3 ms·

That's a good normative standard, and one I wholeheartedly endorse, but the problem in politics is also that your normative standard there is far from universal

That's a good normative standard, and one I wholeheartedly endorse, but the problem in politics is also that your normative standard there is far from universally endorsed. There is a significant (and, during times such as 1930s Germany and pre-1860s USA, very powerful) group that does not believe that the suffering of all individuals should be minimized. Less extreme but perhaps more pervasive is a value structure that discourages developing "potential" to the fullest in lieu of knowing your place and not going outside of your lane. That means that if you hold to that normative standard, your political life is likely going to be less about coordinating society to meet that standard and more about trying to convince other people that your standard is correct.

slx26 6y ago
Yes, and the harsh part is that it's all the same problem. To "convince other people that your standard is correct" is the same as coordinating society, which is to repeatedly "convince other people that our solutions/approaches/ideas are acceptable (or determine if they really are)" for each problem we face or proposal we want to try to apply (unless you are a dictator or capable of mass deception, of course). It might be an impossible task. But with all this in mind, and as a personal preference, I can say that I prefer to spend my time trying to come up with better solutions for coordination than trying to succeed at coordination for a single point in my catalog of ideas. Of course I'll share them publicly and all that, but my political life won't fall into that. Which wouldn't be that terrible either, but I personally prefer to fail at the big problem instead.