The philosophy of politics

[untermensche]

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?

It is an idealistic argument.

It is based on the idea that there really is this human tendency, in some, towards democratic control.

I think history bears this out.

I think in government it is widely accepted that totalitarian control is not legitimate control.

When this general thinking will carry over the workplace, where it should, is unknown.

 

[rousseau]

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.

And our environments are also a product of our nature, this is not a point up for debate.

Human lives do have specific, objective parameters which shape our experiences and societies, and in turn our environment affects our nature, but biology is the origin and capitalistic behaviour is the result.

At your extreme people's ability to strive past each other is somehow regulated, all are equal, all have the same amount. How is this complete regulation of people's desire for consumption freedom?

 

[DrZoidberg]

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

It is an idealistic argument.

It is based on the idea that there really is this human tendency, in some, towards democratic control.

I think history bears this out.

I think in government it is widely accepted that totalitarian control is not legitimate control.

When this general thinking will carry over the workplace, where it should, is unknown.

This is what I was trying to get at. It's idealistic. The whole point of this thread was to find weakneses in the various camps arguments. But you aren't interested in finding weaknesses in the left. Don't you think their are any?

 

[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.

And our environments are also a product of our nature, this is not a point up for debate.

Human lives do have specific, objective parameters which shape our experiences and societies, and in turn our environment affects our nature, but biology is the origin and capitalistic behaviour is the result.

At your extreme people's ability to strive past each other is somehow regulated, all are equal, all have the same amount. How is this complete regulation of people's desire for consumption freedom?

Capitalism is something held in place with the extreme force of the state.

And it is something that when it get's control of a state, as it has in the US, uses the state to attack all other forms of economic activity.

Look at the history of the US in the late 20th Century.

Attack of Cuba, attack of Chile, attack of Brazil and Guatemala and Haiti and Nicaragua and Iran and Vietnam.

All attacked because they tried to move from the US dominated capitalist model.

Human history has been a slow movement away from totalitarian systems like capitalism towards democratic systems.

That is human nature if there is one.

- - - Updated - - -

It is an idealistic argument.

It is based on the idea that there really is this human tendency, in some, towards democratic control.

I think history bears this out.

I think in government it is widely accepted that totalitarian control is not legitimate control.

When this general thinking will carry over the workplace, where it should, is unknown.

This is what I was trying to get at. It's idealistic. The whole point of this thread was to find weakneses in the various camps arguments. But you aren't interested in finding weaknesses in the left. Don't you think their are any?

If one calls something like the Democratic party, a party presently devoted to the rich and opposed to democracy, the "left" then any rational discussion is over.

 

[rousseau]

And our environments are also a product of our nature, this is not a point up for debate.

Human lives do have specific, objective parameters which shape our experiences and societies, and in turn our environment affects our nature, but biology is the origin and capitalistic behaviour is the result.

At your extreme people's ability to strive past each other is somehow regulated, all are equal, all have the same amount. How is this complete regulation of people's desire for consumption freedom?

Capitalism is something held in place with the extreme force of the state.

And it is something that when it get's control of a state, as it has in the US, uses the state to attack all other forms of economic activity.

Look at the history of the US in the late 20th Century.

Attack of Cuba, attack of Chile, attack of Brazil and Guatemala and Haiti and Nicaragua and Iran and Vietnam.

All attacked because they tried to move from the US dominated capitalist model.

Human history has been a slow movement away from totalitarian systems like capitalism towards democratic systems.

That is human nature if there is one.

- - - Updated - - -

It is an idealistic argument.

It is based on the idea that there really is this human tendency, in some, towards democratic control.

I think history bears this out.

I think in government it is widely accepted that totalitarian control is not legitimate control.

When this general thinking will carry over the workplace, where it should, is unknown.

This is what I was trying to get at. It's idealistic. The whole point of this thread was to find weakneses in the various camps arguments. But you aren't interested in finding weaknesses in the left. Don't you think their are any?

