Why Politics is Pointless

[Brant Gaede]

"Our Nazi scientists are better than your Nazi scientists."

--Brant

Technology devoid of morality only builds better ovens.

Greg

Or in this case, better rockets. Grabbing those scientists was correct national defense policy and if there were more to be grabbed they should have been. This is unavoidable real-politic. It was also the moral thing to do considering the total evolving geo-political context of that time. To be moral in your sense means no war against American Indians, Mexico, succeeding southern states (especially), Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII. State, yes or no. The US chose State yes, way back then. In State politics there is still the obligation to protect and defend the country by the State. Interventionism could have been stopped most any time, but at the end of WWII we had to get those rocket scientists. Now it's become a very, very small world thanks to technology and non-interventionism is achieved painfully over a long period of disengagement only doable for now in Europe, not the Middle East or anywhere China enters the picture respecting ocean borders. However, technology by the end of this century might destroy State politics, period--like forever. Who knows? I won't live long enough to find out and the human world of a thousand years from now is way beyond any H.G. Wells or Jules Verne understanding, assuming no killer asteroid, comet or wandering black hole that sucks us up.

--Brant

[Frediano]

"Politics:" the most used and least defined word in all of politics.

Politics, in its broadest sense: the art and science of getting what we want from others using any means short of actual violence. (The superset that includes force/violence I call mega-politics.)

Examples of what we want from others:

The TV remote, affection, money, their vote, their validation for the parking of our souls, to ride them like a tribal public property pony, to be left alone. (What a rapist wants and what a rape victim wants are both wants, just, not ethically equivalent wants.)

What a rapist wants is for a rape victim to believe what they want is pointless.

Said another way, what some politicos advocate for is free association, while other politicos try to justify their paradigms based on forced association. In a nation of peers living in freedom, when we love our neighbors we ask, we don't tell, or else that act of love appears more like an act of rape.

In a nation of paternalistic megalomaniacs unchecked as emperor wannabes, folks are told, they aren't asked.

Even the double yellow lines are a suggestion. Even speed limits are suggestions. (There are no state mandated speed limiters on your automobiles. Yet.)

There are exceedingly rare instances of justifications for forced association, not many and unfettered, over any scope imaginable. The tribe is easily able to tell when the tribe has stepped over that polite line by the widespread divisions in the nation. The tribe has stepped over that polite line.

[Mikee]

Is the trader principle simply another form of politics?

[Frediano]

The Anti-Slavery Society of Great Britain repeatedly published reports about the cruelties of slavery and played a key role in its final abolition in 1833.

Is it impolite to notice that, after thousands of years of human history, and a fine history of its own, that the Anti-Slavery Society of GB repeatedly did this only after losing the American Colonies and a primary interest as one destination in the three cornered trading routes, and that according to Rhodes, the great global crusade against all those Muslim slave trading centers were, cynically, in the end, defined as "colonialism is philanthropy, plus 5%?"

Whatever did Rhodes mean by that?

12 Years A Slave won the oscar last night; a Yale debutante made millionaires weep with her performance. A Columbia/Harvard educated slavery swiller won the White House. We are so over it.

Or are we? The slavery swillers have officially beaten a dead horse over the remnants of a thousands of year old practice of forced association.

If slavery is such a terrible thing, which it was, hundreds of years of ago, then what crackpots in 2014 are still advocating for any form of forced association Is rape suddenly a good thing, too? Or is it unmentionable in polite political discussions?

[dldelancey]

As always, it's a pleasure to "see" you, Fred, in all your glorious impoliteness. LOL

[moralist]

"Our Nazi scientists are better than your Nazi scientists."

--Brant

Technology devoid of morality only builds better ovens.

Greg

Interesting.

This is one of the reasons that I was as "surprised" by this reporter's unearthing of archival material in Germany and the U,S,

And not just building better ovens in which to burn Jews... but that technology without morality doesn't build better people.

[moralist]

That's too -horrendously- true, Greg.

It touches on my sometime reservations about technology. On the one hand it vastly benefits the person's ability to grasp and handle reality - on the other, it further removes many from reality (/morality), becoming its own value and purpose, separating from men and their values..

Yeah, technology is morally neutral, and can be only as good or evil as the ends to which people employ it.

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Is rape suddenly a good thing, too?

No.

[moralist]

Is rape suddenly a good thing, too?

