 A Call for Metapolitics | |
|
Mr. Rand
Truth is not for everyone  Usergroup: Members Joined: Feb 17, 2011 Location: Northern California Total Topics: 2 Total Posts: 18 |
 #1
Subject: A Call for Metapolitics With all the rancor de jure surrounding the President's budget and budget cuts, I find it a good opportunity to bring up the concept of what I've called metapolitics - the concept of discussing the nature of government and law. The discussion from both sides of the political spectrum seem to emanate from the premise that the government's current scope and responsibility is A-OK, but curiously, seems to cost too much. So, then, the solutions are simply monetary in nature. They include consolidating duplicative government agencies and targeting waste and inefficiencies. While these aims are admirable, they fall short of the real conversation needed in this country: metapolitics. The American federal government has outgrown its purpose, outspent its allowance, and over burdened its constituency. It has engulfed quadrants of Americans' lives unwelcomingly with Health Care mandates. It has carried the torch of deficit spending to even more horrendous levels by subsidizing irresponsible businesses and flagrantly tossing taxpayer money into economic "stimulus" projects based on the defunct theory of Keynesianism. We need a new conversation that begins with "why?" not "how?". Why should the government be involved in markets A or regulate business B? Why should the government pass law X or subsidize industry Y? Why, not how. What are your thoughts on the nature of government? |
|
ssu
PF Addict Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Jun 02, 2007 Location: north Total Topics: 19 Total Posts: 1574 |
#2
Mr. Rand wrote: Why? Well, because they can. When would a bureaucracy voluntarily dissolve itself? And politicians want to help those who put them into power, no free lunch for them you know. They try to help by micromanagment as they think they are so well in control of everything. We need a new conversation that begins with "why?" not "how?". Besides, why has every great power fallen due to overspending, basically having lived well beyond its means? The simple answer: hubris. Edited by Benkei on 02/22/11 - 12:08 AM. Reason: reply to deleted post |
|
ciceronianus
Attorney at Natural Law  Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Sep 20, 2008 Location: After the final no Total Topics: 54 Total Posts: 3982 Last Blog: Love and Marriage |
#3
ssu wrote: It's humourous how much people hate Rand here or any conservative/right wing philosophy, really. Well, I don't think it's hate, except perhaps with respect to Rand, who was rather a hateful person--quite full of hate. Happily, she and her minions are not representative of conservative philosophy, which should be classical liberalism, but these days is not. Unfortunately, what J.S. Mill said is all too accurate of those who call themselves conservative at this time--"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." |
|
Mr. Rand
Truth is not for everyone Usergroup: Members Joined: Feb 17, 2011 Location: Northern California Total Topics: 2 Total Posts: 18 |
#4
When would a bureaucracy voluntarily dissolve itself? It tends not to. It takes a wave of public sentiment and the incentive of reelection (or not being reelected) to bring a reduction to bureaucracy. But you never answered my question. What do you think the proper role of government should be? Edited by Benkei on 02/22/11 - 12:09 AM. Reason: reply to deleted post |
|
Mr. Rand
Truth is not for everyone Usergroup: Members Joined: Feb 17, 2011 Location: Northern California Total Topics: 2 Total Posts: 18 |
#5
P.S. - I am no conservative. I just so happen to think there are consequences to spending exuberant amounts of money. |
|
ssu
PF Addict Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Jun 02, 2007 Location: north Total Topics: 19 Total Posts: 1574 |
#6
Mr. Rand wrote: The proper role is the one that those who are governed are happy about. What do you think the proper role of government should be? And this then depends on the society and it's history. People are actually conservative (in that they do not want change) in the way they approach the role of the government: something new can always be a bit dangerous, so the 'known evil' is better if things are at least tolerable. And if the economy is in good shape, the people have jobs and are quite happy about things, then the people are happy with any kind of government, be it a dictatorship or the most permissive republic with a laissez-faire attitude to everything. |
|
Benkei
Mr Fahrenheit  Usergroup: Moderators Joined: Feb 06, 2004 Location: Netherlands Total Topics: 133 Total Posts: 4295 Last Blog: Preliminary remarks on the Eurodeal of October 27 |
#7
This isn't metapolitics but plain political philosophy. That said, the cultural, traditional and historical context of a given society cannot be escaped in any assessment of "why" and "how". Framing society as if a pattern can be forced upon it and that that pattern must be and will be valid for all types of societies throughout all times is quite possibly the stupidest philosophical idea out there. Many conservatives make the mistake, although Mill quite obviously understood the ongoing nature of competing ideas. Nozick doesn't quite get it in my opinion, at least, not in his earlier works. Rawls seems to get a great deal of it and gives good arguments as to what minimum standards a just society should have. Any type of politics ought to at least aim to provide and protect those minima. Of course, such minimalist approach does not mean that if they are met that we then live in a just society with a healthy political system. This is entirely contingent on which society we speak of. |
