Today the principle of inalienable rights has been replaced by relative rights that are merely  notions: "The notion of 'natural' rights is the notion that rights have independent authority in  absolute right, so that they are not relative or contingent, but absolute." I ESSAYS OF  WILLIAM GRAHAM SUMNER 358 (Yale U. Press Dec. 1934). Collectivists, both ancient  and modern, believe that human society should be "set up like the beehive." Henry Grady  Weaver, THE MAINSPRINGS OF HUMAN PROGRESS 38 (1953). Collectivism brings  control: "The more complete the collectivization, the greater the degree of control that can   be exercised." Rev. Clarence Kelly, CONSPIRACY AGAINST MAN AND GOD 15 (1974). Where rights are collective and relative, there are no boundaries to prevent even further  government intrusions on individual liberty. Under collectivism, the individual is viewed merely as a means to satisfy the needs of "society.''  The state is the instrument for organizing people to meet those needs. So it is the state, not the  individual, that is sovereign. Under individualism, the individual is sovereign. The individual is an  end in himself, whose cooperation is to be obtain only through voluntary agreement. All people   are expected to act as traders, either voluntarily agreeing to interact or going separate ways; it's  either "win-win, or no deal.'' The government is limited strictly to ensuring that coercion is  banished from human relations, that "voluntary'' is really voluntary, that both sides choose freely   to deal and both sides live up to their agreements. Individualism and collectivism represent opposite views of the nature of humans, society and  the relationship between them. Under Individualism, it is the individual who is the primary unit of  reality and the ultimate standard of value. This view does not deny that societies exist or that  people benefit from living in them, but it sees society as a collection of individuals, not some- thing over and above them. Collectivism holds that the group, the nation and the community  is the primary unit of reality and the ultimate standard of value. This view does not deny the   reality of the individual. But ultimately, collectivism holds that one's identity is determined by  the groups one interacts with, that one's identity is constituted essentially of relationships with  others. Individualists see people dealing primarily with reality; other people are just one aspect  of reality. Collectivists see people dealing primarily with other people; reality is dealt with  through the mediator of the group; the group, not the individual, is what directly confronts  reality. Individualism holds that every person is an end in himself and that no person should  be sacrificed for the sake of another. Collectivism holds that the needs and goals of the individual  are subordinate to those of the larger group and should be sacrificed when the collective good so   requires. Individualism holds that the individual is the unit of achievement. While not denying that  one person can build on the achievements of others, individualism points out that achievement  goes beyond what has already been done; it is something new that is created by the individual.  Collectivism, on the other hand, holds that achievement is a product of society. In this view, an   individual is a temporary spokesman for the underlying, collective process of progress. Collectivism may describe a political or economic system in which the means of production  and the distribution of goods and services are controlled by the people as a group. Generally this  refers to the state. Collectivism is the opposite of capitalism or free enterprise, in which the means of production are owned by private individuals and distribution is determined by free trade  and considerations of personal profit. The concept of collectivism is derived from the social   theory holding that the interests and welfare of the collective group are of greater importance than the interests and welfare of any individual. As a political-economic theory, collectivism  differs little from theoretical socialism. Modern revolutionary communism is a more extreme type  of collectivism in which not only capitalistic enterprise but also most private property is abolished, by violent means if necessary. Communalism is a form of collectivism in which ownership of the  means of production is vested in a smaller unit, the commune, with a corresponding reduction in  the authority of the state. Variations on collectivism include: Communism, Eurocommunism,  Fascism, Government ownership, Socialism, Dialectical materialism In each system the rights of the group take precedence over the rights of the individual. Those who seek to get in position to tell others what to do oppose individualism. Those who have higher degrees and positions, often bought with much sweat and debt, feel they have the   right to make their living correcting individuals in the name of the state. However, they too find that the destruction of individualism makes them also subject to some higher person in the chain of compulsory command. At its root, collectivism is the submergence of the individual to an elite group--no matter   whether it is called socialism, communism or fascism. responsibility and cause. Vladimir I. Lenin  said in STATE AND REVOLUTION (1916): "From each according to his ability; to each  according to his needs." He also said: "It is true that liberty is precious--so precious that it must  be rationed." Vladimir I. Lenin, SOVIET COMMUNISM: A NEW CIVILIZATION? (1916).   Mao later said: "Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the  enemy."  Today it is largely the group, not the individual, that matters. Individuals are identified as members of a group. Their identity is not in their individuality but in their membership of some   group. Their identity is defined in terms of how they fit in with others. They are blacks, whites,  men, women, gays, straights, etc. first, and individuals second. Not only is the individual identified  by his group, but so is his behavior. We can no longer tell if one's behavior is good or bad, right   or wrong, until we find out his group identity. And individuals are taught to test their behavior,  not against any individual standard, but against how it compares with what is socially--collectively  --acceptable. Ours is the collectivist age of style and image, groups and groupies, and the fruitless   search for inner-identity and self-esteem in others. Few want to be seen as out-of-step. We  are mere spectators in the stadium with no chance of getting on the playing field. Belonging  is more important than what one belongs to. Being in step is more important than the tune of the drummer. Singers put words in our mouths. When something is "in" and "trendy", no one is   allowed to dissent. Most people have become comformist "otherists" and function only within the  premises of collectivism. They struggle to understand its nuances and principles, thinking, like  Machiavelli that there is only one way to deal with man, believing that group thinking is the last   word, unaware that there is any alternative. In 1851 Comte described a "popular dictatorship with freedom of expression." Arthur S.  Miller, DEMOCRATIC DICTATORSHIP: THE EMERGENT CONSTITUTION OF  CONTROL 118 (1981); A. Comte, SYSTEM OF POSITIVE POLITY (1851). St. Simon  had wanted to remold the Catholic Church in the socialist reverie. Comte, his disciple, wanted    to replace Diety with a Great Being, Humanity, and a priesthood which would exercise a  systematic direction over education. William Robert Plumme, THE MODERN CRISIS 2 (1965). After Comte, collectivism was taught subtley by both educational and theological intellectuals  or elites: Most people today have never been overtly confronted with the idea of collectivism.  Most do not know that it is a philosophical idea used by some intellectuals to identify  a movement whose goal is to mold man into a docile, subservient creature. Most have absorbed collectivism from their parents and teachers without hearing the word   "collectivism." Most believe that belonging to a group, engaging in group activities and fostering group goals are good. Most, therefore, see group membership as a civilizing  influence in man's history.  Robert Villegas, Jr., INDIVIDUALISM (1997). A totalitarian state is founded upon the denial of individual rights. Collectivism is "the theory  that the group (the collective) has primacy over the individual. Collectivism holds that, in human   affairs, the collective-society, the community, the nation, the proletariat, the race, ect., --is the  unit of reality and the standard of value. On this view, the individual has reality only as part of the  group, and value only insofar as he serves it; on his own he has no political rights; he is to be   sacrificed for the group whenever it--or its representative, the state--deems this desirable."  Leonard Peikoff, THE OMINOUS PARALLELS 17 (Mentor 1983). In the mid-1880s Sidney and Beatrice Webb saw themselves as "intellectual proletarians" or  members of the enlightened elite that Auguste Comte expected to rule society in its positivist  stage. Neither wanted the proletariat to take power: "By education and reforms which would  improve the condition of the working classes, the experts were to engineer a new, humane and   hygienic society."IV, The Diary of Beatrice Webb, p. xii. They saw themselves as "archetypes of  the new breed of experts..."IV, The Diary of Beatrice Webb, p. xiii. They found allies in the  bureaucracy: "High-minded bureaucrats, naturally inclined to collectivist principles because of the  trend of social evolution were the most likely and best instruments of permeation, for they would  offer soundly based advice to any part politicians who might be shopping for a policy."Id.  