Comments (3)

• Curt Howland

  What if he had said at the beginnings of those articles, "So and so has asked me to consider the following idea from a Libertarian standpoint."?
  
  
  Would such a disclaimer make the articles more or less objective? Could it have deflected the criticism of getting paid to bring up an issue?
  
  
  If the sponsorship had *changed* what was written, then there could be accusations of purchased bias of course.

  Published: December 21, 2005 2:06 PM

• mike

  If the author's being "on the take" affects one's acceptance of the author's argument, one is merely relying on the author as a surrogate for thought and is not actually analyzing the argument. It would be better if, as LR suggests, everyone were on the take and advocative, then readers would not just rely on the "credentials" of the author to accept uncritically what is written, but rather would be compelled to actually think critically.
  If an argument is true and useful, why does it matter who made it (eg., Hitler, Marx, Keynes, or other boogeyman)?

  Published: December 22, 2005 7:54 AM

• Curt Doolittle

  I don't understand the concern. Doing something in exchange for money, and writing a truthful article, are not conflicts. The conflict is only present in whether to write an untruthful article in exchange for money.
  
  
  
  The capital that was discounted was the man's reputation, and probably, as you say, as a result of error rather than intention. This is probably the appropriate outcome.
  
  
  
  Concern over the fact that a special interest pays for one's efforts seems irrational. It may be rare that such a special interest is in alignment, but that is a different argument than saying special interests should not be able to pay for intellectual opinions. One should just write what is consistent with one's ideas whether money is involved or not. Given the choice to advance one's thoughts by profit or not, seems only logical that one advance the ideas through profit when possible.
  
  
  
  And following the next point: I hardly think that credentials matter much to most readers. The fact that the argument can be understood in common language is what carries the case. Otherwise, if the author matters, it is an argument to authority and the structure and content of the argument are meaningless in that context. The purpose of authoritative authors is simply to tell the reader the likelihood of the effort needed to understand a work will most likely be well spent. It is not to support the argument itself, but to support the choice of author when one does not yet understand the argument.
  
  
  
  As Lou and Mike (above) state, I would prefer that all men were honest about their alliances, and wrote in clear and rational terms. But unless we can declare that non-corporial truth itself has property rights that each of us need defend and for which someone need litigate, then I think that there is no means of controlling this market save the one we have: unbridled venom and the open public discourse that ensues. ( I would counter however, that this is what has happened and why we have had a problem. The opposite message will always be more palatable to many. ) It's just a lot of work at times, and too few people have the time, knowledge and will to enter the fray. And were there not a democracy, the purpose of which was systematic theft of propery, and daily destruction of our means of capitalizing knowledge, it would not matter anyway.

  
  

  Published: December 25, 2005 11:24 PM