Have a question in regards to Political Philosophy? I’m here to help.

Let me first give you some background information. I do not currently have any degrees in regards to political philosophy/theory. However I am currently enrolled in college with the aims of achieving a PhD in Political Philosophy. Since my early teens I took a particular interest in political thought and have spent extensive hours pursuing these thoughts. Reading numerous books from many philosophers old and new along with hours spent on the computer researching each ideology.

I take political philosophy quite seriously so I do not take it lightly when people use words that are completely out of context whether they are just being humorous or quite serious. Semperfortis is the Forum Subject Matter Expert particularly in the field of Conservative political thought, so I am not the ATS designated expert in this field. This does not however make my analogy and approach any less important or correct.

I am not an expert on economics, if you have questions relating to the field of economics I suggest you ask the FSME of the Global Meltdown forum for his/her assistance in that area of studies. If you currently have any questions exactly what political philosophy is, this is the definition:

Political philosophy is the study of human social organization and of the nature of man/woman in society. A political philosopher is likely to ponder the following questions: What is the ideal form of government? Is it aristocracy, monarchy, theocracy, democracy, some mix of the different systems, or absolutely no government at all (anarchy)? And which economic system is best? A predominantly capitalistic one, a socialistic one, or perhaps a mix of the two? At what point in history did people agree upon the "need" for government? How did they live before the inauguration of government -- i.e., in the "state of nature"? Are people inherently good or bad, or neither? Are the problems of society owing mostly to man's fallen nature, to bad social organization and management, or to something else? What remedial agency does the world most need? More religion and spirituality? Wiser, abler rulers? Fewer laws and regulations? By what criteria can a society be judged good? By its wealth? By the way in which it treats its poorest members? By the richness of its art and culture? By the ease with which personal bonds are formed? Are we "our brothers' keeper"? Do we have any responsibility to those less fortunate than ourselves? These are merely a few of the many questions that political philosophers ponder.

So with all of that said and the definition of political philosophy clearly outlined, if you currently or in the future have any questions in regards to the subject of political philosophy ask them either here in this thread or send me a u2u.

*****NOTE*****: If you ask me clearly ridiculous questions I will not respond. If you are inquisitive and do not understand political philosophy very well I will help you to the best of my ability. If you disagree with me please do it in a polite and respectful manner.

If I for some reason cannot or have not been able to assist you in a thorough enough way, just let me know and I will provide you with the most accurate external resources available.

Why do we say in life, it is 12:15..when it is actually 11:75?

reply to post by Socratic Method


That is not a political philosophy question. Depending on how you are asking that question it could either be philosophical (non-political) or a technical question. That is not a question I will answer.

www.webyarns.com...

The United Nations is seen as the central world government. It has had it's problems but considering the challenges it has had to confront it is doing pretty well. There are currently a lot of very serious problems confronting the world these days as industry has held the responsibility of money over social and environmental responsibilities. It also appears that this money is also a driving political force in international relations. The diversity of cultural laws has also been providing some difficulty in the way international relations are achieved. I do respect this diversity as many different points of view are applied to complex issues. The START treaty was great news and hopefully China will get on board soon too.

So basically, can you see the UN becoming an open and transparent form of government with all the different powers keeping each other in check with quality peer review and accountability or do you see the UN falling under the spell of so many other governments where back door deals and kick backs determine the decisions that are made?

reply to post by kwakakev


That is not exactly a political philosophy question because it is asking me for my personal opinion on a political system. Political philosophy would be more like “Do you believe that the United Nations benefits society?”

**I will answer your question anyways but please note this is a personal opinion and does not speak on behalf of political philosophy.**

In my opinion I see that the United Nations has already become a bastion of international blackmail, cover-ups, and corruption. Take for example the UN Security Council, whether or not you support the nation of Israel the United States can halt any serious UN actions against Israel, justified or not. Also research the events currently unfolding in the Ivory Coast where UN troops, supported heavily by the French, are killing civilians and protecting a presidential candidate whom they claim won the election. What raises my suspicions on that event however is that the man defended by the international bodies also belonged to the IMF and BCEAO while professing a belief in Technocracy.

I gave those examples to show how corruption has already taken over and destroyed any positive benefits that could have stemmed from the United Nations. It was great in theory but not in practice.

