The political philosophy thread

[emainvol]

We have a republic, not a democracy

It's still a democratic society, just not directly in some cases

 

[Lexvol]

Aristotle's base assumption of a benevolent and intelligent leader is insane.

Could be that he assumed that "the philospher sect" would eventually tudor all of the "ruling class".

 

[volinbham]

Could be that he assumed that "the philospher sect" would eventually tudor all of the "ruling class".

it would be what's best for those poor shlubs...they are incapable of ruling fairly themselves. bunch of savage bastages every one. now, bring me a young boy...

 

[hndog609]

To me the soundest criticism of democracy is the de Tocqueville criticism:



Explains some of the crappy people we elect and why some of the "best" choose not to run for office.

However, I'll still take individual participation and self determination that comes with a capitalistic democracy over trusting some "best men".

Wasn't it de Tocqueville that had the observation that went something along the lines of "a democracy will only last as long as it takes for people to realize they can vote themselves largesse from the public coffers"?

I think the proliferation of entitlement thinking among the populace which all but guarantees a political class that panders to it is all but inevitable in a democratic society. The Founders tried to ward this off by making it a Republic with a number of checks and balances but they've eroded to the point that the dyke is starting to really pop some holes.

Or maybe I'm just having a cynical day.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

From a simplistic perspective, imo our federal government has grown too large to be efficiently "managed" (i.e. I think in many cases voters are so out of touch, or feel so far removed, that they no longer really believe their votes count). This is not that much different than what happens with businesses. Companies grow too large and begin to lose touch with their primary market, waste within the company runs rampant, and at some point they have to reorganize and/or refocus their efforts... which in some cases means selling off portions of their business that no longer fit.

The added difficulty with government is that even though it may have a "somewhat" equivalent CEO, there are clearly two (or more) parties that often have completely contradictory perspectives and continue to vie for "majority ownership". These internal "battles" within government, while they may exist, aren't nearly as destructive and counter-productive in business.

To counter these challenges, my preference would be to see more "ownership" be given to the states (e.g. states become the equivalent of having their own division presidents), and have less federal government. Unfortunately, we seem to be heading in the opposite direction as of late.

 

[Daddy Gee]

yep .. kind of like the concept of vouchers ... ppl would tend to live in states/cities that most closely represented their values ..

 

[volinbham]

Wasn't it de Tocqueville that had the observation that went something along the lines of "a democracy will only last as long as it takes for people to realize they can vote themselves largesse from the public coffers"?

Yes

I think the proliferation of entitlement thinking among the populace which all but guarantees a political class that panders to it is all but inevitable in a democratic society. The Founders tried to ward this off by making it a Republic with a number of checks and balances but they've eroded to the point that the dyke is starting to really pop some holes.

Or maybe I'm just having a cynical day.

.

 

[joevol320]

Agreed as is the notion that everyone would ever agree on what constitutes "common good".

the 'common good' is completely the opposite of 'LIFE, LIBERTY and pursuite of happiness'

we are not guaranteed happiness only the pursuit of it. Our founding fathers saw this and decided the best way for Americans to pursue happiness is to keep the government out of the way and to allow each American to determine how he should pursue happiness.

Once the government starts talking about the 'common good' that's where the government decides how the people should be happy. that is not freedom.

 

[volinbham]

the 'common good' is completely the opposite of 'LIFE, LIBERTY and pursuite of happiness'

we are not guaranteed happiness only the pursuit of it. Our founding fathers saw this and decided the best way for Americans to pursue happiness is to keep the government out of the way and to allow each American to determine how he should pursue happiness.

Once the government starts talking about the 'common good' that's where the government decides how the people should be happy. that is not freedom.

While I generally agree with our system - the OP is looking at this a step back in the abstract. The guarantees you speak of our borne out of a particular view of government and it's relation to citizens. They are not necessarily universally recognized.

 

[J-P]

Wasn't it de Tocqueville that had the observation that went something along the lines of "a democracy will only last as long as it takes for people to realize they can vote themselves largesse from the public coffers"?

I think the proliferation of entitlement thinking among the populace which all but guarantees a political class that panders to it is all but inevitable in a democratic society. The Founders tried to ward this off by making it a Republic with a number of checks and balances but they've eroded to the point that the dyke is starting to really pop some holes.

Or maybe I'm just having a cynical day.

I believe the two largest holes that were popped into the dike were the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution. Before these, it would have been much more difficult for Congress to play the largess for votes game they play now, and it wouldn't have done much good anyway, since they answered to the state legislatures and were not popularly elected.

Before 1913, the Great Experiment was the best form of government devised, IMHO.

As far as socialism, I believe it will fail every time because it is an idealist view that fails to deal with man's base self-serving nature. Whoever receives the power to achieve the "equitable distribution" will inevitably make sure that it is more "equitable" for them than for those they serve, thus it inevitably degrades into an oligarchy. In capitalism, that self-serving nature is kept in check by capitalistic competition against others' self-serving nature, as long as laws are impartially enforced in our republic of laws.

 

[BigPapaVol]

the 'common good' is completely the opposite of 'LIFE, LIBERTY and pursuite of happiness'

we are not guaranteed happiness only the pursuit of it. Our founding fathers saw this and decided the best way for Americans to pursue happiness is to keep the government out of the way and to allow each American to determine how he should pursue happiness.

Once the government starts talking about the 'common good' that's where the government decides how the people should be happy. that is not freedom.

it's absurd to pretend that the common good isn't a huge tenet of our belief system.

 

[MG1968]

it's absurd to pretend that the common good isn't a huge tenet of our belief system.

it is, but progressivism and political correctness have perverted the meaning of the "common good" meaning it benefits all Americans (like having a standing army), into a "collective good" based on social and economic justice.

 

[BigPapaVol]

it is, but progressivism and political correctness have perverted the meaning of the "common good" meaning it benefits all Americans (like having a standing army), into a "collective good" based on social and economic justice.

social and economic justice are much more the problem than collective good. Equality of outcomes is stupid and disastrous.

 

[Lexvol]

social and economic justice are much more the problem than collective good. Equality of outcomes is stupid and disastrous.

Equality of outcomes is impossible and philosophically indescribable because although the collective or majority may have a definition of justice...justice itself is always eventually defined by the individual(s) affected in the situation.

What bothers me most about redistribution is that it is based on a set a moral values. In its implementation it is no less a legislation of morality than the endorsement of a religion.

 

[jvol1]

Any discussion of socialism vs our style of democracy at this point needs to consider the incredible success counties like China and Japan have achieved relying on government ownership of business. Essentially, it seems like these countries are able to use government protections to enable industries which were at one point light-years behind ours to become competitive over time and in some cases over take us. China seems like the worlds leading economy now and one of the least free as well. How does this sit with VNers?

 

[volinbham]

Any discussion of socialism vs our style of democracy at this point needs to consider the incredible success counties like China and Japan have achieved relying on government ownership of business. Essentially, it seems like these countries are able to use government protections to enable industries which were at one point light-years behind ours to become competitive over time and in some cases over take us. China seems like the worlds leading economy now and one of the least free as well. How does this sit with VNers?

Japan did not rely on government ownership. It relied on protectionism and government subsidies into private businesses of selected, strategic industries.

Some would argue that the continued economic malaise of Japan is due in part to this sheltering of industries from true competition.

China is a different story. While China does own many businesses it also relies on government support (or lack of) to shape industries and funnel resource to those they wish to compete in.

China is communist only in the sense that the government controls so many aspects of Chinese life. They certainly don't operate on true Marxist communism from an economic standpoint.

 

[gsvol]

Thank you to gsvol for getting the wheels spinning on this one. Mark this date down, because you all read that one right.

Is there a difference between communism and socialism? Can socialism not be achieved through democracy and still exist within a democratic state? Does communism not rely on revolution, as outlined by Marx?

Further, what does the VN politics forum think about Aristotelian theory that democracy is one of the "corrupt" forms of government?

UNTO THE BREACH In case of tyranny, read this

or we can become a sheeple of socialistic tyrrany.

 

[jvol1]

Japan did not rely on government ownership. It relied on protectionism and government subsidies into private businesses of selected, strategic industries.

Some would argue that the continued economic malaise of Japan is due in part to this sheltering of industries from true competition.

China is a different story. While China does own many businesses it also relies on government support (or lack of) to shape industries and funnel resource to those they wish to compete in.

China is communist only in the sense that the government controls so many aspects of Chinese life. They certainly don't operate on true Marxist communism from an economic standpoint.

So, like, it's cool to get rid of freedom of the press, have government own significant stakes in the major businesses, and do five year planning, etc? (as long as they aren't Marxist)

 

[gsvol]

Any discussion of socialism vs our style of democracy at this point needs to consider the incredible success counties like China and Japan have achieved relying on government ownership of business. Essentially, it seems like these countries are able to use government protections to enable industries which were at one point light-years behind ours to become competitive over time and in some cases over take us. China seems like the worlds leading economy now and one of the least free as well. How does this sit with VNers?

The real economic power in Japan is the same 5 Samuri clans that ran it before WWII, the main reason they achieved such great success in manufacturing, other than their talent for copying other methods they have learned and a history of knowledge of metal working, was to adopt suggesstions of an American by the name of Deming after WWII. American industry missed a real opportunity when they just paid him a bit of lip service but in reality blew him off.

China may be the leading economy in numbers but look at some of the numbers. If they were to have the same demographics as America they would need to build 60 cities that would house 10 million citizens each. Then too, some of the stupid government actions here in America have driven manufacturing to China.

One of the reasons the Chinese are having such success eonconomically presently is that they have adopted many capitalistic ideas that go outside traditional socialistic/communistic thought processes and were proposed to them by Friedman.

If you would trade the untimely deaths of 50 million citizens for economic success then when America makes it's great leap forward, I hope they sent you to my collective for reeducation, I guarantee you will learn something you won't ever forget comrade.

 

[emainvol]

Japan did not rely on government ownership. It relied on protectionism and government subsidies into private businesses of selected, strategic industries.

Some would argue that the continued economic malaise of Japan is due in part to this sheltering of industries from true competition.

China is a different story. While China does own many businesses it also relies on government support (or lack of) to shape industries and funnel resource to those they wish to compete in.

China is communist only in the sense that the government controls so many aspects of Chinese life. They certainly don't operate on true Marxist communism from an economic standpoint.

I think what many people miss in arguing for socialism as a viable governmental strategy in this country (not saying the poster to which you are responding in one of them) is that the examples that are given as in socialism's favor are of countries with a completely different makeup than the US.

Let's take Sweden, for example. Democratic socialism thrived there for decades, and continues to do so. However, it is a completely homogeneous society. The people that inhabit Sweden are, for all intents and purposes, the same people who have always inhabited Sweden. The clans and tribes that existed long ago subscribed to some form of collectivism. It has worked for a long time, and continues to work because nothing new is really added into the mix. We don't have that here.

 

[jvol1]

If you would trade the untimely deaths of 50 million citizens for economic success then when America makes it's great leap forward, I hope they sent you to my collective for reeducation, I guarantee you will learn something you won't ever forget comrade.

I think you're making my point for me here. China's absolutely deplorable. One could point out selling the organs of political prisoners and achieving a great deal of their success on what could be construed as slave labor as examples of this evil behavior -- in addition to the worst genocide of the 20th century.

However, they've reformed some areas of their economy while maintaining rigid state control over others and achieved great success with that formula. Right now China is the third largest economy in the world, growing the fastest, and has a financial system that is primed and ready to go (unlike our own). It doesn't appear that China will need to reform its system to provide any of the freedoms to its citizens that ours does and will likely continue to use Marxist-style five year plans to direct the country's economic direction.

Given all that can you still argue that our system is the only path to prosperity? The Chinese example certainly would seem to show how a primarily socialist country can prosper without most of the freedoms we (me too) hold dearest.

 

[gsvol]

In regards to Aristotelian thought, the "good" forms of government are monarchy, aristocracy and polity. The "corrupt" forms are tyranny, oligarchy and democracy. Aristotle defined "good" government as that which aims to serve the common good. "Corrupt" governments are those which aim to serve the ruler(s).

