There is no easy way to get good political philosophy that works in the modern world. Many like to take up their great great grandparents new theories of socialism as if it was newly revealed from Mt. Chomolungma unto them. Bernie Sanders came by his socialism honestly. Rep Ocasio-Cortez learned hers in Boston working as an intern for the late Senator Ted Kennedy (or Boston College). It is a maladaptive political philosophy that cannot be practically implemented without great destructive effect. It is also fundamentally an anti-free enterprise theory.
Sophomoric academic socialists don't learn ecological economics nor understand what corporatism is (Mussolini's invention) and work to reinforce one world government under a unified corporate-communist monolithic power risen from plutonomy and Mao. Concentrated wealth dominates through party elites and ordinary human inventiveness is enslaved; t'isn't a good thing.
The remedy is to reform capitalism and make democracy work. I've written how to accomplish that elsewhere, and a 90% tax rate on earnings over the first one or two million annually is a good idea- only if it is first known what it would be spent on, and that helps t benefit human health nationally and rebuild the damaged ecosphere while continuing full employment.
There is no easy way to develop a state-of-the-art political philosophy. Adam Smith had to put some serious work into his effort; and he probably consulted with the philosopher David Hume about the content of The Wealth of Nations in their conversations as friends. People today are often happy to just follow that venerable lead thoughtlessly as if this still were the 18th century.
A good economist and a well-read philosopher might be able to work together to create a good theoretical model of a reform of Democracy and political economy such that it is well adapted to the very different modern world compared to that of the 18th century. Government should seek to assure that all citizens in the artificial world of today with a crowded social environment have optimal creative and health opportunities to be as productive as they can be. It should reform democracy in policy so wealth does not strangle free enterprise and patents for the millions that do not control the market through networked ownership. Democracy should have some sort of screening to select business ventures that are the most synergy with the environment and body politic.
Morality is what people actually do. An existential anthropologist may describe it objectively. In a capitalist system being a billionaire is not immoral. It is just exemplary for an economic system not adapted to maximize human creative potential and national security. Too much concentrated wealth also stifles democracy and free expression making it difficult or impossible for democratic political reforms to occur if they are not what the most rich oligarchs want. Where was the referee when the Saints were robbed of the Superbowl? Where was justice? The most rich got the best demographic viewership and the Saints were kicked to shuffle out.
Sophomoric academic socialists don't learn ecological economics nor understand what corporatism is (Mussolini's invention) and work to reinforce one world government under a unified corporate-communist monolithic power risen from plutonomy and Mao. Concentrated wealth dominates through party elites and ordinary human inventiveness is enslaved; t'isn't a good thing.
The remedy is to reform capitalism and make democracy work. I've written how to accomplish that elsewhere, and a 90% tax rate on earnings over the first one or two million annually is a good idea- only if it is first known what it would be spent on, and that helps t benefit human health nationally and rebuild the damaged ecosphere while continuing full employment.
There is no easy way to develop a state-of-the-art political philosophy. Adam Smith had to put some serious work into his effort; and he probably consulted with the philosopher David Hume about the content of The Wealth of Nations in their conversations as friends. People today are often happy to just follow that venerable lead thoughtlessly as if this still were the 18th century.
A good economist and a well-read philosopher might be able to work together to create a good theoretical model of a reform of Democracy and political economy such that it is well adapted to the very different modern world compared to that of the 18th century. Government should seek to assure that all citizens in the artificial world of today with a crowded social environment have optimal creative and health opportunities to be as productive as they can be. It should reform democracy in policy so wealth does not strangle free enterprise and patents for the millions that do not control the market through networked ownership. Democracy should have some sort of screening to select business ventures that are the most synergy with the environment and body politic.
Morality is what people actually do. An existential anthropologist may describe it objectively. In a capitalist system being a billionaire is not immoral. It is just exemplary for an economic system not adapted to maximize human creative potential and national security. Too much concentrated wealth also stifles democracy and free expression making it difficult or impossible for democratic political reforms to occur if they are not what the most rich oligarchs want. Where was the referee when the Saints were robbed of the Superbowl? Where was justice? The most rich got the best demographic viewership and the Saints were kicked to shuffle out.
No comments:
Post a Comment