The free-market energy blog MasterResource turns three years old today. On December 26, 2008, the blog started on the strength of several noted free market scholars buying into a ‘movement’ blog instead of an institution-specific one. A thank you at this reflective time goes to Ken Green (AEI), Marlo Lewis (CEI), and Jerry Taylor (Cato), in particular.
MasterResource views stand at 1.1 million. While not a megablog, ours is a high-quality contribution to the current energy debate–and a resource for the historical record (our extensive index categories number 380).
We have published approximately 914 posts from approximately 115 authors. Some are widely published; others are talented amateurs who have chosen to do what the ‘experts’ choose not to do: uncover the problems of politically correct energies. Comments from our loyal, sophisticated readership add substance to many of the in-depth posts.
And we have achieved critical mass; Google an energy-policy-related term with ‘MasterResource,’ and there we usually are!
MasterResource has covered a variety of energy issues on the state, federal, and sometimes international level. But our most active area has been the growing backlash against industrial wind turbines. MasterResource is a leading voice for citizens, environmentalists, and small-government advocates who have united against this intrusive, uneconomic, sub-quality, government-enabled electricity source.
Our content is for the future, not only the present. We are not shrill, and our contributors are wed to reality, not wish-it-and-it-can-happen postmodernism.
MasterResource has become a ‘go-to’ blog in a number of key areas:
MasterResource advances the ideas of Julian Simon (1932–1998), the scholar who changed his mind about Malthusianism after reviewing the data and became a guiding light for realism and ensuing optimism.
Good Tone, Open Scholarship
MasterResource welcomes opposing views in our comments. We do not block critical comments except when couched in spite and argument ad hominem.
Economist Peter Boettke’s approach to scholarly discourse resonates with us. “As we engage in debate with our intellectual adversaries,” he has stated, “we should remember three core rules of engagement:”
(1) the principle of charitable interpretation — always give your opponent the best interpretation of their argument and motives;
(2) adopt a value neutral analytical approach — strictly take ends as given and limit your analysis to the effectiveness of chosen means to those given ends; and
(3) always try to find common ground with your opponents with respect to intellectual curiosity and not necessarily policy conclusions.
How can MasterResource improve? Would you like to post with us? Your submissions and comments are welcomed. Feel free to contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Prior Activity Reports
Opening post/comments (December 26, 2008)