POLITICS PART 9: APPLICATION TO ISSUES
The glamor of politics!
It's fitting this is the last page, as taking a stance on political issues should be the last step in the study of philosophy (with the exception of art, which isn't covered here). However, the reality is that most form opinions on political issues long before they cement in their heads a coherent, rational philosophical framework to guide them. This isn't a judgement on anyone's personal failure, it's just how our current educational system and society treats the subject. Unlike quantum physics or biochemistry, the field of politics seems accessible to the layman, and doesn't seem like a foundation is required. Surely, an intelligent adult can decide the merits of immigration policy by simply listening to a debate on the subject, right? Political issues are the "glamorous" side of philosophy, but just as with opining on the Big Bang Theory, one needs a correct understanding of more basic principles to have a valid opinion on the subject. The neglect of this structure leads to most people having inconsistent views in their politics. To compound the problem, politicians and the media are more than happy to leave this field "unregulated" by the rules other fields of study impose. Those consistently adhering to principles might be labeled an "extremist", and the current debates typically fall in a narrow range of accepted popular opinion (which tend to shift over time). Supporting gay marriage 50 years ago was way outside the range of popular debate, so what's changed? Certainly not the principles. Imagine a scientist being chided for rigidly adhering to the scientific method, it would be nonsense! Yet, with politics this is allowed.
The following is an example of how to take the philosophic principles previously covered and apply them to current issues. It's only meant as a teaser, and a lifetime could (and should) be spent thinking about all the issues. As with any subject, the progress is never ending, but it does need to be based on the proper framework. If any of these stances strike you as "extreme", forget about what popular culture would say, and ask instead if it's consistent with philosophy. Remember, slavery abolitionists were considered extreme at one time. Popular culture changes, philosophic principles don't.
The following is an example of how to take the philosophic principles previously covered and apply them to current issues. It's only meant as a teaser, and a lifetime could (and should) be spent thinking about all the issues. As with any subject, the progress is never ending, but it does need to be based on the proper framework. If any of these stances strike you as "extreme", forget about what popular culture would say, and ask instead if it's consistent with philosophy. Remember, slavery abolitionists were considered extreme at one time. Popular culture changes, philosophic principles don't.
TAX POLICY
If it wasn't already made clear in the discussion of the state, any sort of coercive taxation violates the non-aggression principle, and is not compatible with liberty and a truly free society. In short, if it's immoral for an individual to steal, it's immoral for a group, even a democratically elected group. Taxes are an organized means of plunder, and are either direct theft of property (as with the estate tax) or a form of involuntary servitude (such as the income tax). The morality of taxation should never be rationalized or defended, and the practice should be challenged when appropriate. Given that, if one finds themselves in a society that imposes taxes (a likely scenario) and there is little realistic chance of changing that in the short term, it may be moral and rational to work to eliminate or alter the tax code in a more "moral" direction. Taxes that punish virtue, like work, production, savings and investment, are the most pernicious, and should be attacked and reduced first. This would include income and capital gains taxes. Taxes that punish leisure and consumption, while also immoral in nature, are "less evil" and to be preferred. This would include sales, excise and property taxes. This is the application of ethics, and a realization that certain activities are more moral and essential for human survival and prosperity than others. The virtue of productiveness is real, the virtue of smoking or vacationing, not as much.
Above all, taxes should be as little as possible to fund a government that is as little as possible. It should also be noted that the U.S. functioned for over a century without any federal income tax.
