Feb 11, 2007

George H. Smith

by Liberty and Power

The philosopher, author and lecturer George H[amilton] Smith (b. 2/10/49) has specialized in two areas close to my own heart, freethought and freedom, and has been the author of numerous essays and books instrumental in both fields. Author of Atheism: The Case Against God, Atheism, Ayn Rand and Other Heresies, The Lysander Spooner Reader, The State (by Franz Oppenheimer) and more recently Why Atheism?, has completed a new book on liberty (I do not know the working title), in addition to his schedule of lecturing and debating. Known best for the logical clarity of his exposition, Smith is known for plumbing the depths of the most difficult subject in a manner which makes almost any topic surprisingly easy to understand, a feat unmatched by almost any other philosopher.

Smith, although noting certain positive elements within Christianity, authored the classic work criticising religion in general and Christianity in particular, Atheism: The Case Against God. There has been no other more influential freethought work in the last half century. His debates with theists of various stripes and lectures on freethought have been significant to both sides of the matter.

Smith became known as a leading independent libertarian intellectual since 1970 with a deep grasp of several schools of thought: Ayn Rand's epistemological and moral ideas, Murray Rothbard's anarchocapitalism, Nisbet's conservatism (through lectures by Nisbet while in Arizona) and even Robert LeFevre's antipolitical"freedom philosophy". Smith's "Rational Anarchism"

" is grounded in the belief that we are fully capable, through reason, of discerning the principles of justice; and that we are capable, through rational persuasion and voluntary agreement, of establishing whatever institutions are necessary for the preservation and enforcement of justice. It is precisely because no government can be established by means of reason and mutual consent that all Objectivists should reject that institution as unjust in both theory and practice."

Rational anarchism, like more recent efforts, has been a thoughtful integration of objectivism and free market anarchism, and forged the direction which much of libertarian thinking has progressed since he formulated his views, although not often credited for his accomplishments.

Smith is also known for his dry sense of humor and wry wit which often brings as many to his side of a conversation as his deep grasp of both theory and history. On a personal note, I've been a friend of George's since the early 1970's and can confirm this effect. Happy Birthday George!

Just a thought.
Just Ken
CLASSical Liberalism

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Sheldon Richman - 2/13/2007

I'm so glad to hear George is active and writing. I've known him for many years. He's a great asset to the movement and the cause. Moreover, his book is a significant philosophical work on the nature of reason. He puts Dawkins, et al. to shame.

Anthony Gregory - 2/12/2007

On the other hand, as Peikoff said late last year:

"How you cast your vote in the coming election is important, even if the two parties are both rotten. In essence, the Democrats stand for socialism, or at least some ambling steps in its direction; the Republicans stand for religion, particularly evangelical Christianity, and are taking ambitious strides to give it political power.

"Socialism—a fad of the last few centuries—has had its day; it has been almost universally rejected for decades. Leftists are no longer the passionate collectivists of the 30s, but usually avowed anti-ideologists, who bewail the futility of all systems. Religion, by contrast—the destroyer of man since time immemorial—is not fading; on the contrary, it is now the only philosophic movement rapidly and righteously rising to take over the government.

"Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer, and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer, it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because 'both are bad.'

"The survival of this country will not be determined by the degree to which the government, simply by inertia, imposes taxes, entitlements, controls, etc., although such impositions will be harmful (and all of them and worse will be embraced or pioneered by conservatives, as Bush has shown). What does determine the survival of this country is not political concretes, but fundamental philosophy. And in this area the only real threat to the country now, the only political evil comparable to or even greater than the threat once posed by Soviet Communism, is religion and the Party which is its home and sponsor."

The irony is, I can see the argument that the socialists on the left are not so much a threat now, but I'd compare them not to the theoconservatives, but to the police state fascists on the right.

Russell Hanneken - 2/11/2007

I think it's just you, John. In my experience, Objectivists spend far more time arguing against the state than against God (unless by "against the state" you mean literally for anarchism). Ayn Rand's published works spend virtually no time on the question of God's existence, though they do spend quite a bit of time disparaging faith, mysticism, and similar bad habits.

Back when Nathaniel Branden was an associate of Rand, he wrote an article that mentioned a few attacks on Objectivism that appeared in some religious publications. His response:

In view of the fact that most of these attacks declare or imply that atheism is the most important and central feature of the Objectivist philosophy, a brief comment is perhaps appropriate. As uncompromising advocates of reason, Objectivists are, of course, atheists. We are intransigent atheists, not militant ones. We are for reason; therefore, as a consequence, we are opposed to any form of mysticism; therefore, we do not grant any validity to the notion of a supernatural being. But atheism is scarcely the center of our philosophical position. To be known as crusaders for atheism would be acutely embarrassing to us; the adversary is too unworthy.

As for George Smith: to begin with, I'm not sure it's fair to call him an Objectivist. Clearly Rand had an influence on him, but he's a well-read, independent thinker whose work has taken him far beyond the borders of the Randian ghetto.

It is true that his three published books are mostly concerned with atheism (though perhaps only half his second book is devoted to the subject). But his books represent only a fraction of the work he's done over the years. If you check out his articles, essays, and lectures, you'll see that he has intelligent things to say about a variety of subjects.

Here's a good piece to get you started:

"Justice Entrepreneurship in a Free Market"
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_4/3_4_4.pdf

John W. Payne - 2/11/2007

Is it just me, or do objectivists spend more of their time arguing against god, which they don't believe in, than against the state, which is quite real and destructive? I think George Smith is a hero for liberty, but aside from his editorial work, it certainly seems like he spends most of his time fighting the existence of god. Obviously, the man should be free to do what he pleases, but Kierkegaard's maxim about proofs for the existence of God also works in reverse: Heretics don't need them and believers don't heed them. One might say the same aout libertarianism, but while libertarianism has become more popular since the 1960s, atheism couldn't be more outre.