The famed critic of Rawls doesn’t offer much of an alternative. What exactly does Sandel think is bad about commerce, and what is good about the “higher” values to which we are to devote ourselves? He never tells us; instead, he repeats his position again and again. He carries his view to absurd extremes. Here the heart of Sandel’s public philosophy lies exposed. FULL ARTICLE
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/4572/michael-sandels-case-for-statism/
Michael Sandel’s Case for Statism
Previous post: Chancellor on Mises and Hayek
Next post: Preface to the Polish Edition of Democracy – The God That Failed
{ 12 comments }
“What exactly does Sandel think is bad about commerce, and what is good about the ‘higher’ values to which we are to devote ourselves?”
While I am not stating or even implying that Mr. Sandel is a fascist, these two aspects of his thought are certainly also important elements of fascist doctrine, especially the devotion to government defined and imposed “higher” values.
…the government needs the money…
I had to laugh at that one.
Another example of “tenure-too-young.”
Sandel does not explain how human beings, who are unable to figure out how to equitably benefit from contributing their talents within an unbiased, open and free market, are capable of devoting themselves to forming a “higher, more morally sound social order”?
Mithe Leigh Hunt,
That does appear to be a contradiction, doesn’t it? The answer, of course, is that the elites of our society, Sandel for example, will tell you and direct you to this better society.
I took the liberty of sending Dr. Sandel the review’s URL in hopes that he might respond. My goal? Naturally to get him to give his Austrian and free market critics a fair hearing. Call me too optimistic, if you must.
As far as outlandish policy ideas for pollution go, Sandel’s has at least this going for it: it would create great incentives for secession.
In Australia and New Zealand universities are funded by government. They are owned by the state, in the majority of cases, as well. Therefore it is not unusual to have academics, such as this sandel non-entity, write nonsense promoting big mother government, socialism, totalitarianism, violence against the individual, jealousy and initiations of force. The whole mess is dressed up in terms such as the “public good”, the “greater good,” the nation (reich), the race and so on and on and on.
These “professors” hate freedom, abhor the market and have an abounding dislike of private wealth. The normal question to ask in these parts is, “who are you paid by?” As they are effectively government employees it is easy to see why they promote their owners’ interests.
So, who pays sandel? Who owns the outfit he is employed by and where does it get its funding? Would I be correct in assuming a large part of that institution’s funding derives from govt. in one way or another?
Can anyone clarify this please?
Sione
Looks like Harvard University.
Michael Sandel
Wow.
From the photograph provided, he looks so… nice. I’d lend him my hedge-trimmers.
Well, if I had any. Maybe some channel-locks?
Fight nice. I think you should take the opportunity to dialogue with Dr. Sandel and perhaps you’ll be able to win him over.
Fight nice. I think you should take the opportunity to dialogue with Dr. Sandel and perhaps you’ll be able to win him over.
Thank you, Mr. Gordon, for the review. It is one of the better pieces I have read from the Institute in a while.
It is striking how conservative the New Left really is. What an odd combination of seemingly paradoxical values. The exaltation of license on the one hand and a return to the (misunderstood) classical conception of sacrifice to the greater good on the other.
Comments on this entry are closed.