GENIUS FORUMS

Does anyone have any reason to hold one political theory as valid, as opposed to any other? It doesn't really seem like any one of them count as a theory of politics. Liberalism, for instance, with its talk of individual rights and justice, doesn't have any predictive power whatsoever. Is it useful in any sense at all? It all seems mighty pre-scientific, pre-Darwinian, and Christian.

as far as political theory, liberalism vs conservatism usually involves a tug a war between providing people with positive rights at the expense of people's negative rights, and that is why one political theory is not always the answer. It depends on what the society values as a whole as far as individual rights are concerned, and what they believe each citizen should be provided as far as social services.

For instance: I'm liberal when it comes to universal health care, but conservative when it comes to military power derived from taxation.

For instance: A society dominated by fear of ones neighbor will support a government's desire to expand military power at the expense of other services, while increasing taxes, and lowering the overall standard of living within the society.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:It depends on what the society values as a whole as far as individual rights are concerned, and what they believe each citizen should be provided as far as social services.

I think you described it perfectly here. I keep hearing the phrase "individual rights". It's the second most common phrase in a political philosophy class after "justice" (followed closely by "social contract", "equality", and "liberty").

But the individual doesn't exist: the closest belief to the theory of the individual that I can think of is the Judeo-Christian belief in the atomic, free-willing, immortal soul. Whether you call it a citizen, a human being, or a person, it's basically a secularization of a religious approximation. Then there's talk of human rights rather than individual rights. It sounds fair, until you make the switch from liberalism to environmentalism: does a dog have human rights? (Mu?)

Maybe liberalism only makes sense in Judeo-Christian countries? A Daoist or a Buddhist might find human rights puzzling. A biologist certainly should.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: It all seems mighty...Christian.

Weren't the early Christians socialists?

Gretchen wrote:

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: It all seems mighty...Christian.

Weren't the early Christians socialists?

Socialism is an alternative to capitalism. It's not an alternative to liberalism. In North America, the only alternatives to liberalism are all "liberalism + variable". Environmentalism has the potential to come closest, but the modern environmentalist still cares about things like justice, fairness, and rights. If, in the most literal sense imaginable, an environmentalist focused exclusively on the environment, at the expense of the individual, they would be aliberal.

If humans are not inherently rational units (which liberalism demands), then modern liberal debates over whether or not humans can be qualified as self-interested, or self-sufficient, don't even make sense.

Empirically, speaking from biological disciplines like psychology and ecology, a person is not a liberal.

Trevor,

But the individual doesn't exist: the closest belief to the theory of the individual that I can think of is the Judeo-Christian belief in the atomic, free-willing, immortal soul. Whether you call it a citizen, a human being, or a person, it's basically a secularization of a religious approximation. Then there's talk of human rights rather than individual rights. It sounds fair, until you make the switch from liberalism to environmentalism: does a dog have human rights? (Mu?)

The existence of the individual is a reality in the sense where even unconscious individuals suffer, and therefore because they suffer, they should be entitled to certain rights, certain well-being rights. That is what is meant by individual rights. For instance: uneducated women who are not allowed to attend schools, drive cars, show their faces, or speak freely in public are being denied certain rights that affect their quality of life. And in that sense, a political philosophy can strongly influence the quality of living in the world.

How the f**K do you know whether an individual is unconscious or not? The only unconsciousness you experience is your own.

Ryan: I'm not sure I can derive a just liberal democracy from the goal of removing suffering. Really, I'm not sure what goals and beliefs are necessary for justice, liberalism, and democracy.

Ignius: you never experience your unconsciousness. That's why it's unconscious. You can become more conscious, though.

But Trevor, how can that be? I've just experienced my own unconsciousness... !!!

Btw, I meant: there are people who judge others and decide what kind of person someone is, etc... Ex. they find someone boring, so they'll label that individual as dull, etc... But the truth is that they're not experiencing that person's dullness, rather they're experiencing their own dullness. Now, does that make sense?

Btw, how can you experience someone else's unconsciousness, but not your own? How the hell does that make any sense.

