There are two key elements to ensuring that you are properly informed: (1) consult a range of sources that span the spectrum of perspectives on key issues, and (2) ensure the sources that you consult are reputable sources of news.  In order to have an intelligent opinion on any subject, you must be able to respond intelligently to criticisms of that argument. You cannot respond intelligently to criticisms of your position unless you understand how people with different perspectives view your position. To gain this understanding, you must listen to sources that present those perspectives fairly, honestly and in the best possible light. 

Fifty years ago, you could turn from one news program to another on the three major networks and get basically the same perspective on the news. Now, there are far more than three options for news.  Each source is likely to have its own editorial slant. The stories that are emphasized are often completely different, and the editorial slant given to the common stories are likely to be completely different.  

Sometimes there are good reasons for different media outlets to offer different perspectives on the same issue. After all, there are different ways of identifying the correct or optimal solution to any given challenge. As discussed in previous essays, we can identify different approaches to any issue—constitutional perspectives, arguments from various moral or religious perspectives, and efficiency argument. All may have merit while yielding different solutions. 
Because sources of news have become more politicized and polarized, it is necessary to consult multiple, reputable sources across the spectrum to get a fair and honest portrayal of opinions contrary to your own. It is often hard to watch programs that present the opposing view, but you should make a practice of monitoring news as it is portrayed by media outlets that make you uncomfortable. Take note of the stories they cover that your favorite channels do not cover, as well as how their coverage of common stories differs.  

Reputable news sources are sources that do not deal in falsehoods. If you are watching or reading a news source that continually broadcasts or publishes stories that are subsequently identified as misleading or false, then you should find a higher quality source for news. Often such sources are labelled as “tabloids” rather than newspapers. 

Some of my recommended sources for serious news are the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Economist, both the broadcasts and website for NPR.org, and the BBC.com. You will often find this set of sources will cover the same major stories. These sources are world famous, have different owners, and have a reason to preserve their credibility as a source of their competitive advantage. For that reason, you can often use these sources to judge the quality of other media outlets, and to identify significant omissions or editorial slants. 

Surveying coverage over a range of media outlets can also help hone your skills at identifying better and worse quality in media outlets. For instance, you can get a liberal slant on stories by watching CNN and a conservative slant by watching Fox News. When you compare coverage with a magazine like The Economist or an outlet like NPR.org, you are likely to notice when CNN and Fox spend their time covering different stories. You will notice when they give very different perspectives on issues and personalities, and develop a feel for what is more likely to be true.  

In sum, broadening the scope of your news intake to cover a range of sources will make you a better-informed citizen. You will be more prepared to defend your opinions because you will be familiar with opposing views. Over time, you will build up your ability to discern quality in media coverage of current events. ​

In the last blog, we concluded that people are not born free. Rather they are born into a condition of necessity that initially precludes freedom. From the outset, there is an irreducible element of social cooperation. Humans would never survive their relatively long and vulnerable childhood without some minimal level of social cooperation. However, the necessity of providing essential needs like food, shelter and protection precludes meaningful freedom until such time as social cooperation expands enough to allow for some specialization and a surplus of time within the social group.

Political philosophers differ in their ideas on the nature of the most basic social cooperation and how government evolves from it. Often, the differences in political philosophy arise from different assumptions about human nature. Some assume humans to be fundamentally good creatures. In this context, good is defined as accepting social cooperation as a foundational value and subordinating self interest enough of the time to prevent unnecessary harm to the group. On this model, good people will, if properly informed, comply with a natural law where all are treated equitably and none will resort to violence except in self defense. Others assume humans to be fundamentally selfish creatures who will use any means necessary, including violence, to ensure the most favorable distribution of social goods for themselves even if their actions put the group at risk. On this view, any social agreements are fundamentally coercive and the chief characteristic of government is power and the monopoly of violence. It seems likely that there is no definitive "human nature" corresponding to one or the other of these extremes, 

The thought experiment by which political philosophers justify their preferred form of government is to project their vision of human nature backwards to some imagined, pre-governmental state of nature. Various visions of human nature have led to different depictions of the state of nature and have been used to justify very different forms of government. Often, the presumption is that individuals surrender the "freedom" of the state of nature to enter into a government that is based on a social contract.

But as we noted previously, the imagined "freedom" of a pre-social state is a fiction. First, the idea of a pre-social state is itself an illusion because the long period of vulnerability associated with human childhood demands some minimal social cooperation as a starting point. We are inherently social animals. Second, what we commonly refer to as freedom arises only when social cooperation expands to the point where specialization is possible. Specialization increases efficiency in meeting basic needs, and a surplus of time allows individuals freedom to choose certain voluntary activities over the tasks that would otherwise be required to meet basic needs.

As the modes and methods of social cooperation become more complex (in order to generate more surplus time and resources), one function of government is to manage the complexity of social cooperation. Ideally this is undertaken with the goal of enabling the greatest amount of freedom and well-being possible for citizens. Another function is to arbitrate the inevitable conflict that arises among stakeholders in the course of cooperative endeavor. In order to be able to truly serve as the arbiter of conflict, the state must possess the authority to force compliance with its mandates. In other words, the state must have a monopoly on the use of force to support the law.

In the next essay, we'll consider the merits of our United States government in performing these functions.