Re: CHAT: Gale Norton (was Californian secessionists)

Thomas R. Wier wrote:


> I don't doubt it. I'd guess (not being an expert on medieval
> history) it had a lot to do with the educational background
> of the local magistrates, and the overall lack of bureaucracy.

I think those were certainly significant factors (and nothing
could be more bureaucratic than the procedure by which the
courts of common law issued the writs that were needed to
commence any action).  But I was alluding to a more general
point: sometimes (not always) a lack of local knowledge can
actually be an advantage, giving the perspective to see that
some "peculiar institution" is overdue for a one-way trip
to the ash-heap of history.


> Like, several years ago, Congress
> tried to federalize punishments in cases of rape on the grounds that
> rapes harm the interstate economy to the tune of some hundreds of
> millions or billions of dollars a year.

"Reader, suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member
of Congress -- but I repeat myself."
        --Mark Twain

> Does the federal government have any bounds to its
> lust for power?

JRRT had a good point here: it's misleading to think of "the
government" in either the U.S. or the U.K. sense of the term
as a monolithic entity with anything comparable to a human will.
He wanted to replace the phrase "the Government" (in American,
"the administration") with something more definite like
"Winnie's gang".

In the _Lord of the Rings_, the word "government" is consistently
used in its older abstract sense: Celeborn and Galadriel are said to
have "taken the government [of Lorien] on themselves"; likewise,
the Valar (angelic powers) "laid down their government of Arda [the
Earth] and called upon the One [God]".

--
Not to perambulate             || John Cowan <jcowan@...>
    the corridors               || http://www.reutershealth.com
during the hours of repose     || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
    in the boots of ascension.  \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel