Political Philosophy

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Political Philosophy

Post by Pye » Sat Aug 08, 2009 1:15 am

Yes, I know. It sounds oxymoronic and I'm not that fond of it, either. But this last year forced me to bone up on the body of ersatz philosophy that underpins political beliefs. In doing so, two very distinct pictures of the nature of the human condition emerge, and they are driven by, apparently, some very immovable foundational beliefs. Unless you are under a rock or willfully ignoring it, political climate in America at present is roosting in both the neurosis and the revelations of these disparate points of view. It is clear that there can be no reconciliation when you take into consideration the following things.

All rubrics are partial, restrictive, but potentially revelatory, if you take them at face value. Here is a list of corresponding fundamental beliefs from Conservative and Liberal viewpoints. These are not, necessarily, distinctively American points of view. Virtually all of history's battles have been waged along these lines. All the negotiating in the world does not affect these core beliefs, so they remain philosophical foundations, right or wrong.

The natural order of things:

Conservatives believe that there is a natural hierarchy present in everything; man is on top, next to God, animals next, and so on down the line. Even if no God in the conservative equation, humans are superior beings to all other life.
Liberals believe that all human hierarchies are socially constructed, and not "in the cards"; all human value systems are conscious creations. We're responsible for them, not destiny. No hierarchy; just interdependence.

Conservatives - because of this natural hierarchy - believe that Social Darwinism best informs our moral landscape. In others words, it is a naturally hierarchical world, and hence, survival of the fittest naturally rules the day. In this view, that which is is also that which ought to be. Might makes right. This is where you will hear a conservative arguing that many people have made it out of social disadvantage without our throwing money at the problem. If they are naturally strong, they will naturally rise.
Liberals - because of the social construct of hierarchy - believe that most disadvantage is culturally created and not naturally destined. It is the nurture side of nature/nurture, though nature is highlighted here: there are certain conditions in which all living things grow better and stronger, and humans are no exception. Hence, instead of is, we ought to be providing these conditions wherever we can.

Conservatives believe that factual equality trumps moral equality. And since in their view, things are hierarchically arranged, no one is equal to anyone else in fact. So no one should stand in the way of someone who is factually stronger and can place in his or her power anything they are able (presumably within the law. Maybe look into The Family controversy currently raging in Washington D.C. to balance this out. Or the divine right of kings . . . .)
Liberals believe that moral equality, again, is a human construct that transcends facts, if it is to be morality at all. Hence, "might" is not the basis of morality. In fact for them, the basis of morality belongs in idea and not in the brute facts of matter.

The view of the human being:

Conservatives believe that humans are rationally self-interested creatures. This is the great inheritance of the age of Greek philosophy, where the capacity to reason is seen as that which privileges humans above all other life in the natural hierarchy. This, too, is where natural resources, animals, environment - everything 'below' us in the hierarchy is there for our free manipulation and consumption. This view also assumes that all of our self-interest is rationally based.
Liberals believe that humans are formed almost entirely by social circumstances. Hence, if we are "rationally self-interested," we have a thousand years of culture telling us so. Liberal belief about the nature of the human being is wide open and without foundation, other than what is already in existence when we are born and influences us through the rest of our lives. The nature of the human would, then, be their circumstances, and nothing else. Hence, we must continually form better circumstances.

The highest human value to hold:

For the conservative, there is no greater thing to promote than the individual. Free, unfettered, to play out their place in the natural hierarchy with little or no restriction. (And this is why Ron Paul - a Libertarian - ran with the Republican/Conservative party. This is a fast-held value which is built, as you can see, on the social darwinist view of the human world.)
For the liberal, the highest value to hold is social consciousness. With their view of the human world-doings as humanly constructed, people would have to pay attention to what they are constructing and how it is affecting people. For the liberal thinker, an individual may make their way out of impoverished circumstances, with no help, but how many more are simply planted in poor soil and would do much better for themselves and the world with a little more water and light.


Now this one becomes easier to understand:

Conservative: Less government. Leave individuals to their rational self-interest; free-market, etc. All will work out to the natural order of things.
Liberal: More government. A kind of WTF are you being paid for but to work for the people, make things better for more of them. Distribute the wealth, etc.

Some other details:

Conservative: Suspicious of change/progress (after all, the world is already naturally ordered for us.)
Liberal: Proponents of change/progress. Change is natural and necessary. Especially social change.
(Interesting to note here that disbelievers in evolution tend to come exclusively from one side of this divide.)

Conservative: Traditions need kept because they have always worked in the past (not much for gay marriage here).
Liberal: Traditions are human creations; must flex with new circumstances.

Conservative: Private property is the basis of individualism and important to secure.
Liberal: Private property is not the answer, but the problem. The capacity to "own" land is another human idea not grounded in any natural hierarchy.

