The critically reconstructive school finds them chiefly in the late (priestly) strata of the early books, and dates Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah (our fullest sources) about 300 B.C., holding it to be a priestly reconstruction of the national history wrought with great freedom by the "Chronicler." Upon this hypothesis the chief value of the genealogies is as a mirror of the mind and ideas of their authors or recorders, a treasury of reflections on the geographical, ethnological and genealogical status as believed in at their time, and a study of the effect of naive and exaggerated patriotism dealing with the supposed facts of national life, or else, in the extreme instance, a highly interesting example of bold and inventive juggling with facts by men with a theory, in this particular case a priestly one, as with the "Chronicler." To more conservative scholars who accept the Old Testament at its face value, the genealogies are a rich mine of historical, personal and ethnographic, as well as religious, information, whose working, however, is much hindered by the inevitable corruption of the text, and by our lack of correlative explanatory information.
In the supplementary materials, we include an analysis of rates of paternal discrepancy based on surveys of the Standard Cross Cultural Sample, comparing traditional and non-traditional societies' cultural attitudes towards extramarital affairs, and reported frequencies of extra-marital sex. We also provide more detail on the formulae used in calculating how paternal discrepancy alters the genetic relatedness between paternal grandmothers and their grandchildren, for X-chromosome and autosomes.
... The questionnaires used to assess potentialsexual problems in the two cited randomized controlled trials in Kenyaand Uganda were not presented in detail in the original publications.4,5Rather than blindly accepting such findings as any more trustworthythan other findings in the literature, it should be recalled that astrong study design, such as a randomized controlled trial, does notoffset the need for high-quality questionnaires. Having obtained thequestionnaires from the authors (RH Gray and RC Bailey, personalcommunication), I am not surprised that these studies provided littleevidence of a link between circumcision and various sexual difficulties.4,5Several questions were too vague to capture possible differencesbetween circumcised and not-yet circumcised participants (e.g. lack ofa clear distinction between intercourse and masturbation-related sexualproblems and no distinction between premature ejaculation and troubleor inability to reach orgasm). Thus, non-differential misclassificationof sexual outcomes in these African trials probably favoured the nullhypothesis of no difference, whether an association was truly presentor not.
Nonlibertarian believers in rightsism, notably Rawls and Scanlon, are less bold than Nozick and seek to find consent-based explanations of why they believe that individuals have certain rights rather than simply alleging that they do. Either way, however, the introduction of putative rights, not arising from contracts individuals conclude with one another, offers great facility for sculpting the just, i.e., rights-respecting, order in the desired form.
Most modern theories of how society ought to work rest on some idea of agreement. Almost invariably, however, the agreement is fictitious, hypothetical, one that would be concluded if all men had equal “bargaining power,” or saw things through the same “veil” of ignorance or uncertainty about their future. Or felt the same need for a central authority. The social contract, in its many versions, is perhaps the best known of these alleged agreements. All are designed to suit the normative views of their inventors and to justify the kind of social arrangements they should like to see adopted. Yet the only agreement that is not hypothetical, alleged, invented is the system of voluntary exchanges where all parties give visible, objective proof by their actions that they have found the unique common ground that everybody accepts, albeit grumblingly, but without anyone being forced to give up something he had within his reach and would have preferred. The set of voluntary exchanges, in one word, is the only one that does not impose an immorality in pursuit of a moral objective.
It is often thought not worth belonging to a club that would accept you, and imperative to belong to one that hesitates to accept you. Judging by her insistent demands made over the last two decades, Turkey finds it vitally important to belong to the European Union, and the EU has not been awaiting her coming with open arms. It has held up several hoops Turkey had first to jump through. She had, as it were, to learn how to use a knife and fork and how to sit with her knees close together. She had to enshrine “human rights” in her legislation and stabilize her wildly seesawing economy.
However, it is not at all clear thatthis interpretation can be correct. If it was, why would they describeClementia in the second document using the imprecise term ""when she would have been, respectively, their great-grandmother and grandmother? An alternative possibility is therefore that Otto and Wilhelm were not membersof the Luxembourg family at all but were related to Clementia through her ownfamily (or the family of another of her husbands, see below), assuming that"" should be interpreted as "nephews". This hypothesis would also explain why the county of Luxembourg was notinherited by any member of this "Gleiberg" family on the death ofComte Conrad II, but passed to Conrad´s paternal aunt Ermensende
The tax controversy is but one example of how national crosscurrents induce a federalist drift. Any national difference that has a cross-border implication affects the operation of the single European market and as such (it is argued) must be moved from national to Union jurisdiction. This upward flow of matters from the state to the Union level has been going on for years and will apparently broaden still more under the new constitution. Since everything has some cross-border implication, however hypothetical or contrived, especially when borders are open, there is no evident limit to the federalist drift. The single-market clause is destined to play the same role in draining power from the states to Brussels as the interstate commerce clause played in draining power to Washington. The European Court of Justice will have to help this process along much as the U.S. Supreme Court has done.
What happens under this hypothesis as we move over time depends primarily on the average rate of growth of GNP. Assuming that the zone as a whole achieves growth at 2 percent a year looks optimistic from the perspective of the dismal present, but should be feasible with only reasonable luck. Consider a ten-year time span—not a long time for a currency union. At the end of Year 1, GNP rises from 100 to 102 and the national debt from 60 to 63. At the end of Year 10, GNP is at 122. The national debt rises to 93, which amounts to 76.4 percent of GNP. The longer the period considered, the more glaring becomes the effect of the growth of the debt being faster than the growth of national income.
As was obvious from the outset, the treaty obligation is proving un-enforceable. France showed no embarrassment in declaring, almost in so many words, that it will reduce its deficit to the Maastricht limit when it finds it convenient to do so. Less arrogantly, Germany is following much the same course. Only poor little Portugal is scrambling to obey the treaty, for what will not be enforced against big states may be enforced against small ones.
(A little thought reveals an awkward feature of “social justice theory.” If, by some miracle, complete equality were once brought about, social justice would still not be satisfied, for it can never be. It would at that point require the creation of new income inequalities in order to achieve equality of some other welfare criterion, e.g., utility levels. However, since nobody knows or can ever discover anybody’s utility level, to affirm that they are now equal is no more valid than to affirm that further income inequalities are required to make them equal. Any distribution could be found unjust on some ground and such a finding would be no less valid than any other. This insight highlights one of the pathetic infirmities of social justice, namely that it has no rules by which a socially just state of affairs could ever be identified. Trying vainly to capture it, the foolish carousel can keep going round and round forever.)