Leftward this, rightward that, libertarian those...Tiresome.

Post Reply New Topic

I cannot follow why people (as this forum attests, not just normatives, but also Aspergerites) seem determined to regard themselves as being entirely within one political subset of philosophy—and seemingly see everyone else as in one of those sets (left, right, and libertarian seem to be the main ones). Why are there so few who outright regard themselves as centrist or eclectic—and naught else? I suppose the thing that aggravates me is the implicit claim that to take one view associated with a given political philosophy, but not the rest, is necessarily inconsistent. The lines of necessary causality between, say, any two conservative precepts or any three libertarian precepts, don't seem that obvious to me...

Why is eclecticism in such seeming short supply?

Because ideas go together. Conservatism, progressivism, and libertarianism are all bound by a core of basic ideas about the workings of the world and that is why they stick together so well. The reason why it is seen as inconsistent is because political views are part of an entire worldview and all positions will tend to be bound by a fundamental logic, which means that the person who disagrees with minimum wage is also very likely to disagree with corporate regulation or high taxation because it all is a part of a subset of thoughts.

Our current electoral system favors a 2 party system, so the two parties tend to diverge in certain predictable ways. If we had a proportional representation system, there would be more parties, and people would be forced to define themselves differently. I once lived in a country with a host of parties, including a rural/farmers party, a woman's party, a green party, social democrats, communists, nationalists, and free-market conservatives. But in the US, there are two parties that have their bases, and they compete for centrist swing voters. An increasing number of voters are less affiliated with any party and willing to go with who ever makes the best case (although arguably, that case is made via 30 second content-free TV ads).

I consider my self mostly liberal, but own firearms. Like most Americans, I am personally not comfortable with the idea of abortion, but I think that is a decision better made by individuals than government. I am not registered with any political party, and make a point of comparing candidates on the issues and not voting for someone merely because of their party. Yet I predominantly vote for one party, because I feel they understand me better and I will benefit from their policies. And I am glad that recently the Democrats seem to have understood the value of limiting government spending, although the Republicans seemed to have abandoned that value. I think it is good no matter who is in power - debt should be a temporary policy, incurred only in the face of emergencies.

Didn't George Bush claim that debt was only a temporary solution? That he was going to cut the debt in half, or else pay off the debt, by some specific year?

A most logical conclusion but the evidence does not bear that out. A few examples chosen at random.

Dems: All for choice, until it comes to choice of schools.

Reps: All for individual rights, unless the individual wants to injest a 'controlled substance'.

Greens: All for limiting greenhouse gases, until it comes to nuclear energy.

There is not even a sembalance of a cohesive ideology here. It looks to me like they are all about holding together their base, and that base is made up of very diverse pieces that don't stick together well at all.

No, you just aren't trying enough to look at the underlying logic, especially given that political melding goes together.

Dems are for choices in personal issues but more so for a secular society and equality and market based school systems can stand against this. Their perception is that funding of private schools will result in a loss of the separation of church in state, and that markets lead to inequality in products and thus greater inequality of opportunity. The progressive mindset here will want to disrupt the control of conservative organized religion in society and keep it in some corner while promoting greater equality.
Nope, not at all. They are for some individual rights, but they aren't for prostitution either. They are for tradition and some individual rights, mostly in the economy. They want independence of individuals but they want a society based upon traditional values such as patriotism and Christianity and without evils such as certain drugs which were labeled evil a while back for little apparent reason, prostitution, and loose morals.


Greens also distrust technology and almost want to just have local economies. It would not surprise me if the green political philosophy taken to its irrational extreme would be anarcho-primitivism.

There is some cohesiveness there, there are also some elements of holding together a base. I am not going to say that both don't exist, and at times one part of this seems more dominant than another because there are some occasional clashes, but I still think that there is more logic than you try to give it. Basically, don't assume that their views are parsimonious or even necessarily consistent as the parties are like a very conflicted person but they still maintain some basic core elements.

Awesome, first let me say how refreshingly free your posts are from the defensive knee-jerk reactions that mark most political discussion.

