Book Description
Dr. Hayek is world-famous for his valuable contributions to the field of economics as well as to the disciplines of philosophy and politics. This volume represents the second of Hayek's comprehensive three-part study of the relations between law and liberty. Here, Hayek expounds his conviction that he continued unexamined pursuit of "social justice" will contribute to the erosion of personal liberties and encourage the advent of totalitarianism.
Customer Reviews:
Worthwhile sequel to The Constitution of Liberty.......2004-12-18
The following passage sums up the entire book quite well: "[I]n...a system in which each is allowed to use his knowledge for his own purposes the concept of `social justice' is necessarily empty and meaningless, because in it nobody's will can determine the relative incomes of the different people, or prevent that they be partly dependent on accident. `Social justice' can be given a meaning only in a directed or `command' economy (such as an army) in which the individuals are ordered what to do; and any particular conception of `social justice' could be realized only in such a centrally directed system. It presupposes that people are guided by specific directions and not by rules of just individual conduct. Indeed, no system of rules of just individual conduct, and therefore no free action of the individuals, could produce results satisfying any principle of distributive justice...In a free society in which the position of the different individuals and groups is not the result of anybody's design--or could, within such a society, be altered in accordance with a generally applicable principle--the differences in reward simply cannot meaningfully be described as just or unjust." (pp. 69-70)
As with Robert Nozick (and with John Locke before them), justice is for Hayek a matter of process rather than results.
Law, Legislation, and Liberty was intended as a sequel to The Constitution of Liberty, in that Hayek wrote it to "fill in the gaps" that he felt existed in his argument in that earlier work. He wrote and published Law, Legislation, and Liberty on and off over a time-span of approximately 15 years (early-mid 1960 to mid-late 1970s), which were in part interrupted by ill health. Hayek admits that the result is at times repetitive and lacking in organization. The reason why he did not go through the effort of redoing the entire work upon completion is because he thought he might at that rate never finish it (he was 80 years old by the time volume 3 was published).
There are still plenty of great insights, which Hayek argues persuasively and in doing so manages to portray as common sense. There are also plenty of flashes of that true rhetorical brilliance characteristic of Hayek that can make his writings such a feast to the ear and mind. On the downside, however, these rhetorical gems are hidden in a large volume of pages that at times do indeed seem tedious, repetitive, and unorganized, unlike with The Constitution of Liberty, where they literally seem to jump off the page at you. All in all, read The Constitution of Liberty first, as Hayek himself suggests. And if you're not up for reading the approximately 500 pages that make up the complete Law, Legislation, and Liberty, two chapters (30 pages total) in the book The Essence of Hayek make for a comprehensive summary exposition of the ideas in the entire trilogy ("Principles of a Liberal Social Order", ch. 20 in The Essence of Hayek, covers vols. 1-2, and "Whither Democracy?", ch. 19, covers vol. 3).
Readable Hayek.......2004-01-13
Don't be put off from reading Hayek just because some authors and reviewers say his work is complicated and technical.Most of Hayek's writings are edited versions of speeches he has given to various audiences. His work is very readable, and I have found enormous benefit from just reading a chapter at one reading, and taking the work up again at another time.
Hayek's work should be found in both the classroom and on the coffee table.
F.A. Hayek does it again... The Wisdom of an Old Whig.......2002-04-29
Today, it seems everyone from Patrick Buchanan to Jessie Jackson are extoling the ideal of "social justice." But where did this insidious concept emerge. In the third and final installment in Hayek's Law, Legislation and Liberty series, Hayek delivers a knock out blow to the the notions of "social justice" or "distributive justice." He examines its socialistic roots and intellectual origins, which ensued after the egalitarian fervor in post-1791 Europe. He critiques new economic and social policy, which has emerged in the wake of the "social justice" phenemenon.
Book Description
This eye-opening dispatch on the culture war traces the dangerous influence of overreaching courts around the world.
Customer Reviews:
This book should be in every law school accross the country........2005-09-16
Judge Bork is of the caliber to be a Cheif Justice. He succinctly dissects every possible facet of the liberal/collectivist argument of each controversial issue. I personally challenge anyone to debate Bork. I respect the man and this book taught much about history and about our political and judicial systems today. A must read, particulary as a balance for widespread liberal press coverage. Very educational and concise and short book.
Ignore the rating, this is a balancing act.......2005-07-08
I haven't read the book yet but I feel compelled to balance out "a reader" who offers only one star and asserts that "misinformation abounds" by stating that Bork "misstates the legal issue surrounding the case".
Do you know what "abounds" means? One example in 176 pages hardly counts.
I might add the reviewer never actually says what Bork has got wrong. I trust that most prospective readers are smart enough to ignore this kind of drivel from an obviously partisan individual and make their own minds up.
Dogmatic Ideology at its Best...or Worst.......2005-04-02
Whether or not one agrees with Robert Bork's opinions (I do as they are in the Goldwater libertarian vein) he has never been one to opine without an intellectual basis. The book uses a phrase that aptly describes the situation: lifestyle socialism. This is not legislating morality from the bench. Instead, it is forcing upon society, through judicial fiat, minority ideas that would never succeed in the proper law-making body (Congress). A long list comes to mind: Banning the Scouts, burning the flag, the war against religious references and symbols, abortion on demand, busing for enforced equality (an oxymoron), prisoner's rights (quote unquote), suing for lack of responsibility such as smoking or overeating.
