Reflections on My 2018 Reading

What I’ve Learned:

Last year I set out to do a lot more reading, with a goal of averaging one book per week (52/year), because my reading list was getting way too long. Unfortunately I came up ten short that year, so I made the same goal for this year (2018) and actually finished about a month ago (currently at 56 books this year). Much of what I read this year was either in the public domain, or ebook/audiobook versions were offered for free by the organization that published it, so that really helped to speed up my reading. I also found an app called Music Folder Player that allows me to double the speed of audiobooks. Last year I slowly increased the speed of what I was listening to up to 2x speed to become used to it, and that also hugely helps in speeding through nonfiction audiobooks, especially the larger ones. I also try to only read books that I can actually learn something from, which excludes just about all fiction (minus that which you might read in an english or literature class, like Orwell’s ‘1984’ or Rand’s ‘We The Living’). When I’m not reading, I’m listening to various podcasts related to history, philosophy, economics, psychology, etc, which I’ve learned quite a bit from as well.

If I could summarize everything I’ve learned from what I’ve read so far, it’s this: There’s a lot of things I don’t know, and there’s probably quite a lot that I believe I know that I actually have completely wrong. I’m also reasonably confident that this is the case of the vast majority of people, especially in the realm of politics (which is the main reason why I despise politics). The issues with seemingly obvious answers can be incredibly complicated. It seems that a lot of problems in this world (possibly the majority) are caused by people that look at extremely complicated issues, pick the one that seems the most “kind”, and then assume that people who oppose them must be evil people.

The easiest example is child labor. On the surface, the solution to child labor is very obvious: young children working in sweatshops is a bad thing, therefore we should stop people from hiring these children. It’s the solution that’s “pro-child” and anyone that is okay with children working in factories therefore must be “anti-child”. The case is so simple that no further research needs to be done. Unfortunately, people with this perspective often get their way. In the 1990s, a U.S. Senator introduced a law to ban imports made from child labor from other countries. Because of this, many Bangladeshi companies stopped employing children, firing the ones currently employed. Research done over the next few years found that these children had to either find other jobs or starve. Since the parents had initially searched for the best jobs for their children, the remaining available jobs for children were far worse than their original ones. Many of the children turned to prostitution to make a living. Due to the actions of the kind and caring “pro-child” activists, there are far more child prostitutes on the streets of Bangladesh.

I know situations like this exist for many other situations, where people pick the seemingly “kind” solution and end up harming a lot of people. I’m sure the people that advocate for mandatory seat belt legislation aren’t aware that this legislation will lead to more traffic accidents. And this doesn’t include all the people that rely solely on biased information (regardless of which side its biased towards) that slanders people they’ve never met or never heard speak. There’s a sizable amount of people that actually believe that there is white supremacy in the White House (oddly enough, some of these supposed white supremacists are jewish). There are “anti-fascist” groups like Antifa that violently attack and ruin the lives of innocent people, yet believe they themselves are good, decent people.

Since everyone believes they’re on the side for good, I personally have a few rules for myself to make sure I’m not on the wrong side:

I refuse to have an opinion (either positive or negative) of a public figure unless I’ve spent a considerable amount of time reading/listening to what they have to say, directly from them. Personally I think Keith Olbermann is a horrible person. I didn’t have an opinion on him until I watched several hours of his show “The Resistance” and read one of his books. Then there’s Sean Hannity. I’ve heard lots of bad things about him, and I probably wouldn’t like him, but I’ve only seen small clips of him. I’ve never watched a full episode of his show, nor have I read any of his books (if he has any). So as of now, I have a general idea of who he is, but I cannot say anything good or bad about him because I don’t know enough. No opinion.
Jordan Peterson’s Rule #9: Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t. Other people are leading totally different lives, getting new information about different things from different sources. If I think they’re wrong, I’ll let them know, but I can’t think of anything that I’m 100% positive that I’m right on.
Everyone gets the benefit of the doubt: I believe that, as Solzhenitsyn wrote, “[T]he line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” People are fighting their own internal battles for virtue, whether they are aware of it or not. I do believe that nearly everyone wants to do what is right. As long as I initially give everyone the benefit of the doubt, I can be confident when I’ve come to the conclusion that someone really is bad.
Creation, not destruction. I have plenty of critiques of Ayn Rand, but I do believe she was spot on when identifying the dichotomy as producers and destroyers (for those that despise Rand, refer to rule 1, then continue). When your goal is to create, no harm can come from it. At worst, you waste a bunch of time creating something worthless. When your goal is to destroy, at worst, you misidentify the problem (or person) and harm lots of good people. This is why I’m generally not a fan of those that value equality (of outcome) over anything else. I’m totally against equality (of outcome). Their goals tend to be destroying those at the top, not building up those at the bottom. It’s no surprise that it was the advocates for equality that led to the deadliest regime of the 20th century.

Up Next:

About 20 of those books I read this year were on the subject of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. I haven’t read everything, but I’m confident that I understand the philosophy. Next up, I’m reading everything I can about the Tulsa Race Riot. I’ve also started reading Hitler’s Mein Kampf, since people keep comparing today to 1930s Germany. I’ve also got a few more books by Murray Rothbard on my list. He’s been dead for over 20 years and he’s still coming out with new books. I need to keep up.

After that I’ll read a lot of Karl Marx. I’ve read a few books that have devoted sections to how awful Marx is, but I haven’t read near enough actually by him. And since collectivist ideologies like communism appear to be the biggest threat to the world today, I should make sure I actually know what I’m talking about. I’m also reading a few books by David Horowitz that I hope to finish in the next few days. I have quite a few disagreements with him, but I nonetheless respect him (and I’m glad he came to speak at Lock Haven University) and am definitely learning from what he’s written.

A few days ago I started reading Tommy Robinson’s book “Enemy of The State” since he was imprisoned. I’ll probably finish that relatively soon as well.

NAK

Reviews, Conversations, Information

Reflections on My 2018 Reading