Guidelines and Consensus Controversy.
My friend, I'd despaired of personal political discussions, both civil and rational. Though I prize our talk, there are fundamental philosophical differences between us. In a sense, there is only one difficult case. Do we put our efforts into a society where the structure, the systems, are highly efficient and each man is served according to the circumstance of the moment, [efficient worker, criminal with fair justice,...] OR do we strive for the removal of systems, and their incorporation within each individual? Guidelines to one purpose are likely irrelevant or counter to the other purpose. Detrimental or wasteful actions will be controversial at best, and grave likely. Actions in common will be few and minor.
You see the death-penalty criminal as in need of the justice system. I see him failed by all parts of our current systems. You see him as inevitable, always requiring a justice system. I see him never as needed to have gotten to this point. My solution will never come from the justice system. Yours only comes from there. For now, make the American Justice system *accurate*. Make sure you have the man [justice], and make sure the penalty fits the people's penalty [american]. We don't need a veneer of civility over our blood lust. Our blood lust, or lack, is who we are. Making an important, unaverage man responsible for the american outlook may be good to override impersonal, systemic laws, but is not the sense of the society. How this plays with BC I don't consider; we speak of political solutions to existing systems, not hit and run application.
Making fractal versions of big government makes the system more efficient, maybe, but it entrenches government into our society. The ability to empower citizens depends hardly on the source of the empowerment, but on the effectiveness. So, also, limiting the ability to an arbitrary source and potency, limits the ability to do the empowering. Were an income gap shown to be a very good idea, would the hamlet of podunk have the ability to impliment it? Or would changing the system back to big government preclude it right off?
Property rights are simply the oldest system. Likely last to disappear--and I would hope would not be taken, but abandoned when seen as irrelevent: The needs are being met, the crime is disappearing. Property is interesting. It is near universal among civilizations, but not so among peoples. The Gnostics were thriving, prosperous, advanced societies, with a much looser sense of property. Looser than ours, even in feudal times. Of course, their more idealistic neighbors killed them to a person, which has got to be counted a minus. But values, an alternate view of property, do change though slowly. Vengence was once a plus in civilized values, and is now pretty much a negative.
Economic system is also tough. Foremost we've been fortunate, and who puts the golden goose at risk? Basically, the idea is common sense: Millions who want to do their job, and are over capable to do it, will produce more and better than when only those at the top are eager and capable. By what means do we seek the first goal? Likely it will conflict with the second.
Maybe going more to federalism is not a bad thing, and not too wasteful a side trip. Maybe a human being within the impersonal ways of justice will be a minor detour and worth the delay. But, when the fundamental question to increase economic gain boils down to--money resources for the officers and shareholders vs money resources for workers, education, health, soft science--I don't see a lot of room between those of the people and those of the system. Is there a middle ground at all? Only an electorate with the same overall characteristics or goals can have consensus. Your systems and mini-systems, or guidelines, can never get us to congruous; mine do so now till the end.
PS
You remember the post I made to Brees with my 3 axioms of personal philosophy? The first is an ontological [nature of reality] statement that has been the mainstream of philosophy [and all the civilization it underpins] since Plato. Alone, that ontology is the foundation of Idealism, or Rationalism. Knowing only yourself to be real, your perfect creation to order the world can only be a perfect System [as above]. My 2nd axiom, structurally epistemological, is actually another ontological statement. It is the basis of the Empericist, or Materialism, philosophies. Dialectical is well known, but I consider it to have been coopted by bad company, Lenin, who abused it severely and compromised its reputation. Pragmatism is an American branch, and fathered Dewey's progressive schooling theories. The reality of others allows your ideal systems to have a place. A couple hundred years to a couple thousand is hardly a match...yet. The 3rd axiom does to immaterial things [beauty, truth, good, Pi,...] what the 2nd did for people. It is more genuine epistomological [How we know]. It is also a working model, not as rigorous. I amuse myself to call it Surrealistic Realism. Such a branch name belies that it is neither that deep, nor my own. Compare Imagine, by J. Lennon, for an aestetic treatment. |
