“I think it’s incred­i­ble work you’ve been doing lately, and I whole­heart­edly endorse it” YAY!!!

“At the same time, of course, Dis­raeli could not and would not be pigeon­holed as the rep­re­sen­ta­tive of a minor­ity. Instead, he made an asset of his sup­posed lia­bil­ity in two ways, as Adam Kirsch lucidly explains in his recent book about Dis­raeli and Jew­ish iden­tity. First, Dis­raeli argued, in word and in deed, that there was no need to choose between Jew­ish­ness and Britishness—he could have both. Sec­ond, he hinted that his com­plex­i­ties and ambi­gu­i­ties of iden­tity, his sup­pos­edly trou­bling “for­eign­ness,” would be of ser­vice to the nation. His exotic traits added up to a fea­ture, not a bug. He could be both a British gen­tle­man and a con­juror with skills beyond the ken of mere gentlemen.”

“Yochai Ben­kler, who’s writ­ten at length about the eco­nom­ics of com­mons pro­duc­tion, pushes Heller for details, embrac­ing the idea of the anti­com­mons, but look­ing for spe­cific ways out: do we need more com­mons? lower trans­ac­tion costs? spot mar­kets that make it eas­ier to trans­act around prop­erty? Heller (cor­rectly?) sum­ma­rizes his ques­tion, “Very nice, but so what?” He offers a pos­si­ble way out: in cases of scarcity, pri­vate prop­erty makes sense, while in sit­u­a­tions with no scarcity, a com­mons model makes more sense. If it’s pos­si­ble to use tele­coms white­space in a non-​​rivalrous fash­ion, spec­trum should be a com­mons; if not, per­haps we need a more intel­li­gent form of pri­vate property.”