Best political system ( my views, your views? )

[Andrew Rogers]

Greetings, this is my first post here. I wanted to discuss my political view, hoping that maybe other members might give some tips or notice my biases...

Based on Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

i.e. 1 - shortsighted self-interest, modulated by reward and punishment ,
2 - culture dictate, without asking why culture dictates one to act in a certain way ,
3 - setting one's own principals, acting according to them, questioning authority ,
4 - universal love for all

I would rank myself at level 3 - right now I am working out my core principals. I understand that core principals can not be scientifically derived, rather then be based on ones sense for fairness and projection of how one would want to be treated onto other people. Also taking into account that there rarely good solutions, rather then just trade-offs and compromises between bad solutions.

Main core principal - the best life is a meaningful life. What Aristotle might call Eudaimonia. Not necessary an easy or a happy life, but one that brings you pride for your accomplishments, that forges your character, that makes you a better person, so that when you are on your deathbed, you can say that you lived your life fully, you had your adventures, you had your ups and downs, your happiness and suffering.

The following principals are derived from the first one:

#2 - In order to live a full & meaningful life, you need to have freedom. You can not live a meaningful life in a golden cage. How much freedom does one need? Well, obviously such amount that he/she can have a most meaningful life possible. For example, if you live in total freedom, i.e. in the middle of a forest and your tribe is killed by a neighboring tribe, that sucks. If you live in a society where all your needs are taken care of and you can lay on the couch, eat cheesecakes, watch netflix all day and rant about how oppressed you are - that will also lead to a miserable life.

As Goggins had put it - greatness lays on the other end of suffering. If you want to have a great body, you have to suffer in the gym. If you want to be a great piano player, you have to suffer practicing, etc. Of course, one can have too much suffering and it will just crush him. On the other hand, if you completely remove ones suffering, he will not be able to accomplish anything great. So you want to have just the right amount of suffering imposed on yourself and other people.

The above might lead us to ideas of classical liberalism - an individual is free to live his/her life as he wants, as long as he does not harm other people.

Government is a collective extension of people's rights, therefor it can not do what an individual is prohibited from doing. For example, if two people conspire to steal a third person's belongings - it is theft. If those two people vote for the government to act as a middle-man in stealing someone's property and 'redistributing' it to them - it is still a theft. On the other hand, to protect the freedom of people from not being harmed, the government does need some resources, i.e. police, military, etc. , so some amount of taxation is necessary, yet it has to be considered as evil. A necessary evil, but still evil. Therefor it has to be kept to the very minimum, people should know exactly how much the are paying in taxes ( i.e. no hidden taxes ) and should have a vote on how this money is spend. Of course, they can not vote on just giving other people's money to them, rather on how the money they give to the government should be spent for the benefit of all, i.e. do we build a school or a bridge.

I am afraid I might have a bias here - since I see myself as a free person, who is able to take care of himself, I automatically project it onto other people...

#3 - Stay humble! One has to understand, that he is unable to fix the whole world, that he is unable to eliminate everybody's suffering, especially by doing it against their will. I see any such attempts as a top level arrogance, devilry, egoism and plain historical ignorance. Socialists murdered and enslaved millions of people for their utopian ideas countless times during the last century and always failed miserably. If someone says "no, no, they got it all wrong, they were stupid! I had some shrooms and now I am the anointed one, I will get it right!" - it is just ninja level devilry.

So one have to make sure the proposed system would work in real world, not just ones fantasies. The system has to be robust, because in real world, everything that can go wrong, will go wrong. A socialist might say - we would put good people in the right places and they will rule benevolently over everybody, taking from the rich and giving to the poor! But that's a fantasy. When the rubber hits the road, what if the good people would become corrupt, get in cahoots with oligarchs and 'redistribute' the money of the poor people to themselves and their buddies? As it happened in Russia, Venezuela, etc. ? What if the right people, when taxed at 90%, would just pack their bags and move to Cypress or something?

A globalist might think - let's install a world-government, that would run everything, so there would be no conflicts. In reality representative democracy already works pretty poorly, but when the 'world-government' would consist of people who are unaccountable for their actions and distant from the actual people... its a recipe for disaster. Imagine some anointed, arrogant politician in Brussels trying to regulate what kind a potatoes an English farmer should grow? Brits would tell him to go fuck himself and would vote to leave the EU. So representative democracy kinda works, as long as the rulers can see the problem of the ruled and the ruled and communicate their problems with the rulers. If this communication is broken, if the anointed ruling class starts ignoring the people and pushing their own agenda, usually people revolt and overthrow them.

 

Therefor, in my opinion, the best government should be a blend of

- Republic, i.e. the core idea that "people are free to live as they please, as long as they don't hurt anybody else" is above all and can not be changed my majority of votes or whatever.
One person is not entitled to another person's property.
Government should inform everybody how much taxes they are paying and how this money is spend.
Government's duty is to protect people's freedom, not to run their lives.
Government can use force only to protect one person from another, trying to harm him, rather then to instill its utopian vision.

- Representative democracy, i.e. people would elect their representatives to run day to day issues.

- Direct democracy, i.e. people would vote on key issues, mainly how their tax money is spend, keeping the politicians in check.

 

Please let me know what you think?

[Scholar]

1 hour ago, Andrew Rogers said:

- Republic, i.e. the core idea that "people are free to live as they please, as long as they don't hurt anybody else" is above all and can not be changed my majority of votes or whatever.

One person is not entitled to another person's property.
Government should inform everybody how much taxes they are paying and how this money is spend.
Government's duty is to protect people's freedom, not to run their lives.
Government can use force only to protect one person from another, trying to harm him, rather then to instill its utopian vision.

- Representative democracy, i.e. people would elect their representatives to run day to day issues.

- Direct democracy, i.e. people would vote on key issues, mainly how their tax money is spend, keeping the politicians in check.

 

Please let me know what you think?

I think this is a very Stage Orange way of looking at politics. You seek to increase freedom while protecting the non-aggression principle, and that way you seek to structure your political system.

A stage Green political system would be structured around compassion, cooperations and equality. It would limit freedom whenever it would compromise these three values.

Direct democracy would not be possible because the majority will vote against the minority. Freedom will not be possible because it allows for systems of discrimination and inequality to propogate. It's not simply about "As long as you don't hurt anyone, you are fine." it's about "We have to help each other as long as we are unequal.".

In the extreme, a stage orange system would allow starving people to death while you have the capacity to help them. A strage green system on the other hand would enforce the world so as that this could not take place.

 

Also, a problem of direct democracy is that the population is not perfectly informed, allowing established forces of power to control the information flow and thus control the will of the population, an example of this is the Cambridge Analytica scandal, but it goes far deeper than that. Freedom leads to destabilization due to the natural way powerstructures evolve.

A stage green political system would seek the well-being of their citizens as a priority, even if that meant limiting their freedom. A stage orange system based on freedom however might allow people to self-destruct if it was their will. Yet, stage Green recognizes the futulity of choice, and knows that no choice is truly free, especially in systems that are governed by misinformation and opressive power structures.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Scholar

[Andrew Rogers]

Quote

I think this is a very Stage Orange way of looking at politics. You seek to increase freedom while protecting the non-aggression principle, and that way you seek to structure your political system.

A stage Green political system would be structured around compassion, cooperations and equality. It would limit freedom whenever it would compromise these three values.

I don't think that the color-representation scheme is accurate of reality. Probably the model presented by John Glubb in his book "The Fate of Empires" might be more accurate.

