Doing – Part 2

There are other considerations, possibly lower levels in the process of decision-making, but I think not. Habit controls a lot of what we do. We're not conscious of the role it plays, even as we act according to our own long-standing patterns. You may think of it as a personal tradition, but it probably lacks the literary or historical “justification” of a tradition.

Additionally, it's not really habit, but a good deal of control is placed on those of us (and that means me) who are compulsive. It's control exercised by our own brains. Whether it means straightening pictures, picking up pieces of paper from the floor, or, more productively, putting away what we take out, there's a lot to be said for a compulsive personality – and it's not all bad.

And there are community expectations. Many of the things we do are in response to what is expected of us. We may not agree with them or even understand them, but we know that those around us will judge us on their basis. For example, the person with whom you are walking may chide you for not crossing against the light when there is no traffic coming. And you may wonder, as well, whether your actions make sense or if they're simply reflexes.

(Reflexes themselves may be the cause of some of our actions, but I won't address them here.)

But there's another reason. And it has no explanation whatsoever. In fact it's almost embarrassing to discuss and I'm completely unable to vindicate it, but it's probably the best explanation for all my actions. To a degree it's a combination and a distillation of all the other rationales: I do things because that's what I do. I can't always justify what I do, but I know that if I do otherwise I'll have the feeling that I've done something wrong. It doesn't make much sense, but a lot of what I do is aimed at preventing me from feeling guilt.

I've omitted any direct language regarding “right” and “wrong.” A discussion of absolutes is likely to make the problem worse rather than help in its solution. Many would argue that they don't exist – that there are different norms in different societies and all are right. Isaiah Berlin writes (in The Power of Ideas – cited by Sacks)

Herder laid it down that every culture possesses its own centre [sic] of gravity; each culture has its own points of reference … The world was a great garden in which different flowers and plants grew, each in its own way, each with its own claims and rights and past and future. From which which it followed that no matter what men had in common … there were no universally true answers as valid for one culture as for another.

That, however, cannot be completely true. The flowers may look different but they all require water and nutrients. Because they differ morphologically, we should not attribute different needs to them. Nor to societies. There may be differences, but no matter what particular groups may claim, rape and murder are wrong. And the Bible makes it clear that human sacrifice is unacceptable. And whatever the practices of a particular group, cannibalism is condemnable. Some absolutes cross religious and ethnic boundaries, irrespective of practice. And when we try to show our tolerance be adopting a “live and let live” attitude – wen we let our society divide itself in the names of diversity and multiculturalism, we sacrifice both the flower and its nutrients.

The absolutes are the taboos of individual societies. They're negative – like five of the ten commandments. And while there are differences in the religious/ethnic codes that contain them, there are some that seem to be universal, even if the societies that follow them have never had contact with each other. So although there are many who ignore the taboos, and there are many who don't punish the violators, almost everyone seem to agree that it is wrong to commit murder.

But there are positives as well – positives that seem to apply in every society. Among them are socialization and cooperation. For a society to work its members must work together. So just as there are things we don't do, there are things we do. And both groups control our actions.

One final note. As those of you who read these essays (and I can count you on one hand) know, I am ill. So it is fair to ask how my medical condition affects my behavior? To what degree are the factors which I've already mentioned in play?

To understand the answer, it's necessary to understand me. I don't want to know what's happening. I don't ask my doctors very many questions, trying only to do what they say. So part of what I do is what I'm told to do. It's another layer of law added to the ones I've already discussed.

Time, in various forms, has taken over my thoughts and my actions. I'm likely to act more quickly when something comes up – not to put it off but to take care of it immediately. I live one day at a time – as if there's no difference from my previous experiences. Still, however, I plan for the future in certain ways. One of those ways is to make lists for others (I've always made lists) of what needs to be done, and to make sure that all economic, legal, and insurance issues are covered. Simultaneously, however, I look forward to planned events. I have goals – events I want to attend. I plan as if the future is unending.

But that's all background for me. It is more involved in how I do things than in what I do. And the “what” hasn't really changed. Denial is strong (fortunately) and I pretend that nothing has changed. That's not reality, but it allows me to do what I do because it's what I do. I'd like to think that it's all logical and well thought-out, but that's not the case. I do it because it's what I do. It's all that I know.

