Weekend Movie Link: Ultimate SCOTUS Godwin

Oliver Wendell Holmes haters and message movie buffs alike, take note: Stanley Kramer's high-fiber warhorse Judgment At Nuremberg contains what may be Hollywood's greatest slag at the statist Supreme Court justice. From the two-minute mark here:

 

This sequence was probably a bit daring when the movie came out in 1961, at the height of the liberal consensus. As Damon Root has noted, his views on involuntary human sterilization were just one ingredient in Holmes' stinky soup of grotesque legal philosophies, also including but not limited to amoral service to state power, contempt for free speech, and disregard for property rights. That's not even mentioning his authorship of that greatest of all non-sequiturs: the one about how taxes are the price we pay for civilization.

I cannot in good conscience recommend Judgment At Nuremberg, though in addition to the above kick at Holmes, the movie provided gainful employment to Judy Garland and Monty Clift when they needed it; gave substantial pre-Kirk and pre-Klink roles, respectively, to William Shatner and Werner Klemperer; and is probably Stanley Kramer's best movie -- which admittedly is like talking about Ryan Leaf's greatest NFL season. Also, on one of the DVD featurettes the film's writer speaks for exactly 48 seconds before comparing the Holocaust to the blacklisting of Hollywood screenwriters -- a story in which Kramer's own role was less liberal than he wanted people to believe. Live by Godwin, die by Godwin...

And what's up with message movies today? Going strong, apparently: The Princess and the Frog ("No matter the race, or color of your skin, all dreams are possible") and Invictus ("It is not so much a sports movie as it is about the power of sports") are both said to be full of highly digestible bits of civic goodness.

And if you thought James Cameron's Avatar was just going to be about helicopters fighting dinosaurs, the director explains that his new movie contains at least $300 million worth of timely and topical message: "[C]ertainly it is about imperialism in the sense that the way human history has always worked is that people with more military or technological might tend to supplant or destroy people who are weaker, usually for their resources. We're in a century right now in which we're going to start fighting more and more over less and less. The population ain't slowin' down, oil will be depleted - we don't have a great Plan B for energy in this country right now, notwithstanding Obama's attempts to get people to focus on alternative energy. We've had eight years of the oil lobbyists running the country." 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Yo, fuck James Cameron:

    Is there an industry with a bigger carbon footprint than moviemaking? That flick cost something like $300 million to make. How many “natural cycles of life on earth” did it disrupt in the process? How much evil, evil carbon dioxide was produced? How many continents’ worth of mango trees would you need to plant to make up for it? Why is it okay for James Cameron to devote whole rooms full of energy-sucking computers — and the Red Bull-sucking nerds in front of them — to creating photorealistic cat people, but I get a lecture when I leave my cell phone charger plugged in?
  • The Libertarian Guy||

    And nothing but the noise of crickets from the Tonys and Chads of the world...

  • ||

    So you have a problem with capitalism and freedom of speech now?

    James Cameron has every right in the world to make a $300 million movie and talk about Bush being an oil company stooge and there's nothing you can do about it, you petty little person.

    Libertarianism has never been about capitalism, of course.

    It is about the tiny wannabe-players who don't know how to avoid paying their taxes, the small business men who are too incompetent or insufficiently connected to get the resources needed to create greatness, whether it is in movies or anything else for that matter.

    Libertarians are afraid of real capitalism, because they know that they cannot succeed in the real capitalist world, so they escape to this a mythical "happy place" of libertopian capitalism.

    "Avatar" is here, James Cameron will make billions, and you think you're a dissident and a rebel because you "refuse" to recycle.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Admirable work, crayon. You were going for the world record of "most strawmen set up in a single thread comment", right?

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    But of course, your style of commentary was never about real insight or analysis. It's about superficial pith and intellectualism.

  • Suki||

    Good morning APOG!

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Good morning, Suki!

  • charles montgomery||

    LOL..

    the pogster comments himself..

    THAT's libertarianisim.. osity.. ness!

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Wha-? What am I, a minor celebrity?

  • Suki||

    No MySpace friend of mine is minor, APOG ;)

  • ||

    Outstanding retort! I couldn't have said it better myself. This site is full of whiney assholes. Pwned.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Outstanding retort! I couldn't have said it better myself. This site is full of whiney assholes. Pwned.

    I agree. There are a few too many whiny assholes like Ray Butlers trolling this site. PWNED.

  • Paul||

    He's right, "real capitalism" as it's practiced in this country is about state power, public/private partnerships, campaign payoffs, transfer payments, and eminent domain takings via well-connected real estate moguls who make strategic and surgical campaign contributions to the right public officials. This is America's capitalism, it's the capitalism of Democrats and the New Left. You built it, now live in it.

  • Warty||

    DURRR HURRR DURRRR
    GOOD POINT CRAYON
    LIBERTOIDS HATE CAPITALISM
    DURR HURR HURRRR

  • ||

    Libertarianism is a philosophy of capitalist impotence.

    Libertarians wonder why they, they who worship and sacrifice at the altar of the "Free Market" God, are not billionaires and why their banana stand idea hasn't turned into a multinational franchise.

    Why is George Soros rich?
    Why is James Cameron rich?

    They don't worship the God of the Free Market.

    So they come to the conclusion that it's not their fault, because it's never their fault.

    It's because the free market itself has been perverted, violated by the government with rules and regulations.

    And just like the communists who claim that the Soviet Union was not real communism in action, the libertarians claim that the current implementation of capitalism is wrong and not an example of "real capitalism."

  • ||

    You are so stupid it hurts.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    +1.

  • Warty||

    DURR HURR HURRRR
    TELL ME MORE UR SO SMRT
    LOL GOD OF THE FREE MARKET HURRR
    HURRR HURR DURRR

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    crayon, at least we don't worship at the altar of government.

    Paid your penance lately? Lord Obama is not pleased if you don't keep up.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    What the fuck are you trying to say, crayon?

    BTW, nice attempt at role-reversal.

  • ||

    That libertarians are actually afraid of real, existing, actual capitalism, since it doesn't work in their favor.

    That's why they're extolling the virtues of an imaginary form of capitalism that never existed and never will.

