From the publisher: The Pursuit of Justice is a thoroughgoing analysis of the bureaucratization and politicization of the U.S. legal system and how the law works in practice rather than in theory. The book looks specifically at how decision makers in the law—judges, lawyers, juries, police, forensic experts, and more—respond to economic incentive structures. Faulty incentives lie at the heart of numerous failures of the U.S. legal system, but rather than the romanticized version of the law as portrayed in television dramas and in much academic research, the authors portrays the legal system as it actually performs in practice

ABSTRACT: “Recently many editors try to reduce the turnaround times of academic journals. Shorter turnaround times, however, will induce many additional submissions of low-quality papers, increasing significantly the workload of editors and referees, and the number of rejections prior to publication. I suggest several ideas how editors can shorten turnaround times and four ideas how they can still avoid frivolous submissions, thus improving the review process efficiency: higher submission fees; requiring authors to review papers in proportion to their submissions; using differential editorial delay – letting low-quality papers wait more; and banning papers from being submitted after a certain number of rejections.

“Back to Basics: Twelve Rules for Writing a Publishable Article,” by David Thunder.

PS: Political Science and Politics. 37:3 (Jul 2004):493-495. Also available on JSTOR

“Be brave, rip up your life’s work,” by Harriet Swain. Times Higher Education Supplement 58:2(Sept 16, 2005).

“Advice for academics who want to get their PhD thesis published. Tips include rewriting the thesis in a form that will be more interesting to a general reader, finding the story within the thesis, identifying gaps in the market, listening to the advice of others and learning to sell both yourself and your idea.”

“Benefits of writing with students,” by Brian K. Payne & Elizabeth Monk-Turner.

Academic Exchange Quarterly 9:1 (Spring 2005): p282(5).

“In this paper, we discuss our positive experiences from co-authoring with undergraduate students. Student and faculty are addressed.”

“Core Authors and Rankings in Economics.” (Statistical Data Included) Gaines H. Liner. Atlantic Economic Journal 29:4 (Dec 2001): 459(10).

“A Formula for Successful Scholarly Publishing,” by RC Rowson. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 25:2 (Jan 1994): 67-78.

“A Graduate Student’s Guide to Publishing Scholarly Journal Articles,” by Donna Lee Van Cott. PS: Political Science and Politics 38:4 (Oct 2005): 741-743.

Copy and paste this link for first page – Available via JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/pss/30044359

“Graduate Training and Research Productivity in the 1990s: A Look at Who Publishes,” by James M McCormick; Tom W Rice PS (American Political Science Ass’n) (Sept 2001):675-680.

Available on JSTOR

“The relationship between reputational rankings of political science departments and their scholarly productivity remains a source of discussion and controversy. McCormick and Rice address the question of the relationship between reputation and productivity for political science departments, but their approach differs from earlier studies in several ways.”

“How Are the Mighty Fallen: Rejected Classic Articles by Leading Economists,” by Joshua Gans and George Shepard. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8:1 (Winter 1994): 165-179.

“This paper is at once hilarious and sobering.”

“How Many Authors Does it Take to Publish an Article? Trends and Patterns in Political Science,” by Bonnie S. Fisher, Craig Cobane, & Thomas M. Vander Ven. PS 31:4 (Dec. 1998):847-56.

If link does not upload, copy and paste link for first page; full text available on JSTOR.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/420730

“A study was conducted analyzing trends and patterns of multiple-authored journal articles in political science over time. Data were collected from articles published in three political journals–American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, and Journal of Politics. Findings indicated that approximately half of all the articles published in political science journals are multiple authored, representing a jump of 42 percent since the 1950s. It is suggested that multiple authorship is becoming the norm within political science.”

How to Publish a Book – from a special section of PS: Political Science and Politics

(Oct 2005) with several good articles about book publishing: Available from JSTOR.

“A Guide to Publishing Your First Book: The Ins and Outs of Obtaining a Book Contract, by Alana S. Jeydel. PS: Political Science and Politics 38:4(2005): 745-746.

“Arranging the Right Book Contract,” by David S. Meyer. PS: Political Science & Politics 38:4(2005): 746-746.

“Seven Modest Tips on Publishing,” by Robert J. Spitzer. PS: Political Science & Politics 38:4(2005): 746-747.

“The Other End of the Telescope (Tips from an Editor), by Peter Labella.

PS: Political Science & Politics 38:4(2005): 747-748.

“How to Publish in a “Good” Journal,” by Daniel S. Hamermesh. Online article.

“An outline of powerpoint slides from his talk on this topic. Interesting for discussion but not completely informative in this format.”

“How to Publish in Scholarly Journals,” by Janette K. Klingner, David Scanlon & Michael Pressley. Educational Researcher 34:8 (Nov 2005):14-20.

Also Available on JSTOR

“How to Publish in Top Journals,” edited by by Kwan Choi. RIE (available in sections, online)

This manual will advise authors on how to prepare papers to improve their chances for acceptance in top journals.

“The Less Obvious Elements of an Effective Book Proposal,” by Patrick H. Alexander. Chronicle of Higher Education, Oct 13, 2011.

Offers strategies to increase chances of having a publisher take your proposal and manuscript to the review level—especially if you’re an early-career scholar seeking to turn a dissertation into a book.”

“Maximizing the Substance in the Soundbite: A Media Guide for Economists, by Daniel S. Hamermesh. Journal of Economic Education, 2004.

Abstract: “This guide aims to induce more economists to talk to people in the media as a means of expanding educational outreach. It provides discussions of “dos” and “don’ts” and offers advice on which kinds of research are likely to interest reporters. It suggests specific approaches to dealing with reporters in different types of media, including print, radio and television.”

“The Other Pipeline: Ten Steps to Navigating Papers through Academic Journals,”

by Cecilia Elena Rouse, Princeton University

“You’ve successfully completed your doctorate and landed a plum academic job, and you even have a great paper you’ve just finished. Does this mean that you can now sit back and relax? No! In many respects, your work has just begun. In academia, you get some credit for completing a first draft, but the true rewards come from publishing it… Although it might not seem so, it is possible to navigate this process and retain one’s sanity. I lay out some of my thoughts on the steps to publishing papers in academic (economics) journals.”

“Proposal Writing–A Remedy for a Missing Part of Graduate Training,” by Stephen L Wasby. PS: Political Science and Politics (June 2001):309-312.

If link does not upload, copy and paste link for first page; full text available on JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/pss/1350249

Graduate work in the social sciences generally does not provide students with much, if any, experience in writing proposals. Wasby has constructed a seminar on research proposal writing for doctoral students. The seminar is open to students in departments across the social sciences and education.

“A Short Tour of Book Publishing for Political Scientists,” by Charles T. Myers. PS: Political Science and Politics 37: 3 (Jul 2004):489-491.

Also available on JSTOR

“What Are Book Editors Looking For?” By Dedi Felman (an executive editor at Oxford University Press.) The Chronicle of Higher Education 52.46 (July 21, 2006).

“Despite the latest headlines about Google Print or the e-book, our mission remains remarkably stable. We’re looking for the same thing we’ve always looked for — solid, readable, provocative, and important works of scholarship with clear ideas at their core. And if you know some of the basics of good writing, you have already improved your starting score.”

“Writing a Paper that Will Get Published,” by Kate Devine. The Scientist 15:7(April 2, 2001): 30. Also reprinted in Tomorrow’s Professor listserve linked above.