Ignius,

Btw, how can you experience someone else's unconsciousness, but not your own? How the hell does that make any sense.

you can observe another person's unconsciousness, but that person is not aware that his mind is in a state of unconsciousness. For instance: suppose some man has a girlfriend who he is attached to emotionally, and he discovers that she has slept with another man. Then he might suddenly break into a anxious rage, with thoughts of killing them both. Such cognitive patterns are unconscious, and if you tried to talk to that individual, they may justify their thinking, and not admit that there is anything wrong with it.

Basically, when an individual becomes emotionally attached to some idea, place, person or thing, unconsciousness will result. One should never associate a finite thing with ones self esteem, self worth or identify. And one should never rely on finite habits as a foundation for the self.

The self needs to be experienced and felt as more than just a sum of all your experiences and habits. The self must be experienced in a whole new dimension of being.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Does anyone have any reason to hold one political theory as valid, as opposed to any other? It doesn't really seem like any one of them count as a theory of politics. Liberalism, for instance, with its talk of individual rights and justice, doesn't have any predictive power whatsoever. Is it useful in any sense at all? It all seems mighty pre-scientific, pre-Darwinian, and Christian.

A political theory can't be derived from first principles.

A political theory can be axiomatic, starting from some set of givens and then seeing what that implies. For example, starting from individual rights (taken to its extreme, and not reflecting anything else) results in libertarianism. Starting from the axiomatic divine right of kings resulted in monarchy. Holding The Nation (the Fatherland, the People) paramount results in fascism.

These are not theories in the sense of predicting what will happen, but in the sense of saying what should happen, given certain axioms and aims.

I think a more pragmatic (situationist) approach is also possible, seeing what the currrent state of affairs is and looking as to how it could be improved. Of course different people have different ideas as to what an improvement would be. Again, you have to start from some value judgement.

If you are looking for predictive power - predicting what the consequences of a change of policy would be - you should probably look more to economics and sociology. (Politics is often not as informed by these sciences as it should be, and political action is rife with unintended consequences.)

Trevor,

Ryan: I'm not sure I can derive a just liberal democracy from the goal of removing suffering. Really, I'm not sure what goals and beliefs are necessary for justice, liberalism, and democracy.

Well, lets examine it because I'm curious if a universal notion of justice can be agreed upon. First of all, If you look at the world, there are certain basic needs that people demand from their governments regardless of location. People generally desire clean drinking water, a steady food supply, employment, protection from violence and criminal activity, hospitals, schools, and so on.

And all these services have one element in common. They have to do with the prevention of harm and treatment of harm, and helping to end the bodies natural biological urges, which if are not satisfied, result in harm.

Moreover, as an intellectual, to be able to study, think, and gain understanding and knowledge about the world, having the above desires constantly met allows intellectual activity to be possible in the first place. So a political philosophy that improves justice in the society is a system of laws that increases and maintains the individual's quality of living, as defined above.

Ryan Rudolph wrote: there are certain basic needs that people demand from their governments regardless of location. People generally desire clean drinking water, a steady food supply, employment, protection from violence and criminal activity, hospitals, schools, and so on.

You first say "demand from their governments, and then "desire." Two different things.

I dispute that generally, the world over, people expect their governments to provide what you list. Only one of those items -- protection -- is usually considered a public service. Ironically, in many countries the governing body itself is engaged in violence and criminal activity against the populace. So far as the rest, lots of people draw their water from private wells. Lots of them are home schooled, or pay for private school and college. Food supply and medical care are private unless one is on welfare or happens to live under a government that has socialized medicine.

DHodges wrote:If you are looking for predictive power - predicting what the consequences of a change of policy would be - you should probably look more to economics and sociology. (Politics is often not as informed by these sciences as it should be, and political action is rife with unintended consequences.)

What about the opposite: predicting what causes a policy to change? I'd like to be able to know precisely what laws we would develop if the global oxygen level decreased by such-and-such amount. The best I've been given from anyone is a gesture toward chaos theory, but honestly? sociologists have no problems wondering whether darkie or whitey gets better grades in school.

I think the axiomatic view is a bit crippling. Inspired by Galileo, Hobbes introduced it to make politics more scientific. The political philosophers seem trapped on that innovation, as though Arithmetic and Geometry is the sum of science. It was a big leap forward from Aristotle, but there are no giants after him.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:And all these services have one element in common. They have to do with the prevention of harm and treatment of harm, and helping to end the bodies natural biological urges, which if are not satisfied, result in harm.

I saw a different element in common: meeting demands. You sounded a lot like Adam Smith. It is, however, entirely accidental that some of these demands prevent harm. You said "and so on". Could one of the unlisted elements cause harm? I'm not yet convinced that the goal of preventing harm will lead to a notion of justice where justice is simultaneously a good thing and justice is "increasing and maintaining the individual's quality of living".

Trevor,

You said "and so on". Could one of the unlisted elements cause harm? I'm not yet convinced that the goal of preventing harm will lead to a notion of justice where justice is simultaneously a good thing and justice is "increasing and maintaining the individual's quality of living".

What I find promising Trevor is that regardless of the level of corruption in many different countries, the acceleration of technology actually increases justice in much of the developed world. Justice as defined as fairness in increasing and maintaining the individual's quality of living. Of course, because human beings are highly irrational, many systems originally designed for justice have the potential to break down, or be corrupt from the outset. However, it depends on the intelligence and moral integrity of the nation as a whole. For instance: Canadians enjoy more justice than Russians because Canadians have had a longer tradition of honest corporate and government practices, whereas Russia has had a long tradition of governance by a gang of armed thugs who call themselves politicians.

Carl,

Ironically, in many countries the governing body itself is engaged in violence and criminal activity against the populace.

I could call these countries that you speak of as third world countries, with dysfunctional governments, and unsustainable, unproductive economies. Much of Africa is like that. However, countries with the highest qualities of living have what I would call functional governments, and functional economies, (g8 countries) and these countries enjoy the highest levels of academic achievement and scientific tradition.

I dispute that generally, the world over, people expect their governments to provide what you list. Only one of those items -- protection -- is usually considered a public service.

The US is like that, but most of Europe, Canada, and Australia provide people with much more than just a legal and police force. Most of these countries which are members of the (G8 Countries) provide their people with many more social services, which is the will of the overall majority. And these countries enjoy much higher standards of living than ones that do not.

Standards of living and justice are closely linked as far as political/economical justice is concerned.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:

Ironically, in many countries the governing body itself is engaged in violence and criminal activity against the populace.

I could call these countries that you speak of as third world countries, with dysfunctional governments, and unsustainable, unproductive economies.

Like the U.S., which sanctions poisons like aspartame, and decrees toxins such as fluoride to be administered to their populations, not to mention the ever growing battery of so-called vaccination shots without which a child cannot enter public school? Yes, the U.S. is becoming a third world country, you are right, by your criteria, at an alarming rate. Seems Britain for one, among other formerly developed countries, is following suit.

WHY does that happen? There is so much info out there about the damaging effects of fluoride, so... why, why, why!!! It makes no sense. Does anyone have a good answer? Proof?

Carl,

Like the U.S., which sanctions poisons like aspartame, and decrees toxins such as fluoride to be administered to their populations, not to mention the ever growing battery of so-called vaccination shots without which a child cannot enter public school? Yes, the U.S. is becoming a third world country, you are right, by your criteria, at an alarming rate. Seems Britain for one, among other formerly developed countries, is following suit.

its not some conspiracy Carl, Americans just have a difficult time changing and adapting to new information, they are slower as a culture in changing habits and traditions. Look at the steel industry, the auto industry, or electronic companies such as general electric. Each industry has had a difficult time changing when new information is provided to suggest that how they are doing things is outdated or incorrect. America is such a large over sized entity that it takes longer to change compared to smaller more competitve nations. America is like the giant being pulled in many directions by small settlers with ropes, and eventually it falls, and when it falls, it falls hard...

I'm from Canada.