Why Politics is Pointless

[anthony]

There is only one power, and that's the power of each individual. 'Power of society' is an oxymoron.

Come at it any other way or reverse the order:

Individual freedom > economic freedom > military power-

-would entail/invoke mere jingoism or utilitarianism, both of which eventually defeat individual liberty.

Be careful of gross, distorting reductionism. That society has power is merely economical shorthand for what's going on in its name or generally around you. This reductionism is valuable from time to time for clear understanding and thinking, but that's not where most discusions take place.

--Brant

Am I aware that a body of individuals working in consensual cohesion will achieve far more than one?

Of course. It's self-evidently true (and proper), in reality.

I'm also aware that you don't get to that point by exalting that body of individuals - society- over the individual. The consciousness, rationality, and drive to freedom of each, will soon balk at that- because it's dishonest, selfless and collectivist. This is also true and proper, then, in the fundamental reality of men and women: the abstract principles which pertain to them and inspire them, are not just philosophical hot air.

OK it's reductionism, yes, in the same way the Coach of a losing team tells his players at half time: Guys, it's not working, we have to get back to the basics.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

When thinking about the normative aspects of political theory, sure, opportunities may be more important than outcomes. However, this is not the case when you are trying to rationally explain what actually happens in reality. A rational explanation should not explain everything that can possibly happen, only the things that actually do. And the possibility of something occurring cannot have an effect on reality unless it actually happens.

That's not entirely accurate. Risk analysis, management, and mitigation planning are all about the possibilities of things occurring that may or may not ever actually happen. The fact that risks might happen impacts reality in that someone needs to take them into consideration, monitor their likelihood, make backup plans, etc. It's an important part of business analysis and project management.

Also, regarding a prior comment, you said that you didn't set out with this thread to describe reality but to explain why reality is the way it is. You can't explain why something is the way it is without at least an implied description of it. For instance, I can't explain why the sky is blue without first establishing what the sky is or what blue is. You implied what you think reality to be, whether you meant to or not.

The possibility itself cannot cause anything, except when considered by somebody. It is that person's intellect that influences reality, not the possibility itself.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

This is my biggest beef with depicting the Founding Fathers as villains (power-mongering white slave-owners as their true essence) and things like that. We need our heroes. They can have blemishes, but they still need to be heroes in the culture to work at keeping power structures in place--including checks and balances.

I do not depict the Founding Fathers as villains. Reality makes no distinction between hero and villain. There are no "hero" or "villain" atoms. There are only people and their actions. It is simply an undeniable fact that the Founding Fathers owned slaves and sought power.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

You are so right, Tony.

Power is bottom up not top down.

When people make the choice to believe the lie that power comes from the top down, it includes the lie that they are helpless innocent victims of unjust oppression... when the truth is that they are the only ones who are guilty of oppressing themselves by their own choice to reject the truth to believe a lie.

Greg

Greg, your belief that only immoral people can be oppressed is irrational. According to you, if a thief steals someone's money, then that is because the victim is immoral. How do we know that the victim is immoral? Because a thief was able to steal his money. This is nothing more than circular reasoning. This belief can be neither falsified nor verified by evidence, and it therefore cannot be the truth.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

.from #63

Thus, Rocker's theory boils down to the idea that "Physical force (to the degree that it is present or absent) alone shapes human history." The problem with this is that it then effectively ignores every other relevant social force.

I suspect freedom or lack of coersive force is the most powerful 'social' force and that most other forces are either not properly identified or are consequences of human action when coersion is less prevalent.

What are some examples of the social forces so ignored?

Religion, ideology, property norms, trade networks and customs, legitimate authority, etc.

[Francisco Ferrer]

There's an interesting idea floating around on this thread: that harm only comes to those who are immoral or who allow themselves to be harmed.

Did you know that the government is subject to all of the same moral laws that you are? So if you want to be treated like a decent person by the government (or anyone else for that matter)...

...first become one, and you will.

Let's set this theory next to two examples from history:

1.

