How Large is your Penis?

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Political Nihilism

This will probably be a good (analytic) continuation of my last post on nihilism in general.

I hate politics, I cannot listen to it, and I am just not interested in it at all. When I say "politics" I mean the kind of discussions and news you find on the TV and newspapers. I have no interest in candidates, no interest in voting, and no interest in any kinds of bills that get passed. I like political philosophy. But what I really hate about political philosophy is a proper label to put on myself, I always seem to have a tough time doing that. And I know some people will tell me to forget about labels, but labels are necessary, perhaps a necessary evil, but they are necessary, without them it is hard to communicate your ideas.

I have been all over the map when it comes to political philosophy. This does not mean that one week I am a neo-conservative and the next week I am a social democrat. I continuously change, but my change is always within a certain framework. The ideas of the past that I accepted I most likely continue to accept, and I carry them over with me as I evolve my philosophy. Each time I find it hard to find a proper term to use to describe myself.

When I was in high-school I was a communist. Not for any smart reason. I just hated money, I hated people thinking about money, and I figured this causes as lot of destruction in the world. If instead money is no longer an issue people have to think about and if class is eliminated then that would produce the best system. I still remember my first year of college (immediately after high-school) when my professor asked the class which they think is the best political system, I raised my hand and say "communism". I had no problem being a social authoritarian because I was still religiously Jewish back then. This started to change by my second year of college. After I started to read about religion, atheism, and think about these issues I realized that much of what I believe (with respect to morality) was very wrong and cruel. My initial disgust with religion was not a scientific objection but a moral objection. So I started to change my social views slowly. By the second year of college I would be best described as a liberal. I shared basically the same views that most college liberals had. I remember in my psychology class my second year of college when we had an assignment to see how well we pair with our partners one of the questions asked whether we agree with one another politically. This girls asked me what I am and I said that Democrat probably best describes my views. Shortly after, from watching YouTube debates and discussions I learned about libertarianism. It was a philosophy that made a lot of sense to me. But I still retained my leftish economics views. I thought that capitalism by itself is problematic but at the same time rejected mandatory taxation. I reconciled this dilemma with libertarianism and being on the left by making the government something people can buy into and opt out. I supported the decision of citizens to decide if they want to be citizens of the government, if they did the government would take care of them and help them in times of need, but if people did not wish to join this system they did not have to, and be left alone by themselves. This way it is possible to combine liberty and a nanny government (which I thought was a good idea), what is this called, left-libertarian? However, this did not last very long after I learned about Milton Friedman. I watched lots of his videos online and learned about the economics of capitalism. Milton convinced me why the capitalist free market system is preferable to government systems and so I gradually shifted to a right-libertarian (which is just known as a "libertarian"). But I am not happy with this label. I do not think that libertarian really describes that I believe in anymore.

When I come across most standard libertarians they seem to be very different to me. For one thing they treat the Constitution as if it was some sort of infallible document from the founders. I do not care about the Constitution, it can be burned to ashes for all I care. And they also seem to believe that a libertarian country will be a great wonderful thriving and successful country. This is something else I do not believe in.

I have been often asked, "does (laissez-faire) capitalism work?". To that I always responded "sure", and then proceeded to use examples, usually early America, that demonstrated how a civilization can "work" (whatever this even means) in this system. But I have changed my position. No, I was wrong. It does not work. In American history under capitalism people had pretty miserable lives, none of us want to live back then. Under capitalism how many businesses fail? Nearly all of them, few succeed. How is it fair then to say that (laissez-faire) capitalism is "successful" when the failure far exceeds the success. Capitalism itself, like evolution, succeeds because of failure. To have eventual success in a capitalist economy a whole lot of failure must first pass before the system corrects itself to "work". Where exactly is the success in that? How can such a system be called to "work". Yes, it is possible to live under a capitalist economy and organize society under it, but it hardly can be called to "work" and to be "successful".

This is not some coming out moment for me away from capitalism, I support its ideas as I have. I just had a change in mindset. I do not think that capitalism "works" because I do not believe that any system "works". All systems fail. Because all systems are inventions of men, who are failures themselves. I support capitalism not because it "works", but because it fails less than anything else that I know of. Whatever problems, struggles, challenges that exists under a capitalist system will always exist, perhaps in different forms, under any system that people can conjure.