Because of the belief in natural hierarchy, you often find conservatives concerned about "other races," (immigration, inter-racial marriage, fascist nostalgia for notions of racial "purity," etc.). You often find them concerned about sex practices for the same reason.
Because the liberal tends to believe not in hierarchy, but interdependence, you will find them on the forefront of the environmental movement doing their "tree-hugging" love-everybody thing.



If you turn your attention (or care to) to any given political debate going on in America at present, you will see these fundaments playing back and forth. For instance, the insane health care debate happening as we speak: Liberals pushing for a public option to get everyone health care (social consciousness/conditions); Conservatives upset this will get in the way of the free market right to make whatever money you can; whatever the market will bear (Individualism/social darwinism. It's not their problem to cover everyone. And if everyone isn't covered, that's the natural hierarchy of things, etc.)

What do you think of the cohesiveness of either view?

It is no wonder that rational thought has been and always will be throttled in politics by these two very distinct views of the foundational nature of the world. One wonders what possible corrections can be made with such deeply held angles on life. One begins to see why bi-partisanship is impossible and these twains are doomed to never meet. They are, however, apparently doomed to rub up against each other to produce the movement of human history itself.



[Edit: incidentals to neaten up]
Last edited by Pye on Sat Aug 08, 2009 10:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Political Philosophy

Post by Ryan Rudolph » Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:19 am

Pye,
What do you think of the cohesiveness of either view?
In my opinion, you need to take the best ideas from both parties, and scrap the rest.

My idea for a new type of governmental structure is a quasi-democratic model. You could then do away with both parties, and have a single congress voted in by the masses, but the list of possible candidates would need to be pre-selected and pre-tested for neurotic behavior and ethical integrity. The congress would then be randomly divided up into two debate groups whenever a bill is voted on, and they could weigh out both sides of the argument. The head of state would be voted in by the panel of intellectual elite, but he too would also pre-selected from a group of proven intellectuals. IE; an individual who won a Nobel prize in ethics, philosophy, economics, science...etc..His level of neurosis and intelligence would also be screened.

Although, you could leaveroom for the underdog, as you could have some unknown candidates from the streets who attend the debate shows, and if they're proven to be logical and reasonable enough then they could be added to the pre-selected group to be voted on.

I would rewrite a new political ideology called Enlightened Transhumanism:

1. Hierarchy is a fact and necessary, but only the rational are fit to govern. The irrational ones are the ones deluded by ego, which is destructive politically, environmentally, economically and socially. And its destructive behavior should be stopped at both the corporate and the political level.

2. A limited government could be used to supply all necessary services to the public, although dual systems of private and public education and health care are more desirable than replying on a single system, although military and police forces should be a single force.

3. The ideals of transhumanism should be incorporated into the constitution, which states that the acceleration of technology will aid human beings in evolving to much more complex, healthy and intelligent beings than present, and a regulated capitalist system guarantees that this transition happens as smooth as possible.

4. Corporate and Religious corruption in government could be monitored by an international task force, whose sole purpose is to minimize the influence of both entitles on slowing down a transhuman progression by fining entitles in a global supreme court.

5. The transhumanist ideal should be one that promotes the lowering of work hours on the individual, the acceleration of health technology, information technology, nanotechnology, biotech, robotics, and so on.

6. Traditional elements of both ideologies such as low taxation, social awareness, freedom of speech, limited government, efficiency and transparency in government, punishment of corporate crime, freedom from harm, could also be kept.

7. However, the government could have the ability to put a cap on the size of houses people are permitted to build, and this could be done in the name of environmental and resource protection. So a certain number of square feet per individual could be allotted, and if you go over this amount, you are taxed heavily per year. And the tax money collected could be put into technology research.

Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: Political Philosophy

Post by Pye » Sat Aug 08, 2009 9:42 am

Hey Ryan. Some interesting ideas there.

But if you're willing, could you devise a few philosophical foundations for Enlightened Transhumanism? This way, we would know what your suggestions for action are based upon.

For instance, what is believed about the nature of the human being in Transhumanism? (From you description, I am guessing said being is fundamentally flawed and in need of serious overhauling! [bio-nano-techno gidgitry, etc.])

Or perhaps, what would be the highest value to uphold in Transhumanism? (Much of what you say seems to indicate the elimination of suffering as the highest value and goal, etc. Maybe you're aiming at the highest value as rationality? - just asking)

If you create the philosophical foundations for Transhumanism, the rest of your points will be more than a collection of liberal/conservative compromises. I'm interested to come back and read you, if you're into it.

User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Political Philosophy

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle » Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:52 pm

Pye, that's a good summary of the division, and an excellent observation on why the two clash so badly. I suspect that each system would work well enough alone, but this combination makes a mess. It also leaves people rather confused with conflicting rules.

