What This Blog Is

Any blog is going to be colored by the person writing it, and I make no bones about my personal viewpoint.  With that said, here are my views:

Blog Intro--Pic

  1. Personal freedom is sacred
  2. Most voluntary interactions makes both parties better off. Government is not voluntary.
  3. People are often irrational. I know too many psychologists to claim otherwise.
    Some people use this as a justification for bigger government. But it’s the reverse. After all, if you knew 535 irrational, nepotistic, often emotional Congressmen with revisionist memories (i.e. 535 humans) were going to run our country, would you want them to have more power over your life? Or less?
  4. Market distortions have unintended consequences. These are bad.
  5. Non-Aggression PolicyAnd the two most important:
  6. We use debate to become better informed. I’ve changed my views before when they became inconsistent with the facts, and I will again. If you disagree with me, prove you’re right. I’ll keep an open mind and expect the same courtesy.
  7. As a nation, we deserve intelligent, reasoned discourse. The issues we’re dealing with are complex. We deserve facts and reason, not deranged cries from the right, or cheap propaganda from the left.

If you disagree with any of the first 5 principles, feel free to stick around. Intelligent debate is how we move our country forward.

If you disagree with the last 2, please find another blog. My time is precious, and I have no desire to waste it arguing with nutjobs who think Obama’s a Muslim terrorist or that all Republicans are either wealthy or stupid. Been there, done that.  But, if you’re looking for intelligent, reasoned consideration of the issues at hand: welcome. I’m glad you’re here.

About these ads

2 thoughts on “What This Blog Is

  1. Thom A

    Great first post, Julian! I agree that personal freedom is sacred, but even that must be modified when living in a collective. For the sake of social order we have to obey traffic signals, not threaten others or steal their stuff to name a few ways we need to curtail our freedom. Also, in a representative democracy laws are reached be consensus. So we voluntarily consent to the government, as much as it may chafe us at times.
    What do mean by a Non-Agression Policy specifically?

    Reply
    1. julianlibertarian Post author

      Thanks! I would agree that we need to *rarely* sacrifice personal freedom for the collective, but not for any of the reasons listed above. Traffic lights, like non-interstate (or possibly interstate) roads could be privatized; John Stossel provides some good examples in (ignore the 1st minute, which is overgeneralizing crap). Choosing to obey traffic lights put together by the free market isn’t a violation of freedom any more than choosing to buy bananas from King Soopers, for the precise reason that both involve a choice and a voluntary action by consumers (as opposed to government, which is rarely voluntary). If you don’t like traffic lights, you are free to find a competing road that doesn’t have them; but government roads don’t offer this choice. To look at your other two examples: you don’t ever have a right to threaten others or steal; that involves a violation of others’ rights, not an exercise of your own. So agreeing to not steal or threaten actually, from a classic libertarian philosophy, doesn’t involve a modification of your rights; these rights didn’t exist to begin with.

      Laws should indeed be reached by consensus, but my position is that our laws (and, by extension, the powers of our law-makers) need to be sharply constrained. A representative democracy, after all, involves 51% of the populace electing 535 people to make decisions with 100% of the populace’s money. A representative democracy is a great thing, but I think we’ve strayed into the ‘tyranny of the majority'; just because a law is reached by a 51% consensus does not make it just.

      The Non-Aggression Policy means simply: don’t initiate violence. You may respond to aggression, but not initiate it. On the personal level, this means that, if someone mugs me, I’m perfectly at liberty to defend myself; but I can’t throw the first punch just because I think they *might* do something aggressive to me in the future. On a nationwide policy level, this means that the US can defend itself against a legitimate attack (for example, WWII), but not initiate violence against countries that haven’t attacked us (WWI).

      Reply

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