The article seemed to be an ideological discussion of what a
state is as an institution. I do not know how this is specifically pertains to
economics directly, but I do see indirect relatedness between the two. Still, I
felt as if the article was opinionated and opinions are simply opinions to me.
It appears to be quite dangerous to believe something as given without a
scientific backing for its validity. I understand that many would disagree with
me, but reading articles that are so long and loaded in content can mislead the
inexperienced reader to believe everything without given the right amount of
questioning. My response to the article may deviate from what was discussed,
but that is because I believe it is sometimes better to undisclose my beliefs
about the matter. I would much rather discuss the impression the article had on
me and the ideas it left me thinking about. This is why I really want to mention that the
article was very interesting and reading it was definitely worthwhile, but
there were elements that I had trouble agreeing with. Maybe I felt that there
was bias present or it went against some of my ideological beliefs that I do
not feel comfortable discussing online. One of the best parts of the article,
in my opinion, discussed common fallacies or myths (whatever one wishes to
label them as) did provide me with great insight with what the article was
attempting to communicate. What is a state? To me it is an idea that unites or
divides people, so to me a more basic definition or meaning is much more
valuable than a multi-page article going into great detail discussing the
anatomy of an idea. This is simply my opinion, but I believe it is easy to lose
the big picture focusing too much on details that are not always as important
as some wish they were. To me the aggregate opinion is much more important than
that of someone with predispositions because all people have predispositions or
prejudice on topics, so it's important to minimize those elements. I believe
many do not minimize those elements because informational warfare created by
the state for various reasons. Thus, it's nearly always possible to debunk any
statement that is not entirely based on fact because those misinterpreted facts
can be brought up as debunkers with sufficient work and intelligence. Thus, the
main question I was asking myself and thinking about was whether the article
was entirely based on fact, which is quite debatable.
No comments:
Post a Comment