I’d recommend going back to the fundamentals, not just to avoid the mind-killing aspects of politically-charged issues, but because autodidacts tend to be in danger of having gaps in their knowledge of which they are not aware.
Politics kills minds by precluding analysis and depth of understanding: my team says X, so I say X, no research or thought required. Further, you can also go wrong by trying to research a politicized topic like a debater, scouring a debate for talking points.
For instance, as I understand it, seasteading purports to be a practical application—a hack—of the principles of international law. In order to really understand seasteading, you need to have some background knowledge of general international law, law of the sea, and admiralty law. I’m not saying you should start by reading Grotius in the original Latin, but you should read the Wikipedia entry about him. What would Grotius have said about a purported new nation perched on top of a previously uninhabited island? What would international law say if that island had been attacked by the Kingdom of England (not yet in union with Scotland)? Would it matter if the founders of that purported island nation were all pirates or slave traders?
And about international law in specific, I read an interesting account of it’s history in Henry Sumner Maine’s “Ancient Law”, where he describes the transition between various conceptions of international law, one where the primary entities were tribes/people and not territory, then one where everything is under a centralized sovereignty that is supposed to solve all conflicts (the roman empire, then the pope—I guess the same would apply to China); and then finally what we have now, a territory-based distinction (I’m summarizing a lot, and probably got some bits wrong).
In the same category as Grotius, you might want to check out Montesquieu, whose ideas strongly influenced the American Constitution.
I’d recommend going back to the fundamentals, not just to avoid the mind-killing aspects of politically-charged issues, but because autodidacts tend to be in danger of having gaps in their knowledge of which they are not aware.
Politics kills minds by precluding analysis and depth of understanding: my team says X, so I say X, no research or thought required. Further, you can also go wrong by trying to research a politicized topic like a debater, scouring a debate for talking points.
For instance, as I understand it, seasteading purports to be a practical application—a hack—of the principles of international law. In order to really understand seasteading, you need to have some background knowledge of general international law, law of the sea, and admiralty law. I’m not saying you should start by reading Grotius in the original Latin, but you should read the Wikipedia entry about him. What would Grotius have said about a purported new nation perched on top of a previously uninhabited island? What would international law say if that island had been attacked by the Kingdom of England (not yet in union with Scotland)? Would it matter if the founders of that purported island nation were all pirates or slave traders?
I second the “go back to fundamentals” bit.
And about international law in specific, I read an interesting account of it’s history in Henry Sumner Maine’s “Ancient Law”, where he describes the transition between various conceptions of international law, one where the primary entities were tribes/people and not territory, then one where everything is under a centralized sovereignty that is supposed to solve all conflicts (the roman empire, then the pope—I guess the same would apply to China); and then finally what we have now, a territory-based distinction (I’m summarizing a lot, and probably got some bits wrong).
In the same category as Grotius, you might want to check out Montesquieu, whose ideas strongly influenced the American Constitution.