varjohaltia (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
varjohaltia) wrote2005-05-14 01:45 pm
varjohaltia) wrote2005-05-14 01:45 pm
Philosophy
My Vegas vacation is cancelled, for unknown reasons. Instead I have a moving adventure up north late summer with an friend from the past. And I find myself in emotional turmoil and self reflection once more.
This post isn't about any those things, though perhaps there is a weak link to the latter.
Instead it is about an article in the New York Times weekend magazine about the Constitution in Exile school of libertarian thought. Essentially they argue that the New Deal and any subsequent regulation of the environment or trade by Congress is unconstitutional. Minimum wage, maximum hours, endangered species protection, clean air act and many others are all laws that should be stricken from the books. The article, which is quite good, discusses the people in this movement, and their strategy, the implications on the new Supreme Court justices, and gives some examples of legal cases.
I have libertarian friends, and have occasionally (though not nearly as much as I'd like -- I still seem to have trouble having proper philosophical or political discussions with my friends on this continent) spoken with them about their political philosophy.
I have Pagan, Catholic, Lutheran, Buddhist, Atheist and Agnostic friends.
I was educated as a physicist, and although I do not ply my trade, I still consider myself one.
All of this is getting to a point, and it is belief and faith. Religion is simple; you believe. That's what it is all about.
But the traditionally secular philosophies have that in common as well. I believe that the world around us is governed by laws of nature, and that we can increase our understanding of these laws. I am not certain that we can ever understand the world's physical reality completely, but I do believe that it is a road that can be traveled, and that it benefits humanity that we do so. There are those who believe that we cannot understand the world, and to claim that science is able to do this is blasphemy. There are those who firmly believe that there is nothing to religion, and that we can, as we are now, eventually decipher every secret of the universe. But all of these different schools of thoughts follow from axioms based on belief. We can look at how well we think the end results work, and seek to claim that one set of axioms is better than the other (or we can claim that logic has no place in the realm of God.)
It is the same with political philosophy. I have read Ayn Rand. I understand the arguments of originalists, such as Antonin Scalia, and I understand the arguments of Constitution in Exile liberalists. I understand the arguments of Marxists, of socialists. The theories can be internally consistent, although the practice never is. But what makes them so incompatible and leads to so much strife are the differing beliefs from which these philosophies spring. There are a few that are truly notable, and worth considering as we look at the world and the future of it.
The first is the belief in private property and right thereof. Not just the basic concept, for it exists to some degree even in communal societies. But also how far it is taken, for example in matters of intellectual property, intangible property, and the ability to claim ownership to someone's mind, genetic heritage or thoughts.
The second one is the belief in the power of free markets. I believe that free markets are, to paraphrase an old saying, a good servant and a lousy master. But there are those who believe that if left completely unregulated, free enterprise based on private property ownership will lead to the optimal outcome. Leaning one way or the other is simply belief, perhaps colored by our perception of the world around us in support or opposition, but belief nonetheless.
The third one is the belief in democracy, which in itself is a dramatically poorly defined concept -- I declare it (after Scholte) to mean that a people gives power to a governing entity which they can elect, monitor and hold accountable. This is a fascinating field in itself, and there are many dire problems with it in today's west.
The fourth is belief in the separation of the spiritual, religion, from matters of trade, law and governance. This is typically considered part of democracy, but it as we may yet see, that may not be always the case.
There probably are others as well, but I am myopic in my perspective. Even so, it may behoove us all to consider what if. Perhaps to question our beliefs, but at the very least to consider how we treat those with different beliefs, and how we understand their world view.
This post isn't about any those things, though perhaps there is a weak link to the latter.
Instead it is about an article in the New York Times weekend magazine about the Constitution in Exile school of libertarian thought. Essentially they argue that the New Deal and any subsequent regulation of the environment or trade by Congress is unconstitutional. Minimum wage, maximum hours, endangered species protection, clean air act and many others are all laws that should be stricken from the books. The article, which is quite good, discusses the people in this movement, and their strategy, the implications on the new Supreme Court justices, and gives some examples of legal cases.