If it wasn't already made clear in the discussion of the state, any sort of coercive taxation violates the non-aggression principle, and is not compatible with liberty and a truly free society. In short, if it's immoral for an individual to steal, it's immoral for a group, even a democratically elected group. Taxes are an organized means of plunder, and are either direct theft of property (as with the estate tax) or a form of involuntary servitude (such as the income tax). The morality of taxation should never be rationalized or defended, and the practice should be challenged when appropriate. Given that, if one finds themselves in a society that imposes taxes (a likely scenario) and there is little realistic chance of changing that in the short term, it may be moral and rational to work to eliminate or alter the tax code in a more "moral" direction. Taxes that punish virtue, like work, production, savings and investment, are the most pernicious, and should be attacked and reduced first. This would include income and capital gains taxes. Taxes that punish leisure and consumption, while also immoral in nature, are "less evil" and to be preferred. This would include sales, excise and property taxes. This is the application of ethics, and a realization that certain activities are more moral and essential for human survival and prosperity than others. The virtue of productiveness is real, the virtue of smoking or vacationing, not as much.
Above all, taxes should be as little as possible to fund a government that is as little as possible. It should also be noted that the U.S. functioned for over a century without any federal income tax.
FOOD AND DRUGS
When it comes to laws banning or restricting anything, it's essential to separate what one personally views as immoral and irrational, with immoral actions that justify the use force to stop. Remember, the NAP states that it's immoral to initiate force on another, meaning the only justification for a law is to prevent the direct infringement of rights. Applied to food and drugs, it's essential to understand the difference between advocating and condemning certain products, and using outright force to ban them. It's completely moral and rational to form opinions and spread information about the healthy or detrimental effects of certain foods and drugs, but it's not moral to lock someone in prison for disagreeing, or putting a certain substance in their body.
A good example is raw milk. Many think drinking raw milk is foolish, as it can cause sickness if it's contaminated. Others think there is a tremendous health benefit to the product, and claim if the farmer is careful, the dangers are virtually nil. The debate is interesting, and worth examining. When the government steps in, however, there is no debate. Farmers and eager customers who wish to purchase raw milk must often do so in fear of arrest, imprisonment or seizure of property, as shown here. This is incompatible with a free society, and the laws which authorize it should be condemned and repealed. If one has the right to life, liberty and property, surely this includes using their judgement in the foods they eat. To argue against this would be to posit that another entity has the moral right to tell someone what they can put in their body, which is a clear conflict of the right to life. As long as the exchanges are voluntary and no fraud is committed (like selling raw milk labeled "pasteurized") no infringements of rights have occurred and no force is justified, from the state or any other entity. Other examples of food bans, like NYC's attempts with soda and salt, are also wrong. The potential harm of these foods is beside the point, and not a justification to use force against voluntary, peaceful individuals.
Drugs and narcotics follows the same reasoning, although it's harder for many to put aside their prejudices. Surely, these are so harmful they must be banned, right?! Again, the issue of harm isn't a justification to interfere, if it's voluntary. There are many drugs with harmful side effects, but locking someone in a prison cell for possessing an item is not a solution that respects individual rights (nor does it seem to address the problem!). Drug addiction should be viewed as a medical issue, and a free society should combat it by advocating abstinence and treatment, not imprisonment. Not to mention, the War on Drugs has been a colossal failure, both in wasted money and results. It's not as if people can't get drugs, they just have to go through backwater channels, endangering themselves as well as others. Bans on desirable products will always create a black market, which all tend toward violence. The existence of gangs and much of the violence in inner cities and the border is a direct consequence of the drug war. Furthermore, the enforcement of drug laws is one of the leading reasons behind police harassment and violations of rights. From a traffic stop car search to SWAT raids on homes, these are almost always justified by looking for drugs. To top it off, all this enforcement must be paid for by coercive taxation! The phrase "legalize" drugs betrays a bias, in that it sounds like the government should be advocating or approving of drugs. Nonsense! The question shouldn't be "should we legalize drugs", rather "should we imprison people for using drugs".
When it comes to laws banning or restricting anything, it's essential to separate what one personally views as immoral and irrational, with immoral actions that justify the use force to stop. Remember, the NAP states that it's immoral to initiate force on another, meaning the only justification for a law is to prevent the direct infringement of rights. Applied to food and drugs, it's essential to understand the difference between advocating and condemning certain products, and using outright force to ban them. It's completely moral and rational to form opinions and spread information about the healthy or detrimental effects of certain foods and drugs, but it's not moral to lock someone in prison for disagreeing, or putting a certain substance in their body.
