Top 10 similar words or synonyms for lomasky

lariscy    0.696924

schrecker    0.694152

estlund    0.693633

kampmeier    0.691702

megill    0.681182

aakhus    0.677440

blevens    0.676008

traister    0.674793

estleman    0.672671

corrington    0.671834

Top 30 analogous words or synonyms for lomasky

Article Example
Loren Lomasky Loren E. Lomasky is an American philosopher, currently a Cory Professor of Political Philosophy, Policy and Law at the University of Virginia. Lomasky earned his PhD from the University of Connecticut, and has previously taught at Bowling Green State University in Ohio, the University of Minnesota in Duluth, and the Australian National University in Canberra. He has also been a contributing editor to "Reason" magazine.
Loren Lomasky Lomasky has written principally on ethics and political philosophy. His book "Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community" established his reputation as a leading advocate of a rights-based libertarian approach to moral and social issues. Besides these, his teaching interests include the philosophy of religion, medieval philosophy, and other periods in the history of philosophy.
Loren Lomasky Lomasky has been the recipient of many awards including the 1991 Matchette Prize for his "Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community". Professor Lomasky has held research appointments sponsored by the NEH, the Center for the Study of Public Choice, the Australian National University and Bowling Green's Social Philosophy and Policy Center.
Public choice Geoffrey Brennan and Loren Lomasky claim that democratic policy is biased to favor "expressive interests" and neglect practical and utilitarian considerations. Brennan and Lomasky differentiate between instrumental interests (any kind of practical benefit, both monetary and non-monetary) and expressive interests (forms of expression like applause). According to Brennan and Lomasky, the voting paradox can be resolved by differentiating between expressive and instrumental interests.
Rational irrationality Loren Lomasky, one of the proponents of expressive voting, explained some of the key differences between the theories in a critical review of Caplan's book.
The Myth of the Rational Voter Prior to publication of the book, Caplan had put forward the main thesis of the book as the lead essay in the November 2006 issue of "Cato Unbound". Other participants in the debate, who critiqued various aspects of Caplan's thesis, included David Estlund, Loren Lomasky, and Jeffrey Friedman.
Geoffrey Brennan Brennan has published widely on rational actor theory, philosophy, and economics, and sits on the editorial board of the academic journal "Representation". He has held academic positions in several related departments at Australia National University and Virginia Tech. With Loren Lomasky he is winner of the American Philosophical Association's Gregory Kavka Prize in Political Philosophy for the paper "Is There a Duty to Vote?"
Rational irrationality Brennan and Lomasky have an alternative theory of democratic failure that is quite similar to Caplan's theory of rational irrationality. Their theory, called "expressive voting", states that people vote to "express" certain beliefs. The key difference between expressive voting and rational irrationality is that the former does not require people to actually "hold" systematically biased beliefs, while the latter does.
The Myth of the Rational Voter The book received a mixed-to-positive review from Loren Lomasky in "Public Choice", co-inventor of the theory of "expressive voting" that was a close competitor to Caplan's theory of rational irrationality. Stuart Farrand wrote a critique of Caplan's book for "Libertarian Papers". Gene Callahan reviewed the book for "The Independent Review". Prema Popat of NorthEastern University and Benjamin Powell of Suffolk University jointly wrote a review of the book for "New Perspectives on Political Economy".
Paradox of voting Alternative responses modify the postulate of egoistic rationality in various ways. For example, Brennan and Lomasky suggest that voters derive 'expressive' benefits from supporting particular candidates. However, this implies that voting choices are unlikely to reflect the self-interest of voters, as is normally assumed in public choice theory; that is, rational behavior is restricted to the instrumental as opposed to the intrinsic value of actions.