How the Founding Fathers warned us about tyranny

“As usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to. And this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private separate advantage. When the governor, however intitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule; and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion.”

– John Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government” (published 1689), Chapter XVIII

An anecdote about how Sparta installed its “Thirty Tyrants” in Athens after a war

In 404 BC, a Greek city-state (Athens) was utterly defeated in a war. Athens had been fighting the Peloponnesian War, and the war had initially gone well for the Athenians. But the Spartans, sadly, won the war in the end. Thus, the Spartans installed their own puppet regime in Athens. It was simply called the “Thirty Tyrants.” The word “tyrant” originally meant something like “absolute monarch,” or “absolute ruler of a polis” (with “polis” meaning a “city-state”). Incidentally, the word “monarchy” comes from Greek words meaning “rule by one” – or “rule by one person.” But, as the name “Thirty Tyrants” indicates, there were instead thirty of them. Thus, the Thirty Tyrants were more like an “oligarchy,” which comes from a few Greek words meaning “rule by a few.” Incidentally, the term “oligarchy” has since come to have a negative connotation in English. As early as Ancient Greece, Aristotle was describing an “oligarchy” as the corrupted form of an “aristocracy” (which comes from Greek words meaning “rule by the best”). Regardless, whatever you call them, the Thirty Tyrants turned out to be a terrible regime. As Wikipedia puts it, “the Thirty became known for their tyrannical rule, first being called ‘The Thirty Tyrants’ by Polycrates.[footnote] Although they maintained power for only eight months, their reign resulted in the killing of 5% of the Athenian population, the confiscation of citizens' property, and the exile of other democratic supporters.” (see source) A century later (that is, in 304 BC), Agathocles of Syracuse adopted this same title of “tyrant.”

Pisistratus of Athens – who called himself a “tyrant” in this older sense, but was still popular

The French Wars of Religion: The Catholics strike back

Why did Protestantism never really catch on in France? (History gives us the answer)

Catholics are still nearly half of the population of France. Specifically, they now make up 47% of the French population, as of 2021. (see source) Another 33% of the contemporary French population identify as having “no religion.” Less than 3% of the French population is Protestant today. How did it come to be that way? Why is Protestantism such a tiny minority in France? Why did Protestantism never really catch on in France, the way that it did in nearby England and Holland? The answers seem to lie (at least partially) in the French wars of religion. These were a great victory for the Catholics. During the Renaissance, a massive civil war erupted between the French Catholics and the French Protestants. It was partly over control of the throne, because the powerful monarchies of the era had considerable influence upon the state religion. The sixteenth century was generally the era of the Protestant Reformation. In Germany, Martin Luther published his “95 Theses,” a written attack on the Catholic Church. This led to the formation of the Lutheran churches. This was also the century of King Henry the Eighth, in the nearby British Isles. In defiance of the Pope, King Henry divorced Catherine of Aragon to marry Anne Boleyn. He thus created the Church of England in the process. And, in France, John Calvin was still alive when the French wars of religion began. The battles over the state religions in these European countries … continue to have massive consequences to this day.

Massacre at Vassy, 1562

A review of “Reconstruction: America After the Civil War”

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

– Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (ratified 1865)

The first episode covers events in Reconstruction under President Andrew Johnson

In 2004, PBS released a three-hour film called “Reconstruction: The Second Civil War” (not to be confused with this film). As far as I know, “Reconstruction: The Second Civil War” was PBS’s first attempt to cover this unknown (but still important) subject. This prior 2004 film used a more traditional delineation of when Reconstruction began, and when it ultimately ended. PBS’s “Reconstruction: America After the Civil War” came out in 2019 – fifteen years after the prior film. Both films start their story in roughly the same place. That is, major combat in the American Civil War was now ending with the surrender at Appomattox Courthouse in 1865. We can only guess as to how Abraham Lincoln would have handled the complicated issues of postwar Reconstruction. This is because Abraham Lincoln was soon murdered by an assassin’s bullet in 1865. This meant that the task of Reconstruction would now be passed to his Southern-born successor Andrew Johnson. Andrew Johnson had remained loyal to the Union during the Civil War, but he was still a committed racist. This would have important consequences for his policies regarding the former slaves, and how they were to be treated. The first episode of this film focuses on the Andrew Johnson portion of Reconstruction. Andrew Johnson served for nearly four years, finishing the term that he had inherited from Abraham Lincoln. (He had been Lincoln’s vice president for roughly a month before that.) But Andrew Johnson soon became the first president to be impeached. For these and other reasons (too complicated to detail here), Andrew Johnson thus failed to be elected in 1868. More about the reasons for this well-deserved failure here.

