Colonel William A. Phillips

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: Libertarianism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Mid-importance). Philosophy: Social and political / Contemporary Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Contemporary philosophy

Surprised there is not more activity in this area, it is a fairly controversial area within the law. Does anyone believe there should be a place for the term "private ordering" in this article? It is a catch-all phrase used by legal scholars (particulary libertarians like Epstein) and encompasses the philosophical, economic and moral justifications used to advance "freedom of contract." Gibbsale 01:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Atiyah's work The Rise and Fall of the Freedom to Contract is incredibly important in this area of legal theory (regarding all commonwealth law and very relevent to US aswell). Bamkin 12:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph in the lead is a problem: "The philosophy put forward by theorists Adam Smith and Thomas Hobbes is for an individual to use society as a tool for acquiring property. They saw the state as simply a means to an end, not as a provider. They opposed artificial restraint on the free-will of the individual to pursue his own self interests. Hobbes would have called it liberal natural law."

That last sentence, Hobbes "...would have called...". I don't think it's OK to put words in Hobbes' mouth. The rest is troubling because, besides having no refs, Smith and Hobbes aren't referred to in the rest of the article. Cretog8 (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph is also simply untrue. Adam Smith believed in regulation and was, in particular, a strong advocate of usury laws. Generally the article is more an exercise in ideology than accurate editing.Alan (talk) 05:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section on morality is, in my mind, totaly fallacious and I move to strike imediatly. I'm pro-freedom-of-contract, but I see that contract regulation seeks to prevent the formation of a contract, not destroy it once it is established. This should be enough for the removal of that section. But, to add fuel to the fire, equity is the most valuable argument against freedom of contract because it seeks to examine contracts in terms of their fairness. If no objection is made, I will remove in a week or two. Piratejosh85 (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to add this part. The section I specifically want to remove is the

I believe the rest of the Tyrany section has merrit. Cheers, Piratejosh85 (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Ninth Amendment, as noted in numberous sources, does not guarantee any rights, it only prohibits saying we don't have rights because they aren't in the list specifically. This article really needs to turn on the 14th amendment, specifically the Due Process clause which Lochner and West Coast v. Parish were decided on. Piratejosh85 (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was full of irrelevant material and POV editorialising. I've removed a lot. The result is a bit stubby, but at least somewhat encyclopedic and relevant to the topic.JQ (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are the thoughts (of those paying attention) to add more information about this being a right under "substantive due process?" The substantive due process article needs some clean and additional information about the different enumerated rights. The information documented herein could easily be used to clean up two articles at once. Just a suggestion. Any thoughts? Morning277 (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This could soooo be taken the wrong way - could someone rephrase it and clarify it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.228.231 (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As is the second sentence in the second paragraph of this section contains the pronoun "He" but that pronoun coordinates with no noun. Or in layman's terms, the reader has no idea who "He" is. The only people introduced in the section are Lochner and the Supreme Court, and it seems unlikely that Lochner would disparage the Court for agreeing with his argument, and the Court can't really disparage itself. Using my knowledge of the case it sounds like Oliver Wendell Holmes or maybe Louis Brandeis. Also if I messed this up I am sorry, I rarely contribute talk pages. This may be my first time. ForeverZero (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right to property 2409:40F0:8:B710:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]