Your Political Philosophy is Wrong - Change My Mind

Author: JusticeWept

Posts

Total: 56
#31
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@JusticeWept
But if the 51% controls all the weapons and has the economic wherewithal, then it's fine?
Take away the 51% here. If someone is truly entirely powerful over another group, they could be the richest 1% and we'd be left powerless if we didn't expose them and tactically take them on. (Very relevant to present day politics). Without the ability to fight back, you are powerless to bring good. Might does not make right, might makes the ability to bring about great malice as well as great benevolence. You can't defeat a powerful team of enemies by being a powerless band of heroes. It never will work. This is not a 'should' or 'fine' scenario, this is an undeniable fact of what will be the outcome of a side being so powerful over another.

So society now has a well-defined goal: the majority, acting in their self-interests, try to create a system where no change is needed.
You keep obsessing over 'majority'. Democracy is about what's best for all in net outcome being the situation at hand. If this means a minority decide and the majority accept it, then it's sustainable. It doesn't have to be the majority. What i do argue is that as soon as we begin having citizens thinking they are anything but a selfish entity, we begin to have corruption, stagnancy and so many other issues where we end up having to either violently revolt against a dictatorial regime or needing to admit we are selfish and reform properly. I can give you countless examples of societies based on selflessness leading to some of the worst corruption humanity has known. The most present-day one is North Korea.

 But what do you mean by not needing change? Do you mean that it does not need change because it is just, or because it conforms with all the interests of the majority, or just descriptively that it doesn't have to be changed because the status quo works well enough, or something else?
There is no such thing as justice beyond semantics. In reality what happens is there's the solution that the majority of the potent in society agree is the one to use and this gets ascribed 'justice' or 'law' and any other system which gets labelled as going against law and is any moral compass a criminal is using at any time as well as the moral compass a non-acting criminal is using who would wish to be a criminal if it were not too big a risk to be one and if they had the means to alter the society to accept their ways. I am of the latter kind as are many (anyone who voted Clinton is currently that in USA as well as those who simply didn't vote Trump, even some who voted Trump do not in any way at all necessarily agree to the entirety of his regime). The system I propose will always aim, actively so, to be what the majority of the potent in society agree is optimal (whether potent by intellect, income, military strength or capacity to influence others). It should actively ask them what they think about any law and the enforcement of said law at any time. It should constantly question its own 'core values' and even things like term limits. At any time it is failing to be exactly the optimal solution in the yes of the majority of the potent in society, it is failing to be my system and failing to strive towards being a system that needn' t be changed for as long as possible, hence aiming to become the most sustainable.

You've also laid out that it is in the majority's interest to educate everyone ("informing many people of many things"). No argument there.
Good.

As far as your views about the minority challenging the system, am I to understand this as you saying that the minority may speak out when and only when it would be expedient for the majority to let them do so?
You keep using majority and minority but a very potent minority is actually the ones who should rule over a powerless majority and will inevitably do so. I support active surrendering in the face of enemies who are psychotic and dividing and conquering them instead to root out the particular maniacs by turning the sane among them against the insane so on and so forth.
#32
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
-->
@JusticeWept
Convince me against Classical Fascism
#33
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@JusticeWept
I did qualify my statement as not having police and emergency services isn't really possible in any practical sense.  As far as entitlements go they should be kept to a minimum, I can't understand how people on welfare get brand new cell phones (newer that what I have)  This is far different than letting people start.  I work for my luxuries, tax payers shouldn't have to pay for them.

#34
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@JusticeWept
Hard paleoconservatism as opposed to neoconservatism, which in many respects is too liberal and which wrongly worships laissez-faire capitalism as the highest good for a nation.