I would sort like to go through one segment though:
Pye wrote:Conservatives believe that factual equality trumps moral equality. And since in their view, things are hierarchically arranged, no one is equal to anyone else in fact. So no one should stand in the way of someone who is factually stronger and can place in his or her power anything they are able (presumably within the law. Maybe look into The Family controversy currently raging in Washington D.C. to balance this out. Or the divine right of kings . . . .)
Liberals believe that moral equality, again, is a human construct that transcends facts, if it is to be morality at all. Hence, "might" is not the basis of morality. In fact for them, the basis of morality belongs in idea and not in the brute facts of matter.
I wonder if, under a purely conservative system, laws would be extraneous. I'd picture a purely conservative society preferring to take the law into their own hands. Yet conservatives like power and control and laws can be tools to give more power and control to a select few.

I'm not sure what you mean by your last statement about liberals. Are you trying to say that liberals disregard the facts? If so, I disagree.
Pye wrote:(Interesting to note here that disbelievers in evolution tend to come exclusively from one side of this divide.)
Hehe, hilarious. :-)

I'd say that the biggest clash regarding health care reform right now stems from the old axiom "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is." Conservatives are therefore not believing any of it, even if it is sitting right there on the bill. Instead they are spreading their worst nightmares and things they saw off of old Twilight Zone episodes as if they were fact.

Also, we just came out of a Presidency where fear mongering was at the top of the agenda, and an election where the Republican (conservative) party used a lot of scare tactics to try to win the election, so there is a lot of general anxiety out there. When people are anxious, they prefer the familiar unless they are in an unbearable situation. When Obama won on his campaign of hope, the country was in an unbearable situation. Now that the economy is turning around people are more prone to the inertia of fear, and the conservatives are happily feeding that fear.

Fear generally has a much stronger influence on people than hope. Understanding conservatives' hunger for power, it becomes obvious why they choose fear as their primary weapon.

Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: Political Philosophy

Post by Pye » Sat Aug 08, 2009 11:30 pm

Elizabeth notes: I would sort like to go through one segment though:
Pye wrote: Liberals believe that moral equality, again, is a human construct that transcends facts, if it is to be morality at all. Hence, "might" is not the basis of morality. In fact for them, the basis of morality belongs in idea and not in the brute facts of matter.
Elizabeth replies: I'm not sure what you mean by your last statement about liberals. Are you trying to say that liberals disregard the facts? If so, I disagree.
Well spotted, Elizabeth, in the sense I can see how this might read.

No, not a liberal dismissal of facts qua facts. It's this way: Let's say Bruno is, in fact, physically way stronger than Bruce. If we use Bruno's factual strength as a moral basis, he has a right to beat up Bruce for no reason, other than he can.

Clearly, no liberal (and I'm sure some conservatives) would consider this morally definitive (and I imagine Jesus the Dude of Nazareth did not think so either.) Moral superiority is not to be confused with factual superiority for the liberal, for morality is an idea, form, concept, etc. too important to leave to muscle and reflex. It's a process of the higher mind, if you will, and hence must transcend the conservative value of might makes right. For the liberal thinker, might simply is might. "Right" is a thinking process that must transcend these brute facts of the 'animal' world.

And yes to all you say about fear. I am little short of fascinated at what the first election of a non-white president has done to the american landscape. Conservative (and liberal) neuroses are streaming out of every crack and out from under every rock. White fear has its own (collective) past treatment of non-whites to keep it awake at night. It assumes - stupidly - that once power is in other hands, it, too, will begin to harass, oppress, enslave. What a poverty of ideas rests in this poor white (sleepless) master now. Being master so long has weakened them. They cannot envision any other world than haves/have-nots; oppressor and oppressed, made stupid by this binary for so long.

Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: Political Philosophy

Post by Pye » Sun Aug 09, 2009 12:36 am

Elizabeth writes: I wonder if, under a purely conservative system, laws would be extraneous. I'd picture a purely conservative society preferring to take the law into their own hands. Yet conservatives like power and control and laws can be tools to give more power and control to a select few.
A loaded observation if there ever was one.

One might as well - in many contexts - replace "conservative" with "aristocrat" or aristocracy (i.e. superiority). Indeed, historically they have assumed themselves a law unto themselves, as they have the power to create laws for others that they are free to break themselves. But it's not a paradox, Elizabeth, what you say about the conservative love of power and control, along with the extraneousness of laws. I have heard conservative speakers in front of their own kind declare that morality (rules, laws, etc.) are for the plebes. It is a way of keeping them in line.

I wish I could find the original source for the following paraphrased quote that has stuck with me so long - I guess because it really resonates: All of history has been driven thus far by the rich trying to keep the poor from robbing them. The plebes are given the sense of high-minded mission and discipline from the laws of the elect, but it is only themselves who end up being kept in line. It amazes me how many of the poor, white conservative americans are willing to bolster the power of the conservative aristocrats - desperate to keep in place the very system that regards them as ignorant plebes. In fact, it counts on them being so.

