Matt Zwolinski

Are markets coercive? Contemporary debate is dominated by two answers. The first, longstanding among defenders of free markets, holds that voluntary exchange is non-coercive by definition: coercion enters the picture only when rights are violated. The second, revived from Robert Hale's 1923 essay and embraced today by progressive legal scholars and post-liberal conservatives alike, holds that markets are pervasively coercive because property rights backed by state power constitute a system of mutual coercion. Both answers fail, but the Halean answer fails in the more interesting way. The libertarian answer moralizes coercion, stripping it of evaluative force; the Halean answer de-moralizes coercion, stripping it of discriminating power. If coercion is everywhere, it cannot pick out the arrangements worth criticizing. Drawing on a convergence across the philosophical literature on coercion, the paper develops a third option: identify coercion non-moralistically—as a factual matter of options restricted by another's institutionally backed power—but evaluate its significance in graduated terms, by attention to the significance of the options curtailed, the availability of alternatives, and the directness of compulsion involved. The result is a framework that can distinguish cases of genuinely worrisome market coercion from cases where the concept does no moral work.

During the last decade, scholarly criticism of sweatshops has grown increasingly sophisticated. This article reviews the new moral and economic foundations of these criticisms and argues that they are flawed. It seeks to advance the debate over sweatshops by noting the extent to which the case for sweatshops does, and does not, depend on the existence of competitive markets. It attempts to more carefully distinguish between different ways in which various parties might seek to modify sweatshop behavior, and to point out that there is more room for consensus regarding some of these methods than has previously been recognized. It addresses the question of when sweatshops are justified in violating local labor laws. And it assesses the relevance of recent literature on coercion and exploitation as it applies to sweatshop labor. It concludes with a list of challenges that critics of sweatshops must meet to productively advance the debate.

Derek Parfit’s much discussed “repugnant conclusion” that concerns moral questions about population size presumably makes trouble for certain forms of utilitarianism. After explaining in some detail Parfit’s case for the repugnant conclusion, this chapter goes on to argue that the problem generalizes not only to other versions of utilitarianism, but to all standard act-centered theories of right conduct, including standard deontological theories. Inspired by Tom Hill’s influential article, “Ideals of Human Excellence and Preserving Natural Environments,” which has one shift attention from questions about actions that involve rights violations or involve interfering with the interests of sentient creatures to questions of character, this chapter proceeds to appropriate Hill’s character-based approach as a way of addressing the repugnant conclusion.

This article provides a brief overview of the relationship between libertarian political theory and the Basic Income (BI). It distinguishes between different forms of libertarianism and argues that at least one form, classical liberalism, is compatible with and provides some grounds of support for BI. A classical liberal BI, however, is likely to be much smaller than the sort of BI defended by those on the political left. And there are both contingent-empirical and principled-moral reasons for doubting that the classical liberal case for BI will be ultimately successful.

_Arguing About Political Philosophy_ is an engaging survey of political philosophy perfect for beginning and advanced undergraduates. Selections cover classic philosophical sources such as Rousseau and Locke, as well as contemporary writers such as Nozick and Dworkin. In addition, this text includes a number of readings drawn from economics, literature, and sociology which serve to introduce philosophical questions about politics in a novel and intriguing way. As well as standard topics such as political authority and distributive justice, special attention is given to global issues which have become especially pressing in recent years, such as the right of individuals or groups to secede, the nature of global distributive justice, the morality of immigration, and the moral status of war and terrorism. The volume is divided into 3 parts–Foundational Concepts; Government, the Economy and Morality; and Global Justice–helping the student get to grips with classic and core arguments and emerging debates in: political authority rights justice political economy property rights distributive justice freedom equality immigration war, humanitarianism, torture. Matt Zwolinski provides lucid and engaging introductions to each section, giving an overview of the debate and outlining the arguments of each section’s readings. _Arguing About Political Philosophy_ is an exciting introduction for students new to political philosophy.

This commentary develops my position on the ethics of price gouging in response to Jeremy Snyder’s article, “What’s the Matter with Price Gouging.” First, it explains how the “nonworseness claim” supports the moral permissibility of price gouging, even if it does not show that price gougers are morally virtuous agents. Second, it argues that questions about price gouging and distributive justice must be answered in light of the relevant possible institutional alternatives, and that Snyder’s proposed alternatives to price gouging fare worse on the dimension of justice than a system in which goods are allocated by a system of market prices.

