(no subject)

[my_window_seat]

You know, I think my Political Science class is a bunch of crap.

I'd say I think politics is a bunch of crap, but it's really just a description of the basic workings of human relationships, one person to another, one segment of society towards another - it's just who gets what, when, how they get it, and who benefits the most, and who pays the check.

But Mr. Locke, your high ideals no longer apply to society, or to the world we live in. See, there isn't a man, woman or child on this planet born in a State of Nature* anymore. There isn't a single square inch of planet that isn't claimed and occupied by a government. We no longer have the option to acquiese to the rules of government in order to have our rights protected - we are obligated by birth. In some ways it wasn't much different even when you wrote those treatises, because how many people even then could afford to just pick up and find some deserted chunk of ground to till without being bothered (yes, or being protected) by a government of their choosing? Damn few, I imagine.

But earlier in history, it was still marginally possible. That's what this country was based on - people up and getting the hell out of Dodge to band together elsewhere and agree to live under a set of more-or-less mutually agreed upon decisions.

Care to try it now? Good luck there - let me know how that works for you.

Personally, I think the United States is now a failed experiment. Tyranny of the majority, anyone? President with a self-proclaimed mandate? How far away from the Divine Right of Kings are we when our President claims he felt that God himself wanted him to be President?

But back to this whole State of Nature problem. It's a moot point now, folks. It's no longer possible to agree to disagree and start your own little fiefdom somewhere.

The concept of government justified by consent is no longer justifiable.

For those who disagree with the government they live under, anyway.

Study of Lockian political theory belongs in a Mythology class now, in my opinion.

So, who's up to coming up with a current philosophy - one based a little more on reality, maybe?

Anyone?

Bueller... Bueller... Bueller...




_{* From Locke's "Second Treatise of Civil Government," Chap. 2, Sec. 4: "To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man."}

Comments

[pope-guilty.livejournal.com]

Right the fuck on.

[my-window-seat.livejournal.com]

And so - where to start...

[johnnybrainwash.livejournal.com]

Political theory usually belongs in a mythology class. And political science without political practice is mostly hot air.

Try some Marx. He's not the idol some would make him, but a good solid dose of materialism sounds like the antidote to what ills you.

Actually, don't read Marx, unless you have lots of time and a big dictionary. Read about Marx. There's a great cartoon book called "Marx for Beginners" that I'd highly recommend.

If you really want to learn about politics, study history.

[my-window-seat.livejournal.com]

Marx. Ah, yes.

But still, no.

How many people are really, honestly willing and able to accept that there is a necessity to embrace opposites - that means and ends can't be separated from each other? That life is a process, not a product? How many people actually want to be involved in the struggle necesary, not just to recognize and voice a need for change, but accept that change, in and of itself, is the nature of being?

Change is a little too frightening, too challenging, too demanding.

And so, we get George W. Bush for another 4 years.

Yeah, I should know more about history I guess.

If for no other reason than to see where we're going to end up.

Again.

[johnnybrainwash.livejournal.com]

Who cares if they accept it? They enact it every day.

The nice thing about materialism is that you don't need to worry about what people think- just what they do.

[my-window-seat.livejournal.com]

And with that outlook you suck about 70% of the plot out of 90% of the literature in the world.

Spoilsport.

[johnnybrainwash.livejournal.com]

And whaddaya know? I prefer to read and write sci fi and other "genre" stuff. Meaning it's driven by events, not the psychology or emotions of the characters.

Well-drawn characters are important, but if the whole story is about them grappling with their feelings or fighting through their relationships, I'll pass. I think the novel's focus on psychology is symptomatic of a society that's lost its grip on what's important. We've become soft and squishy. Feh.

Hence, materialism.

[my-window-seat.livejournal.com]

Ayn Rand would have your head on a plate for that. Philistine.

[my-window-seat.livejournal.com]

Actually, I take that back - she'd probably applaud you for it.

Her writing however gives lie to her philosophy - her characters are real characters.

Anyway...

[johnnybrainwash.livejournal.com]

Ayn Rand? Oh no. My life is over.

Actually, I went through the Ayn Rand phase over a decade ago. Recovering from that helped contribute to my cult-proof-ness.

[my-window-seat.livejournal.com]

I don't subscribe to her 'ideals', but I still love those books. I'm weird that way.