• Erasmus Whitaker
    16
    Today, there is a very large threat to the existence Western democracies. This threat is not that of some foreign power or ideology, but the complacency of the people within. It is no secret that politics in the entire western world are becoming increasingly more polarized by the day, general civil unrest is becoming more and more commonplace, why is this?

    There is a distinct lack of civic virtue, this is true in politicians and regular people alike. As I am American I will describe this problem and prescribe possible solutions from an American perspective.


    America was born from revolution, the stark refusal to accept the authority of European governments. As such, the founding documents were written with the assumption that the idea that freedom is fought for an earned would be in the public conscience indefinitely. But that isn't the case; we have been spoiled by the prosperity and freedom of our society and forgotten what our forefathers sacrificed to achieve it. We have convinced ourselves that we are entitled to our civil rights, like a spoiled child feels entitled to their toys. There is a severe lack of awareness of the responsibility that is tied to having these rights. When rights are given at birth what reason is there for people to believe that they should accept any responsibility? Of course, through upbringing this can be changed, but in a society as free as ours, how are we to change that without embracing totalitarianism?

    The solution is to stop viewing society as how things aught to be and start looking at things as they are. We need to embrace political realism.

    We are now witnessing the results of a lack of any practical means of instilling civic virtues in the population. We always hear that people aught to be civil and we aught to avoid violence and we aught to be honest. Our politicians aught to act in the interest of the people and aught to place the public's interest over their own personal interest. But the simple fact is, people don't do what they aught to do. We are not inherently moral beings, and without any individualized reason to be moral, we do not act morally.

    Whenever we vote in a democracy, we are using force, we vote because we want to impose our will on society, and with our will embraced by government, we want to enforce our will through threat of violence. We vote on a law -> The law is accepted by government -> The government enforces the law via threat of fines/imprisonment -> If one refuses to accept this willingly, they are forced to via violence. This is the source of the responsibility that comes with democracy, specifically the right to vote.

    The issue that has arisen in Western democracies is a result of people irresponsibly seeking to impose their will on society to force it to conform with their own individual self interests.

    So what is a possible solution to all this? How can we practically instill civil virtues within the population without creating a totalitarian state?

    Well first, we don't need to instill these virtues in everyone, just those who wish to impose their will on society either through voting or holding public office. So a solution could be to abolish universal suffrage, and devise an open, non-coercive voluntary system that would instill this sense of responsibility within those individuals that choose to enter this system, who upon graduating from this system, would be awarded the right to vote and hold public office. This system would not be an ideological indoctrination program, but a contract of public service that would teach people individual responsibility. One option could be military service, including but not limited to combat roles, police force, firefighters, and paramedics could also be included, in addition to any non-physically demanding civil services for those who are physically disabled. The important part is that this system have a strong, military-style hierarchy within it that demands a high level of responsibility from every member.

    The resulting government should be small, and libertarian, so that those who do not wish to enter this system are free to live their lives as they choose, and pursue their own personal interests in any way they see fit. The supreme authority should remain rule of law, where all members of society, voting or not, are recognized equally in all rights besides voting and holding public office. Government should have little influence over peoples personal lives.

    The ideal outcome is that only those who are willing to take on significant personal responsibility and make sacrifices in order to serve the public should be allowed to impose their will on the public, and anyone who is willing to take on this responsibility is given the opportunity.
  • LD Saunders
    312
    Your proposal is doomed to failure. We have had times when government has collapsed in the USA, and the result has been mass rioting, not peaceful co-existence. Without a state establishing a currency, there is no free-trade. Without a state establishing roads, and uniform traffic laws, you couldn't even get to and from your home to work without risking your life in a major way or risk being banned from using the only roads to get back home. Things like liberty only exist within a governmental framework. I only own my home, because the government establishes property rights. If a government did not exist, if I left my home to go to work, someone else could move in and take my home from me while I was gone. You are assuming that the functions of government will exist without a government, when there is no theoretical or empirical reason to believe this would ever happen.

    As far as civility in politics is concerned, it's never been civil. The founders engaged in insults against each other that make today's partisan insults seem paltry in comparison. William F. Buckley, Jr., and Gore Vidal debated with each other, because those people who sponsored the debate thought they would demonstrate civility, as both were highly educated. The result? They called each other names, Buckley threatened to punch Vidal, and both ended up suing each other afterwards. Why? Because political differences are not so much a function of arguments, but is mainly biologically wired into us. So, on political issues, we cannot agree on topics like we can in the world of science, math, engineering. Welcome to the human condition.
  • Erasmus Whitaker
    16
    At what point did I suggest Anarchy, are you conflating a libertarian government with anarchy? I am suggesting limited government, not a nonexistent one. So that people's daily lives are not heavily impacted by government.