He explains persuasively that this did not occur overnight but was a result of several factors - the monolithic leftism of academia, the one-world view of the major media and how one case of activism encourages others. Bork also explains not only the decisions but also the motives behind these decisions. As he has written and stated, frequently these are not conscious decisions but instead are responses to an anticipated reaction. Judges, like all people, respond to praise and comdemnation. They win accolades from society's elite - academia, NPR, CNN, Wash Post, Times, Hollywood - if they rule a certain way. They are also aware of the consequences of displeasing these groups. Once the Left realized its agenda would not advance in the legislature they turned to the courts.
The scariest part, and one that he alludes to, is what happens when people draw the line, when they say "that's enought"? We always been a nation of laws but paradoxically the relentless assault from the bench by those who legislate rather than judge will ultimately lead to a reduction of their power. Israel and Canada, two examples in his book, are close to reaching that point. He is not optimistic but not a complete pessimist. The book is not weightt, an easy read for the knowledgable layman.
A good read.......2004-07-16
Bork's conservative politics are readily apparent in his writing, but his legal arguments are logical and apolitical. Hopefully this book will remind conservatives and liberals alike of the importance of proper legislative process. Bork argues that constitutional and international laws have become political tools with which judges impose "new class" political outcomes. Judges in different countries, interpreting different constitutions (or no constitution at all) signed and ratified at different times, representing different political and legal cultures, come to the same conclusion: the law requires judges to implement liberal political outcomes. Bork's case is pretty airtight.
The best chapter is on international law as it pertains to military affairs. His argument is devastating, and changed the way I look at the UN and other internationl bodies.
Bork is too pessimistic.......2004-07-11
I believe it was Nietzsche who said that the moment of total victory marks the beginning of the end. Bork didn't delve deeply enough into the OPERATIONAL foundations of the Constitution; therefore his pessimism -- that we are powerless before the balck-robed usurpers -- is flawed. The antidote is for us to get clear about how the Constitutional machinery operates (bear with me, little children, Uncle Tyrant-Killer will walk you through it): (1) All cases of Constitutional interpretation divide into Judicial-type and Political-type; (2) which type a given case falls into is NOT decided by any theory of judges [see Madison's Notes on the Convention of 1787] but by operation of mutual checks and balances; that is, (3) EITHER the Supreme Court (on appeal) OR the Court of Impeachment (the Senate) have jurisdiction over [right to judge] every person accused of wrongdoing; the jurisdictions are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, meaning (5) unless the Senate strip it away, every holder of a Constitution-created office (Presidents & Congressmen) ALWAYS enjoys "Sovereign Immunity" from judges, so that they may be judged guilty by the Supreme Court ["SCourt"] for NONE of their official acts, although the SCourt MAY nullify some [see below]; therefore (6) the SCourt's ruling is a nullity in Marbury v. Madison, where John Marshall, claiming power to arbitrate the other two Branches' powers, pretended to operational supremacism over his co-equal and co-ordinate ("equal-ranking") fellow Branches. (7) Judicial activists rant that without Marbury the SCourt cannot defend liberty against the other Branches, which ignores that (a) the SCourt may itself jeopardize liberty; (b) the Framers DESIGNED the SCourt to be (in their own words) the "weakest" Branch, NOT the strongest as supremacism necessitates; and (c) Common Law already gives judges, States and people collectively sufficient means of defending liberty against the Executive and Legislative. To prove (c) let's get clear how the Framers designed the Constitution to OPERATE to vindicate the liberty of persons lacking Federal Sovereign Immunity (i.e. States and people): (8) LIBERTY EQUALS INNOCENCE -- persons found guilty may legitimately have their life, liberty and/or property taken away; therefore, liberty depends on SOMEONE in authority finding you innocent. (9) The Framers granted (or left intact) to each Branch UNILATERAL powers to find innocence, to wit: (a) the Presidential PARDON nullifies both SCourt rulings and Acts of Congress [see Jefferson's blanket pardon of persons convicted under the Alien & Sedition Acts ruled Constitutional by John Marshall's SCourt]; (b) common-law judges' invocation of HABEAS CORPUS may nullify both Legislative enactments and Executive prosecutions; and (c) Congress may immunize persons retroactively against both Executive prosecution and Judicial conviction with a BILL OF INDEMNITY -- a prerogative of Parliament left intact by Madison's affirmation that the Constitution incorporates Common Law. It follows that (10) the Framers made guilt OPERATIONALLY more difficult to find than innocence, meaning illiberty more difficult to arrange than liberty: -- Federal defendants can't be guilty unless ALL THREE Branches agree; the same defendants are innocent if ANY ONE Branch disagrees. Necessarily implied is that (11) the SCourt has NO POWER TO OVERRIDE PRESIDENTIAL OR CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS OF INNOCENCE -- including the innocence of States -- Marbury notwithstanding. How then to scotch judicial activism and supremacism? Simple: (12) single-handedly the President can (a) PARDON THE STATES whose laws were made guilty ("struck down") by the SCourt, restoring into force (i) Texas's sodomy law or (ii) Washington State's term-limit law, but not necessarily (iii) Alabama's segregation laws IF HE AGREES on Alabama's guilt [he'll lose re-election if he doesn't]; (b) announce he will SIMPLY IGNORE all past, present and future SCourt rulings arbitrating his or Congress's powers, proceeding to enforce (i) the Legislative Veto Act and (ii) the Line-Item Veto Act, for examples, both of which are settlements between Congress and President like the War Powers Act, and none of the SCourt's business. NEVERTHELESS, (13) the SCourt may nullify as many Executive and Legislative acts as it pleases, so long as its nullifications consist of FINDING THE FEDERAL DEFENDANT INNOCENT, otherwise the SCourt has NO power to nullify anything. (Think, you stupid wrong-wingers, THINK: a Line-Item Veto and a Legislative Veto find nobody guilty, they check and balance the legislative process, either neutrally -- a Line-Item Veto nullifies spending, -- or else IN FAVOR OF INNOCENCE -- a Legislative Veto finds States and people innocent whom unelected Federal bureaucrats would have found guilty.) So what happens if a Branch plays "hard ball"? -- the SCourt orders the President's arrest? or the President defies a writ of habeas corpus and keeps a man jailed? The Framers did not make the contest equal if carried to an extreme: the President can send in the Marines and shoot the SCourt. He ought to shoot the Federal Marshalls: it's unconstitutional for the SCourt to wield ANY Executive power, because (14) enforcement of SCourt rulings was DESIGNED to hinge operationally on the President's agreement. The Framers provided that President and Congress may suspend habeas corpus, too. The SCourt's weakness, which the Framers designed, entails by design that (15) the States and people must have a hand in saying what the Constitution means, by electing and un-electing Presidents and Congressmen, or by taking up arms against usurpations. It follows (16) the Constitution's meaning was designed to be THE issue in every Federal election. Some people say the Constitution should be kept away from that Great Evil, "politics". The same brain-dead flatliners, too stupid to perceive their own contradiction, worship "democracy" as the Great Good! They should be forced to break rocks in the Gulag until they disprove this: (a) "Man is the political animal" [Aristotle]; therefore, (b) if politics is bad, then man is bad. Judicial supremacist usurpation has become so brazen that today THE ONLY social force supporting it is a monopolistic, viciously partisan media, and their mind-slaves those Democrats who are also Fascist wrong-wingers. Their demise is only a matter of time.