    It's an appealing ideology for the small business owners who are wondering why they are still small, because it gives them something external to blame (government, regulation, taxes, etc.), instead of their own incompetence.

    Suddenly they have an explanation why their website "piercedkittennipples.com" isn't as popular as facebook:

    it's because of taxes, EPA and FDA regulation, and government-loving statists, of course!

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Wow, crayon, you're pretentious and ignorant.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    "it's because of taxes, EPA and FDA regulation, and government-loving statists, of course!"

    He did get this part right.

  • ||

    Don't forget shallow and pedantic.

  • JG||

    Because unlike you - he did it for the best intentions - to spread awareness about how people like him are destroying the earth.

  • ||

    When I saw some stills I was intrigued, but seeing the trailer revealed that Avatar is basically The Last Samurai with blue people replacing the Japanese. Pass.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    WRONG! It's Dances with Wolves.

  • ||

    Fools! It's The Smurfs Springtime Special. And guess what? WE'RE GARGAMEL.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    You win the ironic pop-psych sweepstakes, Epi.

  • ||

    You can be Azrael, Art.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Wait, the cat or the Archangel of Death?

  • ||

    The dirty little secret is that they are one and the same.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Whoa...heavy, man.

  • Suki||

    It is settled. You would all rather be in Avatar than in Gaza.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Hell yeah. Avatar has Sigourney Weaver, Michelle Rodriguez and the (very funny IMO) Joel Moore. Gaza only has (the admittedly good) Paradise Now.

  • Suki||

    I like the way John wrote Gaza being nice in the future. West Bank, notsomuch.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Who the hell are the subtitles for?

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    The hearing impaired. Why do you hate the deaf, FoE?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    They just don't listen.

  • Suki||

    I almost soaked my laptop with that one, LOL.

  • brett l||

    Winner.

  • LJM||

    I'm sorry Tim, but certainly you meant to say that Stanley Kramer's best movie was, "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World."

    You just had to have meant that.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    In my house we call that picture Antidote to Laughter.

  • Suki||

    Tim? That movie is funny! It isn't Spaceballs, but it is funny.

  • ||

    My one word review of Spaceballs: Shitballs.

  • Suki||

    You have no taste.

  • charles montgomery||

    eh.. that's probably more a comment about who you've tasted..

  • Suki||

    Bad charlie! Beloved bf tastes dreamy! Except when he chews tobacco and doesn't warn me :(

  • ||

    +1

  • Robert||

    It was funny. And the TV serial Lost contains some visual and one lexical reference to it as a clue to the plot. At one time I thought it also had a musical allusion to it, but it turns out both go back to an older source on that. Lost's allusions to the movie are also an indirect reference to the play the movie was named for, A Mad World, My Masters.

    What was really bizarre, however, was when eBay advertised on the radio using the main theme from the movie and calling themselves the world's biggest treasure hunt. Self deprecating? Seems like bad psychology to me.

  • ||

    We've had eight years of the oil lobbyists running the country.

    It just never gets old.

  • ||

    It never gets old cuz it's still true. Just because you're "tired" of hearing something doesn't make it any less true. Only a genuine egomaniac like you would assume that his own personal will drives the world.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    It never gets old cuz it's still true. Just because you're "tired" of hearing something doesn't make it any less true. Only a genuine egomaniac like you would assume that his own personal will drives the world.


    And what is wrong with oil?

  • Suki||

    I *heart* oil! We couldn't keep our pickup trucks running without it.

  • EJ||

    and now we have 8 years of GE, Goldman Sachs and a whole bunch of other companies rent seeking off of cap and trade running the country

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    This is the kind of political commentary you can expect with the sort of unchecked CanadianImmigration that individuals like Cameron take advantage of.

  • Suki||

    Canadians, they walk among us.

  • Roddy Piper||

    They live!

  • Suki||

    They have opposing thumbs to blend in with our kind!

  • Rich||

    Why is it okay for James Cameron to devote whole rooms full of energy-sucking computers ... to creating photorealistic cat people, but I get a lecture when I leave my cell phone charger plugged in?

    This is a $64T question.

  • ||

    Hardly. I think get lectured by your wife or your children is entirely a personal problem. Leave James Cameron out of it.

  • ||

    Speaking of those pesky Canadians, some Canuck science fiction writer [utterly unknown to yrs trly] got beaten up and peppersprayed detained at the border. You'll have to check Google News yourself; I'm lazy.

    BoingBoing is apparently on the case (for what that's worth).

  • SIV||

    I've never heard of him but my new SF consumption is nil these days.
    http://www.google.com/hostedne.....wD9CI42A00

  • ||

    I'm sure Cory Doctorow is jumping to conclusions as we speak. And blogging about incredibly lame "steam punk" shit.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Nothing says Oscar like a director badmouthing the previous administration and/or testifying in the Church of Obama. Cameron may just come out of this with a Nobel.

  • ||

    Evidence please.

  • Jesse Walker||

    is probably Stanley Kramer's best movie -- which admittedly is like talking about Ryan Leaf's greatest NFL season

    I haven't seen Judgment at Nuremberg -- nor am I eager to -- but of the Kramer pics I've sat through, I'd say The Defiant Ones is the most watchable.

  • ||

    I can't even remember if I made it through On The Beach, which probably means I didn't.

  • SIV||

    I think it ends with the guys on the submarine heading home.If that's the end I made it through.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Speaking of guys on a submarine heading home, the ending to Das Boot was incredibly depressing.

  • Ted S.||

    Apparently, you made it through that end twice. :-p

    (Actually, I believe after Gregory Peck et al. get on the submarine, it then goes on to show a bunch of scenes with nobody, basically making the point that everybody's dead now.)

  • ||

    Nobody makes it through On The Beach, that's kind of the point.

    THERE IS STILL TIME, BROTHER!

  • ||

    Let me guess, you couldn't stop sobbing after the one guy got out of the sub and swam to shore so he could spend his last days at home, puking, shitting, and scratching himself to death.

  • brett l||

    Actually, it was a great movie up until the end. "Waltzing Matilda" played in at least 3 different times, Fred Astaire doesn't dance a lick... And then the crashingly bad final scene... Like we made through 110 minutes and didn't get the message.