Freed blacks voting in New Orleans, 1867

Is it better for hobbies to be broader or deeper?

Is it better to be a generalist or a specialist? I did another post tackling this question somewhat, in the context of both professional development and formal educational settings. As I said in that post, there are advantages and disadvantages to using both approaches. But, today, I’d like to focus on how this might work with one’s hobbies – at least, when those hobbies are distinguished somewhat from professional development. That is, one of the most important aspects of a hobby is just to have fun, particularly when one’s job is stressful and demanding. And, for present purposes, being a full-time student or a stay-at-home parent would count as a job. For purposes of simplicity, I am assuming with this answer that one wants to learn something while they’re engaging in their hobbies. That is, I am assuming that, if you’re reading this particular post, you’re the kind of person who enjoys learning things of one sort or another. It’s all right if you don’t want to learn very much, but I will address this particular post to those who do. (More for those who don’t in other posts.) Being a generalist and being a specialist both involve learning some new things. Moreover, both can require some minimum aptitude and intelligence (in at least one or two particular areas) to get these things right. Thus, with that said, let me now dive into the question of whether a broader approach or a deeper approach (or perhaps some combination of the two) will give you more fulfillment in your hobbies.

The gold funerary mask of Tutankhamun, a symbol of Egyptology and Ancient Egypt

What undergraduate major(s) should I choose to become a lawyer?

“The ABA [or ‘American Bar Association’] does not recommend any undergraduate majors or group of courses to prepare for a legal education. Students are admitted to law school from almost every academic discipline. You may choose to major in subjects that are considered to be traditional preparation for law school, such as history, English, philosophy, political science, economics or business, or you may focus your undergraduate studies in areas as diverse as art, music, science and mathematics, computer science, engineering, nursing or education.”

– Website of the American Bar Association – and, specifically, their page on “Pre-Law”

I once thought about going to law school. Moreover, I got a bachelor’s degree in business, which is one of the more traditional routes for entering the legal profession. But I have never so much as applied to a law school, let alone gotten in or out of one. Thus, I freely admit that I am not an expert on this topic. But it is a topic that I have thought about often over the years. I’ve read some legal classics, such as the Federalist Papers – or Sir William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England.” Thus, I have some experience (after a fashion) with the law, at least in a narrow sense. Thus, I would like to offer my perspective on what kinds of undergraduate majors would be most helpful for law school.

Magna Carta replica and display, in the rotunda of the United States Capitol

To be clear, this is not intended to replace studying the ABA webpage on this subject, which is simply entitled “Pre-Law.” Indeed, I plan to quote from this page often in this particular post. This is just intended to supplement their most definitive webpage with some brief commentary of my own. I will here be focusing on the six majors that are considered to be traditional preparation for law school. This is because, with one exception, these are the relevant areas about which I personally know the most. As the quotation above shows, there are six traditional law school preparation majors. In their words, these are “history, English, philosophy, political science, economics, [and] business.” I will start with English, the only one of these subjects with which I lack any substantial personal experience. Otherwise, I will adhere to the sequence in which they mention these six subjects, giving my commentary on each of them in turn. So let’s dive into the English major first.

United States Constitution, which is still the supreme law of the land in this country

Historiography: A fancy word for the “history of history” (among other things)

It’s long been believed by the public that Marie Antoinette said the famous (or rather, infamous) line: “Let them eat cakes.” Modern historians have questioned the authenticity of this claim, and it is not at all certain that she actually said it – the debate is still ongoing. Even for those of us who do question this account, though, the claim that she said it is still a part of the history. This is because it’s been told for so long that generations of schoolchildren have grown up with the story. Therefore, the issue of whether it happened must still be grappled with, whenever the history is taught to each succeeding generation. It is part of what historians call the “historiography” of Marie Antoinette. This basically means how the story has been told ever since the original events happened – both by academics, and by popular sources. I should note that not all of these retellings have been so bad.

Marie Antoinette

A review of “Stock Frauds, Manipulations, and Insider Trading” (audiobook)

So I was recently listening to some additional presentations from an audio series about investment. This particular installment was called “Stock Frauds, Manipulations, and Insider Trading.” I found out that it was actually two presentations: one about “Famous Frauds and Stock Manipulations,” and one about “The Story of Insider Trading.” Both were as interesting as I expected them to be, and brought back fond memories of my days as a business major.