3 ms·

"Since an interventionist technology policy is no more likely to benefit consumers than are the myriad other government interventions in the market[...]" This

"Since an interventionist technology policy is no more likely to benefit consumers than are the myriad other government interventions in the market[...]" This seems to imply that they're taking "government intervention is flawed" as a given for the argument, rather than a conclusion. This isn't surprising, since _Reason_ is pretty libertarian.

davidw 17y ago
If it's on that site, it's always (as far as I can tell) an article arguing for free markets or less government or something like that. Indeed: "Founded in 1968, Reason advances a free society by developing, applying, and promoting libertarian principles, including individual liberty, free markets, and the rule of law." So it's not really a serious economics journal (with varying points of view) or anything like that, it exists to promote one particular political view. I think that if we see articles from there, we can reasonably expect to see articles posted here from the other side, too, like, say, Paul Krugman or marxists.org or whatever. My desire is that neither one should appear here and that we stick to startups and hacking and things of that ilk, as those don't tend to produce the "SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET!" reaction quite so much.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  It's not an economics journal at all: it's a pop-politics and pop-culture magazine, similar to Scientific American or Popular Mechanics, but on different subjects. You wouldn't say that "Popular Science is not a real astrophysics journal" is a mark against the magazine, I assume.
- william-newman 17y ago
  For a more academic-economics-oriented article on the same theme by the same authors, see http://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html http://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html , from _Journal of Law and Economics_. Incidentally, I would be very interested in a pointer to a comparably serious/academic rebuttal of Fable of the Keys. It has been a very long time since Fable of the Keys was published, and it has been a long time since I last tuned into the controversy, and at that time my understanding was that a rebuttal had long been promised but never produced.

davidw 17y ago

If it's on that site, it's always (as far as I can tell) an article arguing for free markets or less government or something like that. Indeed: "Founded in 1968, Reason advances a free society by developing, applying, and promoting libertarian principles, including individual liberty, free markets, and the rule of law." So it's not really a serious economics journal (with varying points of view) or anything like that, it exists to promote one particular political view. I think that if we see articles from there, we can reasonably expect to see articles posted here from the other side, too, like, say, Paul Krugman or marxists.org or whatever. My desire is that neither one should appear here and that we stick to startups and hacking and things of that ilk, as those don't tend to produce the "SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET!" reaction quite so much.

randallsquared 17y ago
It's not an economics journal at all: it's a pop-politics and pop-culture magazine, similar to Scientific American or Popular Mechanics, but on different subjects. You wouldn't say that "Popular Science is not a real astrophysics journal" is a mark against the magazine, I assume.
william-newman 17y ago
For a more academic-economics-oriented article on the same theme by the same authors, see http://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html http://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html , from _Journal of Law and Economics_. Incidentally, I would be very interested in a pointer to a comparably serious/academic rebuttal of Fable of the Keys. It has been a very long time since Fable of the Keys was published, and it has been a long time since I last tuned into the controversy, and at that time my understanding was that a rebuttal had long been promised but never produced.