SolitaryWalker
Tenured roisterer
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2007
- Messages
- 3,504
- MBTI Type
- INTP
- Enneagram
- 5w6
- Instinctual Variant
- so/sx
Disclaimer: This is not a thread about politics and was rightly placed in the philosophy and spirituality sector.
Overview: As coberst once eloquently stated, there are two things wrong with this country, education and health-care. This is a result of the deeply ingrained American values regarding the necessity of a laissez-faire policy. Or loosely, the belief in the necessity of a Free-Market economy.
Thesis: The problem with the cultural values is a result of an attempt to attain democracy by eliminating totalitarianism.
The political system that is desired by the typical U.S citizen: A democracy is desired above all or a society where each person's wishes are honored. Each person as an individual has a right to express his views and to have them honored. His views should not be accepted only if the majority of the population is in a disagreement with him. The 'people' by and large should be best served by all means necessary and the 'people' will exercise their freedom of speech to voice their views regarding what they desire and they shall always have their wishes granted.
Where did this vision start?
In order to answer this question, we must first understand where the viewpoint that is the opposite of this one derived from and more importantly, what exactly this viewpoint is. We shall refer to this approach to political philosophy as Plato's theory.
Plato's theory: The wisest shall rule and the ignorant must obey. The philosopher kings must make all the important political decisions as only they know the truth. Some of the decisions that they will make involve placing all members of the society into social classes. Accordingly, some will be philosopher kings, some will be slaves, others soldiers and so on. No person has a right to act in a way that is inconsistent with the behavior imposed upon his social class. In short, this is a cast system. Everyone is born into a certain 'class', as a result of this he or she must behave only in the prescribed way.
Plato was immensely influential, both as a philosopher and a political theorist. At least implicitly, his views have influenced how politicians have approached power for a long time after his death. Unsurprisingly, even today many societies in the third-world countries endorse a cast system of some kind. For example, India or China. On the other hand, a variety of countries exist where an explicit cast system is not endorsed, yet stringent prescriptions regarding how people of various socio-economical classes should behave are closely observed.
Needless to say, it is widely believed that some people are entitled to better treatment than others only because they belong to a superior social group. Under these circumstances, a ruling class will emerge. The class in question is composed of individuals who have the right to impose their will on those who remain outside of the ruling class. Obviously, the most intelligent and the most able of persons will do all that they can to ensure that they belong to the class of people that is benefited the most. Because it is the case that in any society, the unintelligent significantly outnumber the intelligent, the ruling class will be composed of a distinct minority of individuals. It is likely that they will compose less than 5% of the entire population. Moreover, because their authority over the ruled is unquestionable, there will be a significant gap in wealth and power. The ruling class obviously will have more power than the ruled and they will use that resource as an instrument to procure wealth for themselves, often at the expense of their subordinates.
Plato's theory is deeply troubled because it entails a government that is self-serving and totalitarian. Evidently, it needs to be combatted. But how? Perhaps in order to understand how exactly that is possible, we should consider the opposite of the propounded view, anarchy. Yet, if there is no government, chaos is inevitable, hence this does not contribute to the welfare of society any more than Plato's theory. Hence, the solution, it seems, must be at the intermediate point between the two.
Thomas Paine (1737-1809)
Thomas Paine, 1737-1809
argued that the ruling class must be eliminated. He thought that the government is a necessary evil, hence, it is necessary. He vehemently opposed monarchy and had a distaste for the government akin to the kind espoused by Plato. In Paine's views, every man was equal in the eyes of God and therefore deserves equal opportunities. If that is true, Plato's cast system was fundamentally wrong-headed.
Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) Biography of Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)
shared Paine's beliefs regarding the necessity of equal opportunity. It was he who coined the phrase of 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness'. In Bastiat's view, a law should be endorsed only if it allows all individuals a right to pursue life, liberty or a pursuit of happiness. The founding fathers were deeply influenced by both authors and as a result of their own work and their political descendants, a system of political operations has been constructed where the government members are not allowed to abuse power as much as the philosopher kings could. By the same token, it has been observed that intelligence is frequently employed for self-serving ends.
