"I share about 90 percent of the views of most libertarians"
Reason's 1983 Interview with the late William F. Buckley
Twenty-five years ago, William F. Buckley, Jr., sat down with reason to discuss, among other subjects, libertarianism, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and the decriminalization of marijuana.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Reading what Buckley said about the Whittaker Chambers review made me think how little things have changed. I guess we're all still dealing with the same issues.
I think this is the review Buckley was talking about:
http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback200501050715.asp
If you don't want to open a PDF, you can view the interview here:
http://www.pdfmenot.com/view/http://www.reason.com/files/456e1d0436886ab0751f51502d4fb2f8.pdf
Two words: nice fellow.
RIP.
Chomsky vs. Buck on youtube from the 60's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlMEVTa-PI
Buckles vs. Vidal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRjZR8j4-z4
Buckley didn't answer the questions about Ayn Rand because is not as intelligent as Rand. I am not nearly as intelligent as either, but I can clearly see the difference.
I don't think it's a matter of intelligence, jkii.
It's more a matter of the fact that Buckley [and Chambers, for that matter, whose review is at issue] like most mid-century Americans - even writers and academics - knew virtually nothing about Nietzsche, other than some half-baked propaganda they had digested during the war. The United States was a remarkably parochial place when these men were being educated.
It's striking to me that Chambers writes at length about Atlas and about Nietzsche while making truly abysmal freshman-at-a-community-college errors about both. For Buckley to assert that he agrees with 90% of it leaves us with only two possibilities: despite his apparent erudition, WFB wasn't really all that educated in philosophy, or he was playing politics by playing dumb. I tend to think it's a little of both.
is good
nice