I don't know what else to do.

December 21, 2016

Doing

Why do I do what I do?

I can think of lots of explanations. Of course I follow the law, although there are times when it doesn't make any sense. I'm hardly the first to point out the gap between the law and justice, but the law's the law. And until it's changed we're obliged to follow it, at least that's the rule. “Right” and “wrong” aren't the issues. Only what legislators have specified are our responsibilities – even if “our” representatives were rewarded by lobbyists for taking such positions.

Let me get out of the way at the outset the force enunciated by Freud – the superego. It is the conscience that we usually ascribe to parental brainwashing, and it's the force that opposes id, which could lead to anarchy. Id tells you to do whatever you want to do, but superego says “no.” It holds the taboos of family and society and, to a very great degree, controls what we don't do. But I'll deal with it later. In the meantime, let me deal with the external forces.

Secular law, and the precedents it follows, have been our guidelines for a long time. The “Social Contract” which was reformulated by Hobbes and Locke (long after Socrates accepted the authority of the state) suggests that people have ceded control to their governments in order to establish conditions under which they can survive. It was up to the state to protect us from oppressors, although there have been many instances of the state taking such a role for itself.

Allowing both secular and religious law, however, especially as imagined in the Age of Enlightenment, sets the stage for both cooperation and a conflict between the two. There is a concept in Jewish law of Dina de-Malkhuta Dina – the law of the land is the law. It is a talmudic principle that we are obliged to follow the secular law that is not in conflict with religious law. There's a long-standing tradition in Judaism to support secular authority. It's an early exposition of the Social Contract. From Avot:

Rabbi Chanina the deputy [High] Priest said: “Pray for the welfare of the government (lit., monarchy), for if not for its fear, a person would swallow his fellow live.”

And there were others – prophets – who conveyed the same message to a people exiled from their own land. But it has its limits in Torah law. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks writes in To Heal A Fractured World

The existence of a covenant with G-d means that all human sovereignty is delegated, conditional and constitutional. This gives rise to the principles of crimes against humanity and justified civil disobedience. If there is a conflict between the laws of humans and the law of G-d, the latter takes priority. This is the greatest single safeguard against tyranny, totalitarianism and the rule of might over right. It is also the principle that brought into being one of the great moral institutions of humankind: the prophet, the world's first social critic. The man or woman who “speaks truth to power” does so on the specific mandate of G-d himself.

He points out that our first loyalty is to G-d, but we have responsibilities in terms of the secular government where we live.

That certainly provides a background for my actions, but it doesn't really explain anything. The secular laws under which we live were written, and are written still, by people just like us, and our form of government is one in which there is a constant rewriting of statutes by other humans. Some of the laws are wise and should be followed – but, as Rabbi Sacks notes – not all.

And there is extensive debate concerning the authorship and authority of the different levels of religious law. Whether or not one accepts the idea of an original Divine origination, the copies that we have now, and certainly the commentaries, were human creations. Our traditions tell us that they are the will of G-d and that we should follow them, but it is easy to wonder about the authority of redacted, contradictory, and interpreted works conveyed to us by people like us.

Following them is clearly part of our tradition. Or, I should say, traditions. We follow the ways of our parents, our teachers, our shuls or our communities, our geographical areas and the strain of Judaism in which we were raised. But these are all the creations of humans who do things in certain ways, and they're not necessarily in agreement about how things should be done. And they're not necessarily good. Commenting on a musical interpretation. Toscanini said “Tradition is just the last bad performance.” Some attribute the assessment to Mahler, but whoever said it the view is clearly expressed that there can be problems with traditions – people make them, and people can disagree about them.

(To be continued)



December 21, 2016

The Tenth Amendment And "... all the other Acts and Things ..."

OK. Let's cut to the chase.ⁱ Do you know (without checking Google) what's in the Tenth Amendment?ⁱⁱ Do you know the origin of the quotation in the title of this essay?

I didn't think so.

And that's a serious problem. The quotation, from the document that justified our severing ties with England, and the amendment from the Bill of Rights – which is part of the document by which we are governed – are unfamiliar to us at the same time that we pledge fealty to our country and what makes it great.

