FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3123669197> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3123669197 startingPage "511" @default.
• W3123669197 abstract "primary purpose of this Essay is to criticize Robert Bork's advocacy of government censorship of American culture. However, I come as much to praise Judge Bork as to criticize him. To my mind, the principles advanced in his book, Antitrust Paradox, (1) are just as much applicable to government regulation of culture as they are to government regulation of the economy--to some extent even more so. In his essay on Antitrust Paradox in this volume, Judge Frank Easterbrook noted that Bork's conclusion in that book was that regulators should not second-guess the results of markets. (2) This applies just as much to cultural markets as to product markets. Robert Bork who wrote Antitrust Paradox is the best antidote to the later Bork who wrote Slouching Towards Gomorrah. (3) Indeed, one of Bork's mentors at the University of Chicago was the economist Aaron Director. In 1964, Director wrote a famous article on the very subject of this Essay, entitled The Parity of the Economic Marketplace. (4) In that work, Director pointed out that government regulation of cultural markets and of speech has many of the same weaknesses as government regulation of activity. Director's main purpose was to criticize political liberals who wanted to abolish government regulation of speech and cultural activities, yet supported heavy government regulation of the economy. But of course the argument also works in reverse against conservatives such as Judge Bork, who oppose most economic regulation but advocate government intervention in the cultural market. This Essay explains why government censorship of culture is not prudent, to use Professor George's terminology, (5) because it cannot be contained within the bounds that George and Bork would like to confine it. I also discuss why such regulation is in fact unnecessary. Private institutions can do a much better job of promoting desirable cultural values than government can. At the outset, it is important to appreciate the radical sweep of Judge Bork's vision in Slouching Towards Gomorrah. Although Bork is usually viewed, quite correctly, as a conservative, there are some radical implications to this book. Judge Bork not only criticizes modern liberals and libertarians, (6) he also goes all the way back to the source, so to speak, and attacks the Enlightenment, the Declaration of Independence, and John Stuart Mill. (7) Judge Bork harshly criticizes the principles of the Declaration, arguing that they are pernicious if taken ... as a guide to action, governmental or private. (8) He denounces John Stuart Mill's liberty-protecting harm principle as both impossible and empty. (9) There is, therefore, a great deal at stake in considering Judge Bork's argument in Slouching Towards Gomorrah. If we accept it, we would have to reject a very large part of the American tradition of individual freedom and perhaps even the broader Western tradition of liberalism. I hope to convince you that we don't need to do that. We should instead embrace the less radical option of rejecting Judge Bork's call for government censorship of the culture. First, it is essential to recognize a major conceptual problem with government regulation of the culture: that the state has a fundamental conflict of interest in this field. people who control the government have a strong incentive to use state power to suppress their political opponents and indoctrinate the people to promote their own favored ideologies and to maintain their own grip on power. Historically, the desire to indoctrinate has been a major motive for censorship and even, to some extent, for the creation of public education in the nineteenth century. (10) This would not have come as a surprise to the Robert Bork who wrote Antitrust Paradox. After all, he pointed out that antitrust law is often captured by interest groups and used for their own purposes rather than for the purpose of benefiting consumers. …" @default.
• W3123669197 created "2021-02-01" @default.
• W3123669197 creator A5080218239 @default.
• W3123669197 date "2008-03-22" @default.
• W3123669197 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W3123669197 title "The Borkean Case against Robert Bork's Case for Censorship" @default.
• W3123669197 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W3123669197 type Work @default.
• W3123669197 sameAs 3123669197 @default.
• W3123669197 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3123669197 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3123669197 hasAuthorship W3123669197A5080218239 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConcept C172886114 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConcept C2775868214 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConcept C2778137410 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConcept C2779710374 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConcept C2987650672 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConcept C34974158 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConcept C52930066 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConcept C98184364 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConceptScore W3123669197C124952713 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConceptScore W3123669197C138885662 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConceptScore W3123669197C142362112 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConceptScore W3123669197C144024400 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConceptScore W3123669197C172886114 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConceptScore W3123669197C17744445 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConceptScore W3123669197C185592680 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConceptScore W3123669197C190253527 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConceptScore W3123669197C199539241 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConceptScore W3123669197C2775868214 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConceptScore W3123669197C2778137410 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConceptScore W3123669197C2779710374 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConceptScore W3123669197C2987650672 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConceptScore W3123669197C34974158 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConceptScore W3123669197C41895202 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConceptScore W3123669197C52930066 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConceptScore W3123669197C55493867 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConceptScore W3123669197C94625758 @default.
• W3123669197 hasConceptScore W3123669197C98184364 @default.
• W3123669197 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W3123669197 hasLocation W31236691971 @default.
• W3123669197 hasOpenAccess W3123669197 @default.
• W3123669197 hasPrimaryLocation W31236691971 @default.
• W3123669197 hasRelatedWork W1489579544 @default.
• W3123669197 hasRelatedWork W1539719897 @default.
• W3123669197 hasRelatedWork W1548255786 @default.
• W3123669197 hasRelatedWork W1953600365 @default.
• W3123669197 hasRelatedWork W1968017563 @default.
• W3123669197 hasRelatedWork W2006790356 @default.
• W3123669197 hasRelatedWork W2009152503 @default.
• W3123669197 hasRelatedWork W201972432 @default.
• W3123669197 hasRelatedWork W2066730120 @default.
• W3123669197 hasRelatedWork W2202175774 @default.
• W3123669197 hasRelatedWork W246012862 @default.
• W3123669197 hasRelatedWork W2474873499 @default.
• W3123669197 hasRelatedWork W281298597 @default.
• W3123669197 hasRelatedWork W299269831 @default.
• W3123669197 hasRelatedWork W330108305 @default.
• W3123669197 hasRelatedWork W349083866 @default.
• W3123669197 hasRelatedWork W616571323 @default.
• W3123669197 hasRelatedWork W876101956 @default.
• W3123669197 hasRelatedWork W2596757763 @default.
• W3123669197 hasRelatedWork W2767032082 @default.
• W3123669197 hasVolume "31" @default.
• W3123669197 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3123669197 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3123669197 magId "3123669197" @default.
• W3123669197 workType "article" @default.