User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 51

  1. #11
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loxias View Post
    Considering ideology is a system that consistently chooses which of the competing interests should be given priority.
    What is the alternative to decide which of the interests should be prioritised?
    My first thought was "ritual combat," but I'm thinking that would be a step backward.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loxias View Post
    Sometimes I think that if we were ruled by a robot that could weighth the importance of interests in accordance to the positive repercutions of their prioritisation, ruling would be more reliable.
    But even then, who decides what is a positive repercution?
    Interesting question. If you start with the premise that the purpose of government is to maximize benefit to the maximum number of people, it's simple enough to see how that would work. Multiply the magnitude of a hardship or benefit by the number of people affected, and you get a weight value you can use in the computations. However, if you do this without boundaries, and particularly with flawed input data, the equations may tell you that it's necessary for a handful of people to suffer severe hardship or even become expendable in order to provide some benefit to the rest of the population. Therefore, such a system would require limits that would keep your computations in the center of the distribution, where the outcomes aren't absurd. Otherwise you wind up with things like the Trail of Tears and concentration camps.

    Some parameters denoting boundaries, beyond which repercussions are impermissible, are generally found in charters, constitutions, and other founding documents for a given system of government. The problem with them is that they're only useful inasmuch as people actually follow them. (Witness the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, for example.)

  2. #12
    it's tea time! Walking Tourist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    esfp
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    1,452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sLiPpY View Post
    I think since about 1963 we've had more idiotology vs ideology in politics.

    That would explain why we keep electing morons to elected office at all levels of government. The dimmer you are, the more likely you are to win.
    I remember quite a while ago, in response to the choice between Republican Dimwit and Democratic Dimwit, I said, "You would think, in a country of 300 million people, we could come up with two intelligent candidates for president. Apparently not.
    None of them are smart enough to have a consistent ideology and to stick with it in formulating public policy.:steam:
    I'm a little teapot, short and stout. Here is my handle and here is my spout. Every time I steam up, I give a shout. Just tip me over and pour me out.

  3. #13
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    It's actually the empty vessel politician that is most corruptible.

    No ideology, no principles.

    I agree here. The ideological zealot can be blind to reality, but people who stand for nothing fall for anything. It's too bad that JFK's assassination prevented a JFK-Goldwater 1964 election campaign. Those two were buddies, but represented two VERY different ideological positions, and that would have been good for American politics.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  4. #14
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    It was Russell Kirk who believed that true conservatism was distinct from all other political ideologies in that it wasn't an ideology at all and was in fact anti-idealism. This is because conservatives are religious people and look to their personal faith for salvation while every other political ideology looks to the state for salvation in one form or another whether it be marxism or neoconservatism. Because of his personal faith and morals Kirk was not a stone cold pragmatist, but still believed that "politics is the art of the possible."
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  5. #15
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,531

    The Centre of the Cyclone

    Having cut themselves off from history by their revolution, Americans are left with nothing else but ideology.

    Whereas Oz remained loyal and wound up with the greatest good for the greatest number.

    So everything is seen in America through the lens of ideology, and America is an ideological nation, but we ask one simple question - what provides the greatest good for the greatest number.

    Of course America's enemies always underestimate it - particularly its ideological strength.

    The Japanese thought they had the strongest ideology but they were crushed by American ideology.

    And the Communists thought they had the strongest ideology but they were defeated by American ideology.

    And now the Islamists think they have the strongest ideology, but they will be defeated by American ideology.

    And having no ideology of our own, we make the perfect partner for the Yankees.

    For we are the calm, still centre of the ideological cyclone.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Do you think that politics can be conducted in the abscence of ideology?
    Perhaps, but not well.

    Ideology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    An ideology is a set of aims and ideas that directs one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things


    Of course, an Ayn Rand would argue that we all have ideologies, but some of us have explicit, defined ideologies and some of us have murky, undefined ideologies unknown even to ourselves.

    This is true in my experience...

    The latter group of people act on their ideologies all the time, but would struggle to characterize them.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    If you start with the premise that the purpose of government is to maximize benefit to the maximum number of people, it's simple enough to see how that would work. Multiply the magnitude of a hardship or benefit by the number of people affected, and you get a weight value you can use in the computations.
    Of course I disagree with the premise, but I also find the notion that things like "benefit" & "hardship" are measurable quite silly.

    The Hedonistic Imperative

  8. #18
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,633

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    It was Russell Kirk who believed that true conservatism was distinct from all other political ideologies in that it wasn't an ideology at all and was in fact anti-idealism. This is because conservatives are religious people and look to their personal faith for salvation while every other political ideology looks to the state for salvation in one form or another whether it be marxism or neoconservatism. Because of his personal faith and morals Kirk was not a stone cold pragmatist, but still believed that "politics is the art of the possible."
    Not wholey sure about this Russell Kirk, never having heard of him before, but I do know that conservatives would oppose ideology given its origins as developed by Tracy during the French Revolution are a "science of ideas", it would be just another among the philosophies which conservatives dismissed as nonsense on sticks and modern day conservatives such as sociologist Nisbet considered the precursors to Schumpeter's intellectual elites who are simultaneously made possible through capitalist surplus and condemning of capitalism as a system.

    Its not correct to suggest that conservatives look to a personal faith for salvation, in a modern or American liberal sense perhaps but original conservativism was condemnng of statism and individualism equally, considering each inorganic, early conservatives using language as one example were social in their perspective to a fault and would have embarrassed most socialists by their vehemence.

    Equally its wrong to suggest that Marxism or other ideologies were mere statism, they've degenerated into such but that's misguided, in the same sense that it would be misguided to suggest that ideological capitalism is purely corporatism, corporatism in the modern sense wasnt dreamt of in the original idea, it would even have been hostile to such and wouldnt have considered monopoly or even oligopoly an outcome of the working out of their idea. Likewise Marxism and statism, especially if you consider most of Engels writing, which would to this day have to be seriously distorted by doublethink to support government of any description.

  9. #19
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Not wholey sure about this Russell Kirk, never having heard of him before, but I do know that conservatives would oppose ideology given its origins as developed by Tracy during the French Revolution are a "science of ideas", it would be just another among the philosophies which conservatives dismissed as nonsense on sticks and modern day conservatives such as sociologist Nisbet considered the precursors to Schumpeter's intellectual elites who are simultaneously made possible through capitalist surplus and condemning of capitalism as a system.

    Its not correct to suggest that conservatives look to a personal faith for salvation, in a modern or American liberal sense perhaps but original conservativism was condemnng of statism and individualism equally, considering each inorganic, early conservatives using language as one example were social in their perspective to a fault and would have embarrassed most socialists by their vehemence.

    Equally its wrong to suggest that Marxism or other ideologies were mere statism, they've degenerated into such but that's misguided, in the same sense that it would be misguided to suggest that ideological capitalism is purely corporatism, corporatism in the modern sense wasnt dreamt of in the original idea, it would even have been hostile to such and wouldnt have considered monopoly or even oligopoly an outcome of the working out of their idea. Likewise Marxism and statism, especially if you consider most of Engels writing, which would to this day have to be seriously distorted by doublethink to support government of any description.
    Thanks for the critique Lark. I'll have to mull these things over. I'm no expert on Kirk or political philosophy in general.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  10. #20
    Probably Most Brilliant Craft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    1,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loxias View Post
    From what I have noticed, at least in recent times.
    Politicians motivated by and for ideology don't get elected.
    Those motivated by gaining power appear far more likely to be elected.

    I believe politicians motivated for power will put all their efforts to convince the people to vote for them. While ideologists will at best try to make their ideology convincing. Or sometimes, when it doesn't work, they will dilute their message, but it usually isn't enough.
    I see a lot of power-hungry politicians. This might be true. I wonder if there's really a "hero" politician who's ambition is everyone's welfare. I wonder if they exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loxias View Post
    What do you propose as an alternative to ideology?
    It seems to me that the main alternative we see at the moment is plain demagogy, pandering to the lower instincts of the people.

    Do you think it is possible to have a system that is purely driven to pragmatic problem solving without an ideology to direct what problems be solved first, what is a problem in the first place...

    I am really interested in possible non-demagogic alternatives to ideology driven politics.
    I'd think its best to hold idealogy in the form of realism and enacted by realistic methods. Idealogy promotes motivation to ideally progress.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loxias View Post
    Considering ideology is a system that consistently chooses which of the competing interests should be given priority.
    What is the alternative to decide which of the interests should be prioritised?

    Sometimes I think that if we were ruled by a robot that could weighth the importance of interests in accordance to the positive repercutions of their prioritisation, ruling would be more reliable.
    But even then, who decides what is a positive repercution?
    I think emotion is still necessary. The efficient drive to help people comes from there.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    I agree here. The ideological zealot can be blind to reality, but people who stand for nothing fall for anything. It's too bad that JFK's assassination prevented a JFK-Goldwater 1964 election campaign. Those two were buddies, but represented two VERY different ideological positions, and that would have been good for American politics.
    What does ideology do to politicians? What are the positives and negatives?

Similar Threads

  1. Politics, compromise, ideology, and civility
    By Coriolis in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 02-09-2016, 02:00 AM
  2. Political Ideology and Don Quixote
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-25-2011, 07:08 AM
  3. [NT] Rationals, leadership, and politics
    By Maverick in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 03-04-2008, 02:58 PM
  4. Morals and Political leanings?
    By miss fortune in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-06-2007, 11:04 AM
  5. Power and Politics
    By coberst in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-21-2007, 06:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO