Comments on: Pick the odd name out http://andrewnorton.info/2007/12/pick-the-odd-name-out/ Observations from Carlton's Lone Classical Liberal Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:11:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Benjamin Hourigan http://andrewnorton.info/2007/12/pick-the-odd-name-out/#comment-27172 Benjamin Hourigan Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:46:26 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/12/28/pick-the-odd-name-out/#comment-27172 This is where searching for "Andrew Norton Martha Nussbaum" brought me. I don't suppose I'll need to remind you of the magazine title now. I think you were especially lucky with your company that issue. The only one I'd never heard of is McGinn. This issue, the only names I recognize at that level are Roger Scruton and maybe Lewis Wolpert. This is where searching for “Andrew Norton Martha Nussbaum” brought me. I don’t suppose I’ll need to remind you of the magazine title now.

I think you were especially lucky with your company that issue. The only one I’d never heard of is McGinn. This issue, the only names I recognize at that level are Roger Scruton and maybe Lewis Wolpert.

]]> By: Michelle http://andrewnorton.info/2007/12/pick-the-odd-name-out/#comment-11127 Michelle Sun, 30 Dec 2007 08:39:05 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/12/28/pick-the-odd-name-out/#comment-11127 Andrew... If I was really impressed- would that be cause for concern for you??? I'm a little concerned about this philosophical foray- luckily- it seems as if there was no french representation:) Michelle Andrew…

If I was really impressed- would that be cause for concern for you??? I’m a little concerned about this philosophical foray- luckily- it seems as if there was no french representation:)

Michelle

]]> By: Andrew Norton http://andrewnorton.info/2007/12/pick-the-odd-name-out/#comment-11126 Andrew Norton Sun, 30 Dec 2007 08:08:37 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/12/28/pick-the-odd-name-out/#comment-11126 Newpov - There is no strict philosophical need to reconcile the two. Few if any classical liberals would class themselves as Benthamite in that sense, for reasons that become evident when you read modern-day utilitarian texts like Richard Layard's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Happiness-Lessons-Science-Richard-Layard/dp/B000CC49FI/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199001666&sr=8-1" rel="nofollow">book on happiness</a>. For those who claim to know how to create happiness utilitarianism creates extensive scope for big government. Fortunately, in any case as an empirical matter liberal democracies achieve high average happiness scores. Newpov - There is no strict philosophical need to reconcile the two. Few if any classical liberals would class themselves as Benthamite in that sense, for reasons that become evident when you read modern-day utilitarian texts like Richard Layard’s book on happiness. For those who claim to know how to create happiness utilitarianism creates extensive scope for big government.

Fortunately, in any case as an empirical matter liberal democracies achieve high average happiness scores.

]]> By: Andrew Leigh http://andrewnorton.info/2007/12/pick-the-odd-name-out/#comment-11124 Andrew Leigh Sat, 29 Dec 2007 22:04:10 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/12/28/pick-the-odd-name-out/#comment-11124 Very cool. Very cool.

]]> By: newpov http://andrewnorton.info/2007/12/pick-the-odd-name-out/#comment-11125 newpov Sat, 29 Dec 2007 08:43:39 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/12/28/pick-the-odd-name-out/#comment-11125 Not strictly relevant, but seeing as philosophy got a mention, I have a question for classical liberalists - how important do you see the doctrine of determining legislation based on Bentham's "greatest happiness for the greatest number"? And if it turned out that the "greatest happiness for the greatest number" could only be achieved by quite strong restrictions on personal liberty, how do you reconcile the two? Not strictly relevant, but seeing as philosophy got a mention, I have a question for classical liberalists - how important do you see the doctrine of determining legislation based on Bentham’s “greatest happiness for the greatest number”? And if it turned out that the “greatest happiness for the greatest number” could only be achieved by quite strong restrictions on personal liberty, how do you reconcile the two?

]]>