Abstract
The remarkable, albeit fictional, exchange between a deceased senator and a philosophy professor raises a number of interesting issues about the Sherman Act.In the pages that follow, I offer some criticisms of the dialogue. 1 I will show that the professor's positions misuse Rawlsian theory to advocate casting unnecessary burdens on society in general and the poor in particular. The professor is especially dispirited about the way the Sherman Act has been interpreted over the years. In the dialogue, the professor seems to want a populist element to be interjected into judicial constructions of that legislation. By the time the dialogue is over, both men have expressed a belief that government should become more involved in economic decision-making. Yet both men also apparently recognize that human institutions may be incapable of administering a vast and complex society in a satisfactory way.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