A good example is raw milk. Many think drinking raw milk is foolish, as it can cause sickness if it's contaminated. Others think there is a tremendous health benefit to the product, and claim if the farmer is careful, the dangers are virtually nil. The debate is interesting, and worth examining. When the government steps in, however, there is no debate. Farmers and eager customers who wish to purchase raw milk must often do so in fear of arrest, imprisonment or seizure of property, as shown here. This is incompatible with a free society, and the laws which authorize it should be condemned and repealed. If one has the right to life, liberty and property, surely this includes using their judgement in the foods they eat. To argue against this would be to posit that another entity has the moral right to tell someone what they can put in their body, which is a clear conflict of the right to life. As long as the exchanges are voluntary and no fraud is committed (like selling raw milk labeled "pasteurized") no infringements of rights have occurred and no force is justified, from the state or any other entity. Other examples of food bans, like NYC's attempts with soda and salt, are also wrong. The potential harm of these foods is beside the point, and not a justification to use force against voluntary, peaceful individuals.
Drugs and narcotics follows the same reasoning, although it's harder for many to put aside their prejudices. Surely, these are so harmful they must be banned, right?! Again, the issue of harm isn't a justification to interfere, if it's voluntary. There are many drugs with harmful side effects, but locking someone in a prison cell for possessing an item is not a solution that respects individual rights (nor does it seem to address the problem!). Drug addiction should be viewed as a medical issue, and a free society should combat it by advocating abstinence and treatment, not imprisonment. Not to mention, the War on Drugs has been a colossal failure, both in wasted money and results. It's not as if people can't get drugs, they just have to go through backwater channels, endangering themselves as well as others. Bans on desirable products will always create a black market, which all tend toward violence. The existence of gangs and much of the violence in inner cities and the border is a direct consequence of the drug war. Furthermore, the enforcement of drug laws is one of the leading reasons behind police harassment and violations of rights. From a traffic stop car search to SWAT raids on homes, these are almost always justified by looking for drugs. To top it off, all this enforcement must be paid for by coercive taxation! The phrase "legalize" drugs betrays a bias, in that it sounds like the government should be advocating or approving of drugs. Nonsense! The question shouldn't be "should we legalize drugs", rather "should we imprison people for using drugs".
MARRIAGE
This is another area where the mainstream debate completely misses the point. Just as with food and drugs, the issue shouldn't be whether something is good or beneficial, but respecting rights. The government has no business promoting or endorsing any kind of marriage, as it is simply a voluntary arrangement by individuals. Their only involvement should be in enforcing the marriage contract (if the party decides to have one). From the government's point of view, a marriage contract should be viewed as a particular type of legal partnership, nothing else. The views of the benefits and the morality of different types of marriages should be completely left to individuals and private organizations. If a particular church views gay marriage as immoral and doesn't condone it, fine. If another one does condone it, great. This is how a free society should function, by allowing individuals to use their own judgement to further their lives.
As long as it's consensual among willing adults, no marriage (or marriage contract) can be morally banned. On the other hand, property rights must also be respected. A gay couple (or straight couple) may not demand to be married in a church that doesn't want them, or demand a bakery provide them a cake. That would infringe on property rights. Again, the irrationality or ignorance that might enrage gay marriage supporters is not the issue. Part of living in a free society means respecting others' rights, even if they appear to be jerks. If someone won't bake a wedding cake because they're a bigot, that might be a moral failing on their part, but not one that justifies force. The proper response in a free society would be to either ignore the person and find someone else to patronize who wants the business, or make it known to the community by writing reviews, word of mouth, or even boycotting. The improper response is to become a bully and use the law to force the baker's hand, or shut them down.