You can witness the liberal distaste for aristocracy as well. Everything that is casual, mixed - every tradition that is eschewed, altered (in the conservative's view, "ruined") by persistent pressure against the hierarchy, or disregard of hierarchy at all. It drives a traditional conservative nuts that anything about his hierarchy - its laws, its folk ways and mores, traditions, status of nobility, past honor in war - would be disregarded or upset by these irreverent liberals . . . . If we take into consideration the alacrity of the above-mentioned quote, we can see what this fear-mongering is all about, and to whom it actually belongs.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Political Philosophy

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Aug 09, 2009 3:00 am

As an outsider looking in there seems to be an inherent problem in presenting the political landscape in such extreme wide-stereo. While within the parties, especially the Democratic landscape a fascinating array of diversity seems present and therefore the art of compromise to form a united front before election time has been developed towards perfection. For someone who is used to a multi-party parliamentary system with non-elected leaders which experiences regular upsets it's hard to understand the dynamics of this particular process.

The conservative mind, although it tries to project itself as strongly individualistic to offset any "leftist communist" tendency is when it comes to politics rather uniform and parrot-like. It seems to have a gift in collecting the voices of discontent and the party as such is a master in forming a unified "no" against almost anything coming from the other side, while themselves not being able to really formulate any relevant change from past decisions - apart from 'undoing' earlier work from liberal forces. Most of the rhetoric revolves around showmanship and invoking emotional responses as to hide the fact there's no real plan apart from blocking what is seen as the wrong direction. They are like the blind trying to hold back the cripple.

Perhaps a case could be made that a mega-nation like the USA couldn't function with more parties in the mix: now it just has two pedals: a gas and a break pedal that drive the "one party" forward, often represented by various lobbies. Then to become more plural, less dangerously unrepresented by it citizens, would mean to diversify and divide more than just Washington DC...

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Political Philosophy

Post by Nick » Sun Aug 09, 2009 2:11 pm

Pye wrote:It amazes me how many of the poor, white conservative americans are willing to bolster the power of the conservative aristocrats - desperate to keep in place the very system that regards them as ignorant plebes. In fact, it counts on them being so.
Is it really that amazing considering how scared these people are? Imagine if you were a poorly educated individual barely getting by on a day-to-day basis, ignorant of how and why the things that affect you most end up happening. Being in the predicament they are it's easy for the conservative elite to scare them into submission with an endless array of bogey monsters, e.g. muslims, terrorists, atheists, immigrants, non-whites, socialists, presidents that were born in africa, the list goes on and on. Add in the fact that they are losing their jobs and homes and these people are going to cling even more to the conservative blather they get fed on a daily basis.

Poor white conservatives usually look like they are operating at a very high stress level which I don't think can be sustained too much longer in this modern world. It will be interesting to see how this mindset goes out.

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Political Philosophy

Post by Nick » Sun Aug 09, 2009 2:24 pm

Pye wrote:I have heard conservative speakers in front of their own kind declare that morality (rules, laws, etc.) are for the plebes. It is a way of keeping them in line.
There was a story about a church in D.C. which many conservative politicians attended that preached exactly what you're talking about. I believe it made headlines when a senator who attended this church cheated on his wife or something like that? Do you know what I'm talking about?

User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Political Philosophy

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle » Sun Aug 09, 2009 2:53 pm

Pye wrote:It amazes me how many of the poor, white conservative americans are willing to bolster the power of the conservative aristocrats - desperate to keep in place the very system that regards them as ignorant plebes.
In addition to Nick's boogey monster suggestion, I suspect that it is the gambler's mindset that motivates them. There is something to be said for the motivation that hope can provide, however astronomically thin the likelihood of fulfilling that hope. It's the dream of "If I play my cards right, I can be one of those top 3%." They ignore the reality that it takes not only skill and perseverance, but also a good measure of luck to get to the top.

It is my understanding that the liberals want to take luck out of the equation as much as possible, but conservatives try to convince people that it is skill and perseverance that the liberals are trying to remove - which would obviously lead to a dysfunctional society that would crumble quickly. Unfortunately with the mix of liberal and conservative initiatives, the parts of the liberal agenda that passed first initially resembled the accusations. Although the loopholes for abuse of the system have tightened up (and tightened enough that many who actually need the services are denied or delayed), the bad reputation lingers. Since the wealthy can afford to purchase public opinion by brainwashing the masses through the media, the masses still think "tax and spend liberals" even though the ultra-conservative Bush did a tax and spend routine that severely wounded our country and hurt the global economy.

