Why Do I Include Certain Authors In My Reading List And Not Others?
Who is not included in my reading list and why?
You might notice that I don’t include Steven Ozment and other great romantic historians. If you want to read them, then that’s fine. I agree with their rapture. On the other hand, I’m a POLITICAL ECONOMIST which means I care only about the necessary institutions needed to produce the greek and british miracles. It is an emotionless pursuit. And the romantics do not help me in that regard. I have the same problem with much of the conservative reading list produced by the National Review, which I view as, like that of Kirk, romantic and inspirational, but not helpful to an analytical intellectual looking to define institutions to create romantic attachments rather than assuming that those attachments create those institutions if such feelings could be instilled somehow. From my view this is simply illogical: it’s putting the cart before the horse. People feel romantic attachments to their institutions. But it is the institutions that created that sentiment.
(Thanks to FredR for suggesting I include Victor Davis Hanson’s “The Other Greeks”.)
About

Curt Doolittle
Seattle, WA, United States
I am an independent theorist of Political Economy in the Conservative Libertarian tradition. And as a methodological Propertarian I attempt to complete the work of Rothbard and Hoppe by suggesting post-democratic political solutions for heterogeneous polities.Purpose
"De Philosophia Aristocratia"
Anglo Conservatism is the remnant of the European Aristocratic Manorial system and the Classical Liberal philosophy of the Enlightenment, combined with our ancient tribal instincts for group persistence and land-holding. It currently consists as a set of sentiments rather than as an articulated rational philosophy. And without that rational articulation, conservatives lack the ability to create and promote a plan that is a positive and rhetorically defensible alternative to the hazards of accidental bureaucracy and purposeful socialism.This lack of an articulated philosophy leaves conservatives vulnerable in the public debate with Schumpeterian public intellectuals whose advantage in both volume of production, and simplicity of argument poses a nearly insurmountable challenge.
Libertarianism by contrast, is a rational philosophy of an articulate but permanent minority. It is based upon a solid, rational and critical methodology, even if it is flawed in its initial assumption: the principle of non-violence.
Unfortunately the Rothbardian Anarchist movement has appropriated the term "Libertarian", and left Classical Liberals and Conservatives alienated from the only system of thought with which they need to articulate their political sentiments in rational and empirical rather than moralistic and sentimental form.
By repairing the flaws in Libertarian philosophy we can use its methodology to provide a rhetorical solution for conservatives - a language which in turn may become an articulated philosophical body of argument and advocacy for the frustrated conservative majority.
Connect with:
Recent Posts
-
Kinsella’s Criticism of Locke, and My Explanation of Locke’s Reasonable Mistake, and What To Do About It.
70 days ago -
Liberty Isn't Inherent. It's unnatural. We create it with Organized Violence.
74 days ago -
Propertarian Definition: REVOLUTION
74 days ago -
Giving Rorty Another Try
74 days ago -
An Skeleton Argument In Defense Of Rorty From Hoppe
74 days ago -
A Propertarian Definition of Ruthless
74 days ago -
The Self Deception Of The Enlightenment View Of Man
74 days ago -
On Rent Seeking
74 days ago
-
Kinsella’s Criticism of Locke, and My Explanation of Locke’s Reasonable Mistake, and What To Do About It.