Manifesto
In the public sphere, as on Facebook, my primary interest is “propaganda” in the non-pejorative sense of publicly propagating my ideology. My ideology is descriptive and prescriptive. It consists of accepting the well-confirmed finding of the natural sciences, a realistic conception of ordinary experiences, and economic and political prescriptions.
I am also critical of what others say. I reject supernaturalism and pseudo-science. I welcome civil rational public discussions. I am not interested in private discussions which cannot be made public.
Unlike the famous Cartesian phrase: “I think therefore I am,” I am more interested in the implications of: “I eat therefore I continue to live.” Eating is a necessary — though not a sufficient — condition for living. In economics, I am interested in satisfying these conditions. And, because there are other human beings who are bent on thwarting my efforts at survival, I am interested in a political organization as a way to safeguard these interests.
My economics starts with giving to each person free subsistence land.
My politics is based on a small community (such as a village), democratically electing a council to conduct its affairs, and federating with other such communities. By this token, I reject a State with officers elected by thousands or millions of people.
Political manipulation through metaphors and frames (George Lakoff)
George Lakoff explains how metaphors and frames are used by Conservatives (Republicans?) to win elections, including the creation of think tanks and various media to advance their political agenda. He himself identifies with Progressives and Liberals (Democrats?) and gives pointers about how to win elections. It is clear to me that he is a reformer, meaning that he wants to change things through the existing institutions. I am with him in this regard. But he fails to talk about, or even mention, how the very structure of the American government (as presented in the Constitution) fosters oligarchic rule. Pitting Democrats over Republicans is futile; because given the institutions of mass democracy and the institution of one person ruling as President, Governor, and Mayor, oligarchy and corruption will win.
Chomsky on the Language of Politics
The Root of All Evil – The God Delusion
Bullshit in Philosophy
If you understand that “error” is a neutral word for “bullshit,” then you can read the following essay by Hans Reichenbach as an attempt to locate bullshit in philosophical speculations.
Hans Reichenbach, “Rationalism And Empiricism: An Inquiry Into The Roots Of Philosophical Error,” The Philosophical Review, vol. LVII, No.4, July 1948.
Putting the reins of government into the hands of one person is bullshit.
It seems almost to be common-sense not to give political power to a single individual. Such an individual is prone to look out for his own interest. He can be bribed, and he can be threatened. Yet, almost the whole world keeps doing it. And the hope is that the next person will be some kind of savior. Never happens! Combine this adulation of a leader with mass democracy, and you get a semi-literate Bush, then a suave snake oil salesman, Obama, and now a spoiled child, Trump. And in Russia a rogue dictator, Putin.
What is needed is a new Constitution with the executive exercised by a collective body of at least two persons. Below are links to Wikipedia describing such collegial executive bodies. The best present example of such a collective executive is Switzerland.
Liberal-Democrat vs Conservative-Republican?
Have you been bamboozled into using the categories of liberal/Democratic vs conservative/Republican? These are really two factions of the game of oligarchy! They prescribe the choice of alternatives. For example, they both support the institution of a President, and you can choose which oligarch to be President. I, on the other hand, support the Swiss 7-member Federal Council. And I can go on with other measures which would be a critique of the U.S. Constitution, which is the oligarch rule-book of the game they are forcing us to play.
When reading attempts to distinguish Democrats from Republicans, the rational conclusion is that they tend to blur. The current issues which “seem” to separate them are: abortion, gun control, and climate control. I call them distractions. Why? Well, for one, the possibility of getting a chunk of free subsistence land, is not deemed a discussable issue.
Think of our political situation in this way. We are all required to play a game — let’s say football.
In this game, we have all sorts of choices, e.g., whether to throw the ball or run with it. The Democrats are all for throwing the ball; the Republicans are for running with the ball. These options are distractions from the question whether we should even be playing football. After all, in football, there are injuries and fatalities. I would prefer to play ping-pong in which, to my knowledge, there are no fatalities.
The political game is constituted by the U.S. Constitution (the rule book). Let’s play a different game. The one we are playing has too many fatalities and injuries.
The same goes for Ukraine, Ukraine has a very bad Constitution which allows for all the corruption we are witnessing. What is the better game? Nestor Makhno tried to play it. It is called Anarchism, or federalism based on small-scale communities practicing direct democracy.
