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.
Which is the correct political philosophy pray tell, since you have a pretty good idea about it? It's so interesting, if there actually is a correct politics, this would mean we should do away with democracy no? Since it creates an opportunity for the correct politics to lose electorally.
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.
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.
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.
There are always zero sum games. When people share something, they have to agree how it gets used. And it’s possible for factions to develop the disagree about how it should be used. The difference between with and without the state, is that without the state you can always go play a different game with other players. Well, not always; whenever the shared resource is not unique and indivisible you can play a different game. But that describes 99% of everything.
That raises of interesting question. Should we consider politics to be exclusively within the realm of the state, so that if the state was abolished politics would be also?
The inhabitants of a co-op will still have decisions to make about resources they use in common. This can’t be resolved by deferring to a solitary owner, since they own the resource in common. If we assume such a solitary owner in all cases, they are still in competition to provide shared resources such as sidewalks, roads, and shopping malls that many different people will use. And so they wish to please their customers by incorporating their preferences in the arrangements.
There’s also the question of whether I really own my home if the single road that leads to it is owned by someone else and so people can only come and go with that person‘s permission.
Before I begin to answer, the line, "Dave's not here" is one of the funniest ever. Back in the day I owned the Cheech and Chong album on which it was said. Maybe I should change my screen name to "Ivegotthestuff."
When I say "without the state" I mean all forms of political government, down to the lowest level. By definition,, this means that all ownership would be private. I'm not sure what you mean by "owned in common" but if you mean something like "public parks" that's not art of the picture. As I'm sure you know, when "everyone" owns something you have the problem of the tragedy of the commons. Private owners would indeed be in competition to please their customers. Hence, I wonder why you raise the issue of whether you really own your home if the road to it is controlled by a private entity. Surely you wouldn't buy such a home if the right to use the road wasn't part of the deal.
Private ownership does not imply single owner. When more than one person is part owner of a resource, they can’t use property rights to determine usage, they need some other arrangement beyond simple ownership. E.g. a married couple that owns a house, or the hallways of a co-op building.
> Private owners would indeed be in competition to please their customers. Hence, I wonder why you raise the issue of whether you really own your home if the road to it is controlled by a private entity.
Competition for customers implies that there is competition, that consumers have a choice.
If part ownership of the road is included in ownership of the house, that implies shared ownership with the neighbors, or else an easement on the property of whoever owns the road, which is subtly different from co-ownership, if they are different at all.
Changes to the road affect all the co-owners or holders of easements, and so require some mechanism for them to reach agreement on issues such as sufficient maintenance, who pays for what, how any of these factors will change in response to new circumstances, etc. Maybe arbitrators will come up with flexible common-law-ish mechanisms for deciding how to deal with unforeseen conflicts. Or maybe it will all be handled smoothly via contract negotiations. But if this coordination process should not be called politics, we need a new word that means pretty much the same thing, the business of the polis, just without the ability of any party to decide unilaterally for the rest. I suppose there are some opportunities for positive sum games in such circumstances, but zero or negative sum games are also possible.
This leads to a “muh roads” dilemma. Either the right to free association of the owners of the road is violated because they can't exclude persons who depend on the road, or the ownership of the persons who depend on the road may be violated, when someone else usurps their power of exclusion. It seems likely that a compromise can be found, but it will not take the form of multiple owners deciding unilaterally and unanimously. In such a case, anything other than unanimity requires a tiebreaker mechanism, which smells like a version of politics to me.
> Surely you wouldn't buy such a home if the right to use the road wasn't part of the deal.
Surely. But the same can be said for the owner of the road; surely they won’t buy if they will be prevented from excluding unwanted users or uses. So neither extreme is tenable. Success presumes that a good precedent has somehow been established, or a successful negotiation has occurred.
I’m glad my username evoked a pleasant memory for you.
You wrote: "If part ownership of the road is included in ownership of the house, that implies shared ownership with the neighbors..."
I didn't say that part ownership of the road would be included. I'm saying the you buy the house, and before doing so you ensure that you have a contract with the road owner (an individual, company, etc.) that contains road use terms that you deem satisfactory. Market forces will determine what's in the contract. Pretty straightforward,
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.
