Well, I’m taking the leap: I’m going to write economic and political philosophy

Well, I’m taking the leap: I’m going to write economic and political philosophy full time. I’ve resigned as CEO of my company.

WHY? A bunch of reasons.

a) I’ve wanted to write full time for at least six years. I want to write while I’m still young enough to make a difference. It is my real passion in life.

b) The various movements around the western world that are being driven by the return of ‘white people’ to their traditional status as a weak minority both in numbers and in influence is creating interesting political and economic changes that are equal to those from the reawakening of Asia now that it has adopted capitalism.

c) Completing the merger both financially and strategically positioned the combined business for investment.

d) I was able to lock in what I considered a good if not great share price. The only way to lock the price is really to resign.

e) The team is quite good. There are rifts and a few key personnel shortages, but everyone knows what they are, and how to fix them. Getting both Steve and Ryan was a feat. Getting the product was another one.

So I can depart and claim victory for myself and my partners.

Yes there were things that were really bothering me. But it all comes down to having a dream that you find so compelling that it drives everything else in your life into irrelevancy. And anything that blocks that dream, simply frustrates you. And over time, that frustration turns to either anger or acquiescence. And for me, as someone who is fairly relentless, it had turned to anger which was making me caustic with people I care about. I want to follow my passion. So I chose to lock in a good price (Of course! What else would I do?) and then claim victory, and move on to fulfill my passion.

GOALS

I hope to be able to use the insights of anarchic libertarian philosophical reasoning to develop a rational, and economically sound language for anglo american conservatives, so that they are no longer a prisoner of their historical, religious, and allegorical language. Then perhaps the left and the right and the ‘middle’ will be able to engage in meaningful dialog rather than talking past each other. For well over a century humans have discussed a difference in ‘values’ as if they are arbitrary preferences with neutral economic consequences, and therefore preferences not ‘truths’. It is possible to express all human preferences as economic statements and in doing so convert discourse over preferences into discourse over empirical truths. But to do so requires I both write in a language that is more accessible than I am used to, and that I establish a broad set of explicit definitions, as well as explain some fuzzy and erroneous reasoning in the history of thought and in our common vernacular, and to provide a solution for our political institutions that updates our western democratic system for the current state of our economy, and the newfound complexity that has come from increased populations living largely in cities. No civilization in history on any continent has survived this level of urbanization. (It’s true.) Agrarian soft and hard institutions were unable to maintain the ability of people to cooperate and adapt under those pressures. So someone has to solve this problem, and I’m going to at least give it a good try. 😉