A Conservative view of Government.

[minteK917]

Conservatism is not in any intrinsic sense pro-Authoritarian any more than the Left is inherently communistic. I trust Paul Gorrfriend to know what he is more than I trust you.

See thats American not understanding the actual scale again. Conservatism is not the whole right, and no the whole right is not authoritarian, neither is the left, but both can be. The conservatism is on the authoritarian side of the right, not very far in it, but still pro authoritarian none the less. Your democrats are also on the right authoritarian, but slightly less to the economic right.

Autonomy or "anarchism" is neither right or left. It can be both. In your case you are neither, Social Anarchism or Anarchism capitalism. You are in the middle. Anarcho-Liberalist, the "classical liberal" in philosophy. Something that aside from being Philosophed about, was never applied in the real world in full scale anywhere, because there is always a form of authority, technocrats, monarchies, totalitarians, bourgoisie, you get the idea.

[NED funded]

Guides it to what ends? To what purpose? Are these credential holders even experts on anything? Economics is about as political as any other social science field. Why should they be trusted over others? Can these men, or women, accurately know the desires of all people in a country? What right do they have to have such sway over the lives of millions they've never even met?

I double majored in History and Linguistics.

This is getting off topic. But the point was that if you say people have limited rationality (bounded) you are saying that the goverment ought to "guide" them in said decisions, specially when making policy. Taxes on sugar are an example of this or the FED.

[Theodarzna]

See thats American not understanding the actual scale again. Conservatism is not the whole right, and no the whole right is not authoritarian, neither is the left, but both can be. The conservatism is on the authoritarian side of the right, not very far in it, but still pro authoritarian none the less. Your democrats are also on the right authoritarian, but slightly less to the economic right.

I am not necessarily against authority, it depends on how close that authority is to you. So all of this is based on a political scale compass? Yeah I am not going by that compass.

- - - Updated - - -

This is getting off topic.

I think all threads inevitably do this.

But you did press the technocracy angle, should we not continue this discussion? Its at the very least interesting.

- - - Updated - - -

This is getting off topic. But the point was that if you say people have limited rationality (bounded) you are saying that the goverment ought to "guide" them in said decisions, specially when making policy. Taxes on sugar are an example of this or the FED.

No, that isn't at all a consequence of the former fact, because in my estimation no human is capable of assuming a mantle like that and no human morally should. I am not holding up strict rationality as even being worth pursuing.

I've simply said Humans are not what you imagine them to be. That does not necessitate anything.

[minteK917]

I am not necessarily against authority, it depends on how close that authority is to you. So all of this is based on a political scale compass? Yeah I am not going by that compass.

Its the only real political compass. You have already made clear you are neither on the right or left. So that already rules out being a conservative even if you were authoritarian or not. You are also not Authoritarian, but closer toward the center from the north and south. You made it clear you dont think the government should have as much power, but not no power either. That is not close to conservatism. Because by definition conservatism wants to preserve past system in place. Past systems are: What we have now or what we had before the fall of monarchy and empires. So conservatism will always be slightly on the authority side, because its the only system that was ever used.

What you purpose is Classical Liberalism, Anarcho-liberalism. Something that so far only takes form in philosophy. In a perfect world, it would be the system id choose as well, thats why its only in philosophy.

[Theodarzna]

Its the only real political compass. You have already made clear you are neither on the right or left. So that already rules out being a conservative even if you were authoritarian or not. You are also not Authoritarian, but closer toward the center from the north and south. You made it clear you dont think the government should have as much power, but not no power either. That is not close to conservatism. Because by definition conservatism wants to preserve past system in place. Past systems are: What we have now or what we had before the fall of monarchy and empires. So conservatism will always be slightly on the authority side, because its the only system that was ever used.

How so? The opinions I've expressed are from a semi-notable paleo-Conservative tract.

[minteK917]

How so? The opinions I've expressed are from a semi-notable paleo-Conservative tract.

