Lisa & Ian Murray wrote:
> YES!!!!!!
If you want to define "law and economics" as the application of reactionary economic theory to legal issues, then you are likely to conclude L&E has no progressive voices. But why allow the creeps to define the boundaries of the discipline?
In fact law profs write in depth about economic issues. This is certainly true in the tax field. They can be liberal, conservative, or radical. I don't see why they should not be considered to be doing "law and economics," not unlike the attorneys on this list.
mbs