Freespace

John Adams's marginalia

Some of it is available online. Snarky, but often brilliant, and relevant to today's Middle East problems. My favorite, from his copy of Mary Wollstonecraft's book on the French Revolution:

How was it possible to bring twenty-five millions of Frenchmen Who had never known or thought of any law but the King's will to rally round any free constitution at all? A constitution is a standard, a pillar, and a bond when it is understood, approved, and beloved. But without this intelligence and attachment, it might as well be a kite or balloon, flying in the air.

These machines called constitutions are not to be taken to pieces and cleaned or mended so easily as a watch.

Did this lady think three months time enough to form a free constitution for twenty five millions of Frenchmen? 300 years would be well spent in procuring so great a blessing, but I doubt whether it will be accomplished in 3,000. Not one of the projects of the Sage of La Mancha was more absurd, ridiculous, or delirious than this of a revolution in France per saltum from a monarchy to a democracy. I thought so in 1785 when it was first talked of. I thought so in all the intermediate time, and I think so in 1812....

How was liberty secured by the Declaration of Rights? No more than their innocence and obedience by the Decalogue, i.e. the Ten Commandments. Besides there were not two men in fifty who believed in those rights. There were in France twenty times as many who believed in the King's divine right....

I would rather call the natural, civil, and political rights of man the foundations than the pillars. If they are pillars, they must stand upon a firm foundation. Is a declaration then a foundation? No more than a heap of sand or a pool of water. They stand as firmly without a declaration as with, if nothing more is done. Laws and guardians of laws must be made and guardians to watch one another.

A declaration of these rights will have no more influence than the Ten Commandments without laws executed.

My article on the political philosophy of Star Trek in the Claremont Review of Books

The latest issue of the Claremont Review of Books has my piece on Star Trek and the decline of liberalism. You need a subscription to read it, but here's an excerpt:

In Star Trek’s humanist vision, totalitarianism was only one manifestation of the dehumanizing forces that deprive mankind (and aliens) of the opportunities and challenges in which their existence finds meaning. In “Return of the Archons,” for example, Kirk and company infiltrate a theocratic world monitored and dominated by the god Landru. The natives are placid, but theirs is the mindless placidity of cattle. In the past, one explains, “there was war. Convulsions. The world was destroying itself. Landru…took us back, back to a simple time.” The people now live in ignorant, stagnant bliss. Landru has removed conflict by depriving them of responsibility, and with it their right to govern themselves. When Kirk discovers that Landru is actually an ancient computer left behind by an extinct race, he challenges it to justify its enslavement of the people. “The good,” it answers, is “harmonious continuation…peace, tranquility.” Kirk retorts: “What have you done to do justice to the full potential of every individual? Without freedom of choice, there is no creativity. Without creativity, there is no life.” He persuades Landru that coddling the people has stifled the souls it purported to defend, and the god-machine self-destructs.

This theme is made more explicit in “The Apple,” perhaps the quintessential episode of the original Star Trek. Here Kirk unashamedly violates the “Prime Directive”—the rule forbidding starship captains from interfering with the cultures they contact—by ordering the Enterprise to destroy Vaal, another computer tyrant ruling over an idyllic planet. Like Landru, Vaal is an omniscient totalitarian, and he demands sacrifices. The natives, known only as “people of Vaal,” have no culture, no freedom, no science—they do not even know how to farm—and no children, as Vaal has forbidden sex along with all other individualistic impulses. This sets Kirk’s teeth on edge. There are objective goods and evils, and slavery is evil because it deprives life forms of their right to self-government and self-development.

Why is modern art so bad?

An excellent piece, via Prager University.

This fall’s forthcoming books—can’t wait!

Some exciting stuff on my pre-order list:

The Autobiography of James T. Kirk – Sept. 8 

Max Hastings, The Secret War – Sept. 10 

Richard Dawkins, Brief Candle in The Dark – Sept. 29

John Fogerty, Fortunate Son – Oct. 6. 

The Autobiography of Mark Twain, vol. 3 – Oct. 15 

Oh, and, the second edition of Cornerstone of Liberty is now available for pre-order on Amazon.com.

Speaking at Cato Constitution Day Conference Sep. 17

I'll be speaking at the Cato Institute's Constitution Day Conference on Sept. 17, where I'll be discussing the Supreme Court's N.C. Dental decision. My article on the case will also appear in the new Cato Supreme Court Review.

Errata in Conscience of The Constitution

I'm very late in creating an errata sheet for Conscience of The Constitution, but here it is. So far I have only one significant error to report, but will update if people will email me with errors they spot.

On page 169, note 69, I say that Justice Samuel Chase was Justice Salmon Chase's great-grandfather. This was in error. They were not related; Salmon did have a great-grandfather named Samuel, but he was a different guy. Who knew? But I am correct in saying that Salmon was paraphrasing Justice Samuel Chase in this paragraph.

I also made a number of minor corrections before the paperback edition appeared, but they're just typos, so I won't list them here.

Please email me if you find an error, and I'll post it! Thanks!

(I have an errata sheet for Right to Earn A Living here. I didn't make one for Cornerstone of Liberty yet, but the second edition is coming in February and I'll put one together then.)

2/16/16 - Chief Justice John Vaughan's name is misspelled on p. 99.

8/3/16 - On p. 67, I say the Colfax Massacre happened on the same day the Slaughterhouse Cases were announced. Slaughterhouse was announced April 14, 1873. Off by a day: the Colfax Massacre was on April 13. (People often get the date of Slaughterhouse wrong. It appears in the 1872 volume of the U.S. Reports (vol. 83) because it was argued in the 1872 term. But the opinion itself says it was announced in April of 1873.)

1/30/17 - On p. 178, n. 69, Hurtado is misspelled Hurdado.

Tim the Lawyer on the EPA spill and Seattle trash-snooping

If you missed my conversation on Armstrong & Getty this morning about Single-Payer Environmentalism and about PLF's lawsuit against Seattle's garbage-spies, you can listen online here.

Single-payer environmentalism

...is a recipe for disaster(s).

D.C. Circuit rejects rehearing petition in PLF's Obamacare case

All the details at the PLF Liberty Blog.