Thanks very much, Justin! I have consistently appreciated your posts to
the list, but "Spheres of Society" is the first extended commentary of
yours I've read, and I love it. In the first place, the concept of
spheres is a crucial, and illuminating, one. That allows you to make
the point much more neatly than I did about libertarians tending to
universalize the sphere of equity (or, as Roback Morse says, rejecting
the family model of the family). But I'm also delighted with the
particular values you take as your own. I don't think there's anything
the libertarian movement needs more. I have a clear sense that my paper
could have benefited from coauthoring with you.
Thanks also for forwarding Che's response. I certainly think of myself
as having understood Lakoff's models of the state as metaphors--he's
certainly clear about that himself. But it's possible that Che is
making a point I'm still missing. Perhaps you or he can clarify for me
at some point. In any event, it's commonplace for metaphors to come to
lose their metaphoric quality, and to be taken for real. Szasz, as you
know, has made that problem the basis of several of his books. And I
think what is really at stake here--perhaps Lakoff would agree--is the
_emotional_ reality of these models.
I posted my response to Edelstein this morning with some trepidation,
knowing that I was embarrassing myself by airing my narcisstic injury.
But your message just reinforced the hell out of my speaking up!