Daniel L. Scott, Jr. and Austin Cagle
C.S. Lewis makes it very clear where he believes the extreme democratization of education has led. In his satirical essay on education, “Screwtape Proposes a Toast,” he uses his unique genre of “diabolical ventriloquism” to explain the specific effects of democratic education that brought about the destruction of education in significant way in Great Britain and a catastrophic way in the United States. Lewis directly opposed this extreme democratization which was introduced to schools in the U.S. by the highly esteemed John Dewey. Dewey’s system is littered with problems. Not the least of which is the propensity of the system to encourage mediocrity and discourage the brighter students to assert themselves; that would be highly undemocratic. Lewis believes that education must base its philosophy on a few very key truths. First, man is created in the image of God. Belief in God permits the possibility of absolute truth and an absolute aesthetic. These are necessary for making any judgment of value in knowledge and beauty, which is the point of education. Second, God gives different abilities to different people. To require that all children be treated the same in school is as foolish as requiring all children to be treated the same in sports. Children have differing abilities naturally. It is necessary to separate the gifted and the hardworking from the average or lazy sportsmen. The professional leagues in the U.S. would have a hard time drawing spectators to the arena if they decided to make their recruiting, coaching, and drafting a more “democratic process.” Third, the beginning of and inspiration for education is wonder. Plato writes, “Philosophy begins in wonder.” And Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel furthers that to, “Wonder... is the root of knowledge.” Lewis makes it clear that he values the reinstallation of wonder into people. His fantasy stories provide a means to the beginning of education. Lewis used his faith and his fantasy to combat the extreme democratization of education that is pushed with more vigor today than in his own lifetime. It’s time we listen.
Part VI: C.S. Lewis and Faith
11. C.S. Lewis on Vocation: The Integration of Faith and Occupation
By Devin Brown
As an Oxford don in his early thirties, a secular scholar well-established in what he thought was to be his life’s work, C.S. Lewis could not have known he was about to receive a call to a vocation he had never envisioned -- to become the foremost Christian writer and thinker of his day. Brown looks at Lewis’s own vocation and at what he said about vocation in his apologetic and his imaginative works. An examination of the calling of C.S. Lewis can provide key insights into what true vocation is. Lewis never stopped teaching English literature at a prestigious university as his full-time job, never attended seminary, and never went into what some might call “full-time” Christian ministry. Instead he wrote Christian fiction that was marketed by commercial publishing companies, spoke about his faith on the BBC, and created philosophical and apologetic materials intended to be understood by everyone. In short, Lewis responded to his own personal calling by remaining right where he was in the secular world and by adding his unique voice, his own Christian witness, to the conversation in ways that particularly suited his abilities, his opportunities, and his inclinations. Relatively little attention has been given to Lewis’s views on vocation; paradoxically, he had a good deal to say on this topic. His observations hold special relevance for a professional and an academic audience because he was both himself.
12. “It All Began with a Picture”: The Poetic Preaching of C.S. Lewis
By Gregory M. Anderson
Great preaching is not normally considered great art. Yet, C.S. Lewis, a reluctant preacher, pushed preaching to the highest levels of artistic and aesthetic discourse. Lewis was known for his rational defense of the faith but also for his imaginative and creative works. In his preaching, the propositional and the pictorial dimensions of discourse came together. Few have communicated statement and story, proposition and picture, as well as Lewis. In addition, there was a strong ethical strain that enhanced the logical and emotional arguments. The logos, pathos, and ethos of his presentation reveal a master rhetorician at work. What has come to be called apologetics comes to us from rhetoric, long before it came to be viewed as philosophy or theology. Understanding the rhetoric of Lewis will help us understand his ability to communicate across cultures and intellectual fashions. Anderson rehearses Lewis’s views of rhetoric, particularly on the poetic vs. rhetoric debate. His perspective will be examined in the light of ancient rhetoric, as well as the later notions of Fenelon, and Kenneth Burke. Lewis’s theoretical insights are compared to his practice, using his “Weight of Glory” sermon as a case study. A close reading of the context and the text of his most famous sermon demonstrates how Lewis combined romantic, rational, and relational reasons to clinch his case for Christ.