Before anyone accuses me of exaggerating by using the term "brainwashing" - know that studies have found that watching television puts people into a trance. The metabolic rate actually slows to a point lower than just sitting there, and close to that of sleep. What is brainwashing if not repeating a message to an altered mind for the purpose of changing the person's opinion even when released from the altered state?

Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: Political Philosophy

Post by Pye » Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:15 am

Nick writes: There was a story about a church in D.C. which many conservative politicians attended that preached exactly what you're talking about. I believe it made headlines when a senator who attended this church cheated on his wife or something like that? Do you know what I'm talking about?
(hey Nick) Yes, what you're referring to is The Family controversy I mentioned above, but it's not a church; instead, a house in Washington D.C. where Christian oriented politicians (and not all Republicans, I've heard) rent together during session, and apparently, meet with their mistresses, too.

by the by, appropriately acerbic assessment of another conservative dynamic.
Elizabeth writes: In addition to Nick's boogey monster suggestion, I suspect that it is the gambler's mindset that motivates them. There is something to be said for the motivation that hope can provide, however astronomically thin the likelihood of fulfilling that hope. It's the dream of "If I play my cards right, I can be one of those top 3%." They ignore the reality that it takes not only skill and perseverance, but also a good measure of luck to get to the top.
I have had this same thought, Elizabeth. Perhaps it seems to them better to live in a world where there are rich people, even if the odds of one's becoming one [outside of aristo-birth circumstances/connections] are lightning-strikes. How folks love to admire the rich. But this carrot is not snatchable by just anyone, and further, most of these poor and middle class white conservatives I'm thinking of are scarcely movers and shakers, but perhaps whiners and blusterers and lottery players (I get to do some acerbic social commentary, too :) ). In my estimation, what drives these types more compellingly is simply belonging to the value system of the elite. It is a matter of aligning oneself with the noble class; a sort of vassal-think, a feudal hangover.
Elizabeth: Before anyone accuses me of exaggerating by using the term "brainwashing" - know that studies have found that watching television puts people into a trance. The metabolic rate actually slows to a point lower than just sitting there, and close to that of sleep. What is brainwashing if not repeating a message to an altered mind for the purpose of changing the person's opinion even when released from the altered state?
You will get no argument from me, what with those studies into feral children and all. I do not discount all materialist bases in explanation of human behavior - after all, we start with some sort of instrumentation - but neither would I discount the largely mimetic and adaptive nature of human life.

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Political Philosophy

Post by Nick » Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:52 am

Hey Pye,
Pye wrote:Yes, what you're referring to is The Family controversy I mentioned above, but it's not a church; instead, a house in Washington D.C. where Christian oriented politicians (and not all Republicans, I've heard) rent together during session, and apparently, meet with their mistresses, too.
Do you remember the name of "the house"? I want to look it up and read into it a bit.
Pye wrote:In my estimation, what drives these types more compellingly is simply belonging to the value system of the elite. It is a matter of aligning oneself with the noble class; a sort of vassal-think, a feudal hangover.
Yeah, people don't like to view themselves as poor or lower class, especially conservative whites due to their perspectives and expectations of certain ethnicities and cultures within a capitalist society. From their POV if anyone is supposed to become wealthy it's them, and when they are anything but wealthy it takes some significant mental-walls to block out the reality of their situation.

Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: Political Philosophy

Post by Pye » Mon Aug 10, 2009 11:29 am

Do you remember the name of "the house"? I want to look it up and read into it a bit.
Try this. It will give you plenty of search words, if you want to look further.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM1lgE4z ... re=related

Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: Political Philosophy

Post by Pye » Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:39 am

In defense of aristocracy . . . . something I might not be able to articulate were it not for the voluminous novels of Honore de Balzac, 19th century French realist writer. There are some deep and surprising connections between Balzac and Nietzsche - one's I happen to think Nietzsche consciously neglected to mention (as we often do in egoic protection of our 'original' ideas). I forget at the moment who once coined Nietzsche as a "radical aristocrat," but one of the connections between Balzac and him is rooted there.

Anyway, it is out of the mouths of aristocrats - nostalgic aristocrats in post-revolutionary France - where one can hear its best defense. With a great deal of aristocracy beheaded, or title-stripped, and barely hanging onto the estates and lands and wood and hunting grounds so long in their family's protection (and 'protection' is exactly how they see it), they gaze out on a world being parceled out by the upcoming middle class. Where once stood great estates of great expanses of protected lands, now the bourgeoisie speculators have seized or bought these places and begun the work of the parceled suburbs, so to speak. The revolution has delivered to every citizen the right to a castle of their own and no aristocrat the right to hog all the resources and real estate. The result, to the aristocrat, is as ugly as a South American barrio: in order that all should have their acres and their chance, the pie has been sliced beyond recognition. It's full of fork-holes; it's a terrible loss.