If one calls something like the Democratic party, a party presently devoted to the rich and opposed to democracy, the "left" then any rational discussion is over.

So you're interested in furthering your cause and not discussing the topic of the thread, as is the case with most political threads you post in.

I respect your stance but sometimes people just want to uncover the truth related to their thread's subject, not listen to the same arguments put forth ad nauseum.

 

[untermensche]

So you're interested in furthering your cause and not discussing the topic of the thread, as is the case with most political threads you post in.

I respect your stance but sometimes people just want to uncover the truth related to their thread's subject, not listen to the same arguments put forth ad nauseum.

I have no cause.

Just consistent ideas about many things.

I have directly addressed ideas expressed in this thread. Unlike you here.

 

[ryan]

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.

... but biology is the origin and capitalistic behaviour is the result.

I disagree even though it sure seems this way on the surface. I like to think that at least some democrats, myself for one, believe that the individual actually gets more with certain social policies, and I don't mean mooching off the government. For example, the capitalists/republicans in Alberta cringe at the NDP's concern for the environment.

Well, I for one don't think I am going to get very far capitalist or not if the environment becomes more of a financial and health burden. Another example is medical research. Bill Gates himself does not have enough money to make the advances that a well organized social and business orientated program could provide for him. He may get the best treatment of what there is available today, but a collective push for better medical research from taxes would surely give him better care as just a normal citizen.

Synergy, the parts get more when they all work together.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If one calls something like the Democratic party, a party presently devoted to the rich and opposed to democracy, the "left" then any rational discussion is over.

You want to go there? Political party names are very rarely a declarations of contents. Usually they're historical hold-overs. This is especially true for the two major American political parties. Once upon a time Thomas Jefferson formed the Democratic-republican party. Not quite happily ever after, since there was a split in the party. And now we have the Republicans and the Democracts. Are you somehow implying that the Republicans are against democracy because they don't have democracy in their name?

On that topic, political parties with the name "democratic" in them usually aren't democratic. There's quite a few of those, especially in conjunction with "the people's".

Or were you just trying to derail the conversation because your argument it wasn't going anywhere?

 

[fromderinside]

Its not you DrZoidberg its the recency of my intervention. You are just the most recent responding to the adhoms of another. Apparently this thread has been reduced to adhoming the relevance of others' arguments.

 

[untermensche]

If one calls something like the Democratic party, a party presently devoted to the rich and opposed to democracy, the "left" then any rational discussion is over.

You want to go there? Political party names are very rarely a declarations of contents. Usually they're historical hold-overs. This is especially true for the two major American political parties. Once upon a time Thomas Jefferson formed the Democratic-republican party. Not quite happily ever after, since there was a split in the party. And now we have the Republicans and the Democracts. Are you somehow implying that the Republicans are against democracy because they don't have democracy in their name?

On that topic, political parties with the name "democratic" in them usually aren't democratic. There's quite a few of those, especially in conjunction with "the people's".

Or were you just trying to derail the conversation because your argument it wasn't going anywhere?

I'm trying to arrive at rational distinctions between opposing philosophies.

Political labels are extremely general and not worth much.

But the distinction between authoritarian rule and democratic rule is clear.

The distinction between "King" appointed by the gods and "representative" elected by people is clear.

Presently in the US there really is no party that believes in democracy and furthering democracy, meaning bringing democracy into the workplace where it belongs and ending authoritarian control within institutions.

No real "left". Just 2 authoritarian parties in bed with, corrupted by, authoritarian business leaders.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm trying to arrive at rational distinctions between opposing philosophies.

No you weren't. You were simply arguing for your own hobby horse. You steamrolled the thread, as you always do, and keep arguing the same thing you always do, in every political thread you post in.

 

[iolo]

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?

