May, 2007

Why Classical Liberal “Liberty” Is Salient

by Daniel B. Klein

May 22nd, 2007

Classical liberal “liberty” is salient and cohesive because it has a hardy, tangible basis in ownership and consent. Yes, again, I know, there are holes and gray areas. But it is simple and plain to see that the minimum wage, drug prohibition, occupational licensing, etc., etc. initiate coercion and diminish this liberty. [...]

Read: Why Classical Liberal “Liberty” Is Salient

The Centrality of Liberty

by Edward Glaeser

May 22nd, 2007

There are two good reasons that liberty should be central in any discussion of public policy. First, freedom is the best candidate available to be the central goal of social policy. Second, any sensible policy discussion recognizes that emphasizing liberty provides a needed safeguard against the excesses of government power. While a philosophical [...]

Read: The Centrality of Liberty

Where’s the Nominalism?

by Liam Murphy

May 22nd, 2007

I doubt that Richard Epstein misunderstands the point I keep making, but he writes as if he does:
The proposition that each person is entitled to have the maximum liberty consistent with the like liberty of others is a position that only makes sense within the framework of the classical liberal system. The moment that [...]

Read: Where’s the Nominalism?

If We Must Have “Rights,” Don’t Forget the Subscripts

by Daniel B. Klein

May 22nd, 2007

If one says that the minimum wage is coercive, is one saying that the law violates the only true rights (e.g., freedom of contract)?
No.
But Liam continues to write as though someone in this exchange says “yes.”
If the law says employers may not pay less than $X, then, obviously, in one significant sense, employers [...]

Read: If We Must Have “Rights,” Don’t Forget the Subscripts