Beatrice Webb "saw the Communist Party in Russia (she thought little of the Comintern and the  British Communists) as a latter-day incarnation of August Comte's social priesthood, and   Communist ideology as the "religion of humanity" which would combine a puritan morality with  the application of science to politics." IV, The Diary of Beatrice Webb, p. xv. Pragmatists adopt expediency as the standard of truth. Ethics is, therfore mutable, virtues and vices are relative and what counts is not abstract principles but results. Piekoff, p. 89. Humanist Corliss Lamont defended pragmatism against Marxist critics. Lenin once said that   "practice alone can serve as a real proof." Lamont said that "the pragmatic view of truth as  developed in American philosophy comes close to authoritative Marxist thought." Corliss  Lamont, THE PHILOSOPHY OF HUMANISM 224 (1965). Corliss Lamont (Harvard 1924)  was named by HUAC as "probably the most persistent propagandist for the Soviet Union to  be found anywhere in the United States." W. Cleon Skousen, THE NAKED CAPITALIST 54   (1970). Corliss Lamont said to the Association of Foreign Press Correspondents: "We will use violence if necessary to reach the Socialist goal...the capitalist class will not allow democratic  procedure." E. Merrill Root, COLLECTIVISM ON THE CAMPUS 153 (1956).  Bertrand Russell once remarked that: "The three founders of pragmatism differ greatly  inter se; we may distinquish James, Schiller (the English philosopher) (1864-1937), and   Dewey as respectively its religious, literary and scientific protagonists." Reuben Abel, THE PRAGMATIC HUMANISM OF F.C.S. SCHILLER 3 (1955). Kant was the spiritual ancestor  of all pragmatists. Reuben Abel, THE PRAGMATIC HUMANISM OF F.C.S. SCHILLER 3 (1955). Pragmatism is primarily a method rather than a body of dogma. Reuben Abel, THE PRAGMATIC HUMANISM OF F.C.S. SCHILLER 12 (1955). The triumvirate who fathered "pragmatism" was Charles Pierce, William James (1842-1910) and John Dewey (1859-1952).  Mortimer Smith, THE DIMINISHED MIND: A STUDY OF PLANNED MEDIOCRITY IN  OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS 78 (1954). Pragmatism has been called the first important and  original American thought. Julian Marias, HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 393 (1967).  Pragmatism, however, is, in reality, an exported philosophy of British (German) origin.  Julian Marias, HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 242 (1967). Pragmatism was the only 20th- century philosophy to gain broad, national acceptance in the United States. Piekoff, p. 134.  The British, like pragmatic philosophers, share a horror for the absolute. Kuehnelt-Leddihn,   p. 515. In a paper delivered in 1872, Charles Sanders Pierce first used the name "pragmatism" in a  Boston meeting of the Metaphysical Club. Thomas C. Grey, Holmes and Legal Pragmatism,  41 STAN. L. REV. 787, 864 (1989). William James and John Dewey would later embrace and  expound the philosophy. Pierce took the word from Kant who defined "pragmatic" beliefs as   those that were "contingent only..." Grey, p. 802; Immanuel Kant, CRITIQUE OF PURE  REASON 661 (2nd Ed. 1896). In a letter to Lady Welby, on December 1, 1903, Charles Pierce  wrote: "(T)he objections that have been made to my word 'pragmatism' are very trifling. It is  the doctrine that truth consists in future serviceableness for our needs." George Seldes, THE   GREAT THOUGHTS 327 (1985). William James of Harvard defined pragmatism as "the attitude of looking away from first  things, principles, 'categories,' supposed necessities, of looking towards last things, fruits,   consequences, facts." In Lecture 1 (1907) he also wrote: "Pragmatism is uncomfortable away  from facts. Rationalism is comfortable only in the presence of abstraction..." George Seldes, THE  GREAT THOUGHTS 204 (1985). As a youth, Mussolini became acquainted with several Italian   disciples of William James. In a an April 1926 Sunday Times interview, Mussolini stated: "The  pragmatism of William James was of great use to me in my political career. James taught me that  an action should be judged rather by its results than by its doctrinary basis. I learnt of James that  faith in action, that ardent will to live and fight, to which Fascism owes a great part of its   success...For me the essential was to act." Leonard Piekoff, THE OMINOUS PARALLELS 321  (1982); Ralph Barton Perry, II THE THOUGHT AND CHARACTER OF WILLIAM JAMES  575 (1935). In the late eighteenth century Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) consummated an anti-Aristotelian  revolution. Piekoff, p. 31. He held that our minds are unable to acquire any knowledge of reality.  Piekoff, p. 32. Kant postulated the innate or natural right of the individual to freedom which   necessitated a state in which the exercise of all official powers was limited by the conditions  inherent in its own laws and constitution. Charles Corell, THE DEFENCE OF NATURAL LAW  9 (1992). But Kant also taught that mankind should be more concerned with its duties than its  rights. He believed that all human conduct must be regulated by the "Categorical Imperative."  William Montgomery McGovern, FROM LUTHER TO HITLER 142 (1941). While many of the  older liberal thinkers had regarded the state as a necessary evil, Kant thought that the state was,  or should be, a positive good. McGovern, p. 145. He argued that the state should be all-powerful  and agreed with Hobbes and Rousseau that when men created a state they give to it all their  rights: "The will of the people is naturally un-unified and consequently it is lawless. Its uncondi tional submission under a sovereign will, uniting all particular wills by one law, is a fact which can  originate in the institution of a supreme power, and thus is Public Right founded.." McGovern, p.  146. Kant denied that the state is, or necessarily should be, based on consent of the governed. He  rejected the idea of a social contract: "The Supreme Power in the state has only rights and no   [compulsory] duties toward the subject."McGovern, p. 149. He stated: "It is the duty of the  people to bear any abuse of the supreme power, even though it should be considered unbearable."  McGovern, p. 150.  Thomas Davidson, the initial founder of the Fabian Society, wrote to Havelock Ellis on  October 3, 1883: "Kant and Comte have done their work, taken the sun out of life, and left  men grouping in darkness." William Knight, MEMORIALS OF THOMAS DAVIDSON: THE   WANDERING SCHOLAR 37 (1907). The word "etatism"comes from the French term "etat"  meaning state and implies political emphasis and devotion to the state as opposed to the private  individual. McGovern, p. 15. While Kant was a semi-etatist and semi-authoritarian, Hegel was a  radical throughgoing etatist and authoritarian. McGovern, pp. 132-133.  Modern alturists adopted the principle of self-sacrifice from the medievalists, then dislodged  God and replaced him with men. Hegel went one step further and said that service to others  should also include obedience to them. Peikoff, p. 88. He also revived the old sixteenth century  idea of the duty of passive obedience where "subjects as are disobedient or rebellious against their  princes disobey God and procure their own damnation." McGovern, p. 21. In the place of passive  obedience he substituted the doctrine of the supremacy of the state over the individual--the state  as the end in itself. Unlike past defenders of absolutism, Hegel did not attack the principles of  liberty or freedom. He taught that the state was the "actualization of Freedom." Id. at 299. True  freedom, however, was voluntary but complete subserviance to the dictates of the state. Hegel  adopted the definition of liberty laid down by Kant, which was accepted in some form by Fichte,  Carlyle and by Green--that liberty consists of the ability to do what one ought to do. McGovern,  p. 301.Hegel rejected the consent of the governed, did not believe authority was delegated by the  people, believed that the broad mass of the people should be excluded from politics, that  sovereignty resided in the ruler rather than in the people and in short, that the many should be   guided and controlled by the few--who, in turn, were subordinate to the supreme head of the  state. McGovern, p. 321. Hegel proved "to be the great forerunner or 'morning star' of the Fascist  theory of the state." Id. at 335. Karl Marx was "largely inspired by Hegel." George Knupffer,  THE STRUGGLE FOR WORLD POWER 33 (4th Ed. 1986). The Hegelians defined the  individual as a dialectic of self and other necessarily involving society: "As pure being the  individual was nothing." Bruce Kuklick, CHURCHMEN AND PHILOSOPHERS 179 (1985). The notion that there are no natural or inalienable rights has been supported by the  philosophical contention that all rights are relative. If rights come solely from legislative bodies,   then constitutions can be regarded as superfulous--including the now emptied phrases in the Bill  of Rights of the U.S. and of each state. The "regulation" of non-absolute rights is said not to  be the same as "infringement". State v. Workman, 35 W. Va. 367, 14 S.E. 9, 11, 14 L.R.A. 600   (W. Va. 1891). Around 1897 Morris Cohen described his studies: "Calling ourselves the Student's League or  Marx Circle, we began to read the socialist classics." A DREAMER'S JOURNEY: THE  AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF MORRIS RAPHAEL COHEN 166 (The Free Press 1949). In his junior  year at City College, Morris R. Cohen read Hegel's Encylopadie. Id. at 148.He added: "My  search for enlightenment led me to the Neo-Hegelians. The books which offered me most food for  reflection were Watson's Comte, Miller and Spencer, and Dewey's Psychology." Id. at 117.  