Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Reason Applied to Politics

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 5:49:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Politics is not metaphysics, so why can't the answer to political dilemmas be answered easily through reason?

And I don't mean winning elections, but rather, why can't we determine objectively who is right (Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians, Communists, Anarchists, etc.)?

Such matters cannot be left to opinion, and one side must be right (or at least more correct). They could all be wrong, but regardless, it should still be possible to be determined objectively.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 5:59:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Do you mean which ideology is morally right, or which has the "best" policies? Because what the best policies are depends on what your priorities are (equality vs. prosperity, freedom vs. control, etc).
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 6:57:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 6:53:24 PM, FREEDO wrote:
That's only so if to suppose first that there is objective right and wrong.

This.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 7:00:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Lol at Nihilists.

I don't mean morally right or wrong, I mean "right" as in "true" or "the best."
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 7:06:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 5:59:35 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Do you mean which ideology is morally right, or which has the "best" policies? Because what the best policies are depends on what your priorities are (equality vs. prosperity, freedom vs. control, etc).

Well, my question assumed that there is no need to get into philosophical dilemmas of morality. Simply, which ideology provides the best way to avoid conflict and violence, maintain freedom, and fairly generate wealth and prosperity for the people.

I'm sure that most people on all sides agree with the "what," (as far as what is desirable) but not "the way" and "how" or even "at what expense."
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 7:09:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 7:00:19 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Lol at Nihilists.

I don't mean morally right or wrong, I mean "right" as in "true" or "the best."

*glares blankly at you*
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 7:12:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 7:06:34 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I'm sure that most people on all sides agree with the "what," (as far as what is desirable) but not "the way" and "how" or even "at what expense."

I really don't think so. Politics are an extension of one's values. We all have different ends in mind.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 7:15:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 7:12:17 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 10/25/2010 7:06:34 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I'm sure that most people on all sides agree with the "what," (as far as what is desirable) but not "the way" and "how" or even "at what expense."

I really don't think so. Politics are an extension of one's values. We all have different ends in mind.

Well, I'm referring to political issues that don't overlap into religion. It's limited to foreign relations, economics, justice system, government, legislation, etc. Nothing about gays and abortions or anything like that.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 7:15:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 7:06:34 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/25/2010 5:59:35 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Do you mean which ideology is morally right, or which has the "best" policies? Because what the best policies are depends on what your priorities are (equality vs. prosperity, freedom vs. control, etc).

Well, my question assumed that there is no need to get into philosophical dilemmas of morality. Simply, which ideology provides the best way to avoid conflict and violence, maintain freedom, and fairly generate wealth and prosperity for the people.
Avoid conflict and violence? Obviously libertarianism, because of the consistently anti-war and anti-police state (see: drug war) stance, and because the state itself is inherently violent. Maintain freedom? If you actually mean freedom, then libertarianism. If you mean the "freedom" to live off of other people's money, or the "freedom" to live in a drug/Muslim/gay-free society, then liberal or conservative. Fairly generate wealth and prosperity? Generating wealth and prosperity--obviously libertarianism--but define "fairly."

I'm sure that most people on all sides agree with the "what," (as far as what is desirable) but not "the way" and "how" or even "at what expense."
You'd be surprised. Like I said: equality or prosperity? Personal liberty or security? Answers to things like this might be obvious to you, but people certainly don't universally agree on them.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 7:21:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 5:49:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Politics is not metaphysics, so why can't the answer to political dilemmas be answered easily through reason?

And I don't mean winning elections, but rather, why can't we determine objectively who is right (Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians, Communists, Anarchists, etc.)?

Such matters cannot be left to opinion, and one side must be right (or at least more correct). They could all be wrong, but regardless, it should still be possible to be determined objectively.

Objective? When dealing with fickle, uncertain, emotional humans? :P

There are several fields of the social sciences that deal with the behaviour of people on a massive scale; economics and political science are just two of the better known. Sure, it would be ideal if we could reduce human government to mathematics; if it were a matter of solving for the greatest common satisfaction, politics would be fairly simple. The problem is threefold:

1) Any model of human behaviour is handicapped by imperfect information. We don't, and cannot, know everything about how people think, feel, and act; there simply are too many random factors that affect people's behaviour for any model to allow for them all. Any models we have are necessarily gross simplifications, which is why political scientists are so often surprised by people's reactions to events (in elections, say; such as when a candidate is able to turn what would normally be a huge character defect into a selling point. It happens.). We don't have anywhere near enough knowledge to make an easy answer to politics.

2) The information we have is interpreted by humans. Humans are fallible, have opinions and viewpoints of their own, and have vested interests in the outcome of the events they predict. You could say that one's metaphysics affects one's politics.

3) The political powers that be are quite comfortable where they are, thanks, and have no desire to make way for any so-called "ideal" system, however attractive it may be to the logicians. In this, at least, every politician is conservative; their job security demands it. Due to the "bully pulpit" current systems enjoy, it's very easy to get most of the people on one side or the other of what ever system is in place; other systems of government need not apply.

