I agree, although first a consensus would be needed for promoting a given model of social power, wealth, etc. But that might just be the positivist in me talking. With no system, nothing happens.
Oh no, another “human nature” proponent! XD I have always considered human nature to be a simple catch-all for dismissing reasoned analysis of why people avoid reason. Even at 2-3 years old I told my parents it was predictable shorthand for saying that they didn’t truly know. The closest thing I have conceptually is probably the “path of least resistance”, but I am not sure how close that comes, because many people seem to put a lot of effort into remaining ignorant rather than enjoying elegant solutions.
Very. Humans are animals, more driven by instinct than reason. While the way that plays out in “culture” is relatively recent (mere thousands of years old), that ancient wiring runs deep.
Ah, that actually is usually systemic. Critical thinking skills are despotism’s worst enemy. It’s a tribute to human curiosity that many people still learn in spite of that.
Just before the conclusion Pinker states a principle I’ve found to be a pretty hard sell in BB political threads:
As soon as your fate depends on the behavior of other people and you engage them in any kind of dialogue, you can’t maintain that your interests are privileged simply because you’re the one who has them and expect them to take you seriously, any more than you can say that the point that you happen to be standing on is a privileged spot in the universe because you happened to be standing on it at that very moment.
It’s this core idea of the interchangeability of perspectives, or the recognition of other people’s interests, that’s the true basis of morality, as we see in numerous moral precepts and moral codes - the Golden Rule, Singer’s expanding circle, Kant’s categorical imperative, and Rawls’ veil of ignorance.
Also thank you @GulliverFoyle and @popobawa4u for having your interesting and thought-provoking interchange here in public where I can read it.
I wonder if anyone has ever studied how people with larger ideas of community protect those who do not share them, or tried to measure how deeply people who act to shrink or restrict communities (by othering and purity tests, for example) sabotage those same communities.
I’m not clear on why having “career politicians” (i.e. a person who has dedicated their professional life to public service) is an inherently bad thing. Nobody bats an eye when a corporation appoints a CEO who is a “career businessperson.”
It has an upside and a downside, both significant. On the upside, it allows people to dedicate themselves to it with the attention of a vocation. On the downside, as a career it becomes their entire livelihood, and that creates an incentive to benefit themselves at the expense of their constituents, the electorate as a whole, and the international community. Actually, the dilemma is much the same as with other professionallizations of previously volunteer services such as police and the current arguments over privatized fire services.
In the balance, I prefer politicians to be as non-career as possible, but recognize that the complexities of statecraft put some practical limits on how well a non-pro can do the job. Of course ideally the professional aspects could be handled by competent and fairly paid civil servants and advisors while the decisions are made by elected volunteers barred from themselves associating with lobbyists.
But that incentive exists whether or not the politician in question is a “career politician.” Take our current President-elect, for example. He brings far more disturbing financial conflicts of interest to the job than his predecessor did.
Sanders is a career politician. He seems quite good.
I guess part of the problem is that being a politician is being a lawmaker. So you get a lot of lawyers. Which nobody likes. In the U.K. they could perhaps do with a few less guys with PPE degrees from Oxford. Some diversity would be nice.
I’m going to guess that the US doesn’t get a lot of politicians coming out of Unions these days (did it ever?)
That is true, and a good point. But I’d argue that’s a consequence of his not being legally bound to put his assets in an actual blind trust (it boggles the mind that he’s expected to do it voluntarily). Alternatively, I’d be on board with a system forcing a person elected to high office to divest their assets, at least above a certain amount, via an early will. Essentially a blind trust that they themselves could only access a set amount of after their retirement from office, so they could neither personally benefit from perverting the office nor know if their actions benefit their will’s beneficiaries.
