The Scotsmen Who Invented Modernity
nationalinterest.org
nationalinterest.org
>To conclude historically with my own character. I am, or rather was (for that is the style I must now use in speaking of myself, which emboldens me the more to speak my sentiments); I was, I say, a man of mild disposition, of command of temper, of an open, social, and cheerful humour, capable of attachment, but little susceptible of enmity, and of great moderation in all my passions. Even my love of literary fame, my ruling passion, never soured my temper, notwithstanding my frequent disappointments. My company was not unacceptable to the young and careless, as well as to the studious and literary; and as I took a particular pleasure in the company of modest women, I had no reason to be displeased with the reception I met with from them. In a word, though most men, any wise eminent, have found reason to complain of calumny, I never was touched, or even attacked by her baleful tooth: and though I wantonly exposed myself to the rage of both civil and religious factions, they seemed to be disarmed in my behalf of their wonted fury. My friends never had occasion to vindicate any one circumstance of my character and conduct: Not but that the zealots, we may well suppose, would have been glad to invent and propagate any story to my disadvantage, but they could never find any which they thought would wear the face of probability. I cannot say there is no vanity in making this funeral oration of myself, but I hope it is not a misplaced one; and this is a matter of fact which is easily cleared and ascertained.
Franklin actually stayed with Hume in Edinburgh for a while. I'm sure the Philadeplhia to London to Edinburgh trek was a tad more involved in the 1700s than it is today. :)
https://www.amazon.ca/Benjamin-Franklin-American-Walter-Isaa...
Great book and what an amazing human being! I remember it covered some of his time in England, but don't recall him staying with Hume. I read it quite a while ago though...
https://www.amazon.com/First-American-Times-Benjamin-Frankli...
I think this one is probably where I read about his time with Hume. I don't find H.W. Brands' writing to be quite as smooth to read as Isaacson's, but I remember him covering parts of Franklin's life in greater detail. His bio of Ulysses Grant was a great read, too:
https://www.amazon.com/Man-Who-Saved-Union-Ulysses/dp/030747...
https://www.amazon.ca/Titan-Life-John-Rockefeller-Sr/dp/1400...
and Alexander Hamilton:
https://www.amazon.ca/Alexander-Hamilton-Ron-Chernow/dp/0143...
Both incredible.
I admit I've never been terribly interested in Grant, maybe I should give him a look. Tough when there's an infinite abundance of great literature. We're truly spoiled.
Don't feed the trolls.
> "After Rousseau departed England for Calais, Smith asked, “What has become of Rousseau? Has he gone abroad, because he cannot continue to get himself sufficiently persecuted in Great Britain?”
There is nothing new under the sun.
>It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. A regulation which obliges all those of the same trade in a particular town to enter their names and places of abode in a public register, facilitates such assemblies. . . . A regulation which enables those of the same trade to tax themselves in order to provide for their poor, their sick, their widows, and orphans, by giving them a common interest to manage, renders such assemblies necessary. An incorporation not only renders them necessary, but makes the act of the majority binding upon the whole.
Which again shows Smith viewed the respect for freedom as a moral imperative.
I find Marx's critique of classical political economy to be more valuable, and the thinking it inspired. The quality of the freedom offered by the social anarchists (Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin and Bookchin) I also think is much higher than Smith's.
In practice or on paper?
The application of their ideas in Catalonia was respected by Orwell when he stayed there (he even wrote a book about it, Homage to Catalonia). The current situation in Syria has spawned a man inspired by Bookchin's anarchism to start Rojava, which is a secular and multi-ethnic society in the region, fighting ISIS and against the Turkish forces which want to eliminate them.
You can read about anarchists during the Russian revolution, Kronstadt, Makhno, and the Italian factory councils here, whuch is a great read: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/daniel-guerin-anarchi...
I really don't know how you can consider what you said to be against anarchism.
It just doesn't make sense to judge by that metric. What more do you expect Rojava or any government of any ideology in the region to do, other than to fight ISIS?
I don't have a high regard for social anarchy and its thinkers, and hold the ideology responsible for much of the unnecessary suffering of the 20th and 21st (modern Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela) century. I also think it is the culprit for the stagnation seen in the West.
Neither Cuba, North Korea nor Venezuela have adopted anarchist theory or praxis. At best, they have claimed to adopt regional variants of Marxism-Leninism and even toward that goal they have failed as is currently visible by their capitalist economies.
>I also think it is the culprit for the stagnation seen in the West.
How is social anarchism the culprit for the perceived "stagnation" in Western countries? And stagnation of what, exactly?
Marx himself didn't propound an economic system, he specified what life should look like under a Communist system. As such, many varities have sprung up, from market Socialism to full economic planning (which contrary to what Mises would have you believe, is possible and has been worked upon by Cockshott et al.)
There is a wide consensus in the field of Economics that central economic planning is fundamentally flawed as a system of economic organisation. This flaw relates to the nature of knowledge and its distribution throughout society. In my opinion, Marxism's conceptual shortcomings are why it has been associated with so much misery over last century and a half.
A biblical verse is unusually apt in this case:
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits."