Death of Ideology?

[Michael]

Alan Greenspan, Ayn Rand's number one fanboy comes to grips with the failure of free market ideology...

“I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,” Mr. Greenspan said.

....Mr. Waxman pressed the former Fed chair to clarify his words. “In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working,” Mr. Waxman said.

“Absolutely, precisely,” Mr. Greenspan replied. “You know, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.”

Well said Mr. Greenspan. Probably the first words I've heard Greenspan mumble in over 20 years that wasn't just plain propaganda.

And let us not forget that almost 20 years ago, the Soviet Union collapsed upon itself and spelt the end of 'centrally planned economies' as a viable economic system.

Looks to me like the favored economic ideologies of the extreme left and the extreme right have both crashed and burned up against reality within the last twenty years.

I wonder if the rightwing ideologues will be as impervious to reality as the leftwing ideologues have proven to be?

Are we still going to have Ayn Rand fanboys in the Republican Party (or the Federal Reserve) lecturing us still? I'm thinking the answer will be yes.

Does anyone think that the wholesale failure of both extreme right and extreme left economic theory will even cause their ideologues to even blush for a moment? I figure both are just going to do the 'denial' game and pretend that some outside forces conspired to cause the failure and that their 'true' ideology is blameless.

[partofme]

As somebody that has experience with this sort of ideology in the past I can say that most Objectivists or Libertarians will simply say that their ideas did not fail because they are wrong but because they where not pure enough and that because of some government intervention or regulation it was not truly a free market system.

[Michael]

As somebody that has experience with this sort of ideology in the past I can say that most Objectivists or Libertarians will simply say that their ideas did not fail because they are wrong but because they where not pure enough and that because of some government intervention or regulation it was not truly a free market system.
That argument won't wash with those who are knowledgable (it will probably work for the fanboys though).

The derivatives market has operated 100% regulation free since its inception.

And it is this particular market that has caused the real 'credit crisis' due to the fact that all these derivatives were supposed to hedge against that risk and the subprime mortgage crash was a huge risk and derivatives only made the risk problem worse.

Btw, same line is generally taken by the hardcore socialist set about the fall of the USSR.

[Donkey]

As somebody that has experience with this sort of ideology in the past I can say that most Objectivists or Libertarians will simply say that their ideas did not fail because they are wrong but because they where not pure enough and that because of some government intervention or regulation it was not truly a free market system.Yup. There's a fangirl in one of my classes who refuses to budge on anything, but also refuses to debate it. :ummm:

[Michael]

A recent conference at Birkbeck gathered together philosophers to discuss the past, present and, more importantly, the possible future of communism.

Source (http://www.metamute.org/en/content/what_s_the_big_idea)

If anyone was ever even remotely curious about the prospects for communism, well, a quick perusal of this conference ought to convince them that communism is utterly, completely and totally dead.

Just a bunch of navel-gazing old culture warriors who can't let go of their life's passion.

There's not one word of anything that is even remotely interesting to me here (or relevant to contemporary society) - and I'm one who has spent years reading about Marx and communism. I had to force myself to actually finish reading the summary it was so boring.

[Dominick]

Source (http://www.metamute.org/en/content/what_s_the_big_idea)

If anyone was ever even remotely curious about the prospects for communism, well, a quick perusal of this conference ought to convince them that communism is utterly, completely and totally dead.
Can I quote you on that in a decade or so, Mr. Fukuyama ? :angel:

The paper, by "the great and the good of Continental philosophy, along with a few of their Anglo-Saxon(ish) counterparts" reads as pure wishful thinking and "Continental and Anglo-Saxon" myopia. Just keep an eye on South America and see how dead it will turn out to be (Not in the Soviet form though).

[Michael]

Can I quote you on that in a decade or so, Mr. Fukuyama ? :angel:

The paper, by "the great and the good of Continental philosophy, along with a few of their Anglo-Saxon(ish) counterparts" reads as pure wishful thinking and "Continental and Anglo-Saxon" myopia. Just keep an eye on South America and see how dead it will turn out to be (Not in the Soviet form though).
As the conference papers suggest, the idea is intellectually dead.

Perhaps a new version may arise with a new theory - that's always possible, but the whole communist enterprise in Europe is intellectually dead. To compare this topic with medieval scholasticism would be unfair to scholasticism.

[andrewl]

So, free market ideology is dead, communism is dead, socialism is dead, neo-conservatism is dead, neo-liberalism is dead...

When will people realize that we evolved to live in a tribal system, and the only way we can ever achieve true success as a species (in terms of happiness, longevity, and freedom) is to return to some form of tribal life.

no, no, no...im not referring to living in the cave red in tooth and claw, at constant war with neighbors, or shunning any sort of technological advancement.... i mean a movement towards a situation where people lived in smallish groups, worked towards common goals, and made all the important decisions for their own communities.

Is that impossible?

Andrew

[Donkey]

Pragmatism is alive.

[Dominick]

So, free market ideology is dead, communism is dead, socialism is dead, neo-conservatism is dead, neo-liberalism is dead...

When will people realize that we evolved to live in a tribal system, and the only way we can ever achieve true success as a species (in terms of happiness, longevity, and freedom) is to return to some form of tribal life.

no, no, no...im not referring to living in the cave red in tooth and claw, at constant war with neighbors, or shunning any sort of technological advancement.... i mean a movement towards a situation where people lived in smallish groups, worked towards common goals, and made all the important decisions for their own communities.

Is that impossible?

Andrew
Whether it's possible or not is a question I've been pondering for 27 years. There is a name for it though. It's called anarchism. :angel:

[andrewl]

Whether it's possible or not is a question I've been pondering for 27 years. There is a name for it though. It's called anarchism. :angel:


Ive seen it called neo-tribalism. I'm wondering what the difference is.... is anarchism a stage beyond tribalism? I.e., we would have to preserve the state as the overarching structure to make sure all the different tribes can coexist and not be vulnerable to any outside power, but ultimately as the generations pass-by the state structure loses more and more of its reason to exist as tribalism transitions towards anarchism?

Andrew

[andrewl]

Pragmatism is alive.

Pragmatism seems too heavy on practicality and far too light on deeper meaning and fulfillment.

Andrew

[Donkey]

Pragmatism seems too heavy on practicality and far too light on deeper meaning and fulfillment.

Andrew
Morality driven pragmatism?

[andrewl]

Morality driven pragmatism?

Can't you attach pragmatism to any ideology though?

Fascist driven pragmatism? Theocratic driven pragmatism? Capitalist driven pragmatism?

Andrew

[Michael]

Ive seen it called neo-tribalism. I'm wondering what the difference is.... is anarchism a stage beyond tribalism? I.e., we would have to preserve the state as the overarching structure to make sure all the different tribes can coexist and not be vulnerable to any outside power, but ultimately as the generations pass-by the state structure loses more and more of its reason to exist as tribalism transitions towards anarchism?

Andrew
One of the few things that Marx was unequivically right about was that governments are always a tool of the ruling class. They always have been and always will be by definition.

The point being that very concepts of governments and ruling classes are integrally related. As such, ruling classes have a tendency to 'defend their turf' when challenged for control of government (or the need for goverment).

[Michael]

Morality driven pragmatism?
One can theoretically apply a pragmatic approach to any given morality. Most moralists call this 'moral relativism'. ;)

[Michael]

So, free market ideology is dead, communism is dead, socialism is dead, neo-conservatism is dead, neo-liberalism is dead...

I respectfully submit that the 'grand old lady' of classical liberalism (and her cousin classical economic theory) isn't dead yet. Both are wounded and bleeding - but only from backstabs from the radical libertarians, anarchic-capitalists, neo-liberals and neo-conservatives.

Realty hasn't mugged the classical liberals - reality just mugged the neoliberals and neoconservatives who both sought to hijack the classical liberal middle ground for their own extremist ends. :D

When will people realize that we evolved to live in a tribal system, and the only way we can ever achieve true success as a species (in terms of happiness, longevity, and freedom) is to return to some form of tribal life.
Evolution is an open-ended process. It didn't just happen once long ago and stop. We are still capable of evolving and adapting. Besides which, I don't think anyone or anything can ever truly "go back" to anything. I'd characterize that as utopianism.

Our past ought to serve as an inspiration and guide for us, not a limit.

no, no, no...im not referring to living in the cave red in tooth and claw, at constant war with neighbors, or shunning any sort of technological advancement.... i mean a movement towards a situation where people lived in smallish groups, worked towards common goals, and made all the important decisions for their own communities.

Is that impossible?
Yes, I think that's impossible without a catestrophic interruption to force it. Humans are a social animal. We obviously like living in groups. To reverse this trend and aim for smaller social groups means increasing intolerance and ignorance (those are the best tools for closing into small groups).

I don't like that path.

[Donkey]

One can theoretically apply a pragmatic approach to any given morality. Most moralists call this 'moral relativism'. ;)
:D

I would say that anyone acting "morally" without at least some degree of pragmatism might... say...

:ummm:

A low IQ?

;)

[Americano]

So, free market ideology is dead, communism is dead, socialism is dead, neo-conservatism is dead, neo-liberalism is dead...

When will people realize that we evolved to live in a tribal system, and the only way we can ever achieve true success as a species (in terms of happiness, longevity, and freedom) is to return to some form of tribal life.

no, no, no...im not referring to living in the cave red in tooth and claw, at constant war with neighbors, or shunning any sort of technological advancement.... i mean a movement towards a situation where people lived in smallish groups, worked towards common goals, and made all the important decisions for their own communities.

Is that impossible?

Andrew

I'm not sure I could afford multiple wives.

[andrewl]

I respectfully submit that the 'grand old lady' of classical liberalism (and her cousin classical economic theory) isn't dead yet. Both are wounded and bleeding - but only from backstabs from the radical libertarians, anarchic-capitalists, neo-liberals and neo-conservatives.

Realty hasn't mugged the classical liberals - reality just mugged the neoliberals and neoconservatives who both sought to hijack the classical liberal middle ground for their own extremist ends. :D

It seems classical liberalism will die the same death as neo-liberalism, in so far as neo-liberalism was only a revival of classical liberalism.


Evolution is an open-ended process. It didn't just happen once long ago and stop. We are still capable of evolving and adapting. Besides which, I don't think anyone or anything can ever truly "go back" to anything. I'd characterize that as utopianism.

Our past ought to serve as an inspiration and guide for us, not a limit.

Yes, i just am not fond of the particular ways in which we are adapting. We are not fulfilling our needs for social interaction with each other, and we are not fulfilling our need to interact with the wild world.

What i envivon is that we will eventually have to rediscover these things, and when we do it will be in many ways similar to how tribes got along, but it will be in a modern setting (i don't see cities or technology dissapearing anytime, even in the face of catastrophe).


Yes, I think that's impossible without a catestrophic interruption to force it. Humans are a social animal. We obviously like living in groups. To reverse this trend and aim for smaller social groups means increasing intolerance and ignorance (those are the best tools for closing into small groups).

I don't like that path.

We like living in groups of a particular size. But its not so much about one group having to be isolated from another group. Groups can co-exist, overlap, mingle, etc... The important thing is that a group is a community and has a similar goal, and works toward that goal. Presently it seems we all live in massive groups of hundreds of thousands of people, but increasingly isolated from each other. We are strugglinmg to adapt to modernity in the 21st century, but i do think that adaptation will incorporate some of the more tribal practices and tendencies of our ancestors, going forward. (especially if things like "peak oil" actually unfold the way some have predicted).

Andrew

[Dominick]

Ive seen it called neo-tribalism. I'm wondering what the difference is.... is anarchism a stage beyond tribalism? I.e., we would have to preserve the state as the overarching structure to make sure all the different tribes can coexist and not be vulnerable to any outside power, but ultimately as the generations pass-by the state structure loses more and more of its reason to exist as tribalism transitions towards anarchism?
Anarchism would be tribalism with only one tribe : all people. :)
It doesn't require a state because organization would be horizontal rather than vertical.

One of the few things that Marx was unequivically right about was that governments are always a tool of the ruling class. They always have been and always will be by definition.

The point being that very concepts of governments and ruling classes are integrally related. As such, ruling classes have a tendency to 'defend their turf' when challenged for control of government (or the need for goverment).
Absolutely correct. And therefore the only way not to have a form of aristocracy in any guise, which includes democracy, is to not have a goverment at all.

[SMadsen]

Evolution is an open-ended process. It didn't just happen once long ago and stop. We are still capable of evolving and adapting. Besides which, I don't think anyone or anything can ever truly "go back" to anything. I'd characterize that as utopianism.
I agree. I also characterize it as utopianism. Actual attempts of implementation, however, will most probably be characterized as coercion :)

[Michael]

It seems classical liberalism will die the same death as neo-liberalism, in so far as neo-liberalism was only a revival of classical liberalism.
That sounds like a statement of faith or wishful thinking. Do you have an argument to rationally justify this conclusion?

I've certainly made the argument that neoliberalism has been a major perversion of classical liberal policies. It was more of an attempt to 'subvert' classical liberalism with the plutocratic neoliberalism of Friedman, than anything rationally connected with classical liberalism itself.

Yes, i just am not fond of the particular ways in which we are adapting. We are not fulfilling our needs for social interaction with each other, and we are not fulfilling our need to interact with the wild world.
Evolution is not a conscious process - it is genetic and is measured by populations over time. I don't see how one can have a rational opinion upon the current process. It just is.

What i envivon is that we will eventually have to rediscover these things, and when we do it will be in many ways similar to how tribes got along, but it will be in a modern setting (i don't see cities or technology dissapearing anytime, even in the face of catastrophe).
Well, I think a good argument can be made that we ought not to lose our knowledge base of 'less-technical' solutions. I agree that there is lots of room (and plenty of need) for applying many older and well known solutions to our current and future energy-production requirements.

That being said, these things can probably be only supplementary - our population levels have gotten just too far past our ability to deal with our own needs with anything but some very large-scale operations such as we presently use. Improved technology/energy sources will be needed to address this.

But I do agree that there is a significant risk of a collapse of our socio-political-economic system some time in the next half-century or so. Global climate change, environmental degradation and peak oil represent a trio of enormous challenges that could conceivably wipe us out. Our system is self-perpetuating and if it suffers a big enough 'shock' it could enter a downward spiral that might not be reversable leading to some dystopian 'Mad Max' type nightmare - where cities become post-civilized slums.

We like living in groups of a particular size. But its not so much about one group having to be isolated from another group. Groups can co-exist, overlap, mingle, etc... The important thing is that a group is a community and has a similar goal, and works toward that goal. Presently it seems we all live in massive groups of hundreds of thousands of people, but increasingly isolated from each other. We are strugglinmg to adapt to modernity in the 21st century, but i do think that adaptation will incorporate some of the more tribal practices and tendencies of our ancestors, going forward. (especially if things like "peak oil" actually unfold the way some have predicted).
Electronic communications holds the possibility of increasing our levels of social interaction outside of geographic limits. This forum for example.

The very concept of 'human groups' is changing right now. Are we not a "community" here at DWF?

[Daktoria]

...Does anyone think that the wholesale failure of both extreme right and extreme left economic theory will even cause their ideologues to even blush for a moment? I figure both are just going to do the 'denial' game and pretend that some outside forces conspired to cause the failure and that their 'true' ideology is blameless.

Hold up. Since when are extremes bad and since when is moderation good? Just because you found a middle way doesn't mean you have the best of both worlds since a lot of ideologies only work if you have the whole package altogether, and the last time I checked, the merger of self-interest with community pride lead to jingoism, corporatism, and fascism. You might not recognize this because foreign expansion isn't the priority at hand, but tell me, what's the difference between a:


neoconservative policy that aims to spread democracy throughout the world in order to secure American supremacy

versus


a "new left" modern liberal policy that aims to pursue foreign aid and multilateralism in order to secure equality for everyone?

Personally, I find these two policies to be in exactly the same boat. Both polices aim to satisfy the (in the latter case, ironically) self-interested psyche of their actors by appealing to utility, and neither recognizes that states, firms, and all other organizations are formulated on the basis of autonomous self-interest. Neoconservatism hypocritically proscribes democracy in corrupt countries in the name of liberating the oppressed whereas the liberators receive far greater benefits than the liberated because the liberators become kingmakers among the liberated. The only tolerated regimes are those which are compatible with the liberator's agenda, so no authentic freedom is ever put in place. Modern liberalism on the other hand proscribes support for the developing world because the so called right thing to do is help those in need and reap the reward of feeling good from helping others in the name of greater themes (i.e. feminism, environmentalism, etc.). In order to feel good therefore, a nihilist mutation of creative destruction has to be instilled such that pariahs bear negative externalities which perpetuate the need for correction and purification that modern liberals are dependent upon in order to feel good about themselves. A world where nobody was in dire straits would be a tempest for the modern liberal unable to connect to fellow social activist drama queens.

There wouldn't be a problem with either policy if they weren't being proposed in order to look good to the masses who are being called upon, but they are, and what's even worse is that the administrations and constituencies getting involved are made to feel obligated that they can't have their cake and eat it too. Instead, they're brainwashed to go to the impoverished and let THEM eat cake, the same sort of cake which lead to the French Revolution and was only luckily stabilized when Napoleon intervened as a benevolent despot and prevented France from ochlocratic self-cannibalization.