This is another area where the mainstream debate completely misses the point. Just as with food and drugs, the issue shouldn't be whether something is good or beneficial, but respecting rights. The government has no business promoting or endorsing any kind of marriage, as it is simply a voluntary arrangement by individuals. Their only involvement should be in enforcing the marriage contract (if the party decides to have one). From the government's point of view, a marriage contract should be viewed as a particular type of legal partnership, nothing else. The views of the benefits and the morality of different types of marriages should be completely left to individuals and private organizations. If a particular church views gay marriage as immoral and doesn't condone it, fine. If another one does condone it, great. This is how a free society should function, by allowing individuals to use their own judgement to further their lives.
As long as it's consensual among willing adults, no marriage (or marriage contract) can be morally banned. On the other hand, property rights must also be respected. A gay couple (or straight couple) may not demand to be married in a church that doesn't want them, or demand a bakery provide them a cake. That would infringe on property rights. Again, the irrationality or ignorance that might enrage gay marriage supporters is not the issue. Part of living in a free society means respecting others' rights, even if they appear to be jerks. If someone won't bake a wedding cake because they're a bigot, that might be a moral failing on their part, but not one that justifies force. The proper response in a free society would be to either ignore the person and find someone else to patronize who wants the business, or make it known to the community by writing reviews, word of mouth, or even boycotting. The improper response is to become a bully and use the law to force the baker's hand, or shut them down.
CENTRAL BANKS
If you want more info on this subject, Rothbard's The Origins of the Federal Reserve is a great place to start.
In our examination of capitalism, we established the importance of separating the state from economics. Nowhere is this more important (and violated) than with money. Money is the medium of exchange we use to facilitate trades in a modern economy, and was a tremendous invention, raising us from a more primitive, barter economy. After all, if you owned a horse and wanted some eggs, a plow and a sword in exchange, that could be a difficult matter! For a variety of reasons, gold and silver became money over time. Gold has perhaps the best qualities of any substance for medium of exchange; it's scarce, desirable, can't be created out of thin air, easy to divide and coin, and convenient to store. As the economy modernized over the ages, advances like banking brought about paper certificates and deposits, but these were still based on gold. A paper certificate might be trusted and used as money, but only because it was redeemable in gold or silver. Any private entity that tried to pass off or print paper certificates not backed by something real would fail in the marketplace. Only the coercive power of the government could ever pull something like this off!
In almost every modern country, the state has assumed a monopoly over the issue of currency. No one else can compete with the state, and legal tender laws make it mandatory to accept the official currency for all debts. The value of this currency, as well as the price of future money (aka interest rates) is regulated by central banks. The U.S. central bank is called the Federal Reserve, and is a "private" bank, but in name only, as it's given monopolistic and great powers no other private bank has, and the chairman is appointed by the President. There are all sorts of justifications and rationalizations for the "Fed", but most are based on fallacies and historical inaccuracies about the nature of the banking system prior to the Fed. Much can be said about the abolition of the Fed on economic grounds, but that is beyond the scope of this site.
Philosophically, the Fed (and any central bank) is clearly immoral. First, it's immoral to prevent other competitors from having competing currencies. If the dollar or Euro is so great, it shouldn't fear competition. Second, the result of money printing and inflation is tantamount to theft by fraud. By deliberately devaluing a currency, the central bank essentially transfers purchasing power (equal to property) from some to others without their consent. This ends up benefiting debtors over creditors, and not surprisingly the politically well connected and privileged banks and financiers. Money and interest rates are essential for a productive economy, and it's imperative that they be left a free market. The ideal would be only private entities issuing currency, while the government only interfered in criminal cases of force and fraud. A government currency backed by a gold standard, like we had for much of our history, is much preferred to our current fiat system, but still not the ideal.
If you want more info on this subject, Rothbard's The Origins of the Federal Reserve is a great place to start.
