There's a more general observation I would make here, and it encompasses political ideologies of all sorts. That's the belief that one can know what the ideal society looks like.

Such a statement might sound confusing coming from someone such as myself that makes relatively strong pronouncements about thing I think are good and things I think are bad. So one might ask why one wouldn't simply formulate a vision of a world that contains only things that I would consider good, and exclude things that are bad. But epistemically, I think this is actually impossible to do. Rather, I think of morality as a function that can only be understood in relation to inputs of that function, and the consequences of actions. But like integer factorization, I don't believe the inverse of the operation is generalizable.

Therefore, I'd argue that all such formulations of an ideal world are hopelessly utopian.

This might actually be my biggest objection to the kind of thinking we are currently interrogating here.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Political ideologies based on a ideal world are a fools errand.

I don’t think such an all satisfying circumstance exists even in theory.

Take the poor libertarian, a true libertarian must be content to live under a none libertarian system because their countrymen don’t want libertarianism and it’s anti libertarian to make non libertarians live in a libertarian system.

Libertarianism is trapped in a paradox and can’t win, which is why it never has.

Similarly anarchocapitalism lacks the organising structures necessary to protect its anarchocapitalism state from any emergent government. Anarchocapitalism is extremely vulnerable to any kind of emergent government, it is to submit all the necessary tools to defeat the one thing you seek to defeat. It’s another paradox and again is why anarchy never lasts long. Someone always fills the vacuum even if by accident.

These are just two examples, but communism too has its own paradoxes that make it unattainable. Communism with no democracy and no free market has no means whatsoever of determining the desires or the will of the people it purposes to represent so perfectly. A paradox that makes functional communism unattainable.

Monarchy actually does what it says, as do dictatorships, whereas democracies usually morph into stable oligopolies which sounds bad but is probably the cleanest dirty shirt.

For me the structure of government and the policies and strategies of a government are two completely different things. These are just various structures and in theory they could all implement the same policies.

I largely agree with what you're saying -- I think. And also relates to why as a former anarcho-capitalist, I'm a born against liberal democracy guy. Because I think the best solution is how we mediate the existence of structure through the interface with authority in an organized society. It's really about the management of incentives towards what one might describe is trying to maximize the subjective experience of the "good life" amongst as many people as possible.

Which sounds utilitarian -- and is, to a certain extent. But alas, I'm a moral constructionist, and I have epistemological objections to taking even that construct too far beyond the surface-level point.

Sorry, cleaning up my grammar further: the best solution is *found* in how we mediate the existence of structure, and the interface with the authority that maintains it.