Disqus - Latest Comments for bt

Re: Pluralism and the Strains of Commitment

bt — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:23:25 -0000

Will,
Your rejoinder to Chad's comment is mostly right, I think, but remember that reflective equilibrium goes both ways. You're stressing the on-the-ground side of the equation--the side that, as many point out, Rawls seems to grossly misunderstand--but we need to think, too, of the ways in which our normative commitments, presumably arrived at by attempting to disassociate ourselves with our position in society, *ought to* count for something.

Re: Veep Liveblog

bt — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:17:47 -0000

That was actually really funny.

Re: Vote!

bt — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 09:19:21 -0000

Normative issues aside...

The word "vote," like many others words, starts to sound kind of weird if you hear it repeated again and again.

Re: Tyler Cowen on Time Management

bt — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:34:59 -0000

I think you've got a good point here, Will.

What is strangest about Tyler's comment, however, is that he gives some pretty excellent advice on precisely the topic of time-management. I've benefited immensely from his talk on publishing, for example, and much of its substance had to do with maximizing the value of your time.

Re: Tyler Cowen on Time Management

bt — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:35:32 -0000

Also, your "Cryptic One" handle sums up a lot of what I feel about Tyler.

Re: Helping = More Options

bt — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 00:36:54 -0000

This is bad stuff. In regards your first paragraph, who's showing their "mark of ideological immaturity"? If your statement about working conditions leads, in practice, to a decrease in someone else's standards of living by means of crappy--read: driven by ideological immaturity--legislation, then, absolutely, you should be apologizing for it. Your "genuinely formed moral imperative" cost someone else some much needed cash. It is Will's point precisely that this kind of self-righteous moral-imperative-forming makes itself morally unassailable--because why should I apologize for having such lofty moral standards--and completely irresponsible--why should I be held accountable for the imperfections of the world?!?

Your second paragraph makes no sense. You mix like four different arguments, but toss in an Ayn Rand reference, which I suppose is supposed to reveal us as high-school-level philosophy retards, but whatever. Yes, the existence of incredible poverty in the world means libertarianism is morally bankrupt.

Re: Jonathan Chait on Ayn Rand

bt — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:20:58 -0000

This is the first time I've heard someone say that Ayn Rand is for high schoolers! I need to write this down--I may never hear it again!

Re: Grassley is unhappy

bt — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 06:46:01 -0000

Thanks for that, Russ.