Your Political First Principles

[Wraith]

What is the basis for your own personal political philosophy? Distilled down as much as you can, what would you say is the principle or set of principles from which you derive most or all of your other politcal beliefs? Do you have anything that can be regarded as first principles? Simplify as much as you can before expanding on it. Feel free to expand on why you've adopted the beliefs you have too.

I know this thread is sorta Minxish. Sorry.

[wiggin]

I'd have to think about this a bit more, but a few basic principles:

In general, people should make their own decisions about their lives. This is the most efficient and fair way to have a society work, provided that said individual choices do not harm another.

That being said, governments exist to do a few things:
1) Insure against tail risks and some other risks
2) Regulate public goods and externalities
3) Protect the weak and disadvantaged
4) Enforce contracts and agreements

I might add in a fifth about law enforcement/defense, but that might fall under the rubric of #2 and #3.

I'm pretty sure that all of my political beliefs more or less follow from these basics.

[RandBlade]

I believe in fairness, though my definition of fairness may not be the same as everyone elses and can almost entirely be summed up in one line:

1: People should be able to make their own choices, so long as it doesn't harm others.

Another cliche:
Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

[earthJoker]

1. Sustainability - Politics should focus on creating a system "in theory" can run forever. Is not dependent on resources, deficits that run out within several generations
2. Democratic - Legislative should be controlled by as many as possible, not because their choices are better, but because I don't believe it is a good idea that a few people can affect the lives of many.
2b. division of power. Power should be spread and not concentrated in politics.
3. "Passive state" - To me the job of the government is to create an environment where the society can prosper (business, art, sports...) it is not the job to invest into business, art, sports by itself. The only exception I see to that rules are emergency situations like catastrophes and war.

[LittleFuzzy]

What is the basis for your own personal political philosophy? Distilled down as much as you can, what would you say is the principle or set of principles from which you derive most or all of your other politcal beliefs? Do you have anything that can be regarded as first principles? Simplify as much as you can before expanding on it. Feel free to expand on why you've adopted the beliefs you have too.

I know this thread is sorta Minxish. Sorry.

The Law of Unintended Consequences/Demon Murphy, the belief that there is no one true way, the view that our choices are constrained *but not determined* by our environments, and the opinion that most-to-all socio-political environments with a shared origin aren't as different from each other as they think they are.

Basically, I tend to lean toward not using power to intervene in things. I don't have a lot of faith in the transformative power of applied policy-making and I'm sure and certain that it WILL result in things I don't particularly want whatever else happens.

edit: One other thing tends to strongly motivate me politically but I don't think it really comes down to political philosophy. As most of you probably know I strongly emphasize function. That means that regardless of field one of the first questions that needs to be answered when something is proposed is "how well does it actually work." I'm not a big fan of half-measures, stopgaps, or initiatives which are primarily about perception or pandering. Wrt systems, that emphasis results in a very powerful interest in flexibility, because my first principle of the universe is that change happens and flexibility seems to me to be the best way to ensure adaptation to changing conditions rather than a breakdown.

[Lewkowski]

Freedom.

Government should protect people from other people. IE Murder, rape, assault, arson, copyright infringement, breach of contract, invasion and terrorists.

Beyond that we should have liberty. And most of all government should not protect people from *themselves.*

[Illusions]

Freedom.

I don't think you understand what this word means because...

Government should protect people from other people. IE Murder, rape, assault, arson, copyright infringement, breach of contract, invasion and terrorists.

...this very statement here says that you want to ensure that people don't have the freedom to murder, rape, and assault other people, or commit arson, breach of contract, or copyright infringement. This is like the arguments made by people who want everyone to be happy. Then when you mention sociopathic murderers who delight in killing people, no, suddenly they don't want everyone to be happy, but still somehow seem to forget this fact later when they go and make the same argument again. And again. Anyway...

Maximize opportunities for safety, liberty, and personal contentment/happiness, within rational and reasonable limits (as detailed above).

[GGT]

What is the basis for your own personal political philosophy? Distilled down as much as you can, what would you say is the principle or set of principles from which you derive most or all of your other politcal beliefs? Do you have anything that can be regarded as first principles? Simplify as much as you can before expanding on it. Feel free to expand on why you've adopted the beliefs you have too.

