Political and Philosophical Roots - Why do you think the way you do?

Cobra Commander · 2003-10-25 12:06:05

Given the diverse range of opinions on this forum, coupled with the rare ability of the members to carry on an intelligent conversation despite them, I think it might be interesting to find out how we collectively formed those opinions, whether through experience or indoctrination.

Of course having started this topic I should in all fairness go first; but in the interest of actually having a discussion about us instead of fending off epithets directed toward me I'm going to hold off until we have a discussion underway. Any takers?

Palomar · 2003-10-25 12:50:40

Given the diverse range of opinions on this forum, coupled with the rare ability of the members to carry on an intelligent conversation despite them,

*Erm...Cobra baby, did you really mean to phrase it that way?

I'm not sure I'll toss my hat into the ring, but here's a suggestion:

1. Start a temporary Yahoo! Group for this particular discussion, but set the Group controls for membership approval (i.e. not just anyone can join; they have to request it).
2. Persons requesting to join must have an established ID here (regardless of whether they interact regularly or not).
3. Everyone who requests to join the Group must understand that they will be expected to contribute their political and philosophical ideas on an ::equal:: basis with everyone else. No one standing around, lurking, etc.; contribute, state your views and the reasons for them -- or get unsubscribed.

I'd be more inclined to go that route, although that's not saying I would join.

If this seems harsh...well, the topic matter necessarily involves a bit of "wear your heart on your sleeve." And as there is at least one person here who seems to relish the "cloak of mystery" while never (or hardly ever) refraining from practically demanding to know why/how others think, perceive, etc., well...let's just say I think reciprocity is warranted and desirable.

My 2 cents' worth.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2003-10-25 13:50:40

Given the diverse range of opinions on this forum, coupled with the rare ability of the members to carry on an intelligent conversation despite them,
*Erm...Cobra baby, did you really mean to phrase it that way?

Hmm, I see what you mean. I meant that those on the forum are unusual in their ability to carry on intelligent conversations with people of greatly opposed opinions, rather than the more common "no, you're wrong and you're stupid" response. It was intended to be a compliment. Ah well, this is what lack of sleep does. At this rate I'll probably start typing in Klingon in an hour two.

If this seems harsh...well, the topic matter necessarily involves a bit of "wear your heart on your sleeve." And as there is at least one person here who seems to relish the "cloak of mystery" while never (or hardly ever) refraining from practically demanding to know why/how others think, perceive, etc., well...let's just say I think reciprocity is warranted and desirable.

Good point. If anyone else takes the Yahoo route I'm in, but if the thread dies before it starts so be it. I'm actually in a quandry myself over this, generally believing that an unwillingness to explain and defend one's principles diminishes their argument on the one hand, and just not really wanting the abuse on the other.

Wouldn't be the first bad idea.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-10-25 20:53:46

I think it's possible to give some idea of how we come by our beliefs and attitudes, without necessarily wearing your heart on your sleeve. (No offence, Cindy. I understand what you're saying.)
I started out thinking the basics of socialism are the only way to go: From each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her need. What could be more equitable and civilised? In highschool I was a decidedly left-wing socialist and even bought the 'Socialist Worker' newsletter one of my school friends used to sell.
As life went on, it occurred to me that people were usually very keen to take 'according to their need' but considerably more reluctant to give 'according to their ability'!

I was brought up thinking there is a right way to treat people, that manners are extremely important, and that self-discipline is absolutely pivotal to self-esteem and, as a consequence, to 'happiness'. I confess to being something of a perfectionist, not always easy for my long-suffering wife to put up with! In many ways, this is a character flaw (one of several, no doubt) but it can be put to good use occasionally when a job needs doing well.
But people like me, with an ingrained, almost genetic, sense of duty (it's not saintliness, I just can't seem to help it), are at a great disadvantage in a socialist system. This is probably especially true in today's atmosphere of 'personal freedom', 'if it feels good do it', 'don't take any crap from anyone', 'stand up for your rights', and 'take whatever you can get, you deserve it'!

It dawned on me fairly early in the piece that, under socialism, there is an unerring tendency for fewer and fewer people to end up doing more and more of the real work, while more and more people regard more and more handouts as their God-given right. Politicians see this burgeoning 'handout mentality' as a means to 'buy' votes and compete with one another to promise ever greater largesse with tax-payers money. Eventually and inevitably, you end up with a massive government welfare structure, which starts out as a safety net but rapidly expands into a feather bed for the terminally indolent!

I still see socialism as the ideal global political system, if only it could be made to work.
However, nobody could be more disappointed than I am to report that it doesn't work because, unfortunately, a large self-serving segment of society just won't allow it to work.
The only way to organise things seems to be to make society a meritocracy, whereby there is some kind of spur to make people contribute. In other words, if you work hard you gain the benefits of that work but if you don't work you suffer adverse consequences in some way. In today's world of 'all rights but no responsibilities', that is a treasonous suggestion, I know, and I can hear the blades being sharpened already!

