|
|
But you do believe in an optimal society! It's one in which the government doesn't do all these things you don't think it should do!
I'm saying if the government takes ANY ACTION AT ALL (edit: including NOT doing something it COULD have done), it CAN ONLY do so after making a value judgment about the way things should be. Otherwise why would it take that action?
For instance, I could say it's the private sector's role to optimize society, and then my position would be perfectly coherent.
Yes, and so under this premise the government would create an optimal society by not hindering the private sector. (Also, remember that the bourgeoisie had to create the modern state in order to institute rule of law and create capitalism in the first place, so the idea that capitalism can exist without a government is specious anyhow).
Your position is tautological and circular, which is why breaking down any specific points has these sorts of issues.
No, it's what you're saying that is begging the question.
|
United States18840 Posts
On June 22 2012 11:18 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 11:05 SkyCrawler wrote:On June 22 2012 10:25 sam!zdat wrote:
Edit: Keep in mind that my argument is coming from the assumption that the goal of government is not for social optimization.
My point is that you can't do that. It's an illegitimate move. You are already assuming an idea of an optimal society in your claims about what government should and shouldn't do. You are saying: the optimal society is one in which the government does not try to create an optimal society. So then the government should not try not to create an optimal society, because then it would be trying to create an optimal society. So your position is incoherent. Governments are necessarily always trying to create an optimal society - what is at stake is the question of what society would be optimal, and this is a question that cannot be avoided (although liberalism tries very hard, while at the same time begging the question).
Hmm... not quite. What makes you say Tyranny is not socially optimal?
I didn't. You did when you claimed that it would be bad for governments to do certain things because that would be tyranny. The goal of government is to create policy that is socially optimal for its constituents. But then there are certain things those in power can do to impose their will on society in the form of propaganda, education policy, policing? Thus, those in power can shape the social needs of the government's constituents, and thereby control the government by the degree which they can control their constituents. Hmm, it does seem to describe the real world pretty well. Thoughts? Yes, exactly! This is what Althusser calls "ideological state apparatus."
Althusser is by far my favorite Marxist, but his descriptions of the manner with which the ideological state apparatus necessarily indoctrinates the totality of society still doesn't sit right with me, especially in light of recent innovations in the realm of information technology. Can we really assume that everyone goes through the same process of enculturation and subjugation when there are 12 year old geniuses, DongRaeGus, and perhaps most importantly, Louis Althusser's and Karl Marx's? What exactly breaks Marxists out of the ineffable relegation of the individual as "subject"?
|
On June 22 2012 11:18 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 11:05 SkyCrawler wrote:On June 22 2012 10:25 sam!zdat wrote:
Edit: Keep in mind that my argument is coming from the assumption that the goal of government is not for social optimization.
My point is that you can't do that. It's an illegitimate move. You are already assuming an idea of an optimal society in your claims about what government should and shouldn't do. You are saying: the optimal society is one in which the government does not try to create an optimal society. So then the government should not try not to create an optimal society, because then it would be trying to create an optimal society. So your position is incoherent. Governments are necessarily always trying to create an optimal society - what is at stake is the question of what society would be optimal, and this is a question that cannot be avoided (although liberalism tries very hard, while at the same time begging the question).
Hmm... not quite. What makes you say Tyranny is not socially optimal?
I didn't. You did when you claimed that it would be bad for governments to do certain things because that would be tyranny. The goal of government is to create policy that is socially optimal for its constituents. But then there are certain things those in power can do to impose their will on society in the form of propaganda, education policy, policing? Thus, those in power can shape the social needs of the government's constituents, and thereby control the government by the degree which they can control their constituents. Hmm, it does seem to describe the real world pretty well. Thoughts? Yes, exactly! This is what Althusser calls "ideological state apparatus."
Would you consider skepticism an attempt to defeat this system? Or perhaps a reaction to the system? Course, that has its own bag of problems like entrenchment, a la "All evidence supporting my worldview confirms my beliefs; all evidence that opposes my worldview I distrust."
|
On June 22 2012 11:32 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 11:18 sam!zdat wrote:On June 22 2012 11:05 SkyCrawler wrote:On June 22 2012 10:25 sam!zdat wrote:
Edit: Keep in mind that my argument is coming from the assumption that the goal of government is not for social optimization.
My point is that you can't do that. It's an illegitimate move. You are already assuming an idea of an optimal society in your claims about what government should and shouldn't do. You are saying: the optimal society is one in which the government does not try to create an optimal society. So then the government should not try not to create an optimal society, because then it would be trying to create an optimal society. So your position is incoherent. Governments are necessarily always trying to create an optimal society - what is at stake is the question of what society would be optimal, and this is a question that cannot be avoided (although liberalism tries very hard, while at the same time begging the question).
