Whose street? Our street!

So I've been a bit peeved at some of the responses towards the OWS movement, especially those coming out of  the Mises institute, lewrockwell types, Fox News, and generally right-wing sources. I'm particularly ashamed of the Anarcho-Capitalists who are supposed to be enemies of the state, and agitating for radical change, who are speaking out against this movement, by really emphasizing the "RIGHT" in right-libertarian.

Initially, I was opposed to it as well, but a few things changed my mind.

1. I realized I'm not a statist/corporatist prick
2. I realized I'm not a vulgar libertarian prick
3. I read more Kevin Carson
4. I saw the Occupy Oakland police beating

You see a lot of propagandist arguments coming out and being spread on the internet as well. For example, the one where they take a photo of  protesters, and label all the corporations that made all the stuff they're using. But for free market libertarians to use this argument? I mean, c'mon...

Just because the state monopolizes certain industries, and those industries develop products, doesn't mean that OTHER industries wouldn't have developed them independently if we had a free market. From people who are supposed to be against favoritism, privilege, and corporatism, this is a total double standard.

Or people who say, "I can't believe these guys want more government regulations! Can't they see the government police beating them up?"

Uh, yeah, it must've totally skipped their mind when they were being bludgeoned to death that these guys work for the government. That's their whole point; that government is giving special privilege to corporations and letting them pass on things that they shouldn't be doing.

Some arguments go as far as accusing protesters of being kids throwing tantrums because they want free stuff. Because, of course, kids are willing to put up with police beatings, pepper spray, and arrests because they want free stuff. Of course, this is just a flat-out strawman. They're not opposed to rich people, but to privilege. Corporations got rich because of state protection of various industries, and because they're able to externalize nearly every single cost to the taxpayers, rather than taking responsibility and eating them themselves.

And people make these mistakes because they have no idea how to interpret or look at this movement. What libertarians need to remember is that, regardless of the individual opinions of any occupier, they're protesting against the effects of statism, whether they know it or not.

They may not have the intelletual depth that we'd like, but what this proves is that the current power structure is both unsustainable, and un-populous. Compare it to the protests in Libya, Egypt, Iran, London, Greece, etc. all of which were started for economic reasons. This is much more comparable to that than anything the tea party has ever done. It's not because the Tea Party was "gun-totin' " conservatives that they were left alone. It's because they're not a threat and because they didn't agitate for any real change. They're arguing that Obama is an ideological Marxist, and that they oppose Obamacare, and higher taxes. All of them are reform proposals, coming from relatively privileged people, without any chance or danger to the status quo. Tea partiers are not anywhere near as willing to abolish anything.

Also, the "Occupy X" movement is not a centralized movement with a particular ideology anyways. Occupy Wall Street has some liberal/social democratic/regulatory state tendencies, but Occupy Oakland had a bunch of Anarcho-Syndicalists, and some places are filled with left-libertarians, and some even have Ron Paul "End the Fed" types.

But the most important reason for this movement is that it shows solidarity, especially solidarity among people who may not necessarily agree on everything philosophically. It proves that there is a resistance to the status quo, and that the ruling class has something to look out for in the future.

As far as the violence aspects go, like bricks going through banks... I mean, boohoo. You lost a window. It pales in comparison to the number of people's lives who were ruined because they had their money stolen from them in taxes, to bail out big banks, so that they could ask the government to protect property titles in houses that poor people were using and occupying, without ever actually producing a real title to the property. They were all sliced/diced and sold into giant hedgefunds, that they were able to make huge profits out of because of inflationary speculation bubble fuled by the fed! They ruin literally every aspect of our lives, and cry when somebody breaks a window?

Or the speculative education bubble, which is fueled by government subsidy, which allows educators to raise the price of tuition by externalizing the cost to taxpayers, or government subsidized student loans, which enslave students to abnormally high, inflated rates for education by also externalizing the costs to taxpayers.

All in all, what we see is a true popular movement, and the only objections are those that defend the status quo, from people who are usually arguing against it. Unless this double-standard is abolished, and libertarianism sees itself as a left-wing movement, our dream of a free society will never be realized.

Libertarian Presentation

A few weeks (months, maybe?) ago, Mr. Bond invited Cody to speak in front of the class about political issues and economics. Being the narcissist that I am, I couldn't allow Cody to keep the spotlight all to himself. So I asked Mr. Bond for the same opportunity... and got it!

So, that was on the 4/26/11 which is now yesterday at the time of the writing of this post.

This is how I felt it turned out:


1. I felt like I really wasn't particularly effective in explaining the 'Libertarian Rights argument' and why it would imply a minimal 'watchman' state like the one Bastiat described in, "The Law" (thank you, Mr. Chiou, for that recommendation all that time ago... brilliant read).

2. When discussing the war on drugs, I never got to the actual CONSEQUENCES of such a policy. I had told the class that there were TWO ways of thinking about issues, but in my 'Libertarianism applied' section; consequential and moral. Here is a copy/paste of the quickest consequential argument against the war on drugs that I posted as a response to one of the students over facebook:

"Austin Reddy: 

bah, I barely got anywhere with anything!

I didn't even get to talk about supply/demand curves (which make my heart swell... that is, when I don't mix them up) and how the war on drugs shifts the supply curve, while leaving the demand curverelatively untouched.

Because of this, being a drug dealer is INCREDIBLY profitable (which is why drug dealers become millionaires) and it becomes justifiable to use violence, bribe officials, etc. to sell drugs. That's why during alcohol prohibition, you had people like Al Capone who were having gang wars in the streets.

One of the consequences of the war on drugs is higher crime rates.

I DIDN'T GET TO SAY IT :("

Indeed, I did not get to say it. Foreign policy, on the other hand, was almost completely skimped except for a two minute Ron Paul video. I love this video, though.

All I can write for now!

Ayn Rand's atlas shrugged

It's not a great movie. Sorry. Ayn Rand held uncompromising views, so I think it's only fair that I hold the movie inspired by her books to the highest scrutiny (or, at least, very high).

First, though, some of the things that the movie had done right. The blatant right-wing view was REFRESHING. To see the politicians, and the political entrepreneurs for the criminals they are; and to see the businessmen, or the REAL entrepreneurs for the heroes they are was rewarding. I enjoyed seeing a movie that makes fun of the leftist notion that capitalists are the evil bourgeois pigs who make society worse off. Instead, it portrays them as producers and creators; the people who make society run. The whole "Equalization of Opportunity bill" was hilariously accurate; and the over-bearing self-righteous altruism of leftists was exposed for the facade of intellectually empty worldviews that it is.

With that done, here is the bad. I'll admit, my complaints may seem a little lofty, and I am no professional in the film-making industry, but I judge movies based on how much more alive they make me feel. Also, mind you, I haven't read the book, which may explain why I may not have found it so invigorating.

The first issue I had was that the pacing of the story-telling seemed chopped up in short bursts. The flow was constantly interrupted with some sort of writing or announcement that explained who the characters were, or the constant dates of when a person "disappeared".

Also, it seemed to emphasize parts which were irrelevant, and skip past parts that were much more interesting. Two examples that pop into mind is the "anniversary party" which seemed to last forever, and the part where the heroes of the story find the prototype for an engine. In movies, particularly, there are certain toolkits available to a story-teller such as the cinematography which seemed to be underutilized. Stylistically, the movie seemed incredibly mediocre.

The characters themselves, as I've seen many critiques complain, were incredibly underdeveloped. One thing I realized while reflecting later on was that I felt no real connection to any of the characters. Whether that was because of the poor story-telling, or because the characters themselves are unattractive, I'm not sure. Especially the two heroes, who seem to have incredibly unhappy lives; with no real connection to the people around them except profit. As uncompromising free market as I am, this really does not portray the beauty of the system to be lonely and hedonistic. The "love affair" to me was incredibly grotesque, but it didn't seem like the directors/producers even took the time to romanticize the affair.

And I think that characterizes the whole movie. NOTHING was romanticized; everything felt as flat as my walls.

Movies are more than aesthetically pleasing; but have the option of setting the mood and telling the story in numerous ways. The sound and music, which was painfully lacking in Atlas Shrugged, the cinematography, acting, dialogue, character development, etc... It felt as though the directors didn't even think about these aspects, and what they convey in the story.

