I argue that Waheed Hussain’s critique of advanced market economies would be strengthened if, rather than emphasizing how markets draw us into particular patterns of activity in a “judgment-bypassing” way, through changes in prices and wages, he focused more on an idea that he explores in the first two chapters of Living with the Invisible Hand: the need to justify the specific institutional powers that an advanced market economy creates. I examine how this suggestion relates to two of Hussain’s central claims: that markets are mechanisms of decentralized social governance, and that they pose a distinct threat to our freedom.

Waheed Hussain’s Living with the Invisible Hand argues that, although the market economy is valuable for efficiently coordinating production and consumption, it is morally problematic because it draws us into patterns of activity that bypass our own judgment as rational beings. This makes the market potentially “authoritarian.” But what exactly does it mean to say that the market “bypasses our judgment”? In this article, I seek to clarify this idea and suggest that Hussain has actually identified a few separable senses in which it might be true. These different senses are important to distinguish because they call for different remedies.

A critique of capitalism, in order to count as such, must identify a problem that is not shared by all other feasible economic systems, for this would amount to little more than a complaint (or kvetch) about the human condition. The distinction between critique and kvetch raises the question of what constitutes a feasible alternative to capitalism. Although it sounds as though this is a pragmatic or technical question, I will argue that it is usually normative. With this clarification in place, I will consider whether Waheed Hussain’s concerns about capitalism amount to a critique or a kvetch.

What economic system does a Kantian ideal of freedom entail? In Living with the Invisible Hand, Waheed Hussain argues it entails intermediated capitalism. Here, I investigate these arguments within the framework of a Kantian theory of right. I sketch a Kantian theory of equal democratic government where we have the right to make together through equal democratic processes decisions that structure our rightful relationships with one another. I argue that any plausible Kantian view of the natural determinacy of property rights justifies extensive government intervention in the economy, creating space to argue for alternative economic systems such as intermediated capitalism.

Physicalism is often characterized by the slogan that “There is nothing over and above the physical.” Thus, making physicalism precise requires making “the physical” precise. In this paper I advance one such way of making the physical precise and in doing so defend a new approach to defining the physical. I argue that a property is physical iff it belongs to the largest strong-component of a causal network that includes exemplary physical properties. This avoids the triviality-problem faced by physics-based accounts and withstands an important argument against accounts that are not physics-based.

I offer a novel dispositional reply to Derk Pereboom’s four-case manipulation argument. Drawing on recent work in the metaphysics of dispositions, I argue that manipulated agents’ rational abilities are masked—prevented from manifesting as they otherwise would—by neuroscientists’ manipulation. I argue that masking better explains why manipulated agents are not responsible for their actions than causal determinism does, as we ordinarily take masks to explain why agents are not morally responsible for their actions or inaction. Because causal determinism is not a mask, there is a relevant difference between manipulation and causal determinism, and the four-case argument fails.

Frank Jackson’s Knowledge Argument claims that Mary—a neuroscientist who knows all the physical facts about color perception but has never seen color—learns something new when she sees red, posing a challenge to physicalism. While physicalists deny that Mary acquires knowledge of new facts, they must still explain her apparent epistemic progress. I argue that the intuition that Mary gains new knowledge upon seeing red stems from the alleged opacity of propositional attitude ascriptions—the same phenomenon underlying Frege puzzles.