Communists who held similar elitist views to those of Plato were often highly educated and for this reason have always been reviled. This has been most clearly evinced in McCarthy's Red Scare. (</title> <META NAME="keywords" CONTENT="history, genealogy, maps, civil war, revolutionary war, george washington, virginia, fredericksburg, stafford, spotsylvania, westmoreland, port, census"> </head> <body background="/images/gold-dot.gif" marginhe)
Today even, the Republican party tends to be anti-intellectual and it is no surprise that George W. Bush who is clearly an imbecile managed to hold office for eight consecutive years. It is also no surprise that universities and schools receive very little funding from the government. In addition to that, movie actors, athletes and artists are more admired than intellectuals. There can be no doubt that more young men today would much rather be more like Albert than Arnold.
This explains the problem of education in this country. Yet the problem of health-care has not yet been explained. It is connected to a deeper dilemma, or of the belief in the myth of the free-market economy. Obviously there is a deeply rooted fear of a tyranny or the monarchy that Paine polemicized against. Hence, the solution to this problem that has been employed is the laissez faire policy. Conventional American people reason as follows; if the government cannot interfere with the economy, they cannot monopolize it. Unlike in the communist regime, the government simply will have no say regarding the business lives of the inhabitants of the U.S.
This is simply false. Although the government cannot easily pass laws regarding how the market is to be operated, they are free to exploit the ignorance and extraordinary stupidity of the public. Politicians are well aware of strategies that could be utilized to control the population without making it obvious that the population is being controlled. The common citizen is unaware of such circumstances for two reasons. (1) Education is undervalued and people simply lack the reasoning skills to understand complex circumstances. This is merely one of them. (2) The 'Free Market' economy compelled the average citizen to be concerned with acquiring an income first and foremost. That is the case because the government is prohibited from offering the adequate financial support for individuals (as means to the end of ensuring that the government does not behave ina totalitarian fashion).
The problem of health care is the following: exorbitantly high prices are assigned to medical services. Why is that the case? Because in the 'Free Market' economy, those who produce services that are in demand have the liberty to grant the services in question for a price of their choice. Because the common man is first and foremost financially oriented (because he is vulgar and simplistic as he has neglected education and also due to the fact that he can count on no one but himself as the government is unable to help), he will strive to acquire as much money as possible.
It seems to me that the solution to this problem is the following: endorsing the ethical principles promoted by Paine and Bastiate regarding the necessity to avoid tyranny, however, allowing the government to be more economically involved. The common American Republican man fears that if we do this, tyranny is inevitable. This is a slippery slope logical fallacy. This country is far away from a totalitarian regime. Allowing the government slightly more influence does not at all amount to allowing the leaders enough influence to become autocratic. The basic principle holds, all men should be allowed equal opportunities, however, ensuring that the government has as little influence as possible with regard to the lives of the citizens of this country is not a tenable solution.
The first step to solving this problem is eliminating the anti-intellectual climate in the United States. It is simply impossible to construct any coherent course of action if one's reasoning skills are as feeble as that of a typical Republican party member. Secondly, when this has been accomplished, it is both possible and desirable to steer this nation away from the Conservative regime and closer to the Liberal. This will be the first step to ensuring that the 'Free Market' economy superstition is debunked and the common man will receive the necessary support from the government in order to have the liberty to pursue goals other than a mere acquisition of wealth.
The vision of a typical American man will broaden as a result because he will simply have the time and money to focus on something other than mere financial concerns (note, Western Europeans spend significantly more time away from work than Americans and report engaging in recreational activities more than Americans. No doubt this is connected to the support they receive from the government). Secondly because education will be tolerated more than it is now, Brittney Spears, Jerry Springer, Seinfeild, Monday night Football and a variety of other non-sense entertainment enterprises will be less influential. This is the case because if people are to become more inquisitive (even slightly), they would begin to develop an interest in activities that do require contemplation, as opposed to a mere response to immediate stimuli.
At the bottom of it, most people spend hours watching these shows because they lack the intellectual faculties and because the strenuous work regime deprives them of the energy they need in order to pursue the loftier activities. As a result they are too obtuse and indolent to question the current regime. The Republican quite correctly recognizes their lack of judgment and stupidity, therefore it mercilessly exploits the guileless populace by convincing them that they are doing God's work. And if people support the Republican party, they are endorsing the deeply held American values of autonomy and equality. In reality, nothing can be further from the truth. The ruling class is alive and well. The difference between the current ruling class and that of Plato is that the authorities impose their will on the citizens by intricate means of political propaganda and economical policies. Political propaganda allows them to convince the citizens of the U.S to vote for the policy that is pernicious to themselves, but serves the purpose of the government.
Overview: As coberst once eloquently stated, there are two things wrong with this country, education and health-care. This is a result of the deeply ingrained American values regarding the necessity of a laissez-faire policy. Or loosely, the belief in the necessity of a Free-Market economy.
Thesis: The problem with the cultural values is a result of an attempt to attain democracy by eliminating totalitarianism.
The political system that is desired by the typical U.S citizen: A democracy is desired above all or a society where each person's wishes are honored. Each person as an individual has a right to express his views and to have them honored. His views should not be accepted only if the majority of the population is in a disagreement with him. The 'people' by and large should be best served by all means necessary and the 'people' will exercise their freedom of speech to voice their views regarding what they desire and they shall always have their wishes granted.
Where did this vision start?
In order to answer this question, we must first understand where the viewpoint that is the opposite of this one derived from and more importantly, what exactly this viewpoint is. We shall refer to this approach to political philosophy as Plato's theory.
Plato's theory: The wisest shall rule and the ignorant must obey. The philosopher kings must make all the important political decisions as only they know the truth. Some of the decisions that they will make involve placing all members of the society into social classes. Accordingly, some will be philosopher kings, some will be slaves, others soldiers and so on. No person has a right to act in a way that is inconsistent with the behavior imposed upon his social class. In short, this is a cast system. Everyone is born into a certain 'class', as a result of this he or she must behave only in the prescribed way.
Plato was immensely influential, both as a philosopher and a political theorist. At least implicitly, his views have influenced how politicians have approached power for a long time after his death. Unsurprisingly, even today many societies in the third-world countries endorse a cast system of some kind. For example, India or China. On the other hand, a variety of countries exist where an explicit cast system is not endorsed, yet stringent prescriptions regarding how people of various socio-economical classes should behave are closely observed.
Needless to say, it is widely believed that some people are entitled to better treatment than others only because they belong to a superior social group. Under these circumstances, a ruling class will emerge. The class in question is composed of individuals who have the right to impose their will on those who remain outside of the ruling class. Obviously, the most intelligent and the most able of persons will do all that they can to ensure that they belong to the class of people that is benefited the most. Because it is the case that in any society, the unintelligent significantly outnumber the intelligent, the ruling class will be composed of a distinct minority of individuals. It is likely that they will compose less than 5% of the entire population. Moreover, because their authority over the ruled is unquestionable, there will be a significant gap in wealth and power. The ruling class obviously will have more power than the ruled and they will use that resource as an instrument to procure wealth for themselves, often at the expense of their subordinates.
Plato's theory is deeply troubled because it entails a government that is self-serving and totalitarian. Evidently, it needs to be combatted. But how? Perhaps in order to understand how exactly that is possible, we should consider the opposite of the propounded view, anarchy. Yet, if there is no government, chaos is inevitable, hence this does not contribute to the welfare of society any more than Plato's theory. Hence, the solution, it seems, must be at the intermediate point between the two.
Thomas Paine (1737-1809)
Thomas Paine, 1737-1809
argued that the ruling class must be eliminated. He thought that the government is a necessary evil, hence, it is necessary. He vehemently opposed monarchy and had a distaste for the government akin to the kind espoused by Plato. In Paine's views, every man was equal in the eyes of God and therefore deserves equal opportunities. If that is true, Plato's cast system was fundamentally wrong-headed.
Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) Biography of Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)
shared Paine's beliefs regarding the necessity of equal opportunity. It was he who coined the phrase of 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness'. In Bastiat's view, a law should be endorsed only if it allows all individuals a right to pursue life, liberty or a pursuit of happiness. The founding fathers were deeply influenced by both authors and as a result of their own work and their political descendants, a system of political operations has been constructed where the government members are not allowed to abuse power as much as the philosopher kings could. By the same token, it has been observed that intelligence is frequently employed for self-serving ends.
Communists who held similar elitist views to those of Plato were often highly educated and for this reason have always been reviled. This has been most clearly evinced in McCarthy's Red Scare. (</title> <META NAME="keywords" CONTENT="history, genealogy, maps, civil war, revolutionary war, george washington, virginia, fredericksburg, stafford, spotsylvania, westmoreland, port, census"> </head> <body background="/images/gold-dot.gif" marginhe)
Today even, the Republican party tends to be anti-intellectual and it is no surprise that George W. Bush who is clearly an imbecile managed to hold office for eight consecutive years. It is also no surprise that universities and schools receive very little funding from the government. In addition to that, movie actors, athletes and artists are more admired than intellectuals. There can be no doubt that more young men today would much rather be more like Albert than Arnold.
This explains the problem of education in this country. Yet the problem of health-care has not yet been explained. It is connected to a deeper dilemma, or of the belief in the myth of the free-market economy. Obviously there is a deeply rooted fear of a tyranny or the monarchy that Paine polemicized against. Hence, the solution to this problem that has been employed is the laissez faire policy. Conventional American people reason as follows; if the government cannot interfere with the economy, they cannot monopolize it. Unlike in the communist regime, the government simply will have no say regarding the business lives of the inhabitants of the U.S.
This is simply false. Although the government cannot easily pass laws regarding how the market is to be operated, they are free to exploit the ignorance and extraordinary stupidity of the public. Politicians are well aware of strategies that could be utilized to control the population without making it obvious that the population is being controlled. The common citizen is unaware of such circumstances for two reasons. (1) Education is undervalued and people simply lack the reasoning skills to understand complex circumstances. This is merely one of them. (2) The 'Free Market' economy compelled the average citizen to be concerned with acquiring an income first and foremost. That is the case because the government is prohibited from offering the adequate financial support for individuals (as means to the end of ensuring that the government does not behave ina totalitarian fashion).
The problem of health care is the following: exorbitantly high prices are assigned to medical services. Why is that the case? Because in the 'Free Market' economy, those who produce services that are in demand have the liberty to grant the services in question for a price of their choice. Because the common man is first and foremost financially oriented (because he is vulgar and simplistic as he has neglected education and also due to the fact that he can count on no one but himself as the government is unable to help), he will strive to acquire as much money as possible.
It seems to me that the solution to this problem is the following: endorsing the ethical principles promoted by Paine and Bastiate regarding the necessity to avoid tyranny, however, allowing the government to be more economically involved. The common American Republican man fears that if we do this, tyranny is inevitable. This is a slippery slope logical fallacy. This country is far away from a totalitarian regime. Allowing the government slightly more influence does not at all amount to allowing the leaders enough influence to become autocratic. The basic principle holds, all men should be allowed equal opportunities, however, ensuring that the government has as little influence as possible with regard to the lives of the citizens of this country is not a tenable solution.
The first step to solving this problem is eliminating the anti-intellectual climate in the United States. It is simply impossible to construct any coherent course of action if one's reasoning skills are as feeble as that of a typical Republican party member. Secondly, when this has been accomplished, it is both possible and desirable to steer this nation away from the Conservative regime and closer to the Liberal. This will be the first step to ensuring that the 'Free Market' economy superstition is debunked and the common man will receive the necessary support from the government in order to have the liberty to pursue goals other than a mere acquisition of wealth.
The vision of a typical American man will broaden as a result because he will simply have the time and money to focus on something other than mere financial concerns (note, Western Europeans spend significantly more time away from work than Americans and report engaging in recreational activities more than Americans. No doubt this is connected to the support they receive from the government). Secondly because education will be tolerated more than it is now, Brittney Spears, Jerry Springer, Seinfeild, Monday night Football and a variety of other non-sense entertainment enterprises will be less influential. This is the case because if people are to become more inquisitive (even slightly), they would begin to develop an interest in activities that do require contemplation, as opposed to a mere response to immediate stimuli.
At the bottom of it, most people spend hours watching these shows because they lack the intellectual faculties and because the strenuous work regime deprives them of the energy they need in order to pursue the loftier activities. As a result they are too obtuse and indolent to question the current regime. The Republican quite correctly recognizes their lack of judgment and stupidity, therefore it mercilessly exploits the guileless populace by convincing them that they are doing God's work. And if people support the Republican party, they are endorsing the deeply held American values of autonomy and equality. In reality, nothing can be further from the truth. The ruling class is alive and well. The difference between the current ruling class and that of Plato is that the authorities impose their will on the citizens by intricate means of political propaganda and economical policies. Political propaganda allows them to convince the citizens of the U.S to vote for the policy that is pernicious to themselves, but serves the purpose of the government.