Different people mean different things by "free market." You mean "free for all", some kind of "law of the jungle" where people see what they can get even if it violates others.
I mean rule of law, where that law is based on a precise idea of individual/natural rights, where no one is violated. (See "For Individual Rights" at Amazon.)
"Things are more than just black and white. The world is no place for idealists and ideologues with clear cut ideas, and simple thoughts. No, no, it's much too messy a place for that."
What you mean is that the world is no place for rational, principled people. And yes, I know you also mean it's not a place for irrational, dogmatic people. But your category includes both in a fallacious "package deal."
Galileo might have agreed based on the consequences he received for finding rational truth, but that didn't change his mind. Yes, the world is mostly comprised of ignorance and barbarism, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to rectify the ignorance and barbarism and move toward a more civilized and prosperous form of society.
> What you mean is that the world is no place for rational, principled people. And yes, I know you also mean it's not a place for irrational, dogmatic people. But your category includes both in a fallacious "package deal."
Yes it includes both. The world isn't rational. It isn't fair. But neither is it completely random. Your writing against the government was very hedgehog like (one idea - clear cut - rational). The world is boundedly rational and it is not a place for both the rational or the irrational - extreme viewpoints do come as a package. I like being pragmatic, complex and contradictory. I also like being idealistic, simplistic and consistent.
You'll notice that thinking along these lines (what some call "fox like") frees one up from past beliefs and allows one to flexibly make decisions under uncertainty whilst limiting bias. I could just as easily argue for your side as I could for mine. I'm the hedgehog and the fox.
Quoting from the link you gave: "foxes who draw on a wide variety of experiences and for whom the world cannot be boiled down to a single idea (examples given include Herodotus, Aristotle, ...)"
I don't think your interpretation of "rational" is making much sense if Aristotle isn't included. In any case, I'll classify myself if you don't mind, and I consider myself an Aristotelian and an empiricist not a Platonist, which seems to put me in the "fox" camp if indeed this fox/hedgehog thing has any kind of meaning at all.
I mean rule of law, where that law is based on a precise idea of individual/natural rights, where no one is violated. (See "For Individual Rights" at Amazon.)
"Things are more than just black and white. The world is no place for idealists and ideologues with clear cut ideas, and simple thoughts. No, no, it's much too messy a place for that."
What you mean is that the world is no place for rational, principled people. And yes, I know you also mean it's not a place for irrational, dogmatic people. But your category includes both in a fallacious "package deal."
Galileo might have agreed based on the consequences he received for finding rational truth, but that didn't change his mind. Yes, the world is mostly comprised of ignorance and barbarism, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to rectify the ignorance and barbarism and move toward a more civilized and prosperous form of society.