The philosophy of politics

[DrZoidberg]

Ok, let's make sweeping generalisations of various political ideologies. Typical brain failure's of people in that camp.

Here's mine.
Conservatives are typically essentialist. People do what they do because it's in their nature, and it's a waste of time to change them. People belong to eternal categories and society only superficially changes.

socialists/leftists
Spend ALL their time analysing the problem. As if that is all that is necessary is to understand why something happens. But seem to think that all we need to do is pass some sort of law or regulation and all people will magically adapt their values to the new law. Not sure what the philosophical term for this is? Overaly analytical?

Libertarians (and fiscal liberals)
Operate with the idea that all people have perfect knowledge of the world, that all people are basically omniscient. And also, when they have information they will act on it. Ie, humans as value optimsing robots driven by base desires.

I'm not going to use the term "liberal" because it seems to mean different things in Europe vs USA.

What's yours?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I would disagree with you about conservative. I don't think that they generally believe it's a waste of time to change people because it's their nature but rather they believe that change tends to be a negative thing because things are either good as they are or they used to be good before someone came along and changed things and now it's worse than it was. It's a philosophy centered around either "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" or "You broke it, so now put it back together like it used to be". They may very well believe that people can change their nature but that change is only going to make things worse. They see a top of a hill and say that if you move from there, you're only going downhill or say that we have moved from there and need to turn around and start going back uphill.

I agree with you that socialists are always analyzing the problem. They tend to think that whatever situation society is in, it's probably not optimal and can be improved. A new law or regulation isn't an endpoint but a jumping off point to then go further and tweak things towards optimization a little more.

 

[rousseau]

The beliefs of the overwhelming majority of liberals, conservatives, libertarians, what have you, aren't based in any type of coherent or conscious ideology, but are rather a product of social decision making when getting along with familial groups in their immediate environment. People who have conceptualized what their beliefs are and mean and who have objectively challenged themselves are a very small minority. In other words there isn't really an easy generalization of 'left' and 'right' and so on. There are just groups of people in times and places who tend to believe the same things as each other toward the end of social cohesion.

To get even more general than that, social cohesion can be tied back to biology and the profit motive. I choose my politics in order to get along with the people who will help me survive. And if my politics don't help me survive I disengage them as a factor in my life.

 

[rousseau]

So to generalize left, right, libertarianism, authoritarianism, it's not really about 'what people believe', it's about 'what type of political positions are possible in the context of human societies?

On one continuum we have things staying the same vs things changing. On another continuum we have regulatory power of the tribe's brain (aka government) vs human freedom.

I'd argue another continuum could be capitalist vs anti-capitalist, that is people who believe in the goodness of the free-market vs an idealized cooperative society.

And yet another could be anarchism vs organization. I'd argue anarchism is an incoherent position, but some people label themselves that way.

 

[abaddon]

Ok, let's make sweeping generalisations ... Typical brain failure's of people in that camp.

Typical brain failures? Hmm, well, I’ve noticed these while reading PD posts. I can’t say they’re each exclusive to conservatives but it seems they’re much more prevalent among them.

Conservatives:

Hyperliteralism: Often take everything another person says extremely literally. When someone uses a “manner of speaking” where the writer does not literally intend what the words at face value say, it will often be treated very literally. An example is “he didn’t deserve to a death sentence for what he did”. It doesn’t necessarily mean the police intended to pass judgment and execute a death sentence, it just means the end result of an event was a person’s death and at the hands of some law officials. The conservative response is “they didn’t execute him!” followed by a load of needless lecturing about the legalities of how a legal execution comes about.

Can’t see the forest for the trees: If you offer an example of what’s perceived as a national problem, conservatives will nitpick the details of that individual example. When this happens the argument is basically: if all the claims about the overall problem do not apply in that particular instance, then the claims are wrong. I think it’s one reason (I mean, aside from the main one that they don't share the same values) why they don’t see the problems in the world that liberals perceive: they’re looking at things “case” by “case” and since none convinces then the preponderance can’t either. You’d need to put a case for the whole problem before them, a summation in a report with statistics. Which they’ll then nitpick till that individual example is dismissed, just as with any single-incident example.

Legalism: Moral questions about “how things should be” get turned into issues of “this is what the law says”. When police shootings get analyzed, where liberals will be saying a lot of “shoulds”, the conservatives will be lecturing about police procedure in response.

 

[rousseau]

Ok, let's make sweeping generalisations ... Typical brain failure's of people in that camp.

Typical brain failures? Hmm, well, I’ve noticed these while reading PD posts. I can’t say they’re each exclusive to conservatives but it seems they’re much more prevalent among them.

Conservatives:

Hyperliteralism: Often take everything another person says extremely literally. When someone uses a “manner of speaking” where the writer does not literally intend what the words at face value say, it will often be treated very literally. An example is “he didn’t deserve to a death sentence for what he did”. It doesn’t necessarily mean the police intended to pass judgment and execute a death sentence, it just means the end result of an event was a person’s death and at the hands of some law officials. The conservative response is “they didn’t execute him!” followed by a load of needless lecturing about the legalities of how a legal execution comes about.

Can’t see the forest for the trees: If you offer an example of what’s perceived as a national problem, conservatives will nitpick the details of that individual example. When this happens the argument is basically: if all the claims about the overall problem do not apply in that particular instance, then the claims are wrong. I think it’s one reason (I mean, aside from the main one that they don't share the same values) why they don’t see the problems in the world that liberals perceive: they’re looking at things “case” by “case” and since none convinces then the preponderance can’t either. You’d need to put a case for the whole problem before them, a summation in a report with statistics. Which they’ll then nitpick till that individual example is dismissed, just as with any single-incident example.

Legalism: Moral questions about “how things should be” get turned into issues of “this is what the law says”. When police shootings get analyzed, where liberals will be saying a lot of “shoulds”, the conservatives will be lecturing about police procedure in response.

Yea, somehow the above don't all strike me as uniquely conservative traits, but may be more common in conservatives because they're logical counter-points, and a lot of the time modern conservative ideology is just wrong.

If you don't have a valid argument, and you aren't very good at admitting you're wrong or progressing the discussion, you need to rely on distancing yourself from the direct point. And because a lot of conservative ideology in the 21st century isn't actually logically sound, you're more likely to find conservatives doing this.

I can tell you, though, I've met a lot of leftists who are guilty of the same things. Most people who are passionate about politics are more interested in promoting their unique dream-world than what is actually true about reality.

 

[untermensche]

socialists/leftists
Spend ALL their time analysing the problem. As if that is all that is necessary is to understand why something happens. But seem to think that all we need to do is pass some sort of law or regulation and all people will magically adapt their values to the new law. Not sure what the philosophical term for this is? Overaly analytical?

The left is about trying to increase the rights of all, trying to increase democratic power as opposed to individual power.

Capitalism is such an assault on so many basic rights and so far from democracy the left has a hard time operating within it because the left is basically opposed to the very nature of capitalism: Opposed to Top-down tyrannical control of the many by the few.

The right is about concentrating power into the few who can prosper through control of the many.

That is why the right finds an easy voice within an authoritarian system like capitalism.

All things exist within an environment, and today that means capitalism.

The left has to be looked at as opposed to many aspects of capitalism and not within a place of comfort within capitalist systems and is always trying to make them more democratic and responsive to the needs and desires of all.

While the right flourishes within a top down capitalist system and is always trying to concentrate power into fewer and fewer hands.

 

[rousseau]

socialists/leftists
Spend ALL their time analysing the problem. As if that is all that is necessary is to understand why something happens. But seem to think that all we need to do is pass some sort of law or regulation and all people will magically adapt their values to the new law. Not sure what the philosophical term for this is? Overaly analytical?

The left is about trying to increase the rights of all, trying to increase democratic power as opposed to individual power.

Capitalism is such an assault on so many basic rights and so far from democracy the left has a hard time operating within it because the left is basically opposed to the very nature of capitalism: Opposed to Top-down tyrannical control of the many by the few.

The right is about concentrating power into the few who can prosper through control of the many.

That is why the right finds an easy voice within an authoritarian system like capitalism.

All things exist within an environment, and today that means capitalism.

