Your Political Philosophy

[rousseau]

Starting this thread in philosophy to avoid the shit-show of the political forum, and hopefully get an interesting response or two.

Question
- What's your political philosophy?

Broad? Sure, but feel free to take it where you will.

When I think about my own I'm reminded of a post by fromderinside in a thread I made about effective education systems where he hinted toward people being mostly irrational, and that's that.

A few years ago I would have called myself a liberal and more idealistic, and I guess I still think systems need to be changed and refined to become more effective, but any more I'm starting to consider myself more of a realist.

Ideals are one thing, and important, but it looks to me like there are much more powerful forces at play in the evolution of human society than lofty goals and words. Over the past few centuries we've had thinker after thinker throw ideal after ideal in the air, but the earth's environment is still crumbling around us, and there doesn't seem to be much that anyone can do about it.

And in the long-run, like thousands, to hundreds of thousands of years, what's happened in the past few centuries will be mostly irrelevant, just a thing that occurred because we're not really in control.

And so political philosophy? Enjoy life, work hard, support family and friends, give when I can, and die with dignity.

 

[fast]

One in which the powerful doesn't have to cower to the people. I'm not for dictatorship, but having a president who is supposed to be the most powerful leader in the world having to alter plans and speak about breaking events doesn't strike me as holding a position worthy of greatest admiration. I understand that the president is supposed to serve the people, but if you can't openly commit a few wrongs in plain view of the public without controlling backlash, then maybe that position is a bit too comparatively soft.

 

[ryan]

Nothing seems as urgent and as important as foreign affairs. We should work harder to learn how we can all live with such extreme differences in the world. Maybe this means governments should put more emphasis on using and expanding international relations studies to learn better strategies on how to do this.

All it takes is another 911 on one of the major Western countries, and with this global tension we could easily enter into WW3.

 

[untermensche]

This "work hard" business.

That's an order from a master, not anything a sane person should want for themselves.

Sure get some exercise. Play some golf.

Avoid this thing called "work" to the greatest extent possible.

 

[bigfield]

I want to be happy, therefore I want the rest of the world to be happy as well.

The route to happiness is to make sure people's needs are met. Every policy decision should be made with that goal in mind, and policymakers should be both pragmatic and far-sighted when deciding how to achieve that goal.

Scientific and technological progress is critical to the realisation of greater human happiness. We are a species doomed to endlessly escalating resource requirements, and our only solution is to continually increase our various resources without annihilating ourselves in the process.

 

[fromderinside]

To have a political philosophy requires consideration of two opposing perspectives. First we really don't choose a political system, we are born within one, meaning our political philosophy is composed of what exists and what we have experienced when we exercise one. Second we are individuals with self centered perspectives which mostly put us in position for demanding advantage.

Taking these perspectives we next have to come to some view about how we get along. I'm not going to recite what choices we have since most of us already are pretty much informed and experienced in most of these things.

For myself I've chosen to bias toward acceptance. I am advantaged being white with resources in western US so it is relatively painless for me to take such a view since I'm pretty sure I won't be abused by holding to it. Not much of a philosophy though. Its mainly trading situation with resources to permit least irritation by those around me who are similarly situated.

I expect others in other conditions take similar steps arriving at their political philosophies.

Rather than philosophy I suggest we are talking about social decision making.

 

[Valjean]

One in which the powerful doesn't have to cower to the people. I'm not for dictatorship, but having a president who is supposed to be the most powerful leader in the world having to alter plans and speak about breaking events doesn't strike me as holding a position worthy of greatest admiration. I understand that the president is supposed to serve the people, but if you can't openly commit a few wrongs in plain view of the public without controlling backlash, then maybe that position is a bit too comparatively soft.

I can't make heads or tails of this post.
First you seem to advocate an aristocracy independent of and with no responsibility toward the people, then you say you're not for dictatorship. Then you make some vague allegations about the president altering plans and speaking about breaking events. What plans were altered? What events were commented on, and why was all this wrong?
Then you speak of committing some wrongs in plain view and seem to say he should not be criticized or held accountable for them.
What are you talking about here? Please clarify.

 

[rousseau]

I want to be happy, therefore I want the rest of the world to be happy as well.

The route to happiness is to make sure people's needs are met. Every policy decision should be made with that goal in mind, and policymakers should be both pragmatic and far-sighted when deciding how to achieve that goal.

Scientific and technological progress is critical to the realisation of greater human happiness. We are a species doomed to endlessly escalating resource requirements, and our only solution is to continually increase our various resources without annihilating ourselves in the process.

