Are you agreeing with Buckley here?

No. The government has no business enforcing morality as such. Your moral obligations (should you care to acknowledge them) are your moral obligations.

I'd be curious to hear you explain the source and nature of your belief in universal slavery on behalf of the needy (legal or just moral?), but starting in on the ethics of obligation would hijack this thread.

Are you agreeing with Buckley here?

What is the source of your information about Branden "stirring the pot" between Rand and Buckley? Can you provide examples?

My skepticism is rooted in the fact that Buckley never had much of a "relationship" with Rand, and certainly never one that Branden likely would have found "threatening." In those days, he was unlikely to have seen anyone like Mr. Buckley as a realistic "threat" to that, in my view. Also, Rand appears to have been clear with Buckley -- from the start -- about her sharp differences with him.

Your own assertions that Buckley and Rand agreed about "90%" and that their alienation is worthy of regret are, of course, just the opposite of the truth. Their sole area of agreement was about some limited political policy issues. Even here, Buckley has always insisted on a religious grounding for his beliefs -- even having had a falling out with Max Eastman over the issue, as well -- and "WFB" was very inconsistent in the application of what discernible political principles he seemed to possess. Glaring contradiction does not disturb him -- the present nonsense is just the latest example.

As others have said, "WFB" is an intellectual light-weight -- he was made by the many real brains who gathered around him (he was a decent politician), who both created and used him: John Chamberlain, Max Eastman, Henry Hazlitt, James Burnham, the aforementioned Chambers, and even, once upon a time, the aforementioned Rothbard, just to name a few.

WFB is a smear artist, hell bent on enforcing the boundaries of a conservative "establishment," reading in or out those he finds acceptable or not, preaching "the Gospel According to St. Bill."

There are those of us who think we have moral obligations towards our fellow beings such as

(1) An obligation to help the genuinely needy,

(2) An obligation not to encourage people to smoke the evil weed.

Obviously, (2) is incompatible with working for a tobacco company. So WFB does have the basis of a point.

Hey, Mitch.

Now that I think about it, what's the deal with the mean-spirited obituaries that Buckley wrote about Ayn Rand and Murray N. Rothbard? I'm definitely not Dr. Rothbard's biggest fan, but I think it's in really poor taste to gloat about the recent death of one's political opponent. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., and John Kenneth Galbraith (neither of whom I liked) dying recently doesn't say anything about the rightness or wrongness of their arguments.

What gives? It's like, whenever somebody dies, Mr. Buckley feels compelled to write something mean.

And this is definitely not the first time that Mr. Buckley or someone in his circle accused someone he didn't like of being some kind of crypto-Nazi (a term that Gore Vidal applied to Mr. Buckley himself on Firing Line).

Obviously lost his marbles! Complaining about his wife having died from smoking at the age of 80 is plain nuts.

Grief is no reason to abandon the principles you have lived by your whole life, and I doubt this is what has happened. His age must certainly have caught up with him.

For the record, I understand that Mr. Buckley is going through something very difficult, and has every right to grieve.

However, it is very misguided for him to lash out at other people in this manner.

His son is the author of Thank You for Smoking, which satirizes the anti-tobacco movement. I don't find it becoming for Mr. Buckley to equate the defenders of smoking with Nazis, when his son happens to fall into the category of someone who has defended the personal right to smoke.

So . . . what is William F. Buckley, Jr., trying to insinuate, exactly?

Maybe it's that every advertisement for tobacco products is implicitly commanding: "To a gas chamber -- go!"

can only presume Mike was posting in 'good faith', and notwithstanding my view he is a Socialist..(or he may be a closet libertarian who does not want to lose all his friends so pretends to be a socialist?)...he should read the 10,000 or so other articles written by WFB over the years, along with his non fiction books...(I suggest you avoid his novels as I have read them all and find them very boring).

WFB stood up to be counted, assisted greatly in the creation of the libertarians in America (inaccurately called the 'Conservative Movement') and achieved a great deal.

The rich in America during the 1950s were as wimpy as the rich in New Zealand today, so WFB was certainly a lone voice in the early days.

I say again...Branden was the cause of the falling out with Ayn Rand.
Branden was jealous of Ayn Rand's friendship with WFB and engaged in a substantial amount of s**t stirring to break it up, and then Whittaker Chambers provided the perfect excuse...and the rest is unfortunate.

"I create nothing. I own"

Gee, posting your thoughts here must be like poking a stick in a bees' nest, you are displaying some courage. I think though you must be masochistically looking forward to many irritated responses.

I look forward to further proddings.

Buckley is a fool

I have said before, it is a shame that Ayn Rand and WFB fell out so unnecessarily as they agreed on 90% of issues.

Another point..in the same way few realise we are not 'right wing', WFB is a libertarian rather than conservative...(and Holyoake was a Whig, not a Tory)

The falling out between Rand and Buckley was because of Branden's stirring of the pot...and yes...all rather a shame.

"I create nothing. I own"

I have no sympathy for the man. The Chambers review, of a book Buckley had not bothered to read and did not for many years (if he did at all) was a disgrace, from which Buckley never resiled.

Let's not forget who published the infamous Whitakker Chambers review of Atlas Shrugged. Or who wrote a twisted caricature of Rand in the novel Getting it Right. Surely there has been enough evidence to prove WFB's vile nature.

Buckley is just like any conservative - dumb as a potted plant.Personal responsibility for smoking only applies to lesser mortals like nigras/Maori. Whiteys are excused. Get out the hanky for his po' wife.

 He thinks just like you, actually.

forced her to smoke, I am sure WFB would agree in the rational 'cold light of day'...but he is still suffering grief, and, yes.

If you read the entire article you can feel his pain coming through..so..gosh..yes, there we are..(in view of her age she probably died of natural causes)

"I create nothing. I own"

And who forced her to smoke, exactly?

seems to be engaging in misinterpretation...(which is usual when people talk about good old WFB so, yes, gosh).

WFB is grieving over the loss of his lady Wife a few months ago, an event which saddened a lot of people.
He is wanting someone to blame for her death and wrote that article.

I would not read too much into it.

"I create nothing. I own"