Almost perversely, I admit, I've come to associate socialism with all that's wrong with society. To me, it encourages sloth, selfishness and self-indulgence in the populace, and a cynical, 'pander-to-the-lowest-common-denominator' attitude in politicians.
And this isn't armchair philosophy either. I've worked long and hard under a socialist system here in Australia, between 1983 and 1996, I've paid the big tax bills, wrestled with the endless government legislation just to employ people, and seen the profligate waste of public money. At one stage, the federal government was donating $10,000 per annum to the Lesbian Surfers' Club on the Gold Coast! (I've nothing whatsoever against lesbian surfers, but for God's sake ... !! )

By the same token, I fully understand that big business is just as much in need of careful and strict control. The greed and self-interest in humanity is certainly not confined to the small end of town! Far from it. For example, here in Australia the four big banks are in collusion, no longer constrained by competition, and are totally out of control. The local petroleum companies also indulge in price-setting and manipulation of the market. A good dose of government intervention there would certainly be useful.

The bottom line is that, in some sense, most people have to be driven. Regrettably, the 'socialist man', who gets out of bed each morning anxious to improve the lot of his neighbours by working hard for the common good, has yet to evolve.

Your turn, Cobra!

Josh Cryer · 2003-10-27 01:38:51

Laziness.

Byron · 2003-10-27 06:45:09

Very good replies, Shaun and Cindy...guess it's my turn now!

First of all, I should say my philosophical / political / religious / spiritual beliefs are far from static...indeed, they have a tendency to change from time to time, which goes hand-in-in with my personality of "going with whatever works best." I'm probably the least "loyal" person you'll ever know...lol.

However, I was brought up at the height of the liberal era of the 1970's...and my educational experiences certainly reflect the best and worst of this time...lol. I also had the good fortune of growing up in a very prosperous town where money practically grew on trees. (A town that had three major industries - tobacco, textiles and furniture-making, plus a strong "Washington Connection" that insured the constant inflow of federal dollars, for just about anything you can imagine.) So naturally, I grew up with the idea that money would always be easy to come by; that even entry-level jobs would pay a decent wage, and that taxes would always remain low in relation to the level of government services received. So when I grew up and faced with the realities of how things really were in this country, I was in for a rude awakening, but not before I went traveling in Australia and New Zealand for four months and learned how people lived their lives over there, which was pretty danged good, in my opinion.

But in my 20's and early 30's, I was faced with the realities of low-paying jobs and increasing costs of living; and while I did have a five-year long career with the County that paid fairly well, it turned out to be a nightmare towards the end because of a certain individual who apparently viewed me as a threat. It was at this precise point in my life when I was finally beginning to learn the lesson of hard work and dedication bringing just rewards, when this whole ideal was shattered by the capracious actions of a single person...indeed, I went from writing reports for elected officials to doing mindless data entry, just because that's what the boss thought I should be doing.

So from this point on, I developed a very cynical attitude towards work, and to this day, I still have the belief that luck plays a bigger role than effort in getting ahead; as well as the idea that people reach the top not because of their sense of "duty" or sheer dedication, but because they massage the egos of the people above them above all else. If a worker plays by the rules, works hard and maintains the highest level of ethics, I really don't think that is a recipe for success, unless you've got a bit of good luck on your side as well. I've seen too many good people getting screwed by circumstances beyond their control and too many "bad" people going to the top of the ladder to believe otherwise.

So naturally, I believe that workers really do have the raw end of the deal in this country, which is why I support policies that favor workers over employers. I just don't see how companies can get away with paying workers a poverty wage while the CEOs get millions for doing practically nothing. (Or in the case of my boss, who got paid 3X my salary for closing the door to her office and gabbing on the phone all day, coming out every now and then to "micromanage" just so she could look like she was doing her job.) While I don't believe in a pure socialistic system, mainly for the reasons Shaun described about human nature, I do think that this same "human nature" of attempting to get something for nothing (or very little) needs to be put in check for capitalistic systems as well, which is why I think a blended system that encompasses the best of both systems would be the most ideal just about anywhere. This is why I am now against so-called "free trade," as how can we preserve the high-paying job base in countries like the U.S. and Australia if we ship all our jobs to low-wage countries? How can we preserve the middle class of our respective nations if the rich are allowed to make unlimited money while the proletariat class is being relegated to the rubbish bin? Clearly, some sense of balance is called for here.