Hmm... not quite. What makes you say Tyranny is not socially optimal?
I didn't. You did when you claimed that it would be bad for governments to do certain things because that would be tyranny. The goal of government is to create policy that is socially optimal for its constituents. But then there are certain things those in power can do to impose their will on society in the form of propaganda, education policy, policing? Thus, those in power can shape the social needs of the government's constituents, and thereby control the government by the degree which they can control their constituents. Hmm, it does seem to describe the real world pretty well. Thoughts? Yes, exactly! This is what Althusser calls "ideological state apparatus." Althusser is by far my favorite Marxist, but his descriptions of the manner with which the ideological state apparatus necessarily indoctrinates the totality of society still doesn't sit right with me, especially in light of recent innovations in the realm of information technology. Can we really assume that everyone goes through the same process of enculturation and subjugation when there are 12 year old geniuses, DongRaeGus, and perhaps most importantly, Louis Althusser's and Karl Marx's? What exactly breaks Marxists out of the ineffable relegation of the individual as "subject"?
1) Althusser's theorization of the ideological state apparatus doesn't mean that everybody ends up the same, just that they have the same ideology. Being a genius or a very good zerg player doesn't have a great deal to do with ideology.
2) The answer to the last question is "the critical method." The critical method is the "ruthless critique of everything existing," through which you work (in an always-incomplete and asymptotic project) to free yourself from ideology (and the first step of this is to realize that you HAVE ideology). The transcendence of subjectivity has as its precondition the recognition of subjectivity (and the dispelling of the chimaera of "objectivity")
|
Politics... The business of bullshit, it's exhausting watching this unfold where they both promise a lot of redundant bullshit to get votes instead of actually tackling the issues...
|
On June 22 2012 11:38 SkyCrawler wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 11:18 sam!zdat wrote:On June 22 2012 11:05 SkyCrawler wrote:On June 22 2012 10:25 sam!zdat wrote:
Edit: Keep in mind that my argument is coming from the assumption that the goal of government is not for social optimization.
My point is that you can't do that. It's an illegitimate move. You are already assuming an idea of an optimal society in your claims about what government should and shouldn't do. You are saying: the optimal society is one in which the government does not try to create an optimal society. So then the government should not try not to create an optimal society, because then it would be trying to create an optimal society. So your position is incoherent. Governments are necessarily always trying to create an optimal society - what is at stake is the question of what society would be optimal, and this is a question that cannot be avoided (although liberalism tries very hard, while at the same time begging the question).
Hmm... not quite. What makes you say Tyranny is not socially optimal?
I didn't. You did when you claimed that it would be bad for governments to do certain things because that would be tyranny. The goal of government is to create policy that is socially optimal for its constituents. But then there are certain things those in power can do to impose their will on society in the form of propaganda, education policy, policing? Thus, those in power can shape the social needs of the government's constituents, and thereby control the government by the degree which they can control their constituents. Hmm, it does seem to describe the real world pretty well. Thoughts? Yes, exactly! This is what Althusser calls "ideological state apparatus." Would you consider skepticism an attempt to defeat this system? Or perhaps a reaction to the system? Course, that has its own bag of problems like entrenchment, a la "All evidence supporting my worldview confirms my beliefs; all evidence that opposes my worldview I distrust."
What you do is try to understand WHY everyone thinks the things they do. You have to understand why they think they're right.
edit: and then you do the same thing to yourself, and get one step closer to being enlightened.
edit: enlightenment is like utopia - it's something you never reach but for which you must continue to strive (or else become a nihilist, which is "exhausting")
|
On June 22 2012 11:32 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 11:18 sam!zdat wrote:On June 22 2012 11:05 SkyCrawler wrote:On June 22 2012 10:25 sam!zdat wrote:
Edit: Keep in mind that my argument is coming from the assumption that the goal of government is not for social optimization.
My point is that you can't do that. It's an illegitimate move. You are already assuming an idea of an optimal society in your claims about what government should and shouldn't do. You are saying: the optimal society is one in which the government does not try to create an optimal society. So then the government should not try not to create an optimal society, because then it would be trying to create an optimal society. So your position is incoherent. Governments are necessarily always trying to create an optimal society - what is at stake is the question of what society would be optimal, and this is a question that cannot be avoided (although liberalism tries very hard, while at the same time begging the question).
Hmm... not quite. What makes you say Tyranny is not socially optimal?
