3 ms·

> No political philosophy is defensible when caricatured to its most extreme positions. Well, political philosophies that deliberately avoid making everything

by mpyne 13y ago

> No political philosophy is defensible when caricatured to its most extreme positions. Well, political philosophies that deliberately avoid making everything bright-line ideological concerns are usually pretty flexible (and accordingly easier to defend). Instead of living life according to a rigid bible, why don't we simply Do The Right Thing™ and then adjust what ends up being broken? Even if you do find a set of guidelines that seem appropriate now, they may not be appropriate in the future. Even the Revolutionary Commune in Paris wasn't above simply executing the enemies of the revolution, after all.

john_b 13y ago
> "Instead of living life according to a rigid bible, why don't we simply Do The Right Thing™ and then adjust what ends up being broken?" The point of political philosophies is to make and support assertions as to what the Right Thing is, within a given social context. Because different political philosophies exist, different sets of Right Things are proposed by the adherents of each. As you mentioned, less "moderate" political philosophies usually trade ideological malleability for ideological clarity in an attempt to provide a stronger and more consistent argument for its own set of Right Things at the expense of less philosophically inclined voters. If everyone could agree on what The Right Thing is, we wouldn't have rigid political philosophies because they would serve no purpose. If the human brain was capable of determining an ethical and optimal solution for any given problem, people wouldn't create political philosophies as simplifying heuristics.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > If the human brain was capable of determining an ethical and optimal solution for any given problem, people wouldn't create political philosophies as simplifying heuristics. Well that's the thing. Anyone with experience with programming can see that it's quite clear that even a system with incredibly rigid guidelines can, when formed into complex interconnections, take a form that is both unpredictable and does things that are wrong. So the answer cannot be more rigidity. Instead, we need risk management, and the willingness to forgo rigid determinants in the quest for optimal solutions, since they won't always produce optimal solutions anyways. Yes, our non-rigid heuristics will likely themselves produce non-optimal solutions, but that's OK too since it's easier to adjust and adapt. Not every startup turns a profit for a VC either, but that doesn't invalidate entrepreneurial risk-taking.
jessaustin 13y ago
Instead of living life according to a rigid bible... Certainly not. The metaphor I invoked was "let's stop digging". If that's too rigid for you, you must just really like digging. ...why don't we simply Do The Right Thing™... If you think locking up people who like 'shrooms is "The Right Thing™", then we have a disagreement. Even if you do find a set of guidelines that seem appropriate now, they may not be appropriate in the future. I certainly hope so! It would be sad to live an entire life and never change one's mind. I don't think that's a reason not to have opinions in the first place though! Also I specifically raised the possibility of changing my position in response to improving conditions. Even the Revolutionary Commune in Paris wasn't above simply executing the enemies of the revolution, after all. Fuck those guys. Over here in USA we honor a Revolution worthy of the name. Our founding fathers didn't pull that shit.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > If you think locking up people who like 'shrooms is "The Right Thing", then we have a disagreement. Just shrooms? Probably not, as long as they don't hurt anyone else. > Over here in USA we honor a Revolution worthy of the name. Our founding fathers didn't pull that shit. They also didn't install anarchy, either before, during, or the 2 times they tried after the American Revolution. I'm not saying that "The State" is always the answer to an issue either. Certainly there are issues which can and should be properly resolved at the lowest possible level (believe me, I'm familiar with those too as a former Navy division officer... a lot of what I did was have to make decisions to avoid getting involved in minor spats between sailors that they should figure out themselves). But when directed action on the part of the people is necessary, either to protect the public welfare, avoid being abused by Big Business, etc., there is no substitute for the state, and it must be empowered accordingly. Witness the collective societies that succeed in nature. They don't succeed based on "what's best for the individual", they succeed based on "what's best for the colony". E.g. the example of Japanese honey bees vs. giant hornets. And don't mistake the apparent lack of overseers as each one working for itself and just happening to develop the needed emergent action. They're working by the rules alright... it's just that their rules are 'baked in'.
  - 13y ago

by mpyne 13y ago

john_b 13y ago

> "Instead of living life according to a rigid bible, why don't we simply Do The Right Thing™ and then adjust what ends up being broken?" The point of political philosophies is to make and support assertions as to what the Right Thing is, within a given social context. Because different political philosophies exist, different sets of Right Things are proposed by the adherents of each. As you mentioned, less "moderate" political philosophies usually trade ideological malleability for ideological clarity in an attempt to provide a stronger and more consistent argument for its own set of Right Things at the expense of less philosophically inclined voters. If everyone could agree on what The Right Thing is, we wouldn't have rigid political philosophies because they would serve no purpose. If the human brain was capable of determining an ethical and optimal solution for any given problem, people wouldn't create political philosophies as simplifying heuristics.

mpyne 13y ago
> If the human brain was capable of determining an ethical and optimal solution for any given problem, people wouldn't create political philosophies as simplifying heuristics. Well that's the thing. Anyone with experience with programming can see that it's quite clear that even a system with incredibly rigid guidelines can, when formed into complex interconnections, take a form that is both unpredictable and does things that are wrong. So the answer cannot be more rigidity. Instead, we need risk management, and the willingness to forgo rigid determinants in the quest for optimal solutions, since they won't always produce optimal solutions anyways. Yes, our non-rigid heuristics will likely themselves produce non-optimal solutions, but that's OK too since it's easier to adjust and adapt. Not every startup turns a profit for a VC either, but that doesn't invalidate entrepreneurial risk-taking.

jessaustin 13y ago

Instead of living life according to a rigid bible... Certainly not. The metaphor I invoked was "let's stop digging". If that's too rigid for you, you must just really like digging. ...why don't we simply Do The Right Thing™... If you think locking up people who like 'shrooms is "The Right Thing™", then we have a disagreement. Even if you do find a set of guidelines that seem appropriate now, they may not be appropriate in the future. I certainly hope so! It would be sad to live an entire life and never change one's mind. I don't think that's a reason not to have opinions in the first place though! Also I specifically raised the possibility of changing my position in response to improving conditions. Even the Revolutionary Commune in Paris wasn't above simply executing the enemies of the revolution, after all. Fuck those guys. Over here in USA we honor a Revolution worthy of the name. Our founding fathers didn't pull that shit.

mpyne 13y ago
> If you think locking up people who like 'shrooms is "The Right Thing", then we have a disagreement. Just shrooms? Probably not, as long as they don't hurt anyone else. > Over here in USA we honor a Revolution worthy of the name. Our founding fathers didn't pull that shit. They also didn't install anarchy, either before, during, or the 2 times they tried after the American Revolution. I'm not saying that "The State" is always the answer to an issue either. Certainly there are issues which can and should be properly resolved at the lowest possible level (believe me, I'm familiar with those too as a former Navy division officer... a lot of what I did was have to make decisions to avoid getting involved in minor spats between sailors that they should figure out themselves). But when directed action on the part of the people is necessary, either to protect the public welfare, avoid being abused by Big Business, etc., there is no substitute for the state, and it must be empowered accordingly. Witness the collective societies that succeed in nature. They don't succeed based on "what's best for the individual", they succeed based on "what's best for the colony". E.g. the example of Japanese honey bees vs. giant hornets. And don't mistake the apparent lack of overseers as each one working for itself and just happening to develop the needed emergent action. They're working by the rules alright... it's just that their rules are 'baked in'.
- 13y ago