Politics: The Study of Force?

[georgephillip]

Philosophy is often divided into five branches summarized below.
"There is a hierarchical relationship between these branches as can be seen in the Concept Chart.

"At the root is Metaphysics, the study of existence and the nature of existence.

"Closely related is Epistemology, the study of knowledge and how we know about reality and existence. Dependent on Epistemology is Ethics, the study of how man should act.

"Ethics is dependent on Epistemology because it is impossible to make choices without knowledge.

"A subset of Ethics is Politics: the study of how men should interact in a proper society and what constitutes proper..."
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/FiveBranchesMain.html
"Politics is ethics applied to a group of people."
"The requirement for a political system is that the individuals within that system are allowed to fully function according to their nature. If that's not the case, they will either rebel, as in Czarist Russia, or the system will eventually collapse, as in Communist Russia.

"Reason is man's prime means of survival.

"A human being can not survive in an environment where reason is ineffective, and will thrive or starve to a degree in proportion to the effectiveness of reason.

"This means that the prime goal of a political system must be the preservation and enabling of the faculty of reason."
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Politics_Main.html

 

[georgephillip]

Force and cunning have emerged over the centuries as cornerstones of human resourcefulness in pursuit of intended ends. Over the past few thousand years many of those "intended ends" have been accomplished by distinctly unethical means. Politics acting in accordance with human reason should trump force or fraud everywhere except slave markets.

 

[Fast Eddy]

Politics always gets distorted by the evils of man. No system can last for long because of this. Society needs to keep scuffling the deck to keep the evil bastards under control.

 

[georgephillip]

Politics always gets distorted by the evils of man. No system can last for long because of this. Society needs to keep scuffling the deck to keep the evil bastards under control.

The evil bastards that have controlled most governments over the past five hundred years have been the bastards with the most money...Rothschild to Rockefeller. Their fortunes stem from the state-enabled coercion of the majority of their society. If reason is humanity's prime means of survival, the prime goal of politics must preserve and enable the faculty of reason.
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Politics_Main.html

"Reason does not function under coercion.

"A man can be forced to act at the point of a gun, but he can not be forced to think. Likewise, in an environment where might makes right, reason can not function because the fruits of rationality can not be enjoyed.

"Why plant crops and domesticate animals if any raider can come by and take them from you?

"A moral political system must ban coercion.

"Or put another way, a moral political system must ban the initiation of force, since retaliatory force is both just and necessary.

"This means there must be some way to keep one person from killing, threatening, or robbing another.

"This is accomplished by bestowing on government a monopoly on retaliatory force and objectifying laws."

 

[Max R.]

The evil bastards that have controlled most governments over the past five hundred years have been the bastards with the most money...Rothschild to Rockefeller. Their fortunes stem from the state-enabled coercion of the majority of their society. If reason is humanity's prime means of survival, the prime goal of politics must preserve and enable the faculty of reason.
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Politics_Main.html

"Reason does not function under coercion.

"A man can be forced to act at the point of a gun, but he can not be forced to think. Likewise, in an environment where might makes right, reason can not function because the fruits of rationality can not be enjoyed.

"Why plant crops and domesticate animals if any raider can come by and take them from you?

"A moral political system must ban coercion.

"Or put another way, a moral political system must ban the initiation of force, since retaliatory force is both just and necessary.

"This means there must be some way to keep one person from killing, threatening, or robbing another.

"This is accomplished by bestowing on government a monopoly on retaliatory force and objectifying laws."

"The evil bastards" are a symptom, not the cause. At work here is simple human behavior. Take a large group of people, drop them on an island, limit resources and see what happens. The results will always be the same: leaders will emerge and there will be fights over resources and the distribution of those resources.

Solution? Wars are driven by geography and, more importantly, resources. The Spratly Islands dispute is about both but mainly resources. When we develop the tech to provide unlimited resources to all human beings, we'll see the need for war or large-scale human conflict go away. Human beings still being what they are, we'll still see [Unwelcome language removed] stirring the pot.