Race is a very powerful idea: it causes you to perceive certain people as "your people" to the exclusion of everybody else. It causes you to perceive those on the outside as a potential threat and perhaps eternal enemy. The idea has in modern times especially captured the imaginations of people of color, who all perceive themselves as being threatened by and victims of the white majority. People hate what they fear and resent, usually. So that means "white" Americans (those of European, non-Hispanic, non-Jewish, non-Roma descent) are regularly scapegoated for all the problems faced by these groups, and will accordingly be punished if they lose the majority needed to stave these people off.
White Americans post-Civil Rights Era largely stopped thinking about race. This was kind of coarse in that it caused them to fail to acknowledge the inequalities and injustices faced by, say, Black Americans, but on the flip side it meant that they regarded their identity as Americans as being more important than their identities as Whites. Before this, in the age of White Supremacy, they were generally powerful enough a majority that they could afford to make race less of a concern than, say, foreign policy and the economy. Hence, these white people who made up the majority have always been Americans first. 
But what will happen if that majority is lost? What if People of Color become the majority? Well, they're still fixated on their status as victims and marginalized peoples, so that identity naturally comes first to them, their identities as Americans coming second. They will always flock to vote in monolithic blocs for whatever party panders to their demographic, and post-1968 that's been the Democratic Party. So once they become the majority, the end result will be a one-party state for the rest of time, like we've seen in Mexico. As these groups are much poorer than their white counterparts on average, they're always going to vote for the left-wing populists who promise to redistribute the wealth. Latin Americans are especially vulnerable to the siren's call of demagogues, as history has shown. Rule of law will be eroded, a cycle of dictatorships will take the place of our 200+ year old democracy. The economy will stagnate and decline.
For the above reason, I regard it as imperative that a comfortable white majority (say, 70%) be sustained in these lands, at least until the present mentality of non-whites (of course I'm speaking in generalizations, not on the level of every non-white individual living in the US) can be broken. Once this majority is ensured, I would support greater measures to combat racial inequality, though NOT the welfare state as we have it now, as this only perpetuates poverty in the long term.

In the America that I'd like to see, our economy would consist of untold millions of highly skilled workers, able to compete in the international market, and against the machines, ready to export our goods to a world ready to consume those goods. These skilled workers would get together to form business syndicates and share the responsibilities, workload, and profits of their enterprises. The vast majority of hardworking Americans could afford to own their home, get married, have kids. We would not be a wasteful people but all the byproducts of industry and consumption would be readily recycled. We would primarily rely upon renewable energies, especially nuclear, solar, and ethanol.
Most Americans would be religious, that religion being Christianity (and especially Protestant Christianity). Most children would be raised in a somewhat religious home, and would stay away from vices like drugs and promiscuity, but at the same time most people would not really start taking religion seriously until, say, their 20s or 30s. They'd enjoy happy childhoods, playing outside and hanging out with friends; most parents would limit the use of electronics in their households and especially for younger children. Most kids would attend public schools, as a way of ensuring social cohesion. English would be the undisputed national language, and all second-generation immigrants would end up becoming fluent in it. Most people would trust in the government, and for good reason, and they would be able to trust that when they turned on the news they wouldn't be fed a bunch of propaganda. We would be a democracy in which voter turnout was high in most elections, and especially in presidential elections. There would be two parties, one center-left and one center-right, to ensure a balance.
#35
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
The white birth rate could be increased via implementing paid maternity leave, abolishing social security (for white people under the age of 30 at the time of implementation with the understanding that their only security rested in either saving up a butt ton of money or having children to support them in their old age), and incentivizing people of color to undergo sterilizations or to otherwise not have children. These birth control measures would not include abortion, as that is murder in my opinion and thus should not be legal.
#36
Earth
Earth's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,087
3
4
8
Earth's avatar
Earth
3
4
8
To increase white births, you first must increase America's standard of living.
#37
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@Earth
Not necessarily. You just have to make having a family affordable, and to make it easier to find a spouse. That's the big kicker. Even I of all people would like to have kids one day.
#38
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
-->
@Earth
Or make people less intelligent overall. Don't birthrates correlate highly with intelligence? The higher intelligence goes, the lower birth rates seem to drop? 🤔

#39
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
That is to say, I think even those people who are like "Nah kids sound like a lot of trouble I love being a bachelor" will eventually reach a point where they'd like to have kids. It's part of who we are, and modern hedonism can't take that away from us entirely.
#40
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@Buddamoose
As I've said before (not here necessarily but perhaps on DDO), IQ doesn't matter as much as environment. We can cultivate an environment where people are able to put their full potential to use. Being intellectually stimulated as a child (or lack thereof) will do a lot to determine how well you manage later in life.
#41
Earth
Earth's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,087
3
4
8
Earth's avatar
Earth
3
4
8
-->
@Buddamoose
@Swagnarok
50s America was pretty smart. Though making raising a family affordable is the main thing, which is what I meant 