In our examination of capitalism, we established the importance of separating the state from economics. Nowhere is this more important (and violated) than with money. Money is the medium of exchange we use to facilitate trades in a modern economy, and was a tremendous invention, raising us from a more primitive, barter economy. After all, if you owned a horse and wanted some eggs, a plow and a sword in exchange, that could be a difficult matter! For a variety of reasons, gold and silver became money over time. Gold has perhaps the best qualities of any substance for medium of exchange; it's scarce, desirable, can't be created out of thin air, easy to divide and coin, and convenient to store. As the economy modernized over the ages, advances like banking brought about paper certificates and deposits, but these were still based on gold. A paper certificate might be trusted and used as money, but only because it was redeemable in gold or silver. Any private entity that tried to pass off or print paper certificates not backed by something real would fail in the marketplace. Only the coercive power of the government could ever pull something like this off!
In almost every modern country, the state has assumed a monopoly over the issue of currency. No one else can compete with the state, and legal tender laws make it mandatory to accept the official currency for all debts. The value of this currency, as well as the price of future money (aka interest rates) is regulated by central banks. The U.S. central bank is called the Federal Reserve, and is a "private" bank, but in name only, as it's given monopolistic and great powers no other private bank has, and the chairman is appointed by the President. There are all sorts of justifications and rationalizations for the "Fed", but most are based on fallacies and historical inaccuracies about the nature of the banking system prior to the Fed. Much can be said about the abolition of the Fed on economic grounds, but that is beyond the scope of this site.
Philosophically, the Fed (and any central bank) is clearly immoral. First, it's immoral to prevent other competitors from having competing currencies. If the dollar or Euro is so great, it shouldn't fear competition. Second, the result of money printing and inflation is tantamount to theft by fraud. By deliberately devaluing a currency, the central bank essentially transfers purchasing power (equal to property) from some to others without their consent. This ends up benefiting debtors over creditors, and not surprisingly the politically well connected and privileged banks and financiers. Money and interest rates are essential for a productive economy, and it's imperative that they be left a free market. The ideal would be only private entities issuing currency, while the government only interfered in criminal cases of force and fraud. A government currency backed by a gold standard, like we had for much of our history, is much preferred to our current fiat system, but still not the ideal.
POLLUTION
Pollution is one of the more difficult areas to apply libertarian (or any) philosophy to. Clearly, if one's actions cause a destruction or degradation to another person's property, it's a violation of the NAP. Dumping sewage in your neighbor's yard, or blaring music at night in a residential area is infringing on rights, but what about driving a car, or a power plant's emissions? How can we quantify the damage, and does it even warrant protection under the law? Thankfully, a free society where property is privately held can resolve many of these problems (landlords, HOA's and commercial buildings can set the rules in a given structure or area, for instance). For pollution issues on a larger scale, it's for the field of law to figure out the appropriate laws governing pollution. Philosophy sets the ground rules, and law implements these into reality. As with all laws, extreme caution should be made that they don't infringe on rights. A law potentially means using force to imprison or confiscate property, so it must only be used to protect against real aggression, not attempts to create a utopia or push agendas. Banning or fining businesses for emitting CO2, when it's not clear that it has a quantifiable harmful effect on anyone would be a misapplication of the law. If there is doubt, always err on the side of freedom.
For a more detailed application of libertarian principles on pollution, see Rothbard's Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution.
Pollution is one of the more difficult areas to apply libertarian (or any) philosophy to. Clearly, if one's actions cause a destruction or degradation to another person's property, it's a violation of the NAP. Dumping sewage in your neighbor's yard, or blaring music at night in a residential area is infringing on rights, but what about driving a car, or a power plant's emissions? How can we quantify the damage, and does it even warrant protection under the law? Thankfully, a free society where property is privately held can resolve many of these problems (landlords, HOA's and commercial buildings can set the rules in a given structure or area, for instance). For pollution issues on a larger scale, it's for the field of law to figure out the appropriate laws governing pollution. Philosophy sets the ground rules, and law implements these into reality. As with all laws, extreme caution should be made that they don't infringe on rights. A law potentially means using force to imprison or confiscate property, so it must only be used to protect against real aggression, not attempts to create a utopia or push agendas. Banning or fining businesses for emitting CO2, when it's not clear that it has a quantifiable harmful effect on anyone would be a misapplication of the law. If there is doubt, always err on the side of freedom.