Take, for example, one of my favorite movies, the first "Lord of the Rings" film. The music was brilliant, the acting was brilliant, cinematography was brilliant, and the relationship between the characters was PHENOMENALLY brilliant.  The brotherhood that Sam and Frodo felt made me long for better friendships in my own life. The open-ended adventure made me long for adventures in my own life. The quest and purpose made me want to examine the purpose of my own life. This was because all the parts of the whole produced a brilliant film, where the music, acting, dialogue, etc. worked together to convey the larger picture.

Atlas Shrugged was overbearingly mediocre in this regard.

So, I would say, I am glad that a movie that emphasizes real entrepreneurship over political entrepreneurship is out there. However, the movie itself was incredibly underdone, underpolished, and really needed a whole lot of work overall.

2/5 austinian stars.

Oh, sweet irony -- my day today

There's no word but "ironic" to describe this blogpost since my last discussed the infrequency of my postings, and this one is posted right afterwards.

Another reason for the infrequency, however, is because, while I may be thinking about philosophical subjects, I tend to avoid recording them. This will not be the case for this post.

Two things; both sprouting from discussions I've been thinking about in school.

About two days ago, I started my second semester in community college taking "Art Appreciation", "Macroeconomics", and "History of Religion in America." Of course, all three of these hit very close to my heart; the last two for obvious reasons. Art, in my opinion, is the aesthetical representation of philosophical values, which is why it is a topic of consideration, as well.

1. In Macroeconomics, we were discussing the definition of GDP, and the purpose of studying economics and the professor posed the following question.

"If population grows by 5% and GDP only grows by 3%, is this a good thing?"

I think it would be a temptation, especially for mainstream economists, to say that it is not because the economy isn't growing "fast enough" to sustain the population growth. To me, this is a fallacy. GDP growth does not equal a sustainable or "healthy" economy.

This fallacy buds from a simplistic view of capital. Austrians identified a concept called "Capital structure". Some goods are closer to consumer goods (lower in the capital structure) than other goods. Goods higher in the capital structure are more "capital intensive", in that they take a longer time to produce profitable yields. An example of a consumer good would be a can of coke. An example of a "capital intensive" good would be the aluminum used to make the can (or the ingredients in the soda itself). These goods have to be produced, and are bought by manufacturing firms, etc. but they are not directly sold to the consumer in most cases.

Consider these examples by economist Robert Murphy; if we spent every penny of capital in the nation on tractors, GDP would rise, however we'd all starve to death because we didn't buy any food. Or, if we produced hammers, but no nails.

If your view of capital only looks at the number, you miss the long term effects of a policy. This is the reason why so many mainstream economists missed the housing market crash; they only saw the GDP growth during the boom period, but they ignored the inevitable bust.

"The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate, but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group, but for all groups." -- Henry Hazlitt, the one lesson

2. In my "History of Religion in America" class, we were discussing the Lutheran reformation, and its theology, and Calvinist theology. While much of it was very accurate, some of it was a caricature of what Calvinists actually believe.

The issue here is that he misrepresented views on free agency vs. free will, and misrepresented views of predestination and the assurance of salvation. One comment the professor made about Calvinists was that they spend their time trying to figure out who is "truly elect" when, in reality, we know that those who are elect are granted faith, by the grace of God, which grants salvation.

And so I'll leave you with Romans 9 to consider.

Hope to post more, soon!

 

 

I'm back!

When I started this blog, I figured I would be updating it regularly, which I've failed to do. I know (or, I hope, I should say) that somebody somewhere is disappointed, so I will try to make an effort to be more frequent on updates.

The issue is, however, that I feel my style and tone are underdeveloped, and that impedes what I'm willing to actually publish on a semi-formal basis. I've noticed this issue with everyday discussions as well, where I'm a little "off-game" as it were. Hopefully, reading Hazlitt, Austen, Tolkein, and Lewis will remedy this. If any bookworms want to recommend stylistic authors, please post below! How sad it is to never receive comments on a blog such as this.

Now, to be consistent with my inner-narcissist, I have to talk a little bit about a few thoughts that have been troubling me. This is MY blog, after all.

