A significant portion of the conflicting leftist ideologies of the contemporary Middle East -in particular, the socialist philosophies of both Arabs and Israelis-is an outgrowth of nineteenth-century social theories and philosophies of history originating from a group of individuals who at one point constituted the Young Hegelians.
The isolationist tradition in America, as it was manifested from 1939 to 1941, was based on two fundamental doctrines: avoidance of war in Europe and unimpaired freedom of action. Isolationism differs from pacifism (a refusal to sanction any given war), and one could call for strong national defense, seek overseas territories, and demand economic spheres of influence and still he an isolationist. To be sure, isolationists and pacifists often joined forces, and the onslaught of the European war saw a renewal of this tenuous alliance. It was, however, always a marriage of convenience.
Historian Alice Felt Tyler once used the expression “Freedom’s Ferment” to characterize the antebellum period in American history.’ It was an apt phrase referring to the multitude of reform movements, religious enthusiasms, and social experiments which transformed American culture in fundamentally important ways. The modem abolitionist movement emerged out of this cauldron of ferment — a movement which called for immediate repentance from the sin of slavery, and denounced the South’s peculiar institution in thunderous, vituperative terms
Economists have been relatively silent about the legislation from the 1930’s which supports unionism and collective bargaining in the United States. A failure to apply economic analysis to the Norris-LaGuardia and Wagner acts has allowed a consensus about this legislation to develop among labor writers, basically by default.
Substantive due process refers to a judicial policy that substantively protects, under the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, activities that are not elsewhere secured in the Constitution. With reference to the protection of economic liberties, the doctrine is referred to as economic due process.
This paper is a consideration of whether there could be such universal and natural human rights, or whether such a suggestion is indeed “simple nonsense.” So on this occasion no attempt will be made definitively to establish what, if any, there actually are.
The central ideas of contemporary libertarianism have taken many centuries to evolve. The single most important aspect of libertarian theory to have emerged during this time is the concept of proprietary justice. The proprietary theory of justice is concerned with just one thing: the crucial determination of just versus unjust property titles of individuals in their own bodies and in the material objects around them. The determination of property titles is highly critical because, in the deepest sense, all property is ultimately private.
In his recent work, Tyranny and Legitimacy, James Fishkin advances an argument against Roben Nozick’s theory of, what Fishkin calls, “absolute rights” by trying to demonstrate that such a theory would legitimate tyranny.
Although historians had long missed the importance of religion in American politics, it has recently become a central topic. My focus will be on the late- nineteenth century, with particular concern for why voting and party affiliation were highly correlated with religious preferences. I will attempt to broaden the standard argument to include not merely denominational preferences but also moral or ethical views.
As we approach the centennial of the Second Anglo–Boer War (Tweede Vryheidsoorlog, or “Second War for Freedom”), reassessment of the South African experience seems in order. Whether the recent surrender by Afrikaner political leaders of their “central theme” and the dismantling of their grandiose Apartheid state will lead to heaven on earth (as some of the Soweto “comrades” expected), or even to a merely tolerable multiracial polity, remains in doubt.
