Rebuilding New Orleans Unconstitutional

Walter Williams compiles a number of quotes from America's Founding Fathers and other 19th Century leaders on the limits on government contained in the constitution--specifically on the limits of federal monies directed towards disaster relief.

http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/050921-williams-new-orleans-constitutional.php

Happiness and the free society

An interesting article by Johan Norberg on the connections between freedom, economic growth, and happiness. (Hint: there's a positive correlation between these)

http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/spring05/polspr05-2.htm

(Hat tip to Arts and Letters Daily)

Hanson on Gaza

I am uneasy about the Gaza pullout; unsure it will work and unsure that it is right. But I hopeful too, that it might work out for the best. Victor David Hanson pens an essay that captures that hopefullness and explains just how the Gaza pullout just might be the best strategy in the long term.

On the history of Israel

The following is a response to a post at the Rand-Discussion group at Yahoo Groups. The quotations are from the poster. I do not beleive them to be taken out of context.

-----

Not sure what this post is doing on an Ayn Rand list, but I noticed several gross historical errors in this post. I hestiate to respond because I do not wish to engage in a debate on these issues (because they typically degenerate into something not worthy of discussion). Nonetheless, the errors were egregious enough that some statement needed to be made.

"So with America and its many powerful Jewish citizens behind it, a plan was created to hand over control of Palestinian land to Jews."

First, the Americans had very little involvment in the UN commission that recommended the partition. (The commission was constituted by: Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, India, Iran, the Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay and Yugoslavia) The US did work to create support for the partition in the general assembly vote, but it was hardly America's plan. Second, there was, no doubt, tremendous and vocal support from the American Jewish community for a Jewish state, but the Truman administration was more likely responding to general American support rather than some silly notion of powerful Jewish citizens behind the adminstration (according to some public opinions at the time 65% of American support the establishing of a Jewish state).

Most importantly, there was no plan "to hand over control of Palestinian land to Jews". Prior to Partition, Jews settled on land that was purchased or abandoned. The UN Partition planned called for a division of Palestine into two areas: Jewish and Arab. The partition was based on population. The areas that Jews got were the areas that Jews had a majority or ones that were largely unpopulated/unowned (60% of the Jewish Partition was the Negev desert). And the areas the Arabs were allocated were where Arabs had a majority. Most of the land that was turned over to the nascent Jewish state was land controled by the British Mandatory government and not owned by Arabs.

Hardly a plan to take land away from rightful owners.

"Not one in ten thousand today can tell you what the Palestines were given in return, myself included."

The UN Partition called for a partition into a Jewish and an Arab state. The Jews declared statehood when the Brits left and the partition begin. The Arabs declared war and invaded. So, what the Palestinians were given was the opportunity for an independent state of their own. The leaders of the Arab world chose instead to invade the Israeli state. I don't think any historical scholar believes that had the armies of Syria, Jordan and Egypt pushed the Jews out, that they would have set up an independent state for the Palestinian Arabs. It is more likely they would have divided up the area between the three of them. Evidence for this is the period between 1948 and 1967 when Jordan and Egypt controlled, respectively, the West Bank and Gaza (areas mostly alotted to Palestinian Arabs under the Partition) and did nothing to set up a Palestinian state, deal with refrugees, or establish Palestinian self-rule. (It is also telling that Palestinians didn't begin to call for their own state until after 1967 and these areas were controlled by Israel)

" Israel's troubles are thus partly due to the fact that they as a
nation originated as a UN resolution, and did not grow organically
through a political process that included the voice of indiginous
Arabs."

The state of Israel _did_ grow organically from the early 1900s until 1948. The institutions and organizations that become the State of Israel did not spring into existence on May 15, 1948, but had been developing and growing for decades. Moreover, the Arabs probably had more of a voice than Jews in the process through the other Arab countries in the UN general assembly.

"The US, particularly during the critical
Kissinger years, simply looked aside and gave Israel free reign,
peferring to stall any final settlement talks, allowing Israel more
time to crush insurgents. "

Anyone well versed in the history of US-Israel relations knows how untrue this statement is. The US has always used its close relationship with Israel to hold Israel back. The US was pivotal in getting Israel to give back the Sinai after the Suez War and the 6 Day War (in the US brokered peace treaty with Egypt in 1978). By analogy, giving the Sinai back to Egypt would have been like the US being forced to give Alaska back to the Russians during the height of the Cold War. (There is also a questionable insinuation here that Kissinger -- who's Jewish--played a role in letting Israel have "free reign")

"did it take 911 to make the United
States realize it must force Israel to relinquish its hold on the
occupied territories?"

