The second key personality trait for someone who discovers liberty is Curiosity. This second trait builds on the first key personality trait: Skepticism. The skeptical person isn't willing to blindly believe the conventional wisdom. The skeptical person thinks that there might be more to the story than what he's been taught in school or what the media is portraying as the opinion that he should hold. But skepticism isn't enough. There also needs to be a level of curiosity in the person in order for him to take the next step.
I could probably also call this trait "thirst for knowledge", or "truth seeking", or "passion for learning". These all have similar meaning. What I'm talking about here is the trait that drives people to want to learn more.
In my case, this trait has played a large role in my path to discovering liberty. In my last post, I talked about how my skepticism about human-caused global warming led me to Austrian economics and ultimately to libertarianism. More accurately I would say that it was my skepticism that pointed me in the right direction, but it was my curiosity that helped me to travel that path.
Curiosity is what drove me to read Meltdown by Tom Woods. That book, more than any other, really opened my eyes to the existence of a whole school of thought in economics that differs from the mainstream point of view. That book introduced me to the Austrian school of economics and to Ron Paul and to the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Again, I was pointed in the right direction, but it was my curiosity that provided the motivation to take the initial steps of visiting the Mises.org website, learning more about Ron Paul and the Austrian school of economics. The real work was in reading the books and articles and watching the videos and listening to the lectures and then ultimately internalizing what I've read and watched and listened to.
Looking back on my own experiences I definitely think that it was my innate curiosity that has fueled my journey down this path toward discovering liberty. My skepticism regarding the mainstream point of view is what got me aiming in the right direction, but it wasn't enough without a healthy dose of curiosity to motivate me to keep moving down the road.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Monday, April 23, 2012
Key personality trait #1 - Skepticism
My original intention with this blog was to chronicle my own journey to discover liberty. Before I go into that story, I thought it might be worthwhile to spend some time writing about some key personality traits that I think can almost be considered prerequisites for a person who discovers liberty. Like most of what I'm going to be writing here, this is based purely on my own experiences. I'm considering both my own personal traits as well as those that I see in others with whom I've talked about political philosophy.
The first key trait is skepticism. I think this one is the most important because so much of the prevailing attitude toward government and political philosophy is predicated on everyone just blindly accepting what we're being told by the government and their lapdogs in the mainstream media. If you don't have a healthy amount of skepticism you'll never even question what you see, read, and hear. And if you don't question what you're being told, you'll never even take the first step toward discovering liberty.
My own journey really begins with skepticism. I'm generally a pretty logical person. I studied mechanical engineering in college and I've always been interested in science. As a result, I tend to view the world in a very logical and scientific way. I've never been very big on faith.
So, a few years back (in late 2008) I read the book "The World is Flat" by Thomas Friedman. I don't remember exactly how I came to find out about that book but it did have to do with work. As the company I work for creates software that enables global collaboration in product development, the book was relevant in terms of understanding the trends toward globalization. I liked the book and soon after reading it I decided to read another of Friedman's books: "Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution - and How It Can Renew America". This book wasn't as focused on globalization per se, but rather more on the "green revolution". Friedman is pretty high on green technology both as a means of allowing the USA to reclaim its role as a global technology leader as well as being a great way to save the earth from the imminent destruction of Global Warming.
Now here's where my skepticism kicks in. Friedman (and many, many other people as well) has completely bought into the notion of human-caused global warming. (From here on, I'm just going to say global warming, but I'm really referring to human-caused global warming, I'm just taking a shortcut) This attitude is prevalent in the book. He presents his case for pursuing green technology at all costs based on the premise that global warming is real and that it's a dire threat to life as we know it.
I just couldn't take this line of reasoning. Now you're probably saying to yourself: "This guy calls himself a scientific person and he doesn't believe all the science of global warming? What a dope!" Well, my issue isn't so much with the details of the global warming science itself, but rather the fact that it is just presumed to be true. It seems that just because Al Gore said the science is settled (the debate is over), that means it actually is. I'm not an expert, but the last I checked there was still at least one scientist out there who was saying that the science is not settled. The debate is far from over, but many people just blindly accept the claims of the global warming alarmists as fact. They just cannot consider the alternative view that the world may not be warming nearly as much as we are being told, and any warming that may be occurring could be completely natural and not human-induced. My skepticism got aroused because it seems that some people are urging drastic measures to "do something about it" when we haven't really characterized what "it" is.
