Comments on: Akhil Amar at Cato Unbound http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/07/akhil-amar-at-cato-unbound/ The Sweet Release of Reason Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:06:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Pithlord http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/07/akhil-amar-at-cato-unbound/#comment-4699 Pithlord Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=846#comment-4699 Amar makes lawyerly criticisms and non-libertarian criticisms. I don't expect you to buy the non-libertarian criticisms, but he is obviously right that Buchanan hasn't really thought out his constitutional drafting. Maybe that misses the point. Buchanan's second and third amendments could just be the libertarian interpretations of the equal protection and liberty clauses. But how does Buchanan stop the judges from interpreting them in a non-libertarian way? He can't. Amar makes lawyerly criticisms and non-libertarian criticisms. I don’t expect you to buy the non-libertarian criticisms, but he is obviously right that Buchanan hasn’t really thought out his constitutional drafting. Maybe that misses the point.

Buchanan’s second and third amendments could just be the libertarian interpretations of the equal protection and liberty clauses. But how does Buchanan stop the judges from interpreting them in a non-libertarian way? He can’t.

]]> By: Mike Gomez http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/07/akhil-amar-at-cato-unbound/#comment-4700 Mike Gomez Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=846#comment-4700 The first amendment that Amar spends the most time on is only partially correct. A 3/4s majority is very hard, but maybe a 2/3s majority or a simple majority will do well instead. As for the investment spending argument, this is already resolved by the amendment. Congress just has to remember to account for investments in its future budgets. Amar seems to be right about the other two amendments. The first amendment that Amar spends the most time on is only partially correct. A 3/4s majority is very hard, but maybe a 2/3s majority or a simple majority will do well instead.

As for the investment spending argument, this is already resolved by the amendment. Congress just has to remember to account for investments in its future budgets.

Amar seems to be right about the other two amendments.

]]> By: Matt McIntosh http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/07/akhil-amar-at-cato-unbound/#comment-4701 Matt McIntosh Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=846#comment-4701 Without having read the criticism yet, I've always been a little skeptical of Hayek's "generality" criterion, which Buchanan invokes. It obviously seems desirable that the government should be as non-discretionary as reasonably possible, but there doesn't seem to be any bright line you can draw. Consider a taxation rule that provided all those below a certain income level with a Friedmanian negative income tax, which Hayek would have probably supported. How is this qualitatively different from a progressive taxation rule which increases marginal tax rates as one's income increases, which Hayek opposed? And how would something like "all people whose weight reaches 400 lbs shall be sent to fat camp" be any different, formally speaking? It seems to me that one could twiddle the definition of the set endlessly this way. I think Hayek even admits this somewhere in The Constitution of Liberty, but doesn't really take the objection seriously. Without having read the criticism yet, I’ve always been a little skeptical of Hayek’s “generality” criterion, which Buchanan invokes. It obviously seems desirable that the government should be as non-discretionary as reasonably possible, but there doesn’t seem to be any bright line you can draw. Consider a taxation rule that provided all those below a certain income level with a Friedmanian negative income tax, which Hayek would have probably supported. How is this qualitatively different from a progressive taxation rule which increases marginal tax rates as one’s income increases, which Hayek opposed? And how would something like “all people whose weight reaches 400 lbs shall be sent to fat camp” be any different, formally speaking? It seems to me that one could twiddle the definition of the set endlessly this way. I think Hayek even admits this somewhere in The Constitution of Liberty, but doesn’t really take the objection seriously.

]]> By: Matt McIntosh http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/07/akhil-amar-at-cato-unbound/#comment-4702 Matt McIntosh Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=846#comment-4702 Well how about that, <a href="http://positiveliberty.com/2005/12/why-buchanan%e2%80%99s-generality-requirement-won%e2%80%99t-work.html" rel="nofollow">Tim Sandefur</a> made the same point I just did. Well how about that, Tim Sandefur made the same point I just did.

]]> By: Tim http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/07/akhil-amar-at-cato-unbound/#comment-4703 Tim Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=846#comment-4703 Matt McIntosh: hmm, interesting... Matt McIntosh: hmm, interesting…

]]>