Politics

[2ndRateMind]

It has been said that political philosophy is all about 'Who gets what?' and 'Says who?'

If we are agreed that mostly, no one is morally deserving of huge riches more than any other, (such as is demonstrated by the lottery, or casino economy) and that each of us should have an equal democratic say in how riches are distributed, what does this imply for a world in which 1% of the population controls as much wealth as the remaining 99% put together?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Divine Insight]

Most societies are not based upon philosophical wisdom. In fact, philosophical wisdom is really nothing more than the subjective opinions of the philosophers who lay claim to having a wise philosophy. Sure, then can offer all manner of logical arguments for why they feel that their philosophy represents some sort of absolute wisdom based on logic. But the fallacy of that position is that logical arguments themselves are already dependent upon the acceptance of unproven premises. So which premises a philosopher is willing to accept makes their philosophy subjective.

But again, most human societies are not based on idea of pure philosophical ideals. Instead they tend to be based on competition and an unwritten right to be as greedy as a person would like to be. There are no laws against being greedy.

Ironically many humans argue the following two contradictory things:

1. Humans are superior to animals in that they can based choices on reason and wisdom.

2. Competition is natural. It's how all animals in nature survive.

The irony is that they wave the banner of #1 in an effort to declare that they are superior to animals, but then in the other hand, they wave the banner of #2 proclaiming that it's perfectly natural to be competitive and greedy.

In other words, they argue that humans are superior to animals, but then argue that humans shouldn't behave any differently.

IMHO, it's a shame that humans haven't acted on their superior intelligence and ability to reason. Human societies should be based on cooperation rather than on competition. Of course, humans do tend to be somewhat cooperative because we're not only animals, but we are also social animals. And all social species tend to cooperate with their own species to some degree. In fact, this is why we call these particular species "Social Species".

So humans exhibit some level of cooperation due to the fact that we are indeed social animals. But at the same time we reserve the right to compete and be greedy as well.

So that's where we're currently at.

Will humans some day actually evolved to be more than just apes? Hopefully. Some humans certainly show an ability to evolve beyond mere animal instincts. Unfortunately, the masses, (including most legislators) retain the more primitive mentality of our primate ancestors. So we end up with economic and social systems that tend to be more ape-like in character than being based on more lofty philosophical wisdom.

The fact that some humans do exhibit higher mental wisdom is certainly promising. The only question now is, how long will it take the general masses to catch up?

[2ndRateMind]

Most societies are not based upon philosophical wisdom

Indeed so. Mostly they seem based on geographical proximity.

In fact, philosophical wisdom is really nothing more than the subjective opinions of the philosophers who lay claim to having a wise philosophy. Sure, then can offer all manner of logical arguments for why they feel that their philosophy represents some sort of absolute wisdom based on logic.

If we are not to base our opinions on logic and reason, then what would you suggest they should be based on? And, I am yet to be convinced that logic and reason are subjective.

More later, as time and inclination permit.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Divine Insight]

If we are not to base our opinions on logic and reason, then what would you suggest they should be based on? And, I am yet to be convinced that logic and reason are subjective.

All logic and reason require that we first make an assumption about some unprovable premises or starting points. In this way, all logic and reason is subjective because it requires a subjective choice on which unprovable premises we are willing to accept before we even begin to apply logic or reason.

This is even true of our mathematical formalism. A lot of people mistakenly believe that mathematics represents some sort of absolute truth, but that is already wrong. Our mathematical formalism is based upon unprovable axioms that we can either accept or reject before we even begin to perform any logical reasoning.

Of course, once we accept the premises or axioms, then we're stuck with the logic that follows from that. So we can say that once the axioms have been accepted everything that logically follows from that must be "true". But it's only true if the originally accepted axioms are true.

By the way, I personally do not accept all the axioms of mathematics. So for me, all of mathematics does not represent any absolute truth. It's just the result of axioms that I personally do not accept.

[bluethread]

It has been said that political philosophy is all about 'Who gets what?' and 'Says who?'

If we are agreed that mostly, no one is morally deserving of huge riches more than any other, (such as is demonstrated by the lottery, or casino economy) and that each of us should have an equal democratic say in how riches are distributed, what does this imply for a world in which 1% of the population controls as much wealth as the remaining 99% put together?

Best wishes, 2RM.