Transposed to domestic policy, neoconservatism encourages excessive faith in tradition such that charismatic leadership ostracizes anyone who deviates from the norm too far. Entrepreneurs, freelancers, and other independents are outcast since they become too hard to handle and represent potential anomalies that could explode in the face of leadership in the future since those entrepreneurs share the goal of principled advancement but ask too many questions and demand too much refinement in order to be affordably satisfied. Likewise, modern liberalism encourages excessive consumption which always demands a newest cosmopolitan trend in order to entertain the masses who need to feel worthwhile for being committed to philanthropic endeavors that aren't genuinely charitable. Charity involves doing something with no desire for compensation, so when philanthropy takes place only because the leaders build reputations upon worker bees who are herded and appeased by peer pressure and inflated material consumption, no real charity is taking place.

In economics both policies support populism at some level in order to make believe that they have the interests of the masses at heart by contributing to programs which support equal opportunity for all. In reality, power is just being shifted away from economic entrepreneurs to political figureheads such that (again) charismatic leadership takes point over legitimate expertise due to nepotism displacing merit. Whether it's No Child Left Behind or the ex post facto ad hoc unconstitutional taxation of AIG bonuses, both sides make populist appeals in order to stay in power (albeit such as expected in the nature of democracy with political parties and special interests dominating the field).

-----

Remembering how this thread is about the GOP as well as what I said at the beginning my post with how some ideologies only work if the entire package is kept together, it should be noted that regular conservatism acknowledges that the rule of law is the ultimate benchmark of governance, and this benchmark can only be fulfilled in a general dynamic fashion, not through the mechanical success of any particular institution whether it's the public's opinions, the public's standard of living, the treasury, the environment, etc., or even (oddly enough) the written law itself. Law is about sovereign righteousness, and while it is established through the state and enforced by the courts and police, it does not exist solely within them. Where it does exist though is in human subjectivity and the procurement of consistent policies which avoid hypocrisy while persistently pursuing improvement. Furthermore, the law exists to regulate the means of society such that the ends of society are not burdened with betrayal from past deeds. The ends do not justify the means, and the more hypocritical the means are, the more intensely self-destructive its progenitors will become.

Tradition though is still useful because it unites communities under common understandings of principle which can be appreciated through the actions encouraged via the tradition's institutions. The problem with traditions is that when their leaders become so resistant to change due to obsessions with discipline and personal spite, the principles that tradition supports will no longer be refined and will eventually corrode as a result of neglect. Resolution will be substituted with happiness and the followers of tradition will forget what tradition originally stood up for, replacing such purpose with false insight granted from immature epistemological luminosity that uncovers incomplete truths from the combination of advanced and complex resources with hasty and simple methods.

I bring this up Mike because I can't imagine you being a particularly strong supporter of a Blue Tory such as Mike Harris who was not a particularly strong advocate of social conservatism yet was an adamant slasher of government programs and spending which contrasted with the Red Tory encouragement of progressive spending even through traditional conservatism often aligns itself with progressivism in order to gain leverage in politics without violating separation of church in state (except in countries such as Britain where a national church exists) or offending followers of different faiths as well as nonbelievers. As an aside, what was your opinion of him while he was in office?

[Michael]

First of all, I apologize in advance for 'slicing your post up'. ;)

I certianly agree that the technique is often ideal as a method of attacking and/or misrepresentation, dodging and even for obscuring larger points. However, I do find it necessary as a way of replying to larger and complex posts such as yours here. I consider it a courtesy to the other readers to cite your words when replying to them - for context.

If you prefer, I can easily reply in the traditional 'essay' form of correspondence. :)

Hold up. Since when are extremes bad and since when is moderation good?

When the extremist versions are proven to be failures, it is rational to prefer some middle ground.

And moderation has always been a good thing according to Aristotle. ;)

Just because you found a middle way doesn't mean you have the best of both worlds since a lot of ideologies only work if you have the whole package altogether, and the last time I checked, the merger of self-interest with community pride lead to jingoism, corporatism, and fascism. You might not recognize this because foreign expansion isn't the priority at hand, but tell me, what's the difference between a:


neoconservative policy that aims to spread democracy throughout the world in order to secure American supremacy

versus


a "new left" modern liberal policy that aims to pursue foreign aid and multilateralism in order to secure equality for everyone?

Personally, I find these two policies to be in exactly the same boat. Both polices aim to satisfy the (in the latter case, ironically) self-interested psyche of their actors by appealing to utility, and neither recognizes that states, firms, and all other organizations are formulated on the basis of autonomous self-interest. Neoconservatism hypocritically proscribes democracy in corrupt countries in the name of liberating the oppressed whereas the liberators receive far greater benefits than the liberated because the liberators become kingmakers among the liberated. The only tolerated regimes are those which are compatible with the liberator's agenda, so no authentic freedom is ever put in place. Modern liberalism on the other hand proscribes support for the developing world because the so called right thing to do is help those in need and reap the reward of feeling good from helping others in the name of greater themes (i.e. feminism, environmentalism, etc.). In order to feel good therefore, a nihilist mutation of creative destruction has to be instilled such that pariahs bear negative externalities which perpetuate the need for correction and purification that modern liberals are dependent upon in order to feel good about themselves. A world where nobody was in dire straits would be a tempest for the modern liberal unable to connect to fellow social activist drama queens.

First of all, I'm a classical liberal - and subscribe to realpolitique in my foreign policy views. I strongly oppose 'imposed democracy' as much as I oppose 'imposed humanitarian aid'. I just don't feel that it is my right to impose 'improvement' on anyone.

Secondly, I also very much agree with your analysis that it does appear that self-interest (or ego) is the major driving force between both of the foreign policy approaches you have outlined above. They have much in common. Indeed, that is the one place where the neoconservatives were honest enough - they really did have their roots in 'modern liberalism' with that bizarre old trope about the 'white man's burden' or whatever politically correct spin they want to put on it this week. That's always been seductive to the liberally mindeed 'do-gooders'.

That is certainly not noble or admirable, but I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing in itself. For example, if some 'self-interested' people in the 1st world did something that was beneficial for people in the 3rd world, that's a relatively good thing right there, regardless if the 1st world people did it for their own self interest and/or material and/or ego benefit.

On the other hand, I tend to abjure 'monocausal' type explanations of anything and often find that the alleged 'cause' of some type of behavior often has a multiplicity of systemic and cultural factors that reinforce that behavior on a social, professional or family level. Self-interest is certainly a powerful 'cause' but it doesn't exist in a social vacuum.

I guess the bottom line for me here is that I don't worry too much about motives behind the actions because that's entirely a private matter that can never really be truly known and one can only speculate about. I prefer to analyze issues according to the immediate (or likely) outcomes as that is something that can be better observed or studied (within the limits of anything ever being truly known).

There wouldn't be a problem with either policy if they weren't being proposed in order to look good to the masses who are being called upon, but they are, and what's even worse is that the administrations and constituencies getting involved are made to feel obligated that they can't have their cake and eat it too. Instead, they're brainwashed to go to the impoverished and let THEM eat cake, the same sort of cake which lead to the French Revolution and was only luckily stabilized when Napoleon intervened as a benevolent despot and prevented France from ochlocratic self-cannibalization.

Transposed to domestic policy, neoconservatism encourages excessive faith in tradition such that charismatic leadership ostracizes anyone who deviates from the norm too far. Entrepreneurs, freelancers, and other independents are outcast since they become too hard to handle and represent potential anomalies that could explode in the face of leadership in the future since those entrepreneurs share the goal of principled advancement but ask too many questions and demand too much refinement in order to be affordably satisfied. Likewise, modern liberalism encourages excessive consumption which always demands a newest cosmopolitan trend in order to entertain the masses who need to feel worthwhile for being committed to philanthropic endeavors that aren't genuinely charitable. Charity involves doing something with no desire for compensation, so when philanthropy takes place only because the leaders build reputations upon worker bees who are herded and appeased by peer pressure and inflated material consumption, no real charity is taking place.
Yes I agree with your general points here, but I think you are over-simplifying these points to make your point. Yes, there is a huge amount of selfishness illustrated by examples, but you may be overlooking some counter-examples that complicate your critique here.

For example, you accuse modern liberalism of encouraging excessive consumption but in my experience, all the people I know who have the biggest and most expensive cars, clothes, houses and expensive toys (like boats, jet-skis, skidoos, airplanes, etc.) are the ones who tend to espouse 'modern conservative' views and/or supportive of the neoconservatives. In contrast, in my own experience, all the people I know who are 'anti-consumption' and are the most environmentally aware, are the ones espousing liberal views and/or supportive of 'modern liberalism'.

Now we all know that the plural of anecdote does not equal data, but I can't help but to consider this a relevant counter-example to your general point about the social characterization of ideology.

In economics both policies support populism at some level in order to make believe that they have the interests of the masses at heart by contributing to programs which support equal opportunity for all. In reality, power is just being shifted away from economic entrepreneurs to political figureheads such that (again) charismatic leadership takes point over legitimate expertise due to nepotism displacing merit. Whether it's No Child Left Behind or the ex post facto ad hoc unconstitutional taxation of AIG bonuses, both sides make populist appeals in order to stay in power (albeit such as expected in the nature of democracy with political parties and special interests dominating the field).
Yes, I agree here completely. Both political parties tend to foster populism and try to use it for their own political advantage. Charismatic leadership is of course the best and most effective way to do this. Thus the popularity of Reagan and Bill Clinton - both had strong charisma.

Ultimately, it sounds like you are agreeing with the thesis that ideology is dead...?

Or maybe not... maybe you are just ranting about the facile discourse that passes for ideology these days and you are building your argument here to claim that ideology still matters?

Remembering how this thread is about the GOP as well as what I said at the beginning my post with how some ideologies only work if the entire package is kept together, it should be noted that regular conservatism acknowledges that the rule of law is the ultimate benchmark of governance, and this benchmark can only be fulfilled in a general dynamic fashion, not through the mechanical success of any particular institution whether it's the public's opinions, the public's standard of living, the treasury, the environment, etc., or even (oddly enough) the written law itself. Law is about sovereign righteousness, and while it is established through the state and enforced by the courts and police, it does not exist solely within them. Where it does exist though is in human subjectivity and the procurement of consistent policies which avoid hypocrisy while persistently pursuing improvement. Furthermore, the law exists to regulate the means of society such that the ends of society are not burdened with betrayal from past deeds. The ends do not justify the means, and the more hypocritical the means are, the more intensely self-destructive its progenitors will become.

Tradition though is still useful because it unites communities under common understandings of principle which can be appreciated through the actions encouraged via the tradition's institutions. The problem with traditions is that when their leaders become so resistant to change due to obsessions with discipline and personal spite, the principles that tradition supports will no longer be refined and will eventually corrode as a result of neglect. Resolution will be substituted with happiness and the followers of tradition will forget what tradition originally stood up for, replacing such purpose with false insight granted from immature epistemological luminosity that uncovers incomplete truths from the combination of advanced and complex resources with hasty and simple methods.
The bolded part strikes me as a particularly bold thing to say - probably worthy of a whole separate discussion right there!

Generally speaking, I think you've nailed the GW Bush Administration here for its failure to be conservative - respect for the rule of law in governance just went out the window and the 'conservatives' in America didn't even blink. :eek:

That's scary. But again, I think that underscores the idea expressed in the OP here and the point you raised above - most of the reigning ideological dogmas are in fact dead and modern political parties are just propping up corpses mostly with populist rhetoric while pursuing their own self-interest.


I bring this up Mike because I can't imagine you being a particularly strong supporter of a Blue Tory such as Mike Harris who was not a particularly strong advocate of social conservatism yet was an adamant slasher of government programs and spending which contrasted with the Red Tory encouragement of progressive spending even through traditional conservatism often aligns itself with progressivism in order to gain leverage in politics without violating separation of church in state (except in countries such as Britain where a national church exists) or offending followers of different faiths as well as nonbelievers. As an aside, what was your opinion of him while he was in office?
I'm not a fan at all of Mike Harris as Premier of Ontario. We're still trying to deal with longer term 'unexpected consequences' of his various policy initiatives. ;)

To be honest, I found Mike Harris to be one of the first of the rise of a new wave of American-style politicians here in Canada - very much unlike traditional Canadian politicians. Mike Harris was one of the first of this type, Stephen Harper is another example - same type (not just politics) - both are fierce proponets of the private sector without ever really working in it.

[Daktoria]

First of all, I apologize in advance for 'slicing your post up'. ;)

I certianly agree that the technique is often ideal as a method of attacking and/or misrepresentation, dodging and even for obscuring larger points. However, I do find it necessary as a way of replying to larger and complex posts such as yours here. I consider it a courtesy to the other readers to cite your words when replying to them - for context.

If you prefer, I can easily reply in the traditional 'essay' form of correspondence. :)

Gyar! I will not eat cake no matter how you slice it!

Heh. There's a difference between division and deconstruction, and by acknowledging the structure of my points, you haven't wandered off into the latter. Some arguments only make sense if they're recognized as a dynamic and holistic system, and that's what you've done.

I like your quote system too of naming the poster only in the first reference and following it up without the name. It's the same system I've used since it helps when I'm trying to cite either multiple posters or external references in the same post (not to mention that it makes it easier to handle a quoted post since I don't have to rely upon reformatting an entire quote as I split it up).

Finally, just to be clear, your thesis appears to be about the death of ideology as the center of political platforms rather than the death of ideology in political philosophy. I'll address this in depth later in the post, but I wanted to note this in advance in order to make sure we are on the same page.

When the extremist versions are proven to be failures, it is rational to prefer some middle ground.

And moderation has always been a good thing according to Aristotle. ;)Gyahhhhhhhh. This is another candidate for a separate discussion on both fronts. First, in a one dimensional perspective, I agree when seeking out short term solutions since middle ways are the only alternatives, but proof isn't always accurately portrayed especially when an ideology is exposed to strawmen. Second, Greek philosophy is a solid introduction into philosophy and is useful for understanding the foundation of philosophy's history, but we have to move on eventually since the teleological dependence upon the gods for purpose isn't exactly a sound explanation of the world (even in metaphysical terms). I'll leave it to be for now that a discussion about Nicomachean Ethics, Eudaimonia, and Phronesis will make a great future thread (possibly on the agenda after this discussion is finished).

First of all, I'm a classical liberal - and subscribe to realpolitique in my foreign policy views. I strongly oppose 'imposed democracy' as much as I oppose 'imposed humanitarian aid'. I just don't feel that it is my right to impose 'improvement' on anyone.

Secondly, I also very much agree with your analysis that it does appear that self-interest (or ego) is the major driving force between both of the foreign policy approaches you have outlined above. They have much in common. Indeed, that is the one place where the neoconservatives were honest enough - they really did have their roots in 'modern liberalism' with that bizarre old trope about the 'white man's burden' or whatever politically correct spin they want to put on it this week. That's always been seductive to the liberally mindeed 'do-gooders'.

That is certainly not noble or admirable, but I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing in itself. For example, if some 'self-interested' people in the 1st world did something that was beneficial for people in the 3rd world, that's a relatively good thing right there, regardless if the 1st world people did it for their own self interest and/or material and/or ego benefit.

On the other hand, I tend to abjure 'monocausal' type explanations of anything and often find that the alleged 'cause' of some type of behavior often has a multiplicity of systemic and cultural factors that reinforce that behavior on a social, professional or family level. Self-interest is certainly a powerful 'cause' but it doesn't exist in a social vacuum.

I guess the bottom line for me here is that I don't worry too much about motives behind the actions because that's entirely a private matter that can never really be truly known and one can only speculate about. I prefer to analyze issues according to the immediate (or likely) outcomes as that is something that can be better observed or studied (within the limits of anything ever being truly known).I don't know if you're a functionalist, a utilitarian, a virtue ethicist, or anything else, but it seems to me that you're definitely not a deontologist or nihilist, so I'll leave those philosophies aside here.

What's confusing me though is how you can feel comfortable with charity despite your admission towards realpolitik (especially due to your use of the word "relatively"). If you believe in realpolitik, then you should recognize that power projection is the ultimate deterrent against aggression, not free trade (so your classical liberal stances would be limited to civil rights in domestic politics). Ergo, kingmaking (democratic regimes or otherwise) should appeal to you because it would represent success for domestically motivated foreign policies such that national interests would become more secure on the world theater. Additionally, realpolitik recognizes that world politics are ultimately a zero-sum game, so any charity bestowed towards other countries would be intrinsically detrimental towards a state's (or other institution's) security as well.

Charity is what gives life meaning in my opinion so I don't have any gripes with you there. What's stirring up all this confusion I feel is that you're not using the word "realpolitik" appropriately. Mind that I'm a geopolitical realist though, so I also subscribe to realpolitik; but I compensate for this by claiming that charity has no place in government especially when states can only legitimately exist when adhering to their social contracts, contracts which would be violated if the government prioritized aliens over citizens (unless the citizens agreed to such irrational prioritization in their contract :ummm:). Conquest theory aside, I feel that this is a sound basis for why neoliberalism (support for free markets) is preferential to neoconservatism (support for political democracy). All that governments have to do at the geopolitical level is enforce contracts and pursue national treaties which advance opportunities for capital gains.

Still, I'm intrigued by how you independently identified the "white man's burden" and Victorian noblesse oblige. Later on, you talk about how populist rhetoric is a tool that both sides use when it's convenient, and I suppose this is why the GOP has such a dearth of conservative intellectualism. Like yourself, I've noticed that many elitist consumers are the ones who stand up for conservative values, but that's just because they're trying to bask in the glory of aristocracy. Many of them flip-flop the instant something goes wrong i.e. their daughters get pregnant and need an abortion, their businesses want to look socially responsible via environmentalism or fair trade, the schools in their community are loaded with feminist union members that don't attend church, their in-laws are scared of people who bear concealed firearms because of all the shootings "you hear about on TV" and that real men don't need guns to protect themselves and their families, etc. Personally, I used to commend these libertarians for being socially flexible, but eventually I realized that social conservatism and economic conservatism go hand in hand. Libertarianism's great in a world of anarchy because it gives people an opportunity to explore right versus wrong, but once people discover what's right and formulate a social contract to protect those principles, it would be hypocritical to revert back to anarchy just to accommodate human nature's tendency to change over time.