For a more detailed application of libertarian principles on pollution, see Rothbard's Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution.
WELFARE
From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State by David Beito is a great book that examines this more in detail.
As with taxes, theft doesn't become acceptable just because a majority votes for it. The coercive method of taking one individual's property to distribute to another (not to mention the giant waste and bureaucratic inefficiencies along the way) is wrong, and incompatible with a free society. It is not charitable to threaten force to pursue philanthropic causes. The Red Cross would cease to be moral if they demanded funds. No one, no matter their level of need, has a moral claim to another person's property. It may be moral (and rational) to help fellow citizens in certain cases, but the NAP mandates that this help be voluntary. In a free, productive society, the vast majority of people will be able to provide for themselves, or rely on friends and family. There will always be some who can't support themselves, for whatever reason, that deserve help, but they can best be taken care of by private charity in a free society. Private charity does a far better job of figuring out the truly needy and giving them help without squandering resources. Those receiving the help also understand the voluntary nature and kindness of giving, and tend to be appreciative and motivated to get off the charity. Those who are helped and succeed will tend to help others in the future, and the cycle tends to drag a community out of poverty over time. Contrast this with government programs, where people tend to feel entitled, have a lack of motivation to get off, and poverty tends to entrench itself.
Before the welfare state, a surprising number of people belonged to mutual aid societies, which is probably the best way for the working poor and middle class to protect themselves in a free society using voluntary, instead of coercive means. Seldom talked about today, these fraternal organizations gathered dues and helped each other when members fell on hard times. For example, in 1909, 40% of families in New York City earning less than $1000/yr (the "living wage" of the time) belonged to such societies, and they were particularly popular among immigrant and minority groups. At the time, there was a stigma associated with taking charity, but people proudly joined mutual aid societies. It's hard to imagine the growth and benefits these organizations would have in both helping deserving families as well as instilling pride in a society that values voluntary help instead of coercive help, if they continued. However, due to a variety of government interferences and the rise of the welfare state, they have all but died out in our society. Instead of a society that proudly and voluntarily helps the downtrodden, many now view the welfare system and recipients with disdain, and not without cause. This is one result of attempting to achieve the good by immoral, coercive means.
When applying these principles to reality, some discretion might need to be made when dealing with state welfare programs. For instance, social security, while immoral and unsustainable, has clearly caused some people to rely on it. The best course of action would probably not be to end it immediately, but phase it out as quickly as possible. Reforms that remove the incentive to not work and stay on government assistance might be wise, alongside an attempt to scale back the programs. While the wisest political course might not be to immediately cut 100% of all programs, welfare should never be defended as moral in nature, and advocates of liberty shouldn't concede it's necessary or desirable in a free society.
From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State by David Beito is a great book that examines this more in detail.
As with taxes, theft doesn't become acceptable just because a majority votes for it. The coercive method of taking one individual's property to distribute to another (not to mention the giant waste and bureaucratic inefficiencies along the way) is wrong, and incompatible with a free society. It is not charitable to threaten force to pursue philanthropic causes. The Red Cross would cease to be moral if they demanded funds. No one, no matter their level of need, has a moral claim to another person's property. It may be moral (and rational) to help fellow citizens in certain cases, but the NAP mandates that this help be voluntary. In a free, productive society, the vast majority of people will be able to provide for themselves, or rely on friends and family. There will always be some who can't support themselves, for whatever reason, that deserve help, but they can best be taken care of by private charity in a free society. Private charity does a far better job of figuring out the truly needy and giving them help without squandering resources. Those receiving the help also understand the voluntary nature and kindness of giving, and tend to be appreciative and motivated to get off the charity. Those who are helped and succeed will tend to help others in the future, and the cycle tends to drag a community out of poverty over time. Contrast this with government programs, where people tend to feel entitled, have a lack of motivation to get off, and poverty tends to entrench itself.
