Actual Class Discussion

[Joe Wordsworth]

Topic: Political philosophy, specifically "What is a government?"

Instructor (me): Today, we're going to extend what we've learned about necessity and essentiality to politics. Now, politics is a personal topic--but that its personal doesn't mean its not subject to careful, cautious, rational analysis. The foundation of any political movement is a philosophy, a philosophy is bound by reason, a political movement that defies reason is poorly defined and that hinders it greatly.

So, to start---


Student A: Politics isn't so hard to get, is it?

Instructor: It can be. How do you mean?

Student A: Well, can we talk about our politics?

Instructor: You can talk about anything you like... does everyone want to just take the day and debate personal politics?

Muttering: Sure. Yeah. O.k.

(cut ahead)

Student B: The President's cancer. We're killing innocent people in Iraq, he knew we should have gone over there, he just didn't care. Soldiers are dying for oil.

Instructor: So, whose to blame?

Student B: The President. And his cabinet.

Instructor: Why is the President able to be accountable? Or, another way to put it, whose fault is it that we elected him?

Student B: ...ours? But we didn't elect him. That's the electoral college thing.

Instructor: Why do we have an electoral college?

Student C: Isn't it something to do with rural and urban voting? And communication stuff?

Instructor: Not what I was getting at, but good points. Once upon a time, voting was a little more cumbersome--physically demanding. This is a communication age, though. We elect more efficiently, maybe we don't need the electoral college anymore. I don't know. I'm not a political scientist.

Student B: So, its their fault. Because they can do whatever they want? Vote however they want.

Instructor: Maybe. But by allowing an electoral college to exist, we are giving it a sort of consent, aren't we? Kind of like making everyone vote on paper instead of auto-calculating machines. One system seems plainly better, but if we aren't getting rid of the other, aren't we effectively saying "let it work that way, then"?

Student B: So, its our fault, is what you're saying? Iraq is the people's fault because the people voted--or allowed for the system by which the President was voted for?

Instructor: Its possible, isn't it?

Student D: But we didn't make any of those decisions. We didn't know he was going to do that. How can we be responsible for his actions?

Instructor: How? Well, its a bit like parents and children, isn't it? How can a parent be responsible for the child's vandalism?

Student D: They took on that responsibility by becoming parents. Its part of the package. Don't want to be responsiblef or a kid, don't have one.

Instructor: So, if we don't want to be responsible for the President's actions... maybe we should consider not having one.

Student E: Well, its a democracy, right? The President is only as powerful as we let him be. He can only do what we let him do. I think people should vote smarter, so things like this don't happen.

Instructor: That's probably a very reasonable position to have.

Student B: (vehemantly) But, politicians are all liars and cheats. Bush is just evil.

Student D: Evil's a pretty big word.

Student E: I don't think he's evil.

Student B: How can you say that? He LIED about the 9/11 reports, he lied about the WOMD intelligence. He started a war over spite.

Instructor: Those are possible, but not necessarily true. Important footnote.

Student D: "Not necessarily true"... yeah. He's a person, too. He's got kids. Chances are he's just trying to do what's best for the country. Protect his family and loved ones just like anyone else would. He's just willing to do what it takes to make that happen. My Dad lied about drugs when I was a kid, said they were just about poison, but he did it because he loved me. He wasn't evil.

Instructor: That gets into the ethical possibilities of lying. Not subject to this discussion, if that's alright--that's another huge issue. So, where do we stand?

Student B: I'm not voting for him.

Instructor: Why not?

Student B: Because I don't want to be responsible for another war, no matter the reasons why. And I'm encouraging others not to vote for him either, because we share that responsibility.

Instructor: Very reasonable approach. I'm inclined to agree. But, are there reasons to re-elect?

Student C: Possibly. He may genuinely be trying to do the right thing, even willing to do the wrong thing to do it... does that make sense?

Instructor: I think it does. Also, very reasonable approach.

Student E: So, is there any way to know that someone's just a horrible corrupt politician?

Instructor: I'm sure its possible, because its not impossible by definition... it'd be hard to prove, either way. And something unproven...

Student D: (thinking hard) ...its dangerous... to call that true.

Instructor: Well, it can be dangerous is better way to put it.

