My Political Philosophy

My political philosophy is that politics as a way to govern the technical situations and circumstances of a society is juvenile, and reflects the immaturity of our present civilization. I hope that the future of civilization moves beyond the political era and into the technical.

we are to be governed by robots?

What does that even mean? What is technical that is not political in today's world?

Wow. It's hilarious to think that people expect the national government to figure out what works best on the important issues instead of themselves getting off their asses and using their own minds.

You don't need robots to fix the country. You just need local people solving local problems.

The reason why we have national governments is to govern the societal issues that are too big for any one of us to handle in small groups. I just don't believe that the political system is the best way to govern our civilization.

We already use robots in our economy. Haven't you heard of the robotics automation of the manufacturing sector that has been taking place for the last 40 years, or the automation trend that's taking place in the service sector? It's the natural result of capitalist economic principles, but the system of capitalism will not be able to sustain these developments as they continue to progress.

What I'm saying is that politics is impractical and ideological. It's also a ******* popularity contest, like American Idol! Political parties engage in petty us versus them tribalism, when they should really be focusing on what works best and what doesn't. Issues like energy, conservation, crime, resources consumption, etc, are technical issues that get politicized by these ideologues. For me, politics is about choosing the lesser of two evils, and in this case that lesser evil is liberalism.

My problems with our social system go much deeper than this, but I'm not going to spare all of the details right now.

But isn't that part of the problem with politics? That a critical thinker such as yourself is marginalized into thinking that politics is a popularity contest. By marginalizing critical thinkers, the people with means of intervening in the workings of the government are able to overpower a group arguing for the political good, for their good.

Until radical political thinkers begin to see their contradictions as a beginning for discussion, rather than the place of contention and disagreement, politics will possess this popularity complex. The radicals need to unite for the cause of good rather than the appearance of good. Until that happens, true political change, much less societal change, much less environmental changes are possible.

Are you saying we should shift the functions of the political sector into the economic sector?

Otherwise, how and who will determine "what works best"?

I think that people in the know should determine what works best. What I mean is that there should be an inter-governmental system of educators, engineers, medical professionals, geologists, astronomers, sociologists, economists, psychologists and the like that work together to maintain the functions of our civilization.

This bit throws me off. It seems to assume that all of these various 'experts' will be working towards a common end.

I'm having trouble grasping your philosophy holistically.

First, could you expand on how your "central governmental system" would differ from that of today's? I understand you want to de-politicize it, but what exactly does that entail? On one hand you seem to say it should be driven by economic principles, but on the other you seem to want to appeal to some sort of Council of Elders, so-to-speak.

I'm just a little confused. I like your ideas, I just think they need more clarity before I can really grasp your overall scheme.

Admittedly, I have yet to come to a full conclusion on my socio-political theory as of yet. I don't really want it run by some Socratic "Council of Elders" or a council of philosophers type of thing. I just believe it should be run by those who have the most knowledge and are best qualified to perform the tasks needed to maintain the functions of our civilization. I don't believe that it should be run by those who have the most political capital. I've come to the justified conclusion that politics is juvenile. I understand the need for politics in the current society that we have, but I feel that it only reflects the immaturity of our present civilization. I'm hoping that one day we can move beyond politics.

Understood. And completely agreed.

I'd like to, in the future, bounce some of my own ideas towards this end off of you. I'm working on a paper that will kick off a thread, so perhaps then.

Admittedly, I have yet to come to a full conclusion on my socio-political theory as of yet. I don't really want it run by some Socratic "Council of Elders" or a council of philosophers type of thing. I just believe it should be run by those who have the most knowledge and are best qualified to perform the tasks needed to maintain the functions of our civilization. I don't believe that it should be run by those who have the most political capital. I've come to the justified conclusion that politics is juvenile. I understand the need for politics in the current society that we have, but I feel that it only reflects the immaturity of our present civilization. I'm hoping that one day we can move beyond politics.

This would just make "those who have the most knowledge and are best qualified to perform the tasks needed to maintain the functions of our civilization" those with the most political capital. It is simply a different elite class that, although they may have the knowledge, will use the power they garner to do more of the same. Politics is not juvenile politics is politics, it is played in every facet of our lives, it is woven into human interaction, it is woven into family structure, it is woven into conversation, love, sex, war, petty jealousy. It is woven into every single interaction you have ever had with another living human being. Granted the ideal of a utopia is wonderful, but what is juvenile is thinking that politics can be overcome by that utopian ideal. There have never been two people in a "community" where there has not been some sort of social hierarchy constructed and because of that; political machinations between them.

Here we go with the utopia name calling. Everytime a critical thinker has an idea for the structure of society that is different from the norm someone screams utopia in an attempt to belittle the idea. I don't believe in utopia. I'm not saying that this will be a perfect society, just a much better one than this.

My problem with politics is that it is more ideological than it is technical and practical. I have already conceded to the fact that politics is necessary for the current socio-economic system that we have.