Intercollegiate Review Online graciously published one of my essays in their “Student Voices” section. An excerpt:
As a deluge of furious Twitterees were mistakenly web-razing the @SCOTUSblog and clergy distributed condoms in a “creative, faith-based protest” of the SCOTUS decision, Friedrich von Hayek was quietly clapping in his Viennese grave while the United States’ highest court shifted America into reverse on her road to serfdom. As voices were raised and veins bulged over the newly discovered “right to contraceptives,” Hayek was reminded of something similar he had seen in Germany and Russia: was not this tendency towards government solutions and centralization similar?
See the full piece here.
Questions I’m personally left with (the part they didn’t publish):
- What distinguishes matters which the federal government should take and what matters lower levels of government should take?
- “This issue is one of formal range of authority, not necessarily the material content of that authority.”
- But is not the formal range of authority determined by its material content?
- Where do intermediary institutions fit within this schema?
- What about the differing moral weight of certain actions. Murder is wrong – and it is good that there be nation-wide laws banning this. But what about abortion? Or contraception? Is this something where there should be a plurality of moral systems? How is this determined? By who?
- Can exemptions be tolerated? Must it necessarily be the imposition of a moral system against individuals, even if on a smaller scale?