Book Description
An international group of specialists from the fields of law, politics, economics, and philosophy address the question of why governments act or do not act according to laws. The authors interpret the rule of law as a strategic choice of actors with powerful interests, rather than as an exogenous constraint on politicians. The rule of law emerges when no group is strong enough to dominate the others, and political actors seek to resolve their conflicts by recourse to law. Law is thus deeply rooted in politics.
Download Description
This book addresses the question of why governments sometimes follow the law and other times choose to evade the law. The traditional answer of jurists has been that laws have an autonomous causal efficacy: law rules when actions follow anterior norms; the relation between laws and actions is one of obedience, obligation, or compliance. Contrary to this conception, the authors defend a positive interpretation where the rule of law results from the strategic choices of relevant actors. Rule of law is just one possible outcome in which political actors process their conflicts using whatever resources they can muster: only when these actors seek to resolve their conflicts by recourse to la, does law rule. What distinguishes 'rule-of-law' as an institutional equilibrium from 'rule-by-law' is the distribution of power. The former emerges when no one group is strong enough to dominate the others and when the many use institutions to promote their interest.
Product Description
Promoting the rule of law abroad has become a major part of Western efforts to spread democracy and market economies around the world. Yet, although programs to foster the rule of law abroad have mushroomed, well-grounded knowledge about what factors ensure success, and why, remains scarce. In Promoting the Rule of Law Abroad, leading practitioners and policy-oriented scholars draw on years of experience to critically assess the rationale, methods, and goals of the rule-of-law policies and programs. These incisive, accessible essays offer vivid portrayals and penetrating analyses of the challenges that define this vital but often misunderstood field. Contributors: Rachel Kleinfeld (Truman National Security Project), Lisa Bhansali (World Bank), Christina Biebesheimer (World Bank), Wade Channell (independent consultant), Stephen Golub (University of California, Berkeley), David Mednicoff (University of Massachusetts, Amherst), Laure-Helene Piron (Overseas Development Institute, London), Frank Upham (NYU School of Law), Matthew Spence (Truman National Security Project), and Matthew Stephenson (Harvard Law School).
Customer Reviews:
Much recommended.......2007-01-09
The Rule of Law has become more and more important in international relations over the past years, with vast sums of money spent on the training of judges, the building of courts, institutions of transitional justice and the drafting of legislation. This book is the best overview of these efforts and the rationale that underlies them that I've come across. It is based on extensive research by someone with long-term experience in the field, well-written and clearly argued. Much recommended!
Average customer rating:
|
Federalism, Democratization, and the Rule of Law in Russia
Jeffrey Kahn
Manufacturer: Oxford University Press, USA
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
 Economics
| Business & Investing
| Subjects
| Books
| Agricultural
| Commercial Policy
| Comparative
| Consolidation & Merger
| Cooperatives
| Debt & Deficits
| Development & Growth
| Econometrics
| Economic Conditions
| Economic History
| Economic Policy & Development
| Exports & Imports
| Free Enterprise
| Inflation
| International
| Labor & Industrial Relations
| Macroeconomics
| Microeconomics
| Money & Monetary Policy
| Natural Resources
| Privatization
| Public Finance
| Statistics
| Sustainable Development
| Theory
| Unemployment
| Urban & Regional
General
| Europe
| History
| Subjects
| Books
Russia
| History
| Subjects
| Books
Constitutions
| Government
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Democracy
| Government
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Political Science
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Constitutional Law
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Constitutional Law
| Law
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
International
| Political Science
| Social Sciences
| New & Used Textbooks
| Stores
| Books
General
| Law
| New & Used Textbooks
| Stores
| Books
All Titles
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Business & Investing
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Nonfiction
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Professional
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
ASIN: 0199246998 |
Book Description
Combining the approaches of three fields of scholarship - political science, law and Russian area- tudies - the author explores the foundations and future of the Russian Federation.NB Russia's political elite have struggled to build an extraordinarily complex federal system, one that incorporates eighty-nine different units and scores of different ethnic groups, which sometimes harbor long histories of resentment against Russian imperial and Soviet legacies.NB This book examines the public debates, official documents and political deals that built Russia's federal house on very unsteady foundations, often out of the ideological, conceptual and physical rubble of the ancien regime. One of the major goals of this book is, where appropriate, to bring together the insights of comparative law and comparative politics in the study of the development of Russia's attempts to create - as its constitution states in the very first article - a 'Democratic, federal, rule-of-law state'
Average customer rating:
|
Habermas on Law and Democracy: Critical Exchanges (Philosophy, Social Theory, and the Rule of Law, 6)
Manufacturer: University of California Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
Democracy
| Government
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Philosophy
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Political
| Philosophy
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Social Theory
| Sociology
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Democracy
| Political Doctrines
| Political Science
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
Jurisprudence
| Perspectives on Law
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
Philosophy
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
Jurisprudence
| Perspectives on Law
| Law
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
All Titles
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Nonfiction
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Professional
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
ASIN: 0520204662 |
Book Description
In the first essay, Habermas himself succinctly presents the centerpiece of his theory: his proceduralist paradigm of law. The following essays comprise elaborations, criticisms, and further explorations by others of the most salient issues addressed in his theory. The distinguished group of contributors--internationally prominent scholars in the fields of law, philosophy, and social theory--includes many who have been closely identified with Habermas as well as some of his best-known critics. The final essay is a thorough and lengthy reply by Habermas, which not only engages the most important arguments raised in the preceding essays but also further elaborates and refines some of his own key contributions in Between Facts and Norms. This volume will be essential reading for philosophers, legal scholars, and political and social theorists concerned with understanding the work of one of the leading philosophers of our age.