..........................

It was a reasonably good day.
Students A and B are journalism, Student C is international studies, Student D and E are both pharmacy students (I wish E was in philosophy, but oh well).

 

[fogbank]

Not at all suprised to learn that 'B' was a journalism student. I was in journalism studies for a few years, and most of my classmates (and who am I kidding, myself too, at that young age) tended to have an extremely polarized, black and white view of the world.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Side note - I'm given to understand that many states, my own included, have rules indicating that the electoral college must turn in the same results as the voters. Basically, they've legally removed the possibility of revolt at the electoral college level, and instead left it more of a clearing-house style arrangement.

Shanglan

 

[oggbashan]

The desire to be a politician should be a reason to disqualify the candidate.

Not original but if that principle were to be applied we might have good government.

Og

 

[CharleyH]

The desire to be a politician should be a reason to disqualify the candidate.

Not original but if that principle were to be applied we might have good government.

Og

Hear, hear

Fun, interesting story, Joe.

 

[English Lady]

I definitely agree with the Og Man

Very Interesting Joe...the different personalities come through that to me...I wonder if I have the right image in my head though?

 

[minsue]

The desire to be a politician should be a reason to disqualify the candidate.

Not original but if that principle were to be applied we might have good government.

Og

Exactly who would govern in that case?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by minsue
Exactly who would govern in that case?

The qualified.

 

[minsue]

The qualified.

Not if they wanted to, apparently.

Sorry, I've just always been stymied by the concept that it is bad for a politician to want to be a politician. The last person I would vote for is someone who didn't really want the job. Yes, there is rampant corruption in politics in all circles and forms of it, but (IMnsHO) if a person doesn't feel the burning need to be involved in politics then they don't really care. That is not a person I want involved in government.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by minsue
Not if they wanted to, apparently.

Sorry, I've just always been stymied by the concept that it is bad for a politician to want to be a politician. The last person I would vote for is someone who didn't really want the job. Yes, there is rampant corruption in politics in all circles and forms of it, but (IMnsHO) if a person doesn't feel the burning need to be involved in politics then they don't really care. That is not a person I want involved in government.

I think the model for the best government is to take the brightest and best young minds, take them away from their families and possessions and put them to work as the leaders of state after years of formal education in the matter. No paycheck. Only duty.

I also think that the best model we have is the one we've got here in the US. Raising awareness of what makes a quality candidate is the only real chore.

 

[minsue]

I think the model for the best government is to take the brightest and best young minds, take them away from their families and possessions and put them to work as the leaders of state after years of formal education in the matter. No paycheck. Only duty.

Statements like that frighten me to my very core, Joe.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by minsue
Statements like that frighten me to my very core, Joe.

They should.

In a very cold, but far more efficient world... our governing would be handled by specialist raised from birth, selected for their genius, and instructed--apart from society and its propogandas--in every system's philosophy and basic notions of justice, value of human life, etc.... and let them decide, as objective geniuses untainted by social conventions or norms, what's best.

It makes a strong argument against simple efficiency. In my opinion, it makes me appreciate the flawed world I have more.

 

[BlackShanglan]

The "no paycheck, only duty" concept is a popular one - popular enough to be variously applied to teachers, police officers, doctors, politicians, veterinarians, etc. etc. I understand its popularity and in theory agree that it would be lovely to have such people and only such people in office (or in the classroom, pounding the beat, in the hospitals, etc.)

Such folk being, however, in short supply, we must make due with what we actually have: humans, who by nature tend to be short-sighted, self-interested, panicky, greedy little buggers. It's very difficult to find someone willing to undertake a very difficult, awkward, and time-consuming job without material compensation. In fact, if politicians are any example, we're not having much luck attracting the best and brightest even *with* compensation.

We do the best with what we have. Now and then, we dream little semi-evolved monkey dreams about ideal societies, and they make us happy. Here's hoping that we get there one day.

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

and let them decide, as objective geniuses untainted by social conventions or norms, what's best.

May one anticipate the pleasure of seeing "what's best" defined without reference to social conventions or norms? I, personally, should be interested to see it.

Shanglan

 

[minsue]

May one anticipate the pleasure of seeing "what's best" defined without reference to social conventions or norms? I, personally, should be interested to see it.

