in LEIDEN 3 -4 april

De belangstelling hiervoor is groot. En terecht!

Nu zijn reeds meer dan de helft van de beschikbare plaatsen gereserveerd!

U hoeft nog geen paniek te hebben, maar wacht toch niet te lang. Zou zonde zijn als je straks te laat komt.

Het meest recente programma staat nu op onder de AGENDA

Daar staat ook het inschrijvingsformulier.

Maak er nu gebruik van, of stel eventuele vragen aan


  1. Ook al wordt het pinnekesdraad, de advertentie blijft starten met de sterrekes en dat is storend, ja.

    In het begin had ik zelfs niet opgemerkt dat het pinnekesdraad werd.

  2. Mensen, mensen,

    Jullie hebben zelfs Edouard Fillias van “Liberté, j’écris ton nom” uitgenodigd om spreken over “Freedom Marketing; Convincing the Masses”

    Gelukkig zal dit alles worden rechtgezet door Michael Cloud in Rotorua

    Wel stel ik met genoegen vast dat Mevrouw Gutscher niet langer als moderator vernoemd wordt.

    Frank spreekt over de rule of law. Voor hen die mijn verbeterde boodschap niet zouden gevonden hebben. Hier is hij.


    In his essay “The Rule of Law in Classical Liberalism & Libertarianism”

    Dr Tibor Machan argues that the close relationship between free societies and the rule of law goes back, in part, to natural law theory and concludes that one virtue of the classical liberal, libertarian idea of law is that it preserves the coherent, even reverent meaning of the concept "law" and does not water it down, thereby weakening its reputation and undermining its binding force.

    In England, the classical definition of A.V. Dicey of the Rule of Law is the Reign of Law or the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power, and excludes the existence of arbitrariness, of prerogative, or even of wide discretionary authority on the part of government

    The dichotomy between nature and culture goes back to the Sophists, for whom the dichotomy was rendered by the dichotomy of the Greek terms “physis”, ‘nature’, on the one side, and “thesis,” ‘convention’, or “nomos”, ‘law’, on the other. (GRINZER, N.P., “Constructions of the Past – The Classical Nature-Convention Opposition.A Contemporary Perspective” in:

    A basic problem is of course that in the legal dictionary nomos is the word for law. However, when nomos is contrasted to physis, nomos becomes arbitrary. Now, Dicey said in its quoted definition of the rule of law that the rule of law is opposed to the influence of arbitrary power, and excludes the existence of arbitrariness, of prerogative, or even of wide discretionary authority on the part of government.

    When Hayek was faced with this problem, he started by dividing the task of so-called legislative bodies into the control of government on the one hand and legislation proper on the other.

    Then he realized that Aristotle’s views on Physis are inconsistent

    (On the one hand, Aristotle claims that the most precise and authoritative sense of "nature" is that developed in Physics II and Metaphysics V where the term refers, broadly speaking, to an internal principle of change possessed by a living thing that accounts for its capacity to undergo alteration while retaining its species identity. In this sense, nature may be considered as marking a static, determinate feature of the subject. In contrast, the Nicomachean Ethics and Politics reveal a markedly different idea of nature, specifically, of human nature. (Julie K. Ward (Loyola University, Chicago). Two Conceptions of "Nature" (Physis) in Aristotle’s Ethics and Politics…)

    and he maintained that Popper would have demonstrated that convention implies arbitrariness. (Hayek, “Law, Legislation and Liberty”, vol. I, p.20 and Vol II, p. 59, note 75 where (only at this note 75) Hayek refers to Karl R. POPPER, “The Open Society and its Enemies”, Princeton University Press, , 5th rev. ed.,, 1966, p. p.64)

    From this, he rejected the existence of Physis and invented the Hayekian Nomos which would somehow mediate (Hoon Hong, “Marx’s value forms and Hayek’s rules: a reinterpretation in the light of the dichotomy between physis and nomos”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2002, 613 – abstract available at… )

    between the Physis and the Sophistic Nomos, and the whole distinction between the Physis and the Sophistic Nomos has been blurred by hiding it in the “arcana imperii’, in the mysteries of government. (Bakunin, can you hear me?)

    From all this, Hayek concluded that the dichotomy Physis-Nomos had to be replaced by the dichotomy Nomos-Thesis, nomoi (plural of nomos) being the decisions of the body making the law or rules of conduct, theseis (plural of thesis) being those of the body controlling government.

    So, in Hayek’s world, view or worldview, there is no Physis, there’s only nomos and thesis which are both in the Sophistic view, the opposites of Physis.

    If there is no Physis, there can be no law in Physis and no natural law (theory).

    Under the Rule of Law, there is no (law in) Physis.

    Therefore, the Rule of Law is incompatible with natural law theory and thus with a free society.

    To use SmallMind’s terms, under the rule of law, there’s only the ‘arbitrary’ law of nomos and thesis.

Comments are closed.