There is nothing conservative about what you propose for the government. See thats the thing, Reagan is being miss placed by American as a conservative as well. Because social things like family value in your country are seen as something political and on the conservative right. While he was about as close to the left as JFK and its not like JFK did not have the same values. While they both were corporatistic capitalist. While someone like bush JR was a straight out corporatism.

Heres an example of why conservatism as a name is kinda redundant and doesent really hold any value. Ok say a country had a pure form of Marxist going on. Then it gets elections and one party wants the country to go towards a more social capitalism system. So in essense that country will move from Left towards right under them. So the party that counters that movement on the scale is conservatism left authoritarian.

For you to be a form of conservatism, a previous system that you are explaining, has to have existed before. In order for you to conserve it. As i already established, your idea of Classical Liberalism, sadly is always only a philosophy discussion. Hence it can never be conserved. Only progressed towards. There is nothing conservative about your view, because its a form of progress in a direction opposed to which we always were.

Its an important distinction to make, because most americans only base their political view on the only political system their country has ever know in its short history. One that forced only 2 party, that are for the most part indistinguishable, even if people cry alot after every elections. Which is another reason why most americans cannot make the difference between communist and socialist. Anarchist and libertarian. Authoritarian and Totalitarian. List goes on.

[NED funded]

I am not necessarily against authority, it depends on how close that authority is to you. So all of this is based on a political scale compass? Yeah I am not going by that compass.

- - - Updated - - -



I think all threads inevitably do this.

But you did press the technocracy angle, should we not continue this discussion? Its at the very least interesting.

- - - Updated - - -



No, that isn't at all a consequence of the former fact, because in my estimation no human is capable of assuming a mantle like that and no human morally should. I am not holding up strict rationality as even being worth pursuing.

I've simply said Humans are not what you imagine them to be. That does not necessitate anything.

But humans do maximise utility. Even if the model homo economicus goes you can pick other one that makes a different set of assumptions that still counts as utility maximisation. Bounded rationality covers generalization and group think, rational ignorance covers why people do not choose to get an education, etc. Heck we can cover game theory if you want. Those models are already assumed in glorified psychology (BE).

On the first, I'd rather drop the point, since I do not really argue for technocracy either.

- - - Updated - - -

But on the criticism of the FED, the fed ensures that the economy is stable, prevents rampant inflation, deflation, delivers on fiscal stimulus and the consequences of it. Hence why it is run by technocrats who do not really have a political affiliation, I think we can all agree we do not want to live under rampant inflation.

[minteK917]

But on the criticism of the FED, the fed ensures that the economy is stable, prevents rampant inflation, deflation, delivers on fiscal stimulus and the consequences of it. Hence why it is run by technocrats who do not really have a political affiliation, I think we can all agree we do not want to live under rampant inflation.

The world is simply too big, too human to be left to classical liberalism. Its why its always a philosophy that never see life. its an utopia, just like real Marxim is or pure capitalism. It only works on paper when everyone is a good person following the same idea of utopia. Even the perfect world totalitarian can work, just appoint the perfect leader that only ambition is the make the world perfect for everyone and everyone willingly follow that leader, so that he never has to use his totalitarian authority.

[Thage]

The world is simply too big, too human to be left to classical liberalism. Its why its always a philosophy that never see life. its an utopia, just like real Marxim is or pure capitalism. It only works on paper when everyone is a good person following the same idea of utopia. Even the perfect world totalitarian can work, just appoint the perfect leader that only ambition is the make the world perfect for everyone and everyone willingly follow that leader, so that he never has to use his totalitarian authority.

Herein lies the rub. While total government noninterference with businesses and daily life sounds great on paper, in practice that leads to effective slavery as businesses return to the idea of company stores from Gold Rush mining towns. Company stores were a practice where you would be paid not in money (because there was no legislation requiring money be paid, nor did workers have the collective bargaining power to hold out and demand payment in money) but in tickets to the only store in your mining town. Any efforts to start up a store were ruthlessly crushed by the ruling mining company, and because you bought everything you "owned" from the company store with tickets, legally, everything down to the clothes on your back still belonged to the company. Thus, any attempt to leave for better opportunities would see you bereft of everything except, if they were feeling charitable, a set of clothes and a broken-down wagon pulled by a tired old nag.

That's what led to the government requiring businesses to pay their workers, because the practice was found to violate anti-slavery laws in spirit if not word. Then a federal minimum wage was put in place because, like today, businesses were posting massive profits while their workers were ground into the dirt on bare subsistence and unable to ultimately support themselves, and were replaced with another cog in the cycle of poverty. So the government had to get involved again.

This has been an ongoing arms race between profiteers and the government to keep a consumer economy from completely bottoming out, and even when our economy was based on agriculture and industrial production, it had to happen to protect the workers from cheap businesses that cut corners on safety precautions and led to people being manged and killed in the equipment after a long day of mind-numbing repetition.

Libertarian "keep government out!" ideologies only work in a utopia where all businessmen are as honest and upstanding as my boss, when that simply isn't the case in the real world. There are too many profiteering sociopaths in the higher echelons of corporate culture who take any chance they can to squeeze another cent out of their customers and another hour out of their workers while paying back as little as possible. This is why, time and again, the government has to step in and regulate the behavior of businesses to ensure employment doesn't keep backsliding into an endless cycle of grinding poverty and death at an early age.

[xChurch]

Putin vs Mikhail Khodorkovsky shows us where the true power is. Corporations can influence and manipulate governments but when push comes to shove the government always wins. If an organisation is public, it's run by the government. If it's private, it's regulated by the government. So in essence, Theodarzna is right.

Small government tends to imply less regulation though, allowing a freer rein for corporations. The government does hold the ultimate power sure, but never underestimate lobbies. The government acts as the people's voice but like people is corruptable by special interests, a retreat from regulations and a less influential government would only lead to more power in the hands of the few. At least we can change a corrupt government, hard to change a corrupt corporation.

[Fahrenheit]

I think a lot more people would get behind the conservative movement if they dropped the religious zealotry. I don't care if gay folks get married or want to adopt or whatever. I don't care if a chick wants an abortion.

Similarly I think more people would get behind the progressive movement if they dropped the fluid gender, identity politics bullshit. I don't give a shit about that.

[May90]

Theirs really a bunch of.hidden assumptioms behind a statement like this. The largest one being the assumption that the government is actually the agency in power.

The large central state is powerful enough to stand up to the largest private players and act as a check even if.it does suffer from intelllectual capture. Smaller states can get pushed around by anybody and still would potentiakly suffer from intellectual capture.

The large central state able to stand up to the largest private players can also stand up to its citizens. This isn't something you want happening, but this is something where the strong central state tends to lead. A large decentralization still, overall, keeps the state strong, able to stand up to major private player - the difference is, the checks and balances are created not only by the legal paperwork, they also are derived naturally from the diffused system.

There comes a time in the size of the population of a society that it's better to specialize in order to feed many, because there just isn't enough space for everyone to fish for themselves, due to limited space being a thing. Don't get me wrong, being able to learn how to fish for yourself in case there is space yet again for ANY reason for everyone, is always a good thing. The fact that humans could eventually be packed like sardines in a tin can everywhere on earth makes me glad I won't live long enough to witness that happen!

By that time the technology will naturally solve the problem, I believe. You won't be giving men a fishing pole, you will be giving them a personal spacecraft which they can use to mine minerals on other planets, for example.

And the problem with this argument is that it ignores what words mean. You're arguing that me giving $1000 to a homeless shelter is "selfish" because I want to give $1000 to a homeless shelter. You've redefined "selfish" to be "what an individual wants to do at any given moment", meaning that literally EVERY choice is "selfish" and the term loses all meaning whatsoever. You were kidnapped and tortured until you gave them your banking info? Well, your choice to do that was selfish, because it made the torture stop! A billionaire donates their entire income to charity and lives in a one-bedroom apartment, because he doesn't need any more? Selfish, because he feels good about that choice!

