I updated the blogroll down on the right side there. Now it reflects who I read and approximately in what order. The main beneficiary will be me when I'm on the road. Before this, my blogroll consisted of the "Links" toolbar on my IE window.
I've recently been reading from Classics of Modern Political Theory, a textbook for one of my wife's college Philosophy classes. Part of my on-going campaign to improve my mind; also to improve my access to anti-Communist arguments.
Seriously. I am an anti-Communist, by which I mean that I oppose the implementation of Communism. And for this reason I occasionally find myself arguing with people who think Communism is a good idea. Somehow, the fact that it hasn't worked any time it's been tried, and usually many people wind up dead in the trying doesn't convince them.
The book starts with Machiavelli -- readings from The Prince and another work on the history of the Roman republic. I liked Machiavelli, actually, and I found The Prince very sympathetic and non-Machiavellian. Perhaps the worst parts were edited out, but Machiavelli just seems to be explaining the most effective means of government to an absolute dictator.
But after about fifteen chapters of it, his style was killing me. "There are two types of provinces: those that have been ruled by a prince for some time, and those that have recently been republics. Of those that have been recently ruled by a prince, there are two kinds: ...". The whole book is lousy with this kind of Aristotelian distinction-drawing. It's like the captain and the windows in The Good Soldier Svejk. If Machiavelli had written a book on poker, it would be: "There are two ways a playing card can rest on the table: it can be face-up or face-down. When the card is face-up, everyone can see both the suit and the value. But when the card is face-down, only the player whose card it is knows the value and the suit." So I had to bail on Machiavelli. I think he had just explained that it's better to be thought miserly than to raise taxes after overspending the public purse. (Earth to Democrats... come in Democrats!)
So I started on the next guy. Hobbes. I could drown in his prose: it's like he's translating from the German. What stuck in my head was an enormously long list defining the various passions: VAINGLORY, PARSIMONY .... Locke was similarly impenetrable, but harder to read because of his anti-Catholic bias. (Gratuitous Colby Cosh dig: Ah yes, the right to bear arms in the English Bill of Rights... how does that go? "That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law." Guess it doesn't matter for me, then, whether the Government of Canada regulates that right out of existence.)
There followed Rousseau, Montesquieu, Spinoza, some others... all impenetrable, all irrelevant. Cultural literacy WORKS, shockingly enough. If I apply myself, I can find the original arguments advanced by Spinoza in favor of freedom of speech and religious tolerance. Or I can regurgitate the arguments offered today, which are at least cast in contemperary words, not 17th-centrury philosophical jargon. Or I can sit back and enjoy the fruits of a society that guarantees both. (But then I'd have to move back south. I'll settle for 90% free speech and cheaper real estate.)
And then I got to Adam Smith. [Angelic chorus sings in background] He's modern. It's amazing, it's like a switch flipping. Suddenly this book contains writing which is interesting, unafraid of the first person, and compelling. It's better than modern expositions of the material, because it doesn't have to reply to Marx and Mill. It's beautiful, clear, believable. It's 18th-century blogging. Here's an etext version of The Wealth of Nations. Read it.
Those other guys were pikers, compared to Adam Smith. That's my considered opinion.