philosophies and politics...

[lauralh]

Kudos to all of you who posted your philosophy test results on my thread. Except Steve, whose disturbingly high "Nietchze" score (along with relative proximity to my bedroom) is freaking me out. Just kidding. Had some interesting convos about utilitarianism and morality and such as a result, anyway. I still know virtually nothing about most of those philosophies/philosophers, though. Basically I take what I need from them all, whatever makes sense to me at the time, and apply it.

I suppose I know the most about Objectivism simply by dint of being exposed to several Randroids in the day (talking about you, Keith), and actually reading The Fountainhead. Which is more in line with an acceptable worldview than the actual tenets of objectivism, IMNSHO. The whole "morality leads from reason" thing is just a little silly, to put it mildly. I mean, I do think it's true to a certain extent but you always, always, always have to start with assumptions. And depending on those assumptions you can reason out, well, not almost anything, but at least one thing not Objectivism. (Is O-ism a philosophy or an epistomology?)

I used to be a straight-out moral relativist, like, 100%, but now, not so much. Like, I'm gonna go straight out on the record and say there are certain things which are unequivocally wrong. On the other hand I still do believe that you can't just say something is wrong without looking at a specific instance, like say FGM in Africa. Circumcision in general isn't that great of an idea, but I think in laboratory conditions it's not nearly as disgusting. But, yeah, depriving a child/infant of bits that may later impact their sexual pleasure doesn't seem so great to me.

And in fact depriving anyone of anything that impacts their natural rights (natural rights being something I just thought have, having to do with stuff found in nature, like food/sex/sleep) strikes me as being wrong. Again, I feel like I have to look at each case. Myself, I try to follow the whole "Do what you want if it doesn't hurt anybody" thing. The second part of that is "If it ABSOLUTELY comes to hurting you or hurting someone else, hurt someone else." Which is I suppose a bit Randian. "Enlightened self-interest" or whatever. I'd rather benefit myself than the "common good".

But back to depriving of natural rights. That's the whole thing I have against the government. Sure they take out the trash, but they also keep people sleeping on the streets. I really think that if we have to have government, they should really fucking take care of their citizens. If they aren't gonna do that, screw them. (OK, so I'm an extremist.) I just think they do more harm than good, and anarchism (absence of a CENTRAL government authority) would be preferable. Of course not overnight. My eventual plan would be to fucking EDUCATE people to THINK FOR THEMSELVES and then anarchism would arise naturally from that. Sure we might have to breed out leadership* qualities (I read some suggestion that at the end of a political office, that politician would be summarily executed), but it would be a small price to pay.

* by which I mean the tendency of those people who want to be on top and command everyone and start bureaucracies.

Comments

[heraclitus.livejournal.com]

Leadership qualities, even as you've defined them, are essential to the functioning of society. You'd be fine in an anarchy with people as they are - some people want to lead, and some people want to follow. I see little reason that either side fulfilling their desires is inherently immoral.

[herbaliser.livejournal.com]

I guess I'm thinking of the drug war again.

[baffledstar.livejournal.com]

Real anarchy-- as opposed to Socratic cloud cuckoo land anarchy-- as evidenced by recent African history, is not pleasant. All enlightened people will one day join me in support of *overt* military government.

[heraclitus.livejournal.com]

You're forgetting Mogadishu, which is currently under a state of anarchy. Contrary to our horrified press, who wring their hands over the lack of government and bemoan various non-problems, the Mog's actually doing quite well. Redevelopment and economic expansion began more or less the moment the fighting moved out of the city proper.

[heraclitus.livejournal.com]

Of course, lest one think I've gone mad, it's a real anarchy - people are shot, robbed, beaten and whatnot, and everyone goes about armed. But, not significantly more than in their neighbouring countries with governments, totalitarian, militaristic or otherwise.

[herbaliser.livejournal.com]

Right. I can't stand it when people say shit like that and forget that robberies and murders go on even with government. It's like people who are in favor of drug legalization because they know people who ruined their lives over heroin....

[baffledstar.livejournal.com]

I don't get your analogy of these two weak arguments other than that they are analogs in being weak.

[herbaliser.livejournal.com]

er, the government is hopeless in preventing both murder and drug usage.

[baffledstar.livejournal.com]

That's difficult to argue against.

[baffledstar.livejournal.com]

Africa's a big place, and real anarchy is short-lived.

[heraclitus.livejournal.com]

Yes, but Mogadishu isn't all of Africa, and it's been going strong for a couple of years now. Give it time, and we'll see.

[baffledstar.livejournal.com]

Are you suggesting development is occuring within a state of anarchy?

[heraclitus.livejournal.com]

Indeed. There was a Peter Maass article in the Atlantic Monthly a few years back called "Ayn Rand comes to Somalia" dealing with just that.