As for my personal, philisophical beliefs...again, I should bring up the point again about me not being a loyal person whatsoever, which is why I don't subscribe to the beliefs of historical philosophers and the like...I mean, I'll read just about anything that is put in front of me...I do have an almost insatiable sense of curiousity...but I'll never accept what anyone says as gospel. This is why I have a special dislike for "orgs", as Cindy kindly refers to them (I prefer to call them "cults" myself.) I've known people that have gotten involved in those tar pits, and quite frankly, I think the "leaders" of these organizations should be rounded up and shipped off to a very cold and barren place...permanently. I've learned the painful life lesson one time too many that it simply does not pay to place your loyalties in anyone but yourself, and in my case at least, immediate family.

In closing, I would like to add that I do take pride in my open-mindness and endless curiousity, and I really do enjoy what other people have to say, because how can you learn and expand your mind if you lock yourself in to a certain belief system? To all of you that post regularly on this board...irregardless of what it is you say, I enjoy it all...so please keep up the great work!

B

clark · 2003-10-27 09:59:07

I love pretense.

I don't believe in anything, but I think those that do are blessed with an ability I lack. I want to understand Mars, or more precisely, why anyone in their right mind would want to go there.

This of course invariably leads me down some rather odd and bizarre trails, as I climb to the top of an individuals self-made mountain to see the view.

I don't think knowing my hobbies will help me, or you. I post here, in different threads, and I would think anyone who is reasonably intelligent, might at least guess at what some of my interests are. If not, then you aren't paying close enough attention, or you haven't bothered to listen.

I abhore the 'box' we all seek to place ourselves, and others in. Define, assign, move-on. To misapply what Josh posted, 'laziness' in a word.

I don't think there is a right or a wrong answer when it comes to politcs. Politics is the means by which we come to a broad consensus on what is right, and what is wrong. Invariably though, we still struggle over the conclusions, no matter the result.

Hell, we're still arguing over issues that were once settled 250+ years ago, or so our Founders thought.

If I must believe in somthing though, I believe in the capacity of humans, of people. Not for 'good', or for 'evil' per se, but just the capacity for anything. We each have the power to do great things, or horrible things, or absolutely nothing at all.

It's part of what it is to have this 'human' condition. And it's what we deal with every morning we wake up, and every evening we think before we sleep. Choices.

So, this is how I see the world. Now indulge me, if you care to, what do you think is the best way to deal with another persons choice?

Because this is the basis for every single argument ever discussed here, or anywhere.

Now, i've said to much, so back to the cave with me!

Palomar · 2003-10-27 16:34:18

Shaun: "I still see socialism as the ideal global political system, if only it could be made to work.
However, nobody could be more disappointed than I am to report that it doesn't work because, unfortunately, a large self-serving segment of society just won't allow it to work.
The only way to organise things seems to be to make society a meritocracy, whereby there is some kind of spur to make people contribute."

*Interesting, Shaun. The "spur" you speak of could perhaps come in the form of an incentive plan. But I wonder if that would even work, to wit: In my line of work, there are two ways employers handle transcription work: 1) All employees are paid a flat hourly rate to do the work. In the Midwest, with its strong work ethic, this generally did the trick -- the work got done, everyone pretty much pulled their weight, etc. 2) Another way is to create a baseline wage -and- an incentive plan: For example, a hospital would hire me at x-amount of dollars per hour based on my years of experience; I and all other transcribers would be EXPECTED to type at least 1000 or 1200 lines in 8 hours [consistent failure to meet the quota results in disciplinary action and, if not resolved, termination of employment]. Any and all lines typed above that minimum requirement will fetch the transcriber 3 to 5 cents per line (which really add$ up!). The incentive plan in transcription is the only one I care to work with, because it ensures all transcribers HAVE TO type the required lines (equal weight-pulling), and if Jane Doe doesn't want to keep her butt parked in the chair and push for incentive-pay lines -- well, it's her loss and her paycheck (no skin off my nose). But I did work in one hospital where, believe it or not, the incentive plan (a good one) didn't seem to matter. 5 of 8 daily transcribers did a lot of chatting and gossiping over the work station partitions, the boss became angry and punished all of us for it, etc. So go figure. Some people aren't smart enough, I guess, to NOT cut their own throats...sad thing is, others often get consequenced for it as well.

I agree with much of what you say. I don't expect anyone to do for me (and provide for my wants and needs) what I can't do for myself, and never have. But some people have no integrity or self-esteem I guess.

Shaun: "In other words, if you work hard you gain the benefits of that work but if you don't work you suffer adverse consequences in some way. In today's world of 'all rights but no responsibilities', that is a treasonous suggestion, I know, and I can hear the blades being sharpened already!"

*Treasonous my foot. I think you're simply being reasonable. There's no Gravy Train if some people aren't willing to stand in the heat of the kitchen and make the damned gravy.

