A few minutes before I read this, I was complaining to my partner-in-crime that I don't trust most pundits across the philosophical spectrum–mainly because I don't have evidence that they practice falsification, aka refutation. In my opinion, a trustworthy scholar is humble, and slow to come to conclusions.
They test their ideas by looking for flaws, studying criticisms, hunting for data that contradicts them, and building relationships with people who disagree with them. They know the theories that they disagree with as well as the ones that confirm their beliefs...and biases. If asked to present an idea, they can provide seven alternatives, explain each one objectively (relatively speaking), and then say which ones they like and why.
I was pleased with this essay and very pleased that you mentioned falsification. Reminding people of the Rule of Law, something too many folks take for granted. Thank you!!!!!!
"While there are certainly healthy, locally managed Ostrom Commons, such systems should exist in balance with institutions that respect private property."
—I have been very encouraged, over the last few years, with the increase of new-agey types expressing (classical) liberal ideas and principles. This is a positive development. We could use a bit more emotion, a little more woo, and few more drum circles, to add to our principled theorizing and Rothbardian analysis.
But this phenomenon is tenuous and in its early stages, and I have seen a disturbing sub-trend: the (re)introduction of anti-propertarian impulses into the mix. Many argue from a natural law standpoint, but then throw in comments about the unfairness of the fact that some have more than they need while others have less. Some even suggest that property ownership itself is fundamentally problematic.
Though obviously rooted in a natural tendency to pathos, this strikes me as extremely dangerous. We definitely want these folks moving in the (classical) liberal direction. So we need to help them to understand that property is sine qua non, and any alternative, however nice it sounds, is just one more variant on the road to hell.
A few minutes before I read this, I was complaining to my partner-in-crime that I don't trust most pundits across the philosophical spectrum–mainly because I don't have evidence that they practice falsification, aka refutation. In my opinion, a trustworthy scholar is humble, and slow to come to conclusions.
They test their ideas by looking for flaws, studying criticisms, hunting for data that contradicts them, and building relationships with people who disagree with them. They know the theories that they disagree with as well as the ones that confirm their beliefs...and biases. If asked to present an idea, they can provide seven alternatives, explain each one objectively (relatively speaking), and then say which ones they like and why.
I was pleased with this essay and very pleased that you mentioned falsification. Reminding people of the Rule of Law, something too many folks take for granted. Thank you!!!!!!
"While there are certainly healthy, locally managed Ostrom Commons, such systems should exist in balance with institutions that respect private property."
—I have been very encouraged, over the last few years, with the increase of new-agey types expressing (classical) liberal ideas and principles. This is a positive development. We could use a bit more emotion, a little more woo, and few more drum circles, to add to our principled theorizing and Rothbardian analysis.
But this phenomenon is tenuous and in its early stages, and I have seen a disturbing sub-trend: the (re)introduction of anti-propertarian impulses into the mix. Many argue from a natural law standpoint, but then throw in comments about the unfairness of the fact that some have more than they need while others have less. Some even suggest that property ownership itself is fundamentally problematic.
Though obviously rooted in a natural tendency to pathos, this strikes me as extremely dangerous. We definitely want these folks moving in the (classical) liberal direction. So we need to help them to understand that property is sine qua non, and any alternative, however nice it sounds, is just one more variant on the road to hell.