Tweet [1]
Vincent Geloso ponders the wage gap [2].
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Amy Wax defends civility, civil debate, open-mindedness, and enlightenment values [3]. A slice:
Furthermore, the charge that a statement is “code” for something else, or a “dog whistle” of some kind—we frequently hear this charge leveled, even against people who are stating demonstrable facts—is unanswerable. It is like accusing a speaker of causing emotional injury or feelings of marginalization. Using this kind of language, which students have learned to do all too well, is intended to bring discussion and debate to a stop—to silence speech deemed unacceptable.
Richard Ebeling exposes some of the damage unleashed by minimum wages [4].
Mark Perry extends some of my trade analogies [5].
“Hooray for the Imminent End of Polio [6].”
Keli’i Ikina highlights some of the absurdity of the Jones Act [7].
Jacob Levy rightly insists that words matter [8]. (HT David Levey) A slice:
Politics is persuasion as well as coercion. Immediate policy outcomes mainly have to do with coercion: who is taxed, regulated, expropriated, imprisoned, deported, conscripted, what wars are fought, who is kept out of the country by force of arms. This can’t be neglected, of course. The early theorists of “deliberative democracy” in the 1990s seemed to overestimate the importance of speech in politics, imagining a world in which high-minded parliamentary debate on the floor of the legislature regularly changes lawmakers’ minds and supersedes partisan positions, or in which voters engage in jury-like deliberations forever, never reaching a vote or the coercion that follows. But many others underestimate the importance and power of political speech, often under cover of seeming hard-headed and practical.