These provocative, in-depth debates between Jürgen Habermas and a wide range of his critics relate to the philosopher's contribution to legal and democratic theory in his recently published Between Facts and Norms. Drawing upon his discourse theory, Habermas has elaborated a novel and powerful account of law that purports to bridge the gap between democracy and rights, by conceiving law to be at once self-imposed and binding.
Book Description
Examines issues in legal and democratic theory found in the work of Jürgen Habermas.
Customer Reviews:
boring book.......2004-02-16
If you have read this book, you will agree with me: waste time!!!! I doubt the author even doesn't understand Habermas....
and also several obivous solecism in this book.......
Exellent collection of established..........2003-08-21
Exellent collection of established expert-Habermas commentators from the US and different European countries. Habermas position in "Between Facts and Norms" is tackled from different angles such as: theory of democracy, moral theory (disappaerance of "discourse ethics"!), system of rights and generally assesses his philosophical position in relation to contemporary thought. The authors make Habermas complex thought accesible and try to relate the importance of his work for contempory issues and challenges for achieving an actual radical democracy.
The book features an interesting interview with Habermas.
The most confusing book in the world.......2003-06-15
I never read such a confusing book since I was born. You will never know what the editors think about. The editors just copy and paste some unrational essays into this mosaic book. Yes, to the editors, it is really a good business for the editors to get some extra money regardless of their dignity. sure, they are chasing money and titles, forever
Book Description
There are an astonishing variety of election laws across contemporary democratic societies. In Establishing the Rules of the Game, Louis Massicotte, André Blais, and Antoine Yoshinaka provide the first thorough examination of these laws. The study incorporates original data collected from more than sixty democracies around the world, and touches on oft-ignored, yet extremely important, aspects of election laws. The countries covered by the study include Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Romania, and the United Kingdom. The authors focus on six dimensions of election laws: the right to vote, the right to be a candidate, the electoral register, the agency in charge of the election, the procedure for casting votes, and the procedure to sort out the winners and losers.
Massicotte, Blais, and Yoshinaka uncover underlying patterns, explaining why certain types of country tend to adopt a given sets of rules. In general, former colonies adopt the same laws as their former mother country. There is also a tendency for established democracies to be more inclusive than non-established ones. The authors point out sociological patterns and review normative and practical arguments for and against each set of rules, providing invaluable information for students of elections and democratic theory as well as election practicioners.
Book Description
In The Twilight of Democracy, Jennifer Van Bergen dissects the signs of something gone terribly wrong. A massive superstructure is being constructed, whose shape can be discerned by the 2000 election, the enactment of the PATRIOT Act, the detentions at Guantanamo, the invasion of Iraq, the withdrawal from the International Criminal Court, the promotion of the FTAA, the eradication of environmental protections, and a policy of increasing secrecy.
Jennifer Van Bergen helped raise the alarm with her six-part series "Repeal the Patriot Act." She is an adjunct faculty member of the New School for Social Research in NYC since 1993. She lectures on the antiterrorism laws and the Constitution.
Customer Reviews:
Twilight of Democracy.......2007-04-17
Jennifer Van Bergen has given us a book that should be must reading for every American. If you think we might be on our way towards a Fascist state in America, you need to read this book. Ms. Van Bergen explains how the PATRIOT Act has damaged the United States Constitution. She also tells us what we must do to correct the current state of America.
The book is very well done, in easy to understand language. This book should be on the reading list of every American.
ATHE DRIFT TO FASCISM IN AMERICA-YOU'VE BEEN WARNED!.......2006-06-03
Jennifer Van Bergen has written a most important book that is a must read for all Americans who cherish freedom.