This is not a historical inaccuracy per se, however, it is based on an incorrect assumption. The US is not forcing Israel out of Gaza. While the adminstration is vocally supporting the plan, it is my understanding that there are many in the adminstration and congress that are against the pullout. Morever, it is also my understanding that this has been an idea floating around Israeli policy circles for years and is largely a homegrown idea.

Also, wouldn't it make more sense, after 9/11, for the US to pressure Israel to stay in Gaza and the other disputed terrorities for the same reasons we are in Iraq: to destroy the centers of terrorist activities?

"[The Israel-Palestinian conflict] has directly lead to the present state of terrorist warfare."

The idea that somehow if Israel didn't exist, that the US wouldn't be under attack from Islamic terrorism is absurd. The Islamists do not hate and attack America(and the West) because of Israel. They hate Israel because it is part of the West. Al Qaeda rhetoric doesn't mention or where it does gives small mention to Israel before and after 9/11. Though sometimes Israel gets prominent place in rhetoric, the thrust of anti-American(Western) hostilities is because we are a symbol of individualism, secularism, and freedom. I suggest the following:
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/navigator/articles/nav+dkelley_ideas-terrorism.asp

Personally, I have my doubts about the disengagement plan. I fear that the Palestinian Arabs will take this as a sign of weakness on the part of Israel and continue terrorism with renewed fervor.

Shawn

Taking Harry Higher

My undergraduate alma mater, Tufts University, recently did a web page cover story on yours truly. You can read the profile here. The web cover page has since changed, but you can see what it looked like here.

For the cover photo, Tufts sent a professional photographer to snap some shots of me. It lasted an hour and half and required a few wardrobe changes. I felt like a real celebrity, it was very odd. But alas, no groupies.

Academia and Rand

An interesting extracurricular discussion at the graduate seminar was to what extent one should be open about his interest in Rand. While I recognize that there are those in academia that are hostile to Rand and her ideas, I personally have never encountered such hostility. Nor have I ever felt that my interest in Rand was held against me in any way.

My experience has always been that what counted was how well I did my work--not what particular beliefs I hold. This is how it should be. I am sure there are those that fall short of upholding this ideal, but that has never given me enough reason to go 'in the closet' about my interest in Rand. I've always been pretty straightforward about what positions I hold, and I don't know how not to be.

There is outright bias against a thinker--which is inappropriate and irrational. This certainly exists in some quarters against Rand. I am less concerned about this. I'd rather not be in a department with faculty who would hold my particular interests and positions against my like that.

But there are legitimate concerns here about someone with a deep and committed interest in a particular thinker. (1) a concern that the individual will have tunnel vision and thereby not have the proper perspective on the whole field of philosophy. (2) a concern that an individual will treat the classroom as a source of philosophical 'converts'. (3) a concern that an individual will be biased in the teaching (and grading) of philosophy.

Such concerns arise regardless of the thinker, but I believe are heightened with a thinker like Rand who is outside of the mainstream of academic philosophy.

I don't think I fall prey to those three concerns. My goal as a teacher has never been to make more Objectivists. Such a goal is completely out of wack in education. My goal is to teach my students how to think, to open their minds to the world of ideas and reason. With this as my goal, those three concerns are not even issues for me. I hope that any potential employers will look at my record and see that as well.

TOC Graduate Seminar

I spent last week in DC at TOC's Graduate Seminar. It was a very productive and engaging week. We went through the corpus of Rand's ethical and politcal thought, as well as some recent criticisms of her thought. We also compared her approach to the approaches of other philosophers who were looking to establish somewhat similar conclusions.

One of the most fruitful parts of the seminar is the papers all the participants have to write. Limited to a very small 5 pages, each student is severely and thoroughly critique in style, technique, and substance. It is a humbling but worthwhile experience.