No.

Well... I'm certainly glad you finally cleared that up, Michael.

Greg

[Frediano]

Is rape suddenly a good thing, too?

No.

What makes that specific obvious is also what should make the generalization obvious; there is no ethical justification for forced association by the state, except to prohibit forced association.

So what is interesting is, what politically necessary gymnastics hide the obvious for the generalization of the specific case?

What isn't obvious is, why that isn't obvious.

regards,

Fred

[Frediano]

Is the trader principle simply another form of politics?

Mikee:

In my broad definition of politics, absolutely. But with the word 'politics' it is necessary to define one's meaning of the word 'politics.'

Politics(as I define it): the art and science of getting what we want from others using any means short of actual violence. The super-set that includes violence, I call mega-politics.

Trading value for value is for sure,without a doubt, one means of getting what we want from others. It is not the only means.

But maybe 'simply' is the wrong descriptor; the Trader Principle is an ethical means, and not only that, it is most often a win-win means.

My definition of politics also includes lying, deceit, and fraud as being 'short of actual violence.'

Politics defined as "the art and science of ruling others" is a special instance of my broad definition-- when what one wants from others is, 'to rule them.' With that restrictive definition, I don't thing TP is a form of that.

Politics defined as "the art and science of deciding who gets what" is again a special instance of my broad definition-- when what one wants is "to be the ruler of who gets what." I don't think TP is a form of that.

With my broad definition of the word politics, it is clear(to me)why the word is so often deliberately undefined, and left vague. When the meaning has anything at all to do with 'ruling others' the last thing in the world anyone would want is for others to have the first clue what it is that is being discussed.

I twice asked -- two separate occasions -- of a 4th year Syracuse and a 4th year Duke PolitSci major, to provide for me their working definition of the word 'politics.' It was like I had C4 strapped to my chest, the horror was that deep. I wasn't asking for 'the' definition or even a dictionary definition, but their working definition. One(the Syracuse student)grunted for a while and then gave me an answer "You know, political parties and stuff(!)", and the other hemmed and hawed and then blushingly admitted, "You know, I never really thought about that." What I learned is that in modern, very good universities, it is possible to study something called 'Political Science" for four years and have only the barest of clues what the word 'politics' means to you.

I don't blame them; I believe the reason for this is political.

That is not deliberately funny. It is, in fact, alarming.

regards,

Fred

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... there is no ethical justification for forced association by the state, except to prohibit forced association.

. . .

What isn't obvious is, why that isn't obvious.

Fred,

In a contextless uber-rational world, I would agree with you.

The problem is people like to bully each other at times. There's no way to eliminate that with deduction from a principle. The potential is part of human nature, and in many people, it's not just potential. They are bullies because they like being bullies. The only thing you can do is put constraints on this as best you can. A syllogism will not make it go away.

The best I've seen so far is checks and balances on sliced-and-diced power. (Thank you, Founding Fathers.) I have yet to see anyone identify a power virus and come up with a cure for it so it can be eliminated from human life. Or worse, argue power out of human nature. I've seen people try that, but it doesn't work. Power is a stubborn troublesome little sucker.

Either ethics is for human beings as they exist, or it is for what Robert Bidinotto used to call "premises with feet." I'm of the human being school.

Michael

[moralist]

Politics, in its broadest sense: the art and science of getting what we want from others using any means short of actual violence.

That would include lies, cheating, extortion, deceit, betrayal, blackmail... sounds about right.

Greg

[Frediano]

... there is no ethical justification for forced association by the state, except to prohibit forced association.

. . .

What isn't obvious is, why that isn't obvious.

Fred,

In a contextless uber-rational world, I would agree with you.

The problem is people like to bully each other at times. There's no way to eliminate that with deduction from a principle. The potential is part of human nature, and in many people, it's not just potential. They are bullies because they like being bullies. The only thing you can do is put constraints on this as best you can. A syllogism will not make it go away.

The best I've seen so far is checks and balances on sliced-and-diced power. (Thank you, Founding Fathers.) I have yet to see anyone identify a power virus and come up with a cure for it so it can be eliminated from human life. Or worse, argue power out of human nature. I've seen people try that, but it doesn't work. Power is a stubborn troublesome little sucker.

Either ethics is for human beings as they exist, or it is for what Robert Bidinotto used to call "premises with feet." I'm of the human being school.

