dbc

Ron Paul received, and continues to receive, financial and moral support from neo-nazis and their ilk. Mr. Paul's anti-philosophical approach is evidenced by his unwillingness to (thus far) categorically reject the support of these groups. Dan

I came across an interesting article about some of Ron Paul's supporters and, more importantly, Mr. Paul's willingness to accept such support. The article provides us with an example of Libertarians’ anti-philosophical approach to politics. Paul Supporters Dan

The first picture is stunning. Thank you for the post. Dan

Unfortunately, many of us have experienced the bullying tactics of college professors and administrators. Hamline is providing us with a blatantly obvious example of intellectual bullying. It is this type of behavior that convinced me to join FIRE some years back. Dan

David, Happy Birthday! Dan

The picture is disturbing and hilarious at the same time. Dan

I served from 1986-1990. I was a demolition engineer (12 . Life is much better after basic and AIT. Dan

ryankiel, I am still interested as to whether Mormans believe the rest of the quote: did God "live[] on another planet"? Dan

You ask an interesting, and very broad, question. In essense, she advocated Objectivism because she was a hero worshiper; she wanted to live in a rational world where every individual could actualize his highest potential. Dan

FYI: "Lionsgate has brought on Vadim Perelman to rewrite "Atlas Shrugged" and direct Angelina Jolie in the starring role." AS Movie Update Dan

ryankiel, Someone posted the above regarding Mormon belief. Is it accurate? If not, what is incorrect? Dan

Hello Randall and welcome aboard. Fort Benning, eh? From a former 101st'er, "AirAssault"! What do you do for Uncle Sam? Dan

Rand regards volition as axiomatic; that said, her (and Peikoff's) validation of volition is a tad more subtle than you let on. Rand's point is that the moment you speak of validating an idea, you rely on the existence of volition. With no volition, there can be no appeal to employ one method of validation over another. If the way we think is determined, if the method we employ is inescapable, there is no need (and no possibility) of validating any idea. All you and I can do is accept our conclusions. The moment you try and convince people of your position (or ask them to refute it), you are asking them to consider facts they may not have been aware of or use a method of validation they have yet to try. How could they ever accept this? The are programmed to believe otherwise. To "convince" implies that a person can come to accept a conclusion they previously rejected. Volition can be validated through the simplest act of introspection. Taking up JMegan's point, if you refuse to acknowledge your ability to choose the content of your thought (as well as the way you think and even when you think), there is nothing more to be said. Dan

Q, Congratulations! Whether you "graded on" or wrote on, making Law Review is an impressive academic achievement. (I could go on and on about how smart, insightful and down-right handsome you must be to have made Law Review; of course, I know these things only because I was an Articles Editor on my law school's Law Review. ) I remember how difficult it was for me in coming up with a topic for my Note. My advice is to start by reflecting on what topics within the law interest you. Affirmative Action? The Supreme Court released a remarkable opinion in PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, PETITIONER v. SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 ET AL. 551 U.S. ____ (2007). What about entanglement (via the First Amendment) and issues of standing? Try HEIN, DIR., ET AL. v. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION, ET AL. No. 06-157. Argued February 28, 2007 -- Decided June 25, 2007. Another one I liked: Freedom of Speech and regulation of campaigning: there is a federal law that "makes it a federal crime for a corporation to use its general treasury funds to pay for any “electioneering communication,” [] which [this law] defines as any broadcast that refers to a candidate for federal office and is aired within 30 days of a federal primary election or 60 days of a federal general election in the jurisdiction where that candidate is running". (From the Supreme Court's syllabus); FEC v. WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE, INC.; No. 06-969. Argued April 25, 2007 -- Decided June 25, 2007 Check out U.S. Supreme Court Collection for links to these cases (and pretty much any other Supreme Court case you might ever be interested in). Good luck. Dan

On the domestic front, the Wall Street Journel is reporting that Mr. Paul has asked for $400 million in earmarks. Some $8 million is allegedly for the marketing of American shrimp with another $2.8 million to be spent on shrimp fishing research. From the Wall Street Journal: Wall Street link (subscription required for full article) From the Club For Growth: Club For Growth link Dan

Congratulations! I look forward to reading your essay. Dan

I agree. If possible, the issue(s) to be resolved should be succinctly stated. Dan

Would "identical" include identical twins?