Miss Van Bergen,a member of the ACLU and The National Lawyers Guild,is a most articulate spokesperson for the point of view that under the leadership of President Bush America is drifting slowly,but surely,toward a corporate state(read fascism).She points out that it is NOT only the so called "Patriot Act"that threathens the rights of Americans(circumventing the 4th amendment)but also such things as The North Free Trade Agreement(NAFTA) and the lesser known The Free Trade of (the) Americas Agreement(FTAA),both of which deny benefits to the average person,curtails labor rights,but also hands over all kinds of new "rights" to "corporate bloodsuckers"(my term), so that they can continue to plunder the environment and enforce "wage slavery" on 90%+ of the population.She examines the state of the courts,and the three separate,but equal branches of our government,and with the GOP already claiming The Presidency and a having a majority in both houses of Congress the independence of the judiciary is in great question,and with the Democrats sitting back and allowing Bush to stack the courts with hard right thugs,the future of this country as a free democratic republic is in great jeopardy.For all their talk about opposing "judge made law",and being in favor of "strict construction"(original intent) the GOP members of Congress are making the road to fascism easier by NOT OPPOSING Bush's vision(as if he ever had a vision concerning anything)of a unitiary goverment,which if allowed to proceed will only lead to dictatorship,slavery,and death. Ms Van Bergen book was written before the (anti)immigration debate really started with its harsch provisions conerning "aid to illegal aliens".These provisions are so reactionary and hateful that key leaders of the Catholic Church(Cardinal Mahoney,of L.A.for one) urge Church members NOT to cooperate with these fear-mongering articles,of the new immigration bill.For once a Church leader standing up for the teachings of Jesus!
This 228 page book includes the very helpful Britt's List -the fourteen points common to fascist regimes,and "The Cheney Plan for Global Dominance,a truely frightening scenario.
As I write this CBS News reports that the governments wants all internet companies to keep the records of ALL internet users,in order to fight terrorism and sexual abuse cases.I sure believe that one!1984 is here!!
Ignorance is Strength.
Slavery is Freedom!
War is Peace!
This is an excellent book!!!
The government WANTS people scared and silent.......2005-08-18
An attorney with the South Florida Branch of the ACLU and an adjunct faculty member at the New School for Social Research, Jennifer Van Bergen understands that making the case for her position is essential to having the American people understand the danger which we and the country remain in.
Van Bergen uses factual evidence to demonstrate how the Bush administration is eliminating democracy under the guise of 'homeland security'. Using very loaded flag-waving rhetoric, this government is attempting to have people believe that any criticism of their actions is infact support for 'the terrorists'.
The problem is that 'the terrorists' are never actually identified and remain annoymous masses in this same scenario. After all, the real focus of the Bush administration is keeping people scared so many will not question the actions of their government and there is a greater chance that those who do dissent can be labeled as 'troublemakers'.
During the 1960's the federal government used 'red menace' rhetoric to justify the wiretapping and surveliance of left wing activists. The 'remote' possibility of communist infiltration (and subsequent social impacts) in these organizations were considered enough to justify the actions. Following Hoover's death, Congress placed long-needed restrictions on the FBI's ability to place American citizens under surveliance and made that information available through public request. To read the administration's support for the PATRIOT Act honestly feels like we are ignoring all of this history and failing to learn from the past.
This failure is also how a 'conservative' administration squares the obviously expanded bureacracy against their public promotion of limited government. PATRIOT Act expansions are a big exception to their usual rules specifically because the conservatives are the ones who are doing the government expansion and surveliance. The ultimate impact on citizen freedoms is secondary (if weighted at all) to the president and his buddies getting and maintaining their absolute power over everybody else.
The conclusions in this book are chilling---and ever more accurate with each passing day. It is an accessible read for people wanting affirmation that they are not reading into things, but is also important for audiences who need to know what their government is really doing.
Crushing Democracy on the Pretext of Saving It .......2005-06-21
The one point on which Jennifer Van Bergen as author of "Twilight of Democracy" and George W. Bush agree is over the assertion made by the latter that "America has been changed forever by the tragedy of 9-11." From that point forward Van Bergen, an attorney active in the South Florida branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, and Bush travel widely disparate ideological paths.
Van Bergen shrewdly delineates the path traveled by the Bush Administration in the wake of September 11, 2001 as it declared war against terrorism and sought to acquire powers held by chief executives in totalitarian states and denied them in democratic nations. Only Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California voted against granting the executive branch the sweeping powers it sought in the wake of 9-11 as the House and Senate voted in an otherwise unanimous manner.
One important point that Van Bergen makes that has been mentioned all too infrequently is that the entire war on terror announced by Bush after 9-11, and used as an immediate basis to launch a fierce military attack in Afghanistan, is predicated on spurious constitutional and common law grounds. In any military or police action a specific nation or organizational entity needs to be identified. Bush's war on terror does not meet that important criterion since its fails the specificity test.
As Van Bergen carefully delineates, by declaring war on a non-specific entity and stating that such a conflict has no measurable end in sight, the opportunity is ripe for an octopus-like executive branch to, in the interest of preserving democracy, bring about its demise in the interest of safeguarding the nation and its people from terrorism. The instrument of accomplishment was the infamous Patriot Act, which left the Bill of Rights in tatters.
The sweeping arm of the law swooped down on innocent citizens and aliens in America who were Arabs and practiced Islam. The umbrella expansiveness of the Patriot Act permitted them to arrest suspects without a warrant and detain them for non-specific periods of time without charging them. The dangerous abrogation of rights extended beyond this slippery slope and into the constitutional guarantee of right of counsel. In instances where attorneys were permitted to speak with such defendants, authorities were permitted to listen in on the conversations, rendering the privilege of counsel essentially null and void through destroying confidentiality. Again, these tactics are hallmarks of totalitarianism and anathema to democracy.
A tactic used to circumvent dealing with defendants in traditional constitutional circumstances is to declare any individual suspected of terrorist acts or giving support to terrorist groups as enemy combatants. This has been used in the infamous Guantanamo Bay prison to evade American constitutional or international safeguards such as the U.S. Constitution and the Geneva Code. Democracy is denied on the pretext of saving the institution, a tragic contradiction through which freedoms have been trampled and America has come closer to representing apartheid South Africa than a constitutional democracy.
