Average customer rating:
|
Landscaping with Annuals: Storey Country Wisdom Bulletin A-108
Ann Reilly
Manufacturer: Storey Publishing, LLC
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
 Annuals
| Flowers
| Gardening & Horticulture
| Home & Garden
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Gardening & Horticulture
| Home & Garden
| Subjects
| Books
Flowers
| Gardening & Horticulture
| Home & Garden
| 4-for-3 Books Store
| Stores
| Books
General
| Gardening & Horticulture
| Home & Garden
| 4-for-3 Books Store
| Stores
| Books
All 4-for-3 Deals
| 4-for-3 Books Store
| Stores
| Books
ASIN: 0882665391 |
Book Description
Since 1973, Storey's Country Wisdom Bulletins have offered practical, hands-on instructions designed to help readers master dozens of country living skills quickly and easily. There are now more than 170 titles in this series, and their remarkable popularity reflects the common desire of country and city dwellers alike to cultivate personal independence in everyday life.
Customer Reviews:
Law, Liberty and Morality.......2006-12-19
H. L. A. Hart, who was a contemporary of Lord Patrick Devlin, criticized him for his very rigid position on the government's role in enacting and enforcing morality laws against its citizens. Herbert Lionel Adolphus Hart lived from 1907 to 1992. Hart was one of the most influential philosophers of law in the twentieth century, and he taught at Oxford University. His 1963, book "Law, Liberty and Morality" is a refutation of Devlin's theories of the government's role in criminalizing private moral misconduct. They both debated on opposite sides of the British government's 1957, Wolfenden Report which looked into the subject of decriminalizing homosexuality and prostitution. Devlin was the only member of the committee of fourteen who voted against decriminalizing the two acts in question. Hart, though not a member of the committee nevertheless, was very influential in the governments relaxing its laws against homosexuality in 1967. Though Hart is supportive of the idea that society did have some common moral values worth supporting, he is troubled by Devlin's far-reaching statement that, "immorality jeopardizes or weakens society." In fact, Hart accused Devlin of holding the position that any change in a society's morality would bring about its demise. Devlin balked at Hart's accusation, and retorted that he only believed the idea that any change in a society's morality could bring about its demise. Hart is definitely in agreement with John Stuart Mill's concept of liberty when he writes, "...society can not only survive individual divergences in other fields from its prevalent morality, but profit from them."
The other aspect of the disagreement between Devlin and Hart was in the arena of how much of an impact religious values should dictate in a society's moral values and laws. In his book, Devlin asked the question, how citizens were supposed to derive moral values if they did not rely on religious authority. He answered, that lawyers had generally ignored the question and had generally accepted the notion that Christian morality remained just as acceptable to society as a whole today as it had been when the church was the sole arbiter of morality in the past. Devlin also takes philosophers to task for thinking that a human being's conscience can fill the void that religious morality would leave if it were no longer in force. "It cannot, unless some way be found of making up a collective conscience." Devlin seriously doubted that humankind would ever be able to find a collective conscience. However, he did not want to stifle people's freedom in asking questions about what the state's role should be regarding moral values. In fact Devlin writes that, "The unending search for truth goes on and so does the struggle towards the perfect society." Instead of outlawing all immoral acts, Hart advocated for a more nuanced approach in answer to Devlin's question on when society should outlaw immorality. Hart separated immoral acts into two types--public and private. Hart supported outlawing public immoral acts, such as prostitution, to preserve public decency. However, he was not in favor of outlawing private acts considered by society as immoral, such as homosexuality, since these acts took place out of view of the public and thus, protecting decency would not be a concern for society in that instance. Hart's argument provided a more balanced approach between society's demand for correct moral behavior and the desire for individual liberty.
I read this book for a graduate class in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in philosophy, political science, and history.
Another Hart clasic.......2000-10-14
H.L.A. Hart is perhaps the 20th century's greatest legal philosopher, and this small book is a powerful expression of his views on the relationship between law and morality. Simply put, Hart takes the side of John Stuart Mill on the issue of legal regulation of vice. The arguments are straightforward, and Hart gives opposing viewpoints a fair hearing before offering his rebutalls.
A great source for any anti-censorship, etc. person.......2000-08-10
I first read the 1963 edition in a course called "Philosophy of Law" at Stanford in '66, and it's one of the few texts from then that I know I have in the attic, and have read at least five times since. It's just a little book, but invaluable.
He organizes the arguments around the issue of the legalization of prostitution, but the specific arguments are made to carry the water of all the similar issues. It is dense, but beautifully written and beautifully argued, you just have to read it a bit slowly to let each paragraph soak in.
