Here, I explain why people are irrational about politics.* [* Based on: “Why People Are Irrational About Politics,” in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics, ed. Jonathan Anomaly, Geoffrey Brennan, Michael Munger, and Geoffrey Sayre-McCord (Oxford University Press, 2015), pp. 456-67. Originally posted as a web essay around 2002 (?). ]
I'm certain that it's impossible for there to be more than one political philosophy that's both internally and externally consistent. That's not the same as saying that there is exactly one such political philosophy, since that doesn't rule out the possibility that there is no such philosophy. However, for various reasons too long to explain here, I believe there is such a political philosophy. The most likely candidate of those I've checked is pure libertarianism. According to Bryan Caplan, a pure libertarian would get a score of 160 points (the highest possible score) on his Libertarian Purity Test, which you can find online. To get a score of 160, one would have to be an anarcho-capitalist. An anarcho-capitalist society is not a political democracy.
The Nolan Chart, which you can find online, is divided into five sections each of which shows one of five political positions commonly accepted by Americans: libertarianism, authoritarianism, liberalism (progressivism), conservatism, and centrism. I have arguments that seem to prove that only one of those positions is internally consistent: pure libertarianism, which appears in a corner of the libertarian section of the chart. All other positions on the chart, including impure versions of libertarianism are internally contradictory. Except for pure libertarianism at one corner of the chart and pure totalitarianism at the opposite corner in the authoritarian section, all positions are inconsistent mixtures of libertarianism and authoritarianism. Since pure totalitarianism is directly opposed to pure libertarianism, you might expect it, too, to be logically consistent. Surprisingly, it is not. That's because in a purely totalitarian society whatever is not prohibited is required. But the ruler of one purely totalitarian society could prohibit the same things the ruler of another requires so that the two rulers could disagree on every issue. Hence, pure totalitarianism is internally inconsistent.
As stated above, the Nolan Chart shows political positions commonly accepted by Americans. It has no sections for other possible political ideologies. To get an idea of what other ideologies are possible, see various versions of the Political Compass online. I haven't checked all those other ideologies. Perhaps there's some political philosophy besides pure libertarianism that's internally consistent. Suppose there is exactly one such philosophy. In that case, the correct political philosophy would be whichever of the two is externally consistent, and it would be rational to accept that political philosophy, which may be the alternative to pure libertarianism. However, there is a reason to believe that pure libertarianism is externally consistent: One of its basic principles appears to be a necessary truth. If it is, then pure libertarianism is externally consistent because every true proposition must be consistent with a necessary truth. Having said all this, there's a pretty good chance I've made some mistakes in my reasoning.
You should read The Myth of Left and Right (or watch a YouTube video about it) by the Lewis brothers, Hyrum (a historian) and Verlan (a political scientist). They offer much evidence to support the claim that the clusters of beliefs concerning political issues accepted by self-identified leftists (e.g., liberals/progressives) and rightists (e.g., conservatives) vary with time and place. Also, those belief systems are internally contradictory. So, neither side can be right about everything even though they assume they are and that their ideological opponents are wrong about everything.
In order for a complete political philosophy to be objectively correct, it must be both internally and externally consistent. To be externally consistent, no proposition within the system of propositions that constitute the philosophy can contradict any true proposition outside the system in any other field of knowledge. It's logically impossible for there to be more than one political philosophy that's both internally and externally consistent. I suspect we both have a pretty good idea about which political philosophy is both internally and externally consistent. Any inconsistent political philosophy can be destroyed by classical logic's principle of explosion.
Have you noticed that people may avoid learning each others political views because if they are opposite to their own they may not be able to be friends? People who otherwise are completely compatible can be torn apart by this. I think it has something to do with the fact that politics is a zero-sum game. Winners and losers. And the winner is going to be able to force the loser to do what they want them to do or kept them from doing something. As you've written brilliantly in The Problem of Political Authority, this monopoly of coercion is unjustified. Without the state, the zero-sum game disappears.
I always enjoy your writing, finding it thoughtful and interesting.
If you don't mind, I do have four questions. First, are you including yourself when you say that "people tend to be irrational when we think about politics"? Second, the word "tend" strongly implies that you believe that not all people are irrational, at least some of the time, when thinking about politics. That's a comforting thought. Would you mind, please, elaborating? Third, do you not believe that the boundaries of what we call "politics" have been expanding worryingly for some time now, including into what had previously been thought of as the hard sciences? Finally, you state that "the problem of irrationality is the worst social problem, because it is the problem that prevents us from solving all the other problems." That too is a very comforting thought. What do you mean by "solving"?