The left has to be looked at as opposed to many aspects of capitalism and not within a place of comfort within capitalist systems and is always trying to make them more democratic and responsive to the needs and desires of all.

While the right flourishes within a top down capitalist system and is always trying to concentrate power into fewer and fewer hands.

I agree that the left is generally about increasing rights, but disagree that leftism is inherently anti-capitalist, or that rightism is inherently pro-capitalist.

It's more like people who are militaristically pro-capitalist are usually conservatives because it's an end to their goals, and some leftists are anti-capitalists, and the rest are interested in massaging the sum total of their society (including the capitalist elements) into a more effective system.

I consider myself left leaning but I'm most definitely not 'anti-capitalist'. I consider myself a social democrat, which I think you'll find is the position of a significant number of liberals.

But I do understand the general sense of your post that leftism is about fighting inequality and the elements of economies that increase it.

 

[abaddon]

Yea, somehow the above don't all strike me as uniquely conservative traits, but may be more common in conservatives because they're logical counter-points, and a lot of the time modern conservative ideology is just wrong.

Yeah, more common. I tried to be clear I was focusing on "brain failures" (which I take to mean "blind spots") and wasn't trying to find anything "uniquely" characteristic.

I can tell you, though, I've met a lot of leftists who are guilty of the same things.

I would easily accept "hyperliteralism" as a fail in my description, because it might be taking "manners of speaking" and using them as a weapon because, since the person didn't say what they meant literally, it left them open to "interpretation" and ideologues do like to "interpret" their enemy in the most vilifying ways. But liberals I think are more idealistic and interested in applying broad principles of change, and thus would be more (very generally, not "uniquely") prone to see the forest but not the trees. You see it in the arguments, leading the conservs to often challenge them: "But how do you work your vision of 'Oughts' and 'Shoulds' out in reality?" And legalism ... arguments relying on "law says, so there" ... from liberals seeking institutional changes? That'd be surprising to see much of that among liberals.

 

[ryan]

This is a very interesting thread.

Conservative/republican: capitalist/economical libertarian, realists, want little government interventions (unless you are a farmer), believes in a higher power like past kingdoms and empires, strong/inflexible morals, strong/inflexible values, middle age to elderly, generational thinking.

The left: more educated, less selfish, the popular vote, the new trend, youthful, economic socialistic leaning, flexible/bendable morals and values, idealists, less religious, more feelings of guilt, future/forward thinking.

 

[DrZoidberg]

This is a very interesting thread.

Conservative/republican: capitalist/economical libertarian, realists, want little government interventions (unless you are a farmer), believes in a higher power like past kingdoms and empires, strong/inflexible morals, strong/inflexible values, middle age to elderly, generational thinking.

The left: more educated, less selfish, the popular vote, the new trend, youthful, economic socialistic leaning, flexible/bendable morals and values, idealists, less religious, more feelings of guilt, future/forward thinking.

Lol... are you perchance leftist?

On the less selfish one, I'm on team Nietzsche. If we don't have anything to lose we are generous. If we have a lot to lose and risk losing it we are selfish. So selfishness isn't so much about left or right, but about sense of security. If you put that into play left vs right dichotomy is less obvious when it comes to selfishness. If you have nothing and vote for tax laws to help those with nothing, are you being selfish then? I know leftists like dressing up selfishness as generosity.

I'm leftist by the way. But that doesn't make me blind to the wrongs perpetrated by "my" side.

 

[zorq]

This is a very interesting thread.

Conservative/republican: capitalist/economical libertarian, realists, want little government interventions (unless you are a farmer), believes in a higher power like past kingdoms and empires, strong/inflexible morals, strong/inflexible values, middle age to elderly, generational thinking.

The left: more educated, less selfish, the popular vote, the new trend, youthful, economic socialistic leaning, flexible/bendable morals and values, idealists, less religious, more feelings of guilt, future/forward thinking.

Lol... are you perchance leftist?

On the less selfish one, I'm on team Nietzsche. If we don't have anything to lose we are generous. If we have a lot to lose and risk losing it we are selfish. So selfishness isn't so much about left or right, but about sense of security. If you put that into play left vs right dichotomy is less obvious when it comes to selfishness. If you have nothing and vote for tax laws to help those with nothing, are you being selfish then? I know leftists like dressing up selfishness as generosity.

