Debate my radical political philosophy (please)

Great Debates
1

OK so I’ve been developing my philosophy on how society should function based upon what I consider libertarian socialist ideals. I’m not looking to convince anybody at this point but thought that I would throw my ideas into the crucible of Great Debates for refinement and feedback. So if I change my position slightly throughout the debate I hope you can cut me some slack.

Feel free to address any weakness or inconsistency, although fundamental principles are likely only to be slightly refined.

Throughout the following I am addressing the ways that humans act together. This will apply in the present to governments engaged in their typical actions (collecting taxes, arresting and imprisoning citizens, waging war, etc…), criminal organizations, or financial entities such as corporations. In the future I’m hoping for more fluid organizations that exhibit less coercive behavior.

Fundamental Principles

  1. Insomuch as people function as a society, that society should enhance the capacities of individuals to make meaningful choices and perform voluntary actions.

  2. Insomuch as societal coercion is implemented, it should be to the least degree necessary to achieve the optimal amount of freedom for as many as possible.

3.The acheivement of a society that reflects the above ideals and the transition from current societies should obey the first two principles.
Definitions

Coercion - The denial of personal freedom or basic needs necessary for personal freedom by one or more individuals upon one or more others.

Personal Freedom - The capacity of an individual to make meaningful choices and perform voluntary actions that do not deny or inhibit other individuals capacities to do the same.
Destructive behavior -limits the freedoms of other individuals with no consideration for the general good. This generally includes violence and coercion.

Assumptions

Humanity, while capable of destructive behavior, responds well when in not in conditions of material scarcity

and when in societies that encourage and reward trustworthy behavior.

The current conditions of humanity do not provide the optimal environment that would help limit destructive

behavior without coercion.
Conclusion

Humanity has the potential to live in much greater freedom than it does today if it can assure material abundance and the creation of healthy societies that recognize strategies of increasing cooperation and reducing coercion.

Are you with me so far? I imagine there is much more explaning that needs to be done, but this seems the best place to start. Ask away. I hope people are at least curious. If we can get past these initial beginnings we can move on to practical implications.

2

Well, I can’t debate your fundimental principles, by definition (even though I’m not sure I agree with them), but I’ll note, first, in your list of definitions, even though you define coercion, you don’t define violence, and second, could I ask why you make the assumptions you make? Or, are they just assumptions that we have to make, without evidence?

3

You’ve also failed to define “voluntary actions”, and the biggie, “the greater good”.

4

How does this philosophy differ from Libertarianism?

5

He said it is libertarian…

6

So what’s socialist about it? Apart from a general statement about “assure material abundance” I read no economic-policy content whatsoever.

7

Is freedom more important than cooperation? Does freedom run into a need for some limitations in order to have cooperation?

If everyone is basically free to do what they please without infringing on others, why would you not wind up with individuals to small groups all working at cross purposes? Also, how do you determine what is infringement when one person’s reasonable use is someone else’s unreasonable infringement while still someone else thinks it is at worst a minor infringement?

25 people may have 30 different ideas about how to best use an unclaimed piece of land or a resource as it suits them or the community. Some of these preferences may be completely at odds with others. How does such a society come to a conclusion as to how the resource will be used?

8

I see this as very vague and potentially dangerous. What constitutes a meaningful choice to me isn’t the same as what constitutes a meaningful choice to a Pentecostal evangelist isn’t what constitutes a meaningful choice to a PETA member. Perhaps “well informed choices” would be better.

9

Well, he hasn’t gotten into the details of his philosophy yet. He’s just laying out some of the principles.

10

These two assumptions seem to be easily disprovable or eaily-argued against rather.

I doubt there is a substantially greater amount of random violence in nations with fewer resources than the US. Now if there is mass starvation, then certainly there might be some rebellions or the government may have to be voilent to keep the masses docile–but that’s a matter of survival not a matter of “enough” vs “more than enough.”

To your second issue, as I recently stated in another thread (and don’t feel like retyping):

11

The “philosophy” here has no hook. It would be easy meanspiritedly to nitpick each of the details posted, but there’s no point as yet in doing so.

Let’s here the big themes first.

12

hear.

13

I am too very curious as to what is socialist about this philosophy. It sounds exactly like libertarianism, which is certainly an interesting ideology and worthy of debate, but not new.

14

Obviously, this is the socialist part. But how do you “assure material abundance” without coercion?

15

Captain Amazing,

Feel free to debate the fundamental principles just understand that some of it is strictly ideological. It could turn out however, that I have to modify them because they insufficiently explain my ideas or because I need to address concerns that I haven’t considered. I’m curious what people’s stance on them are anyway, even if I may not choose to debate over them. So let me know your reaction to them.

The assumptions are definitely up for debate along with everything else I listed. I will need to find some web references that align with my reading material. More on that later.

I’m not sure why violence has to be defined outside of the standard dictionary term, you will need to elaborate on that point. I would say the same for voluntary actions.

The “general good” is vague. By and large in the context of the definition it means that if the freedom of certain individuals was limited in order to increase the personal freedoms of the populace as a whole rather than to benefit a certain few other individuals.

Consider for example, many traffic laws. For the most part, these laws are concerned with keeping flow of traffic moving and reducing accidents. A relatively small number of rules (stay on the right side of the road, Stop at red lights, etc…) allow us all to reach our destinations with relative safety and only a minimal impact on our freedoms. I know that certain traffic laws don’t obey that principle (highway speed limits for example) but I’m offering up the ones that do as an analogy.

16

I am not an expert on modern american libertarianism, but in general I would say that Libertarians seem to be mostly concerned with the protection of private property, are in essence isolationists (MYOB) and are not concerned with creating cohesive communities.

Perhaps it is best illustrated by my definition of coercion:
Coercion - The denial of personal freedom or basic needs necessary for personal freedom by one or more individuals upon one or more others.

The principle here is that people who are making survival decisions are not making “meaningful” choices. They are doing what they have to in order to survive. Basically it recognizes economic forces that limit people’s freedoms just as effectively as governmental or criminal.

17

To me they are mutually dependant. You can’t have cooperation without freedom.

These are good practical questions, but I don’t think we’re there yet in the discussion. We will revisit later if we can get that far.

18

I wouldn’t make the comparisons simply on the occurence of poverty. The strength of the community is also important. Yes deterrence through coercion plays a role as well, but my goal is minimize the necessity of it as much as possible.

It’s not as simple to me as: poverty causes crime (although if you look at areas with higher poverty in the US you will often see a higher crime rate). Rather the conditions in high poverty areas collectively exacerbate criminal behavior and provide fewer rewards for non-destructive behavior.

19

Except, like you said, the “general good” is vague. Every ruler says he’s acting for the general good. To use the example you did, why are red lights ok, while speed limits aren’t? Speed limits also increase safety, by decreasing accidents and making it easier for the driver to control his vehicle. So, why the discrepancy?

20

Just to be clear are you arguing this point because you disagree in principle, because you need clarification, or because you think it is not practically feasible?

What I have in mind with that definition of destructive behavior was to provide a guiding principle in the development of a political system. The interpretation by a potential ruler isn’t really a concern. It’s just a matter of explicating the idea clearly enough to develop a constitution and bill of rights that will hopefully resist interpretive problems.

I mention highway speed limits specifically because I felt that they have been lowered to increase fuel efficiency rather than to balance the “right” of all drivers to navigate where they will. It’s not that I have a problem with speed limits per se, or that they may not have safety benefits as well, it’s just that on the highway in particular they just didn’t demonstrate the principle as clearly in my mind.