I never thought much of Aristotle, to me he doesn't deserve the high standing in which he is generally held.

If you want to read some really heavy philosophy read Lao Tse. Confuscious, although a bit more authoritarian, drew from Lao Tse and his thinking and Confucian thought more or less dominated Chinese political philosophy which is the main reason China had realatively peaceful government and society for over 2,000 years.

It is completely overlooked by almost everyone but the teachings of Jesus had a strong and long lasting influence on Chinese politics. Read what Marco Polo said about the strong Christian influence when he visited China.

I think much more of Socrates when it comes to Greek philosophers except for his fatal flaw. If it were me I would have left Athens and accepted the offer of Sparta or some other city stare rather than drink the hemlock based on patently false accusations. Timocracy rocks!!!

(which is why we the America people should elect lots of military veterans to washington instead of panty waists like Dodd and Fwank)

Socrates declared democracy to be inferior because the burden of government fell to the shoulders of the average man and the average man isn't up to such a task.

Our founding fathers were well aware of this and this is one reason they wrote our constitution so that we would be a republic which would incorporate but limit democratic principles. (actually it is much more of a statement of limitations rather than empowerment of central government, an idea that seems to have been completely lost in most political discussion these days.)

Socrates thought that the best form of government would ultimately be a benevolent oligarchy.

When looking at government I tend to look at words vs deeds, who is doing the most lying??

When looking at other systems of government I look at the fruits of the tree. Why would we ever try to make America like many others have tried and failed to succeed?? Why go down the path that has habitually ended in tyranny, corruption and unjust rule??

IMO probably the best government on Earth might be found in Bhutan, it is a kingdom but at any point the people may vote to oust the king and appoint another. BTW Bhutan is the only country in the world that doesn't measure GNP, it messures GNH (gross national happiness.)

 

[BigPapaVol]

Any discussion of socialism vs our style of democracy at this point needs to consider the incredible success counties like China and Japan have achieved relying on government ownership of business. Essentially, it seems like these countries are able to use government protections to enable industries which were at one point light-years behind ours to become competitive over time and in some cases over take us. China seems like the worlds leading economy now and one of the least free as well. How does this sit with VNers?

Sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[gsvol]

I think you're making my point for me here. China's absolutely deplorable. One could point out selling the organs of political prisoners and achieving a great deal of their success on what could be construed as slave labor as examples of this evil behavior -- in addition to the worst genocide of the 20th century.

However, they've reformed some areas of their economy while maintaining rigid state control over others and achieved great success with that formula. Right now China is the third largest economy in the world, growing the fastest, and has a financial system that is primed and ready to go (unlike our own). It doesn't appear that China will need to reform its system to provide any of the freedoms to its citizens that ours does and will likely continue to use Marxist-style five year plans to direct the country's economic direction.

Given all that can you still argue that our system is the only path to prosperity? The Chinese example certainly would seem to show how a primarily socialist country can prosper without most of the freedoms we (me too) hold dearest.

I've never argued that our system is the only path the prosperity.

What profiteth it a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul.

My argument is that we don't need to move toward marxist or fascist styled socialism to maintain prosperity, on the contrary we would do far better to avoid those pitfalls.

What we have is a strong influence in America today to try to deindustrialize America and endeavor to level our own economy with that of the rest of the world.

I think that ideology is idiotic beyond words.

What we should do is do our best to prosper and remain the beacon light of freedom to the rest of the world.

You use China as an example, what did they do to become so prosperous?? They loosened their iron clad rule a bit, adopted American principles of finance and production and then drew on their unending source of cheap labor.

That is far preferable to drawing on that vast pool of peasantry to make war and as much as I deplore the man, Richard Nixon played a huge role in aligning China toward a more western approach to gaining prosperity.

 

[volinbham]

So, like, it's cool to get rid of freedom of the press, have government own significant stakes in the major businesses, and do five year planning, etc? (as long as they aren't Marxist)

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying...:crazy: