Comments on: Akhil Amar at Cato Unbound http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/07/akhil-amar-at-cato-unbound/ The Sweet Release of Reason Tue, 22 May 2012 20:28:45 +0000 hourly 1 By: Tim http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/07/akhil-amar-at-cato-unbound/#comment-7118 Tim Thu, 08 Dec 2005 15:50:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=846#comment-7118 Matt McIntosh: hmm, interesting... Matt McIntosh: hmm, interesting…

]]> By: Matt McIntosh http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/07/akhil-amar-at-cato-unbound/#comment-7117 Matt McIntosh Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:52:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=846#comment-7117 Well how about that, <a href="http://positiveliberty.com/2005/12/why-buchanan%e2%80%99s-generality-requirement-won%e2%80%99t-work.html" rel="nofollow">Tim Sandefur</a> made the same point I just did. Well how about that, Tim Sandefur made the same point I just did.

]]> By: Matt McIntosh http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/07/akhil-amar-at-cato-unbound/#comment-7116 Matt McIntosh Thu, 08 Dec 2005 02:20:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=846#comment-7116 Without having read the criticism yet, I've always been a little skeptical of Hayek's "generality" criterion, which Buchanan invokes. It obviously seems desirable that the government should be as non-discretionary as reasonably possible, but there doesn't seem to be any bright line you can draw. Consider a taxation rule that provided all those below a certain income level with a Friedmanian negative income tax, which Hayek would have probably supported. How is this qualitatively different from a progressive taxation rule which increases marginal tax rates as one's income increases, which Hayek opposed? And how would something like "all people whose weight reaches 400 lbs shall be sent to fat camp" be any different, formally speaking? It seems to me that one could twiddle the definition of the set endlessly this way. I think Hayek even admits this somewhere in The Constitution of Liberty, but doesn't really take the objection seriously. Without having read the criticism yet, I’ve always been a little skeptical of Hayek’s “generality” criterion, which Buchanan invokes. It obviously seems desirable that the government should be as non-discretionary as reasonably possible, but there doesn’t seem to be any bright line you can draw. Consider a taxation rule that provided all those below a certain income level with a Friedmanian negative income tax, which Hayek would have probably supported. How is this qualitatively different from a progressive taxation rule which increases marginal tax rates as one’s income increases, which Hayek opposed? And how would something like “all people whose weight reaches 400 lbs shall be sent to fat camp” be any different, formally speaking? It seems to me that one could twiddle the definition of the set endlessly this way. I think Hayek even admits this somewhere in The Constitution of Liberty, but doesn’t really take the objection seriously.

]]> By: Mike Gomez http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/07/akhil-amar-at-cato-unbound/#comment-7115 Mike Gomez Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:14:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=846#comment-7115 The first amendment that Amar spends the most time on is only partially correct. A 3/4s majority is very hard, but maybe a 2/3s majority or a simple majority will do well instead. As for the investment spending argument, this is already resolved by the amendment. Congress just has to remember to account for investments in its future budgets. Amar seems to be right about the other two amendments. The first amendment that Amar spends the most time on is only partially correct. A 3/4s majority is very hard, but maybe a 2/3s majority or a simple majority will do well instead.

As for the investment spending argument, this is already resolved by the amendment. Congress just has to remember to account for investments in its future budgets.

Amar seems to be right about the other two amendments.

]]> By: Pithlord http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/07/akhil-amar-at-cato-unbound/#comment-7114 Pithlord Wed, 07 Dec 2005 15:57:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=846#comment-7114 Amar makes lawyerly criticisms and non-libertarian criticisms. I don't expect you to buy the non-libertarian criticisms, but he is obviously right that Buchanan hasn't really thought out his constitutional drafting. Maybe that misses the point. Buchanan's second and third amendments could just be the libertarian interpretations of the equal protection and liberty clauses. But how does Buchanan stop the judges from interpreting them in a non-libertarian way? He can't. Amar makes lawyerly criticisms and non-libertarian criticisms. I don’t expect you to buy the non-libertarian criticisms, but he is obviously right that Buchanan hasn’t really thought out his constitutional drafting. Maybe that misses the point.

