Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Perrr333 t1_j4iy9zz wrote

I think concluding with things like "interest groups are bad" (to simply dramatically) is a little lackluster, seeing as most people would agree with that anyway. What more extreme things are implied by the ideas the article tries to support?


contractualist OP t1_j4j33xe wrote

Not interest groups themselves, but laws that only serve as interest group protection. My theory of natural law argues that reason is the only justifiable restriction on freedom. These reasons create moral principles and those moral principles applied to social facts create just laws. To the extent laws are arbitrary, they are unjust laws.

The example I provide is the trade restriction in Williamson v. Lee Optical. Basically, since courts have recognized rights in the social sphere (as shown by equal protection and substantive due process rulings) similar rights should be recognized in the economic sphere to strike down laws that lack a rational basis.


Perrr333 t1_j4kopd4 wrote

How does this apply to government actions which are not passing laws? Like regulations on planning permissions, budget for construction of infrastructure, support for industries like agriculture (ensuring farmers receive enough revenue so that farming always continues), and import and export tariffs and subsidies. It seems that this rather Libertarian view of law and ethics either sees all these activities as unjustly arbitrary or binding on freedom, or simply doesn't have anything to say on whether they should or shouldn't be implement and how.