“The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.”  -Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man (1791)

What is Safnerism?

“Students of social science must fear popular approval: evil is with them when all men speak well of them.”  -Alfred Marshall

Ideologies and “-isms” are inherently exclusionary and dogmatic.  Straying for too long outside of the “appropriate” boundaries delineated for any given ideology, no matter how tolerant it is, how heterogeneous it is, and how strongly one identifies with it, will result in being branded a “heretic.”  The acquisition of knowledge is an emergent and life-long process, and restricting one’s free intellectual curiosity in the name of dogmatism – even to schools of thought themselves considered unorthodox – is just another barrier to honesty and progress.

Thus, I choose to label myself with the one “-ism” that includes only that which I know is absolute – myself.  For while I may have been an x-ist yesterday, am a y-ist today, and may become a z-ist tomorrow, I shall always remain a steadfast Safnerist.

Having said that, let me explicitly deny any claim that classifying and labeling belief systems is without meaning or purpose.  It is incredibly useful to coin and use terms for certain sets of beliefs that multiple people agree upon.  People cannot go around calling themselves any word under the sun (not to mention how many variants of Smith-isms and Johnson-isms there would be).  Common ground can and must be found to lower the transaction costs of discourse.

There are, however, limits that must be observed when that label is used categorically to describe any single person.  Two “x-ists” might not agree upon idea y.  Two “conservatives” might be radically opposed to each other regarding immigration issues.  Two “liberals” might have polar opposite opinions on drug legalization.  With such considerations, do the terms “liberal” or “conservative” lose their meaning for these two sets of people?  In the grander scheme of things, no.  The two “conservatives” likely share similar views on other subjects like taxes or morality, likewise for the “liberals” on civil rights or welfare.

However, through such disagreements, the terms “liberal” and “conservative” have become significantly diluted.  Are “conservatives” for or against strict immigration policies?  Are “liberals” for or against drug legalization?  This dilution, and the limitations of terminology is scarcely realized in the realm of philosophical discourse.  The greatest tendency to commit a logical fallacy in any discussion is to use the so-called “straw man” argument, where one misrepresents (sometimes intentionally, sometimes out of ignorance) their opponent’s argument and proceeds to refute that argument, irrespective of whatever the real argument may be.  Thus, an individual, perhaps a self-identified “libertarian” may be unduly attacked by their opponents for being on the wrong side of “[insert pet political cause],” when in truth that particular libertarian is not - but has been mischaracterized and tossed in with other “libertarians” who are, without a chance to defend him or herself.

“Safnerism” is not an ideology or an -ism.  It is nothing more than a clever name for a synthesis of many the different belief systems I have found agreement with.  Of course, as I’ve just taken the time to make painfully clear, listing an ideology below does notmean that I agree with every idea or opinion ever associated with them, or that I gladly affiliate myself with all of its proponents on equal ground.  I have my discontents and disagreements with any ideology, and there are very few rare exceptions.  Having said that, I willfully embrace a combination of:

• Science: Emergentism
• Politics: “Libertarianism” / “Classical Liberalism” / “Anarcho-capitalism”
• Strategy: “Agorism”
• Economics: “Austrian School,” “lassiez-faire”
• Psychology: “Psychological Egoism,” “Psychohistory”
• Ethics: “Ethical Subjectivism” / “Ethical Nihilism,” “Natural Rights”
• Epistemology: “Hard Determinism,” “Methodological Individualism”
• Religion: “Strong Atheism”

Certainly this list will change in the days and years to come.  ”Isms” will come and go like the tides as I discover new ones, find old ones irrational and barren, and invent a few ideas of my own.  The best will emerge and the worst will fall by the wayside in the never-ending process of learning.

I favor using certain terms more than others.  For a someone who is either a novice to political discourse, or for someone unable to see beyond the “left and right” paradigm, I call myself a “libertarian.”  When discussing economics with someone knowledgeable in that subject, I call myself an “Austrian.”  To like-minded companions, I call myself an “anarcho-capitalist” to associate myself with them, even though I personally consider the term to be a tragic oxymoron.  In general, I prefer to call myself a “market emergentist,” but few will understand what it means without further elaboration.  And in time, this might change – the future is not apodictically certain.  I pride myself on my ability to change my beliefs quickly based on their proximity to the truth, as justified by reason and evidence, and not superstition, presupposition, or bigotry.

Of course, as nearly all of these ideas were formulated in some fashion long ago, I can take no credit for the originality of any of these ideas.  I subjugate myself to the realm of popularizer and refiner of those proponents who have blazed the trail before me.   Most theorists whom I consider myself heir to have explained their contributions with greater clarity and eloquence than I ever could.  It is my personal mission to bring such deep philosophical topics into the forefront of public discourse by rehashing them in language that everyone can understand and discuss, as I think everyone ought to. At the same time, I of course have ideas and opinions about topics that are either outside the scope of, or entirely contrary to, such schools of thought and major thinkers that I largely identify with.  While I do my best to credit the ideas I have borrowed from their correct proponents, everything I say expresses nothing other than my beliefs, opinions, and thoughts on a subject.  I do not intentionally say anything to represent, promote, or affiliate myself with any party, organization, person, or school of thought but myself.  And whatever I say can be used in your own intellectual pursuits without restraint.  Ideas do not care who holds them.

Above all, on a personal level, Safnerism entails absolute freedom from intellectual restraint – the ability to question anything, to find common ground and differences simultaneously, and to experiment in search of the highest truth.  Critical thinking is not limited to questioning mainstream orthodoxy, but even the heterodox concepts – which themselves have a tendency of becoming orthodoxy.  To be radical or different, while pejorative, only means a relative difference between “the norm” and “the fringes.”  The one man who knows the Earth to be round is destined to be harassed and ridiculed by the millions who believe it to be flat.  But over time, his idea will emerge as correct, and all other notions as failed absurdities or archaic curiosities.  The heterodoxy of today may well become the orthodoxy of tomorrow – and there is no reason to suspect the process will ever end.  From Newtonian mechanics to Einsteinian relativity to Quantum Mechanics to String Theory, paradigms shift, discarding or marginally improving upon the knowledge of times past.  Free experimentation in the marketplace of ideas will naturally select those ideas that work best, whether they are ones we currently agree on or not.  And as the “data” is always changing, so is the end-result, so there can never be a hypothetical “end of knowledge.”

If you agree with me, do not call yourself a Safnerist.  Outside of my own mind, the word “Safnerism” holds no meaning.  If you and I do not agree, that is fine, and I can’t expect everyone to.  All that matters to me is that you consider something that you have not before, to rationally analyze it, search for evidence, and you make up your own damn mind on the matter.  Do not ever let anyone else do that for you.  Then, once you apply all your principles consistently, all roads will lead to libertarianism of some sort.  If you are unable to tolerate such a dissonance of opinion, let superstitious bigotries or presuppositions govern your convictions, or have thought anything original in your life, then it is best that we do not debate.  Instead of appealing to gods, governments, or violence to settle disputes, as mankind has subjected itself to for æons, let us instead seek to rationally persuade each other, and may the best idea win.