<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: I Agree, I Agree!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://whippersnapper.wordpress.com/2007/12/29/i-agree-i-agree/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://whippersnapper.wordpress.com/2007/12/29/i-agree-i-agree/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 04:11:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Eric H</title>
		<link>http://whippersnapper.wordpress.com/2007/12/29/i-agree-i-agree/#comment-5618</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric H</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:54:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whippersnapper.wordpress.com/2007/12/29/i-agree-i-agree/#comment-5618</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;it&#039;s refreshing to see self-styled libertarians who don’t think that freedom stops at the Southern border&lt;/i&gt;

Huh? I didn&#039;t know that any libertarians believed differently. In fact, they&#039;re usually reviled for believing in open borders. You must hang with a ... &lt;i&gt;different&lt;/i&gt; ... crowd of libertarians.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>it&#8217;s refreshing to see self-styled libertarians who don’t think that freedom stops at the Southern border</i></p>
<p>Huh? I didn&#8217;t know that any libertarians believed differently. In fact, they&#8217;re usually reviled for believing in open borders. You must hang with a &#8230; <i>different</i> &#8230; crowd of libertarians.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joseph</title>
		<link>http://whippersnapper.wordpress.com/2007/12/29/i-agree-i-agree/#comment-5615</link>
		<dc:creator>Joseph</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Dec 2007 20:02:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whippersnapper.wordpress.com/2007/12/29/i-agree-i-agree/#comment-5615</guid>
		<description>I am in principle receptive to Wilkinson, Howley et al arguments to have a global market.  But what I think is missing from this calculus, at the very least in terms of its rhetorical appeal, is the cultural costs and benefits.  

By this I mean, there is more to people than a rational economic agent, and having one&#039;s material needs met.  Material needs are an essential and many times primary concern but its not the only essential concern that people have, nor do I at least think it should be.  

And yet it seems like these cultural calculations are either absent or papered over in these classical liberal dialogues. I suspect that this arises from classical liberalism&#039;s philosophical commitment to separate irreconcilable religious questions from governing a pluralistic society.  While necessary and sensible in many cases, that separation doesn&#039;t always work.  Pretending that these concerns are either illegitimate or non-existent doesn&#039;t make them go away.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am in principle receptive to Wilkinson, Howley et al arguments to have a global market.  But what I think is missing from this calculus, at the very least in terms of its rhetorical appeal, is the cultural costs and benefits.  </p>
<p>By this I mean, there is more to people than a rational economic agent, and having one&#8217;s material needs met.  Material needs are an essential and many times primary concern but its not the only essential concern that people have, nor do I at least think it should be.  </p>
<p>And yet it seems like these cultural calculations are either absent or papered over in these classical liberal dialogues. I suspect that this arises from classical liberalism&#8217;s philosophical commitment to separate irreconcilable religious questions from governing a pluralistic society.  While necessary and sensible in many cases, that separation doesn&#8217;t always work.  Pretending that these concerns are either illegitimate or non-existent doesn&#8217;t make them go away.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