“Writing for Professional Journals: Paradoxes and Promises.” by Kenneth T. Henson. Phi Delta Kappan, 82:10 (June 2001):765.

If link does not upload, copy and paste link for first page; full text available on JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/pss/20440034

“Writing Tips for Ph. D. Students,” by John Cochrane. 2005.

“Always put your contact info on the front page so that people can find your paper and send you comments! It’s the 21st century — get a web page. If your paper is ready for a faculty member to read it, it should be on your webpage. Put the date on the paper so people know if they are reading a new version.”

“The Young Person’s Guide to Writing Economic Theory,” by William Thomson.

The Journal of Economic Literature 37:1 (Mar. 1999): 157- 83.

ABSTRACT: “The writer offers advice on writing economic theory and, in particular, the presentation of formal models. Topics discussed include the general principles of good writing; notation; definitions; and the presentation of proofs.”

Books and Websites

AAUP – Home Page The Association of American University Presses

Directory of publishers:

These listings include street and mailing addresses, main phone and fax numbers, and an email contact and Web address for each press.

Finding a publisher Includes a useful Subject Area Grid for most Academic Presses.

An Author’s Guide to Scholarly Publishing by Robin Derricourt. Princeton University Pr; 1996.

“In An Author’s Guide to Scholarly Publishing, Robin Derricourt divides his energy between informing potential authors about the ins and outs of scholarly publishing and training them to be the kinds of writers scholarly publishers enjoy working with. For 12 years the publishing director for Cambridge University Press… and a published academician himself, Derricourt brings a tremendous amount of knowledge to his subject.”

The Book Publishing Industry, by Albert N. Greco. 2^nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005.

While focused on the publishing industry itself, this volume has an extensive bibliography available via Google Books, linked above.

Cite It Right by Julia Johns and Sarah Keller. 2d ed. SourceAid, LLC, 2005.

The Clockwork Muse: A Practical Guide to Writing Theses, Dissertations, and Books

by Eviatar Zerubavel. Harvard University Press, 1999.

“The Clockwork Muse is designed to help prospective authors develop a workable timetable for completing long and often formidable projects. The author describes how to set up a writing schedule and regular work habits that will take most of the anxiety and procrastination out of long-term writing, and even make it enjoyable. The Clockwork Muse rethinks the writing process in terms of time and organization.”

The Craft of Research (Chicago Guides to Writing, Editing, and Publishing) by Wayne

C. Booth, Gregory G. Colomb & Joseph M. Williams. University of Chicago Pr., 1995. “This manual offers practical advice on the fundamentals of research to college and university students in all fields of study. The Craft of Research teaches much more than the mechanics of fact gathering: it explains how to approach a research project as an analytical process. The authors chart every stage of research, from finding a topic and generating research questions about it to marshalling evidence, constructing arguments, and writing everything up in a final report that is a model of authority. Their advice is designed for use by both beginners and seasoned practitioners, and for projects from class papers to dissertations.”

Craftways : On the Organization of Scholarly Work, by Aaron Wildavsky. 2^nd ed. Transaction, 1993.

From Amazon reviews:

“While a plethora of books have been written about various studies in social science, few works are dedicated to the instruction of how to be an effective social science scholar. Serious students are not only interested in their specialty subject, but also in how academic life is lived and how scholarly work is carried out. In this edition Wildavsky provides an introduction to the norms and mores of political science in particular and social science in general.”

Economical Writing, by Deirdre McCloskey. 2d ed. Waveland Pr., 1999.

From Amazon.com reviews:

“Professor McCloskey has written the best short guide to academic prose in the language.” — Richard Lanham, UCLA

From Dissertation to Book (Chicago Guides to Writing, Editing, and Publishing) by William Germano. University of Chicago Press, 2005.

“This book should be handed to the candidate at the conclusion of all doctoral defenses.” Eric Foner, Columbia University.

Gatekeepers of Knowledge : Journal Editors in the Sciences and Social Sciences by Stephen McGinty Bergin & Garvey, 1999.

“What are journal editors looking for in a manuscript? This fascinating book is built around interviews with thirty-five scholarly journal editors, revealing the crucial issues that inform the work of these important players in the realm of scholarly communication.”

Getting into Print : The Decision-Making Process in Scholarly Publishing by Walter

W. Powell. University of Chicago Press, 1988.

Getting It Published; A Guide for Scholars and Anyone Else Serious about Serious Books (Chicago Guides to Writing, Editing, and Publishing) by William P. Germano. 2^nd ed. University of Chicago, 2008.

Getting Published : The Acquisition Process at University Presses, by Paul Parsons. University of Tennessee Pr, 1989.

A Guide to Academic Writing, by Jeffrey A. Cantor. Praeger, 1993.

Abstract: “This book presents a comprehensive guide to academic writing and publishing, approaching the subject within the context of understanding academic tenure and promotion decisions. The book first provides an overview of the various avenues for publication, such as scholarly journals, books, and conference and symposium papers.”

A Guide to MLA Documentation: With an Appendix on Apa Style (English Essentials.)

7^th ed., by Joseph F. Trimmer. Houghton Mifflin College, 2005.

MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing (3^rd ed.) Modern Language Association of America, 2008.

“A classic handbook that serves scholars as useful guide to the art of writing.”

On Writing Well, 30th Anniversary Edition: The Classic Guide to Writing Nonfiction,

by Willian Zinsser. Harper, 2006.

With more than a million copies sold, this volume has stood the test of time and remains a valuable resource for writers and would-be writers.
Persist and Publish : Helpful Hints for Academic Writing and Publishing by Ralph E. Matkin, & T.F. Riggar. University Pr of Colorado, 1991.

Abstract: “A clear, concise explanation of the requirements for successful academic writing in any field. This book describes a variety of publication experiences and reflections and offers guidelines on academic writing for college and university faculty to increase productivity and achievement in the “publish or perish” academic world.”

The Production of Knowledge; the Challenge of Social Science Research. Oxford University Pr., 2006.

From Amazon: Book Description “Bill Starbuck has been one of the leading management researchers in the United States over several decades. In this book he reflects on a number of challenges associated with management and social science research – the search for a ‘behavioral science’, the limits of rationality, the lack of reliability in many research findings, the social shaping of research agendas, cultures and judgments. It is an engaging, chronologically structured account in which he discusses some of his own research projects and various methodological debates. This is a feisty and polemical view from someone who has been fully engaged with all aspects of research – carrying out research programs, evaluating research, tirelessly questioning the assumptions and claims of social science research, and never avoiding the awkward theoretical or practical challenges that face organizational researchers. Well written, provocative and unusual, this quasi autobiographical account will inform and entertain, and be a valuable vade mecum to current and future research students.”

Publish, Don’t Perish by Joseph M. Moxley. Praeger, 1992.

“Moxley actually thinks more highly of academic publishing than his title suggests. Drawing from his writing seminars, he offers guidance to faculty members on conceiving, developing, and publishing scholarly books and journal articles. He considers the composition process, various types of writing, abstracts, proposals, editorial standards, political and economic factors, and how institutions can encourage scholarly writing and publishing.”

Publishing Economics: Analyses of the Academic Journal Market in Economics edited by Joshua Gans. New ed. Edward Elgar; 2001.