Book Description
Contemporary liberal thinkers commonly suppose that there is something in principle unjust about the legal prohibition of putatively victimless immoralities. Against the prevailing liberal view, Robert P. George defends the proposition that `moral laws' can play a legitimate, if subsidiary, role in preserving the `moral ecology' of the cultural environment in which people make the morally significant choices by which they form their characters and influence, for good or ill, the moral lives of others. George shows that a defence of morals legislation is fully compatible with a `pluralistic perfectionist' political theory of civil liberties and public morality.
Customer Reviews:
Over-rated.......2006-04-26
Mr. George spends a great deal of time and effort justifying meanness, cruelty, and bone-headed, stupifying insanity. He fears the different among us, those who do not conform to his tired, old-hat definitions of what is good and moral. Hatred is not a traditional value, Mr. George.
How- to for the end of liberal society.......2004-04-13
The good Professor has presented a book that argues it is justified to use criminal law to protect men from themselves. J.S. Mill laid out the basic argument more than 150 years ago that the state has no right to intervene in ones life unless a person's behaviour poses a serious harm to others. That harm must be real, not based on whether speech or action offends others.
I would suggest that right wing readers, who believe in imposing ones values and morality on others will enjoy this book. For students of Mill I would suggest you pass unless you want to "know thy enemy", in which case I would recommend the library. Then you can donate the money you save to the ACLU or CCLA.
A defense of perfectionism.......2000-12-10
This book is a strong response to the widely held view that morality as such cannot be enforced by the law. According to Prof. George, society may legitimately seek to "make men moral" as long as the moral sentiment expressed is legitimate. The last qualification is important, because it does set a limit on how far the law may go in interfering with personal autonomy. Therefore, we can say that it is premised on a natural law foundation, which is foreign to most people today. Most of the arguments are made in the course of criticizing the opposing views of some heavyweight philosophers like Ronald Dworkin, John Rawls, and Joseph Raz. Especially good is a chapter on the famous debate between H.L.A. Hart and Patrick Devlin. Though George's position is closer to that of Devlin, he does a good job explaining how Devlin's views are in many ways deficient and incompatible with a free society. This is a fine book no matter what your political views, though it does help to have a background in political and moral philosophy to fully grasp the arguments.
Average customer rating:
|
Morality Imposed: The Rehnquist Court and the State of Liberty in America
Stephen Gottlieb
Manufacturer: NYU Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
Civil Procedure
| Procedures & Litigation
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
Courts
| Procedures & Litigation
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Constitutional Law
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Law Practice
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
Jurisprudence
| Perspectives on Law
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
Legal History
| Perspectives on Law
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
Philosophy
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
Jurisprudence
| Perspectives on Law
| Law
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
Legal History
| Perspectives on Law
| Law
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
Courts
| Procedures & Litigation
| Law
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
ASIN: 0814731287
Release Date: 2000-09-01 |
Book Description
We like to think of judges and justices as making decisions based on the facts and the law. But to what extent do jurists decide cases in accordance with their own preexisting philosophy of law, and what specific ideological assumptions account for their decisions?
Stephen E. Gottlieb adopts a unique perspective on the decision-making of Supreme Court justices, blending and re-characterizing traditional accounts of political philosophy in a way that plausibly explains many of the justices' voting patterns.
A seminal study of the Rehnquist Court,
Morality Imposed illustrates how, in contrast to previous courts which took their mandate to be a move toward a freer and/or happier society, the current court evidences little concern for this goal, focusing instead on thinly veiled moral judgments. Delineating a fault line between liberal and conservative justices on the Rehnquist Court, Gottlieb suggests that conservative justices have rejected the basic principles that informed post-New Deal individual rights jurisprudence and have substituted their own conceptions of moral character for these fundamental principles.
Morality Imposed adds substantially to our understanding of the Supreme Court, its most recent cases, and the evolution of judicial philosophy in the U.S.
Book Description
In the opening chapter of this book, Elizabeth Price Foley writes, “The slow, steady, and silent subversion of the Constitution has been a revolution that Americans appear to have slept through, unaware that the blessings of liberty bestowed upon them by the founding generation were being eroded.” She proceeds to explain how, by abandoning the founding principles of limited government and individual liberty, we have become entangled in a labyrinth of laws that regulate virtually every aspect of behavior and limit what we can say, read, see, consume, and do. Foley contends that the United States has become a nation of too many laws where citizens retain precious few pockets of individual liberty.