You've just expanded the definition so broadly that the word no longer means anything.

That's the essence of the point: that this isn't an expansion of the definition, this is a logical follow-up from it. Everything we do is selfish. Not everything we do is purely selfish, but it always comes from our internal desire to feel good. This implies that there is no moral high ground: a person owning $50b and using it on private jets and castles isn't morally "worse" than a person owning $50b and using it all to help starving Africans, it's just that different things make them feel good.

Granted, it is oversimplification, since we could go a bit deeper and ask why these particular things make these two people feel good - and we will realize that morals don't exist in the vacuum, they always have some reason to exist, and those reasons may not be qualitatively equal... But still, it is a strong argument against policies based on subjective morals.

And the unfortunate reality is that this cannot work, because without that government "directing" people's lives, those human rights and freedoms do not exist. Why can't I enslave people? Because the government restricts my freedom to do so. Why can't I kill everyone who annoys me? Because the government won't let me do that. And so on.

Rights and freedoms do not exist outside of a governmental structure that defends them. The UDHR is a nice idea, but a country that isn't signatory to it and doesn't respect it means that, within its borders, those rights do not exist, and you cannot make any legal appeal on those grounds.

This is the biggest reason Objectivism is nonsense; it acts as if government can only attack rights and freedoms, when fundamentally, it's the sole system that can create and defend those same rights and freedoms.

But that is the point: that the government should only protect human rights, nothing more, nothing else. The government shouldn't nurse people, it shouldn't feed them, it shouldn't build roads for them; it should protect their rights, and everything else will naturally appear from this protection.

As I understand, Rand advocates for something resembling an anarchy, without a formal governmental structure - which, I think, is a naive approach, because the power vacuum won't be vacated for long, and mercantilism will take that space. It is likely to be much less vegetarian than the current democratic governments.

As with any ideology, objectivism shouldn't be taken to the absolute: it offers an interesting outlook on how individuals and the society function, but it is not a guide to how to build a perfect state. It may be seen as a guide to how to analyze your own and others' behaviors from a relatively practical point of view, but it is not a guide to how to solve all the world problems.

[Macaquerie]

I think a lot more people would get behind the conservative movement if they dropped the religious zealotry. I don't care if gay folks get married or want to adopt or whatever. I don't care if a chick wants an abortion.

Similarly I think more people would get behind the progressive movement if they dropped the fluid gender, identity politics bullshit. I don't give a shit about that.

Sure, politics might be a bit less distasteful to the general public if the parties simply ignored controversial topics, but then they wouldn't really be doing their jobs, would they? Whether you're a fundamentalist Christian or transgendered, you'd want somebody out there to speak up for you, not just to pretend that you don't exist or that your concerns are not important.

[minteK917]

I think a lot more people would get behind the conservative movement if they dropped the religious zealotry. I don't care if gay folks get married or want to adopt or whatever. I don't care if a chick wants an abortion.

Then they would no longer be called conservative.

con·ser·va·tism
kənˈsərvədizəm/
noun
1.
commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation.
"proponents of theological conservatism"
2.
the holding of political views that favor free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas.
"a party that espoused conservatism"

[Spectral]

This is getting off topic. But the point was that if you say people have limited rationality (bounded) you are saying that the goverment [emphasis mine] ought to "guide" them in said decisions, specially when making policy. Taxes on sugar are an example of this or the FED.

The key assertion here is that the "the government" knows how to make decisions for individuals better than individuals know how to make decisions for themselves. There's not much evidence that this works out well on the whole.

The Federal Reserve isn't actually a good example of this at all - needing a national monetary policy has little to do with individual choices.

[Fahrenheit]

Then they would no longer be called conservative.

I'm mostly cool with family values, small government, all the other pillars of 'conservatism' etc... I'm not cool with basing laws on theology. Like not wanting gay people to enjoy the same exact laws everyone else enjoys, or wanting to dictate what a woman can or can't do to her own body. Full disclosure, I don't know any gay people, I never have, and I don't really care enough about the plight of gay folk or abortion rights to go out and protest about it. But I'll vote in their favor every time because it's just fair, it's the right thing to do in my opinion.