Our revolution was based on the belief that England, as embodied by King George III,ⁱⁱⁱ was harming us, rather than protecting us. John Locke had expounded the view that there was a Social Contract by which people accepted a government that would protect them, and that they were willing to trade some of their liberty for safety. The Founding Fathers felt that England was not living up to the bargain and it was time to change governments.

And though the threats have changed, along with the manner of addressing them, we face similar challenges today – perhaps more. We're a world power now, and besides the pressure to solve the world's problems, we're a target of the unhappy, whatever their gripe. Either we caused it or we should solve it.

Our own citizens are divided about this. They seek security but many are reluctant to make sacrifices for it.^iv For example, as the American People were panicking over the possibility of ebola – as they demanded isolation of anyone who have come in contact with an ebola patient – a nursing student refused isolation and threatened legal action against the government if it forced the issue. Who was right and who was wrong in the particular case isn't relevant. What matters is that individuals are certain that their view of matters is the one the government should follow. That applies to what we should be doing elsewhere and what we shouldn't be doing at home. Everyone is smarter than those we have chosen to represent us. We may insist that our leaders save us, but they must do so without in any way limiting our actions or our freedoms, or our inalienable right to make our own decisions. About anything.

But that's anarchy, and “anarchy” and “democracy” aren't synonyms. Many political philosophers have told us this. We instituted a government and we, in the form of our people at the time, accepted the bargain. That has implications for us, even though we weren't there. If we accept the concept of democracy we must follow the laws, changing our representation if we believe it to be failing to do its job properly. Unfortunately the government that represents us^v and is responsible to us doesn't always follow our views. Not that they should necessarily do whatever polls say is the majority view at any particular moment, but they should be aware of public sentiment and, if they disagree with it, they should publicly inform their constituencies of their reasoning and their positions. That would provide us with the chance to learn about the situations and their thinking, making our next votes better grounded. We chose them and we may pass judgment on their performance at the next election. But until then we are bound by the laws they have passed.

However well we know their views – even if not at all – they're well informed of ours, whether we like it or not. The Constitution forbade quartering, torture, search and seizure, and self-incrimination. All were ways of gathering information then. We agreed that they were not warranted.^vi Now hidden cameras, telephone taps, monitoring of our internet and social media messages, and other similar techniques are in use. And that raises an important question: what rights did we give up, and what rights are we willing to surrender in order to be safe? Do we want the government to have access to our communications?

The Constitution, as it was written, was obviously silent on modern information gathering techniques, but we have chosen to extend the original concept with the times. Unfortunately, however, those who challenge our liberty have also moved with the times – both in their ways of planning and in their ways of waging war. Of course we reject any action that would make us like them. Their ways are not our ways. They use the telephone and the internet to communicate with each other and to spy on us. But we will not sink to their level. We have completely unlinked our demand for safety from any willingness to sacrifice for it. And those who would destroy us are entitled to the same rights as we, even if they have no compunctions about what they do with those rights and how they exploit us.

So now, as beheadings, other murders, rapes, and abductions are becoming common elsewhere, we “deplore” them.^vii But often that's all we do. The perpetrators vow to continue their mayhem – even on our own soil. One response, the Patriot Act (and some less publicized actions by our government) promotes surveillance and electronic monitoring as methods to neutralize the threat, although many of or citizens protest. They would eliminate all monitoring as invasions of our privacy. But it is reasonable to view such surveillance as a part of the protection that we demand of our government. It is, after all, the government's responsibility to “provide for the common Defence [sic] … of the United States” and this is one of the mechanisms that it uses. If we believe there to be problems with the program it is incumbent on us to so inform our representatives and to elect others if necessary – to work within the system, not to destroy it, and ourselves in the process.

I don't think we're ready to change governments yet. I know I'm not. So if I have to give up some of my privacy to protect myself, I'm willing to do so. I don't think it's the “slippery slope” that's going to lead to tyranny, but even if it is we have more time to address it than we have to deal with the clear and present dangers we now face.

Next episode: “Do You Really Think So?” – Better not to think about it.

