Muh research budgets: Against a disingenuous defence of big pharma

Americans pay vastly more for many drugs than other countries. There are probably many causes of this, but one is the refusal of the federal government to collectively bargain about prices with pharmaceutical companies, unlike many other countries. The right wing defends this state of affairs with the following argument- these higher prices allow drug … Continue reading Muh research budgets: Against a disingenuous defence of big pharma

Delayed Impact of Fair Machine Learning: A response

Lydia T. Liu, Sarah Dean, Esther Rolf, Max Simchowitz and Moritz Hardt in “Delayed Impact of Fair Machine Learning” rightly make the point that in considering notions of fairness, it is critical that we consider them dynamically in terms of their long-term effects on a population, and not just statically. They argue that seemingly attractive and fair … Continue reading Delayed Impact of Fair Machine Learning: A response

Against Libertarian Criticisms of Redistribution

Pt 1: Nonaggression tells us nothing about the morality of redistribution According to the non-aggression principle one should never interfere with the person or legitimate property of another without their permission, unless they have initiated aggression against one first. The non-aggression principle is sometimes taken to be a master argument for libertarian views against the … Continue reading Against Libertarian Criticisms of Redistribution

Mistaken Identity and misunderstood interests: Haider and identity politics

I just finished “Mistaken identity” by Asad Haider, and like anyone who has just finished a good book I’m a proselytiser for it. My aim here is to draw out one thread of its multifaceted arguments, that the whole of the working class share a joint interest in abolishing racism in a way that is … Continue reading Mistaken Identity and misunderstood interests: Haider and identity politics

Money and the Sceptic: A social-epistemological case for taking arguments for redistribution seriously

I saw someone the other day put forward an argument against re-distributive taxation based on a study and a second person say ‘but that study is from the Cato Institute’. A bunch of people then jumped in to object that this was an ad hominem argument, and the study should be evaluated on our own … Continue reading Money and the Sceptic: A social-epistemological case for taking arguments for redistribution seriously