I didn't. You did when you claimed that it would be bad for governments to do certain things because that would be tyranny. The goal of government is to create policy that is socially optimal for its constituents. But then there are certain things those in power can do to impose their will on society in the form of propaganda, education policy, policing? Thus, those in power can shape the social needs of the government's constituents, and thereby control the government by the degree which they can control their constituents. Hmm, it does seem to describe the real world pretty well. Thoughts? Yes, exactly! This is what Althusser calls "ideological state apparatus." Althusser is by far my favorite Marxist, but his descriptions of the manner with which the ideological state apparatus necessarily indoctrinates the totality of society still doesn't sit right with me, especially in light of recent innovations in the realm of information technology. Can we really assume that everyone goes through the same process of enculturation and subjugation when there are 12 year old geniuses, DongRaeGus, and perhaps most importantly, Louis Althusser's and Karl Marx's? What exactly breaks Marxists out of the ineffable relegation of the individual as "subject"?
I feel that a perfect ideological state apparatus has not existed yet (perhaps near-perfect in certain science fiction stories). Otherwise indeed these people would not have existed or told us about the existence of this system. We are still also part upbringing (by parents), instinctual, experience, educated, socialized, and indoctrinated. So unless an organization can control all of these aspects that influence our baseline ideology, there is always a chance we can escape the apparatus.
|
On June 22 2012 11:46 SkyCrawler wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 11:32 farvacola wrote:On June 22 2012 11:18 sam!zdat wrote:On June 22 2012 11:05 SkyCrawler wrote:On June 22 2012 10:25 sam!zdat wrote:
Edit: Keep in mind that my argument is coming from the assumption that the goal of government is not for social optimization.
My point is that you can't do that. It's an illegitimate move. You are already assuming an idea of an optimal society in your claims about what government should and shouldn't do. You are saying: the optimal society is one in which the government does not try to create an optimal society. So then the government should not try not to create an optimal society, because then it would be trying to create an optimal society. So your position is incoherent. Governments are necessarily always trying to create an optimal society - what is at stake is the question of what society would be optimal, and this is a question that cannot be avoided (although liberalism tries very hard, while at the same time begging the question).
Hmm... not quite. What makes you say Tyranny is not socially optimal?
I didn't. You did when you claimed that it would be bad for governments to do certain things because that would be tyranny. The goal of government is to create policy that is socially optimal for its constituents. But then there are certain things those in power can do to impose their will on society in the form of propaganda, education policy, policing? Thus, those in power can shape the social needs of the government's constituents, and thereby control the government by the degree which they can control their constituents. Hmm, it does seem to describe the real world pretty well. Thoughts? Yes, exactly! This is what Althusser calls "ideological state apparatus." Althusser is by far my favorite Marxist, but his descriptions of the manner with which the ideological state apparatus necessarily indoctrinates the totality of society still doesn't sit right with me, especially in light of recent innovations in the realm of information technology. Can we really assume that everyone goes through the same process of enculturation and subjugation when there are 12 year old geniuses, DongRaeGus, and perhaps most importantly, Louis Althusser's and Karl Marx's? What exactly breaks Marxists out of the ineffable relegation of the individual as "subject"? I feel that a perfect ideological state apparatus has not existed yet (perhaps near-perfect in certain science fiction stories). Otherwise indeed these people would not have existed or told us about the existence of this system. We are still also part upbringing (by parents), instinctual, experience, educated, socialized, and indoctrinated. So unless an organization can control all of these aspects that influence our baseline ideology, there is always a chance we can escape the apparatus.
Totalitarian domination is precisely the wrong way to think about the ideological state apparatus.
edit: the only way to escape is through ruthless, self-reflexive critique.
|
On June 22 2012 11:28 sam!zdat wrote:But you do believe in an optimal society! It's one in which the government doesn't do all these things you don't think it should do! I'm saying if the government takes ANY ACTION AT ALL (edit: including NOT doing something it COULD have done), it CAN ONLY do so after making a value judgment about the way things should be. Otherwise why would it take that action? Show nested quote +
For instance, I could say it's the private sector's role to optimize society, and then my position would be perfectly coherent.
Yes, and so under this premise the government would create an optimal society by not hindering the private sector. (Also, remember that the bourgeoisie had to create the modern state in order to institute rule of law and create capitalism in the first place, so the idea that capitalism can exist without a government is specious anyhow). Show nested quote +
Your position is tautological and circular, which is why breaking down any specific points has these sorts of issues.
No, it's what you're saying that is begging the question.
But it's not government creating the optimal society. The government could do things correctly and it still is suboptimal.
And again, I do not believe in an optimal society. Perhaps you're arguing for an optimal law system or optimal government, but even that I am skeptical of. Perhaps such a thing would depend on the culture, geography, and technology of the society in question.
