Talk:Randy Barnett/Archive 1

Archive 1

Anarchist?

Can we safely call Barnett an anarchist?

To unsigned comment above: The article refers to the theory in The Structure of Liberty as anarcho-capitalist, not Barnett himself. The book is definitely anarcho-capitalist. Barnett probably is anarcho-capitalist himself, but that's a closer call. --Libertylaw 12:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry I forgot to sign. "The Structure of Liberty" is not the only evidence of Barnett's anarchist tendencies. He also wrote a review of Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" titled "Whither Anarchy? Has Robert Nozick Justified the State?", the last line of which reads "The state remains unjustified." Also, in "The Moral Foundation of Modern Libertarianism" he says he was personally associated with Murray Rothbard and names him as a major influence. I don't like calling people anarcho-capitalists unless they use that label themselves, but it seems as though the article should emphasize the Barnett's radical libertarian tendencies a bit more. Any ideas on how or whether to do this? Atripodi 09:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Barnett makes a point of not using the word "libertarian" to describe himself, though he most certainly is one. I'm not sure if he has a similar policy about the word "anarchist" or "anarcho-capitalist." One way to make his background more clear would be to discuss that he was influenced by the writings of Lysander Spooner and has played a major role in popularizing Spooner's work. (The article on Spooner currently mentions Barnett, but not vice versa.) Barnett was also influenced by Murray Rothbard. --Libertylaw 11:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Roy Childs also influenced his work (Childs was also an anarcho-capitalist, although before his death he apparently drifted toward favoring a libertarian state). 209.195.164.34 17:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a personal acquaintance of Barnett, have read almost all of his more important writings, and it is misleading to apply the label of "anarcho-capitalist" to his position. His proposed remedies for some departures from constitutional compliance might seem to be in that direction, but that should not be taken to mean he favors anarcho-capitalism as the ultimate solution. It would be more accurate to say that he supports strict construction of the Constitution. His "presumption of liberty" and my somewhat more precise formulation of "presumption of nonauthority" are essentially aligned. The one point on which we have had some disagreement is that he resists the Lockean principle that a person accepts and becomes bound to the social contract and the constitution of government and constitutional laws of a society by entering its territory and remaining there after passing the age of majority. However, a little reflection on what happens when one travels from one governmental jurisdiction into another should enable a person to realize that Locke was correct at a fundamental level. Jon Roland 18:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnett obviously has anarchist tendencies, but is not the main focus of much of his book, "Restoring the Lost Constitution," an attempt to justify the authority of the American state against Spooner's challenges? In this light, wouldn't "libertarian" or even "strong libertarian" by more appropriate? Jmrobinson81 (talk) 20:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ninth Amendment

I'm glad to see an expanded 9th Amendment section, since so much of Barnett's recent work focuses on it. Great job pulling this together, Ferrylodge. I'm a little concerned that the new section uses some language that's kind of legal jargon-y, and I wonder if there's an easy way to clean that up. Maybe using the word "jurisdiction" less, or not assuming knowledge of enumerated and unenumerated rights? --Libertylaw 13:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Libertylaw. I've taken your suggestion, and changed the word "jurisdiction" to "authority." However, I think there's no way to avoid talking about "enumerated" and "unenumerated" rights, since that's the core issue with the Ninth Amendment. But this should be no problem, because the section on the Ninth Amendment starts out with a link to Wikipedia's Ninth Amendment page.Ferrylodge 15:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the desire to dumb down articles by removing jargon, much of which, especially in law, have no popular equivalents that do not lose essential meaning. Better is to provide a link to the dictionary entry for the terms. For example, "authority" is NOT equivalent in meaning to "jurisdiction", which carries the distinctions between subjectam, locum, and personam jurisdictions, matters on which even lawyers are often unclear. The proper purpose of an effort like Wikipedia should be to enable people to learn to use jargon competently, and not avoid it as merely some kind of pretention. Of course jargon can be misused to obscure meaning, but it can also be essential to make subtle and important distinctions, and in the field of law, that can ultimately mean the difference between life and death for people caught up in the legal process. Jon Roland 19:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's sometimes true, but it's also important that Wikipedia articles be understandable to the lay reader. Here's the Wikipedia guideline on technical terms. Libertylaw 12:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)