<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Secret Courts, Augustin, and the legitimate state</title>
	<link>http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/238</link>
	<description>Notes from the intersection of law, society, technology, economics, and culture</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 04:49:53 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: The Right to Inefficient Government at Law &#38; Society Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/238#comment-2456</link>
		<author>The Right to Inefficient Government at Law &#38; Society Blog</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2006 14:48:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/238#comment-2456</guid>
		<description>[...] There are, as I have argued, two fundamental approaches to the tension between the efficient state power and individual liberty. If we take the view that the state (as represented by the head of state and the administration&#8212;and to some extent by parliament), is either &#8220;good&#8221; or &#8220;evil,&#8221; there is little reason to fret and worry about maximum state efficiency as long as we know that the state is &#8220;good.&#8221; It is the righteousness of those in office that protects us, rather than laws and procedures that would hamper saintly as well as morally-corrupt governments. The other approach is to balance powers and restrict competencies, always assuming that government will be &#8220;evil.&#8221; Or to put it another way, the guarantors of individual liberty in the state should be strong enough to protect us even from a government that doesn&#8217;t have the best interests of the citizens, or of minorities, at heart. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] There are, as I have argued, two fundamental approaches to the tension between the efficient state power and individual liberty. If we take the view that the state (as represented by the head of state and the administration&#8212;and to some extent by parliament), is either &#8220;good&#8221; or &#8220;evil,&#8221; there is little reason to fret and worry about maximum state efficiency as long as we know that the state is &#8220;good.&#8221; It is the righteousness of those in office that protects us, rather than laws and procedures that would hamper saintly as well as morally-corrupt governments. The other approach is to balance powers and restrict competencies, always assuming that government will be &#8220;evil.&#8221; Or to put it another way, the guarantors of individual liberty in the state should be strong enough to protect us even from a government that doesn&#8217;t have the best interests of the citizens, or of minorities, at heart. [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
