From: Christian Weisgerber (naddy@mips.inka.de)
Date: Wed Jun 20 2001 - 12:25:07 MDT
eigenstar@subdimension.com <eigenstar@subdimension.com> wrote:
> I wish to find out which political views are more represented among
> EXtropians.
(While I don't walk around presenting myself as an Extropian, I'm
a formal member of ExI, and I can identify with its goals.)
> By "politican views" I mean "conventional" political views
> e.g. liberalism vs. socialism, right vs. left, etc.
Please take into account that the political landscapes and terminology
are different in other parts of the world, and not everybody on
this list hails from that insurgent British colony in North America.
Due to a protracted lack of political education, I have only a very
simplistic personal view. A fair summary would be this:
1. Leave me alone. Let me persue my private goals.
2. I respect the right of others to the same.
And that's all of it. I guess that makes me something like a
libertarian. I won't object to labels such as "libertarian
sympathizer" or "minarchist". I'm not really happy with the idea
of a state, but I'm unsure whether it can be realistically avoided,
in particular since states are superior predators compared to areas
not organized as such and will simply gobble them up. Sometime I
really ought to read up on constitutional theory.
Speaking of politics, let me share an observation. I have noticed
a phenomenon that seems to transcend social strata and education,
and seems to apply to everything from advocacy about political
parties to geeks' choice of operating system. People like to
associate with a group (community, party, whatever). Their initial
choice of group tends to be whimsical or rightaway accidental.
Once they happen to have chosen, they identify with their group,
they project all good things on it, and all bad things on competing
groups (often _a_ competing group).
It can be fascinating to watch a supporter of major party X talk
about the current problems that need to be solved and proposed
legal or governmental approaches to deal with them, and to subsequently
watch a support of major party Y give the equivalent talk. The
same talk. There tends to large agreement about the issues at hand
and often even about the solutions. The fundamental difference is
the expressed view that only party X (Y) can hold these views and
implement a solution and that party Y (X) is incompetent, fraudulent,
and for practical purposes evil incarnate.
If party X is in power and wants to raise taxes, a supporter of Y
will talk at great length about how bad this is and how party X
has a history of raising taxes. If pointed out a similar history
of tax hikes by party Y, he will claim that those just happen to
have been all justified or, a favorite of mine, their existence is
denied. History is rewritten and selective memory applied to match
the good/bad classification. Repeat at will with other topics.
I don't deny that there _are_ actual ideological differences out
there, however, they are routinely swamped by blind identification
with _your_ group and subsequent rationalization to make the facts
fit the identity. Especially if we're talking two-party system
mainstream politics.
(BTW, selective memory also seems to factor prominently in the
Balkan tragedy. Every ethnic groups has a vivid memory what the
others have done to them for the last couple of centuries, but
appears oblivious of what they have done in turn to others.)
The political circus seems to be mostly a function of monkey social
dynamics, with rationality only figuring in the distant background.
-- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:13 MST