« Daylight savings time increases energy usage | Main | New roots for the Irish miracle? »
William F. Buckley has died
Here is one account. I never considered myself a Buckleyite conservative but as a kid I was much taken by his show Firing Line. It is the first time I was exposed to Hayek (I recall that Buckley blew apart his critique of social justice with a single question), or for that matter Milton Friedman, or for that matter Johann Sebastian Bach. Here are many obituaries. Here is lots of YouTube, recommended.
Addendum: Here is Ilya Somin on Buckley.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on February 27, 2008 at 12:43 PM in Current Affairs | Permalink
Comments
Off topic: What did the governor of California say before he did his Johann Sebastian imitation?
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Feb 27, 2008 1:07:54 PM
I'll be Bach?
Posted by: jody at Feb 27, 2008 1:11:46 PM
Well, this has been in the cards for a while now, but I'm sorry to see it happen. My father was a longtime National Review subscriber, and thus I grew up reading Buckley (and even had a brief correspondence with him as a student). He was, as he would say, sui generis - and by midwifing the conservative movement in the 1950s and 60s, I think he really did change history.
Posted by: Derek Lowe at Feb 27, 2008 1:19:58 PM
"It is the first time I was exposed to Hayek (I recall that Buckley blew apart his critique of social justice with a single question)"
... OK, I am on the edge of my seat... what was the question??
Posted by: liberty at Feb 27, 2008 1:38:29 PM
"It is the first time I was exposed to Hayek (I recall that Buckley blew apart his critique of social justice with a single question)"
... OK, I am on the edge of my seat... what was the question??
Me too.
Posted by: TJ at Feb 27, 2008 1:41:26 PM
... OK, I am on the edge of my seat... what was the question??
Me three...
Posted by: Rich at Feb 27, 2008 1:50:39 PM
Maybe you'll find it in here: http://hoohila.stanford.edu/firingline/. I recall that the question had a lot of dependent clauses. I was fifteen at the time, but I think the question got at the point of decomposition and aggregation, namely if we buy into the justice concept at all for individuals, could there not be some aggregative version of the idea which could apply to societies? Hayek didn't have a good answer.
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Feb 27, 2008 1:50:55 PM
Couldn't stand his politics but he his very persuasive style was undeniable.
Posted by: meter at Feb 27, 2008 2:02:12 PM
They have a picture, but I can't seem to find a transcript.
I'm sure you are over-simplifying, but you say:
"if we buy into the justice concept at all for individuals, could there not be some aggregative version of the idea which could apply to societies"
I don't see why this would be the case. It isn't true for utility and welfare, why should it be for justice?
Anyway, if you find the transcript, do post it!
Posted by: liberty at Feb 27, 2008 2:11:23 PM
I was fifteen at the time, but I think the question got at the point of decomposition and aggregation, namely if we buy into the justice concept at all for individuals, could there not be some aggregative version of the idea which could apply to societies? Hayek didn't have a good answer.
Hmm... from this summary, I have a feeling I wouldn't be much impressed. And that's leaving aside the obvious point that not having an on the spot answer ready for the camera doesn't mean much.
Posted by: Constant at Feb 27, 2008 2:15:01 PM
jody,
Yes. It works better with an Austrian accent so telling the joke is better than typing it, but I couldn't resist.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Feb 27, 2008 2:53:35 PM
Buckley was opposed to drug prohibition. I remember watching him say that on tv once (a couple of decades ago if memory serves)) and I was stunned, and any ntion I had had that "conservative" or "liberal" made sense as labels went out the door.
His rationale for it was that it was eroding our constitutional rights, which is as good a reason as any in my book. Bush has merely taken that exception to the 4th and 5th amendments and expanded them. So much for the "slippery slope" argument being bullshit.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Feb 27, 2008 2:58:10 PM
It is obvious that William F. Buckly has left us with more than he took, and perhaps more than he brought himself.
Posted by: R. Richard Schweitzer at Feb 27, 2008 3:05:21 PM
I loved his show in my teen years. He influenced not just my politics but my posture to this very day.
(Someone here in the office said I can program like , and proceeded to lean back and drape one arm over their head in a very Buckleyesqe fashion.)
Posted by: odograph at Feb 27, 2008 4:00:14 PM
It's been ages since I've read that, but what you say doesn't strike me as being contra-Hayek. The only meaningful concept of "social justice" would be something approximating the sum of individual justice (however one can do that).
Posted by: Scott Wood at Feb 27, 2008 4:07:36 PM
What's funny is, I do think of you as a Buckleyite conservative.
Epicurean. Arch. Contrary. A personal life not defined by politics.
Posted by: Thomas at Feb 27, 2008 4:23:27 PM
Tyler,
I'd have to see the question, but I think its good to remember that Hayek was an absolutely awful public debater. In particular I've seen a radio interview transcription with Hayek, Merriam, and Kreuger where he comes off as a strong proponent as central planning, and I remember hearing he refused to debate Keynes.
Posted by: Jacob at Feb 27, 2008 4:24:02 PM
Surely the answer to that point would be that since purposes of individual people are often contradictory they can't aggregate to some wholesale pattern of justice?
Posted by: Chris at Feb 27, 2008 4:39:38 PM
Tyler, thanks for the pointer, but the episode is not yet available from that archive.
Posted by: TJ at Feb 27, 2008 4:51:42 PM
could there not be some aggregative version of the idea which could apply to societies?
Here is my answer:
No.
Posted by: ChanceH at Feb 27, 2008 4:57:22 PM
and I remember hearing he refused to debate Keynes
Who in his right mind would have ever *agreed* to debate Keynes? You might as well just hand in your socks up front.
Posted by: Anderson at Feb 27, 2008 5:05:22 PM
Once while doing phone tech. support right out of college (circa 1993) I spent 30 minutes on the phone with him. I was terrified, but he was quite pleasant.
Posted by: Chris Meisenzahl at Feb 27, 2008 6:52:09 PM
Not meaning to digress too much from the respect being shown here, and having wrestled with "What is 'Social'" which preceeded (1957) Hayek's considerations of "Social Justice" from around 1965 through at least 1976 and later, a "justice concept for individuals" came to mean the meeting or performance of obligations (mostly never fully met or performed, often conflicting leaving 'justice' incomplete and imperfect). Thus, the transfer of the function of, and the actual achievement in meeting of obligations to and by social organizations, religious, co-operative, fraternal, governmental, etc. brings us to a concept of "Social Justice;" the meeting and performance of individual obligations through social organizations.
Posted by: R. Richard Schweitzer at Feb 27, 2008 7:24:58 PM
I first encountered WFB on TV around '67 (when I would have been 13). At that time he served as a foil to my junior leftism (I remember shouting "nonsense" - or words to that effect - at the screen). As I got older and read some of his arguments I realized at least some of them made sense, so although he was never able to convert me to conservatism he had a lot to do with my becoming a libertarian.
In any event, his sense of humor was endlessly entertaining, and that was something I could enjoy whether I agreed with him or not.
Posted by: Don K at Feb 27, 2008 7:30:40 PM
It is weird but I liken WFB to former Pro Wrestler and MN Governor Jesse Ventura
even though they are clearly in different leagues.
Both could get to the pith of an issue.
WFB surprisingly well and JV the same as I had low expectations.
Both were very much in love with themselves.
When I was young I thought WFB often dressed meanness in long, unknown, unneeded words.
Here is a quote from another blog that matches how I felt:
The central question that emerges…is whether the White community in the South is entitled
to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where
it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled
because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.”
—William F. Buckley, National Review, August 24, 1957
Posted by: JRip at Feb 27, 2008 9:49:19 PM