Yes I agree with your general points here, but I think you are over-simplifying these points to make your point. Yes, there is a huge amount of selfishness illustrated by examples, but you may be overlooking some counter-examples that complicate your critique here.

For example, you accuse modern liberalism of encouraging excessive consumption but in my experience, all the people I know who have the biggest and most expensive cars, clothes, houses and expensive toys (like boats, jet-skis, skidoos, airplanes, etc.) are the ones who tend to espouse 'modern conservative' views and/or supportive of the neoconservatives. In contrast, in my own experience, all the people I know who are 'anti-consumption' and are the most environmentally aware, are the ones espousing liberal views and/or supportive of 'modern liberalism'.

Now we all know that the plural of anecdote does not equal data, but I can't help but to consider this a relevant counter-example to your general point about the social characterization of ideology....

...Yes, I agree here completely. Both political parties tend to foster populism and try to use it for their own political advantage. Charismatic leadership is of course the best and most effective way to do this. Thus the popularity of Reagan and Bill Clinton - both had strong charisma.

Ultimately, it sounds like you are agreeing with the thesis that ideology is dead...?

Or maybe not... maybe you are just ranting about the facile discourse that passes for ideology these days and you are building your argument here to claim that ideology still matters?Genuine conservatism acknowledges that ideology is meant to be class universal. It doesn't matter where you are in society, you should still believe in the same principles and behave the same way. Ergo, elites who distance themselves from the masses while encouraging populist rhetoric are just as hypocritical as elites who engage in gluttony while dismissing charity.

Regarding political correctness, professionalism, and social awkwardness though, I can see how they make sense in the defense of tradition considering the finite mental resources that all human beings are bestowed with. I'm not a personal fan of any of these demeanors as you can imagine, but many gluttonous elites still engage in false charity. Some do it because it helps them network and fit in, some do it because it helps their egos, and some do it because they want the tax credits. To be honest though, I can't really see these elites rationally engaging in true charity during their working life because:


it would expose them to undue risk (economically, socially, medically, etc.),
it would reduce their productivity and ability to support those they care about, and
it would require them to do work that someone else could perform far more efficiently due to their own specialization.

Not to be tangentially cynical or anything, but sometimes I wonder if true charity actually exists and isn't just a vain dream. Charity is something we want to do, so it can't be an obligation, and it isn't something we garnish benefit from, egotistical or otherwise. Therefore, what actions or intentions are left for charity to take place in? We could argue that charity is something we do because it's just the "right" thing to do like David Gauthier argues for constrained maximizers to do in contractarianism, but I don't see how righteousness can be identified without being conflated with obligations or interests either. :confused:

The bolded part strikes me as a particularly bold thing to say - probably worthy of a whole separate discussion right there!

Generally speaking, I think you've nailed the GW Bush Administration here for its failure to be conservative - respect for the rule of law in governance just went out the window and the 'conservatives' in America didn't even blink. :eek:

That's scary. But again, I think that underscores the idea expressed in the OP here and the point you raised above - most of the reigning ideological dogmas are in fact dead and modern political parties are just propping up corpses mostly with populist rhetoric while pursuing their own self-interest.Aye, yet another example of how neoconservatism doesn't respect the fundamental rule of law that conservatism exemplar cares about. No Child Left Behind? Compassionate conservatism? The PATRIOT Act? Give me a break. Maybe if everyone (in America) was taught more about Washington's Farewell Address (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp)*, there wouldn't be so much indifference towards animosity about the nature of political parties:All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
*The section is far larger than this, but I felt this to be a fair excerpt to express my point.

I'm not a fan at all of Mike Harris as Premier of Ontario. We're still trying to deal with longer term 'unexpected consequences' of his various policy initiatives. ;)

To be honest, I found Mike Harris to be one of the first of the rise of a new wave of American-style politicians here in Canada - very much unlike traditional Canadian politicians. Mike Harris was one of the first of this type, Stephen Harper is another example - same type (not just politics) - both are fierce proponets of the private sector without ever really working in it.

A few months ago, I asked about who Canada's neocons really are on this forum (http://www.canadaka.net/forums/canadian-politics-f17/red-tories-or-blue-tories-who-are-canada-s-neocons-t71534.html) since I was getting confused over the difference between Red and Blue Tories. To be honest, I'm still convinced that Red Tories are more progressive than Blue Tories are, and neoconservatism's radical nature comes from its progressive mutation of conservative values, a sort of authoritarian upswing from what conservatism is really about. Such is where my confusion came from: it wouldn't make sense for Blue Tories (who are less progressive than Red Tories) to belong to the "Progressive Conservative" party. Then and again, I see the words progressive and populist thrown around all of Canada's conservative historical parties somewhere or another (due to the Victorian nature of Toryism), and Blue Tories have less regard for tradition than Red Tories (tradition being a paleoconservative value that neoconservatives, again, only respect out of convenience). Maybe if the conservatives didn't make a mess out of everything so much, the liberals wouldn't have it so easy on your side of the border!

[Evangeline]

Yup. There's a fangirl in one of my classes who refuses to budge on anything, but also refuses to debate it. :ummm:

I don't get how anyone can think they know it all and refuse to learn anything new.....

I was recently watching some talking heads, maybe it was Naomi Klein on Bill Maher, they were talking about economics. From Washingon till the depression we had a boom and bust cycle every 15 years or so. Then FDR put in the regulations and we had 50 years of steady, stable growth. Then in the late 70s and early 80s starting with a Supreme Court decision, the threads started unraveling and deregulating and this is how we ended up in this mess.

I think Obama supposedly is interested in history. I sure hope this admin is able to put those regulations back in place so we can have more of that stable, steady growth. These bubbles need to stop. IMHO.

[partofme]

I don't get how anyone can think they know it all and refuse to learn anything new.....

I was recently watching some talking heads, maybe it was Naomi Klein on Bill Maher, they were talking about economics. From Washingon till the depression we had a boom and bust cycle every 15 years or so. Then FDR put in the regulations and we had 50 years of steady, stable growth. Then in the late 70s and early 80s starting with a Supreme Court decision, the threads started unraveling and deregulating and this is how we ended up in this mess.

I think Obama supposedly is interested in history. I sure hope this admin is able to put those regulations back in place so we can have more of that stable, steady growth. These bubbles need to stop. IMHO.

I believe it was Elizabeth Warren being interviewed by Bill Maher. She is the head of the Congressional Oversight Panel that was created to keep an eye on the TARP.

[Michael]

...Finally, just to be clear, your thesis appears to be about the death of ideology as the center of political platforms rather than the death of ideology in political philosophy. I'll address this in depth later in the post, but I wanted to note this in advance in order to make sure we are on the same page.
Well, first of all, the question mark in the thread title suggests that it is a question and this thread is meant to discuss the possibility. :)

Secondly, my strongest academic interest was in 'political philosophy' so I'm really not the type of guy to go around arguing that political ideology itself is dead. :D

And yes, I am certainly arguing that 'ideology' has passed from the center of political platforms over the last decade or two.

But I suppose that I'm also arguing for perhaps the death of one particular ideology here - that of neoliberalism. I think 20th century socialism is already dead (the socialist idea isn't, just the ideology of it is).

And I've also asserted that I believe that classical liberalism is alive and still standing - essentially the only popular 'ideology' that is doing so with any reasonable successes.

Gyahhhhhhhh.
Is that Klingon? :ummm:

This is another candidate for a separate discussion on both fronts. First, in a one dimensional perspective, I agree when seeking out short term solutions since middle ways are the only alternatives, but proof isn't always accurately portrayed especially when an ideology is exposed to strawmen. Second, Greek philosophy is a solid introduction into philosophy and is useful for understanding the foundation of philosophy's history, but we have to move on eventually since the teleological dependence upon the gods for purpose isn't exactly a sound explanation of the world (even in metaphysical terms). I'll leave it to be for now that a discussion about Nicomachean Ethics, Eudaimonia, and Phronesis will make a great future thread (possibly on the agenda after this discussion is finished).
Yes, that does look like a good topic for debate since you are bashing my beloved Greeks!

That would make TWO topics here - one for the optimal resolution of short term crises - and a second to defend the modern utility of the Greeks! :yoda:

I don't know if you're a functionalist, a utilitarian, a virtue ethicist, or anything else, but it seems to me that you're definitely not a deontologist or nihilist, so I'll leave those philosophies aside here.
Correct. I'm certainly not a deontologist or a nihilist. :)

I'm not a strict functionalist, utilitarian or virtue ethicist, though I most certainly will use arguments from all three perspectives as they are generally not incompatible with my own.

What's confusing me though is how you can feel comfortable with charity despite your admission towards realpolitik (especially due to your use of the word "relatively"). If you believe in realpolitik, then you should recognize that power projection is the ultimate deterrent against aggression, not free trade (so your classical liberal stances would be limited to civil rights in domestic politics). Ergo, kingmaking (democratic regimes or otherwise) should appeal to you because it would represent success for domestically motivated foreign policies such that national interests would become more secure on the world theater. Additionally, realpolitik recognizes that world politics are ultimately a zero-sum game, so any charity bestowed towards other countries would be intrinsically detrimental towards a state's (or other institution's) security as well.

I fundamentally believe that "power-projection" is fundamentally different in the age of nuclear weapons. I'm also a fan of Sun Tzu. The best victory is one where no blood is shed.

I admit that your argument is a good one and I'd be forced to consider it more seriously if nuclear-weapons were not such a powerful 'game-changer' here.

Secondly, I am a true democrat. That is usually my one philosophical bottom line - I don't argue that pure democracy is more efficient or effective, just morally better since it fundamentally recognizes the individual human being as one with sovereign rights.

And so, as a 'true democrat', and a student of modern political science, I just can't accept 'kingmaking' as a practical or viable enterprise. Indeed, my studies of the topic, from a political or historical perspective, suggest that one ought to avoid 'kingmaking' like the plague!

Best to study Sun Tzu and lead from behind in order to stay ahead.

Charity is what gives life meaning in my opinion so I don't have any gripes with you there. What's stirring up all this confusion I feel is that you're not using the word "realpolitik" appropriately. Mind that I'm a geopolitical realist though, so I also subscribe to realpolitik; but I compensate for this by claiming that charity has no place in government especially when states can only legitimately exist when adhering to their social contracts, contracts which would be violated if the government prioritized aliens over citizens (unless the citizens agreed to such irrational prioritization in their contract :ummm:). Conquest theory aside, I feel that this is a sound basis for why neoliberalism (support for free markets) is preferential to neoconservatism (support for political democracy). All that governments have to do at the geopolitical level is enforce contracts and pursue national treaties which advance opportunities for capital gains.
First of all, yes, you are correct to question my lack of steadfast adherence to principles of pure 'realpolitik'.

I would question the veracity of some of the 'conventually defined wisdom' that is assumed in calculations of 'realpolitik'.

In other words, I would assert that I am still following 'realpolitik' in general approach - I'm just appealing to Sun Tzu instead of Napoleon as the true master of the art. This apparently is heresy in many intellectual circles - but does produce a slight change in emphasis. Plus of course the nuke weapons issue.

Bottom line is, I do have an 'idealism' and that is democracy. I have adopted Sun Tzu and 'realpolitik' as the best strategies to support and/or interpret my preference for democracy.

At the same time, your own political idealism is beginning to get a bit clearer to me. You are certainly 'conservative' - but which type I'm not certain. ;)

Still, I'm intrigued by how you independently identified the "white man's burden" and Victorian noblesse oblige. Later on, you talk about how populist rhetoric is a tool that both sides use when it's convenient, and I suppose this is why the GOP has such a dearth of conservative intellectualism. Like yourself, I've noticed that many elitist consumers are the ones who stand up for conservative values, but that's just because they're trying to bask in the glory of aristocracy. Many of them flip-flop the instant something goes wrong i.e. their daughters get pregnant and need an abortion, their businesses want to look socially responsible via environmentalism or fair trade, the schools in their community are loaded with feminist union members that don't attend church, their in-laws are scared of people who bear concealed firearms because of all the shootings "you hear about on TV" and that real men don't need guns to protect themselves and their families, etc. Personally, I used to commend these libertarians for being socially flexible, but eventually I realized that social conservatism and economic conservatism go hand in hand. Libertarianism's great in a world of anarchy because it gives people an opportunity to explore right versus wrong, but once people discover what's right and formulate a social contract to protect those principles, it would be hypocritical to revert back to anarchy just to accommodate human nature's tendency to change over time.

Genuine conservatism acknowledges that ideology is meant to be class universal. It doesn't matter where you are in society, you should still believe in the same principles and behave the same way. Ergo, elites who distance themselves from the masses while encouraging populist rhetoric are just as hypocritical as elites who engage in gluttony while dismissing charity.

Okay... now we need to discuss the definition of 'conservative' since you are defending that word. Like liberalism, there are LOTS of different types of conservatives. Especially when you used the term in context of 'economics'. Whenever I hear the word 'conservative' I need to know if you are referencing pre or post French Revolutionary definition of the term? That's critically important ground.

As for my position here, I think that it is good pragmatic liberalism to be skeptical to claims of the 'white man's burden' (as imperialist nonsense) and to recognize the electoral popularity of populism - or the self-serving nature of elites. Skepticism is a core element of liberal philosophy.

Regarding political correctness, professionalism, and social awkwardness though, I can see how they make sense in the defense of tradition considering the finite mental resources that all human beings are bestowed with. I'm not a personal fan of any of these demeanors as you can imagine, but many gluttonous elites still engage in false charity. Some do it because it helps them network and fit in, some do it because it helps their egos, and some do it because they want the tax credits. To be honest though, I can't really see these elites rationally engaging in true charity during their working life because:


it would expose them to undue risk (economically, socially, medically, etc.),
it would reduce their productivity and ability to support those they care about, and
it would require them to do work that someone else could perform far more efficiently due to their own specialization.

Not to be tangentially cynical or anything, but sometimes I wonder if true charity actually exists and isn't just a vain dream. Charity is something we want to do, so it can't be an obligation, and it isn't something we garnish benefit from, egotistical or otherwise. Therefore, what actions or intentions are left for charity to take place in? We could argue that charity is something we do because it's just the "right" thing to do like David Gauthier argues for constrained maximizers to do in contractarianism, but I don't see how righteousness can be identified without being conflated with obligations or interests either. :confused:

I don't see the problem with the present approach of state-funded charity. Taxing the polity to provide publically funded social services. That covers the baseline 'need' for charity. People may still engage in charity as much as they like - no law, limit or penalty against that. People are free to engage in charity, no one is personally forced into it, and the system is better able to do the job comprehensively than random acts of individual altruism.

Indeed, random acts of altruism are still available opportunity-wise so I don't see how one can complain about the general systemic approach.

Aye, yet another example of how neoconservatism doesn't respect the fundamental rule of law that conservatism exemplar cares about. No Child Left Behind? Compassionate conservatism? The PATRIOT Act? Give me a break. Maybe if everyone (in America) was taught more about Washington's Farewell Address (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp)*, there wouldn't be so much indifference towards animosity about the nature of political parties:All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
*The section is far larger than this, but I felt this to be a fair excerpt to express my point.

And a damn fine point. Conservatives in American could do a lot worse than to read Washington's Farewell Address and take it to heart.

Wouldn't hurt to read over Eisenhower's Farewell Address while they are at it. I think its message is equally if not more important - indeed, it is closely related.

Btw, I'd say that those are the two 'most admirable conservatives' in American political history in my opinion.

* * *
For a reply to your last section, I cut'n'pasted that paragraph to an existing thread there since it seemed highly topical (Rise of the Red Tories).

[Daktoria]

I fundamentally believe that "power-projection" is fundamentally different in the age of nuclear weapons. I'm also a fan of Sun Tzu. The best victory is one where no blood is shed.

I admit that your argument is a good one and I'd be forced to consider it more seriously if nuclear-weapons were not such a powerful 'game-changer' here.

Among superpowers, I'm not sure that this is as much of an issue due to the pervasive understanding of how MAD disables any socially acceptable actor from rationally employing them. The more that democracy takes effect, the more scared politicians become from taking aggressive action because of both how they need to worry about retaining popular support as well as how their political ideals are inherently awkward against the employment of methods which make the public vulnerable (to destruction). Among smaller states such as Pakistan, India, Israel, and Iran however, I feel that what you're talking about still takes effect since nuclear armaments are subject to more sensitive hair triggers due to increased frustration and decreased security.

Secondly, I am a true democrat. That is usually my one philosophical bottom line - I don't argue that pure democracy is more efficient or effective, just morally better since it fundamentally recognizes the individual human being as one with sovereign rights.

And so, as a 'true democrat', and a student of modern political science, I just can't accept 'kingmaking' as a practical or viable enterprise. Indeed, my studies of the topic, from a political or historical perspective, suggest that one ought to avoid 'kingmaking' like the plague!

Best to study Sun Tzu and lead from behind in order to stay ahead.I'll get back to you on this when I finish reviewing Tocqueville and Rousseau. Classical liberalism combined with cosmopolitanism can lead to some dreadfully mired results imo since it prioritizes association over individuality, individuality which leads to entrepreneurial respect for ingenuity, association which leads to populist respect for ingenuity. The former encourages economic growth to remain motivated beyond economics itself whereas the latter drains that external motivation and replaces it with reductio ad absurdum demands for necessities (which aren't discovered to be absurd themselves until hindsight when the Malthusian Trap collapses).