In addition to laying out the legal case against the usurpation of democracy by the Bush Administration, Van Bergen also lists fourteen basic points cited earlier by Lawrence W. Britt as dangerous common threads associated with Fascism.
They include such totalitarian hallmarks as excessive nationalism, media control, pervasive scapegoating, obsession with militarism and national security, protection of corporations and denial of workers' basic rights, obsession with crime and punishment, rampant cronyism and corruption, and fraudulent elections.
Americans should remember with caution the words spoken by Benjamin Franklin when he left Constitution Hall and was asked what kind of government had been bestowed on the new nation called America, t o which he responded, "A Republic if you can keep it."
"Down the road to fascism.".......2005-03-12
Author & lawyer Jennifer Van Bergen's thought provoking book "The Twilight of Democracy" "ferrets out principles of constitutional law and juxtaposes them with ... statutes, regulations, international laws, legal strategies and actions of the Bush administration." There's no love lost here for President Bush, and the author isn't shy about giving her personal opinion. With blistering criticism of the Bush administration, Van Bergen argues that America is well on the road to fascism, and that we are experiencing an erosion of democracy through a systematic attack on the constitution. Taking Laurence W. Britt's handy-dandy 14-point guide to fascism, Van Bergen systematically examines current trends in American political, social and legal systems.
The book is subdivided into two distinct categories: Book One "Deciphering the Democratic Code" and Book Two: "The Bush Plan." Book One is basically an overview of various aspects of the constitution, international law, due process, the 1st, 4th and 6th Amendments, types of courts, etc. In Book Two, the author tears into (amongst other things) the Patriot Act, America's withdrawal from the International Criminal Court, the Abu Ghraib scandal, detentions in Guantanomo Bay, the coup in Haiti, and the Free Trade of Americas Agreement.
Of particular interest is Van Bergen's argument that there's a movement underfoot "to clear the way for the concept that 'activists = terrorists'." According to the author, it's all about the administration's goal to achieve "control, suppression, and eradication of opposition." And there are some mind-boggling examples here--including the "sailor-mongering" charge levied against the Greenpeace protestors, and the use of the Patriot Act against activists who simply express their beliefs. Van Bergen also touches on the Lynne Stewart case. Ms Stewart was the court-appointed attorney for Sheik Abdul Rahman, who was subjected to electronic surveillance, and her offices raided. This, Van Bergen argues, is a direct challenge to the Sixth Amendment rights. (Interestingly enough, after finishing the book, I looked up Stewart's case on the Internet, and I did discover that many in the legal profession are indeed concerned about exactly how one is supposed to represent a terrorist suspect after what happened to Stewart. I found many sites pro and con Stewart's case, and found it much more difficult to find out what she is actually accused of.)
The book also includes information about the MATRIX "data mining system" (Multistate Anti-TeRrorism Information exchange)--a system which according to the ACLU "is controversial because it involves not the attempt to learn more facts about known suspects, but mass scrutiny of the lives and activities of innocent people ... to see whether each of them shows any signs of being a terrorist or a criminal." The MATRIX creates a "terrorist quotient" that "measures the likelihood that individuals in the databases are terrorists." In theory, we could all have our own "High Terrorist Factor" (HTF). According to the author, those with the highest scores have their names passed on to such agencies as the INS, FBI, and the Secret Service. MATRIX is "financed and managed" by the Dept of Homeland Security. The book goes into detail about the MATRIX system, and the information here is startling. The ACLU states that the MATRIX system "constitutes a massive invasion of privacy, and a violation of the core democratic principles."
Another fascinating chapter is devoted to the Patriot Act, which, the author argues, allows the government to stomp on the Fourth Amendment (right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures). By redefining the standards of "terrorist investigations", categories are expanded and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Acts (FISA) allows investigators "without probable cause to get your library records, your educational, financial, or medical records as long as an FBI agent" claims the records are required "in connection with an ongoing foreign intelligence investigation."
The book finally, and appropriately ends with a chapter on torture and abuse, and the author touches on the historical significance of the Geneva Conventions (they were never called the Geneva Suggestions).
There's a mine of information here, and it's a good thing the author follows the text with scrupulous chapter-by-chapter notes. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't defend or oppose the merits of the legal arguments here, but I would be fascinated to see how lawyers feel about the book's arguments. As a non-lawyer, however, I can honestly say that I learned a great deal from reading this well-written, eye-opening book---displacedhuman
Amazon.com
Jurgen Habermas, an esteemed political philosopher who lived in Germany during the Nazi reign, has produced a thought-provoking work on what he calls "deliberative politics." To summarize his view, true democracy isn't just the compilation of opinions or a blanket treatment of majority rules, but a social process in which people meet, discuss, modify and, ultimately, agree. He draws connections between how such a process could shape the making of laws and direct the course of nations. His writings here represent a lifetime of political thought on the nature of democracy and law, and deserve an audience and a place in the foundations of democratic theory.
Book Description
In Between Facts and Norms Jürgen Habermas works out the legal and political implications of his Theory of Communicative Action (1981), bringing to fruition the project announced with his publication of The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere in 1962. This new work is a major contribution to recent debates on the rule of law and the possibilities of democracy in postindustrial societies, but it is much more.
The introduction by William Rehg succinctly captures the special nature of the work, noting that it offers a sweeping, sociologically informed conceptualization of law and basic rights, a normative account of the rule of law and the constitutional state, an attempt to bridge normative and empirical approaches to democracy, and an account of the social context required for democracy. Finally, the work frames and caps these arguments with a bold proposal for a new paradigm of law that goes beyond the dichotomies that have afflicted modern political theory from its inception and that still underlie current controversies between so- called liberals and civic republicans.
The book includes a postscript written in 1994, which restates the argument in light of its initial reception, and two appendixes, which cover key developments that preceded the book.
Habermas himself was actively involved in the translation, adapting the text as necessary to make it more accessible to English-speaking readers.
Customer Reviews:
The Latest Major Work by Habermas.......2006-12-13
His central concern is implied by the title. We can't really see a law as a law unless it's backed up with enforcement. That's law as a "fact." But we also want law to reflect values that we can rationalize and validate. That's law as a "norm." This difficult study is worth the effort for anyone who wonders about law's nature and about how ideas like "justice" claim our attention. Habermas wants to define an idea of law that lies "between" law as a fact (what law is and says) and law as a value or norm (what law ought to be, or what we feel law ought to be). The classic test case is a circumstance like Nazi Germany, where policies of Jewish extermination were "in fact" legitimated within the state power structure. If you are interested in an argument that respects the importance of state might but also resists the notion that might makes right, then this book should be on your list.
Put Your Hope in the Law.......2005-09-26
A big book on the big topic of 'how do we all get along' by one of the biggest of living philosophers.
I'll not address the details of the argument or Habermas's place in left-wing politics. Instead, I'll address the intellectual and cultural context.
What Habermas says he is doing is looking for a way to hold societies together that are no longer composed only of one ethnic group; that are no longer made up of adherents of one religion; and are no longer made up of people who accept one myth of their nation or one philosophy of life. We wouldn't need his contribution here, he is saying, if we were not in "postmetaphysical" times--by which he means two things. First, he means that we're in a scientific, secular era when the educated classes, anyway, of major Western countries can no longer be convinced of much of anything by *religious* arguments. Religion doesn't command much belief among social elites, and many others, let alone the kind of universal belief it once inspired. And theology has long since been driven from the position of being 'queen of the sciences' by physics. The second thing he means by "postmetaphysical" (which he uses instead of "postmodern") is that we live in a time when it's hard for any of us to believe that only what we believe is true, and that what we believe is totally true...because our world is so interconnected and we are aware of so many different religions and worldviews people have. That is, religious and worldview pluralism relativizes the authority any one religion or worldview could have now.
Mostly Habermas thinks our "enlightened" state of cosmopolitan equality is really good. But he acknowledges that we've lost something in losing the certainties and meaning and ethics of religions. Among other things we've lost is the social glue that holds citizens of countries together. Since Habermas is a social philosopher of hope, who wants to prevent a Nazi regime and a Holocaust from ever happening again, this is really important to him.
So after saying why socialist welfare states, with their paternalistic governments, and unregulated capitalism, with its discrimination against those who are such losers as to not be affluent, can't be the way forward, he then surveys and rejects other options. Of course, the way forward is his theory, which in his lingo is a constitutional deliberative democracy with a free public sphere and a vibrant lifeworld. Never mind all that, unless you want to get into his theory. The force of it here is that, in a way most people afraid of getting speeding tickets would not expect, he, as a leftie, sees The Law as the best means for keeping all of us together. Even if we don't respect each other so much, basically, if we respect the law we can get along. Even if we don't care about each other so much, if we do as much for each other as the law demands, society will be livable. So the right kind of law makes possible a peaceful society of people who radically disagree on really basic stuff that would often make people violent.
The book is designed to sort out the right kind of law. It is the kind that you can obey not just because you'll get in trouble if you don't, but also because you can agree in principle with how the law was made (even if you don't like the law itself). And the right way to make laws is for people to talk long enough and openly enough with each other in political publics and fora to come up with basic rules of the game we can all live with.
Highly technical, highly abstract, assumes you know basic stuff about Aristotle and Kant without him explaining it, amazingly comprehensive. Underrated in the US because it's not done in the usual Anglo-American way, but not only great for legal theory types, but also for people doing Rawls or Rorty or Derrida or MacIntyre. And for systematic thinker people, think of Between Facts and Norms as Habermas's equivalent of Aristotle's Politics or Hegel's Philosophy of Right. If you like the Olympic pool these guys swim in, this is gold medal contender material.
Democracy: well-known, little understood.......2005-06-27
Some commentators of Habermas' work have argued that he changed his position from "The Theory of Communicative Action" (see review in here at Amazon.com) to "Between Facts and Norms" (BF&N). In the preface of the English edition of BF&N the author himself replies to this issue: Habermas hopes that the book will clear the impression that "the theory of communicative action is blind to institutional reality -or that it could even have anarchist consequences (p. xi)". Thus, the purpose of BF&N is to apply discourse theory to the analysis of democracy in modern societies and not to change the route of his critical theory, as some have argued. Having said this, the reader may be interested to know whether it is possible to understand this book without reading TCA first. I would reply to this question with a cautious "yes". But, of course, something of the understanding will be missed without the theoretical background of Habermas' magnum opus. For someone who would like to read BF&N but is not willing to digest TCA's two volumes, I recommend reading his essay "Three Normative Models of Democracy" (in "The Inclusion of the Other", ed. by Ciaran Cronin and Pablo de Greiff, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1998). This essay presents an outline of the arguments that Habermas will fully develop in BF&N. In this book, he proposes a normative model of democracy as a middle point alternative to the republican and the liberal models. While the republican model relies on Rousseau's idea of collective opinion and will-formation, which demands communication and consensus, the liberal model attributes supremacy to the institutional protection of individual freedom. Habermas affirms that his proposal is normatively "stronger" than the liberal model, but "weaker" than the republican model. In other words, in his deliberative model of democracy, institutions should do more than just protecting the individual from state oppression and act also as carriers of communicative rationality. Institutions are crucial to democracy because they act as legitimacy 'gatekeepers', transforming public opinion into communicative power. "According to discourse theory, the success of deliberative politics depends not on a collectively acting citizenry but on the institutionalization of the corresponding procedures and conditions of communication, as well as on the interplay of institutionalized deliberative processes with informally developed public opinions" (BF&N, p. 298). In a deliberative democracy, opinion formation in the public sphere is to be transferred to the legal and political systems in order to legitimize binding decisions that apply to a political community.