Michael

Michael:

For sure. Those constitutional restrictions, without enforcement -- without the use of force -- are ineffective wishes on paper against endemic bullys. If you or I, or even, you and I together, are 1 or 2 in a sinking lifeboat filled with existentially terrified bullies, we will probably be eaten alive, because force can do what force can do.

And so, I conclude, if there is to be any defense against those who embrace forced association and the first use of force, it is necessary to embrace the concept of superior violence-- the just use of force. The paradox of violence. A paradox because there is no way around it. Even Ghandi realized this. There is no real question that force/power rules; force/power can do what force/power can do. A syllogism does not repeal that, but what a syllogism can do is ethically clear the way for the defense of freedom using force when necessary. Unwilling to defend freedom is unable to defend freedom, and unable to defend freedom, in a world of endemic bully's, is the road to slavery.

There is a centuries old political attack on freedom that proposes that it is unethical to defend freedom. Well no shit. I say, fuck that idea, first and foremost, and that is something that a syllogism can readily do; fuck that idea.

regards,

Fred

[Frediano]

Politics, in its broadest sense: the art and science of getting what we want from others using any means short of actual violence.

That would include lies, cheating, extortion, deceit, betrayal, blackmail... sounds about right.

Greg

It not only would, but does. Damn right. And the above also overlaps the application of the trader principle in some instances. Pure commerce is not always pure commerce, that is a given.

That is part of the deal with the restricted definition of politics as well (the art and science of ruling others.)

It can be thought of a kind of 'value for value' transaction. A peer tells you "Give me control over your life, enforceable at the point of a gun by your consent. In exchange, I will use that power only to enforce good things coming your way, like restrictions on cheating, extortion, deceit, betrayal blackmail." What he doesn't tell you: "You will provide all the means of my being able to do any of that. You will provide all the value on both sides of this transaction. You will fund and staff the police. You will fund the armies. You will build the airplanes. Your children will fight and die in the wars. You will be subject to the ACA. You will fund your defined contribution pension after funding my defined benefit pension. You will be subject to insider trading restrictions, I will be free to trade on my inside knowledge. ... You will do. I will rule. Is that a good deal for you? " Or maybe they promise free cheese and band aids, to payoff your mortgage, to arrange things so you never need to worry about filling up your gas tank or buying bread at the 7-11. Or maybe they promise to keep you from being eaten alive.

And, this all starts out by someone suggesting we hire painters to paint the double lines fairly down the middle of the road...then, plumbers to keep the plumbing of state clean and free flowing...and after 200+ years, the paint brushes and plungers have morphed into scepters, and it is time again to hang tyrants from trees.

[eva matthews]

Politics, in its broadest sense: the art and science of getting what we want from others using any means short of actual violence.

That would include lies, cheating, extortion, deceit, betrayal, blackmail... sounds about right.

Greg

It not only would, but does. Damn right. And the above also overlaps the application of the trader principle in some instances. Pure commerce is not always pure commerce, that is a given.

That is part of the deal with the restricted definition of politics as well (the art and science of ruling others.)

It can be thought of a kind of 'value for value' transaction. A peer tells you "Give me control over your life, enforceable at the point of a gun by your consent. In exchange, I will use that power only to enforce good things coming your way, like restrictions on cheating, extortion, deceit, betrayal blackmail." What he doesn't tell you: "You will provide all the means of my being able to do any of that. You will provide all the value on both sides of this transaction." Or maybe they promise free cheese and band aids, to payoff your mortgage, to arrange things so you never need to worry about filling up your gas tank or buying bread at the 7-11. Or maybe they promise to keep you from being eaten alive.

And, this all starts out by someone suggesting we hire painters to paint the double lines fairly down the middle of the road...then, plumbers to keep the plumbing of state clean and free flowing...and after 200+ years, the paint brushes and plungers have morphed into scepters, and it is time again to hang tyrants from trees.

In a democracy, you have only yourself to blame for having placed tyrants into power.

So if, for the sake of argument, the majority willed tyrants--which, regrettably, they sometimes do-- it's only yourself that will hang for having opposed them.

EM

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A lynch mob is a democracy...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Unwilling to defend freedom is unable to defend freedom, and unable to defend freedom, in a world of endemic bully's, is the road to slavery.

Fred,

May your words become mine.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

A lynch mob is a democracy...