Buchanan’s second and third amendments could just be the libertarian interpretations of the equal protection and liberty clauses. But how does Buchanan stop the judges from interpreting them in a non-libertarian way? He can’t.

]]> By: Pithlord http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/07/akhil-amar-at-cato-unbound/#comment-7109 Pithlord Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=846#comment-7109 Amar makes lawyerly criticisms and non-libertarian criticisms. I don't expect you to buy the non-libertarian criticisms, but he is obviously right that Buchanan hasn't really thought out his constitutional drafting. Maybe that misses the point. Buchanan's second and third amendments could just be the libertarian interpretations of the equal protection and liberty clauses. But how does Buchanan stop the judges from interpreting them in a non-libertarian way? He can't. Amar makes lawyerly criticisms and non-libertarian criticisms. I don’t expect you to buy the non-libertarian criticisms, but he is obviously right that Buchanan hasn’t really thought out his constitutional drafting. Maybe that misses the point.

Buchanan’s second and third amendments could just be the libertarian interpretations of the equal protection and liberty clauses. But how does Buchanan stop the judges from interpreting them in a non-libertarian way? He can’t.

]]> By: Mike Gomez http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/07/akhil-amar-at-cato-unbound/#comment-7110 Mike Gomez Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=846#comment-7110 The first amendment that Amar spends the most time on is only partially correct. A 3/4s majority is very hard, but maybe a 2/3s majority or a simple majority will do well instead. As for the investment spending argument, this is already resolved by the amendment. Congress just has to remember to account for investments in its future budgets. Amar seems to be right about the other two amendments. The first amendment that Amar spends the most time on is only partially correct. A 3/4s majority is very hard, but maybe a 2/3s majority or a simple majority will do well instead.

As for the investment spending argument, this is already resolved by the amendment. Congress just has to remember to account for investments in its future budgets.

Amar seems to be right about the other two amendments.

]]> By: Matt McIntosh http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/07/akhil-amar-at-cato-unbound/#comment-7111 Matt McIntosh Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=846#comment-7111 Without having read the criticism yet, I've always been a little skeptical of Hayek's "generality" criterion, which Buchanan invokes. It obviously seems desirable that the government should be as non-discretionary as reasonably possible, but there doesn't seem to be any bright line you can draw. Consider a taxation rule that provided all those below a certain income level with a Friedmanian negative income tax, which Hayek would have probably supported. How is this qualitatively different from a progressive taxation rule which increases marginal tax rates as one's income increases, which Hayek opposed? And how would something like "all people whose weight reaches 400 lbs shall be sent to fat camp" be any different, formally speaking? It seems to me that one could twiddle the definition of the set endlessly this way. I think Hayek even admits this somewhere in The Constitution of Liberty, but doesn't really take the objection seriously. Without having read the criticism yet, I’ve always been a little skeptical of Hayek’s “generality” criterion, which Buchanan invokes. It obviously seems desirable that the government should be as non-discretionary as reasonably possible, but there doesn’t seem to be any bright line you can draw. Consider a taxation rule that provided all those below a certain income level with a Friedmanian negative income tax, which Hayek would have probably supported. How is this qualitatively different from a progressive taxation rule which increases marginal tax rates as one’s income increases, which Hayek opposed? And how would something like “all people whose weight reaches 400 lbs shall be sent to fat camp” be any different, formally speaking? It seems to me that one could twiddle the definition of the set endlessly this way. I think Hayek even admits this somewhere in The Constitution of Liberty, but doesn’t really take the objection seriously.

]]> By: Matt McIntosh http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/07/akhil-amar-at-cato-unbound/#comment-7112 Matt McIntosh Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=846#comment-7112 Well how about that, <a href="http://positiveliberty.com/2005/12/why-buchanan%e2%80%99s-generality-requirement-won%e2%80%99t-work.html" rel="nofollow">Tim Sandefur</a> made the same point I just did. Well how about that, Tim Sandefur made the same point I just did.

]]> By: Tim http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/07/akhil-amar-at-cato-unbound/#comment-7113 Tim Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=846#comment-7113 Matt McIntosh: hmm, interesting... Matt McIntosh: hmm, interesting…

]]>