Peter Boettke has a good post up on Fukuyama's article on Hayek, where he accuses him of caricaturing Hayek.
"Caricature" is a great word - I use it a lot. Perhaps too often. Usually I'm suggesting that someone is caricaturing Keynes or Keynesianism. But the phenomenon of caricaturing intellectual positions itself is an interesting one. Boettke and I aren't the only ones that point to these cases. You hear the suggestion all the time. This is the comment I left on his post:
"This phenomenon of caricaturing is interesting. A lot of people seem to find a lot of other people guilty of it.
Is it just the nature of specialized knowledge? Is it just a criticism that people need to be open to and therefore willing to work through (and then if they still disagree at the end, that's OK)? Or is it symptomatic of a deeper issue?
I genuinely don't know, I just know I see a ton of caricaturing around from my perspective and I hear a ton of people making similar claims from their perspective, and even when I genuinely work at understanding someone's perspective I can still get told that I'm caricaturing. My guess is it's inevitable. My hope is it's not rooted in a lack of concern or care."
So why do we do this? Any ideas?
The rule of law and religion
1 hour ago