Which is the correct political philosophy pray tell, since you have a pretty good idea about it? It's so interesting, if there actually is a correct politics, this would mean we should do away with democracy no? Since it creates an opportunity for the correct politics to lose electorally.
I wrote your reply in the wrong place. You should find it above somewhere.
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.
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.
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.
There are always zero sum games. When people share something, they have to agree how it gets used. And it’s possible for factions to develop the disagree about how it should be used. The difference between with and without the state, is that without the state you can always go play a different game with other players. Well, not always; whenever the shared resource is not unique and indivisible you can play a different game. But that describes 99% of everything.
I was referring only to the zero sum game of politics, where the winners have a monopoly of coercion.
That raises of interesting question. Should we consider politics to be exclusively within the realm of the state, so that if the state was abolished politics would be also?
The inhabitants of a co-op will still have decisions to make about resources they use in common. This can’t be resolved by deferring to a solitary owner, since they own the resource in common. If we assume such a solitary owner in all cases, they are still in competition to provide shared resources such as sidewalks, roads, and shopping malls that many different people will use. And so they wish to please their customers by incorporating their preferences in the arrangements.
There’s also the question of whether I really own my home if the single road that leads to it is owned by someone else and so people can only come and go with that person‘s permission.
Before I begin to answer, the line, "Dave's not here" is one of the funniest ever. Back in the day I owned the Cheech and Chong album on which it was said. Maybe I should change my screen name to "Ivegotthestuff."
When I say "without the state" I mean all forms of political government, down to the lowest level. By definition,, this means that all ownership would be private. I'm not sure what you mean by "owned in common" but if you mean something like "public parks" that's not art of the picture. As I'm sure you know, when "everyone" owns something you have the problem of the tragedy of the commons. Private owners would indeed be in competition to please their customers. Hence, I wonder why you raise the issue of whether you really own your home if the road to it is controlled by a private entity. Surely you wouldn't buy such a home if the right to use the road wasn't part of the deal.
> all ownership would be private.
Private ownership does not imply single owner. When more than one person is part owner of a resource, they can’t use property rights to determine usage, they need some other arrangement beyond simple ownership. E.g. a married couple that owns a house, or the hallways of a co-op building.
> Private owners would indeed be in competition to please their customers. Hence, I wonder why you raise the issue of whether you really own your home if the road to it is controlled by a private entity.
Competition for customers implies that there is competition, that consumers have a choice.
If part ownership of the road is included in ownership of the house, that implies shared ownership with the neighbors, or else an easement on the property of whoever owns the road, which is subtly different from co-ownership, if they are different at all.
Changes to the road affect all the co-owners or holders of easements, and so require some mechanism for them to reach agreement on issues such as sufficient maintenance, who pays for what, how any of these factors will change in response to new circumstances, etc. Maybe arbitrators will come up with flexible common-law-ish mechanisms for deciding how to deal with unforeseen conflicts. Or maybe it will all be handled smoothly via contract negotiations. But if this coordination process should not be called politics, we need a new word that means pretty much the same thing, the business of the polis, just without the ability of any party to decide unilaterally for the rest. I suppose there are some opportunities for positive sum games in such circumstances, but zero or negative sum games are also possible.
This leads to a “muh roads” dilemma. Either the right to free association of the owners of the road is violated because they can't exclude persons who depend on the road, or the ownership of the persons who depend on the road may be violated, when someone else usurps their power of exclusion. It seems likely that a compromise can be found, but it will not take the form of multiple owners deciding unilaterally and unanimously. In such a case, anything other than unanimity requires a tiebreaker mechanism, which smells like a version of politics to me.
> Surely you wouldn't buy such a home if the right to use the road wasn't part of the deal.
Surely. But the same can be said for the owner of the road; surely they won’t buy if they will be prevented from excluding unwanted users or uses. So neither extreme is tenable. Success presumes that a good precedent has somehow been established, or a successful negotiation has occurred.
I’m glad my username evoked a pleasant memory for you.
You wrote: "If part ownership of the road is included in ownership of the house, that implies shared ownership with the neighbors..."
I didn't say that part ownership of the road would be included. I'm saying the you buy the house, and before doing so you ensure that you have a contract with the road owner (an individual, company, etc.) that contains road use terms that you deem satisfactory. Market forces will determine what's in the contract. Pretty straightforward,