That is why things are left to opinion.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 7:28:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Also some policies benefit some more than others. For example, welfare benefits those who do not work or do anything while it harms those who actually do work for their money.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 7:39:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"Best" depends on your goals.

If you hate the human race and want as many people to starve as possible, support totalitarian state communism.

If you want to kill brown people, you want the killbot factories to be well nourished, so you'd probably want State-capitalism.

If you want to eat lean beef and listen to metallica (FOR FREEZ) you should support market anarchy or something creative...
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 7:53:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 7:39:52 PM, Sieben wrote:
"Best" depends on your goals.

If you hate the human race and want as many people to starve as possible, support totalitarian state communism.

If you want to kill brown people, you want the killbot factories to be well nourished, so you'd probably want State-capitalism.

If you want to eat lean beef and listen to metallica (FOR FREEZ) you should support market anarchy or something creative...

If you want security at the expense of personal liberty, one of the varieties of feudalism may be your best choice.

If you want a stable government for hundreds of years, no matter what the cost, try a theocracy; it worked for the Chinese and Ancient Egyptians.

If you value GNP over representational government, try a federal republic with an unbridled free-market.

If you want to unite the world under your benevolent leadership, military dictatorship is the way to go. Everyone will thank you for it later; whether they want to or not, actually.

If you'd rather not get rid of all government, but you still want a lot of personal freedom, you could always try a loose confederation of city states.

But, chances are, the most practical choice for you is to learn to live with whatever system is in place.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2010 3:59:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 5:49:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Politics is not metaphysics, so why can't the answer to political dilemmas be answered easily through reason?

And I don't mean winning elections, but rather, why can't we determine objectively who is right (Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians, Communists, Anarchists, etc.)?

Such matters cannot be left to opinion, and one side must be right (or at least more correct). They could all be wrong, but regardless, it should still be possible to be determined objectively.

Because there exists discrepancies between what is theoretical and what exists in practise, there are also variables.

One philosophy may be a brilliant in a specific country under a specific leader, but a complete disaster under another leader or when exported to another country.

Only a tiny minority of the population are able to assess the likely outcomes of a particular philosophy, it is more likely that they succumb to ideological tribalism.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2010 8:04:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 5:49:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Politics is not metaphysics, so why can't the answer to political dilemmas be answered easily through reason?

And I don't mean winning elections, but rather, why can't we determine objectively who is right (Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians, Communists, Anarchists, etc.)?

Such matters cannot be left to opinion, and one side must be right (or at least more correct). They could all be wrong, but regardless, it should still be possible to be determined objectively.

people value different things... and are of different opinions as to how those values are best sought/looked after.

I could see being able to convince someone to share your values IF they share your Root cares... (which I don't think everyone does).. but that becomes an involved process for every last value that you differ with them.

and even if Everyone got The SAME EXACT "values" then there's still figuring out/ explaining why the One way of doing things best protects that long list of Shared Values.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2010 8:11:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Moral relativism,

altruism vs Rational self interest
freedom vs equality/fairness vs control

Political stances are based on ones ethics. Max Weber, people.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2010 8:14:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/26/2010 8:11:33 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Moral relativism,

altruism vs Rational self interest
freedom vs equality/fairness vs control


Political stances are based on ones ethics. Max Weber, people.

I don't think that logically follows.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2010 10:46:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/26/2010 8:14:39 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/26/2010 8:11:33 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Moral relativism,

altruism vs Rational self interest
freedom vs equality/fairness vs control


Political stances are based on ones ethics. Max Weber, people.

I don't think that logically follows.
There wasn't a complete analogy so it can't logically not follow.
A: Hitler was good.
B: Holocaust.
A: But that don't logically follow.

But since you asked...
Reason cannot be applied to Politics.
When reason is defined as what is rational...
only what goes through the logical process with no arbitrary axioms is rational;
therefore, conclusions from moral potions are not rational.
Political positions in both the fiscal and judicial sense are from moral conclusions.

I can brake that down a bit more but that would be too pedantic, but then again, that would fit you to the T, wouldn't it, Cerebral?
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2010 10:50:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/26/2010 10:46:19 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/26/2010 8:14:39 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/26/2010 8:11:33 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Moral relativism,

altruism vs Rational self interest
freedom vs equality/fairness vs control


Political stances are based on ones ethics. Max Weber, people.

I don't think that logically follows.
There wasn't a complete analogy so it can't logically not follow.
A: Hitler was good.
B: Holocaust.
A: But that don't logically follow.

But since you asked...
Reason cannot be applied to Politics.
When reason is defined as what is rational...
only what goes through the logical process with no arbitrary axioms is rational;
therefore, conclusions from moral potions are not rational.
Political positions in both the fiscal and judicial sense are from moral conclusions.