Hope I answered your question.

Do you think that anarchy/libertarian abolishing of all Federal government, and possible all government is possible?

reply to post by stephinrazin


Anything is possible, the real question is whether or not it is practical.

The opposition to the state in pursuit of maximizing individual responsibility, liberty, and freedom are the core tenants of Anarchism and Libertarianism. While Libertarian does not support the abolition of the state, Anarchism does.

Best regards, Misoir.

Originally posted by Misoir
While Libertarian does not support the abolition of the state, Anarchism does.

Haha well that depends on your definitions.

The term 'libertarian' was coined (as a political term) by the anarchist Joseph Déjacque in the 1850's, it wasn't stolen until the 1970's.

recollectionbooks.com...

‘One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, “our side,” had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . “Libertari­ans” . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over. . .’ [The Betrayal of the American Right, p. 83]

Libertarian socialism is anarchism. No state system, means of production owned by the workers. That is true liberty.

Maybe while you're still a student you can learn the real truth, not what the state wants you to think...

reply to post by ANOK


I was under the assumption that the member I was responding to was an American thus using the standard Right-Libertarian definition for Libertarianism I believed would apply to his general thought. In Europe I am aware and in full understand that the term Libertarian was originally coined there as the term for the current ideology of Anarchism. It was never meant to symbolize defense of the capitalist system as it has been interpreted in the United States.

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by ANOK

 

I was under the assumption that the member I was responding to was an American thus using the standard Right-Libertarian definition for Libertarianism I believed would apply to his general thought. In Europe I am aware and in full understand that the term Libertarian was originally coined there as the term for the current ideology of Anarchism....

Ah, you shouldn't lower yourself to the level of Americans understanding of political and economic terms LOL.

Just kidding kids...

It was never meant to symbolize defense of the capitalist system as it has been interpreted in the United States.

Yes, very well put.

Terms have been manipulated in order to confuse, and as you put it, 'defend the capitalist system'. I think if people realised this then they would also realise that they are not supporting what they think they are.

"Libertarian" is a word that historically belongs to the Left - to the revolutionary and anti-Statist Left. We will not allow it to be devalued by reference to the Right (or for that matter to the reformist Left, as also happens sometimes). Thatcherites, survivalists, vigilantes and all other rightwing loony tunes are not and have never been libertarians. Everywhere these ideas hold sway liberty is on the rack. - D

anarchism.www7.50megs.com...

reply to post by Misoir


Thank you for your personal opinion, the difference between political philosophy and politics is new for me. I am aware of the troubles the IMF have been causing, never heard of BCEAO before and a little surprised to hear the French involved in such action, but I can see this is more of a banking / money channel issue. I am aware that the United Nations is an important institution for Nations to discuss and confront global issues, not always fair but it is mostly implemented.

In a perfect world what political philosophy has the most respected and justified system for global management?

And how does this relate to the diverse local systems of governance?

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by Misoir

 

In a perfect world what political philosophy has the most respected and justified system for global management?

Well that is a political philosophy question but it is personal as in my opinion. There is no universally agreed upon political philosophy, even the large political philosophies can’t agree on what is right. Currently the largest political philosophies are; Liberalism, Conservatism, Socialism, Communism, Statism, Monarchism, Nationalism, and Republicanism.

Take for example Liberalism. There is no universally agreed upon single entity of Liberalism since there are many factions. You have the Social Liberals, Conservative liberals, Neoliberals, Ordoliberals, Classical liberalism, and National liberalism. None of them can agree on everything, although their core tenants are all the same.

So as you can see I cannot actually tell you what is the most respected and justified system.

And how does this relate to the diverse local systems of governance?

Well it all depends on which political philosophy you choose. Some philosophies such as Liberalism, Individualism, and Libertarianism believe in a very minimal state at the local level. Generally these beliefs incorporate Republicanism whether that is Classical or Modern. This contrasts with such philosophies as Statism, Fascism, and Communitarianism which can incorporate a very diverse set of beliefs from a Republic to Monarchy to Plutocracy.

It all depends on which philosophy is chosen.