Amazon Book Description

“This collection tackles the issues confronting the up and coming economist. The authors include some of the subject’s finest luminaries who offer friendly and invaluable advice as well as providing a more light-hearted look at the publication process. Some articles have become classics in their own right. They vary from an examination of seminal (and originally rejected) articles by leading economists to an analysis of why referees are not adequately paid. The tools of both economic theory and econometrics are applied to uncover some home truths and, as a result, these papers provide new insights into the nature of economic discourse.”

Publishing for Tenure and Beyond by Franklin H. Silverman. Praeger, 1999. “Silverman provides graduate students who intend to pursue a career in academia and tenure-track junior faculty with candid information about developing an adequate publication record. The focus throughout is on how editorial boards and tenure committees function rather than on how they are supposed to function.”

Publishing in Geography; A Guide for New Researchers, edited by Allison Blunt and Catherine Souch. RGS-IBG & Wiley-Blackwell, 2008. Full text online

Although the focus is on publishing research in human and physical geography this guide has much useful general information about the broader issues of scholarly publication.

Publisher’s Description: “You will find full and accessible advice about publishing in journals and books, electronic publishing, writing policy reports and for the media, and publishing participatory research. Also included are personal experiences of publishing and answers to many frequently asked questions.”

Publishing Political Science: The APSA Guide to Writing and Publishing, edited by Stephen Yoder. (former Managing Editor of PS: Political Science & Politics). American Political Science Association, 2008.

APSA Description

Publishing Political Science opens with a discussion of the state of publishing and review of publishing opportunities for political science. The second part covers writing for particular venues and audiences such as literature reviews, textbooks, journals, blogs, and reference books. The third section provides practical advice from publishers on how to get your work published. It describes how to write successful book proposals, how to negotiate and establish a sound contract with a publisher. This is an essential reference for ALL political scientists.

Available for $26 from APSA.

Rejected : Leading Economists Ponder the Publication Process, edited by George B. Shepherd. Thomas Horton & Daughters, 1994.

The Rhetoric of Economics (Rhetoric of the Human Sciences) by Deirdre N. McCloskey. University of Wisconsin Press; 2nd edition (1998).

“…Economics needs to get serious about its rhetoric, and back to science.” “The most thoughtful book on economics in years.”—Philadelphia Enquirer

Scholarly Book Reviewing in the Social Sciences and Humanities; The Flow of Ideas Within and Among Disciplines, by Ylva Lindholm-Romantschuk. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1998.

“Unlike previous studies that have used techniques such as citation or co-citation analysis to measure scholarly communication, this book identifies scholarly monography as a primary means of communication in the humanities and social sciences.”

Successful Publishing in Scholarly Journals, (Survival Skills for Scholars, v. 11) by Bruce A. Thyer. Sage / (1994).

Free online from Google Books

“Presents an insider’s view of how to develop a personal program of productive publishing and how to increase the chances that articles will be accepted for publication.”

The Thesis and the Book: A Guide for First-Time Academic Authors, edited by Eleanor Harman, Ian Montagnes, et al. 2^nd ed. University of Toronto Press, 2003.

Tricks of the Trade : How to Think About Your Research While You’re Doing It (Chicago Guides to Writing, Editing, and Publishing) by Howard S. Becker. University of Chicago, 1998.

“Drawing on more than four decades of experience as a researcher and teacher, Howard Becker now brings to students and researchers the many valuable techniques he has learned.”

Waging the War of Ideas, by John Blundell. Institute of Economic Affairs, IEA Occasional Paper No. 131, 2001. Full Text online

Go here and then click on “One Click Download” http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=677403

John Blundell begins his stimulating collection of published essays, reviews and introductions by showing how the founders of the IEA successfully fought the conventional planning wisdom of the 1960s and 1970s, providing the ideas which, by the 1980s and 1990s, had brought about increased freedom and a revival in the use of markets. He draws lessons from those days and then surveys the contemporary scene, showing how the anti-liberal ideas emerging now are different from those which prevailed in the early years of the IEA. As well as giving a valuable view of the IEA’s development in the past, these essays also offer advice on how to continue winning in the new circumstances of the present.

Waging the War of Ideas has been constantly in demand since it was first published in 2001. This new and expanded edition contains seven new chapters and is introduced by Professor Walter Williams.

Writing for Publication: Road to Academic Advancement by Kenneth T. Henson. Allyn & Bacon, 2004.

“This book – by a writer whose work has appeared in more than 200 national publications and who has over 20 educational books to his credit – doesn’t just talk about writing and publishing. It features succinct answers to the questions writers ask most.

• Advice for turning dissertation data into journal articles
• Four chapters on grant writing
• Information on how to use writing t gain tenure-track positions and earn tenure
• An appendix profiling the life of an article from getting the idea to final publication.”

Writing and Publishing for Academic Authors edited by Joseph M. Moxley Todd Taylor, & Joseph M. Mozley. 2^nd ed. Rowman & Littlefield, 1996.

“This book offers an inside look at how to publish scholarly articles, book reviews, grants, magazine articles, and commercial and scholarly books.”

Writing for Scholarly Publication by Anne Sigismund Huff. Altamira Pr, 1998. “Recommended for anyone who writes for an academic audience. It provides an excellent set of ideas for the novice as well as helpful reminders for the experienced academic.”

Writing for Social Scientists : How to Start and Finish Your Thesis, Book, or Article (Chicago Guides to Writing, Editing, and Publishing) by Howard S. Becker. 2^nd ed. University of Chicago Press, 2007.

“First published nearly twenty years ago, Writing for Social Scientists has become a lifesaver for writers in all fields, from beginning students to published authors. Becker’s message is clear: in order to learn how to write, take a deep breath and then begin writing. Revise. Repeat.”

Writing the Winning Thesis or Dissertation : A Step-by-Step Guide, by Allan A. Glatthorn & Randy L. Joyner. 2^nd ed. Corwin Press, 2005.

Writing With Power : Techniques for Mastering the Writing Process by Peter Elbow. 2^nd ed. Oxford University Press, 1998.

“A classic handbook for anyone who needs to write, Writing with Power speaks to everyone who has wrestled with words while seeking to gain power with them. Here, Peter Elbow emphasizes that the essential activities underlying good writing and the essential exercises promoting it are really not difficult at all. Employing a cookbook approach, Elbow provides the reader (and writer) with various recipes: for getting words down on paper, for revising, for dealing with an audience, for getting feedback on a piece of writing, and still other recipes for approaching the mystery of power in writing.”

Amy Sturgis. Thanks so much for having me; it’s great to be here!

JH. It’s always great having you! So I was wondering first, could you give us a brief summary of Firefly and Serenity for those who might not be familiar with the series?

