Upcoming speeches; letter to the president of my university

1. A few of my upcoming speeches:

Princeton University, February 17. Whig Hall Senate Chamber at 5pm. My topic: my Defending the Undefendable series of books, I, II and III

Free State Project, New Hampshire, February 19. By skype. For details: https://freestateproject.org/; https://freestateproject.org/events/liberty-forum. My topic: Living liberty? No, promoting liberty; my series of books on privatizing roads, oceans and space colonization

Acapulco, Mexico, February 20-21. For details: http://anarchapulco.com/. My topic: free market anarchism, abortion, immigration

Sao Paulo and Rio, Mises Institute Brazil, February 26-28. For details [email protected]. My topic: Austrian economics.

Buenos Aires, Argentina. March 30. By skype. For details: [email protected]. My topic: Austrian economics and liberty

Auburn Alabama, Mises Institute, March 31-April 2. For details https://mises.org/events/austrian-economics-research-conference-2016. My topic: Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged and libertarianism. I still have room in my car for a few more people. Well, Rev Larry Beane’s larger van. This is a free trip for students! C’mon, join me, us. It will be the experience of a life time.

2. I sent this letter to Fr. Wildes, SJ., president of Loyola University, New Orleans, On 1/23/16. So far, he has not replied:

Dear Fr. Wildes, SJ:

In the last few minutes of your speech on Friday, 1/22/16 at the convocation, you said something to the effect that (in my paraphrase) you would “strive mightily to always interpret other people’s statements in the most positive way possible and reasonable; you would give a sympathetic interpretation of what others say or write.” I applaud you for this statement. I always try to do this in my own writings and speeches, and, often, I even succeed. I also greatly regret it when I do not. I think this principle you have today articulated is one all scholars should follow. Again, in my paraphrase, “Do not attack straw men.” When you criticize others, do so for their views in their most compelling versions, not their weakest. I think you have been “channeling” some of the words of a hero of mine, John Stuart Mill (from his “On Liberty), who said: “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”

As you can see, this statement of yours moved me.

In view of this perspective of yours that you recently articulated, would you please consider making a public apology to me for publishing in the Maroon a statement to the effect that I favored slavery (based on hearsay “evidence” from the NYTimes); you did so without even first asking me about this.

I intend to share this letter, and any response you might give me, or none, with others.

Share

8:55 pm on January 29, 2016