[nucklepunche]

In the thread where Dakotoria announced his dropping of libertarianism I made the following comment.

I can't say my current ideology sprang forth from my whole mind but I didn't waste time being a dittohead and giving myself a label. I see the idiocy of all sides as well as the wisdom contained within it. These things I know...

The laws of economics do not change while personal opinions do.

I consider myself to be philosophically utilitarian, combining this with a strongly empirical stance is how I reach my positions. I seek to maximize economic prosperity for the greatest number of people possible consistent with the realistic possibilities of living in a world with limited resources.

In general my observations of the world and of history have concluded that there is a model that is most successful in this area in terms of government and economic policy. I am not sure I would give it a name but it is there, it is a mixed economy driven mostly by free enterprise with free trade and a relatively flexible labor market but with some government investment and social welfare provision funded via moderately progressive taxes.

Source: http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=136543&start=120

Essentially I am increasingly viewing politics as being divided into two groups. Those who agree with the vision in bold specifically this...

A mixed economy driven mostly by free enterprise with free trade and a relatively flexible labor market but with some government investment and social welfare provision funded via moderately progressive taxes.

And those who do not. Those who do not include socialists, communists, and anarchists on the left and libertarian and right-wing ideologues on the right. Increasingly, as much as my opponents disagree with each other I am starting to see them as one big giant blob, essentially a single organism fueled by irrational and extreme thought. Essentially I view my vision as rational and utilitarian and all other visions as irrational and emotional. It may seem conceited but I feel if you agree with me on the above vision you are with me and if you do not you are against me. My unified theory of politics essentially is this...

There are people who support the basic outline of society above and then there are extremists. We must fight against extremists of all stripes whether of left or right. To me extremism is the byproduct of irrational thought and must be equally opposed.

[Cartertonian]

...

...

Way before your time on PoFo, nucklepunche, I used to have this sig:



I think that's sort of where you're coming from, too.

We must fight against extremists of all stripes whether of left or right.

QFT.

[Paradigm]

Had you lived in the 1600s, you could have just as easily divided people into "Those who support titles of nobility and bonds of serfdom" and those who do not. The problem with this centrist way of thinking is that it always assumes the current center as an absolute center, rather than one that is particular to their time in history, and which will one day become a reactionary position.

[Rei Murasame]

I'd also like to ask a question as a thought exercise. If you are a 'militant centrist', do you believe that we are at the place (that 'centre' that you wrote in bold) - as a society - that you can be comfortable with right now, or do you think that something needs to be changed in order to get there?

If you think that something needs changing, how do you propose to do it without having to undertake processes that would make you into one of the very 'extremists' that you are ostensibly against? And in the process of militating and becoming 'extreme' how far away from that aforementioned 'centre' do you think that your final trajectory would be?

[U184]

I prescribe to Militant Democratic Socialism myself.

[Goldberk]

We must fight against extremists of all stripes whether of left or right. To me extremism is the byproduct of irrational thought and must be equally opposed.

Spoken like a true liberal, assuming all other intellectual positons are irrational. In reveres the far left and the far right both recognise the need to fight against liberal hegemony, a dominance that has reduced all human life into a series of meaningless transactions.

As many have said before: "liberalism is a disease"

The problem with this centrist way of thinking is that it always assumes the current centre as an absolute centre, rather than one that is particular to their time in history, and which will one day become a reactionary position.

The use of the word centre by liberals is an attempt to normalise their positon, if they describe liberalism as centrist it becomes safer, less threatening more acceptable.

[U184]

Either extreme is unwanted, there needs to be a balance, or a combination of combined stances otherwise the outcome is unpleasant.

[Eran]

Had you lived in the 1600s, you could have just as easily divided people into "Those who support titles of nobility and bonds of serfdom" and those who do not. The problem with this centrist way of thinking is that it always assumes the current centre as an absolute centre, rather than one that is particular to their time in history, and which will one day become a reactionary position.

Absolutely.

To use a different example, moderates in the 18th century might have supported regulation and mitigation of the excesses of slavery. Only extremists supported outright abolition.

Moderates in the 17th century supported division of political power between the monarch and parliament. Only extremists supported either absolute monarchy or parliamentary democracy.

Moderates in the 19th century supported giving some rights to colonized natives. Only extremists believed in either ending colonialism or depriving the natives of any rights.

I could go on and on. There is no inherent virtue in moderation.

If the phenomenon under discussion is wrong (slavery, monarchy, government), it should be abolished, not compromised with.

Either extreme is unwanted, there needs to be a balance, or a combination of combined stances otherwise the outcome is unpleasant.

Would you be able to articulate what political system attribute places it in a given location along your line?

If we restrict ourselves to the first few ideologies from the left, we can use "protection of private property" as such attribute. (Left) Anarchism recognizes very little private property, with each ideology up to Conservatism typically characterized by more such respect.

However, this characterization breaks down as you go further, with Monarchism and Nazism being characterized by less such respect.

Another candidate parameter is nationalism vs. internationalism, with Anarchism and Communism characterized (at least in theory) by a very international perspective, while Nazism and Fascism are clearly highly nationalistic.

Where would libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism fit in? Both belong on the relative-right side (east of Conservatism, having removed Monarchism etc. from the chart) in terms of providing ultimate respect to private property.

On the other hand, both are characterized by a non-nationalist flavour (though to be pedantic, they leave the question of nationalism to individuals), and thus share much with Anarchism/Communism.

[nucklepunche]

If you are a 'militant centrist', do you believe that we are at the place (that 'centre' that you wrote in bold) - as a society - that you can be comfortable with right now, or do you think that something needs to be changed in order to get there?

Militant centrist is a label Carter gave me. When I refer to extremists I refer to people who consider themselves to be on left and right. Granted I have a right-wing friend who considers the center to be the mainline of the Republican Party, himself to be on the right, and stuff to the left of that to be communism. Still I think I avoided labels in my opener. I simply described a formula that I viewed as being the formula that has generated the most prosperity and my view is that the others have not. Communism has failed time and time again. Laissez-faire capitalism has failed to generate prosperity for only but a few. The proponents of both bend over and either claim 1) it has never been tried before or 2) it wasn't really as bad as history says and usually a hybrid of the two 3) they tried to try it but because it wasn't 100% perfect as the theorists intended your arguments against it are null. Still there was a time when children labored 100 hours a week under miserable conditions and even if Britain and America at the time never were completely and totally laissez-faire they were still a lot closer. The same goes for the communist regimes. Interestingly Pol Pot probably came closest to true communism of anybody and he ended up wiping out 25% of his people. As for anarchism I find the idea that the absence of a state could work in anything above a primitive society laughable. Can you imagine what today's Americans would do if the state disappeared? It is such a naive view of human nature to think either no state or an unlimited state on the other end can work.

If you think that something needs changing, how do you propose to do it without having to undertake processes that would make you into one of the very 'extremists' that you are ostensibly against? And in the process of militating and becoming 'extreme' how far away from that aforementioned 'centre' do you think that your final trajectory would be?

In the end I favor deciding things in legislatures without bullets. What I suggest is that people who stand for my idea wake up and show no rhetorical mercy to the extremists. I am doing that. For instance look at the dominance of right-wing talk radio in America. They bash and attack the center but the center stands down. People like Rush Limbaugh need to be told off but so do their followers, and that is something few are afraid to do, look the average conservative American in the eye and tell them they follow a lunatic. I am not afraid to do it.

So in the end we can deduce three key principles.

1. If you respect my opinions I will respect yours. A perfect example is Rei, who I am responding to. She is a fascist and a million miles from where I am politically yet I respect her because she comes up with unique arguments that actually have a rational basis. Many libertarians on here by contrast, who I am fond of arguing with, simply hash out an ideological line and brutally assault anybody who disagrees using no reason and logic and pure emotion that automatically assumes their ideology is correct. They never explain why libertarianism is correct he simply assumes it is. The truth be told I am closer to libertarians than to Rei's ideology but they are blind as to why I give her more respect than I give them. Anybody who is not an unrepentant extremist can see why.