As I've said before, something I noticed is that the more I learn, the more I find out how little I know. When asked to defend my views, I notice a delay (sometimes very long) before I am able to respond to the answer. This becomes worse with things such as very philosophical questions such as, "what is your epistemological basis for using praxeology to study economics?" or "how can anarchy work in a fallen world?"

These are, of course, incredibly complex questions, but even things such as "gun control" or "health care" give me a second of pause before I can produce an answer.

Also, I've had some requests to discuss a few items. Hopefully, I will be posting a blog post on ending drug prohibition and decriminalizing all drugs for recreational use (a topic that turned me to libertarianism in the first place). The other item is much more broad, and it is a defense of the libertarian worldview in an anarcho-capitalist flavor, while maintaining its validity. This request comes from my former English teacher, as well as a few friends who would like to see a presentation on the issue.

So, all in all, this is why my updates have been so infrequent. These are questions that, I believe, take a lifetime (if not generations) of scholarship to fully understand and answer.

more faulty foreign policy

For the past week, I've been following the American intervention in the Libyan civil war by imposing a no-fly zone, and enforcing it with bombings. There are three fundamental flaws that I see with this style of intervention. Since I've posted it on facebook before, I'll simply copy and paste them here.

‎1. First of all, if we're talking about American dollars and (soon) American lives, it should be in the American people's interest. Anything else is an initiation of force without just cause.

2. It also is not in Libya's interest. In order to establish a deterrent in Iraq and Afghanistan, we had to create a long-term presence, and it still didn't work. Karzai's government is ridden with corruption. Of course, this is nothing new, as we saw in Vietnam, Korea, etc.

Force and guns do not create sustainable societies. Only trade, diplomacy, and setting an example can.

3. There is also the concept of Blowback. Our meddling in the affairs of others has not helped the image of America in the Muslim mind as an imperialist superpower, which was further not helped by the fact that we supported these regimes (Mubarak and Qaddafi) for decades. Al Qaeda's stated goals were the removal of these dictators and the removal of the state of Israel.

The political side shows even more hypocrisy as pundits on the right question the prudence of this war (even though they supported similar intervention under Bush) and pundits on the left who support the war (even though they opposed similar intervention under Bush).

What this conflict shows, however, is the left, just like the right, has no interest in a true non-interventionist foreign policy, which they demanded from the Republicans. Congressmen Kucinich (D-OH) went on Fox News and quoted a candidate Barrack Obama saying the following:


"The president does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
Libertarians: still waiting for a true anti-war movement.

philosophy pt.2, take two

This post will replace the previous "part 2" post on philosophy that I had. I've reexamined my thinking on this issue and figure that I would like  to be more specific on what I am saying.

I've been reading a book by philosopher Stefan Molyneux called Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof for Secular Ethics. I haven't finished reading the book, but I think I have a pretty good grasp of the libertarian rights theorist (LRT from now on) justification for a body of ethic.

One important thing to note about the LRT is that it's essentially a form of neo-nihilism, and you can see that from the title of Molyneux's book, "preferable".

The argument goes as follows. An individual has self-ownership, or the most legitamte claim to ownership of his own body over any other individual. One might ask why a rock does not own itself, and the LRT-ist might say it is because a rock is not a rational, conscience decision maker. However, regardless, this right to self-ownership is universal, because no rational justification can be given for one person to have these rights, but not another.

"If A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B.--why may not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A?--

You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own.

You do not mean color exactly? You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.

But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest; you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you."

- Lincoln

Now, an issue comes with Hume's is-ought problem, which states that you cannot derive an "ought" statement from an "is" statement, which is called Hume's guillotine. An example of this is the Biological Imperative. The argument is that there is no rational link between the two.

However, if I said I wish to go to east Washington, it would be perfectly rational to say you "ought to travel East".

So, let's take everything so far into account and try to see how the LRT ethic would work.

Self-ownership (the idea that you have the most legitimate claim to your person) is universal to all men, because it's impossible to justify any other sort of ethic. However, simply because you own yourself (is) does not mean that people should respect your property rights (ought).

However, if you're a murderer, you have no reason to ask people to protect your property rights. Since most people want their property rights protected (universally preferable), most people will accept other's property rights, or risk being ostracized from society!

If I understand correctly, that was the basis of Locke's "social contract" theory, that I went over last time. However, in my opinion, the validity or necessity of such a thing could be disputed.

