Rat Races Van Mices?

Re: Barberization^ ?


Dequilting Platonics ... ? or DecomPart Meantalizing* Plato?  (Related reading problematics**).

* two unread reviews of a "have read".
** un-quilted 
reboot:quil  un-**ted (Not to disparage Sandel ...Slash Segue... but to weave or needle the*** dilemma.)
*** HayesTact (Bonus Straw ? ) O - W


^ Credit: streamica for the following side-bar there.
The Man versus The State (Forward) by Herbert Spencer
views: 1640
@LibertyInOurTime 1485 days ago

Audio presentation of Herbert Spencer's classic 1884 book 'The Man versus The State.' Read and produced by Jock Coats and made available online by the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Herbert Spencer lived long enough to witness both the hey-day of classical liberal reform in the mid-nineteenth century—the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 which ushered in a period of virtual free trade in Britain—and the gradual decline of classical liberalism towards the end of the nineteenth century. It is the latter which helps explain the grumpiness expressed in his later writings such as the collection of essays entitled Facts and Comments (1902). Spencer was born in Derby, England in 1820 to a strict, non-conformist family, and died in 1903. As a young man, Spencer worked for the leading free trade journal of the day, The Economist, from 1848-1853 during which time his first significant book appeared—Social Statics (1850). Here he worked with James Wilson, one of the most consistent advocates of laissez-faire in Britain, Nassau Senior, one of the leading members of the classical school of political economy, and Thomas Hodgskin, a radical individualist author. Much of the rest of his life was spent working on an all-encompassing theory of human development based upon the ideas of individualism, utilitarian moral theory, social and biological evolution, limited government, and laissez-faire economics. In his later writings, most notably The Principles of Sociology (1876-1896), he drew a sharp distinction between the peaceful productivity of free market societies ("the industrial type of society") and the social conflict, political privilege, and proclivity to war and empire inherent in societies with "over-legislation" ("the militant type of society"). In The Man Versus The State (1884) Spencer argued that the politics of vested interests and the increasing demand for economic regulation would lead to a new form of "slavery" and a "rebarbarization" of society. The rise of pro-interventionist "New Liberalism" in the 1880s and 1890s and the outbreak of the Boer War in 1899 confirmed his worst fears. (Source: Liberty Fund, Inc.) Read 'The Man versus The State' online: http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Spencer/spnMvS.htmlLinks

links to more online books and essays by Herbert Spencer: The Right to Ignore the Statehttp://mises.org/daily/2624The Reality of Political Momentumhttp://mises.org/daily/4772Education: Intellectual, Moral, and Physicalhttp://mises.org/resources/4968From Freedom to Bondagehttp://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=313 The Principles of Ethics, Volume 1http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=333The Principles of Ethics, Volume 2http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=334Political Institutions, being Part V of the Principles of Sociologyhttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1336Justice: Being Part IV of the Principles of Ethicshttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1100Essays: Scientific, Political and Speculative, Vol. 1http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=335Essays: Scientific, Political and Speculative, Vol. 2http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=336Essays: Scientific, Political, and Speculative, Vol. 3http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=337Essays on Education and Kindred Subjectshttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2249The Study of Sociologyhttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1335Social Staticshttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=273The Principles of Psychologyhttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1394The Data of Ethicshttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=331First Principleshttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1390Links to essays about Herbert Spencer and his works: Herbert Spencer: Libertarian Prophet by Roderick T. Longhttp://praxeology.net/herbertspencerlibertarianprophet.pdfHerbert Spencer: The Defamation Continues by Roderick T. Longhttp://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/long3.htmlHerbert Spencer: Social Darwinist or Libertarian Prophet? by Peter Richardshttp://mises.org/daily/4779From Spencer's 1884 to Orwell's 1984 by Henry Hazlitthttp://mises.org/daily/2680The Development of Herbert Spencer's Concept of Evolution by Robert M. Younghttp://www.human-nature.com/rmyoung/papers/spencer.html

FYI: I have a collection of Herber Spencer's Books, having only read First Principles.  

Update: 2-22-14  Images C-Labels /T

 

 

 

GPS- general practice syndrome?

Speaking of jobs...

in editing, reading or writing...I must note:

A few years ago I read Democracies Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy, by Michael J. Sandel. While I did read it (and finish it*), I did only scan several of the chapters after getting bogged down in the legal briefs and what seems like a perspective that was incomplete or leaning a bit.

Meanwhile this just in... to my email inbox.[Michael J. Sandel} I don't know if this calls my conclusions into question or he may have evolved.

Mises...

in the corner ?

Caution: I have only read the last link, and this might seem a balancing* of fallacies**.
Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean they have nothing to offer, and of course your perspective might influence both.  Ths seems more a selection of unfinishted reads, although I did read Huntington, and gave a good shot at Sandel, and found Hasnas, and Fukuyama is a big bugaboo, as we come around to Nietzsche and Rand. 

*read juggling ?
** all thinking must be taken in the context of their times as well as the method of the format.
example:  Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine***, Aquinas and the web they weave sometimes in character or others.  Not to mention More's the Pity.

a. A Shot in the Arm?
(b.)^ The Bully...
c. GOP-GAP

^ new notation for (sc)
*** Punderous Ponderings
[Speaking of the corner, is it MAR (mutually assured rhetoric?)  The corollary, just because some have something to offer, does not mean they got it.]
(pocket ?)

★Re-initialism★

Major Fail or ... Hume or ? ... *

* Too Random...

(Pre-post-or-us ?)
{Note # labels.  Not to frac' or fudge.}

The point is that I finally read this piece(see bold Hume) which is very Hegelian.
~~~
I have also yet to insert ma hat pa mamby. ~~~ **
~~~

[  MF'4  ]  4-30-14

[5-1-14 Incidentalism?  Who started it {?}]
~~~ Sandel/Huntington Revisited ~~~
** photos still on tablet

Neo-Context

SUGGESTED READING:

The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, by Samuel P. Huntington. The most important foreign policy paradigm since the cold war model. In a few words, To be or not to be the west versus the rest.

Democracy's Discontent: America In Search Of A Public Philosophy, by Michael J. Sandel. A look at the flaw in liberal traditions, or on being "a uniter not a divider". A discussion of the history of our "rights" while noting an obligation of solidarity. i.e. Some of "us" must be united against "them".

These are two books which I read several months ago and likely noted in earlier posts. My comments here may be seen as the shortest of summaries as well as a helpful reference to the theme of most of this blog. If we have a clash of civilizations, it should not mean war but a competition of civilizations, and if we have an obligation of solidarity, should it not be to the planet and humanity?

The link below which I only scanned seems to come to the same conclusion as I, that the latter book, is based on a "fallacy of the false dilemma". It nonetheless provides “an extremely valuable history of the political thought of America’s intellectual elites from the Founding to the present“. And I might needlessly add, both sides have them.