Cohen attended Harvard Graduate School from September of 1904 to June of 1906. He wrote:   "I managed to emerge from my two years at Cambridge with the respect and friendship of such teachers as William James, Josiah Royce, Ralph Barton Perry, Hugo Munsterberg, and George Herbert Palmer." Id. at 131. Cohen's greatest teacher at Harvard was Josiah Royce while "the  best friend I found on the Harvard faculty was William James." Id. at 132. Royce taught that  individualism was "the sin against the Holy Ghost." Piekoff, p. 118. Cohen did not embrace  Jame's views: "James never seemed to go beyond Mill, who was killed for me by Hegel and   Russell." A DREAMER'S JOURNEY: THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF MORRIS RAPHAEL  COHEN 132 (The Free Press 1949). Cohen stated: "(Bertrand) Russell came closer to being my   philosophical god than any one before or since." Id. at 169. John Dewey stated in 1899: "Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the  harmony of the collective society which is coming where everyone is interdependent."  On May 14, 1899 Davidson wrote Cohen: "I am glad to have you look upon me as a father..."  Knight, p. 139. Davidson added: "(T)hat you are attached to socialism neither surprises nor  disappoints me. I once came near being a socialist myself, and, indeed, in that frame of mind  founded what afterwards became the Fabian Society. But I soon found out the limitations of  socialism, and so I am sure will you, 'if you are true to yourself.' I have not found any deep social  insight, or any high moral ideals, among the many socialists I know."Id. at 139. Socialism would   worsen rather than improve society: "Further, I suppose, we both see that mere economic  socialism--that it, the owning of all the means of production by the state--would not necessarily  insure economic well-being, that Crokerian socialism, for example, would be sure to do the  opposite. Socialism could not abolish 'bossism,' but would rather increase its opportunities and  power." Id. at 142. He predicted: "Historically, nations have been great...in proportion as they   have developed individualism on a basis of private property... If socialism once realized should  prove abortive, and throw power and wealth into the hands of a class, that class would be able to  maintain itself against all opposition, just as did the feudal chiefs for so long." Id. at 143.  Davidson wrote to Cohen on June 12, 1899: "You are altogether mistaken in thinking that I  am an idealist. I have fought idealism for forty years with all my might." Id.  James claimed that Davidson was never critical of Kant: "Hegel, it is true, he detested; but  he always spoke with reverence of Kant. Of Mill and Spencer he had a low opinion." William  Knight, MEMORIALS OF THOMAS DAVIDSON: THE WANDERING SCHOLAR 109   (1907). James lent Davidson Paulsen's Einleitungindie Philosophie. Davidson shot back: "It's  the shabbiest, seediest pretence at a philosophy I have ever dreamed of as possible." Id. at 109- 110. James labeled Davidson as "a Platonizer." Id. at 110. Davidson thought that academic life  subdued individualism and made for "philistinism." On the way back to Glenmore one night,  Davidson lit into James by the lantern light denouncing him as an academic. Id. James again, less  gratefully, acknowledged Davidson's Glenmore library: "His own cottage was full of books,  whose use was free to all who visited the settlement." Id. at 114. Davidson did not relate well to  Jame's politics: "It was this individualistic religion that made Davidson so indifferent, all democrat   as he nevertheless was, to socialisms and general administrative panaceas. Life must be flexible.  You ask for a free man and these Utopias give you an interchangeable part,' with a fixed number,  in a rule-bound social organism." Id. at 115. James learned little from Thomas Davidson:  "..Personally I never gained any very definite light from his more abstract philosophy. Id. at 118.   American pragamatists embraced the central ideas of Kant and Hegel. It was German   metaphysical idealism given an active development. Piekoff, p. 124. Plain anticipations of  pragmatism can be found in the idealism writings of Kant, Fichte and Nietzche. Henry David  Aiken, THE AGE OF IDEOLOGY 264 (Mentor 1956). Pragmatism became "the dominant force  in American sociology, education and jurisprudence" after being fostered by John Dewey and  Roscoe Pound. Paul L. Gregg, The Pragmatism of Mr. Justice Holmes, 31 GEO. L.J. 262, 284  (1943). The views of William James echoed Utilitarianism. Pound as a Harvard colleague of James  and was greatly influenced by him in his basic approach. Pound taught that the law was involved  with "social engineering." In his classes on "experimental logic" John Dewey at Columbia was  fond of using the engineer as a prime example of "man thinking." Felix Frankfurter, in his  Memoirs, said that he and Pound were brought to the Harvard Law School at the same time to  bring social referents to bear on the law. Beryl Harold Levy, ANGLO-AMERICAN  PHILOSOPHY OF LAW 77-78 (1991). By blending sociology and law, Roscoe Pound became  "the leading theoretician of the Progressive movement, whose theories provided the underpinning   for natural resources conservation and, though rarely acknowledged, for the modern   environmental movement." 69 CHICAGO-KENT L. REV. 847, 851 (1994). Roscoe Pound, styled as a great legal educator, repeatedly revealed his low opinion of   individualism. He wrote in 1905: "No amount of admiration for our traditional system should  blind us to the obvious fact that it exhibits too great a respect for the individual, and for the  entrenched position in which our legal and political history has put him, and too little respect for  the needs of society, when they come in conflict with the individual, to be in touch with the  present age." Pound, Do We Need A Philosophy of Law?, 5 COLUM. L. REV. 339, 344 (1905).  Pound much later made an address to the annual meeting of Phi Beta Kappa entitled "The End of   Individualism and Development of a 'Relational' Society." New York Times 17:7 (February 20,  1932). Later Pound would write against an "individual" Second Amendment. On July 10, 1906 Attorney Robt. G. Street read a paper to the Texas Bar Association in which  he quoted President Elliot of Harvard University): "The new ideal in American life is the idea of  unity for the common good, individualism with collectivism, each to perfect the other. The first  half of the 19th century saw the development of individualism, the last half of collectivism..."   PROCEEDINGS, p. 232.  John Dewey read the ideas of Schelling and Hegel. John E. Wise, THE HISTORY OF  EDUCATION 421 (1964). C.S. Morris at Johns Hopkins University was an Hegelian idealist  who shaped Dewey's early philosophical thought. Id. When G. Stanley Hall arrived at Johns  Hopkins University from Leipzig, Dewey, a Hegelian in philosophy, was there waiting to write  his doctoral thesis on "The Psychology of Kant." Anthony C. Sutton, AMERICA'S SECRET  ESTABLISHMENT 102 (1986). Auguste Comte, systematized his ideal of social investigation and called it positivism. Young Dewey read Harriet Martineau's condensation of Auguste Comte's   Positive Philosophy which "awakened his lifelong interest in the interaction of social conditions  with the development of thought in science and philosophy." Neil Gerard McCluskey, PUBLIC  SCHOOLS AND MORAL EDUCATION 180 (1958).  In the period 1907-1908 Dewey detailed pragmatism's claim that there are no ultimate  principles by which ends, means and actions are assayed. The only critical rule was that an idea  or "plan of action" is true if it works. Paul L. Gregg, The Pragmatism of Mr. Justice Holmes, 31  GEO. L.J. 262, 284 (1943); John Dewey, 16 MIND 335-336 (1907) and 5 JOURNAL OF  PHILOSOPHY 88 (1908). Aaron Sargent, a consultant to the Senate Internal Security  Committee, said: "Professor Dewey denied that there was any such thing as absolute truth, that  everything was relative, everything was doubtful, that there were no basic values and nothing  which was specifically true...you automatically wipe the slate clean, you throw historical   experience and background to the wind and you begin all over again, which is exactly what the  Marxians want someone to do." Rene A. Wormser, FOUNDATIONS: THEIR POWER AND  INFLUENCE 144 (1958). Since 1910 "it has not been uncommon to find reference to James, Dewey or other  pragmatists in judicial decisions of state and national courts, including the Supreme Court of  the United States." 12 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES 310 (Edwin  Seligman Ed. 1934). The influence of pragmatism in judicial decisions can be be seen when an opinion begins by stating that a fundamental right "is not absolute." Once a right is thus limited, regulation is said to be fully permissible.  