That’s pretty funny… it reminds me of an article by North himself, on Lew Rockwell’s site: “Authentic Libertarianism”. I recommend reading it before pronouncing the “non-libertarian-ness” of North.
I’m glad you’re amused. That should be healthy for you.
But actually I’m using the Walter Block criteria. That North thinks what he wants to do involves “shrinking the state” is irrelevant in the view of his inability to distinguish between defense and offense. Stoning blasphemers to death is not NAPpy.
@Aristophanes Just looking at TSL’s blog entry myself (this is an example of why I stay subbed), and while “Paul’s involvement in the project appears to be minimal”, I am quite disappointed that he would so wrecklessly associate with this Gary North guy, after having being burned similarly once before. It reminds me of the old newsletter scandal stuff.
Even though it doesn’t disprove solid logical arguments, this kind of stuff is fodder for the stupid lobby and is exactly the kind of thing used to manipulate the ignorant democratic majority into thinking “all libertarians are like this”. It doesn’t matter that it’s a logical fallacy–the reality is that many people buy into adhom attacks against libertarians. It can’t be helped!
For someone who rarely endorses anything or anyone (why shun Gary Johnson?), Paul needs to be MUCH more cautious. I’m fine with religion “lite”, but I would never associate myself with or endorse a closed minded fundamentalist bigot. Wiki says North is “Co-Founder of Christian Reconstructionism”. To hell with that crap–NO THANKS! Ron needs to reset this thing and disassociate with people who have hidden agendas. The only thing that has a chance of doing that is media pressure (which I hope does not happen, since it will be further damaging) or honest internal critique such as TSL’s.
But I’ve never seen any evidence that Woods or Ron are in the same crazy camp as North. That’s the problem with generalizations of large diverse groups like “Christians” - I think the majority is mostly innocuous (not North). “Christians” as a group makes up what, 1 billion people? Most aren’t nuts and wouldn’t endorse the crap North has called for in the past.
Whenever I see “skeptic” I immediately think “defender of orthodoxy,” “unconvincingly biased,” and/or “the opposite of skeptic.” Their minds are already made up and no bit of evidence will every convince them of anything. They are, frankly, comical in the same way their opponents are to them.
Whenever I see “crazy” within the first paragraph of a hit piece, I immediately can tell how the rest will go. I hate to commit this unofficial logical fallacy, but some bad dudes used to use such tactics.
Whenever I see a “skeptic” use “crazy” within the first paragraph of a hit piece, I immediately stop reading. If you don’t get why, then, well, sorry. I’m somewhat intellectually curious and mature. Very little bothers me.
Full disclosure: I like Gary North. I do not subscribe to his website or newsletter. His relentless attacks on and unceasing impatience with economic cranks of all sorts give me endless enjoyment. His historical observations are very intriguing. He’s one of my favorite speakers and his talk on Marx the man from the '80s is still very powerful and reveal some of the most core problems with communism.
I could care less what his religious beliefs are. I am a non-believer and have gone through the logical work on my own to buttress my position. I am in no way afraid of the very small and almost extinct sect of Protestantism to which he adheres. I strongly disagree with a few of his positions; North’s article critical of NASA/SETI is a good example (but not for the reasoning he puts forth).
These generally unemployable political science, journalism, and non-PhD economics majors at TSLB are for some reason, really, REALLY scared by that for some reason. Apparently “conspiracies” are nonsense and yet whatever North is up to is a singlular threat.
Pot kettle black much?
The authors are very afraid that Christian homeschoolers will be completely, to borrow a phrase from Rothbard, bamboozled, by North if they follow the Ron Paul Curriculum. Non-Christian homeschoolers as well. We’ll soon be overrun by a new fundamentalist Christian potentiate.
Nonsense. Nonsense on stilts.
You don’t like the religious bits? You’re Jewish or Muslim or atheist or Spaghetti monster or Catholic or whatever? Leave it out. Simple.
You don’t like the Curriculum after using it for a bit? Don’t use it.
You don’t like a program (cheers Nielsio)? Don’t use one.
What’s a basic libertarian idea? Advertising isn’t brainwashing.
Another? People have free will.
Still more? Parents know what’s best for their children.
Cast iron pan, singularity, really, really black.
Jerks like these kids are what give libertarians and libertarianism a bad name; not the spooky, cranky, “weirdos” they are so quick to deride in their “enlightened” zeal.
As for the equivocation with Herr Wenzel; that’s kind of insulting. North at least has verifiable credentials and when he says he’s done something, you know he’s actually done it.
Whenever The Skeptical Libertarians are brought up, this line from Rothbard immediately comes to mind:
One of the things that strikes a person who first encounters Modal Libertarians is their surpassing rudeness, their overwhelming boorishness, their total lack of manners. It is libertarians, and only libertarians, who will call you up, as a perfect stranger, and proceed to denounce you for various deviations, or for alleged contradictions on page 851. It is only libertarians who, learning a few syllogisms about liberty, and having read next to nothing, consider themselves perfectly qualified to harangue learned men on their alleged errors. It is only libertarians who conclude, simply by virtue of announcing themselves as libertarians, that your house is their house and your possessions their possessions: an implicit assumption of communism of libertarian possessions. And oddly enough, or maybe not so oddly, the very people who are bleating most loudly against “intolerance” are some of the worst offenders. The “philosophy” is really a smoke screen, for the real problem is decent manners and their lack of them; and when some of us react against those boors, we are of course denounced for being “intolerant.” The ill-mannered wish to ride roughshod over the rest of us, and then howl about “intolerance” whenever we decide to resist. Note the typical Modal ploy: shifting the focus of attention from manners and behavior to abstruse discussions of philosophy. This move enables them to focus on the charge that we are intolerant of their “ideas,” that we are betraying our responsibility of engaging in continuing dialogue or “conversation” about ideas, when the real problem is them; their boorish Aaggression" and lack of manners.
I too find that North has some valuable things to say, and clearly many of the major players in the contemporary liberty movement think much the same.
Seems silly to be worried about North’s bona fides when a few listens to his lectures at Mises U (or his articles on lewrockwell.com) will show him to be one of the best assets the liberty movement has. My question is why his new website looks so terrible, like an internet nightmare throwback to 1997. Doesn’t his circle include some young programmer/designer who could help spruce it up a bit, to maybe expand the appeal beyond the already preached-to choir?