David Mayer on "Supreme Nonsense"

I've been waiting for a few days for David Mayer to post his thoughts on the recent horrible Supreme Court decisions Raich and Kelo. He's posted his analysis: http://users.law.capital.edu/dmayer/Blog/blogIndex.asp?entry=20050624.asp

I particularly like the selections from the dissenting opinions penned by Justice Thomas. These dissents are hard hitting and make no bones about the the devastating blow to freedom and individual rights these rulings will have. As he says in the Raich dissent "the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution's limits on federal power". We need more justices like Thomas.

Wayback Machine: Funding NPR

With the recent news attention on the possible end to federal funding of public television and radio, I thought I'd a post a link to an old op-ed I wrote on this topic. Save NPR! Not!

It's a bit out of date. 1) There is a possibility that the federal funding will end or decrease (though I actually doubt it) and 2) NPR seems to have veered towards the left even more. I find I can't hardly listen to the news analysis shows anymore. Worse than any bias though is the overall pessimism that seems to pervade the entire broadcast. It's hard to quantify or give examples because its just this general attitude, but what I am left with after listening is negativity and despondency.

A major step backwards

Very disappointing year for the Supreme Court. First they rule against federalism in the medical marijuana case and today they've ruled against private property by allowing local goverments to use emiment domain to take private property for private development. They call this "public use" because the government claims the development is needed for economic development and that economic development is a public good (whatever that means). Further the Court affirmed the idea that a legitimate government function is economic development. This is a major step backwards for freedom.

Update:
Here's the press release from the Institute for Justice announcing the decision:
http://www.ij.org/private_property/connecticut/6_23_05PR.html

And a link to the decisions themselves:
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html

Second Update:
Cox and Forkum editorial cartoon nicely captures the ruling:
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000610.html

The Book Meme

I've seen this on a few blogs, beginning with Diana Hsieh's NoodleFood. I thought I'd take it up. Here's what I came up with:

You're stuck inside Fahrenheit 451, which book do you want to be?
The Maltese Falcon by Dashiell Hammett. My favorite genre, and this one, in large part, gets it going. Plus, how cool would it be to be Humphrey Bogart? (A side note: I am embarrassed to say that I never read Fahrenheit 451, and if you've slacked like me, I'm told that at the end of the book, each character chooses a book to memorize and I guess they become that book for a while)

Have you ever had a crush on a fictional character?
I don't think so. I suppose Dagny Taggart in Atlas Shrugged comes the closest, but that's more like worship than a crush.

The last book you bought is:
Dreams of a Final Theory by Steven Weinberg (Just came today from Amazon)

The last book you read:
False Prophet by Faye Kellerman. Part of the Peter Decker series. It's another detective fiction novel.

What are you currently reading?
The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order by Samuel P. Huntington (just started last night)
Natural Goodness by Philippa Foot (I'm working on a paper on Foot)
Virtues and Reasons: Philippa Foot and Moral Theory by Rosalind Hursthouse, Gavin Lawrence and Warren Quinn

Five books you would take to a deserted island:
Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand (This one is a little too obvious, no?)

The Complete Works of Aristotle Vol 1 & 2. (I could spend my lifetime just studying Aristotle's works)

The Collected Dialogues of Plato (I guess I should have some Plato along with Aristotle. And while I prefer Aristotle to Plato, the dialogues can be quite fun to read.)

William Shakespeare: The Complete Works. (Drama, comedy, poetry: what more would I need)

(I suppose I am cheating a little by taking these complete works anthologies, but they are all books that one could carry with them to the island.)

Who are you going to pass this stick to (3 persons)? And Why?
Karl: if he actually does anything with this, it'll be hilarious.
Patrick: same as Karl, but a lot more cheese.
My Mom: She reads a lot and might enjoy the exercise.

The excess of democracy

David Mayer, my favorite consitutional scholar, explains why the US is not a democracy, but a republic. He goes on to show how the US is suffering from an excess of democracy. Read the essay

Summer Reading

Summer reading is going well. I started with Cicero by Anthony Everitt which was very good. The subtitle is "the life and times of Rome's greatest politician" and it lives up precisely to that subtitle, providing the context in which Cicero lived. Taken largely from Cicero's letters, one gets a feel for what politics was like in Rome. And we think negative ads are bad today! I would have liked to have more on Cicero's philosophical ideas, but Everitt didn't get into that too much.