In April of 1913 the first Conference on Legal and Social Philosophy was held. Many lawyers,  social scientists and philosophers "were excited by what Cohen himself called "The Process of  Judicial Legislation." David A. Hollinger, MORRIS R. COHEN AND THE SCIENTIFIC IDEAL   167-168 (MIT Press 1975). The conference was organized by Morris R. Cohen and chaired by  John Dewey. Roscoe Pound opened the conference with an appeal to let judges improve society  by putting the appropriate social ideals into effect. This was also Cohen's theme--judges were to  calculate the social consequences of alternatives open in a given case and make a decision  according to a clearly articulated set of social priorities. Id. at 168.Cohen blasted Hans  Wustendorfer, Ernst Fuchs, Arthur F. Bentley and Brooks Adams for their denial of "all value to   logic and general principles." Cohen's son later boasted that it is from this conference that "much  of the social and philosophical consciousness of modern American jurisprudence derives." John Dewey, in 1922, maintained that the individual achieves his meaning only in his relations  with others--in associational activity. HUMAN NATURE AND CONDUCT: AN  INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY (1922); Quoted by Miller, SOCIAL CHANGE  AND FUNDAMENTAL LAW 55-56 (1979). Dewey stated in 1927: "(T)he human being whom we fasten upon as individual par excellence  is moved and regulated by his association with others; what he does and what the consequences of   his behavior are, what his experience consists of, cannot even be described, much less accounted  for, in isolation." THE PUBLIC AND ITS PROBLEMS 188 (1927). In the late 1930s and 1940s of the theory of "bureaucratic collectivism" emerged. The impact  of the first War and the Great Depression has been summarized by Maurice W. Cranston,  Professor of Political Science ath the London School of Economics and Political Science:  "(F)abianism flourished when the double impact of WWI and the Great Depression had destroyed  many other illusions. In spite of its claim to be a form of socialism, Fabianism became assimilated  by liberals, as liberalism took on the ideas of state regulation of the economy, bureaucratic  planning, income transfers to relieve poverty, and the subordination of civil and political rights to   so-called social and economic rights. This is as true of American as of English liberals, despite  America's deep traditional attachment to economic freedom." "1890-1990: up from Fabian  Socialism," 27 SOCIETY 71 (Jan./Feb.1990).   In 1933 Ernst Huber, Nazi party spokesman said: "The authority of the Fuhrer is not limited by  checks and controls, by special autonomous bodies or individual rights, but it is free and  independent, all-inclusive and unlimited." Peikoff, p. 16. Up went the State and down went the  individual:"The concept of personal liberties of the individual as opposed to the authority of the  state had to disappear..." Peikoff, p. 16.The Nazis had no use for inalienable rights: "There are no  personal liberties of the individual which fall outside the realm of the state and which must be  respected by the state...The constitution of the nationalistic Reich is therefore not based upon a  system of inborn and inalienable rights of the individual." Peikoff, p. 16. In Hitler's Germany every  detail of life was prescribed or proscribed; the only private individuals were those that were   asleep. Peikoff, p. 17. Gobbels said: "To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is  sacrificing the individual to the whole." Peikoff, p. 19. Germans were told the idea that  totalitarians of every kind stress as the justification for a total state: collectivism. Peikoff, p. 17.  Huber also wrote that private property was a reversal of true property. German socialism  overcame the earlier version of the right of the individual to manage and to speculate with   inherited or acquired property without regard to the general interests; all property was common  property. Peikoff, p. 18. In 1936 Chief Justice Charles Hughes stated that no distinction could be made between  constitutional rights pertaining to liberty and those pertaining to property. St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. United States, 298 U.S. 38, 52 (1936). Justice Brandeis, in his concurring  opinion, however, said a distinction should be made when dealing with property. 298 U.S.  38, 77 (1936). After FDR's court-packing scheme had been unveiled, the Supreme Court took "several steps   to the left." Daniel Lazare, THE FROZEN REPUBLIC 160 (1996). The year 1937 represented  the dividing line between the "negative, nightwatchman state" and the "Positive State." Arthur S.  Miller, THE MODERN CORPORATE STATE: PRIVATE GOVERNMENTS AND THE  AMERICAN CONSTITUTION 91 (1976). The turning point for "a new type of government"  came when Chief Justice Hughes held: "In prohibiting that deprivation, the Constitution does  not recognize an absolute and uncontrollable liberty. Liberty in each of its phases has its history  and connotation. But the liberty safeguarded (by the 14th Amendment) is liberty in a social   organization which requires the protection of law against the evils which menace the health,  safety, morals, and welfare of the people. Liberty under the Constitution is thus necessarily  subject to the restraints of due process, and regulation which is reasonable in relation to its  subject and is adopted in the interests of the community is due process." Arthur S. Miller, THE  SUPREME COURT: MYTH AND REALITY 352 (1978); West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish,  300 U.S. 370 (1937) (emphasis added by Miller).  For the first time due process could be "used to restrain liberty." Miller said this was the  modern version of Thomas Hill Green's concept of "positive freedom" and of collective well- being. Id. The purpose of government, according to Green, was not to maximize individual freedom but "to insure the conditions for at least a minimum of well-being--a standard of living,  of education, and of security below which good policy requires that no considerable part  of the population shall be allowed to fall." THE SUPREME COURT: MYTH AND  REALITY 352 (1978); SABINE, A HISTORY OF POLITICAL THEORY 674 (1937).  For the first time liberty "became a social, as distinquished from an individual, right." Arthur  S. Miller, THE MODERN CORPORATE STATE: PRIVATE GOVERNMENTS AND  THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION 95 (1976). Edwin S. Corwin wrote: "From being a  limitation on legislative power, the due process clause becomes an actual instigation to  legislative action of a leveling nature." Id.; Corwin, LIBERTY AGAINST GOVERNMENT  161 (1948). It was at this time, with little contemporary appreciation, that "a quiet but massive  constitutional revolution began." Arthur S. Miller, THE MODERN CORPORATE STATE:  PRIVATE GOVERNMENTS AND THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION 95 (1976). The Texas high court held in 1941: "It is not only the right, but the duty of the judicial branch  to determine whether or not a Legislative Act contravenes or antagonizes the fundamental law;  and in determining such we are unalterably wedded to the principle that the Constitution means  what it meant when it was written." Friedman v. American Surety Company of New York, 151  S.W.2d 570, 580 (Tex. 1941); Swayne v. Chase, 88 Tex. 218, 30 S.W. 1049, 1053 (Tex. 1895). In 1942 the lawmaker-centered view of was explained: "The state of the others' is thus the  sole source of rights., that is to say that once man has arbitrarily decided that he wants to live,  he finds that he must live with others and that when he lives with others, the others demand  certain things of him and grant him certain rights. The state is the mouthpiece and overseers  employed by the others. Rights and duties come from the state. The result then is that our rights  depend on our brute power to demand and secure what we desire, and are duties are simply  those things which we must do, because others will force us to do them." E.W. Simms, A  Dissent From Greatness, 28 VA. L. REV. 467, 477-478 (1942). Simms added: "The principle  that the individual has rights which he may assert, even as against the state, is the foundation  stone of democracy." Id. at 480. In 1944 Matthew Page Andrews (1879-1947) wrote Social Planning By Frontier Thinkers.  The book opened with a quote from "The Witch's Curse" Comic Opera by Gilbert and Sullivan.  The "Professor" was quoted: "Our Educational Planner are careful to avoid the term subversive';  but if the American way fails to provide the most abundant life, then it must give place to  something better and more beautiful. As one Planner has said: Our frontier must be given the  opportunity to create a design and the freedom to establish it.'" Matthew Page Andrews,  SOCIAL PLANNING BY FRONTIER THINKERS 7-8 (1944). The Professor further stated:  "The Brain Trust, not being amendable to any established order, will get around the Constitution  or over-ride it." Id. at 10. In this same year G. Edward Merriam cited Aristotle as holding that  the individual could not exist except as a stone hand: "The lone individual does not figure either in family relations, in neighborhood relations, in state relations, in social relations, or in the higher  values of religion. Nowhere is he left without guiding social groups, personalities, and principles."  