Imposing Values: Liberalism and Regulation

Front Cover
Oxford University Press, Mar 20, 2009 - Philosophy - 504 pages
1 Review
A major question for liberal politics and liberal political theory concerns the proper scope of government. Liberalism has always favored limited government, but there has been wide-ranging dispute among liberals about just how extensive the scope of government should be. Included in this dispute are questions about the extent of state ownership of the means of production, redistribution of wealth and income through the tax code and transfer programs, and the extent of government regulation. One of N. Scott Arnold's goals is to give an accurate characterization of both modern liberalism and classical liberalism, explaining along the way why libertarianism is not the only form that classical liberalism can take. The main focus of Arnold's book, however, concerns regulation--specifically, the modern liberal regulatory agenda as it has taken shape in contemporary American society. This is the set of regulatory regimes favored by all modern liberals and opposed by all classical liberals. It includes contemporary employment law in all its manifestations, health and safety regulation, and land use regulation. The heart of the book consists of a systematic evaluation of arguments for and against all the items on this agenda. It turns out that there are good arguments on both sides for most of these regulatory regimes. Because of this, and because someone's vision of the proper scope of government will ultimately prevail, some procedural requirements that all liberals could agree to must be satisfied for one side to impose legitimately its values on the polity at large. These procedural requirements are identified, argued for, and then applied to the elements of the modern liberal regulatory agenda. Arnold argues that many, though not all, of these elements have been illegitimately imposed on American society.
 

What people are saying - Write a review

User Review - Flag as inappropriate

bro(t)her! I do don't you want (desire) to 'see and hear':
1) a Chinese pope right wrongs for G-D!
2) a Jewish US president right wrongs for G-D!
______________________________[yoo-hoo] [yoo-hoo
]
U.S. Department of Justice,
wakie wakie
let's go fishing!
on G-D'S web
for(e!): After nearly three years of stalemate,
Congress approved legislation late in 1996 permitting
states and localities to set mandatory retirement ages
for(e!)
law-enforcement officers and firefighters.
A similar though temporary exemption from the ADEA had expired
at the end of 1993.
The new measure also allowed police and fire departments to
set maximum entry ages for recruits
and authorized state and local governments to incorporate
the rules into their overall personnel policies
for(e!)
public-safety officers.*
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
* According to the National Association of Police
Organizations, the retirement age for U.S. public-safety
workers ranges from 55 to 65, depending on the locality, and
the maximum hiring age is generally between 30 and 35
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The lawmaker who blocked both measures was Metzenbaum!
(Metzenbaum! Metzenbaum! I got THAT from Seinfeld),
an outspoken advocate for the elderly.
But his retirement in 1994 cleared the way
for(e!)
Senate approval of the 1995 bill.
It finally became law as part of the omnibus appropriations bill
signed by President Clinton on Sept. 30, 1996.
p.s.
chew! chew!
__________________________________
U.S. Department of Justice,
Q: what percentage of law enforcement officers (town, county, city, state, federal)
in America
'have and hold':
1) only a High School Diploma or GED
2) Associate's Degree
3) Bachelor's Degree
4) Master's Degree
5) Juris Doctorate (J.D.), a law degree
p.s.
5 = a hand
p.p.s.
Q: should not we taxpayers! require all law enforcement officers to(o)
'have and hold'' (don't lose it!) a law degree?
Q: should I or should I not take
the next SCPD exam; deadline : April Fool!s Day 2015?
______________________________
U.S. Department of Justice,
my wife yelled (not at me) to me, "tim!
you would be a 'good' cop"
p.s.
U.S. Department of Justice,
should I or should I not:
1) take and pass the next NYPD exam
2) take and pass the next NCPD exam
3) take and pass the next SCPD exam; deadline: April Fool!s Day 2015
4) take and pass the next FBI exam
p.p.s.
I'll be 50 (that's five o)
p.p.p.s.
five o is slang for?
p.p.p.p.s.
the ADEA prohibits discriminating against any person (he/she)
who is 40 years young or older 'in recruitment or hiring'
_____________________________[ding-a-lings] [ding-a-lings] [ding-a-lings]
U.S. Department of Justice,
Q: When age is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ),
when the affected persons are law enforcement officers,
firefighters (29 U.S.C. 623(j)), or high-level executives (29 U.S.C. 631),
age discrimination is permitted.
Q: do y'all [President(s) + Congress(es) + EEOC] think ("feel") that
G-D will, one day, be too old to police y'all ?
A: nyet!
 

Contents

Rights Public Goods and Externalities
Private and Public Property
Liberal Conceptions of Private Property
The Modern Liberal Regulatory Agenda
Common Ground Arguments
Regulatory Public Goods
Employment
Antidiscrimination
Health and Safety Regulation
Occupational Licensure
Imposing Values
Applications
Copyright

Other editions - View all

Common terms and phrases

About the author (2009)

N. Scott Arnold is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Alabama.

Bibliographic information