Clausewitz said, "War is the continuation of policy by other means." That is true, but it's also good sense to consider its opposite: "Politics is the continuation of war by other means."
Have you noticed how nearly all politicians, when slapping themselves on the back for all they claim to be doing for their constituents, always say they are "fighting" for this, that, and the other thing? And how so many oppressive national policies are always described as "war"? The "War on Poverty." The "War on Drugs." The "War on Terror." For politicians, nothing can ever be accomplished except by "war." That's why I had politics.
One of the most evil slogans of the Left is: "The personal is political." Wanting to expand the scope for politics in peoples' lives is fundamentally evil and stupid.
It's fundamentally evil, but it's not stupid someone whose main purpose in life is to make the world perfect by forcing everyone to be as noble as he are. The further left a politician is, the more this "libido dominandi" seems to take hold of him, but today nearly all politicians are infected by it. But then nearly all politicians are "left." The so-called "Right" is just the right wing of the Left.
I think in a great many cases you underestimate the evilness of some with political views that you characterize of being only a small sliver of their lives.
Some say politicians are just like the rest of us. We would behave as they do given the constraints they face. I disagree. We are better than they are.
Politics is the mindless tribalism in the pursuit of seeking and holding state power to ingratiate voters and donors in the historically deterministic and futile battle of constraining the state from attaining leviathan stature, continually advancing through bankrupt welfare state of end-stage democracy (Alexander Tytler) transitioning to tyranny.
Since it is downstream of culture, politics can only react to trends in culture and in that pursuit, will any attempts at temporarily constraining the state perhaps succeed.
“Politics” is simply how nations make decisions. I am onboard with hating the process, but imagine the alternative of never being able to make a decision. I imagine that paralysis in some essential areas can be bad too, so pick your poison.
Ok, but isn't this an argument for minimizing the scope of politics - that is, the scope of the government - since the process of joint decision making is so deeply flawed? This is one of the most fundamental arguments for a minimalist government, and yet virtually everywhere we see governments that are far greater than minimalist. This is the choice that Caplan is decrying.
How the hell are you going to limit the scope of government without "doing politics"? Like if I want to cut taxes or scrap a regulation I gotta get someone elected and change a law.
Completely agree. Again, I don’t like the process either. If we could operate sans government I support it, but I have not seen a model work yet of anarcho capitalism.
We don't have to make the leap to anarcho-capitalism. There are massive reductions that can take place before we have to decide who provides the roads.
"Nations" don't make decisions. "Nations" have neither reason, nor will; they do not act; they cannot act. It is sef-deception to think of it this way. Only individuals act. The individuals who are politicians claim to make decisions on behalf of "nations." Changing my terminology somewhat, from "nations" to "states," because not all "nations" exist within the bounds of one state, and because "nation" in its true meaning does not even refer to politics, I would cite the clever saying of Frederic Bastiat, "The state is that fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else."
Clausewitz said, "War is the continuation of policy by other means." That is true, but it's also good sense to consider its opposite: "Politics is the continuation of war by other means."
Have you noticed how nearly all politicians, when slapping themselves on the back for all they claim to be doing for their constituents, always say they are "fighting" for this, that, and the other thing? And how so many oppressive national policies are always described as "war"? The "War on Poverty." The "War on Drugs." The "War on Terror." For politicians, nothing can ever be accomplished except by "war." That's why I had politics.
One of the most evil slogans of the Left is: "The personal is political." Wanting to expand the scope for politics in peoples' lives is fundamentally evil and stupid.
It's fundamentally evil, but it's not stupid someone whose main purpose in life is to make the world perfect by forcing everyone to be as noble as he are. The further left a politician is, the more this "libido dominandi" seems to take hold of him, but today nearly all politicians are infected by it. But then nearly all politicians are "left." The so-called "Right" is just the right wing of the Left.
I think in a great many cases you underestimate the evilness of some with political views that you characterize of being only a small sliver of their lives.
Some say politicians are just like the rest of us. We would behave as they do given the constraints they face. I disagree. We are better than they are.
Politics is the mindless tribalism in the pursuit of seeking and holding state power to ingratiate voters and donors in the historically deterministic and futile battle of constraining the state from attaining leviathan stature, continually advancing through bankrupt welfare state of end-stage democracy (Alexander Tytler) transitioning to tyranny.
Since it is downstream of culture, politics can only react to trends in culture and in that pursuit, will any attempts at temporarily constraining the state perhaps succeed.
“Politics” is simply how nations make decisions. I am onboard with hating the process, but imagine the alternative of never being able to make a decision. I imagine that paralysis in some essential areas can be bad too, so pick your poison.
Ok, but isn't this an argument for minimizing the scope of politics - that is, the scope of the government - since the process of joint decision making is so deeply flawed? This is one of the most fundamental arguments for a minimalist government, and yet virtually everywhere we see governments that are far greater than minimalist. This is the choice that Caplan is decrying.
Deciding the scope of government is politics...
Duh. Really?
How the hell are you going to limit the scope of government without "doing politics"? Like if I want to cut taxes or scrap a regulation I gotta get someone elected and change a law.
Completely agree. Again, I don’t like the process either. If we could operate sans government I support it, but I have not seen a model work yet of anarcho capitalism.
We don't have to make the leap to anarcho-capitalism. There are massive reductions that can take place before we have to decide who provides the roads.
agree, but then you still have politics.
"Nations" don't make decisions. "Nations" have neither reason, nor will; they do not act; they cannot act. It is sef-deception to think of it this way. Only individuals act. The individuals who are politicians claim to make decisions on behalf of "nations." Changing my terminology somewhat, from "nations" to "states," because not all "nations" exist within the bounds of one state, and because "nation" in its true meaning does not even refer to politics, I would cite the clever saying of Frederic Bastiat, "The state is that fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else."
...and cats?