AS. Firefly was a television series on the Fox network in the United States from 2002-2003, and then it’s big screen follow-up, Serenity, came out in 2005, and it continues on with new content from creator, Joss Whedon to this day, most recently in 2011, in the world of comics. So the back-story on Firefly and Serenity, obviously they inhabit the same universe, its set in the 26^th century which humans have spread out to various planets outside of Earth, in fact they refer to Earth as Earth “was”, so Earth really isn’t a player anymore, and its set after a civil war that has involved all of these planets. Basically the civil war was the Unificationists, those who wanted to draw all of these human-inhabited planets under the direction and control of the central alliance, that was one side, the other side were the Independents, also known as the Browncoats because they wore brown coats, who were against this unification, who wanted the outside planets, the border worlds, to have their own independence and exercise their own sovereignty. Things went badly for the independents, and in fact the alliance does have control over all these human inhabited planets. Both Firefly and Serenity follows a group of really different people, all of whom have various reasons why they’re seeking a life of personal liberty outside of the alliance’s control. And so they all find themselves out on the border of space, on this little ship, a Firefly class ship, named Serenity, hence the titles Firefly and Serenity, trying to make their way as independent business people when it’s possible, and when it’s not possible, as thieves on the wrong side of the law. In a way, you can draw a parallel with some of the great Westerns. One of the earliest Western films, Stagecoach, one of the earliest classics, essentially takes a group from various different social backgrounds and economic classes and political persuasions, throws them all in a stagecoach going across the west in danger, in peril, kind of thrown together, and you get to see the West and the frontier from their different perspectives. And really, Firefly and Serenity are a futuristic equivalent to that because you have these 9 different characters all looking out at space and seeing essentially 9 different things. But, they are united by the fact that they want to be out from what they call the long arm of the alliance.

JH. Now about the alliance, Joss Whedon stated that the alliance is not some evil empire really but just a large, benevolent government, the problem being most people really didn’t want to be governed. So what do you think about that comment?

AS. I think that’s part of the genius of Whedon and his creation, and I should also say his co-creators. I know Tim Minear, for example, who was the co-producer and one of the writers for Firefly, was very conscious of what he was doing as he crafted his scripts. It would be very easy for the alliance to be some sort of Nazi Germany, where it’s very clear they’re doing the wrong things, obviously

exterminating people and evil, not very difficult to grasp that, so obviously the Browncoats are the good guys. But what I think the genius of Firefly and Serenity is that the alliance, in many ways, has very good intentions. What is proved over and over again through the scripts is that you can really help people to death, that in fact good intentions are not an excuse for the kind of intrusion the alliance practices. And so you see over and over again things that, if you just heard the talking points for a policy, it would make good sense. Of course we want people to be peaceful, of course we want people to be educated, of course we want these things. But then we see how this plays out in practice. As these policies are imposed on people, and as a small, elite group get to decide what the priorities are, what the values are, for people they’ve never met, never seen, in fact with whose planet they never had contact, you can really see how the most benevolent of states can go very, very badly wrong.

JH. You have an essay in the forthcoming book, The Philosophy of Joss Whedon, on Isaiah Berlin’s concept of negative rights. How does Firefly and Serenity tie into the concept of negative rights?

AS. Isaiah Berlin kind of coined the phrase and got the best and earliest handle on the concept of positive and negative rights and positive and negative freedom. Basically, what he meant by that was positive liberty, the idea of “freedom to”, for example, the concept of creating a level playing field so that everyone starts out from the same point, a kind of withdrawing of things that might distinguish one person from another so that all people are free to go do X, Y, or Z. Negative freedom ,or negative liberty, is considered to be “freedom from”, in other words, the state not going and putting obstacles in the way of people doing their own thing. I argue that Whedon and Minear and the other people involved with Firefly and Serenity have set up the story in this beautiful dichotomy so you have the alliance of being this example of positive liberty and the crew of Serenity who are basically the characters seeking negative liberty. Well, for example, take Serenity. The operative for the alliance says he wants a world

without sin, which sounds really great, that would be nice if people didn’t do bad things. It seems like a very worthy goal. But, we find out through the story that what the alliance has done is have good intentions gone devastatingly wrong. The alliance gets to decide, as any state would get to decide when imposing this notion of positive liberty, what the values are that people get, and how they’re going to be imposed. So the way this plays out in the movie, the alliance tries to free a population of an entire planet from aggression without their knowledge by introducing this gas into the planet and the desired effect would have been a case study in positive liberty. The people would have been freed from aggression and free to realize their more peaceful and harmonious selves. But instead, the unintended

effect was absolutely horrible, and I won’t give all of that away in case you want to go see the movie, which I hope you do. But Mal doesn’t criticize the means, Malcolm, the captain of Serenity; he doesn’t

criticize the means the alliance uses, because the moral of the story isn’t just avoid this particular gas on this particular planet. He criticizes the ends of the alliance, and there’s this great point where he says, and I’m quoting because I’m a geek, “They will try again, maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean a year from now or 10, they’ll swing back to the belief that they can make people better, and I do not hold that.” And I think it’s important that he’s not condemning an individual’s

personal choice to try to make himself or herself better. What he’s condemning is the decision of one group to impose their vision of better on others. I think the way the series plays out, over and over again it’s putting up the alliance’s conception of positive liberty against the Browncoats, against the crew of

Serenity’s conception of negative liberty. Malcolm calls them as “them who wants to be free” who are trying to get away from this benevolent bully.

JH. What I think is interesting about the character of Mal you mentioned, the captain, is you had said before that the alliance has benevolent intentions, whereas Mal has certain ends that he wants to get to, but in a way he is a criminal, right?

AS. Exactly. He doesn’t wish to be a criminal, all he wants to do is make his own way. But he’s found himself marginalized to such an extent that he doesn’t have the opportunities to essentially provide for himself and take care of himself by legal means, and so he is sort of a classic anti-hero in that he does what is necessary and doesn’t really apologize for it. It’s interesting that he does have a very strong

sense of ethics, a code of ethics and sense of morals. There are things he will and won’t do. He will steal from people he thinks are bad, but if he finds out what he stole is medicine, he goes and takes it back. He has a line that he’s drawn of things he will and won’t do, they just don’t happen to correspond with the law as to what you should or shouldn’t do. But that makes him a very, very interesting character.

And I should point out that not all the people that work with him or live with him and are part of his crew, agree with him, and that also brings up some very interesting questions as to where you get a social order, and how communities of consent can develop, where people can kind of come to a consensus on what right and wrong behavior would be.

JH. What are some other themes that come up in this series that relate to liberty?

AS. Well something else that I used in my essay, something that I’m very interested in, I use Frederick Jackson Turner’s frontier thesis. Turner was a very important historian, and he basically put forth this notion of American exceptionalism, suggesting that the US had certain values that were unique because they experienced the frontier, and a lot of those have to do with questions of independence and how Americans relate to liberty and questions of freedom and how they value freedom. And since he wrote that, a lot of science fiction authors have sort of stepped back and projected what an end to the frontier would mean for these sort of independent people who simply want to go their own way. And over and over again, authors including Robert Heinlein, one of the great leaders of science fiction’s golden age, have suggested that you can only find real opportunities for meaningful liberties when you’re on the frontier. And so, in Heinlein’s classic work, The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, just as the moon, which represents the US colonies in a way, has gotten independent from the Earth, which represents Great

Britain, the leader of the insurgence realizes that he’s going to have to leave and go out even further if he wants the kind of place that he can be free, even though they have just become independent, this too is going to become a state-run, centralized place, and so he needs to get out farther. And so that is a theme that I think runs through Firefly and Serenity over and over again, that it’s only on the boundary, only on the border, physically outside the reach of the state that the most interesting experiments in and the most ardent defense of liberty is going to lie. So I look at that and the way that Firefly and Serenity are essentially frontier narratives and are essentially Westerns that happen to be set in space. But there are other issues such as centralization versus decentralization and of personal responsibility,

the creation of voluntary communities and what’s necessary to make your own life, and how different voluntary communities self-police, so you see all sorts of different black markets, you see groups of

people sort of randomly thrown together that end up cooperating for mutual defense, for trade, all sorts of interesting social experiments going on in these border worlds in Firefly and Serenity that I think are great fodder for libertarian thinkers. And also social institutions, from the church to the guild that runs and trains essentially a prostitution ring, it’s the companions guild where prostitution is legalized, and what that means for the people who work in that industry, which is also a very interesting model, then, for privatization for industries that currently, today are prohibited. And the ongoing theme of innovation and entrepreneurship, the little business person, the little person who is just trying to make his or her

way is a heroic figure in this series, and I think that’s very interesting as well.

