I would contrast the modern idea of extreme power sharing with the founder's version of land holding men only. Aristocratic republics like Venice can thrive much longer.
But how did Venice keep power sharing limited for longer, while America expanded the vote and removed senators appointed by states? In other words, how did they maintain a disciplined oligarchy?
Sortition. Or rule by random chance.
The more predictable a system, the easier for it to capture its inputs over time. Random chance curbs attempts at capture and keeps more players honest for longer.
But nothing is more disgusting to the modern mind than using chance when experts could be used. But even barebones religions evolved methods to use random chance to take away decision making from people (and their corruptibility). Its how Christians decided on who to replace Judas.
At some point I feel like any of these utopian -isms are bound to fail if the people adopting the -ism are bad people. Libertarianism, Capitalism, Marxism, Socialism only work if the people that practice them are acting in good faith and are just awesome honest upstanding moral people. The instance you toss a bunch of brain dead immoral actors into the mix, all of these Utopian-isms fall apart. This statement on its face is perhaps the strongest case for moderation or centrism, but in reality it is just an indication that we need people to be awesome and moral if we want any sort of society to function properly.
I think we need to dispense with liberal self-deception about universality of its claims and recognise it as an inherently Christian (and not even universally Christian but Western Christian) political order. In the same way we are being called to moral "ownership" before God, so does liberal political order requires that same "ownership" of public good and the "unleashing" it free of religious morality as desired by atheists is equivalent to asking for a building without foundations.
While that conception threatens the idea of the global order as we have it now, its required to save liberalism from itself.
In the 20th century the natural religious energy of the American people was channeled into Politics. This was great for politicians and the subsequent political class, it’s Hell on Earth for the rest of us, although it somehow manages to be a boring, dull, stupid Hell.
I'll note that the product of many of these moral foundations forms the next level of the liberal stack: Trust. Liberalism requires a high trust society in order to avoid Grug's Folly, which is largely why attempts to transplant it globally have had poor or even counter-intuitive results. Most cultures are low-trust.
The next question is, does liberalism actively destroy or dissolve one or more of these 5 moral foundations by its very nature? Or, which amounts to the same thing, does it give any of these pre-requisites political AIDS?
It isn't an impossible idea. Libertarianism and Communism require even higher levels of social trust in order to function, yet both are inherent destroyers of the very thing they most depend on. Liberatrianism kills trust through lack of boundaries, which is as tragic for societies as it is for people. Communisms via their underlying social ratchet that requires struggle in order to earn their key reward of status. In other words, identifying others to struggle against and hurt is its core engine. Hence all of the pathologies we see in their small and large-scale groupings alike.
Thanks for writing this, your description of what a society needs was insightful. I don’t know what you mean by “chaos”, though. Are you expecting e.g. the US federal government to be overthrown? One cause after another to control the government and repress their enemies? Competing parties to damage the country by competing?
To me, the first seems unlikely in countries where liberalism isn’t a foreign intervention. The second seems plausible, but I doubt it would be more repressive than the state would have to be without liberalism. The third is happening right now in the US, but mostly because their system makes obstructionism too easy - it’s less true in e.g. Australia where laws can be passed with less friction.
The Centrists fail to realize there is no common cause with the death cults. The only real solution is separation. But they can't wean themselves off the Empires teat.
I would contrast the modern idea of extreme power sharing with the founder's version of land holding men only. Aristocratic republics like Venice can thrive much longer.
But how did Venice keep power sharing limited for longer, while America expanded the vote and removed senators appointed by states? In other words, how did they maintain a disciplined oligarchy?
Sortition. Or rule by random chance.
The more predictable a system, the easier for it to capture its inputs over time. Random chance curbs attempts at capture and keeps more players honest for longer.
But nothing is more disgusting to the modern mind than using chance when experts could be used. But even barebones religions evolved methods to use random chance to take away decision making from people (and their corruptibility). Its how Christians decided on who to replace Judas.
At some point I feel like any of these utopian -isms are bound to fail if the people adopting the -ism are bad people. Libertarianism, Capitalism, Marxism, Socialism only work if the people that practice them are acting in good faith and are just awesome honest upstanding moral people. The instance you toss a bunch of brain dead immoral actors into the mix, all of these Utopian-isms fall apart. This statement on its face is perhaps the strongest case for moderation or centrism, but in reality it is just an indication that we need people to be awesome and moral if we want any sort of society to function properly.
This is true. The fundamental problem with these ideologies is that man is a fallen & imperfect creature.
Where does "Centrism" situate itself when one of the poles is clearly pushing for human extinction?
Centrism always sides with the Left.
I think we need to dispense with liberal self-deception about universality of its claims and recognise it as an inherently Christian (and not even universally Christian but Western Christian) political order. In the same way we are being called to moral "ownership" before God, so does liberal political order requires that same "ownership" of public good and the "unleashing" it free of religious morality as desired by atheists is equivalent to asking for a building without foundations.
While that conception threatens the idea of the global order as we have it now, its required to save liberalism from itself.
Liberalism just politics.
Politics makes a poor religion
Power a poor god
Government a poor Church
But that’s all they got …
In the 20th century the natural religious energy of the American people was channeled into Politics. This was great for politicians and the subsequent political class, it’s Hell on Earth for the rest of us, although it somehow manages to be a boring, dull, stupid Hell.
No pitchforks or torture…
…. Just fill out this form.
Now get in the Queue.
I'll note that the product of many of these moral foundations forms the next level of the liberal stack: Trust. Liberalism requires a high trust society in order to avoid Grug's Folly, which is largely why attempts to transplant it globally have had poor or even counter-intuitive results. Most cultures are low-trust.
The next question is, does liberalism actively destroy or dissolve one or more of these 5 moral foundations by its very nature? Or, which amounts to the same thing, does it give any of these pre-requisites political AIDS?
It isn't an impossible idea. Libertarianism and Communism require even higher levels of social trust in order to function, yet both are inherent destroyers of the very thing they most depend on. Liberatrianism kills trust through lack of boundaries, which is as tragic for societies as it is for people. Communisms via their underlying social ratchet that requires struggle in order to earn their key reward of status. In other words, identifying others to struggle against and hurt is its core engine. Hence all of the pathologies we see in their small and large-scale groupings alike.
Thanks for writing this, your description of what a society needs was insightful. I don’t know what you mean by “chaos”, though. Are you expecting e.g. the US federal government to be overthrown? One cause after another to control the government and repress their enemies? Competing parties to damage the country by competing?
To me, the first seems unlikely in countries where liberalism isn’t a foreign intervention. The second seems plausible, but I doubt it would be more repressive than the state would have to be without liberalism. The third is happening right now in the US, but mostly because their system makes obstructionism too easy - it’s less true in e.g. Australia where laws can be passed with less friction.
The Centrists fail to realize there is no common cause with the death cults. The only real solution is separation. But they can't wean themselves off the Empires teat.
Centrists are always fake and gay. They know what we believe, we know what we believe. We should just start killing each other over it by now.