- The colonial contradictions of Albert Camus Oliver Gloag, Jacobin
- The making of the modern Right (oligarch’s revenge) Manisha Sinha, Nation
- On being eaten Lesley Evans Ogden, Aeon
- Eternal hospital Hao Jingfang, Noema
Nightcap
- The socialist manifesto Robin Hanson, Overcoming Bias
- Why Amy Coney Barrett should step down Laura Field, Open Society
- There is no expressive duty to vote Chris Freiman, 200-Proof Liberals
Nightcap
- Required reading at French military schools Michael Shurkin, War on the Rocks
- Stealing libertarianism Chris Dillow, Stumbling & Mumbling
- Liberty is self-government, not rights alone Richard Reinsch, Modern Age
- How Big Film distorts colonialism’s legacy Lipton Matthews, Mises Wire
Pop Epistemology
I believe in gravity. I don’t believe in the flat earth conspiracy. But I haven’t done the work to verify either. Instead, I trust that some social process of “science” has done a reasonably good job of assembling and verifying the knowledge that keeps my house from collapsing or my car from exploding.
There are some areas where I’m qualified to hold an opinion. But honestly, it’s a pretty small set of things and subject to an infinity of caveats. The things I “know” are really things I believe because they were taught to me by sources I trust. It’s an imperfect system, but it works tolerably well and it frees up my time to do things like working, and having a life. I’m not going to “do my research” because that would mean not doing something with higher marginal benefit.
What Trumpians realize is that sowing distrust in sources of knowledge gives them an advantage in the marketplace of ideas. What’s worse is that they’re not wrong about the fundamental ambiguity of knowledge. I haven’t got enough time, energy, or inclination to verify that the sun will in fact rise again tomorrow. I can’t scientifically test the veracity of claims of what sorts of noodley appendages touch us all.
Do I know that Joe Biden is a better candidate than Trump? If I’m being honest, the answer is no. I’m not terribly comfortable with that, so I might decide against being honest. I know enough to verify that at least one of the candidates is a turd sandwich of a human being.
What I know for sure about this mess is that the problems are complex. Even a well funded team of experts with broad powers would have infinite problems sorting things out. And the sorts of people we try to put in power are less capable than well funded teams of experts with broad powers.
As always, I hope we learn a valuable lesson here. Complex systems are always going to confound our simple human sensibilities. Given the complexity of society, we should avoid aggregating so much power into the hands of politicians–especially when “the other guy” sometimes gets hold of that power.
Nightcap
- The language of taxation Frances Woolley, Worthwhile Canadian Initiative
- On feudal exploitation Chris Dillow, Stumbling & Mumbling
- A failed experiment John Tierney, City Journal
- Edward Van Halen (1955-2020) RIP Irfan Khawaja, Policy of Truth
Nightcap
- Conflicts of interest in economic research Fabo, et. al, NBER
- In the dragon’s shadow Frank Beyer, Asian Review of Books
- 2020 is a black comedy Scott Sumner, The Money Illusion
- The risk of creeping Apartheid? Chris Bertram, Guardian
Nightcap
- The bottom of the Progressive barrel Michael Koplow, Ottomans & Zionists
- Taking liberties with the history of freedom James Hankins, Law & Liberty
- Happiness: a tale of two surveys Nick Nielsen, The View from Oregon
Nightcap
- Why Adam Smith was right Branko Milanovic, globalinequality
- Understanding the war in Kenya and Ethiopia Dalle Abraham, Africa is a Country
- Propaganda and art in Iran today Amir Ahmadi Arian, NYRB
- The crypto state Bruno Maçães, City Journal
Nightcap
- Tell me about your mother Claire Jarvis, Hedgehog Review
- The internet of beefs Venkatesh Rao, Noema
- Bangkok’s bloodless revolt Kapil Komireddi, Critic
- Rethinking world order Rebeccah Heinrichs, Law & Liberty
Nightcap
- Goya Robin Simon, Literary Review
- Muslim guilt Mahvish Ahmad, Disorder of Things
- Postwar prosperity Jonathan Hopkin, Aeon
- Tripling America Kay Hymowitz, City Journal
- The tragedy of Donald Trump Ross Douthat, NY Times
Nightcap
- Can there be a global history of India’s caste system? Shuvatri Dasgupta, JHIBlog
- Caste, Silicon Valley, and anti-Caste NPR (pod…cast)
- How should law schools treat the powerful? Will Baude, Volokh Conspiracy
- The return of postal banking? Larry White, Alt-M
I blame all of you
Here we are, 20 years into the distant future, and the newspaper of record now includes musical opinion pieces. Don’t get me wrong, I love Weird Al, but I’m sure he’d agree that a world where he’s writing songs for the Times is a world that’s broken.
It would be comforting to imagine this is the fault of the Illuminati. But the truth is our society is the collective outcome of all of our actions. There are constraints keeping us away from Utopia (limited time and resources, path dependence, etc.), but within the bounds of those constraints we get the outcome that we want. And apparently the outcome we want (i.e. want enough that we’re willing to work for it) is a dumpster fire.
Get your shit together humanity. It doesn’t have to be this bad. But it’s not going to get better if we keep rage tweeting about how awful it is how the other side keeps rage tweeting.
Nightcap
- Pirates, liberty, and imperialism Regina Much, Commonweal
- Can hierarchies be rescued? Chang Che, Los Angeles Review of Books
- How to restrain judicial review Ryan Doerfler (interview), Vox
- Twilight of the union Colin Kidd, New Statesman
Nightcap
- Orwellian Othering Bryan Caplan, EconLog
- Cancel With Them Irfan Khawaja, Policy of Truth
- The rise of extreme politics in a federation VOXEU
- Conquests, atrocities, and non-Europeans Lipton Matthews, Mises Wire
The Westphalian myth
Was the Peace of Westphalia and its implications for state sovereignty one big myth?
The apparently ineradicable notion (repeated even by many recent historians of the war) that the Peace of Westphalia sanctioned the “sovereignty” of Switzerland and the Netherlands and their independence from the empire demonstrates this. In the case of the Swiss it is based on a willful (and sometimes uninformed) interpretation of the relevant clause in the treaties, giving it a meaning that its drafters did not intend. And as to the Dutch the treaties do not even deal with them.
The complete autonomy of Switzerland vis-a-vis the empire was uncontroversial in practice, and the Swiss were reluctant to have anything to do with the peace congress. If they eventually allowed themselves to be represented there by the burgomaster of Basel, it was because this city had only joined the Swiss confederation after the other cantons had had their autonomy recognized in a treaty of 1499. The supreme courts of the empire (more particularly, the Imperial Cameral Tribunal) did not consider Basel to be exempt from their jurisdiction and allowed lawsuits against Basel and its citizens, a situation that had caused continual irritation. For this reason Basel insisted on having the immunity of the entire confederation reconfirmed in such a way that it would cover Basel, too. The request was granted, and a clause to that effect included in the treaties. This clause, which explicitly names Basel as its initiator and beneficiary, restates the immunity (exemptio) of the Swiss cantons from the jurisdiction of the empire and their complete autonomy (plena libertas).
Read the rest (pdf). All you Holy Roman Empire fans will enjoy it, too.
Notes On Liberty 