http://willwilkinson.disqus.com/The Sweet Release of ReasonenWed, 15 Mar 2006 16:19:19 -0000http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/14/opposite-day/#comment-3710186I'll third the proposition, but I'm not sure that I entirely disagree with the premise. Execution can be a sticking point - maybe address that aspect.Jake WinshipWed, 15 Mar 2006 16:19:19 -0000http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/14/opposite-day/#comment-3710185We're getting close, folks. Do I hear a third for equality of opportunity?Will WilkinsonWed, 15 Mar 2006 15:50:43 -0000http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/14/opposite-day/#comment-3710184There are <i>no</i> objective moral truths.DallasWed, 15 Mar 2006 07:58:32 -0000http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/14/opposite-day/#comment-3710183I'll second Javier. Equality of opportunity is a/the central principle of distibutive justice.Ben AWed, 15 Mar 2006 07:37:43 -0000http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/14/opposite-day/#comment-3710182The "controlling for" bit should read "leveling out initially unequal social and natural endowments"JavierWed, 15 Mar 2006 05:58:21 -0000http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/14/opposite-day/#comment-3710181Equality of opportunity as the premier or central principle of distributive justice. And I mean equality of opportunity in the "fair" sense: everyone needs an equal starting chance, controlling for unequal social and natural endowments.JavierWed, 15 Mar 2006 05:16:04 -0000http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/14/opposite-day/#comment-3710180Negative liberty ("right to be left alone") is what's really important; its value doesn't come from its contribution to positive liberty.pennerWed, 15 Mar 2006 04:24:27 -0000http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/14/opposite-day/#comment-3710179Property rights are very weak and originate from the state.asgTue, 14 Mar 2006 21:05:57 -0000http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/14/opposite-day/#comment-3710178Yes, I meant the specific issue of negative results imposed on a person's "future self" by her voluntary decisions - I think this a harder sell than externalities, even post-CoaseJake WinshipTue, 14 Mar 2006 16:57:10 -0000http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/14/opposite-day/#comment-3710177I think he's referring to "internalities," as in, people should be saved from themselves. But you may not disagree with that either, in certain circumstances.R.J. LehmannTue, 14 Mar 2006 15:56:48 -0000http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/14/opposite-day/#comment-3710176Jake, You'll have to phrase that more narrowly, since I don't disagree, unless you mean "all negative externalities..."Will WilkinsonTue, 14 Mar 2006 14:19:37 -0000http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/14/opposite-day/#comment-3710175Negative internalities require societal restraints on individual actionJake WinshipTue, 14 Mar 2006 13:49:33 -0000http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/14/opposite-day/#comment-3710174Moving towards privately owned retirement accounts is too risky.GilMTue, 14 Mar 2006 12:51:27 -0000http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/14/opposite-day/#comment-3710173Utilitarianism! (You may choose between act and rule utilitarianism. Or go with some combination or third variation, if you want.)Glen WhitmanTue, 14 Mar 2006 12:05:09 -0000http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/14/opposite-day/#comment-3710172Income inequality is bad.PGRTue, 14 Mar 2006 10:44:05 -0000