NationStates Jolt Archive

Since I assume we have a few timid readers of political philosophy running around the forums, I think a discussion about prominent philosophers in your own journey in defining your political self seems appropriate.

Initially, I really agreed with a lot of the early influences of the libertarian movement (at least in America, since the term has a slightly different meaning in Europe), which means mostly Ayn Rand, but a little more obscure perhaps is Max Stirner, his greatest book in my opinion being 'The Ego and Its Own'. Later, I'd read Marx and Chomsky, as well as some of the transcendentalist authors of 19th century America - although most would probably not consider them political authors per ce, Thoreau's 'Civil Disobedience' does support the idea of a smaller government, and Thoreau himself representing a proponent of individuo-anarchy. Several classic dystopian works were also an interesting insight, but then you get back into Rand, so it comes full circle, I believe...

As I got older, I'd like to think that I've gained wisdom. Although I'll still speak out about the filth that happens to be the status quo, I'm more agreeable and less dismissive. To some, that's probably a mark of loss, but to me, it's just a more graduated approach in moving towards the world that I'd like to see.

My political evolution basically went from the basics of political know-how to Liberal, and as I studied economics, to Libertarian, and basically I've stayed there since but mellowed out over time and have came much closer to being "center-up". Let's give the gays their rights, uphold Roe v. Wade, advocate as free a market as possible, loosen up the immigration laws, keep marijuana illegal for the sake of preventing more twelve year old addicts, cut down on corporate corruption, truly be an equal opportunity provider, and assume fiscal responsibility in ourdebts and defecits. Basically, that's the summary of my journey and my ideal society, and that's where I'll throw my insignificant weight.

In Robert Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, he outlines a philosophy of rational anarchism, or enlightened self-interest, that I have always found appealing.

diogenes ftw!

Well my influences would be, first and foremost, Scripture, however my political development went from Far Right to liberal, liberal to socialist, and socialist to communitarian. Besides the Bible, I have included amongst my influences: the Libertarian Reform Caucus, especially Carl Milstead, Amitai Etzioni, Michael Albert, Robin Hahnel, Ralph Nader, Theodore Roosevelt, and some NS players, both libertarian/classical liberal and Marxist alike.

I believe that we must pull out of Iraq as quickly as possible and refocus our efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I believe we must realign our bases from a Cold War orientation to a war against Al Qaeda orientation, and that the Bush administration should be charged with war crimes for leading us into war in Iraq under false pretenses with dubious motives, permitting (and possibly encouraging) prisoner abuse at American and Iraqi detention facilities by US and multinational forces, failure to seek a formal, public declaration of war against the Iraqi Baath Party regime, and failure to seek harsher sanctions against Iraq or exhausting other options leading up to war, along with dismissal of any potential findings by UN weapons inspectors.

I also believe that the banks should not be bailed out but nationalized, to say they already are is farcical in my opinion. I believe there should be universal healthcare and that the cap on income subject to social security tax be eliminated. Furthermore, the government should phase out patents and switch to a prize system, especially for drugs and medical treatments. I believe that at least the right to recall federal officials and the adoption of IRV to elect presidents should be implemented along with proportional representation and line item veto. Corporate power must be greatly curtailed and local businesses should be promoted to revive dilapidated urban areas. I oppose affirmative action and gun rights, also gay marriage should remain a states' rights issue, as the federal government does not have the right to on legislate personal morality matters as the states do. I also believe that federal drug laws should be repealed as there are better ways for the federal government to spend its resources, however states can ban certain substances if they so choose. The federal government may regulate purity and safety of the substances if they are produced by an interstate business.

I also believe in the complete separation of academics from athletics... they must not mix for it is this mixture that may, in part, explain the substandard education American students recieve. I believe in school prayer as being a right of the student and privelege of the educator. I do not believe that creationism or ID should be taught in science classrooms. If students wish to engage in a rational debate concerning the subject, that would permissible provided that the teacher is willing to allow classtime to be spent in that matter.

I also do not believe we should have any restrictions on abortion, but our welfare system must not encourage it either. Rather the tax code and welfare system must promote open adoption and/or marriage. If free trade is to be the order of the day, I agree with Fareed Zakaria that it should be supplemented with some sort of retraining program for workers, either employer sponsored or community sponsored... once again the system adopted shall be a matter of states' rights.

Ha! It's like looking into a mirror.

Anyways, it always annoys me when people have no idea about the philosophy of the politics they claim to represent. People say they believe in X and Y, I tell them that's inconsistent and they don't even get it, because they don't realise that X iff A and Y iff B, and A and B contradict each other. And the worst is when I try and explain that, and they evidently don't care.

Be that as it may, I think more important than being able to name philosophers who happen to hold similar views to mine is to be doing your own thinking on the deeper meaning of your views, their implications and especially their most implicit, basic assumptions.

I think almost every (political) philosopher I've read has shaped my views, even if it's just a recognition that my (political) views are not what I've just read. For example, reading and studying Locke and Hobbes (and, latterly, Kant and Rawls) has convinced me of my distaste for social contract theory.

Marx impacted upon me early on, though it's only relatively recently (with help from G. A. Cohen) that I feel I've truly got to grips with his writings. Chomsky, too, was a early influence. In the last year or so, slogging through Hegel's Philosophy of the Right has really helped in my understanding, and critique, of Marx.

More currently, anarchist/libertarian theorists such as Proudhon, Kropotkin, Thoreau and Bakunin have made an impact, shaping my current political beliefs, while writers such as Aldo Leopold, Rachel Carson, Arne Næss and Murray Bookchin have changed rather dramatically the way I view the world and my place in it. At the risk of getting pigeon-holed, I'd call myself a bit of a Bookchinite.

Further, the writings of Aristotle, and the neo-Aristotelians Rosalind Hursthouse, Philippa Foot and Ronald Sandler, have shaped the ethical (and environmental) outlook that informs my politics.

Writers that aren't necessarily political, but have had a profound effect on my worldview include, but are certainly not limited to: Epicurus, Confucius, Dōgen, Spinoza, David Hume, J. S. Mill, Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Mary Midgley, Peter Singer, Donald Davidson, Alain Badiou, Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett, Graham Priest and John Searle.


diogenes ftw!
Awa and sit in yer barrel, ye bam.

Hmm, can't really be bothered. :P

I think almost every (political) philosopher I've read has shaped my views, even if it's just a recognition that my (political) views are not what I've just read.
^^^^
this
I agree fully.

The problem with "communitarian" is that none of its exponents can agree on what it is.

To me it more or less resembles syndico-anarchism.

I believe in liberty, but have misgivings about the desirability of capitalism red in tooth and claw.

As much as I enjoyed studying political philosophy in school, my influences aren't philosophers at all, really. My influences are more likely to be economists, psychologists, and management and org. behavior theorists. Rawls and Nozick and the like are fine, but I prefer to make political decisions based on more quantitative considerations.

The problem with "communitarian" is that none of its exponents can agree on what it is.

To me it more or less resembles syndico-anarchism.

I believe in liberty, but have misgivings about the desirability of capitalism red in tooth and claw.

Ditto! I wonder if you would be interested in checking out Carl Milstead's writings at http://www.holisticpolitics.org (holistic politics). He is quite interesting, though I have to admit I do disagree with him at points.

i'd rather phylosophize then study phylosophurz.
sort of the difference between a cat and a picture of a cat.

diogenes ftw!

Paul Tillich.

i'd rather phylosophize then study phylosophurz.
sort of the difference between a cat and a picture of a cat.

Same here. I'd rather cat than philosophize. I mean, I'd rather have a picture of philosophy than one of a cat. No, wait, I mean, uh, um...Robert Nozick!

In Robert Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, he outlines a philosophy of rational anarchism, or enlightened self-interest, that I have always found appealing.

I've always liked it, but thought it impossible.

Same here. I'd rather cat than philosophize. I mean, I'd rather have a picture of philosophy than one of a cat. No, wait, I mean, uh, um...Robert Nozick!
I understand how you both feel. Sometimes when I am alone and it is dark, I also ... cat.

But most of the time my political philosophy is based on a general belief in the value of all life. I think it comes from listening to Rage Against the Machine too much, or maybe from working with the homeless. Or reading Nietzsche, Sartre and Heidegger more than is healthy (read: at all).
I was once a hard line Republican, but then I started moving against the conservative social values that such entailed into a more libertarian stance (blame Ayn Rand).

Philosophical Influences: Jesus (the Golden Rule), Descartes.

Politcal-Philosophical Influences: John Calvin, The Founding Fathers, Ronald Reagan, George Orwell.

Greatest philosophical influence: Friedrich Nietzsche.

Greatest politically philosophical/scientific influence: Niccolò Machiavelli

Greatest Philosophical/Moral Influence: Jesus.

Greatest Political Philosophy influences: John Stossel, Thomas Jefferson, Calvin Coolidge.