#42
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
A lot of men in my generation (and perhaps myself as well) are stuck in a rut where they don't really know what to do with their lives and they end up just doing nothing. They indulge in pleasures like video games (along with near-constantly sitting down) and eating junk food. They get fat, fail to develop vital social skills, and ultimately fail find a wife. This is a big problem that has to be resolved. Military service is really something that could correct this problem, but we have far more young people than the number of soldiers that we need. So something else would have to be found to take its place.
#43
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
This is true, environment also plays a large factor. Wasn't trying to say it didn't, just that lowering intelligence purposefully should see at minimum a slight corresponding rise to birthrates 🤔. 

A much more effective measure would be making having a family more affordable, incentivizing dual parent households, and I would say also, perhaps offering additional tax credits for children, but keeping the credit lower for single parent homes. 

Money is after all, quite the incentive 
#44
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
-->
@Swagnarok
The military would have little issue filling its ranks if it relaxed intelligence standards for gruntwork. As it stands the US military arbitrarily sets it at what, 80 I think, when its like, no, you don't need to be that smart to clean latrines, transport equipment, and other similar grunt work positions. 
#45
Earth
Earth's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,087
3
4
8
Earth's avatar
Earth
3
4
8
-->
@Buddamoose
Then we have the problem of college. I'm sure a lot of parents fear for their children's future if they can't pay for their children's college.
#46
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
I would even go so far as to say only non-combat work. You absolutely do need intelligence in combat. Plus, using the dumb as bullet fodder is just reprehensible morally fmpov, even if actually not that bad strategically 🤔
#47
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
-->
@Earth
This is true, but universities are really losing their stranglehold on higher education. Some smartest people ive met are High School educated but they just consume all kinds of knowledge. Like i met this Truck Driver once, who just talked for hours specifically about Napoleonic Warfare and different battles, strategies, etc. and i was like, "holy shit, you should write a book 😮" 

Theres a great thirst for knowledge out there, and the internet and other forms of media are really starting to allow those who cant afford to go, to continue educating themselves to a really fine extent 🤔
#48
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
Which is just grand imho. Like, as days go by ive noticed I'm encountering less and less people that couldnt give an expert level opinion on at least one field of study regardless of whether they have a degree or not. That's beautiful AF to me and makes me super hopeful about the future in terms of when I'm already dead and gone 

#49
Earth
Earth's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,087
3
4
8
Earth's avatar
Earth
3
4
8
-->
@Buddamoose
Sadly, more and more jobs require a degree. And they pay less too. Weee.
#50
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
-->
@Earth
Yeah, credentials are still important. I cant help but feel the system could be tweaked to where its not as expensive to obtain those credentials. Like for example, it may be preferable someone to have gone through 4-8 years taking approved courses so you get a good foundation to build a specialization on. 

But i cant help but think, if someone can come in and drop an amazing thesis paper down on a specific field of study and could verify they have shit down pat through testing, we should reasonably do away with the process and give them the recognition of credentials as they have proved they are deserving of them 🤔

#51
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
And not have it be an "honorary degree" but an actual one 🤔
#52
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@JusticeWept
I think a reasonable definition of morality is, "the answer to the question, 'what ought I (not) do?'"...
I see this is a reversal of cause and effect. Whilst I agree that people *may* ask this question, I don't think it's the first thing they do in order to determine morality. It's how, as you referred to earlier, people are against homosexual marriage because it is "gross". This is not a response that is retrieved from cerebral essence. It's a visceral reaction, one in which the subconscious brain is expressed by the conscious. It's only after this visceral reaction occurs that people then attempt to justify it. Again, if it was the other way around, "gross" would never be part of a morality discussion.

Sure, morality might be expressed this way for a reason (pro-social behaviour enforced by evolutionary instincts, of which came to be due to real reasons), *but* no one is going to articulate this *before* they feel what they think is moral.

That aside, I take issue with your assertion that political thought is more "empirical". What do you mean by that?

We can use statistics to make cases for political comments. For example, if I wanted to make the claim 'Muslims are violent', we can check crime statistics worldwide, compare them with other groups (Christians, Jews etc.), and then make empirical conclusions. We can also go into the genetic composition of a random sample of Muslims (if that data existed), and perform similar comparisons to reach similar conclusions.

As expressed earlier, morality is a feel first, rationalise later venture -- empirical data would be hard pressed to enter accompany such a venture.


Conviction in your philosophical beliefs is perfectly fine; that's what a belief is, as you can't believe something you hold no conviction in. But, being unwilling to entertain a differing view is (in most cases) counterproductive and makes you worse at thinking.

There are two wildly different interests at play. If your conviction is so low that you are willing to change your view, then is it a conviction at all? In order to make use of a conviction, in order to fight for say free speech or an Islamic Caliphate, can you afford to harbour seeds of doubt? Does the insanity of conviction outweigh the benefits of a firm resolve?

people are bad at political philosophy because they aren't cautious and self-questioning enough
I think that's part of the reason; I've already expressed what I see to be the other parts.

"Identity" is an abstract concept, so please elaborate. 
Where one non-physically positions oneself in existence, by attempting to recognise the differences between oneself and others (the perceptions of others forms your true self). 

What is the role of government in a society?
Ideally, to benefit society. But that depends entirely on the people it wishes to govern, seeing that no group is the same. As Joseph de Maistre once wrote, "I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, etc.; I am even aware, thanks to Montesquieu, that one can be a Persian.  But, as for Man, I declare that I have never met him in my life.  If he exists, I certainly have no knowledge of him."

To briefly illustrate, a Muslim dominated society such as Saudi Arabia would prefer the fusion of religion and government. However, a white nationalist society might prefer separation of church and state, because it doesn't deem the religious infighting that results as worth it.

A government designed for all is designed for none.
#53
BezosFuturist
BezosFuturist's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 18
0
0
2
BezosFuturist's avatar
BezosFuturist
0
0
2
-->
@JusticeWept
I am an anti-corporate, pro labor, environmentalist, nationalist, luddite.

 Change my mind
#54
BezosFuturist
BezosFuturist's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 18
0
0
2
BezosFuturist's avatar
BezosFuturist
0
0
2
-->
@Swagnarok
Yas King
#55
BezosFuturist
BezosFuturist's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 18
0
0
2
BezosFuturist's avatar
BezosFuturist
0
0
2
Paleocon is probably the best way to sum up my views but still doesn't explain environmentalism
#56
Varrack
Varrack's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 48
0
0
5
Varrack's avatar
Varrack
0
0
5
-->
@JusticeWept
I consider myself to be a progressive and a social democrat.

It's my conviction that social progress brings about good far more often than traditionalist mindsets do. Women's suffrage, civil rights, and LGBTQ rights all came about by progressive mindsets -- we need people to challenge old beliefs and advocate for new, better ones, because we, as a flawed species, need to have a great deal introspection in order to root out the fears and prejudices that guide some of our lives and cause us to discriminate against fellow humans. Because history repeats itself, there's no reason to say that those progressive mindsets worked then and somehow don't now...we have to be constantly challenging what we've been taught to be true in order to reach a higher level of empathy and equality than we've been at in the past.

I find the reduction of inequality to be one of humanity's most important goals, as many disadvantaged groups around us exist. They tend to be rather stigmatized: the incarcerated, the undocumented immigrants, the impoverished folks -- these people are the ones who need attention and concern the most, and any political philosophy that excludes them from the grand picture is not one worth having in my book.

I find economic and social interventions essential to achieve social justice, and that the state plays an important role in ensuring the welfare of its citizens. The combination of high living standards and low income gaps (most notably in Nordic countries) is the ideal structure to strive for, and is best created through the unique combination of free market capitalism and social benefits. The state shouldn't focus so much on regulating one's private life as it should advancing social mobility and opportunities for people of all groups.