6 ms·
It's not that people are irrational. People have different prefences. There are winners and losers in politics, and peoples' preferences are often mutually excl
by dreamdu5t 11y ago
It's not that people are irrational. People have different prefences. There are winners and losers in politics, and peoples' preferences are often mutually exclusive.
The idea that there is some kind of "correct" political position is absurd and grossly ignorant of what politics IS.
Example: Some people think there shouldn't be an income tax. Someone else thinks there should be. There is no such thing as a "correct" position, just a winning position.
“War is politics by other means,” as Carl von Clausewitz said.
- michaelkeenan 11y agoWhat do you think of the points he brings up in section 3, where he addresses this?
- dreamdu5t 11y agoIt's wrong. He ignores that political candidates have their own preferences and strawmans that voter's preferences directly coincide with candidate preferences. He also strawmans that preferences are static and coincide with some sort of fundamental values.
- michaelkeenan 11y agoI don't know how to continue this discussion, because I don't see the part in section 3 where he talks about voter preferences directly coinciding with candidate preferences, nor the part where he says preferences are static. Paul Graham says[1] people should quote the thing they disagree with before they argue against it, and I think that would help here. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
- Natsu 11y agoThat's a very interesting section. There's a citation on "There are three reasons why I disagree with this explanation. The first is that value questions are objective, and moral anti-realism is completely unjustified" which cites http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/objectiv.htm http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/objectiv.htm A page which does not, at present, exist - The requested URL /~huemer/objectiv.htm was not found on this server. Apache Server at spot.colorado.edu Port 80
- michaelkeenan 11y agoI think the correct URL should be http://www.owl232.net/objectiv.htm http://www.owl232.net/objectiv.htm
- icebraining 11y agoIt also has a note that refers to his book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_Intuitionism_%28book%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_Intuitionism_%28book%29
- bobcostas55 11y agoThe crux of the argument is in 3.3...he's basically parroting the worst parts of Kant. The argument was destroyed by Hume before it was even put forth, ridiculed by Nietzsche (BGE 11, a very entertaining passage), and then had all its foundations removed by Quine in Two Dogmas. This is not philosophy, it's badly-cloaked theology. Like cavemen attributing the thunder to a god, except even worse because now we have the tools and the knowledge to know there is no such thing.
- aidos 11y agoThis is well outside my sphere of knowledge. Are you able to lay out the basic arguments that you're referring too? (I appreciate that might be to onerous a task, given the amount of material you've cited)
- aylons 11y agoDid you read the article? There is whole section (3) on why simply having different preferences does not explain irrationality in politics.
- dreamdu5t 11y agoVoter preferences affect votes - not political platforms. Political platforms espoused by candidates are reflective of the candidates preferences - not the voters.
- michaelkeenan 11y agoI think that isn't correct, because if it were ever correct, the first candidate willing to choose their platform based on what most appeals to voters would win. I think that has already occurred, and politics is dominated by politicians who adjust their positions to whatever will appeal to voters.
- hibikir 11y agoIt's more complicated than that. They adjust their position to whatever will lead to the most votes, but that often will include things that will not appeal to voters, but will appeal to donors that then will then provide resources to appeal to voters in another issue. In areas that do not sway many votes, we might as well have an oligarchy: A lot of gain to a few often defeats a small loss to the many, even if the total loss actually exceeds the total gain. Then, whether a group can lobby for regulation depends on a variety of predictable factors. It's the whole reason right to work legislation destroys unions. This is not new theory. The Logic of Collective Action by Olson covered this 50 years ago.
- oldmanjay 11y agoI never hit the section that satisfactorily explained that there is irrationality. I just found a lot of circular logic and bare assertion.
- sjtrny 11y agoThere is no "correct" position. But there are positions that are objectively better if you measure outcomes like health, education, safety, prosperity etc etc.
- refurb 11y agoCan you give an example? It seems like the biggest problem with economics, for example, is that no one can say for sure what the outcome would be. Spending more money during a recession, for example, works only some of the time.
- TulliusCicero 11y agoThey are not, in fact 'objectively' better, because the degree to which you prioritize each of those things differs based on each person's values. Take welfare, for instance. Social welfare programs help the vulnerable, and undoubtedly some non-zero percentage of people are taking advantage of said programs wrongly. In the US, people who are liberal are more interested in the former, and people who are conservative are more interested in the latter. This is a chief reason why one group is for it and the other is against it. It's not that liberals don't think welfare fraud exists at all, they just don't think it's a big problem compared to the good such programs do. And it's not that conservatives don't think such programs do help some deserving poor people, they just hate the thought of some of their tax money going to someone mooching off the system.
- aidos 11y agoI'd hope that most conservatives don't attach that justification to welfare cuts. You effectively said that they would be happy to punish the vulnerable to ensure that those taking advantage of the system would also be punished. I Am Not A Conservative, but I'm fairly sure most of them would be horrified with that categorisation. I didn't downvote you, I do agree that you can't just say one or other thing is objectivley better. I think your example missed the mark though.
- sjtrny 11y agoIncreasing welfare will likely improve the lives of those who are using it, including those who are taking advantage of it. You did not disprove my point at all.