[Fabrice Staus]

Hello,
I'm new here and I feel like I have the duty first to give something to the community and then only ask for attention to my ideology. However, I can't wait to post my ideology. So, my ideology is based on a philosophical theory, as I see Philosophy in the duty to search for the Right, and Politics in the duty to realize the Right. Here is it:

This is a theory that claims to contain the only values that really justify laws and actions.

First, for this theory I have to define how to justify (objectively), because if we have different ways to justify objectively, we won"t reach anything. Well, justifying has stations. We"ll now determine those stations. The last station is the result of justifying, constitutional or moral laws and actions. The first station is facts, because if something isn"t justified by facts it isn"t objective. These facts have to be unchangeable, because if they"re changeable, they have to be justified. One could say that this wouldn"t work, but let"s just suppose it"s possible, as if it isn"t possible, there"s no objective truth and this would however be the way to determine objective truth, there just wouldn"t be any case where it fits. However it"s possible. An important station between those two stations is the basic values, the step from unchangeable facts to the responsibility to do something. Between the basic values and laws & actions, there can be many or no stations in between, depending from case to case. These potential stations can be represented by the station goals. So, resuming: Facts -> Basic values -> Goals -> Laws & Actions

How should one make the step from an unchangeable fact to the responsibility to do something ? Well, there are two types of unchangeable facts. First static facts, like water is constituted by H2O. That doesn"t lead to anything. Second dynamic facts, an unchangeable process, like evolution. Only a fact that actively does something can create a responsibility to do something. The term dynamic is chosen a bit badly, as the fact doesn"t change. However, in such a process, we have to have a unit of individuals (It can also be only one.) that has a goal, what will be basic value.

By the end, we will have found five objectively legitimated basic values.

We take the process of evolution and split it up into two selections
First Two: Unchangeable Fact: The external selection: The external selection describes an evolutionary process, the selection of species. Species are in a competition for food resources, habitats, etc. and they will ever be. Some species will survive. Others won't. It will always be made a selection. In this process, every species is a unity, with the goal of preserving and expanding the own species. It's not like a common goal coincidentally shared by all individuals of a species, but this goal simply is there. Therefore: Basic Value (for humans): Preservation and Expansion of the human species. However, life as a hole also makes a genetic progress by this selection. Therefore: Basic Value (theoretically for every living thing): Genetic Progress of living things

"Second" Two: Unchangeable Fact: The internal selection: This selection plus the external selection are indeed everything that decides when any individual will live and die and how it will be while living. So both selections resume evolution. However, internal selection describes the selection of individuals within a species. Some individuals will reproduce more than other individuals and the gene pool will be changed. In species with two sexes, this selection is represented in the partner choice, where a partner with good genetics is prefered over a partner with bad genetics. In this case, we have the individual as a unity with the goal of reproducing. Basic Value (for everyone on his own): Spread of own genetics But, we have also the unity of the species with the goal of making a genetic progress. Basic Value (for humanity): Genetic Progress of humanity

Last: Unchangeable Fact: Objective justified values exist, if one knows about them or not. So, for the case of other values, one shall know them. So, as values are legitimated by general facts, we have to produce general facts, in other words, science. Basic Value (theoretically for all living things, even if in this case it doesn"t change anything as we as humans are the only species able to do science): Production of and handling of unchangeable facts / Science


In my ideology, all laws and political actions are based on this values.


I'm looking forward to hear good critics and I will enjoy discussing with everyone on an argumentative level.
Thank you for reading !

[AuRomin]

I love the scientific attitude as many people form a belief and forget to understand why. One problem that I have with this is that there is no substance. Can you tell us examples of policies that help these goals? What economic systems advance these goals best? The first step it there, but it is just a foundation, not an ideology. It is like trying to reduce socialism down to "people are naturally equal" or something else absurdly useless and usually just based on assumption (as everything is). The other problem I have with it is the fact that you jump from bettering the genetic pool to government. Why?It seems like this would happen naturally regardless of government system. Also the fact that humans use tools and this advances us far faster than genetics can. I believe that science (as a general term, possibly synonymous with progress) is what governments should work to advance (and leave to genetics to the individual).

[Fabrice Staus]

Yes, this isn’t an ideology, it’s the theory the ideology is based, just as I said. And one first needs to discuss about the step 1, the theory or foundation as you say, and then about step 2, the laws resulting from it, as laws don’t justify values, but values justify laws, because if laws would justify values, it would be because of the values the laws would promote. So, it’s a one-way street, and one first needs to discuss about the values until one agrees, and then about the laws resulting from the values until one agrees. If we would discuss about laws based on different values, that would lead to nothing. My arguments based on my values you don’t share wouldn’t be recognized by you and the other way round. Therefore, I first wanted to talk about the values.
But OK, I will talk about the laws. First, you ask how the government is justified. Well, to promote the values and realize the laws resulting from them, a government is needed.
So, for the value Preservation and Expansion of the human race. medicine and medical research would be organized by the state and free for the people and the existential needs are satisfied by the state, too. For example, food chains will be controlled to secure food and space colonization will too be a major goal for the state. For genetic progress, there will be a child policy privileging people with better genetics, the market will, except for medicine et cetera, as free as possible to promote sexual selection. For the genetic progress of other races, some will be privileged in the food chains. Science will be organized by the state. But this hole thing would only be the ideal. If other ideologies too promote a bit these values, they can also be used as means for the purpose.

You also said my values are based on assumption. Well, they are based on evolution, and evolution isn’t just an assumption. Yes they are parts of the evolution that aren’t proven, but that would concern the splitting of one species into two and other things. The elements needed for this theory all are proven.

Well, if tools let us advance faster than genetics can, we don’t have to make a choice between both, and if a child policy privileging people with good genetics would be applied, we would make a good progress. The genetic level limits the civil level. We can’t make unlimited civil progress without making genetic progress.

[AuRomin]

Yes, this isn’t an ideology, it’s the theory the ideology is based, just as I said

My apologies.

one first needs to discuss about the values until one agrees, and then about the laws resulting from the values until one agrees.

Agreed. Many people shy away from philosophy and think they can talk about politics in some informed way. They are fools.

if a child policy privileging people with good genetics would be applied, we would make a good progress

How do you keep racism out of it? Will you implement some rigid objective standard such as longevity that cannot be changed or added to?

he genetic level limits the civil level. We can’t make unlimited civil progress without making genetic progress.

I don't think this is necessarily true. There seems to be no evidence for this (or why you would need to make civil progress past a certain point).

It may seem like I am only contradicting you. If so, it's because I am. Everything I don't mention I (probably) agree with 100%.

[Fabrice Staus]

3. I thought about a system categorizing people into classes by the criteria money. While IQ-tests or other tests can only estimate a certain part of the genetic potential, one is able to make money by that many diverse ways, that here takes place a much more extensive valuation of the genetic potential. One can conclude: money = genetic potential. The upper classes would be privileged to the lower ones, and the number of children allowed for the classes would be adjusted to the food sources. In the ideal case, the lower half could make one child and the upper half would have no limit.

4. Well, if civil progress until a certain point is a good thing, civil progress past this certain point is a better thing. Civil progress is relative thing, therefore I ask you why there should be an absolute limit.

[AuRomin]

One can conclude: money = genetic potential.

In what way? How is knowing how to resell items at a higher price than wholesale a sign of good genetics? links or titles of literature would be nice

I ask you why there should be an absolute limit.

I just stated that there might be a limit. I believe there is likely an optimal system, though.

[Fabrice Staus]

First, I want to explain a consideration I made.
It is that nature always makes the perfect selection. How? Well, nature is the scale of genetic potential. The whole foundation of my ideology is based on the nature, and I ask, if it’s nature who does the selection, how there shall be another scale than nature for genetic progress. Nature defines which genetic is better and which is worse. Therefore nature makes the perfect selection. With nature in this case, I speak about a system where how the selection concerning some individuals is made is mainly decided by the actions of these individuals, and not by a bigger system that takes big influence on the selection of concerning little individuals compared to the size of this system. So what I want to say is that anarchy makes the best natural and sexual selection. (I distinguish between natural, sexual and artificial selection.)
To add, as we’ll need it later, the “success” in the anarchy is deciding if you reproduce much, not much or not at all. Factors are physical level, intellectual level, social level and coincidences. Perhaps one could make a more complex list, but I think that these are the important factors for the discussion. If you don’t agree, you can propose other factors that you see as important for the discussion.

However, we don’t want to have anarchy, as anarchy is counterproductive to other values as preservation and expansion of the human race and progress in science. Therefore, taking into account those values, we have to create a system where the selection is most similar to the one made in anarchy. So, where the reproducing success is decided by the same factors.
We don’t need to consider coincidences, these will come from themselves and one can’t force them.
Intellectual level, intelligence, is made a factor by the artificial selection, so by the economic success. Intelligence has many different kinds. However, all kinds of intelligence influence one’s economic success. Creativity, strategic thinking, ability to learn, et cetera. The higher your creativity, the higher your economic success. The higher your strategic thinking… I don’t see any change from anarchy to capitalism that would make any kind of intelligence less a factor.
Social level is also made a factor by the artificial selection, as it takes a big influence on the economic success. One needs to be able to get on well with one’s clients. To be able, as you said, to haggle with the trade partners. (If you don’t the link to social level, social level is psychology, the ability to convince people.) The quantity and the “economic quality” of friends also has influence on the economic relations, so on the economic success. Sure, the intellectual level is a bigger factor on this than the social level. This is compensated by the sexual selection, where social level is a bigger factor than intellectual level.
The only factor with less influence in this system than in anarchy is the physical level. To explain and justify this, I distinguish between
- The level of the immune system: We can’t let people die due to disease in order to make a better natural selection. For non-deadly diseases, the medications aren’t paid by the state, so this has (a little) influence on the economic success.
- The physical power when not applied: This still has as much influence as in anarchy, as it has psychological influence on the people, so the social level and even directly on the economic success, as studies show that tall and masculine men have bigger economic success than little and feminine men. (Testosterone=Masculinity and Growth hormones=Tallness ; Testoerone and Growth hormones are the biggest endocrinological/hormonological factors in muscle building, so strength) Also, people are amazed by big muscles, thinking about the rising fitness trend, and these people make the corresponding markets lucrative. There are many amateur competitions in bodybuilding and powerlifting, martial arts is also a field where one can make money.
- The physical power when applied: This factor will be erased, as first there are risks concerning the general health of the people, and it has the potential to truly put in danger the violence monopoly of the state, and the stability of the state is the priority as it is the state who also promotes other important values.
However, the main difference between the selection in anarchy and this system is that the other factors become more privileged to coincidence, so that there is a stronger selection. One could argue that, as I said, anarchy makes the perfect selection, but in this case, the selection made by this system is kind of anarchy exponent 2, as the constant factors are applied even stronger. Coincidence is not a constant factor, as sometimes, it goes to one direction, and sometimes it goes to the opposite direction. If anarchy is perfect, this system is perfect exponent 2. Even if one doesn’t agree, this system is the system with the best possible selection when there is a state caring about people’s lives.


In order to discuss about the thing with the optimal system, etc… I need to ask you to develop more your idea of the optimal system. In forward, I can say, that perhaps, there is a optimal system, and that more probably, this optimal system will be denied to us due to a too low genetic level.

[Fabrice Staus]

.