Note (added):
Fleming is a member of what’s been called the neo-Confederate movement. While admiring many things about the old South, I am not. My interest is mostly in figuring out the agendas at work in various strands of political activism. I’m also happy to have company in thinking that a lot of modernist thinking is really on shaky grounds..
And yes, that includes revered figures of vast scholarly accomplishment, like Mises and Rothbard. Rand at least managed to write novels that still get read on their own merits, whatever her failings as a philosopher.
ORIGINAL POST
Thomas Fleming at Chronicles is a writer I’m delighted to have discovered. It seems I really have some solid ground to find LRC libertarianism substantially at odds with Christianity.
I found this response in the comments section especially enlightening. Fleming says his friends at Mises, including the very sharp David Gordon, have plenty of private misgivings over Mises on philosophical issues.
“I should say that I am sorry if I seem rather curt in my short responses, but I hate using my Iphone, as useful as it is, which leads to a brevity this at can sound acerbic. I have absolutely no desire to debate Mises or Rand or Walter Block. Let their followers discuss their supposed virtues. My critique is designed to show the fundamental principles and therefore failings of the liberal tradition, from its godfather Montaigne to its ugly stepchildren the libertarians.
I am not going to go into what various Misesian friends of mine have conceded about Mises privately, (Lila: David Gordon, writes Fleming elsewhere).
because I have already done enough harm by even hinting at it. Let us just be content with the statement that Mises was not a philosopher but someone who took over a body of liberal thought uncritically and turned it into a more extreme direction. He may be the greatest economist who ever lived but his philosophy is little better than a reductio ad absurdum of Mill et al. It is like the Straussians who write books on ancient literature and philosophy–not worth the time it takes to discuss.
Ordinary people should not be discussing the problems in Scripture but accepting the tradition through which we read the Scriptures. We have the central teachings of Christ as a means of interpreting the OT Scriptures and we have the epistles to clarify those teachings and the early apostolic fathers who show how they were received and taught authoritatively. This leaves a rather small area for controversy. Marx, Hegel, Locke, Mises, et al are entirely irrelevant to any serious discussion of Christian thought. One has to choose. Either follow Locke, Mises, and/or Marx or Christ, Paul, and the Fathers.
– See more at: http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2010/02/22/abuse-your-illusions/#sthash.zTqnmDlT.dpuf
That’s funny. Something (i forget what, exactly, except that it wasn’t your post because I only saw it today) prompted me to look up TRI a couple days ago, and also look up Fleming’s bio. I wonder what brings you to mention him? I’m wondering if we both saw the same reference at some other blog, or if this might be a genuine synchronicity.
I had read some TRI stuff previously but this was my first time checking bios of people there. I too a, disappointed to see the guy’s “neo-confederate” reputation, if only because the label is sure to overshadow any actual merit in any particular argument one might put forth — no matter how valid.
Mises wrote some pretty whack Christ-bashing stuff that showed a really loose grasp of what Christ actually taught. When it comes to any conflict between modern libertarians and New Testament teachings,siding with the latter is a no-brainer for me. (“Church Fathers” — meh. The real Fathers were Christ and the Apostles, with Polycarp; from there, far as I’m concerned, it was all downhill.)
Hi Jay,
I don’t remember how I go there. Just wanting to read The Chronicles, I guess. I like the paleo take on most things, just without the big helping of Crusader zeal and anti-immigrant feeling (not that I don’t sympathize with it to some extent).
I don’t mind Mises having his take on Christianity. I guess there’s some truth in it too – if you’re talking about the church. It’s become too left-wing.
I don’t know if you can put Jesus, the apostles and the church in the same place – they are all so different.
Yes, it’s more interesting to me to find out what Jesus taught about things than do political theory,,,
But I’m afraid Jesus seems to want us to do political theory since he left such sketchy directives on the subject.
BY the way, I have your comment on Feser. I disagree with some of it (not all), but I want to address the whole thing in detail in a post, so I’ll publish it separately.