Sure so am I most of the time. But Strauss's writing what he calls political philosophy, which makes it easier. Even so, I still don't really understand his work in the human sense, except from a psychological point of view. As I said, from that psychological point of view, the best spin I can put on it, is a man under the duress of threat and loss. But many of his contemporaries were under similar duress and ended up on the left to the far left. So, I am still at a loss. Arendt is the example that I keep using in my mind. I play Hannah, Leo plays himself.
Getting back to philosophy v. politics. I think you can see the connections, just where you mention, in law and interpretative positions on law.
Strauss wrote Natural Right during the early fifties in the US at the height of anti-commie McCarthy era. I haven't got to his other writing in that period. But I expect pretty much the same sort argument. On the academic battle front I think he was competing with Arendt and other liberals and lefties over at his former job site at New School where he taught until he got an appointment at Uni of Chicago.
What I would really like to know is what Strauss thought of the Rosenberg case---and if he wrote anything about it. That was the clear, bright line. I guess I already know. The argument they posed a threat to US power is ridiculous. Look at the state power asymmetry. A world power with millions under arms against two middled aged lefties? I want say to the US government, come on guys, get serious. Make your case and if it holds up, then lock'm up for a few years, and then let them go. There is real punishment in public shame.
As a practical matter Obama is going to have to put all the detainees through some sort of federal review system where most are going to be released for insufficient evidence. There will be interesting cases where the prisoners are too mentally derranged by their imprisonment to be functional. Wasn't that the point to torture? That will be an interesting dilemma to watch the US judicial system sort out.
``I was talking to a law lecturer I know the other day, and he made the point that the harm principle was behind a lot of liberal theories of right....But, he went on to say, most jurisprudence today thinks that concepts of right based on the harm principle all fall apart.''
After reading some of the links on the Tigar v. Posner thread I think I can guess the rightwing approach. It follows a pragmatic concept of cost-benefit. Most theoretical harms fall under categories where the theoretical benefit of denial of right is too costly to the greater social good, or something along those lines. Is it worth suspension of habeas corpus to deny the potential release of state secrets in open court? That's the line that Posner seems to follow over on the Tigar v. Posner thread.
CG