I really like Tyler’s Tyrone posts, and so in the spirit of unoriginality, I propose to do a few in the same vein. My friend Liam will happily defend any (non-offensive) position that I am known to reject. The first subject mentioned three times wins.
(By the way, if I recall, the literature does not show that defending the “opposite” position makes you more likely to think you could be wrong. What makes you second-guess yourself is when you have to point out and explain the weaknesses in the position you do hold. So if the game was “gore your own ox” then we would take time to carefully explain the holes in our favorite theories, which is different from defending the contrary.)
Income inequality is bad.
Income inequality is bad.
Utilitarianism! (You may choose between act and rule utilitarianism. Or go with some combination or third variation, if you want.)
Utilitarianism! (You may choose between act and rule utilitarianism. Or go with some combination or third variation, if you want.)
Moving towards privately owned retirement accounts is too risky.
Moving towards privately owned retirement accounts is too risky.
Negative internalities require societal restraints on individual action
Negative internalities require societal restraints on individual action
Jake, You’ll have to phrase that more narrowly, since I don’t disagree, unless you mean “all negative externalities…”
Jake, You’ll have to phrase that more narrowly, since I don’t disagree, unless you mean “all negative externalities…”
I think he’s referring to “internalities,” as in, people should be saved from themselves. But you may not disagree with that either, in certain circumstances.
I think he’s referring to “internalities,” as in, people should be saved from themselves. But you may not disagree with that either, in certain circumstances.
Yes, I meant the specific issue of negative results imposed on a person’s “future self” by her voluntary decisions – I think this a harder sell than externalities, even post-Coase
Yes, I meant the specific issue of negative results imposed on a person’s “future self” by her voluntary decisions – I think this a harder sell than externalities, even post-Coase
Property rights are very weak and originate from the state.
Property rights are very weak and originate from the state.
Negative liberty (“right to be left alone”) is what’s really important; its value doesn’t come from its contribution to positive liberty.
Negative liberty (“right to be left alone”) is what’s really important; its value doesn’t come from its contribution to positive liberty.
Equality of opportunity as the premier or central principle of distributive justice. And I mean equality of opportunity in the “fair” sense: everyone needs an equal starting chance, controlling for unequal social and natural endowments.
Equality of opportunity as the premier or central principle of distributive justice. And I mean equality of opportunity in the “fair” sense: everyone needs an equal starting chance, controlling for unequal social and natural endowments.
The “controlling for” bit should read “leveling out initially unequal social and natural endowments”
The “controlling for” bit should read “leveling out initially unequal social and natural endowments”
I’ll second Javier. Equality of opportunity is a/the central principle of distibutive justice.
I’ll second Javier. Equality of opportunity is a/the central principle of distibutive justice.
There are no objective moral truths.
There are no objective moral truths.
We’re getting close, folks. Do I hear a third for equality of opportunity?
We’re getting close, folks. Do I hear a third for equality of opportunity?
I’ll third the proposition, but I’m not sure that I entirely disagree with the premise. Execution can be a sticking point – maybe address that aspect.
I’ll third the proposition, but I’m not sure that I entirely disagree with the premise. Execution can be a sticking point – maybe address that aspect.
Pingback: Uncertain Principles