The alienation of affection laws, which have been abolished in almost every state, were originally aimed at keeping one man away from the wife of another. The laws were based, in part, on the idea that a man had an actual property interest in his wife. To that extent, the laws are immoral. The closest legitimate law would be "tortious interference with a contract". In Texas, this law allows for recovery if two parties have a legally binding contract and a third party induces one of the contracting parties to breach the agreement. Unlike a straight-forward breach of contract case, the plaintiff can recover exemplary damages. I do not know if anyone has tried to use this theory of recovery in what would otherwise be an "alienation of affection" lawsuit. Instead of seeking damages for the loss of affection, a plaintiff might ask for damages resulting from the economic harm caused by the breakup. The property interest would not be in the spouse but in the agreement to contribute to each persons' financial success. I think this approach would fail as well for a number of reasons, the most obvious of which might be that the agreement was (putatively) based on each person loving the other. Dan

Interesting set of facts. Generally, a person's liability is cut off by the criminal act of a third party. For example, a driver of a gas tanker falls asleep at the wheel and crashes his truck; as the fuel spills out, somebody comes along and throws a Molotov cocktail at the tanker. Is the driver legally responsible for the buildings that burn down? No. Now, let's say that the driver was traveling through a part of town where, for the pas t 6 weeks, there have been riots (like the suburbs of Paris where setting fire to cars is considered an art form). Under this set of facts, the plaintiff would have a (legally) plausible argument that the criminal act is "reasonably foreseeable". The argument would run something like: 1. you were negligent in handling material that can be used as part of a weapon, 2. you are negligent with it in a part of town where that material is in fact used as a weapon 3. you have reason to know that it will in fact be used that way. The question of whether the car theft was "reasonably foreseeable" (an element in proving negligence) depends on the circumstances. In Texas, there is a well known case where an apartment complex was held negligent when a girl was raped in an empty apartment. As it turns out, the management company was leaving unoccupied apartments unlocked for a year or more; the open apartments were used for drug dealing (and using) with all the attendant violence that brought. The empty apartments were used to commit robberies and muggings. The management company knew all of this but failed to take any steps to secure the un-leased apartments. When the woman sued, it did not take much to show that a reasonable person would be aware that the empty apartments would continue to attract crime. As the car was not in a part of town where car theft was prevalent, the (foolish) man who left his keys in the car would not be liable.

I definitely share your frustration. For every legal action however, we must be able to demonstrate a legally-compensable harm. That is, we have to show how we (you, me, whoever) has been harmed; what right has been violated? and how was it violated? Dan

The law requires exactly that--the judgment debtor has to pay the full amount of the judgment, even if he cannot pay the entire amount the day after the judgment becomes final. There is an important context here: the "law" does not automatically pursue the judgment debtor. As the judgment creditor, you have the obligation to collect on that judgment. As one example, you must obtain the appropriate writ of execution from the court and put it in the hands of a sheriff who can then collect on that judgment. The court system will not chase the judgment debtor for you. If, for some reason, you decide not to collect on your judgment, you do not have to. As you correctly point out, justice is the application of the law of causality to mens' actions. Your question seems to suggest that regarding the judgment creditor--the person who was wronged--as "causing" the wrongdoer to suffer financial hardship by obtaining a judgment against him or by collecting on that judgment. The tortfeasor is bearing the consequences of his actions--instead of the wronged party. If you decide that it would be unjust to collect on your judgment, don't. Not all debts can be extinguished. To stick with your example, certain torts cannot be discharged in bankruptcy: fraud and breach of fiduciary duty are two examples that immediately come to mind. You are correct that, under the corporate umbrella, the investors' liability is limited to their individual investment. I do not understand what you mean by "collectivist entity". Dan

When is sex with a child not unjust? When is sex with a child not an act of violence? Dan

Is it possible to have a breach of contract without the initiation of force? Dan

Under Article II of the Constitution, the President nominates individuals to be federal judges. (These judges are often referred to as "Article III" judges as this is the Constitutional source of their authority.) Once nominated, the Senate must approve the nomination. Article III Judges cannot be removed ("fired") by the President, let alone a political advisor. (No hat eating!) Under Article III, they serve during "good behaviour" and can only be removed by the Senate. (Article I, section 3) Dan