Just in case any of you teachers out there need a definition of “the rule of law,” the New York Times today explained, in a long thumb-sucking piece on the Tea Party, that it is “[F.A.] Hayek’s term for the unwritten code that prohibits the government from interfering with the pursuit of ‘personal ends and desires.’”
Don’t you feel better now that you know this—and know that the great American press is there to safeguard our freedom?
My, my, my, my.
October 3rd, 2010 | 2:25 pm
I skimmed that rather silly article, but this amazing line had escaped me. Zernike really wrote that? How stupid can an NY Times reporter be? The rule of law, dear lady, is not some kind of code word. It means…the rule of law. It means that our government’s actions should be authorized by our constitution and or some other specific statute. It means that governments shouldn’t be able to act without such authorization. It’s a very simple, basic concept, one that even a journalist should be able to understand, and one that existed long before Hayek used the term.
October 3rd, 2010 | 2:27 pm
Oh, and she refers to the rule of law as an “unwritten code!” By definition, laws are written codes. I’m not much for name-calling but…this woman’s a certifiable idiot.
October 3rd, 2010 | 4:05 pm
She could take to heart one of Bastiat’s cautions: If proggs believe that society would rush headlong to its ruin without their intervention, where is their certificate that they are composed of finer clay than the rest of us?
October 3rd, 2010 | 4:11 pm
Now now, we must make allowances. The poor numbskull does work for the New York Times, after all.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact