Mark R Reiff
Mark R. Reiff is the author of five books: In the Name of Liberty: The Argument for Universal Unionization (Cambridge University Press, 2020), On Unemployment, Volume I: A Micro-Theory of Economic Justice (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), On Unemployment, Volume II: Achieving Economic Justice after the Great Recession (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), Exploitation and Economic Justice in the Liberal Capitalist State (Oxford University Press, 2013), and Punishment, Compensation, and Law: A Theory of Enforceability (Cambridge University Press, 2005). His papers on issues within legal, political, and moral philosophy have appeared in leading academic journals in the US, the UK, France, and Canada, and his work has been translated into and discussed in French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Japanese, and Chinese. Dr. Reiff has taught legal and political philosophy at the University of Manchester, the University of Durham, and most recently at the University of California at Davis, and in 2008-09 was a Faculty Fellow at the Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University. Dr. Reiff is also a lawyer, and prior to returning to academia to obtain his PhD at the University of Cambridge, he practiced civil trial and appellate litigation in California for many years. He is also admitted to practice as a solicitor in England and Wales.
Address: www.markreiff.org
Address: www.markreiff.org
less
InterestsView All (6)
Uploads
Books by Mark R Reiff
Articles by Mark R Reiff
has increased dramatically, reaching levels now not seen since just before the Great Depression, levels that Rawls surely would have thought perverse. Many blame this increase on the rise of supply-side economics and the dramatic cuts in marginal tax
rates enacted by the supply-siders for corporations and those already at the top of the income distribution. But I contend that the difference principle, or at least the ethos that the difference principle embodies and represents, is also partially to blame. Accordingly, the purpose of this paper is to explain how the difference principle, the ideas and arguments of the supply-siders, and this dramatic rise in inequality are connected, to identify where the difference principle went wrong, and to discuss what those who remain committed to the liberal egalitarian ideals that the
difference principle was thought to represent might do about it.
has increased dramatically, reaching levels now not seen since just before the Great Depression, levels that Rawls surely would have thought perverse. Many blame this increase on the rise of supply-side economics and the dramatic cuts in marginal tax
rates enacted by the supply-siders for corporations and those already at the top of the income distribution. But I contend that the difference principle, or at least the ethos that the difference principle embodies and represents, is also partially to blame. Accordingly, the purpose of this paper is to explain how the difference principle, the ideas and arguments of the supply-siders, and this dramatic rise in inequality are connected, to identify where the difference principle went wrong, and to discuss what those who remain committed to the liberal egalitarian ideals that the
difference principle was thought to represent might do about it.
This view, however, has some dramatic consequences. One is the explosion in economic inequality that almost all liberal capitalist democracies have experienced over the past 30-40 years . . .
But to understand that case, we need to break it down into its constituent elements. And the thinking behind it goes like this: if you want to stimulate the economy, then cut taxes on the rich (those who invest in and build things) and they will use this extra money to produce more stuff. Why? Because supply creates its own demand, so if they produce more they will sell more, and the economy will expand. An expanding economy, in turn, benefits everybody. There will be more jobs, wages will be higher, and government budget deficits will shrink. This latter effect, of course, might seem counterintuitive. But the argument is that even though tax rates go down, the amount of economic activity these cuts unleash will grow everyone’s income to such an extent that the total tax collected by the government, even at these lower rates, will actually go up. That’s what the supply-siders contend . . .
Even if gay people have a right to marry, they argue, people also have the liberty to practice their religion as they wish. Accordingly, they claim, they cannot be forced to “aid or abet” those seeking to marry partners of the same sex.
This argument obviously has some persuasive power, for statutes that claim to protect religious liberty in this sense have recently been proposed in 26 states. Some have even been enacted. And just a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case (Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission) that brings this supposed conflict between marriage equality and religious liberty to the fore.
In my view, however, characterizing what is going on here as presenting a conflict between marriage equality and religious liberty is incorrect.
American states now spend one-fifth less per public college student on average than they did a decade ago. In California, which once boasted a public higher education system that was the envy of the entire world, state funding per-student has been cut in half.
As a result, despite the fact that fees for tuition, room and board have been rising faster than inflation for the last 20 years, public universities in the US have been forced to make deep cuts in the programmes and services they provide to make up for this hole in their budgets.
Similar cuts have been made in the UK, where in the name of rebalancing the budget, the government seems determined to dismantle what has been an extraordinarily successful system of public-financed higher education and replace it with one modelled on the private debt-financed system of higher education that is already on the verge of collapse in the US.
First, Adam and Mark dissect the reactions of Javier Milei election as president of Argentina and how viral campaigns by Swifties and BTS Army to stop his ascent, could foster unique cultural connection.
Then, they respond to the release of startling poll numbers indicating a growing willingness among US citizens to embrace political violence, and why anger is frequently becoming an initial resort.