I don't want to turn this into a post about the validity of the global warming activists' claims - that'll be a topic for another post - but suffice it to say that my skepticism led me to seek out some other books on the topic of global warming. But in this case I wasn't looking for more of the same take on global warming, I was looking for the alternative viewpoint. I wanted to read some books from the guys that were contradicting the conventional wisdom. I wanted to learn more about why some scientists disagree with the alarmists' claims.
Since these books were most definitely not part of the mainstream ideology, I suddenly found myself seeing recommendations on Amazon for related books that were also not part of the mainstream. I read some more of these books and as one thing led to another I found myself reading about Austrian economics and libertarian political philosophy (two more topics that are definitely not in the mainstream).
In closing, I think it has been my skepticism that has led me to question the validity of the mainstream ideology in global warming, economics, and political philosophy as well, and to seek out alternative points of view. It is this general attitude that has helped to get me started on the path to discovering liberty. If I had just blindly accepted what I was being told I should believe, I wouldn't be where I am today.
The first key trait is skepticism. I think this one is the most important because so much of the prevailing attitude toward government and political philosophy is predicated on everyone just blindly accepting what we're being told by the government and their lapdogs in the mainstream media. If you don't have a healthy amount of skepticism you'll never even question what you see, read, and hear. And if you don't question what you're being told, you'll never even take the first step toward discovering liberty.
My own journey really begins with skepticism. I'm generally a pretty logical person. I studied mechanical engineering in college and I've always been interested in science. As a result, I tend to view the world in a very logical and scientific way. I've never been very big on faith.
So, a few years back (in late 2008) I read the book "The World is Flat" by Thomas Friedman. I don't remember exactly how I came to find out about that book but it did have to do with work. As the company I work for creates software that enables global collaboration in product development, the book was relevant in terms of understanding the trends toward globalization. I liked the book and soon after reading it I decided to read another of Friedman's books: "Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution - and How It Can Renew America". This book wasn't as focused on globalization per se, but rather more on the "green revolution". Friedman is pretty high on green technology both as a means of allowing the USA to reclaim its role as a global technology leader as well as being a great way to save the earth from the imminent destruction of Global Warming.
Now here's where my skepticism kicks in. Friedman (and many, many other people as well) has completely bought into the notion of human-caused global warming. (From here on, I'm just going to say global warming, but I'm really referring to human-caused global warming, I'm just taking a shortcut) This attitude is prevalent in the book. He presents his case for pursuing green technology at all costs based on the premise that global warming is real and that it's a dire threat to life as we know it.
I just couldn't take this line of reasoning. Now you're probably saying to yourself: "This guy calls himself a scientific person and he doesn't believe all the science of global warming? What a dope!" Well, my issue isn't so much with the details of the global warming science itself, but rather the fact that it is just presumed to be true. It seems that just because Al Gore said the science is settled (the debate is over), that means it actually is. I'm not an expert, but the last I checked there was still at least one scientist out there who was saying that the science is not settled. The debate is far from over, but many people just blindly accept the claims of the global warming alarmists as fact. They just cannot consider the alternative view that the world may not be warming nearly as much as we are being told, and any warming that may be occurring could be completely natural and not human-induced. My skepticism got aroused because it seems that some people are urging drastic measures to "do something about it" when we haven't really characterized what "it" is.
I don't want to turn this into a post about the validity of the global warming activists' claims - that'll be a topic for another post - but suffice it to say that my skepticism led me to seek out some other books on the topic of global warming. But in this case I wasn't looking for more of the same take on global warming, I was looking for the alternative viewpoint. I wanted to read some books from the guys that were contradicting the conventional wisdom. I wanted to learn more about why some scientists disagree with the alarmists' claims.
Since these books were most definitely not part of the mainstream ideology, I suddenly found myself seeing recommendations on Amazon for related books that were also not part of the mainstream. I read some more of these books and as one thing led to another I found myself reading about Austrian economics and libertarian political philosophy (two more topics that are definitely not in the mainstream).