I like that. Simple and to the point.

I've never worded it that way but I've always felt the same. What I can say has changed within that view of mine, though, is my belief (or motivation) to do anything material about it. The gains are too low, losses too high, for energy expended.

I like to donate to charity and homeless people, and offer a well-worded and timed post or two when election season comes around, but I've become way too selfish to dedicate my life to any particular cause.

 

[fast]

One in which the powerful doesn't have to cower to the people. I'm not for dictatorship, but having a president who is supposed to be the most powerful leader in the world having to alter plans and speak about breaking events doesn't strike me as holding a position worthy of greatest admiration. I understand that the president is supposed to serve the people, but if you can't openly commit a few wrongs in plain view of the public without controlling backlash, then maybe that position is a bit too comparatively soft.

I can't make heads or tails of this post.
First you seem to advocate an aristocracy independent of and with no responsibility toward the people, then you say you're not for dictatorship. Then you make some vague allegations about the president altering plans and speaking about breaking events. What plans were altered? What events were commented on, and why was all this wrong?
Then you speak of committing some wrongs in plain view and seem to say he should not be criticized or held accountable for them.
What are you talking about here? Please clarify.

I'm not being liberal-reasonable, yet I'm not being an extremist. You say, "independent of and no responsibility toward the people." The idea is suggestive that one either is or isn't, yet we can be in some situations and not be in other situations. The lines may be blurry (and I can't readily speak to where the lines should be drawn--and I'm not so sure they should be), and it may not be right to sometimes be so while sometimes not being so, and so be it, but I'm not advocating moral purity and perfection, nor am I advocating it's anti-extreme. You know what they say about moderation ... and yes, murder is wrong ... and we (I say) should not be serial killers.

If we're going to have someone in power (true genuine power) then there needs to be some latitude in holding him accountable. I'm certainly not (absolutely not) giving a blank check to behave without any semblance of responsibility or accountability, but the mainstream thought whereby a full accounting for actions should be the bar, I'm leaving room for it to be lowered--but not so low that it's unconscionable. Unacceptable to liberals, yes; unconscionable to conservatives, no.

 

[Bomb#20]

... but I'm not advocating moral purity and perfection, nor am I advocating it's anti-extreme. You know what they say about moderation ... If we're going to have someone in power (true genuine power) then there needs to be some latitude in holding him accountable. I'm certainly not (absolutely not) giving a blank check to behave without any semblance of responsibility or accountability, but the mainstream thought whereby a full accounting for actions should be the bar, I'm leaving room for it to be lowered--but not so low that it's unconscionable...

How very Burke. Have you read Reflections on the Revolution in France?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Starting this thread in philosophy to avoid the shit-show of the political forum, and hopefully get an interesting response or two.

Question
- What's your political philosophy?

Broad? Sure, but feel free to take it where you will.

When I think about my own I'm reminded of a post by fromderinside in a thread I made about effective education systems where he hinted toward people being mostly irrational, and that's that.

A few years ago I would have called myself a liberal and more idealistic, and I guess I still think systems need to be changed and refined to become more effective, but any more I'm starting to consider myself more of a realist.

Ideals are one thing, and important, but it looks to me like there are much more powerful forces at play in the evolution of human society than lofty goals and words. Over the past few centuries we've had thinker after thinker throw ideal after ideal in the air, but the earth's environment is still crumbling around us, and there doesn't seem to be much that anyone can do about it.

And in the long-run, like thousands, to hundreds of thousands of years, what's happened in the past few centuries will be mostly irrelevant, just a thing that occurred because we're not really in control.

And so political philosophy? Enjoy life, work hard, support family and friends, give when I can, and die with dignity.

We're all different in so many ways and yet we apparently have this sense of having things to share. We are certainly all in the same car so let's try not to wreck it. I can only speak for myself, though, most people being rather bad at listening my commands. So for myself I choose pragmatism. I try to see the good side as well as the bad one. Or at least the two sides of any argument. You also get a little blasé at my age. Most people, and that's a fact, have really a hard time expressing coherent ideas, even when they are really trying to, which often they're not. So you need to be patient with them and try to see what good there may be in the trash that comes out. And, sometimes, one has a plaisant surprise, yes. I also choose to assume that many people are trying as best they can in what they do. That may be not true at all but there's nothing I can do about it. So another point is to be modest as to one's capabilities to change other people's ways and actions. I also don't accept any superseeding moral consideration. What seems good now may prove very bad tomorrow and vice versa. I would go back in time to kill Hitler before he could do anything but would be arrested for killing... A BABY. Most people are also scheming creatures so one needs to decipher whence they speak to understand the relation. I learnt that lesson a bit too late in life but anyway we all do. So I'm close to the political centre as it seemed to be after WW2 in the West (but that was an illusion, at best a delusion). Today, naked greed is back. I can see the positives of that but the negatives are a real pain in the ass. So I try to be patient. I try to see Trump as a better person than he is. Same for Hilary. I can see how zombie movies seem to have announced the resurrection of the dead as Trump supporters. Trump himself looks a bit like he is coming out of a grave. Hollywood, New York and San Fran are horrified. How do you kill them all? Me I remind myself that Nazi Germany was at the time the most civilized country. It can always get worse. I'll pray for you all.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