Regardless, this ethic gives a very powerful basis for natural rights; not because we're obliged to nature or universality, but because we prefer, ourselves, to be protected.

A Christian may interpret this ethic for his own, however, and say that all property rights belong to God, and, if one wishes to please God, he should obey his ethic. Not because it guarantees us salvation, but because we love God, and wish to serve him and act out his word.

There is also stewardship, and dominion over the land. God wishes for us to use and protect and allocate our resources properly. Socialism has been shown as a waste of resources; therefore, socialism violates the dominion mandate.

We respect individualism, and prefer voluntary, non-coercive engagements because of respect for God's property. The debate between the Libertarian atheist and the Libertarian Christian is now rests on the existence of God, and the implication of his son's death. It is an argument over aesthetics; over what is beautiful. Christians must content, therefore, that Christ is beautiful, and is the greatest ally we could have.

philosophy

A few conundrums have popped in my head; but before I can explore them, I'll have to explain a little bit about my view on property rights.

John Locke derived his "life, liberty and property" are unalienable rights from a single axiom; self-ownership He saw that we must have the most legitimate claim to our person, giving us life and liberty. Objects outside our body were considered unowned, and we would appropriate them to our person with the first-occupier homestead rule, which states that the first person to homestead an object by mixing his labor with it, has the most legitimate claim to that object; giving us property.

In his view, these were natural rights awarded to men, but that we give some rights up in a "social contract" (ugh, I hate that term) to the government for protection services. 

Frederic Bastiat further expanded on this idea, and explained in his work "The Law", and explained that the government, by definition, is the initiation of force, which is only justified in order to protect justice, or defer injustice. Therefore, the government cannot protect both justice and something. If it protects justice and philanthropy or justice and morality, or education, or welfare, then, by definition, it is using force for something that is not injustice, and therefore is injustice itself. He describes this as the process of legal plunder; where the law is taken and turned on its head, and used for something contrary to the law. This is embodied in the Libertarian "non-aggresion principle/axiom".

"The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!"

This is why, in the Libertarian view, it would be immoral for the government to provide any services beyond protection, and why it has an obligation to be as small as it could possibly be. (For example, this would be why Libertarians will say it is immoral to throw sick people who use drugs in jail where over 80% are raped, brutalized, etc.)

Murray Rothbard held the view that "all rights are property rights" and that rights to free speech are not independent rights, but are an extension of the fact that you own your body. Rothbard also argued for 100% self-ownership, and viewed that this is the only justifiable rational ethic for man. From this, he viewed the state as nothing more than a "gang of robbers writ large"; an organization with the legal monopoly over the initiation of the use of force.

I'll continue this topic in a future post; regarding some implications for Christian ethics, and my attempt to show how these two viewpoints are not only not contradictory, but are logical outgrowths of each other.

A lot of topics I've been ignoring

I put a lot of thought before I put up this blogpost, with the result that I've missed a lot of opportunities to cover certain current events. Rather than cry over spilled milk, however, I'll just review them quickly here.

So, Mitt Romney wins the CPAC straw poll with 22%! Please, gag me now. What I'm referring to is the blantant dishonesty of Fox news, and their inability to accept both Ron Paul's influence and, in order, the growing influence of Libertarian ideology on the Republican party.

Another big event was the resignation of Hozni Mubarek as Egyptian president. One concern raised is the influence of the radical Islam in the new government. But, for those of us so inclined,, the issue is not new to us. The radical groups have been, ironically enough, telling the Muslim people the truth; that their repressive dictators have been backed and funded by the U.S. and Israel. Whether, going forward, more meddling in the affairs of others is a reasonable policy decision, I'll save for your judgement. However, this is not an isolated case, and is a recurring theme all across the Middle Eastern world.

If you have an opinion, comment below! The more feedback the better.

WARNING: not much work put into this post

I figured I'd use this blog to cover much more technical subjects (property rights, epistemology, ethics, and, of course, economics) but, I seem to develop a serious writer's block whenever I dig into any of those. I've had Facebook notes on the subject, which is what prompted me to start this blog, but I'll have to save them for a later date.

