I had a conversation recently that has prompted me, once
again, to revisit this topic.
As regular readers are aware, this blog moves in various
directions: libertarian / political theory and application, culture, history, war,
empire, and economics – and probably in this (declining) order. It isn’t really a strategy to ensure the
reader a focused space on which to land.
Almost from the beginning of this blog and the journey that
it documents, I decided to (well, “decided to” isn’t really the right term as
it implies an active decision; let’s say I unconsciously fell into a pattern of)
not read(ing) much about libertarian theory or economics. On these subjects, I adopted the practice of
working my way through a problem as opposed to having someone else tell me the
answer.
I find this quite enjoyable and easy. Enjoyable, because it drives me to think
critically about a problem; easy, because…
Libertarian theory: it is the non-aggression principle. Understand this and you can work through
almost any political problem.
Economics: let’s just say my version of economics is
libertarian theory put into practice – a free market order that respects
private property and contract. I didn’t come
to this economic view because I am a fan of Austrian Economics; I am a fan of
Austrian Economics because I hold this economic view – and Austrian Economics
comes the closest to being a free-market, private-property respecting economics
school.
On the other topics…
Libertarians
and Culture: I came to this topic after bionic was already several years
old. I was writing a lot about
left-libertarians and how they were destroying the meaning of the NAP. Someone challenged me to take on Hoppe in the
same manner. So I read some of Hoppe…and
decided Hoppe was right…well, correct…and right! Once I had this “aha” moment, I have gone on
to develop my own views on the topic – as best as one is able to do such a
thing.
History, empire and war: these are different – most
of my reading is on these topics.
How can I write about any of this, or put a story together, without
getting names, dates, events, etc.? I
have dedicated a significant time to my Timeline to War (here and here)
as an attempt to integrate this.
So I was speaking with a couple of people the other day –
they were shocked to learn how little I have read of Mises and Rothbard
(albeit, I am changing that as it regards Rothbard – but not on economics). It
was kind of stunning to them, given my professed support for the Mises Institute.
But why is this so surprising? Why would I not be supportive of an Institute
with which I find almost complete agreement on all of the above topics on which
I choose to write? Why would I not
support an Institute whose mission is to spread these ideas both through an
encyclopedic online platform and through expansive outreach to students of all
ages? To spread these ideas with a much
larger reach than anything a mosquito can accomplish?
Frankly, it would surprise me if I didn’t support such an
Institute. I am glad I found it.
"Why I read what you write..."
ReplyDelete--Ron Colson
HA!
Delete(first comment here).
ReplyDeleteI'm not attracted to your organization of topics. I'm attracted to your thinking style. Be as disorganized as you want, your thought process seems to remain the same. Keep it up!
Thank you, Sherlock.
DeleteYou do have an unusual perspective on many topics, a perspective that makes me think. I tend to read everything you write these days, even if I don't comment. So keep writing. I'll keep reading : )
ReplyDeleteWhat he said... ;-)
Delete