My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

If you want to call it that. Someone else will tell me what the name of it is as I doubt it is original. It's based on three things.

1. Different people want different things. Some wnat the feeling heroin gives them. Some enjoy seeing a child smile. Or Gary Carson frown. Or hitting a home run. And they put different values on it.

2. There are two good reasons to not mindlessly seek what you want the most. One is that there may be immediate downsides to doing this. Physical injuries, legal punishments, punishments from God if you believe in him, or for some, a sense of discomfort because they believe that seeking certain pleasures don't fit into their own "principles". Either because the pleasure is "immoral" to them or the methods to attain it are. A second reason to consider eschewing instant rewards would be if that path reduces the chances of getting rewards in the future. However when making that calculation it is important to realize that a bird in the hand is often worth two in the bush. The future rewards might not show up. Or you might die. Or you might not enjoy them as much at a more advanced age.

3. Once you have figured out yourself and your goals using the precepts above, you then need to know one last thing. Life is a poker game.

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

and women are the rake, preach it!

but seriously, hope this doesnt turn into a thread about absolute morality.

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
2. There are two good reasons to not mindlessly seek what you want the most. One is that there may be immediate downsides to doing this. ....... legal punishments,

[/ QUOTE ]

This is more of a life philosophy, no? How can it be a political philosophy when you don't state your political thoughts that would have a massive bearing on said philosophy?

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. There are two good reasons to not mindlessly seek what you want the most. One is that there may be immediate downsides to doing this. ....... legal punishments,

[/ QUOTE ]

This is more of a life philosophy, no? How can it be a political philosophy when you don't state your political thoughts that would have a massive bearing on said philosophy?

[/ QUOTE ]

I should have said that this is what political philosophy should be based on.

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. There are two good reasons to not mindlessly seek what you want the most. One is that there may be immediate downsides to doing this. ....... legal punishments,

[/ QUOTE ]

This is more of a life philosophy, no? How can it be a political philosophy when you don't state your political thoughts that would have a massive bearing on said philosophy?

[/ QUOTE ]

I should have said that this is what political philosophy should be based on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean in the sense that each person should be able to acheive 1,2,3 as much as possible in a proper political setting?

luckyme

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

Do you mean that if the 1) 2) and 3) were what was thought of, AND ALL THAT WAS THOUGHT OF, by politicians, that would create a perfect political state?

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

Another vote for the hedonist party. good man.

chez

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to call it that. Someone else will tell me what the name of it is as I doubt it is original. It's based on three things.

1. Different people want different things. Some wnat the feeling heroin gives them. Some enjoy seeing a child smile. Or Gary Carson frown. Or hitting a home run. And they put different values on it.

2. There are two good reasons to not mindlessly seek what you want the most. One is that there may be immediate downsides to doing this. Physical injuries, legal punishments, punishments from God if you believe in him, or for some, a sense of discomfort because they believe that seeking certain pleasures don't fit into their own "principles". Either because the pleasure is "immoral" to them or the methods to attain it are. A second reason to consider eschewing instant rewards would be if that path reduces the chances of getting rewards in the future. However when making that calculation it is important to realize that a bird in the hand is often worth two in the bush. The future rewards might not show up. Or you might die. Or you might not enjoy them as much at a more advanced age.

3. Once you have figured out yourself and your goals using the precepts above, you then need to know one last thing. Life is a poker game.

[/ QUOTE ]


That sounds like a voluntaryist to me. amirite?

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

life is a monopoly game

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

I haven't thought through the implications. But I should add this. Some desires cause trouble. And you would be personally better off if you didn't have them. So if therapy could change things you should seek it out. Get help if little girls turn you on. Or if bare feet don't.

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to call it that. Someone else will tell me what the name of it is as I doubt it is original. It's based on three things.

1. Different people want different things. Some wnat the feeling heroin gives them. Some enjoy seeing a child smile. Or Gary Carson frown. Or hitting a home run. And they put different values on it.

