Regardless, I want to summarize the process by which I came to my current political philosophy.
During recent evaluations of the "Climate Change" proposal (and I call it a proposal rather than theory because it implies action is required) I've realized what the measuring tool is that I use when confronted with new ideas.
By "measuring tool" I mean my ultimate value, the thing I care about most when trying to make sense of a new idea.
Moral philosophy is my natural and first concern when evaluating new ideas related to how we organize ourselves as a society. This has not always been the case.
I studied economics studiously a few years ago and economic efficiency became my measuring stick. I realized that so many things the government tries to control would be better handled by the free market. Mixed with a natural inclination to be free I embraced the ideology of libertarianism.
After seeing a trend of bad economic policy in government and improved quality with lower costs in the free market I concluded that government's place was not in any affairs the free market could handle on its own.
Where did this push government? I wouldn't want my food being grown by the government, that's just a given. Neither would I want my cell phone or car created by the government, so it has to be pushed out of technology as much as possible.
Government's place got pushed out of the post office, obviously, then out of education, and certainly out of the medical industry. They're pretty shitty when it comes to monetary policy, they shouldn't do trade wars and actually all regulations are commercial regulations so they all need to go.
Government became for me for a short while the "Government of the Gaps." Every time I would look into 'who does better at x; government or free market?' It always turned up free market and government got pushed out of everything, one industry at a time. That is, it got pushed out of nearly everything.
All it was to do in my "minarchist" view was national defense, police, and maybe handling of the law and courts because these are the things government does best: issue verdicts and kill people.
Like I said, economics was my measuring tool and it managed to take me that far. But just as vacuum tubes were replaced by a new paradigm so was my thinking about to make a quantum leap forward. While wrestling with the question of whether or not the court system could be run with greater economic efficiency by the free market (which I now believe it could) I realized my measuring stick was inadequate.
I had been asking the wrong question.
National defense, police, law and courts - all these things cost money. And where does government get its' money? From the people. Put more accurately government steals the people's money. This is called taxation.
Stealing is immoral and immorality trumps economic efficiency. I knew this was true by looking at my own life: it would be very economically efficient for me to steal the income I need to live if I had the opportunity, but I wouldn't do it because it would be immoral.
I realized this: morality trumps economic efficiency. Therefore if government must steal in order to pay its policemen, soldiers and judges I could not support such a minimalist government regardless of economic efficiency.
And that's where I stand today. Everyone seems to have a 'measuring stick' or 'ultimate value' they use to evaluate new ideas (especially when the realization of those ideas have implications on how we organize ourselves as a society).
Some people care mostly about what is fair. Equality is the word for them. If some people are rich, and others are poor, well that just wont do. Everyone deserves to be happy and no one should have less than anyone else. I believe having this as an ultimate value presupposes that someone is dishing out the goodies, that someone is in charge of all the wealth. And if that was the case then yes, equality is only fair; all the kids should have the same number of toys.
Other people are quick to defer the question to a higher authority. I get this a lot from those that are religious in my parents' generation. Its almost as if they believe they shouldn't think about these issues because God is judge, its not their place, their just children.
If equality is your ultimate value then equality trumps morality. Jack has more than Jane so take from Jack and give to Jane. Problem solved!
If religious doctrine is your ultimate value (which it may have been for me as a teenager, so I get it) then religious doctrine trumps morality. Oh, Jack is a homosexual so he's bad. Problem solved!
I really cannot think of any other method or measuring tool or ultimate value that is more important to me than asking, "is this moral?" Of course that statement is totally tautological because of course I feel that way - its my ultimate value. But anyway, I have to reject any other ultimate value because they all seem to have childish-like, unempowering, and illogical premises inherent in them.
Maybe equality is morality to you - whatever make everyone equal makes everyone have the same amount of happiness so that's what is right. Or maybe whatever God says is your definition of morality; if God says this is bad, then it must be bad even if it doesn't make logical sense.
Well neither of those are morality to me. My definition of what's wrong is very simple. Whatever is the initiation of aggression is wrong. You can kind of approximate that idea by living by the golden rule, but basically aggression isn't necessarily bad because that could be self defense, but the initiation of aggression is bad because there is no excuse, its just unprovoked attack. Stealing, rape, assault, murder, even fraud is under that umbrella of initiation of aggression so all those things are bad.
If that's not your definition of morality then give it some thought and really pin down what you think is right and wrong. Its possible you could have a definition I've never thought of before. That would be cool to hear about.
I think any ultimate value that can trump moral considerations (and can therefore lead to aggression) should really be given a lot of thought. Its a heavy issue and deserves a lot of seriousness. Besides that it really feels good to be consistent.
No comments:
Post a Comment