一个酝酿了一百年的摧毁美国的计划即将被释放出来……它能被阻止吗?有一种强大的技术叫做奥弗顿之窗，它可以塑造我们的生活、法律和未来。它的工作原理是操纵公众的看法，让以前被认为激进的观点随着时间的推移开始被接受。移动窗口，你就改变了辩论。改变辩论，你就改变了这个国家。对于20多岁的公关主管诺亚·加德纳(Noah Gardner)来说，可以肯定地说，政治理论是他最不关心的事情。聪明、单身、英俊，并被他父亲的财富和权力隔绝了世界上的问题，诺亚更关心他的社会生活的未来，而不是他国家的未来。但当诺亚遇到莫利·罗斯(Molly Ross)时，这一切都改变了。莫利·罗斯是一个被我们所熟知的美国即将永远消失的噩耗所折磨的女人。她和她的爱国者们发誓要铭记过去，为未来而战——但是诺亚，确信他们只是被误导的阴谋论者，并没有兴趣为他们的事业贡献自己的大量技能。 And then the world changes. An unprecedented attack on U.S. soil shakes the country to the core and puts into motion a frightening plan, decades in the making, to transform America and demonize all those who stand in the way. Amidst the chaos, many don’t know the difference between conspiracy theory and conspiracy fact—or, more important, which side to fight for. But for Noah, the choice is clear: Exposing the plan, and revealing the conspirators behind it, is the only way to save both the woman he loves and the individual freedoms he once took for granted. After five back-to-back #1 New York Times bestsellers, national radio and Fox News television host Glenn Beck has delivered a ripped-from-the-headlines thriller that seamlessly weaves together American history, frightening facts about our present condition, and a heart-stopping plot. The Overton Window will educate, enlighten, and, most important, entertain—with twists and revelations no one will see coming.
自由主义致力于平等地分配自由，如何使其成为一种道德意识形态?要回答这个问题，我们首先需要看看自由是什么。自由是一个人对自己的行为所拥有的权力，是他们将自己的想法付诸行动的能力。因此，从道德的角度来看，自由是一种道德代理，即按照自己的道德罗盘行事的能力。因此，自由的公平分配确保了道德代理的公平分配。通过这种方式，自由主义确保了社会中的每个个体都有平等的道德代理份额。在这一点上，我们需要转向这样一个事实:自由(以及道德代理)也是有限的资源:如果有些人拥有更多，其他人肯定拥有更少。如果领主可以命令奴隶(因此拥有更多的自由)，奴隶就不能按照自己的道德准则行事，因此就没有了道德代理。因此，在自由(以及道德代理)的平等分配中，每个人都可以对自己的信仰和行为有完全的道德代理，但没有人可以对他人有道德代理。我认为，这使得自由主义成为唯一道德上有效的意识形态。 Since all human beings are morally flawed to some extent, allowing some humans to have moral agency over others is morally impermissible. Allowing a lord to command a slave as he pleases means that the slave must commit an immoral act even if the act is both objectively immoral (as in absolute truth) and known to be immoral by the slave, as long as the the act is not known to be immoral by the lord (or alternatively he is a depraved lord and does not care). This has several consequences. On an individual level, the slave would be morally responsible (at least in his conscience, and also by the laws of religion for those of us who are religious) for commiting a moral wrong, knowing that it is wrong, but not being able to resist anyway. On a societal level, it also means that those holding power can commit severe atrocities, without the moral consciences of other people acting as a brake. Which was actually how tragedies like the holocaust happened. One may be tempted to argue that, as long as we prevent having bad governments by being vigilant voters and by putting in place national and international regulations, nothing as bad will happen again. But this is naive, because the ability to judge if governments are good is limited by the fact that politicians often lie their way into power and manipulate the political landscape once in office. It is also still true that no human being can perfectly know the absolute truth of what is morally right or wrong, and therefore, if we simply let those in power decide for everyone, there will still be plenty of injustices, even if nowhere as great as the holocaust. The principle of Equal Moral Agency is the only thing that will prevent such injustices.