With a close analysis of urgent constitutional questions—abortion, physician-assisted suicide, medical marijuana, gay marriage, cloning, and U.S. drug policy—Foley shows how current constitutional interpretation has gone astray. Without the bias of any particular political agenda, she argues convincingly that we need to return to original conceptions of the Constitution and restore personal freedoms that have gradually diminished over time.
Customer Reviews:
Too Sure Of Itself For Its Flaws, Interesting Though.......2007-07-15
Books of this sort are interesting but too doctrinaire and selective to be convincing ... surely to the level of assurance suggested. This is furthered by the author -- again not unique to her -- questionable use of history, often ignoring troubling matters that would make her conclusions harder to reach. Thus, even if you respect her argument of libertarian views based on individual sovereignty (I do), how she gets there and how she applies it leaves something to be desired.
A few examples. As is typical of the genre, at least of those favored by the blurbs on the back of the book, the author argues recent courts have 'invented' things to fit the Constitution into what they feel is necessary for society. Interesting. After all, the author opposes Justice John Marshall's (who was at the founding) rejected of applying the Bill of Rights to the states in 1833 (before the 14th Amendment). One can also cite the Slaughterhouse Cases. That was 1873. And, a myriad others before the New Deal. As some note, pre-New Deal cases quite often upheld regulations. The 'Lochner Court' stereotype, notwithstanding.
Or, in general, all the liberty violations upheld in the past by the courts (no sending contraceptives thru the mail, various sexual practices, prohibtion laws [the fact a few did not doesn't suggest 'original understanding' which she claims is a primary drive of her jurisprudence] etc. One might also note times have changed -- there weren't even any police forces back in 1789. Modern society requires more laws (though citations of spitting on the sidewalk as an issue, is that not a public nuisance, is curious); but in many ways we are more free than we were in the past.
This is so even if general principles, though not how they were often applied, might be interpreted differently. She cites Burke ... but he was a conservative who supported many repressive laws on tradition grounds. Selective use of his statements mislead. Likewise, her balancing of state interest at times is rather brief (esp. latter chapters ... the one on illegal drugs are almost conclusionary; the book is under 200pg. w/o notes) and a bit dubious. For instance, as to motorcycle helmets and public health costs, she notes the state generally doesn't pay. What if it did?
The book does have benefits, if we admit to such problems, suggesting that off the top claims and a bit more modesty is often useful in such works. The fact a 'living constitution' approach can use a work of this nature is a bit ironic, but so it goes. I'd add a recent book by Daniel Farber on the Ninth Amendment was also pretty brief, providing some interesting arguments, but not enough depth at times. A good companion volume.
Compelling Libertarian Thesis.......2007-01-15
Bound to be a future classic-- a sort of modern, practical John Stuart Mill "On Liberty"-esque book. An intriguing historical account of the unique features of the American Constitutional structure that have been unfortunately abandoned, leading to a proliferation of significant and trivial laws that restrict individual liberty and expand government's power. Foley's thesis is that there are "twin foundational principles" of American law that make it unique from all prior forms of government: (1) limited government (in terms of the powers granted by the people to their governors); and (2) residual individual sovereignty. She convincingly shows how these principles indicate a harm principle at work in American law-- not just in theory, but in fact.
Most original is her treatment of number 2 (residual individual sovereignty), which she traces back to the original Law of Nations devised by writers influential with the founding fathers, such as Vattel, Grotius and von Puffendorf. To the founding fathers, sovereignty, as defined by this Law of Nations, was understood in a very specific way, to mean complete liberty or power to do as the sovereign pleased, subject only to the principle of "do no harm" (except in self-defense). In the newly formed United States, the founding fathers parsed out to the governors only a very limited portion of sovereignty (limited powers) and kept the residuum in the hands of the people. When paired with the conception that American government was intended to possess power only to protect the people's life, liberty, and property, Foley shows us how the residual sovereignty remaining in the people's hands is very broad and meaningful indeed. This notion was memorialized in the Ninth Amendment (which has been completely ignored by the judiciary, as if it did not exist).
Unlike writers like Joel Feinberg (who is also highly recommended), Foley
offers a comprehensive definition of legal harm that can be applied to judge the legitimacy of all laws. She then proceeds to do so, tackling with finesse and mind-boggling breadth of knowledge issues like sex, drugs and alcohol, reproduction, marriage abortion, assisted suicide and others.
