Slow down bro - thinking about rights, government, justice, law, politics, can't start with rights, government, justice, law, politics

Slow down bro - thinking about rights, government, justice, law, politics, can't start with rights, government, justice, law, politics

Part 10 of 22, from Exiting the Wizard's Circle of Economics

Here we need to pause once again so that we don't allow ourselves to get ahead of ourselves. Despite what 'Civics Class' might lead you to think, rights, government, justice, law, politics, are not where we should start thinking about rights, government, justice, law, or politics from. Such matters are neither stumbled upon fully formed like rocks in a field, nor dreamt up by whim, they develop out of more fundamental observations and questions, and if we fail to consider them in that way, there's no limit to what will remain unseen to us, as we're led to focus on what is too conveniently seen.

Because 'Rights' are consequences, not causes, 'Rights' cannot be the starting point for thinking about 'Rights', reality and how we inhabit it is. Identifying what is and what that requires of us, comes first (or should), and leads into identifying those First Principles of what is, what follows, and what should be, which can then provide a foundation for, and meaningful guidance to, your thinking.

Common Sense will tell you that if you're going to climb the stairs to the top of a multi-story building, there's no means of a shortcut for you to somehow take a single step that will extend from the foot of the stairs, to a step that's mid-way up and around the flight of stairs to the third floor - you know you have to enter the stairwell at its start on the ground floor or basement level, and climb up to that point - it's just common sense. Likewise, as government involves "...the greatest of all reflections on human nature...", you shouldn't attempt to start making decisions about "rights, government, justice, law, or politics", without first starting with what you do and do not understand of reality, and the nature of what being human is and requires.

If you skip that and pretend it doesn't matter, how are you going to know that any of your positions are realistic? Get out of the habit you learned through twelve years of schooling to seek after answers without understanding the questions that led to them, and don't be so trusting of those who encourage you to continue doing so.

Accepting 'answers' without having established their basis in what is real and true, seeking after and defending 'acceptable answers', without giving consideration to the questions they claim to be an answer to, or whether they were even valid to ask in the first place, is the hallmark of ideological thinking (which, BTW, began with 'Economic Thinking'). Recognize that the shallow flowchart-logic habit of thinking - a *praxis* if you will - is only concerned with 'the right position' that you must be either for, or against, to gain some mark of approval from them, and not with whether it is true or false, and so right or wrong.

These ideas with no visible means of support - where are they leading you to?

Not only have people forgotten that the ground floor of whatever they might undertake to do, buy, or sell, begins with their judgement of what they can see is real and true, but their willingness to begin considering consequential ideas, on the basis of what those same theories and theorists promise, is stepping into a matrix of circularity that should bring P.T. Barnum's phrase to mind:

"You can't cheat an honest man."

"That nature exists, it would be absurd to try to prove; for it is obvious that there are many things of this kind, and to prove what is obvious by what is not is the mark of a man who is unable to distinguish what is self-evident from what is not." - Aristotle, Physics, Book II, part 1

Yes, they are conning you, but accepting their assertions on the basis of the theories they assert them with, is volunteering to be misled by con-men, in order to 'gain' something that's too good to be true. We The People should stop doing that.

Most of all, what I hope to bring to your attention here, is that the 'Social Science' of 'economic thinking', is inviting you to step into a practice of thinking that is less about theories and thought experiments, than with deadening your ability to recognize the warning signs of your departure from what is real and true, steps which dis-integrate what you can see is real, from what you know is true. The fact is that most of our popular political/economic labels today are rooted in the same disjointed and baselessly self-important terms and fields, and are not something we should be willing to treat as legitimate, let alone conform to.

x-Tweet'rs demand "What would you do about interest rates & deficits?!"

Consequently, much to my x-Tweet'rs annoyance, when I'm asked to engage with them in discussing policies they presume to be 'normal' for everyone to simply take a position on ("... what will you do about rentiers..."), I won't pretend to not notice that the doormat that they've laid out for me at the entrance to their thought experiment, is one that's been precariously nailed onto the outside of a window that's been busted open on the 3rd floor of their ramshackle philosophical building, and sorry, no, the '1st Floor -Lobby' label they've taped above it, doesn't change anything about that. BTW, it's amazing how often those urging you to leap into their 'thought experiments', are not willing to indulge you in a discussion that does enter through the actual philosophical ground floor entrance ("...thinkers that existed prior before the industrial revolution, correct? Lol ...").