The Germans and their collaborators killed as many as 1.5 million children, including over a million Jewish children and tens of thousands of Romani (Gypsy) children, German children with physical and mental disabilities living in institutions, Polish children, and children residing in the occupied Soviet Union. The chances for survival for Jewish and some non-Jewish adolescents (13–18 years old) were greater, as they could be deployed at forced labor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_history_of_children_in_the_Holocaust

2.

An equally large number of Armenian children were destroyed through mass drownings at the Mesopotamian lower ends of the Euphrates River, especially in the area of Deir Zor. According to the testimony of an Armenian survivor, Mustafa Sidki, Deir Zor's police chief, on October 24, 1916 ordered some 2000 Armenian orphans carried to the banks of the Euphrates, hands and feet bound. They were thrown into the river two by two to the visible enjoyment of the police chief who took special pleasure at the sight of the drama of drowning. Another center for mass murder through drowning involving especially children was the Kemakh Gorge on the Euphrates River. The US Ambassador Henry Morgenthau states that at Kemakh Gorge “hundreds of children were bayoneted by the Turks and thrown into the Euphrates.”

http://www.genocide-museum.am/eng/online_exhibition_3.php#sthash.3sipIqwL.dpuf

Now if the above examples are accurate and the theory is valid, then the inescapable conclusion is that

A. The children killed during the Armenian and German holocausts did not wish to be treated like decent people.

and

B. The governments which carried out those killings were acting against people who were not decent.

At this point I would suggest that either theory or history has to be stretched to make for a proper fit.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I do not depict the Founding Fathers as villains. Reality makes no distinction between hero and villain. There are no "hero" or "villain" atoms. There are only people and their actions. It is simply an undeniable fact that the Founding Fathers owned slaves and sought power.

Nice way to totally ignore the substance. The question is not fact, it's emphasis and selective omissions.

It's a framing thing.

The root cause of gaining power is story, not society. The root cause of power itself is human nature, not society. Power in society is a result, not a cause.

It results from understanding human nature plus a good story. Do that and you get followers who will do anything for you.

Those who understand framing can step outside the evil forces of "distributive and collective power" that supposedly condemn mankind to suckdom.

Those who don't get it are controlled by it. They are not even aware they are controlled by it. Life generally sucks for them.

Those who frame well can get power if that is what they want, either within a set power structure or by creating new core story frames. They can also frame with stories to slice and dice power so no one powermonger can become too powerful.

The bad part of this is that it is a skill anyone can learn. Ergo, all the control freaks wandering around, being a pain in the ass and prospering. But learned skill is the good part, too, because you can protect yourself with knowledge.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a key to understanding Greg if anyone is interested.

He only speaks from the elephant, hardly ever from the rider.

The elephant tells the story about fact, never the fact itself. And stories don't have to be factually consistent to be efficacious and true. It's just that this kind of truth is underneath and concerns human nature, not logic.

It's kind of funny when one person's rider speaks to Greg and his elephant responds. They think they are talking to the rider, not the elephant, and they try to argue with it.

I admire his serenity. It's cool.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Nice way to totally ignore the substance. The question is not fact, it's emphasis and selective omissions.

It's a framing thing.

The root cause of gaining power is story, not society. The root cause of power itself is human nature, not society. Power in society is a result, not a cause.

It results from understanding human nature plus a good story. Do that and you get followers who will do anything for you.

Those who understand framing can step outside the evil forces of "distributive and collective power" that supposedly condemn mankind to suckdom.

Those who don't get it are controlled by it. They are not even aware they are controlled by it. Life generally sucks for them.

Those who frame well can get power if that is what they want, either within a set power structure or by creating new core story frames. They can also frame with stories to slice and dice power so no one powermonger can become too powerful.

The bad part of this is that it is a skill anyone can learn. Ergo, all the control freaks wandering around, being a pain in the ass and prospering. But learned skill is the good part, too, because you can protect yourself with knowledge.

Michael

No they can't. If "stories" can affect the environment at all, they are necessarily a form of collective or distributive power.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

btw - After letting these thoughts settle, fuck the elephant.

Do dragon instead. That's a far better metaphor.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dollhead,

I suggest reading a little about how the human mind works.

Humans think in stories.

See Damasio, Pinker, Eagleman, Restak, Boyd, etc.

I can point you to specific works and passages if you like.

