Re: [asa] Wilson's "The Creation"

At 04:34 PM 9/9/2006, David Opderbeck wrote:
>This (below) is just the tip of the iceberg of how ridiculous things
>have gotten.
>
>Interesting. Of course, the Labcorp v. Metabolite case doesnt'
>involve a government agency interfering with a business' property
>rights through regulation. Rather, it involves a business asserting
>its property (patent) rights another business that allegedly stole
>them. .... So, I'm not sure that this case is a big deal for or
>against free markets. I do personally think there's a need for some
>reforms in patent policy, but generally my views on that in many
>areas would tend towards limiting the propery right, which isn't a
>typical "[fill in the blank]" position. ~ David

@ Thanks for your research and insightful comments. Regarding your
last remark, you may find these excerpts -- Re: Constitutional and
copyright law --- to be of interest:

<http://www.freerepublic.com/~matchettpi/Emory Report November 29,
1999 Volume 52, No. 13>Emory Report 11/29/99 Vol.52. No. 13 Excerpt:

"...Marci Hamilton ... [is] a nationally recognized expert on
constitutional and copyright law. ....

Her forthcoming book, Copyright and the Constitution, examines the
historical and philosophical underpinnings of copyright law and
asserts that the American "copyright regime" is grounded in
Calvinism, resulting in a philosophy that favors the product over the
producer.

Calvinism? Hamilton's interest in the intersection of Calvinist
theology and political philosophy emerged early in her career when
she began reading the work of leading constitutional law scholars.
She was puzzled by their "theme of a system of self-rule." "They
talked about it as if it were in existence," she said. "My gut
reaction was that direct democracy and self-rule are a myth that
doesn't really exist."

What Hamilton found was that a "deep and abiding distrust of human
motives that permeates Calvinist theology also permeates the
Constitution." Her investigation of that issue has led to another
forthcoming book, tentatively titled The Reformed Constitution: What
the Framers Meant by Representation.

That our country's form of government is a republic instead of a pure
democracy is no accident, according to Hamilton. The constitutional
framers "expressly rejected direct democracy. Instead, the
Constitution constructs a representative system of government that
places all ruling power in the hands of elected officials."

And the people? Their power is limited to the voting booth and
communication with their elected representatives, she said.

"The Constitution is not built on faith in the people, but rather on
distrust of all social entities, including the people." ...

..Two of the most important framers, James Wilson and James Madison,
were steeped in Presbyterian precepts.

It is Calvinism, Hamilton argued, that "more than any other
Protestant theology, brings together the seeming paradox that man's
will is corrupt by nature but also capable of doing good."

In other words, Calvinism holds that "we can hope for the best but
expect the worst from each other and from the social institutions
humans devise."

"Neither Calvin nor the framers stop at distrust, however," Hamilton
said. "They also embrace an extraordinary theology of hope. The
framers, like Calvin, were reformers." ~ Elaine Justice

*

The 55 Framers (from North to South) and their church
affiliation: http://www.freerepublic.com/~matchettpi/ [scroll 1/2
way down the page]

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Sep 10 09:27:42 2006