Stage 1 - the age of outburst - brave men with guns show up.
Stage 2 - the age of conquest - they conquer and take control over certain territory.
Stage 3 - the age of commerce - they start producing goods and trading with each other.
Stage 4 - the age of affluence - their descendants become rich, they start building monuments, museums, etc.
Stage 5 - the age of intellect - manly virtues are replaced with more of an intellectual achievements.
Stage 6 - the age of decadence - previous generations have accumulated so much wealth, that the next generation does not feel the necessity to strive forwards. It feels lots, nihilistic, decadent and destructive.
Stage 7 - the age of decline and collapse - once the impotent generation takes over, it is unable to maintain the level of affluence achieved before and the empire either collapsed on itself or it taken over by another society, which is at the age of conquest.

Take Sweden for example, at one point their vikings were looting neighboring countries, but now they have become so impotent, that a more aggressive civilization is taking over and they cannot even resist.

So once a country reaches level Yellow, according to Leo's classification - it does not go to turquoise and live in an eternal bliss, rather is just dies and it taken over by people, who are at stage red.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Andrew Rogers

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, Andrew Rogers said:

I don't think that the color-representation scheme is accurate of reality. Probably the model presented by John Glubb in his book "The Fate of Empires" might be more accurate.

Stage 1 - the age of outburst - brave men with guns show up.
Stage 2 - the age of conquest - they conquer and take control over certain territory.
Stage 3 - the age of commerce - they start producing goods and trading with each other.
Stage 4 - the age of affluence - their descendants become rich, they start building monuments, museums, etc.
Stage 5 - the age of intellect - manly virtues are replaced with more of an intellectual achievements.
Stage 6 - the age of decadence - previous generations have accumulated so much wealth, that the next generation does not feel the necessity to strive forwards. It feels lots, nihilistic, decadent and destructive.
Stage 7 - the age of decline and collapse - once the impotent generation takes over, it is unable to maintain the level of affluence achieved before and the empire either collapsed on itself or it taken over by another society, which is at the age of conquest.

Take Sweden for example, at one point their vikings were looting neighboring countries, but now they have become so impotent, that a more aggressive civilization is taking over and they cannot even resist.

So once a country reaches level Yellow, according to Leo's classification - it does not go to turquoise and live in an eternal bliss, rather it just dies and it taken over by people, who are at stage red.

Maybe you don't think it is accurate because you still view the world through a very individualistic lense? Be open-minded that there is a reason for why you value what you value, for why you find certain argument compelling and others not, for why you agree with John Glubb instead of someone like Ken Wilber.

What you value will determine how you will perceive the world. And how you perceive the world will determine what you will think to be true and false.

[Andrew Rogers]

Quote

A stage Green political system would be structured around compassion, cooperations and equality. It would limit freedom whenever it would compromise these three values.

In my understanding compassion is when you see someone in need, you take out your wallet and help him as you see fit. This is true compassion. Yes when to help someone, you take money of out someone else wallet - that is theft, that is devilry. You do it to show off to your ego how 'good and compassion' you are.

 

Quote

"As long as you don't hurt anyone, you are fine." it's about "We have to help each other as long as we are unequal.".

Well, I guess it boils down to what core principals we have. I value freedom over equality, you value equality over freedom.
For me the idea itself that one person can call other stupid or misinformed, take away their freedom, their resources and attempt to squeeze real people into his vision of a utopian society, seems appalling and such person as a top level arrogant. This was tried multiple times in the last century, it always ended in disaster. Why do you think you could do better?

 

Quote

Maybe you don't think it is accurate because you still view the world through a very individualistic lense? Be open-minded that there is a reason for why you value what you value, for why you find certain argument compelling and others not, for why you agree with John Glubb instead of someone like Ken Wilber.

1. Because I value freedom. I would prefer live in a society where I am free to strive and fail, rather then where I am made equal to everybody else based on a vision of some self-anointed dictator.

2. Because I believe that such societies are unsustainable, it always ends with equal misery for everybody, as it was in the Soviet Union or is now in Venezuela.

