Reading the "Public Use" clause

[RJLipkin at aol.com]

Let me close my  participation in this sub-thread with two points. 
Distinctions between 
"philosophy"  and "political position" may, in some contexts be valuable.  
But without an  illuminating explanation of their differences and how these  
differences function in this debate, the mere assertion of this  distinction is 
unhelpful.  Asserting that some hold a political position by  offering reasons 
while others do not fails to cure this problem.
 
        Also, the claim that  Nozick's libertarianism arguably is not based 
on the concept of the good and  Rand's is--that is, her philosophy rests on a 
particular ethics--does not show,  satisfactorily in my view, that when it 
comes to political philosophy both were  not advocating political philosophy in 
contradistinction to a political  position, although one version of that 
philosophy was, whatever its ultimate  merits, an exemplar of philosophical 
reasoning, while the other was not. 
 
Bobby
 
Robert Justin  Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of  Law
Delaware
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20050625/379c4e62/attachment.htm