Search results

It is in connection with Occam's elaborate theory of property that we can most readily grasp the importance of his theory of higher law, particularly as embodied in the jus gentium. We must, therefore, investigate this subject in considerable detail.In Occam's view, God is originally the source of all property. But, as in the case of law and government, this is true only in the most general and indirect sense. Most property rights arise from human law and only mediately from God, although in a few special cases such rights follow directly from special divine ordination or from lex divina. Occam cites a passage from St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theol. II, II, Qu. 44, Art. 2) stating that separate possessions are not according to natural law but are founded upon human or positive law, and are added to natural law through the exercise of human reason. In the primal condition of mankind, or in the state of innocence in the Garden of Eden, all property was common and none was discrete or private. Before Eve came, Adam had only a de facto right of user and no greater right of private property than a sole remaining monk would have in the property of a monastery.

"This book looks at the social and biological significance of changing birth rates in the United States. The following topics are discussed: Population trends of American groups; Measurable characteristics of American groups; Influence of differential reproduction on the characteristics of the American people; Causes and control of population trends." (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2008 APA, all rights reserved).

"This book examines the social theory of nations. It looks at sciences, economics, human nature, government, society, and values. In addition, it strives to understand the dynamics and habits of these different pieces." (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2007 APA, all rights reserved)

Of all the clauses in the Bill of Rights, the free speech guaranty stands foremost in the significance of the political principle it defends, and in the enduring vitality of the problems it puts before us. In an age of toleration bordering on indifference, the phrase protecting the free exercise of religion has been reverently consigned to a life of honored retirement; in the days of conscription "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" finds a place in constitutional structure similar to that of the vermiform appendix in the human body; and the good old search and seizure clause now is roused from a senile contemplation of other days only at rarest intervals, relapsing soon into a customary desuetude. But no such fate will ever befall the free speech clause. The human interest it defends is in a very real sense the most fundamental and permanent in the Bill of Rights, and no changes brought by the onward movement of civilization are ever likely to make the need for its protection less necessary.For as long as human beings have tongues and minds they will say what they think, and they will think differently. Where the question is important and the issues vital or seemingly vital, such hatred and bitterness is likely to develop as will require a very strong constitutional guaranty and a reverential respect for the written word if oppression is to be prevented. In fact, all the rancor and bitterness attached to actual physical conflict are frequently found in scarcely diminished intensity to have gathered about mere polemics.

"The rising value of human life in America is one of the signs of our advancing culture. The evidence of its existence is all about us and it needs no argument. But the value of human living as contrasted with human life is not yet on a sound standard, although public health, education, theology, medicine, and social work have been expanding their interests, in morbidity, mortality, and casualties to encompass the more positive satisfying, effective, and productive living. An attempt is made in the pages that follow to show how reasonable are the quandaries of the veteran, considering what he has been through and how reasonable it is that we should not throw the whole burden of finding his way upon shoulders that are new to this type of responsibility, nor take from those shoulders loads that they can carry. It is not a matter of rewarding a man for work well done"--Foreword. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).

The first statute giving a right of action for the death of a human being, Lord Campbell's Act was adopted in England in 1846. New York adopted a similar statute, a year later. At the present time all American jurisdictions have statutes conferring a right of action for wrongful death. These statutes differ widely in their terms, particularly as to the person authorized to bring the action, and as to those for whose benefit the action is prosecuted. The statutes, however, fall into two distinct classes. Statutes of the first and by far the larger group, following Lord Campbell's Act, create a new and independent cause of action for the death of the deceased in favor of the specified beneficiaries. These are the true death statutes. The second group comprehends the so-called "survival statutes," that is statutes which merely keep alive the right of action which the deceased himself would have had, had he lived. A number of jurisdictions, including Washington, have adopted statutes of both types. The Washington statutes as they existed prior to 1927, and as amended by the legislative session of that year are set forth below

Speech given at Chamber of Commerce ; individual men and women but they must see by this time that individual security is an ideal to be pursued, not a right to fee asserted - a privilege to be earned, not a gift to be bestowed. I believe that a great contribution may be made by governments to the individuals quest for security, but that contribution must be made with patience, with good will, and with respect for technical and financial, as well as human limitations. To regard security as a governmental gift rather than as an individual and social goal is to over-emphasize material and economic values and to obscure the greater ends in life. We are all interested in welfare. We believe in assumption by the government of its responsibilities in this regard; but let me emphasize again that freedom rather than welfare is the key word when government is considered in relation to human values. The government

The legal philosophy of Nelson is fundamentally a liberal doctrine. It is, on the one hand, opposed to the philosophy which places a supreme trust in human reason and which believes that man can sit down and codify a system of laws in which there will be no gaps; and, on the other, it is opposed to a belief in the necessary rationality of existing institutions in the onward sweep of human history, the idea which was so dear to the Historical School of jurisprudence.Nelson is aNaturrechtlehrerin the sense that he believes in the existence of metajuristic criteria of justice. That there are elemental principles of justice which are universal, and according to which laws are either just or unjust, decisions either right or wrong, Nelson believes cannot be denied. The moment we admit the injustice of a statute, or a judicial decision, we admit that we have used a criterion on which to base our opinion. The mistake we make, however, is to suppose that we can discover criteria, either empirically or logically.

The first thirty years of the nineteenth century saw the beginnings of a great revolution in transportation and communication. Improvements were introduced which in time greatly changed the daily lives of people throughout the world, and made it possible for their efforts to reach out as never before in human history. The change was nowhere more significant than in its effect on international society. A century ago, the railroad, the steamship and the telegraph so extended the range of human action that national organization ceased to correspond with the activities of many peoples, and the state system upon which the nineteenth century dawned was greatly modified by the progress made in international organization before the century had passed. Certainly no period up to that time had produced such changes as those which began in the decades between 1800 and 1830.

War, as a social phenomenon, has been defined as "a fight between human societies, in primitive conditions between savage tribes, in the civilized world between states." Ever since history has recorded the activities of organized groups, war has been one of its principal topics. Since it appears to be a fundamental element in their life, its explanation has been sought in the basic conditions of their existence. Thus, it is said, the law of growth and expansion, innate as a natural tendency in the individual being as well as in organized societies, compels them with irresistible force to assert their rights and to seek "security" by combating others. War, it seems, is ordained by nature and is an inevitable result of competition.

"Every officer in the armed forces daily encounters numerous situations in which a more thorough knowledge of men and how to direct them would be of inestimable value. This text provides the officer with certain principles of action to which he may turn for the solution of those military problems pertaining to the human element. In other words, it shows how to work effectively with all superiors and subordinates. The method of procedure is as follows: First, those military problems frequently encountered by most officers are carefully studied. Second, the psychological principles and techniques possessing a direct bearing upon each of these problems are correlated with them. That other military problems may have been little stressed is granted. These problems, however, have been given every consideration prior to their exclusion. The criterion for inclusion in each instance has been the usefulness of the problem to the greatest number of officers in the several branches of the armed forces. Only those rules that definitely enhance human efficiency in training and in combat have been held acceptable for consideration. The authors, for example, have excluded material pertaining to the causes of armed conflict, to the rival social philosophies underlying the present war, and to the problem of camouflage and its obvious relationship to human observation, since it is believed that these and all other exclusions can be and have been more advantageously treated elsewhere"--Preface. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA, all rights reserved)