Reviews for Political and social thought in America, 1870-1970

The average rating for Political and social thought in America, 1870-1970 based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2019-01-10 00:00:00 Paul Sespa This book isn't what I thought it would be. I thought he would attack the government of his day (1935) and point back to a time when we went astray. I expected to learn some fundamentals with the hope of seeing what a better way forward might be from a libertarian point of view. I was delightfully confounded, especially in the conclusion, by Nock's complete lack of hope. The State has got you by the balls and you're not going to wiggle out of it and don't even try to get hopeful ideas about winning the next election and righting the ship! Why is this delightful? Isn't this just base cynicism? When you consider the history lesson he gives from his vantage point under FDR, and you line that up with America under Obama, it makes a good deal of sense. Obama isn't the cause, he's the logical result of the system. His predecessors did the very same kinds of things. Perhaps he's been worse in degree, but not in kind. And this is liberating because I don't have to obsess over the political game. Because the State is going to grow no matter who wins and liberty will shrink. Hope is not found in a country. Look for hope in your family and in your faith. Live like a free person to the extent you can and don't obsess over what's beyond your control.

Review # 2 was written on 2012-08-17 00:00:00 Cass Smith To summarize: There are two ways that human beings can fulfill our needs and desires: the economic means (applying labor and capital to natural resources and producing something useful) and the political means (living off the labor of others). The State – in whatever external form it takes, whether Monarchy, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, or Democratic Republicanism – exists for no other reason than to function as a legally-sanctioned organization that enables its members to live by the political rather than the economic means. In other words, to enable one group of people to exploit another group (producers, serfs, slaves, whatever)so that its members can get stuff they want - wealth, power, luxuries, etc. - without working, or at least without working very hard. In terse erudite delightfully dry prose, Nock shows us how every state-run civilization that has ever existed has followed the same trajectory: it continually grows for perhaps 400 years by feeding on its producers until it begins to suck them dry. Then trouble ensues as the people begin to suffer scarcity and the civilization begins to fall into disrepair and exhibits cynicism and dissolution as signs of decay until it eventually weakens to a barely functioning hulk of rusted-out machinery. When some calamity, such as natural disaster or barbarian invasion occurs the civilization collapses and, lacking the strength or resources to recover, it dies. Centuries later its ruins get dug up and studied by archaeologists. Not that anything can be done about it, Nock says; but when we notice our own civilization collapse like every civilization that ever existed before it, we will understand what is occurring and will know why. At the end of the book, Nock explains why, since nothing can be done about it, he even bothered to write the book. His reason is because he thinks it's true and perhaps there might be a reader or two who is interested in knowing the truth of things for no other reason than because they are true. Well it so happens I am one of these type readers. I liked the book very much and think Mr. Nock makes a compelling case for his premises, but I can certainly understand how many people might not enjoy it as much as I did. Whether you enjoy the ideas presented or not, the book is written in a very clear and direct way that is pleasant to read and easy to understand.