Non-Aggression Principle

A New Democracy

Tis the season to become frustrated with politics, and this election season has got me thinking about the nature of democracy.

In its pure form, everyone votes on everything. This scales poorly, so we have representative democracy, where we vote for people who then vote on our behalf.

The problem I see is that we're to judge them based largely on policy ideas. These are in areas where it takes a long time to become an expert in one area and learning enough to make informed decisions about all areas is impossible. The system can't help but gather the popular, ignorant notion of what the right solution is to a very complex and difficult problem. We don't have infinite time or motivation for every citizen to become experts in every area. It isn't the voters' fault, none of them can live up to that expectation.

Here, then, is my pipe dream.

Instead of voting for representatives based on what they'll do for us (or to other people), we have the debate around priorities and restrictions. Very high level, here are some examples off the top of my head:

• Do we want to have a social safety net?
• Should we continue to be the dominant military power in the world?
• Do we want to be one of the countries exploring (and long term, exploiting) space?

And so on.  Once we've determined what we want to do, we prioritize and allocate resources. Finally, we determine the boundaries of what we're willing to have our government do in order to fulfil these priorities. Is torture okay? How do we treat our citizens, permanent residents, human beings in general? How about the environment?

Once we've got these three things determined, as a democracy:

1. What we want to do
2. How any resources we want to devote to it
3. What means are acceptable and unacceptable

... we hand it over to scientists, engineers, and others who are results driven rather than politics driven. We've made all the decisions already that are reasonably made by a political process, that is where you have differing opinions and agendas. Once we're through that process and decide something needs to be done, here are the resources to do it, and here is your list of dos and don'ts, now it is about determining the best way(s) to accomplish the goal and make the best decision under the circumstances.

This is the arena of evidence-based social policy, science, technocrats, and so on. The men and women who actually know what they're doing, who are the experts in the fields. We need to free them up to make incredible things happen by having clarity about what we as a people want them to do and then let them do it.

Hold them responsible for their work, certainly. Fight corruption, incompetence, abuse of power, etc. Oversight, checks and balances, the fourth estate, we need all of this. And those jobs are much easier when the parameters of what is expected are clear.

Then we just let. them. do. it.

A TED Talk On Science Addressing Morality

Core Non-Aggression.com Concepts

This site will cover two big major and two minor areas, in an attempt to bring them closer together in a way that helps us determine the nature of reality and humanity: Philosophy, Science, and as the mood takes me, Business and Economics.

The core assumption for the Philosophical discussion is that the ethical code of the Non-Aggression Principle is the foundation for optimal social organization and human interaction.  I will approach that assumption from two angles:

• Determine the logical, ethical, and moral consequences of that assumption
• Test that it is an accurate description of reality

Scientifically, I want to point the "freedom movement", such as it is, away from conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, woo-wooers, Cargo Cult  Science, and Apocalypse Tomorrow and towards fully understanding reality as it really is.  The universe really exists, it works in a way we can understand, there are things we are pretty sure we understand and others we need to learn more about.

Heading the wrong way just makes us more out of touch with the world as it will be tomorrow. 

Understanding reality make more wealth for more people, more things possible that aren't today, and generally brings about that Better Tomorrow we claim to be interested in politics to achieve.

I will also talk about Business and Economics because these are the areas that the freedom minded often claim to understand so well, and yet suck at so badly.  I believe in order to change the game you have to understand it, not just point and say it isn't fair, is rigged, or isn't the way it should ideally be.  Furthermore, wealth is a tool for creating change, and having principled people who embrace reality can influence the world to make us more successful.

We must test our assumptions, try to prove them wrong, focus on reality and not what reality we'd prefer, and have intellectual honesty.

I will accept all constructive criticism, corrections, and discussion.  This is a forum for discovery, not a pulpit.  If I'm wrong, I'll correct it.  Where I'm imprecise, I'll elaborate.  As we come to a peer reviewed consensus (or the equivalent that we are able to achieve under the circumstances) I will highlight our best understandings.

I firmly believe that more progress is made by being wrong and understanding why than being right and not knowing how.

Where I attempt to make claims, especially scientific, I will provide what references I can and see if I can get someone knowledgeable (and generous with their time) to review it.

Introduction to NonAggression.Org

I have been uninvolved and pretty much uninterested in politics for about 8 years now, back when I grabbed this domain and had big dreams for what I'd do with it.

Time passed.

Recently I visited my political mentor, L. Neil Smith, for the first time in a few years.  I'd been building up to getting reengaged, and that meeting sealed the deal.

I'm diverging from his point of view in many areas, but one of the beautiful things about individualism is that everyone is supposed to be different.  Yes, yes, you know that Monty Python quote.  Good for you.

First and foremost, this site represents my point of view and to a lesser extent that of anyone who cares to write here under the guidelines I will outline in the next few posts.  I don't claim to, and will deny to the bitter end, representing the views of anyone else unless specifically referenced, quoted, etc.

I'm here as an individual, not as an employee of wherever I may be getting paychecks at any particular time.  I may represent others elsewhere, but this is not that place.

I'll be posting on the purpose, philosophy, and guidelines for the site as quickly as I can write them well enough.

Welcome!