The obfuscation of the common good

The remarkable, albeit fictional, exchange between a deceased senator and a philosophy professor raises a number of interesting issues about the Sherm an 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 adv ocate casting unnecessary burdens on society in general and the poor in par ticular. The professor is especially dispirited about the way the Sherman A ct has been interpreted over the years. In the dialogue, the professor seem s to want a populist element to be interjected into judicial constructions of that legislation. By the time the dialogue is over, both men have expres sed a belief that government should become more involved in economic decisi on making. Yet both men also apparently recognize that human institutions m ay be incapable of administering a vast and complex society in a satisfacto ry way.