RE: What political philosophy is best
July 19, 2012 at 11:55 pm
(This post was last modified: July 20, 2012 at 12:02 am by goddamnit.)
Because your list is missing individualism and collectivism, you may find them fascinating if you are not already familiar. Here is a 5-part series explaining a popular view of them. They are a trip to watch.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Political philosophies rest on ethics. A modern liberal might argue that redistribution of wealth is compassionate and for the greater good, which is really an ethical argument. A right libertarian may emphasize that theft is wrong, which is an ethical argument. The liberals might say that banks are exploitative and extracting labor from the backs of the less fortunate, which is an ethics-related challenge. Or, the arguments might go back and forth by trying to prove the consequences of a political policy, such as a dispute about the logical outcome of an economic policy (e.g. Obamacare), but these arguments carry more weight in the eyes of a person who heavily embraces consequentlialism. Ethics can sometimes be challenged as being impossible to prove anything with reason, although Objectivists actually disagree. Objectivists, for example, claim they can start with the law of identity and prove morality (and ultimately capitalism) based on reason and reality.
If you want my personal views, I am a civil libertarian and probably more "liberal" in most areas, but I am a huge outlier among liberals. Most self-described "progressives" or "liberals" scare me because they look at a problem like inequality and are perfectly willing to act on emotions and write congress without mindfulness of what economic disasters they could cause. You can try to show them data, graphs, and explain arguments on both sides, but they will cling to a preconception like a Christian. Also, self-described "feminists" are all too often just haters of men, and I want to separate myself from them.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Political philosophies rest on ethics. A modern liberal might argue that redistribution of wealth is compassionate and for the greater good, which is really an ethical argument. A right libertarian may emphasize that theft is wrong, which is an ethical argument. The liberals might say that banks are exploitative and extracting labor from the backs of the less fortunate, which is an ethics-related challenge. Or, the arguments might go back and forth by trying to prove the consequences of a political policy, such as a dispute about the logical outcome of an economic policy (e.g. Obamacare), but these arguments carry more weight in the eyes of a person who heavily embraces consequentlialism. Ethics can sometimes be challenged as being impossible to prove anything with reason, although Objectivists actually disagree. Objectivists, for example, claim they can start with the law of identity and prove morality (and ultimately capitalism) based on reason and reality.
If you want my personal views, I am a civil libertarian and probably more "liberal" in most areas, but I am a huge outlier among liberals. Most self-described "progressives" or "liberals" scare me because they look at a problem like inequality and are perfectly willing to act on emotions and write congress without mindfulness of what economic disasters they could cause. You can try to show them data, graphs, and explain arguments on both sides, but they will cling to a preconception like a Christian. Also, self-described "feminists" are all too often just haters of men, and I want to separate myself from them.