2. There are two good reasons to not mindlessly seek what you want the most. One is that there may be immediate downsides to doing this. Physical injuries, legal punishments, punishments from God if you believe in him, or for some, a sense of discomfort because they believe that seeking certain pleasures don't fit into their own "principles". Either because the pleasure is "immoral" to them or the methods to attain it are. A second reason to consider eschewing instant rewards would be if that path reduces the chances of getting rewards in the future. However when making that calculation it is important to realize that a bird in the hand is often worth two in the bush. The future rewards might not show up. Or you might die. Or you might not enjoy them as much at a more advanced age.

3. Once you have figured out yourself and your goals using the precepts above, you then need to know one last thing. Life is a poker game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've bolded the bits that I think are particularly Austrian:

1. Preferences are individual
2. Value is subjective
3. Humans plan rationally and act purposefully
4. Humans prefer more goods to less
5. Time preference (people prefer goods sooner rather than later)
6. Future goods are also discounted by risk
7. Those who make better decisions will tend to be rewarded for it

You should read [/i]Man, Economy & State[/i].

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

Hume Has His Say Also


-Zeno: Theist Zen Master, TV Repairman, Atheist Poker Player, and part-time short order cook.

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

1400 pages? There's more of a chance he'll convert to Protestantism.

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

"or for some, a sense of discomfort because they believe that seeking certain pleasures don't fit into their own "principles"."

I think everything in your OP is clear except that you seem to express contempt or skepticism (or something) for principles but it is not clear to me what you think principles encompass. How are principles different from desires?

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
1400 pages? There's more of a chance he'll convert to Protestantism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Either would make for an entertaining thread.

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
1400 pages? There's more of a chance he'll convert to Protestantism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have my odds on Confucianism.

-Zeno

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

"political" refers to organization/regulation of large groups of people. I don't see how your post is relevant to that, nor how a political philosophy could be built on it. your "1." and "2." just seem like obvious common sense. "3. life is a poker game" -- well sure, EV is a perfectly acceptable model for evaluating political systems/philosophies, but it is not one itself.

weird post.

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Get help if little girls don't turn you on. Or if bare feet do .

[/ QUOTE ]

typo I presume

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

This isn't far of some of the milder Satanic religions.

I guess your number 2 covers this indirectly, but one reason to limit pleasure is because excess pleasure leads to needing more and more and becomes self destructive in many cases.

Also, much happiness can come from things that at first don't seem particularly pleasurable at first glance- such as meditation.

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

What do you mean by "Satanic" religions?

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

I meant the various forms of Satanism. It's been a while since I studied these but here's something that goes to the point. I am sure you could google more stuff if you wanted. And since neither I or Sklansky believe in Satan I doubt he would find this insulting. But if he does, I apologize.


[ QUOTE ]
The Nine Satanic Statements

1. Satan represents indulgence, instead of abstinence!
2. Satan represents vital existence, instead of spiritual pipe dreams!
3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom, instead of hypocritical self-deceit!
4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates!
5. Satan represents vengeance, instead of turning the other cheek!
6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible, instead of concern for psychic vampires!
7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all fours, who, because of his "divine spiritual and intellectual development," has become the most vicious animal of all!
8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!
9. Satan is the best friend the church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years!

The above statements and rules are excellent guidelines for any Satanist to follow and a good framework for the beginner on a left hand path. Remember, it is best to always follow the laws of the land. They are there for one's safety in the vast majority of cases. If you make the choice not to obey the law for whatever reason, make sure it is a conscious choice, and be ready to suffer the consequences.





[/ QUOTE ]

LaVey, 1967, c.e. from the Satanic Bible

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

This isn't a political philosophy and as everyone knows your thoughts most closely resemble hedonism. I am guessing, based on some of your posts, you really have a distaste for most philosophy but I'm not really sure why? Is it because there often isn't a right answer? A lot of mathematical types have trouble excepting vagueness in answers.


As far as you being an ACist that isn't very likely to happen since you are such an advocate of intelligence. You value intelligent persons opinions far to much to be an ACist. And because of that value I believe you'd prefer a government run by the intelligent over no government. A close political philosophy to yours might be eliteism. Which is the anti pluralism.

Pluralism
The political theory of pluralism holds that political power in society should not lie with the electorate but be distributed between a wide number of groups.

I'm saying that you'd be quite pleased if politically only the brightest had a say, minimally the most say. As they are more likely to get it right, in your opinion.