I'm leftist by the way. But that doesn't make me blind to the wrongs perpetrated by "my" side.

It sounds like you think the Rich are more selfish because they have more to lose. But one mistake made by a poor person can cost them their lives while a rich person making the same mistake can often brush it off as a minor inconvenience. I would argue that the poor often play the game of life wagering much higher stakes than the rich.

Consider the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the substantial generosity of the American middle class? Do either one have "nothing to lose?" https://www.philanthropy.com/article/As-Wealthy-Give-Smaller-Share/152481

In my opinon, Government taxes and services can be unfair in either direction: favoring the rich too much or the poor too much. Either one is damaging for the stability and economy of the country. A balance that grows the economy is best. Currently, we have enough balance, but taxes benefit the rich too much due to the history of legal influences that money and the rich has on US politicians. Action needs to be taken or else IMO this imbalance will become a serious problem.

If you are middle class and vote for taxes on the rich to pay for services for the poor, are you being selfish?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Lol... are you perchance leftist?

On the less selfish one, I'm on team Nietzsche. If we don't have anything to lose we are generous. If we have a lot to lose and risk losing it we are selfish. So selfishness isn't so much about left or right, but about sense of security. If you put that into play left vs right dichotomy is less obvious when it comes to selfishness. If you have nothing and vote for tax laws to help those with nothing, are you being selfish then? I know leftists like dressing up selfishness as generosity.

I'm leftist by the way. But that doesn't make me blind to the wrongs perpetrated by "my" side.

It sounds like you think the Rich are more selfish because they have more to lose.

No. What matters is sense of fiscal security. Which has nothing to do with actual wealth. So I don't need to respond to the rest.

But one mistake made by a poor person can cost them their lives while a rich person making the same mistake can often brush it off as a minor inconvenience. I would argue that the poor often play the game of life wagering much higher stakes than the rich.

Consider the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the substantial generosity of the American middle class? Do either one have "nothing to lose?" https://www.philanthropy.com/article/As-Wealthy-Give-Smaller-Share/152481

In my opinon, Government taxes and services can be unfair in either direction: favoring the rich too much or the poor too much. Either one is damaging for the stability and economy of the country. A balance that grows the economy is best. Currently, we have enough balance, but taxes benefit the rich too much due to the history of legal influences that money and the rich has on US politicians. Action needs to be taken or else IMO this imbalance will become a serious problem.

If you are middle class and vote for taxes on the rich to pay for services for the poor, are you being selfish?

"Fairness" is like "freedom". Without a list of qualifiers it's a meaningless word.

 

[ryan]

This is a very interesting thread.

Conservative/republican: capitalist/economical libertarian, realists, want little government interventions (unless you are a farmer), believes in a higher power like past kingdoms and empires, strong/inflexible morals, strong/inflexible values, middle age to elderly, generational thinking.

The left: more educated, less selfish, the popular vote, the new trend, youthful, economic socialistic leaning, flexible/bendable morals and values, idealists, less religious, more feelings of guilt, future/forward thinking.

Lol... are you perchance leftist?

On the less selfish one, I'm on team Nietzsche. If we don't have anything to lose we are generous. If we have a lot to lose and risk losing it we are selfish. So selfishness isn't so much about left or right, but about sense of security. If you put that into play left vs right dichotomy is less obvious when it comes to selfishness. If you have nothing and vote for tax laws to help those with nothing, are you being selfish then? I know leftists like dressing up selfishness as generosity.

I'm leftist by the way. But that doesn't make me blind to the wrongs perpetrated by "my" side.

I am center left.

I think that the left are selfish too, but they believe that the more selfless they are the more they will eventually get. Even though they are ultimately wanting what they want, they do it in more of a selfless way.

 

[untermensche]

The left is about trying to increase the rights of all, trying to increase democratic power as opposed to individual power.

Capitalism is such an assault on so many basic rights and so far from democracy the left has a hard time operating within it because the left is basically opposed to the very nature of capitalism: Opposed to Top-down tyrannical control of the many by the few.