First of all, yes, you are correct to question my lack of steadfast adherence to principles of pure 'realpolitik'.

I would question the veracity of some of the 'conventually defined wisdom' that is assumed in calculations of 'realpolitik'.

In other words, I would assert that I am still following 'realpolitik' in general approach - I'm just appealing to Sun Tzu instead of Napoleon as the true master of the art. This apparently is heresy in many intellectual circles - but does produce a slight change in emphasis. Plus of course the nuke weapons issue.

Bottom line is, I do have an 'idealism' and that is democracy. I have adopted Sun Tzu and 'realpolitik' as the best strategies to support and/or interpret my preference for democracy.I'd be careful that I didn't become a neocon for merging tradition and democracy with realpolitik if I were you. Godfathering the government is one of many ways to undermine the rule of law by conceding to the "might is right" tendencies of the political machine, and if you hold too much faith in the wisdom of the masses, you're going to get caught up in the waves of mob justice which follow.

At the same time, your own political idealism is beginning to get a bit clearer to me. You are certainly 'conservative' - but which type I'm not certain. ;)Paleoconservative, Blue Tory, anti-ochlocratic, Jacksonian Democrat is the best depiction I can give you, but it's a lot easier to just profile me as an independent since I don't intentionally bear any ideological loyalties. Semantics are meant just to facilitate communication imo, not to bear intrinsic value that romantics can appeal to through logical fallacies which call upon positive evidence for self-obsessed strawmen.

Okay... now we need to discuss the definition of 'conservative' since you are defending that word. Like liberalism, there are LOTS of different types of conservatives. Especially when you used the term in context of 'economics'. Whenever I hear the word 'conservative' I need to know if you are referencing pre or post French Revolutionary definition of the term? That's critically important ground.

As for my position here, I think that it is good pragmatic liberalism to be skeptical to claims of the 'white man's burden' (as imperialist nonsense) and to recognize the electoral popularity of populism - or the self-serving nature of elites. Skepticism is a core element of liberal philosophy.I'm inclined to say that I'm a fan of Tocqueville and Napoleon more than Rousseau and Voltaire, but I'm more of a fan of Russel Kirk than anyone else. In particular, I use Kirk's 10 Principles (http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html) more than anything else to determine if I'm on track, but again, I don't pledge ideological loyalty, so there's plenty times when I go off the beaten path. More than anything though, I can promise you that my number one political concern is the strict rule of law, my number two political concern is the maintenance of individuality, and my number three political concern is the preservation of free markets. However, I don't feel that Kant's Kingdom of Ends or Nietzsche's Ubermensch can be realized through politics alone, so it has to be understood that the state should be treated as a temporary institution rather than a permanent one. Such is an intuitive truth since governments are entirely arbitrary institutions which wouldn't serve any purpose in a world where statehood and sovereignty weren't required to ensure peaceful cohabitation between inhabitants among a realm.

Then and again, institutions and peace are entirely arbitrary concepts that are only appreciated by subjective actors, so who knows. :shrug:

I don't see the problem with the present approach of state-funded charity. Taxing the polity to provide publically funded social services. That covers the baseline 'need' for charity. People may still engage in charity as much as they like - no law, limit or penalty against that. People are free to engage in charity, no one is personally forced into it, and the system is better able to do the job comprehensively than random acts of individual altruism.

Indeed, random acts of altruism are still available opportunity-wise so I don't see how one can complain about the general systemic approach.
Well taxation is inherently coercive, so state-funded charity is a paradox (I was gunna use a different word, not contradiction, but it just slipped my mind). Even in a voluntary social contract, adjustment is required to adhere to taxation, so some level of coercion still takes place.

Even so (and I get this a lot), you're not recognizing that the purpose of charity is to develop subjective appreciations for goodness that are absent of expectations of compensation. Government cannot build character in this sense, and while it can provide welfare, welfare is a shortcut that kills society over the long run since individuals can afford to dismiss societal calamities which get taken care of by the government.

And a damn fine point. Conservatives in American could do a lot worse than to read Washington's Farewell Address and take it to heart.

Wouldn't hurt to read over Eisenhower's Farewell Address while they are at it. I think its message is equally if not more important - indeed, it is closely related.

Btw, I'd say that those are the two 'most admirable conservatives' in American political history in my opinion.

* * *
For a reply to your last section, I cut'n'pasted that paragraph to an existing thread there since it seemed highly topical (Rise of the Red Tories).Thanks.

BTW, I responded to you over there, but I should catch up everywhere else before paying attention to that thread yet.

[Michael]

Among superpowers, I'm not sure that this is as much of an issue due to the pervasive understanding of how MAD disables any socially acceptable actor from rationally employing them. The more that democracy takes effect, the more scared politicians become from taking aggressive action because of both how they need to worry about retaining popular support as well as how their political ideals are inherently awkward against the employment of methods which make the public vulnerable (to destruction). Among smaller states such as Pakistan, India, Israel, and Iran however, I feel that what you're talking about still takes effect since nuclear armaments are subject to more sensitive hair triggers due to increased frustration and decreased security.
Nuclear weapons are as much 'socio-political status symbols' as they are weapons-of-planetary-destruction. They have enormous power (and consequences) in both respects.

Democracy is good, but I'm not sure that's sufficient explanation. USSR and Maoist China never had anything that was even remotely democratic about their systems, yet they followed the logic of MAD. And I would say that the USA, Russia, China, India and France (and Britain, etc) are all very much stil engaged in the 'big game' of international power politics today where image, power, political influence, public opinion polls and celebrity culture forms a field of prestige competition even for (or especially) between allied democratic states. When Putin poses for international photo-ops, China, India and South America are as much his concern as Europe and USA are.

I'll get back to you on this when I finish reviewing Tocqueville and Rousseau. Classical liberalism combined with cosmopolitanism can lead to some dreadfully mired results imo since it prioritizes association over individuality, individuality which leads to entrepreneurial respect for ingenuity, association which leads to populist respect for ingenuity. The former encourages economic growth to remain motivated beyond economics itself whereas the latter drains that external motivation and replaces it with reductio ad absurdum demands for necessities (which aren't discovered to be absurd themselves until hindsight when the Malthusian Trap collapses).
I'm a great admirer of Alex de Tocqueville - specifically Democracy in America. It has an honored place on my bookshelf. :)

Rousseau is much more complex and cannot be understood from the limited context of a singe book. I think one has to read most of Rousseau's works to get a measure of his true philosophical meaning. Certainly the Social Contract, but also Emile and the essay on The Origin of Inequality I think form the bare necessity. Reading the Social Contract alone leaves one without a full appreciation of Rousseau's philosophy. :)

I suppose it might be an arbitrary but useful distinction is to say that Alex de Tocqueville is a 'political scientist' while J.J. Rousseau is a philosopher.

I'd be careful that I didn't become a neocon for merging tradition and democracy with realpolitik if I were you. Godfathering the government is one of many ways to undermine the rule of law by conceding to the "might is right" tendencies of the political machine, and if you hold too much faith in the wisdom of the masses, you're going to get caught up in the waves of mob justice which follow.
I'm in no danger of becoming a neocon for two reasons. :)

1. I don't believe neocons are geninely pro-democracy - for them, it is just a useful pose, not genuine belief or an actual commitment.

2. I also reject the principle of natural right that drives 'neoconservative' (and all conservative) thought. I object to the arrogance of claiming it.

On that basis, neconservatives are considered core political enemies to my preferred style of classical liberalism, realpolitik, pro-democracy - and rational skepticism. :D

Paleoconservative, Blue Tory, anti-ochlocratic, Jacksonian Democrat is the best depiction I can give you, but it's a lot easier to just profile me as an independent since I don't intentionally bear any ideological loyalties. Semantics are meant just to facilitate communication imo, not to bear intrinsic value that romantics can appeal to through logical fallacies which call upon positive evidence for self-obsessed strawmen.
But are you a "true conservative" ? ;)

I refer to the line drawn by the 'estates' in the French Revolutionary parlement here. A 'true conservative' is one who sits on the King's right side and upholds the principle of 'God, King & Country' (in that order). If you accept any of the principles of the rule of law, democracy and/or liberty, you are on the King's left side.

It is common in popular usage for the entire spectrum to be re-drawn anew after the French Revolution with the whole right-left spectrum now entirely inside the 'left-side' of the old spectrum - with the 'old' right side cast adrift as 'authoritarian conservatives' and relegated to 'extremist' status.

Thus, most 'paleoconservatives' in modern terminology are constitutional-democrats, while 'true conservatives' are most certainly anti-democracy. Thus, my question. :)

I'm inclined to say that I'm a fan of Tocqueville and Napoleon more than Rousseau and Voltaire, but I'm more of a fan of Russel Kirk than anyone else. In particular, I use Kirk's 10 Principles (http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html) more than anything else to determine if I'm on track, but again, I don't pledge ideological loyalty, so there's plenty times when I go off the beaten path. More than anything though, I can promise you that my number one political concern is the strict rule of law, my number two political concern is the maintenance of individuality, and my number three political concern is the preservation of free markets. However, I don't feel that Kant's Kingdom of Ends or Nietzsche's Ubermensch can be realized through politics alone, so it has to be understood that the state should be treated as a temporary institution rather than a permanent one. Such is an intuitive truth since governments are entirely arbitrary institutions which wouldn't serve any purpose in a world where statehood and sovereignty weren't required to ensure peaceful cohabitation between inhabitants among a realm.

Then and again, institutions and peace are entirely arbitrary concepts that are only appreciated by subjective actors, so who knows. :shrug:

No surprise that you prefer Tocqueville & Napoleon more than Rousseau and Voltaire! :lol:

(I like Tocqueville and Rousseau as great thinkers, not so much the other two)

As for your linked listing of "Kirk's 10 Principles of Conservativism". That's a pretty darn good list - truly, if there is one single great inspiration for 'modern' conservativism, it must be Edmund Burke. It looks like most of Kirk's list is drawn from Burke.

Well taxation is inherently coercive, so state-funded charity is a paradox (I was gunna use a different word, not contradiction, but it just slipped my mind). Even in a voluntary social contract, adjustment is required to adhere to taxation, so some level of coercion still takes place.

Even so (and I get this a lot), you're not recognizing that the purpose of charity is to develop subjective appreciations for goodness that are absent of expectations of compensation. Government cannot build character in this sense, and while it can provide welfare, welfare is a shortcut that kills society over the long run since individuals can afford to dismiss societal calamities which get taken care of by the government.
Okay, you like the "teaching virtue" argument and state-operated social services takes away from the opportunity to make that a teaching moment.

That makes sense. Thanks. I don't agree of course, but that point has a certain rational logic to it.

As a general rule, I just don't like using the state to preach morality. ;)

BTW, I responded to you over there, but I should catch up everywhere else before paying attention to that thread yet.
No hurry. That's what the forum discussion model is good at. Sometimes it takes a few days or weeks to get the time for a proper reply to a substantial post. The forum and this discussion will still be here. :)

[Daktoria]

But are you a "true conservative" ? ;)

I refer to the line drawn by the 'estates' in the French Revolutionary parlement here. A 'true conservative' is one who sits on the King's right side and upholds the principle of 'God, King & Country' (in that order). If you accept any of the principles of the rule of law, democracy and/or liberty, you are on the King's left side.

It is common in popular usage for the entire spectrum to be re-drawn anew after the French Revolution with the whole right-left spectrum now entirely inside the 'left-side' of the old spectrum - with the 'old' right side cast adrift as 'authoritarian conservatives' and relegated to 'extremist' status.

Thus, most 'paleoconservatives' in modern terminology are constitutional-democrats, while 'true conservatives' are most certainly anti-democracy. Thus, my question. :)

My ideological model is Cicero from the Roman Republic, so while I do appreciate an elitist aristocratic Patrician class, I also recognize that the rule of law is not completely dependent upon or correlated with it since the people need to bear moral resolve (possibly through spirituality as a temporary set of noble lies for the morally dormant) in order to fend off inevitable political corruption.

As for defining the "old right", I feel that an American perspective of it defines my ideals far most accurately considering that my following focuses on those such as Murray Rothbard and Pat Buchanan. However, populism (such as that held by Bourbon Democrats) needs to be subordinated to free market principles in order to avoid corporatist governance and cosmopolitan mob justice.

My ultimate focus is on entrepreneurs, not elites, so it might be better to define me as a liberal republican in classical terms but a paleoconservative in modern ones, take your pick.

Okay, you like the "teaching virtue" argument and state-operated social services takes away from the opportunity to make that a teaching moment.

That makes sense. Thanks. I don't agree of course, but that point has a certain rational logic to it.

As a general rule, I just don't like using the state to preach morality. ;)

Well by saying, "[g]overnment cannot build character," I'm claiming that the State cannot preach morality either. Even independent charities can only encourage morality since individuals need to willingly absorb moral premises.

[Michael]

My ideological model is Cicero from the Roman Republic, so while I do appreciate an elitist aristocratic Patrician class, I also recognize that the rule of law is not completely dependent upon or correlated with it since the people need to bear moral resolve (possibly through spirituality as a temporary set of noble lies for the morally dormant) in order to fend off inevitable political corruption.
Isn't that just a slippery slope to Platonic authoritarianism as a best case scenario?

I firmly believe that the Roman Republic devolved into the Empire for rational and systemic reasons, not due to any increase in moral corruption of the late Republic period. Corruption in that period was no worse than before or after - it was just bigger in scale due to the bigger field of opportunity - thus more noticeable. But the Roman republic that murdered the Gracchi was the same moral actor that assassinated Julius and bowed before Octavian. There's no real or obvious 'decay' in Roman 'morality' during that period (or much political contradiction either).

And yes, I am guilty of trolling here for an argument about Roman politics! Another thread perhaps? :D

As for defining the "old right", I feel that an American perspective of it defines my ideals far most accurately considering that my following focuses on those such as Murray Rothbard and Pat Buchanan. However, populism (such as that held by Bourbon Democrats) needs to be subordinated to free market principles in order to avoid corporatist governance and cosmopolitan mob justice.
Wow! Rothbard and Buchanan? Really? I can understand the intellectual attraction of radical libertarianism and anarchic-capitalism of the former, but the nativism inherent to the latter seems a bit too scary for my liking.

Btw, the term Bourbon Democrats was new to me, so I looked it up. And I must say that to accuse them of "populism", given they were strongly pro-corporate, anti-silver and anti-Bryan, doesn't make any sense at all to me - though I could see them being considered comparatively 'populist' from the context of Rothbard's radical position. Please clarify this. :)

My ultimate focus is on entrepreneurs, not elites, so it might be better to define me as a liberal republican in classical terms but a paleoconservative in modern ones, take your pick.
That works quite well, thank you. I'm much more of an admirer of Edmund Burke as the 'leading intellectual' of conservativism. I find that political view of conservativism is always respectable. Too many other varieties get quickly or too easily tangled up with the racial crusaders and/or the theocrats.

Btw, this is entirely beside the point, but I'm thinking about some video clips I saw of the recent "teabagging" protests. What struck me about what I saw was the way so many (inarticulate) people were 'spouting' paleoconservative rhetoric - but when questioned by news media with cameras rolling, most of these people seemed to be members of unions or government sector employees and I remember several claimed to be "retired on Social Security". I find this incongruity within American conservativism to be very striking. The most ardent paleoconservative messages seem to come from precisely those people who would really not benefit from paleoconservative ideas in practice. This is just anecdotal, so not a serious argument, just a general observation that I think is odd. I certainly am not accusing you of being of this type at all - rather I'm inquiring of you why you think this might be so.

Well by saying, "[g]overnment cannot build character," I'm claiming that the State cannot preach morality either. Even independent charities can only encourage morality since individuals need to willingly absorb moral premises.
Yes, I agree with that - governments can't/shouldn't build character nor can it preach or teach morality.

But I consider that beside the point when it comes to the provision of public social services. When it comes to meeting the basic human needs of our fellow humans, quibbling about morality, teaching and/or charity is irrelevant. The key goal is to make the most efficient and most effective method of ensuring that basic necessities are available (and accessible) to all. The precise method to get there is to me, mostly irrelevant. The choice of the goal and the efficiency/effectiveness of the methods used to achieve that goal are what are ultimately most important.

Private charity just never came close to meeting the goal. It failed in efficiency and effectiveness. Ergo, a different policy is needed. The present system of public provision of social services via general taxation has indeed delivered the goods in a way that is reasonably efficient and has been reasonably effective.

Bottom line is that if 'morality' requires that we leave the poor, the sick and the old to fend for themselves, that's no morality at all.

[Daktoria]

Isn't that just a slippery slope to Platonic authoritarianism as a best case scenario?

I firmly believe that the Roman Republic devolved into the Empire for rational and systemic reasons, not due to any increase in moral corruption of the late Republic period. Corruption in that period was no worse than before or after - it was just bigger in scale due to the bigger field of opportunity - thus more noticeable. But the Roman republic that murdered the Gracchi was the same moral actor that assassinated Julius and bowed before Octavian. There's no real or obvious 'decay' in Roman 'morality' during that period (or much political contradiction either).

And yes, I am guilty of trolling here for an argument about Roman politics! Another thread perhaps? :D

Call it autocracy if you will, I guess I'm slipping away from ordinary conservatism again not because I don't believe that justice is good (despite how I don't believe it doesn't really exist), but because the rule of law appears more and more to be a facade behind traditionalists who want to jockey for reputation and glamor among the salivating masses.