Michael

And the Soviet Union was a representative republic.

[Brant Gaede]

A lynch mob is a democracy...

Michael

Vice versa.

--Brant

my meaningless tops your meaningless because you had the first word and I had the rebuttal (never mind her) and that's all there is: nothing

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And the Soviet Union was a representative republic.

Naomi,

Based on outcomes, not opportunities.

That's why the mass killings and political purges were necessary. If the outcomes in practice didn't fit the theory, and it looked like the outcomes were not going to happen, the solution was get rid of the problem, meaning the people without the desired outcomes or those whose presence was gumming up the works (say, because there wasn't enough food to go around or because they thought differently). Kill 'em. Pronto. Problem solved. Now back to the glorious outcomes...

Some people actually like this way of thinking and believe it is morally good as a form of existence, but that's not my kind of world.

Individual rights, not collective rights, are necessary for a representative republic to work without all the killing.

Now that's my kind of world.

But efficiency-wise?

Hell, lynch mob democracies work a lot smoother qua government. There are no rights. Just majority will. Vote and hang the poor bastard. Done.

Isn't government a wonderful thing?

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Hell, lynch mob democracies work a lot smoother qua government. There are no rights. Just majority will. Vote and hang the poor bastard. Done.

Are you saying that that the majority will is necessarily opposed to rights?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Are you saying that that the majority will is necessarily opposed to rights?

Naomi,

No.

But it can be.

(And I'm talking about individual rights, not entitlements and "redistributions" disguised as rights.)

Majority will is merely one form of power.

It gets reduced and constrained like all the other forms of power by the checks and balances system.

Any form of power taken to the extreme can be individual rights-friendly or opposed to rights. That depends on the person or people wielding it.

The problem with a benevolent dictator is not him if things are running well, but his heir if such is a nasty person. Or in a democracy, when the opposition gets voted in.

Checks and balances exist to keep that problem to a minimum.

The greatest single gesture of all time power-wise, in my opinion, was when George Washington, who refused to become king despite clamor for it, stepped down at the end of his second term. That moment was a step up in human evolution as far as I'm concerned.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Naomi,

No.

But it can be.

(And I'm talking about individual rights, not entitlements and "redistributions" disguised as rights.)

Majority will is merely one form of power.

It gets reduced and constrained like all the other forms of power by the checks and balances system.

Any form of power taken to the extreme can be individual rights-friendly or opposed to rights. That depends on the person or people wielding it.

The problem with a benevolent dictator is not him if things are running well, but his heir if such is a nasty person. Or in a democracy, when the opposition gets voted in.

Checks and balances exist to keep that problem to a minimum.

The greatest single gesture of all time power-wise, in my opinion, was when George Washington, who refused to become king despite clamor for it, stepped down at the end of his second term. That moment was a step up in human evolution as far as I'm concerned.

Michael

If this is the case, then either rights violations in present-day America are already at a minimum and there's no point in trying to reign in the government any further, or protection for individual rights could be increased, in which case your hypothesis that a system of checks and balances keeps rights violations to a minimum is false.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Naomi,

I don't understand your logic. It sounds like word games.

But my mind wanders...

I have a theory about the younger generation and a remote control perspective. If you don't like a show, you push a button and change the channel. If you don't like one group of people, you push a button and get in touch with another. If you don't like the temperature, you push a button and make it colder or hotter. If you don't like what you're eating, you push a button and get something else. And so on. This is the way you've grown up and it's the only reality you've known.

But some things don't work that way--like wars. And I see this cause a lot of stress and impatience in the younger people. It does in my generation, too, but it's different. The older people oppose or support wars because of long-held convictions (even when at odds with each other). They get really pissed off when those convictions are violated. The younger folks, from what I perceive in the media, get irritated because long-term problems don't go away quickly. They get bored, but the damn thing is still there the next day. And that irks them.

Well, this slow pace is the way checks and balances works. It takes a long time for people who are attracted to power to be defeated when they get too big. You don't push a button and make it happen. The closest my generation came to that was a string of assassinations (the Kennedy brothers, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, even the American Nazi, George Lincoln Rockwell). That certainly didn't work.

Sending out a few Tweets on the Internet is not going to work either. Look at the mess left over after Arab Spring for a clear example. Pushing a few social medial buttons was supposed to have changed that region into the land of milk and honey. But many places went from the kettle into the fire. Even Iraq, where the USA spent over a trillion dollars, has gone to shit and terrorism.

