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.