PUBLIC AND PRIVATE GOVERNMENT 16 (1944). When the times emphasis individualism, individuals have rights. When stress is constantly  made on community, the age is one of collectivism: "Man is an individual; he is also a member of  society. As an individual, he demands freedom of action. As a member of a social group, he  conforms and expects his fellows to conform to the established group standards. Individualism  stresses the rights of the individual; collectivism stresses those of the community." Scott Nearing,   UNITED WORLD 125 (1945). Talk about inalienable rights is a sign that the interests of the  individuals in the society are not parallel to the ruling social groups. A One World proponent  noted: "When the interests of the individual closely parallel those of the social group there is little  talk of inalienable rights; little agitation for freedom. Under other circumstances, the group makes  demands that lead the individual to take a stand against collective authority. If he carries his   opposition far enough, he will be denounced, proscribed and punished for his refusal to accept  group discipline." Scott Nearing, UNITED WORLD 125 (1945). President Truman once said: "If we don't have a fundamental moral background, we will   finally end up with a...government which does not believe in rights for anyone except the state."  Steve C. Dawson, GOD'S PROVIDENCE IN AMERICAN HISTORY 13:1 (1988). By 1947 it was said that the then prevailing teaching, of both political and legal philosophers  "denies that the purpose of government is to secure these inherent and inalienable rights. It asserts  that because there are no immutable principles of human conduct, there is no ultimate standard of  justice and the lawmaker is responsible to nothing but his own unfettered will. It asserts tha since  there are no natural rights, all man's rights come to him from the state, and what the state grants,   the state may take away. It asserts that since men possess no natural, inherent rights, the purpose  of government is not to secure these rights but rather the purpose of man is to serve the state."  Harold R. McKinnon, The Higher law: Reaction Has Permeated Our Legal Thinking, AM. BAR  ASSOC. J. 106 (February 1947).   John P. Keith, shortly after World War II, wrote: "Constitutional revision is rooted in the  field of politics and not in the field of law." John P. Keith, METHODS OF CONSTITUTIONAL  REVISION 53 (Bureau of Municipal Research: U.T. 1949). Peter Drucker stated in 1950 that it is "the organization rather than the individual which is productive in an industrial system." THE NEW SOCIETY 6 (1950). In the same year John R.  Commons stated: "This is an age of collective action." THE ECONOMICS OF COLLECTIVE  ACTION 23 (1950). Those who favor absolute government have no belief in absolute individual  rights. The Hutchins Commission's position on absolute (individual) rights was stated in 1950:  "The notion of rights, costless, unconditional, conferred by the Creator at birth, was a marvelous  fighting principle against arbitrary governments and had its historic work to do. But in the context  of an acheived political freedom the need of limitation becomes evident. The unworkable and  invalid conception of birth-rights, wholly divorced from the condition of duty, has tended to beget  an arrogant type of individualism which makes a mockery of every free institution, including the  press." Frank Hughes, PREJUDICE AND THE PRESS 165 (1950). Sidney Hook wrote: "Whoever then looks to Dewey to find out whether God or chance is the cause of the universe,  whether the soul of man is immortal, whether life is good, bad, or has an absolute meaning, is  doomed to disappointment." Neil Gerard McCluskey, PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND MORAL  EDUCATION 194 (1958).  In 1951 Justice Vinson stated for the U.S. Supreme Court: "Nothing is more certain in modern  society than the principle that there are no absolutes, that a name, a phrases, a standard has  meaning only when associated with the considerations which give birth to nomenclature. To those  who would paralyze our Government in the face of impending threat by encasing it in a semantic   strait-jacket, we must reply that all concepts are relative." Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, LEFTISM  207 (1974). Felix Morley commented: "So it becomes definitely dangerous to the spiritual welfare  of this Republic when the chief law officer of its government declares, irrelevantly and even  irreverently, that 'all concepts are relative.'" Morley traced such relativism to the "positivist"   school of philosophy. Lucy, p. 559; Felix Morley, "Affirmation of Materialism," Barron's 3  (June 18, 1951). Earl Latham wrote in 1952 that "the chief social values cherished by individuals in modern  society are realized by groups." THE GROUP BASIS OF POLITICS 1 (1952).  In July 1953 Professor Colin Clark, an Australian political economist, said that in the British   Commonwealth countries and in the United States "academic Marxism--or crypto-Marxism--is  stronger than ever." E. Merill Root, COLLECTIVISM ON THE CAMPUS 6 (1956). On July 25,  1953, Congressman Reece of Tennessee discussed the ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIAL  SCIENCE which had been produced in consecutive volumes during 1930-1935. Alvin Johnson,  the editor, stated in PIONEER'S PROGRESS (pp. 310-312) that two of his assistant editors  were Socialists and the other a Communist. In the series, described by Reese as "a sort of  supreme court of the social sciences," subjects on the left were assigned to leftists while subjects  on the right were also assigned primarily to leftists.Root, p. 205. Pragmatism is now the American way. Mortimer Smith wrote in 1954: "I do not think  anyone will challenge the statement that pragmatism has become the official philosophy of  public school education; there may be an occasional maverick scattered here and there but   the great majority of the professors of education are committed to this philosophy and they  transmit it to the future teachers and administrators whom they train to run the American public  school system." THE DIMINISHED MIND: A STUDY OF PLANNED MEDIOCRITY IN  OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS 78-79 (1954). The result of pragmatism is ultimately disillusion:  "Pragmatism dissolves dogmas into beliefs, eternities and necessities into change and chance,  conclusions and finalities into processes. But men have invented philosophy precisely because  they find change, chance and process too much for them, and desire infallible security and  certainty. Pragmatism is no philosophy for them. It calls for too complete a disillusion." Horace  M. Kallen, 12 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES 311 (Edwin Seligman Ed.  1934). Among the weaknesses in pragmaticism "is that it tends to produce results that are   episodic, intuitive, individualistic and in this sense arbitrary.'" Jerome Frank, AMERICAN  LEGAL PHILOSOPHY  4.50 at 468. In the early 1950s, William H. Whyte, Jr. stated in Fortune: "A very curious thing has been  taking place in this country almost without our knowing it. In a country where individualism-- independence and self-reliance--was the watchword for three centuries the view is now coming to  be accepted that the individual himself has no meaning except as a member of a group." Vance  Packard, THE HIDDEN PERSUADERS 173 (1957). Facism, according to a leading spokesman, Alfredo Rocco, stressed: "(T)he necessity for  which the older doctrines makes little allowance, of sacrifice, even up to the total immolation of   individuals, in behalf of society....For Liberalism (i.e., individualism), the individual is the end and  society the means; nor is it conceiveable that the individual, considered in the dignity of an  ultimate finality, be lowered to mere instrumentality. For Fascism, society is the end, individuals  the means, and its whole life consists in using individuals as instruments for its social ends."   Peikoff, p. 17. In 1958 Mussolini was quoted: "The highest personality is that of the Nation... The Fascist State, synthesis and unity of all values, interprets, develops and actuates the whole  life of the People... For Fascism the State is an absolute, in whose presence individuals and groups  are relative." Arthur S. Miller, DEMOCRATIC DICTATORSHIP: THE EMERGENT  CONSTITUTION OF CONTROL 67 (1981); O. Gierke, NATURAL LAW AND THE  THEORY OF SOCIETY 1500 to 1800 (E. Barker trans. 1958). The paramount principles of communistic and totalitarian jurisprudence include 1) the   omnipotence of the state, 2) the insignificance of the individual, and 3) the rule of public policy  (which quickly becomes party policy and then the leader's policy in the determination of rights). .  Dr. Fred Schwartz, YOU CAN TRUST THE COMMUNISTS (TO BE COMMUNISTS) 28  (1960). In 1961 Henry Kissinger wrote: "Pragmatism, at least in its generally accepted forms,  produces a tendency to identify a policy issue with the search for empirical data. It sees in consensus a test of validity. Pragmatism is more concerned with method than with judgment.  Or, rather, it seeks to reduce judgment to methodology and value to knowledge. The result  is a greater concern with the collection of facts than with the interpretation of their significance."  THE NECESSITY FOR CHOICE 342 (1961). In California one court in 1961 indicated the  fate of natural rights in the Soviet Union: "Natural rights are those which grow out of the nature  of man and depend upon his personality and are distinquished from those which are created by  positive laws enacted by a duly constituted government to create an orderly civilized society... Soviet legal theory denies that natural rights exist and asserts that all 'rights' are grants  bestowed by the government upon its citizens." In Re Gogabashvele's Estate, 16 Cal. Rptr. 77, 91  (4th Dist. Ca. 1961). Martin Glasser wrote in 1962: "The 19th century liberal attempted to limit state power and  activity and to foster the liberty of the individual." Martin Glasser, "The Judicial Philosophy of  Felix Frankfurter," Vol. 1, No. 4, New Individualist Review 29 (Winter 1962). Now it is said:  "Liberalism stands for, above all, individual rights and is compatible with a strong state that is   supposed to ensure those rights." Joshua Miller, THE RISE AND FALL OF DEMOCRACY IN  EARLY AMERICA, 1630-1790 13 (1991). It was said in 1966: "The substance of the matter is that while it is the duty of every institution   established under the authority of a Constitution and exercising powers granted by a Constitution,  to keep within the limits of those powers, it is the duty of the Courts, from the nature of their  function, to say what these limits are. And that is why Courts come to interpret a Constitution.  K.C. Wheare, MODERN CONSTITUTIONS, 101 (1966). Adolfe A. Berle (1895-1971), a key New Deal "braintrust" member, candidly wrote before his  death: "This is a report on a revolution. The unique fact is that the revolutionary committee is the  Supreme Court of the United States." THE THREE FACES OF POWER vii (1967). Thirty-four  states, reacting to Baker v. Carr, by 1967 had called for a constitutional convention. Id. at viii.   Berle continued: "The thesis can be briefly stated. Ultimate legislative power in the United States  has come to rest in the Supreme Court of the United States." THE THREE FACES OF POWER  3 (1967). In Brown v. Board of Education "the reserve legislative power of the Supreme Court  became overt." THE THREE FACES OF POWER 10 (1967); 347 U.S. 483 (1954). The case  "pushed judicial legislation into public awareness." THE THREE FACES OF POWER 11 (1967) In his James Madison Lecture at the New York University Law School, Associate Justice Abe  Fortas of the Supreme Court stated on March 29, 1967: "It is fascinating, although disconcerting  to some, that the first and fundamental breakthrough in various categories of revolutionary  progress has been made by the courts--and specifically the Supreme Court of the United States."  Adolfe A. Berle, THE THREE FACES OF POWER vii (1967). In the Spring of 1969, Indiana Law Professor Robert Force foresaw that state charter revision  commissions might delete a Bill of Rights using the argument that: "State Bills of Right are  obsolete." At that time the notion of using state Bills of Right to safeguard individual rights was  said to be "dorment or disappearing rapidly." R. Force, State Bills of Rights, 3 VALPARALSO   U.L. REV. 125, 164 (1969). In 1974 Saturday Review celebrated the 50th anniversary of education. The leading educator  from 1924-1974, according to those educators polled, was John Dewey. The August 10, 1974  issue quoted him: "There is no God and no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of  traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded then immutable truth is also dead and buried.  There is no room for fixed, natural law or permanent absolutes."A. Ralph Epperson,  THE UNSEEN HAND 378 (1985). T. David Horton was quoted in 1975 as noting the failure of law schools to teach students the  text of our constitutions:  It has been suggested that we are a nation of constitutional illiterates, and to  a degree, I think this is so. The Constitution appears to be a subject that everybody  talks about but nobody reads...I remember the first of three courses I took in  Constitutional Law. I was nearly bounced out for having the temerity to suggest  to the Professor that, since this was a course that was labeled Constitutional Law,  possibily we ought to read the Constitution. The course that lawyers take today  called Constitutional Law, frankly doesn't consist of studying the Constitution. It  involves memorizing the catechism--studying the sophistries--by which one provision  after another of our Constitution is construed out of existence. This is one reason why  in our present Constitutional Crisis, we find lawyers among those who are most derelict  in failing to advance any remedy to correct the situation.  Quoted by Archibald E. Roberts, THE REPUBLIC: DECLINE AND FUTURE PROMISE 69 (Betsy Ross Press 1975). By the time of the American Bicenntial, Justice Stanley Mosk of the California Supreme Court  predicted a trend where state judges recognized interpreting their own constitutions in a way that   "neither required nor necessarily prefers (conformity) to the United States Supreme Court's  interpretation of the federal constitution." S. MOSK, "The State Courts," AMERICAN LAW:  THE THIRD CENTURY 213, 224-225 (B. Swarrtz Ed. 1976). Dr. Francis Schaeffer wrote in 1976: "We must not think of an overnight change, but rather  a subtle trend by the leadership toward a greater control and manipulation of the individual. Of  course, some might feel uncomfortable about this increased control and manipulation in a  relativistic age, but where would they draw the line? Many who talk of civil liberties are also  committed to the concept of the state's responsibility to solve all problems." Schaeffer further  added: "At that point the words left or right will make no difference. They are only two roads to  the same end. There is no difference between an authoritarian government from the right or left;  the results are the same. An elite, an authoritarianism as such, will gradually form on society so  that it will not go to chaos. And most people will accept it--from the desire for personal peace and  affluence, from apathy, and from the yearning for order to assure the functioning of some political   system, business, and the affairs of daily life. That is just what Rome did with Caesar Augustus."  Paul McGuire, WHO WILL RULE THE FUTURE? 36-37 (1991); Vol. 5, How Should We Then  Live? 243-244 (1976).  In 1977 it was stated: "For decades now, there have been no positions in the national or  local educational lobbies for any but professed liberals." Richard D. Mandell, THE PROFESSOR GAME 44 (1977). George D. Braden noted in August of 1977 that the Texas Constitution had not been the focus  of law courses: In the law schools themselves future lawyers and judges typically study United  States constitutional law. They learn how great and lesser justices of the United States Supreme Court have interpreted the United States Constitution and they  dip into the great mass of literature which deals with these subjects. But where  are the courses in state constitutional law, where are the twentieth century treatises on state constitutions, and where are the articles explaining them? The answer is that, with very rare exception, they simply do not exist." - I THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: AN ANNOTATED AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 5 (1977).   In 1978, Dean Roger C. Cramton described "the ordinary religion of the law school  classroom" as "a moral relativism tending towards nihilism, a pragmatism tending toward an  amoral instrumentalism, a realism tending toward cynicism, and individualism tending towards  atomism, and a faith in reason and democratic processes tending toward mere crudulity and  idolatry." Charles E. Rice, Some Reasons for the Restoration of Natural Law Jurisprudence, 24  WAKE FOREST L. REV. 539 (1989); Cramton, The Ordinary Religion of the Law School  Classroom, 29 J. LEGAL ED. 247, 262-263 (1978).  Former Justice Charles G. Douglas opined in 1978: "The fact that law clerks working for  state judges have only been taught or are familiar with federal cases brings in a federal bias to the  various states as they fan out after graduation from federally' oriented law schools. The lack of  treatises [or] textbooks developing the rich diversity of state constitutional law developments   could be viewed as an attempt to nationalize' the law and denigrate the state bench." Douglas,  State Judicial Activism--The New Role for State Bills of Rights, 12 Suffolk U.L. Rev. 1123, 1147  (1978) (emphasis in original). In 1978 Law professor Miller described the Supreme Court Justices as the "high priesthood," the founders as "saints," the law clerks as "alter boys," law professors and some politicial  scientists as "Pharisees" and lawyers as "acolytes." He quoted Justice Jackson: "We are not final  because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final." Brown v. Allen, 344   U.S. 443, 540 (1953); THE SUPREME COURT: MYTH AND REALITY 15 (1978). In   America the Jefferson idea was "that government is best that governs least." The prevailing  notion, said Miller, in the words of Robert Hutchins, is that "that government is best that  governs best." THE SUPREME COURT: MYTH AND REALITY 352 (1978). Philip Kurland stated in 1978:  The concept of a written constitution is that it defines the authority of government  and its limits, that government is the creature of the constitution and cannot do what  it does not authorize...A priori, such a constitution could only have a fixed and  unchanging meaning, if it were to furfill its function. For changed conditions, the  instrument itself made provision for amendment which, in accordance with the concept  of a written constitution, was expected to be the only form of change.  WATERGATE AND THE CONSTITUTION 7 (1978).  In 1979 Professor Arthur S. Miller stated: "Orthodox constitutional theory and doctrine  recognize the existence of but two entities; government and the individual person. Nothing  intermediate is envisaged. The Constitution limits government in favor of individuals, a notion  based on the unstated assumption that individuals live and act as autonomous units." SOCIAL   CHANGE AND FUNDAMENTAL LAW 55 (1979). However, said Miller: "But it has become   widely recognized in the past few decades that the completely autonomous, 'isolated' individual  does not exist as such. The individual spends his life as a member of groups and is significant  only as a member of a group." Id. (emphasis in original). Justice Hans A. Linde wrote in 1980: "(I)t is a curious fact that when we speak of individual  rights, not only the newspaper reading public but no doubt most members of the legal profession  take it for granted that we speak of federal law, pronounced by federal courts. " Justice Hans A.  Linde, First Things First: Rediscovering the States' Bills of Rights, UNIV. OF BALT. L. REV.  379 (1980). He also noted "while state courts routinely assume their charges to declare individual   rights against other individuals or private entities, the curious fact is that they seldom and  hesitatantly assume the same responsibility for individual rights against public authority." Id. at  380. The courts once were "guardians" of the rights of property rather defenders of government.  Property rights are now largely subordinated to the government. A legal essay stated in 1981  that the scales have turned: "At least it will be only in the extreme case--one perhaps of very   arbitrary, very capricious, very selective government conduct--that the Court will intervene in  favor of the property-rights holder." James L. Oakes, 2nd Circuit Judge, 'Property Rights' in  Constitutional Analysis Today, 56 WASH. L. REV. 583, 623 (1981). By 1982 Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Shirley Abrahamson predicted that the 1980s  would be "the decade of state courts." S. Abrahamson, Reincarnation of State Courts, 36  S.W. L.J. 961 (1982). In that same year Justice Pollock held: "Although the state constitution may encompass a smaller universe than the federal Constitution, our constellation of rights may  be more complete." Right to Choose v. Byrne, 91 N.J. 287, 300, 450 A.2d 925, 931 (1982). Louisiana Justice James Dennis stated that while respect must be given to decisions of the U.S.  Supreme Court, state judges had the right of "independent judgment in construing the constitution  adopted" by the people of each state. State v. Hernadez, 410 So. 2d 1382, 1386 (1982). Judge Marvin O. Teague of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stated in 1983: "By its  decisions, (the U.S. Supreme Court) appears to be abdicating its position as the role maker and  champion of individual rights." Brown v. State, 657 S.W.2d 797, 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (en  banc) (dissenting). Vermont Justice William C. Hill said in 1983: "We are saying for the first time in many years   that our state constitution means something." "Rebirth of Reliance on State Charters," THE  NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL 1 (March 12, 1984). Tennessee Justice Joseph Henry wrote that fundamental rights and liberties do not end with  federal law: "If this were not true, the frictions of federalism would be fierce and frustrating and state courts would be reduced to mere conduits through which federal edicts would flow." Miller  v. State, 584 S.W.2d 578, 760 (1983). A survey of Texas appellate decisions from November 1972 through 1982 found that in only  one of twenty-five cases was a violation of the Texas Equal Rights Amendment upheld. Rodric B.   Schoen, The Texas Equal Rights Amendment After the First Decade: Judicial Developments  1978-1982, 20 HOUSTON. L. REV. 1321, 1368 (1983). In 1985 Professor Harold Berman wrote that in the past two generations "the public  philosophy of America shifted radically from a religious to a secular theory of law, from a  moral to a political or instrumental theory, and from a historical to a pragmatic theory."   Charles E. Rice, Some Reasons for the Restoration of Natural Law Jurisprudence, 24 WAKE  FOREST L. REV. 539, 540 (1989); Berman, The Crisis of Legal Education in America, 26  B.C.L. REV. 347, 348 (1985). The basis for the present legal philosophy is legislative  omnipotence: "The triumph of the positivist theory of law--that law is the will of the lawmaker-- and the decline of rival theories--the moral theory that law is reason and conscience, and the  historical theory that law is an ongoing tradition in which both politics and morality play  important parts--have contributed to the bewilderment of legal education. Skepticism and  relativism are widespread..." Id. In both law and medicine pragmatism substituted the "case"  system for reasoning from general principles. Arthur Cecil Bining and Philip Shriver Klein, A  HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES 621 (1951). In law schools, students are taught with  casebooks rather than treatises. As a result, "law students are taught cases and little else. If the  cases got it 'wrong,' it is foolish to expect the hurried practitioner or overburdened judge to  undertake original scholarship. Today, it is rare for even the Supreme Court to rely on anything   more than its own precedent." 39 CATH. U.L. REV. 1, 18 (1989). The Supreme Court of Vermont held in 1985: "Since 1970 there have been over 250 cases in   which state appellate courts have viewed the scope of rights under state constitutions as broader  than those secured by the federal constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court."  State v. Jewett, 500 A.2d 233, 234 (Vermont 1985). It was also stated in 1985: "There is no question that the development of new remedies for  state constitutional law must occur in state courts rather than federal courts."). J. Friesen,  Recovering Damages for State Bill of Rights Claims, 63 TEX. L. REV. 1269, 1271 (1985). In 1985 Larry Abraham noted: "We are given the choice between Communism (international  socialism) on one end of the spectrum, Naziism (national socialism) on the other end, or Fabian  socialism in the middle." Larry Abraham, CALL IT CONSPIRACY 30 (1985). The result of pragamatism on children has been summarized:  While the youngest mind is taught that their are no absolutes, that no decision  is final; that no authority figure except the State has the last word; that everything  is equally acceptable; that real objectivity is the absence of any standard of right and  wrong; then I contend that these young minds will be learning the ruthlessness  which is so prevalent in today's youth and being acted out on all sides in today's  society...In the Educationists' terminology, the logical consequences of this  philosophy, real freedom is achieved only when one is a slave to the state. It is  worth mentioning here that democracy is not seen by the educationist as a form  of government, but a way of life. It is in reality a socialized society...There is  something vastly more sinister to be pointed out here than just production of the  group mentality. The implication of such a group mind is that the person goes  on through life looking to the group to validate all of his decisions. The corollary  of this insistence on relating everything to the group, relating from smaller to larger  groups, and taking the largest group decision as the ultimate, is that the family is  downgraded to just another small group with no special meaning. Thus, all family  decisions, especially in the area of values, are open at all times to modification  through group dynamics in the classroom, and eventually become of little importance  at all to the child.  Estalvin Dee Lillywhite, SECRETS THAT EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD KNOW 193-194 (Hawkes Press: 1985). David Richards wrote to Mike Wallace: "The Texas Supreme Court has recently moved to the   forefront among the state courts willing to utilize state constitutional doctrines to preserve and  protect our essential liberties." While federal courts are retreating, state justices are taking up the  mantle and more closely examining their own state Bill of Rights guarantees. J. Harrington,  17 TEXAS TECH L. REV. 1487, 1495 (1986). While rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution cannot be limited in state constitutions,  the Texas high court said in 1986 that "state constitutions can and often do provide additional  rights for their citizens." LeCroy v. Harlon, 713 S.W.2d 335, 338 (Tex. 1986). In Texas courts  apply "an individual rights perspective," rather than "a societal perspective." J. Harrington,   Framing A Texas Bill of Rights Argument, 24 ST. MARY'S L.J. 399, 417 (1993); LeCroy v.  Harlon, 713 S.W.2d 335, 342 (Tex. 1986); DuPuy v. Waco, 396 S.W.2d 103, 106 (Tex.   1965). Arthur S. Miller, late Professor Emeritus of Constitutional Law at George Washington  University, and in his day the foremost proponent of "living" constitutions, wrote in 1987:  "Today...the states exist more as administrative districts for centrally established policies than  as sovereign entities." THE SECRET CONSTITUTION AND THE NEED FOR CONSTI- TUTIONAL CHANGE 119 (1987) He even added: "No reason whatsoever exists for having a political subdivision called Rhode Island or Idaho or even Texas or California."  