Replies

I'm not sure if the author of this article was totally disingenuous or just ignorant, but this article does not convey what Posner's book is really about. It's about slamming Posner (or Reagan), or just getting readers through salacious content, and it is not an honest or informed piece about the book.

Posner's book is an examination of an economic theory versus a moral theory as a basis for legislation and law. His analysis was detailed, including "thinking about the unthinkable" as part of his discussion. His discussion about rape was generally intended to show that, even under an economic theory, laws against rape would still be efficient. There are flaws in his argument, as is shown in his discussion of marital rape, but he was not advocating "rape licenses."

I'm not trying to defend Posner. I don't know what he really believes about this stuff -- maybe he is completely amoral, or immoral. Maybe he is so set on economic theory that moral issues don't even enter his mind. But because Posner is analyzing the economic theory versus the moral theory of law, his disucssion is per se amoral.

But this article is about the book and his discussion from the book, and the article skims over the abstract theories Posner was discussing in the book to throw out phrases like "rape license" and "right to rape" without bothering to explain what the discussion was really about.

I disagree entirely with Posner on the economic theory versus the moral theory, but I don't need to scream "rape license" to combat against his intellectual theories.