I wish I had The Answer to these quandries. I've known a few employers who I felt were fair, consistent, accommodating, and respectful to their employees (many of whom subsequently saw that as a "green light" of sorts to start taking advantage, whining, making childish demands of the employer, etc.)...and of course I've known abusive and churlish employers whom everyone (rightfully) moan about and hate. I think part of the problem is many people don't know a good thing when they see it (both employers and employees).

Shaun, it seems you said you have to get permission or go through paperwork from your gov't just to HIRE people?? ["...wrestled with the endless government legislation just to employ people..."] Please elaborate a bit? Perhaps I misunderstood.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2003-10-27 17:02:47

Quite enlightening. Apparently it wasn?t such a bad idea after all.

Your turn, Cobra!

Fair enough. The short version.

A philosophical framework is just that, a structure we erect, on which we order our beliefs. The best of them can bend with a quake, but even then sometimes you need to tear the whole thing down and start over. I?m about as open-minded as they come, but without convincing evidence I?ll dismiss a claim quickly. but enough stalling!

To confirm suspicions, yes, I was a full-fledged fascist. Not at first, but in response to shortcomings of more moderate political systems.

Those who are thinking ?Nazi,? no, not the same thing. Do your research. It could take awhile. Or, the simple, barely adequate answer: Nazis are inherently racist, fascists aren?t. Nazis are extremely dogmatic, fascists aren?t. If you put fascism, Soviet communism, and Nazism together in a box, aside from a fight, you get an idea how much Nazism and Soviet communism had in common and fascism looks, dare I say, moderate. Not an apology for it, BTW. But on to the why.

I am of the opinion that, at least in the Western democracies, an person develops the core of their beliefs in and shortly after high school, even if only in a negative sense. It's usually something attractive but unworkable, forms of socialism being the most common. I knew a number of pinkos in high school and college, but they never really made much sense to me. I liked many aspects of the western democratic principles. Free speech, which I abused at times, was high on the list. I considered the Bill of Rights to be the most important document in the history of the US, even more so than the Constitution itself. But I could not accept democracy.

I considered socialism to be a large-scale version of chemistry lab. Five people in a group, two do all the work, three skate by on the labor of the other two. But that damned not only socialism, but democracy as well. I figured if these three (the majority) are too ignorant, lazy or just plain stupid to do the work then it's best to keep them out of the loop entirely. Let us do it right, sit back, shut up, and enjoy the benefits.

Ah, fascism. The national community working together for the benefit of all, the readiness to fight when required, the cool black shirts! Of course the down side was ongoing abuse from people who thought fascism and Nazism were the same thing. They wouldn't know a Nazi if one came up and nationalized strategic industry, re-armed, and annexed the Sudetenland. But that ignorant hostility taught me that to lose on your principles is better than to betray them for personal comfort. Fortunately not many people got really violent over political doctrines, (too concerned with meaningless BS) but heated arguments were common, and entertaining. To this day I can?t help but laugh when someone admonishes my roots in an ideology from the 1930?s as archaic and retrograde, then with a straight face spouts ideas from the 18th century, calling them progressive. Not that the Enlightenment was bad, but it produced its share of drivel.

For me, fascism had positive aspects beyond the political. For one, it has helped make me extremely hard on people when they?re being hypocritical, mercilessly tearing them down if they push too far. Yes, I?m a dick at times, but never undeserved. I think it?s a good thing.

It also forced me to be sure I can?t be subjected to the same abuse. My conduct is more honest and honorable than I otherwise might be inclined to be. Loyalty is of profound importance (unless that hypocrite thing comes up) and an oath actually means something. Needless to say, my wife likes this aspect of it. In a very real sense fascism has made me a better person, though I?d probably have had more fun if I?d been a raging socialist. There?s a lot of commie women out there.

But fascism threatened to negate the very rights I thought were vital to protect. I needed to fuse the best aspects of fascism and ?democracy.? It?s a work in progress.

I recently used the term "Post-Fascist Libertarian" to describe my current state and that seems to fit as well as anything. The basic idea is that government leaves the people alone to live as they will, no ?nanny-state? regulations, very little welfare apparatus (of which historical fascism had more than you?d think) and very low taxes. Freedom with responsibility. Life, Liberty, Property. This negates property taxes and income taxes, in case anyone was wondering. The other side is that the government is free to govern, using whatever means are required as long as they do not interfere with the rights of the people. I?ve given some thought to a political structure based on this approach, which I?ve taken to calling ?Ad-Hocracy? for lack of a better term.

The great dilemma, as with all political systems, is how do you make sure that the right people are running things? I would argue that those who want the power probably shouldn?t have it, but beyond that I don?t really know. I do know that democratic systems grow larger and more corrupt until they can no longer be fixed through the democratic process.