2. The model I gave above, namely a system of mostly free enterprise with free trade and a relatively flexible labor market combined with reasonable regulations and a social welfare system funded out of moderately progressive taxation is what I am defending. Post WWII Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the USA have followed this model and ended up as the most prosperous nations. When we see nations following this we see them become rich, as Brazil is undergoing right now.

3. To me those who oppose it represent systems that are failures. I see them as a threat because they threaten the workings of the system that had led to maximum prosperity. That is why I fight against libertarians so much, because they have come to influence one of the two major political parties in America and it is leading to a breakdown of government's ability to solve anything since they automatically start with an ideology that says it cannot thus they are not open to solving any problems in a constructive way. Sometimes the Democrats have a constituency that foolishly assumes we must move far left or we must go nowhere at all but this is less representative than in the GOP.

[Daktoria]

And those who do not. Those who do not include socialists, communists, and anarchists on the left and libertarian and right-wing ideologues on the right. Increasingly, as much as my opponents disagree with each other I am starting to see them as one big giant blob, essentially a single organism fueled by irrational and extreme thought. Essentially I view my vision as rational and utilitarian and all other visions as irrational and emotional. It may seem conceited but I feel if you agree with me on the above vision you are with me and if you do not you are against me. My unified theory of politics essentially is this...

Are you sure utilitarianism is rational?

I'm actually discussing utilitarianism's self-destructiveness on a utilitarianism forum at the moment.

Say you have a trolley dilemma. 5 people on one track, 1 person on another.

Say the 1 person is a utilitarian.

By definition, the utilitarian would elect to have himself killed. That's not particularly rational judgment.

There are people who support the basic outline of society above and then there are extremists. We must fight against extremists of all stripes whether of left or right. To me extremism is the byproduct of irrational thought and must be equally opposed.

I guess this depends on the circumstance.

Some centrists are disciplined. They view extremism as out of balance, so it has to be calibrated.

Other centrists are just cowards. They view extremism as threatening, so it has to be avoided.

Regardless, both approaches enslave you to extremism. You're reacting instead of enacting.

The real key to stabilizing extremism is creativity. Lure extremists to you, don't go chasing after them.

To do this, you have to create a new dimension. It's why I like to call myself a conglomeratist now.

I've explained conglomeratism elsewhere:

The problem with libertarianism is it doesn't teach the social values required to preserve boundaries. Over time, wise guys infest society, and constant vigilance wears out...

...so obviously, something needs to be added to prevent this.

Hence, the conglomerate.

In business, a conglomerate is a vertically integrated company with departments, subsidiaries, and affiliates across multiple industries. These departments interact and create self-sufficiency. They can also influence each others' markets in order to protect market share and preserve profitability. A clear example would be a telecom company that's also involved with media broadcasts. Telecom goods and services can be designed towards media preference, and media broadcasts can be tuned towards telecom usage. Another example would be a pharmaceutical company that's also involved with health insurance. Treatments can be designed towards insurance preference, and insurance can be tuned towards treatment usage.

However, self-sufficient behavior doesn't just stop there. If a conglomerate is truly self-sufficient, not only will it be able to fuel its own production, but its consumption will be fueled as well. The organizational behavior of its members will coincide with what the conglomerate designs, manufactures, and distributes such that employees themselves remain happy.

Why does this happen?

Over the long run, shareholders and managers start to wonder something - what is profit?

Profit, when you REALLY look at it, is not Dollars and cents. It's free time. It's experiences. It's relaxation. It's flexibility. It's relationships.

It's art.

If a shareholder or manager REALLY wants to make a company "profitable", the key is to bring art into the workplace itself, and this simplifies the supply chain tremendously. Instead of producing for revenue, distributing that revenue through wages, and exchanging wages for products...

...why not just produce what you want? Why not incorporate "who you are" into the design, manufacture, and distribution processes themselves?

The most obvious obstacle to this is we live in a world with wise guys as initially stated. Some people just want to gobble up market share. They aren't willing to slow down. Maybe they're paranoid. Maybe they enjoy teasing. Maybe they don't fit in with existing culture, so they need independence.

Ergo, the real key to establishing a conglomerate...

...is philosophy.