[Theodarzna]

Small government tends to imply less regulation though, allowing a freer rein for corporations. The government does hold the ultimate power sure, but never underestimate lobbies. The government acts as the people's voice but like people is corruptable by special interests, a retreat from regulations and a less influential government would only lead to more power in the hands of the few. At least we can change a corrupt government, hard to change a corrupt corporation.

Corporations derive their power and their existence to a fairly powerful government. It is notable that in the age of smaller and weaker states going farther back in history the modern corporation was a different animal.

- - - Updated - - -

But humans do maximise utility. Even if the model homo economicus goes you can pick other one that makes a different set of assumptions that still counts as utility maximisation. Bounded rationality covers generalization and group think, rational ignorance covers why people do not choose to get an education, etc. Heck we can cover game theory if you want. Those models are already assumed in glorified psychology (BE).

On the first, I'd rather drop the point, since I do not really argue for technocracy either.

But on the criticism of the FED, the fed ensures that the economy is stable, prevents rampant inflation, deflation, delivers on fiscal stimulus and the consequences of it. Hence why it is run by technocrats who do not really have a political affiliation, I think we can all agree we do not want to live under rampant inflation.

I can pick theoretical models but they are all theoretical models. I go with evolutionary psychology and genetics. Humans are rarely consciously thinking in my rough estimation, granted only a few bits of conscious thought before largely running on instinct or as we call it habit. Think of your average day, you wake up, pee, make coffee maybe, have cereal, how much of that is a conscious decision, how much of that is just your routine and habit? People will behave irrationally or make any reckless decision from the perspective of economists because economists likewise fail to understand people as they are.

For example I've seen much autistic screeching about how people in the midwest don't just pack up and move. While some do, many stay put. Obviously you'd characterize this as irrational from your vantage point, but you really are not considering their motivations. Instead many economists merely screech in the wind unable to comprehend why these people aren't playing the game as you think they should be playing the game.

[Endus]

That's the essence of the point: that this isn't an expansion of the definition, this is a logical follow-up from it. Everything we do is selfish. Not everything we do is purely selfish, but it always comes from our internal desire to feel good. This implies that there is no moral high ground: a person owning $50b and using it on private jets and castles isn't morally "worse" than a person owning $50b and using it all to help starving Africans, it's just that different things make them feel good.

Granted, it is oversimplification, since we could go a bit deeper and ask why these particular things make these two people feel good - and we will realize that morals don't exist in the vacuum, they always have some reason to exist, and those reasons may not be qualitatively equal... But still, it is a strong argument against policies based on subjective morals.

It is "subjective morals", itself. And that subjective morality is one that says "fuck everyone else, you're the only person that matters". While most moral codes would see that as "immoral", it's just an alternative moral code, not an alternative to moral codes, and it's certainly not in any way objective.

Plus, your first paragraph again simply underscores a misunderstanding of what "selfish" is. That selfless people enjoy being selfless doesn't make them selfish. It means their empathy and compassion for others is greater than their naked self-interest. That's why helping others makes them "feel more good" than helping themselves. And it's a demonstration that they are not "selfish".

It's an overly-broad and fundamentally false interpretation of the word. Your "objectivist moral code" boils down to only saying "do what you want/think is right". And that's not a code. It's the antithesis of one, a refusal to even consider what ethics are.

But that is the point: that the government should only protect human rights, nothing more, nothing else. The government shouldn't nurse people, it shouldn't feed them, it shouldn't build roads for them; it should protect their rights, and everything else will naturally appear from this protection.

Because you say so?

As I understand, Rand advocates for something resembling an anarchy, without a formal governmental structure - which, I think, is a naive approach, because the power vacuum won't be vacated for long, and mercantilism will take that space. It is likely to be much less vegetarian than the current democratic governments.