It's not about not liking people since I feel people are great. I just don't like how there are so far and few between who don't fall into the categories of being either naive sheep or manipulative... bitches, heh, neither of which deserves any respect at all if they are demanding to be treated as respectable adults.

Better to burn the world over through a trial by fire than vainly try to save it and only become infected with its plague.

Wow! Rothbard and Buchanan? Really? I can understand the intellectual attraction of radical libertarianism and anarchic-capitalism of the former, but the nativism inherent to the latter seems a bit too scary for my liking.

Btw, the term Bourbon Democrats was new to me, so I looked it up. And I must say that to accuse them of "populism", given they were strongly pro-corporate, anti-silver and anti-Bryan, doesn't make any sense at all to me - though I could see them being considered comparatively 'populist' from the context of Rothbard's radical position. Please clarify this. :)Yea, I reread what I wrote and that didn't make sense. Bourbon Democrats were a pillar of the Old Right, and if there's anyone who I should want to emulate for the sake of burning out corruption and privatizing the State, it would be them. However, yes, Rothbard (as well as Austrians in general) oppose the domination of monopolies because it undermines the usefulness of creative destruction and contributes to the mutation of free markets to social democracy since monopolies encourage conformity. Such conformity leads to automatization of innovation which devalues the purpose of entrepreneurship since the masses become increasingly sensitive to taking offense about things they wouldn't otherwise take offense to if they were more mature.

Opposition to imperialism is probably the one gripe I have with them since they did so out of commercial and industrial convenience. Markets had plenty of domestic opportunities from reliably increasing labor supply, mass production, and natural resource extraction and processing (coal, iron, oil, chemicals, textiles, and agriculture in particular), so there wasn't a need to endanger financial success with needless geopolitical ventures. However, their support for free markets implies eventual imperial support considering the need for new sources of wealth UNLESS clandestine intelligence and private military ventures were engaged in instead (an alternative which I would prefer as opposed to flat out military development which would result in skyrocketing tax rates anyway).

Sounds crazy, but w/e. Better to let the rich guys go out and endanger their own professionals than send poor enlisted men into the fray, no?

That works quite well, thank you. I'm much more of an admirer of Edmund Burke as the 'leading intellectual' of conservativism. I find that political view of conservativism is always respectable. Too many other varieties get quickly or too easily tangled up with the racial crusaders and/or the theocrats.

Btw, this is entirely beside the point, but I'm thinking about some video clips I saw of the recent "teabagging" protests. What struck me about what I saw was the way so many (inarticulate) people were 'spouting' paleoconservative rhetoric - but when questioned by news media with cameras rolling, most of these people seemed to be members of unions or government sector employees and I remember several claimed to be "retired on Social Security". I find this incongruity within American conservativism to be very striking. The most ardent paleoconservative messages seem to come from precisely those people who would really not benefit from paleoconservative ideas in practice. This is just anecdotal, so not a serious argument, just a general observation that I think is odd. I certainly am not accusing you of being of this type at all - rather I'm inquiring of you why you think this might be so.Heh, teabagging.

Well that's what happens when conservatism isolates the working class. They claim that they're for the small guy and small town government, but they end up just becoming puppets for big government. For example, I like unions because unions are effectively private labor firms that are defended by freedom to associate (not that legality defines morality, but w/e). However, when union members begin to clamor for mechanical government intervention that circumvents the purpose of the rule of law (further evidence that the "rule of law" is just a facade for political correctness among immature constituents), it shows that they don't understand why unions are legitimate in the first place.

Paleoconservatism can also be recognized as domestically fascist as you noted when considering Buchanan's nativism. For example, Dixiecrats were hardcore paleoconservatives that opposed free markets and foreign interventions because they favored the poor working class white Protestant man who was stuck between northern businessmen who were seen as ruining their ways of living.

Pure conservatism is just an extremely difficult position to uphold when the public demands practical purposes for the rule of law, and while I'd like to say I was a pure conservative in modern terms, I know I'm not because I support selfish national interests and cultural direction (albeit in for the sake of non-discrimination, heh). Such is why neocons throw the noble lie around - they know that everyone isn't going to be able to appreciate the ideological rule of law and that practical intentions need to be announced to Patriotically rally the crowd.

Anyway, the whole tea party movement is evidence of how conservatism as a whole is plummeting nationwide, so it shouldn't be surprising if we see some sort of Red Tory/David Cameron progressive conservative hybrid take its place when all is said and done. Paleoconservatism won't have a chance since moral absolutism is on its last breaths, and while Ron Paul might be right about seeing some sort of backlash take place, I don't see a coordinated campaign leading to some sort of nationwide uprising. Maybe some more of these isolated shootings and some random demonstrations, but conservatism's isolation of intellectualism is going to demand an extremely significant abandonment of orthodox principles.

Kind of a shame imo, but that's what happens when you get lazy and only retaliate against your opponent with the same weapons he uses against you because you don't have the attention or will to explore new horizons and discipline yourself, both of which being what's happened to the GOP throughout the Cold War especially after the Civil Rights Movement took off.

Yes, I agree with that - governments can't/shouldn't build character nor can it preach or teach morality.

But I consider that beside the point when it comes to the provision of public social services. When it comes to meeting the basic human needs of our fellow humans, quibbling about morality, teaching and/or charity is irrelevant. The key goal is to make the most efficient and most effective method of ensuring that basic necessities are available (and accessible) to all. The precise method to get there is to me, mostly irrelevant. The choice of the goal and the efficiency/effectiveness of the methods used to achieve that goal are what are ultimately most important.

Private charity just never came close to meeting the goal. It failed in efficiency and effectiveness. Ergo, a different policy is needed. The present system of public provision of social services via general taxation has indeed delivered the goods in a way that is reasonably efficient and has been reasonably effective.

Bottom line is that if 'morality' requires that we leave the poor, the sick and the old to fend for themselves, that's no morality at all.I'd propose a hypothetical here about a worldwide entrepreneurial shutdown (not out of protest, but out of meaningless), but that feels too impractical and extreme (not to mention that I haven't had a good track record with hypothetical reception as of late).

I just don't see any goodness from entrepreneurs doing anything if they become slaves to the State which demands resources for the sake of catering to the disabled. If anything, entrepreneurs would be more benevolent doing nothing at all while the disabled die off* and no longer have to endure the torture of being disabled.

I mean if I'm an entrepreneur and there's some disabled person around who can't transform the world at all and is in perpetual pain, the only reason I should keep him around is to prevent our neighbors from thinking death isn't a cowardly way out such that they don't give up on their humanity from insignificant degrees of failure; but if him and I are the only two people around, it would be IMMORAL for me to keep him around since he's both in pain and a drain on resources which could be otherwise dedicated towards worldly resolution....

...but of course if we're going to say that that's a violation of his autonomy via self-ownership, why is it justified to violate the entrepreneur's property rights to save him (nevermind why shouldn't the entrepreneur just declare war on the authority at hand)?

*From a utilitarian stand point euthanasia makes sense, but from a deontological stand point, I view euthanasia as subordinate to property rights which are the foundation for any other legitimate theory of justice regarding the willing subscription to State jurisdiction.

[Michael]

Call it autocracy if you will, I guess I'm slipping away from ordinary conservatism again not because I don't believe that justice is good (despite how I don't believe it doesn't really exist), but because the rule of law appears more and more to be a facade behind traditionalists who want to jockey for reputation and glamor among the salivating masses.
Elites jockeying for reputation and glamor among the salivating masses has been ever thus. Nothing new there.

Disappointment at this doesn't justify a rejection of justice as a goal. It merely complicates the matter.

It's not about not liking people since I feel people are great. I just don't like how there are so far and few between who don't fall into the categories of being either naive sheep or manipulative... bitches, heh, neither of which deserves any respect at all if they are demanding to be treated as respectable adults.

Better to burn the world over through a trial by fire than vainly try to save it and only become infected with its plague.
The nihilist reveals himself?

I'm okay with someone believing the concept that it is better to "burn the world over through a trial by fair than vainly try to save it and only become infected with its plague" but only if you promise not go around waving matches and gasoline around just because you are disappointed that the world isn't unfolding according to your preferences. Fear of that plague doesn't justify burning the world. :)

Yea, I reread what I wrote and that didn't make sense. Bourbon Democrats were a pillar of the Old Right, and if there's anyone who I should want to emulate for the sake of burning out corruption and privatizing the State, it would be them. However, yes, Rothbard (as well as Austrians in general) oppose the domination of monopolies because it undermines the usefulness of creative destruction and contributes to the mutation of free markets to social democracy since monopolies encourage conformity. Such conformity leads to automatization of innovation which devalues the purpose of entrepreneurship since the masses become increasingly sensitive to taking offense about things they wouldn't otherwise take offense to if they were more mature.
I don't have a particular problem with monopolies in a private market, as long as they are ultimately subject to the market. I only object to the government protecting/nurturing or bailing them out when they fail. Or a monopoly that impinges upon 'public necessities'.

Opposition to imperialism is probably the one gripe I have with them since they did so out of commercial and industrial convenience. Markets had plenty of domestic opportunities from reliably increasing labor supply, mass production, and natural resource extraction and processing (coal, iron, oil, chemicals, textiles, and agriculture in particular), so there wasn't a need to endanger financial success with needless geopolitical ventures. However, their support for free markets implies eventual imperial support considering the need for new sources of wealth UNLESS clandestine intelligence and private military ventures were engaged in instead (an alternative which I would prefer as opposed to flat out military development which would result in skyrocketing tax rates anyway).
So your gripe with the neocons is that they are opposed to outright imperialism? :eek:

Sounds crazy, but w/e. Better to let the rich guys go out and endanger their own professionals than send poor enlisted men into the fray, no?
No. That formula essentially gives the people's sovereignty away to the plutocrats to use for their own purpose.

The people have fought long and hard for what little sovereignty they have with the ballot box. They will never give up an inch of that.

As for the troops, they wear the flag proudly and honorably and are respected for that and treated accordingly. Mercenaries, not so much.

Btw, the dependence upon the hiring of mercenaries has been the deathmarker for imperial hegemons for thousands of years. Speaking of which, our common friend Niccolo Machiavelli was particularly emphatic in warning about the dangers of mercenaries! I'm quite surprised to see you express toleration for using them.

Heh, teabagging.

Well that's what happens when conservatism isolates the working class. They claim that they're for the small guy and small town government, but they end up just becoming puppets for big government. For example, I like unions because unions are effectively private labor firms that are defended by freedom to associate (not that legality defines morality, but w/e). However, when union members begin to clamor for mechanical government intervention that circumvents the purpose of the rule of law (further evidence that the "rule of law" is just a facade for political correctness among immature constituents), it shows that they don't understand why unions are legitimate in the first place.

Paleoconservatism can also be recognized as domestically fascist as you noted when considering Buchanan's nativism. For example, Dixiecrats were hardcore paleoconservatives that opposed free markets and foreign interventions because they favored the poor working class white Protestant man who was stuck between northern businessmen who were seen as ruining their ways of living.

Pure conservatism is just an extremely difficult position to uphold when the public demands practical purposes for the rule of law, and while I'd like to say I was a pure conservative in modern terms, I know I'm not because I support selfish national interests and cultural direction (albeit in for the sake of non-discrimination, heh). Such is why neocons throw the noble lie around - they know that everyone isn't going to be able to appreciate the ideological rule of law and that practical intentions need to be announced to Patriotically rally the crowd.

Anyway, the whole tea party movement is evidence of how conservatism as a whole is plummeting nationwide, so it shouldn't be surprising if we see some sort of Red Tory/David Cameron progressive conservative hybrid take its place when all is said and done. Paleoconservatism won't have a chance since moral absolutism is on its last breaths, and while Ron Paul might be right about seeing some sort of backlash take place, I don't see a coordinated campaign leading to some sort of nationwide uprising. Maybe some more of these isolated shootings and some random demonstrations, but conservatism's isolation of intellectualism is going to demand an extremely significant abandonment of orthodox principles.

Kind of a shame imo, but that's what happens when you get lazy and only retaliate against your opponent with the same weapons he uses against you because you don't have the attention or will to explore new horizons and discipline yourself, both of which being what's happened to the GOP throughout the Cold War especially after the Civil Rights Movement took off.

Interesting point about the unions. They are indeed a 'conservative' enterprise. I'm no fan of unions, but I don't politically oppose them.

As for 'true conservativism' what's the matter with Burkism? Standing for traditional conservation of resources, respect for customs, limited government, limited warmongering and working for preserving the best of what is traditional?

How does conservativism get wrapped up in warmongering on other continents? Imperialism is nasty business. If Americans can't prosper on American resources alone, conquest and consumption of the rest of the planet won't help - it just delays the inevitable.

As for contemporary politics, I agree that a 'Red Tory' like Cameron is most likely to be the only kind of electorially successful conservative at this time. It will be interesting to see if Cameron has what it takes to do the 'Blair-thing' on the other side of center. I was of course a great admirer of Blair - right up until he got all wrapped up in that liberal humanitarian crap and ended up being Bush's poodle and pissing all over Iraq.

That is indeed why I will never pander to the liberal internationalist-humanitarian view in world politics. Those guys are dangerous warmongers as bad as any neocon - and doubly dangerous when they get together with neocons! They are way too easily swindled by the corporate warmongers with big budgets and clever PR departments.

I'd propose a hypothetical here about a worldwide entrepreneurial shutdown (not out of protest, but out of meaningless), but that feels too impractical and extreme (not to mention that I haven't had a good track record with hypothetical reception as of late).
"Going Galt" is the proper term for this.

An invitation to "go ahead" is the only proper reply.

I just don't see any goodness from entrepreneurs doing anything if they become slaves to the State which demands resources for the sake of catering to the disabled. If anything, entrepreneurs would be more benevolent doing nothing at all while the disabled die off* and no longer have to endure the torture of being disabled.

I mean if I'm an entrepreneur and there's some disabled person around who can't transform the world at all and is in perpetual pain, the only reason I should keep him around is to prevent our neighbors from thinking death isn't a cowardly way out such that they don't give up on their humanity from insignificant degrees of failure; but if him and I are the only two people around, it would be IMMORAL for me to keep him around since he's both in pain and a drain on resources which could be otherwise dedicated towards worldly resolution....

...but of course if we're going to say that that's a violation of his autonomy via self-ownership, why is it justified to violate the entrepreneur's property rights to save him (nevermind why shouldn't the entrepreneur just declare war on the authority at hand)?

*From a utilitarian stand point euthanasia makes sense, but from a deontological stand point, I view euthanasia as subordinate to property rights which are the foundation for any other legitimate theory of justice regarding the willing subscription to State jurisdiction.

Wow. That's some paradoxical complexity you are laying out there... kinda like a Spencerian front flip with a Randian half-twist and a deontological backwards summersault with a nice neat quasi-authoritarian landing. I think. :ummm:

Notwithstanding the fact that I think true entrepreneurs ought to have better things to do than worrying about whether the products they produce may ultimately be subordinated to state purposes - or not, I really don't see the role of entrepreneur as being particularly significant to the economy anymore.

I see capitalism is in a declining phase that will be ultimately terminal. Up until the 20th century, capitalism was in the ascendent. Sometime during the 20th century, 'the worm turned' and capitalism passed its peak. It is still the dominant mode of production out there, but it is becoming less and less dominant over time - other modes of production are becoming increasingly notable (especially older pre-capitalist modes reappearing like rent-seeking and/or hybrids like 'crony-capitalism').

As such, entrepreneurs, the lifeblood of ascendent capitalism, are less central or necessary to the enterprise in a period of declining capitalism. Now is the age of the lawyer and the rent-seeker. These 'parasites' are becoming comparatively more profitable as pure capitalism becomes comparatively less profitable over time.

But of course, that's another topic as well! :D

[Daktoria]

Elites jockeying for reputation and glamor among the salivating masses has been ever thus. Nothing new there.

Disappointment at this doesn't justify a rejection of justice as a goal. It merely complicates the matter.

The nihilist reveals himself?

I'm okay with someone believing the concept that it is better to "burn the world over through a trial by fair than vainly try to save it and only become infected with its plague" but only if you promise not go around waving matches and gasoline around just because you are disappointed that the world isn't unfolding according to your preferences. Fear of that plague doesn't justify burning the world. :)

Well justice doesn't matter when the world you live in (or at least feel surrounded by) is obsessed with consequences, utility, political correctness, loving the little things in life* and the rest of the works for the pursuit of ulterior motives.

*...which is weird because it was Schopenhauer who suggested that we enjoy aesthetics rather than kill ourselves when the world disappoints us, yet it's the happy go lucky histrionics who practice this more than the isolated and oppressed intellectuals and entrepreneurs who need to more than anyone else in order to remain civil, sane, and alive....

...Nietzsche being an exception to the rule further oddly enough. :ummm:

I'm a deontologist at heart, but when I'm betrayed or violated, the negative utilitarian pinprick argument kicks in as a defense mechanism where I accept any lose-lose solution that promises the absolute annihilation of my obstacles. In the case where a third party exists though who seems to be befriending me just because I'm his enemy's enemy and plans on exploiting me afterwards, I just become a loose cannon that surrenders to randomness and inefficiency in order to be entertained and inflict as much damage as possible without care about the costs to others who aren't willing to respect justice anyway.

Innocence and naivete =/= goodwill, and when the cultivation of their potential is sabotaged, I see no reason to give innocence or naivete the benefit of the doubt since the best possible solution becomes to destroy every opportunity from corruption because:

1) It's better (for the innocent and naive) to perish than be enslaved (even if they envy the executioner in the process and plan on retaliating if they survive), and

2) Every grain of corruption is another obstacle against persecuting saboteurs.

