My political philosophy: a thread for Radar

[Undertoad]

OK, my man, I will summarize my current thinking so that you can shoot holes in it.

My definition of "free" is, in fact, almost exactly the same as yours. I'm absolutely certain that we could find differences in our definition, but I'll save some time.

Our biggest difference is this: I believe that it is impossible to implement in the real world. And undesirable.

The problem is that FARD (Free According to Radar's Definition), is a logical condition, and people are only partly logical. But these illogical people are the ones who have to implement FARD, and they are certain to get it wrong.

(That certainty can't be mathematically proven, but all you have to do is watch human nature. They can and WILL get it wrong... no matter WHAT.)

Like this mystical "perfectly Constitutional" US which may have existed. As you point out, the language of the Constitution is pretty clear and obvious. And yet, over time, it did not support itself, because imperfect people implemented it.

You say that you could construct a Constitution rev. II which makes it more clear and obvious how things are supposed to work. In practice, I believe that approach would probably fail faster than rev. I simply because of human nature.

Imperfect humans have to be permitted some degree of flexibility in governing, or they will resist it and not respect it, even if it is correct.

Like a chinese finger trap, sometimes people will trap themselves harder by struggling against the system.

But I'm sure we agree that the worst political system would give a large amount of power to a small minority, because if they got it wrong -- if they made the wrong interpretation -- they would have more ability to screw things up.

And there's the rub. You HAVE to give the people the power to choose and implement their governance. Otherwise is the short road to tryanny. But that means you CAN'T FORCE them to implement FARD. They WILL from time to time make the wrong choices, leading to lack of freedom. They will demand that the people in power answer their desires.

It's the difference between philosophy and political philosophy. Philosophy can tell you what's correct. Political philosophy is partly how you would have imperfect humans implement that correct thing.

Since we can't have the perfect system, all we can do is to angle for it, and hope for the best. And while it is easy to identify big anti-freedom problems in every society on the planet, sometimes close enough will just have to do.

[Radar]

First, knock off the FARD bullshit. There is no "free according to Radar's definition". There is only free. You're fre or your not. The definition I use of "free" is the same commonly held definition used for centuries.

Like this mystical "perfectly Constitutional" US which may have existed. As you point out, the language of the Constitution is pretty clear and obvious. And yet, over time, it did not support itself, because imperfect people implemented it.

The Constitution is a piece of paper. In my opinion it's the most perfect piece of writing ever made by mankind, but that's another topic. The Constitution doesn't jump out of its case and shout at the people in Congress, The Supreme Court, or the Oval office when they try to circumvent it. Only people can do that. We only have as much freedom as we're willing to work for.

As Thomas Jefferson put it, "The Price Of Freedom Is Eternal Vigilance".

We have a moral obligation to keep a watchful eye on government and never to allow them to step beyond their authority for any reason no matter how good that reason sounds, like "the children".

You say that you could construct a Constitution rev. II which makes it more clear and obvious how things are supposed to work. In practice, I believe that approach would probably fail faster than rev. I simply because of human nature.

Human nature for some is to get something for nothing which is impossible. By making the Constitution harder to circumvent, people would be more apt to stop trying.

You HAVE to give the people the power to choose and implement their governance. Otherwise is the short road to tryanny.

Agreed, but you're making the mistake of thinking that the people chose our current governance which is not the case. Most of the unconstitutional parts of government were surreptitiously added without any poll from the people. Government decided for itself that it had more power. This is when the people failed to do their duty and force government to abide by the Constitution because they might have thought it's a good idea. But they didn't realize that when you give government the power to do good things, the next guy will use that power to do bad things. And most of the power that government is currently wielding is usurped power without the consent of the people.

Libertarianism doesn't require a utopia or a perfect society with perfect people. It works just fine in the real world with real human nature.

[Undertoad]

Government decided for itself that it had more power. This is when the people failed to do their duty and force government to abide by the Constitution because they might have thought it's a good idea. But they didn't realize that when you give government the power to do good things, the next guy will use that power to do bad things.

Right, but there's my point smack dab in the middle of yours: the people failed.

They didn't realize; or, more likely, they ran the numbers and decided that they'd prefer to have the government arm swing their way.

They continue to want more government than you or I would like. And every election they are given the opportunity to speak, and they do not tell us they want less government, in any numbers.

