What Is Your Political Philosophy?

I believe in non-violence as a means to achieve ends.

 

I don't believe in nonviolence to achieve ends. I merely practice it and hope for the best.

 

Why would you practice it if you don't believe in it?

 

Because it feels appropriate, in spite of the overwhelming evidence that might makes right.

 

So you support the use of violence, just as long as it's not done by yourself, because you personally don't like the feeling? Saying you don't support the use of nonviolence to achieve ends and then saying that you yourself use nonviolence to achieve ends are contradicting statements. The first statement is to say that you exclusively believe in violence as a means to achieve ends, and the second statement is saying that you do exactly the opposite of that. So, either your beliefs in the support of violence is virtuous but your actions using nonviolence is cowardice or your actions in using nonviolence is virtuous and your belief is vile.

 

I merely observe the obvious and exercise free will. Nonviolence is my choice, not a belief.

 

But you said you don't believe in using nonviolence. This is like saying "I don't believe in eating meat" and then saying "I eat meat because it feels right and it's my choice."

 

I concur. The choices we make can be dependent on beliefs or independent of them.

 

Tunacrat.

 

Folks can entertain all notions of governance as pet, theoretical dainties, and some develop a passion for one gossamer confection or another, but aspiring to those noble sentiments, in reality, has best been achieved by progressive, advanced nations. Leading the list in quality of life are Australia, Sweden, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, United States, Denmark, Netherlands, Iceland, and the United Kingdom.

It's hard to argue with success, even when it is relative. Substantive data trumps airy-fairy notions every time. I could postulate that rule by a philosopher king or queen, an enlightened, competent and benevolent monarch, is the preferable paradigm, but that would be the equivalent of claiming that silicon-based life forms are superior to carbon-based ones. So what? If they only thrive in my imagination, even when I declare it dogma, they're still beyond the realm of reality.

Pragmatism wins out. Of all the systems that have been tried over the span of time in which humans have formed communities, and of the approximately 200 manifestations extant today, the aforementioned nations are actually achieving the best results in attaining the goals of "justice, freedom, security and caring about others."

Our reach should always exceed our grasp, but the ability to distinguish what is real from what is fanciful is essential. Is none of the technologically advanced, prosperous, democratic, capitalistic societies that aspire to Hubert Humphrey's criteria _ "It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped." - to be reviled because they all fail to conform to someone's never-neverland fancy?

The denizens of the planet Kolob may be eminently amenable to someone's notional gems, but we know what works best on earth.




.

 

Raison d'Etat, Realpolitik, Pragmatism
either one is fine, and they're all mine

 

Gangster-ism would also be a suitable label.

 

I'd love for you to justify that

 

The actions of gangs are dictated by whatever is good for that particular gang's goals, ethics or morals be damned. That's "Raison d'Etat" in a nutshell. It doesn't suddenly become more palatable when the gang calls itself a "state".

 

So you believe states should act counter to their national interest, correct?

 

I see that you like loaded questions.

By and large I believe that "states" should rarely act at all. It may have been in Germany's "national interest" to invade Czechoslovakia in 1938 but that doesn't make it the right course of action nor negate the immorality of the act. It may have been in the US's "national interest" to intervene in Vietnam but that is a poor excuse to send tens of thousands of young men to their deaths. Similarly, it may have been in the "interests" of the Gangster Disciples to take over new territory for their burgeoning criminal endeavors but that doesn't suddenly make murder, coercion, and theft okay. It may be in your best interests to steal your neighbors coin collection in the middle of the night while he's on vacation with the knowledge that you can get away with it scot-free but using that as a rationale doesn't give you liberty to steal...it just makes you a thief.

 

Oh a Libertarian I see! I should've guessed from your fedora.

Let me tell you something, friend, and be sure to pay attention because maybe you'll learn something. If I am given power over a country and I DON'T do everything in my ability to keep it safe and prosperous then it is I, not the pragmatists, who is in the wrong. When you're trusted with stewarding a state you have a duty to fulfill to all its inhabitants, because ultimately you are responsible for their well-being. A parent prioritizes their children first and the children of others second. If you have to endanger the children of others to safeguard your own then so be it, such is life, we're not happy about it but we do it anyway. To do otherwise would be to betray those who rely on you, those who have trusted you. That is Raison d'Etat. That is Realpolitik. That is Pragmatism. To live in the real world and to make difficult decisions based on real dilemmas, not candy coated moral platitudes that make you feel good about your righteous self. Perhaps when you've have had a chance to truly love something, or someone, so much, and so deeply, that there is nothing you would not do for it, the concept of 'at all costs' won't seem so immoral anymore.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'll never see eye to eye with a person who thinks that it would be okay to kill another person's child in order to advance the interests of their own. I alternate between feeling pity and disgust for people who hold your petty views.

 

To be honest, I would kill a random stranger to save the life of some one I love. It isn't great, but it is something I would do!! But that is NOT an accurate analogy!! There may be moments when it is that sort of choice the state faces, but more often a better analogy would be, would you kill a strangers child in order to ensure your kid gets an A in math. The modern state does not wage war to protect me from harm. It wages war to protect the profits of oil companies. It wages war to protect capital interests across the globe. The entire foreign policy is built around protecting the interests of capitalists. They are in fact killing real life children to do this.