 

[georgephillip]

"The evil bastards" are a symptom, not the cause. At work here is simple human behavior. Take a large group of people, drop them on an island, limit resources and see what happens. The results will always be the same: leaders will emerge and there will be fights over resources and the distribution of those resources

Which is exactly why political systems must ban coercion. For thousands of years societies functioned by rule of "might makes right" which often resulted in the most coercive psychopaths assuming the role of leader. Initiation of force is never moral, yet it has formed the practical political foundation of all major empires over the past five centuries.
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Politics_InitiationOfForce.html

 

[Max R.]

Which is exactly why political systems must ban coercion. For thousands of years societies functioned by rule of "might makes right" which often resulted in the most coercive psychopaths assuming the role of leader. Initiation of force is never moral, yet it has formed the practical political foundation of all major empires over the past five centuries.
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Politics_InitiationOfForce.html

Nice. While they're at it, why not ban gravity to stop all of those suicides off buildings and bridges?

Sorry, dude, but having government watch itself doesn't work. It's the old question of "Who watches the watchers?"

 

[georgephillip]

Nice. While they're at it, why not ban gravity to stop all of those suicides off buildings and bridges?

Sorry, dude, but having government watch itself doesn't work. It's the old question of "Who watches the watchers?"

The oligarchs, obviously.
Virtually every government for the last five hundred years, at least, has been controlled by its oligarchs, and capitalism has created more oligarchs than all previous economic systems combined.

Gravity is a universal force.
Capitalism is not.
Please stop being afraid of rich folk.

 

[Max R.]

The oligarchs, obviously.
Virtually every government for the last five hundred years, at least, has been controlled by its oligarchs, and capitalism has created more oligarchs than all previous economic systems combined.

Gravity is a universal force.
Capitalism is not.
Please stop being afraid of rich folk.

Oligarchs? That's a common term tossed around by Soviet communists isn't it?

How can "oligarchs" have existed before 1917?

 

[georgephillip]

Oligarchs? That's a common term tossed around by Soviet communists isn't it?

How can "oligarchs" have existed before 1917?

Because private central bankers existed before 1917?

 

[Craig]

Oligarchs? That's a common term tossed around by Soviet communists isn't it?

How can "oligarchs" have existed before 1917?

Do you take pride in asking dumb questions?

 

[Max R.]

Do you take pride in asking dumb questions?

Flamebait. Petty high school-level argumentation.

 

[Max R.]

Because private central bankers existed before 1917?

Bankers are bad because they offer loans for houses and investments?

Okay, let's explore this. How do you think a couple just starting out in life can afford to buy a house? Start a business? Do you want the government to be "the bank"?

 

[Craig]

Flamebait. Petty high school-level argumentation.

So...that's a yes.

 

[Max R.]

So...that's a yes.

Are you really a cab driver?

 

[Craig]

Are you really a cab driver?

I was...30 years ago.

That has what to do with your admitted flamebaiting high school tactics and your love of dumb questions?

 

[georgephillip]

Bankers are bad because they offer loans for houses and investments?

Okay, let's explore this. How do you think a couple just starting out in life can afford to buy a house? Start a business? Do you want the government to be "the bank"?

Do you want bankers who live in this house^^^loaning money to your government? I would prefer public to private banking, starting with resurrecting the USPS banking services.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2015/06/23/post-office-banking/

 

[Max R.]

I was...30 years ago.

That has what to do with your admitted flamebaiting high school tactics and your love of dumb questions?

Where have I engaged in "flamebaiting high school tactics" like this?:

Do you take pride in asking dumb questions?

 

[Craig]

Where have I engaged in "flamebaiting high school tactics" like this?:

Do you have any memory of your posts?

 

[Max R.]

Do you want bankers who live in this house^^^loaning money to your government? I would prefer public to private banking, starting with resurrecting the USPS banking services.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2015/06/23/post-office-banking/

It could be an option, but I'm leery of having all banking, medicine, industry or anything else solely controlled by a central government.