From the skeptical point of view, I see very little reason to believe such a thing exists or could exist (or even why I should care if it exists). You would have to provide some sort of evidence for its existence for me to care.
|
On June 22 2012 11:47 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 11:46 SkyCrawler wrote:On June 22 2012 11:32 farvacola wrote:On June 22 2012 11:18 sam!zdat wrote:On June 22 2012 11:05 SkyCrawler wrote:On June 22 2012 10:25 sam!zdat wrote:
Edit: Keep in mind that my argument is coming from the assumption that the goal of government is not for social optimization.
My point is that you can't do that. It's an illegitimate move. You are already assuming an idea of an optimal society in your claims about what government should and shouldn't do. You are saying: the optimal society is one in which the government does not try to create an optimal society. So then the government should not try not to create an optimal society, because then it would be trying to create an optimal society. So your position is incoherent. Governments are necessarily always trying to create an optimal society - what is at stake is the question of what society would be optimal, and this is a question that cannot be avoided (although liberalism tries very hard, while at the same time begging the question).
Hmm... not quite. What makes you say Tyranny is not socially optimal?
I didn't. You did when you claimed that it would be bad for governments to do certain things because that would be tyranny. The goal of government is to create policy that is socially optimal for its constituents. But then there are certain things those in power can do to impose their will on society in the form of propaganda, education policy, policing? Thus, those in power can shape the social needs of the government's constituents, and thereby control the government by the degree which they can control their constituents. Hmm, it does seem to describe the real world pretty well. Thoughts? Yes, exactly! This is what Althusser calls "ideological state apparatus." Althusser is by far my favorite Marxist, but his descriptions of the manner with which the ideological state apparatus necessarily indoctrinates the totality of society still doesn't sit right with me, especially in light of recent innovations in the realm of information technology. Can we really assume that everyone goes through the same process of enculturation and subjugation when there are 12 year old geniuses, DongRaeGus, and perhaps most importantly, Louis Althusser's and Karl Marx's? What exactly breaks Marxists out of the ineffable relegation of the individual as "subject"? I feel that a perfect ideological state apparatus has not existed yet (perhaps near-perfect in certain science fiction stories). Otherwise indeed these people would not have existed or told us about the existence of this system. We are still also part upbringing (by parents), instinctual, experience, educated, socialized, and indoctrinated. So unless an organization can control all of these aspects that influence our baseline ideology, there is always a chance we can escape the apparatus. Totalitarian domination is precisely the wrong way to think about the ideological state apparatus. edit: the only way to escape is through ruthless, self-reflexive critique.
Ah right, I mixed it up with the repressive state apparatus..
|
On June 22 2012 11:55 SkyCrawler wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 11:47 sam!zdat wrote:On June 22 2012 11:46 SkyCrawler wrote:On June 22 2012 11:32 farvacola wrote:On June 22 2012 11:18 sam!zdat wrote:On June 22 2012 11:05 SkyCrawler wrote:On June 22 2012 10:25 sam!zdat wrote:
Edit: Keep in mind that my argument is coming from the assumption that the goal of government is not for social optimization.
My point is that you can't do that. It's an illegitimate move. You are already assuming an idea of an optimal society in your claims about what government should and shouldn't do. You are saying: the optimal society is one in which the government does not try to create an optimal society. So then the government should not try not to create an optimal society, because then it would be trying to create an optimal society. So your position is incoherent. Governments are necessarily always trying to create an optimal society - what is at stake is the question of what society would be optimal, and this is a question that cannot be avoided (although liberalism tries very hard, while at the same time begging the question).
Hmm... not quite. What makes you say Tyranny is not socially optimal?
I didn't. You did when you claimed that it would be bad for governments to do certain things because that would be tyranny. The goal of government is to create policy that is socially optimal for its constituents. But then there are certain things those in power can do to impose their will on society in the form of propaganda, education policy, policing? Thus, those in power can shape the social needs of the government's constituents, and thereby control the government by the degree which they can control their constituents. Hmm, it does seem to describe the real world pretty well. Thoughts? Yes, exactly! This is what Althusser calls "ideological state apparatus." Althusser is by far my favorite Marxist, but his descriptions of the manner with which the ideological state apparatus necessarily indoctrinates the totality of society still doesn't sit right with me, especially in light of recent innovations in the realm of information technology. Can we really assume that everyone goes through the same process of enculturation and subjugation when there are 12 year old geniuses, DongRaeGus, and perhaps most importantly, Louis Althusser's and Karl Marx's? What exactly breaks Marxists out of the ineffable relegation of the individual as "subject"? I feel that a perfect ideological state apparatus has not existed yet (perhaps near-perfect in certain science fiction stories). Otherwise indeed these people would not have existed or told us about the existence of this system. We are still also part upbringing (by parents), instinctual, experience, educated, socialized, and indoctrinated. So unless an organization can control all of these aspects that influence our baseline ideology, there is always a chance we can escape the apparatus. Totalitarian domination is precisely the wrong way to think about the ideological state apparatus. edit: the only way to escape is through ruthless, self-reflexive critique. Ah right, I mixed it up with the repressive state apparatus..