The writing is clear, crisp and entertaining. Her historical research is very original and tight. This book is a great read for anyone who is interested in a deep theory of the American Constitution. Unlike the previous reviewer (who apparently cannot spell), I would wholeheartedly recommend to anyone, conservative, liberal, libertarian or anywhere in between. Looking forward to reading her future work.
libetrian with liberal veiws.......2007-01-14
Where are the constitutional values for liberty>? I do not recommend this book.
Average customer rating:
- Law, Liberty and Morality
|
Law, Liberty, and Morality
Manufacturer: Random House
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
ASIN: B000BRQHZE |
Product Description
The Harry Camp Lectures, established in 1959 at Stanford University as a series on topics bearing on the dignity and worth of the human individual.
Customer Reviews:
Law, Liberty and Morality.......2006-12-19
H. L. A. Hart, who was a contemporary of Lord Patrick Devlin, criticized him for his very rigid position on the government's role in enacting and enforcing morality laws against its citizens. Herbert Lionel Adolphus Hart lived from 1907 to 1992. Hart was one of the most influential philosophers of law in the twentieth century, and he taught at Oxford University. His 1963, book "Law, Liberty and Morality" is a refutation of Devlin's theories of the government's role in criminalizing private moral misconduct. They both debated on opposite sides of the British government's 1957, Wolfenden Report which looked into the subject of decriminalizing homosexuality and prostitution. Devlin was the only member of the committee of fourteen who voted against decriminalizing the two acts in question. Hart, though not a member of the committee nevertheless, was very influential in the governments relaxing its laws against homosexuality in 1967. Though Hart is supportive of the idea that society did have some common moral values worth supporting, he is troubled by Devlin's far-reaching statement that, "immorality jeopardizes or weakens society." In fact, Hart accused Devlin of holding the position that any change in a society's morality would bring about its demise. Devlin balked at Hart's accusation, and retorted that he only believed the idea that any change in a society's morality could bring about its demise. Hart is definitely in agreement with John Stuart Mill's concept of liberty when he writes, "...society can not only survive individual divergences in other fields from its prevalent morality, but profit from them."
The other aspect of the disagreement between Devlin and Hart was in the arena of how much of an impact religious values should dictate in a society's moral values and laws. In his book, Devlin asked the question, how citizens were supposed to derive moral values if they did not rely on religious authority. He answered, that lawyers had generally ignored the question and had generally accepted the notion that Christian morality remained just as acceptable to society as a whole today as it had been when the church was the sole arbiter of morality in the past. Devlin also takes philosophers to task for thinking that a human being's conscience can fill the void that religious morality would leave if it were no longer in force. "It cannot, unless some way be found of making up a collective conscience." Devlin seriously doubted that humankind would ever be able to find a collective conscience. However, he did not want to stifle people's freedom in asking questions about what the state's role should be regarding moral values. In fact Devlin writes that, "The unending search for truth goes on and so does the struggle towards the perfect society." Instead of outlawing all immoral acts, Hart advocated for a more nuanced approach in answer to Devlin's question on when society should outlaw immorality. Hart separated immoral acts into two types--public and private. Hart supported outlawing public immoral acts, such as prostitution, to preserve public decency. However, he was not in favor of outlawing private acts considered by society as immoral, such as homosexuality, since these acts took place out of view of the public and thus, protecting decency would not be a concern for society in that instance. Hart's argument provided a more balanced approach between society's demand for correct moral behavior and the desire for individual liberty.
I read this book for a graduate class in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in philosophy, political science, and history.
Average customer rating:
- Law, Liberty and Morality
|
Law, Liberty, and Morality
Manufacturer: Oxford University Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
ASIN: B000FMKS2S |
Customer Reviews:
Law, Liberty and Morality.......2006-12-19
H. L. A. Hart, who was a contemporary of Lord Patrick Devlin, criticized him for his very rigid position on the government's role in enacting and enforcing morality laws against its citizens. Herbert Lionel Adolphus Hart lived from 1907 to 1992. Hart was one of the most influential philosophers of law in the twentieth century, and he taught at Oxford University. His 1963, book "Law, Liberty and Morality" is a refutation of Devlin's theories of the government's role in criminalizing private moral misconduct. They both debated on opposite sides of the British government's 1957, Wolfenden Report which looked into the subject of decriminalizing homosexuality and prostitution. Devlin was the only member of the committee of fourteen who voted against decriminalizing the two acts in question. Hart, though not a member of the committee nevertheless, was very influential in the governments relaxing its laws against homosexuality in 1967. Though Hart is supportive of the idea that society did have some common moral values worth supporting, he is troubled by Devlin's far-reaching statement that, "immorality jeopardizes or weakens society." In fact, Hart accused Devlin of holding the position that any change in a society's morality would bring about its demise. Devlin balked at Hart's accusation, and retorted that he only believed the idea that any change in a society's morality could bring about its demise. Hart is definitely in agreement with John Stuart Mill's concept of liberty when he writes, "...society can not only survive individual divergences in other fields from its prevalent morality, but profit from them."