This sentiment I have heard expressed the same way more or less outside the world of which Balzac writes. If there were no privileged class, there would be no evidence of human culture. It is the aristocracy that protects vast estates of land in natural settings. It is they who build the lasting architecture of culture - the libraries, museums, castles, citadels, parks, monuments, etc. - upon which the not-haves are happy to gaze. What they do, these privileged, is extend the possibilities of human achievement with their patronage of artists, their projects of public worth, their protection of undisturbed resources (in addition to their own unfettered time to invest, invent, create, cause, etc.) If we do not let the properly positioned human keep, hold, and grow his wealth, then we have no indicator of what is possible on the high-end of human culture and achievement. We would be left instead with a world full of little boxes and a million tiny kinglets with very little cultural impact, as opposed to the impact that can be had with the riches saturated in a few.

This is simple to understand, really. If I split up a dollar between the ten of us, there is not much that can be accomplished by any one of us with 10 cents. This is how privilege might view it. Why should I distribute to others for little impact what I can keep to myself for big impact?

Andrew Carnegie comes to mind here, who was quoted as saying that the only excuse for earning piles of money is to give it all away. I've lost count of the number of public libraries his endowment has installed in countries all over the world (he spared no expense on himself, either). It is at least ironic that in America, the aforementioned buildings are where a fair few of the homeless spend their time . . . . Ironic again, that he trod most mercilessly over the living workers he employed in order to collect his riches for future generations.

Even suburban peons know the routine when a sub-development starts up near them. They miss their trees, their privacy; they chafe with multiple-family dwellings, the traffic (bringing in low-income undesirables). They feel as the aristocrat might have felt, watching the world parceled up smaller and smaller, tighter and tighter, just to fit everybody in. Who cares to live in a world where no one can see the exceptions of what concentrated money can bring?

Of course, a liberal critique could be mounted here, but for now, consider these privileged musings. I'm surprised that conservatives today are not exploiting their long history of literal conservation, in addressing the environmental issues of the day (John Birch, Teddy Roosevelt come to mind here - conservative dudes who were deeply involved in environmental conservation). As crafty as the conservative comes, he is missing a chance to make an appeal to a large section of liberal society in these matters.

Calvin was a strange man. He spoke out loud a pernicious and persistent idea already believed by many: that if one is born to good circumstances (or claws their way there), it must be as God meant it to be. A strange mixed cocktail of cause and effect; an after-the-fact confusion . . . .

Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: Political Philosophy

Post by Pye » Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:45 am

Ryan writes: I would rewrite a new political ideology called Enlightened Transhumanism:

1. Hierarchy is a fact and necessary, but only the rational are fit to govern. The irrational ones are the ones deluded by ego, which is destructive politically, environmentally, economically and socially. And its destructive behavior should be stopped at both the corporate and the political level.

2. A limited government could be used to supply all necessary services to the public, although dual systems of private and public education and health care are more desirable than replying on a single system, although military and police forces should be a single force.

3. The ideals of transhumanism should be incorporated into the constitution, which states that the acceleration of technology will aid human beings in evolving to much more complex, healthy and intelligent beings than present, and a regulated capitalist system guarantees that this transition happens as smooth as possible.

4. Corporate and Religious corruption in government could be monitored by an international task force, whose sole purpose is to minimize the influence of both entitles on slowing down a transhuman progression by fining entitles in a global supreme court.

5. The transhumanist ideal should be one that promotes the lowering of work hours on the individual, the acceleration of health technology, information technology, nanotechnology, biotech, robotics, and so on.

6. Traditional elements of both ideologies such as low taxation, social awareness, freedom of speech, limited government, efficiency and transparency in government, punishment of corporate crime, freedom from harm, could also be kept.

7. However, the government could have the ability to put a cap on the size of houses people are permitted to build, and this could be done in the name of environmental and resource protection. So a certain number of square feet per individual could be allotted, and if you go over this amount, you are taxed heavily per year. And the tax money collected could be put into technology research.
btw, Ryan, it occurred to me that perhaps asking you for philosophical foundations to Enlightened Transhumanism might not be necessary. Is this what the politicization of the QRS philosophy would look like to you? I can hear it underpinning some of this.

User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: Political Philosophy

Post by Jamesh » Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:46 pm

I rather fancy what Ryan said, though too idealistic.

What interests me about Pye's initial post, is that I can't determine which side I am on.

Points like the following made by Ryan are Liberal (I prefer the term Collectivist http://freedomkeys.com/collectivism.htm) though geared for an end result of Individualism. All folks who view themselves as one or the other are being silly - just as it is silly to think of oneself as being entirely masculine or feminine.