Don?t worry Mr. Ashcroft, I?m not planning anything. Please take me off the list.

In short, both fascism and liberalism are on my reject pile, but both made valuable contributions. Perhaps one day I?ll devise that perfect system, but I doubt it. I mean, if I were that good they?d make me dictator for five years, followed by voluntary exile on Mars.

Laziness.

Anarchists...

Cobra Commander · 2003-10-27 17:30:17

In closing, I would like to add that I do take pride in my open-mindness and endless curiousity, and I really do enjoy what other people have to say, because how can you learn and expand your mind if you lock yourself in to a certain belief system? To all of you that post regularly on this board...irregardless of what it is you say, I enjoy it all...so please keep up the great work!
B

Well said, Byron.

Josh Cryer · 2003-10-27 18:05:29

Laziness.
Anarchists...

Any increased efficiency in a given system is the result of laziness.

Technology is mans conduit for his laziness. I just found a system which fits my laziness the best. Anarchism + technology == workable. I have no delusions about anarchism working outside of such a system.

Ironically, perhaps, the easiest job I've had was working construction in 102 degree Colorado heat. It was easy because I was in charge. I had no one dictating what to do, and in fact, I had few people I worked with, and when I did, I would just tell them to follow what I was doing. I wouldn't order them around because I hated being ordered around. I've always had that streak in me. Ever since my dad told me to stop throwing down a spoon at the dinner table when I was 2, and my ass became red-as-an-apple for disobeying, I have disrespected certain authorities.

Josh Cryer · 2003-10-27 18:17:52

Cindy, your comments about transciptionists reminds me of when my brother worked as a 411 operator. 411 charges a fee for every time you use it, not sure what it is, but it's something like 50 cents or so, if I recall.

Anyway, I learned that 411 operators, on a given day, get 5-10k calls. 10 thousand calls! (Potentially $5000!) But they get a flat wage of about $11 (which translates to about $88 a day), but I believe they can get raises to up to $14 or so, I don't remember exactly.

(Mind you, you have to meet a certain requirement for number of calls or you're fired, so in reality there does exist a minimum number of calls you must take, so it's not like the flat wage equates job security as it's suggested here.)

In any case, just 1 cent on a call as would alone be more than a person would make as flat wage (if they did a large number of calls, of course; but still).

Byron · 2003-10-27 18:18:14

I wouldn't order them around because I hated being ordered around. I've always had that streak in me. Ever since my dad told me to stop throwing down a spoon at the dinner table when I was 2, and my ass became red-as-an-apple for disobeying, I have disrespected certain authorities.

Good for you!

B

Shaun Barrett · 2003-10-28 02:18:43

First, Cindy, thanks for letting me know you agree with some of my ramblings. It's encouraging to think at least somebody sees a situation in the same way!

(Incidentally, in answer to your question, I was only referring to the regulations and paperwork one has to deal with in Australia in order to employ someone. The tax office, the superannuation guarantee people, the workplace health and safety people ... they all require information. There are minimum pay scales for different types of job and different ages of employee in that job, minimum holiday regulations, sick leave regulations etc. etc. I know they're all there to protect employees from evil bosses but, for the average employer (like me), they're just a nightmare.
I think you already know about the unfair dismissal regulations in force here and the legal charade I was involved in as a result of them. A long boring story I won't repeat! )

CC, my thoughts about political systems have ranged far and wide and I've considered radical solutions to the pitfalls of democracy, just as you have. I find your ideas refreshing and honest and I concur with your ideas about promises and loyalty.
There is a great deal we have in common, though I have reservations about systems involving long-term power in the hands of a few or only one. So do you, I believe.
Fascinating stuff, everyone. Thank you.

Byron · 2003-10-28 06:03:51

I know they're all there to protect employees from evil bosses but, for the average employer (like me), they're just a nightmare.

Shaun, if you could have spent just one day in my shoes with my "evil boss," then you would clearly understand why those regs are there...but I am truly sorry that the good bosses out there (yes, I know there's at least one...you! ) have to pay the price for the crappy ones out there...just like anything else in life, the one bad apple has a tendency to spoil the whole bunch...

B

Shaun Barrett · 2003-10-28 07:03:31

Byron:-

I've learned the painful life lesson one time too many that it simply does not pay to place your loyalties in anyone but yourself ...

Such cynicism in one so young!

You're a good man, Byron. Too good to let your idealism be dragged down by the few mongrels you've had the misfortune to meet. If you allow that to happen, the people I call the 'negative quantities' of this world have won. And they can never really win, unless you let them, because what they're climbing over you to gain, what they're selling their souls for, isn't worth having.
At the risk of sounding kitsch, there's an excerpt from 'Desiderata' I rather like: "Exercise caution in your business affairs, for the world is full of trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals, and everywhere life is full of heroism."
This translates into the common-or-garden version I prefer: "Don't let the bastards wear you down!"
Seriously, Byron, there are millions and millions of very good people out there.

