Princeton, Carl, and a Pink Locke

So the Princeton conference was great.

Carl was there for a day. I failed, though, in instructing him via BLACKBERRY on the science of linking. So Carl: Go to the Edit Post page. See the link link (in blue above). Click on it. Enter the url through pasting into the link thing that comes up. Click OK. After the mess that spews out, type the word you want to be clicked on for our many readers to get your link. Then close with lesser than sign ( <), A, /, and greater than sign (> ) and keep typing. (If I literally type that, the screen won’t show it.) (This, as I learned from BIG THINK, is far from the latest linking technology.)

My complete deconstruction of the FOUNDERS (Locke/nature)=GOOD and PROGRESSIVES (Hegel/History)=BAD as the appropriate conservative way of understanding our situation today was unexpectedly almost too well received.

John Tomasi of Brown presented a pink (meaning a bit socialist, I guess) view of Locke to counter the LIBERTARIANS, especially those who verge on being RANDIANS. I didn’t agree with his Rawlsianism, although he did remind us that Hayek wrote at one point said he agreed with Rawls.

But I did make a point (in the hopes of alienating even more of the audience) of agreeing on two points: 1. The phrase “social justice”—contrary to Glenn Beck etc.—is not necessarily the sign of ATHEISTIC MARXIST FASCIST EVILDOING . 2. Locke makes it clear that it only makes sense for the “daylaborer” (or wage slave) to consent to the the invention of MONEY and the resulting inequality (where “the industrious and rational” get really, really better off because of their effective “mental labor”) if he too gets better off. In other words, the TRICKLE DOWN THEORY has to really be true. The JUSTICE of Lockeanism depends prosperity being shared, to some extent, by all—or at least the overwhelming majority.

More soon . . .