It's the problem with any minarchist system that tries to defang the government's capacity to enforce its edicts. All you do is open the door for a non-state-actor to use force to seize power and replace that toothless government. Because that government won't have the capacity to stop that. In the modern world, just looking at out-of-state actors, you've got international drug cartels, major terrorist groups like ISIS, proto-expansionist empires like Russia, etc.

This is just one reason why Objectivism is not a solid set of principles. It ignores reality and human behaviour. It's like rational anarchism in the vein that Heinlein wrote about, which is close to Objectivism in some ways but wildly different in others (a fundamental tenet was the ethical, not legal, obligations one has to the society in which they live; if you're not voluntarily contributing to support that society, you're being irrational), but Heinlein was at least aware that rational anarchism wasn't achievable; he wrote about it as a fun science fiction concept and about how it COULD be a near-perfect system, but people aren't ready as a species for it.

[Glorious Leader]

It is "subjective morals", itself. And that subjective morality is one that says "fuck everyone else, you're the only person that matters". While most moral codes would see that as "immoral", it's just an alternative moral code, not an alternative to moral codes, and it's certainly not in any way objective.

Plus, your first paragraph again simply underscores a misunderstanding of what "selfish" is. That selfless people enjoy being selfless doesn't make them selfish. It means their empathy and compassion for others is greater than their naked self-interest. That's why helping others makes them "feel more good" than helping themselves. And it's a demonstration that they are not "selfish".

It's an overly-broad and fundamentally false interpretation of the word. Your "objectivist moral code" boils down to only saying "do what you want/think is right". And that's not a code. It's the antithesis of one, a refusal to even consider what ethics are.



Because you say so?



It's the problem with any minarchist system that tries to defang the government's capacity to enforce its edicts. All you do is open the door for a non-state-actor to use force to seize power and replace that toothless government. Because that government won't have the capacity to stop that. In the modern world, just looking at out-of-state actors, you've got international drug cartels, major terrorist groups like ISIS, proto-expansionist empires like Russia, etc.

This is just one reason why Objectivism is not a solid set of principles. It ignores reality and human behaviour. It's like rational anarchism in the vein that Heinlein wrote about, which is close to Objectivism in some ways but wildly different in others (a fundamental tenet was the ethical, not legal, obligations one has to the society in which they live; if you're not voluntarily contributing to support that society, you're being irrational), but Heinlein was at least aware that rational anarchism wasn't achievable; he wrote about it as a fun science fiction concept and about how it COULD be a near-perfect system, but people aren't ready as a species for it.

Calling heinlein an anarchist is a joke. The man was an authoritiarian through and through. Read startship troopers, he literally argues to limit the franchise (and the freedom to have children) to military service. The core of anarchist thought is against hierarchy. Anyone in favor of a system that promotes it is not an anarchist. Heinlein, the ancaps, ayn rand are not anarchists.

[NED funded]

Corporations derive their power and their existence to a fairly powerful government. It is notable that in the age of smaller and weaker states going farther back in history the modern corporation was a different animal.

- - - Updated - - -



I can pick theoretical models but they are all theoretical models. I go with evolutionary psychology and genetics. Humans are rarely consciously thinking in my rough estimation, granted only a few bits of conscious thought before largely running on instinct or as we call it habit. Think of your average day, you wake up, pee, make coffee maybe, have cereal, how much of that is a conscious decision, how much of that is just your routine and habit? People will behave irrationally or make any reckless decision from the perspective of economists because economists likewise fail to understand people as they are.

For example I've seen much autistic screeching about how people in the midwest don't just pack up and move. While some do, many stay put. Obviously you'd characterize this as irrational from your vantage point, but you really are not considering their motivations. Instead many economists merely screech in the wind unable to comprehend why these people aren't playing the game as you think they should be playing the game.

The autistic screeching is not the moving part. Is why they are not choosing to move, are they risk adverse, are they bounded by family,etc? They are making decisions based on a different set of priorities, once again not choosing money does not make a decisition less utility maximising. And while I agree that assumptions are bad you are not really providing any criticism.