Political compass for the21st century

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-09-2020, 05:50 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote:

(05-08-2020, 11:42 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I've got to throw out my arrow of progress, the Enlightenment ideals of human rights, equality and democracy.  It's far older than the 21st century, but still a good one.

These ideas have been mainstreamed, and moreover mean different things to different people.

Human rights? Ayn Rand advocated human rights, but she defined them as "freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men". This was the original 18th century idea of human rights. The advocates of inclusivity and so-called Millennial social justice believe in this concept in theory, but they believe it might be overridden by somebody's right not to hear nasty words, or to be recognized as female despite having a penis, or not to hear scientific arguments against teachings of a 7th century nomad shaman. Yet others might say the greatest of human rights is the right to economic security, something like universal basic income. I don't want to debate which concept of human right is the best, all of them have some validity. But today there cannot be one political orientation based on human rights.

Economic equality is Red, the Populist/Proletarianist/Socialist sector. Inclusivists also believe in equality of sorts, they say that all religions or all sexualities are equal. But I think that economic equality is more important. Extreme inequalities of wealth could eventually result in human splitting into two different species, something like Eloy and Morlocks.

The idea of progress is deeper than any of these orientations. If we define progress as growth of social complexity (extropy), different political orientations have different ideas on how to keep progress going. Yellows think the market is biggest engine of progress, Reds think it's the working class. Nationalists could point out that different cultures aren't equally likely to contribute to progress, so they prefer not to let people from backward cultures in.

There could be an added concept. Human rights guarantee a person can live as he wishes, but does not guarantee a right to harm others. Thus you can have a right to keep and bear arms at the same time as laws against murder. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. stated this as far back as he denied a right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater.

Thus on economic rights, you could have a right to a piece of the pie. The UN Declaration of Human Rights included it. Everyone is supposedly granted a right to shelter, sustenance, medical care, a retirement plan, etc… You could add a prohibition against taking too large a piece of the pie. If too many take too much, they harm the rest. The floor and the ceiling need not be particularly close early on, but they might happen.

You have the guy who enjoys cross dressing and the guy who believes in social norms and that ordinary people should not be shocked by people who enjoy violating them. Either person could harm the other’s enjoyment. Both could seek to avoid that harm, but it would likely have to be members of both groups who figured out how to not harm other and assume that no harm should take place.

Similarly a scientist should avoid a shaman’s convention.

I would say that there are many supposed political systems that promote one group’s rights that are trying not to recognize that they are harming others. They should familiarize themselves with Holmes.