In closing, I think it has been my skepticism that has led me to question the validity of the mainstream ideology in global warming, economics, and political philosophy as well, and to seek out alternative points of view. It is this general attitude that has helped to get me started on the path to discovering liberty. If I had just blindly accepted what I was being told I should believe, I wouldn't be where I am today.
Monday, March 5, 2012
The real story behind rising gas prices
Gas prices have been going up recently. To anyone who drives a car, that's not news. What is all over the news nowadays is a lot of inane commentary about why the price of oil and gas is going up and what the government should do about it.
Most of this commentary is utter nonsense. Many of these people haven't the slightest clue as to what is really causing the price increase. But it doesn't matter whether they get it right or not, as long as what they say supports their political ideology. Economic ignorance is an equal opportunity affliction - dumb arguments can come from either side of the political spectrum.
Some people like to blame those evil "speculators"! Ooooooohhh..... Others like to blame the President and his energy policy. Of course, there is also the impending war with Iran and general Middle East tension that could be contributing factors.
But the one thing that hardly anyone is mentioning is the impact of inflation. Namely that the price of oil (and gas) in dollars is nominally high, but it's really the value of the dollar that has fallen more so than the price of oil that has risen.
Here is an excellent piece from a local news channel. I'm shocked that this was actually on the news. Great job by Ben Swann.
Here is Ron Paul explaining to Neil Cavuto how you can buy a gallon of gas for a dime. That, of course, would be a pre-1965 dime, which was 90% silver. At current silver prices, this dime is worth about $2.50.
Here is an article and video on the topic of gas prices by Peter Schiff (who predicted the economic collapse). Peter, by the way, follows the Austrian school of economics, which is why he understands the business cycle and why when he sees the artificial credit expansion created by the Federal Reserve he knows that the boom will soon bust.
Lastly, Bob Wenzel from Economic Policy Journal, also an Austrian economist, has an interesting chart of the price of oil in gold. It has actually been on a downward trend for years. Bob has also been predicting serious price inflation for months. (See here, here, here, here, here)
The bottom line?
Speculators, oil corporation profits, drilling policy, pipelines, Middle East tension, etc... all have some impact on the price of oil, but the single biggest thing that accounts for the rise in oil prices is the expansion of the money supply. Nobody in the government (besides Ron Paul) and in the mainstream media wants to talk about it.
Most of this commentary is utter nonsense. Many of these people haven't the slightest clue as to what is really causing the price increase. But it doesn't matter whether they get it right or not, as long as what they say supports their political ideology. Economic ignorance is an equal opportunity affliction - dumb arguments can come from either side of the political spectrum.
Some people like to blame those evil "speculators"! Ooooooohhh..... Others like to blame the President and his energy policy. Of course, there is also the impending war with Iran and general Middle East tension that could be contributing factors.
But the one thing that hardly anyone is mentioning is the impact of inflation. Namely that the price of oil (and gas) in dollars is nominally high, but it's really the value of the dollar that has fallen more so than the price of oil that has risen.
Here is an excellent piece from a local news channel. I'm shocked that this was actually on the news. Great job by Ben Swann.
Here is Ron Paul explaining to Neil Cavuto how you can buy a gallon of gas for a dime. That, of course, would be a pre-1965 dime, which was 90% silver. At current silver prices, this dime is worth about $2.50.
Here is an article and video on the topic of gas prices by Peter Schiff (who predicted the economic collapse). Peter, by the way, follows the Austrian school of economics, which is why he understands the business cycle and why when he sees the artificial credit expansion created by the Federal Reserve he knows that the boom will soon bust.
Lastly, Bob Wenzel from Economic Policy Journal, also an Austrian economist, has an interesting chart of the price of oil in gold. It has actually been on a downward trend for years. Bob has also been predicting serious price inflation for months. (See here, here, here, here, here)
The bottom line?
Speculators, oil corporation profits, drilling policy, pipelines, Middle East tension, etc... all have some impact on the price of oil, but the single biggest thing that accounts for the rise in oil prices is the expansion of the money supply. Nobody in the government (besides Ron Paul) and in the mainstream media wants to talk about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)