Political philosophy

Michael Hartl — Sat, 25 Feb 2006 11:14:00 -0800

I’d like to lay a foundation for future posts by stating the animating principle of my political philosophy. I don’t offer it as a normative principle; it is simply an opinion, a general predisposition:

I believe in the full flourishing of humanity.

What exactly I mean by full flourishing will become clearer as this blog fills up with posts.

I agree with self-described (American) liberals that civil liberties, a healthy environment, and economic opportunity contribute to the flourishing of humanity. And while I sympathize with their preferred method for achieving these goals—namely, “Good Government”—for the most part I simply don’t trust government to produce the outcomes liberals hope for. I also don’t support the liberal obsession with “equality”, an ill-defined concept about which many liberals nevertheless care very deeply. Culturally, I am cut from liberal cloth—a Harvard-educated intellectual with an ignorance of guns, an aversion to church, and a penchant for classical music and Cabernet. Unfortunately, I find that there is much truth to the caricature of liberals as generally well-meaning but hopelessly naive at best, and smugly self-righteous at worst.

I tend to agree with principled conservatives who support small government, free markets, and individual responsibility, though I don’t think they go far enough. I do object to the fetishization of traditional moral and religious values, but this disagreement is more philosophical and religious than political—or it would be but for the power of the religious wing of the conservative movement. This influence of religious conservatives—combined with the lamentable demise of Western-style, Goldwater conservatism at the hands of Big-Government conservatism—keep me squarely out of the conservative fold.

Finally, libertarians are unique among the major political philosophies in recognizing that politics is ultimately about force; most libertarians adhere to the Non-Aggression Principle: no person has the right to initiate force against another person. While this principle is a good rule of thumb, and certainly contributes to the flourishing of humanity, it’s often too vague to be useful; there are just too many edge cases it can’t handle. Moreover, it ultimately misses the point; in my view the relevant question is not “When is force justified?”, but rather “What is the best mechanism for determining when force gets used?” Though I am uncomfortable with the dogmatic tone and consistent oversimplification that plague many libertarian arguments, libertarian is the label closest to my beliefs, so I sometimes call myself a libertarian if brevity requires it.

As a coda, let me note my sympathy for those who are apathetic about politics. In many ways we are helpless to change anything; you can make a strong case for rational ignorance of politics. Unfortunately, while you may not care about politics, politics cares about you.

"Political philosophy" by Michael Hartl

Sat, 11 Mar 2006 19:26:44 -0800

Indeed, my phrasing was influenced by that very saying!

"Political philosophy" by Russ Nelson

Sat, 11 Mar 2006 10:16:29 -0800

I also tend to say “You may not care about economics, but economics cares about you.”

Eikonoklastes by Michael Hartl: Political philosophy

Political philosophy

"Political philosophy" by Michael Hartl

"Political philosophy" by Russ Nelson