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?