Intriguing Critique of Reno’s Ideas
While I appreciate the overarching concepts presented by Reno, as highlighted in my previous article, there are critical areas where Reno’s viewpoint misses the mark.
- Downplaying Historical Horrors:
Reno does bring attention to the banishment of strong gods as a reasonable response to past atrocities, but he seems too nonchalant about the potential return of such horrors. He minimizes the current threat by emphasizing that past problems are no longer relevant, stating:
- Our societies are not marching in lockstep.
- Central planners do not hinder our economies.
- There is no overpowering bourgeois culture aiming for exclusion.
- Notably, Bull Conner no longer holds the post of commissioner of public safety in Birmingham.
- Ignoring Present-Day Concerns:
Reno reiterates his belief that worries about authoritarian regimes are misplaced in modern times, insinuating that the past threats no longer exist. However, recent events have shown that the danger of totalitarian governments and internal authoritarianism is very real. This echoes a point made by Yglesias, highlighting the consequences of overlooking dormant threats, as evidenced in the case of insurance companies misjudging the fire risk in Eaton Canyon. - Unconvincing Argument Prioritizing Social Fragmentation:
Reno devotes considerable effort to dissecting the causes and manifestations of social disunity, yet his case for why this issue outweighs the risks of authoritarianism falls short. He postulates that social disunity poses a greater threat without providing a robust comparative analysis of the risks involved.
In conclusion, while Reno effectively identifies social fragmentation as a pressing concern, his arguments regarding the severity of this issue compared to authoritarian threats lack depth. This leaves readers questioning the validity of his claims. Stay tuned for the upcoming post, where I will explore Reno’s erroneous interpretations of economic concepts and theories.
Leave feedback about this