<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="0.92">
<channel>
	<title>Intellectual Trespassing as a Way of Life</title>
	<link>http://www.blog.ellerman.org</link>
	<description>An interdisciplinary blog on the human sciences and current events</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:44:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss092</docs>
	<language>en</language>
	<!-- generator="WordPress/3.0" -->

	<item>
		<title>Inalienable Rights: Part III A Litmus Test for Liberalism</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Surely it is not too much to ask a modern liberal theory of justice that it provide a coherent account of why some contracts, e.g., self-sale contract, should be deemed invalid and why the rights such contracts would legally alienate are inalienable. In that sense, the theory of inalienable rights provides a historical litmus test for liberalism.]]></description>
		<link>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/03/inalienable-rights-part-iii-a-litmus-test-for-liberalism/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Inalienable Rights: Part I The Basic Argument</title>
		<description><![CDATA[What is the inalienable rights theory that descends from the Reformation through the Enlightenment and that answers the classical apologies for slavery and autocracy based on implicit or explicit voluntary contracts?]]></description>
		<link>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/03/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument-2/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Inalienable Rights: Part II Intellectual History</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Where did the ideas behind the inalienable rights theory emerge in the history of thought?]]></description>
		<link>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/03/inalienable-rights-part-ii-intellectual-history/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Why is Non-democratic Government Wrong? Involuntariness or Treating Persons as Things?</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Is Democracy Government based only on the Consent of the Governed? Classical liberalism takes the most basic question about a social institution as: &#8220;consent or coercion.&#8221; Democracy is often characterized as &#8220;government based on the consent of the governed&#8221; so non-democratic government is then typically condemned as being involuntary and coercive. This common condemnation of [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/03/why-is-non-democratic-government-wrong-involuntariness-or-treating-persons-as-things/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Are  the self-sale and self-rental contracts on the same moral footing?</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Neverfox's comment to my last post, Why Was Slavery Wrong?, was so rich that I will reply by this new posting, rather than just a comment on the comment. ]]></description>
		<link>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/03/are-the-self-sale-and-self-rental-contracts-on-the-same-moral-footing/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Why was Slavery Wrong? Involuntariness or Treating Persons as Things?</title>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Involuntariness&#8221; is the usual answer. Indeed, classical liberalism takes the most basic framing of a social question as: &#8220;consent or coercion?&#8221;  In this view, democracy is characterized as government &#8220;with the consent of the governed&#8221; so slavery and non-democratic government were both condemned for the lack of consent. This common condemnation of slavery on the [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/02/why-was-slavery-wrong-involuntariness-or-treating-persons-as-things/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Evaluations versus Peer-to-Peer Social Learning</title>
		<description><![CDATA[There are such strong debates about evaluations in the field of economic development that it sometimes seems like a civil war. I would like to suggest that there is a rather different way to approach this problem that renders the debate about evaluation rather secondary and ill-posed. The real alternative to some imagined "scientific evaluations" to foster social learning is peer-to-peer networks of the doers facing similar problems and searching for solutions. ]]></description>
		<link>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/02/evaluations-versus-peer-to-peer-social-learning/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>The fatal flaw in finance theory: Capitalizing &#8220;goodwill&#8221;</title>
		<description><![CDATA[The fatal flaw at the root of today's post is really what might be called "the fundamental myth" about the current property system, namely that the market-contractual role of being the residual claimant in a productive opportunity is treated as a "property right" that is currently owned by some legal party (e.g., the corporation having the contractual role) and that may be bought and sold as well as capitalized into the party's current valuation.]]></description>
		<link>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/02/the-fatal-flaw-in-finance-theory-capitalizing-goodwill/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Development or just poverty reduction?</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Many of the debates about foreign aid and development assistance seem to pivot on different visions of the goal: development or just poverty reduction.]]></description>
		<link>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/02/development-or-just-poverty-reduction/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Social Engineering vs. Pragmatism: Part I of Commentary on the Sarkozy-Stiglitz Commission</title>
		<description><![CDATA[The point of this Part I commentary on the Sarkozy-Stiglitz Commission is to juxtapose the social engineering perspective implied in the whole exercise of trying to find a better index of  "economic performance and social progress" to a more pragmatic perspective.]]></description>
		<link>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/01/social-engineering-vs-pragmatism-part-i-of-commentary-on-the-sarkozy-stiglitz-commission/</link>
			</item>
</channel>
</rss>