I have libertarian friends, and have occasionally (though not nearly as much as I'd like -- I still seem to have trouble having proper philosophical or political discussions with my friends on this continent) spoken with them about their political philosophy.
I have Pagan, Catholic, Lutheran, Buddhist, Atheist and Agnostic friends.
I was educated as a physicist, and although I do not ply my trade, I still consider myself one.
All of this is getting to a point, and it is belief and faith. Religion is simple; you believe. That's what it is all about.
But the traditionally secular philosophies have that in common as well. I believe that the world around us is governed by laws of nature, and that we can increase our understanding of these laws. I am not certain that we can ever understand the world's physical reality completely, but I do believe that it is a road that can be traveled, and that it benefits humanity that we do so. There are those who believe that we cannot understand the world, and to claim that science is able to do this is blasphemy. There are those who firmly believe that there is nothing to religion, and that we can, as we are now, eventually decipher every secret of the universe. But all of these different schools of thoughts follow from axioms based on belief. We can look at how well we think the end results work, and seek to claim that one set of axioms is better than the other (or we can claim that logic has no place in the realm of God.)
It is the same with political philosophy. I have read Ayn Rand. I understand the arguments of originalists, such as Antonin Scalia, and I understand the arguments of Constitution in Exile liberalists. I understand the arguments of Marxists, of socialists. The theories can be internally consistent, although the practice never is. But what makes them so incompatible and leads to so much strife are the differing beliefs from which these philosophies spring. There are a few that are truly notable, and worth considering as we look at the world and the future of it.
The first is the belief in private property and right thereof. Not just the basic concept, for it exists to some degree even in communal societies. But also how far it is taken, for example in matters of intellectual property, intangible property, and the ability to claim ownership to someone's mind, genetic heritage or thoughts.
The second one is the belief in the power of free markets. I believe that free markets are, to paraphrase an old saying, a good servant and a lousy master. But there are those who believe that if left completely unregulated, free enterprise based on private property ownership will lead to the optimal outcome. Leaning one way or the other is simply belief, perhaps colored by our perception of the world around us in support or opposition, but belief nonetheless.
The third one is the belief in democracy, which in itself is a dramatically poorly defined concept -- I declare it (after Scholte) to mean that a people gives power to a governing entity which they can elect, monitor and hold accountable. This is a fascinating field in itself, and there are many dire problems with it in today's west.
The fourth is belief in the separation of the spiritual, religion, from matters of trade, law and governance. This is typically considered part of democracy, but it as we may yet see, that may not be always the case.
There probably are others as well, but I am myopic in my perspective. Even so, it may behoove us all to consider what if. Perhaps to question our beliefs, but at the very least to consider how we treat those with different beliefs, and how we understand their world view.
no subject
Balance?
(Anonymous) 2005-05-16 05:44 am (UTC)(link)Does a pure free market (according CiE followers) seek a stable balance? How do they propose dealing with it? There are plenty of examples to the contrary from the late 19th Century proving otherwise when the US Government was much more laissez faire - Standard Oil being the prime example, of course.
Unlike the natural world, I don't believe the economic world can afford to go through a period of imbalance when one individual gains a decisive financial advantage.
Does a CiE pure free market approach take into account social pressures which frequently have nothing to do with financial pressures, but affects them nonetheless?
- Rob
Re: Balance?
Free market libertarians argue that we've never had a truly free market, and all the anomalies such as tendency to gravitate towards monopolies and such is because there has been regulation. Everyone else argues that this is bollocks. It's similar to the Marxist argument that the Soviet Union failed because it hadn't gone through the industrial revolution yet and wasn't ripe for the system, and if it came now, it'd work a lot better -- essentially the point is that what could otherwise be used as evidence to the contrary is inadmissible because it was gathered from a faulty version of the philosophy being defended.
Re: Balance?
(Anonymous) 2005-05-16 11:46 am (UTC)(link)- Rob
Re: Balance?
Again, in short, I'm presenting the arguments I've run across, and not claiming that I particularly agree with them :-)
Moving Adventure