The early American workers certainly had a terrible life under a capitalist system. But they had a terrible life under all systems that existed in the world at the time. And that is my point of all I am trying to say. That all of these systems, in this case, were failures. They did not achieve a great life as they promised to achieve. It is true that things have became better over time. I agree to that, but that is rather just that the system improves, not that it is a success.

If it was really true that the laissez-faire capitalist system was successful and it "worked" then why would so many people of its time seek to leave it and move to something else? Why were there fights against it for an alternative? Because people were not happy with it, it was a failure. But here is the interesting paradox that is created. What people have wanted to replace for something else itself was a failure. In the end all systems that people devise reveal themselves to crumble to their failures. This is why there are constant riots all over the world and protests. Angry people in whatever country demanding an alternative. What is often funny is the alternative that they demand exists in a forgein country in which that population is demanding an alternative the native people are objecting. The embarrassment of mankind that we euphemistically call "history" is filled with revolutions that end up being failures that were reactions to different failures.

This is where I stand now. I think of myself as a political nihilist. All establishments and systems that will ever be devised by people will fail. Either because people themselves fail, or natural disasters and circumstances will prevent success of a system. But whatever is the system it will fail. I do not have a system. I think that people should be able to decide how they wish to live. If the capitalists wish to have their system then let it be, and if the socialists want to unite and have their system then let it be.

I do not have a centrally universally decided upon structure for civilization. That is for the statists to do, they are the ones who always want to universally decide, I do not. I allow diversity of opinion without stopping those who I disagree with to try what they want to try. Hence a lack of a system. I do not have a system.

Well, it is not true. I do have a system. I still support capitalism, even though I have admitted that it fails. I support capitalism because I see it as the smallest failure out of all failures. The paradox is that a system is necessary, but any system fails. I need to choose one even though I recognize its failure.

I once read a YouTube comment that said, "you cannot trust markets". And I agree. Markets cannot be trusted. Sometimes the greedy people on top will decide to screw people over to gain more profits for themselves. Or perhaps even if everyone had good intentions there is a miscalculation problem that makes the whole market economy comes crumbling down. I agree with all of this. But at the same time it does not challenge me, because you also cannot trust governments. Governments have the exact same failings as ordinary people, they consist of the very same pathetic creatures like ourselves, there is no reason to expect them to be angels. Whatever problems resulted from a market economy can just as well result from a government economy, worse in fact.

I do still support my ideas of libertarian political philosophy, because this is the only philosophy that in a way is a lack of a system, since it is not centrally planned, it does not demand a single universal structure to society. However people wish to assemble themselves is up to the people.
So politically I do not have a system, I am a nihilist in that regard, but economically I do have a system, a failed system like all the rest, but that best from the worst as far as I can tell.

I really hope the statists now stop accusing me of being a "utopian". I do not find anything utopian about anything I said above. It is as anti-utopian of a message that there can be. On the contrary, it is statism that is utopian. It is the statist who promises a greater future, a successful world, from a central planner, who can calculate exactly what needs to be. That is a utopian idea. Politicians, dictators, and leaders promising people a great future have plagued this world for far too long, they are liked by the public precisely for their utopian statement. Their promises of a future world. I make no such promise. I rather say that whatever challenges and difficulties that exist will always exist in whatever system is used, perhaps in different forms. I do not promise a great future. I simply assert that if capitalism fails to produce greater prosperity for mankind then all else will most likely also fail.

11 comments:

  1. I actually agree with most of what you wrote here. I don't see things as bleakly as you do for the simple reason that it is clear that some societies can be clearly shown to do better than others (in terms of the general welfare of the citizens). There are some identifying characteristics in relatively more successful societies that have similar political systems. In other words, its not all just a crap shoot where there are no wise decision makers at the political level.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "I actually agree with most of what you wrote here.":

    I doubt that. You probably just agree with me that any kind of a system will fail, and that is about it. You are not a political nihilist, because you do support a political system. Will you leave the people alone to decide how they wish to organize themselves? No, not from everything you admitted in the past (the worst admition was, of course, banning porn from ISP's).

    ReplyDelete
  3. "You probably just agree with me that any kind of a system will fail, and that is about it."

    No I would rephrase that to say that any kind of system is imperfect. I would not go so far as to suggest that every system will fail.