Misanthropist might be the word you're looking for since I love humanity and the individuals who wield it, but I hate societies and mankind which creates them due to the deceitful nature of encouraging faith and perceptions in hierarchies which disguise reality's anarchic state of nature.

I don't have a particular problem with monopolies in a private market, as long as they are ultimately subject to the market. I only object to the government protecting/nurturing or bailing them out when they fail. Or a monopoly that impinges upon 'public necessities'.Monopolies are the beginning of the end of free markets. Nobody's perfect, and anybody who attempts to replicate creative destruction through intrapreneurship will be limited by the bounds of their own firm's survival. Monopolies have no incentive to explore or discover new branches of technology, science, art, etc. so they inevitably become stagnant and corrupt due to the persistent cutting of corners that takes place to maximize dividends for the sake of stockholder welfare.

So your gripe with the neocons is that they are opposed to outright imperialism? :eek:No, this was a reference to Bourbon Democrats.

My gripe with the Bourbons is that they explicitly opposed imperialism despite how wealth ultimately requires natural resources in order to be grown and maintained. Domestic natural resources don't last forever, and isolationism ignores the aggressive and competitive interests and projects of foreign actors. Natural resources will run out though, so neoliberalism will become inevitably necessary unless the citizenry is willing to accept a cut in standard of living. Unfortunately, if statecraft isn't practiced until the last minute, the costs and difficulties of negotiations will be far higher than if statecraft was practiced earlier.

I don't like imperialism and I don't like economic prosperity for economic prosperity's sake, but what the Bourbon Democrats and Old Right did was encourage exclusive cosmopolitanism such that neoconservatives could shame orthodox conservative values by making appeals to pity to the working class along progressive lines via manipulation of democracy through popular consent. By encouraging political correctness, religious institutionalism, and mockeries of immigrant assimilation (through economic "show me what you got" attitudes instead of moral principle evaluations), they exposed themselves to an intellectual drought generations before it really took effect...

...and just because someone or everyone went to church and memorized a bunch of commandments and prayers didn't mean that he or they held thorough moral appreciation! :lol:

Noble lies are not a neoconservative phenomenon, and social exclusiveness is only a bandage for symptoms of societal decay that doesn't address the problems of moral inconsistency and misunderstanding.

No. That formula essentially gives the people's sovereignty away to the plutocrats to use for their own purpose.

The people have fought long and hard for what little sovereignty they have with the ballot box. They will never give up an inch of that.

As for the troops, they wear the flag proudly and honorably and are respected for that and treated accordingly. Mercenaries, not so much.

Btw, the dependence upon the hiring of mercenaries has been the deathmarker for imperial hegemons for thousands of years. Speaking of which, our common friend Niccolo Machiavelli was particularly emphatic in warning about the dangers of mercenaries! I'm quite surprised to see you express toleration for using them.Oh I'm not saying that mercenaries should be tolerated (by national interests) or that the people should forfeit their sovereignty. What I am saying is that if rich boys wanna go off and fight wars, they should do so without endangering national identity by fighting in their own names and the names of their firms as well as hiring their own professionals instead of relying upon enlistees and conscripts.

Interesting point about the unions. They are indeed a 'conservative' enterprise. I'm no fan of unions, but I don't politically oppose them.

As for 'true conservativism' what's the matter with Burkism? Standing for traditional conservation of resources, respect for customs, limited government, limited warmongering and working for preserving the best of what is traditional?Same as above, tradition is not justified just because some wise men who weren't able to communicate purposes efficiently practiced it. It needs to be understood, evaluated, and refined in order to avoid corruption, and individual freedom is the only way to make sure that mob justice doesn't smother entrepreneurship (of all sorts, not just economic) from doing so.

How does conservativism get wrapped up in warmongering on other continents? Imperialism is nasty business. If Americans can't prosper on American resources alone, conquest and consumption of the rest of the planet won't help - it just delays the inevitable.

As for contemporary politics, I agree that a 'Red Tory' like Cameron is most likely to be the only kind of electorially successful conservative at this time. It will be interesting to see if Cameron has what it takes to do the 'Blair-thing' on the other side of center. I was of course a great admirer of Blair - right up until he got all wrapped up in that liberal humanitarian crap and ended up being Bush's poodle and pissing all over Iraq.

That is indeed why I will never pander to the liberal internationalist-humanitarian view in world politics. Those guys are dangerous warmongers as bad as any neocon - and doubly dangerous when they get together with neocons! They are way too easily swindled by the corporate warmongers with big budgets and clever PR departments.Mmmm... :shrug:

...it happens to conservatives because abusers of tradition and freedom encourage political correctness through the rule of law such that cosmopolitan consumerism discourages the recycling of resources due to marginal utility pursuits.

It happens to liberals because abandoners of tradition and subscribers of positive rights demand support for the less prosperous and affluent such that welfare becomes a priority over entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship which elongates the longevity of resource usage with the belief that the wisdom of the masses will save the day when in reality it never has and never will.

It happens in general because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the nature of imperfection. Resources don't last forever and as much as we try, neither will we even if we're lucky enough to make the best possible decisions.

There's only so much we can do, and even if a fella like Cameron happens to be replicated in American politics, it's only a matter of time before the tower of cards collapses whether its lead by liberal international humanitarians, neoconservatives, or anyone else. Then China will rise and fall, as will the next hegemon and the next after that until there's not enough resources to go around and we become extinct whether its to a meteor strike or an ice age or a supervolcanic eruption or a solar flare or a black hole passing by or thermonuclear war or whatever else.

After all, when we survive from creative destruction and there isn't anymore stuff to destroy to prevent from being destroyed ourselves, what can we do? We can make believe that cooperation will save us from the magical shield of kumbaya all we want, but all we're really doing is getting high off of companionship until we can't escape disaster any longer. Sure it's pleasant and entertaining, but it doesn't have any intrinsic meaning beyond the subjective and vain interpretations we assign to it.

On the other hand, we can recognize that survival isn't virtuous or moral at all and instead focus on exploring and discovering as much about the world as possible by applying entrepreneurship towards non-economic end goals via economic means. Economies are important because they allow us to support ourselves and optimize our capabilities, but such accomplishments only matter as long as we do something with them that's productive in a non-economic manner. The proof? Even the most wealthy man and society in the world matter nothing at all if they cannot harness their environments and be subjectively appreciated by spontaneous human interests (both internal and external).

"Going Galt" is the proper term for this.

An invitation to "go ahead" is the only proper reply. Heh, been a couple years since I read Atlas Shrugged. Rand's dismissal of spirituality is depressing personally, but I'll hold off that for now.

I don't see America's wealth becoming stagnant through hibernation or petrification. Rather I see it staying the course in foreign direct investment where developing countries offer larger opportunities for growth due to bearing less expertise, smaller costs of doing business, and openness to facilitating payments (or even grease money if investors are willing to rescind their American citizenry or spend wealth through trustworthy third parties).

Personally though, I wouldn't have a problem doing such because I wouldn't have a problem doing a vocational job where I get to meet plenty of people and learn through hands on experience. Nothing could be more relaxing since I'd have hardly any stresses or obligations to worry about, and if I got fired for working too slow, there's always another place to work, and if I can't find one, well there's the government to mooch off of.

However, encouragement of such supposes an acceptance of power politics, but I thought the whole point here was that power politics isn't what democracy is all about, no?

Wow. That's some paradoxical complexity you are laying out there... kinda like a Spencerian front flip with a Randian half-twist and a deontological backwards summersault with a nice neat quasi-authoritarian landing. I think. :ummm:

Actually, it's just my feelings. :)

Notwithstanding the fact that I think true entrepreneurs ought to have better things to do than worrying about whether the products they produce may ultimately be subordinated to state purposes - or not, I really don't see the role of entrepreneur as being particularly significant to the economy anymore.

I see capitalism is in a declining phase that will be ultimately terminal. Up until the 20th century, capitalism was in the ascendent. Sometime during the 20th century, 'the worm turned' and capitalism passed its peak. It is still the dominant mode of production out there, but it is becoming less and less dominant over time - other modes of production are becoming increasingly notable (especially older pre-capitalist modes reappearing like rent-seeking and/or hybrids like 'crony-capitalism').

As such, entrepreneurs, the lifeblood of ascendent capitalism, are less central or necessary to the enterprise in a period of declining capitalism. Now is the age of the lawyer and the rent-seeker. These 'parasites' are becoming comparatively more profitable as pure capitalism becomes comparatively less profitable over time.

But of course, that's another topic as well! :D

Unfortunately, I agree with you, but I don't feel that this can be prevented. :crying:

On the plus side though, I don't believe entrepreneurship will remain in the grave forever. Eventually it will be macroscopically resurrected, but it will also buried again sort of like a ying-yang thing.

[Michael]

Well justice doesn't matter when the world you live in (or at least feel surrounded by) is obsessed with consequences, utility, political correctness, loving the little things in life* and the rest of the works for the pursuit of ulterior motives.

*...which is weird because it was Schopenhauer who suggested that we enjoy aesthetics rather than kill ourselves when the world disappoints us, yet it's the happy go lucky histrionics who practice this more than the isolated and oppressed intellectuals and entrepreneurs who need to more than anyone else in order to remain civil, sane, and alive....

...Nietzsche being an exception to the rule further oddly enough. :ummm:

In reply to the first point, I'd say that's rather cynical - and it is not the fault of the world, or the people in it, that it fails to live up to lofty your expectations and/or desires of nobility and purpose. Indeed, I consider those things to merely pose a greater challenge worthy of one's engagement.

As for the second point, Schopenhauer and the enjoyment of aesthetics, I think you both have missed the boat on that one since capitalism has long since subverted aesthetics for profit (the same way everything cultural can be appropriated, packaged up and sold back to you based on your emotional attachment to, or nostalgia for, the original idea). That is to say, your own aesthetic taste just provides another emotion to be commoditized for other people's profit.

And for the third, I don't think so. Nietzsche did go insane. Ergo he failed to avoid that fate.

Btw, we really ought to have a Nietzsche discussion.

I'm a deontologist at heart, but when I'm betrayed or violated, the negative utilitarian pinprick argument kicks in as a defense mechanism where I accept any lose-lose solution that promises the absolute annihilation of my obstacles. In the case where a third party exists though who seems to be befriending me just because I'm his enemy's enemy and plans on exploiting me afterwards, I just become a loose cannon that surrenders to randomness and inefficiency in order to be entertained and inflict as much damage as possible without care about the costs to others who aren't willing to respect justice anyway.
I believe this condition is called 'the passion of youth'. You'll get over it soon enough. :D

Seriously. Seen it, been there, done that.

Innocence and naivete =/= goodwill, and when the cultivation of their potential is sabotaged, I see no reason to give innocence or naivete the benefit of the doubt since the best possible solution becomes to destroy every opportunity from corruption because:

1) It's better (for the innocent and naive) to perish than be enslaved (even if they envy the executioner in the process and plan on retaliating if they survive), and

2) Every grain of corruption is another obstacle against persecuting saboteurs.

Misanthropist might be the word you're looking for since I love humanity and the individuals who wield it, but I hate societies and mankind which creates them due to the deceitful nature of encouraging faith and perceptions in hierarchies which disguise reality's anarchic state of nature.
Several disagreements here.

1. I disagree that its better for the "innocent and naive" to perish rather than be enslaved. Those are the type of humans that are most able to survive slavery with the least 'psychic harm'. And that slavery situation might turn out to be temporal and then the 'perish' option looks less than ideal.

2. True, but if the political, social and economic cost of persecuting saboteurs far exceeds the economic value of the losses due to acts of saboteurs, then what is the purpose of that? (yes, I know, you are a deontologist and that explains that what's right is right, but I don't see how various competitive claims of 'rightness' can be so easily adjudicated or resolved except by ignoring them entirely as this philosophy seems to require).

3. Misanthropy is exactly the kind of word that I'd be hesitent to introduce but will accept since you're the one spitting it out!

Oddly enough, I'm probably the opposite. I do love the human species in its most general sense, but I'm not always so fond of individual specimens in person. :D

Monopolies are the beginning of the end of free markets. Nobody's perfect, and anybody who attempts to replicate creative destruction through intrapreneurship will be limited by the bounds of their own firm's survival. Monopolies have no incentive to explore or discover new branches of technology, science, art, etc. so they inevitably become stagnant and corrupt due to the persistent cutting of corners that takes place to maximize dividends for the sake of stockholder welfare.

Monopolies are not an 'obsession' of economic theory because of the harm they cause. I think the evidence is pretty strong and widely agreed that monopolies act as you describe.

The reason the issue of monopolies always comes up is because it is the inherent nature of capitalism (and/or entrepreneurs) to work towards creating them. That's why monopolies are significant issue. We all know that they are bad things. That capitalism and/or entrepreneurs will always try to create them suggests that capitalism and/or entrepreneurialism aren't exactly benign moral pursuits.

No, this was a reference to Bourbon Democrats.
Glad to hear it. :)

My gripe with the Bourbons is that they explicitly opposed imperialism despite how wealth ultimately requires natural resources in order to be grown and maintained. Domestic natural resources don't last forever, and isolationism ignores the aggressive and competitive interests and projects of foreign actors. Natural resources will run out though, so neoliberalism will become inevitably necessary unless the citizenry is willing to accept a cut in standard of living. Unfortunately, if statecraft isn't practiced until the last minute, the costs and difficulties of negotiations will be far higher than if statecraft was practiced earlier.

I don't like imperialism and I don't like economic prosperity for economic prosperity's sake, but what the Bourbon Democrats and Old Right did was encourage exclusive cosmopolitanism such that neoconservatives could shame orthodox conservative values by making appeals to pity to the working class along progressive lines via manipulation of democracy through popular consent. By encouraging political correctness, religious institutionalism, and mockeries of immigrant assimilation (through economic "show me what you got" attitudes instead of moral principle evaluations), they exposed themselves to an intellectual drought generations before it really took effect...

...and just because someone or everyone went to church and memorized a bunch of commandments and prayers didn't mean that he or they held thorough moral appreciation! :lol:

Noble lies are not a neoconservative phenomenon, and social exclusiveness is only a bandage for symptoms of societal decay that doesn't address the problems of moral inconsistency and misunderstanding.
Okay... I agree with all that - except the part about natural resources.

That's probably a whole 'other' topic, but to be bried, I'd argue that the US presently dominates the markets in any and all natural commodities that it chooses or requires.

If at any time in the future that serious shortages cause nations to act 'selfishly' to hoarde their natural resource commodities, I respectfully submit that the world-wide shortage of those natural resource commodities will already cause sufficient damage to the economy to make bidding wars for the last few million tons/barrels of the commodity to be essentially irrelevant on the world wide scale necessary to make the game profitable on world-wide scales. Once that world-trade game is seriously disturbed, the scale of the trading game is gone and thus, so is the scale of the profits and that's the end of global capitalism and probably industrial-energy based economies. Who cares if it is the Iraqis, Saudis, Russians or Canadians sitting on top of the very last million barrels of oil a hundred years from now?

What difference would it make one way or another?

I believe that geostrategic efforts to militarily control scarce natural resources in the short-medium term is not likely to be worth anywhere near the efforts necessary to achieve it. Indeed, the desperation/need to achieve it only shows how weak the strategic position is in the longterm.

Oh I'm not saying that mercenaries should be tolerated (by national interests) or that the people should forfeit their sovereignty. What I am saying is that if rich boys wanna go off and fight wars, they should do so without endangering national identity by fighting in their own names and the names of their firms as well as hiring their own professionals instead of relying upon enlistees and conscripts.
Yes, that would be much more honest than hiding behind national flags as is the present custom.

I'd say that it is likely that we are moving towards that progression.

Same as above, tradition is not justified just because some wise men who weren't able to communicate purposes efficiently practiced it. It needs to be understood, evaluated, and refined in order to avoid corruption, and individual freedom is the only way to make sure that mob justice doesn't smother entrepreneurship (of all sorts, not just economic) from doing so.
That answer doesn't do justice to Burke's stance and position on the issue of tradition and custom. Burke witnessed the French Revolution in real time and was one of the only members of the Brit establishment to openly admire it (and accept it on the theoretical grounds that it represented, though of course, by the time of the Reign of Terror, Burke turned against the 'new regime' as he had to).

Mmmm... :shrug:

...it happens to conservatives because abusers of tradition and freedom encourage political correctness through the rule of law such that cosmopolitan consumerism discourages the recycling of resources due to marginal utility pursuits.

It happens to liberals because abandoners of tradition and subscribers of positive rights demand support for the less prosperous and affluent such that welfare becomes a priority over entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship which elongates the longevity of resource usage with the belief that the wisdom of the masses will save the day when in reality it never has and never will.

It happens in general because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the nature of imperfection. Resources don't last forever and as much as we try, neither will we even if we're lucky enough to make the best possible decisions.

There's only so much we can do, and even if a fella like Cameron happens to be replicated in American politics, it's only a matter of time before the tower of cards collapses whether its lead by liberal international humanitarians, neoconservatives, or anyone else. Then China will rise and fall, as will the next hegemon and the next after that until there's not enough resources to go around and we become extinct whether its to a meteor strike or an ice age or a supervolcanic eruption or a solar flare or a black hole passing by or thermonuclear war or whatever else.

After all, when we survive from creative destruction and there isn't anymore stuff to destroy to prevent from being destroyed ourselves, what can we do? We can make believe that cooperation will save us from the magical shield of kumbaya all we want, but all we're really doing is getting high off of companionship until we can't escape disaster any longer. Sure it's pleasant and entertaining, but it doesn't have any intrinsic meaning beyond the subjective and vain interpretations we assign to it.

