Uden der skal gå helt Instapundit i den, er her en samling henvisninger til ting og sager (nogle i tl;dr-kategorien), som denne skribent har fundet interessant i ugens løb og gerne vil dele:
1. Spændende idéer til, hvad BitCoins blockchain i øvrigt kan bruges til, så som registre over adkomst til fast ejendom: Send guld, dollars og aktier med Bitcoin.
2. På baggrund af fire nyere domme konkluderer William Suter for Hoover Institution, at statsretsprofessor Barack Obamas regering lader til at have et meget negativt syn på individets grundrettigheder. Man kan ikke drage direkte paralleller til Danmark, og det er absolut ikke udelukket, at andre præsidenter ville havde handlet ens; men som Suter skriver:
It is rare for the executive branch to lose four cases dealing with fundamental rights in unanimous decisions in one term. Those who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law should feel uneasy about the administration’s positions in these cases. The positions taken by the government suggest bullying and strong-arm tactics.
3. Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard skriver i Berlingske Tidende – inspireret af Ilya Somins Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government Is Smarter? – om politisk uvidenhed, og refererer i den forbindelse dansk data om emnet.
4. Borgerkrigen i Syrien har nu stået på så længe, at de juridiske artikler er begyndt at udkomme. Fra Journal of Conflict & Security Law er der to interessante: “Elimination of the Chemical Weapons Stockpile of Syria” og “Between Law-breaking and Law-making: Syria, Humanitarian Intervention and ‘What the Law Ought to Be’.” Resumé af sidstnævnte:
The Syrian crisis illustrates the struggle of international law to cope with responses to violations of fundamental legal norms, including the prohibition of chemical weapons. The Security Council has been blocked over two years, due to an irresponsible use of prerogatives that are out of time. This has created dilemmas of protection. This article examines claims relating to ‘humanitarian intervention’ raised in the Syrian context. It questions whether greater flexibility towards military strikes or an ‘affirmative defense to Article 2(4)’ of the UN Charter offers a proper remedy to deal with this dilemma. It argues that a case-by-case logic, with a differentiated matrix of assessment, provides a more promising way forward than claims for new regulation.
5. Law and History Review bringer næste gang en omfattende artikel om de nedskrevne forfatningers historie: “Empires of Writing: Britain, America and Constitutions, 1776–1848.”
6. Afslutningsvist vil jeg slå et slag for Facebook-grupperne “BORGERLIG økonomi- og idédebat” og “Libertas“.