I have to say some things about his theses in these works at some point.
He makes the stages of states sound so clean and correct....in retrospect....
Unfortunately, it tends in important ways not to pass the smell test.
Just to take the latest but one of his states, the one we are still in, by the way, he claims that its raison d'etre is: give us power and we will improve the material well-being of the nation.
This assertion has already shown itself to be self evidently untrue in the case of the US, his ostensible first example of this recent type of state, Lincoln's Union, for a wide variety of reasons I explain on this blog.
Here, among other problems, he is confusing what he (not I) calls the nation state, with what has been called the welfare state.
These are not at all the same, or even similar in many cases, whatever he may mean by nation state.
He is unsurpassed at what I would describe as a sort of intellectual analytic classification. This was my remark, back in 2014, on his brilliant book on jurisprudence:
Saturday, October 25, 2014
He is unsurpassed at what I would describe as a sort of intellectual analytic classification. This was my remark, back in 2014, on his brilliant book on jurisprudence:
Saturday, October 25, 2014
RE INTELLECTUALS
I would admit, by the way, that Bobbitt's jurisprudential writing is, in its way, wonderful, Constitutional Fate, a sort of Anatomy Of Criticism of constitutional interpretation; The Shield, engrossing.
No comments:
Post a Comment