Michael Lupacchino’s Political Philosophy
My political philosophy, and view of morality in general, revolves around the original philosophical proposition by René Descartes, Cogito, ergo sum. I think, therefor, I am. Descartes argued that in a world of doubt, when nothing else is certain, the one thing that any sentient self aware being can know for sure was the fact that they are aware of their own consciousness.
If you can think you, and are aware of that fact, then you know that you exist.
Conceptualization of Liberty as a Universal Truth
Once one consciously recognizes their free will, the second thing they’ll notice is that obstructions of that free will, is naturally abhorrent to them. All sentient beings endowed with free will recognize that they do not appreciate violations of said free will, and will instinctively avoid such. Even those who violate the free will of others, will instinctively not tolerate the same (a thief does not want to be stolen from, a murder does not want to be murdered, etc.).
Therefor, it can be universally proven that liberty, free from coercion, is the natural ideology and universal truth as all sentient beings can recognize infringement of said free will (coercion) as immoral. This is my version of “The Golden Rule” as it relates to politics. Basically, one is universally morally free to do as they wish as long as they do not infringe on the free will (consciousness) of another sentient being.
The Three Tenants of Political Philosophy (Effectiveness, Morality, Legality)
When discussing a political issue, there are three main tenants, or approaches, that people generally use in approaching said issue. Which one of the three tenants they tend to argue through will depend a lot upon their ideology and personality.
The first, and most common, is the “effectiveness” principle. That is, individuals will discuss which policies and methods they think will lead to the most “beneficial” end result. Usually, with them also playing the role of arbiter as to what constitutes “beneficial”.
Second is the morality principle. When individuals will argue a point based on the perceived ethics or morality of a given issue. Usually, again with them playing arbiter as to what they believe constitutes morality, instead of first creating an ethical common ground with the person they are trying to persuade.
Lastly, and least popular of the three, is the legality argument. That is when one argues a position based upon its perceived legality in relation to current law. In the US’s case, that would be if whatever is being proposed conflicts with the Constitution (most things federal do).
My Approach to the three Tenants
In my opinion, morality is the most important of the three principle arguments, and trumps everything else. On a side note, however, the philosophy of liberty does also happen to empirically comply the most with the other two principles over other systems of governance. In terms of morality, there is a universal ethics, which is easily provable and recognizable by all sentient beings. The first step of this recognition ,was popularized by Descartes, in being self aware, and thus being able to recognize one’s own consciousness first before anything else. I think, therefor, I am.
Once one consciously recognizes their free will, the second thing they’ll notice is that obstructions of that free will, are naturally abhorrent to them. All sentient beings endowed with free will recognize that they do not appreciate violations of said free will, and will instinctively avoid such. Even those who violate the free will of others, will instinctively not tolerate the same (a thief does not want to be stolen from, a murder does not want to be murdered, etc.).
Thus, the most important reason to advocate for a liberty based philosophy, is that it is morally in compliance with universal ethics. A being endowed with consciousness, has the right to do as it wishes, as long as it does not violate the free will of another sentient. This is the golden rule, and the backbone of all libertarianism and freedom based philosophy. One can fact check the morality, and justification of any law, policy, or government by putting it up against that golden rule. Does the thing in question violate a person’s free will? If yes, it is not permissible. Sentient beings such as humans are supposed to be their own free actors. Throwing them into a manufactured economic reality is a violation of their autonomy.
In terms of the effectiveness principle, man and nature are intertwined, and symbiotic to a certain extent. In many ways, modern man is unable to abstain from manipulating his natural environment, however, he can make efforts to minimize the extent of his manipulation. Man is naturally the master of his domain, which is why we even bother to consider how his actions will effect nature in the first place. Man does not need to limit the extent of his manipulation on the environment or the economy. However, if man exerts excessive manipulation on his natural environment, the backlash ends up having a detrimental effect on himself and others, so there is incentive not to do so. By contrast, manipulation of the economy is purely voluntary and has no net benefit to the system or to man himself when viewed abstractly.
The differences between manipulation of nature and the economy are several. Our manipulations of nature are based upon an understanding, through science, and we adjust how we change things as new data comes about. In economic systems, factions assume they know what they’re doing, but they have not tested their theories empirically, and so are faced with a multitude of unintended consequences and inefficiencies. They also do not adjust the mechanisms they carelessly implemented based upon results observed through empirical data. A proper analogy would be trying to change the way animals and plants interact, such as how bees pollinate flowers or how flowers incentivize bees. Unless you have an incredibly thorough knowledge of how these systems work, you’re going to end up majorly disrupting the balance of something in a way you probably never anticipated. In economic systems, outside controlling factions assume they know what they’re doing, but they have not tested their theories empirically, and so are faced with a multitude of unintended consequences and inefficiencies.
A free market system also historically leads to more wealth, more technological innovation, (as individuals are more free to create) and a higher standard of living. Freedom is what leads to progress and progression, not socialism (why I hate that the left has adopted that moniker). The lower class in the United States is richer than the greatest king or pharaoh of ancient times. The individual in the US has greater access to more wonders, creature comforts, conveniences and well being than the ancient all powerful rulers ever did. Ice on demand? TV? Internet? Automobiles? Air conditioning? These are things that are unimaginable to the pharaoh. By contrast, we have seen what increased government regulation and control leads to, as in the extreme cases of the USSR or North Korea. Poverty, inefficiency, misery, stagnation, starvation, and death.
The free market may not be perfect, there will always be people who commit crimes and try to victimize others. What you DON’T want, is to empower a government to be the one that commits the crimes and does the victimizing. I found it ironic that those who are most distraught over Trump getting into office, are those who believe in empowering the system to be able to have more control over themselves and others. You empower a system to a certain degree, what recourse do you have when that system then takes that power that you have given it, turns it around and oppresses you? It is much easier to deal with the one or two odd criminal individuals, or small town boss hog type corruption, than a massive all powerful federal leviathan. Can you depend on such a leviathan to govern and keep itself in check? What power do you have to ensure it does so?
Certain individuals who come from groups with a common history of oppression especially should be wary of the dangers of large socialist states based upon a common shared history.