A former political junky gives it straight...

Post Reply New Topic

I'm sorry, but if you have an ideology that you have declared, you'll have to explain to me how your views led you to such a conclusion.

I have blindly followed libertarians (right and left), socialists, progressives, and republicans/conservatives all in the course of 2 years. I'm not even that great of a reader of books (though I want to be).

I've ultimately left myself at a strongly skeptical impasse. I took an economics class this last summer. But I hate labeling myself or boxing myself in. I guess I could be a "liberal" by US standards, but even then I take issue with socialists and social justice warriors that want things in their own strict ways.

I'm being purposefully vague here so that I can build a reasonable discussion (whether here or through personal messages), but maybe I'm just another aspie in his fantasy land...

Premise 1: there is a moral law that humans are bound by in their dealings with one another, that includes what we call rights, such as the right to not be aggressed against, and the right to own property which you have legitimately (through transforming previously unowned resources, or by trading) acquired.

Premise 2: the only time it is legitimate to use force against another person is when they have used force against you, and it must be the minimum reasonable to prevent them from doing so.

Premise 3: this law is binding on *all* humans; there is no-one exempt.

Conclusion: anarchy is the only legitimate system, because all states involve a group that declares itself to not be bound by the laws that govern everyone else, and thus allowed to steal (tax) and aggress (impose laws beyond natural law).

Beyond that, it's a matter of pragmatism that leads me to favour phyles and communes as the unit of society. You *could* argue for "anarcho-capitalism", but it's just not a very workable system...

Ok. Fair enough. These are my responses. I do not mean to condescend or dismiss.

P1: Where are these rights and moral laws derived from? I do think it is possible (though still destructible) to erect a system that enforces these rights you speak of (though the means used in which to enforce them are flexible). However, this still implies a "state," whether through a representative system like many industrialized countries have now, or a strict common-law system. Heck, we are right in the middle of testing the boundaries of what constitutes a situation in which we must absolutely enforce these rights and moral laws (in the apparatus of an almost completely representative system).

P2: I agree that this is a very simple and workable maxim in terms of reactive situations. Somebody wants to be violent, I act violent back (or, more realistically, I act in complete self defense for my safety and those around me at the moment). However, how do you apply this principle to situations in which it might be more favorable for a group of people to be proactive? This, again, would necessitate some sort of state apparatus in my opinion in one of the two aforementioned system (or some mix of the two- or a monarchy, but I think you and I can agree that such a system is outdated).

I have talked with social anarchists before, and have often wanted to join an institution that makes decisions in an egalitarian manner

P1: It doesn't, actually, matter that much as to where the source of rights come from, as long as we can agree on what those rights are. Personally, I root them in my theology of a triune God, but that would take a whole separate thread to explain and I still haven't got my ideas entirely sorted out in a way that can be explained properly. Others hold to the non-aggression principle, and most people don't know where they get their conception of right and wrong from. But people still hold to roughly similar viewpoints as to what it is right or wrong to do to another person, and that's all that's needed to work from. (It's no accident that the views generally are what you need for a functioning society - groups which didn't hold such such beliefs wouldn't survive).

P2: Whilst it may be more favourable to attack someone to prevent them attacking you first, unless you can point to a clear imminent threat (i.e. a gun being pointed at you, or being in the process of transitioning to such a position), I think most people would consider it unjustified to attack.

P3: Despite what many believe, the Westphalian state is not the only means of ensuring justice is done. The Icelandic Commonwealth, for example, had courts and little else (enforcement was private, and if you couldn't afford enforcement, you could sell the debt to you incurred by the perpetrator to someone who could collect on it). What I have in mind is a court system that's funded voluntarily, basically a network of courts. Well, actually I have in mind small courts being constituted by the communes themselves, with recourse to the justice network as a higher court. It's not perfect, but humans won't be able to create a perfect system...

When you look at the fraction of the government budget that's spent on policing and the justice system (less than 5% in the UK), and when you bear in mind that restitutive justice will involve far fewer prisons, and that there won't be such a thing as victimless crime, and when you add in much more use of volunteers, and consider that the use of private arbitration can be expected to increase... it's quite clear that an adequete justice system could be funded for, say, less than £100/person. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it cost more like half that.

This is an interesting topic. I can certainly agree that many people are extremely uncritical in their choice of politics, and a lot of the time it seems to be determined more by 'identity' (or aspirational identity) and less by rationality/issues... That is, people tend to adopt the politics of the group they identify with rather than politics that will actually benefit them--of course, I'm different!

I know that I probably come off as an extremist ideologue sometimes, but that's because I tend to use these forums to vent.

In real life, I actually study social science and spend my time reading, writing and talking about social problems/solutions in an academic setting. There, I MUST be a lot more detached and dispassionate...