The right is about concentrating power into the few who can prosper through control of the many.

That is why the right finds an easy voice within an authoritarian system like capitalism.

All things exist within an environment, and today that means capitalism.

The left has to be looked at as opposed to many aspects of capitalism and not within a place of comfort within capitalist systems and is always trying to make them more democratic and responsive to the needs and desires of all.

While the right flourishes within a top down capitalist system and is always trying to concentrate power into fewer and fewer hands.

I agree that the left is generally about increasing rights, but disagree that leftism is inherently anti-capitalist, or that rightism is inherently pro-capitalist.

It's more like people who are militaristically pro-capitalist are usually conservatives because it's an end to their goals, and some leftists are anti-capitalists, and the rest are interested in massaging the sum total of their society (including the capitalist elements) into a more effective system.

I consider myself left leaning but I'm most definitely not 'anti-capitalist'. I consider myself a social democrat, which I think you'll find is the position of a significant number of liberals.

But I do understand the general sense of your post that leftism is about fighting inequality and the elements of economies that increase it.

Capitalism is a system of top down dictatorial control.

It is not something a person who believes in democratic control could support.

A person can call themselves whatever they want.

But supporting dictatorial control over democratic control is not a feature of the "left".

 

[rousseau]

I agree that the left is generally about increasing rights, but disagree that leftism is inherently anti-capitalist, or that rightism is inherently pro-capitalist.

It's more like people who are militaristically pro-capitalist are usually conservatives because it's an end to their goals, and some leftists are anti-capitalists, and the rest are interested in massaging the sum total of their society (including the capitalist elements) into a more effective system.

I consider myself left leaning but I'm most definitely not 'anti-capitalist'. I consider myself a social democrat, which I think you'll find is the position of a significant number of liberals.

But I do understand the general sense of your post that leftism is about fighting inequality and the elements of economies that increase it.

Capitalism is a system of top down dictatorial control.

It is not something a person who believes in democratic control could support.

A person can call themselves whatever they want.

But supporting dictatorial control over democratic control is not a feature of the "left".

It sounds like we're headed toward a commonly repeated discussion but I'll highlight it anyway.

Your argument is that 'capitalism' is an intentional and deliberate institution that can be melded into a democratic form.

I would argue that the term 'capitalism' is nothing but a convenient label to describe certain aspects of our society that are naturally oriented that way at this point in time. As past conversations have led me to believe you disagree here.

The distinction in belief, though, is that to some human nature and experience implies capitalistic behaviour and so capitalist elements of economies are just naturally there.

Yes I agree that leftism is about reining in this process, but I think for many there is room to be progressive and accept that competition for survival is a natural part of being alive and not just something dreamt up by white people in suits.

If there is some alternative to a society that works without relying on human nature I'd love to hear about it.

 

[untermensche]

Human nature is that humans are the products of their environments.

A democratic society creates different people than a society full of top down dictatorships with real power.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Human nature is that humans are the products of their environments.

A democratic society creates different people than a society full of top down dictatorships with real power.

So to get this on topic again. Your argument is that everybody but you is a deluded idiot?

 

[untermensche]

Human nature is that humans are the products of their environments.

A democratic society creates different people than a society full of top down dictatorships with real power.

So to get this on topic again. Your argument is that everybody but you is a deluded idiot?

That is something a pathetically lost deluded idiot might conclude.

But my points have all been concise and clear.

The left is about increasing democratic control, while the right is about increasing the dictatorial control of individuals.

So within a top down totalitarian system like capitalism, the right will flourish and the left will struggle to find a place for a foothold.

The left can only operate freely in systems that discourage totalitarian control and support democratic control.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So to get this on topic again. Your argument is that everybody but you is a deluded idiot?

That is something a pathetically lost deluded idiot might conclude.

But my points have all been concise and clear.

The left is about increasing democratic control, while the right is about increasing the dictatorial control of individuals.

So within a top down totalitarian system like capitalism, the right will flourish and the left will struggle to find a place for a foothold.

The left can only operate freely in systems that discourage totalitarian control and support democratic control.

So if you would be a devil's advocate against your own argument, what would you suggest you might say?