I am Tom Freeland, a lawyer in Oxford, Mississippi. The picture in the header is my law office. I'm on Twitter as NMissC

Missing Posts: If you have a link to a post that's not here or are looking for posts from Summer of 2010, check this page.


“Natural Law” in the New York Times Magazine

I am fully aware that drawing conclusions from a New York Times Magazine article about jurisprudence and philosphy is probably like talking about literature after having read a Classic Comic book, but I read all the way through this article about conservative Catholic professor/philospher Robert George and every single description of every single argument from pure reason seemed instead to me just naked assertion piled upon naked assertion with the logical links not even there, much less the supposed inarguable starting point.  It was particularly annoying to see him conveniently fence off things like education and health care– oh, no, we can’t have a sound logical argument that those are natural rights–with pure hand waiving.

I’d be curious what others think.  Anderson? Anyone?

Comments are closed.