... I remind myself that Nazi Germany was at the time the most civilized country. It can always get worse. I'll pray for you all.
EB

...while I remind myself that even the most paradigm organized person in the room just mistook organized for being civilized ....

... life goes on a twitch here and a squirt there with the occasional catastrophe falling on top of it all. Amazingly we actually act like a society sometimes.

I'm hopeful inclusiveness will continue to be more universal as generations pass.

 

[rousseau]

To have a political philosophy requires consideration of two opposing perspectives. First we really don't choose a political system, we are born within one, meaning our political philosophy is composed of what exists and what we have experienced when we exercise one. Second we are individuals with self centered perspectives which mostly put us in position for demanding advantage.

Taking these perspectives we next have to come to some view about how we get along. I'm not going to recite what choices we have since most of us already are pretty much informed and experienced in most of these things.

For myself I've chosen to bias toward acceptance. I am advantaged being white with resources in western US so it is relatively painless for me to take such a view since I'm pretty sure I won't be abused by holding to it. Not much of a philosophy though. Its mainly trading situation with resources to permit least irritation by those around me who are similarly situated.

I expect others in other conditions take similar steps arriving at their political philosophies.

Rather than philosophy I suggest we are talking about social decision making.

Posts like this are why I keep coming back to this forum.

Can't read this stuff at Chapters.

 

[Speakpigeon]

... I remind myself that Nazi Germany was at the time the most civilized country. It can always get worse. I'll pray for you all.
EB

...while I remind myself that even the most paradigm organized person in the room just mistook organized for being civilized ....

Civilised
Adj.
1. - Having a high state of culture and development both social and technological;
2. - Marked by refinement in taste and manners;

I didn't mistake. And I meant sense 1. Sure the Nazi regime proved very organised but Germany itself was civilised. It's debatable whether it came first or second or third but it was very advanced in many areas and top of the class in the sciences and that's a good indicator of being civilised in my view. Of course, the Nazis grabbed political power at the point where Germany, although very civilised as I said, was in effect very disorganised, coming out of WW1 and the economic crisis around 1929. Nazism clearly was a by-product of this disorganisation while the war effort of Nazi Germany benefited from Germany being more civilised than France and Britain. We're lucky that many Jewish scientists fled to the U.S. Maybe it also shows that civilisation has a dark side to it. People get more easily carried away with the idea of grandeur. Look at America since WW2 or even Japan before it's defeat in 1945. It's even conceivable that Nazism spoiled the moment for Germany. Without them, it could have started a new kind of modern world. That "burden" shifted to America instead and Germany had to lie low. Nazism is the reason we have Google and Apple and Microsoft. Sorry I'm derailling.

... life goes on a twitch here and a squirt there with the occasional catastrophe falling on top of it all. Amazingly we actually act like a society sometimes.

We think we do.

I'm hopeful inclusiveness will continue to be more universal as generations pass.

Softie.
EB

 

[rousseau]

I'd argue that no society in the world in the early twentieth century was civilized. Even now not quite there

 

[bigfield]

I'd argue that no society in the world in the early twentieth century was civilized. Even now not quite there

In one hundred years, people will be saying that about the early twenty-first century.

Except for anthropologists, that is--their definition of 'civilised' is less arbitrary.

 

[fromderinside]

...while I remind myself that even the most paradigm organized person in the room just mistook organized for being civilized ....

Civilised
Adj.
1. - Having a high state of culture and development both social and technological;
2. - Marked by refinement in taste and manners;

I didn't mistake. And I meant sense 1. Sure the Nazi regime proved very organised but Germany itself was civilised. It's debatable whether it came first or second or third but it was very advanced in many areas and top of the class in the sciences and .... <snip> .... Sorry I'm derailling.