JH. Does Joss Whedon tend to have these types of themes in his works, or is it just because Firefly was a frontier-based TV show, it lent itself to those types of themes?

AS. I think I would have to say yes, and yes. He does not self-identify as a libertarian, but a lot of his work is of tremendous interest to libertarians and a person’s control over his or her life and how, in a variety of ways, individual choice is limited, taken away, by groups that mean to be as benevolent as possible.

This is a recurring theme in his work, and his series that came after this, Dollhouse, most definitely looked into this. I would also say the subject matter, by being this kind of Western in space, lends itself to asking these questions and also the historical precedence for it. He very consciously looked at the floor model when he was building his universe, the idea of what the Confederacy would have been, which was a far more decentralized state, than what the United States was, and he kind of built that in as well. He said he was basically trying to get the confederacy without slavery, in terms of what was going on there, so I think the Firefly and Serenity universe is particularly well suited, and I think that’s why it drew people like Tim Minear, who are even more closely identified with libertarianism than Joss Whedon is, to write for it, because this was the natural canvas on which to explore these ideas.

JH. Well thank you very much for joining us once again to talk about Firefly!

AS. Thank you very much for having me, I do appreciate it! And I do hope people will watch the DVDs and buy the comic books and explore these universes and let them be a springboard for more thought about the issues of liberty!

JH. And for more information on Dr. Sturgis and her work, visit amyhsturgis.com. And for more interviews with leading scholars, visit kosmosonline.org, connecting the network of liberty advancing academics, and this is Jeanne Hoffman signing off.

Last week I talked with Bruce Benson about his new book, ““Property Rights: Eminent Domain and Regulatory Takings Re-examined.” Dr. Benson is a Senior Fellow at The Independent Institute, the DeVoe Moore Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at Florida State University, and Contributing Editor of The Independent Review.

Download this interview
Read a transcript of this interview
Get Kosmos podcasts on iTunes

The debate around tariffs is contentious because it can appear to downplay slavery’s critical role in the Civil War’s origins. In this simplified view, the argument can be countered by South Carolina’s Declaration of Immediate Causes, which cited “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery” as its motivation for secession. However, while tariffs may not have been primary, dismissing their role entirely would be hasty.

James W. Loewen, a sociologist, sought to clarify this in his recent Washington Post article, labeling tariffs as one of the Civil War’s “5 myths.” This piece sparked a vibrant debate across the historical blogosphere, prompting economist Thomas DiLorenzo to issue a strong rebuttal. Loewen doubled down on his stance at HNN, reinforcing his initial arguments without fully addressing criticisms. His core claim is summarized in the Washington Post.

Robert Penn Warren succinctly stated that the “Tariff Thesis is flatly wrong.” He pointed out that while high tariffs had triggered the Nullification Crisis of 1831-33, when South Carolina threatened secession if it couldn’t nullify federal laws, no other states joined in, and President Andrew Jackson’s readiness to use force prompted South Carolina to retreat. Warren argued that tariffs were irrelevant by 1860 since Southern states had crafted the low Tariff of 1857, which had reduced rates to their lowest since 1816.

Yet, this view overlooks some significant factors. As I explored in a recent article in the Journal of the Early Republic, to claim tariffs were not a factor in 1860 is, in itself, “flatly wrong.” Southern concern was not over the Tariff of 1857 but rather the looming Morrill Tariff of 1861, a divisive issue in Congress for nearly two years and central to the 1860 election. The roots of the Nullification Crisis, which included debates predating 1828 South Carolina, and even Thomas Jefferson’s influence, deserve a separate discussion. But the Morrill Tariff, with its real-time relevance, demands a closer look.

The historiography of the Morrill Tariff has been clouded, particularly by “Lost Cause” revisionism, as James W. Loewen noted. Robert Penn Warren’s centennial essay on the war further discusses how, after the 19th century, many former slaveholders found it convenient to reinterpret the war as a tariff dispute rather than a conflict over slavery. This revisionist interpretation, however, should not overshadow the factual history of the tariff debate itself.

So, where did the tariff debate stand on the eve of the Civil War? Like many other political issues of the time, it had become embroiled in a North-South conflict, fueling sectional divisions that ran deeper than any single policy.

The Impact of the Morrill Tariff

For years before the Civil War, tariffs remained relatively stable, thanks to the Walker Tariff of 1846, an American counterpart to Britain’s repeal of the Corn Laws. This tariff helped maintain a balance that favored free trade, a priority for Southern and Western agricultural interests. In 1857, they managed to secure an even further reduction, led by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Robert M.T. Hunter of Virginia.

However, the Panic of 1857 shook this balance. While primarily triggered by international agricultural price fluctuations, the Panic revitalized the struggling protectionist movement, which called for high tariffs as a fix for the economic downturn. Tariffs quickly surged to the forefront of national policy discussions, joining the uproar around the Dred Scott decision. By 1858, tariffs were a core issue in the election for Speaker of the House. Historian Richard Franklin Bensel notes that Southern opposition to tariff hikes clashed with Republican John Sherman’s protectionist stance, creating a deadlock that persisted for over two months. Ultimately, Sherman withdrew, assuming the chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee as a compromise, where he joined forces with Rep. Justin Morrill of Vermont to draft a new, highly protectionist tariff proposal, sparking fierce debates in the House. The Morrill Tariff eventually passed in May 1860, dividing lawmakers along North-South lines.

Senator Hunter then moved to table the tariff in the Senate, ensuring it would emerge as a divisive issue in the 1860 election. This delay shifted the final Senate vote to the “Secession Winter” of 1860-61, the period that marked the beginning of the Civil War.

While the national debate over slavery dominated the 1860 election, the Morrill Tariff bill emerged as a key issue within the Republican Party, especially in the Northeast. Abraham Lincoln’s long-standing image as a “Tariff Whig” proved influential in securing his nomination, particularly in attracting the protectionist-leaning delegates initially pledged to Senator Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania during the Republican Convention in Chicago. After clinching the nomination, Lincoln dispatched his campaign manager, David Davis, to Pennsylvania and New Jersey with a suite of pro-tariff speeches to secure the vital protectionist vote in these pivotal swing states. Morrill and Sherman joined as Lincoln’s surrogates, campaigning through Pennsylvania, while Lincoln himself focused on the Midwest, where excessive pro-tariff rhetoric could risk alienating voters. Lincoln’s clever electoral strategy ultimately paid off.

When Congress reconvened in December for what would be known as “Secession Winter,” Southern Democrats, especially the pro-slavery “fire-eaters,” initiated the session with fierce attacks on Lincoln’s platform—not one aimed at abolishing slavery but merely at containing its spread. Against this backdrop of rising secessionist fervor, the Morrill Tariff bill arrived in the Senate, intensifying the tense climate of that pivotal winter.

