Loyalty Oaths - Revision history

Eric Rasmusen at 14:30, 16 March 2024

2024-03-16T14:30:14Z

Eric Rasmusen at 14:29, 16 March 2024

2024-03-16T14:29:54Z

Eric Rasmusen at 14:29, 16 March 2024

2024-03-16T14:29:08Z

Eric Rasmusen at 14:28, 16 March 2024

2024-03-16T14:28:04Z

Eric Rasmusen at 14:05, 16 March 2024

2024-03-16T14:05:33Z

Eric Rasmusen at 13:57, 16 March 2024

2024-03-16T13:57:37Z

Eric Rasmusen: Created page with "*[https://www.betonit.ai/p/loyalty-oaths-compared-an-orwellian-exercise "Loyalty Oaths Compared: An Orwellian Exercise,"] Bryan Kaplan (2020)."

2024-03-16T13:56:23Z

Created page with "*[https://www.betonit.ai/p/loyalty-oaths-compared-an-orwellian-exercise "Loyalty Oaths Compared: An Orwellian Exercise,"] Bryan Kaplan (2020)."

New page

*[https://www.betonit.ai/p/loyalty-oaths-compared-an-orwellian-exercise "Loyalty Oaths Compared: An Orwellian Exercise,"] Bryan Kaplan (2020).

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 *[https://www.betonit.ai/p/loyalty-oaths-compared-an-orwellian-exercise "Loyalty Oaths Compared: An Orwellian Exercise,"] Bryan Caplan (2020).
-::"This would be akin to a 1950 Oath that mandated support for current anti-Communist tactics.  Something like: “For example, may state that it’s better not to support right-wing dictatorships because it creates the false impression that capitalism and democracy are incompatible.”
+::   "This would be akin to a 1950 Oath that mandated support for current anti-Communist tactics.  Something like: “For example, may state that it’s better not to support right-wing dictatorships because it creates the false impression that capitalism and democracy are incompatible.”
 ::What’s afoot?  Orwellian doublethink of the highest order. Sure, the hated 1950 Loyalty Oath seems far less onerous than the new Diversity and Inclusion Vow.  But the people who refused to sign the 1950 Oath were heroes standing up for freedom of conscience.  The people who question today’s orthodoxy, in contrast, are hate-mongers who need to be excluded from high-skilled employment."

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 *[https://www.betonit.ai/p/loyalty-oaths-compared-an-orwellian-exercise "Loyalty Oaths Compared: An Orwellian Exercise,"] Bryan Caplan (2020).
-"This would be akin to a 1950 Oath that mandated support for current anti-Communist tactics.  Something like: “For example, may state that it’s better not to support right-wing dictatorships because it creates the false impression that capitalism and democracy are incompatible.”
+::"This would be akin to a 1950 Oath that mandated support for current anti-Communist tactics.  Something like: “For example, may state that it’s better not to support right-wing dictatorships because it creates the false impression that capitalism and democracy are incompatible.”
-What’s afoot?  Orwellian doublethink of the highest order. Sure, the hated 1950 Loyalty Oath seems far less onerous than the new Diversity and Inclusion Vow.  But the people who refused to sign the 1950 Oath were heroes standing up for freedom of conscience.  The people who question today’s orthodoxy, in contrast, are hate-mongers who need to be excluded from high-skilled employment."
+::What’s afoot?  Orwellian doublethink of the highest order. Sure, the hated 1950 Loyalty Oath seems far less onerous than the new Diversity and Inclusion Vow.  But the people who refused to sign the 1950 Oath were heroes standing up for freedom of conscience.  The people who question today’s orthodoxy, in contrast, are hate-mongers who need to be excluded from high-skilled employment."
 * [https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/05/12/todays_diversity_oaths_resemble_1950s_loyalty_oaths___147589.html "Today’s ‘Diversity’ Oaths Resemble 1950s ‘Loyalty’ Oaths,"]  ''RealClearPolitics'' (May 12, 2022).
-Then, the hapless members asked George the big question: Are you now or have you ever been?
+::Then, the hapless members asked George the big question: Are you now or have you ever been?
-George Anastaplo refused to answer. He could have truthfully said, No.  End of story.  His three-fold reply was that (1) the Constitution guaranteed freedom of association; (2) it was not illegal to belong to the Communist Party; and, most important, (3) it was totally improper for the Illinois Bar Association to ask him that question – or any question about an applicant’s political affiliation. His application to practice law was promptly denied . . .
+::George Anastaplo refused to answer. He could have truthfully said, No.  End of story.  His three-fold reply was that (1) the Constitution guaranteed freedom of association; (2) it was not illegal to belong to the Communist Party; and, most important, (3) it was totally improper for the Illinois Bar Association to ask him that question – or any question about an applicant’s political affiliation. His application to practice law was promptly denied . . .
-    George also received strong support from Leo Strauss, the great political philosopher ... George was never admitted to the bar. Instead, he taught political philosophy for six decades, wrote multiple books on political thought and civil liberties, eventually teaching at Loyola University’s law school.
+::George also received strong support from Leo Strauss, the great political philosopher ... George was never admitted to the bar. Instead, he taught political philosophy for six decades, wrote multiple books on political thought and civil liberties, eventually teaching at Loyola University’s law school.