(And the people who do not vote are those who believe the problem is so trivial to their lives that they can't spare an hour of time per year to say anything at all.)

They might be wrong, but I can't imagine anything more frightening than taking away their right to vote for their own government on the basis of the idea that they don't use it properly.

In fact, I believe that being able to vote for one's representation is part of MY definition of "free".

And so I believe that the perfectly free country is not finished being established with the perfect founding document. The perfect founding document is a thing of logic and semantics; the perfectly free country is maintained by a people who, in the majority, WANT to be perfectly free.

And so, in turn, a government that you would establish through armed revolution would not last either, unless the people, in the great majority, want to be perfectly free.

And so, in turn, the only rational long-term approach to this problem is through education.

[Radar]

The majority of Americans DO want to be truly free but think it's hopeless. Given the choice most Americans would want less government (other than socialists who aren't even worth discussing). I value the vote and goverment answers to the people, not the other way around. The people didn't vote for larger government, government got larger because they didn't vote. That doesn't mean people want larger government by a long shot. Most have stopped voting because they realize that it doesn't matter if they vote for a Republican or a Democrat, they'll get the same thing either way. Their rights will be trampled upon more and more, they'll lose more and more of their income, and they'll be less and less free. Since most were educated in public schools and taught with a government agenda, most don't even realize that they are BORN with rights. They think government gives them rights. Most people in America are like zombies, they're walking around without a clue as long as they have microwave dinners and television, they believe they're free. They're completely unaware of what's happening in the world around them and they won't get the truth from television news, especially Fox News.

The rational approach is to return America to a Constitutional Republic and then we can start educating people on what real freedom is, and what mistakes were made. We can teach them about the actual meaning of words like "freedom", "liberty", and "responsibility". The rights of individuals are the highest rights of all and no group of individuals has anymore rights than a single one.

[Undertoad]

Nevertheless, both parties are very responsive to anything that earns them public appeal. Their lack of principle is actually useful in one sense: they generally try to reflect the motivations of the voters. So the vote can't be ignored or rationalized as not really a statement about what people want. While anyone may speculate about what the people "really" want, the vote is nevertheless the only poll that counts -- and, after all, is the system established by the Constitution.

If it's faulty, whatever part of it went faulty, it still shows once again how this perfect system implemented and maintained by imperfect humans will degenerate to something imperfect.

[Radar]

The problem with the original founders is they thought people would always grasp the concept of freedom and the rules they made in the Constitution would never be challenged. Most of the federalists didn't think a bill of rights was necessary because it was plainly obvious that the right to keep and bear arms was a birthright, the right to freedom of expression, privacy, etc. were all a given. They made it too easy for weasels to sneak around it. If the language is plain and strict enough, there will be no loopholes for anyone to find. Government will be bound by the Constitution and it will be plainly clear when they violate it.

People are not perfect, but the principles upon which this country was created are self-evident and timeless. They will always be true and that is something we can strive for. Why do you think America became the most powerful nation on earth in such a relatively short amount of time? Because the people had freedom and thrived in it. Freedom is the natural state of mankind.

Most now are like sheep who will believe anything they're told. They need something to shake them up and wake them up.

Here's a line from the movie "The Matrix" that applies perfectly.

Morpheus: "The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around and what do you see? Businessmen, Teachers, Lawyers, Carpenters...the very minds of the people we're trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so innerred, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will that they will fight to protect it. "

[Undertoad]

Why do you think America became the most powerful nation on earth in such a relatively short amount of time?

It sure looks to me like most of that wealth was developed after 1911.

[Torrere]

The United States became such a powerful country in such a short amount of time because of World War II. Our success had to do mostly with our location (and the fact that neither Canada nor Mexico was fighting against us).

We were the only major fighting country to escape from the war without having been invaded and mostly unharmed. Having successfully slaughtered almost all of the previous occupants, we also occupied new territory and had a huge amount of room to grow.

My question, which I am currently to lazy to answer, is: why didn't Argentina become as powerful as the United States? They were the seventh wealthiest country in 1900 or so.

[Edit: One significant event that may affect why the United States become such a world power was the Civil War, which set our industrial revolution in motion and the 1880s heydays, as well as shifting the social structure of the nation.]