Occasionally, I happen upon people who claim that they base their economic justice views on the idea of Pareto Improvements. On this view, economic justice requires that all moves to make individuals better off must not make other individuals worse off. Those who promote this view often seem to have roughly laissez-faire capitalist preferences. In [...]
In my prior post, I discussed the interesting case of certain right-wingers calling deregulation that they don’t like regulation. Specifically, I point out that when the state backs out of enforcing noncompete agreements, this is not regulation; rather, it is deregulation. It reduces the scope of the government. It imposes no rules on [...]
Adam Ozimek wrote a piece titled “Can Regulation Create Good Jobs?” The jumping off point for the piece is the recent slate of discussion around Jimmy John’s requiring its employees to sign noncompete clauses:
The latest of these [stories] involves a sandwich chain that allegedly asked its line workers to sign noncompete agreements. [...]
Via @gojomo, I was directed to this article and video about a property rights dispute at a San Francisco public soccer field. As @gojomo points out, the property rights dispute mirrors some of the points I made many months ago about pick-up basketball and Grab-What-You-Can World.
On one [...]
I have been pointing out recently that defenders of laissez-faire capitalism shift between philosophical frameworks when they are arguing, something I call capitalism whack-a-mole. They do this because there are no normative frameworks that justify laissez-faire capitalism and so there is no other way to actually muster an argument in its favor other [...]
Earlier, I explained the common argumentative strategy I call Capitalism Whack-a-Mole. People who utilize this strategy claim that they support capitalism for a specific normative reason (e.g. that it gives to each what they produce), but then, when you show that normative reason is actually inconsistent with capitalism, they shift to a totally [...]
Earlier, I outlined the familiar game of capitalism whack-a-mole. In this game, proponents of capitalism shift constantly between the incompatible normative frameworks of voluntarism, desert, and utility. It’s funny because, during the whack-a-mole game, the underlying reasons that they claim to motivate them change dramatically, but their conclusions never do.
Yesterday, I was [...]
I wrote about the new hotness of mushy traditionalism (instead of conventional normative argument) being mobilized to somehow support libertarianism. I got this response from Adam Gurri, which am not satisfied with because it does not answer back my concerns, but rather rehashes an abstract explanation of what traditionalism means.
Adam Gurri has been pushing this line for a while that his “libertarianism” is derived from some kind of status quo deferentialism and deference to prevailing norms, traditions, and so on. He wrote a post today somewhat defending that view even though it would have had him arguing for slavery 150 years ago, [...]
Greg Newburn brought to my attention this old piece from Will Wilkinson. In it Wilkinson argues against the Murphy-Nagel (and before them Hale, Proudhon, pieces of Hobbes, Rousseau, etc.) view that it is incoherent for someone to say some bit of money that is taxed is their money being taken.