Tariffs and the Road to Secession

The relationship between the Morrill Tariff and secession has been a subject of intense debate since 1860-61, with some figures of that era even taking part in the discussions themselves. Much of the immediate controversy revolved around whether the Morrill Tariff had a chance of passing either in the final days of the outgoing Congress or in the new Senate under Lincoln’s administration. This question remains unanswered, as the resignations of senators from six secessionist states on January 21, 1861, also removed crucial votes likely opposed to the tariff, allowing its passage with minimal resistance a month later.

Contrary to claims in Loewen’s article, it’s clear that secessionists seriously considered and debated the tariff. Though slavery was the predominant issue, discussions around tariffs surfaced as a secondary point. The territorial question and “fire-eater” hostility toward abolitionists overshadowed secession conventions in the seven original Confederate states, yet grievances about the Morrill Tariff also surfaced. For instance, on December 25, 1860, South Carolina’s secession convention called on other Southern states to join, citing “the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues.”

Neighboring Georgia held even deeper discussions on the tariff. Alexander Stephens, who would later serve as the Confederate Vice President yet initially opposed secession, argued that if Southern and Western agricultural states stayed in the Union, they could amass enough votes to defeat the tariff in the Senate. Senator Robert Toombs, soon to be the Confederate Secretary of State, condemned the Morrill Tariff as “the most atrocious tariff bill that was ever enacted,” increasing duties from twenty to two hundred and fifty percent. Toombs continued his criticism, even incorporating an anti-tariff clause into Georgia’s pro-slavery Declaration of Causes for secession.

Considering the full spectrum of evidence, it’s challenging to assert that tariffs alone drove the secession crisis; most historians who subscribe to the tariff thesis today don’t make this claim. Consequently, dismissing all discourse on tariffs due to their later association with “Lost Cause” historiography risks creating a strawman argument. Some historians attacking the tariff thesis fall into this trap. Tariff politics have always been complex, necessitating both political insight and economic analysis. The tariff undoubtedly played a role on the eve of the Civil War, and dismissing it entirely without careful consideration oversimplifies the crisis and deprives us of a fuller understanding of this period.

A balanced, evidence-based view of the tariff issue reveals its resurgence from 1858 to 1861 as political tensions escalated and pre-war sectional divides intensified. It contributed significantly to these divisions, arriving in the Senate during the “Secession Winter” and further stirring an already volatile situation. While the tariff alone cannot fully explain the Civil War, it represents the conflict’s layered nature. Complex upheavals rarely boil down to one issue, and tariffs exemplify how economic concerns intersected with the moral and sectional issues of slavery.

Next in our “Civil War at 150” series: exploring the intellectual roots of Abolitionism.

Written by Phil Magness

Download this interview

Jeanne Hoffman:         Welcome to this Kosmos Online podcast. I am Jeanne Hoffman. Today we are talking about the popular fiction work in HBO series “Game of Thrones” and how it intersects with themes of liberty. I would like to welcome our Game of Thrones expert Amber Taylor who is a 2005 graduate of Harvard Law, a blogger at Prettier than Napoleon, and has written on Game of Thrones for The Atlantic.

Welcome Amber and thanks for joining us.

Amber Taylor:             Thank you for having me.

JH:                               First of all for listeners you might not know about the show and book, could you give us a rough guide to the Game of Thrones world?

AT:                               Yes, so Game of Thrones was originally a series of novels by George R.R. Martin who is a well known sci-fi and fantasy author and also TV screenwriter which explains the cinematic quality of many of the plot developments in the series.

It originally was intended to be a trilogy as many fantasy series are. It has ballooned and is presently at five books. The fifth book came out earlier this year and last year was the first year of the HBO original series starring Sean Bean that covered the plot in the first book which is called Game of Thrones and it was renewed for a second season which is starting, I believe next spring, which will cover as far as I know the part of the second book which is called Clash of Kings.

So this began as a fantasy take on the Wars of the Roses. So the Lancasters in New York became the Lannisters and Starks and it has sort of acquired its own gravity through the development of the narrative.

It is at surface about the struggles between various noble families and factions for power in the aftermath of a rebellion several years, with the winner of that rebellion governing the kingdom or misgoverning and then the death of that king and what comes after.

In many ways it has a lot to say about various political themes and Game of Thrones is unusual in the fantasy genre, at least was when it was originally written that it really takes a very gritty realistic tone. In many cases fantasy is criticized for not really getting to these human issues and is Marie Antoinette with her shepherdesses in her sterile little cottage. But, Martin is very interested in looking at the dark side of a medieval setting.

JH:                               So the world that is going on there is it just about who can deploy the greatest force or are there questions of liberty or morality at stake within this?

AT:                               So the various families that struggle for power in the wake of the death of King Robert, which is something that we saw in season I of the HBO show in the first book, there are the Lannisters who are an extremely wealthy family of the queen Robert’s wife and his widow is a Lannister.

The various families have different motivations. The Lannisters are very out for wealth. The historically have made a lot of money from gold mining and are really very almost sociopathic in their pursuit of power.

The Starks who are the other sort of leading family–at least in first book and series–are from the north which you can roughly analogize to Scotland if you want, which has more of a history of independence and self rule. So you can read it as the fact that the Starks are in the wake of Robert’s death perhaps asserting new independence for the north is a claim to self governance and potential the overturn to devolution of power.

Some of the other factions and families have more or less in terms of principled commitments or ideologies. There is a rough analog to sort of Norse or Viking culture in the form of the Greyjoys, one of whom is a ward of the Starks in the wake of another war. They are a very individualistic family and society, but one which is also fundamentally based on the exercise of a force and almost ‘might is right’, although they do have interestingly female ship captains and other sorts of unusual things for the culture.

JH:                               So for fans of liberty does it matter very much who ends up winning?

AT:                               I think it does because one thing that you will see in the future– and I don’t want to give too much away –is that the scion of the former ruling house the one that was overthrown by Robert in his rebellion a couple of decades before the time that the show in the first book are set in, is currently oversees trying to muster forces to return to her homeland and hopefully conquer. One of the more interesting developments with her is that she is essentially sold almost as a slave to a rough and tough Genghis Khan-type figure in an attempt to get his military forces to take back her homeland. She, due to her experiences of being effectively chattel, has a very strong commitment to ending slavery.

But, there are a lot of problems that come along with the re-ordering societies even when you are trying to do so in an effort to increase liberty, and so one of the things that I think we will see next season is the difficulty of making these choices and making sure that they don’t lead to greater chaos or upheaval.

JH:                               So you were just talking about someone who is chattel, but I want to talk now about the Nights Watchmen. They go to the war and they made a free choice to join this watch rather than do other things and they are very strict service; no wife, no land, no children, no titles, no glory, so what about them? Are they free or are they sort of slaves to be in the watch?

AT:                               The Nights Watch is this really interesting construct because it is true that some of them, such as Jon Snow who is the bastard son of Ned Stark, the character played by Sean Bean in the series. Jon Snow, being a bastard, he has no inheritance. He has very little option for marriage or glory and so the nights watch provides a structure and a potential for him to succeed and contribute, but even so it is his legal status as a bastard that is really driving him toward that choice even though in his case it was made freely.