I know this thread is sorta Minxish. Sorry.

Since you said political philosophy, I won't comment on my views of government/governance. IMO they've become totally disassociated in principle and function (in the US). If I had to name a "first principle" of politics, it would be wanting as many diverse choices of candidates as possible, to try and cut through their politician crap. The crap that's become their "branding" as Democrats or Republicans, as the DNC or GOP has decided.

Expanding from there, the amount of money necessary to run for office (local, state, federal) has become hideous, and prohibitive for many new entrants if they're not part of the powerful D or R machinations, with their War Chests. It's not just anti-thetical for citizen representation (by, of, and for the people), but it leads to incumbent advantages, career politicians, and less choices for voters.

Seems we're not choosing leaders these days, but politicians with the most powerful cronies or donors, organization or 'strategy', paid staff, campaign slogans or commercials. That all costs a lot of money. Some even use their own millions (Whitman, Forbes, Bloomberg, Corzine, etc.) to successfully remove their less-endowed competition. They don't even have to win....but it whittles the field and gives us less choices.

That's why I'm frustrated with our two-party dominant political system. I don't think it's working well for anyone but the politicians. Well, plus those who make a living by getting them elected, lobbying them after they're elected, influencing legislation, and using the revolving door. Politicians are good at politicking, but not necessarily good at leading or governing. That's just not gonna hack it in the 21st century, or beyond.

[Being]

Business needs society more than society needs business.

[Draco]

...this very statement here says that you want to ensure that people don't have the freedom to murder, rape, and assault other people, or commit arson, breach of contract, or copyright infringement. This is like the arguments made by people who want everyone to be happy. Then when you mention sociopathic murderers who delight in killing people, no, suddenly they don't want everyone to be happy, but still somehow seem to forget this fact later when they go and make the same argument again. And again. Anyway...

WTF?! What kind of 'reasoning' is this? I can't believe I just read that, seriously. And then the likes of Lewkowski and I are seen as the 'bad guys' because of our advocation for true freedom, the only type that doesn't enslave any one person to any form of government, group or society. And then some of you are oh so suprised at my vehemence against such lines of 'reasoning', against such systems as we all live in today, when it has come down to this: "you want to ensure that people don't have the freedom to murder..."

But no, you all go along and target me, because really, there's gotta be something wrong with me since I don't agree with the status quo

[RandBlade]

Business needs society more than society needs business.

No.

[Flixy]

It's not the other way round either, though.

[RandBlade]

Indeed. The two go hand-in-hand.

[Draco]

^^That's what I thought too, that you can't have one without the other. And I don't want to begin imagining what Being's comment could suggest or sanction.

[Hazir]

1. Long term thinking, quick fixes are for crises, not for fundamentals
2. Rules should apply to all, exceptions should only be for when the general rule is extremely unfair
3. Government should be as small as possible while still performing those functions that make it possible for society to function.
- for me the minimum is, security internal and external, oversight, fighting poverty.
4. Free market principles, not unfettered, however government should not take a role upon itself to play with the levers of the economy.

[Momo]

'Take responsibility for ourselves; and no-one else - but do it thoroughly, honestly and with love'.

[Flixy]

Indeed. The two go hand-in-hand.

Aye, the problem only comes when they conflict and you need a balance...

'Take responsibility for ourselves; and no-one else - but do it thoroughly, honestly and with love'.

Isn't that more moral than political?

[Momo]

Isn't that more moral than political?

What is the basis for your own personal political philosophy? Distilled down as much as you can

I'm a human first, then a politician. Or I would be if I were one.

My political first principle must resonate with my top personal principles, else I'm not being real in my position. I'd be an actor just playing a part - and that would lead inevitably to disappointment not only in my own capacities but in the people I represented that trusted me.

[Wraith]

...this very statement here says that you want to ensure that people don't have the freedom to murder, rape, and assault other people, or commit arson, breach of contract, or copyright infringement.

Or it simply implies that freedom is not as simplistic as you imagine it to be, and that freedom to live, be free from external harm, own property, etc. is actually considered.

[Khendraja'aro]

Or it simply implies that freedom is not as simplistic as you imagine it to be, and that freedom to live, be free from external harm, own property, etc. is actually considered.