Ah, yes, good call. I had forgotten the terminology in that distinction.
On June 22 2012 11:53 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 11:28 sam!zdat wrote:But you do believe in an optimal society! It's one in which the government doesn't do all these things you don't think it should do! I'm saying if the government takes ANY ACTION AT ALL (edit: including NOT doing something it COULD have done), it CAN ONLY do so after making a value judgment about the way things should be. Otherwise why would it take that action?
For instance, I could say it's the private sector's role to optimize society, and then my position would be perfectly coherent.
Yes, and so under this premise the government would create an optimal society by not hindering the private sector. (Also, remember that the bourgeoisie had to create the modern state in order to institute rule of law and create capitalism in the first place, so the idea that capitalism can exist without a government is specious anyhow).
Your position is tautological and circular, which is why breaking down any specific points has these sorts of issues.
No, it's what you're saying that is begging the question. But it's not government creating the optimal society. The government could do things correctly and it still is suboptimal.
You're still just proposing conditions of optimality, so that term gets folded into "do things correctly" and you get an infinite regress problem. Proposition is tautologically false.
Remember that an agent's not doing something which it could do is a form of action.
And again, I do not believe in an optimal society. Perhaps you're arguing for an optimal law system or optimal government, but even that I am skeptical of. Perhaps such a thing would depend on the culture, geography, and technology of the society in question.
From the skeptical point of view, I see very little reason to believe such a thing exists or could exist (or even why I should care if it exists). You would have to provide some sort of evidence for its existence for me to care.
I guess I feel like if you are going to go about proposing conditions of optimality (which I've shown you can't help but do) you just shouldn't do a half-assed job. You may not agree that there's an optimal society, but I bet you're agree that some societies can be better than others, and utopia is just the limit case. So it exists as a theoretical entity no matter whether it is a) expressible in language or b) realizable in the world.
edit: please note I'm not not offering any opinion on (a) or (b) - it remains an open question.
|
On June 22 2012 01:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 01:14 sam!zdat wrote:
If the private sector is so much more efficient, why don't we just run the government more like the private sector? We would if we could have our way. The problem is that it is very difficult to change and replace decades of "public sector culture." If I were king, I'd start with the public school system and go from there.
Agree, the schools are where the battle is. Once the Kantian philosophy is driven out and replaced with reason and logic the battle will be won.
|
On June 22 2012 12:51 Epocalypse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 01:25 xDaunt wrote:On June 22 2012 01:14 sam!zdat wrote:
If the private sector is so much more efficient, why don't we just run the government more like the private sector? We would if we could have our way. The problem is that it is very difficult to change and replace decades of "public sector culture." If I were king, I'd start with the public school system and go from there. Agree, the schools are where the battle is. Once the Kantian philosophy is driven out and replaced with reason and logic the battle will be won.
Can you be more specific?
|
On June 22 2012 12:29 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 11:55 SkyCrawler wrote:On June 22 2012 11:47 sam!zdat wrote:On June 22 2012 11:46 SkyCrawler wrote:On June 22 2012 11:32 farvacola wrote:On June 22 2012 11:18 sam!zdat wrote:On June 22 2012 11:05 SkyCrawler wrote:On June 22 2012 10:25 sam!zdat wrote:
Edit: Keep in mind that my argument is coming from the assumption that the goal of government is not for social optimization.
My point is that you can't do that. It's an illegitimate move. You are already assuming an idea of an optimal society in your claims about what government should and shouldn't do. You are saying: the optimal society is one in which the government does not try to create an optimal society. So then the government should not try not to create an optimal society, because then it would be trying to create an optimal society. So your position is incoherent. Governments are necessarily always trying to create an optimal society - what is at stake is the question of what society would be optimal, and this is a question that cannot be avoided (although liberalism tries very hard, while at the same time begging the question).
Hmm... not quite. What makes you say Tyranny is not socially optimal?