Apologizing in advance for any mischaracterisaztion.

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
As far as you being an ACist that isn't very likely to happen since you are such an advocate of intelligence. You value intelligent persons opinions far to much to be an ACist. And because of that value I believe you'd prefer a government run by the intelligent over no government. A close political philosophy to yours might be eliteism. Which is the anti pluralism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds spot on. DS seems much closer to Plato than to Borodog (not suprising we know how much he idolises Plato and co)

Fortunately his far too lazy to spend his time forcing people to be happy.

chez

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't a political philosophy and as everyone knows your thoughts most closely resemble hedonism. I am guessing, based on some of your posts, you really have a distaste for most philosophy but I'm not really sure why? Is it because there often isn't a right answer? A lot of mathematical types have trouble excepting vagueness in answers.


As far as you being an ACist that isn't very likely to happen since you are such an advocate of intelligence. You value intelligent persons opinions far to much to be an ACist. And because of that value I believe you'd prefer a government run by the intelligent over no government. A close political philosophy to yours might be eliteism. Which is the anti pluralism.

Pluralism
The political theory of pluralism holds that political power in society should not lie with the electorate but be distributed between a wide number of groups.

I'm saying that you'd be quite pleased if politically only the brightest had a say, minimally the most say. As they are more likely to get it right, in your opinion.

Apologizing in advance for any mischaracterisaztion.

[/ QUOTE ]


Then maybe Sklansky can learn a thing or two from Greenstein:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HO7AQrsicM

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to call it that. Someone else will tell me what the name of it is as I doubt it is original. It's based on three things.

1. Different people want different things. Some wnat the feeling heroin gives them. Some enjoy seeing a child smile. Or Gary Carson frown. Or hitting a home run. And they put different values on it.

2. There are two good reasons to not mindlessly seek what you want the most. One is that there may be immediate downsides to doing this. Physical injuries, legal punishments, punishments from God if you believe in him, or for some, a sense of discomfort because they believe that seeking certain pleasures don't fit into their own "principles". Either because the pleasure is "immoral" to them or the methods to attain it are. A second reason to consider eschewing instant rewards would be if that path reduces the chances of getting rewards in the future. However when making that calculation it is important to realize that a bird in the hand is often worth two in the bush. The future rewards might not show up. Or you might die. Or you might not enjoy them as much at a more advanced age.

3. Once you have figured out yourself and your goals using the precepts above, you then need to know one last thing. Life is a poker game.

[/ QUOTE ]

And also, as an aside, you believe that voting is an inefficient use of time. Right?

David seems to be an ACist on a sort of subconscious level. He has instinctively concluded what's best (as it relates to him as an individual) and acts accordingly, but hasn't consciously applied his conclusions to be concerned with the effectiveness of the state. He just lives his life. It might be interesting if he put some thought into the subject, but the subconscious is pretty powerful anyways.

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

I would call that rationally self-interested hedonism. As others noted, I wouldn't call it a "political" philosophy.

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that you'd be quite pleased if politically only the brightest had a say, minimally the most say. As they are more likely to get it right, in your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think David is dumb enough to fall for this. I think he would realize that a society run by an elite cadre of brilliant technocrats would end in disaster. It doesn't matter how brilliant they are, a small number of people cannot rationally plan for tens of millions of others. The market is required to distribute planning because the information about resources and ends is distributed throughout the economy and is constantly changing. The number of alternative allocations for any given resource is astronomical, and the number of different resources is likewise astronomical. You *need* the massively parallel processing of all market participants to coherently allocate resources.

David is certainly smart enough to realize this.

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

Without some controlling device/group/system to effectively distribute and interpret the different tasks at hand - aka the ugly g word - you don't get parallel processing, since the problem won't be defined in a consistent manner across your agents. At best you'll get some version of swarm intelligence.

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

[ QUOTE ]

Without some controlling device/group/system to effectively distribute and interpret the different tasks at hand - aka the ugly g word - you don't get parallel processing, since the problem won't be defined in a consistent manner across your agents. At best you'll get some version of swarm intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is defined in a consistent manner. Do you see why?

