Introduction

This blog is the culmination of many years of pondering over philosophical, social, and political questions. I have looked at many of these issues from many perspectives and I have sought to challenge my views openly by discussing these issues with others. Thus I have arrived at most of my views after protracted consideration on most of these topics. With that said, I look to always challenge my views further through this project. If you disagree with any of the arguments that I have produced, I encourage you to challenge them in a way that is civil and well articulated. I consider the greatest intellectual cowardice the inability to challenge one’s own beliefs. The ability to admit that one is incorrect is the gold standard for intellectual honesty, and a reliable indication of the strength of one’s character.

I have been thinking about starting a blog for the better part of five years now. I’m certainly glad that I have waited as long as I have to do this. I was far too ignorant on a number of issues in those days, and I’ve done little other than learn and think on these subjects in the interim. There is much that I still don’t know, but with the level of discourse I have seen in recent years, I am not bothered by this. Public discourse has sunk to a state so abysmally low that I believe anyone who has done any amount of serious research, is intellectually honest, and has a reasonable grasp of logic is qualified to write on social and political issues. From both sides of the political spectrum we see intellectual bankruptcy. On the left we have arguments as thoroughly refuted as the gender wage gap wielding serious political clout and emotionalism shrouded in a guise of absurd intellectualism. On the right we have a complete failure to produce any real kind of intellectual or even viable response to these challenges, or even to produce any independent stances. The epitome is to be found in the intellectual oblivion of Trump. With the bar set so amazingly low, I am not very worried about whatever errors I will make.

I am an economist by training, and that’s what I would have liked this blog to primarily be about. In the current political climate, however, it is far more important that I stick primarily to the political and social. I shall occasionally delve into the realm of economics, but it will not be the central focus of this blog. Instead, I shall focus, first and foremost, on trying to promote rational discussion of political and social topics. This comes in two forms. The first is talking about how to sensibly discuss and think about issues in general. The second is talking about specific policies that are better at actually achieving their goals, and thus make more sense to talk about. An example of the first might be how to expose contradictions in an argument. An example of the second (and a favorite of mine) would be talking about school choice as a means of directly aiding the poor in the long run, while still increasing national productivity. Given how awful modern discussion is, I want to help put discourse back on a more sensible footing.

Another central focus of this blog will be promoting a social and political philosophy of individualism, which is my own view and philosophy. I will consistently pit this against what I see as the highly collectivistic and dehumanizing impulses of modern social thought. These three subjects will make up most content produced. I am also likely to write occasional short thoughts, book reviews, funny anecdotes, and just about anything that I want to write about at the time, although this will never be the majority of content produced. It is my intention to label the type of content that I am putting out so readers don’t waste their time reading something that they are uninterested in. While the tone of the blog will usually be reasoned, polite, and straightforward, my amazing sense of humor and razor sharp wit will occasionally inject some strong sarcasm and humor into what I’m writing.   

I refuse to argue definitively in favor of an explicit political party, or even any established political philosophy beyond a basic individualism, in the sense that I use the term. I tend very much towards classical liberalism and moderate libertarianism. In the past my views have been very radical, and to an extent they still are. This is highly dependent upon the situation, however. Even if one promotes a small military in principle, 1939 France would have likely been a poor place to enact this policy. To argue that any should adopt specific ideologies is against the purpose of this blog. I am primarily seeking to establish rational discussion, logical thinking, and an understanding between parties. More prescriptive argumentation is for a time when discussion is more sensible and well established. I will, however, attack ideologies that I believe to be indisputably false, with highly internally inconsistent beliefs. For argumentation to be logical, that which is indisputably illogical must be thrown out or fundamentally altered.

I am sure that my biases will inevitably come through, but I will seek to correct this whenever possible, and I am always appreciative to those who challenge me.

Finally, I suppose that I must admit, in the current social and political climate, that I am a white male. If you believe this to be a primary argument against what I have to say, then what you are probably already beyond reason.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s