David Friedman’s contribution to our Cato Unbound symposium is now up.
Recent Comments
- Ashton on An Agorist in the Agora, with Business in Byzantium
- Ashton on Words Mean Stuff
- Mariana on That’s Just Wrong
- Irfan Khawaja on An Agorist in the Agora, with Business in Byzantium
- Brandon on Galloping Around the Cosmos Is a Game for the Young
- William Grigg on Galloping Around the Cosmos Is a Game for the Young
- Roderick on That’s Just Wrong
- Lori on That’s Just Wrong
- Grabrich on An Aegis Very Essential
- Roderick on An Agorist in the Agora, with Business in Byzantium
Meta
-
Recent Posts
- Words Mean Stuff by Roderick
- Galloping Around the Cosmos Is a Game for the Young by Roderick
- Cordial and Sanguine, Part 54: Bleeding Heart Libertarianism in Istanbul by Roderick
- An Agorist in the Agora, with Business in Byzantium by Roderick
- That’s Just Wrong by Roderick
- Molinari Unbound! – Septième Soirée by Roderick
- Riddick Meets Starbuck by Roderick
- Absentee Tennant by Roderick
- Hay-Market Anarchism by Roderick
- An Aegis Very Essential by Roderick
One Comment
Friedman’s critique that the originalist position is divorced from the utilitarianism of classical liberalism is not quite accurate since John Harsanyi’s formulation is a straight-forward max(utilitarian)one. The Rawls-Harsanyi differences regarding the VOI demonstrated that the VOI lacked a normative risk aversion model(Rawls is infinite risk aversion; Harsanyi zero risk aversion). This problem in part is what led Rawls to eventually try to justify the principles of justice in terms of “Public Reason.”
Frankly, I think any claim that Public Reason is a “gold standard” of social justice is pretty thin and dubious.
My take: “The Social Justice of a Police State”
http://rulingclass.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/the-social-justice-of-a-police-state/