Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Keltik
virtually none of the responders know who Russell Kirk was.

Kirk analyzes the loss of this recognition in this very essay:

What binds society together? The libertarians reply that the cement of society (so far as they will endure any binding at all) is self-interest, closely joined to the nexus of cash payment. But the conservatives declare that society is a community of souls, joining the dead, the living, and those yet unborn

The Libertarians Kirk attacks are fundamentally presentist. Historical knowledge and precedents are beyond their concern. They care very little for those who have gone before. Since libertarianism can be summed up in a few pithy concepts, it cannot bear very much reality not already contained by such principles. Their philistinism should be pitiable, yet being so common it is downright tragic.

Do you know the date this essay was published? Was it pre-Goldwater?

Do you think Kirk would be at home in the modern conservative movement? As stated in my comments in #91, I think otherwise.

You might be interested in Daniel Larison's comments on Kirk here and here.

Thank you for posting this essay.

96 posted on 11/09/2006 11:15:31 PM PST by Dumb_Ox (http://kevinjjones.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]


To: Dumb_Ox
What binds society together? The libertarians reply that the cement of society (so far as they will endure any binding at all) is self-interest, closely joined to the nexus of cash payment.

This is a rather frail straw man. The libertarian view that interpersonal relationships are properly based on voluntery agreement is not necessarily joined to "cash payment" (most human relationships are obviously based on other rewards).

As for it being based on "self-interest", this is true in the sense in which every political or social principle is based on self-interest (libertarians think people would be better off if they followed libertarian recommendations, conservatives think people would be better off if they followed conservative recommendations, marxists think people would be better off if they followed marxist recommendations, etc). Thus, Kirk's statement is technically correct, but trivially so and useless in weighing the merits and demerits of libertarianism.

Again, my other readings show that Kirk knows better than this, and I simply don't see what caused his usual level of argument to sink to that normally found at a bar or (present company excepted) on some Internet argument forum.

115 posted on 11/10/2006 7:52:52 AM PST by steve-b (It's hard to be religious when certain people don't get struck by lightning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson