New paper: link.springer.com/article/10.1...

Come on, the second term has been something entirely different

Partners aren’t making most of their money from a salary. They get a share of the profits.

But I don’t know how this was coded to begin with, in fairness.

Basically why Marxism and political economy more broadly are being revived in academia

It’s not as if the wealthy are wage earners

Biblical

I hate that we’ve been semiotised by you-know-who into calling everything “a deal”.

Right wing cancel culture, again

Be my guest

Q1: If you want to distinguish those two questions then legit is a good candidate for the first.
Q2: It's not about desire. I didn't mean 'want' so literally. I just meant the evaluation of institutions (vs the justification of actions).

I didn’t say the questions weren’t related

Separate questions 🤷🏻‍♂️

Because how to evaluate power and what to do about it are separate issues.

Theism may be a bigger problem than moralism but thankfully it’s not a serious one

Yikes (everything)
Phew (polisci)
lol (ed)

If you mean as a normative theory of how it would be ideal for interpretation to go, then maybe. But judges are humans 🤷‍♂️

Taking you away from writing to discuss dept admin ;)

The other alternative, which actually makes sense of what the law is and how courts work, is American legal realism: interesting legal questions are inevitably settled via extralegal commitments. Dworkin just made libs feel good by telling them their preferences were written into the constitution. 😈

Sorry, it was for a good cause

Theories of legitimacy should be about what kind of political structures we want. The moralist obsession with whether we have duties to obey, or reasons to resist, or with whatever else we may or may not be allowed to do, is just secularised Christianity.

Nearly 9 years later and not a single person has been put on trial for killing 72 people at Grenfell.

Justice is only for shoplifters and protestors, mass murderers walk free so long as they are rich.

Entirely plausible (I am diagnosed adhd fwiw)

Marx totally had ADHD. The dude hardly ever finished anything, and his critique of capitalism is basically "don't make us do things that don't give us dopamine hits".

"The lesson is not that jumping without a parachute is a costless, possible, or probable strategy. It is that, under prompt conditions, trying the impossible is the only option because inaction guarantees catastrophe."

When Realism Demands the Unfeasible Functional Binds, Functional Prompts, and the European Union | The Journal of Politics: Vol 0, No ja

Important new paper by Carlo Burelli, on when and how realists may be radicals www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1...

If only

Fear-mongering, amirite?

It’s an empirical issue. The censorship and repression in the US and Germany around Gaza, for example, is evidence for my view.

No, but I think if we don't protect the latter we won't be able to protect the former either. This is politics not principle and fine distinctions.

NB That's half or our submissions. My co-editor handles as many. I think only a tiny tiny fraction are AI slop, or that's my guess, but it adds up.