Comments on: Google Books Rocks! http://tomgpalmer.com/2007/10/21/google-books-rocks/ Personal website and weblog of the libertarian thinker Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:58:20 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Tom G. Palmer http://tomgpalmer.com/2007/10/21/google-books-rocks/comment-page-1/#comment-6926 Tom G. Palmer Fri, 26 Oct 2007 06:32:41 +0000 http://tomgpalmer.com/?p=2002#comment-6926 I'm not saying anything like "Sen is a totalitarian." Of course not. But he does suggest that he is a Greenian in a number of places, such as where he refers to his view of "development as freedom" entailing that "Attention is thus paid particularly to the expansion of the 'capabilities' of persons to lead the kind of lives they value â?? and have reason to value.â? It's the "and have reason to value" part that indicates he is a Greenian. Rights and freedoms, in this view, require justification, which is provided by showing that you "have reason to value" what you do with them. There is a great deal of confusion in Sen's approach (and more than a little good sense, too); in this regard, his talk of "real freedom" and "substantive freedom," as distinguished from just-plain-old "freedom" puts him in the camp of those who believe that we enjoy "real freedom" when we do what we ought to do, meaning that the legislator, when compelling us, merely "forces us to be free." Ugh is an appropriate response to those who defended prohibition of alcohol, for example, on the grounds that such compulsion provides us with "real freedom." I’m not saying anything like “Sen is a totalitarian.” Of course not. But he does suggest that he is a Greenian in a number of places, such as where he refers to his view of “development as freedom” entailing that “Attention is thus paid particularly to the expansion of the ‘capabilities’ of persons to lead the kind of lives they value â?? and have reason to value.â? It’s the “and have reason to value” part that indicates he is a Greenian. Rights and freedoms, in this view, require justification, which is provided by showing that you “have reason to value” what you do with them. There is a great deal of confusion in Sen’s approach (and more than a little good sense, too); in this regard, his talk of “real freedom” and “substantive freedom,” as distinguished from just-plain-old “freedom” puts him in the camp of those who believe that we enjoy “real freedom” when we do what we ought to do, meaning that the legislator, when compelling us, merely “forces us to be free.” Ugh is an appropriate response to those who defended prohibition of alcohol, for example, on the grounds that such compulsion provides us with “real freedom.”

]]> By: Charles N. Steele http://tomgpalmer.com/2007/10/21/google-books-rocks/comment-page-1/#comment-6925 Charles N. Steele Thu, 25 Oct 2007 03:58:18 +0000 http://tomgpalmer.com/?p=2002#comment-6925 I don't think Sen belongs in this company. His ideas are confused, but not "ugh." In "Development as Freedom" he jumbles positive and negative rights together, but I think he's mostly talking about negative rights (if that's the term); about people being left free to earn their own incomes as a crucial part of development. He does a great job of taking to task the idea that giving someone $1 is the same as them having $1 they were free to earn, and he points out that freedom itself is a component of development -- something almost all the development "experts" ignore. I think there are many things muddled in his analysis, and he writes very badly to boot, but Development as Freedom is still a good book; and I have learned useful things from him, as have my students. I don’t think Sen belongs in this company. His ideas are confused, but not “ugh.”

In “Development as Freedom” he jumbles positive and negative rights together, but I think he’s mostly talking about negative rights (if that’s the term); about people being left free to earn their own incomes as a crucial part of development. He does a great job of taking to task the idea that giving someone $1 is the same as them having $1 they were free to earn, and he points out that freedom itself is a component of development — something almost all the development “experts” ignore.

I think there are many things muddled in his analysis, and he writes very badly to boot, but Development as Freedom is still a good book; and I have learned useful things from him, as have my students.

]]> By: Gil http://tomgpalmer.com/2007/10/21/google-books-rocks/comment-page-1/#comment-6924 Gil Mon, 22 Oct 2007 05:44:20 +0000 http://tomgpalmer.com/?p=2002#comment-6924 How could Tom use that? Antarctica? How could Tom use that?

Antarctica?

]]> By: Nathalie I. VOGEL http://tomgpalmer.com/2007/10/21/google-books-rocks/comment-page-1/#comment-6923 Nathalie I. VOGEL Sun, 21 Oct 2007 13:39:35 +0000 http://tomgpalmer.com/?p=2002#comment-6923 Even better, Tom: I am told Facebook just launched a new utility. It is a map of the world called : â??Places I have not been â?¦this yearâ?? NV Even better, Tom: I am told Facebook just launched a new utility. It is a map of the world called : â??Places I have not been â?¦this yearâ?? NV

]]>