The Day of the Merchant

An examination of economic thought in a “national order.” Considered, in particular, is the economic doctrine of the seventeenth century English merchant, Thomas Mun. Remnants of this doctrine in current economic thought are also examined

A Modern Supreme Court in a Modern World

It is all very well, indeed it is very good, to bear down on the fact that the author of the Constitution was, and still is, We the People of the United States. But there is more sentiment than explanation in it. We think too much about who is the author of the Constitution. Of course it was not the Convention of 1789, nor the First Congress which wrote the Bill of Rights, nor the Thirty-Ninth which wrote the Fourteenth Amendment. It was We the People, but even when we have recognized this, all we have done is recognize that it is an ambulatory document. We the People did not drop out of the picture in 1789, or in 1791, or in 1868 when We ratified the Fourteenth Amendment. We kept pace with what We had said. But the important question to ask has nothing to do with the author. The important question is, To whom are We speaking? When I turn to the Constitution, I am not really turning to a single document, except typographically. For the Constitution is addressed to a number of persons. In some places, to the Supreme Court itself; for instance, in the Third Article on the judicial power. It is speaking to Congress in the important section eight of the First Article where Congress\u27 legislative powers are set down; and also in section nine, which prohibits Congress to pass bills of attainder, export duties and other things. Throughout the document we find that different parts are addressed to different persons and institutions, and the point I make is that they may interpret the words very differently. Even the same word may mean different things when they are addressed to different people. The person addressed determines the meaning quite as much as the context, since it is he who will first give meaning to the word or phrase on any particular occasion. In the interpretation of the Constitution, this is of paramount importance, because here the courts must pay the person addressed the respect due to an organ of government of equal rank and dignity

The call and the response. Martin Heidegger and Martin Buber on responsibility

Filozofia subiektywności dotarła w XX wieku do granic swoich możliwości. Jako odpowiedź na jej ograniczenia rozmaici filozofowie podjęli próby nowego rodzaju myślenia. Takie próby to m.in. myśl dialogiczna, która pierwszy wyraz znalazła w pismach takich filozofów, jak Franz Rosenzweig, Martin Buber czy Eberhard Grisebach. Innym przykładem jest postulat powrotu do pytania o bycie Martina Heideggera. W niniejszym artykule staram się pokazać, że obie próby mają ze sobą wiele wspólnego, choć ich przedstawiciele odnosili się do siebie nawzajem raczej krytycznie, o ile w ogóle to czynili. Okazuje się jednak, że myśl Martina Bubera oraz Martina Heideggera ujmują człowieka jako byt dynamiczny, który staje w obliczu nachodzącego go wezwana. Dlatego też analizuję najpierw koncepcję Martina Heideggera z okresu Bycia i czasu, następnie przedstawiam myślenie Martina Bubera, głównie w oparciu o jego traktat Ja i Ty. Na koniec dokonuję zestawienia i porównania wątków wspólnych obu filozofom, jak również zaznaczam różnice, które dzielą obie próby przekroczenia filozofii podmiotowości

Reflections on the Arts, Environment, and Culture After Ten Years of The Goose

To mark the tenth anniversary of The Goose, we asked prominent ecologically-minded scholars, writers, artists, and educators from across Canada to reflect on the relationship between the arts, culture, and the environment. Their comments illuminate a wide range of triumphs and tensions, from the politics and practices of environmentalist writing and art, to the connections between the environment and matters of diversity and justice, to the past and future of ALECC (Association for Literature, Environment, and Culture in Canada), to the world of a single poem

Financialised Capitalism: Crisis and Financial Expropriation

The current crisis is an outcome of the financialisation of contemporary capitalism. It arose in the USA because of the enormous expansion of mortgage lending, including to the poorest layers of the working class. It became general because of the trading of debt by financial institutions. These phenomena are integral to financialisation. During the last three decades large enterprises have turned to open markets to obtain finance, forcing banks to seek alternative sources of profit. One avenue has been provision of financial services to individual workers. This trend has been facilitated by the retreat of public provision from housing, pensions, education, and so on. A further avenue has been to adopt investment banking practices in open financial markets. The extraction of financial profits directly out of personal income constitutes financial expropriation. Combined with investment banking, it has catalysed the current gigantic crisis. More broadly, financialisation has sustained the emergence of new layers of rentiers, defined primarily through their relation to the financial system rather than ownership of loanable capital. Finally, financialisation has posed important questions regarding finance capital and imperialism.

Edwards on the Will: A Century of American Theological Debate

Jonathan Edwards towered over his contemporaries--a man over six feet tall and a figure of theological stature--but the reasons for his power have been a matter of dispute. Edwards on the Will offers a persuasive explanation. In 1753, after seven years of personal trials, which included dismissal from his Northampton church, Edwards submitted a treatise, Freedom of the Will, to Boston publishers. Its impact on Puritan society was profound. He had refused to be trapped either by a new Arminian scheme that seemed to make God impotent or by a Hobbesian natural determinism that made morality an illusion. He both reasserted the primacy of God\u27s will and sought to reconcile freedom with necessity. In the process he shifted the focus from the community of duty to the freedom of the individual. Edwards died of smallpox in 1758 soon after becoming president of Princeton; as one obituary said, he was a most rational . . . and exemplary Christian. Thereafter, for a century or more, all discussion of free will and on the church as an enclave of the pure in an impure society had to begin with Edwards. His disciples, the New Divinity men--principally Samuel Hopkins of Great Barrington and Joseph Bellamy of Bethlehem, Connecticut--set out to defend his thought. Ezra Stiles, president of Yale, tried to keep his influence off the Yale Corporation, but Edwards\u27s ideas spread beyond New Haven and sparked the religious revivals of the next decades. In the end, old Calvinism returned to Yale in the form of Nathaniel William Taylor, the Boston Unitarians captured Harvard, and Edwards\u27s troublesome ghost was laid to rest. The debate on human freedom versus necessity continued, but theologians no longer controlled it. In Edwards on the Will, Guelzo presents with clarity and force the story of these fascinating maneuverings for the soul of New England and of the emerging nation. [From the publisher]https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/books/1074/thumbnail.jp