  • jester||

    If the Nuremberg trials could have just ended allowing former Nazis to go the way of Mr. Carradine, orgasmic asphyxian accidents, it could be said that they all got off.

    And we would be spared the holier-than-thou Progressive puritanism.

    Cute device in the flick. Yes OWH may have opined such, but, but it was never used to silence a political opponent.

    Ironicaly that is sums up what sooo sucks about Progressives: it's te motive, not the crime.

  • jester||

    is=it (last sentence)

  • Robert||

    I keep mixing it up with On the Waterfront, just like I mix up One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest with To Kill a Mockingbird and Top Gun with Tough Guys.

  • mummer||

    This is the first time I've heard "slag" used this way. I wonder if it will eventually mean "cigarette."

  • MNG||

    What in the fuck is up with the Oliver Wendell Holmes hate around here? It's like every week there is a two minute hate on a long dead historical figure.

    Not only is it strange, but it's also stupid. Holmes voted with a UNANIMOUS court in the Debs case. Yep, that's right, every single judge. The Buck case was 8-1 with the dissenting justice offering no opinion (before there was substantive due process there simply was no way for the Court to nullify Va's sterilization law: what part of the Constitution did it violate?). Noted conservative, dare I even say proto-libertarian justices such as Devanter, Sutherland and McReynolds (who later weilded the "freedom to contract" doctrine to strike down early wage and hour laws as well as much of the early New Deal) voted to uphold the law. Why no Willis Van Devanter or George Sutherland weekly hates? The same is true for the Insular Cases (what are classically considered the Insular Cases were decided BEFORE Holmes even got on the freaking' court; but I suppose Reason is referring to Balzac v. Porto Rico a UNANIMOUS freaking opinion).

    But the "contempt for free speech" charge is the apex of this ignorance. Holmes ruled with UNANIMOUS majorities stomping on speech in his early years on the Court, though in doing so he crafted a test that would later be used to curb such stompings. Then later he broke from the rest of the Court along with Brandies and fashioned the foundation of the permissive (in comparison to what the other justices were pushing in his day) free speech law we enjoy today. This evolution can be followed from Schenck v. United States and Debs to Abrams v. United States and Whitney v. California.

    Jesus people read something other than a blog every now and then...

  • jester||

    Read Menand's 'Metaphysical Club.' You'll see what a founder he was of Progressivism.

    The hate here of OWH centers around his contribution to Progressivism- anathema to all libertarians.

    Read the book. It's not a blog and it's not written in anyway as a diatribe towards Progressives.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Progressivism: The political equivalent of fucking the rotting corpse of a gazelle.

  • MNG||

    If you knew anything about Holmes you would know that he would certainly NOT be a Progressive today. Hell, I don't think you could make the case he was then. His philosophy of judicial restraint just happened to favor some Progressive causes of the day because they were in the majority. That's how judicial restraint (the favored judicial philosophy of CONSERVATIVES today btw) works: it defers to majorities.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    I wasn't talking about Holmes; I was talking about progressivism.

  • ||

    Holmes' opinion does not make the argument you make, MNG. It is not a lament over a stupid but constitutional law (a la Clarence Thomas in Lawrence v Texas), but a full-throated defense of eugenics.

  • MNG||

    Yes, one every justice but Butler signed onto (and Butler himself could not muster an opinion). As noted above this included the main "freedom of contract" justices who are much celebrated bt libertarians for their opinions such as Lochner. So, if Holmes was a "proto-liberal" then the interesting question is why did the "proto-libertarians" and conservatives on the bench side with him on this case (and all the other cases noted above that make Holmes so awful)?

  • ||

    1. At that point in history, libertarians were called "liberals". So justices considered "conservative" at the time were clearly NOT libertarians.

    2. Even if they were libertarians, so what? Does the fact that proto-libertarian Thomas Jefferson owned slaves excuse every other slave owner of the time?

  • MNG||

    Why doesn't Reason hate on Jefferson for all the areas he fell into line with his times and fell short of libertarian ideals like they do OWH?

    But, those justices I mentioned did have proto-libertarian views, ones that are still much heralded by CURRENT libertarians. In fact Damon Root himself has wrote with loving affection about their Lochner et al opinions.

    So, what's up with the hating on OWH for Buck but not the libertarian co-signers?

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    It's done strictly to get under your skin, MNG.

  • MNG||

    Art
    I think I know why its done, it's this partly true but simplistic meme of "Liberals love OWH" + "Liberals are insufferably preachy"="Hey look, your hero won't so perfect!"

    The first part of that is somewhat questionable (liberals might like his free speech and Lochner stuff but his judicial restraint is embraced by conservatives, certainly not liberals who developed modern substantive due process law). The second part is sadly all too true. But the conclusion is silly at best.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Fair enough, MNG. But, look: TC shook crayon-troll and Morris-troll out of the weeds with this one, so you've gotta give him some credit here.

  • robc||

    Because Jefferson was mostly fucking right!

    How hard is this to fucking understand? Holmes was never fucking right in his entire fucking life about any fucking thing ever.

  • robc||

    My hate for OWH is that he was virtually never right. His baseball decision was brutally awful.

    Scalia and Thomas are often wrong, but the hate is weak because they are often right (especially Thomas). There is no up side to Holmes.

  • ||

    What in the fuck is up with the Oliver Wendell Holmes hate around here?

    Oh, I don't know... Maybe it has something to do with his having been an autocratic pig who permitted the government to commit brutal mutilations of innocent people?

    Holmes voted with a UNANIMOUS court in the Debs case.

    So, the other members should have been hanged, too. What's your point?

    -jcr

  • Hugh Akston||

    Pointing to the wrongdoings of other people, MNG, doesn't absolve the person in question.

    Also, On The Beach was a terrific movie.

  • Suki||

    I liked it too. But not as much as Spaceballs.

  • OMG||

    +1

  • Warty||

    He may have been an asshole, but he had one fuckshitter of a moustache. What do you think he charged for a moustache ride?

  • Morris||

    What a flacid right-wing hack like Tim Cavanaugh can support: amoral service to CORPORATE power, contempt for UNION ORGANIZING, and disregard for WORKERS' rights.

