No matter how much we might disagree about one law or policy, that disagreement should not be allowed to destroy the possibility of a future alliance on a different problem. Citizens tempted by partisanship have to find a way to hold their ideas and convictions loosely. They have to preserve civic friendship and reject permanent divisions.
Last year, I suggested that liberal objections toÂ Citizens United were partly justified by predictions about its effects that I didn’t see as probable. As the election draws to a close, we can begin to say whether the consensus view or my own views were accurate. Here goes: as a percentage of GDP, this is simply… Continue reading 2012 is NOT the Most Expensive Election in History, in GDP-adjusted Terms
In his initial response to the the Crooked Timber bloggers, Cowen also suggests that he doesn’t like the “mood affiliation” of the CT bloggers: I am not comfortable with the mood affiliation of the piece.Â How about a simple mention of the massive magnitude of employee theft in the United States, perhaps in the context… Continue reading The Fallacy Fallacy [sic] of Mood Affiliation (Workplace Domination Part Two)
Apparently, it did! On Thursday, I produced a graph and some older papers in economics that made the case that there is a pretty clear trend in campaign spending that was completely unaffected by the 2002 BCRA. However, I’m a philosopher, not an econometrician, so I left off the most important part: comparing growth in… Continue reading Did the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act “Bend the Cost Curve” on Campaign Spending?
Because of my work on Hannah Arendt, I often struggle with the apparent incongruity between her account of natality and my own tendency towards antinatalism. Natality is at the heart of Arendt’s project, a rejection of the Heideggerian obsession with mortality and being-towards-death: â€œIt is in the nature of beginning that something new is started… Continue reading Arendtian Natality, Caplan’s Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids, and Antinatalism