Still think we don't need tort reform?

Lee Harris (to whose excellent, clear writing you may remember I was only recently introduced) goes one further, arguing that we as Americans may be undermining our "fundamental right of free people to govern themselves" with too much respect for law.

"The moment the American courts decided that they had the authority to review how the Boy Scouts should operate their own institutions, from that moment on the courts had placed themselves in the position of having the final say so over how the Boy Scouts could operate, thereby flinging the door wide open for future meddling and interference. So what if they take the side of the Boy Scouts this time? Next time they could just as easily take the other side. In short, once the principle has been established that the courts have a right to decide other people's problems, then the people whose problems are being decided have forfeited their fundamental right to work out their differences without fear of the intervention of a third party possessed of virtually unlimited power to compel obedience."

It's an interesting argument, though a little hyperbolic in my opinion. He's trying to identify the underlying motivations for anectdotal accounts of abuses like those in The Death of Common Sense by Philip K. Howard. Well, good for him. It's a thorny question for the sharpest of philosophers, and Mr. Harris is certainly sharp.

For myself, I'm willing to accept a certain amount of friction between government and the people, as long as that friction manifests itself publicly and not in some secret, back room resistance movement. The fact Mr. Harris' article is published openly is proof that our friction here in America is still public. For that matter, the Supreme Court doesn't operate in secret, either. Let the debate continue...