I        The catch-phrase derives from the inevitable chase scene at the end of silent-movie comedies and is usually attributed to Hal Roach, Sr.

ii       I'll let you look it up – and the quotation (from the Declaration of Independence) as well. I suspect that I could have chosen another amendment and another quotation and obtained the same result. The specifics of the amendment and the quotation weren't the point. More important is the fact that we haven't been properly educated on their significance.

iii      Look up “syndoche” as well.

iv       Or they are moved by what they consider a “higher” cause.

v       We the People.

vi       Although we permit some searches now when properly warranted.

vii      We're reluctant to do much more.

It's Their Job

                                                                             

I suspect that the New York Police Department is tracking major crime figures. They're mostly Italian Catholics, aren't they? And I imagine they're investigating all those who enter and leave the places where criminals congregate – whether restaurants, nightclubs, or whatever.ⁱ

No bother. People don't make much of it. In fact they probably applaud it, even though those groups as a whole don't pose much of a threat to the average citizen. The police would be remiss if they didn't keep track of potential sources of danger. There is certainly no accusation of spying or impinging on religious freedom. It's just a matter of common sense. That's what we're paying them for.

If you're a terrorist, though, or attend the same functions as known or suspected terrorists, it's considered harassment if law enforcement officials try to determine whether you pose a threat to others. Since there appears to be an increased number of such terrorists among Muslims, and since they seem to be disproportionately involved in those activities making them an increased threat to the average citizen, even if the terrorists are a minority of the community, it is logical to assume that they will be disproportionally evaluated as police do all that is in their power to prevent any incident. Some view this as profiling and religious persecution but that assessment is a misreading of police activities. Police policies are just a matter of common sense. That's what we're paying them for.

No, maintain some of our citizens. That's not what we're paying them for. Not in this case. We must not target Muslims or any aspect of their religion and culture. The American way is one of equality, and the profiling of probable Muslims is a violation of their rights under the First Amendment to the Constitutionⁱⁱ – the American equivalent of the Bible. Indeed, it's the same amendment that ensures freedom of religion. Well, that's not exactly true.

More accurately, the First Amendment gives us freedom from religion.ⁱⁱⁱ According to the writ – a writ which the atheists among us, as well as their defenders, mistakenly claim^iv precludes any governmental act that has a religious component – the government cannot make any laws “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (I have emphasized words from the Declaration of Independence and Constitution in the view that they relate to the question at hand.) The courts and the lawyers will have their own understandings of what those words mean, but the amendment doesn't seem to mean that our government is not permitted to have anything at all to do with religion. (Actually, many of those in office now have taken their oaths of office using religious books.) According to The Declaration of Independence,

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that they [the people] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

The Declaration certainly refers to a Creator, so it seems evident that the Founders were not fundamentally opposed to the observation of religious practices – only to the imposition of the practices of some, on all. It is of note as well that they considered it the responsibility of government to ensure the People's “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” even by organizing its powers … “to effect their Safety and Happiness.” And they placed safety before happiness.

Safety is the concern of most of our citizens. Recognizing the reality that one of the most significant threats to our safety is that of terrorism – the events of September 11, 2001 and prior and subsequent actions, here and abroad, demonstrated that – we have increased the utilization of profiling^v in our battle against those threats. If that process requires focusing on Muslims, it makes sense in view of the fact that most of the terrorist actions around the world have been the work of Muslims. That doesn't mean that all Muslims are terrorists but that as a group they represent the greatest threat. Religious prejudice and the First Amendment are not issues. Large numbers of people – both Muslims and non-Muslims – are likely to be unhappy with such a practice, but the Founders and most of us placed safety before happiness. The Constitution places a premium on our safety.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Domestic Tranquility and the common defence [sic] were its priorities as they are ours. If they are not secure, we cannot enjoy happiness. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution don't require that we ignore reality and check our intelligence at the door. First things first.^vi The Declaration was a direct descendant of the “Social Contract” which was outlined by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. It maintained that there was a bargain between the governed and the government in which the people gave up certain of their rights in order to gain protection. Perhaps that means that we must permit some infringements of what we consider basic rights. Perhaps there must be some profiling. It has been highly successful elsewhere. If that is what is necessary to ensure our safety, so be it. Many of us are willing to permit properly supervised modification our freedom^vii with that safety as our goal.

