Reppe.com

Quests

As I wade through some of the big time thinkers on democracy and government...Locke, Hume, Burke, Smith, Machiavelli, Marcuse, Tocqueville (okay, Tocqueville is kind of a reach for my current project but I really like reading him so I'm doing it anyway) I am nagged by the unpleasant feeling that most of it comes down to a series of discourses on money, or more accurately, wealth. Really.

I realize this may well say more about me than the writers but the posse of thinkers that talked about government in general and democracy in particular eventually wind up at one of two points:

1. The government shouldn't take my shit without me having a say in that.
2. The government should help me accumulate lots of shit...or at least not impede me from it...and should protect me from those who wish to help themselves to my shit.

Sure, there's more going on in these things I've been reading but it seems like they all circle back to that.

Or maybe I'm just feeling cynical tonight.

Guess we got that figured out.

Got this from Travis...

You are a Social Liberal (68% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (30% permissive) You are best described as a: Democratloc: (68, -75) modscore: (18, 41) raw: (2238) You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness.

Certainly, it's interesting, but it is also somewhat misleading. Issues are boiled down to simple statements and you have a choice between Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree. You'll note, there's not a Neutral designation. An example of how this can lead to slightly off results...

There's a question regarding control. Don't remember the question but I marked that I Agreed with gun control. I do and I don't. It would depend entirely on how the legislation is written. I am of the opinion that we have a handgun problem in large metropolitan areas and this is due, largely, to an almost complete lack of either regulation or enforcement of existing regulation on dealers, manifest primarily in a lack of monitoring of gun dealers at gun shows. I want that tightened up so that it is not as easy to sell or purchase guns without the government being able to track the sale of weapons and with dealers having almost no oversight. That's it. This is a problem, say, in the LA area. A huge problem. I don't know if it applies to other large cities because my understanding this varies by state and locality, both in the laws that exist and the level of enforcement. Generally, my stand on gun control is one of tweaking not larger statements like, "ban all guns". In the test above it essentially boils down to...

Do you want to ban guns? Answer choices: Hell, no; Not really; Kinda; Hell, yes. None of which captures my position.

Still...it's kind of a goofy good time to play with this test.

General Update and a few thoughts on The Wal-Mart Paradox

I'm reading and thinking and all about the new project. Interesting. Hard to impose the mental discipline on myself to avoid knee jerk, high-level grand statements (e.g: Everyone should have health care) and consider what that means to a larger code of ethics and definition of government. I'm concentrating on being able to write a concise statement of belief on the role/responsibility of government and resisting the urge to post on the topic every time my buckshot thought processes come up with a new shiny toy.

So, yeah...I'm really geeking out.

Took a few days to hop in the car with the fabulous Leah Cooper (Executive Director of the Fringe and, more relevant to me, the director of Glorious Noise). We were going to go camping but it got really cold and/or rainy EVERYWHERE. So we mostly spent four days driving and talking with occasional breaks in South Dakota in Nebraska to introduce Leah to the wonder that is the Corn Palace, the sublime perfection of Indian Fry Bread (think beignets without the pretentiousness), the goofy fun of the Rosebud Casino (which has its address listed as Valentine, Nebraska even though its property lies in South Dakota) and to get me all freaked out by something called the Enchanted Doll Museum.

And I've been working...more on that later. Pertinent to that is I'm off to New York in about 2 hours for a work thing.

But, I want to take a few minutes to address the Great Wal-Mart Paradox.

The New Project - OR - How I Will Amuse Myself In My Unemployment

I've been trying to write a treatise of sorts as to why I am a Democrat. This proved largely frustrating. The only parts that were worth a damn came out when I wrote about things that, while very American, had nothing to do with party. Ultimately, when focusing on why I'm a Democrat what kept coming out was why I'm not a Republican. Defining oneself as that which one is not (an infinite set) is not a terribly well anchored sense of self. Sure, I have many Democrat friends who are happy to tell me why they are Democrats but I usually find their reasoning to capture more of what they wish the party to be than what I think it actually is.

I tried to switch gears and go with why I'm a liberal and rapidly figured out that I once again was defining myself as what I was not (conservative). And my definition of conservative was incomplete and rather self-serving when the truth of the matter is there is much about conservative theory that I find attractive.

This led to brief explorations of populism, progressivism, all kinds of "ism's". Brief wasn't quite cutting it. Depth is required here. While this fruitless search served to make me feel really, really stupid it was valuable. In our current, deeply polarized political climate I think most of the people I speak with on matters political are identifying with a party as an instrument for identifying with a political philosophy and in most cases that guiding philosophy is incoherent and/or ill-defined. Maybe I'm reading everyone else wrong but this certainly describes me. Though I have read a great deal of political and economic philosophy and history, I have never, in any meaningful and organized sense, set out to elucidate for myself what I believe in and how I prioritize those beliefs. I don't think I'm unique in that, but maybe I am. Over the coming weeks I'm going to be doing a deep dive into seminal writings of conservatism, liberalism, populism, progressivism and anything else I can think of and, concurrently, attempt to define my beliefs and priorities on the purpose and function of government.

The only thing I know I'm ruling out at this point is socialism/communism...I have read quite a bit of Marx and Trotsky in the past and I am far too enamored with capitalism, and far too anchored in my opinions on its strengths and weaknesses to wish to re-read those tracts just for the appearance of being open to them. I'm not.

I'm not really looking for current works that drown in either a loathing or adoration of contemporary politics. I read many such things and while I usually find them entertaining I rarely find them to be anything but bitch sessions without a whole lot of theoretical underpinning. For example, I rather enjoy reading Ariana Huffington, who describes herself as a populist. I cannot determine from her writing, though, just what she means by "populist".

For what it's worth, I'll be posting my thoughts on what I learn and on my nascent philosophy as it develops. I will be posting for the purpose of having people question these things. If I can't defend them, they are either weak arguments or, more likely, I am not clear on what said arguments mean.

If anyone has any writers, articles, or books you think I should read, I would greatly appreciate your suggestions.