Jeffrey Tucker recently reviewed a book by Rand Paul, entitled “The Tea Party Goes to Washington.” The book and the review are neither here nor there for me. However, I found one line in Mr. Tucker’s review rather noteworthy:
… [Rand Paul] is silent on the drug war (but silent is better than endorsement)…
To the extent I know Jeffrey Tucker (not personally, but through his digital life), I find him to be a real treat, a renaissance man of this age in many respects. I often enjoy his writing, as he always finds ways to create “learnings” from the most simple concepts. He was recently interviewed at The Daily Bell, and I completely enjoyed the interview.
So, what struck me about this one line from Mr. Tucker’s book review? As most of you are likely aware, Mr. Tucker recently left the Mises Institute to join Laissez-Faire Books. I find his comment above to be in stark contrast to the motto quoted at the top of the Mises Institute home page, and as explained here in the FAQ section of the Institute’s site:
Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito. It is from Virgil and it means "do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it." Mises wrote in 1940, after he arrived in New York having fled Europe, that he chose this sentence as a young man to be his guide in life.
Silence regarding the weapon of the state devised to ensure civil liberties can be violated at anytime and anywhere for often non-violent offenses is certainly better than endorsement. But it is a long way from not giving in to evil and proceeding ever more boldly against it.
As Mr. Tucker is using the sentence to compare Rand Paul to his ninety-nine Senate colleagues, I guess it is passable. But it seems quite a change in standard for someone who, until quite recently, was one of the key individuals in the growth and strength of the institute bearing the name of Mises.
i think you might be reading a bit too much into this. im a big fan of tucker, and he has done so much for liberty, to start turning on each other is the last thing we should be doing.ReplyDelete
if someone analysed everyword you had ever written, im sure somewhere they could find something and say"aha, see here, this is not 100% liberty focused".
i havent read the full review, but maybe tucker was just trying his best to find something positive in rands work.
I tried to indicate precisely what I read into this, which is why I have been quite cautious about what I have said. My point was simple, and still valid.Delete
I posted this at EPJ, I will copy the same post here:
Scott O January 23, 2013 at 6:58 PM: So Bionic Mosquito is unhappy that Tucker didn't call out Rand for not being against the drug war.
BM: I said nothing about being unhappy.
Anonymous January 23, 2013 at 7:06 PM: How is this different from what Tucker said?
BM: Unfortunately, you left out the next sentence after the one you quote, as follows: But it is a long way from not giving in to evil and proceeding ever more boldly against it.
As this was the entire point of my post, I will consider this misunderstanding reflects my shortcoming as a writer.
The point of my original post is simple. The drug war is one of the more intrusive acts of the state, an act that allows for all manner of rights violations. This “war” is responsible for the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of non-violent "offenders." For such an invasive, abusive practice:
This: … [Rand Paul] is silent on the drug war (but silent is better than endorsement)…
Is not this: Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito.
This was my point. Nothing more.
I got it BM. Anonymous' comment is ironic on any levelsReplyDelete
Perhaps the comment was more of a sigh of relief. As in, "given all of his other sell outs, I'm happy to report that Rand is carefully silent on the matter. Whew, I was expecting him to actively join the other side on that too."ReplyDelete
"I tried to indicate precisely what I read into this, which is why I have been quite cautious about what I have said. My point was simple, and still valid."ReplyDelete
There is nothing cautious about posting this at EPJ as well, since you know perfectly well that Robert Wenzel is currently in a "tear Jeffrey Tucker a new one about virtually everything" mode.
Obviously, you are deliberately helping him pile more on. Which is your prerogative, of course. But don't pretend you are being "careful".
Your point is valid.
I still stand by the difference in tone that I point out in my original post: for me, as an open question or curiosity (which is as I intended), not as a statement of significant change on Tucker's part.
I should have considered that this nuance could be lost given the charged atmosphere regarding this subject at EPJ. On this specific point, I was not cautious.
Thank you for this comment. It will be helpful to me in the future.