This Third Edition of Arguing About Political Philosophy is the most complete, up-to-date, and interdisciplinary anthology of its kind. Its selections cover classic philosophical sources such as those from Thomas Hobbes and John Rawls, important works in political economy from thinkers like Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek, and Karl Marx, and the writing of cutting edge contemporary theorists like Debra Satz, Jason Brennan, and Ta-Nehisi Coates. The Third Edition has been substantially revised to make it more suitable for a growing number of courses in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE). New topics and new readings help to explore the intersection of these three disciplines at a theoretical level, and how they help us to think about challenging practical problems like regulating sweatshop labor, reconciling immigration policy with social justice, and thinking about the virtues and limits of democracy. In addition to offering sections on foundational concepts, political economy, and contemporary debates in political philosophy, the Third Edition contains a brand new section on political ideologies, with a new introduction and accessible readings setting out the main features of liberalism, socialism, conservatism, and libertarianism. The updated companion website [www.XXXXX] offers valuable resources for instructors and students alike, including sample quizzes, exams, and writing assignments, extensive study questions for each reading, and an online version of the "What's Your Political Philosophy" self-assessment. Matt Zwolinski is Professor of Philosophy at the University of San Diego, USA, founder and director of USD's Center for Ethics, Economics, and Public Policy, and director of USD's undergraduate program in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. He is the co-author, with John Tomasi, of The Individualists: Radicals, Reactionaries, and the Struggle for the Soul of Libertarianism (2023), and with Miranda Perry Fleischer, of Universal Basic Income: What Everyone Needs to Know (2023). Mario I. Juarez-Garcia is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Tulane University, USA. His areas of specialization are political philosophy, moral philosophy, and PPE and he has published scholarly articles in Synthese, Public Affairs Quarterly, Journal of Moral Philosophy, and Social Philosophy & Policy. He is also the author of Moral Institutions: An Introduction to Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (Routledge, 2025)

"About Political Philosophy is an engaging survey of political philosophy perfect for beginning and advanced undergraduates. Selections cover classic philosophical sources such as Rousseau and Locke, as well as contemporary writers such as Nozick and Dworkin. In addition, this text includes a number of readings drawn from economics, literature, and sociology which serve to introduce philosophical questions about politics in a novel and intriguing way. As well as standard topics such as political authority and distributive justice, special attention is given to global issues which have become especially pressing in recent years, such as the right of individuals or groups to secede, the nature of global distributive justice, the morality of immigration, and the moral status of war and terrorism."--BOOK JACKET.

Exploitation: Perspectives from Philosophy, Politics, and Economics brings together recent work on the topic of exploitation from philosophy, political science, and economics in one volume, organized around three main questions: What is exploitation? Why is exploitation wrong? What should we do about it? These questions are increasingly relevant in public policy discussions. The past decade has witnessed the rise of populism and an increasing sense that politics is a game rigged to benefit certain classes of persons at the expense of others. Interestingly, this sense of unfairness has been shared across the political spectrum though, of course, the left and right differ in both their moral diagnosis and their political prescription. Current debates over minimum wage laws, immigration reform, and undue corporate influence on politics can all be understood as drawing on and developing these concerns over exploitative political treatment. At the same time, the literature on exploitation has blossomed. What was once a topic of relatively narrow interest to philosophers working in the tradition of analytical Marxism has been reinvigorated and diversified. The essays in this book both represent and extend that diversity. While the condition of labor remains an important and central topic, the current volume extends the analysis to such neglected topics as the relationship between children and parents, interactions between states, and interactions between generations.

Strict libertarianism, as one of us has defined it elsewhere, is “a radical political view which holds that individual liberty, understood as the absence of interference with a person’s body and rightfully acquired property, is a moral absolute or near-absolute, and that the only governmental activities consistent with that liberty are (if any) those necessary to protect individuals from aggression by others.” Strict libertarianism is a radicalized form of classical liberalism that is, characteristically, rationalistic, monistic, and (relatively) absolutist in its approach to political principles. One advantage of bringing so many well-informed proponents and critics of libertarianism together in the same volume is that it makes clear the tremendous diversity of libertarian thought. Libertarians are a methodologically, normatively, and even politically diverse group. The chapter also provides an overview of the key concepts discussed in this book.

This book brings together recent work on the topic of exploitation from philosophy, political science, and economics in one volume, organised around three main questions: what is exploitation?, why is exploitation wrong?, and what should we do about it? These questions are increasingly relevant in public policy discussions. The past decade has witnessed the rise of populism and an increasing sense that politics is a game rigged to benefit certain classes of persons at the expense of others. Interestingly, this sense of unfairness has been shared across the political spectrum though, of course, the left and right differ in both their moral diagnosis and their political prescription. Current debates over minimum wage laws, immigration reform, and undue corporate influence on politics can all be understood as drawing on and developing these concerns over exploitative political treatment. This book also draws upon the natural opportunities for interdisciplinary engagement that the topic of exploitation presents. Questions about exploitation often involve not only philosophical issues, but economic and political ones as well. The contributors to this volume add to that breadth of knowledge. With the re-emergence of Politics, Philosophy, and Economics (PPE) as a burgeoning field of academic inquiry, now is the perfect time to explore issues of exploitation in an interdisciplinary, public-policy focused context. This books is essential reading for anyone interested in exploitation theory, and in PPE more generally.