By that reasoning, it's also not as simplistic as Lewk makes it out to be.

[earthJoker]

1. Long term thinking, quick fixes are for crises, not for fundamentals
2. Rules should apply to all, exceptions should only be for when the general rule is extremely unfair
3. Government should be as small as possible while still performing those functions that make it possible for society to function.
- for me the minimum is, security internal and external, oversight, fighting poverty.
4. Free market principles, not unfettered, however government should not take a role upon itself to play with the levers of the economy.

It seems to me that our views are not that far apart. At least in principle.

[Being]

^^That's what I thought too, that you can't have one without the other. And I don't want to begin imagining what Being's comment could suggest or sanction.

Business cannot exist without society. Society can exist without business.

[Loki]

Being needs cliches more than cliches need Being.

[Illusions]

Or it simply implies that freedom is not as simplistic as you imagine it to be, and that freedom to live, be free from external harm, own property, etc. is actually considered.

Well then my political philosophy is Biscuits, and I won't have anyone telling me that the definition of Biscuits is simple, and doesn't also include maximizing contentment/happiness.

Or it could also demonstrate that when Lewk chest thumps FREEDOM! that he does not share the same set of values of what people should be free to do as other people who may lay claim to the FREEDOM! soundbite.

[Enoch the Red]

Well then my political philosophy is Biscuits, and I won't have anyone telling me that the definition of Biscuits is simple, and doesn't also include maximizing contentment/happiness.

Or it could also demonstrate that when Lewk chest thumps FREEDOM! that he does not share the same set of values of what people should be free to do as other people who may lay claim to the FREEDOM! soundbite.

And when Hazir says that he supports, "Free market principles, not unfettered, however government should not take a role upon itself to play with the levers of the economy," does it also demonstrate that he does not share the same set of values of what those principles should be, what fetters they should be bound by, and the role of government within the economy, as other people might who also lay claim to the limited role of government in the economy mantle?

[Being]

Being needs cliches more than cliches need Being.

Instead of mocking me why don't you explain how my political first principle is wrong?

[Illusions]

And when Hazir says that he supports, "Free market principles, not unfettered, however government should not take a role upon itself to play with the levers of the economy," does it also demonstrate that he does not share the same set of values of what those principles should be, what fetters they should be bound by, and the role of government within the economy, as other people might who also lay claim to the limited role of government in the economy mantle?

I'd have to say that these two statements are rather far apart on the spectrum of generalization and ambiguity. It would be on the order of Wraith starting a favorite animal thread, with Lewk stating Mammals, and Hazir stating Tabby Cats. The Freedom line of Lewk's OP was entirely unnecessary (as he explains his personal political ideal afterwards), and came off more as repeating a soundbite.

[Enoch the Red]

I'd have to say that these two statements are rather far apart on the spectrum of generalization and ambiguity. It would be on the order of Wraith starting a favorite animal thread, with Lewk stating Mammals, and Hazir stating Tabby Cats. The Freedom line of Lewk's OP was entirely unnecessary (as he explains his personal political ideal afterwards), and came off more as repeating a soundbite.

Distilled down as much as you can, what would you say is the principle or set of principles from which you derive most or all of your other politcal beliefs?

I think Lewk was doing a fairly good job of distilling down his beliefs into a single principle.

[Draco]

Business cannot exist without society. Society can exist without business.

Yeah, if you wanna live in some stone age society, which this world has an abundance of, so take your pick.
Or alternatively, you just live on some farm, but cut off from civilisation.

[rumrunner]

Balancing individual freedom with individual responsibility is tricky, and requires long-term thinking ( as stated by others in this thread ). It gets even trickier when you involve government, which will try to please everyone . . . and fail to please anyone more often than not. The line from 'Bruce almighty' comes to mind " Since when do people know what they want?" As far as a first political principle, waffle often, constantly change your position on every issue as the situation changes. Seriously, though, [b] have a clear goal, and a definitive plan, and stay inside the lines[b]. People tend vote for rhetoric making it too easy for politicians to talk a lot and never say anything of substance. Goals, and plans should be made clear from the outset of any campaign. Without both a candidate should be kept out of the campaign. Straying too far (yes, gray area here) from the plan without a damned good reason should be grounds for removal from office.