7. However, the government could have the ability to put a cap on the size of houses people are permitted to build, and this could be done in the name of environmental and resource protection. So a certain number of square feet per individual could be allotted, and if you go over this amount, you are taxed heavily per year. And the tax money collected could be put into technology research.

I guess it is a Yin-Yang thing - FIRST primarily Yang (individual) processes for THEN Yin (collective) results AND/OR FIRST Yin (collective) processes for THEN Yang (individual) results.

Ahh the glorious falsity of dualism and non-dualism (which are the same thing depending on one's purpose, perspective and where one places themselves within a process).

Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: Political Philosophy

Post by Pye » Sat Aug 15, 2009 1:46 am

Jamesh writes: What interests me about Pye's initial post, is that I can't determine which side I am on.
No rational thinker, in my estimation, could align themselves exclusively to one side or the other. Each are incomplete pictures of the world.

Consider the conservative belief in the supremacy of the individual. Apparently, this supremacy only belongs to the already elite individuals, for whom the lesser conservatives are only too happy to bend to their hierarchy; do their bidding; accept their plebeian morality rules; uphold their sacrifices to it in war and the like with patriotic nostalgia. Loyalty, above all, becomes a most treasured value - loyalty to a hierarchy that subsumes their own individuality and pimps them out for power plays upon the world stage - up to and including the sacrifice of their very lives. It's whack.

Consider the liberal belief in the humanly created world of values and their critique of privately held property. This does not mesh with the mean reality of territory, and every other living thing that has to deal with it in order to secure the resources to life. It is, in a certain sense, a natural distribution of these resources to parcel it up. The refusal to deal with ourselves as a class of mammalians and the insistence upon transforming our existential realities into "pure idea" is also whack.

Both sides have the potential to bend toward fascism. The far right-wing has amply served the history of dictatorships, and the far left now occupies many niches of gonzo-environmentalism; socialist control.
All folks who view themselves as one or the other are being silly - just as it is silly to think of oneself as being entirely masculine or feminine.
Yes, yes, yes. Though "silly" is a softer word than I would use.
More like willfully ignorant.

Ignorance can be addressed. Willful ignorance is the enemy of us all - except perhaps for those in the power elite who need this from their plebes to hold them up there in the first place.

Steven Coyle

A new definition of the word "eventual."

Post by Steven Coyle » Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:34 am

Nature needs not but a harvest; as a seedling replenishes the season from whence it was born. Lest we not forgo human nature; for as perspective ascends, so too does man's collective anonymity.

Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: Political Philosophy

Post by Pye » Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:54 am

Here's another current piece of crippling binaryism where both of these world-views fail to grasp the truth of the matter:

Conservatives - with their social darwinist basis - refer to health care as a "privilege" - meaning, said care must be earned and is not automatically secured for anyone in the world. You want it? Then you have to be able to afford it, earn it. This notion of privilege is abstracted from the hierarchical nature of might makes right.

Liberals - with their social consciousness basis - refer to health care as a "right" - meaning, said care is owed to all human beings by virtue of their being human beings. Again, it is necessary for point of argument to create a class of thoughts called "rights" - another pure abstraction - in order to answer its opponent above.

Sick people are in need of health care. Period. It is not necessary to abstract for the sake of ideology either rights or privileges, and then keep the dialogue endlessly trapped inside this war of abstractions. The need is there. Period. The question is whether we will reconcile ourselves to this, that is, instead of arguing the conceptual path that will lead to any action/inaction at all.

Then there are those who may not see a need to address sickness at all. It might be seen as 'nature's' way of weeding us out.

Strikes me as another piece of willful ignorance, if the amelioration to address this suffering is known to us.

Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: Political Philosophy

Post by Pye » Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:57 am

Steven Coyle writes: . . . as perspective ascends, so too does man's collective anonymity.
This I dig.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Political Philosophy

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Mon Aug 17, 2009 12:45 am

Pye wrote:Sick people are in need of health care. Period.
This might point to a deeper division between liberal and conservative views. Correct me if I'm wrong but a conservative would question the category "sick people" as a group we'd all belong to and somehow have to respond to their needs. Not sure if I can agree with the qualifier "social Darwinist" as that sounds way too science-based for political or ethical topics, but conservatives seem to identify in a more nuclear fashion: the importance lies in ones inner circle, family often, or some modest circles as a local tight community, church, town, etc. Outside is just outside: one cannot carry the weight of the world, or the whole nation or even the whole state.

The irony of course being that conservatism is a national political movement and can only make themselves credible toward the State by implying responsibility for all citizens, their security and basic well being. The conflict lies here in people's conception of State which lies beyond common notions present within Democratic and Republican discourse. It's after all the State as entity that through national sentiments feeds itself and can just as well become a Communist, a Fascist, a Socialist or just a failing run-amok empire without obvious "ism". History provides ample example.

