Law and Economics... (and Philosophy)

2002-10-30T11:56:00.001-08:00

wow this thing works..

2002-10-30T11:56:00.000-08:00

test

2002-10-24T16:18:00.001-07:00

test

2002-10-24T16:18:00.000-07:00

test

2002-10-10T20:13:00.000-07:00

We got the discussion off to a pretty good start it seems to me. I was just thinking about what Marc said about our legal system being religiously based. We did not really get down to discussion of what that meant and I'd like to hear more about that. (Obviously we're not applying cannon law or something like that, but there may be underlying continuities...)

I wonder if Marc's theory is compatible with Posner's (supposed) claim that past judicial decisions can be explained best in terms of wealth maximization. I suspect that many people would agree that judges could be making decisions in line with a religious doctrine (or even according to religious law, which we emphatically do not do here) whilst tacitly pursuing wealth maximization or some other economic goal.

Personally, I think that our legal system is admirably secular and that the purpose of legal or moral theory under liberalism is not to provide a foundation for the legal system in the sense that champions of religious law would advocate for religious moral or legal theory. So we can actually function just fine with judges advocating all sorts of different jurisprudences. But I imagine that some law and economics proponents would agree that lack of a coherent and universal scientific jurisprudence is at the root of evils of the "Death of Common Sense" type. Any thoughts?

2002-10-04T13:26:00.000-07:00

We'll discuss Dworkin "Is Wealth a Value?" which is only 30 pages long and can be found in Vol. 9 of the Journal of Legal Studies. I read it last night. It's a great article that basically puts Posner to shame. It also seems to have inspired Kaplow and Shavell's divergences from Posner's position to some extent, so it will be a very good prelude to their excellent work.

2002-10-04T13:23:00.000-07:00

The first meeting of our reading group will be Thusrday Oct. 10 at 6:30 pm. We'll meet upstairs in the Hark in the big room by the windows. That location worked out very well for us last year, since anyone who wants to can get a meal at the same time. If anyone has another idea for a meeting place though just let me know.

2002-09-29T20:16:00.000-07:00

Tuesday and Thursday of next week, anytime after 6, would be best for me. Wednesday is less preferable but possible.

2002-09-29T14:53:00.000-07:00

Suppose we're going to meet sometime next week (i.e. second in October), please say what evening and time (I recommend around 6,7, or 8 pm) would be best for you. (If you have no strong preference, that's okay too obviously.)

The Dworkin article is apparently not available on Lexis, but can be found in the 9 Journal of Legal Studies 191 in Langdell. I asked about leaving it at reserve, but they vetoed that. So I guess we'll have to make copies individually or something.

2002-09-28T11:30:00.001-07:00

Ah yes, its that easy!

2002-09-28T11:30:00.000-07:00

Okay, here's a practice post.

2002-09-22T17:25:00.000-07:00

Here's my introductory blurb and proposal for how we start out:

Philosophical Issues Related to the Law and Economics Movement: A Reading Group

Law and Economics is a research program in the law that seeks to apply economic analysis to normative legal questions. What this means in practice is that the movement tries to convince legal scholars (1) that legal research should be aimed at determining what costs and benefits different legal rules (for example a negligence rule or a strict-liability rule) have on the well-being of people in society and (2) that whatever rules produce the most well-being should be chosen.

The main target of Law and Economics’ critique is the view that the rules chosen should reflect a society’s best informed and most reflective views about what is and is not fair. Legal economists usually portray this position as the dominant one in traditional moral and legal philosophy. It is for this reason that there have been so many polemical attacks on moral philosophy by legal economists in recent years.

But of course moral and legal philosophers take a wide variety of positions on the relationship between fairness and well-being and, relatedly, between “the right” and “the good”. One of the goals of this reading group will be to consider whether some of such positions really are more compatible with the law and economics approach than others and, if so, how consistently the movement has incorporated their leading tenants. To this end, I would recommend that we read excerpts from a cutting-edge law and economics article on the subject: “Fairness Versus Welfare” by Kaplow and Shavell from Harvard Law School.

Before doing that, however, I recommend that we start off with what could be characterized as a classic criticism of the law and economics perspective from an eminent legal philosopher: Ronald Dworkin’s “Is Wealth a Value?” Both of these articles can be found on LexisNexis.

2002-09-22T17:22:00.000-07:00

Welcome to our blog. Any philosophical topic is welcome here as long as you relate it to law and economic methodology. Certainly there are many possibilities other than the ones I mention in the following proposal. In fact, I am sure that many of these topics will come up in the course of the discussion: Law and Economics as a progressive research program, the conception of agency and individual choice in economics, methodological individualism in social scientific explanation, the aggregating of individual utility or well-being, the idea of agent-neutral values etc.

... the list goes on and on...