Robbie George on expressive individualism; Randall Bock and me on finding truth; Rob Henderson is part of Jordan Peterson's academy; Tyler Cowen on mainstream economics
Regarding expressive individualism, the atomized self has been the ideal of the Progressives, as it was of the other revolutionaries of the 20th century, who see intermediary institutions as standing in the way of their utopian dreams. For them, the ideal society is that composed of the state (controlled by them) on the one hand, and the isolated individual on the other. The great conservative sociologist Robert Nisbet's book The Quest For Community is the book to read.
I think this can be misinterpreted. "[T]he other revolutionaries of the 20th century" did not want atomized individuals. That's what they accused capitalism of doing. They wanted everyone working together, in one communal project, finding meaning and purpose in the good of society. There is a reason one of those ideologies was called communism.
Re: "So in terms of economic ideas, there are no $20 bills on the sidewalk waiting to be picked up."
There are plenty of $20 bills on the sidewalk, namely, *neglected* economic ideas. For example, an economist might neglect the Coase Theorem whereas a physicist can't ignore basic ideas.
There are two very different conceptions of what "the Coase Theorem" is. The first, as set out in Coase's "The Nature of Social Cost" is that, in the absence of transaction costs, and ignoring distributional effects, it doesn't matter who has the legal right. Whoever values it most will either buy it or keep it, and the final result will be the same no matter who starts out with the right. E.g., a railroad with the right to shower sparks on a farmer's field will keep it if the farmer won't offer more to him than what it is worth to the RR, but will sell it if the farmer does. One of the implications of Coase's analysis is that transaction costs are often significant.
The second conception says that the world is like the "if" statement above, that transaction costs can be ignored. An economist might often "neglect" that idea because he thought it was false. It's actually kind of similar to how a physicist will neglect air resistance when thinking about motion in outer space but take it into account when calculating the descent of a feather.
I was going to comment the same thing. Economics has plenty of great ideas, just they never get put into practice because people have a distaste for markets.
Re: "But I think of education as something other than consuming content by watching videos."
A necessary element of education: The student must (a) use the content or (b) reckon with the content with the teacher or fellow students. Education requires application or dialogue. Excellent students achieve practical mastery or mutual understanding. Creativity is a natural by-product.
Re: "or we could under censor it … people could believe crazy things and conspiracy theories."
At the risk of being misunderstood, let me point out that conspiracy theories (and perhaps even some kooky ones?) can play a positive role in "the information ecosystem" insofar as they encourage some people *to dig deeper.*
For example, if I understand correctly, a non-kooky conspiracy theory motivated some people to investigate and eventually reveal authoritarian censorious behavior of public-health authorities (Collins, Fauci) towards the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration.
My intuition is that it is unwise to censor conspiracy theories. Such theories sometimes motivate people to dig deeper and thereby help discovery. In principle, whether a particular conspiracy theory is likely to do more harm than good is an empirical question. In practice, often it is hard to know the answer ex ante, before the deeper dig that the particular theory might motivate.
What are the counter-arguments in favor of censorship of conspiracy theories?
Regarding expressive individualism, the atomized self has been the ideal of the Progressives, as it was of the other revolutionaries of the 20th century, who see intermediary institutions as standing in the way of their utopian dreams. For them, the ideal society is that composed of the state (controlled by them) on the one hand, and the isolated individual on the other. The great conservative sociologist Robert Nisbet's book The Quest For Community is the book to read.
I think this can be misinterpreted. "[T]he other revolutionaries of the 20th century" did not want atomized individuals. That's what they accused capitalism of doing. They wanted everyone working together, in one communal project, finding meaning and purpose in the good of society. There is a reason one of those ideologies was called communism.
They purportedly wanted community, but in fact accomplished the opposite.
A tale as old as time.
Thanks for the pointer to Nesbit's book.
Re: "So in terms of economic ideas, there are no $20 bills on the sidewalk waiting to be picked up."
There are plenty of $20 bills on the sidewalk, namely, *neglected* economic ideas. For example, an economist might neglect the Coase Theorem whereas a physicist can't ignore basic ideas.
There are two very different conceptions of what "the Coase Theorem" is. The first, as set out in Coase's "The Nature of Social Cost" is that, in the absence of transaction costs, and ignoring distributional effects, it doesn't matter who has the legal right. Whoever values it most will either buy it or keep it, and the final result will be the same no matter who starts out with the right. E.g., a railroad with the right to shower sparks on a farmer's field will keep it if the farmer won't offer more to him than what it is worth to the RR, but will sell it if the farmer does. One of the implications of Coase's analysis is that transaction costs are often significant.
The second conception says that the world is like the "if" statement above, that transaction costs can be ignored. An economist might often "neglect" that idea because he thought it was false. It's actually kind of similar to how a physicist will neglect air resistance when thinking about motion in outer space but take it into account when calculating the descent of a feather.
I was going to comment the same thing. Economics has plenty of great ideas, just they never get put into practice because people have a distaste for markets.
Re: "But I think of education as something other than consuming content by watching videos."
A necessary element of education: The student must (a) use the content or (b) reckon with the content with the teacher or fellow students. Education requires application or dialogue. Excellent students achieve practical mastery or mutual understanding. Creativity is a natural by-product.
Re: "or we could under censor it … people could believe crazy things and conspiracy theories."
At the risk of being misunderstood, let me point out that conspiracy theories (and perhaps even some kooky ones?) can play a positive role in "the information ecosystem" insofar as they encourage some people *to dig deeper.*
For example, if I understand correctly, a non-kooky conspiracy theory motivated some people to investigate and eventually reveal authoritarian censorious behavior of public-health authorities (Collins, Fauci) towards the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration.
My intuition is that it is unwise to censor conspiracy theories. Such theories sometimes motivate people to dig deeper and thereby help discovery. In principle, whether a particular conspiracy theory is likely to do more harm than good is an empirical question. In practice, often it is hard to know the answer ex ante, before the deeper dig that the particular theory might motivate.
What are the counter-arguments in favor of censorship of conspiracy theories?
Under censor? LOL
Just let people be adults. Buyer beware. We’re all wrong sometimes. So what? Stop the nannying.
you can't have private property without individualism