The other aspect of the disagreement between Devlin and Hart was in the arena of how much of an impact religious values should dictate in a society's moral values and laws. In his book, Devlin asked the question, how citizens were supposed to derive moral values if they did not rely on religious authority. He answered, that lawyers had generally ignored the question and had generally accepted the notion that Christian morality remained just as acceptable to society as a whole today as it had been when the church was the sole arbiter of morality in the past. Devlin also takes philosophers to task for thinking that a human being's conscience can fill the void that religious morality would leave if it were no longer in force. "It cannot, unless some way be found of making up a collective conscience." Devlin seriously doubted that humankind would ever be able to find a collective conscience. However, he did not want to stifle people's freedom in asking questions about what the state's role should be regarding moral values. In fact Devlin writes that, "The unending search for truth goes on and so does the struggle towards the perfect society." Instead of outlawing all immoral acts, Hart advocated for a more nuanced approach in answer to Devlin's question on when society should outlaw immorality. Hart separated immoral acts into two types--public and private. Hart supported outlawing public immoral acts, such as prostitution, to preserve public decency. However, he was not in favor of outlawing private acts considered by society as immoral, such as homosexuality, since these acts took place out of view of the public and thus, protecting decency would not be a concern for society in that instance. Hart's argument provided a more balanced approach between society's demand for correct moral behavior and the desire for individual liberty.
I read this book for a graduate class in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in philosophy, political science, and history.
Book Description
This book explores the foundation of Biblical morality, and applies this information to sin, forgiveness and holiness. This book sets the stage for escape from law based commandment keeping religion.
Customer Reviews:
A look at the effects of legalism on the church.......2006-10-25
The author started life in a very legalistic church. Thru his life and Bible study has move away from that legalism to finding freedom in Christ. Not freedom to sin, but freedom from man made laws. Reading this book will challenge you as to how many rules have you made that aren't in the Bible.
EX. is it a sin to smoke?
Do you beleive made defines what sin is or did God reserve for himself the autority to define what sin is?
This book is 500 pages. It does repeat itself. Yet the book covers scriptures and often large portions of the NT.
I've not been able to find another book that deals this throughtly with this topic. Usually its just a paraghraph here and there in a few books.
Average customer rating:
|
With Liberty and Justice for All
Ray Cziczo
Manufacturer: Trafford Publishing
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
State & Local Government
| Government
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Political Science
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Human Rights
| Constitutional Law
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
All Amazon Upgrade
| Amazon Upgrade
| Stores
| Books
Law
| Amazon Upgrade
| Stores
| Books
Nonfiction
| Amazon Upgrade
| Stores
| Books
ASIN: 1412027756
Release Date: 2006-07-06 |
Product Description
Explore what Liberty and Justice mean in America today and what they should mean. Discusses absolute and relative freedom and justice in our homes, schools, government, and courts.
Books:
- Landscaping Your Home: Creative Ideas from America's Best Gardeners (Fine Gardening Design Guides)
- Lavender: Practical Inspirations for Natural Gifts, Country Crafts and Decorative Displays
- Luther Burbank His Methods and Discoveries and Their Practical Application Vol. V
- Mediterranean Domestic Architecture for the United States (Twentieth Century Landmarks in Design, Vol. 9) (Acanthus Press Reprint Series. 20th Century, ... 20th Century, Landmarks in Design, V. 9.)
- Mediterranean Gardening: A Waterwise Approach
- Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil
- Miniature Orchids and How to Grow Them
- Missouri Geology: Three Billion Years of Volcanoes, Seas, Sediments, and Erosion
- Mountains in the Sea: The Vietnamese Miniature Landscape Art of Hon Non Bo
- Nancy Lancaster: English Country House Style
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind-Brain
- Forever in Blue: The Fourth Summer of the Sisterhood
- A Mapmaker's Dream: The Meditations of Fra Mauro, Cartographer to the Court of Venice
- America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It
- Cinematography: Third Edition
- Essentials of Physics
- Complete Idiot's Guide to Running a Bed and Breakfast
- Food Jockey: The World of a Fast Food Worker
- Back From the Future: Cuba Under Castro
- Building Your Debt-Free Life 2000
