fighting poverty/positive rights
mpollack at ajsl.us
Sun Apr 22 08:17:36 PDT 2007
As a generaly comment, this list is much more productive when we address
each others' strongest arguments -- and not very helpful when someone
decides to fight a strawman. No one, including the quote I just sent to
list, says that free markets cannot aid the poor-- especially getting those
starving at least minimum food. However, sometimes the poor get almost
nothing, or an increadably low share of the pie.
Professor, American Justice School of Law
mpollack at ajsl.us
270-744-3300 x 28
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Segal
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 9:53 PM
To: Robert Sheridan
Cc: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: fighting poverty/positive rights
I have to disagree that the term "lefty" is pejorative (no less
Moreover, the fact that Krugman is to the left of the spectrum is relevant
to the argument that free markets can alleviate poverty. It would be
easier to dismiss such arguments if made by Milton Friedman or the Wall
Street Journal than coming Paul Krugman.
Distinguished Professor and Chair
Department of Political Science
Stony Brook University
Stony Brook, NY 11794
jeffrey.segal at stonybrook.edu
<bobsheridan at eart
04/21/2007 10:08 <jeffrey.segal at stonybrook.edu>
conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Re: fighting poverty/positive
Having just noticed this discussion, I read the last few posts with
interest, because "positive rights" is a new term/idea to me esp. the
idea that judges should interpret contracts in accord with greater
societal needs, something our SC justices, some of them, have been
doing since Day One, to wit: Marshall, CJ. in McCulloch, Gibbons,
and others. The problem is that both sides claim 'greater societal
benefits,' in any contested case.
What dismayed me was the intro to the Paul Krugman ("a true lefty")
"Lefty" is a leftover pejorative from the now defunct (I'd thought)
Cold War/McCarthy Era period and it's loaded rhetoric. It means "You
can disregard this guy, not take him seriously at all, because he's
the next best thing to a card-carrying Godless Communist, as in
Commie-Pinko-Red, as opposed to us God-fearing good all-American guys
who know a lot better."
I think it's a mistake to perpetuate this sort of rhetoric instead of
taking what the man says on the merits. Unless that is, one is
looking for a job in the (moribund, imho) Bush administration. I was
going to ask "How far left could PK be, considering that he's
published regularly in the NYT?" until I realized that people near
and dear to me refuse to read the Times in the belief it is too far
to the left and why endanger their far-right beliefs with anything
that may resemble fact or thought. If only our MSM (their term for
mainstream media) would only print the TRUTH about Iraq, all the
little towns where people aren't being blown up daily, we'd be a lot
better off in supporting the troops and the war, is their position.
And I mean REALLY close people to me.
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.5.4/769 - Release Date: 4/19/2007
More information about the Conlawprof