Oakeshott on Rome and America

By -
I have reached an agreement with Imprint Academic to publish my new book, which currently has the title above, in the first half of 2012.

Comments

  1. PH11:48 AM

    Congrats. Do you get to pick the title?

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah12:10 PM

    I certainly will have input into the title.

    ReplyDelete
  3. PH12:50 PM

    You might want to make "Oakeshott on Rome and America" the subtitle, and use something flashier—perhaps a pithy line from Oakeshott himself (cf. this)?—for the title itself.

    ReplyDelete
  4. gcallah2:02 PM

    I certainly DO want a flashier title -- I just don't have one yet! Suggestions are welcomed.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Daniel McCarthy6:26 PM

    Congratulations. I'm greatly looking forward to it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. PH1:18 PM

    It's hard to judge a work by its table of contents, so these titles might be hilariously inapposite. Even so, they are the best I could come up with:

    1. Constitutionalism's Empty Promise: Oakeshott on Rome and America

    2. Rome, America, and the Failure of Rationalism: Oakeshott on the Fate of Two Civilizations

    3. The Imaginary Chains of a Constitution: Oakeshott on the Roman and American Experiments

    That last one is of course an allusion to the famous Jefferson quotation.

    ReplyDelete
  7. gcallah1:21 PM

    Good work, PSH.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more