Before the welfare state, a surprising number of people belonged to mutual aid societies, which is probably the best way for the working poor and middle class to protect themselves in a free society using voluntary, instead of coercive means. Seldom talked about today, these fraternal organizations gathered dues and helped each other when members fell on hard times. For example, in 1909, 40% of families in New York City earning less than $1000/yr (the "living wage" of the time) belonged to such societies, and they were particularly popular among immigrant and minority groups. At the time, there was a stigma associated with taking charity, but people proudly joined mutual aid societies. It's hard to imagine the growth and benefits these organizations would have in both helping deserving families as well as instilling pride in a society that values voluntary help instead of coercive help, if they continued. However, due to a variety of government interferences and the rise of the welfare state, they have all but died out in our society. Instead of a society that proudly and voluntarily helps the downtrodden, many now view the welfare system and recipients with disdain, and not without cause. This is one result of attempting to achieve the good by immoral, coercive means.
When applying these principles to reality, some discretion might need to be made when dealing with state welfare programs. For instance, social security, while immoral and unsustainable, has clearly caused some people to rely on it. The best course of action would probably not be to end it immediately, but phase it out as quickly as possible. Reforms that remove the incentive to not work and stay on government assistance might be wise, alongside an attempt to scale back the programs. While the wisest political course might not be to immediately cut 100% of all programs, welfare should never be defended as moral in nature, and advocates of liberty shouldn't concede it's necessary or desirable in a free society.
CONCLUSION
This is the end, but should only be the beginning of thinking about philosophic issues! The information here should equip you with the ability to seek new knowledge in the appropriate way, both in politics and other fields. The beauty of an integrated, philosophic system that doesn't contradict itself, is that when applied in real life, will yield correct answers. This doesn't mean we can't make errors, but at least we have the tools to correct them. Always remember the non-aggression principle and the concept of rights, which is the bedrock of politics. If someone questions this, it can be justified with a rational view of ethics, which relies on the nature of man, which is determined by reason, which relies on concept formation and logic, which relies on the validity of the senses and the axioms of existence, consciousness and identity! With a firm philosophical foundation, these ideas can be defended. Without an understanding of these philosophic concepts, no political view can be defended ultimately, nor can one be confident their political beliefs make any sense. Above all, look for and root out any contradictions in your thoughts, as contradictions can never exist in reality. If you find one, check your premises, a mistake was made. Good luck on the rest of your intellectual journey!
For any further questions or inquiries, feel free to click here to contact me.
This is the end, but should only be the beginning of thinking about philosophic issues! The information here should equip you with the ability to seek new knowledge in the appropriate way, both in politics and other fields. The beauty of an integrated, philosophic system that doesn't contradict itself, is that when applied in real life, will yield correct answers. This doesn't mean we can't make errors, but at least we have the tools to correct them. Always remember the non-aggression principle and the concept of rights, which is the bedrock of politics. If someone questions this, it can be justified with a rational view of ethics, which relies on the nature of man, which is determined by reason, which relies on concept formation and logic, which relies on the validity of the senses and the axioms of existence, consciousness and identity! With a firm philosophical foundation, these ideas can be defended. Without an understanding of these philosophic concepts, no political view can be defended ultimately, nor can one be confident their political beliefs make any sense. Above all, look for and root out any contradictions in your thoughts, as contradictions can never exist in reality. If you find one, check your premises, a mistake was made. Good luck on the rest of your intellectual journey!
For any further questions or inquiries, feel free to click here to contact me.