    And to your second point, I am not talking about a lack of civility, I am talking about the breakdown of the social fabric that keeps us from starting civil wars and killing each other. Today rival political parties are not treated, by their supporters or their opponents, like different ideologies that share a common interest and seek to persuade each other through debate. They are treated like enemies that exist in opposition to everything you believe to be moral, and should be crushed by any means necessary. Listen to the rhetoric on both sides of the political isle in the U.S., it isn't just a lack of civility, neither side is seeking to out class the other, they are seeking to dominate each other, and not through "superior ideas" that might stand on their own merit, they seek to dominate each other in a totalitarian sense, through suppression and misinformation.
  • Wayfarer
    22.6k
    They are treated like enemies that exist in opposition to everything you believe to be moral, and should be crushed by any means necessary.Eric Wintjen

    And you can thank the radical rightists who have taken over the GOP for that. Sure there are plenty of ratbag leftists as well, but it was first of all the Tea Party then the hostile takeover of the GOP by Trump that has really brought the social fabric to the verge of disintegration. Hopefully next week will see a turning of the tide.
  • ssu
    8.6k
    The lack of civility and the vitriolic political discourse is the consequence of a "winner takes it all"-political system (and perhaps simply the rudeness in social networks). As the political system is dominated by two parties, these have to paint a picture of being totally different from each other (which they aren't). And one cannot emphasize this too much: there is absolutely NO reason to seek consensus at anything. Add in populist Trump. And getting people angry works extremely well in American politics.

    Hopefully next week will see a turning of the tide.Wayfarer
    Of course. As if a Democratic win would heal the differences in the US and bring people together. Yes, the Trump supporters will wake up that they have been wrong, the other side right and that their President is totally inept and they should have earlier voted for Hillary.

    And civility is restored.
  • Wayfarer
    22.6k
    as a non-American, I wish Hillary would retire and take a post lecturing or some such. Her continued presence can only aggravate the situation. ‘Ride gracefully into sunset.’

    But it would take a lot more than that to restore civility.
  • Jake
    1.4k
    The ideal outcome is that only those who are willing to take on significant personal responsibility and make sacrifices in order to serve the public should be allowed to impose their will on the public, and anyone who is willing to take on this responsibility is given the opportunity.Eric Wintjen

    An interesting proposal which merits discussion.

    All I can think of to quibble about so far is that this would require a major re-write of the U.S. Constitution, a perilous enterprise.

    A smaller scale version could be to impose these conditions only on those who seek elected office.
  • Tzeentch
    3.8k
    The problem is not with the system, but with the people. However, the system provides a nice excuse for the people to keep blaming each other for what's wrong, instead of facing their near-total ignorance and the insatiable materialism that has crept into their souls.
  • Jake
    1.4k
    I am suggesting limited government, not a nonexistent one.Eric Wintjen

    Well, not really. You're suggesting a government that imposes strict conditions on who gets to participate in the political process. May be a good idea, but not really a libertarian idea.
  • Ciceronianus
    3k
    When rights are given at birth what reason is there for people to believe that they should accept any responsibility?Eric Wintjen

    You should ask this of those men who drafted those "founding documents" you refer to, one of which claims that it is "self-evident" that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain "unalienable rights."

    We vote on a law -> The law is accepted by governmentEric Wintjen

    Well, no, we don't. Except in the rare cases where proposed legislation is subjected to referendum (I know California likes to do this sort of thing), we vote for people who, when elected, adopt laws. That's fundamental to the form of represented government those men who drafted those "founding documents" created.

    Whenever we vote in a democracy, we are using force, we vote because we want to impose our will on society, and with our will embraced by government, we want to enforce our will through threat of violence.Eric Wintjen

    I doubt most voters are the megalomaniacs you think them to be. Anyone who votes and thinks that by doing so they are imposing their will on society is delusional. The same may be said regarding anyone who votes intending to do violence if the candidate they vote for is not elected. It strikes me that if what you claim is true, we would have experienced a great deal more violence than we have. There've been quite a few disappointed voters in our history. I personally will not run amuck if I vote for someone who's not elected.

    The important part is that this system have a strong, military-style hierarchy within it that demands a high level of responsibility from every member.Eric Wintjen

    The responsibility to follow orders, yes.

    If what we hear is true, historically most of us have chosen not to vote in most cases. So, most of us have chosen not to "impose our will" on society. I doubt your fear that too many people are allowed to vote is justified, but clearly you must provide the justification if there is any.
  • Changeling
    1.4k
    More like the decay of of.
  • Erasmus Whitaker
    16

    You should ask this of those men who drafted those "founding documents" you refer to, one of which claims that it is "self-evident" that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain "unalienable rights."Ciceronianus the White

    It was not taken into account that people would forget the responsibility that comes with rights. As I said, the constitution was drafted with the unspoken assumption that people would simply always remember that rights are fought for.