Part VII: Related Authors
13. Storming the Gates of Barad-Dur: J.R.R. Tolkien, Christian Resistance, and the Imagination
By Harry L. Reeder, IV
One of the clearest refrains of contemporary academic criticism is heard in the word resistance. From confrontation to subversion, this word is one which occurs time and time again in the last thirty to forty years in the different theoretical approaches to texts. Whether it be in radical deconstruction, Marxism, or cultural criticism, resistance is in vogue. And yet, what is the Christian academic critique to do with these theories of resistance that are themselves so resistant to Christian ideology? What are the Christian intellectuals to do in an arena that is subversive to the very foundations of our faith? Retreating is not an option we are ideologically given. Nor can we simply advocate a return to the “glory years” of Enlightenment philosophy or medieval scholasticism. Resistance is a choice the Christian also has: resistance and subversion. I will define these terms more clearly later, but at the time I would like to say that we have, in the works of J.R.R. Tolkien, an excellent example of Christian resistance, an excellent example of the Christian’s ability to reclaim truth from pagan world views. Tolkien’s religious resistance is not only seen in his fictional work; it begins in his critical work. Through an examination of Tolkien’s ideology as resistant in his Beowulf essay, “The Monsters and the Critics”, and then through a critical application of those principles to The Silmarillion, Reeder makes several invigorating conclusions about the Christian use of the imagination in our own postmodern context. Tolkien’s work, both fictional and critical, is invaluable in creating a literary ideology of Christian imaginative resistance that does not result in a simple metaphoric rendering of Christianity, but rather one that is insightful, intellectual, literate, and inclusive.
14. The Elfin Mystique: Fantasy and Feminism in J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter Series
By Kathryn N. McDaniel
Readers often criticize fantasy writers for the imperfections found in their fantasy worlds that seem to undermine their ideal, and idealistic, quality. C.S. Lewis and J.K. Rowling have both experienced criticism for pandering to gender stereotypes or reinforcing the subordinate position of women in society. Because Lewis emphasized faith and spiritual values found in worlds beyond our own, such a critique strikes less at the heart of his message than it does for Rowling, who has created an unabashed liberal fantasy world that exists, so it appears, in the here and now. Scholars and fans alike have wondered about Rowling’s feminist credentials: does she advocate liberty, equality, and dignity for all but women? The answer to this question can be found in an unusual place: through her depiction of the seemingly content, though terribly oppressed, domestic drudges that inhabit her magical world, the house-elves. The house-elves’ supposed happiness with their subordinated position also seems to create a fault-line in Rowling’s liberal fantasy: are they natural slaves who should not gain liberation? If we use second-wave feminism to understand the house-elves’ attitude, Rowling’s message is revealed as consistent, if more complex than her critics have acknowledged. Like mid-twentieth-century house-wives, the house-elves are bound by the invisible chains of culture and tradition to a role of domestic servitude. The conditions of this bondage, as feminists like Simone de Beauvoir and Betty Friedan explained in their pivotal works, offer security in place of freedom and make the oppressed complicit in their subjugation. Instead of the Feminine Mystique, the house-elves are bound by an “Elfin Mystique” that prevents most of them from embracing liberation. Demonstrating that emancipation is not always perceived as unequivocally good, even by those who would be freed, Rowling displays a subtle understanding of the problem of liberation that confirms her liberal (and feminist) message and keeps in tact the integrity of her magical world.
It is no small achievement to gather twelve essays with authority and grace (ten on Lewis and one each on Tolkien and J.K. Rowling). Lewis enthusiasts with Puddleglum personalities, who expect at least one bad egg in a dozen, will be pleasantly surprised.
—Robert Trexler, Editor of The Bulletin of the New York C.S. Lewis Society
This is no dry collection, but a continuation in kind of the vibrant conversations that went on between C.S. Lewis and his like-minded friends in smoky Oxford pubs and book-lined college rooms.
—Colin Duriez, Author of Tolkien and C.S. Lewis: The Gift of Friendship
A welcome collection of reflections on C.S. Lewis by both seasoned and fresh voices on a wide range of topics topped off with two provocative explorations into Tolkien and Rowling.
—Christopher Mitchell, Director, Marion E. Wade Center, Wheaton College
Roderick T. Long
[cross-posted at Austro-Athenian Empire]
Ive been interested in Aaron Burr revisionism for a while. Burr had the bad luck to make enemies of both Jefferson and Hamilton, thus earning the ire of historians across the political spectrum; but Ive long suspected that Burr, like Jefferson and Hamilton, was a complicated mix of good and bad and not the plaster villain hes been cast as. (Besides, a man who wears a locket of Mary Wollstonecraft cant be all bad!)
I just saw a C-Span talk by Nancy Isenberg on her Burr-revisionist book Fallen Founder. The book sounded interesting, and less blindly adulatory of Burr than, say, Roger Kennedys book. (Kennedys Burr, an uncompromising abolitionist hero trying to carve out a territorial enclave of racial and sexual equality, always seemed a bit too good to be true.)
