- Abortion rights
- Foreign policy
Why is it impossible for people to come to a reasonable agreement on these issues? Because their disagreements rest with opposing world views and existential perspectives. These views shape people's understanding of how the world works or should be. Existential views have a serious impact on people's sense of security and power and opposing world views cannot be resolved by empty political debates.
How do existential views determine our beliefs about the role of government? Well, I can only speak on behalf of my own experience of how individuals are motivated to believe or choose different realities for themselves based upon their world views. For example, if I believe that the world is a dream or an illusion which is created by me, by virtue of the thoughts, beliefs and choices I make, then I would choose to live by a "live and let live" philosophy. I would be in favor of a free-market, Libertarian, anti-war society. But, if I believe that the world is made of good and evil forces, and that it is my job to destroy the evil forces in the world, then my opinion about the appropriate role of governments and armies would also be shaped by my spiritual perspective, because if the world is filled with dangerous people who must be faced head-on, I would be in favor of an aggressive, offensive foreign policy. With respect to abortion rights, if I believed that the government had a right to tell people what to do in their private lives, then I would be in favor of limiting abortion rights. You see where I'm going here? If not, let me simplify the argument.
The key problem is that some people actually believe that they can trust the government to use its power to protect them. They are OK with handing over their power to the government in order to feel more secure. But if you accept the spiritual perspective that says "you as an individual hold all the power that you need to make it in the world", then you will not fall for the lie that the government can look after you.
Consider this post a brief preview of the ideas which I will cover in the future.
Sincerely, Betsy
3 comments:
Betsy,
This is good stuff and I appreciate your perspective. I agree with it as it confirms my own experiences. There will be many people that simply can't be argued with because they have different "anxieties" and experience the world from a different "fear-point" let's call it.
For instance, I had a discussion with an econ prof in college in his office and part of the discussion revolved around a linear graph we kept sketching on paper, showing the "spectrum" of freedom to tyranny. I kept explaining that every govt intervention was a step towards tyranny and away from freedom. My prof kept explaining that each of those steps might be an ABSOLUTE step toward tyranny, but relatively speaking it was a step towards liberty because at those interventions is where we "dig in" our heels and go no further (according to his theory). By cedeing this ground, we avoid slipping completely off the precipice.
What motivated these arguments? My view is that we are NOT constantly on the watch for a "proletarian revolution." My professor, a Jew whose parents survived the Holocaust, believed that the Holocaust was a result of not conceding enough ground to these wacko underclass people and as a result they got out their pitchforks and torches and decided to ruin society.
There will never be an agreement between us. And he will never be able to be honest about economics and his study of it, because in his mind he will always operate off of the premise that some govt interventions can be welfare enhancing relative to the alternative of total social collapse due to impending social revolution.
I see this A LOT. I had the same type argument with a younger fellow recently, coincidentally also a Jew. This time his fear was of Middle Easterners. He was convinced they're just irrational people and if they aren't bombed/warred with, they'll attack us (typical "neo-con" reasoning)... this belief colored our discussion of economics so thoroughly that I couldn't even get him to realize when his theorizing had left the study of allocating scarce resources rationally and lept into the realm of political science and the use of force as a resource deployment strategy.
Very, very frustrating stuff.
As your post suggests, there are at least 2 separate "necessary conditions" for one to be an advocate of an aggressive foreign policy - one a worldview which tends to separate groups into good and evil and two a belief that one's (good) government can effectively counter evil in the world through such a policy. Which is to say, the 1st tendency is not sufficient.
I look forward to your analysis of the limited liability corporation, a creation and instrument of the modern welfare/warfare state and its precursors.
It's existence has a powerful influence on the accumulation of capital to support economic activity, but is also a powerful tool enabling individuals to shed liability for their economic miscalculations applied to the use of Other People's Money.
It cannot exist without the enforcement power of the state to establish the "limits on liability". It's existence certainly blurs the distinction between "public" and "private" institutions and does so in perhaps a fatal way. Or is the distinction bogus from the start?
Food for thought.
Post a Comment