Byron:-

... I think the "leaders" of these organisations should be rounded up and shipped off to a very cold and barren place...permanently.

A 'cold and barren place', eh?
Hmmm ... I hope you ain't a thinkin' 'bout where I'm a thinkin' ... !!

Byron · 2003-10-28 08:23:43

A 'cold and barren place', eh?

I was thinking more along the lines of someplace like Pluto...hehe...

B

clark · 2003-10-28 12:29:34

I recently used the term "Post-Fascist Libertarian" to describe my current state and that seems to fit as well as anything. The basic idea is that government leaves the people alone to live as they will, no ?nanny-state? regulations, very little welfare apparatus (of which historical fascism had more than you?d think) and very low taxes. Freedom with responsibility. Life, Liberty, Property. This negates property taxes and income taxes, in case anyone was wondering.

Well spoken Cobra, but seeing as this is a 'work in progress', perhaps you might here a point of view related to this idea...

To sum, for brevities sake, you want less taxes, accepting less social saftey nets as a result, to enable individuals to be more self serving. The individual knows what they need, and how much they need of it- right? Of course, this also means that individuals must be responsible enough to take care of what needs taking care of. Right?

Okay, here's the hole in this point of view, how do irresponsible people behave without a social saftey net?

Well, at least as far as I can tell, these irresponsible people still behave irresponsibly, but now they have legitimate reasons to be even more irresponsible. How?!

Let's do away with the income tax. Then say goodbye to food-stamps. Say goodbye to medicare. Say goodbye to prenatal health care. Say goodbye to free education. Say goodbye to public health infrastructure. Say goodbye to the post office.

Now, responsible people will of course step in, and they will care for themselves. But you're still left with those irresponsible people. What will they do? Sure, some of them will work, some will get their act together, by neccessity. But there is still that percentage that won't. That portion that will always be the 'grasshopper' of the fable (ants and the grasshopper- work ethic vs. play ethic).

Now, these irresponsible people, without any type of social net to provide for food or health or education, for themselves, or their children, what do you think they would do?

Steal.

Or more precisely, they will do what is neccessary to survive, while also remaining 'lazy'. Desperation increases for these individuals, at least from my vantage point.

One desperate person, with a gun, a car, or even a plane, can do a lot of damage to say, a federal building, or a school, or a commercial highrise.

So now, instead of paying for social services, we pay for increased security to prevent these desperate people from doing desperate things. We live in fear. We give up liberty in order to become safer, and to be protected from these desperate people.

Sure, 15 people don't have to worry about this. But think about 15 million.

Once again, we come up againt accountability of individduals decreasing as population increases. Our groups are only as stable as the sub-groups that form. Or, to translate, your circle of friends and family, in large part, dictate your thoughts on what is and is not acceptable. It influences behavior. Yet our sub-groups only form to a point of who you 'know', who you can hold accountable to certain point of view.

Our family usually has the greatest sway, then our friends (usually replacing 'family' in neo-western culture), then other ideologies like nation or religion. Individuality subsumed into the greater whole. But this is a bit of explanation without dealing with the point.

Our current social stability is the result of instution of social saftey nets that reduce individuals needs to turn to actions of desperation, how do your politcal views deal with this lesson?

Bill White · 2003-10-28 12:49:58

Say goodbye to prenatal health care.

Say "Hello" to higher health care costs.

Obesity is linked to poor pre-natal nutrition as are many many other medical conditions. Spending a few dollars on prudent pre-natal care will save health insurance plans billions later on in the lives of those children.

Say goodbye to free education.

Say "Hello" to larger prison populations. Expensive in its own right, but see below for what's worse.

Say goodbye to public health infrastructure.

Say "Hello" to drug resistant tuberculosis. Prison systems, worldwide, are now breeding grounds for germ warfare agents far more threatening than any anthrax plans Saddam ever had.

Remember what SARS did to Toronto? A large scale epidemic of drug resistant TB would make SARS look like the common cold.

Byron · 2003-10-28 13:14:18

Now, these irresponsible people, without any type of social net to provide for food or health or education, for themselves, or their children, what do you think they would do?
Steal.

If you'd like to see this sort of thing in action, I'd advise you to take a trip to South America, where theft is a way of life for millions of people. Early on, kids are taught the art of targeting the "rich" by ganging up on them and using intricate games of distraction to clean out their pockets. Gangs have been known to hold up whole buses and rob everyone on board, not to mention "smash-and-grab" robberies from autos stuck at traffic lights (which is why a prudent driver never stops for a red light at night in inner-city areas...kinda scary, huh?)

