Wednesday, July 27, 2011

I was at a law conference last night where there was a reception for the Federalist Society, a group of libertarian and conservative legal scholars. I have been to this reception a few times over the years and this year seemed to be the biggest turnout yet (though maybe some were just there for the free food and drinks). I spoke with a number of bloggers, including David Bernstein, from the Volokh Conspiracy and author of Rehabilitating Lochner: Defending Individual Rights against Progressive Reform and one of my favorite books You Can't Say That!: The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties from Antidiscrimination Laws.

7 Comments:

Blogger Kim said...

Jealous.

9:19 AM, July 27, 2011  
Blogger LPF said...

On the subject of things you can't say, I would direct fellow Helen Fans to Google "What You Can't Say - Paul Graham" and read his essay on the matter.

He takes a step back, and examines the phenomenon logically, from a distance.

A Taste: "It seems to be a constant throughout history: In every period, people believed things that were just ridiculous, and believed them so strongly that you would have gotten in terrible trouble for saying otherwise."

11:26 AM, July 27, 2011  
Blogger DADvocate said...

If you want a society that flourishes, you need the maximum amount of individual freedom allowable and the society still be able to remain intact. Freedom is the primary nutrient in human exploration and stentorian stolid lilliputian ratiocination entrepreneurship. We should always attempt to protect and expand individual freedom to it's greatest possible limits.

12:03 PM, July 27, 2011  
Blogger TMink said...

Dad, I would just add individual property rights. But freedom is more important.

Trey

2:51 PM, July 27, 2011  
Blogger slippies46 said...

What you can't say..according to Judge Diane Gibbons:

http://www.savethepsychoexwife.com/press-release/

Individual rights are predicated by our Constitution, apparently nobody told the Judge in the above case.

It seems that this Father's rights are being taken away because the Judge is basing her decisions on emotions rather than facts.

3:34 PM, July 27, 2011  
Blogger DADvocate said...

Dad, I would just add individual property rights.

I include property rights under freedeom, freedom to own, freedom to control, etc.

10:29 PM, July 27, 2011  
Blogger Ern said...

Dr. Helen, you seem to have a strange fascination with lawyers. Perhaps you should talk to a psychologist about it.

8:08 AM, July 28, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home