  • Hugh Akston||

    ::golf claps:: Well done, Edward. Some times I wish H&R did have avatars, so you could post alongside a picture of "SOSHUL JUSTEC" tattooed across your massive mantitties.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Yeah, if H&R had avatars, you know Morris' would be awesome.

  • ||

    It would just be a .gif of a asshole gasping for cock. Which would be perfect for Edward, of course.

  • Suki||

    Hi SF! Nice to see you here on a rare weekend appearance.

  • ||

    MNG, did those other schmucks have a stamp? He who gets the glory gets the wrath.

  • ||

    Indeed. Holmes gets the attention because he's "The Great Dissenter" whose quotes have littered the opinions of subsequent generations of SCOTUS justices.

    Just like madcap economic interventionist presidents like Hoover and Truman don't get the negative attention FDR does -- because they don't get the love among our enemies that he does.

  • Robert||

    Yeah, the only reason anyone likes Truman is that he was (and still is) so unpopular. Why bother increasing their rxn formation?

  • MNG||

    He's called the Great Dissenter because he helped develop our modern free speech law in famed dissents with Brandeis, and probably because of his Lochner dissent. That's one libertarian plus and one minus, hardly worthy of the scorn he gets around here...

  • ||

    OFFTOPIC:

    Greenwald over at Salon writes:

    The more difficult question to answer is why -- given what Drum described -- so many liberals found the speech so inspiring and agreeable? Is that what liberals were hoping for when they elected Obama: someone who would march right into Oslo and proudly announce to the world that we have a unilateral right to wage war when we want and to sing the virtues of war as a key instrument for peace? As Tom Friedman put it on CNN yesterday: "He got into their faces . . . I'm for getting into the Europeans' face." Is that what we needed more of?

    Yesterday's speech and the odd, extremely bipartisan reaction to it underscored one of the real dangers of the Obama presidency: taking what had been ideas previously discredited as Republican or right-wing dogma and transforming them into bipartisan consensus. It's not just Republicans but Democrats that are now vested in -- and eager to justify -- the virtues of war, claims of Grave Danger posed by Islamic radicals and the need to use massive military force to combat them, indefinite detention, military commissions, extreme secrecy, full-scale immunity for government lawbreaking, and so many other doctrines once purportedly despised by Democrats but now defended by them because their leader has embraced them.

    link

    I too find it interesting and troubling.

  • Warty||

    Fucking Greenwald acts like war-loving Democrats are something new.

  • ||

    Indeed. No one remembers Clinton's hard-on for invading Iraq anymore. Or Kosovo, for that matter.

  • ||

    Oh, I remember it well, and I reminded my Bush-hating friends of it all the time. And I'm no fan of greenwald. I do think this is a bad time for bipartisanship of the worst policies.

  • ||

    There's a GOOD time for "bipartisanship of the worst policies"?

  • ||

    There are those who say that Democrats aren't as able or willing to wage war half a world away in dubious circumstances where the goals are utterly unclear. But we must not let the politics of the past dishearten us from the task ahead. We must recalibrate our expectations, which have been burdened by the failures of the past eight years under the former administration.

  • ||

    God, your words make me hard for a tall black man who spits lies like a hard stream of piss to the face.

  • ||

    +1

  • ||

    +1

  • G Mc||

    What's a "concensus?" And anyways, the judicial activism of the liberal consensus court of the sixties was largely aimed at protecting individuals from an intrusive government.

  • Suki||

    What's a "concensus?"

    It's when you find someone that agrees with you. No matter what their qualifications. See AGW.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    G Mc was picking on the spelling of "consensus". As for his broader claim, I must investigate.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    Fixed. Thanks.

  • Suki||

    Weren't you just telling me that someone else spells bad? LOL ;)

  • Mad Max||

    MNG,

    Indeed, Holmes' record on free speech greatly improved and inspired later libertarian thinking.

    But he was still a supporter of eugenic sterilization.

    '(before there was substantive due process there simply was no way for the Court to nullify Va's sterilization law: what part of the Constitution did it violate?)'

    It would certainly come as a great surprise to Holmes himself to learn that the Supreme Court didn't follow substantive due process. Many court decisions from which Holmes dissented invoked substantive due process to invalidate state laws regulating economic matters.

    In his dissents in the economic cases, Holmes made clear that he didn't necessarily agree with the law, but that he disagreed with his colleagues using the Constitution to invalidate those laws.

    In the eugenics area, Holmes made clear that he was upholding these laws because he *agreed* with them - as the quoted language from the Buck v. Bell opinion clearly indicates (see the clip above).

    a law professor who wrote a book about Holmes had this to say:

    ‘[Interviewer] Holmes believed in eugenics ñ how did this fit into his life?
    ‘[Professor Albert Alschuler] It was his only political cause and was obviously is in line with his Darwinism. Holmes’ eugenic views were in fact more extreme than those of other eugenics enthusiasts of his time. Others talked about sterilizing “imbeciles” while Holmes advocated executing unfit babies.’
    Google gives a limited preview of Alshuler’s book . Use the search term ‘eugenics’ and you get gems like these:

    Holmes said that ‘I shall think socialism begins to be entitled to serious treatment when and not before it takes life in hand and prevents continuance of the unfit’ (p. 28).

    Holmes ‘“sneered” at all political and moral causes except eugenics.” In other words, not only did Holmes support eugenics, he was willing to make an exception from his normally apolitical attitude in order to champion it (p. 11).

  • Mad Max||

    Continuing the citation from p. 11 of Alshuler's book - Holmes advocated the execution of people who were 'below standard.'

    Did Van Devanter and McReynolds show this degree of enthusiasm for the eugenics cause?

  • MNG||

    They signed onto his opinion. There certainly were these things called "concurrences" back then if they felt the need to use it.

  • MNG||

    He was a social, or economic, Darwinist too. He had the full throated endorsement of pitiless economic struggle that would warm the hearts of many of the right thinking libertarians that post here.

  • MNG||

    And yes courts had used something like substantive due process to protect economic rights, but they had not thought to apply this to many social rights at the time. That would take later liberal thinkers to develop, ironically in cases you likely abhor (Griswold, etc). Again, NO justice even attempted a substantive due process attack on the law, not even conservative Catholic Butler who dissented w/out a word.

