prior probability

We have been attending the 12th Annual International Conference on Contracts (KCON XII) at Southwestern Law School in downtown Los Angeles this weekend (fun!). One of our favorite talks at the conference was by Nathan Oman, a law professor at the College of William & Mary, who presented his new book The Dignity of Commerce: Markets and the Moral Foundations of Contract Law (U Chicago Press, 2017). In summary, Professor Oman argues that the main purpose of the law of contracts is to promote commerce and well-functioning markets. Moreover, he claims that markets are morally desirable in and of themselves. Why? Because markets not only promote economic efficiency (i.e. the allocation of assets to their highest valued uses); markets also facilitate social cooperation and communal harmony. Specifically, markets enable people to serve the needs of others and cooperate in mutually beneficial ways even in the absence of political, religious, or ideological agreement. (This last point–the ability of markets to meet human needs and bring diverse and self-interested actors together–deserves more attention in the legal academy.) 

We know that a promise to do something illegal (like cooking and distributing meth) is not legally enforceable, but what moral status does such an illegal promise have? We address this question in our work in progress on Immoral Promises, which we are presenting this morning at Southwestern Law School in downtown Los Angeles.

We just attended Professor Mona Field’s guest lecture on “American Presidential Elections” at Glendale Community College (see flyer below). Among other things, Prof. Field talked about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. In summary, this novel compact is designed to circumvent the archaic Electoral College system set forth in the Constitution. Specifically, States who join the compact thereby pre-commit to award their respective electoral college votes to the presidential candidate who wins the overall popular vote in all 50 States. Thus far, ten States (and D.C.) have already voted to join the compact, and these States represent 165 Electoral College votes. So, is this novel compact constitutional? Can we change the Constitution without formally amending it?

The journal Nature recently published this letter announcing the exciting discovery of seven exoplanets 40 light-years away from Earth: only 235 trillion miles away! Does this mean it would take us 40 Earth years to reach those planets if we could travel as fast as the speed of light? The infographic below says light-years are a measure of distance, not a measure of time. Bonus question: Why can’t we travel faster than the speed of light, or can we?

Credit: niks1rocks, via SlideShare

We totally understand why such insignificant states like Idaho or Nebraska might want to enact such insular and small-minded legislation. But California and Florida …? 

Hat tip (via Reddit): wildeastmofo