<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Vintage Epstein
Review: Epstein, as usual, offers a cogent and persuasive argument for libertarian principles. His theory of "rational discrimination," lucidly explained in this book, has provoked responses--and at least some changes--in the writings of more mainstream commentators on the subject such as Posner and Donohue. Like many scholars, Epstein is just a bit too sold on his own philosophy; at times he seems genuinely unable to believe anyone would disagree with him. Despite this minor flaw, the book is great, it offers a well-written presentation of an unorthodox, yet rather convincing philosophy.
Rating:
Summary: Interested but unpersuaded.
Review: Mr. Epstein makes several fantastic points in this analysis of the efficiency and usefulness of civil rights laws. Specifically, his historical account of the misinterpretation of Title VII and his differentiation between racist hiring practices versus mandatory quota systems were solid points. However, I disagreed with him due to his relative indifference to the poor income distribution which could be caused by overt, legal discrimination. The "contract at will" approach that he espouses does not adequately address these issues, and I think historically we have seen that in situations where one race, sex etc is blatantly discriminated against, they do not fare quite as equally as Epstein predicts. While I disagree with the final premise, I am not saying that this is not an important book to read. Epstein is, as always, a fantastic writer and strong persuader. Worst comes to worst you will have a great time arguing with the pages.
Rating:
Summary: Interested but unpersuaded.
Review: Mr. Epstein makes several fantastic points in this analysis of the efficiency and usefulness of civil rights laws. Specifically, his historical account of the misinterpretation of Title VII and his differentiation between racist hiring practices versus mandatory quota systems were solid points. However, I disagreed with him due to his relative indifference to the poor income distribution which could be caused by overt, legal discrimination. The "contract at will" approach that he espouses does not adequately address these issues, and I think historically we have seen that in situations where one race, sex etc is blatantly discriminated against, they do not fare quite as equally as Epstein predicts. While I disagree with the final premise, I am not saying that this is not an important book to read. Epstein is, as always, a fantastic writer and strong persuader. Worst comes to worst you will have a great time arguing with the pages.
Rating: 
Summary: Privatizing Discrimination
Review: Richard Epstein has a gift for making the outrageous seem plausible. In this book, he argues that the law should permit private corporations to fire people because they're black or refuse to serve them because they're Jewish. To be fair, he has no objection to "quotas" or "reverse discrimination" either, as long as these are instruments of private actors. In short, Epstein would repeal the Civil Rights Act, at least as it applies to the private sector. If you accept the libertarian premises that state redistribution is theft and that private contracting should always be respected, Epstein's arguments do follow. I would say that that just shows how flawed libertarianism is. Society has an undoubted interest in combating private discrimination and the resulting inequalities. Still, whatever you think of his conclusions, Epstein contributes to clarifying the debate.
Rating: 
Summary: Brilliant
Review: Using impeccable logic, Epstein makes the convincing case that we should abolish discrimination laws that apply to private employers. Though this position might strike some as outrageous, it is worth considering Epstein's analysis of this important area of law. Epstein cogently outlines the history leading up to the enactment of laws that limited the previous autonomy that existed in the realm of employment. Epstein is rare bird in the legal community: he believes that the common law rules governing voluntary contractual arrangements are correct in theory and practice. The unintended consequences of discrimination laws are perverse and prevalent. Minorities who feel they have been discriminated against in not receiving employment (whether or not they have been) are at an advantage in seeking redress as the standard of proof is very weak. Indeed, if it can be shown that as a result of some hiring policy there is a disparate impact on a racial group, the burden shifts to the employer to show that his policy his necessary for the performance of a job. Epstein's point throughout is that the well-intentioned goals behind discrimination statutes produces unintended consequences that result in harming those who the statute was meant to protect. An example of this (there are many detailed examples along with credible empirical data) is that instead of taking a chance that an employer will face discrimination litigation, the business will avoid places that would attract large numbers of minority applicants. The relevant point to understand is that all of these laws come with real costs and these costs must be balanced against the real benefits (not the idealized or imagined ones). As for the benefits, the data is surprisingly sparce that supports the notion that discrimination laws, by themselves, decrease discrimination. That is, absent discrimination laws, minorities would not face rampant discrimination or barriers to employment. Indeed, as Epstein rightly points out, the market burdens those that would pass up qualified job candidates in favor of engaging in racial discrimination and benefits those that disregard race as a relevant consideration in hiring practices. More importantly, as I see it, is Epstein's impassioned defense of the contract. Contracts require that individuals arrive voluntarily at mutually agreeable and mutually beneficial terms. Thus when one artificially inserts into this equation statutory dictates, one imbalances the essential tenets upon which voluntary contract rightly stand. The autonomy that contracting parties previously had is dismantled and in its place is left a system that gives no respect to freedom of association. More important is the perversion of private property that comes with discrimination laws. If one owns a business it is he who must bear the brunt of his losses if his business decisions are not in accordance with the whims of the consumer. Third parties (in this case government)that do not face the loss resulting from the limits placed on contract, must not be in the position to dictate the parameters of contract. Only those who are directly affected (the people contracting) should set up the constraints in a contract. This book is more comprehensive than those points outlined here. It contains useful legal analysis and interesting economic data. Another brilliant work by Epstein.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant
Review: Using impeccable logic, Epstein makes the convincing case that we should abolish discrimination laws that apply to private employers. Though this position might strike some as outrageous, it is worth considering Epstein's analysis of this important area of law. Epstein cogently outlines the history leading up to the enactment of laws that limited the previous autonomy that existed in the realm of employment. Epstein is rare bird in the legal community: he believes that the common law rules governing voluntary contractual arrangements are correct in theory and practice. The unintended consequences of discrimination laws are perverse and prevalent. Minorities who feel they have been discriminated against in not receiving employment (whether or not they have been) are at an advantage in seeking redress as the standard of proof is very weak. Indeed, if it can be shown that as a result of some hiring policy there is a disparate impact on a racial group, the burden shifts to the employer to show that his policy his necessary for the performance of a job. Epstein's point throughout is that the well-intentioned goals behind discrimination statutes produces unintended consequences that result in harming those who the statute was meant to protect. An example of this (there are many detailed examples along with credible empirical data) is that instead of taking a chance that an employer will face discrimination litigation, the business will avoid places that would attract large numbers of minority applicants. The relevant point to understand is that all of these laws come with real costs and these costs must be balanced against the real benefits (not the idealized or imagined ones). As for the benefits, the data is surprisingly sparce that supports the notion that discrimination laws, by themselves, decrease discrimination. That is, absent discrimination laws, minorities would not face rampant discrimination or barriers to employment. Indeed, as Epstein rightly points out, the market burdens those that would pass up qualified job candidates in favor of engaging in racial discrimination and benefits those that disregard race as a relevant consideration in hiring practices. More importantly, as I see it, is Epstein's impassioned defense of the contract. Contracts require that individuals arrive voluntarily at mutually agreeable and mutually beneficial terms. Thus when one artificially inserts into this equation statutory dictates, one imbalances the essential tenets upon which voluntary contract rightly stand. The autonomy that contracting parties previously had is dismantled and in its place is left a system that gives no respect to freedom of association. More important is the perversion of private property that comes with discrimination laws. If one owns a business it is he who must bear the brunt of his losses if his business decisions are not in accordance with the whims of the consumer. Third parties (in this case government)that do not face the loss resulting from the limits placed on contract, must not be in the position to dictate the parameters of contract. Only those who are directly affected (the people contracting) should set up the constraints in a contract. This book is more comprehensive than those points outlined here. It contains useful legal analysis and interesting economic data. Another brilliant work by Epstein.
<< 1 >>
|
