Comments on: Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Liberty Hero

By: Attackdonkey

Attackdonkey — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 02:18:56 +0000

RBurnett,

how bout a link to that review? Or can I at least hear some of the claims about DiLorenzo’s shotty work?

The same things have been said about Thomas Woods, Walter Block, and even Murray Rothbard himself.

There is a reason that these guys are attacked, and especially DiLorenzo, he has revealed their GOD to be nothing more than a thug and a liar.

How bout this, you read The Real Lincoln, and give a review of it yourself. I’m not saying that DiLorenzo is Shakespear, but what in his work is untrue?

By: Mike Miller

Mike Miller — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:56:20 +0000

Thanks again for your comments, RBurnett. On your blog you can present your lists in the order you choose.

By: RBurnett

RBurnett — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:44:15 +0000

“Many of the people you mention are on our list and will be revealed in due tim.”
due time?
“This isn’t a ranking or a Top Ten list, just a list in no apparent order.”
But the revealing, the due timing, implies a ranking–otherwise why have a Dilorenzo revealed befoe a Hayek? And I never said that all or both Dilorenzo, Hayek, Rockwell and von Mises can’t or should not appear on the list.
Question: Why not a list of the names to be revealed, and then, in due time, the detailed bios of those names?
This isn’t some magic list or trick to be played out or revealed in due time
And the criticism of Dilorenzo still stands, and that Independent Institute review should be read as that’s one of Tom’s places. If anything, except for the sake of love, his revealing should have been delayed.

By: Mike Miller

Mike Miller — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:43:19 +0000

RBurnett, we’re not adding people to the list of Liberty Heroes in any particular order. Many of the people you mention are on our list and will be revealed in due time. Why can’t both DiLorenzo and Rockwell and Hayek and von Mises all appear on this list? This isn’t a ranking or a Top-10 list, just a list of people we love in no apparent order. Does that hurt your head?

-Mike

By: RBurnett

RBurnett — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:36:52 +0000

This is a joke, yes?
Item: The Independent Review had a book review of The Real Lincoln, finding it fatally flawed–the review’s words, not mine. The Independnet Review is published by the Independent Institute, a think-tank/university that Dilorenzo writes for and is a board member, in a word, it’s a symapthetic forum for him–but oh that review.
And he’s written those three books or so, with some articles on Lew Rockwell’s site and for the Institute.
His influence is nill, not even that of Walter Williams, who has a nationally syndicated column and appears on Limbaugh’s radio show as a fill-in host.
In a word, he has made no difference outside of his small sphere–unlike, say, Harry Jaffa, who wrote the famous Goldwater speech and the two books that Dilorenzo rails against, which have had an impact outside of even Jaffa’s circle. Indeed, Jaffa himself, who seems to be the only reason for Dilorenzo’s existence, has been advisor to not only Goldwater, but also Reagan.
But as Jaffa is a student of Leo Strauss, and as Strauss, according to the legend (”when the facts become legend, print the legend”) is the father of the neoconservatives, well, Jaffa can never be any Liberty Hero, despite his defense of liberty and equality against the Calhounism of Dilorenzo (Calhoun denied the main propositions of the Declaration were true or valid, that no one was born equal or in liberty, and to add that no one was created–except for the first pair–see his Speech on the Oregon Bill, 1848–to which Dilorenzo concurs) Indeed, Jaffa’s Crisis of the House Divided started a counter movement against the Southern histories of the day (1960) which had been the orthodoxy for many years–such as Freeman’s worship at the altar of Lee or Randall’s dismissal of slavery as a cause for that war. Dilorenzo is fighting a rear guard action against this revisionism, with more of the same old revisionism of a century ago.
Indeed, the reading list to balance out Dilorenzo should include Jaffa, as he is the object of Dilorenzo’s rants in not only Real, but also Lincoln Unmasked.
Besides, if you must reach that far down in that portion of the universe, why didn’t you nominate Lew Rockwell, who provides a forum for creatures like Dilorenzo and Woods?
After all, Rockwell also was the campaign manager for Paul’s 1988 Presidential run–so there’s more to him than to Dilorenzo in this area.
So, either Dilorenzo’s nomination was a joke or you were either bought off or coerced by Dilorenzo’s people–or perhaps your powers to reason have left you, maybe?
The choice of Dilorenzo is not a legitiamte option, indeed, as I have pointed out the more legitimate pick of at least Rockwell.
And where are Reagan, Hayek, Friedman, von Mises, Rothbard, Taft or Jefferson? Hey? Hey?

By: timpeck

timpeck — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:50:51 +0000

I concur.

By: George Dewey

George Dewey — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:38:07 +0000

Sounds like his works should be required reading for all home schoolers !!!!!