So if, in the interests of our security, our representatives, people we have freely elected, place the responsibility for ensuring that safety in our law-enforcement officers and authorize means that some view as inappropriate, we should remember that absent such security we will have no rights. So if the police take actions our representatives authorize under such circumstances, we should support rather than denounce them. Perhaps they're not always perfect in the performance of their mandate,^viii but they're not scapegoating one group. After all, they're doing what we pay them for. It's their job.

Next episode: “Man Makes The Clothes” – Usually.

i      And I'd be surprised if the police aren't watching the Russian “mob” as well. And all the places they go and the people they meet or, at least, those in their community. Not to mention the various drug cartels. Russian-Americans, and those from countries sending illegal drugs to the US are, overwhelmingly, honest, but we may wind up watching more than the specific people we suspect of crimes.

ii     In fact, even saying something negative about Muslims is a violation of their constitutional rights. The First Amendment may guarantee free speech, and you can insult members of other groups, but finding fault with a Muslim is a hate crime and may even be responsible for violence.

iii    Which is why the Constitution, a wholly secular document, is our “spiritual” guide.

iv   “Claim,” because there is no such exclusion. Certainly, military and congressional chaplains gainsay that view, as do tax exemptions for religious organizations. Even the famous “wall of separation” which many maintain precludes any such involvement, is not a constitutional feature; rather it is a term that Thomas Jefferson used in a letter nearly two decades after the Constitution was written. All that the First Amendment forbids is the establishment of a state religion, guaranteeing all citizens the right to a free exercise of religion.

v      As well as other tools.

vi     Freedom of Speech was only given in the Bill of Rights which was formulated after the Constitution was approved.

vii    Some even view unmodified freedom as anarchy and a return to the “Law of the jungle.”

viii   We enter here the “slippery slope” absolutist argument versus “the greatest good for the greatest number” position – a philosophic dispute that will always exist. I believe that sufficient common sense and safeguards exist to guarantee the preservation of the freedoms as a whole even if it is necessary to place some limitations on the rights of some.

Double-decker Democracy

                                                                              

In the beginning was the soup.ⁱ

There were a few elements and compounds in it, and a lot of gas and lightning outside. And, according to the scientists, it was from this brew that life arose.ⁱⁱ Eventually, though it took a bit of time, there developed both jungle and the animals within it. And survival of the “fittest.” “Kill or be killed.” It was the Law of the Jungle. “Live and let live” and “Turn the other cheek” were not viable alternatives when survival was at stake.

But the beginnings of civilization – of people living together – required a rethinking of the doctrine. “Every man for himself” might have been a necessity when early humans survived as individuals, but it was not suited to group living. So the “Social Contract” was developed. People banded together to form communities to which they surrendered some of their freedom in exchange for the protection that the group offered.ⁱⁱⁱ America's founders went a little beyond that in establishing a government whose primary responsibility was defense, but there were other jobs to be performed in governing and legislating for the newly fashioned nation, so they did so. Followers of Locke, among others, they favored the idea that freedom was a critical goal, one that any rational individual would accept, and that those who did not accept the idea of freedom should be forced to do so – or at least to a limited extent – by accepting the rules of American society.

The belief in “Natural Rights” was a major stumbling block to the acceptance of the Constitution since the Federalists were reluctant to include individual rights in the document, but eventually the original document was approved with the agreement of the Federalists to pass amendments which later became known as the “Bill of Rights.” In effect, the initial Constitution and the Bill of Rights together comprise the document by which our nation was originally defined.

But times have changed. And with them, so has our Constitution. There are new amendments and new laws. Lots of them. And there is “reinterpretation” of the Constitution itself, as well as the subsequent statutes designed to implement it. As for the Bill of Rights, there is freedom of speech and the press, except …; we're free to assemble, when we're not prohibited from doing so. Religious freedom is guaranteed – freedom both of and from religion – but within certain limits; there is protection against self-incrimination unless …; and certainly we have the right to bear arms – sometimes.

There have been numerous other changes in the law and new regulations as well, and many of our citizens believe them to be worthwhile. The conviction is widespread, in the United States and elsewhere, that it is the responsibility of the State to care for its citizens, especially those who cannot, or will not, care for themselves. And the cost of such care must be borne by those who can afford it. Some consider this to be socialism, others the granting of simple Natural Rights, including, the right to food, housing, health care, and the like. It's hard to dispute the wish to help those in need.

