High Signal Podcasts Evidence ledger
Method
Browse
← Back to evidence

Evidence receipt / evaluation

Published · transcript-backed

Jamal Greene: evaluation

1 Jun 2022 Conversations with Tyler Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights

“I say “tentatively” because I think that all of these kinds of cases shouldn’t turn on some major premise about economic regulation, or some such.”

— Jamal Greene

Source trail

Everything needed to verify it.

Speaker
Jamal Greene
Attribution
Verified speaker
Claim type
evaluation
Recorded
1 Jun 2022
Publisher
Conversations with Tyler

Transcript context

…I’m a fan of Robert Nozick, though not in the absolutist sense. Nonetheless, I believe there’s some right to economic liberty. So if a state set up, say, occupational licensing for interior designers, I would want at least a state court to strike that down and say that’s a violation of the right of economic liberty, and that there’s no other overriding concern. What would be an example where you would want a policy struck down for violating economic liberty? I also would say, as a tentative matter, that occupational licensing for interior designers would be a policy that I would think should be struck down, as you do. Our current system doesn’t allow that claim to be struck down. In some ways, this is analogous to the disability situation, where if you’ve got no good reason for a particular law — although it’s not fully analogous — if you have no good reason for a particular law, that law shouldn’t be in place. I say “tentatively” because I think that all of these kinds of cases shouldn’t turn on some major premise about economic regulation, or some such. It should depend on the facts. I don’t know enough about interior design to know whether there’s some good reason to have occupational licensing. It doesn’t seem like there’s a good reason, but I’d want to know factually. The empirical record matters. Sure. You might think there could be some particular kinds of frauds that would proliferate in the less regulated regime. But you still, at the same time, might hold the opinion there’s a right to economic liberty, and you can contract for your interior design with the persons you want. It’s not creating any overriding danger to the polity, or it’s not eliminating all licensing for all doctors. It’s just something one can live with. If you want to make your living that way, that’s your right to do so. Why isn’t that just prima facie correct?…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.

Search evidence