I didn't. You did when you claimed that it would be bad for governments to do certain things because that would be tyranny. The goal of government is to create policy that is socially optimal for its constituents. But then there are certain things those in power can do to impose their will on society in the form of propaganda, education policy, policing? Thus, those in power can shape the social needs of the government's constituents, and thereby control the government by the degree which they can control their constituents. Hmm, it does seem to describe the real world pretty well. Thoughts? Yes, exactly! This is what Althusser calls "ideological state apparatus." Althusser is by far my favorite Marxist, but his descriptions of the manner with which the ideological state apparatus necessarily indoctrinates the totality of society still doesn't sit right with me, especially in light of recent innovations in the realm of information technology. Can we really assume that everyone goes through the same process of enculturation and subjugation when there are 12 year old geniuses, DongRaeGus, and perhaps most importantly, Louis Althusser's and Karl Marx's? What exactly breaks Marxists out of the ineffable relegation of the individual as "subject"? I feel that a perfect ideological state apparatus has not existed yet (perhaps near-perfect in certain science fiction stories). Otherwise indeed these people would not have existed or told us about the existence of this system. We are still also part upbringing (by parents), instinctual, experience, educated, socialized, and indoctrinated. So unless an organization can control all of these aspects that influence our baseline ideology, there is always a chance we can escape the apparatus. Totalitarian domination is precisely the wrong way to think about the ideological state apparatus. edit: the only way to escape is through ruthless, self-reflexive critique. Ah right, I mixed it up with the repressive state apparatus.. Ah, yes, good call. I had forgotten the terminology in that distinction. Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 11:53 DoubleReed wrote:On June 22 2012 11:28 sam!zdat wrote:But you do believe in an optimal society! It's one in which the government doesn't do all these things you don't think it should do! I'm saying if the government takes ANY ACTION AT ALL (edit: including NOT doing something it COULD have done), it CAN ONLY do so after making a value judgment about the way things should be. Otherwise why would it take that action?
For instance, I could say it's the private sector's role to optimize society, and then my position would be perfectly coherent.
Yes, and so under this premise the government would create an optimal society by not hindering the private sector. (Also, remember that the bourgeoisie had to create the modern state in order to institute rule of law and create capitalism in the first place, so the idea that capitalism can exist without a government is specious anyhow).
Your position is tautological and circular, which is why breaking down any specific points has these sorts of issues.
No, it's what you're saying that is begging the question. But it's not government creating the optimal society. The government could do things correctly and it still is suboptimal. You're still just proposing conditions of optimality, so that term gets folded into "do things correctly" and you get an infinite regress problem. Proposition is tautologically false. Remember that an agent's not doing something which it could do is a form of action. Show nested quote +
And again, I do not believe in an optimal society. Perhaps you're arguing for an optimal law system or optimal government, but even that I am skeptical of. Perhaps such a thing would depend on the culture, geography, and technology of the society in question.
From the skeptical point of view, I see very little reason to believe such a thing exists or could exist (or even why I should care if it exists). You would have to provide some sort of evidence for its existence for me to care.
I guess I feel like if you are going to go about proposing conditions of optimality (which I've shown you can't help but do) you just shouldn't do a half-assed job. You may not agree that there's an optimal society, but I bet you're agree that some societies can be better than others, and utopia is just the limit case. So it exists as a theoretical entity no matter whether it is a) expressible in language or b) realizable in the world. edit: please note I'm not not offering any opinion on (a) or (b) - it remains an open question.
First of all, societies are blatantly not a "Total Ordering" (to use the mathematical term). Sure, some society might be strictly worse than another society, but you can also have a society which is neither better nor worse nor equal to another society. In fact, that's very frequently the case. So if you're talking limits and stuff, then you could possibly have several, or even infinite possibilities of utopias, which renders the term meaningless imo.
Second of all, I am not proposing conditions of optimality, I am only proposing conditions to make things better incrementally. So I can say "having this law is worse than not having this law." Think of it more like evolution. Evolution is very much an optimization process, but it doesn't ever end. It's constantly in flux. There's no end result to evolution, and there's no ideal to strive for.
|
On June 22 2012 12:51 Epocalypse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 01:25 xDaunt wrote:On June 22 2012 01:14 sam!zdat wrote:
If the private sector is so much more efficient, why don't we just run the government more like the private sector? We would if we could have our way. The problem is that it is very difficult to change and replace decades of "public sector culture." If I were king, I'd start with the public school system and go from there. Agree, the schools are where the battle is. Once the Kantian philosophy is driven out and replaced with reason and logic the battle will be won.
Kant driven out and replaced by what?
|
On June 22 2012 12:51 Epocalypse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 01:25 xDaunt wrote:On June 22 2012 01:14 sam!zdat wrote:
If the private sector is so much more efficient, why don't we just run the government more like the private sector? We would if we could have our way. The problem is that it is very difficult to change and replace decades of "public sector culture." If I were king, I'd start with the public school system and go from there. Agree, the schools are where the battle is. Once the Kantian philosophy is driven out and replaced with reason and logic the battle will be won.
