DISQUS

So, you're saying the problem is women.

Ananda, I think this is it:

http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1043&context;=berkeley_law_econ

Luka, Maybe. Sorry about KU!

Kipp, Thanks! So you can see why I need help?! But I really meant to be asking for advice for the template for THIS page.

Who won't join me in applauding my friends at Timbro, working tirelessly to help Sweden ever more closely approximate the ideal of liberal order?!

Mia, Seeing is believing.

Yawn....

Or we could argue the opposite: that although people governed by predatory regimes deserve a certain income, they are not legally entitled to it.

Entitlement, having title, is clearly a legalistic, institutional notion. Desert is more basically moral. But you can think of morality as a kind of institution as well. In these terms, desert is moral entitlement. And, naturally, a system of legal or political institutions may fail to adequately reflect the institution of morality. In which case legal and political entitlements may fail to track our moral entitlements, i.e., respect what we deserve.

Surely you see the difference between loaning yourself money (bonds in the trust fund) and someone else loaning you money (bonds in the Chinese Central Bank.) If I have ten dollars and decide to loan myself five, I've still got ten dollars, even if I think of my wallet as the Wilkinson Beer Fund and think of my cookie jar as the Wilkinson General Fund. The piece of paper in my wallet is not an asset of the beer fund.

Micha, I think I made it in the Dec 26 Philly Inquirer.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Read the proposal. One is required to save enough to purchase annuity for 120% of poverty.

The government can decide to rescind all entitlements at any time. There is no property right in SS. We get benefits entirely at the pleasure of politicians. This has nothing to do with a general default on loans.

Tom, It's 'or'. That's a list of what you'd have to do on each one of those dimensions (payroll tax, income tax, discretionary budget, entitlements) if you were to hold all the others constant.

Amber, I don't know about you, but I have no doubts on that score.

80" = giant. Everybody knows that, right?

It was the biggest book I had. I needed to pass the time while waiting for folks to show up while I was the "historic interpreter" on duty for the Joseph Smith Historic Center in Nauvoo, IL.

Atlas Shrugged!

. . . like peach blossoms!

Robert, I also meant preachers, radio hosts, and so forth. I don't understand why insist on being hostile to the idea that we're all better off if there is a broadly accessible public language rather than Babel.

And a Happy Thanksgiving to you!

What makes you imagine that I had any intention whatsoever of excluding Jesuslanders from my idea of "the right kind of people?" I meant by that: public commentators and opinion-leaders.

Tim's site seems to be down.

I think Wooldridge was talking about rates of economic growth, not population growth.

"This would be more compelling if there were any evidence that Republicans were actually good at anything."

Well, there's always winning elections.

They screwed up, shouldn't have run it, but did, and then had to backtrack. Sucks.

Julian, Yeah, it's the one on "The Mirage of Social Justice".

Javier,

The aim/effect distinction is pretty fuzzy. If it becomes common knowlegde that as certain kind of policy has a particular effect, and one promotes it over alternatives that satisfy the original aim equally well, then it is hard to say that one is not really aiming at the particuar effect.