David Friedman’s Ideas blog will strike some as law, economics and libertarianism run wild, but I think he’s doing what academics are supposed to do: thinking, and making us think too.
Note also this piece of self-description,
I am an academic economist who teaches at a law school and has never taken a course for credit in either field.
Friedman does a fine job of putting an academic gloss on the kind of discussions I had 30 years ago when I was a sophomore in college — and either drunk or high or tripping at the time…
I’ve got to agree. C’mon: “Does the First Amendment Ban Public Schools? …My conclusion is that the existence of public schools is inconsistent with the First Amendment. Their purpose is, or ought to be, to educate — and one cannot, in practice, educate without either supporting or denying a wide variety of religious claims.”
This is not “makes you think”. This is silly Libertarian-babble. It’s a hoary chestnut, elsewhere prominently peddled by Creationists, and slammed down *hard* in the recent Intelligent Design ruling.
I’m quite serious – what’s so thoughtful about putting half-baked cultish justifications on dogmatic conclusions? One can just make a list, they hate public schools, gun restrictions, taxes, national health care, etc., etc., and then say it’s a theological violation of scripture.
Let’s put it this way – if this stuff is ” making us think “, do the administration’s legal arguments for unilateral Presidental power, and torture, qualify as works of profound genius?!
“he’s doing what academics are supposed to do: thinking”
But not very hard
The religion of disembodied rationalism is irrationalism;
but worse than that is the depressing narcissism of the offspring of such people.
The rise of the autistic pseudomachines.
Paul Lukasiak had it exactly right.
I hope you did not make note of this person just so people could make fun of him. That would be mean.
Bad Prof!!!
I think people are being unfair. David’s work on spontaneous order is interesting stuff. And while his blogging isn’t as careful as his academic work (whose is?) I think the effort involved in grappling with it is healthy.
I especially thought the sophomoric crack was in poor taste: some of did those discussions sober. And are still doing them. All too sober.
If he teaches in the south, SACS will eventually get on his case, asking him to document that he is in fact qualified to do what he does.