Welcome to my world — it doesn’t get much better than this. And not far removed from Baby Huey. If I could choose my relatives . . .
A Funky Gospel Sound Is Resurrected
Rev. Gean West, founder of West Dallas gospel-funk greats The Relatives, has died
In this chapter our aim is to rescue the meaning of liberty from the ministrations of its misguided friends and explore how it relates to human nature, culture, and economic order. Some Austrian economists have embraced liberty as the sole value. Despite the overriding “liberty talk” of “soft” libertarians, their position can be assimilated under the liberal-conservative axis, as a species of classical liberalism. Some self-avowed “conservatives” uncritically embrace the market seemingly unaware that its spontaneity and dynamism may well be incompatible with the social values they wish to preserve. However, our primary target is “hard” libertarianism, which, by one prominent theorist’s own admission, is thoroughly illiberal (Block 2011). We argue that such a position amounts to a species of absolutism and an extreme case of rationalism, offering at best a vapid account of freedom.
The master argument of this chapter is that any liberal position worthy of the name must surely emphasize its skeptical roots and as such be cognizant of the hard-won achievements of free societies. The “hard” libertarian position, by insisting single-mindedly on a narrow interpretation of liberty, leads to a dogmatic and teleocratic (end-governed) conception of political association, and undercuts liberty (Marsh and Hardwick 2012 and 2013). We explore Oakeshott’s arguments on freedom and human action, which avoid the errors of rationalism, and connect these to Hayek’s concept of “advanced cognition,” and discuss the difference between purposive and nonpurposive political orders. Finally, we explore the importance but also the limitations of freedom understood in terms of economic prosperity and converted into the goal for a society.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
In summary: we are defending freedom, noting that as the idea of freedom has spread and the world has seen increasing liberalization, the understanding of freedom, individuality, and the basis of a free society seems to have become more muddled and ambiguous. Libertarians, “high liberals,” and conservatives all defend liberty, yet they all tend to be rationalistic and teleological. Libertarians also tend to defend a very narrow theory of freedom as “choice” or “voluntariness” or “voluntary exchange,” while conservatives tend to disparage individualism and confuse it with atomism. Individuality is really only possible within traditions, practices, languages, communities. It is also the case that these traditions cannot move, grow, or change without individual initiative and free action. So the juxtaposition of individual and community that is a staple of much modern discussion is simply misplaced. A distinction can be drawn, of course, and for some purposes needs to be drawn, but it is more a matter of degree than an ontological imperative. A key basis for a classical liberalism worthy of the name is skepticism—moral and epistemic. We recognize that there are limits to what can be achieved in the actual world as opposed to the world of abstract theorizing, and that political change involves more than the administration of things—it involves the reformation and alteration of settled patterns of conduct that have proven their worth to those living in them. We further recognize that human reason is embedded in tradition, is imperfect, and is limited in ways that make large-scale social planning impossible. Finally, freedom needs to be understood as more than atomistic marketplace behavior. As important as markets are, and as much good as they deliver, human interaction is richer and more diverse than commercial exchange. Also, there are a number of independent, modally distinct orientations to the world, the flourishing of which is vital to both the “conversation of mankind” and the enjoyment of our nature as free, self-interpreting beings. Any view, economic or otherwise, that fails to appreciate this modal diversity will distort our understanding of both human freedom and society.
Genius — the best piece on Baby Huey I could find. Listen to the tour de force that is “A Change Is Gonna Come” — James Brown, Sly, Curtis Mayfield (the producer), Percy Sledge, Isaac Hayes, Bobby Womack, and Etta James all rolled into one. “Hard Times” so evocative of the early seventies along with Bobby Womack’s “Across 110th Street”, Marvin’s “What’s Going On” and The Temptations’ “Papa was a Rolling Stone.”
This from Evan Thompson. As Evan points out the phrase “Wider than the Sky” was first brought to wider attention by Gerald Edelman which I originally read as supporting material for my work on Hayek’s The Sensory Order.
Forthcoming from my chum and endorsed by none other than Barry Smith.
This is really the first biography of Plant. On balance it’s decent enough but still a pedestrian effort that doesn’t really add much more to what we already know. To Paul Rees’ credit he keeps the speculative temptation that Zep always courted to a minimum. I think that a bio by the very excellent rock journalist Chris Welch would have made for a more elegant and richer account.
Though there is mention of Plant’s appreciation of New Orleans’ musical tradition what’s conspicuously missing from this account is Plant’s wonderful renditions of Fats and Dave’s (and Bobby Charles’) “It Keeps Rainin'” with Lil’ Band O’ Gold and “Valley of Tears” with The Soweto Gospel Choir.
The upshot (and this we already know) is that Plant doesn’t live in the past and relentlessly pursues musicality with the curiosity of a pilgrim and adventurer, his so-so efforts still very interesting, his successes glorious. None of his superstar contemporaries come anywhere close – at worst they are still flogging the old franchise, at best stylistic dilettantes.
What we really need is an autobiography a la Keef but as Plant says that would be premature – he’s got a long way to go yet. Of course the ultimate rock autobiography would be Jimmy Page’s but me thinks that ain’t ever going to happen. I think his recent photo-autobiography, as good as it is, is really a fudge – and who could blame him given the prevailing sanctimonious, shrill and illiberal climate we now live in.
Two things were instantly apparent to the sentient engineer, whose sole gift, after all, was the knack of divining persons and situations. One was that he had been mistaken for a member of the staff. The other was that the stranger was concerned about a patient and that he, the stranger, had spent a great deal of time in the hospital. He had the air of one long used to the corridor, and he had developed a transient, fabulous, and inexpert knowledge of one disease. It was plain too that he imputed to the hospital staff a benevolent and omniscient concern for the one patient. It amounted to a kind of happiness, as if the misfortune beyond the door must be balanced by affectionate treatment here in the corridor. In hospitals we expect strangers to love us.
Some artistic representations of classic thought experiments.
This from Wynton on the eve of my visit to Pops’ archives and house hosted by the one and only Ricky Riccardi.