  • Mad Max||

    You appear to have forgotten Pierce v. Society of the Sisters and Meyer v. Nebraska. These decisions announced, respectively, a right to give your kids a private-school education and a right to have your kid educated in a language other than English (Holmes dissented from the latter decision). These cases came down two years before Buck v. Bell.

    Now, I'm not the biggest fan of substantive due process, but by the time of Buck, there were plenty of substantive due process precedents for the Supreme Court to use if they wanted to strike down compulsory sterilization. Holmes himself had joined at least one of the non-economic precedents (Pierce). Yet Holmes and his colleagues found no problem with the sterilization law. Is this because they suddenly saw the light and agreed not to use substantive due process any more? Of course not - they kept using it before and after Buck. They simply didn't see compulsory sterilization as a violation of anyone's fundamental rights.

    You used to claim that Holmes was a judicial-restraint believer who didn't actually approve of eugenic sterilization. Now it seems you have abandoned this claim and retreated to, 'everyone else was doing it,' and 'ha ha, Holmes was a social Darwinist just like libertarians.'

    Even if you manage to uncover some document showing that Van Devanter and the rest were just as zealous for eugenics as Holmes, it would simply mean that we shouldn't be holding out Van Devanter as the very exemplar of what a judge should be - which few people are doing, so far as I'm aware. But Holmes idolatry is a very real phenomenon, because there are those (like yourself) who applaud his assaults on natural law.

    And if you double-check Holmes' article on natural law in Vol. 32 of the Harvard law Review - back in 1918 - you will see that his Darwinism was not limited to to the approval of peaceful business competition. He seemed to have a soft spot for war - just because (according to him) there was no higher law governing human beings beyond our preferences and survival instincts, didn't mean we shouldn't keep killing each other on behalf of the things we preferred.

  • Mad Max||

    MNG explains the Buck decision to the unenlightened: ‘The only issue the Court looked at in Buck was, was due process satisfied? As they had no substantive due process theory back then, they noted the process afforded Buck and had to pass on it. That's judicial restraint.’

  • Mad Max||

  • Mad Max||

  • Mad Max||

  • Mad Max||

  • MNG||

    Max likes links!

    Max, if the substantive due process argument was so available for Buck how come Butler, the lone dissenter in the case, who certainly opposed eugenics, did not even attempt that argument?

    Fail buddy.

  • Mad Max||

    Lots of Justices concurred in those days without opinion.

    Your boyfriend did.

    Consider the case of McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co. In this 1914 case, black plaintiffs challenged an Oklahoma law which provided for separate and unequal luxury accommodations for black railway passengers. The court threw out the suit on technical grounds, but other language in the opinion declared that the statute was unconstitutional. Separate accommodations had to be equal.

    Your boyfriend Justice Holmes was one of four justices who *concurred without opinion.* That is, these four justices agreed that the black plaintiffs should lose the case, but they did not declare the segregation statute to be invalid, as their majority colleagues had said. Legal historian Michael J. Klarman (follow the link and find p. 78) points out that the other three concurring justices were also the only three Southerners on the Court at the time. Klarman says that ‘Holmes probably thought that if a majority of Oklahomans supported separate and unequal, the justices had no business interfering.’

  • Mad Max||

    If Justice Holmes and his Southern colleagues had legitimate arguments for their segregationist views, why didn't they give those reasons in a concurring opinion?

  • Mad Max||

    'Max likes links!'

    MNG would like to find some links to support his case, but he can't find any.

    But who needs evidence when Justice Holmes' utter awesomeness is obvious to anyone with faith?

  • Spartacus||

    I just don't think Oliver Wendell Holmes was all that smart. Mr. Haney pwned him every time.

  • Attorney||

    I think, from a libertarian standpoint, the interesting thing about OWH Jr. is that he's the guy who gave the first real kick-in-the-junk to natural-law theory. I.e., he finally made it impossible for serious people to claim that legitimate law ultimately derives from a god or gods. Instead, we got legal realism -- that the law is whatever the lawmakers say it is.

    This leads to a libertarian conundrum: On the one hand, separating law from religion = good. But on the other hand, giving up any supra-legal basis for deciding whether a law is legitimate or not = bad.

  • ||

    Holmes was actually a subscriber to utilitarianism, the favorite philosophy of those who wish to rationalize their own prejudices. No wonder MNG loves him so much.

  • MNG||

    Was he a subscriber to utilitarianism? What's you're proof of that? His legal philosophy was one of restraint, which is not equivalent of utilitarianism to my knowledge.

  • MNG||

    That's hilarious. Utilitarianism gives one a neutral principle to judge any moral conundrum. It's natural law that allows one to sacralize one's own prejudices. Holmes actually had a great quote about that:

    "It is not enough for the knight of romance that you agree that his lady is a very nice girl—if you do not admit that she is the best that God ever made or will make, you must fight. There is in all men a demand for the superlative, so much so that the poor devil who has no other way of reaching it attains it by getting drunk. It seems to me that this demand is at the bottom of the philosopher’s effort to prove that truth is absolute and of the jurist’s search for criteria of universal validity which he collects under the head of natural law."

  • Attorney||

    However, non-utilitarians would not agree that utilitarianism employs a neutral principle.

  • ||

    "The greatest good for the greatest number" is only as neutral as one's conception of "good" is. Which is, not at all. That's beside all the reductio ad absurdums that a strict application of utilitarian thought leads to (eg, if a million people get orgasmic delight watching a person get tortured, utilitarianism demands that a person be tortured while they watch) -- which utilitarians tend to weasel out of by making exceptions, destroying the supposed neutrality of their fundamental principle.

  • MNG||

    Tulpa and Attorney
    The principle is "that act is right which maximizes utility (welfare)." You're correct that defining welfare is where a great deal of wiggle room can come in, though in practice we do this accurately enough every day (we have some idea of what makes those around us "better off" or "worse off").

    There are bad hypos for any moral theory whether consequentialist or deontological (think of Kant having to tell the killer where the person hiding is because lying is always wrong, or the libertarian who lets a person actually die rather than have someone take medecine from another person because coercion is always wrong).

