Marley Fenton's Web Site


This page has information about my core philosophy about society and the world, as well as a few miscellaneous opinions that are provided without explanation - they're there simply so that you can get an idea of what my way of thinking is like. I might write articles explaining them in the future, but I don't want to clog this site up with articles that make the same arguments other people have made many times before. There will be a list of links articles that provide a more detailed look at a certain topic once I get around to writing them. Updates will be announced on my neocities profile and RSS feed.

Core Philosophy

My core political philosophy can be summarised into two main points:

  1. People ought to have equal opportunity.
  2. People ought to be free to do as they please, provided they do not harm others.

The two conditions above result in a meritocracy, where people naturally fill the roles they are the best at and enjoy the most. In a market economy where the only way to acquire money is through voluntary exchange, the pursuit of money will lead people to improve the lives of others.

While I think that the state should generally avoid restricting people's behaviour, I do also think that people have obligations to one another. People are individuals, yes, but they are also citizens who live in a society, and what we do affects others much more than most people realise - it can be hard to see at times because the effect is so aggregated in a globalised economy. Economies of scale are built to cater to the wants of the majority, so when a lot of people make bad decisions it negatively affects everyone else. Additionally, when I see people who are destitute, struggling with a physical or mental disability, or otherwise suffering, I feel on a primordial level that something ought to be done to help them.

So, I'll attack some additional caveats to my original two points:

I admit that the last point is vague, but vagueness is necessary when summarising a hollistic worldview. I'll give the example of pornography to illustrate. Many liberals say that, so long as all parties consent, there is no probem with it. While that is often true, anyone who denies the extremely destructive nature of porn towards everyone involved save for the business interests, is wearing ideological blinkers. The voluntarist position falls short here, hence the need for the two caveats.

This whole philosophy fits quite neatly into what I was taught at A level politics about modern liberalism. I don't like such labels, but if I had to pick some to describe myself, I'd say that I'm mostly liberal with some mildly socialist views on economics and some mildly conservative or nationalist (I'm unsure which term is appropriate) views on culture and immigration.


This section will be populated soon.

Miscellaneous Opinions

This list is provided in no particular order and is subject to change.