    Well, no, we don't. Except in the rare cases where proposed legislation is subjected to referendum (I know California likes to do this sort of thing), we vote for people who, when elected, adopt laws. That's fundamental to the form of represented government those men who drafted those "founding documents" created.Ciceronianus the White

    True, we are a republic, so people vote on representatives that run on platforms of policy they wish to push through to law, the model was simplified.

    I doubt most voters are the megalomaniacs you think them to be. Anyone who votes and thinks that by doing so they are imposing their will on society is delusional. The same may be said regarding anyone who votes intending to do violence if the candidate they vote for is not elected. It strikes me that if what you claim is true, we would have experienced a great deal more violence than we have. There've been quite a few disappointed voters in our history. I personally will not run amuck if I vote for someone who's not elected.Ciceronianus the White

    Well no, I would not say that most voters are not megalomaniacs, but the act of voting is necessarily an indirect use of force whether one is consciously aware of it or not. The majority of the population is apathetic, but those who are megalomaniacs and vote in the name of their own self-righteous virtue are the ones running public "discourse" (if you can even call it that anymore). And there has been a very large increase in the level of political violence in recent years.

    The responsibility to follow orders, yes.

    If what we hear is true, historically most of us have chosen not to vote in most cases. So, most of us have chosen not to "impose our will" on society. I doubt your fear that too many people are allowed to vote is justified, but clearly you must provide the justification if there is any.
    Ciceronianus the White

    My fear is not that "too many" people are voting in total, its that there are too many self-righteous people voting and in office that are voting and running things with the intent of dominating their opponents through force.
  • Erasmus Whitaker
    16

    Well, not really. You're suggesting a government that imposes strict conditions on who gets to participate in the political process. May be a good idea, but not really a libertarian idea.Jake

    I am suggesting that that be the only thing that government restrict, other than that, whether you choose to go through the system or not, everything would be the same in terms of rights.
  • ssu
    8.6k
    The problem is not with the system, but with the people. However, the system provides a nice excuse for the people to keep blaming each other for what's wrong, instead of facing their near-total ignorance and the insatiable materialism that has crept into their souls.Tzeentch
    I'm not so sure about that. People are quite the same in the end. The average Westerner is living a quite similar life in Europe or in the US, but what is debated (and how it's debated) differs.

    Political discourse is established from example from the media and the politicians themselves: people talk quite the same way about issues as politicians and the media do. Just look at this Forum, a lot of the current issue debated are things that are heatedly debated in the media and by politicians.
  • Tzeentch
    3.8k
    I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say, but one can heatedly debate politics and still be completely ignorant. In fact, generally the more heated the debate, the more ignorant its participants. Maybe I didn't understand your message.
  • ssu
    8.6k
    I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say, but one can heatedly debate politics and still be completely ignorant. In fact, generally the more heated the debate, the more ignorant its participants. Maybe I didn't understand your message.Tzeentch
    I'll give an example. Here in Finland politicians don't do ad hominem attacks as in the US and the discourse isn't as heated as is there. Parties have to form coalition governments, hence they have to be in speaking terms. The public discourse mimics this. Something like Pizzagate conspiracies would be out of the question. Even the political fringes don't have that kind of rhetoric. Looking at the discourse in the social media, opinion columns and etc. the tone are rather "civil".

    Yet I'm not so sure that the people would be so different from Americans.
  • Athena
    3.2k
    Your subject has been the focus of my studies for over 30 years. Thomas Jefferson was adamant about the importance of education for a strong and united republic. Coming out of the Age of Enlightenment it was known only highly moral people can have liberty, however, they based that morality on reason, not religion.

    The thoughts of the Roman statesman Cicero were essential reading for everyone interested in democracy and that supports the notion that the cause of doing wrong is ignorance, and right reasoning will lead to right action. This belief is vital to our liberty and democracy.

    Originally education in the US had very little to do with education for technology. Reading, writing, and math are technological skills, however, not even close to the technology that became the focus of education when we mobilized for the first world war. If we want to understand our national changes we must understand what war has to do with education, and what the military technology of the second world war and the nuclear bomb with missiles that can deliver such a bomb anywhere in the world, have to do with the National Defense Education Act and the radical change of public education that has radically social, economic and political ramifications.

    We have adopted the bureaucratic model of our enemy and our enemies education for technology, and we now have reactionary politics as Germany had when Hitler took control, and are witnessing the decay of our democracy and increasing loss of liberty, as we no longer understand what morals have to do with our liberty and democracy.

    I will be glad to validate every point with quotes if there is interest in what I have said.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.