What do you geniuses make of Mystical Anarchism? At the very least, its one of the more intriguingly named political philosophies out there.

reply to post by silent thunder


It appears to me to be based largely on the politics of Left-Libertarianism and collectivist Anarchism combined with the philosophy of symbolism, irrationalism, and spiritualism. It takes what I would interpret as a more Socialist path of Romanticism while not exactly being within the group of Romantic thought.

Two questions, one against left-wing, one against the right, to be fair.

1. Do you believe socialist anarchism (or collectivist anarchy) is possible in real world? Isnt it a contradiction in itself? How can common property arise from private property environment (and maintain itsef) without some forcing agent (government)? If companies owned by all workers like shareholders are possible to arise and be better than privately owned companies in free environment, why havent they arisen in capitalist society and out-competed privately owned companies on the free market?
Doesnt socialism in its true definition (common ownership of all means of production) directly imply authoritarian government in some form?

2 Libertarianism / anarchocapitalism is centered around natural rights: People have the right to life, liberty and property. The first right is obviously most important, followed by second and third respectivelly. In your opinion, havent modern extremist libertarians wrongly elevated right to property and liberty above the right to live? (by fighting against even basic lifesaving welfare state, national healthcare, or for example critizing drunk driving laws and other sensible preventive laws which protect more important right to live, by infringing on the other two rights, in case when these can come into conflict).

Originally posted by Maslo

1. Do you believe socialist anarchism (or collectivist anarchy) is possible in real world?

I do believe that any form of society is possible but rather the question of “is it practical” would seem more efficient for this type of question.

Isnt it a contradiction in itself?

It is definitely not a contradiction for Social Anarchism especially when one understands the beginning of Anarchism which was tied to and grew up within the realm of Socialist thought of the 19th century. Until a final schism in 1872 these two ideologies were basically connected together such as Republicanism is with Liberalism.

How can common property arise from private property environment (and maintain itsef) without some forcing agent (government)?

This is why most Socialists/Anarchists call for a Revolution as there is no true way to shift between the two without massive and abrupt change. In order to maintain this public property however does not require a government but rather a society united for their cause so long as they have the majority of the people behind them. Alongside that the public would own most major factories/farms/offices so the ability for individuals to reclaim this property would be extremely difficult.

If companies owned by all workers like shareholders are possible to arise and be better than privately owned companies in free environment, why havent they arisen in capitalist society and out-competed privately owned companies on the free market?

Well there is no single unified answer to this question, if I was to take a guess it would be due to the fact that we do not and never have had a genuinely free market place without some form of interference on behalf of either the government or businesses. There are many public work places that do operate under the system you have described throughout Europe, heavily in Germany though. Where the workers backed by Unions basically run the company, albeit the company is under government control.

Doesnt socialism in its true definition (common ownership of all means of production) directly imply authoritarian government in some form?

Not necessarily as true Socialism advocates for the gradual abolition of the state altogether. The only true practices of philosophical Socialism occurred within Yugoslavia during the 1970’s. Otherwise it has largely been State Socialism which is an oxymoron when interpreting the correct definition of Socialism. That is like saying “Free slavery” or “poor rich”.

2 Libertarianism / anarchocapitalism is centered around natural rights: People have the right to life, liberty and property. The first right is obviously most important, followed by second and third respectivelly. In your opinion, havent modern extremist libertarians wrongly elevated right to property and liberty above the right to live?

Well this begins the argument of the two concepts of liberty; Negative and Positive. Negative liberty, which is used by Right-libertarian, holds the beliefs that restrictions on an individual’s liberty comes only from other individuals which can include the state, business, etc… Positive liberty, which is used by Social liberals, holds the beliefs that restrictions on an individual’s liberty comes from external sources such as Classicism, Sexism, and Racism.

So to answer that question depends on personal interpretation on your beliefs. To those who uphold negative liberty the right to life belongs only to the individual and so long as no one else interferes then their liberty is upheld. Those who believe in positive liberty may state that life belongs to the individual but it can only be free so long as they are removed from the shackles of their economic positions such as poverty.

(by fighting against even basic lifesaving welfare state, national healthcare, or for example critizing drunk driving laws and other sensible preventive laws which protect more important right to live, by infringing on the other two rights, in case when these can come into conflict).

Once again this returns to the argument of 'Positive Liberty' versus 'Negative Liberty'.