Depends when and where you happen to be. Obviously we become socialists because the meanest intelligence can see the present system stinks and will destroy us, but most of us (here anyway) are socialists because we want an economic democracy where everyone matters and ordinary working people control the world for the common benefit, and what we are mostly interested in is how to bring it about. The likes of Bliar, whose interests were confined to his own wealth and glory, need to be analysed and dealt with, unfortunately, and it takes a lot of time. One odd side-effect of the analysis you speak of is that socialists learn how the system works, and can work it if they are sufficiently stupid to want to. Of the four serious socialists in our sixth form, one was a homosexual with his own agenda, one was yours truly, and the other two are now billionaires. Go and do thou differently!

 

[iolo]

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.

'Human nature' is, I think, a new way of saying 'original sin'. Since we lack real instincts, we don't really have such a 'nature', and tend to follow the prevailing ideology, which in the capitalist case is so full of contradictions that it simply can't hang together, anywhere.

 

[untermensche]

I'm trying to arrive at rational distinctions between opposing philosophies.

No you weren't. You were simply arguing for your own hobby horse. You steamrolled the thread, as you always do, and keep arguing the same thing you always do, in every political thread you post in.

So again you find a way to ignore everything I've written.

It doesn't take much to steamroll over shit.

 

[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.

'Human nature' is, I think, a new way of saying 'original sin'. Since we lack real instincts, we don't really have such a 'nature', and tend to follow the prevailing ideology, which in the capitalist case is so full of contradictions that it simply can't hang together, anywhere.

There are two aspects of "human nature". The individual genetic endowment and the experiences of the individual.

"Human nature" is not something "fixed". It is something that varies depending on environment.

Normal humans in Canada for instance see government provided health insurance as a basic human right. They are products of their environment.

While many US citizens see it as a luxury. Products of a twisted environment.

 

[iolo]

'Human nature' is, I think, a new way of saying 'original sin'. Since we lack real instincts, we don't really have such a 'nature', and tend to follow the prevailing ideology, which in the capitalist case is so full of contradictions that it simply can't hang together, anywhere.

There are two aspects of "human nature". The individual genetic endowment and the experiences of the individual.

"Human nature" is not something "fixed". It is something that varies depending on environment.

Normal humans in Canada for instance see government provided health insurance as a basic human right. They are products of their environment.

While many US citizens see it as a luxury. Products of a twisted environment.

As normally used, though, it tends to mean 'something basic to humans which makes all decency impossible'. It may now be held to have something to do with genetics, but it predates that science. If we said it was human nature to be shaped, one way of another, by the prevailing means of production, mode of production and ideology of the society people live in, we might agree, but we'd be talking largely to ourselves, I think.

 

[untermensche]

As normally used, though, it tends to mean 'something basic to humans which makes all decency impossible'. It may now be held to have something to do with genetics, but it predates that science. If we said it was human nature to be shaped, one way of another, by the prevailing means of production, mode of production and ideology of the society people live in, we might agree, but we'd be talking largely to ourselves, I think.

Since, as you say, some introduce the notion of "human nature" into their political philosophy it is essential that this term be defined accurately.

It is really an irrational argument of last resort. When a political philosophy that leads to exploitation and harm can not be defended morally the last resort is that it is a matter of "human nature".

It is a cop out.

Really a way to avoid examination of moral issues. A transparent dodge, not a real argument.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Bravo, you just passed the test that proves you rely on clichés to live your political life.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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?

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

 

[Speakpigeon]

... but biology is the origin and capitalistic behaviour is the result.

I disagree even though it sure seems this way on the surface. I like to think that at least some democrats, myself for one, believe that the individual actually gets more with certain social policies, and I don't mean mooching off the government. For example, the capitalists/republicans in Alberta cringe at the NDP's concern for the environment.

Well, I for one don't think I am going to get very far capitalist or not if the environment becomes more of a financial and health burden. Another example is medical research. Bill Gates himself does not have enough money to make the advances that a well organized social and business orientated program could provide for him. He may get the best treatment of what there is available today, but a collective push for better medical research from taxes would surely give him better care as just a normal citizen.

Synergy, the parts get more when they all work together.

Like ants.

Let's do the Hive.
EB