The side of public finance Adam Smith neglected to mention...

The beneficiary of government spending, by preferring the support of taxes to that of private trade, intends only his own security and wealth; and by directing public policy in such manner as it draws the most funds from private into state coffers, intends only his own gain. He is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which may have been no part of his intention. But it is always the worse for society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest in state taxes, the bureaucrat and politician promotes the withering of societies wealth more effectively than if he had really intended to destroy it.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Supreme Court has delivered its most comprehensive examination of the 2nd Amendment in history. The decision was a close one, 5-4, in favor of the 2nd Amendment. The four dissenters, led by justice Stephen Breyer, argued that the amendment is essentially meaningless, and that government has totalitarian power to disarm the public. So much for inalienable rights. Well, I won't even honor their opinion with a rebuttal, especially since Scalia, writing for the majority, did a fair job of it already. What I WILL do today, however, is quibble with the majority opinion itself.

In section IV, Scalia notes:
"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service--M-16 rifles and the like--may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right." (emphasis mine)

This phrase is important, because it is the foundation upon which Scalia eventually defends the status quo banning of certain types of weapons and limitations upon their availability.

However, his reasoning is faulty, and at odds with previous reasoning in his same opinion. Scalia would have us believe that the second amendment reads "... the right of people found suitable by the government to keep and bear commonly-held consumer arms found suitable by the government shall not be infringed." This is an amendment with holes you can drive Rosie O'Donnell through! Considering the wording of his paragraph alone, one could derive the possibility of banning firearms entirely in places like DC, Chicago, or a Quaker village, where guns are not commonly held at all, but knives are the most lethal home device.

The flaw occurs because he is not considering the fact that the reason M16s and such are not commonly held arms is due to pre-existing government restrictions on their sale and availability. The paragraph above would have the effect of codifying these previous actions.

Had the Federal Government banned all firearms except BB-guns, and DC had then banned BB-guns, this opinion's reasoning would have protected BB-gun ownership alone.

Clearly, Mr. Scalia was not thinking very clearly.

The supposition of Natural Law as the source of liberty has a firm grounding in the American tradition. And yet, consider this warning from Thomas Jefferson: "The natural order of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.".

On its face, the warning is a fitting, but pessimistic assessment of the history of human relations with their most powerful earthly peers. The disturbing thought, however, and one which I can not shake, is that this situation reflects a "natural order". Wasn't the very same Jefferson who, in his famous Declaration, informs us that all man are naturally "free and equal"? Which is true then, that by nature we are free, and tyranny represents a distortion of this natural state, or that whatever liberty we may rightfully possess is naturally abridged and suppressed by governments which are constantly gaining ground?

It seems to me that the claim of man being naturally free and equal, including the subtle implication that governments are, in fact, unnatural institutions, is correct. This is born out not only in their incompatibility, distortion of, and contention with proper, healthy, and virtuous human society, but also by their temporal instability. If governments were truly natural, they would be far more stable, and their activities less of an obvious hindrance to mankind wherever they are found.

However, it also seems to be the case that true crime and oppression of man by other men, along with man's natural tendency to organize their efforts in societies within societies, gives rise to the basis for Jefferson's first point, and provides the source of free society's eternal sorrow. Thus, while it is true that man is naturally free and equal, he must also spend his days enduring, tricking, avoiding, or suffering societal elements of varied strength, including official ones who call themselves "the government" which would thwart those pursuits.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington

In his theory of Forms, the ancient Greek philosopher Plato postulated that commonality between things denotes their participation in and subservience to a higher Form which is the most real manifestation of that Commonality. For instance, the form Forest is participated in by particular trees, the form Society by particular persons, and the form Chair by particular sit-worthy furniture.

The flaw in this thinking is obvious, but unfortunately commonplace. It is simply in assuming that abstractions, such as these Forms, refer to real things. It leads one to make other obviously flawed, but also unfortunately commonplace, assertions such as presuming to know the "good" of a society, the "health" of a forest, the use to which chairs are put.

It amounts to lazy thinking. The good of a society is meaningless, since "society" does not exist, per se. There is only the good of the individual members of society, which DO exist. Ditto for the health of a forest, which is meaningless without considering the health of each tree that makes it up. And I think it's obvious that chairs are put to so MANY uses, that it is likewise meaningless to presume to discuss the one-single purpose of Chairness.

This lazy thinking leads to so many dangerous movements, as people begin to make hasty generalizations about the nature of entire nations of people (Jews, Blacks, Muslims, etc..) or even to presume that nations or groups have collective opinions (Americans want this, Germans want that, Muslims want death) or collective interests (Health Care is Good and Necessary for Us).

Next time you hear someone fall into Plato's Trap, point out to them that the abstraction they are referring to doesn't exist, and that their assertion is a silly one, since it literally has "nothing" as a subject. Perhaps that will decrease the occurrences. Then again, I doubt it -- People say silly things (!!!!!??)

For me, the study of philosophy has always been about increasingly sectarian thoughts and distinctions. With all the myriad of philosophical foundations and interpreted variations, none of which are consistent or often compatible with others, it seems to come with the territory. For that reason, I've always felt nervous about allying myself in the Great Debate. After all, what if I'm wrong? Though, it's not like philosophical questions are the most fundamental and important ones -- oh, wait..

Over the years, I'd grown accustomed to, though not at all comfortable with, my long held views about the efficacy of Thomism, and it's compatibility with Lockean political thought. The two schools harbor grave disagreements on political philosophy, and yet given Aquinas' profound consistency, I was just *sure* I was missing something. I took it for granted I was probably alone in accepting that odd coupling.

So, this last week, I picked up a book called "The Ethics of Liberty" by Murray N. Rothbard, read the first few chapters, and just about fainted. Not only does he provide a semi-indepth reconciliation of Thomistic philosophy and Lockean political thought, but then goes on to mention the relationship between ethics and the passions, which is yet another subject of interest to me (see blog entry "The Passion of the Blog").

Will wonders ever cease .... I guess I'm not alone after all. Thanks, Mr. Rothbard!