I have the sudden urge to try a new nom de plume. Let’s see how it fits.
Dogma: an official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior, etc.; a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.
So far, this new identity fits pretty well. I will expand on the dogma that is in this mosquito:
1) I hold to the non-aggression principle as the only proper view regarding the use of force in society; this is based on an absolute commitment to the concept of private property.
a. The political philosophy that best fits my view is anarchy as described by Murray Rothbard and others who have further expanded on this tradition.
2) I support fully free markets for all transactions and relationships that are not in conflict with the non-aggression principle.
a. The economic school that most closely hews to a free market line is the Austrian School.
3) I believe that for a society to thrive – even survive – that governance (not government as it is known today) is required.
a. The concept of a society without hierarchy is bankrupt.
4) I believe this governance is best provided first by family and kin, thereafter extended to church, community, social and benevolent organizations and the like.
a. The European Middle Ages offers a reasonable example. There are others.
5) Voluntary governance is further extended via contract. The right to contract on any matter is absolute, as long as the object of the contract is not in violation of the non-aggression principle.
a. Beyond conformance to the NAP, I find it quite dangerous to draw an arbitrary line regarding valid and invalid objects of contract.
6) Contracts can come in many forms.
a. Where there is conflict between parties regarding the terms, written terms and/or customary practice take precedent. Any other view offers only chaos.
When I write about any topic (other than history, which requires facts) – economics, politics, war, libertarianism, etc. – I write based on this foundation. I have read little of any of the giants – I have come to virtually all of my views on these topics based on my firm conviction on the above items; I modify my views on these topics if I find my views to be in conflict with the above items.
Someday I might conclude that one or more of the above requires modification. So far, none of the above items have even been at minor risk of getting modified in any meaningful way.
Dogmatic? Guilty as charged. However, I don’t think I will change my pen name – it has grown on me. Just like my dogmatic beliefs.