I’ve been reading the free PDFs on here. I post them on Facebook also. I neglected to read the Preface to “The Case for Capitalism”, however. I think someone else may have neglected to read it too:
From the preface:
“Individual freedom initiative and enterprise, have been the life-blood of the Anglo-Saxon race and have made it what it is, preeminent among the races of the world because its m’en and women can think and act for themselves.”
Needless to say I got called out on Facebook pretty quick.
This is available in the Literature area of the site.
That line certainly is racist. I have not read this particular item, but a racist line in the preface does not invalidate Withers’ arguments in the rest of the piece. They stand on their own merit independent of any racial bias that Withers seems to possess.
I agree that it doesn’t invalidate the arguments, I just think it makes Mises look bad. We could argue all day on “do you throw the baby out with the bath water”, but there are enough good books listed not to miss this particular one.
There is. And if they want to tarnish the Institute badly enough, they’ll make stuff up to do it. Still, we slam Lincoln enough on here for his racist statements that aren’t published anywhere else.
Maybe its just me, but when I hear “Anglo-Saxon race”, I think European-American culture, or just Western Civilization in general. I don’t necessarily assume the author means “white folks is better”. The author can certainly be accused of having some sort of superiority complex, but not necessarily of being racist. Mind you, this is all assuming that H. Withers is of Anglo and/or Saxon descent without a shred of any such “mongreloid” races in him (such as Italian, Greek, Irish, etc.)
I’m with you. I think Western Civ. People who are not you and I think “race” when they hear “race”.
I don’t know if any of you are hockey fans, but several years ago Bobby Hull said “Hitler had some good ideas”. Which went over like the proverbial lead balloon. Yeah, Volkswagen Beetles are super, but “you just can’t say that”.
I’m the least PC person on the planet, believe me. But since I linked to that book on Facebook, and I’ve got tons of friends out there, I’m just sayin’.
Marx’s premise lies on a similar sorting of individuals into discrete groups–instead of race, he sorts and judges the character of individuals based on his notion of ‘class’. I refer to his polylogism, of course. Such a notion is extremely offensive as well.
“There is one aspect of the change in moral values brought about
by the advance of collectivism which at the present time pro-
vides special food for thought. It is that the virtues which are
held less and less in esteem and which consequently become
rarer are precisely those on which the British people justly
prided themselves and in which they were generally recognised
to excel. The virtues possessed by the British people possessed in
a higher degree than most other people, excepting only a few
of the smaller nations, like the Swiss and the Dutch, were
independence and self-reliance, individual initiative and local
responsibility, the successful reliance on voluntary activity,
non-interference with one’s neighbour and tolerance of the
different and queer, respect for custom and tradition, and a
healthy suspicion of power and authority. British strength,
British character, and British achievements are to a great extent
the result of a cultivation of the spontaneous. But almost all the
traditions and institutions in which British moral genius has
found its most characteristic expression, and which in turn have
moulded the national character and the whole moral climate of
England, are those which the progress of collectivism and its
inherently centralistic tendencies are progressively destroying.”