And why do you believe that a society, where equality is valued over freedom can even be sustainable? How do you see this equality work in practice? Has it ever been achieved and sustained for a prolonged period of time?

 

 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Andrew Rogers

[Scholar]

17 minutes ago, Andrew Rogers said:

In my understanding compassion is when you see someone in need, you take out your wallet and help him as you see fit. This is true compassion. Yes when to help someone, you take money of out someone else wallet - that is theft, that is devilry. You do it to show off to your ego how 'good and compassion' you are.

I know that is your understanding of compassion, but that is a very Stage Orange way of looking at compassion. You will only be compassionate as long as it does not restrict your individualistic needs. Once you have enough of these individualstic aspects you might one day start to think it isn't as important after all, and that maybe compassion is more important than freedom.

 

17 minutes ago, Andrew Rogers said:

Well, I guess it boils down to what core principals we have. I value freedom over equality, you value equality over freedom.

For me the idea itself that one person can call other stupid or misinformed, take away their freedom, their resources and attempt to squeeze real people into his vision of a utopian society, seems appalling and such person as a top level arrogant. This was tried multiple times in the last century, it always ended in disaster. Why do you think you could do better?

I never told you what I value. I am explaining to you the difference between Stage Orange and Stage Green. All of your justifications are established post-hoc. It means that the arguments you are giving me are not actually what inform what you value, but what you value informs which arguments you will use to justify what you value.

It would be senseless to discuss the arguments because you will not be compelled as long as your values do not change. I could give you reasons for why for example it will not end in disaster, or why your arguments are strawmanns and don't really reflect any position. But that would be useless, because you would just come with another argument to support your values and debunk mine.

All I can do is make you question why you value freedom, and have you consider that any rational reason you will give is actually a result of that value rather than a true reason for why you value freedom. You entire consciousness is structured to perceive the world through an individualstic lense, there is no argument in the world that can change that.

Which is fine, maybe you need to fullfill your current needs because you lack something in your life. But remember, once you fullfill that need for freedom, you will move onto other things. And that is good, that is how values evolve.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Scholar

[Andrew Rogers]

Quote

All I can do is make you question why you value freedom

Well, same argument could work the other way around - why you do not value freedom?

As I see it, countries, civilizations, etc are in general a social construct. At Stage 1 - the age of outburst - brave men with guns show up - and decide we will have a country based on such and such rules. This rules can not be proven, they are based on what the founders think would be the best.

Quote

I know that is your understanding of compassion, but that is a very Stage Orange way of looking at compassion. You will only be compassionate as long as it does not restrict your individualistic needs.

Why does one have to assume that your way of compassion ( i.e. willingness to play god with other people's money ) is not just a selfish whim to take other's stuff? Even if it is true compassion, why do you think that a malevolent person will not stab you in the back and take over?

Quote

I could give you reasons for why for example it will not end in disaster,

Please do so. I did not strawmen you intentionally, please correct what I got wrong.

[Scholar]

37 minutes ago, Andrew Rogers said:

Well, same argument could work the other way around - why you do not value freedom?

As I see it, countries, civilizations, etc are in general a social construct. At Stage 1 - the age of outburst - brave men with guns show up - and decide we will have a country based on such and such rules. This rules can not be proven, they are based on what the founders think would be the best.

Why does one have to assume that your way of compassion ( i.e. willingness to play god with other people's money ) is not just a selfish whim to take other's stuff? Even if it is true compassion, why do you think that a malevolent person will not stab you in the back and take over?

Please do so. I did not strawmen you intentionally, please correct what I got wrong.

No I will not, there is no point in arguing it. I gave you some critique of your system in the first post, you can ponder whether that is valid or not. If you want to know about the limitations of libertarianism you can read some books on it, or maybe someone else will explain. I don't have the time, we would argue for days.