I would agree with your take on most of this but it amounts to saying that Dems and Reps BOTH want choice and individual rights as long as it does not conflict with THEIR prefered vision of society. Which is where I started, I can't call that a coherent philosophy. It's just a poilte way of saying 'You can do anything you like as long as it meets with my approval'.

In my version of logic, either you are for individual rights and choice or you are not. It goes without saying that this is within the framework of 'as long as you don't violate the rights of others'. And unless I'm wrong about you, you're not going to argue that people have a right not to be offended by what others do.

As for the Greens, I respect their point of view to the extent that they personally follow their point of view, which in most cases is not at all. Correct, they distrust technology, but do they use and accept the benefits of technology? Would the world be a cleaner place if we all rode horses instead of driving cars? Again, there is no coherency here that I can detect.

Thank you.

Well, it is a way of saying that but I think most political philosophies ARE just saying 'You can do anything you like as long as it meets with my approval'. The entire body of politics is just a body built to enforce the morals of others.

In some ways I like your logic, but I still see the violation of the rights of others as a personal moral dictum. I am not saying that personal moral dictums are bad but they are inherent to politics. Actually, I tend not to believe in absolute rights but rather loose rules for governing a society. The idea put forward though would be seen as a means of political oppression as it forces an individuals actions to serve another individual's desires and even though bad speech can hurt others, this hurt can be dealt with by more peaceful means.

That is because the Greens suck. There is a reason why I think that the greens on some level want to be anarcho-primitivists but can't bring themselves to that.

Otter1 wrote:

In my version of logic, either you are for individual rights and choice or you are not. It goes without saying that this is within the framework of 'as long as you don't violate the rights of others'. And unless I'm wrong about you, you're not going to argue that people have a right not to be offended by what others do.

Awesomeglorious replied:

In some ways I like your logic, but I still see the violation of the rights of others as a personal moral dictum. I am not saying that personal moral dictums are bad but they are inherent to politics. Actually, I tend not to believe in absolute rights but rather loose rules for governing a society. The idea put forward though would be seen as a means of political oppression as it forces an individuals actions to serve another individual's desires and even though bad speech can hurt others, this hurt can be dealt with by more peaceful means.

Otter1 again:
Not sure I followed that. Are you saying that the prohibition against violating others' rights is just another artificial limitation? This could be argued legitimately from an absolute perspective but I'm not coming from there either. What natural rights are can be a tedious subject and I won't go there now but I think the Declaration of Independance got it right - "We hold these truths to be self evident.......".

There are a lot of areas where things can get murky (abortion, polution regulations, etc) but there are inumerable ones where it is perfectly clear where political platforms are nothing but what you said: The raw imposition of one groups will over another without any rational underpinnings. In the US, it is theoretically the Constitution and the Federal government that protects individual rights but that's just a pipe dream for the most part.

Ahh... Another loogie into the wind.

Yes. I don't believe in self-evident natural rights. I believe that violating another's rights is wrong, but I believe many many things are wrong the question for me is whether they are for justice to deal with or the individual's burden.

Yes, plenty. I think that most impositions of will have equally rational bases though, the real issue is what basis we choose.

Yep. I am assuming you are a bit libertarian? I tend to like libertarianism. I just find the existence of known reason to be unreasonable.

Because the majority of people are idiots who choose a political view so they can say “look at me, I subscribe to this ideology because makes me feel outspoken, morally superior, popular, etc.”. In other words, people choose their convictions and stick to them without giving them much rational thought. People just clutch on to things so they can fill their little niche and identify with people of similar views.

I tend to agree Marshall. Either that or they simply choose a political view based on "what's in it for me". Which would be fine if it were a long term view but it usually isn't.

Awesome:
Yep. I am assuming you are a bit libertarian? I tend to like libertarianism.

Otter:
Closer to that than anything else. Although I'd probably get tossed out of a Libertarian group in the long run. Not for economic or social views but I am willing to look at any hypothesis when trying to answer the big questions.

Awesome:
I just find the existence of known reason to be unreasonable.

Otter:
And there is one of the really big questions.