However, this last week, I've been able to engage quite a few people in a debate. The first was in a library. As I was walking by, I heard an older man discussing the unfunded liabilities, and how our government is headed on an unsustainable path. I figured, "Hooray! Somebody I can agree with!" It turns out, however, that, despite being very conservative, we had more to disagree on than to agree on. We covered health care, neutrality laws, the necessity of the federal government, secession, and the necessity of the Federal Reserve.

That one did not end in my favor. As I blurted my arguments, I realized that I had lost my systematic edge. Eventually, we were cut short as I had an errand to run.

Later that week, I had a discussion with my pastor, and I brought along a friend of mine from my math class, who I had enticed into a discussion about epistemology in economics (giving a defense for the a priori that Austrian economics pronounces). That became much more fruitful.

My own views on property rights (that they are axiomatic, universal, etc.) came into heavy dispute. So, it seems I'll have to go back to the drawing board there and re-evaluate where I was inarticulate.

However, my pastor did introduce a few new concepts to me, namely "Christian Reconstructionism" and "Theonomy". More on that in the future.

You can expect, in the coming weeks, that I will discuss these topics in greater detail. Until then, I think I'll take a break.

Well, this is going splendid

I've already managed to get over 20 views on my page! Is that some sort of milestone? Somebody call Guinness.

No? Well, looks like I'll have to keep posting until I can trick more of you into liking me.

So, one of my concerns when I started this blog was if my ability to put my ideas into words in concise and interesting updates. It was mainly going to be used for free-market economics, libertarian political theory, philosophy, etc. But I think I'm going to start off with an update about, well, me. Narcissistic? Oh well.

I've been thinking a lot about these very important issues for the past few years (especially in the last few months), so I think I'll take a different approach. I'll take this blog post as an opportunity to talk about all the TV shows I've watched since I graduated high school. I'm rather lazy, so there have been a lot.

Now, I know this may seem a little pretentious, and I'm not a particularly keen observer or interpreter of TV shows, but hey! This is the second post to a blog. I figure if I'll see if I like it. And YEAH, these are going to be shows that have been out for a while, and probably thoughts you've already thought about it. Good for you. I still need a practice in writing.

***SPOILER ALERT*** 

I'll be discussing the plot details of the stories of the shows, so only read ahead if you've already watched the show, or couldn't care less about being aware of the plotline.

Dexter was one of the first, and I found every bit of the acting superb. At first, I was a little annoyed at the psedo-philosophical musings and persecution complex of a deranged killer. But the show is not about a simple serial killer rationalizing his murders, but a person who is developing, very slowly, emotions and feelings for the people around him.

Another key aspect of the show is the question of his identity. At the end of the first season, he is confronted with the question of his true family. Is it the Mousers, where his only connection is his serial killing brother? Or is it the Morgans, whose ties include his sister Debra and stepfather Harry. 

In the second season, he is confronted with whether he is the bay harbor butcher, or the dark defender.

In the third season, he is confronted with whether or not he can ever have a meaningful friendship.

In the fourth season, he is confronted with whether or not he can ever stop killing.

In the fifth season , he is confronted with his wife's death..

****

So what we see, throughout the show, is the evolution of a character portrayed beautifully by Michael C. Hall.  The acting is SO minute, and his facial expressions, vocal expressions, are so precise and realistic. Dexter is not merely an impersonal serial killer but someone who is truly traumatized, asking very difficult questions.

Hello World!

This is, in a word, amazing. The "new media" has revolutionized the way we communicate every bit as much as Gutenberg's printing press. It's clear that communication mediums like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. have become central parts of the way keep up with real, news events on a level that has never been seen before, or expected, as the past Iranian protests have demonstrated.

So, here we are, in our brave new world, where any individual can be a published author for close to nothing in cost (and even be paid for it!) And that is why, on this platform, I have decided to start this blog.

In the past few years, I have started an interest in understanding philosophy and economics. But I have discovered that the more I know, the more I know how little I know. However, my greatest teacher has been reflection, and I am hoping that this will both be an outlet for my own benefit, but also for others to share and gain in what I am learning, as well. Collaboration is the growth of civilization.

Hopefully, over time, these posts will become more frequent and more natural. In the meantime, you'll have to bear with me as I iron out the issues. But, I hope you like it, and I hope you enjoy your stay. :)