Unfortunately, I was put off by the fact that Isenberg said several things that seemed to me historically dubious:
1. Isenberg said that Hamilton wrote ahead of time that he planned to fire into the air during his duel with Burr. No; he wrote ahead of time that he planned not to fire at all. (Or at least he said that he planned to reserve and throw away his shot. Throw away is ambiguous, I suppose, between firing into the air and not firing, but reserve seems to favour the latter.)
2. She said that James Monroes military interventionism was at odds with the anti-interventionism of his own Monroe Doctrine. No; the Monroe Doctrine was not anti-interventionist quite the contrary.
3. She said that Hamilton was a slaveowner. Maybe; but although Hamilton was complicit in slavery in various ways, as far as I know his actually owning slaves hasnt been proven. (He had black servants, but I dont believe its ever been determined whether they were free or slave. Of course, I havent read her book; perhaps she proves this?)
No such 'class' legislation exists today, of course, in this, the enlightened early 21st century...Or does it?
The Times 29th July 2007 reports: “ ‘Psycho’ bear tears apart an eco-idyll”. The Pyrenees had once supported a large population of brown bears. Now there are some 18 or so left. So, at the behest of environmentalists, French govt officials imported five Slovenian bears to help re-populate the area. One of these turned out to be, not the nubile young creature promised by Slovenian officials, but a grumpy 17-year-old who killed sheep for pleasure. This beast alone killed some 60% of the 95 sheep attacked in 2006. Farmers & residents have now formed a ‘Regional Movement Against Bears in the Pyrenees’, asking Pres. Sarkozy to intervene.
The response of animal rights activists? (eg, 'Land for Bears') (1) Get more sheepdogs & more shepherds [ie, why are farmers so gormless? Why can't they incur higher costs?] (2) Farmers get compensation for their sheep [so why are they fussing?] (3) More sheep die from bad weather & disease than are killed by bears [so what do a few more matter?] (4) There are some 20-odd bears in the area -- who have not attacked sheep… [Only some pheasants & deer eat farmers' crops; the vast majority don't...]
In short, the ecologists' satisfaction is morally more valuable than farmers' sheep. Why are the lower classes complaining? It is their function to pay for the moral happiness of their moral superiors.
Truly, ‘The more things change, the more they remain the same.’ We have now gone full circle. Ecologists now have exactly the same type of ‘game’ legislation: Pyrenean farmers have to pay with their sheep so a handful of animal rights activists can feel happy about ‘the environment’. Of course, environmentalists have the noblest of motives: they are not despicable aristos, who thought only about such sordid things as (shudder) hunting. The principle, however, remains. Ecologists demand that the morally lower classes -- despised farmers, who only care for their sheep -- should pay for the ‘higher’ satisfactions of their moral superiors, the environmentalists.
Amy H. Sturgis
Amy H. Sturgis
The libertarian camp has always contained some folks who see themselves as "on the right" and others who reject that, either by saying "my heart is more on the left" or rejecting the dichotomy altogether. Before 9/11, those two groups could largely co-exist, except perhaps on the very fringes.
Since 9/11, and especially since Iraq, the distance between those two groups has grown much larger. Like an iceberg splitting in half and leaving two pieces floating on the water, and slowly drifting apart, the libertarian movement seems to be dividing over these issues.
An alternative hypothesis might be that those libertarians who were very comfortable seeing themselves as "right wing" or of "the Right" were more likely to have supported the war, while those who either reject that language and/or preferred to think of themselves as "on the left," were more likely to oppose it.
Of course, the "paleo" crowd might well be the counter-evidence here, as I think they tend to see themselves as comfortable on the right and have been staunchly anti-war, drawing on the very noble tradition of the Old Right.
Having always seen myself as having my heart on the left and very much rejecting the notion that libertarianism, or at least MY libertarianism, was "of the right," it is particularly stinging to be seen by others as a "defender" of the war, especially when I'm not.
If I'm right, and I may well not be, then the interesting question is why some libertarians are comfortable being "of the right" and others aren't, especially if the former is correlated with support for wars that cannot be justified on libertarian grounds.
The reasons why are complex, and to some extent can only be answered by psychology and weakness of character. But I think there are ideological factors as well. I think libertarian and classical liberal ideology appeals to two very different kinds of people, those who support liberty because people should be free to live their lives as they wish so long as they don’t aggress on others, and those who want to be free to live their lives as they wish.
This post launches my investigation to see whether some on this list agree or have interesting reasons for disagreeing.