The problem with the nights watch is that, the nights watch performs this double role of providing an out worth for people who are bastards or cripples or you know, who couldn’t make it on the outside effectively so you know younger sons like the character Samwell Tarly who is an overweight and likes to, you know rather bookish and his father tells him essentially you may be really the son but your brother is the better heir you can choose to trying to watch or you can have a hunting accident.

So in many cases that even for the characters where it appears the most volitional there is a lot of societal pressure going on the tragedy to the watch, but the other function that the watch performs is, you can see this in history, societies that had judicial systems but not incarceration. So in a situation where somebody has violated the law where we would take away their physical liberty for a time if you don’t have the social structure, the apparatus that sort of capital to do that, like what we saw hundreds of years ago in England, is a lot of crimes became hanging crimes. In other countries you have corporal, physical judicial punishment and that is the case in Westeros, but there is this sort of alternate path where a person convicted of certain crimes who might be dealt or lose a hand or be hung have the option to join the watch which, even compared with a choice between hunger or lack of status, there may something that they are choosing but it is a fairly unfree choice.

So what you see there is that there are some people in the watch like Jon Snow who because they chose it freely come to it with a sense of pride and obligation, then you have people who chose it as an alternative to the rope who are much less motivated and in fact sometimes make a different choice, which is to enter the society beyond the Wall. So the nights watch guards via this immense wall constructed of ice in the northern border of Westeros from ancient enemies and they are however, almost anarchic tribal populations called wildlings who live north of the Wall and some of these people who join the nights watch and realize that a lifelong commitment , while its better than being hung, is still not something that they desire. It is in fact a life sentence chose to go pursue this wild existence beyond the Wall.

So those I believe are in many senses the most free people in Westeros but you also see that their status as being effectively anarchic and launch themselves as sort of left them with very little in the way of resources and of course they are cut off from trade or other relationships with people south of the Wall which also tends to limit their options.

JH:                               So George RR Martin kind of goes meta at times in that he uses his stories to comment on the way in which we use stories. So there is Sansa Stark who relies of stories, what is that about and how does it create spaces of liberty for her and which ways does it destroy it too?

AT:                               To an extent that Sansa is trying to create spaces of liberty for herself via her use of stories. I think it is mostly mental. This particular kind of narrative’s that Sansa, who is a young pretty girl who is betrothed to the son of the King Robert, means the daughter of the Stark family. Sansa have very idealistic notions about courtly love, about the obligations of nobility, about the obligations of men towards women and the consequent conduct that women and men show towards each other. And what you see with Sansa is that in some cases it does allow her to affectively remain sane by playing a role and sometimes it keeps her safe in so far as the role that she is inhabiting, that she is imbibed from, these stories of courtly love is a rather quiet and submissive one which sort of keeps her out of trouble when she is the target of abuse or in danger and in some sense obtains a certain amount of pity from her, from some of the other characters such as Sandor Clegane the Hound, who is a very brutal knight who has effectively renounced the knighthood and all of its accoutrements because he sees that being a knight doesn’t mean you are a good person.

He feels a certain sympathy for Sansa who has not yet come to the realization that he came to it at a young age which is, this courtly love narrative can really protect you and it doesn’t really reflect the world that they live in. In a sense this a lot of what Martin is doing with the story because many fantasy novels as I mentioned before are for fans of that courtly love narrative, of that, the perfect gentle knight, and what Martin is interested in showing you and Sansa is a really good example of that is that in a society where there is very little individual liberty and that force still plays a very strong role that these are not adaptive modes of conduct that being or subscriber to the ideals of courtly love and idealistic and Sansa is in fact it usually leads to trouble.

JH:                               I haven’t watched the series, you know I have just read the book so I apologize if I say his name but there is a character Tyrion I want to say his name Tyrion Lannister is that right?

AT:                               Tyrion, I think is how they say it on HBO.

JH:                               Yes. So he seems to have a great liberty to move between the roles and social ranks. Where does that liberty come from?

AT:                               Tyrion is a really great character. He does have that sort of sense of being free that a lot of the nobles don’t seem to have. A part of that is first of all Tyrion, being a Lannister, is incredibly wealthy above and beyond any of the other families that we see in the series. The Lannisters are well known throughout the country for being the richest people around and so while Tyrion has a certain liberty to be socializing with fellow nobles due to his birth, but also goes into the Taverns and the brothels and so on and is very comfortable with people of lower orders since he is protected by his wealth.

We see this where he comes into contact with some mercenaries and soldiers who might have otherwise killed him but where you have someone who can easily dangle the prospective ransom in any kind of dangerous situation, it allows you to be comfortable in circumstances where other people would be in a fairly great deal of fear. But part of what makes Tyrion’s freedom possible is, I think there is a quote, they make have it in the show as well as in the book, which is that in a conversation with Jon Snow who is an illegitimate he says that all dwarves are bastards in their father’s eyes. He is if not cast out by his father due to his disability he is the second class citizen within the family.

His name and his wealth remain but he has no obligations or responsibilities because he is effectively a Lannister in name only and so his sense of distance and disillusionment, that isolation I think, is one thing that pushes him to be comfortable with people of various orders and various classes. In a sense he is impoverished as well. The fact that he is a dwarf and does not have obligations to be a knight he does not have obligations to be married off for the benefit of the family allows him a firm scope to experiment with different kinds of people with different interactions and he actually is a big reader himself. His broadmindedness probably contributes to his free and easy ways as well.

JH:                               So the world that Martin created seems pretty violent so is personal or political liberty possible with that violence?

AT:                               Martin is very pessimistic on this question and as the books go on we see in many cases people trying to remove these coercive institutions to make more room for liberty if not in an explosive context of an individualist that ethos at the very least to abolish slavery, to make a better life possible for people beyond the Wall in a kind of increased autonomy, more rights to women etc. In almost every instance where we see somebody trying to accomplish these goals they are either accomplished through violence–so the violent overthrow of one system in favor of another–or they are almost immediately combated with violence and if they are not willing to wield force in turn are quickly overrun.

There is very little scope for non-violent non-coercive institutions in a society but I think that is mostly just a factor of the development that you have shown here is a fairly accurate reflection I believe of our own history during that period and so what the state of liberty and institutions being created to arrest violence and force for Westeros five hundred years in their future may be much more promising as they are for us today, but during their time period of Game of Thrones I don’t think that we have a lot of that so authoritative.

JH:                               So really quickly out of all of their houses and tribes we’re introduced to who do you think has the greatest promise of liberty for themselves and for those who interact with them?

AT:                               So it is very interesting because the family that was originally ruling Westeros, the kingdoms before Robert’s rebellion, was the Targaryens which Daenerys who is the character who oversees mustering forces and her brother were those Targaryens and the reason why the Targaryens were able to unify the country was actually because of their possession of air power they had dragons but even after dragons became extinct the Targaryens will continued because there was a certain promise, a benefit that was still extend from this effective, kind of large free trade zone, one system of law, the kingdom was peaceful and sectional warfare was reduced because all of the kings had been made subjects of the high king who is a Targaryen. You see that start to fray later with as the Targaryen line becomes corrupted and it is actually the madness of the Targaryens and their direct infringing on the liberties of certain noble families and assassination of certain nobles that leads to their demise.