In summary, the only way a total free-market system would ever work for a society is if everyone is wealthy, like they are in the United Arab Emirates and other oil-rich countries. Even then you have problems resulting from large-scale ennui which is the result of people not having to work for a living.

Personally, if I had to pick the "perfect" system for a new society, I would emulate the Netherlands...which has a pragmatic mix of consensus government, incentive-based socialism (you gotta work or go to school for the dole, etc), high level of personal liberty, and strong local governments that focus heavily on problem-solving. Most importantly of all, the Hollanders are an intelligent, very civic-minded group of people, which is really the key for any successful society.

B

Cobra Commander · 2003-10-28 16:31:25

Technology is mans conduit for his laziness. I just found a system which fits my laziness the best. Anarchism + technology == workable. I have no delusions about anarchism working outside of such a system.

At last I can see where the hell Josh is coming from! And frighteningly I can't really take issue with that. Now if only we could get a reasonable ETA on the required level of technology.

There is a great deal we have in common, though I have reservations about systems involving long-term power in the hands of a few or only one. So do you, I believe.

Yes, Shaun, that was my major problem with it. It really came down to "I'm not sure I could do it and I wouldn't trust anyone else to." Shortly thereafter I developed my "test" when I think I have a good idea in the political or legal field. I assume that I'm existing in a disembodied state and about to be born into the society in question. Race, religion, class, economic status etc. will all be determined randomly. If I'm not willing to take the risk, then the idea is rejected.

Let's do away with the income tax. Then say goodbye to food-stamps. Say goodbye to medicare. Say goodbye to prenatal health care. Say goodbye to free education. Say goodbye to public health infrastructure. Say goodbye to the post office.

Public health infrastructure does not require the government for its existence. The post should pay for itself, and education isn't free. As for the rest, I see the reasons for having them but I have serious concerns about government taking the responsibility for them. Besides, I never ruled out a modest tax on consumption.

I can't recall who it was who said that democracy only lasts until the people discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury, but the point stands. These "safety nets" always grow like a cancer. The only way I see it working properly is if it's controlled entirely by a government not directly answerable to the people, but then we have all sorts of other problems.

Now, these irresponsible people, without any type of social net to provide for food or health or education, for themselves, or their children, what do you think they would do?
Steal.
Or more precisely, they will do what is neccessary to survive, while also remaining 'lazy'. Desperation increases for these individuals, at least from my vantage point.

I'm in complete agreement, but if we then tax the populace in order to take care of these irresponsible people they're still stealing, just less directly. If you break into my house and steal some money it's theft. If you and ten friends break in and steal money it's theft. If a politician you elect takes it from me on payroll and gives it to you and your ten friends it's a "safety net" What the hell is that? Not that I think you'd break in to my place Not that there's much in there worth stealing.

One desperate person, with a gun, a car, or even a plane, can do a lot of damage to say, a federal building, or a school, or a commercial highrise.

Well, that's just loony behavior rather than anything centered around survival, quite the opposite. No bribe is going to stop all of that stuff.

Our current social stability is the result of instution of social saftey nets that reduce individuals needs to turn to actions of desperation, how do your politcal views deal with this lesson?

I don't think the social safety net has much to do with it at all. The rate of crime and generally uncivil behavior in this country is far higher today than it was when we had practically no welfare apparatus of any kind. The attitudes and values of the people are far more important. When these social welfare programs were first introduced in the Depression a vast number of truly desperate people refused to take the handout. That's where the WPA came in, not because we really needed those tasks done but that people wouldn't just take government money for doing nothing. Now in just half a century we've reached a point where people complain if they're expected to work. That's what we need to fix.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-10-28 18:45:42

I was daydreaming one day about a possible alternative to democracy as we know it. It's a very underdeveloped notion and it's still democracy in a way but it gets rid of the career politicians and the big party system. (Or at least, I think it might! )
I got the basic idea from the political arrangement purportedly used in mythical Atlantis.

Every country produces extraordinary people in all walks of life. Most of us can probably think of several individuals who stand out as more intelligent, more public spirited, and/or wiser than the rest of us. These people usually stand astride the political scene, not in it but somehow above it - and that's the main point of my daydream.

How about having the people of a country vote for an individual, or very small group of individuals, that they regard as 'special' in terms of their humanity, intelligence, practicality, and wisdom. The thousands of names resulting from this poll are placed in a computer, which picks out the top seven (or ten or twelve, I'm not sure about group dynamics and haven't decided on a number).
This group of, say, seven is then required by the constitution to govern the country for so many years - perhaps seven years. They would be compensated in some way for the disruption to their lives and for any financial loss incurred as a result of their 'national service'. At the end of the set period, their service is terminated and they must step down, to be replaced by the next group for the next seven years.

