Thomas D. Howes

Some fun news: @McGillPatterson and I have signed a contract with @ActonInstitute to write a book in which we argue that the project of postliberalism is a revival of past failed projects, and a dead end for Catholics/Christians. The tentative title: Why Postliberalism Failed.

It's because of Tucker Carlson that J.D. Vance is in the White House.

I don't plan on ever taking my kids to a live-action remake.

Watch/listen to the full episode --- YouTube: youtube.com/watch?v=mHnfvD… Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/081wyF3Mm… Apple: open.spotify.com/show/081wyF3Mm…

@PaulRDeHart Oh definitely. I remember in the First Treatise Locke defends duties of charity (a notion Aquinas defends too). Difficult to square that with Nozick.

Oh, I’m fine with ST. I just think FT is better than many realize. And that C. V of ST should be interpreted in light of ST C. IV. To wit, Locke doesn’t really think we own ourselves, just that we have a liberty to use relative to other humans. And if one pulls this thread, the critique of Filmer unravels. BUT Filmer was a proponent of the modern theory of sovereignty (mostly à la Bodin) and NOT some sort of proto Aristotelian or traditional Christian.

In my 2007 book Uncovering the Constitution’s Moral Design I made the argument that Locke’s statements in Chapters II & V, concerning God’s ownership of us and our putative ownership of ourselves (if this is the right way to read him) did not constitute a contradiction not only because 2 or more people can own the same thing (like a house) but also because it’s possible that Locke holds we own ourselves relative to others but as stewards but not absolutely and that God has proprietary ownership in us. We own ourselves relative to others but not relative to God. Thus, Locke’s theory is not really founded on self-ownership. I see others subsequently made the argument but without reference to my work. I would now add that Locke never says we own ourselves. He says we have a property in ourselves. But he only ascribes having property as an owner to God. Our property in the goods of the world he describes, in the First Treatise, as a liberty to use and restrict as he sees fit. To this notion that property in Locke is a liberty to use that can be expanded or restricted by God, see James Tully. Either way of reading Locke eliminates the contradiction (though other problems with his theory remains). But let me add that Locke’s entire theory of limited government is founded on his denial that we own or have absolute and arbitrary power over ourselves. Pull that thread and limited government is the price.

@PaulRDeHart I like both his treatises on government. I don't like his writings on epistemology though. I agree on Nozick.

The idea that C. V contradicts C. II struck me as simplistic reading of both chapters (and and unnecessary reading of the First Treatise out of the argument). I concluded in grad school that Tully was right about use right / property = liberty to use and not property as an owner for anyone but God. Wrote it up in a paper arguing that Nozick is not a good Lockean. I’m still a critic of Locke’s Essay which I don’t think is serious epistemology or metaphysics. But like CS Lewis, I like the First Treatise. And all the good stuff in ST we can find in earlier, better sources or later better ones line Wilson’s law lecture.

This article explores how it is that people enter politics with the best of intentions and, without ever noticing it, become evil.

The Russian army has sustained over 6,000 casualties in the last four days as it attempted a renewed offensive that was beaten back by the Ukrainian military. politico.eu/article/russia…

@AngryMeow42 I haven't seen Cinderella's remake, but I love the original.

@ThomasDHowes A) Cinderella and The Jungle Book were straight-up better than the animated originals. B) WHY does this movie exist??? The sequel to the original JUST made like a billion dollars like two years ago!!!

Project Hail Mary shows how easy it is to make movies people want to see. Just have a great story, perfect casting, and perfect directing, and people will love it. Simple.

Check out Nathan's article on Vichy France today at the Dispatch.

@Zheschool That's totally fair. In part, I wanted to cover any accusations you weren't fair. You were very fair to them, and you're right there were plenty of heroes who stood out. Maritain, Simon, de Lubac, Congar, among them.

@ThomasDHowes Thanks! I am not sure who was earliest, of the Bishops. Definitely some of them covered themselves in shame, but part of what I hoped to show is that, even if you've started to go down a bad route, you can always jump off the train!

Great article, but if anything it goes easy on the French bishops. Unless I'm missing something, it took almost two years for any of them to speak out publicly against Vichy.

MAGA’s man in Hungary is losing his mojo. As April 12 elections near, Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz party contends with glum voters and economic woes, writes @JillianKayM on.wsj.com/4s9xXOV

i'm tired boss x.com/DiscussingFilm…

The Philosophers and Churchmen Who Fell for Fascism: Moral lessons from Vichy France | @Zheschool in The Monday Essay thedispatch.com/article/vichy-…