Useful to understand, but not a guide in any conventional sense.

I blush.

I should probably confess at this point that the “medium” snark was stolen almost word for word from an early critic of television. I don’t recall off the top of my head which one, and my quote book is in my other meditation chamber, but it might have been Ernie Kovacs.

Max,

You’re not wrong, but the problem then is why a libertarian who thinks that minarchism is sweet reason itself is right and a socialist who thinks redistribution is sweet reason itself is wrong. Evolutionary psychology offers a (probably false) promise of objectivity in such matters.

However, I’m not sure that the term “Natural Law” is properly associated so directly with evolutionary psychology.

Here is an interesting recent article on that topic from the always insightful Public Discourse:

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/11/5994/

It discusses the assertion that “natural law is the rule and governance of reason (ordo rationalis) and not of physical nature (ordo naturae).”

I think that this construction is correct. So a deep rooted psychological tendency to redistribute wealth, does not itself amount to Natural Law, because, despite the word “natural” it does not refer to law derived merely from biological reality, but to law derived from Reason.

*Movement conservatism isn’t conservative at all — though I am happy to let it be called a movement: It has shown the characteristic tendency to float to the surface and there make a stink.

Oh, my. When you’re on, you’re on.

The word was “minarchism”, not “monorchism.”

My pleasure, sir.

I say, that’s a bit extreme, what? Do they really believe in, ahem, making do with only one? And is it really possible in our enlightened age to find a medical chappie who will, er, make the necessary modifications? Shocking, really.