Mr. May said:
>If people won't read Friedman or Hayek or Rand or Nozick or
>whatever, why will they read the refutations from folks like us?
Yes, some (many?) will.
I've read a bit of Rand and Hayek, not as much as many on
this list, but some, and the problem with dealing with writings by
such people is (with the exception of Rand, who has a different
"problem") is that they are usually far longer than the average--or
even above average--person is willing to spend on a topic that
marginally interests them, or is of passing interest. When Hayek
wrote--at least the stuff of his I've been able to find--he wrote to
educate, to give not only an overview, but to give the background and
a fair degree of understanding.
As well, they look at people like Rand, Hayek, Mises, and
such as "from the past", old voices, what do *those* people know
about the issues facing us today.
In my opinion they know a lot. People--as in the base natures
and drives of humanity--don't change much in 500 years if at all, but
in the era of the "common" man "we" don't believe that, "we" believe
that we are different, that we are "better", "nicer", "kinder" than
in our past. It ain't so, but they still believe.
When someone like you (May) or Declan speak, you are speaking
with "todays" voice, with "modern" experience. You also give them
smaller bits to chew on, less to read and think about in one sitting.
I've never claimed to be one of the brighter people in this
list. I've always refered to myself as the "Village Idiot", and I'll
admit that when reading Hayek, or Marx (Yes, I'm trying to read Das
Capital right now, just to see what's in it. I have as strong
suspicion that it he isn't as much a socialist as the socialists
would have you believe, so I'm going back "to the source, but it's
slow going)--just like when reading Stephen Hawking, I often have to
put the book down and go think on things a bit. To try to understand
what is being said.
When you, or some of the other more prolific writers here
write essays, as opposed to the normal snippy back and forth B.S.,
you sometimes manage to phrase things in a way that makes in more
understandable than the writings of the academics.
Ayn Rand often wrote this way--she wrote (apparently) for the
more common man. This is why objectivism is so popular, it's easy for
the average joe to misinterpret in a comfortable way. Hayek et al.
aren't so easy to misinterpret, because they are so much harder to
get your head around, so much less approachable. Rand's biggest
problem is that she is so heavily vilified. Objectivism has become,
in some circles, almost as negative a word as "facist".
So yes, writing essays--at least somewhere visible *is*
important, and needs to be done. If for no other reason than to
demonstrate that there are other positions, other positions which are
well thought out and articulate.
Somebody has to do it. Would you rather it be someone like
yourself, or do Reese and I have to take more english lessons and
start doing it?
--
A quote from Petro's Archives: **********************************************
If the courts started interpreting the Second Amendment the way they interpret
the First, we'd have a right to bear nuclear arms by now.--Ann Coulter