    Anyways I'm not sure the utilitarian is caught by Tulpa's example. Remember the utilitarian is not bound to do everything where the benefits outweight the costs, they are bound to do the one act which maximizes welfare. If there was an alternative way to bring the same amount of pleasure to millions of viewers without bringing the reduction in welfare that the torture would entail then the utilitarian is bound to choose it over the public torture.

    Just saying.

  • ||

    How can you say we define welfare "accurately"? That presupposes that there is some known standard. "Welfare/utility/good/whatever word sophists use to refer to their personal preferences today" is an inherently subjective and non-neutral concept. Talking about defining it accurately or inaccurately makes no sense.

    As for the torture example, you're sneaking in an extra assumption to give yourself an out. Suppose there is no alternative that provides the same amount of pleasure. Do you have an answer for that?

  • ||

    "This leads to a libertarian conundrum: On the one hand, separating law from religion = good. But on the other hand, giving up any supra-legal basis for deciding whether a law is legitimate or not = bad."

    That is an interesting point. The problem for libertarians is that it is in some ways like communism in that it expects a certain perfection from its leaders. Communism expects leaders to act always for the collective good. Libertarianism expects leaders to refuse the temptation to use government to accomplish what ever good ends they desire. It is human nature to want to remake the world and solve problems. It is hard enough to keep politicians honest. But, to keep them honest and keep them from using government power to solve problems in society is very hard. If you have legal realism and say that law is whatever man makes it, it is imposible.

  • Attorney||

    Well put.

  • ||

    I would strongly disagree. Libertarianism as a philosophy expects the leaders to be corrupt and incompetent, which is why leaders are trusted with very little power.

    True, individual libertarians tend to expect perfection, but I think that's more due to being a fringe group and thus more ideological than widespread movements are.

  • tarran the anarchist||

    That is an interesting point. The problem for libertarians is that it is in some ways like communism in that it expects a certain perfection from its leaders. Communism expects leaders to act always for the collective good. Libertarianism expects leaders to refuse the temptation to use government to accomplish what ever good ends they desire.

    On what parallel universe is that statement true?

    Libertarian economists and legal theorists have been on the forefront of research into Public Choice theory which exploded the myth of the politician making decisions altruistically.

    A sigificant percentage of libertarian writings on political theory are devoted to the question of how to perpetually limn state power.

    And a significant portion of libertarian theorists are anarchists - who think that there is no way to get a state without violating basic human rights.

    Yes, some libertarians, particularly ones that think that watching a couple of episodes of Stossel, Glen Beck or Bill Maher has made them fully actualized libertarians might suffer from this problem. But it is nowhere near universal and has little application to the guys who make up the Schwerpunkt of the libertarian movement.

  • ||

    Anyone who thinks anarachy is an actual option is living in a parallel universe. And you totally misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying that politicians will act altruisticlly. I am saying that politicians will always look to solve whatever they think a problem is through government power. It is just too tempting to do otherwise. It doesn't really matter if they are acting altruisticlly or in what they percieve as the interest of themselves or their group. What matters is they will do it. No politician is ever just going to leave things alone and admit there isn't a government sollution to at least some things. To expect otherwise, is to expect them not to be human.

    On a larger level, there has to be some reason for people to obey the rules. That reason doesn't have to be government. Indeed, it is best that it isn't. But there has to be a reason for people to do it. Without some kind of God or natural law or moral order, you are pretty much fucked. There is a reason why communists were atheists. They needed to displace morals with the state.

  • tarran||

    I am not saying that politicians will act altruisticlly. I am saying that politicians will always look to solve whatever they think a problem is through government power.

    No you weren't. You were claiming that libertarians were blind to this fact. And I'm telling you that they are not. That insight is a core one within libertarian philosophy no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise.

    Anyone who thinks anarachy is an actual option is living in a parallel universe.

    Yeah, because without the mafia, there would be no way to get supplies to the garment district right? And medieval Iceland, which had levels of violence far below that of the modern U.S. was just a product of fevered imaginations, right?

  • EJ||

    didn'y hayek have a quote that was to the effect of a conservative and a socialist have in common that they are more itnerested in who is in power where a [classical] liberal recognizes that it is power itslef that is to we weary of so he is more interested in structually limiting the ability of those in power

  • ||

    Judgement at Nuremberg is a great movie. What the hell is wrong with Root. Those are some of the best courtroom scenes ever filmed. But, they don't have a lot of cutaways. And they last more than two minutes. And the dialog is above a third grade level. And they don't involve someone yelling "you can't handle the truth!!" So I guess it is just not Root's kind of thing.

    Big Hollywood called Avatar "Death Wish V for liberals". When conservatives get a revenge fantasy movie, you get Death Wish or Dirty Hairy where murderers and criminals get theirs. When liberals get a revenge fantasy movie, it is always the United States that loses.

  • ||

    They must have been conflicted during Inglorious Basterds

  • MNG||

    I fully and wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Whatever was wrong with Judgment at Nuremberg it had the delightful characterstics which John notes and lacked many of the crappy elements so many modern films have.

    I'm supposed to be one of the house liberals and I really cannot stand all these simplistically leftist and preachy movies that Hollywood keeps churning out. Avatar had it parallel in a kids movie I made the mistake of taking my kid to where the aliens are invaded by humans, get it, it's we who are the bad guys!

    And don't get me started on how simplistic and bluntly used anti-Iraq war messages were hammered into and marred what could have been otherwise interesting films (Valley of Elah, Men who Stare at Goats). Like any institution which is hopelessly politically unbalanced, doesn't read or try to understand the other side of the aisle, Hollywood's ideology has been ruining their product...

  • EJ||

    "Like any institution which is hopelessly politically unbalanced, doesn't read or try to understand the other side of the aisle, Hollywood's ideology has been ruining their product..."

    I give you repsect for this obseravtion of hollywood... and this is why I myself try to read a spectrum of sources reguarly... get out of the echo chamber once and a while

  • jester||

    Dirty Hairy was the answer to Shampoo.

  • Attorney||

    Judgement at Nuremberg is a great movie.

    Ditto It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.