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

You will have to explain it to me, I'm not an economics expert and I fail to see how the market alone can distribute different chunks of a problem to all the agents. I would presume competition, principles of voluntary behavior and the lack of central intelligence would make it hard both to see a picture and 'agree' (I write agree in quotation because I'm not claiming a statist solution can make participants agree either) on it for all participants.

And if it did, wouldn't something like that effectively be a government in some form?

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

[ QUOTE ]

You will have to explain it to me, I'm not an economics expert and I fail to see how the market alone can distribute different chunks of a problem to all the agents. I would presume competition, principles of voluntary behavior and the lack of central intelligence would make it hard both to see a picture and 'agree' (I write agree in quotation because I'm not claiming a statist solution can make participants agree either) on it for all participants.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have the problem wrong. The problem goes something like, "Allocate those resources under your control to your ends in the manner you believe will most improve your state of satisfaction relative to the alternatives." There's probably a much better way to state it, but it's midnight and I'm tired. The knowledge of people's ends is distributed in their heads. The control of resources is distributed throughout society as well, perhaps in a manner that displeases you or me, but there it is. Any claim to know better than others what their ends are or should be, or to be better able to allocate their resources to their ends better than they can, without being in their mind, having their wants, needs and desires and having your resources and satisfaction at risk and not someone else's, is simply the pretense of knowledge in my opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
And if it did, wouldn't something like that effectively be a government in some form?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

In any event, I'll take a "swarm intelligence" of the market over the centralized incompetence of the state any day. And I don't mean incompetence in any sort of perjorative way; central planners are literally not competent to plan for all market participants.

See for example, F.A. Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society, or his Nobel Prize Lecture, The Pretense of Knowledge.

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

[ QUOTE ]

You will have to explain it to me, I'm not an economics expert and I fail to see how the market alone can distribute different chunks of a problem to all the agents. I would presume competition, principles of voluntary behavior and the lack of central intelligence would make it hard both to see a picture and 'agree' (I write agree in quotation because I'm not claiming a statist solution can make participants agree either) on it for all participants.

[/ QUOTE ]


YES! Which is EXACTLY WHY the idea that someone should "see a picture" and then act to achieve that end "for all participants" is a BAD IDEA.

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You will have to explain it to me, I'm not an economics expert and I fail to see how the market alone can distribute different chunks of a problem to all the agents. I would presume competition, principles of voluntary behavior and the lack of central intelligence would make it hard both to see a picture and 'agree' (I write agree in quotation because I'm not claiming a statist solution can make participants agree either) on it for all participants.

[/ QUOTE ]


YES! Which is EXACTLY WHY the idea that someone should "see a picture" and then act to achieve that end "for all participants" is a BAD IDEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, this.

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

It can be I guess, but it also has its uses at other times. And it can also act as a safety switch. Different problems is also best solved under different organizational measures, some of those measures don't require a central intelligence, others do.

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

The market solves problems that require a "central intelligence" (every day, in fact, all over the place), and solves them better than states can. Do you see why?

Competition + selection > monopoly + entrenching.

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

The market can certainly solve some problems best yes, but I disagree that it can solve all problems better. At the very least I'd claim that would require a very special kind of populace different from any I know of today.

But whereas the last debate was interesting, I think we are now straying into the area of 'politics' (I don't have a better word, but I know it is not the right one, so no worry) and difference in fundamental views.

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

Aggression means not caring about values of others.

Aggression means getting ahead at the expense of others.



The 'central intelligence' is a scam. Wake up.

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

[ QUOTE ]

The market can certainly solve some problems best yes, but I disagree that it can solve all problems better.

[/ QUOTE ]

What kind of problem can be better solved by monopoly and violence than by competition and selection?

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The market can certainly solve some problems best yes, but I disagree that it can solve all problems better.

[/ QUOTE ]

What kind of problem can be better solved by monopoly and violence than by competition and selection?

[/ QUOTE ]

(insert picture of WWII Japanese Internment Camps here)

Re: My \"Political Philosophy\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The market can certainly solve some problems best yes, but I disagree that it can solve all problems better.

[/ QUOTE ]

What kind of problem can be better solved by monopoly and violence than by competition and selection?

[/ QUOTE ]


It's a valid strategy. But only for the ruling class.