Is libertarianism a progressive doctrine, or a reactionary one? Does libertarianism promise to liberate the poor and the marginalized from the yoke of state oppression, or does talk of "equal liberty" obscure the ways in which libertarian doctrines serve the interests of the rich and powerful? Through an examination of the history of libertarianism, this book argues that the answer is (and always has been): both. In this book we explore the neglected 19th century roots of libertarianism to show that it emerged first as a radical and progressive doctrine. Libertarianism took a conservative turn in the 20th century primarily as a reaction against the rise of state socialism. Now, with international communism no longer a threat, libertarianism is in the midst of an identity crisis, with progressive and reactionary elements struggling to claim the doctrine as their own, most notably on issues of race. This book tells the history of libertarianism through an examination of six defining themes: private property, skepticism of authority, free markets, individualism, spontaneous order, and individual liberty. In doing so, it reveals that history to be longer, wider, and considerably more diverse than is commonly believed. It is a history full of internal tensions, idiosyncratic personalities, and surprising arguments. It is a history of the men (and sometimes women) who called themselves: The Individualists.

Libertarianism is a controversial political theory. But it is often presented as a resting upon a simple, indeed commonsense, moral principle. The libertarian “Non-Aggression Principle” (NAP) prohibits aggression against the persons or property of others, and it is on this basis that the libertarian opposition to redistributive taxation, legal paternalism, and perhaps even the state itself is thought to rest. This paper critically examines the NAP and the extent to which it can provide support for libertarian political theory. It identifies two problems with existing libertarian appeals to the NAP. First, insofar as libertarians employ a moralized understanding of aggression, their principle is really about the protection of property rights rather than the prohibition of aggression. Second, the absolutist prohibition on aggression, which libertarians typically endorse and which is necessary to generate strongly libertarian conclusions, is grossly implausible. The paper concludes by setting forth a version of the NAP that does not suffer from these problems. It argues that this more moderate and defensible version of the NAP still has important libertarian implications, but that a full defense of libertarianism cannot rely upon appeals to non-aggression alone.

This paper develops my position on the ethics of price gouging in response to Jeremy Snyder's article, "What's the Matter with Price Gouging." First, it explains how the "nonworseness claim" supports the moral permissibility of price gouging, even if it does not show that price gougers are morally virtuous agents. Second, it argues that questions about price gouging and distributive justice must be answered in light of the relevant possible institutional alternatives, and that Snyder's proposed alternatives to price gouging fare worse on the dimension of justice than a system in which goods are allocated by a system of market prices.

This second edition of _Arguing About Political Philosophy _is the most complete, up-to-date, and interdisciplinary anthology of its kind. Its selections cover both classic philosophical sources such as Hobbes and Rousseau, and contemporary figures such as Robert Nozick and G.A. Cohen. But additional excerpts from economists, psychologists, novelists, and legal theorists help students from diverse intellectual backgrounds to connect with and appreciate the problems and distinctive methodology of political philosophy. This second edition also goes beyond any other anthology on the market in its coverage of traditionally under-represented views such as libertarianism, neo-socialism, feminism, and critical race theory. And it is one of the only anthologies to go beyond _A Theory of Justice _in its coverage of the political thought of John Rawls. The volume is divided into 3 parts – Foundational Concepts; Government, the Economy and Morality; and Applied Political Philosophy – covering core arguments and emerging debates in topics like: social contract theory political economy property rights freedom equality immigration global distributive justice The new companion website offers valuable resources for instructors and students alike, including sample quizzes, exams, and writing assignments, extensive study questions for each reading, and an online version of the "What’s Your Political Philosophy" self-assessment.

This paper argues that a sweatshop worker's choice to accept the conditions of his or her employment is morally significant, both as an exercise of autonomy and as an expression of preference. This fact establishes a moral claim against interference in the conditions of sweatshop labor by third parties such as governments or consumer boycott groups. It should also lead us to doubt those who call for MNEs to voluntarily improve working conditions, at least when their arguments are based on the claim that workers have a moral right to such improvement. These conclusions are defended against three objections: 1) that sweatshop workers' consent to the conditions of their labor is not fully voluntary, 2) that sweatshops' offer of additional labor options is part of an overall package that actually harms workers, 3) that even if sweatshop labor benefits workers, it is nevertheless wrongfully exploitative