Comments on: Glaeser's Libertarian Progressivism http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/22/glaesers-libertarian-progressivism/ The Sweet Release of Reason Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:11:50 +0000 hourly 1 By: GU http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/22/glaesers-libertarian-progressivism/#comment-20182 GU Fri, 23 Jan 2009 23:57:11 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2569#comment-20182 As a fellow lawyer, I too cringed at the Andrew Jackson opening. However, Glaeser is one of my favorite liberal thinkers and I found his post to be excellent. As a fellow lawyer, I too cringed at the Andrew Jackson opening. However, Glaeser is one of my favorite liberal thinkers and I found his post to be excellent.

]]> By: Will Wilkinson http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/22/glaesers-libertarian-progressivism/#comment-20181 Will Wilkinson Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:46:06 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2569#comment-20181 Richard, You could call it that. But in political philosophy, at least, left-libertarians tend to be big into deontic notions like self-ownership and property rights, much like Nozick types, but think it all that implies that, say, land cannot be privately owned, or that a basic income guarantee falls out of self-ownership,stuff like that. Glaeser's brand of progressive libertarianism seems to be less rights-focused and more consequentialist and pragmatic. And, I'm not sure, but my guess is that Glaeser doesn't really cares about economic equality, per se, so much as making sure no one falls below a certain threshold. By the way, Glaeser's review article on the economic literature on inequality is terrific. <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=776567" rel="nofollow">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract...</a> Richard, You could call it that. But in political philosophy, at least, left-libertarians tend to be big into deontic notions like self-ownership and property rights, much like Nozick types, but think it all that implies that, say, land cannot be privately owned, or that a basic income guarantee falls out of self-ownership,stuff like that. Glaeser's brand of progressive libertarianism seems to be less rights-focused and more consequentialist and pragmatic. And, I'm not sure, but my guess is that Glaeser doesn't really cares about economic equality, per se, so much as making sure no one falls below a certain threshold. By the way, Glaeser's review article on the economic literature on inequality is terrific. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract…

]]> By: GU http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/22/glaesers-libertarian-progressivism/#comment-20180 GU Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:57:11 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2569#comment-20180 As a fellow lawyer, I too cringed at the Andrew Jackson opening. However, Glaeser is one of my favorite liberal thinkers and I found his post to be excellent. As a fellow lawyer, I too cringed at the Andrew Jackson opening. However, Glaeser is one of my favorite liberal thinkers and I found his post to be excellent.

]]> By: Will Wilkinson http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/22/glaesers-libertarian-progressivism/#comment-20179 Will Wilkinson Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:46:06 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2569#comment-20179 Richard, You could call it that. But in political philosophy, at least, left-libertarians tend to be big into deontic notions like self-ownership and property rights, much like Nozick types, but think it all that implies that, say, land cannot be privately owned, or that a basic income guarantee falls out of self-ownership,stuff like that. Glaeser's brand of progressive libertarianism seems to be less rights-focused and more consequentialist and pragmatic. And, I'm not sure, but my guess is that Glaeser doesn't really cares about economic equality, per se, so much as making sure no one falls below a certain threshold. By the way, Glaeser's review article on the economic literature on inequality is terrific. <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=776567" rel="nofollow">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract...</a> Richard, You could call it that. But in political philosophy, at least, left-libertarians tend to be big into deontic notions like self-ownership and property rights, much like Nozick types, but think it all that implies that, say, land cannot be privately owned, or that a basic income guarantee falls out of self-ownership,stuff like that. Glaeser's brand of progressive libertarianism seems to be less rights-focused and more consequentialist and pragmatic. And, I'm not sure, but my guess is that Glaeser doesn't really cares about economic equality, per se, so much as making sure no one falls below a certain threshold. By the way, Glaeser's review article on the economic literature on inequality is terrific. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract…

]]> By: Richard http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/22/glaesers-libertarian-progressivism/#comment-20178 Richard Fri, 23 Jan 2009 04:52:30 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2569#comment-20178 Isn't this standardly called "left-libertarianism"? Isn't this standardly called “left-libertarianism”?

]]> By: KipEsquire http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/22/glaesers-libertarian-progressivism/#comment-20177 KipEsquire Fri, 23 Jan 2009 01:21:40 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2569#comment-20177 I stopped reading after the part about Andrew Jackson supposedly being a small-government egalitarian. Good grief.<br><br>In any case, to the extent that there can be such a thing as libertarian "prioritarianism," there are only two permissible reform "priorities" for libertarians who truly wish to champion the cause of the working poor: Social Security and public education. All else is garnish. I stopped reading after the part about Andrew Jackson supposedly being a small-government egalitarian. Good grief.

In any case, to the extent that there can be such a thing as libertarian “prioritarianism,” there are only two permissible reform “priorities” for libertarians who truly wish to champion the cause of the working poor: Social Security and public education. All else is garnish.

]]>