>From: "Alex Robson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>I haven't read the Pipes book. He's a neoconservative, isn't he?
>I don't know what the term "neoconservative" means, nor do I understand >why >that particular label is relevant to this discussion. Neoconservatism, generally speaking, is a sort of "Shiite conservatism" composed of former Cold War liberals and leftists. The term was first applied to Cold War Liberals, New Deal supporters like Scoop Jackson and Jean Kirkpatrick, who thought the McGovernites had gone too far to the left. It also includes associates of William Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, etc., in venues like *Commentary* and *The Weekly Standard*, and ex-leftists like David Horowitz. The traditional right in the U.S. was suspicious of the state, and viewed standing armies and foreign empire as incompatible with republican institutions. Neocons, in contrast, are distinguished by their enthusiasm for foreign intervention and standing armies, their defense of the National Security State and of Presidential war prerogatives, their blithe dismissal of civil liberties concerns involving "counter-terror" legislation, and their Straussian views on constitutional history. They are ardent propagandists for "benevolent American hegemony" in promotion of "democratic capitalism." The version of "democratic capitalism" neocons favor does not involve minding our own business and trading with those willing to do so, but instead requires a permanent warfare state and agencies of global governance like the Bretton Woods institutions. I thought, therefore, that the peculiar neocon notions of "economic liberty" were worth bearing in mind when considering any of Pipes' comments on property. > >I've read Bethell's book in parts, and skimmed through most of it. It > >strikes me as a very ahistoric view of property: taking the >contemporary, > >Lockean/capitalist model of private property as some kind of Platonic >ideal, > >and then judging history as it progressively approximated that ideal over > >time. >If you had actually read the book carefully, you would realize that your >assessment couldn't be more incorrect. That may well be. I may have misread it; or then again, we may just disagree on the interpretation. In any case, I'll reread it to find out. _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