This is why I dare to propose the idea that political discourse has become mostly fictive in the face of the problems of statehood. National and international supremacy that guarantees economical status but most of all the continuation of the federal apparatus as nexus of power. The real struggle on the horizon might be one of "fall-out" of an unmanageable colossus that can only regain effectiveness again by decentralization and more distributed power, with the unavoidable loss of economical effectiveness (the "edge" of centralization of power). But even the libertarians do not provide a well defined path yet for this possibility, as they are too much infected by arch-conservatives limiting their outlook somewhat.

Then again, I'm just a futurist not a fortune-teller.

User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: Political Philosophy

Post by Tomas » Wed Aug 19, 2009 7:55 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Pye wrote:Sick people are in need of health care. Period.
The irony of course being that conservatism is a national political movement and can only make themselves credible toward the State by implying responsibility for all citizens, their security and basic well being. The conflict lies here in people's conception of State which lies beyond common notions present within Democratic and Republican discourse. It's after all the State as entity that through national sentiments feeds itself and can just as well become a Communist, a Fascist, a Socialist or just a failing run-amok empire without obvious "ism". History provides ample example.
Life was so much better when the nutjobs were all Democrats.

Liars should always be exposed, no matter what their party.*

*Unless, to be honest with you, they're from my party and they're telling a
really effective and useful lie. In that case, I can kind of relax the rule.
Don't run to your death

Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: Political Philosophy

Post by Pye » Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:11 pm

Tomas quips: Life was so much better when the nutjobs were all Democrats.
*lol* yes, thank goodness there were the likes of Joe McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, Roy Cohn, and the ever-paranoid Richard Nixon to keep them dems in line ;)
Tomas: Liars should always be exposed, no matter what their party.*

*Unless, to be honest with you, they're from my party and they're telling a
really effective and useful lie. In that case, I can kind of relax the rule.
A conservative sentiment, if there every was one.
You'd like Plato, Tomas. He puts forth just such an argument for the necessity of the philosopher king to maintain the ignorance of the plebes. In one sense, it's no different from parents who consider the 'useful lie' the best way to control - and perhaps even protect - their children. The problem is, it doesn't work. Truth often has the habit of insinuating itself anyway, even to the most child-like amongst us. And when it comes out, it rips, tears, an irreparable hole through the human fabric every time. One also has to ask after whose and what "use" is being served by the lie. If it's just for "your party," and you are not its chief beneficiary, then by default, you'd be one of its stooges.

Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: Political Philosophy

Post by Pye » Thu Aug 20, 2009 12:13 am

Diebert writes: Correct me if I'm wrong but a conservative would question the category "sick people" as a group we'd all belong to and somehow have to respond to their needs. Not sure if I can agree with the qualifier "social Darwinist" as that sounds way too science-based for political or ethical topics, but conservatives seem to identify in a more nuclear fashion: the importance lies in ones inner circle, family often, or some modest circles as a local tight community, church, town, etc.
This notches nicely into the discussion I was having with Elizabeth regarding just exactly to whom this moral directive belongs. Yes, this is a sentiment expressed by conservatives: you don't need help from the government; you all just need to take care of one another in these nuclear fashions you mention. This is exactly the situation of one kind of morality/rule for the plebes: keep them busy with the injustices of the world themselves. That way, they won't interfere with the doings of the powerful, which operate on a very different plane. Such high-handed moral tales are one of the most effective ways that the rich keep the poor from robbing them. Busy yourselves there, so you cannot see what we're doing here . . . putting lawmakers in our pockets, and profit/power brokering for the seriously wealthy few.

User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: Political Philosophy

Post by Tomas » Fri Aug 21, 2009 6:11 am

Pye wrote:
Diebert writes: Correct me if I'm wrong but a conservative would question the category "sick people" as a group we'd all belong to and somehow have to respond to their needs. Not sure if I can agree with the qualifier "social Darwinist" as that sounds way too science-based for political or ethical topics, but conservatives seem to identify in a more nuclear fashion: the importance lies in ones inner circle, family often, or some modest circles as a local tight community, church, town, etc.
This notches nicely into the discussion I was having with Elizabeth regarding just exactly to whom this moral directive belongs. Yes, this is a sentiment expressed by conservatives: you don't need help from the government; you all just need to take care of one another in these nuclear fashions you mention. This is exactly the situation of one kind of morality/rule for the plebes: keep them busy with the injustices of the world themselves. That way, they won't interfere with the doings of the powerful, which operate on a very different plane. Such high-handed moral tales are one of the most effective ways that the rich keep the poor from robbing them. Busy yourselves there, so you cannot see what we're doing here . . . putting lawmakers in our pockets, and profit/power brokering the seriously wealthy few.
Care to put a rounded-out number on 'the seriously wealthy few' ??
Don't run to your death

Post Reply