Eric Posner Joins Our Merry Band:
I'm delighted to report that Prof. Eric Posner of Chicago Law School is joining us as a coblogger.
Eric's scholarship has covered a wide range of topics, including administrative law, bankruptcy, constitutional law, contract law, foreign relations law, immigration law, international law, law and economics, law and social norms, and national security law. He has written or cowritten four books and ninety articles, and he's one of the twenty most-cited U.S. law professors in any field and of any age cohort, as well as being the second most-cited in law and economics (after Richard Epstein, who is more than twenty years his senior). I'm very much looking forward to Eric's contributions.
bo-rnyeste-rday
VC - congrats. I should note that there have been more than a few new members of the conspiracy whose output was less than prodigious.....
Kidding.
I will be interested in seeing if he wades into ongoing election discussion or whether he will wisely keep his own counsel.
Regardless, I look forward to his posts on his areas of expertise as well. Welcome aboard.
No, but try this one:
"I did not have foreign relations with that Olympic javelin competitor from Paraguay. Yet."
I'll interpret your statement as meaning he's god on business law. However on military tactics and American history he's hardly perfect. His recent commentary on the Heller ruling shows he neither recognises the existence of the 1792 Militia Act or how war was fought in the late 18th and early 19th century. If the United States had followed his procedures for a viable militia we would have lost the revolution or had our heads handed to us during the war of 1812.
High praise indeed.
It takes a lot of work on our end as readers to get a feel for someone. To have them leave is costly.
I hadn't thought of this as causing "a lot of work" for you as readers, but I hope that reading our blog is work that's rewarding for its own sake.
"Natural Monopoly and Its Regulation," 21 Stanford Law Review 518 (1969).
"Taxation by Regulation," 2 Bell Journal of Economics &Management Science 22 (1971).
"A Theory of Negligence," 1 Journal of Legal Studies 29 (1972).
"An Economic Approach to Legal Procedure and Judicial Administration," 2 Journal of Legal Studies 399 (1973).
"An Economic Analysis of Legal Rulemaking," 3 Journal of Legal Studies 257 (1974) (with Isaac Ehrlich).
"Theories of Economic Regulation," 5 Bell Journal of Economics &Management Science 155 (1974).
And that's just some of the early stuff. The full list is here. (And, to be fair, this is the publication list for junior.)
You wish.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.