Maybe we’ve been thinking about science all wrong. In the old model, knowledge was privately produced, then ‘communicated’ to make it a public good. Journals did the communicating. But a better model is to think of this whole process as like a club that both produces and consumes together.
A couple of weeks ago on Catallaxy Files a contributor going by the nom de plume ‘I Am Sparticus’ made a couple of posts about the market for drugs (here and here). As an economist and interested observer of such markets this is something of a pet topic for me.
This week I was in New Orleans for the Society for the Development of Austrian Economics meeting at the Southern Economics Association Conference. I presented my paper on ‘Spontaneous order in the formation of non-territorial jurisdictions’ in the Don Lavoie Memorial graduate student panel.
Minimum apartment sizes in Melbourne will decrease density, suppress diversity, and cost home-owners years of time paying off ballooning house prices, writes Darcy Allen.
The answer to this question is predictable: ‘Of course not, that is why we have town planning in the first instance. Private individuals cannot be trusted to take into account those around them. We should leave the decision to experts.’
On the weekend I attended an event at the Australian Institute of Architects (AIA). I walked out concerned about the future of our cities.
Throughout history it has proved impossible to draw lines on the map in such a way that no minorities are created: politically and ethnically division tends to be the rule. I argue that from the ‘knowledge problem of the nation-state’ perspective, there should be nothing surprising about this