Here is one account. I never considered myself a Buckleyite conservative but as a kid I was much taken by his show Firing Line. It is the first time I was exposed to Hayek (I recall that Buckley blew apart his critique of social justice with a single question), or for that matter Milton Friedman, or for that matter Johann Sebastian Bach. Here are many obituaries. Here is lots of YouTube, recommended.
Addendum: Here is Ilya Somin on Buckley.
Off topic: What did the governor of California say before he did his Johann Sebastian imitation?
Well, this has been in the cards for a while now, but I’m sorry to see it happen. My father was a longtime National Review subscriber, and thus I grew up reading Buckley (and even had a brief correspondence with him as a student). He was, as he would say, sui generis – and by midwifing the conservative movement in the 1950s and 60s, I think he really did change history.
“It is the first time I was exposed to Hayek (I recall that Buckley blew apart his critique of social justice with a single question)”
… OK, I am on the edge of my seat… what was the question??
Me too.
Maybe you’ll find it in here: http://hoohila.stanford.edu/firingline/. I recall that the question had a lot of dependent clauses. I was fifteen at the time, but I think the question got at the point of decomposition and aggregation, namely if we buy into the justice concept at all for individuals, could there not be some aggregative version of the idea which could apply to societies? Hayek didn’t have a good answer.
They have a picture, but I can’t seem to find a transcript.
I’m sure you are over-simplifying, but you say:
“if we buy into the justice concept at all for individuals, could there not be some aggregative version of the idea which could apply to societies”
I don’t see why this would be the case. It isn’t true for utility and welfare, why should it be for justice?
Anyway, if you find the transcript, do post it!
jody,
Yes. It works better with an Austrian accent so telling the joke is better than typing it, but I couldn’t resist.
It is obvious that William F. Buckly has left us with more than he took, and perhaps more than he brought himself.
It’s been ages since I’ve read that, but what you say doesn’t strike me as being contra-Hayek. The only meaningful concept of “social justice” would be something approximating the sum of individual justice (however one can do that).
Tyler,
I’d have to see the question, but I think its good to remember that Hayek was an absolutely awful public debater. In particular I’ve seen a radio interview transcription with Hayek, Merriam, and Kreuger where he comes off as a strong proponent as central planning, and I remember hearing he refused to debate Keynes.
Tyler, thanks for the pointer, but the episode is not yet available from that archive.
and I remember hearing he refused to debate Keynes
Who in his right mind would have ever *agreed* to debate Keynes? You might as well just hand in your socks up front.
Not meaning to digress too much from the respect being shown here, and having wrestled with “What is ‘Social’” which preceeded (1957) Hayek’s considerations of “Social Justice” from around 1965 through at least 1976 and later, a “justice concept for individuals” came to mean the meeting or performance of obligations (mostly never fully met or performed, often conflicting leaving ‘justice’ incomplete and imperfect). Thus, the transfer of the function of, and the actual achievement in meeting of obligations to and by social organizations, religious, co-operative, fraternal, governmental, etc. brings us to a concept of “Social Justice;” the meeting and performance of individual obligations through social organizations.
It is weird but I liken WFB to former Pro Wrestler and MN Governor Jesse Ventura
even though they are clearly in different leagues.
Both could get to the pith of an issue.
WFB surprisingly well and JV the same as I had low expectations.
Both were very much in love with themselves.
When I was young I thought WFB often dressed meanness in long, unknown, unneeded words.
Here is a quote from another blog that matches how I felt:
The central question that emerges†¦is whether the White community in the South is entitled
to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where
it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled
because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.†
—William F. Buckley, National Review, August 24, 1957
Artern, i believe English is Buckley’s third language, thus he speaks it with a slight accent.
In my view, the problem with aggregating individual justice into some larger sum is that interpersonal utility comparisons are not possible. You can’t subtract Julie’s love of apples from John’s and get any sort of a value. That would be like adding the redness of an apple to the weight of an anvil or adding newtons to kilograms; its a nonsensical operation. I suppose if you could read minds to the point of quantifying conscious experiences you could do it, but if that was possible we wouldn’t need to debate social justice at all; it would be evident.
As I see it, the only measure of justice is individual, because only the individual can aggregate the expected outcomes from his or her choices. An individual can compare one hour’s work and owning a bushel of apples to two hours work and owning an anvil, but no one else can make that comparison for her. Of course we do estimate when pressed (e.g., choosing between petty theft or murder), but it seems to me that no formal interpersonal utility operations are possible.
I’m still curious to watch any interview with Hayek. If anyone has a link, please post it.
I watched several of those youtube videos just now hoping to find this elusive anti-Hayek question, to no avail.
Honestly, why did you post that and not include the question (and the background context)? I’m so curious!
Comments on this entry are closed.