  • ||

    I like that one to. And what is with the gratuitous Judy Garlin slam? Is Root really insecure about his sexuality? It is ok Damon, no will think you are gay just because you admit to liking a non musical that Judy Garlin had a small part in.

  • ||

    I cannot in good conscience recommend Judgment At Nuremberg, though in addition to the above kick at Holmes, the movie provided gainful employment to Judy Garland and Monty Clift when they needed it; gave substantial pre-Kirk and pre-Klink roles, respectively, to William Shatner and Werner Klemperer; and is probably Stanley Kramer's best movie -- which admittedly is like talking about Ryan Leaf's greatest NFL season.

    I'm not seeing any criticism of Judy Garland there, indeed it would seem to indicate that Cavanaugh has some affection for her.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    What are you babbling about, John? I'm a major Judy Garland fan, and if you try to claim otherwise I'll snap my fingers in your face and say "Step off, bee-otch!"

    As for Judgment at Nuremberg, well, chacun à son gout, but the old "Leaden and slow-paced films about Serious Subjects are better than the trash these kids today like" argument holds exactly no water. As I said, this may be Kramer's best movie, but for my money it's still got all his vices: stodgy handling of actors; lack of trust that the audience might get The Point without lengthy explanations; and generally lifeless framing (the very last shot in the above clip being a rare and probably accidental exception).

  • Suki||

    Try Spaceballs! I even named a kitten Dark Helmet.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    John, TC wrote the article, not Root. Unless I'm missing something.

  • ||

    You are not. I am mistaken. It is Cavanaugh, not Root, who has lousy taste in movies and insecurity about his sexuality.

  • ||

    John, are you saying Tim likes musicals? That's a serious charge. Next you'll be saying he's straight.

  • ||

    No. I am finding it odd that he feels to need to tell the whole world he doesn't like Judy Garland in a post about Oliver Wendel Holmes. It is almost like he feels he has something to prove.

  • Suki||

    I think TC is a big Judy Garland fan. Heard it somewhere recently.

  • Mike Laursen||

    ... taxes are the price we pay for civilization.

    If that's so, we're not getting our money's worth.

  • Mad Max||

    Taxes are the STD we contract when the government screws us.

  • Harry Reid||

    ... taxes are the price we pay for civilization.

    I want my two dollars!

  • ||

    "My little brother got his arm stuck in the microwave. So my mom had to take him to the hospital. My grandma dropped acid this morning, and she freaked out. She hijacked a busload of penguins. So it's sort of a family crisis. Bye!" -- Oliver Wendel Holmes

  • ||

    MNG: The principle is "that act is right which maximizes utility (welfare)." You're correct that defining welfare is where a great deal of wiggle room can come in, though in practice we do this accurately enough every day (we have some idea of what makes those around us "better off" or "worse off").

    Utility / value is subjective. The value of an apple is dependent on the persons interested in it, and the moment involved. Therefore, maximizing utility is also subjective -- MNG might, using his values, posit that policy A has a net positive effect, while I, using my values, may posit that said policy is evil incarnate (or, in utilitarianspeak, has a high negative total value summed over all people).

    Utilitarianism is intimately connected to collectivism and authoritarianism -- it is the notion that allegedly super-competent elites like MNG get to decide for the rest of us what values to apply in determining whether a policy has positive and negative value. In other words, it is a policy of allowing whoever has seized power of imposing their will upon others while rationalizing that said will is for their summed net good -- even if many or even most of the victims of this calculus disagree.

  • MNG||

    The fact that at any given time different things may promote the welfare of two different persons does not mean the concept of welfare is overly subjective. By that logic the fact that two people need two different kinds of meds to be made well means that medecine is "subjective."

    Also, utilitarianism does not mean one gives up libertarianism. I think the entire Law and Economics movement would find it strange that one has to give up utilitarianism to reach libertarian policy positions...It's bad enough you don't know much about my philosophy prole, but you'd think you'd at least know your own...

  • ||

    taxesforcible theft or coercion under threat of imprisonment or execution are the price we pay for civilization

    Fixed.

    Doesn't seem quite so obviously true when stated precisely, yeah?

  • ||

    Do you consider paying rent to be "forcible theft or coercion under threat of imprisonment or execution" as well?

    If you don't like it here then you have the freedom to move to another country.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Do you consider paying rent to be "forcible theft or coercion under threat of imprisonment or execution" as well?

    What are you, stupid? Don't answer that. You're obviously stupid.

  • Herr Crayon||

    Juden who do not wish to pay the extra rent are always free to leave the Reich

  • ||

    There are over 100 nations you can move to if you don't like it here.
    The free market at its best.
    Choice is where it's at, right?

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    What's your point?

  • Sharpie||

    Love it r leave it, hippies!

  • ||

    If you don't like it here then you have the freedom to move to another country.

    This trope would have a lot more force if one didn't have to pay a SHIT TON of taxes to move out of the U.S.

  • ||

    If you're having tax problems, I feel bad for you, son.
    I've got 99 problems, but the IRS ain't one.

  • EJ||

    are you really seriously comparing a voluntary transaction with tacking by threat of force force?

  • ||

    You do know that if you don't pay your rent, you'll be forcibly evicted and your possessions confiscated, right?

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    There's no coercion involved. Stop with the sophistry.

  • ||

    You are not coerced to pay taxes any more than you are coerced to rent or buy a place to live.

    Contractual rental of land by owners is fair under libertarian ideology, and coercion of squatters by the land owners is also fair.

    The US government has the right to charge rent for those living on US soil.

    Therefore, if you don't pay taxes (rent), you're a squatter and should be forcibly evicted and have your possessions confiscated.

    Once you're of adult age, you have the choice to stay here or leave for another country.

    Freedom of choice.

  • tarran||

    Don't you understand, Art-P.O.G?

    When you chose to come out of your mother's womb, you agreed to pay people like Crayon a rent for your life...

    Just like the colored boys who agreed to work on the plantation by the act of being born to women who were bound to servitude...

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    You are not coerced to pay taxes any more than you are coerced to rent or buy a place to live.

    Word association time, crayon.

    paying rent::::paying taxes

    owning a home:::???

