Positive Liberty

You know, like the kind being blown up the asses of New York Times readers here?

I often criticize the “Christian Nationalists” for what I see as misrepresenting history. I’ve been, in turn, called a “Secular Nationalist.” I admit from a policy standpoint I’m somewhat sympathetic to secularism (a soft secularism) and when beginning researching this issue I expected to find more evidence of a secular deistic Founding. However, what I found was the Founders (at least the key Founders — all of the early Presidents) intended America to be a religious, not necessarily a Christian Nation. And from the perspective of orthodox Christianity, those key Founders themselves were “religious” but not “Christians.” So the charge against me that I am a “secular nationalist” is patently false. Continue Reading »

The song “Who Are You” from Sabbath Bloody Sabbath illustrates Black Sabbath’s greatness.

I like listening to musicians who have great technical talents; but ultimately I realize that’s all icing on the cake. Melody, soul, mood and feel are far more important. And those things can be expressed, as a matter of musical technique, in very crude or very refined ways, all over and in between. Most of my favorite music comes from players who aren’t virtuosos (so they don’t have that to hide behind) but aren’t technical slouches either. When Ozzy Osbourne left Black Sabbath, they replaced him with someone who was technically a much better singer — Ronnie James Dio. And he in turn got musicians in his solo band who were technically better players (notably Randy Rhodes on guitar). And they both (Ozzy and Black Sabbath) continued to make great music without one another. But that’s mainly because they kept the essence of what made Black Sabbath great — the melody, good songwriting, and the right mood. The better technique of Randy Rhodes or Ronnie James Dio was just icing on the cake.

And speaking of great technicians, the keyboardist on “Who Are You” is none other than virtuoso Rick Wakeman of Yes fame. But notice he’s not playing a million notes a minute on this tune because that’s not what the song calls for. The Moog synthesizer he used — back then they were analog and monophonic — if you knew the basics of how to program them were practically not capable of playing a bad sound.

There is a new book out on Joseph Priestley — The Invention of Air by Steven Johnson. See the New York Times review of it here, the LA Times’ here, and the New York Post’s here.

Some of the reviews have noted Priestley’s close association with Jefferson and Franklin. However, Adams regarded him as something of a mentor as well (though they had a falling out because of Priestley’s support of Jefferson over Adams and for the French Revolution which Adams opposed). What’s also interesting is though he holds Priestley in the highest regard, Adams isn’t afraid to criticize him. He’s clearly obsessed with Priestley’s theories and agrees with him on the central principles of unitarianism. But Adams often thinks he can “out do” Priestley as a theologian. Continue Reading »

Tom Van Dyke has a good post at American Creation demonstrating why Ben Franklin was not a “deist” as many believe. The problem is he wasn’t an orthodox Christian either. So we need a new term. Van Dyke doesn’t think “theistic rationalist” is sufficient. I think “theistic humanist” also aptly describes this creed. Barry Shain has termed it “Christian humanism.” I stress the word “humanist” in this post because as we will see, it’s a much more “man centered” creed than traditional orthodox Christianity. This is a quotation Van Dyke offers from Franklin’s biography: Continue Reading »

Whether there is some nexus between or among creativity, genius, madness, and / or addiction, I have only at best a few hunches. As my co-bloggers have noted in our recent discussions about such things, however, there is always the lurking problem for the theorist of confirmation bias. Subjectivity, we are led to believe, is the bane of science and a problem for scholars who aspire to donning at least virtual lab coats and discovering previously unknown truths.

Seeing the world as one prefers, by contrast, can be the defining virtue of an artist whose “mind’s eye” shows us anew the world we already know. I leave it to readers to decide whether philosophy has more in common with art or science. Continue Reading »

Scholarly consensus holds that John Locke was the most important philosophical influence on the American Founding. Locke wasn’t a deist (or as some Straussians argue a secret atheist). He called himself a Christian, defended the Christian religion as “reasonable,” thought Jesus was the Messiah and may have believed much of the Bible was true. He was also almost certainly a secret theological unitarian (his Trinitarian critics smelled him out) and otherwise disbelieved in various orthodox doctrines and posited novel concepts not at all in accord with traditional Christianity. For instance his notion of Tabla Rasa denies man has a fallen, sin nature. Indeed, this led deists and “rational Christians” who embraced his teachings like Thomas Jefferson to posit the notion of the perfectibility of man. Continue Reading »

Jason Kuznicki recently linked to an excellent post from Classically Liberal, and I would like to expand upon PL’s reflections upon that post.  While Jason focused on arguments about marriage, the quote he selected also commented on the problems of libertarians who can only see policy advocacy from the perspective of the purely voluntary society, rather than operating from within the framework of the mostly involuntary society in which we live.  That distinction between libertarianism in voluntary and involuntary societies is what interests me.

The other day I was reading an article which equated libertarianism with individualism as opposed to collectivism. The definitions of the terms are often fuzzy but, strictly speaking, a free society could be either individualistic or collectivistic. All a free society requires is freedom of choice. Should the members of that society voluntarily subject themselves to collective ownership of property or the means of production, for instance, there is nothing in libertarianism to forbid it, or condemn it. What libertarianism is concerned about is whether or not the members of that collective truly were free to accept or reject it…

The reason there is so much confusion about libertarian theories is because libertarianism arose as a theory inside involuntary communities. We are all members of involuntary communities, which we call the states. Simultaneously we are also members of voluntary communities.