I welcome and thank you for any clarifications you care to share.
I'm certain that it's impossible for there to be more than one political philosophy that's both internally and externally consistent. That's not the same as saying that there is exactly one such political philosophy, since that doesn't rule out the possibility that there is no such philosophy. However, for various reasons too long to explain here, I believe there is such a political philosophy. The most likely candidate of those I've checked is pure libertarianism. According to Bryan Caplan, a pure libertarian would get a score of 160 points (the highest possible score) on his Libertarian Purity Test, which you can find online. To get a score of 160, one would have to be an anarcho-capitalist. An anarcho-capitalist society is not a political democracy.
The Nolan Chart, which you can find online, is divided into five sections each of which shows one of five political positions commonly accepted by Americans: libertarianism, authoritarianism, liberalism (progressivism), conservatism, and centrism. I have arguments that seem to prove that only one of those positions is internally consistent: pure libertarianism, which appears in a corner of the libertarian section of the chart. All other positions on the chart, including impure versions of libertarianism are internally contradictory. Except for pure libertarianism at one corner of the chart and pure totalitarianism at the opposite corner in the authoritarian section, all positions are inconsistent mixtures of libertarianism and authoritarianism. Since pure totalitarianism is directly opposed to pure libertarianism, you might expect it, too, to be logically consistent. Surprisingly, it is not. That's because in a purely totalitarian society whatever is not prohibited is required. But the ruler of one purely totalitarian society could prohibit the same things the ruler of another requires so that the two rulers could disagree on every issue. Hence, pure totalitarianism is internally inconsistent.
As stated above, the Nolan Chart shows political positions commonly accepted by Americans. It has no sections for other possible political ideologies. To get an idea of what other ideologies are possible, see various versions of the Political Compass online. I haven't checked all those other ideologies. Perhaps there's some political philosophy besides pure libertarianism that's internally consistent. Suppose there is exactly one such philosophy. In that case, the correct political philosophy would be whichever of the two is externally consistent, and it would be rational to accept that political philosophy, which may be the alternative to pure libertarianism. However, there is a reason to believe that pure libertarianism is externally consistent: One of its basic principles appears to be a necessary truth. If it is, then pure libertarianism is externally consistent because every true proposition must be consistent with a necessary truth. Having said all this, there's a pretty good chance I've made some mistakes in my reasoning.
You should read The Myth of Left and Right (or watch a YouTube video about it) by the Lewis brothers, Hyrum (a historian) and Verlan (a political scientist). They offer much evidence to support the claim that the clusters of beliefs concerning political issues accepted by self-identified leftists (e.g., liberals/progressives) and rightists (e.g., conservatives) vary with time and place. Also, those belief systems are internally contradictory. So, neither side can be right about everything even though they assume they are and that their ideological opponents are wrong about everything.
In order for a complete political philosophy to be objectively correct, it must be both internally and externally consistent. To be externally consistent, no proposition within the system of propositions that constitute the philosophy can contradict any true proposition outside the system in any other field of knowledge. It's logically impossible for there to be more than one political philosophy that's both internally and externally consistent. I suspect we both have a pretty good idea about which political philosophy is both internally and externally consistent. Any inconsistent political philosophy can be destroyed by classical logic's principle of explosion.
Have you noticed that people may avoid learning each others political views because if they are opposite to their own they may not be able to be friends? People who otherwise are completely compatible can be torn apart by this. I think it has something to do with the fact that politics is a zero-sum game. Winners and losers. And the winner is going to be able to force the loser to do what they want them to do or kept them from doing something. As you've written brilliantly in The Problem of Political Authority, this monopoly of coercion is unjustified. Without the state, the zero-sum game disappears.
I always enjoy your writing, finding it thoughtful and interesting.
If you don't mind, I do have four questions. First, are you including yourself when you say that "people tend to be irrational when we think about politics"? Second, the word "tend" strongly implies that you believe that not all people are irrational, at least some of the time, when thinking about politics. That's a comforting thought. Would you mind, please, elaborating? Third, do you not believe that the boundaries of what we call "politics" have been expanding worryingly for some time now, including into what had previously been thought of as the hard sciences? Finally, you state that "the problem of irrationality is the worst social problem, because it is the problem that prevents us from solving all the other problems." That too is a very comforting thought. What do you mean by "solving"?
I welcome and thank you for any clarifications you care to share.