It’s Wednesday night and I am having trouble coming up with a comment. I’ve read all of your posts and comments, yet I still am feeling a huge sense of let’s call it “comment-block”. I still would like to earn my $15 dollars however am in a tight spot, as I can’t make a comment.
…so I am going to argue for inequality under the law for our SWEET scholar’s post system in order to allow myself to have an equal outcome to all of you amazing not “comment-blocked” peeps (as I feel very disadvantaged in my disposition of “comment-block”). Under this system I will ask that this additional post is counted as a comment. Bum, bum, bum and soooo now we can go down a slippery slope of making decisions based on normative assumptions. Next we will have someone arguing that hey I have “post-block” so I should get paid to write “hey-na-na-na” as long as I write “Garrett rules” in the title of the post or simply just “na-na” I think that the reason why Hayek is quick to dismiss obtaining equality through unequal law is that he knows we live in a world absent of full knowledge and therefore it is filled with subjectivity.
So-ha I do have a comment to Lacey’s post (PS I liked your connection to “To Kill a Mocking Bird” that was very cool and “un post-block” of you) in regards on this idea of having our cake and eating it too. I don’t think we can find a way to obtain a minimal amount of equality without falling down the rabbit hole, as it would rely on normative assumptions, as to how we should change the rules and who we should change the rules to benefit and in the end I have no idea as to where lines could be drawn
PS- Just in case this can’t count as a comment because it is not posted as a comment I would like to note that my econ-home-dog-“Garrett rules” even though it is not clearly inserted into my title of this post. ;-)