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 * [https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/05/12/todays_diversity_oaths_resemble_1950s_loyalty_oaths___147589.html "Today’s ‘Diversity’ Oaths Resemble 1950s ‘Loyalty’ Oaths,"]  ''RealClearPolitics'' (May 12, 2022).
-    Then, the hapless members asked George the big question: Are you now or have you ever been ?
 George Anastaplo refused to answer. He could have truthfully said, No.  End of story.  His three-fold reply was that (1) the Constitution guaranteed freedom of association; (2) it was not illegal to belong to the Communist Party; and, most important, (3) it was totally improper for the Illinois Bar Association to ask him that question – or any question about an applicant’s political affiliation. His application to practice law was promptly denied . . .
      George also received strong support from Leo Strauss, the great political philosopher ... George was never admitted to the bar. Instead, he taught political philosophy for six decades, wrote multiple books on political thought and civil liberties, eventually teaching at Loyola University’s law school.

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:28, 16 March 2024
Line 4:		Line 4:

	What’s afoot? Orwellian doublethink of the highest order. Sure, the hated 1950 Loyalty Oath seems far less onerous than the new Diversity and Inclusion Vow. But the people who refused to sign the 1950 Oath were heroes standing up for freedom of conscience. The people who question today’s orthodoxy, in contrast, are hate-mongers who need to be excluded from high-skilled employment."		What’s afoot? Orwellian doublethink of the highest order. Sure, the hated 1950 Loyalty Oath seems far less onerous than the new Diversity and Inclusion Vow. But the people who refused to sign the 1950 Oath were heroes standing up for freedom of conscience. The people who question today’s orthodoxy, in contrast, are hate-mongers who need to be excluded from high-skilled employment."
		+
		+	* [https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/05/12/todays_diversity_oaths_resemble_1950s_loyalty_oaths___147589.html "Today’s ‘Diversity’ Oaths Resemble 1950s ‘Loyalty’ Oaths,"] ''RealClearPolitics'' (May 12, 2022).
		+	Then, the hapless members asked George the big question: Are you now or have you ever been ?
		+
		+	George Anastaplo refused to answer. He could have truthfully said, No. End of story. His three-fold reply was that (1) the Constitution guaranteed freedom of association; (2) it was not illegal to belong to the Communist Party; and, most important, (3) it was totally improper for the Illinois Bar Association to ask him that question – or any question about an applicant’s political affiliation. His application to practice law was promptly denied . . .
		+
		+	George also received strong support from Leo Strauss, the great political philosopher ... George was never admitted to the bar. Instead, he taught political philosophy for six decades, wrote multiple books on political thought and civil liberties, eventually teaching at Loyola University’s law school.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-*[https://www.betonit.ai/p/loyalty-oaths-compared-an-orwellian-exercise "Loyalty Oaths Compared: An Orwellian Exercise,"] Bryan Kaplan (2020).
+*[https://www.betonit.ai/p/loyalty-oaths-compared-an-orwellian-exercise "Loyalty Oaths Compared: An Orwellian Exercise,"] Bryan Caplan (2020).
 "This would be akin to a 1950 Oath that mandated support for current anti-Communist tactics.  Something like: “For example, may state that it’s better not to support right-wing dictatorships because it creates the false impression that capitalism and democracy are incompatible.”
 What’s afoot?  Orwellian doublethink of the highest order. Sure, the hated 1950 Loyalty Oath seems far less onerous than the new Diversity and Inclusion Vow.  But the people who refused to sign the 1950 Oath were heroes standing up for freedom of conscience.  The people who question today’s orthodoxy, in contrast, are hate-mongers who need to be excluded from high-skilled employment."

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:57, 16 March 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	*[https://www.betonit.ai/p/loyalty-oaths-compared-an-orwellian-exercise "Loyalty Oaths Compared: An Orwellian Exercise,"] Bryan Kaplan (2020).		*[https://www.betonit.ai/p/loyalty-oaths-compared-an-orwellian-exercise "Loyalty Oaths Compared: An Orwellian Exercise,"] Bryan Kaplan (2020).
		+
		+	"This would be akin to a 1950 Oath that mandated support for current anti-Communist tactics. Something like: “For example, may state that it’s better not to support right-wing dictatorships because it creates the false impression that capitalism and democracy are incompatible.”
		+
		+	What’s afoot? Orwellian doublethink of the highest order. Sure, the hated 1950 Loyalty Oath seems far less onerous than the new Diversity and Inclusion Vow. But the people who refused to sign the 1950 Oath were heroes standing up for freedom of conscience. The people who question today’s orthodoxy, in contrast, are hate-mongers who need to be excluded from high-skilled employment."