I try to alternate between fiction and non-fiction, so next I read Herman Wouk's The Hope. This near-epic novel follows the lives of several Israeli's from 1948 to 1967. Weaved in with historical accounts of the politics and wars of the times, the novel is gripping and engaging. A little slow to start, but then it takes off and was nearly impossible to put down. (had a few late nights!) It gives a balanced view of Israel and her people--not demonizing and not worshipping. And it doesn't demonize the Arabs either. Though, of course, the folly and foibles of the Arab militiaries in the different wars comes through crystal clear. (For an excellent account of the 1967 war see Michael Oren's Six Days of War).

I am now reading Jose Ortega's What is Philosophy?. So far, I am sad to say that I am not impressed. My friend Bill Perry recommended reading Ortega (Bill is giving a presentation on Ortega at TOC's Summer Seminar). But so far he's a little too vague to really get a sense of what he's trying to say. Hopefully it will get clear as I get through it.

Schools out!

Well, the long semester has come to a close. I handed in my last paper (sort of) for the semester. The 'sort of' is because I am taking an incomplete in one class and finishing that paper over the summer. I still have grading to do, but that'll all finish up this week.

The incomplete is for an independent study with Stew Cohen on Philippa Foot's metaethical views. I've been reading a bunch of her older articles and her Natural Goodness. Very interesting material. I also took a seminar on Legal Positivism for which I wrote a paper comparing the legal theories of H.L.A. Hart and F.A. Hayek. Hayek is not a legal positivist, but there were some interesting parallels with Hart's legal positivism. And today I finished up a paper on R.M. Hare's performative theory of goodness for the 20th Century Analytic Philosophy seminar.

Now that courses are done, I can focus on some other projects. First on the list is working on my lectures for TOC Summer Seminar. I will be teaching the weeklong "Basics of Objectivism" again. I also plan on re-renting the Natural Law tape course from the library and finishing up my summaries of the lectures.

Patriots Champions Again

You have to love this team. No loud mouths or spoiled sports. All class act, all the time. And they win, even when they don't play as well as they could. What a year for Boston fans!!!

Read more at Boston.com

Natural Law Lecture Nine

Biblical Views of Nature and Law

In this lecture, Koterski discusses some of the religious roots of natural law and the development within religious thinking of the ideas of law, nature, and the connections between the two.

He starts with a discussion based on the Jewish Bible and the importance placed on B’rith or covenant. The theme of a covenant between God and man is one that recurs through out the Jewish Bible. There is the covenant with Adam, then with Noah, then with Abraham, Moses, and King David. Also, Koterski mentions Jeremiah’s prophecy of a new covenant to come that Christians take to refer to Jesus.

This theme of the covenant is important because it sets the terms for the relationship between God and man, and this relationship is one of laws. God commands man to take certain actions and to avoid others, and this is the law. It defines the relationship of God as the sovereign and man as the subject.

In a section that is rather unconvincing, Koterski attempts to find a relationship between this divine command theory of law and the natural law tradition. In natural law, the law is discovered through reasoning and reflection but the divine command is primarily revelation. Koterski argues that natural law will hit upon similar commands. Also, he argues that one can see a kind of inchoate natural kinds theory in the bible when it lays out the distinctions and classification of the creatures.

Next, the wisdom literature is discussed. The most philosophical part of the bible, Koterski argues that it largely deals with the problem of evil and the relationship between goodness and reward/wickedness and punishment. It seems as though overtime the covenants between God and his people changed regarding this relationship of reward and punishment. Under the original covenant with Adam, wrong actions saw immediate punishment. But after Noah, this connection was weakened, and this literature seeks to understand why it was weakened – to allow for human freedom, develop character, etc. – and to show how to act properly even if the connection between the consequences and one’s action is no longer clear.

The relationship to natural law comes in that some of the explanations appear to make an appeal to nature. The claim is that God uses nature to aid his people in coming to see right and wrong, and to cultivate real goodness and justice.

Lastly, we turn to the New Testament and St. Paul. In his Letter to the Romans, we can begin to see more explicit appeals to nature as well as the influence of Stoic thinking. For instance, Paul claims that those who haven’t received the revelation of God’s laws are still responsible for them because God’s will and laws can be known through reflection on the world and nature. One can see what is natural and unnatural, and therefore come to know what is right and what is wrong.