(Gawd, it feels good to drop names. )

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Dollhead,

I suggest reading a little about how the human mind works.

Humans think in stories.

See Damasio, Pinker, Eagleman, Restak, Boyd, etc.

I can point you to specific works and passages if you like.

(Gawd, it feels good to drop names. )

Michael

I agree, but my point still stands.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

No it doesn't, but you're free to believe what you will.

Michael

[moralist]

There's an interesting idea floating around on this thread: that harm only comes to those who are immoral or who allow themselves to be harmed.

Did you know that the government is subject to all of the same moral laws that you are? So if you want to be treated like a decent person by the government (or anyone else for that matter)...

...first become one, and you will.

Let's set this theory next to two examples from history...

Sorry, Frank... let's get this straight right from the get go so as to save a lot of back and forth. I'm not talking about the dead past. I'm talking about right now and right here in America... which is a unique nation in that it was founded upon Judeo/Christian moral values. So the US government is subject to all of the same moral laws that you are. What you truly are inside is sole determinant of how you're treated by government.

It's my opinion that people who regard themselves to be helpless innocent victims of US government "oppression" are lying to themselves. Their blame of government is unjust because they are the ones who created the government in their own image. And as their creation, it can only represent the same values by which they live. It is peoples' own failure to do what's morally right that grants the government their sanction to become a victim of it's intrusion into their poorly ordered life.

Greg

[SoAMadDeathWish]

No it doesn't, but you're free to believe what you will.

Michael

The only way it wouldn't be right is if what you call "stories" can't actually do the things you say they can:

-Do that and you get followers who will do anything for you.

-Those who frame well can get power if that is what they want, either within a set power structure or by creating new core story frames. They can also frame with stories to slice and dice power so no one powermonger can become too powerful.

-But learned skill is the good part, too, because you can protect yourself with knowledge.

[Jules Troy]

MSK here is some Ayn Rand elephant speak she wrote before AS.

http://fare.tunes.org/liberty/library/taifc.html

[moralist]

And it is people freely choosing to believe one story and not another.

Greg,

That's the rider's job, not the elephant's job.

I agree... for only in the rider (us) rests the power to choose to act contrary to the elephant (thoughts) simply by getting off.

Greg

[moralist]

The possibility itself cannot cause anything, except when considered by somebody. It is that person's intellect that influences reality, not the possibility itself.

I'd even take your statement a little farther in that only what we actually do is real. Everything else is just a virtual potential.

Greg

[Francisco Ferrer]

Regarding the much vaunted checks and balances:

State veto or nullification was an essential part of the understanding that resulted in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. This is discussed at length in "Beyond Myths (Madisonian, Federalist, Nationalist, and Liberal): Different Framers and Other Intentions, 1787-1833"

When nullification was removed as an option for blocking overreach by the central government (by court decisions and war), the most powerful means of checking and balancing was lost.

There can be no check on government when all branches have the same paymaster.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

MSK here is some Ayn Rand elephant speak she wrote before AS.

http://fare.tunes.org/liberty/library/taifc.html

Jules,

I read that a long time ago and just reread it. It was a pleasure.

But since I am damaged goods, a few oddities jumped out at me.

Ayn Rand on faith:

But in order to fight, you must understand. You must know exactly what you believe and you must hold to your faith honestly, consistently, and all the time. A faith assumed occasionally, like Sunday clothes, is of no value. Communism and Nazism are a faith. Yours must be as strong and clear as theirs. They know what they want. We don't. But let us see how, before it is too late, whether we have a faith, what it is and how we can fight for it.

How's them apples? Ayn Rand saying you have to hold on to your faith.

I wonder what the following means...:

They are empty generalities and boob-catchers.

OK, that was smart-ass. Still, it's one hell of a visual...

Now the serious:

A basic principle, once accepted, has a way of working itself out to its logical conclusion — even against the will and to the great surprise of those who accepted it.

Now how does a basic principle spread? And work itself out? "Even against the will and to the great surprise of those who accepted it"?

Stories, that's how.

And you know why? Because, as neuroscience has shown, stories feel like life. This is literal. In fMRI scans, the same areas of the brain light up when dealing with fictional elements while processing a story as they do with corresponding real elements while processing real life.