This is the funniest nonsensical statement I have ever read.
|
On June 22 2012 13:12 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 12:29 sam!zdat wrote:On June 22 2012 11:55 SkyCrawler wrote:On June 22 2012 11:47 sam!zdat wrote:On June 22 2012 11:46 SkyCrawler wrote:On June 22 2012 11:32 farvacola wrote:On June 22 2012 11:18 sam!zdat wrote:On June 22 2012 11:05 SkyCrawler wrote:On June 22 2012 10:25 sam!zdat wrote:
Edit: Keep in mind that my argument is coming from the assumption that the goal of government is not for social optimization.
My point is that you can't do that. It's an illegitimate move. You are already assuming an idea of an optimal society in your claims about what government should and shouldn't do. You are saying: the optimal society is one in which the government does not try to create an optimal society. So then the government should not try not to create an optimal society, because then it would be trying to create an optimal society. So your position is incoherent. Governments are necessarily always trying to create an optimal society - what is at stake is the question of what society would be optimal, and this is a question that cannot be avoided (although liberalism tries very hard, while at the same time begging the question).
Hmm... not quite. What makes you say Tyranny is not socially optimal?
I didn't. You did when you claimed that it would be bad for governments to do certain things because that would be tyranny. The goal of government is to create policy that is socially optimal for its constituents. But then there are certain things those in power can do to impose their will on society in the form of propaganda, education policy, policing? Thus, those in power can shape the social needs of the government's constituents, and thereby control the government by the degree which they can control their constituents. Hmm, it does seem to describe the real world pretty well. Thoughts? Yes, exactly! This is what Althusser calls "ideological state apparatus." Althusser is by far my favorite Marxist, but his descriptions of the manner with which the ideological state apparatus necessarily indoctrinates the totality of society still doesn't sit right with me, especially in light of recent innovations in the realm of information technology. Can we really assume that everyone goes through the same process of enculturation and subjugation when there are 12 year old geniuses, DongRaeGus, and perhaps most importantly, Louis Althusser's and Karl Marx's? What exactly breaks Marxists out of the ineffable relegation of the individual as "subject"? I feel that a perfect ideological state apparatus has not existed yet (perhaps near-perfect in certain science fiction stories). Otherwise indeed these people would not have existed or told us about the existence of this system. We are still also part upbringing (by parents), instinctual, experience, educated, socialized, and indoctrinated. So unless an organization can control all of these aspects that influence our baseline ideology, there is always a chance we can escape the apparatus. Totalitarian domination is precisely the wrong way to think about the ideological state apparatus. edit: the only way to escape is through ruthless, self-reflexive critique. Ah right, I mixed it up with the repressive state apparatus.. Ah, yes, good call. I had forgotten the terminology in that distinction. On June 22 2012 11:53 DoubleReed wrote:On June 22 2012 11:28 sam!zdat wrote:But you do believe in an optimal society! It's one in which the government doesn't do all these things you don't think it should do! I'm saying if the government takes ANY ACTION AT ALL (edit: including NOT doing something it COULD have done), it CAN ONLY do so after making a value judgment about the way things should be. Otherwise why would it take that action?
For instance, I could say it's the private sector's role to optimize society, and then my position would be perfectly coherent.
Yes, and so under this premise the government would create an optimal society by not hindering the private sector. (Also, remember that the bourgeoisie had to create the modern state in order to institute rule of law and create capitalism in the first place, so the idea that capitalism can exist without a government is specious anyhow).
Your position is tautological and circular, which is why breaking down any specific points has these sorts of issues.
No, it's what you're saying that is begging the question. But it's not government creating the optimal society. The government could do things correctly and it still is suboptimal. You're still just proposing conditions of optimality, so that term gets folded into "do things correctly" and you get an infinite regress problem. Proposition is tautologically false. Remember that an agent's not doing something which it could do is a form of action.
And again, I do not believe in an optimal society. Perhaps you're arguing for an optimal law system or optimal government, but even that I am skeptical of. Perhaps such a thing would depend on the culture, geography, and technology of the society in question.
From the skeptical point of view, I see very little reason to believe such a thing exists or could exist (or even why I should care if it exists). You would have to provide some sort of evidence for its existence for me to care.
I guess I feel like if you are going to go about proposing conditions of optimality (which I've shown you can't help but do) you just shouldn't do a half-assed job. You may not agree that there's an optimal society, but I bet you're agree that some societies can be better than others, and utopia is just the limit case. So it exists as a theoretical entity no matter whether it is a) expressible in language or b) realizable in the world. edit: please note I'm not not offering any opinion on (a) or (b) - it remains an open question. First of all, societies are blatantly not a "Total Ordering" (to use the mathematical term). Sure, some society might be strictly worse than another society, but you can also have a society which is neither better nor worse nor equal to another society.