So, I'd classify myself as a bit of a moralist, but also a pragmatic progressive.

I think everyone's first and most important duty as a citizen of an advanced, civilized society is to act toward one another (and society as a whole) with benevolence and restraint. I certainly understand and accept self-interest as a prime motivator of human action--I'm more than a bit of a conflict theorist in that respect--and therefore, I feel that we must encourage a morally and ethically enlightened self-interest for a healthy society.

Here's one of my favorite and most over-posted quotes... I'm gonna post it again because it is just that good, and I wish more people would really think about it and take it's meaning to heart.
From Edmund Burke (politician, and political philosopher of the enlightenment--He was a member of the British Parliament and supporter of the American revolution and a vocal critic of the revolution in France). From A Letter from Mr. Burke to a Member of the National Assembly; In Answer to Some Objections to his Book on French Affairs:

These days the idea of freedom has been fetishized by people who have only a childlike understanding of the concept, at best.

Freedom is not license to do 'whatever you want' as long as it does not directly and immediately affect those around you. Rather, freedom is the privilege to RESTRAIN yourself, and prove that you can behave in a responsible, moral, and ethical manner as you fulfill your duties of citizenship in society.

This quote is often used by conservative, but they always leave the underlined bit out... that's actually the important bit, and that's what's wrong with conservatives and libertarians today (in my estimation). They want freedom that's free of moral responsibility. The thing is, according to Burke, Locke, Hobbes, and all the other political philosophers who came up the foundations of our current system, moral restraint and responsibility is the ONE ESSENTIAL qualification for freedom.

On a more practical level, my political reasoning goes something like this...

I just finished a paper on the history of the Food Stamp Program/SNAP in the US. During my research, I came across this article by R. L. Moran--"Consuming Relief: Food Stamps and the New Welfare of the New Deal."

I did a quick google search for the article. Unfortunately, I cannot find an easy link to the full text. It should be easily obtainable to anyone with access to an academic database like EBSCOhost, however. It's a fast and interesting 25 pages for anyone with a interest in economics, politics, history, social policy, etc. and well worth the trouble to dig up.

Here's the cliff's notes version:

During the Great Depression--

In an effort to stabilized deflating commodity prices, the government pays farmers to destroy excess crops and livestock. This sparks public outrage because of widespread hunger among the ever-growing poor and unemployed.

In reaction, the government come up with a scheme to directly distribute this agricultural surplus to the hungry poor. However, this approach also garners much criticism from the business community in general, and grocery wholesalers/retailers in particular, for 'bypassing the customary channels of commerce.' The program is also criticized by social workers, etc. because of the social stigma attached to this form of commodity distribution.

So, new policy is written up by a group of grocery wholesalers/retailers and submitted to the government. With a bit of tweaking, the proposal becomes the Food Stamp program we all know and love--Basically, poor folks could 'buy' orange stamps that could be used to purchase any sort of food. Additionally, for each dollar of orange stamps purchased, the CONSUMER would receive a BONUS blue stamp good for $0.50 toward the purchase of select, surplus goods. These surplus goods usually consisted of various fresh fruits/veggies as well as eggs, pork, etc.

Left-leaning ideologues might criticize this process as capitalist interests twisting and corrupting a government program for their own, selfish gain.... But I don't see it that way at all.

In the old system, farmers benefited because the direct distribution scheme provided an outlet for their surplus goods. Poor people had a slight benefit because they did get a bit more food, at a cost of some personal dignity. BUT, the greater economy suffered because it was bypassed by the government, and the taxpayers suffer because their money was not being used for maximum benefit.

What's really happening here is just a free market/capitalist friendly reaction to an important social problem...

With this NEW solution, welfare recipients are transformed into consumers who actually get to participate in the greater economy in a positive, productive way. The greater economy benefits because there's now a whole new group of consumers spending money (Keynesian stimulus) and the taxpayer benefits it that their money is being invested much more wisely and for maximum effect. In short, MANY MORE groups benefit here.

That's a good practical solution, from a more rational, less blindly ideological time.

Flash forward to 2014...

In the aftermath of the Great Recession, food insecurity is at an all-time high, and the need for food stamps/SNAP has never been greater. In spite of this, the TeaParty dominated congress votes to slash $8 billion in food stamp/SNAP funding for largely ideological reasons (antipathy toward 'welfare recipients' and a fundamental lack of understanding of sound economics). The net effect is a compounding of already high human suffering for lack of adequate food and taking $8 billion DIRECTLY out of the economy--slowing our already slow recovery even more...

That's what irrational politics gets you.

[/rant]

edited for numerous typos...

PS

I just got an A on my SNAP paper... yeah, I'm great.