Natural Law Lecture Eight

The Stoic Idea of Natural Law

This lecture primarily focuses on the great Roman statesman and philosopher Cicero. Cicero, according to Koterski, offers the first thorough going presentation of natural law theory. Before going into Cicero, Koterski briefly covers the Stoic ideas that influenced Cicero.

The Stoics focus on the ideal of self-reliance and of living according to “right reason in accord with nature.” This latter idea articulates an important and foundational principle of natural law theory. Cicero will also place this idea at the center of his thought.

The idea of right reason is that humans can reason rightly or wrongly. Right reason is truthfully discerning the nature of things. We can go astray or be on target, but we should strive for discerning truth and reality.

The Stoics thought that by living in accordance with right reason and discovering their true nature, one can live in harmony and happiness. All humans have reason, and if all are self-reliant and practice right reason, society will be harmonious.

According to Koterski, the Stoics also sought to connect nature and law to God. God becomes more personal for the Stoics than with Aristotle or Plato. God also becomes the law-giver. This is important historically because it paves the way for Christian natural law and its notion of a personal God. It also puts ethics under the rubric of law instead of virtue.

Cicero brings much of Stoic thought to Roman society and philosophy. He articulates further the ideals and principles of natural law. He discusses the notion of right reason and the discovery of our nature. He brings into the equation the notion of a kind of punishment or sanction violating natural law. Cicero expresses the Stoic ideal of one law binding on all people at all times. This incorporates a fundamental principle of equality and kinship among all humans.

Cicero was also concerned about enumerating a vision of politics that was not based on power or might, but on justice and law. He saw the natural law has dictating duties and obligations, and that these should guide our actions, personally and politically. He seems to also get at a notion of positive and natural law in the distinction of Jus and Lex. Jus is the notion of justice and right that exists as a matter of nature. Lex is the idea of legislation that is created by humans.

In his expression of morality, Cicero followed the Stoics in insisting on focusing on that which one can control: his own choices and actions. It is here that one must follow right reason and choose well based on one’s nature. In areas outside of one’s control (luck or natural course of events) one can’t choose and ethics is silent.

One can see in the Stoics and Cicero the groundwork for later Christian thinking on natural law and other issues. Naturally, that is the topic for subsequent lectures.

The Horror!

Yankees and Patriots sharing the same winning philosophy? Brady = Jeter!? Belichick = Torre!? It makes me shudder, even gag. Objectively, however, I recognize that there is some truth to the comparison, but the Yankees are still evil and the Patriots everything that is good and right. Read the NYTimes article for more...

Jacksonville Bound!

My New England Patriots are headed back to the Super Bowl for the third time in four years. It is a glorious time to be a Boston sports fan. Super Bowl. World Series. Super Bowl? Go Pats!

Natural Law Lecture Seven

Aristotle on Justice and Politics

This lecture takes a look at Aristotle’s general ethical theory and the ideas that will influence later natural law thinkers. Koterski admits that Aristotle isn’t really a natural law theorist. Aristotle doesn’t articulate his views on ethics in terms of law, but in terms of virtue.

Koterski discusses Aristotle doctrine of the mean and four central virtues: Prudence, Courage, Temperance, and Justice. He focuses on the contrast Aristotle draws between our nature and our second-nature—that is, between natural dispositions and virtue. We are born with natural dispositions to act and to be certain ways. Virtue requires that we take those natural dispositions and develop them with the goal of being excellent at what we do.

In this way, for Aristotle, virtue is natural in that it is the development and ultimate fulfillment of our nature. Ultimately, these virtues are explainable by reference to our natural function. According to Aristotle, this is rationality. It is what makes us what we are; and so, to be most truly what we are, we need to perform our function excellently. This means that all our actions and activities have to be informed by the principle of reason. This understanding of our function directs us towards the outlines of ethics and politics.

This leads Koterski into a discussion of Aristotle’s view on justice. Justice is, for Aristotle and most of the classical thinkers, what is due, what is fair. The virtue of justice is, then, the virtue of behaving in ways that appropriately gives and takes what is fair. Aristotle argues that we have a natural sense of what is due and what is fair and that this natural justice needs to inform and stand behind the positive law created by communities.

In this sense, Aristotle is coming close to a natural law theory. He even talks of the common law of nature that can be known by all and that needs to be the basis for judging positive law. Next up, the Stoics.