Habermas model is not, therefore, a radical departure from what we know nowadays as a "democratic system". However, most existing democracies lack the conditions for an unconstrained opinion formation in the public sphere due to ideological manipulation,as Habermas points out. Thus, democratic institutions do not guarantee an authentic democracy. As much as Habermas see institutions to be fundamental to democracy, the improvement of the democratic system cannot come from within the institutionalized system. Institutions can stabilize democracy, but are not meant to change society. According to Habermas, only communication action is able to lead us out of our current political predicament.
intervention into the globe and democracy.......2005-03-10
Although Habermas may come across as a post-metaphysical thinker somewhat austere and reserved, his voice has always been there in dialogue with topical controversial political issues. Over the past thirty years he has written essays of a profound nature,as the xenophobia of race after the break up of the Soviet satellites, bio-genetic engineering(quite literally the future of race),and the strengths and weaknesses within Western institutions.He has to date 9 Volumes(in German only) of incredible "Political Writings".
Here,fellow Amazonians all these dribble reviews really masterbations of detritus are less than useless,Habermas deserves better than this;but a sign of democracy I suppose.
Habermas with this very comprehensive work is trying to intervene into the current paradigm of law democracy and globalization; how financial institutions(as an extension of the law, the distribution of wealth) really cannot provide the necessary stability as they once did for the dispossessed within liberal democracies.
It is fairly certain now with the arrogant drum beatings of Washington that there is a real threat of loss of power if some Western power does move quickly to manipulate what Engels referred to as the co-relation of forces today,like who controls oil(and natural resources);Technology hence (Time)nuclear power,or space militarization (in the Virilio-ian sense) or for instance who will help the new cheap labour factory, China industrialize.
Habermas sees democracy-in-development only in Europe with the formation of the European Union as an activist agent a proxy of intervention from the vagaries and many times anarchy of globalization for the globes working classes.This within the context where Washington sees no equivalent agenda to nurture and desires to jettison all the post-WW2 Atlanticist structures, as the United Nations and their derivatives. These organizations for other reasons have become corrupt,but they still service some parts of the globe who depend upon them for food and medicinal deliveries. The fact that Habermas focuses on the relative strengths of bourgeois laws is indeed his own self-created cul-de-sac as paradigm that there is no alternative to this reality at least not in the forseeable future.I suspect Habermas has been purging himself for quite some time from his early days as Adorno's student from the negative/critical,more classical sides of Marxism that appraises power wherever it exists as an "odometer", a measure for the dispossessed of the globe, do they eat?,or die?,something that embarasses him I suspect.Laws should monitor where the food chains exist, Laws should monitor atrocities,genocides,corrupt leaders.These very laws (within the West)historically have always been frought with reservations contingencies,and are constructed to preserve the staus quo,and can be easily changed and amended when their agency or proxy comes to an end; yes a classical Marxist view still alive although to some detestable. At least for those below the subsistence levels it is somewhat comforting to know that there is a "conscious" within the West someplace, although it is seldom exhibited as for example within the continent of Africa.
I didn't want to review this.... but............2000-08-12
The reviews for this book are really poor, so I'm going to take a shot at this book....
Habermas in this book is very German. The book is straightforward: it deals with the dual nature of laws.... i.e. that the ideals we establish in laws are conditioned by a sociological process and then interpreted through the same process. It's not a book that one would read for pleasure... it's not a book that one would want to have around to please girls. It's dry at times, but CAN BE very rewarding. Please, dear God, do not let this be an introduction to philosophy. But-- as the reviews above hint at-- it is an important work by an important author if taken in the right light and for the right reasons.
I do not intend here to write a review of Habermas: that's way beyond what needs to be done in this situation. He's not a whole lot of fun though.... ;)... but a brilliant man, nonetheless....
Books:
- Lazarus and the Hurricane: The Freeing of Rubin "Hurricane" Carter
- Legal and Ethical Issues in Nursing (4th Edition)
- Liberty, Desert and the Market: A Philosophical Study
- Life on the Color Line: The True Story of a White Boy Who Discovered He Was Black
- Loss Prevention Threats and Strategies: How People Steal From Your Business and What You Can do to Stop It
- Marketing Without Advertising: Inspire Customers To Rave About Your Business & Create Lasting Success
- Natural Swimming Pools: Inspiration For Harmony With Nature (Schiffer Design Book)
- New Moroccan Style: The Art of Sensual Living
- Nineteen Minutes: A Novel
- Parliamentary Versus Presidential Government (Oxford Readings in Politics and Government)
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- Coyote: A Trickster Tale from the American Southwest
- A New Owner's Guide to West Highland White Terriers
- The Amateur Naturalist: Explorations and Investigations
- The Penguin Dictionary of Physics: Third Edition
- Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art
- A Financial History of Modern U.s. Corporate Scandals: From Enron to Reform
- Wolves of the World: Perspectives of Behavior, Ecology and Conservation
- I Bought Andy Warhol
- The Charged Void: Urbanism
- The Wild Elephant and the Method of Capturing and Taming It in Ceylon
Law, Legislation and Liberty, Volume 1: Rules and Order
Law, Legislation and Liberty, Volume 3: The Political Order of a Free People
The Constitution of Liberty
Individualism and Economic Order
The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek)