Where libertarianism is weakest is that many libertarians, advocates of the pure voluntary community, can only address issues if they arise within the utopia which does not exist.

This is an important distinction, and Classically Liberal gets it exactly right.  Continue Reading »

I bought The Last Waltz on DVD (which I previously had on tape) and watched the whole thing again plus the additional features interviewing Robbie Robertson and Martin Scorsese about making the documentary.

Apparently, they played for a long time (like 7 hours) and ran out of film for certain parts of the show that limited Scorsese’s ability to choose which songs to feature (obviously he’d include their big ones like “The Weight,” “Up on Cripple Creek”; he almost missed getting Muddy Waters’ “Mannish Boy”).

My biggest criticism after reviewing it was it didn’t feature enough Richard Manuel on lead vocals. Manuel, Rick Danko and Levon Helm pretty much equally split lead vocals and wonderfully harmonized together. But, I agree with Eric Clapton (also featured in the documentary), that:

For me he was the true light of the Band. The other guys were fantastic talents, of course, but there was something of the holy madman about Richard. He was raw. When he sang in that high falsetto the hair on my neck would stand on end. Not many people can do that.

Rick and Levon got much more time on lead vocals on The Last Waltz.

Something else that struck me: Hair and fashion trends, as we all know, change with the times. But it’s hard to keep reinventing the wheel. Trends go in and out. But when they come back, they come back tweaked, not quite the same as they looked before. Most people disagree with me, but I am SURE that the mullet will come back. Around 1990 people thought I was NUTS when I insisted sideburns would come back. And then next year, Beverly Hills 90210 hit the scene and male sideburns have never left.

Well it seems like the 1978 hairstyles that Rick Danko and Robbie Robertson wear have come back. It’s neither short nor long hair, but at the “midpoint.” It’s kind of a mop or bowl look, grown out over the ears till the ends split a little.

Here is Rick Danko doing “It Makes No Difference.”

One of my mentors, and a former boss, Harry Browne, wrote a column several years ago that the Advocates for Self-Government is recirculating today.

Harry was, in my not-so-humble estimation, the very best libertarian communicator ever. He had it all, in part because he was passionate about being persuasive. And this wonderful column demonstrates that care.

A Libertarian’s New Year’s Resolutions
by Harry Browne

1. I resolve to sell liberty by appealing to the self-interest of each prospect, rather than preaching to people and expecting them to suddenly adopt my ideas of right and wrong.

2. I resolve to keep from being drawn into arguments or debates. My purpose is to inspire people to want liberty — not to prove that they’re wrong.

3. I resolve to listen when people tell me of their wants and needs, so I can help them see how a free society will satisfy those needs.

4. I resolve to identify myself, when appropriate, with the social goals someone may seek — a cleaner environment, more help for the poor, a less divisive society — and try to show him that those goals can never be achieved by government, but will be well served in a free society.

5. I resolve to be compassionate and respectful of the beliefs and needs that lead people to seek government help. I don’t have to approve of their subsidies or policies — but if I don’t acknowledge their needs, I have no hope of helping them find a better way to solve their problems.

6. No matter what the issue, I resolve to keep returning to the central point: how much better off the individual will be in a free society.

7. I resolve to acknowledge my good fortune in having been born an American. Any plan for improvement must begin with a recognition of the good things we have. To speak only of America’s defects will make me a tiresome crank.

8. I resolve to focus on the ways America could be so much better with a very small government — not to dwell on all the wrongs that exist today.

9. I resolve to

Continue Reading »

Tags: Advocates for Self-Government, Harry Browne, libertarian, persuasion

Well, maybe.

From reason.tv, philosophy professor Crispin Sartwell discusses his Against the State: An Introduction to Anarchist Political Theory:

I haven’t read Mr. Sartwell’s book (if only because I only rarely read newly published books unless I’m given a review copy), but I will comment briefly on his remarks in the video clip. Continue Reading »

Political obligation is the idea that the state can impose unchosen positive duties on an individual, and that the individual has no right to resist performing these duties. It’s an idea worth discussing, to say the least. Some density with your levity, below the fold. Continue Reading »

One of columnists I read fairly regularly is Jack Kelly, who is published in the Toledo Blade (a great newspaper for a city of its size) and, I believe, its parent/sister paper, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Kelly, to be fair, is not normally in tin-foil hat territory, like so many right-wing media types, and with his military background I find him generally informative on military issues. But he seems to have a visceral hatred of Democrats that occasionally leads him to stray from a sensible argument into wing-nut territory. A case in point is this recent column on the economy, in which he begins sensibly

A government which long has been morally and intellectually bankrupt is now financially bankrupt too.

An example of moral and intellectual bankruptcy is the $1 trillion “stimulus” package Congress is contemplating to encourage us to continue the behaviors that got us into this mess in the first place.

but ends up here

Democrats will run things for the next four years, so the recession should last at least that long.

Continue Reading »

The following is Gregg Frazer’s response to Positive Liberty commenter Andy Craig’s thoughts on the Babka/Frazer dialog. I add some brief comments below: Continue Reading »

The following is Gregg Frazer’s latest response to Jim Babka’s thoughts on Romans 13, Interposition and Revolt. Continue Reading »