“Since the value of freedom rests on the opportunities it provides for unforeseen and unpredictable actions, we will rarely know what we lose through a particular restriction of freedom.” — Friedrich Hayek

"For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world "For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent "For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury "For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences" -July 4, 1776

In my head I’ve started referring to political quadrants in terms of properties of their preferred coordination networks. Top two are centralized. Bottom two are distributed. Left two are symmetric (aka egalitarian). Right two are asymmetric.

Lewis Graham: Who Wins and Who Loses Before the Administrative Court? ukconstitutionallaw.org/2025/07/14/lew…

Devastated to learn of the death of Dick Fallon, a beloved friend and colleague, and a model of a good and kind human being. (A reminder to tell people you love that you love them.)

Richard Fallon, In Memoriam, buff.ly/6WxLugJ - A tribute to the great scholar and dear friend.

Want!

Even though I had the (terrifying) privilege of taking his class in Roman Law at Chicago, I'd listen to this. Not Ghislaine but Justinian.

Not a great vote of confidence in Canada.

I love this genre of tweet that assumes *work itself* was somehow invented by capitalism. You do not want to be free from capitalism; you want to be independently wealthy!

ICYMI, on R (Smith) v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police, which held that uniformed police taking part in a Pride march breached their duty of impartiality.

So the Bill 21 secularism law case at the Supreme Court of Canada is going to have 68 interveners. Other than attorneys general, each speaks for only a 5 minute soundbite. The same hours of court time could have let the Court listen to a few interveners for longer w more depth.

this means the court lets the interveners have their say without having to actually listen. what a waste of everyone's time

The rules of the Court don’t really allow for that more logical approach. Instead, there is a potentially rather disorganized event unfolding. We will see how it unfolds.

Of course that's assuming the purpose is to advocate and persuade. If this is the legal equivalent of carving your name into a tree and taking a selfie to send your mates, no, et, donors, then it works well enough for the interveners.

The Online “Safety” Act is one of the most perniciously stupid, short-sighted, and harmful pieces of legislation passed by Parliament. It exposes users of legal products and services to immense risk and harm. Sign the petition below 👇 petition.parliament.uk/petitions/7229…