This system has the potential to deliver impartial rule by a kind of dictatorial oligarchy. But the beauty of it is that the rulers aren't people who want to rule, it's actually more of a patriotic duty or an imposition to be one of 'The Council' - simultaneously an honour and a chore. And the members of the group are beholden to no political party, are not required to be wealthy in order to gain such power, and the power they hold, though almost absolute (within limits delineated by a basic bill of rights) is transient.
We get the advantages of centralised direction, like a monarchy or dictatorship, but we also get the security of knowing the rulers have a use-by date.

This is very much an idealised and, so far, embryonic system. There are thousands of details I haven't tackled, or indeed even thought of!
But could it be made to work, if not exactly as I've suggested, then at least in some similar form?
???

Cobra Commander · 2003-10-28 19:07:48

This is very much an idealised and, so far, embryonic system. There are thousands of details I haven't tackled, or indeed even thought of!

I've had a similar idea, though mine involved a council of people elected by your method (based on merit and character, though in this case subject to severe scrutiny during selection) then that council selects a leader who is granted dictatorial powers (within a constitutional framework) for a period of somewhere between 5-10 years. The council acts as advisors and a sort of "mini-Congress" and only meets when called by a chairman they select from their number, who remains in the capitol. If he calls the entire council to session they are compensated for travel, lodging and other related expenses but no pay. At the end of the term, the council steps down and the "dictator" goes into voluntary exile. Yes, leaves the nation he governed for some frontier colony (an expansionist power, surely) and works in the building of the new settlements.

Unworkable, yeah, probably. But coming from a confessed fascist it's downright liberal! Which might be why it's unworkable.

Euler · 2003-10-28 20:47:13

But could it be made to work, if not exactly as I've suggested, then at least in some similar form?

I think it might work well for groups where most people know most of the other people, but I think that a large country would probably appoint 7 of the most famous celebrities, whether they are competent or not.

Bill White · 2003-10-28 22:34:35

Plato proposed something quite similiar in his book titled The Laws - - the problem, as always, who guards the guardians?

For my money, the essential question of politics has never been better expressed than in the first book of the Federalist Papers:

It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.

Federalist #1

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-10-25 12:06:05

Re: Political and Philosophical Roots - Why do you think the way you do?

#2 2003-10-25 12:50:40

Re: Political and Philosophical Roots - Why do you think the way you do?

#3 2003-10-25 13:50:40

Re: Political and Philosophical Roots - Why do you think the way you do?

#4 2003-10-25 20:53:46

Re: Political and Philosophical Roots - Why do you think the way you do?

#5 2003-10-27 01:38:51

Re: Political and Philosophical Roots - Why do you think the way you do?

#6 2003-10-27 06:45:09

Re: Political and Philosophical Roots - Why do you think the way you do?

#7 2003-10-27 09:59:07

Re: Political and Philosophical Roots - Why do you think the way you do?

#8 2003-10-27 16:34:18

Re: Political and Philosophical Roots - Why do you think the way you do?

#9 2003-10-27 17:02:47

Re: Political and Philosophical Roots - Why do you think the way you do?

#10 2003-10-27 17:30:17

Re: Political and Philosophical Roots - Why do you think the way you do?

#11 2003-10-27 18:05:29

Re: Political and Philosophical Roots - Why do you think the way you do?

#12 2003-10-27 18:17:52

Re: Political and Philosophical Roots - Why do you think the way you do?

#13 2003-10-27 18:18:14

Re: Political and Philosophical Roots - Why do you think the way you do?

#14 2003-10-28 02:18:43

Re: Political and Philosophical Roots - Why do you think the way you do?

#15 2003-10-28 06:03:51

Re: Political and Philosophical Roots - Why do you think the way you do?

#16 2003-10-28 07:03:31

Re: Political and Philosophical Roots - Why do you think the way you do?

#17 2003-10-28 08:23:43

Re: Political and Philosophical Roots - Why do you think the way you do?

#18 2003-10-28 12:29:34

Re: Political and Philosophical Roots - Why do you think the way you do?

#19 2003-10-28 12:49:58

Re: Political and Philosophical Roots - Why do you think the way you do?

#20 2003-10-28 13:14:18

Re: Political and Philosophical Roots - Why do you think the way you do?

#21 2003-10-28 16:31:25

Re: Political and Philosophical Roots - Why do you think the way you do?

#22 2003-10-28 18:45:42

Re: Political and Philosophical Roots - Why do you think the way you do?

#23 2003-10-28 19:07:48

Re: Political and Philosophical Roots - Why do you think the way you do?

#24 2003-10-28 20:47:13

Re: Political and Philosophical Roots - Why do you think the way you do?

#25 2003-10-28 22:34:35

Re: Political and Philosophical Roots - Why do you think the way you do?

Board footer