But not everyone believes that the provision of that help should be mandated by government at the expense of all. Perhaps the idea of Natural Rights is understood differently in the various cultures around the world. There is certainly disagreement in different nations about what a government must provide for its citizens and what it can demand of them. A quick reading of the newspaper^iv will illustrate this situation. Not only do we disagree on what these rights are, but we have different understandings about their origin. Are they man-made or are they divine? Have we the right not to have the definitions of others imposed on us? Or have we the obligation to force people to be free and equal?^v

It's the age-old disagreement between conservatives and liberals. Among liberals the concept of equality is paramount. The focus begins with Hobbes's laws of nature,^vi the fifth of which reads:

The fifth Law is complaisance: that every man strive to accommodate himself to the rest. The observers of this law may be called sociable; the contrary, stubborn, insociable, froward, intractable.

But they see every man's obligation as far greater. Not only should he “strive to accommodate himself to the rest,” but he should make sure that society provides equally for everyone. Being “sociable” may not be possible without the use of taxes. Hence it is perfectly permissible to mandate charity.

Conservatives, especially libertarians, reject what they regard as a “nanny state.” They seek a situation in which, beyond their own safety, there are few controls on what they do.

Recent inventions and business methods call attention to the next step which must be taken for the protection of the person, and for securing to the individual what Judge Cooley calls the right "to be let alone."^vii

Warren and Brandeis were referring to privacy when they wrote this,^viii and it was a liberal concept, however conservatives would now apply it to all aspects of life. The uninterpreted Constitution is, for them, an estimable structure for society. The two philosophies are so different that accommodation between them is difficult to imagine. And compromise doesn't seem likely.

But there is a solution. It's a little radical, however it should not be dismissed out of hand. It would require the “reformatting” of our democracy into two parts – the first one that views the care of the needy as mandatory, and the second that wants “to be let alone.” Land would be distributed roughly in proportion to the number of those opting for each system with freedom of individuals to move from one to the other at any time, though land redistribution (according to population changes) would occur at fixed times.

Those in the first group – the one that viewed care of the needy as mandatory – would probably consist of those receiving aid from the state, as well as those who considered it their duty to provide such aid. There would eventually be an equalization of all resources so that everyone had a “fair share.”^ix People would, of course, be free to give more to the needy, but there would be certain minimums. There would be no exceptions from the mandates, including members of the government. Education would also be mandatory, but would be provided by the government, which would set the curriculum for it.

In the second group would be all those who want “to be let alone.” While they would be free to give charity, they would not be taxed to do so. Indeed, apart from what is in the Constitution/Bill of Rights, there would be no taxation. Thus, security would be provided by the State. Other services, however, would be provided on a “fee for service” basis. If you wanted your toilets connected to the sewer lines or your garbage collected, there would be a fee. And if you wanted water or other utilities you would pay for them. Schooling would not be free, and it would probably be expensive, but if you had no children you would have no bill.

Clearly there are some details that need to be worked out, but the choice of political philosophy is tempting. After all, choice is what America is all about. And the choice of where to live would give people a chance to “vote with their feet.” Chacun à son goût.^x

'Tis the gift to be simple, 'tis the gift to be free,
'Tis the gift to come down where you ought to be,
And when we find ourselves in the place just right,

'Twill be in the valley of love and delight.^xi

Next episode:  "Fats, Fads, And Futility" -- All I know is what I read in the newspaper.

i     In France it was the potage.

ii    There are those, especially fundamentalists, who think that the scientists, themselves, were drinking a little too much brew when they came up with this explanation.

iii    It was a little like a union. Now we pay our union dues in exchange for the organization's clout. The original ideas were developed by, among others, Grotius, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, but existed long before.

iv    Or some other medium. Nowadays everything can be found on some hand-held electronic device.

v     Whatever that means. It most likely refers to political rights, but even these vary from country to country.

vi    In Leviathan. 1651. Hobbes writes of the need for defense but goes well beyond that.

vii    Thomas Cooley. A Treatise on the Law of Torts, 1880.

viii   “The Right to Privacy,” Harvard Law Review, December 15, 1890.

ix    Whether the poor all over the world would be entitled to move to this Utopia is uncertain, but the ideals it embodies suggest that they would.

x     To each his own soup.

xi    Shaker hymn.