We are not agreed. The distribution of riches has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with what people value. There is nothing wrong with 1% of the populaton controlling as much wealth as the remaining 99%. The reason the 1% control that much wealth is because the 99% believe that they are better at it than anyone else. If that were not the case, the 99% would spend their resources with someone else. In fact, apart from economies where governments seek to manipulate the economy, that is exactly what happens. In these United States, the compsition of the 1% is constantly changing. Those that use their riches on their own desires do not stay in the 1% and those who use their riches to create wealth by providing what the population values stay in the 1%.

I makes no sense for everyone to have an equal voice in the economy. That results in the tyranny of the majority. That is because the nonproductive would vote themselves largess. Then, the productive would become nonproductive because they would see no advantage in doing so. This is the tragedy of the commons. If everyone has the right to do as they wish with their property this can be avoided.


In he long term, the centralization of wealth is a problem for an economy. Forced redistribution never works, short of total collapse, and that is a tragedy for every one. Historically, the least tragic solution is the voluntary discriminatory distribution of resources by the 1% to the marginally productive, such that the marginally productive are incentivised to increase their productivity, i.e. Dale Carnegie.

[2ndRateMind]

...The distribution of riches has nothing to do with morality...

If everyone had enough to eat, uncontaminated water to drink, an adequate clothing wardrobe for their climate, secure shelter, access to basic services such as electricity and sanitation, and sufficient funds to educate their children and see to the health requirements of their family, I would agree with you. But they don't, so I don't.

There is enough wealth in the world to provide all these basic requirements for everyone, but the 1% are hogging way more than their fair share, which is why so many are so poor that they cannot provide such necessities for themselves and those they love.

So the distribution of wealth is very much a moral issue.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

...I[t] makes no sense for everyone to have an equal voice in the economy. That results in the tyranny of the majority...

Perhaps you would prefer the tyranny of a minority? Or of a single tyrant? However benign the minority, or the tyrant, somehow, I cannot see such ideas leading to optimum human well-being.

Best wishes, 2RM

[2ndRateMind]

If we are not to base our opinions on logic and reason, then what would you suggest they should be based on? And, I am yet to be convinced that logic and reason are subjective.

All logic and reason require that we first make an assumption about some unprovable premises or starting points. In this way, all logic and reason is subjective because it requires a subjective choice on which unprovable premises we are willing to accept before we even begin to apply logic or reason.

Or they are based on axioms thought to be self-evident, and requiring no proof, such as (in plane geometry) that parallel lines never cross, or (in metaphysics) that a thing cannot both be and not be simultaneously.

By the way, I personally do not accept all the axioms of mathematics. So for me, all of mathematics does not represent any absolute truth. It's just the result of axioms that I personally do not accept.

I greatly look forward to the publication of your book 'Mathematics according to Divine Insight', containing your logical deductions from the axioms you do accept.

Nevertheless, it still seems to me that whatever the set of axiomatic premises one starts out from, the logic and reason applied to them is still objective, not subjective.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

It has been said that political philosophy is all about 'Who gets what?' and 'Says who?'

If we are agreed that mostly, no one is morally deserving of huge riches more than any other, (such as is demonstrated by the lottery, or casino economy)...

We are not agreed...

So, suppose I win a substantial amount in a lottery. More than $1 million. Would you say I morally deserve that money more than anyone else?

Next, suppose I gain a substantial amount buying and selling shares on the stock market, which has been mathematically proven to move in a random way. More than $1 million. Would you say I morally deserve that money more than anyone else?

Best wishes, 2RM

[2ndRateMind]

It has been said that political philosophy is all about 'Who gets what?' and 'Says who?'

If we are agreed that mostly, no one is morally deserving of huge riches more than any other, (such as is demonstrated by the lottery, or casino economy) and that each of us should have an equal democratic say in how riches are distributed, what does this imply for a world in which 1% of the population controls as much wealth as the remaining 99% put together?

Best wishes, 2RM.

...The reason the 1% control that much wealth is because the 99% believe that they are better at it than anyone else. If that were not the case, the 99% would spend their resources with someone else...

Actually, I submit that the reason why world's poor are so poor (more than 2 billion people on less than $2.00 per day) is not that they think millionaires are better custodians of their wealth than they are, but simply because they have no wealth to begin with. And that is because the extremely wealthy have appropriated it all.

Best wishes, 2RM.