Shanglan

I wouldn't. *shudder*

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by BlackShanglan
May one anticipate the pleasure of seeing "what's best" defined without reference to social conventions or norms? I, personally, should be interested to see it.

Shanglan

I don't know if I can do it... partly thats the point, though. If the secluded geniuses come up with a social norm that's already in place, being apart from society and having never been exposed to it AND being geniuses and objective, then we must have gotten something right.

It'd be hard for me to come up with one without basing it on one I already have been exposed to.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I don't know if I can do it... partly thats the point, though. If the secluded geniuses come up with a social norm that's already in place, being apart from society and having never been exposed to it AND being geniuses and objective, then we must have gotten something right.

It'd be hard for me to come up with one without basing it on one I already have been exposed to.

I shall disagree. If a secluded group of geniuses was to come up with a social norm for a group of people they've never met, whose motives and cultual history they don't understand, and whose level of intellectual functioning and objectivity is completely different from their own, I would predict instantaneous and total failure should that norm be enacted.

I'll even stick my horsey neck out further and suggest that there is an inherent flaw in the assumptions of this model. Genius pondering human nature in isolation, as a model, suggests to me an underlying assumption that the nature of the ideal social system is static - that there is one right answer. I see this assumption in the implication of the model that the "correct" answer is 1) derivable and 2) best derived under static, detached conditions - in isolation. I will offer the counter suggestion that as humans are almost never static in any of their social or physical systems or technologies, the "ideal" system for organizing them socially cannot exist as a single absolute, and cannot be derived in isolation from the humans themselves. Their very weaknesses and foibles, as well as their cultural diversity and their attachment to existing systems, are what make a regulating social system necessary in the first place; hence, constant exposure to and thorough understanding of those issues is necessary in order to create a useful system for managing them.

Shanglan

 

[Weird Harold]

Originally posted by minsue

Originally posted by oggbashan
The desire to be a politician should be a reason to disqualify the candidate.

Not original but if that principle were to be applied we might have good government.

Og

Exactly who would govern in that case?

Robert A Heinlein, the best known source of Oggs' assertion, proposed that the president and other leaders be Drafted by lottery from a pool of those citizens not disqualified by proven incompetence, a desire to hold public office, or prior service.

He also proposed that the presidential pay be a blind trust tied to the national economy -- if the ecnomy prospered the pay was good; if the economy tanked, then the pay was bad or non-existent.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Originally posted by Weird Harold
He also proposed that the presidential pay be a blind trust tied to the national economy -- if the ecnomy prospered the pay was good; if the economy tanked, then the pay was bad or non-existent.

I think this suggests that the President has an unrealistic level of power over the economy. S/he can't control technological and scientific advances that often drive prosperity. One might also point out some of the measures that would boost the economy, but which might otherwise prove unappealing: invading other countries and enslaving them, selling half of the population for animal fodder and flogging off their possessions to pay off the national debt, or indeed, as Dean Swift intelligently suggested, solving the problems of impoverished children and hungry landlords at a single novel stroke. Rewarding only economic figures leads to one of two things: ruthless devotion to money, or fiddling the figures.

Shanglan

 

[Weird Harold]

I think this suggests that the President has an unrealistic level of power over the economy.

I never said I agreed with the proposal, only that it has been made.

R.A.H had a lot of ideas that sound good at first glance, but are not terribly workble in the real world.

Another of his more well known propositions:

"The only crime truly deserving of Capital Punishment is public rudeness."

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by BlackShanglan
I shall disagree. If a secluded group of geniuses was to come up with a social norm for a group of people they've never met, whose motives and cultual history they don't understand, and whose level of intellectual functioning and objectivity is completely different from their own, I would predict instantaneous and total failure should that norm be enacted.

Entirely possible, failure is. However, social norm would be an objective thing would it not? A norm about society, a metaphysical rule? Being in direct observation of society isn't necessarily needed (as I said, they were educated about political systems and allowed to generate their own model of perfection) and knowledge of motives and cultural history doesn't seem to be needed either. Rather, those seem like confounding variables to a universal social norm (independant of motivation, intention, culture, and history... not dependant on any of those things, thus more universally applicable).