On the other hand, we can recognize that survival isn't virtuous or moral at all and instead focus on exploring and discovering as much about the world as possible by applying entrepreneurship towards non-economic end goals via economic means. Economies are important because they allow us to support ourselves and optimize our capabilities, but such accomplishments only matter as long as we do something with them that's productive in a non-economic manner. The proof? Even the most wealthy man and society in the world matter nothing at all if they cannot harness their environments and be subjectively appreciated by spontaneous human interests (both internal and external).

I disagree about invoking the Second Law of Thermodynamics here. That implies some 'perfect' (or better) state in the past that we are in decay of. Yes all things will decay certainly, and that's the philosophical meaning of the 2nd Law, but that doesn't prescribe nihilism as the conclusion.

As for Red Tories and American politics, I respectfully submit that peak oil is going to do more damage to America in the next couple of decades than all the warmongering fantasies of a new Cold War projected onto the Chinese ever could.

Indeed, the projection of US warmongering fantasies onto China over the next half-century just shows how far and how deep the American problem of energy-denial really is.

Indeed, if oil is so short that hoarding is necessary even to meet short term needs, the game is already over. He who controls all the oil goes down with the oil-based economy.

I'm far beyond having faith in individual heroics. If I don't see systemic incentives or inherent trends that can be identified and/or addressed, I don't see any real potential for action. Individual heroics are for going against the grain. When the power is with you and your system is strong, you don't need any individual heroics - that just gums up the system with ego.

Heh, been a couple years since I read Atlas Shrugged. Rand's dismissal of spirituality is depressing personally, but I'll hold off that for now.
I consider that to be one of her few small redeeming features!

Randophiles always come along on the internet. I'm sure we'll have one show up here eventually. :D

I don't see America's wealth becoming stagnant through hibernation or petrification. Rather I see it staying the course in foreign direct investment where developing countries offer larger opportunities for growth due to bearing less expertise, smaller costs of doing business, and openness to facilitating payments (or even grease money if investors are willing to rescind their American citizenry or spend wealth through trustworthy third parties).

Personally though, I wouldn't have a problem doing such because I wouldn't have a problem doing a vocational job where I get to meet plenty of people and learn through hands on experience. Nothing could be more relaxing since I'd have hardly any stresses or obligations to worry about, and if I got fired for working too slow, there's always another place to work, and if I can't find one, well there's the government to mooch off of.

However, encouragement of such supposes an acceptance of power politics, but I thought the whole point here was that power politics isn't what democracy is all about, no?
I'm definitely not clear on your definition of "power politics", and how it is supposed to be 'accepted' by one's freedom to choose one's individual occupation? :ummm:

Actually, it's just my feelings. :)

Yes, they can be dastardly things if you let them rule your reasoning.

Unfortunately, I agree with you, but I don't feel that this can be prevented. :crying:
Of course it can't be prevented. If it could be prevented, it would be already done so. It is an inherent property of the system (a feature, not a bug), which is why I've identified it.

The interesting issue is where this trend leads to. Everything that happens causes other things to happen in reaction.

On the plus side though, I don't believe entrepreneurship will remain in the grave forever. Eventually it will be macroscopically resurrected, but it will also buried again sort of like a ying-yang thing.
I quite disagree. I think entrepreneurialism will be the backbone of the new system. Though, it would probably be slightly different than how the term is used in the present context of capitalism, since by definition, any 'new system' would be one that supercedes capitalism as a mode of production.

[Daktoria]

In reply to the first point, I'd say that's rather cynical - and it is not the fault of the world, or the people in it, that it fails to live up to lofty your expectations and/or desires of nobility and purpose. Indeed, I consider those things to merely pose a greater challenge worthy of one's engagement.

Eh? Forget me here, how is justice worthwhile (and/or where is its niche) in a world, "obsessed with consequences, utility, political correctness, loving the little things in life* and the rest of the works for the pursuit of ulterior motives"? Instead, justice should be discarded as an inefficient redundancy while only delusionally "witnessed" as a shield for competitive performance Furthermore, there's no benchmark between when justice should be wielded and when romance should be wielded, and the only ones who will be successful are those who are randomly fortunate, chaos which is the antithesis of what justice is all about in the first place.

As for the second point, Schopenhauer and the enjoyment of aesthetics, I think you both have missed the boat on that one since capitalism has long since subverted aesthetics for profit (the same way everything cultural can be appropriated, packaged up and sold back to you based on your emotional attachment to, or nostalgia for, the original idea). That is to say, your own aesthetic taste just provides another emotion to be commoditized for other people's profit.

And for the third, I don't think so. Nietzsche did go insane. Ergo he failed to avoid that fate.

Btw, we really ought to have a Nietzsche discussion.

Free markets aren't free unless they reject coercion in the pursuit of homesteading through respect for property rights and contracts. Ergo, when popular sovereignty, common sense, or majestic legacy are used as excuses to disrespect these institutions, the world is not genuinely "capitalist". It could be argued that ideals are never realized because of their demands of perfection, but the point here is that the intent to avoid coercion is only respected when it is (rationally) convenient to do so out of expected marginal utility rewards.

Hence, the conundrum with the rule of law overcoming the rule of man. In order for law to be respected, it has to be thoroughly appreciated by all who fall under it, but in order for it to be practiced, guardians and constituents must acknowledge only its effects and none of its causes in order to fully dedicate their ingenuity out of specialization of labor. Otherwise, a competitor organization (such as a state) will be overwhelming due to increased investment in propaganda influence and economic and military strength.

Hence, the secondary conundrum of technology. Technology can provide long term advantages in security (given enough natural obstacles between competing factions), but in order to be fully realized, it has to be dispersed such that guardians and constituents who are specialized in productivity (yet not morality) will question previously resolved ethical questions and overwhelm wisemen and entrepreneurs with mob justice and appeals to popularity even when wisemen and entrepreneurs are purely benevolent (unless they implement noble lies in order to subdue the masses which is only "justifiable" in the name of utility).

Regarding Nietzsche, he went insane because he was astonished by aesthetics, not because he was indulgent in them. :-\

Several disagreements here.

1. I disagree that its better for the "innocent and naive" to perish rather than be enslaved. Those are the type of humans that are most able to survive slavery with the least 'psychic harm'. And that slavery situation might turn out to be temporal and then the 'perish' option looks less than ideal.

2. True, but if the political, social and economic cost of persecuting saboteurs far exceeds the economic value of the losses due to acts of saboteurs, then what is the purpose of that? (yes, I know, you are a deontologist and that explains that what's right is right, but I don't see how various competitive claims of 'rightness' can be so easily adjudicated or resolved except by ignoring them entirely as this philosophy seems to require).

3. Misanthropy is exactly the kind of word that I'd be hesitent to introduce but will accept since you're the one spitting it out!

Oddly enough, I'm probably the opposite. I do love the human species in its most general sense, but I'm not always so fond of individual specimens in person. :DYou're a progressive rather than a left-libertarian, but still, I could use the above to say it's justified for authoritative capitalists to coerce wage-slaves (both directly through industry and commerce as well as indirectly through political machines and political correctness). This is absurd however because life is not intrinsically justifiable any more than how technology is intrinsically good or bad. The only way life can be justified though is from axiomatic and tautological refinement, refinement which is impeded through coercion done in the name of marginal utility (for hedonist enjoyment or otherwise).

As for your cost-benefit analysis, human beings are not omniscient and it would be ridiculous for us to claim that we know exactly what the costs are of our actions especially when general and all-encompassing models of human behavior are rejected from sheerly being too grandiose or reliant upon thought experiments (not that I believe that you are rejecting mine as such, but it's a common occurrence when dealing with practical utilitarians). Such is contingent upon justice being defined as the pursuit of refinement since it is only the existence of consistency which allows us to define "utility" in the first place (absence thereof not only making utility unjustified, but phenomenologically unnoticeable and nominally meaningless too).

Monopolies are not an 'obsession' of economic theory because of the harm they cause. I think the evidence is pretty strong and widely agreed that monopolies act as you describe.

The reason the issue of monopolies always comes up is because it is the inherent nature of capitalism (and/or entrepreneurs) to work towards creating them. That's why monopolies are significant issue. We all know that they are bad things. That capitalism and/or entrepreneurs will always try to create them suggests that capitalism and/or entrepreneurialism aren't exactly benign moral pursuits.
This depends upon whether or not entrepreneurs want to pursue horizontal or vertical integration. If value and security are prioritized, then horizontal takes place and so does stagnant monopolization. If growth and discovery and prioritized though, then vertical takes place and so does dynamic cultivation.

In any case, we (again) also need to have discussions on Schumpeter and Hoppe and probably even Mises to discuss the nature of entrepreneurship, democracy, and human action.

Okay... I agree with all that - except the part about natural resources.

That's probably a whole 'other' topic, but to be bried, I'd argue that the US presently dominates the markets in any and all natural commodities that it chooses or requires.

If at any time in the future that serious shortages cause nations to act 'selfishly' to hoarde their natural resource commodities, I respectfully submit that the world-wide shortage of those natural resource commodities will already cause sufficient damage to the economy to make bidding wars for the last few million tons/barrels of the commodity to be essentially irrelevant on the world wide scale necessary to make the game profitable on world-wide scales. Once that world-trade game is seriously disturbed, the scale of the trading game is gone and thus, so is the scale of the profits and that's the end of global capitalism and probably industrial-energy based economies. Who cares if it is the Iraqis, Saudis, Russians or Canadians sitting on top of the very last million barrels of oil a hundred years from now?

What difference would it make one way or another?

I believe that geostrategic efforts to militarily control scarce natural resources in the short-medium term is not likely to be worth anywhere near the efforts necessary to achieve it. Indeed, the desperation/need to achieve it only shows how weak the strategic position is in the longterm.Mmmm, this sounds like you're giving too much credit to states and mega corporations due to the success of the green revolution so far. Personally, I'm not a fan of the whole shebang since environmentalism comes across to me as a sham of a replacement for religion (as if the planet has a soul and it's moral to treat nature as a sentient being with karma always ready to strike back against offenders).* However, it is a movement that's catalyzed by consumers and inventors as well as embraced by businesses looking to latch onto the next big advertising trend, and the technology coming about from it certainly looks like it's on track to beat out the oil bubble. (http://www.finalternatives.com/node/8206)

In any case, innovation comes from innovators, not spontaneous generation, and the shortage that you're talking about would provide MORE disequilibrium and MORE of a demand for entrepreneurship if anything unless the public is willing to sacrifice a huge portion of its quality of life for the sake of unity and security like a flock of sheep.

*Yes, I sympathize with de Chardin's concept of the noosphere, but he recognized that individuality and humanity are primary components of it that are independent of utility unlike environmentalism which proposes an oddball version of a hivemind.

That answer doesn't do justice to Burke's stance and position on the issue of tradition and custom. Burke witnessed the French Revolution in real time and was one of the only members of the Brit establishment to openly admire it (and accept it on the theoretical grounds that it represented, though of course, by the time of the Reign of Terror, Burke turned against the 'new regime' as he had to).Well I feel it does justice because Burke's defense (or critique, take your pick) is grounded in the wisdom of ancients and legacies from the sheer "natural" admiration that is evoked from their majesty (http://books.google.com/books?id=Z_q2cfsVSn0C&pg=PA101):...We fear God, we look up with awe to kings; with affection to parliaments; with duty to magistrates; with reverence to priests; and with respect to nobility. Why? Because when such ideas are brought before our minds, it is natural to be so affected...Mind that I do believe that we should be appreciative of our ancestry, but I don't see how it is honorable to take what they've said and established for granted without challenging or refining it for the sake of future endeavors. I mean if they invested their ingenuity out of hope for a better tomorrow and we intend to hold faith in their intentions, why shouldn't we investigate the details of their motives in order to further elaborate on top of what they've constructed (not only for ourselves but for hope of those tomorrows after our own times as well)?

I disagree about invoking the Second Law of Thermodynamics here. That implies some 'perfect' (or better) state in the past that we are in decay of. Yes all things will decay certainly, and that's the philosophical meaning of the 2nd Law, but that doesn't prescribe nihilism as the conclusion....Wait a sec, time out. You think that I'm proscribing nihilism here?:...On the other hand, we can recognize that survival isn't virtuous or moral at all and instead focus on exploring and discovering as much about the world as possible by applying entrepreneurship towards non-economic end goals via economic means. Economies are important because they allow us to support ourselves and optimize our capabilities, but such accomplishments only matter as long as we do something with them that's productive in a non-economic manner. The proof? Even the most wealthy man and society in the world matter nothing at all if they cannot harness their environments and be subjectively appreciated by spontaneous human interests (both internal and external).
In all honesty, I can't think of anything more liberating yet inspiring (even for the non-spiritual who don't want to feel restricted by faith in a judgmental afterlife). If I was being a nihilist, I would have said something more hedonistic such as, "Life doesn't matter, so we might as well live it up till we burnout and self-destruct anyway."

Like Nietzsche, I believe that mankind will have to choose between aspiring to become ubermensch or relapsing into the last man (although I don't believe we will know for certain which is which either at the time of the decision or after the decision is made nor do I believe that decision making is a non-continuous process that takes place only at one pair of crossroads). However, in connection with what I've said regarding the death of entrepreneurship, I only believe that we're on the wrong path and that we will continue to falter as long as we stay the course. Likewise, in connection with what I've said about spontaneity and inevitabilities, I believe that mankind will macroscopically perish because of the finite physical constraints on our existence (both on our internal anatomy and external environments) which lead to either death by technology, death by apathy, or death by frustration and confusion (for better or worse, take your pick again). This doesn't mean though that we shouldn't be microscopically optimistic since life won't have any potential to be worthwhile at all if we don't endeavor to improve the world in the pursuit of truth.

It is only via the last man that nihilism is practiced, yet even if it's impossible to avoid, that doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to become something greater until we become exhausted. To be honest for all practical purposes (heh), I believe that Kant's kingdom of heaven will only be reached when we realize for certain* that we have no more potential to grow in our world despite decentralizing as much as possible to maximize individual autonomy for the sake of liberated (as opposed to "free") experimentation, reflection, and communication. Eventually, we will fulfill our potential, and from that moment on, we will... retire from refinement by relaxing into a quasi-eternal passive and euphoric condition where pain will be minimized due to intuitive appreciation for principle rather than direct pursuit of pain's minimization.

It's like the difference between a hunter-gatherer and a farmer who are both trying to satisfy their cravings for hunger. The hunter-gatherer always attempts to linearly satisfy himself by directly harvesting from his environment, but the farmer learns techniques which help him cultivate agriculture and store crops so he can enjoy himself in other pursuits and not have to worry about food at a later time. The hunter-gatherer will become exhausted sooner because he is always exerting himself towards a constant concern, but the farmer will extend his health and longevity because he can afford to relax and explore other concepts which can otherwise improve his livelihood.

Adam Smith and division of labor. Gotta love it. :)

*Another reference to reliabilism, we won't "realize for certain" per se, but our minds will intuitively acknowledge that enough is enough from the dynamic equilibrium we experienced and studied up to that point. Distress will be felt because there will be tension regarding whether or not we really fulfilled our potential, but this will eventually become resolved by realizing we no longer have enough... "fuel" (in terms of computing power whether it's electricity, actual processors, or psychological motivation to activate the machinery) to go on exploring if the world is in fact an extended pattern of the self-similarity that we are designed by. Some efforts will be made to explore to defy the odds, but they won't have enough support to make it,** so the rest of mankind will retreat into a sort of solemn peace (which is why utilitarianism's justification of maximizing happiness isn't even justifiable in PRACTICAL terms).

**I suppose that there's an extremely unlikely exception here regarding gravity and negative entropy, but after feeling as though the above is just a lot of metaphysical psychobabble now that I've reflected upon what I just wrote (and considering my own limits on natural science and math), I'd rather not indulge this train of thought any longer, heh.

As for Red Tories and American politics, I respectfully submit that peak oil is going to do more damage to America in the next couple of decades than all the warmongering fantasies of a new Cold War projected onto the Chinese ever could.

Indeed, the projection of US warmongering fantasies onto China over the next half-century just shows how far and how deep the American problem of energy-denial really is.

Indeed, if oil is so short that hoarding is necessary even to meet short term needs, the game is already over. He who controls all the oil goes down with the oil-based economy.

I'm far beyond having faith in individual heroics. If I don't see systemic incentives or inherent trends that can be identified and/or addressed, I don't see any real potential for action. Individual heroics are for going against the grain. When the power is with you and your system is strong, you don't need any individual heroics - that just gums up the system with ego.I disagree with you regarding China, but that's because I don't feel either the oil bubble or war with China are feasible possibilities even over the next 50 years, BUT we ARE responding proactively to the oil bubble while responding reactively to growing Chinese economic clout.

Heck, even if you're right regarding oil, China is far more dependent upon fossil fuel usage than we are, and if anyone's going to make out like a bandit, it's us since we'll control the green technology needed to evolve beyond it. On the flip side though, if we keep making trade concessions and selling off technology cheaply in exchange for consumer goods, then we won't be able to sow any dividends from our investment since the Chinese will just reverse engineer us back to the stone age.

As for heroics, I'm going to leave this point alone for a later discussion about organizational behavior and culture since the development of communal hierarchies and structures is a... fascinating matter regarding the avoidance of groupthink and maintenance of motivation. Suffice to say that democracy is not a long term solution here due to its explicit handling of politics.

I'm definitely not clear on your definition of "power politics", and how it is supposed to be 'accepted' by one's freedom to choose one's individual occupation? :ummm:

Encouragement (or at least tolerance) of "going Galt" to opposition might be able to be labeled as freedom, but to constituents who formed a government is flat out coercion when those constituents contribute to the government's existence. Such resembles power politics because appeasement to government encouragement occurs only as a rational strategy, not from a sense of justice.

Of course it can't be prevented. If it could be prevented, it would be already done so. It is an inherent property of the system (a feature, not a bug), which is why I've identified it.

The interesting issue is where this trend leads to. Everything that happens causes other things to happen in reaction....

...I quite disagree. I think entrepreneurialism will be the backbone of the new system. Though, it would probably be slightly different than how the term is used in the present context of capitalism, since by definition, any 'new system' would be one that supercedes capitalism as a mode of production.

Interesting, what flavor of entrepreneurism do you feel will exist if it's role is no longer "particularly significant to the economy anymore" despite how it "will be the backbone of the new system"?

[Michael]

Eh? Forget me here, how is justice worthwhile (and/or where is its niche) in a world, "obsessed with consequences, utility, political correctness, loving the little things in life* and the rest of the works for the pursuit of ulterior motives"? Instead, justice should be discarded as an inefficient redundancy while only delusionally "witnessed" as a shield for competitive performance Furthermore, there's no benchmark between when justice should be wielded and when romance should be wielded, and the only ones who will be successful are those who are randomly fortunate, chaos which is the antithesis of what justice is all about in the first place.

Please note that you have asked me a question, assumed "my" answer (which is radically opposite to my real answer) and then argued against it all in one paragraph! You'd make a good Fox News interviewer! :D

Anyway, we've been over this ground before. You seem to take every argument against deontology as 100% justification for the most radically opposite alternative (nihilism). I've argued over and over again that this is not justified or reasonable logic, nor is it anywhere close to my views upon the issue.

Rejection of absolute or deontological definitions for terms like "justice" does not equal pro-nihilism. That is a false dichotomy. My position is not nihilistic at all. Quite the opposite I think - though it is not the same as deontology at all!

To state my position here as briefly as possible, I'll say: Justice is worthwhile because people generally like it to be so.

As for my own personal and subjective view, I'd say that I personally accept the generally agreed definition of justice primarily because it is generally agreed to by a majority. I further agree that this generally agreed definition of justice may change from time to time (as is the general nature of human agreed things).

I also agree that this might not produce perfect justice all the time or any time - no matter what definition of justice is used. Human life just doesn't come with any guarentees so I think it is foolish to demand them of philosophy.

Free markets aren't free unless they reject coercion in the pursuit of homesteading through respect for property rights and contracts. Ergo, when popular sovereignty, common sense, or majestic legacy are used as excuses to disrespect these institutions, the world is not genuinely "capitalist". It could be argued that ideals are never realized because of their demands of perfection, but the point here is that the intent to avoid coercion is only respected when it is (rationally) convenient to do so out of expected marginal utility rewards.
This can only be called an American or New World conceit. There is no place on earth one can really go homesteading nowadays. Every inch of the planet is owned or claimed by someone already (and often mulitple claims at that).

Yes, two or three hundred years ago, native populations could be swindled or pushed out of the way or made war upon to take over "virgin" land for homesteading - and those white settlers could claim absolute sovereignty of the soil, guarenteed by the nation-state's military might and legal-court system. That was possible then - not so much anymore.

Ergo, an ideology that pretends that this long gone state of affairs is some kind of ideal utopian state that can be recreated 'carte blanche' just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. 'Homesteading idealism' can not be considered the normative condition or basis of evaluation of economic philosophy.

Hence, the conundrum with the rule of law overcoming the rule of man. In order for law to be respected, it has to be thoroughly appreciated by all who fall under it, but in order for it to be practiced, guardians and constituents must acknowledge only its effects and none of its causes in order to fully dedicate their ingenuity out of specialization of labor. Otherwise, a competitor organization (such as a state) will be overwhelming due to increased investment in propaganda influence and economic and military strength.
The rule of law doesn't have to be absolutely respected by every single person in the jurisdiction for it to be function and/or effective. It appears to be sufficient if a strong majority agree upon it and uphold it and will upon it.

It is understood that there will likely be some violations of it from time to time. Thus, eternal vigilance, prudence and oversight are always required.

Hence, the secondary conundrum of technology. Technology can provide long term advantages in security (given enough natural obstacles between competing factions), but in order to be fully realized, it has to be dispersed such that guardians and constituents who are specialized in productivity (yet not morality) will question previously resolved ethical questions and overwhelm wisemen and entrepreneurs with mob justice and appeals to popularity even when wisemen and entrepreneurs are purely benevolent (unless they implement noble lies in order to subdue the masses which is only "justifiable" in the name of utility).
More paradoxes.

And I'd say that there has never in history been any shortage of noble lies. They are indeed, the most commonest of things.

Ergo, your paradox is escaped! :fence:

Regarding Nietzsche, he went insane because he was astonished by aesthetics, not because he was indulgent in them. :-\

It is quite beyond me to speculate as the nature or reason of Nietzsche's insanity, it is enough for me to understand that he did go insane. That means Nietzsche ultimately failed his own challenge (on a personal level).

You're a progressive rather than a left-libertarian, but still, I could use the above to say it's justified for authoritative capitalists to coerce wage-slaves (both directly through industry and commerce as well as indirectly through political machines and political correctness). This is absurd however because life is not intrinsically justifiable any more than how technology is intrinsically good or bad. The only way life can be justified though is from axiomatic and tautological refinement, refinement which is impeded through coercion done in the name of marginal utility (for hedonist enjoyment or otherwise).
Okay. Technology isn't intrinsically good or bad. And yes, the only way life can be justified (for some people) is from axiomatic and tautoligical refinement (of whatever subjective sort and variety).

Marginal utility is indeed a highly subjective kind of thing.

I can agree with all that.

But I must protest that I'm certainly far more of a left-libertarian than a progressive unless you are using some unknown definitions!

And I don't see how you could possibly determine that from my assessment that a significantly large number of human beings in history, when faced with the option of slavery or death, opted for slavery. This is evidenced by the fact that slaves did exist in history. Ergo, some humans must accept slavery for slavery to exist otherwise all prospective slaves would have died before becoming slaves (or immediately afterwards). Note: history is filled with millions of human slaves.

As for your cost-benefit analysis, human beings are not omniscient and it would be ridiculous for us to claim that we know exactly what the costs are of our actions especially when general and all-encompassing models of human behavior are rejected from sheerly being too grandiose or reliant upon thought experiments (not that I believe that you are rejecting mine as such, but it's a common occurrence when dealing with practical utilitarians). Such is contingent upon justice being defined as the pursuit of refinement since it is only the existence of consistency which allows us to define "utility" in the first place (absence thereof not only making utility unjustified, but phenomenologically unnoticeable and nominally meaningless too).
Humans are a social animal. We don't each rely upon own feeble wits - we take advantage of learning, consulting with others, listening to advice, observing others to see what works well, and sometimes just taking a gamble or a hunch.

Each human being doesn't have to learn every single lesson for themselves. We pass our collective wisdom around to each other - often quite freely.

This depends upon whether or not entrepreneurs want to pursue horizontal or vertical integration. If value and security are prioritized, then horizontal takes place and so does stagnant monopolization. If growth and discovery and prioritized though, then vertical takes place and so does dynamic cultivation.
It doesn't really matter which direction things go. It is enough to observe that capitalists and/or entrepreneurs do tend to seek monopoly conditions. Not all of them and not all the time. But lots of them and often is enough to warrant measures taken to prevent it, given the potential scale of damage.

In any case, we (again) also need to have discussions on Schumpeter and Hoppe and probably even Mises to discuss the nature of entrepreneurship, democracy, and human action.
I'm not a trained economist. I have not formally studied any of these fellows, though I certainly have read some snippets by Shumpeter and Mises from time to time so I am familiar with them - I've never heard of Hoppe. :o

Mmmm, this sounds like you're giving too much credit to states and mega corporations due to the success of the green revolution so far. Personally, I'm not a fan of the whole shebang since environmentalism comes across to me as a sham of a replacement for religion (as if the planet has a soul and it's moral to treat nature as a sentient being with karma always ready to strike back against offenders).* However, it is a movement that's catalyzed by consumers and inventors as well as embraced by businesses looking to latch onto the next big advertising trend, and the technology coming about from it certainly looks like it's on track to beat out the oil bubble. (http://www.finalternatives.com/node/8206)
I'm neither optimistic nor pessimistic on the oil challenge. I like to see myself as a realist. Oil is going to run out. If we don't 'solve' the energy challenge soon enough, we will end up going the "Mad Max" route. That's all I can honestly predict. I really don't know which way things will end up going - only time will tell. :shrug:

In any case, innovation comes from innovators, not spontaneous generation, and the shortage that you're talking about would provide MORE disequilibrium and MORE of a demand for entrepreneurship if anything unless the public is willing to sacrifice a huge portion of its quality of life for the sake of unity and security like a flock of sheep.
I beg to differ.

Alexander Graham Bell's patent on the telephone famously won the game only by a matter of hours. There were literally dozens of inventers feverishly working on the telephone invention - all separately engaged. That sure looks like a sociological phenomena rather than some singular and unique process. This pattern is the norm, not the exception. Inventions come in clusters, in tight competition with one another.

Indeed, many inventions may languish for years in obscurity. It is only the marketization of the invention that makes it worth anything. Merely inventing something brilliant doesn't necessarily make you rich.

Well I feel it does justice because Burke's defense (or critique, take your pick) is grounded in the wisdom of ancients and legacies from the sheer "natural" admiration that is evoked from their majesty (http://books.google.com/books?id=Z_q2cfsVSn0C&pg=PA101):...We fear God, we look up with awe to kings; with affection to parliaments; with duty to magistrates; with reverence to priests; and with respect to nobility. Why? Because when such ideas are brought before our minds, it is natural to be so affected...Mind that I do believe that we should be appreciative of our ancestry, but I don't see how it is honorable to take what they've said and established for granted without challenging or refining it for the sake of future endeavors. I mean if they invested their ingenuity out of hope for a better tomorrow and we intend to hold faith in their intentions, why shouldn't we investigate the details of their motives in order to further elaborate on top of what they've constructed (not only for ourselves but for hope of those tomorrows after our own times as well)?

God, king and country eh? That's true blue tory!

If they ever lived up to half of it, I'd respect them more. Its the hypocrisy of it all that always kills the tory dream.

Preaching 'God, king and country', but acting for 'Self, boss and corporation' just doesn't cut it.

Wait a sec, time out. You think that I'm proscribing nihilism here?:...On the other hand, we can recognize that survival isn't virtuous or moral at all and instead focus on exploring and discovering as much about the world as possible by applying entrepreneurship towards non-economic end goals via economic means. Economies are important because they allow us to support ourselves and optimize our capabilities, but such accomplishments only matter as long as we do something with them that's productive in a non-economic manner. The proof? Even the most wealthy man and society in the world matter nothing at all if they cannot harness their environments and be subjectively appreciated by spontaneous human interests (both internal and external).
In all honesty, I can't think of anything more liberating yet inspiring (even for the non-spiritual who don't want to feel restricted by faith in a judgmental afterlife). If I was being a nihilist, I would have said something more hedonistic such as, "Life doesn't matter, so we might as well live it up till we burnout and self-destruct anyway."
You claim two separate and contradictory views then?

Here you appeal to your subjective will as the driving force of all, yet elsewhere you make appeal to some absolute objectivity of knowledge?

How can the world be both absolutely objective and so filled with the glory of your driving subjective will?

Like Nietzsche, I believe that mankind will have to choose between aspiring to become ubermensch or relapsing into the last man (although I don't believe we will know for certain which is which either at the time of the decision or after the decision is made nor do I believe that decision making is a non-continuous process that takes place only at one pair of crossroads). However, in connection with what I've said regarding the death of entrepreneurship, I only believe that we're on the wrong path and that we will continue to falter as long as we stay the course. Likewise, in connection with what I've said about spontaneity and inevitabilities, I believe that mankind will macroscopically perish because of the finite physical constraints on our existence (both on our internal anatomy and external environments) which lead to either death by technology, death by apathy, or death by frustration and confusion (for better or worse, take your pick again). This doesn't mean though that we shouldn't be microscopically optimistic since life won't have any potential to be worthwhile at all if we don't endeavor to improve the world in the pursuit of truth.
You appear to be projecting your own view of the world upon others.

The Greek and Roman stoics and/or epicurians didn't seem to be bothered by a lack of worthwhile potential in the world. :shrug:

I've personally always placed myself firmly in the camp of the Greek stoics.

It is only via the last man that nihilism is practiced, yet even if it's impossible to avoid, that doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to become something greater until we become exhausted. To be honest for all practical purposes (heh), I believe that Kant's kingdom of heaven will only be reached when we realize for certain* that we have no more potential to grow in our world despite decentralizing as much as possible to maximize individual autonomy for the sake of liberated (as opposed to "free") experimentation, reflection, and communication. Eventually, we will fulfill our potential, and from that moment on, we will... retire from refinement by relaxing into a quasi-eternal passive and euphoric condition where pain will be minimized due to intuitive appreciation for principle rather than direct pursuit of pain's minimization.
Metaphysical mumbo-jumbo doesn't do it for me. Nihilism is practiced in the here and now by some people. Others enjoy the estascy of shopping and/or capitalism.

I'm a stoic. I like to watch it all flow by. :shrug:

It's like the difference between a hunter-gatherer and a farmer who are both trying to satisfy their cravings for hunger. The hunter-gatherer always attempts to linearly satisfy himself by directly harvesting from his environment, but the farmer learns techniques which help him cultivate agriculture and store crops so he can enjoy himself in other pursuits and not have to worry about food at a later time. The hunter-gatherer will become exhausted sooner because he is always exerting himself towards a constant concern, but the farmer will extend his health and longevity because he can afford to relax and explore other concepts which can otherwise improve his livelihood.
Nice parable. But it seems to assume that "hunter-gatherers" and "farmers" are two separate groups that just pop up in competition with each other.

The first farmers were hunter-gatherers.

Adam Smith and division of labor. Gotta love it. :)

Why? It is merely a useful technique for maximizing production.

Maximizing production is not always an ideal goal in all scenarios. It is merely a tool to use for particular purposes. It is only "lovable" in so far as it serves a generally good purpose. Generally good meaning only generally agreed. ;)

Ergo, it is not rational to love any particular technique. Techiques themselves do not posses intrinsic goodness.

*Another reference to reliabilism, we won't "realize for certain" per se, but our minds will intuitively acknowledge that enough is enough from the dynamic equilibrium we experienced and studied up to that point. Distress will be felt because there will be tension regarding whether or not we really fulfilled our potential, but this will eventually become resolved by realizing we no longer have enough... "fuel" (in terms of computing power whether it's electricity, actual processors, or psychological motivation to activate the machinery) to go on exploring if the world is in fact an extended pattern of the self-similarity that we are designed by. Some efforts will be made to explore to defy the odds, but they won't have enough support to make it,** so the rest of mankind will retreat into a sort of solemn peace (which is why utilitarianism's justification of maximizing happiness isn't even justifiable in PRACTICAL terms).

**I suppose that there's an extremely unlikely exception here regarding gravity and negative entropy, but after feeling as though the above is just a lot of metaphysical psychobabble now that I've reflected upon what I just wrote (and considering my own limits on natural science and math), I'd rather not indulge this train of thought any longer, heh.
Okay.

Besides, this argument always ignores human diversity. :D

I disagree with you regarding China, but that's because I don't feel either the oil bubble or war with China are feasible possibilities even over the next 50 years, BUT we ARE responding proactively to the oil bubble while responding reactively to growing Chinese economic clout.

Heck, even if you're right regarding oil, China is far more dependent upon fossil fuel usage than we are, and if anyone's going to make out like a bandit, it's us since we'll control the green technology needed to evolve beyond it. On the flip side though, if we keep making trade concessions and selling off technology cheaply in exchange for consumer goods, then we won't be able to sow any dividends from our investment since the Chinese will just reverse engineer us back to the stone age.
My only point about China was the role it serves as 'phantom menace' for US domestic politics.

I made no statement about China's future course of action.

As for heroics, I'm going to leave this point alone for a later discussion about organizational behavior and culture since the development of communal hierarchies and structures is a... fascinating matter regarding the avoidance of groupthink and maintenance of motivation. Suffice to say that democracy is not a long term solution here due to its explicit handling of politics.
If and only if you recognize that the present 'elite-representative' model of electoral politics is not actually very democratic at all.

Rule of the people, by the elites, for the elites is not actually 'democracy' even if all the media and government people all pretend that it is.

Encouragement (or at least tolerance) of "going Galt" to opposition might be able to be labeled as freedom, but to constituents who formed a government is flat out coercion when those constituents contribute to the government's existence. Such resembles power politics because appeasement to government encouragement occurs only as a rational strategy, not from a sense of justice.
But the reality is that you are indeed 100% free to 'go Galt' any time you like. That nobody ever actually does it except the crackpots and hippies should tell you something though. :shrug:

Interesting, what flavor of entrepreneurism do you feel will exist if it's role is no longer "particularly significant to the economy anymore" despite how it "will be the backbone of the new system"?
My analysis of the evolution of capitalism suggests that the key element that seems to becoming less and less valuable is 'wage-labor'. Once you take away wage-labor, capitalism ceases to exist.

Wage-labor is all well and fine when you want to run a widget factory, but it doesn't work with Wall Street bankers or Silicon Valley programmers. In a service-based economy, individuals could trade their own services as economic enterprises in themselves.

And thus, with individuals as economic enterprises, that looks to me a lot like 'entrepreneurialism' writ large.