This is an open question. I have some sympathy for your position, but I remain ambivalent. Would love to hear an argument for this, as I have an interest in the topic.
In fact, that's very frequently the case. So if you're talking limits and stuff, then you could possibly have several, or even infinite possibilities of utopias, which renders the term meaningless imo.
Why would that render it meaningless? There are theoretical constructs in mathematics that involve infinities and are not meaningless. (edit: I'm not sure that it is infinite, but assuming it were)
Second of all, I am not proposing conditions of optimality, I am only proposing conditions to make things better incrementally. So I can say "having this law is worse than not having this law." Think of it more like evolution. Evolution is very much an optimization process, but it doesn't ever end. It's constantly in flux. There's no end result to evolution, and there's no ideal to strive for.
I've studied some in the philosophy of biology, and this is also an open question. Evolutionary systems have emergent structure, which is not the same as a naive teleology (i.e. there's certainly no "perfect organism" which evolution tries to create), but there is something to the idea that complex systems can generate their own sort of telos - consider attractors in chaotic systems, as a simple illustration. Anyway, I think this question is terribly interesting, but exactly what kind of a thing evolution is, and how exactly it does what it does, remains to be seen.
edit: I think it might be fruitful at this point to suggest that utopia might be defined in terms of a set of principles which can be manifested in an indeterminate number of physical forms as actually-existing utopias. My own idea of utopia is a kind of generative society, so I am not hostile at all to the analogy to evolution.
edit:
Second of all, I am not proposing conditions of optimality, I am only proposing conditions to make things better incrementally.
"society with property A would be better than society with property B" implies "a society with property B would not be optimal", therefore it is a condition of optimality, albeit a negative one.
|
On June 22 2012 10:20 Lightwip wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 03:26 RCMDVA wrote:On June 22 2012 02:13 Lightwip wrote:
Come now, this game is extremely fun.
Let's privatize the military so that we can have the free market resolve any inefficiencies in the program that aren't profitable. The power of free enterprise will prevail.
Uh. And you think we haven't? Lockheed Martin? Boeing? General Dynamics? Northrop Grumman? Raytheon? Ever hear of those guys? Do you want to even begin to compare those guys to a state-owned militrary company like in China or Russia? Sure, contractors are great(at overcharging), but who do you think pays for this military hardware? The free market?
I'd actually like to see some reforms that incorporate market-like systems into the provision of public goods. In fact I think the city I live in, DC, has had good experiences with school vouchers. But that is one place where I really wish we'd stuck with straight up "socialism" - having the military build its own weapons and equipment. These defense contractors need us to constantly be at war in order to maintain their profit levels, and they can contribute to campaigns (and Super PACs) to put a lot of pressure on politicians to look out for those interests. Meanwhile soldiers and their families pay the ultimate price for this, and the country can't afford to be throwing away money on one occupation after another.
|
On June 22 2012 13:35 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 10:20 Lightwip wrote:On June 22 2012 03:26 RCMDVA wrote:On June 22 2012 02:13 Lightwip wrote:
Come now, this game is extremely fun.
Let's privatize the military so that we can have the free market resolve any inefficiencies in the program that aren't profitable. The power of free enterprise will prevail.
Uh. And you think we haven't? Lockheed Martin? Boeing? General Dynamics? Northrop Grumman? Raytheon? Ever hear of those guys? Do you want to even begin to compare those guys to a state-owned militrary company like in China or Russia? Sure, contractors are great(at overcharging), but who do you think pays for this military hardware? The free market? These defense contractors need us to constantly be at war in order to maintain their profit levels, and they can contribute to campaigns (and Super PACs) to put a lot of pressure on politicians to look out for those interests. Meanwhile soldiers and their families pay the ultimate price for this, and the country can't afford to be throwing away money on one occupation after another.
This is a fantastic point. We have the military-industrial complex. What other complexes might be at play in our society?
|
On June 22 2012 13:20 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 12:51 Epocalypse wrote:On June 22 2012 01:25 xDaunt wrote:On June 22 2012 01:14 sam!zdat wrote:
If the private sector is so much more efficient, why don't we just run the government more like the private sector? We would if we could have our way. The problem is that it is very difficult to change and replace decades of "public sector culture." If I were king, I'd start with the public school system and go from there. Agree, the schools are where the battle is. Once the Kantian philosophy is driven out and replaced with reason and logic the battle will be won. This is the funniest nonsensical statement I have ever read.
It's a lot less funny than where I presume it came from, Ayn Rand, who sincerely opined that Kant was the most evil person ever to have lived (yes, even edging out Hitler), since after all it was his philsophical elevation of altruism and the death worshipping postulation of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy that allowed evil such as Nazism to flourish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
