Brian Leiter is obviously afraid that he wouldn't be able to do this; that's why he pretends to be too mortally offended (he, the guy who denounces civility) to enter into a discussion with you.

Second, if the CRA had played the causal role in the global financial meltdown that unregulated derivatives did, then yeah, I suppose I might find the arguments roughly equally compelling (though I'm not sure I know who is supposed to play the starring roles of Greenspan and Rand in this analogy).

As for Will's condescending claim that it's embarrassing for a professional philosopher like Dworkin to say what he said, what he really getting at was the fact that Dworkin is a professional philosopher–not a professional economist. What's embarrassing is that he goes well beyond his specialty, not that he's a credentialed philosopher who says dumb things.

Dworkin's claim runs: “it is frankly embarrassing that Will Wilkinson, a professional—umm—dropout from a Ph.D program in philosophy, attributes the views expressed to Brian Leiter.” I grant that Dworkin was parodying Wilkinson's original line, but in this case there is no claim that Wilkinson was going beyond his expertise. He just wanted to make fun of the fact that Wilkinson dropped out of a Ph.D. program.

http://static.flickr.com/28/47632485_b01ff05bfc...

That being said, the following seem straightforwardly true:
1. Unregulated derivatives figure prominently in the current crisis.
2. Greenspan's views figure prominently in the lack of regulation on derivatives.
3. Ayn Rand's views figure prominently in the development of Greenspan's views.

These observations seem salient enough to sustain Dworkin's one-liner. How deadly serious would I take the analysis? Probably not seriously enough to call it “hackery.”

But seriously, J.M. Keynes never formally studied economics, therefore he's was an idiot.