Freespace

The state as the least bad alternative

Cato Unbound has an excellent essay by Mark S. Weiner arguing that whatever its shortcomings, the state as a political entity is better than its likely alternative: clan rule. I remember having similar thoughts when Christina and I got married. As atheists, we occasionally face various forms of discrimination (fortunately only rarely, and typically minor) but we were still able to get married because we could obtain a civil marriage through the state. Lucky us. In centuries past, that alternative might not have been open to us. In this way, the state provided us with a service that in other times and places has not been available: secular marriage.

Obviously, if it were permitted, secular marriage could be provided by private institutions in today's America. That's not my point here. My point is that this experience brought to mind how the state often provides us with real benefits by offering institutions that are "atomistic" instead of being based on "the whole person." This, as Weiner states, is exactly why those who romanticize hierarchy and tradition are often found opposing the existence of the state, or arguing for its minimalization. Good examples include Russell Kirk, Robert Nisbet, Richard Weaver, Richard Reinsch, and other agrarian, communitarian, anti-individualist conservatives. And this is why I think that it is not enough to simply be "anti-state."

The economics of Dallas Buyers Club

Here's an excellent discussion of the economic issues in the film Dallas Buyers Club.

You can take action against the abuses highlighted in the movie--and in this video--by supporting Right to Try legislation in your home state.

The Supreme Court should be ashamed, or, why I now favor cameras in the courtroom

For a long time, I’ve agreed with Justice Breyer* that cameras shouldn’t be put in the U.S. Supreme Court. Cameras change things in a qualitative way, in our fame-obsessed culture, and in addition to altering the dynamic of the legal process, I think it would increase the security risk. It would encourage grandstanding, discourage honest questions and answers, and nudge the Supreme Court in the direction that Congress and the Executive Branch have already gone—pushing all substantive proceedings into the background and fostering the development of a stylistic façade. Many find these arguments weak, and they’ve got pretty strong arguments: much of what the Court already does is stylistic façade, they say, and the Court has always done its really substantive proceedings in secret anyway. Still, on this subject, I’ve always tended to traditionalism.

That all changed last week, when the Supreme Court issued a falsified transcript and audio recording of the oral arguments in Octane Fitness v. Icon Health & Fitness. This isn’t an exaggeration—the Court itself has now acknowledged that the recording is falsified, And I suspect the transcript is, too.

By that I mean, the transcript and recording purport to be accurate descriptions of what was uttered in the courtroom, but prior to being issued, at least one of those records was altered on the orders of Court personnel to delete material that the personnel decided to withhold, and then released without any acknowledgement of alteration. Only later did the Court admit that this had occurred—although the records still lack any acknowledgement of their alteration.

You may think this is a minor matter, and of course the episode itself is rather trivial. The “protestor” is pretty obviously wrong on the substance (Citizens United was clearly correctly decided) and his form of protest was childish, unproductive, and offensive.

Nevertheless, it occurred. It occurred during a hearing and was recorded by the official recorders. The Court’s rewriting of an official government record of proceedings, without acknowledgment of that alteration, is without justification or authority, and the underlying principle is absolutely critical.

[Update: To be clear, the Court's spokesman said the recording had been "redacted." It was not. A redacted document makes clear to the reader that certain parts are withheld. Here, the record was falsified, meaning, altered in a way so as to disguise the fact that material was removed. Redacted would be bad enough. Here the record was secretly altered.].

New review of Conscience

Given that the mis-named Liberty Law Blog has a decidedly communitarian, even state-rights, bias, it's unsurprising that they don't like the book much.

A superb article on Ukraine and our domestic "realists"

from James Kirchick. What he says of Stephen Cohen could be said of any number of alleged "realists," as well as those who prioritize nonintervention over liberty in their considerations of foreign policy.