If you talk about the US in particular, they are also supporting the regimes of the most brutal dictators on the planet, to ensure the stability of the immoral system they have created.

So the state does protect its citizens from time to time, but the threats they are protecting us from are threats the state itself created!! A goat herder in Afghanistan doesn't want to kill Americans because we have pop singers, they want to kill Americans because our evil and immoral state is killing their loved ones and neighbors. Which is where your analogy falls apart. If you go around killing everyones children to save your own, sooner or later some one whose child you have killed, is going to want revenge against you. Which will cause you to kill more children, which will cause more vengeance seekers. And the cycle goes on and on.

 

my philosophy is that It should be the ultimate goal of the sovereign state to become completely self-sufficient by any means necessary. The state leaves no mark on the land it lord over, as well as to be the leader in advancing human understanding of its self, the world it inhabits, and the unseen. The government gives a citizen the foundation to make it to the top, whether the citizen dies a billionaire or pennyless is up to the individual, unlike capitalism this system cannot corrupt the state who's government keeps it above the needs of imports and stay outside the public sector. Threw this system, the well being of ones self as well the ones around them rests in the populations ability to think and act reasonably and responsible.

 

No, that makes you an anarchist, and I sincerely hope you really do not believe in the non-agression principle and in maximizing individual liberty. Seeing government as a necessity, which I know you agree it is, is not compatible with either of the above. A government is funded by the innitiation of violence or the threat thereof, and it's purpose is essentially to limit freedom for the public good. The logical conslusion drawn from that is that you, as well as I, consider it right and just to threaten people, and to limit their freedom, to further the public good. Sure, might not sound good but it's true. But in my view, it's far better than to say that one would accept the total collapse of society and the ensuing chaos and anarchy; the countless millions which would be murdered, raped and stolen from, just so that one could cling to the sound-good idealistic principles of non-agression and maximum freedom.

OP: A thread like this is an excellent idea, but it would've been better in view if only one post from each memeber was allowed. Id est, poster would only state their political philosophy, but no discussion of them in this thread would be allowed. That would keep it cleaner. Otherwise this thread will just be ridiculously long after a while, and it would be hard to actually find the posters' posts about their philosophy. Also, a list in the OP linking to every members' post would be great, so it could easily be looked up. This would be sort of an archive then. Just my small suggestions.

As for my own political philosphy it's based on the assumption that humanity is faulty, and that the goal is to further the public good. What politics then comes down to is about deciding which systems make best use of what we've got -faulty humans- for the welfare of all, as well as what best negates our inherently bad traits. This is of course not saying that all people are bad, but it is saying that to have a system be built on the good will of people is one doomed to fail eventually. This is why systems like the separation of powers are good and desirable. Such a system is based on that humanity is faulty, and has positive and negative incentives in order to produce the best outcome in terms of public good. it's very important to look at what incentives a system gives to people. What is often done wrong by many is to judge a policy on the intended effect, which is always very compassionate and good-hearted, rather than the results. When it comes to politics, the people who intends the best fo you often end up hurting you the most.

As I've said, I care little for feel-goodness or idealism, and I do in fact believe it is the most dangerous thing out there. Such is also the case when it comes to rights. Freedom of speech, and property rights, to take two examples, are in my view not justified because they're "moral and just", but because they produce good results. Freedom of speech is essential because it enables a 'free market of ideas' which means society can better judge the merits of different ideas, and property rights are only good because the system they create leads to a better living standard for all. They are not absolute, and the moment that they cease to bring good results and start bringing negative results the right to speech and property ceases. That is why you cannot excercise your free speech by shouting fire in crowded places, or by being loud in the middle of the night.

Well, I unfortunately don't have time to write an additional seven paragraphs because I have to go catch a bus. I have not read the whole thread, so sorry if some has already been mentioned.

 

One of the founding principles of the United States was that all powers originate with the individual and are delegated to government. That means that just as an individual has the right to defend themselves, so the government has the delegated power to defend the individual or the people. An individual doesn't have the right to initiate force or fraud against others and the government doesn't have that legitimate right either because it isn't a right of the individual and so can't be delegated.

The principle of individual sovereignty allows for a government that protects the rights and freedoms of the people and otherwise leaves them free to pursue their own interests.

 

You do understand that governments aren't funded by voluntary donations but by taxes don't you? And that you are forced, by the threat or excercise of force, to pay those taxes? I really doubt what you say is true, because from its founding the US government has been funded by money collected with force.

Government isn't a voluntary institution.

 

Governments today aren't voluntary institutions but the point I was making is that they can (and should) be. The possibility exists of a government that is voluntary, just as exists in most nongovernmental organizations. Following the non-aggression principle and maximizing individual freedom doesn't conflict with a government that follows the same principles. That means the libertarian principles Trojanii stated don't require anarchy.

 

Anti-christian both religiously and politically.
Anti-conservative, because I prefer progress.
Anti-liberal, because I despise the center-right.
Anti-communist, because it is a needless utopia.
Anti-capitalist, because I love democratic decision.
Anti-democratic in case of an idiotic mob rule.
Anti-statist, because not everything is their business.
Anti-authoritarian, because I value my liberties.
Anti-anarchist, because I value my stability.
Anti-pragmatic, because in practice, everything sucks.

Conclude of that what you will.