It's as if they don't see it, and think that you can't see it - which as we'll see, is less 'as if' and more 'that's exactly it'.

“Ideologies were invented so that men who do not think can give their opinions.”
― Nicolás Gómez Dávila

This routine expectation that people will be willing to perform philosophical parkour to reach their upper floor 'entrance', while pretending that the ground floor doesn't even exist or would somehow matter if it did, is common to discussions of 'Economics', and 'Social Studies' too. An example of which would be those introductory lessons that begin with talk of the 'Social Contract', which, with apologies to Locke (and sneers & jeers for Hobbes & Rousseau), simply won't do as a starting point. Why? Because that is making the parkour leap from the sidewalk to the 3rd floor window, so as to evade coming into contact with the foundational contexts which make up the entire 1st & 2nd floors (not to mention the basement) that are necessary to support that 'Social Contract'.

Do I exaggerate? If you ask a few of the questions which you are expected to leap over with their philosophical parkour, you may notice what narratives it inserts as premises without your having considered them, and which leaves such 'answers' at best, meaningless and misleading. To see what I mean, let's take a look at the two words of the 'Social Contract':

• 'Social'? Meaning society? What kind of society, could any society form and agree to such a thing? Tribal? Feudal? Theocratic? Piratic? Nomadic? Does it matter?
• Could we take any random group of individuals - Hermits? Savages? Collectivists? - and toss them together to be 'Social' in a society?
• Could Rousseauian 'noble savage's agree to this 'social contract'? Could a person, or a people of them, whose idea of being 'free', means only having the brute power to prevent their being subdued by the power of others, be what this society is formed from?
• What is it that forms a people into 'a' suitable society?
• 'Contract'? What is meant by that?
• What must such a contract be understood to be, to be bound to one?
• What understanding, if any, would need to be common to such a people, to conceive of such a 'contract'?
• How does a people understand that a contract is being complied with, and how would they recognize it is being violated?
• What consequences would violating that contract entail, and how would that be enforced? By who? To who?

IOW, before you can begin meaningfully discussing a 'Social Contract', you would already need to have given a great deal of thought to everything else about men living in society with each other, of the kind that can eventually lead up to an understanding of what went into The Federalist No. 51:

"...It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to controul the abuses of government. But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controuls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to controul the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to controul itself. A dependence on the people is no doubt the primary controul on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions...."

To start with a 'Social Contract', is to begin by diverting reasonable consideration away from the wide, deep, and structurally sound (?) set of ideas, that must first be shared and respected within a community, and which are required to be understood amongst them, before such a 'social contract' could even be conceived of, let alone made, agreed to, and maintained.

Contrary to everything that's been taught for generations, you need to insist on starting from the ground floor of reality, with what you can see is real and true, and then work your way up through the relevant concepts and arguments they present. Should they ever present a theory that at least appears to conform to reality, those could be worth exploring further, but when they won't acknowledge that they're clearly proposing to build new additions upon an unsupportable foundation of error and/or deceit, then it's very likely that they're trying to fool you into accepting a narrative position in place of your understanding the actual issues, so as to obscure your view of reality.

When you see that's the case, don't waste time arguing with them, simply 'shake the dust off your feet', and continue on your way.

Also keep in mind that as you begin looking into the development of ideas, and their effects across history in this way, you're going to begin running into opposition to some theory or position of someone that you've been accustomed to regard as an authority on the matter. When that happens it's good to keep a quip of Aristotle's in mind:

"Plato is dear, but Truth is dearer"

, and don't let your own ego pull rank - stick to what you can see is real and true, and keep at arms length what is not, or is shaky, at best. To put it another way, while it may be fine to quote this or that theory or theorist - such as John Locke - as an authority on a matter, remember that their authority - if any - comes from their having identified relevant facts & principles which they demonstrated to be verifiable & just. It's just as important to remember that their authority extends no further than where they depart from having demonstrated that, and that's the line that you need to hold to, and to hold them to.

Resist being led into subjects awash with enthusiasts who're focused on sweeping you along with their narrative of 'What is Seen', and look for what they are quick to leave unseen in their positions, and therefore be unlikely to enter into your thinking at all. When you notice what is not there that should be, that warrants your taking a judicious 'pause for the cause' to at least consider how they ever managed to leave it out of, what we should've been taught should be kept in mind.