Yesterday I critiqued Elizabeth Bruenig's opening statement point-by-point. Today, I cover broader issues.1. Bruenig builds her case on quotes from famous, pre-modern philosophers, interspersed with philosophical jargon. She references virtually no facts from the last two hundred years. When people who agree with me make arguments like this, I cringe. How can anyone expect to figure out anything about the real world using this fruitless method?2. What's the alternative? (a) Focus on arguments, not authorities. If an argument is good, it doesn't matter if Socrates is the source. (b) Use jargon only if no simple English words capture your meaning. If alienation isn't the same as "disliking your job,"
Bryan Caplan considers the following as important: Economic Philosophy
This could be interesting, too:
David Henderson writes Bob Murphy Conversation with David Henderson
Pierre Lemieux writes Consumer Sovereignty: A Response to Greg Autry
Bryan Caplan writes Fake Nous: Huemer Starts Blogging
Bryan Caplan writes “Is It Political?”