|
GregS
Forum Veteran  Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 08, 2010 Location: Perth Australia Total Topics: 18 Total Posts: 957
|
#8
Mr. Rand wrote: With all the rancor de jure surrounding the President's budget and budget cuts, I find it a good opportunity to bring up the concept of what I've called metapolitics - the concept of discussing the nature of government and law. The discussion from both sides of the political spectrum seem to emanate from the premise that the government's current scope and responsibility is A-OK, but curiously, seems to cost too much. So, then, the solutions are simply monetary in nature. They include consolidating duplicative government agencies and targeting waste and inefficiencies. While these aims are admirable, they fall short of the real conversation needed in this country: metapolitics. The American federal government has outgrown its purpose, outspent its allowance, and over burdened its constituency. It has engulfed quadrants of Americans' lives unwelcomingly with Health Care mandates. It has carried the torch of deficit spending to even more horrendous levels by subsidizing irresponsible businesses and flagrantly tossing taxpayer money into economic "stimulus" projects based on the defunct theory of Keynesianism. We need a new conversation that begins with "why?" not "how?". Why should the government be involved in markets A or regulate business B? Why should the government pass law X or subsidize industry Y? Why, not how. What are your thoughts on the nature of government? Strange the subject you propose is actually Political Economy, now alas a lost art, then what you propose is a series of aphorisms as a credo which does not seems a good way of approaching things. You are aware, I trust, that free markets have to be heavily regulated in order to exist? I mention this as markets are no longer local affairs regulated by the local lord, or guild, that traditionally (that is way back in early capitalism) markets were regulated by the state in order to be free and allow produces to actually compete, regulated and rigorously policed until corporate entities started appearing and disguised as suppliers and producers, and sometimes as retailers and buyers, it became difficult to enforce much at all -- until recently when markets were dropped altogether and corporations just ran things to please themselves. I mention this because your metapolitics no sooner is born than it is buried under nonsense. Just what part of what you have said about "why" touches on the real? "How" something has come about is generally a good beginning point before "why" something has occurred can be looked at. And usually it is a good idea to know "why" before prescribing "what" should be done. I think J.S.Mill was onto something. |
|
discoveryii
Yossarian Lives!  Usergroup: Missing Mods Joined: Mar 14, 2006 Location: America Total Topics: 72 Total Posts: 2665 |
#9
On a more serious note, the questions are easily answered. It's better to do it than not, and we learn this by: 1. We don't regulate things. 2. Shit falls apart very frequently. 3. We regulate things. 4. Shit doesn't fall apart frequently. The other questions are more along the lines of, normatively speaking, what would beneficial to the citizens. Of course, in practice this isn't the case a lot of the time. A lot of it is appeasing voters by promising money. The purpose, however, should be improving infrastructure and certain industries need to be backed. Edited by Benkei on 02/22/11 - 12:11 AM. Reason: reply to deleted post |
|
NeubergCrowley
Forum Veteran  Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Jul 21, 2008 Location: Minneapolis Total Topics: 43 Total Posts: 996 |
#10
Benkei wrote: This isn't metapolitics but plain political philosophy. Exactly...what is the point of stipulating a new term when an old one for the same thing exists? It seems a recipe for unnecessary confusion. ssu wrote: The proper role is the one that those who are governed are happy about. That said, the cultural, traditional and historical context of a given society cannot be escaped in any assessment of "why" and "how". Framing society as if a pattern can be forced upon it and that that pattern must be and will be valid for all types of societies throughout all times is quite possibly the stupidest philosophical idea out there. I have to agree wholeheartedly with Benkei and ssu's points above. A country's economic system will be contingent on its culture- France, for example, will likely never be a free market paradise as envisioned by Objectivists due to cultural and historical reasons. The OP largely confines itself to considering the U.S. but I get the implication that certain "objective" economic prescriptions are found within it. As ssu says- paraphrasing - if the people of this country don't want the Objectivist vision of the economy (and I don't think they do), then it is not "wrong" for us to deviate from the Objectivist vision. I also don't know in what sense Keynesianism is "debunked"- since a large portion of professional economists still subscribe to many aspects of Keynesianism it seems to be alive (it us up to one's opinion whether or not we append "and well" to that). You may not like Keynesianism, you may think that nobody in their right mind would still believe in it, but as a matter of fact that it is still one of the poles in the ongoing economic debate. |
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.