Id. at 123. Miller, whose work was sponsored in part by the Rockefeller Foundation, also  said that "a pervasive system of thought control exists in the United States...the citizenry is   indoctrinated by employment of the mass media and the system of public education...people  are told what to think about...the old order is crumbling...Nationalism (love of country) should  be seen as a dangerous social disease...A new vision is required to plan and manage the future,  a global vision that will transcend national boundaries and eliminate the poison of nationalistic   solutions...a new Constitution is necessary." The terms "natural rights" or "the rights of man" have been replaced in this century by "human  rights." THE BLACKWELL ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF POLITICAL THOUGHT 222 (David  Miller Ed. 1987).  Article I, Section 8 of the Texas Bill of Rights has been distinquished from the First  Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. Chief Justice Evans held in 1988: There is an important distinction between the free speech guarantee of article 1,  section 8 of the Texas Constitution and the related, but quite different first amend- ment provisions of the federal constitution. The Texas Constitution, in positive terms, guarantes that every person has the right to speak, write, or publish their  opinion on any subject. The federal constitution, on the other hand, expresses first amendment freedoms in negative terms, simply restricting governmental interference   with such freedoms. Thus, the Texas constitutional provision, which is similar to those adopted in 38 other states, affirmatively guarantees that each individual shall   have the right of free speech." Jones v. Memorial Hospital System, 746 S.W.2d 891, 893 (Tex. App. Houston  [14th Dist.] 1988, no writ). It was suggested in 1989 that the influences of utilitarianism and legal positivism in America  "have produced an ominous shift in the foundation of our legal system." What is emerging is   unlimited government without justice: "Ultimately legal positivism is unacceptable as a  jurisprudential framework because it provides no inherent limits on the power of the state and  no basis for determining what is just." Charles E. Rice, Some Reasons for the Restoration of  Natural Law Jurisprudence, 24 WAKE FOREST L. REV. 539 (1989). In the Edgewood I opinion, it was stated, for the first time in Texas , that the meaning  of constitutional provisions was to be sought "with the understanding that the Constitution  was ratified to function as an organic document to govern society and institutions as they  evolve through time." Edgewood I.S.D. v. Kirby, 777 S.W.2d 391, 394 (Tex. 1989). This  opinion cited no direct precedent and can only be viewed as a forbidden fruit of Miller's   "living" constitution view. In 1982, Arthur Selwin Miller had urged the ideology of a "living"  Constitution as opposed to what the Founders understood to be a Constitution of fixed  principles. A. Miller, TOWARD INCREASED JUDICIAL ACTIVISM: THE POLITICAL ROLE OF THE SUPREME COURT 9 (1982).  Bill Moyers wrote in 1990: "Secrecy is the freedom zealots dream of: no watchman to check   the door, no accountant to check the books, no judge to check the law. The secret government  has no constitution. The rules it follows are the rules it makes up." Bill Moyers, THE SECRET  GOVERNMENT: THE CONSTITUTION IN CRISIS 7 (1990). It has been noted about individualism as now "taught" in higher education:   It has become practically axiomatic in the academy that one cannot invoke so   jaded a notion as individualism without an elaborate garland of reservations,   qualifications, and caveats... any academic discussion of the subject of individualism  is likely to be taken as a red flag by progressive academics for whom individualism  is tantamount to racism. Because individualism is widely recognized as one of the  bedrocks of Western liberal thought and society, no, as it were, self-respecting (not  to say individualistic) academic would dream of taking it straight,' of dealing with it  on its own terms as an idea that continues to have a profound claim on us morally and intellectually. Individualism in this sense is only slightly less disreputable in the academy  these days than than ultimate term of abuse, bourgeois.  Roger Kimball, TENURED RADICALS 46-47 (1990) (emphasis in original). In 1992, in Making Elite Lawyers, Robert Granfield, a sociologist at the University of Denver,  stated that legal education often turns idealists into amoral pragmatists: "A lot of people who go  into law school have a strong sense of right and wrong and a belief in moral truths. Those values  are destroyed in law school, where students are taught that there is no right and wrong and where  such idealistic, big-picture concepts get usurped. They actually come to disdain right-versus- wrong thinking as unprofessional and naive." Ralph Nader and Wesley J. Smith, NO CONTEST  334 (1996). The fact of "revolution" in law was openly asserted in 1994: "Revolutionary decisions are the  result of adjudication where the judge is acting like a legislator, though a legislator of a unique  kind.". Indeed, it is contended now that constitutional law in this country has always been   revolutionary: "American constitutionalism has always relied upon revolutionary adjudication in  interpreting the Constitution." 42 BUFFALO L. REV. 317, 380-381 (1994) By 1995 it could be stated: "Almost a quarter of Americans work in public schools as students  or staff." David Tyack & Larry Cuban, TINKERING TOWARD UTOPIA: A CENTURY OF  PUBLIC SCHOOL REFORM 141 (1995). In 1996 the lingering legacy of British Benthamism was described: "If the greatest good for   the greatest number meant anything, it was that the interests of society as a whole predominated  over those of any single person or group." Daniel Lazare, THE FROZEN REPUBLIC 244  (1996). In his January 1996 State of the Union speech, President Clinton said the "era of big  government is over." Later he would say that instead we were in an era of the volunteering "big  citizen." Jeff Gerth, "Smaller Government, More Liabilities," Austin American-Statesman A4   (February 23, 1996). In his remarks celebrating Texas's 150th birthday Texas Governor George Bush told some  2,000 people gathered at the Capitol: "Texas is still the land of dreamers and doers, of rugged  individualists willing to take risks." Peggy Fikac, "2,000 Celebrate Texas' 150th Birthday,"  Austin American-Statesman B3 (February 20, 1996). The first sentence in Hillary Clinton's   1996 village book was: "Children are not rugged individualists." Education as we know it may soon be abolished. The plan is based in part on the Russian   system of indoctrination (in the mid-1980s education exchange agreements gave the Russian  our technology while they explained how to brainwash children). John Loffler, "Beyond Goals  2000: Workers for the 21st Century," Personal Update 2 (May 1997). Diplomas will be replaced  by a Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM). Without a CIM it will be virtually impossible to find  work. The NCEE has stated that workers without the certificate "will be condemned to dead-end  jobs that leave them in poverty even if they are working." Later it will become illegal to hire  anyone without a CIM. The focus will be on livetime learning. The work force in the U.S. will be  monitarized by a national computer containing everyone's academic and psychological work  profiles. This totalitarian creation, modeled after the Communist Chinese Dangan system, will also  include employee career histories. There will be no exception for home schoolers--all will be  forced to participate to get a job. The system is said to be "voluntary" but states will be forced to   participate or lose federal funds. The educational agenda is being driven by an interlocking set of  laws, government departments and private foundations. Loffler, p. 3. In 1997 William Greider published his latest book--One World, Ready or Not. It is a call for  still more government intervention with a number of interesting observations: "The deepest social  meaning of the global industrial revolution is that people no longer have free choice in the matter  of identity. Ready or not, they are already of the world. As producers or consumers, as workers  or merchants or investors, they are now bound to distant other through the complex strands of   commerce and finance reorganizing the globe as a unified marketplace." In the end nations will  lose their rights too: "The capacity of nations to control their own affairs has been checked by  finance and eroded by free-roving commerce, but politicians continue to pretend they are in  charge." William Greider, ONE WORLD, READY OR NOT 333-334 (1997).  "Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set." --Proverbs XXII "A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize  the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of  ignorance that tyranny begins." --Ben Franklin "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans."   --President Bill Clinton (USA Today, March 11, 1993, p. 2) "When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans..." "And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities." --President Bill Clinton (The Free American, April, 1997, p. 3) "When a society is perishing, the true advice to give those who would restore  it is to recall it to the principles from which it sprang."  --Pope Leo XIII "People will not look forward to posterity who never look backwards to  their ancestors." --Edmund Burke

© 1997 Eric Samuelson