- One way to divide political theories: historical and ahistorical. I fall firmly into the camp of “historical.” I tend to call those who favor the latter “Idealists,” and I mean it as an epithet. They consider abstract governments with no care for people as they really are. I think the best expression of this is in Polybius:
“As for Plato’s celebrated Republic, which is highly praised by certain philosophers, I do not think it admissable that this should be brought into the argument about constitutions. For just as we do not allow artists or athletes who are not duly registered or have not been in training to take part in festivals or games, so we should not admit the Platonic constitution to this contest for the prize of merit, unless some example can be provided of it in action. Up to the present, at any rate, the idea of comparing it with the constitutions of Sparta, Rome or Carthage would be like bringing for some statue and then comparing it with living and breathing men. For even if the statue were absolutely perfect in respect of its workmanship, the comparison of a lifeless object with a living being would strike the spectators as quite inadequate and incongruous.” – Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, Book VI
I do not think this is quite fair to Plato because that was not his intention. Still, the sentiment holds. Libertarians are usually ahistorical political thinkers.
- Capitalism is a giant failure. It’s dictates are grow and consume. Imagine if the Earth were a giant bank. Capitalism has been withdrawing from that bank and destroying our planet. Now, we’re about to default on the loans our ancestors have been taking out. The changes we are making to this planet are scary because mass extinction events are a rule of life. Basically, capitalism has elevated money for the individual over the existence of the human race. That’s “fail” in my book.
- Unfettered capitalism, the libertarian’s wet dream, will simply result in the collusion of the rich at the expense of the poor. Of course, that’s the nature of things even when you don’t have modern capitalism.
- Speaking of collusion of the rich, look at some aspects of our government. Telecoms break the law, but get off free because these rich people buy off, or call in favors from, their rich buddies in Congress. At least we have some modicum of change insofar as taxes are being raised for the richest among us. Still, I have to come back to this ancient idea of “mixed” government, where you have elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. It seems as if the “democratic” element is sorely underrepresented.
- The concept of radicalism currently entices me. The times call for radical, bold action. Our governmental system needs radical changes because it has allowed practical tyranny for the last 8 years and Obama’s administration is not eager to give up most of that power. Furthermore, moderatism will not save us from a warming planet when the changes are tracking the most pessimistic models.
- I want to be a radical but I don’t want to be an “Idealist.” Blech. Almost as bad as being a “dogmatist.”
EDIT: This post is very silly, full of silly generalizations. I should perhaps take more time to think before I post.
EDIT: This post Is the global economy a Ponzi scheme expresses some of what I was thinking in a much more developed manner. (via Lloyd on AIM)