Posted on 05/19/2002 3:02:10 PM PDT by aconservaguy
And Whiggism isn't libertarianism.
specifically, what are these lies that the article spreads?
In the United States, where it has become almost impossible to use "liberal" in the sense in which I have used it, the term "libertarian" has been used instead. It may be the answer; but for my part I find it singularly unattractive. For my taste it carries too much the flavor of a manufactured term and of a substitute. What I should want is a word which describes the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution.
Does "libertarianism" favor this "free growth and spontaneous evolution" of Hayek's?
-- "Whiggism is historically the correct name for the ideas in which I believe."
The "whiggism" of Hayek doesn't seem to be "libertarianism" of today. Even then, the definition of whiggism posted earlier seems to conflict with libertarianism.
Thus, - Hayek was a libertarian, but disliked the term.
not necessarily. And, even if he was, that doesn't mean that liberatarianism = whiggism. just wondering, is the libertarianism of today different than that of Hayek's time?
What is the "obviously" false conclusion? That "Libertarians repudiate this insight of the Founding Fathers"? How is the conclusion "obviously false"?
Show me a libertarian that "repudiates this insight". Can you?
----------------------------
You are refuted by Hayek: --- "the notion of a higher law above municipal codes, with which Whiggism [libertarianism] began, is the supreme achievement of Englishmen and their bequest to the nation"[17] - and, we may add, to the world. It is the doctrine which is at the basis of the common tradition of the Anglo-Saxon countries. ---- It is the doctrine on which the American system of government is based."
on what evidence do you base the equivocation of "Whiggism" and libertarianism?
Hayeks quoted words at #22.
I don't see how van den Haag's and Hayek's quotes clash (or how van den Haag [and roscoe] are refuted by him): where do they clash and how does Hayek refute van den Haag? Hayek himself admits the doctrine of the "American system of government" -- the government which van den Haag praises, i'll assume -- is one based on this english whig tradition. Even if this historical fact is true, it is changes not van den Haag's assertion: hayek discusses the achievement of english whigs and the foundation of the american system; van den haag dicusses conservatives' belief that "limited constitutional government" is "essential" to "secure... rights." There is no dispute on the foundation of the government -- in fact, the quotes seem to be discussing different things (whigs/foundation of american gov. vs. conservative beliefs) -- the quote from hayek does nothing to refute the van den haag quote.
Nice [disjointed & lengthy] rant, but it doesn't prove that libertarians repudiate any insights. You're trying to bury me in bull. -- No sale.
-----------------------------
Roscoe, -- THAT is well said. -- Can you dispute Hayek as an authority?
Must he? It seems that van den Haag and Hayek could share similar ground. And whether or not Hayek is an authority (which is obvious that he is) seems secondary to whether or not van den Haag is "well said" in his quote (i think both men are).
Van der hagg is a liar about libertarians. -- So are you & roscoe. Case closed.
We do need to remember, however, that this essay was written around 1960, when much of conservatism was the old Taft and America First Heritage and the "New" Conservatives were Kirk, Nisbet, Weaver, Buckley, and the whole crowd. As the New Conservatism formed the libertarian tradition and the new "blue Nile" Burkian tradition pulled in their two directions with some seperation, but also, as Hayek and Meyer showed, some real blending of libertarian and new conservative traditions giving us the strength we have seen since the dawn of the Reagan era.
And Whiggism isn't libertarianism.
Clearly, - it was to Hayek, in his own words. - And that is the issue.
- Its not about what you believe roscoe. - [Lord but you are dense]
I asked you how van den haag's conclusion is false: you haven't. you made the claim that van den haag is wrong, you prove that he is. I don't have to. As for a libertarian who "repudiates the founding" -- that would be too time consuming for me to look at every possible libertarian, as well as unfair, since you are the one who accused van den haag of being false.
Nice [disjointed & lengthy] rant, but it doesn't prove that libertarians repudiate any insights. You're trying to bury me in bull. -- No sale.
i'll admit that it was disjointed and lengthy (lol, i do that sometimes). Of course there's "no sale." My intent wasn't to claim that libertarians "repudiate any insights." it merely tries to show how van den haag and hayek are similar, or at least how hayek's particular quote doesn't refute van den haag.
As for "trying to bury [you]in bull" with my "rant": that doesn't answer my arguments.
Van der hagg is a liar about libertarians. -- So are you & roscoe. Case closed
prove it.
Because he disliked the label "libertarian?"
Libertarianism rejects the organic nature of our evolving sytems of law and the traditions upon which they are built, believing instead that they can derive life's rules by the rigid application of simplistic slogans and navel-gazing.
“Out of every hundred new ideas ninety-nine or more will probably be inferior to the traditional responses which they propose to replace. No one man, however brilliant or well-informed, can come in one lifetime to such fullness of understanding as to safely judge and dismiss the customs or institutions of his society, for these are the wisdom of generations after centuries of experiment in the laboratory of history.”
-- Will and Ariel Durant
Good luck. He never proves anything.
Yes, it does. And Hayek says so just above -- " It may be the answer, but --".
Read much, kid?
----------------------------
-- "Whiggism is historically the correct name for the ideas in which I believe."
The "whiggism" of Hayek doesn't seem to be "libertarianism" of today. Even then, the definition of whiggism posted earlier seems to conflict with libertarianism.
"Seems"? What's the conflict?
----------------------------
Thus, - Hayek was a libertarian, but disliked the term.
not necessarily. And, even if he was, that doesn't mean that liberatarianism = whiggism. just wondering, is the libertarianism of today different than that of Hayek's time?
KC seems to think so. Maybe he can elaborate.
The same can be said for the utopia that exists in the minds of the Moralists.
prove it.
Already did. There is no basis in fact for haggs stupid & silly generalization about libertarians. - Nor can you two provide any coherent argument on that point.
Thus - case closed.
That's because you don't know the actual doctrines of the three groups mentioned, especially the first two.
I admit this is another peeve of mine, but Hayek did not call himself a "libertarian" in that essay, as Nick gamely suggests. In fact, he explicitly rejected the label, calling it "singularly unattractive." "The more I learn about the evolution of ideas," wrote Hayek, "the more I have become aware that I am an unrepentant Old Whig — with the stress on the 'old.'"Old Whig just so happens to be the same appellation the founding father of conservatism, Edmund Burke, used for himself — as Hayek approvingly notes several times.
-- Jonah Goldberg
Prescription is the most solid of all titles, not only to property, but, which is to secure that property, to government. They harmonise with each other, and give mutual aid to one another. It is accompanied with another ground of authority in the constitution of the human mind-- presumption. It is a presumption in favour of any settled scheme of government against any untried project, that a nation has long existed and flourished under it. It is a better presumption even of the choice of a nation, far better than any sudden and temporary arrangement by actual election. Because a nation is not an idea only of local extent, and individual momentary aggregation, but it is an idea of continuity, which extends in time as well as in numbers and in space. And this is a choice not of one day, or one set of people, not a tumultuary and giddy choice; it is a deliberate election of ages and of generations; it is a Constitution made by what is ten thousand times better than choice--it is made by the peculiar circumstances, occasions, tempers, dispositions, and moral, civil, and social habitudes of the people, which disclose themselves only in a long space of time.
-- Edmund Burke
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.