As I mentioned before Daenerys, due to her experiences, has this very strong sympathy for liberty and freedom and the only problem is she is simultaneously vehemently anti-slavery and also a believer in the divine right of kings and that she’s the one true Targaryen heir must rule Westeros. I have a lot of excitement for her as a potential ruler due to her freedom loving impulses but some questions about the other the Starks on the other hand are very noble family, very respecting of the rule of law, the north is a more individualistic place so perhaps libertarians, we’re  all Starks at heart. The problem you see with the north, however, is that it is a large individualistic place.

Any large group of libertarians can become a little bit like herding cats and I think herding northerners poses some more challenges for the Starks in the Game of Thrones. If you have to pick a family or faction the Starks are not a bad choice due to their very idealistic notions about the rule of law and politics, in some instances they may not be able to make it to get to this leader stage where are able to rule and preserve a little bit more liberty. I don’t think that the Lannisters would be very liberty friendly so most of us I think are rooting for them to lose, although one of the things that Martin does particularly well is that he always seems to put at least one character in every family or faction or group, that you can feel for on an individual level which I think he does with Tyrion, who is a fan favorite and I believe Peter Dinklage the actor who plays him on HBO has got several awards for his portrayal. So if there is some way for us to have a liberty friendly ending, Lannisters get what they deserve, but Tyrion still makes it out, I think that is what a lot of people will be rooting for.

JH:                               Well thank you so much for joining us Amber.

AT:                               Thank you very much. I hope I was able to convince some libertarians that they should check out season 2 of Game of Thrones.

JH:                               And for more on themes of liberty and popular fiction works visit Kosmosonline.org providing career advice and intellectual resources and this is Jeanne Hoffman, signing off.

I am currently in the throes of creating two undergraduate courses for next semester – one on school choice, and the other on the politics of American education. In so doing, I am coming up against the (probably) age-old challenge of course creation: finding an appropriate balance between breadth and depth of material. Do I cover many topics that I think students should know at the possible expense of going over fewer topic more deeply? Or do I stick with fewer topics in order to give room for us to really explore each one, but sacrifice a few subjects that I really think students would benefit from?

Like with most questions of course creation, there really are no great final answers here. Creating a course or syllabus is much more an art than a science. But finding the method that works best for you can benefit from some thinking about the pros and cons of each approach, and I’ve personally been doing a lot of that lately. So, let me subject you to my thoughts in the hope that they might be of benefit to others.

I think most teachers initial instinct (particularly when teaching any kind of “survey” courses) is to go with breadth over depth. In creating a course on the politics of American education, my instinct is to think of all the sub-topics that students might benefit from – special education law, the role of interest groups in education, the charter movement, etc, etc, – and create a course where students get a bit of all of them. Why? Because there are so many important things students interested in politics of American education need to know, and even the thought of excluding a few of them makes me feel like I am not preparing students.

And this can definitely be a good thing. After all, there are a lot of interesting and important things we need to teach students, and in some sense, it is our job as teachers to expose students to all the possible things about our subject that they will need to know. Another reason to prefer breadth over depth is that exposing students to a wide array of subtopics may improve our chances of covering that one or two that will really resonate with students. Let’s say that I am teaching Politics of American Education, and I decide that there is no time to discuss special education law, but that there are some students in my class who are potentially really interested in special education… but who are bored to tears at the talk of how special interest groups affect education policy. Those students will leave my class less interested than they otherwise would have been.

But we also risk giving up something important in including many sub-topics in our courses: the ability to really mull over and explore any particular sub-topic. Some of my friends teach philosophy, which I think provides a great analogy here. Let’s say you are teaching an intro philosophy course that includes a week or so each devoted to different great philosophers. The question: can you really do Nietzshe, Aristotle, or other great philosophers any real justice in one week? Might it actually be more rewarding to cut down on the number of philosophers covered so that you actually have time to devote two or three weeks to reading, appreciating the subtleties of, and criticizing each philosopher? Asked differently, is the goal to give students a broad survey of what philosophers have written, or allow them to experience what it is like to do philosophy? The former requires depth, but the latter requires breadth.

If the most obvious negative to a “depth” approach is sacrificing time for analysis and focus, the most obvious drawback to a “breadth” approach is probably that it requires leaving some potentially really important subjects out. Which one of these is the biggest negative probably depends on what you want students to get from your class. If the goal is to equip students with some knowledge about several different aspects of your subject, you might emphasize breadth over depth. But if the goal is to prepare students to really think deeply about your subject and sharpening their analytical skills, then you might think about sacrificing breadth for more depth, reducing the amount covered and increasing the focus with which each thing is covered.

Now, I will tip my own hand. Even though my general urge is to go with breadth (because there are just too many “must know” areas of education politics!), I usually end up sacrificing some of that breadth for depth, even though that means making really hard choices about which “must know” topics need to bite the dust. I generally justify this by thinking about the importance I place on students knowing how to really think about a particular subject, which takes time and focus on each subject. I also – and here I may be deluding myself – like to think that by focusing on fewer subjects and giving time for students to really take time to understand and think about each, I stand a better chance that students will actually connect with a particular topic (than if we covered each subject at a more cursory level owing to time constraints).

As I said, there really is no right answer here. In the end, we all need to go with what makes us most comfortable and constantly be willing to revise each semester’s syllabi depending on the how we think past semesters have gone. Yet, thinking about these issues consciously, and recognizing the pros and cons of each approach, can help us all create courses and syllabi that best meet the learning outcomes we have for our students.

***

Kevin Currie-Knight is a Predoctoral Fellow at the University of Illinois, Springfield (Liberal Studies Department). He is finishing up a dissertation on libertarian arguments on American education from the University of Delaware’s School of Education, and worked as a graduate assistant at UD’s Center for Teaching and Assessment of Learning.

Here’s why soliciting regular and honest feedback is a good idea. You probably have a self-image that is inconsistent with reality. You probably think you’re way better than you actually are on some margins. You probably think you are worse than you actually are on other margins.

Honest feedback helps you better align your beliefs with reality. It helps you identify strengths to emphasize (you have a lot of cool ideas), weaknesses to improve (your PowerPoint presentations could be much better), and even things you just need to write off (you’re not going to be a rock star).

And, as Jason points out on pages 162 and following, feedback doesn’t just come from other people. It also comes from your environment (“the fridge smells”), your body (“too tired to work”), or the performance of your retirement account (“diversification pays!”).

Exercises (modified from pp. 169-170):

1. Consider two projects, one in your work life and the other in your personal life. Put marks on your calendar for one month from today, three months from today, and one year from today. Write a few sentences explaining the following for each project:

a. Where is this project right now?

b. Where do I want this project to be in one month? Three months? One year?

c. What resources do I need in order to reach these milestones?

d. What kind of feedback will tell me I am making appropriate progress?

e. With whom can I partner to trade feedback on these projects?

If you would be so kind, please answer in the comments. If it’s sensitive, don’t worry about putting the “personal” project in the comments.

***
Art Carden is an Assistant Professor of Economics at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama, a Senior Research Fellow with the Institute for Faith, Work, and Economics, a Research Fellow with the Independent Institute, a Senior Fellow with the Beacon Center of Tennessee, and a regular contributor to Forbes.com, LearnLiberty, EconLog, and Kosmos.

This podcast is part of our series on liberty and science fiction, please feel free to suggest topics for future podcasts in the comments!

For more podcasts with Dr. Sturgis and about science fiction, visit StarShipSofa

Previous IHS Academic podcasts

Listen and watch previous IHS Academic podcasts and videos