    Will I leave the people alone to decide on how they wish to organize themselves? In most spheres yes...in a couple of spheres no. My view is that government works as a sort of referee, which means that there will be blown calls from time to time. That said, there are some governments that function better than others given the same level of intrusiveness written into the law. In other words there are good administrators (as measured by outcomes) and bad administrators.

    I see no evidence whatsoever from history that suggests that a free for all would be better than a system where there is some moderate coercive power by the government to enforce some laws. If you agree with me that governments should be able to stop someone from murdering another person then your argument is merely over the degree of coercion that should be allowed. If you would cite evidence of a society that successfully exists without a political system that would help your case immeasurably. Unfortunately there are none and have never been any so you are merely indulging in daydreaming.

    As for banning porn from ISP's, that was not the suggestion nor is it the proposed law. All it suggests is that a person should register if they want porn. A minor barrier to remind people of the better angels of their nature.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "No I would rephrase that to say that any kind of system is imperfect.":

    That is obvious to most people. What is the point of even bring that up? What I said that all systems are failures, not just imperfect, but they fail to deliver what they claimed.

    "My view is that government works as a sort of referee, which means that there will be blown calls from time to time.":

    Which is a foolish view. You think the government as an external entity of the people that is not subject to the same corrupting forces that corrupt the people. What is to stop the government from screwing over the poor? What is to stop the government from ignoring the rights of the people? These things happen over and over again in history. It is not the fault of governments, it is the fault of the failing of people. People are good, they have to be for evolutionary reasons, but they are not good enough and cannot be trusted with having power. Who watches the watches?

    "I see no evidence whatsoever from history that suggests that a free for all would be better than a system where there is some moderate coercive power by the government to enforce some laws.":

    Where do I say that I think there should be a free for all? And where do I say there should be no laws? Just because I am against the state does not mean that I think people should ignore finding ways to cooperate with other people and it does not mean that I think there should not no legal systems. This is at least your second time saying that to me.

    "If you agree with me that governments should be able to stop someone from murdering another person then your argument is merely over the degree of coercion that should be allowed.":

    I rather support a different arrangement of self-defense, not through governments necessarily, and yes they would be coercive. I am not against coercion. Again, I have told you this before. I am no pacifist. And the state is not synonymous with coercion. If I use my assault rifle to stop a criminal I am being coervice but that does not make me a state.

    "If you would cite evidence of a society that successfully exists without a political system that would help your case immeasurably. Unfortunately there are none and have never been any so you are merely indulging in daydreaming.":

    There are no such successful socities. But where are there successful socities with a political system? Have there ever been a society that you can call "successful"? I do not see one.

    But there were socities that mostly functioned without much government. The standard example is the United States. Especially in days when it moved towards the west. If you want more extreme examples of stateless societies then you can consider Iceland, which I think lasted for close to 1000 years (until it was conquered over). I think Ireland lasted for like 300 years. And there are some few other examples of that too. There are not many such examples in history. But I can play the same game with you, if we lived in 1600's, and asked you "can you name me any secular liberal democracies that existed in the world?".

    "All it suggests is that a person should register if they want porn. A minor barrier to remind people of the better angels of their nature.":

    "All it is", is a violation of free speech. I guess that is not a very big violation. And why should people need to get premission to get porn anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "What I said that all systems are failures, not just imperfect, but they fail to deliver what they claimed. "

    No. NOBODY actually believes that any system of government is perfect or that it lives up to an idealized picture of what it supposed to be. Don't be daft. There are degrees. Remember Winston Churchill's statement "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all of the rest".

    "Which is a foolish view. You think the government as an external entity of the people that is not subject to the same corrupting forces that corrupt the people. "

    It is you who are confusing the issue. Individuals are subject to corrupting forces. Governments are by definition made up of people so they are influenced by the corruption of the individuals. However, that is not to say that everybody is corrupt in the same way or corrupt at all in some matters. Thus Government is NOT subject to corrupting forces the way people are. Government is a composite, especially a democracy.

    "I rather support a different arrangement of self-defense, not through governments necessarily, and yes they would be coercive."

    That is the definition of a rudimentary government. Don't you get it? People coming together to form rules for their society IS the basis for government.

    "But where are there successful socities with a political system? Have there ever been a society that you can call "successful"? I do not see one."

    Have you been to Denmark? Pretty successful if you asked me. How about Switzerland. Successful does not mean without problems by my definition but of course it probably does not conform to your definition, which BTW is necessary to know if you want to really debate.

    "But there were socities that mostly functioned without much government. The standard example is the United States. "

    That is bunk. The United States was not this functional entity without Government. In fact they did an experiment with limited government called the Articles of Confederation. It was an abject failure. The US Government and state governments have always had broad powers including the right to conscript soldiers and to jail people for infractions (such as public drunkenness and sodomy...crimes that would not carry a prison sentence now). In any case think about the institution of slavery.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "No. NOBODY actually believes that any system of government is perfect or that it lives up to an idealized picture of what it supposed to be. Don't be daft. There are degrees. Remember Winston Churchill's statement Democracy is the worst form of government except for all of the rest".

    People should really stop repeating Churchill's quotation. It really is a dumb quotation. It is only repeated because it is said by a famous person. If you take his quotation seriously then how about having despotism if it is really true that everything is just as bad? Of course, nobody believes in despotism because they understand it is more problematic. So his quotation is not true, then why repeat it? And I am not talking about a perfect system. I am talking about a system that actually "works". I am not the only talking about perfection, you were the one who brought up perfection. I was talking about something which can even be called successful.

    "It is you who are confusing the issue. Individuals are subject to corrupting forces. Governments are by definition made up of people so they are influenced by the corruption of the individuals. However, that is not to say that everybody is corrupt in the same way or corrupt at all in some matters. Thus Government is NOT subject to corrupting forces the way people are. Government is a composite, especially a democracy.":

    What is to prevent a government from screwing over the poor? Or committing genocide against a group of people? Nothing. It can happen, and it has happened. If you have selfish ignorant people in a civilization and you put them into power then you will have a selfish ignorant government. Whatever the failings are in a free society will still persist under a government that results from this society. There is no way to get out of it dilemma.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "That is the definition of a rudimentary government. Don't you get it? People coming together to form rules for their society IS the basis for government.":

    Do you even read what I tell you? This is the third time I have to respond to this again. I told you twice before how I define a government/state. The way I define it has nothing to do with law or defense or protection or welfare. Maybe that is how most people define it and think of it but that is not how I define it. You can read my past entries to see how I define it.

    Law is not necessarily a government. The Juden have beis din, is that a government? No. It is a religious resolution agency, in a way. But it is no government.

    There are no right or wrong definitions, just useful definitions or not useful definitions. Saying "people compromising is a government" is a terrible definition. I get to decide how to define the state in my discussions. It does not make it a wrong definition nor a right definition. My definition just happens to be a lot more useful then how most people define the state. And under the definition that I use me using my assault rifle to stop someone is not me creating a state, but rather an act of self-defense.

    "That is bunk. The United States was not this functional entity without Government. In fact they did an experiment with limited government called the Articles of Confederation. It was an abject failure. The US Government and state governments have always had broad powers including the right to conscript soldiers and to jail people for infractions (such as public drunkenness and sodomy...crimes that would not carry a prison sentence now). In any case think about the institution of slavery.":

    If you read what I said carefully, I said the western part of the US. Western US had very little government. Sometimes people had to set up their own court systems because the government was so small. Despite what you have seen in the movies it was a peaceful place to live. As far the US, in general goes, the local governments always had more power, but it was largely disunified on a federal level. It was far freer than all places in the world and the market was the freest. Compared to all other countries the US was the most efficient and led to the highest standards of living.

    "Have you been to Denmark? Pretty successful if you asked me. How about Switzerland. Successful does not mean without problems by my definition but of course it probably does not conform to your definition, which BTW is necessary to know if you want to really debate.":

    This is a pointless discussion. It turned into a world game of "success" and "works". I should just focus on what "works" relative to what

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Maybe that is how most people define it and think of it but that is not how I define it. You can read my past entries to see how I define it."

    I can define a building as a living creature with four legs...it does not make it so. I think it is very important that in discussing political philosophy that there is a shared terminology. Most of the great political philosophers of the past started with rudimentary examples to build up their conception of the state They started with a society of two and move from that simple model to a more complex one. The simple model serves the purpose of describing reality with only a few variables. It is therefore inaccurate as a description of reality but shows what the philosopher considers the most important factors. By taking a highly complex organization like the modern welfare state, it is much more difficult to get to the core of things (which is absolutely necessary in a discussion about libertarianism). In short
    using highly subjective self-determined definitions of things you run the risk of being entirely misunderstood for no good reason.

    "Law is not necessarily a government. The Juden have beis din, is that a government? No. It is a religious resolution agency, in a way. But it is no government."

    Yes, the Beis Din is not a modern welfare state, but in many senses it corresponds to a portion of the modern welfare state as a court system. In fact, in many countries (including the U.S.) the Beis Din has varying degrees of actual power. No it does not have the power to declare war, but it does have "the power vested in it by the State of______" for other purposes. The Council of Four Lands was an example of a quasi governmental authority. In Ottoman law, many local communities had a form of autonomy. In short, most political scientists of today believe that the term State is too imprecise and prefer the term political system.

    "I get to decide how to define the state in my discussions. It does not make it a wrong definition nor a right definition. "

    And I get to say that your definition is too limited and therefore not useful...that is until you shut down comments on this blog.

    "What is to prevent a government from screwing over the poor? Or committing genocide against a group of people? Nothing. It can happen, and it has happened. "

    What is to prevent an individual from doing the same? What I would suggest is that certain systems of government have been better about that prevention than others. I quote James Madison from the Federalist:

    "But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others[...] If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

    This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other -- that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State."

    ReplyDelete
  9. "I can define a building as a living creature with four legs...it does not make it so.":

    Yes, it would. In your own language system that you would construct it would. It would be a bad idea, of course, because it would not match the standard definition that people use. But there is no right or wrong definitions. So it is not a useful definition.

    As far as my definition of the government/state goes I stick to Murray Rothbard, who was an economist that defined the state in the manner in which I have adopted from him.

    You have to agree with me that the masses have no idea what the state is. Ask the masses, "what is the state?". And you will have a wide range of answers. In general, the most common response would be, "government is people working together".

    This is a terrible definition. Because when I think of the state/government I see it as using guns and threats of violence to make people do what it has mandated. If it was really true that government is just the cooperation of people together then why are guns being used? It is for this reason that I reject the common definition of the state by the masses for a better definition for my political philosophy.

    An agency that pools resources together and serves various basic services of the people, such as defense or law, under my definition, is not necessarily a government. A collective that people can opt-in to and opt-out from which serves a common service which is hard to serve individually is not necessarily a government. I do acknowledge that for the masses these two situations would be "like governments" but I do not think of them as governments. Because they fail to satisfy the crucial properties that all governments must satisfy. For one thing, all of these associations that I have described a voluntarily funded. And this alone seperates them from being a state.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "What is to prevent an individual from doing the same? What I would suggest is that certain systems of government have been better about that prevention than others. I quote James Madison from the Federalist.":

    Nothing. Nothing is to prevent the individual from doing the same. That is my entire point. My entire point is that if you have a society of people who do not care about the poor, are selfish, and ignorant then no government will be able to help the people. If the people are wicked and corrupted then the government will reflect the same wickedness and corruption that you find within the people. I do not believe in angels. Neither in individuals or in the state. The statists are not so, they do believe in angels in the state, though they do not realize this point. Thus, if a free society fails because of moral corruption and wicknedness then all states will fail also. This means that the only path to salvation of a great society is education. Education is the path that will improve people. This is why I do not vote because I find it meaningless. The way I rather help the world is by educating the masses because that is something, that if spreads, will create a positive change within the people. The social progress that resulted within the last 500 years was not the results of governments but by the education of the masses in philosophy that made them realize the mistakes that they have done.

    As far as the James Madison quotation goes, yes, I have seen it before. Ayn Rand said something to the effect of "government is to protect men from men, Constitution is to protect men from government". At one point I used to think this was a good idea. Then I realized this idea is self-contradictory. And as much as I would respect James Madison, he was wrong. The Constitution does not defend the people from the state. How can it? If the state disobeys the Constitution, what will happen? Will a fiery demon come done from the sky and destroy the US government? No. It is just magical thinking to suppose otherwise. There is a reason why every single government in history has grown, even with their Constitutions. Because there are no demons to enforce the Constitution. Unless you propose a mega-government which enforces the Constitution. But then you have an infinite regression problem. In the end all you have are people.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The Articles were considered an abject failure by centralizers who were upset that they couldn't collect stolen money effectively.

    ReplyDelete