This is a blog meant to increase understanding of the world. It is often written from my postlibertarian bias – which means I am generally defensive of free-market democracy but am also willing to admit where those views seem to fail and consider other viewpoints, especially when things are complicated and I don’t fully understand them. When I write about things I try to include a large number of links to various sources, including but not limited to Wikipedia, newspapers, and fellow bloggers, to help my readers educate themselves and form their own opinions.

Current Events is the default category for my posts. They usually contain one or more links to current, time-sensitive events in the news, usually related to politics, and my thoughts on those events.

Financial Events is a category for current events that are specifically focused on markets or economic news.

Layman’s Terms is a category for posts that try to lay a foundation explaining something about the world that the average person may not understand. I try to refrain from political commentary but simply explain what I understand about the concept to someone who may not know anything about the concept but wants to understand it before trying to form opinions about it.

Philosophy is a default category for posts that are not time-sensitive but are more of an abstract discussion of my opinions about some political or economic concept.

Reasons For Optimism is a category that highlights news about technological, medical, and other discoveries or breakthroughs that are reasons to be hopeful about the future of the world, in spite of my typical reactions to political and financial events around the world.

Regulation Regulation Regulation is a category for discussing rules by governments that prohibit or mandate certain activities and the repercussions of those rules.

Spending Spending Spending is a category for discussing things that governments spend money on and the repercussions of that spending.

Thank Government For Something is a category where I try to maintain a healthy perspective by taking a break from ranting and raving about bad things governments do and praise them for doing something valuable.

4 Responses to About

  1. Gary says:

    Is that the name of you who hosts this blog?
    I hope this is going to you and not cluttering your blog. I was curious about you personally. It seems you do not list much on that. I am not on blogs at all so maybe this is normal. I got the 218 reasons from my girlfriend’s 14 year old who is passionately following Ron Paul on redit etc.

    My vote is philosphically Obama. My view is big government is a big problem, and there are many big problems. I think the best science shows a high level of concern for the possibility of global warming, and that is just one of a few problems that could throw civilization back into the dark middle ages, or cause extinction for the human species. So problems with big government is big, and lots of other Libertarian views are correct. What holds me back for endorsing the platform overall is the chaos that would occur if business was watching its own henhouse of enviro regs, etc. To me, problems that would occur with just a few things in the libertarian platform dwarf the gains they might make in other areas .

    Not looking to take your time to answer my comments, I was just putting forth the effort to say something about me in balance of asking about you. I am an electrician, self employed Cleveland OH, philosophy and rational thought advocate, went to the weeklong 31st int’l conference on critical thinking and edu reform in Berkeley last summer, former huge enviro advocate, don’t care anymore cuz it is hopeless as partially evidenced by the Liberatarian party views, I am now concerned with lack of rational thought as the biggest problem. will vote for obama probably, although that won’t stop our downward spiral and agree it will push it down more, just less more than others in my view. FYI I paid $114 of my hard earned money for a 12″ bust of Ayn Ran for what she says in pages 14-36 of ‘the virtue of selfishness. My first philosophical insights to reality. Thank you Ayn.

    Your writing and thinking seems balanced, and you include my #1 position, open to being wrong. Good on that. Just curious if there is any bio on you or anything. I respect your efforts in all this even if I don’t agree with everything, and open to being wrong on my view of that. Thanks. Gary

    • Joshua Hedlund says:

      Thank you for your comment. For a little about me: I am currently a 23-year-old employed web developer who also has an interest in keeping up with news and politics and trying to understand the world. I am a Christian who believes that man in his natural state is “fallen” and selfish, and I am coming to believe that selfish, greedy people can ruin any political/economic system, but also that there are systems which can allow those people to do less harm than others. As to the Libertarian platform in particular, I am not convinced that it is guaranteed to lead to a perfect world, but I also do not believe the government can do better, and that it sometimes can do much worse.

      For example from my point of view business is already “watching its own henhouse” with regards to regulations. Monsanto CEO now leads the FDA. H&R Block CEO now writes tax regulations in the IRS that benefits H&R Block. Not to mention the endless presence of lobbyists. Regulations sound good in theory, but so often in practice we see people figuring out how to influence the regulating process to benefit them and hurt their competitors faster than government can keep uncorrupted by it. I believe we need to encourage more transparency and information flow so that markets can work the way libertarians believe they do, and maybe this can help prevent the business corruption that leads to inefficient government regulation. For instance just in the last week several major supermarket chains decided to stop using low-grade “pink slime” beef, not because the FDA regulated it – indeed, they say it’s legal – but because consumers demanded it.

      As to the specific issue of environmental regulations, I believe the government has just as much chance of throwing “civilization back into the dark middle ages” as global warming does itself by the government’s incompetent, corrupt attempts to prevent it. I am generally skeptical of the alarmist claims of these scientists, as their most alarmist predictions are already proving false as time goes by. On the other hand I don’t believe scientists are all engaged in an evil conspiracy to fake global warming, either, and I allow some chance that they could be right, even though I put little trust that their computer models understand everything about our giant planet’s climate. But I am not worried that global warming, even if it happens, would destroy civilization. I guess I believe man will figure out ways to adapt to it. I guess I also believe that these kinds of risks are worth the overall tenets of liberty and freedom, and that at any rate the government can’t do a very good job of eliminating those risks anyway.

      However I do generally believe there is a place for some regulation, especially of the environment, due to what economists call “negative externalities,” meaning actions that can negatively harm people that were not involved in the action, such as water on my property being polluted by some activity from someone else’s property. But I think at least in today’s world the US federal government has definitely gone too far in the regulating direction and often does more harm than good. For more details about my political views take a look at my first post: What is a postlibertarian?

      • Bobby Yates says:

        “However I do generally believe there is a place for some regulation, especially of the environment, due to what economists call “negative externalities,” meaning actions that can negatively harm people that were not involved in the action, such as water on my property being polluted by some activity from someone else’s property.”

        Three questions:
        1. There are, and always have been, tort and property law remedies for damages (including injunctions). Not to mention class actions. So, what is the necessity for “environmental” regulation?

        2. Are there other kinds of “externalities” (i.e., other than environmental externalities)?

        3. Should so-called “externalities” be reduced to zero? In other words, are there any limits to the regulation of “externalities”?

  2. Angela says:

    Wikipedia, newspapers, and fellow bloggers are not credible sources, sadly. ….just saying.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

WordPress SEO fine-tune by Meta SEO Pack from Poradnik Webmastera