Also, stories make the critical thinking part of the mind turn off as the brain goes into a "story-trance." This is a state where lots of areas of the brain light up at the same time, so it is probably too overwhelming for the prefrontal neocortex to handle in full conscious awareness. Story connects all the different parts of the brain so they are active at the same time.

If the story is carrying a principle reinforced with symbolism, effective results of being implemented, etc., with each story element carrying it geared to simultaneously engage different parts of the brain, the principle goes right into the mind without being detected and, if repeated enough by enough people in the surrounding culture (and in self-talk), the principle becomes accepted as a fundamental truth.

I wish Rand had been able to look at the results of neuroscience. The science was just too primitive at the time. It would have been fascinating to see what she would have come up with.

Michael

[Francisco Ferrer]

There's an interesting idea floating around on this thread: that harm only comes to those who are immoral or who allow themselves to be harmed.

Did you know that the government is subject to all of the same moral laws that you are? So if you want to be treated like a decent person by the government (or anyone else for that matter)...

...first become one, and you will.

Let's set this theory next to two examples from history...

Sorry, Frank... let's get this straight right from the get go so as to save a lot of back and forth. I'm not talking about the dead past. I'm talking about right now and right here in America... which is a unique nation in that it was founded upon Judeo/Christian moral values. So the US government is subject to all of the same moral laws that you are. What you truly are inside is sole determinant of how you're treated by government.

It's my opinion that people who regard themselves to be helpless innocent victims of US government "oppression" are lying to themselves. Their blame of government is unjust because they are the ones who created the government in their own image. And as their creation, it can only represent the same values by which they live. It is peoples' own failure to do what's morally right that grants the government their sanction to become a victim of it's intrusion into their poorly ordered life.

Greg

Let's talk about current history, if you wish.

If the federal government was "founded upon Judeo/Christian moral values" and "is subject to all of the same moral laws" that I am, then why have there been no negative consequences for IRS agents who seize other people's property, while at the same time petty thieves are jailed all the time? When does the subjection to moral laws begin for DC's legalized thieves?

If I am the "sole determinant of how [i am] treated by government," then why didn't the IRS stop collecting a portion of my income years ago?

Or does the IRS only collect from evil people? If so, what evil did I commit that qualifies me for punishment?

Since I didn't vote for Obama or any person who enacted his Affordable Healthcare Act, how in the world is the federally managed medical industry a creation of my own image?

Since I don't rob people, how can it be said that the government "represent the same values by which" I live?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There can be no check on government when all branches have the same paymaster.

Interesting.

The assumption underlying this is that power is not a human motivation, but money is.

I don't recognize human beings in this formulation. (Maybe the economists "econ" man, but that's a fiction, not a reality.)

The efficacy in checks and balances comes from one person holding power getting pissed when another wants to take it from him.

Now that's human.

Michael

[anthony]

The elephant tells the story about fact, never the fact itself. And stories don't have to be factually consistent to be efficacious and true. It's just that this kind of truth is underneath and concerns human nature, not logic.

I admire his serenity. It's cool.

Michael

I'd pay top dollar for a bottle of it. Got some to spare, Greg?

[Francisco Ferrer]

There can be no check on government when all branches have the same paymaster.

Interesting.

The assumption underlying this is that power is not a human motivation, but money is.

I don't recognize human beings in this formulation. (Maybe the economists "econ" man, but that's a fiction, not a reality.)

Well, somebody recognized this formulation.

If money were irrelevant to the motives of people who hold office, we could do away with laws prohibiting judges from accepting monetary gifts from those they sit in judgment of.

Furthermore, stating that payment implicitly commands compliance is not to suggest the absence of all other motives, including power.

The efficacy in checks and balances comes from one person holding power getting pissed when another wants to take it from him.

Now that's human.

Michael

There is no efficiency if the three branches are all indirectly controlled by elite interests who benefit from an expanding central government.

Furthermore, if there is no exit option for disaffected states, there is no governor on the stream engine, to use Isabel Paterson's apt metaphor.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So the thing is to forget human nature and only think about elites.

Why am I not surprised?

And what a great example of human nature.

Michael