And the young? The social media button-pushers? Oh... they've changed the channel. That got boring.

How about Occupy Wall Street? Where the hell did that go? The button didn't work anymore?

I could go on, but this expectation of immediate results is a perspective flaw in your generation. It's not your fault, but it's still a flaw. The smarter folks of your age group will see this and become great leaders. I suspect the overwhelming vast majority will become irrelevant button-pushing consumers and nothing more.

Do you know where the people in your age group are going to line up on an issue like freedom? They will go along with what is in the movies, songs, games, social media sites, and so on. In other words, the entertainment stuff they can control by pushing buttons. If the message is pro-freedom, they will think freedom is cool. If the message is socialism, they will think socialism is cool. Whatever. Just as long as immediate gratification breaks regularly.

So back to your frame of reality as a simple logic problem that you can snap your fingers and make go away by a simple either-or declaration. (Some call it a false dichotomy.) Reality and human nature don't work that way. The USA constitutional representative republic has stood for a few centuries now. That ain't going away and the pushback against expanded government power ain't going away in your dichotomy, just like the expansion didn't during it's long decades and decades and decades of growth. There is no button to push to make this stuff happen.

Tomorrow this situation is going to look very much like today. And ditto for the next month. And the month after that. But if you look at the month after that, you might see a tiny shift in a pro-freedom direction in what's called the Overton Window. And you want to know what that shift is going to look like? Movies. Songs. TV shows. Internet games. Things like that. You can add on a small reflection in news outlets.

That's the way this works.

In my view, George Bush expanded executive power way faster than his predecessors. Obama said, "Thank you, George," and put that on steroids. Add this to the vast expansion of government achieved only because of the gradual erosion of a few of those original checks and balances last century--and the pollution of the justice division with "case law" trumping legislative law, with executive regulatory agencies flooding the courts all over the place--and we've got the bumping and grinding mess we've got right now.

With the exception of the push-button toys, the situation for the not-too-distant future doesn't look too good. I've lived in a country that went through a super-high-inflation phase (Brazil) and it's hell. Those toys go away pretty fast unless you're an insider. And even then, they don't work half the time. We've got that coming down the road toward us. And the speed is increasing each day that passes.

But we've also got a state ratifying convention coming up based on Article V of the Constitution. Mark Levin started the ball rolling with with The Liberty Amendments. Georgia has already enacted the first shot fired in that direction (see here: Georgia Votes for Convention of States to Amend Constitution). This movement is going to grow and grow. There are many conservative and libertarian leaning producers entering the entertainment world right now to disseminate freedom messages with entertainment products. That's the fertilizer--especially for your generation--for a project like a state ratifying convention to gather steam.

The reason for this convention is to curtail the size of government and its encroachment on individual rights. Those are the two main points you will see come up over and over. Just push the normal buttons and you will see them eventually show up, then start repeating.

Do you know what you call this convention? A check and balance. Thank you Founding Fathers. Probably the last stand in the checks and balances system based on the 1787 American Constitution, but it's still a check and balance. This is a process that takes years, just like it took a little over a century to corrupt several of the safeguards. You just can't push a button or wave a magic wand for this stuff.

So getting back to your false dichotomy based on what I said, you wanna be right? I'm not even going to do logic with you on your false dichotomy. Knock yourself out. I don't mind.

Let me do it for you: You win. Your button worked. You pushed it and my position has been instantly discredited. You destroyed my argument. The problem has gone away. There. Let the endorphins roll. Does that feel good?

(Except it didn't go away and I'm still right. )

Dollhead, you're looking at a button and I'm looking at the horizon. Which way do you think will change the world for the better? It doesn't matter, though. My button-proof gaze is fixed on the freedom in the distance. And... as one of my favorite songs goes (by Gordon Bok), "The world is always turning toward the morning."

(If you want to get a gist of this song, I tried to find a good video for you on YouTube, but the pickings are suddenly slim. Here's a version by a pleasant guy your age who actually plays decently and sings in tune, but he totally screws it up several times and keeps going but says here's the right way and fixes it... weird... And here's a version by an older guy who is not well in tune, but he seems warm and sincere in a folksy manner... You can buy the version by Gordon himself, which I love, on Amazon for a dollar: Turning Toward the Morning.)

Michael