The real key to establishing a conglomerate is getting each person assimilated where nobody has to worry about being ignored. In the beginning, this would involve rigorous testing to ensure chemistry among employees. Over time, it would expand into childraising, education, recreation, and so on such that the company itself becomes a community.

No social hierarchy. No social alienation. No appeals to absurdity. No inside information.

Nobody has a motive to work as hard as possible just to prove themselves. The focus in the conglomerate is quality, not quantity, of experience.

People think before they act. People don't take things for granted. People don't just say, "That's ridiculous," and leave people alone without understanding.

People listen. They understand priority and rules of order. People understand certain social values come before others because rationality takes steps. We don't spoil people with the later steps before the earlier steps because that leads to organizational implosion from people not really understanding fundamentals.

Conglomeratism is about making sure people aren't taken for granted. It's about due process, due diligence. It's about respecting subjectivity and realizing things have to be EXPLAINED to prevent conflict.

Conglomeratism is also about teaching people to explain things concisely and precisely so they don't take up other people's time and attention unnecessarily, and this is probably one of the very first things a conglomerate would teach people so they're compatible in working together from the very beginning.

[nucklepunche]

I said I am a soft utilitarian not a hard utilitarian. I see no problem with fuzzy logic. Sooner or later you need to accept any constructed worldview has a weak point. I can accept this, libertarians cannot.

[Daktoria]

I said I am a soft utilitarian not a hard utilitarian. I see no problem with fuzzy logic. Sooner or later you need to accept any constructed worldview has a weak point. I can accept this, libertarians cannot.

Let's forget libertarianism.

How would you like it if you were caught in that weak point?

For example, consider illegal immigration. How would you like it if your labor market and your consumer culture were jeopardized by porous borders?

Utilitarians tend to not care about this. They say the quantity of consumer good production performed by migrant labor outweighs the cost of disintegrated community.

[Sceptic]

Are you sure utilitarianism is rational?

I'm actually discussing utilitarianism's self-destructiveness on a utilitarianism forum at the moment.

Say you have a trolley dilemma. 5 people on one track, 1 person on another.

Say the 1 person is a utilitarian.

By definition, the utilitarian would elect to have himself killed. That's not particularly rational judgment.

I think the Rawls quote here is relevant: 'Principles of justice are formulated from a veil of ignorance' (to paraphrase).

In any case one could argue the utilitarian was 'rational' from the perspective of satisfying his ends, namely the smallest magnitude of overall rights violations (defined by the utilitarian as a relative scale of pain and suffering).

[Daktoria]

I think the Rawls quote here is relevant: 'Principles of justice are formulated from a veil of ignorance' (to paraphrase).

In any case one could argue the utilitarian was 'rational' from the perspective of satisfying his ends, namely the smallest magnitude of overall rights violations (defined by the utilitarian as a relative scale of pain and suffering).

Well of course he WAS, but he's dead NOW!

[Sceptic]

Well of course he WAS, but he's dead NOW!

Well death is the end of pain and suffering, so nothing irrational about that

[TropicalK]

It makes far more sense to make the laws of society around what you believe to be correct instead of what's popular or what is the mix of two positions.

Few people go to extremes because it is an extreme. Instead, intelligent people look at the evidence and make a decision. It is pure luck that the decided "correct" decision is considered an extreme.

If you ask two people what the answer to a mathematical equation is, and they come up with different answers, the least likely to be correct is the averaging of the two.

Person A: 1+1 = 2
Person B: 1+1 = 10

Person C: "These are extremest results, the answer to 1+1 must equal 6."

[nucklepunche]

In the end though I know I will be better off living in a society governed by the rules I mentioned above, specifically...

A mixed economy driven mostly by free enterprise with free trade and a relatively flexible labor market but with some government investment and social welfare provision funded via moderately progressive taxes.

[Paradigm]

In the end though I know I will be better off living in a society governed by the rules I mentioned above, specifically...

A mixed economy driven mostly by free enterprise with free trade and a relatively flexible labor market but with some government investment and social welfare provision funded via moderately progressive taxes.

