Suchergebnisse

When James Otis in 1764 declared that government "has an everlasting foundation in the unchangeable will of God, the author of nature, whose laws never vary," and that "there can be no prescription old enough to supersede the law of nature and the grant of God Almighty, who has given to all men a natural right to be free," he was at once making use of one of the oldest and most important conceptions in the history of political thought and giving to that concept a distinctly American meaning. His was merely one of the earliest examples in this country of a kind of political theory which was to find reflection in the Declaration of Independence in one generation, in the higher law doctrine in another, and in a famous trilogy of decisions of the Supreme Court in still a third. However, the natural-rights theory is by no means the only usage found for the natural-law concept in the political thought of this country, and it is the purpose of this paper to trace briefly the various interpretations placed upon it and the different forms through which it has passed.It is easy enough to say that natural law has meant just what the individual theorist desired to have it mean; for its content has varied from philosophical anarchy to paternalistic aristocracy, and from the assertion of strongly individualistic democracy to the defence of highly centralized government. But this statement does not dispose of the problem. It is necessary to know why and when these varying interpretations were advanced and what their exponents meant when they spoke so confidently of the laws of nature.

In 1921, the House of Representatives of the Ohio General Assembly established a committee of eight members whose duty it was to scan all bills introduced for the purpose of determining whether they were frivolous or irrelevant, not introduced in good faith, or duplications of existing law. When this committee had satisfied itself on these points, bills were to be reported back to the House with recommendations of assignment to appropriate standing committees, thus relieving the speaker of this particular duty. In 1929, the rule covering the functions of this Reference Committee was amended so as to permit it to recommend changes, combine bills, and give its approval to "the form and legal effect" of bills. Other changes in 1937 and 1939 dealt with the number of members serving on the committee, and allowed the committee eight legislative days, instead of six, for disposing of bills. The rule under which the committee now functions is as follows:"When a bill has been read the first time, it shall be referred to the Reference Committee for its consideration and report within eight legislative days after such reference. If it be apparent to said committee that any bill is of a frivolous nature, or that it was not introduced in good faith, or that it is a duplication of a House bill, or can easily be handled as an amendment to a House bill already introduced, or that it is in conflict with or a duplication of an existing statute without making proper provision for the repeal or amendment of such existing statute, said committee shall report said bill back to the House for its return to the author with a notation thereon of the reason for its return.

In recent years, an attempt has been made by the present author to measure the probable slope of the marginal productivity functions of labour and capital in various economies. This has been done by computing indexes of capital (C), labour (L), and product (P) for manufacturing in the United States for the years 1899-1922, Massachusetts 1890-1926, New South Wales 1901-1927, and Victoria 1907-1929. The formula used is that P' (representing an index of computed product) = b LkC(1−k). By making the sum of exponents equal to unity, we assumed for purposes of simplicity that production could be described by a homogeneous function of the first degree and that equal proportionate increases in the quantities of labour and capital would cause the same proportionate increase in product. The exponents of L and C were found by the method of least squares, so that the sum of the squares of the deviation of P′ from P would be reduced to a minimum, and the sum of the arithmetic deviations to zero. The exponents for labour and capital in manufacturing which were found by this method were as follows:It will be noticed that there is a substantial degree of similarity between the exponents found for these economies.A mathematical analysis of the above function discloses: (1) that the share of the net product to be received by a factor should, according to marginal productivity theory, be equal to its exponent; (2) that the elasticity of the marginal productivity curve of, and hence, under competitive conditions, the demand curve for, a factor is the reciprocal of the sum of the exponents of other factors. This would mean a "normal" elasticity of demand for labour of between −2.86 and −4.0, and for capital of between −1.33 and −1.54.

It is most unfortunate that a paper the main content of which in terms of bulk consists of sound and valuable insights to the extent that this is true of Professor Talcott Parsons's article on "The Motivation of Economic Activities" should be utterly misleading with respect to the main question at issue. Without quoting or mentioning any single author, or referring in any specific way to any group, school, or tendency among economists themselves, Professor Parsons tells us merely that: "On the economic side the impression has been wide-spread that a predominantly 'self-interested' or 'egoistic' theory of the motivation of economic activities was a logical necessity of economic theory" (p. 189, my italics). Throughout his own article, Professor Parsons certainly gives the "impression" that the position he has indicated is that which characterizes the typical writings of reputable economists extant and down to date.In view of the author's standing as a sociological interpreter of economic concepts to both sociologists and economists, and also, as already observed, the great merit of his concrete observations on motivation in this particular article, this second impression should not be allowed to stand unchallenged. For the facts are definitely to the contrary. And the true position regarding the type of attitude which may be referred to as "self-interest" in the structure and methodology of modern economic theory should be stated. Still more desirable, if it were possible, would be some intelligible statement as to what this attitude is, or what the expression may be taken to mean. For Professor Parsons gives practically no positive indication of the content of the position he is arguing against. He affords an example more flagrant than that of the economists criticized of what is their real fault. For he himself warily steers clear of any effort to say what he means by the term self-interest or egoism. We find only the negative and noncommittal statement that the assumption proper to economic theory "does not necessarily have anything to do with 'egoism' in the usual sense" (p. 189, my italics).

This essay, as a section out of the history of the Newspaper-Press, deals with the collaboration between agitational papers and street-terrorism on the basis of characteristic examples. The author draws a distinction between partial and absolute terrorism. In the case of the former, a minority by means of intimidation with violence, presses the majority and their prominent leaders to political actions which in all human probability they would never have decided upon on their own initiative.The American War of Independence is quoted as an example, or rather the deeds of violence which, as practised by a radical minority, influenced the course of event.A sketch is then given of the importance of the American Press, at that time in its infancy, with regard to the political successes of the young government, both at home and abroad.As an instance of absolute terrorism, the reign of terror of the French Revolution is taken. There the terrorists themselves seized the power. A survey is given of the various agitational papers and their methods, Their development is described up to the institution of a press-dictatorship by Napoleon Bonaparte. Finally the attention is drawn to the causes of the intimidating effect of the War-Press in times of political tension, all of which is based on historical instances taken from the latter half of the 19th century.The essay endeavours to prove that in social-psychological descriptions it frequently occurs that insufficient attention is paid to the part played by coercion and intimidation.The periodical press offers adequate information to permit of ascertaining the leading ideas and their modifications during agitated times. At the same time, its pages reveal the modifications in the views of the leading men and their influence on the masses.Accurate and specialized research on the basis of similar material taken from the history of the Newspaper-Pres, will complete and justify many a theory on mass-passions and mass-disturbances of reason in the field of social psychology.

Book reviewed in this article:British Monetary Policy. By F. C. BenhamThe Money Muddle and the Way Out. By F. W. Pethick‐LawrenceThe G.H.Q. of L.S.D. By Sir John Wardlow‐MilneFrom Capitalism to Socialism. By J. A. HobsonThe Recording Angel. By J. A. HobsonThe Future of Capitalism. By Werner SombartEconomic Progress and Economic Crises. By Johan AkermanCartels, Concerns and Trusts. By Robert LiefmanThe State and Economic Life. Paris, 1932. Published for the Conference of Institutions for the Study of International Relations by International Institute of Intellectual Co‐operation.National and World Planning. Edited by E. M. Patterson. Philadelphia, 1932. American Academy of Political and Social Science.Otto von Gierke: His Political Teaching and Jurisprudence. By Sobei Mogi, Author of The Problem of Federalism.The Cambridge History of India. Volume VI. The Indian EmpireIndian Problems.By Lord IrwinTruth about India: Can We Get It?By Verrier Elwin.Taxation of Income in India. By V. K. R. B. Rao, M.A.Survey of International Affairs, 1931. By Arnold J. Toynbee, assisted by V. M. Boulter.Documents on International Affairs, 1931. Edited by J. W. Wheeler‐Bennett.Denmark's Right to Greenland. By Knud Berlin.Essays on the Manchurian Problem. By Shuhsi Hsü.The League on Trial. By Max Beer. Translated by W. H. Johnston.The League of Nations in Theory and Practice. By C. K. Webster, with some chapters on International Co‐operationby Sydney Herbert.The Religious Foundations of Internationalism. By Norman Bentwich.John Strachey: The Coming Struggle for PowerLegislative Regulation. By Ernst Freund.Democracy in Crisis. By Harold J. Laski.Conservatism in England. By F. J. C. HearnshawThe People and the Constitution. By Cecil S. Emden.The History of the Russian Revolution. Vols. II. & III. By Leon Trotsky.Twelve Studies in Soviet Russia. With an IntroductionBy C. R. Attlee and G. D. H. Cole.Rural Russia under the Old Régime. By G. T. Robinson.Bolshevism: Theory and Practice. By Waldemar Gurian.Capitalism and Communism: A Reconciliation. By Oscar Newfang.The New Boer War. By Leonard Barnes.The Framework of International Society. By S. H. Bailey, M.A. Worker Educational Association Outlines