I can brake that down a bit more but that would be too pedantic, but then again, that would fit you to the T, wouldn't it, Cerebral?

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say. To reiterate I disagree that your ethics define your politics.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2010 10:58:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/26/2010 10:50:13 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I disagree that your ethics define your politics.

and I disagree with You!!!

what do you think determines your political stances?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2010 11:34:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/26/2010 10:50:13 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
You don't know my ethics... they're only part Christian.

I believe in Fabian economics, a market a free as possible without a oligopoly scenario. I follow models proposed by the Stockholm school of economics or the Institute of fiscal studies(UK). I believe in the Heckscher/Ohlin model and other models based on the Pareto optimum or works by David Ricardo.

I believe in the in infringements of some rights is better than complete freedom, whether that infringement be the recognition of homicide as illegal or the issuing of tax, that is my place.

This is based on my moral position that regardless of personal freedoms. Some things are better for the whole, the collective. "Stealing" or taxing a person is legitimate if that money goes to another who is in greater need of it. Also see Christian Socialism in continental Europe.

You may call me a fiscal liberal or a moderate socialist.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2010 3:33:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/26/2010 10:58:18 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 10/26/2010 10:50:13 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I disagree that your ethics define your politics.

and I disagree with You!!!

what do you think determines your political stances?

In my experience, education and experience also have a bearing.

For instance I personally believe that most people would like the poor to become non-poor. From across the political spectrum.

A Socialist will offer a package of things to alleviate poverty. A libertarian may argue that such methods will increase the problem. Both think poverty is a bad thing. So there ethics are the same, their politics completely different.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2010 3:35:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/26/2010 11:35:20 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Cerebral you only disagree with some of by ethics, the degree of which is unknown to me.

If that is true, then it vindicates what I am saying. Our politics are very different.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2010 5:07:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/26/2010 11:34:28 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
I believe in Fabian economics, a market a free as possible without a oligopoly scenario. I follow models proposed by the Stockholm school of economics or the Institute of fiscal studies(UK). I believe in the Heckscher/Ohlin model and other models based on the Pareto optimum or works by David Ricardo.

I believe in the in infringements of some rights is better than complete freedom, whether that infringement be the recognition of homicide as illegal or the issuing of tax, that is my place.

This is based on my moral position that regardless of personal freedoms. Some things are better for the whole, the collective. "Stealing" or taxing a person is legitimate if that money goes to another who is in greater need of it. Also see Christian Socialism in continental Europe.

You may call me a fiscal liberal or an economic illiterate.

Fix'd.
MTGandP
Posts: 702
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2010 7:01:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Regarding economic issues: It's very difficult to predict what policies will have what outcomes, so as yet we have no real way of knowing who's right (although someone must be).

Regarding social issues: There are differing ideologies here because people hold different moral values.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2010 8:31:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/26/2010 3:33:29 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/26/2010 10:58:18 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 10/26/2010 10:50:13 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I disagree that your ethics define your politics.

and I disagree with You!!!

what do you think determines your political stances?

In my experience, education and experience also have a bearing.

On ethics too... No?

Mayhaps it's still effecting Politics through Ethics?

For instance I personally believe that most people would like the poor to become non-poor. From across the political spectrum.

A Socialist will offer a package of things to alleviate poverty. A libertarian may argue that such methods will increase the problem. Both think poverty is a bad thing. So there ethics are the same, their politics completely different.

their Root Cares are the same... but Ethics (the study of what ought be done) combines your Cares with how you see the world...

so I'd say your opinion as to what's ethical depends on how you see things operate...

Politics seems to be the same thing... just what you think Govt. ought to do.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 2:54:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/26/2010 3:35:54 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/26/2010 11:35:20 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Cerebral you only disagree with some of by ethics, the degree of which is unknown to me.

If that is true, then it vindicates what I am saying. Our politics are very different.
Okay, what are your Ethics, Mister?

At 10/26/2010 5:07:30 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/26/2010 11:34:28 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
I believe in Fabian economics, a market a free as possible without a oligopoly scenario. I follow models proposed by the Stockholm school of economics or the Institute of fiscal studies(UK). I believe in the Heckscher/Ohlin model and other models based on the Pareto optimum or works by David Ricardo.

I believe in the in infringements of some rights is better than complete freedom, whether that infringement be the recognition of homicide as illegal or the issuing of tax, that is my place.

This is based on my moral position that regardless of personal freedoms. Some things are better for the whole, the collective. "Stealing" or taxing a person is legitimate if that money goes to another who is in greater need of it. Also see Christian Socialism in continental Europe.

You may call me a fiscal liberal or an economic illiterate.

Fix'd.

Gee, I'm sorry I don't bandwagon with Reasoning and the cultist followers of the Austrian school, which may I add, lost when it came to application to any real state.
'sup DDO -- july 2013