[Andrew Rogers]

5 minutes ago, Scholar said:

No I will not, there is no point in arguing it. I gave you some critique of your system in the first post, you can ponder whether that is valid or not. If you want to know about the limitations of libertarianism you can read some books on it, or maybe someone else will explain. I don't have the time, we would argue for days.

ok, well, I saw your initial post. I am not saying that free market libertarianism is perfect, but it seems to be doing a much better job, then socialism.

[Scholar]

4 minutes ago, Andrew Rogers said:

ok, well, I saw your initial post. I am not saying that free market libertarianism is perfect, but it seems to be doing a much better job, then socialism.

First, what do you mean by socialism? Have you read any contemporary socialist theories? And by what metric are they doing a worse job?

How many books have you read on socialism, or on the critique of capitalism? You will only gain a more deeper understanding if you do read some.

 

You don't have to answer, just question it. And notice how it makes you feel.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Scholar

[Andrew Rogers]

I was born in the soviet union, my parents lived there. I fluently speak Russian and know a lot of how it worked.

The classical definition of socialism is government ownership of mean of production. So there can be no private factories, all belongs to the government and is ran by a small group of 'anointed' people, who believe to know what is the best for everybody else.

While such system attempts to provide some level of stability, it takes away most of the people freedoms. So you kinda get a free healthcare, but its quality is appalling and you can not opt out of it. You get free schooling, but, same problem, appalling quality and no way out.

So basically a major power imbalance - the few anointed ones, who run the state, can do whatever they please, while ordinary people are pressed into a grim existence and do not have a say about almost anything.

How about you, have you lived in the soviet union or studied its culture?

Edited August 28, 2019 by Andrew Rogers

[Scholar]

7 minutes ago, Andrew Rogers said:

I was born in the soviet union, my parents lived there. I fluently speak Russian and know a lot of how it worked.

The classical definition of socialism is government ownership of mean of production. So there can be no private factories, all belongs to the government and is ran by a small group of 'anointed' people, who believe to know what is the best for everybody else.

While such system attempts to provide some level of stability, it takes away most of the people freedoms. So you kinda get a free healthcare, but its quality is appalling and you can not opt out of it. You get free schooling, but, same problem, appalling quality and no way out.

So basically a major power imbalance - the few anointed ones, who run the state, can do whatever they please, while ordinary people are pressed into a grim existence and do not have a say about almost anything.

How about you, have you lived in the soviet union or studied its culture?

The soviet union was a very specific system, it was communism. You can't brush all of socialism, which has obviously evolved over the years, to be the same as communism. There are hundreds of different socialist theories and systems that are being proposed. Nowadays socialism is basically everything that is considered to be a restributive solution to captitalism.

 

But again, read some books on the matter. I am not interested in arguing.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Scholar

[Andrew Rogers]

No, the soviet union was "Союз Советских Социалистических Республика" - a union of soviet socialistic republics.

It was not communism, i.e. communism was seen as a next stage of socialism, which was always promised, but never achieved.

Anybody recalls late Brezhnev promising communism by 1980?

The problem with reading books is that they tell you whatever the author wants to tell you. And, often, what works good on paper, fails miserably in real life. So instead of reading books, you might want to look at how it played out in reality.

There you go a few pictures, 1970s

 

1980s

Edited August 28, 2019 by Andrew Rogers

[Andrew Rogers]

Also note that once the anointed get in power, you can not do anything about it, they have full power over you.

For example - Novocherkassk, 1962,

After the anointed had spend all the money supporting socialist regimes in Africa, they raised the meat prices by 30%, extended working hours and reduced the wage. People revolted. The anointed brought in the army, ordering it to shoot upon the crowd. Commanding officer refused and killed himself. Next KGB snipers started shooting. At least 26 were killed and 87 injured. It is unknown how maybe were arrested and disappeared in concentration camps.

Those people were not protesting against the Soviet regime, they just wanted meat, butter and a living wage.

So if you want a living wage in capitalism - study and find a better job. If you want a living wage in socialism - you get shot.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Andrew Rogers