I want to use property rights as a diagnostic device. Everyone here supports private property, I imagine, but there are two broadly different ways classical liberals and libertarians conceive of and defend private property. They often coexist, but they have different 'flavors'.
First, private property is something over which I exercise control. If it is all mine my control is total. In a classic statement of this position, Sir William Blackstone observed “There is nothing which so generally strikes the imagination and engages the affections of mankind as the right of property; or that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, to the total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe.”
Second, private property is a bundle of discrete rights. Some rights can be sold or rented without denying other unsold and unrented rights. When we think of private property in this way it is not so much a thing as it is a field of possible relationships with others and (potentially) with what is considered property.
This second view makes it possible to raise a question difficult to address in the first: what relationships are appropriate and what relationships are inappropriate? The first has a simple answer – you may not aggress on my boundaries. All else is permitted. Not so the second because property is not a thing with boundaries but a set of potential and realized relationships.
From this perspective inappropriate relationships can not be property rights at all, and this so-called “limitation” is in no sense a limitation on genuine private property rights. For example, many people myself included have no problems with buying and selling animals. But many, myself included, would argue that there is no right for an owner to torture his or her animal. Ownership does not appropriately include that right. Some people, myself included, would go farther, and say if I own an animal I take on certain obligations to care for its welfare. Thus the “private property” that is my dog or cat is not the same as the “private property” that is my pen or shoe, where few indeed would argue such obligations exist. The same word is used to describe different sets of relationships, but in both cases I can buy and sell what I own.
A despot or would be despot can consistently be a libertarian or classical liberal if he or she believes they will never exercise power and want no power exercised over them. But when “their side” is in power, all restraints are off beyond prudential ones. I think such people would be attracted to the first model of property and not much to the second.
I hypothesize classical liberals and libertarians who are more attracted to the first kind of reason than they are to the second will be more likely to also support or have until recently supported, the Bush administration on a number of issues, such as the war, and perhaps even be drawn to authoritarian politicians such as Guiliani.
I have not read Barnett for years, but wonder where he falls on this issue of property rights? I assume someone on this list knows.
Reasonable people can disagree with the following, but here is my view:
Libertarians should reach out, especially to the 25% or so of the population with some libertarian tendencies. Respect them, be open to learning from them, and try to present libertarian ideas, history, and solutions in a persuasive way. Many might move in a more libertarian direction, and in this way we can incrementally change society for the better. Accept that most will not go all the way and become extreme libertarians.
Barnett's views are lodged in a deeply libertarian part of the Nolan Chart. If the Nolan Chart asked about foreign policy, he would not be so deep into the quadrant, but he would not be off the reservation.
Rather than hunting down deviationists, we should be looking for allies.
War is the health of the state (Bourne);
War is thus by nature a threat to life, liberty, and property;
No libertarian can consistently support what is by nature a threat to life, liberty, and property;
Ergo, no libertarian can support war.
Cross-posted at Free Association.
Randy Barnett supports the war.
Ergo, there are libertarians who support the war.
I have been consistently against this war, but efforts to excommunicate war supporters is fruitless. Rand and Rothbard wasted much effort effort on defining people in and out of their respective movements. Let's not go down that road.
By the way, William S. Lind offers a thoughtful approach towards salvaging the Iraq mess in the current issue of The American Conservative.
Randy Barnett supports the war.
Ergo, there are people who identify as libertarian who support the war.
Perhaps we can all agree on this revision of Syllogism #2.
The overwhelming bulk of the US govt’s wars & adventures have occurred thousands of miles away from the US. Why should that be the case? Why should the US govt have to send its troops thousands of miles to fight its wars?
For one thing, the Pacific & Atlantic Oceans. From Japan to California, is some 4000 miles. (The Hawaiian Islands are a minuscule proportion of the area of the US.) From Maine to Ireland, is some 3000 miles. Thus an enemy govt would have to send warplanes &/or warships thousands of miles before they could even begin to attack the US. And an invasion of the US would require supply lines crossing the same thousands of miles of open ocean -- under attack from the US Navy…By contrast, Germany shares borders with France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, the Czech Republic that now is. Thus the first reason why the US govt has to cross thousands of miles of ocean to attack or invade.
For another thing, Canada is so firmly within the US govt’s orbit, that the British general staff, before 1914, refused even to formulate a defence plan for the dominion. Their attitude was, Canada is indefensible against an American invasion. If the Americans want the territory, they can have it. Similarly, the Latin American regions would find it impossible to mount a sustained attack, let alone an invasion, of the US. And indeed, the US govt’s Latin American wars, invasions, & occupations, have been relatively minor. So again, the bulk of the US govt’s military invasions, etc., have occurred several thousands of miles away from the US.
Now furthermore-: A. Foreign trade (exports & imports combined) has always been a tiny percentage of American production & consumption. And the largest American trading partner is Canada. Hence a large part of American shipping consists of ‘inland’ ships on the Great Lakes. Latin America is likewise a large trading partner of the US. And American ships are only a tiny part of all ocean shipping -- they offer very little by way of general shipping services. Thus the US navy has never had to guard long, vital ocean supply lines, or protect half the world’s shipping tonnage -- as the Royal Navy had to do, even upto 1939.
B. Since the later 19th century, the US has been the most prosperous of the DCs (witness the massive immigration into the country.) And since at least 1914, it has been the world’s third largest country in terms of population.
So the US govt rules the world’s most prosperous DC, the third largest country in the world in terms of population, with a minute foreign trade, itself largely within the Americas & a minute share of world shipping. Yet it stations troops in innumerable territories around the world, fights wars, invades & occupies countries that are often far poorer, and with far smaller populations, thousands of miles away. Why?
Roderick T. Long
[cross-posted at Austro-Athenian Empire]
1. Shawn Wilbur is God!
He has just completed posting the entire run of Benjamin Tuckers Liberty in PDF form. Details here.
At the height of its popularity Liberty had a circulation of perhaps 600. Now, thanks to Shawn, it is accessible to millions worldwide.
The interface is bare-bones at the moment, but Shawn has plans for text-search capacity and other cool stuff.
As he urges: download, download, download! to ensure that there is never again any question of Liberty not being available.
Ive also hailed the advent of Liberty on the Mises Blog.
2. Another gift from Shawn Wilbur: a list of Proudhon texts available on Google Books.
You may ask: Whats so special about that? Cant anyone compile such a list by going to Google Books and doing an author search on Proudhon?
3. On an entirely unrelated topic, those planning to attend the Alabama Philosophical Society may need a reminder that the deadline for submitting a paper is just over two weeks away.
David T. Beito
"I have watched John T. Flynn during these many years and the net anwer in my mind is that he has always, with practically no exception, been a destructive rather than a constructive force. Therefore, Q.E.D., John T. Flynn should be barred hereafter from the columns of any presentable daily paper, monthly magazine or national quarterly, such as the Yale Review.
Source: John E. Moser, Right Turn: John T. Flynn and the Transformation of American Liberalism New York: New York University Press, 2005), l04.
Nowhere in Barnett’s article does one find a hint that the leading, pioneering classical liberals of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were not just skeptical of the government’s war-making power; rather they were forthrightly antiwar, anti-empire, and pro-peace. These include Frederic Bastiat, Richard Cobden, John Bright, Herbert Spencer, Auberon Herbert, and William Graham Sumner. This is no coincidence. These men were not ivory-tower theorists; they were historians as well as keen observers of contemporary events, applying libertarian principles to the historical conduct of politicians, bureaucrats, and diplomats. It was Sumner, echoing many before him, who pointed out that"national defense" means"war, debt, taxation, diplomacy, a grand governmental system, pomp, glory, a big army and navy, lavish expenditures, political jobbery." The liberals unfailingly understood that war meant the mass murder of innocents and regimentation at home. Nothing is easier for a politician than conjuring up a"self-defense" justification for war, but the great classical liberals would have nothing to do with it. For one thing, they realized that the self-defense analogy is bogus. When an individual defends himself, he does not tax others to help him, conscript others, or bomb the attacker's friends and family, who may be completely innocent of wrongdoing. The state is not an individual. The rules are different.
I think this gets at an underlying flaw in Barnett’s case. He, like others, approaches libertarianism in a hyper-rationalistic, ahistorical way. If in his view a policy position cannot be reached deductively from libertarian first principles, he concludes that libertarianism per se has nothing to say about it. But his method is wrong. Libertarianism isn’t purely an a priori theory. It's a set of insights about human beings and a unique historical institution -- the state -- insights produced by centuries of experience. Libertarianism properly conceived is an interplay of theory and history, neither ever losing sight of the other. It is, as Chris Sciabarra notes, dialectical.
Barnett curiously combines his simplistic a priori approach to libertarianism with a vulgar dilettantism regarding current events void of detailed knowledge about the
And why are libertarian such as Barnett comfortable with this dubious methodology with respect to foreign policy? Because not far below the surface, they are nationalists. The nation is still a special unit of emotional value -- particularly the U.S. There's an implicit theory of exceptionalism here too. That accounts for their lack of interest in the history of U.S. intervention.
Cross-posted at Free Association.