Skip to main content

Introduction

Each one of us has a set of guiding principles that shape our thought. These may be principles we have blindly inherited from our family, surroundings, or cultural exposure, or they may be ideas we have spent countless hours actively thinking about and debating, maybe even changing our mind a few times along the way before ultimately settling on a set of core principles we felt comfortable with.

Regardless of where your principles come from, or how you came to holding them dear, I believe that the vast majority of us have at least some of these in common, and that it is very rare for someone to have a completely unoverlapping set of core beliefs with the rest of the population. Extremes do exist, of course, but I (maybe naively) believe that most people are good-natured, and that at least on the theoretical plane common ground can be found with almost anyone.

Before we get to my core beliefs, I should say three things.

The first is that core principles can translate differently into actual (government) policy for two people: it is when we descend into the details of the policies that most people find themselves disagreeing with others. Most people would in fact agree that individuals should be free, that it is better to live in an environment with clean air and water rather than in a polluted environment, and that freedom of expression is a good thing. But as you can imagine, people will often disagree on the best way to reach a clean environment, or what qualifies as “free speech”. I am not taking sides (yet), just making a point.

Secondly, different principles have different levels of importance to different people. Some people may for example prioritise freedom of the individual, while some other may prioritise the good of society as a whole. Everyone can agree that, if possible, both should be maximised, but exactly how you strike a balance between two (sometimes) competing principles is another source of conflict.

Lastly, when I say that I believe common ground can be found with most people, I am not referring to any part of the political spectrum. In other words, I am not saying that by being a ‘centrist’ you can find the most common ground with others, nor am I suggesting that I am a ‘centrist’ or that being one is desirable. By referencing any part of the political spectrum we are stepping out of the ‘theoretical’ plane into the sphere of politics, and so concrete policies. I believe common ground can be found in the theory much more frequently than in the practice, and that most people are overlooking the fundamental fact that at least in the theory they have something in common with almost everyone. For now, I would like to remain in the plane of theoretical, absolute principles, without worrying about which principle is more important than the other(s), and simply try to establish some common ground with you, the reader. While I am sure we will disagree on some of my content, we can hopefully find some common ground in my ‘core beliefs’ (which by the way are very much the result of active, fierce debates and my own personal journey).

Stay tuned.







Popular posts from this blog

Is CANZUK the UK's natural home?

We've all heard about CANZUK. Or have we? There has been some recent interest in the concept of CANZUK - an alliance between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK. The reason for this recent uptick in interest (which can interestingly be verified on Google Trends) is, considering the unprovoked trade war started by the US against Canada, not accidental. The world order is changing, and so the Anglosphere needs to adapt, too. The US has not only become an unreliable partner -- Americans have shown the world that they are willing to put in charge a dangerous man freelancing as a clown, twice. It is clear that the pax americana is coming to an end, and western democracies need to realign and decouple from America - fast. This isn't to say that America has become an enemy, not at all. It is still a strong Western ally, but its support for NATO, freedom, democracy and the West in general cannot be taken for granted anymore. And so the countries that still care about western valu...

If Trump wants Ukraine's minerals, he should offer security

Yesterday's meeting with Zelensky at the White House was hard to watch. It was tense, not just because the situation is extremely delicate, but because people were shouting in a rare display of complete lack of control. For a man who preaches diplomacy, JD Vance showed he has none. When asked how you can deal diplomatically with a dictator like Putin, who has violated diplomatic agreements in the past, and who has, you know, invaded Ukraine , Vance started raising his voice and shifted the conversation from facts to ad personam attacks, asking Zelensky why he hasn't "said 'thank you' once" since coming into the meeting, and blaming him for asking a completely legitimate question the vice president simply didn't have an answer to. We all understand the war must end, as it cannot go on forever. We also understand that Ukraine cannot win against Russia without support from the West. What we need to figure out is a solution where, even if we let Russia keep th...

Trump is a broken clock, but he’s right about Europe

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and I believe this is the case with the current US president. He is a broken clock – but he does have a point regarding Europe. Donald Trump is wrong about most things. In fact, he is wrong about so many things that listing them all would take ages. For simplicity (and to save everyone time) it is much easier to say what he is not wrong about, and I believe on European military spending he is right. Let’s go back in time together. It is 1949 and the West has formed a military alliance called NATO, which aims to provide security to all of its member states. Translated to simple terms: it is a military alliance that protects the West from the Soviet Union. The West, of course, boasts a long list of values to defend: freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and so on. NATO is a military alliance by necessity of the fact that in this world you can only defend yourself by being strong (ideally the strongest), but at heart it is also an organisation that...