I'll even stick my horsey neck out further and suggest that there is an inherent flaw in the assumptions of this model. Genius pondering human nature in isolation, as a model, suggests to me an underlying assumption that the nature of the ideal social system is static - that there is one right answer. I see this assumption in the implication of the model that the "correct" answer is 1) derivable and 2) best derived under static, detached conditions - in isolation. I will offer the counter suggestion that as humans are almost never static in any of their social or physical systems or technologies, the "ideal" system for organizing them socially cannot exist as a single absolute, and cannot be derived in isolation from the humans themselves. Their very weaknesses and foibles, as well as their cultural diversity and their attachment to existing systems, are what make a regulating social system necessary in the first place; hence, constant exposure to and thorough understanding of those issues is necessary in order to create a useful system for managing them.

Shanglan

Well, from the top... if social norms are possible, they are either static or dynamic--if dynamic, then they're not norms at all, but "conventions". A social norm about the best society would be static. Is such a thing derivable? I don't really know. It seems possible (only because it isn't impossible), but very difficult--maybe something left to highly educated, hypothetical geniuses to figure out.

Past that, though, even if we are not static in our conventions... that doesn't mean we cannot adopt static systems. Sort of like "that I've changed my mind a hundred times doesn't mean I won't find something I won't change my mind about". As such, "cannots" aren't reasonable. "Unlikely", I may give you... but "cannot" is to say "impossible", and not much we've talked about seems to be strictly that.

 

[snooper]

... It's very difficult to find someone willing to undertake a very difficult, awkward, and time-consuming job without material compensation. ...

Oh, I don't know. Quite a few of us write novels full-time ...

 

[poohlive]

Isn't that how Captain America's arch nemesis started out? As a genius recruited at a very young age, and then trained and programmed, growing up to be perfectly evil. Red Devil or something like that.

And, another society that rounded up all the "special" people and took them to "special" classes, so they could learn the right ways.... didn't the Nazi's do that to the jews?? It's a bit of a stretch, but considering what you're proposing, it's not that far.

Our government isn't perfect, and neither are our politicians, but it seems like your searching for this beautiful perfect solution that ties everything up and sort of gives you a hand off approach to government.

"Well, it's complicated. I don't understand how it can be fixed. Oh, I have an idea. Let's get a bunch of kids, raise them to be super smart, and then listen to them. That'll work. Yeah! I don't have to do anything at all, my job is done."

Well, you know, we can take it a step further. Why not just build a super smart computer, with artificial inteligence, and then input into it all of the world's problems and then ask it the solution for everything. That's not a bad idea, computers are never wrong! I bet we'll be out of debt and in paradise in a matter of months.


One of the problems with all of this, is that it becomes what's best for the majority, instead of what's best for the individual. And now, we have as good a balance as we can get between the right of the majority, and the rights of the individual.

You're asking for socialism, nothing more. And, to be honest, socialism is a good method of government, but it's not our method. We've chosen democracy, good or bad, and I for one, love it enough to stick through it. So, a few people are corrupt, so a few people are putting their wallets before anything else...

It's even scarier to think what greedy people could do with that sort of government. Once your freedoms are taken away, how easy is it to make people think exactly what they should think in order to get things done. I think one of the best things our founding fathers did was invent a way for smart people to argue shit out and disagree, that way we can really look at what's going on and the methods behind some people's chosen actions.

 

[Weird Harold]

Well, you know, we can take it a step further. Why not just build a super smart computer, with artificial inteligence, and then input into it all of the world's problems and then ask it the solution for everything. That's not a bad idea, computers are never wrong! I bet we'll be out of debt and in paradise in a matter of months.

LOL!

Several Science Fiction authors played with this premise in the golden age of Sci-Fi.

Most of them correctly deduced the super-computer's solution to "all of the world's problems" IMHO.














































The obvious solution to a super-computer: Eliminate humanity.

 

[poohlive]

My point exactly. The real problem seems to stem from humanity's differences... so, we have to get rid of them all.

Isn't that the premise of the Terminator movies? the computer became self aware and decided the world would be better without humans? Well, at least that was the point before it became a vehicle for Arnold's political bandwagon.