You seem to be suggesting that you agree with the comment below:

"But on any point of intellectual integrity, there is not one of them (referring to liberals) whom I would trust for ten minutes alone in a room with a red-hot stove, unless the stove were comparatively valueless."

Doesn't your intellect, on some level at least, resist the temptation to capture the integrity of an entire group of people by a general term like "Liberal".

This practice, and the ease with which so many are inclined to use it, is really beyond my comprehension. It is as though some people can only mentally function if the world, its people, and their beliefs can be equated with one of the two labels of "Good" or "Evil".

These simplified thinkers seem lost if they must see the structures of humanity as a large swath of gray between the absolutes of good and evil. It would seem that their comfort level is only restored when they, by choice or prodding, take all that is gray and ladle it into the bucket labeled "Evil".

There is one thing that I can say with an absolute belief in its truth. The world, its people, and their beliefs will never be reduced by a rational mind to descriptors like "Good" or "Evil" or, as it appears you believe, "Good" or "Liberal". And for the irrational among us who believe (or pretend) that they can please feel free to ladle yourself into the bucket labeled "Wrong".

You have to keep in mind that at the time Nock was writing, Liberal had a different meaning than it does today. For example, the group Nock differentiates as "Tory" in the quote above, and the group he differentiates as "radicals", would both be labelled today as liberal groups.

I do think that there are some people (those Nock referred to as Liberal, and that I would call hard-Left) who are totally intellectually dishonest and also to the left of center. I think that there is also a group of totally intellectually dishonest people to the right of center.

I consider myself a classical liberal, actually; but I'm not a progressive.

I don't think, as you state, that the world divides into "good" and "evil" or "good" and "liberal" or for that matter "good" and "conservative". I do think that some people are good, some people are evil, and most people fall in the middle. By and large, I think most people are basically good, though most people also have dark corners that are, at best, uncomfortable to explore. I also don't think that whether someone is basically good or basically evil has much to do with their ideology, except to the extent that basically evil people are often (not always) drawn to totalitarian systems, and basically good people are often (not always) drawn away from totalitarian systems.

Nor does Nock label "Liberals" as "evil". He does label that group as intellectually dishonest. And on the particular group he's referring to (again, a subset of what we would today call "Liberal"), I happen to agree with him. But even if I didn't, the writing is excellent, and humorous, and that in and of itself makes it worth drawing attention to.

My point is still the same whether the label is "Evil" or "Intellectually Dishonest". A scale made up of any two words is not sufficient to decide the worth of a group. That measurement can only be made with an honest refutation of the pillar ideas that support that group.

To label a liberal of any stripe (from middle to left) as intellectually dishonest is not a refutation of anything meaningful. If you wish to discredit a group then tear at its pillar ideas - don't simply spray paint their facade with graffiti.

That's a pretty unfair way to characterize Nock's point, as he never does descend - at least in what little I read - into a binary mode of characterization. His arguments are generally (again, from what I've read) well-reasoned and careful, rather than just "spray paint[ing] ... with graffiti".

Are you saying that there is not an identifiable subset of people who are intellectually dishonest and can be described as "liberal" in some form? (Or, for that matter, that there is not a similar group that can be descibed as "conservative" in some form?) If there is such a group, and if Nock goes out of his way (as he does) to differentiate that group from other groups that we would also call "liberal", why is it wrong to call them what they are?

Actually, let me be a little more clear: "evil" and "intellectually dishonest" are not equivalents. "Intellectually dishonest" is itself a point on a spectrum, rather than an absolute. And I have no problem with Nock's point as stated.

Remember the point I was making was with respect to Nocks' statement below:

"But on any point of intellectual integrity, there is not one of them (referring to liberals) whom I would trust for ten minutes alone in a room with a red-hot stove, unless the stove were comparatively valueless."

And my point is that this statement is no more defensible that if I was to say that all German people are arrogant because I have met several German people who treated me with complete contempt. All I can truthfully say, if I wish to remain intellectually honest, is that for example, a German person was arrogant because he treated me disrespectfully by huffing and walking away when I asked him the time. This last statement is very much different then making a complete negative generalization onto an entire group by saying that all Germans are arrogant.

What Nock states quite explicitly is that all liberals lack intellectual integrity. What Nock does not do is prove his case. Let me see if I am following his logic correctly - because a man believes in taxes that is sufficient to prove the case that he lacks intellectual integrity. Using that kind of logic I would be able to state that the man I see walking north down the street here in Orlando Florida is making his way to the North Pole.

The ironic thing about Nocks' statement is that, in my opinion, he is the one who is displaying intellectual dishonesty by insulting a group because they simply have a set of ideas that are different then his. How is Nocks' statement any less ridiculous then if I was to say I think all conservatives are stupid because they want to do away with Social Security.

I read his comment a little differently: there is a group of people who call themselves Liberals (note: he differentiates these from other kinds of people that we today would also call liberal), who supported income tax and inheritance taxes (among other measures) to extend the coercive control of the State, and whose powers of self-persuasion are such that they can convince themselves that any extension of State power is for the larger good, which is an intellectually dishonest position.

I think, frankly, that you could make a better case by reading Nock's work in full, as you would then be arguing from knowledge.