Right. Everything's just fantastic as it is, and nothing could possibly get better. So since no alternative could possibly improve upon it, I'll just plug my ears and go "La la la! I can't hear you!"

[onemalehuman]

Well death is the end of pain and suffering, so nothing irrational about that

Condescending flippent remarks such as this really insults my instincts when it reaches my consciousness of equally comprehension of how my intellect works like every other human lifetimes does regardless the ideology they adopt a character value system around.

Death is the end of that specific lifetime's suffering, but not those surviving beyond that lifetime in the life of being human ancestry. So there is rational in err of thoughts continuing to ignore the self evident functions creating lifetime living within the eternity of now's reaction to compounding contractions perpetually changing the details within the same results never duplicated by conception or conceptual arguments contrived by if and might while not exploring the functions working as usual that create now as the universal baalnce point that divides was and is continuing here now.

"We are indowed by our creator, that all mankind is created equally".... within this moment of life being exactly as it continues to flow along contracting result triangulating expanding details of the results functioning as usual in an adapt or become extinct environment of space time relative to now universally here.

The i9rrational part of your statement is it's existentialism isolating a whole part from all parts equally functioning now. That is deliberate distortion in order to frame other people's oppinions to side with your own ideas followed or falsely constructed to shape reality balanketing over the real functions functioning presently all the time each generation must endure living within this moments compounding reactions to everything naturally balanced as always within the politics of ruling Eternity's results so far.

One moment always here universally baalncing all details now never duplicated. How can that physically work without theory or theology inventing ways to make sure nobody believes this is the only moment it does function within since time relativity never addes up from any opinionated rationing of perception along the lines of literal and figurative composed excuses to be excused from just being another sole result of ancestry in a continuing two gendered population of a homo sapien species's varieties of adaptations to regional cellular adapting take place now where everything here isn't the same details being the same physical results metaphysically contempting reasons not to accept real for reality's sake of governance within segretating ideologies of psychological classifcation warfare built within vernacular tribalism rule of law granting rights to character definitions created from fictional interpretations.

Hypothese, hypotheticals, and hyperbole. Hope, faith, and charity becoming institutionalized into church, state, and economic symbolic philosophies making intellectual emotions feel larger than instinctive awareness.

[onemalehuman]

It makes far more sense to make the laws of society around what you believe to be correct instead of what's popular or what is the mix of two positions.

Few people go to extremes because it is an extreme. Instead, intelligent people look at the evidence and make a decision. It is pure luck that the decided "correct" decision is considered an extreme.

If you ask two people what the answer to a mathematical equation is, and they come up with different answers, the least likely to be correct is the averaging of the two.

Person A: 1+1 = 2
Person B: 1+1 = 10
Person C: "These are extremest results, the answer to 1+1 must equal 6."

Here is an error of assumption when using segratated subjectivity to make an objective of twisting natural balance into nature's metaphysical chaos of indiviudal behaviors of sole lifetimes within the life of each species present to the details being discussed as a whole part not the whole moment universally here functioning the same way throughout all indiviudal parts.
So person A is a spiritualist, person B is a politician, person C is an economist, and the audience D is everyone reading this post.
Using the same terms, rules, and existential meanings I see three divisions working upon the fourth central part of making reality believable through audience participation after the show is over and they picked a side to characterize their character role of social identity in playing ancestry against it's own ancestors.

Math is symbolic equations of general means to symbolic values of numerical definitions of subjectivity.
For persoan A, what does one equal in his transmission to person B thinking separately and in different venues of operation preferences to interpret numerical symbols. One to that person could be a group, not a sole individual result which leaves open to the third person thinking both A and B persons are speaking about his way to interpret what one symbolizes in this simple distortion of 1+1 = 2 separated details. See person C considers both A and B as one and the particitpating audience as one. So what is 2 to the symbolic value of everyone's individual interpretation included within this analogy?

Nobody can know for sure as language is descriptive of objects, not the definitions of subjects and when relatively mixing the two, the total sum added is nothing more than comparative speculation between theoretical sciences and theological spirituality and the framework in institutionalizing character franchises of societal evolution where faith is mandatory and understanding real is illegal.