Not derailing. Just demonstrating you actually think organization is civilizing.

... life goes on a twitch here and a squirt there with the occasional catastrophe falling on top of it all. Amazingly we actually act like a society sometimes.

We think we do.

I'm hopeful inclusiveness will continue to be more universal as generations pass.

Softie.
EB

Thinkng so is a problem isn't it.

...and yeah, I don't live in Sparta even though Trump makes it seem so.

I'm agreeing with rousseau and bigfield seems to be agreeing with you.

Even heart taking Mayans built temples and pyramids. They definitely weren't civilized.

 

[rousseau]

I'd argue that no society in the world in the early twentieth century was civilized. Even now not quite there

In one hundred years, people will be saying that about the early twenty-first century.

Except for anthropologists, that is--their definition of 'civilised' is less arbitrary.

No doubt. It's a progression. Social indicators are always improving but I'd be highly surprised if a few more centuries don't civilize the world quite a bit more.

To anyone paying attention they'll realize that 2016 is far from perfect.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'm agreeing with rousseau and bigfield seems to be agreeing with you.

Even heart taking Mayans built temples and pyramids. They definitely weren't civilized.

Anthropology think of a civilisation as an organisation of a society with particular political, social, technological and cultural characteristics. All social organisations are therefore potentially considered civilisation: the Egyptian, the Roman, the Chinese civilisations but also the civilisations of African tribes etc. And so the Maya civilisation, definitely. In this sense, the claim that Germany is a civilised country would be trivial if we take Germany to be part of the Judeo-Christian civilisation. To say so is just to point at the particular kind of social organisation Germany has. So I wasn't talking in this sense. I was using the ordinary sense of civilisation, much criticised by anthropology as synonymous with Judeo-Christian civilisation. However, I don't entirely accept this critic. I think we all understand what a civilised country is, in the first sense I gave of having a high state of culture and development both social and technological. It make sense here to make the distinction between various countries as being more or less civilised. However, it's therefore all relative. One country is civilised only in the sense that it may be more civilised than another country. So we can say maybe that the beginning of the twentieth century wasn't civilised but only in the sense that it was less civilised than the beginning of the 3rd millenium. And irrespective of whether we agree with this idea, it also makes sense to compare various countries in the 1930s so that Germany could be seen as more or less civilised than other countries at the time. And so the Maya were more civilised perhaps than some tribal people. It's not because we don't like what some societies did that we can deny their being civilised. We don't have a metrics to measure civilisation in this sense but yes, it has to do with organisation. But not just more or less organisation. Rather it's a matter of integration of the organisation. There's an aspect of complexity than more civilised systems have that less civilised ones lack. You can be very, and very well, organised while being less civilised, and be less well organised and more civilised. Arguably, today's democracies are somewhat chaotic and disorderly, but presumably more civilised than Prussia at the turn of the 20th century or Sparta 2500 years ago or so.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

You concentrate on organization of political, social, technological, ans cultural characteristics in judging relative civilization. My view is that we are first human beings. Measures of what serves bringing human beings into functional groups is of primary interest for those identifying whether and how well those groupings operate as civilizations.

Civilizing aims to bring humans together under common methods and principles. That which makes groups human beings more likely to include all human beings is my primary index of rating common era civilizations. So those groups that exhibit capacity to harbor and include other groups within its organizations are more civilized than those groups that tend to isolate themselves. Also groups endure are more civilized than groups that are only transient.

Lower and Upper kingdom Egypt, Sumeria, Hindu India, Dynastic China from 1500 BC, Byzantium, Rome, Rashidan-Abbisad Caliphate, Ottoman Caliphate, Mayan and Inca empires, and the British empire, are examples best meeting those objectives across the agricultural and industrial eras.

Yes I include blood cultures, slave cultures, repressive cultures, among those whom I believe transcend single areas of dominance in my marking advanced civilizations. Longevity and Multi-group inclusion together with organization, invention, innovation, define relative civilization.

My point is preeminent civilization cannot be merely well organized, but, it needs to be inclusive, noted for innovation and invention in their era to be call advanced in a period.

Perhaps the Prussian-German empire was a competitor for the British empire, but, it was not noted for innovation nor inclusion. Rather it was noted for repression, subjugation, and classism. Note I completely ignore Tsarist Russia for similar reasons primarily isolation. As for My Sparta reference I used it as an example of a repressive short lived isolationist society.

Of course what I lay out is not a political philosophy. Rather it is a civilization philosophy more nearly identified with Utopianism than theocracy or democracy.