  • ||

    What are you, stupid? Don't answer that. You're obviously stupid.

  • ||

    When your parents choose your residency and citizenship after your birth they signed a contract on your behalf, using their power as custodians.

    You may end this contract at any time by moving and renouncing your citizenship, provided you're not in the custody of your parents anymore.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Now you're just making shit up.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    You have to gain Citizenship in another country first, unless you like being "stateless".

  • ||

    You don't have to gain citizenship in another country first to end the contract with the US government.

    What your legal status is after you renounce your citizenship is your problem and not that of the US Government.

  • tarran||

    And how, exactly, is that different than the argument advanced by slavery supporters 170 years ago that the people born into slavery were obligated to work for their "masters" by their parents when they were born?

  • ||

    You can leave.
    You can migrate.
    You can renounce your citizenship.

    Slaves could and cannot not.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Oh, slaves left alright.

  • ||

    Slaves could not leave legally.
    You can leave and renounce your citizenship legally.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    What's your point? So the federal government has the authority to collect taxes to "house" its citizens?

  • ||

    There's a voluntary contractual agreement between us and the Government.

    The constitution and the laws are our written contracts with the Government and we may end the voluntary contract at any time by departing and renouncing our citizenship/visa.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Actually, you describe the contract as being involuntary but containing one escape clause.

  • ||

    How is it involuntary?

  • tarran||

    Poor crayon's argument is undermined by the fact that like Nazi Germany and the Soviet union, the Unites states levies stiff taxes upon people attempting to emigrate:

    Either you pay income taxes for the first 10 years after you emigrate, or you pay a significant percentage of your assets as a one time fee.

    Thus, a baby is born in the U.S. and decides that he doesn't agree with the contract his mother signed him up for. So he tries to leave. He still owes money for the next ten years?

  • ||

    Is this true?
    Do you have any links to prove this?

  • tarran||

    Sure.

    Hier

  • Suki||

    If his assets are small it is not that bad of a penalty. But still a bad penalty.

  • Suki||

    Not everywhere. Your possessions will be removed from the property you are attempting to squat on and left at the curb. You can pick it all up whenever you want.

  • EJ||

    "If you don't like it here then you have the freedom to move to another country."

    Not to mention federalism was supposed to give you this choice... but you guys destroyed that.

  • Comissar пастель||

    Kulaks who return the property they have expropriated from the people are always free to leave.

  • ||

    Squatters should be reminded that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

    You want to live in the US?
    You pay the land owner a.k.a the US Government.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Payment is typically for services rendered. Also, see this.

  • ||

    So you are pro-squatter now?

    Somehow I don't think libertarian ideology mix well with the contempt of property rights and the "rights" of squatters, but maybe you could explain that to me.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    What you've described is actually feudalism. You described the federal government as a feudal lord.

  • ||

    No, there's a voluntary contractual agreement between us and the Government.

    The constitution and the laws are our written contracts with the government and we may end the voluntary contract at any time by departing and renouncing your citizenship/visa.

    Feudalism/serfdom does not give you that option.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Yeah, and the contracts are limited by the Constitution and its amendments and can be altered by the democratic process. What's your obsession with people "voting with their feet"? You sound like one of those "America. Love it or leave it," people. So if you have any complaints about your country you should just leave?

  • ||

    Because of the initial poster who claimed that taxes are "forcible theft or coercion under threat of imprisonment or execution".

    And I claimed that it's not is not a matter of initiation of force.

    It is enforcement of a voluntary contract, in this case an explicit social contract.

    And if you wish to opt out of the voluntary social contract, you have the option of renouncing your citizenship.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    And I say it's an involuntary contract with an escape clause. I do say it's the best political system around, but that doesn't mean there aren't intrinsic or extrinsic problems with it, even assuming an acquiescence to the "social contract".

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Comparing the tax system to paying rent only works as a superficial comparison.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    The "social contract" however it's understood is fraught with the tension of 'sacrifice' between the individual and 'society' and 'society' and the individual.
    I know there's a lot of political philosophy concerned with this sort of thing. Libertarians just happen to be concerned primarily with 'individual rights'.

  • ||

    And how is it involuntary?

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    It's involuntary because you take 'the contract' or you go somewhere else and take another contract. There is no option of merely not being assigned to 'the contract', therefore, it's involuntary. Such is the nature of society, I know.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Actually, you could ignore the contract by being a pirate or dropping completely off 'the gird', but then you're technically a criminal.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    To not accept the contract is to be a criminal, so how is the contract voluntary?

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Of course, involuntary does not mean unethical, but the 'social contract' as you describe it is clearly involuntary.

  • Suki||

    APOG,

    You are speaking to yourself and to a lunatic.

  • Tony "The Crayon" Castellano||

    If you don't like paying for our protection, youse always free to move out a' da East Side.

  • ||

    “I don’t care who writes a nation’s laws — or crafts its advanced treatises — if I can write its economics textbooks,” Mr. Samuelson said.

    Histextbook taught college students how to think about economics. His technical work — especially his discipline-shattering Ph.D. thesis, immodestly titled “The Foundations of Economic Analysis” — taught professional economists how to ply their trade. Between the two books, Mr. Samuelson redefined modern economics.

    The textbook introduced generations of students to the revolutionary ideas of John Maynard Keynes, the British economist who in the 1930s developed the theory that modern market economies could become trapped in depression and would then need a strong boost from government spending or tax cuts, in addition to lenient monetary policy, to get back on track. No student would ever again rest comfortable with the 19th-century nostrum that private markets would cure unemployment without need of government intervention.

    -NYT

    If this is the case, good riddance, Paul Samuelson.

  • Paul||

    crayon's right, "real capitalism" as it's practiced in this country is about state power, public/private partnerships, campaign payoffs, transfer payments, and eminent domain takings via well-connected real estate moguls who make strategic and surgical campaign contributions to the right public officials. This is America's capitalism, it's the capitalism of Democrats and the New Left. You built it, now live in it.

  • Paul||

    There's nothing sweeter than hearing Oliver Wendell Holmes quoted in a thick, German accent. That's epic Godwin win right there.

  • Lucy||

    I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

    Lucy

    http://maternitymotherhood.net

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement