Which political theory is the best?

[enchanted]

When choosing a political theory to defend and believe in, how do we choose which is the best?

The one that has the least amount of poverty maybe? 

 

[Keryo Koffa]

Vibes, clearly.

[Alex4]

Those that are inclusive but without falling into naivety. Some sort of moderate socialism for me. 

[Ulax]

@enchanted I'd say learn about the classic political theorists. For example, get hold of a university reading list on political theory 101.

You can: 1) Read their works, 2) Watch relevant lectures, and/ or 3) Learn from things like wikipedia, chatgpt and stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy. 

For number 2 I think this course could be of value: 

^ First video in the 'Moral foundations of politics' lecture series.

Haven't been through this lecture series myself. However, went through another of the speaker's and found it excellent.

Edited October 25 by Ulax

[zazen]

The way I think about politics to simplify it is the following - Equity (far left) Equality (left) Quality (right) Quantity (far right).

Heres a breakdown I came to after discussing with Chat GPT:

•    Far Left (Equity): Focuses on achieving equity of outcomes. It’s about redistributing resources and opportunities to level the playing field so that everyone ends up in the same or similar position, regardless of where they started.

•    Left (Equality): Champions equality of opportunity, where everyone starts from the same point but is allowed to rise or fall based on their choices, effort, or ability. The state may provide social programs to equalize initial conditions, but it stops short of guaranteeing equal results.

•    Right (Quality): Prioritizes quality and merit, advocating for a hierarchical society where judgment is made based on talent, effort, or ability. The right believes that natural differences between individuals should be acknowledged and rewarded, with less emphasis on trying to make everyone “equal.” They value discernment and stratification.

•    Far Right (Quantity): This is where you can situate the Darwinian or imperialistic view, which sees strength, conquest, and numbers as ultimate justifications for superiority. It’s a quantitative worldview in the sense that it relies on metrics like power, dominance, and expansion—essentially, the ability to measure and display one’s strength or worth through conquest, racial hierarchy, or other measurable forms of superiority. This can manifest as racism, social Darwinism, or militaristic nationalism, where the argument becomes that those who dominate or conquer are inherently more “fit” or deserving.

This “quantity” perspective highlights a might-makes-right ideology: the far-right may believe that superiority is demonstrated through measurable outcomes like military victories, economic dominance, or biological traits, which then justifies imperialism or colonialism. This is where neoconservative policies can overlap, with a belief that because a nation (like the U.S.) has the capacity to dominate, it is morally justified in doing so.

By framing the far right through quantity, you’re tying together ideas of strength, power, and survival of the fittest, where the strong are justified in imposing their will on the weak. It’s a framework rooted in competition, measurable dominance, and often racial or national superiority.

————————————————

To answer your question:

Instead of following one rigid ideology, a balanced approach combines the humanity of equality, the aspirations of quality, and the pragmatism of quantity. Here’s how each plays an essential role:

    1.    Equality: At its core, equality provides the foundation for fairness, justice, and human rights. It is the compassionate side of this framework, ensuring that everyone has basic protections and opportunities, regardless of their background. Equality upholds the values of law and order and reinforces the idea that each person deserves respect and dignity. This humane dimension keeps society just and ensures that the other values don’t overlook individual rights or the well-being of all citizens.

    2.    Quality: Quality adds aspiration and excellence to the framework. It’s about setting high standards that push humanity forward in art, innovation, and personal development. Quality, when balanced, doesn’t create elitism but instead encourages everyone to strive for their best and supports society’s pursuit of ideals like wisdom, creativity, and cultural refinement. Quality means aiming for a society that doesn’t just survive but thrives and evolves, reaching new heights in every field.

    3.    Quantity: Quantity brings the scientific and practical side—the ability to measure, track, and expand. It ensures that society grows in wealth, technology, and productivity, which are essential for stability and progress. Quantity offers the metrics by which success is measured, helping us understand where improvements are needed. It brings efficiency and growth, but it’s kept in check by the humane principles of equality and the aspirational nature of quality.

 

Why Equity isn’t include

While equity aims to address imbalances, it often focuses on creating equality of outcome by redistributing resources, which can lead to artificial leveling and may infringe on individual rights. Instead of fostering fair opportunities, it sometimes enforces uniformity, which can reduce motivation and limit personal responsibility. By prioritizing equality of opportunity over enforced outcomes, this framework avoids the pitfalls of redistribution that may feel unnatural or coercive.

 

In Summary

This approach emphasizes a dynamic balance:

    •    Equality ensures fairness and humanity.

    •    Quality fosters ideals and the best of human potential.

    •    Quantity provides the means to measure and grow, ensuring material and technological progress.

By harmonizing these three elements, we create a society that is just, aspirational, and sustainable—one that respects individuals, promotes excellence, and thrives on measurable progress without being dominated by any single ideology.

Edited October 25 by zazen

[Ishanga]

How do You choose "Best" when we are full of conditioned minds?

If You just look at things here on this sub forum, there are arguements going on back and forth, about what is right, or wrong or about a position held, they are good arguments, they stand ground on their own, if You read one of them, you may say "that sounds good", then you read the reply and counter argument and it sounds good too, so how does one evaluate "Best" from this.. Its too complex when billions of ppl are involved, most of them Unconscious ones.

When I first found the Venus Project and Jacques Fresco, his basic idea of a Society should be run sounded good, its generalizing, but the basics of it are good, everyone is equally provided for, technology does the basic work of figuring out how  to get all what they need, and how to build efficient housing and transport systems, and how to supply Green Energy, it doesn't happen today because there are too many vested Interest, money and power rules and the ones that have that don't want to lose it, so the masses suffer the most in that scenario...

 

[enchanted]

@zazen @Alex4how can I be sure I chose the right one in the end? It seems confusing 

[enchanted]

3 hours ago, Keryo Koffa said:

Vibes, clearly.

Lol dude this is gold

[Keryo Koffa]

On 10/25/2024 at 6:01 PM, enchanted said:

Lol dude this is gold

If this is gold, then what is this?