Rise in Donald Trump = Jacksonian revolt

 

There is a political spectrum which cannot be simply represented by the political party affiliation. The US political ideological spectrum is more complex and interesting than what many people nowadays tend to assume. The characteristics of the US Democrats and the US Republicans are quite diverse and have been changing over time. In particular, the emerging of Mr. Donald Trump and his charisma as a political leader can be much more precisely explained by means of the longer historical perspective than the mere conflict within the two party system .

 

As explained in my essay America and her base ideological principles (https://art-blue-liberalism.blogspot.com/search/label/America%20and%20her%20base%20ideological%20principles), the US political ideological segmentation has been based on these 4 groups since her establishment period. Even before Woodrow Wilson became a US president, there were already presidents who should be labelled as Wilsonian such as Abraham Lincoln (at least in my analysis). 

I would like to introduce some of the typical examples expressing the reason why the party affiliation is often irrelevant to understanding about each individual political position in terms of the historical scale. 

Until Woodrow Wilson came into the power, the US Democrats contain the members with the two extremes: The idealist federalists putting emphasis on spreading the liberal-democratic ideal over the world and the provision of social welfare conducted by the strong centralised government. The isolationists claiming for individuals' sovereign right including not only citizens but also each individual state while the federal government is kept necessary minimum. After the purge of the latter by Wilson's administration, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) had completely shaped the intense federalist characteristic of the US Democratic party. The former group is the typical personality of the current Democratic party whilst the latter used to hold much majority in the old days.

The Republican party was initially established as the offspring of the old federalist party meanwhile the Democratic party used to be more sceptical about the federalism in the past. The Republican party has produced two kinds of federalists: The first US president Lincoln was indeed an idealistic federalist like the current mainstream US Democrats. The realists claiming for the federal power for securing the global trade route with the military protection and the unified market system fulfilling the US national interest were the US Republican mainstream in the 20th century.

In the whole 20th century and the earlier 21st century, the mainstream politics has been occupied by the federalists regardless of which one of the two political parties being in charge of the government. The isolationists have been undermined under the intense federalism. Nevertheless, since the early 21st century, the gradual emergence of the isolationists revolting against the federalist status-quo has already been seen in the US political history. The intra-party conflict of the US republicans between the mainstream federalist faction and the anti-federalist libertarian-leaning faction lead by Mr. Ron Paul was well-recognised in the presidential 2012. Also, the most remarkable US third political party Libertarian has been spotlighted since this time period. 

The intra-political conflict between the federalists and the isolationists is then no longer unusual especially inside the Republican party since then. The presentation by Mr Donald Trump is much more blunt but yet much easier for the grass-roots to understand than the counterpart by Mr Ron Paul. Also, Trump's advertisement of the national interest with simple aggressive statements tends to attract wider audiences than Paul's rationale but complex idealistic taste. The identical characteristic of these two political segments is the scepticism against the global intervention of the USA with her intensively strong federal government authority. 

The significant difference of Trump's isolationism from the isolationism of Libertarianism is the difference between realism and idealism. The strong Libertarians put immense emphasis on the end of the already excessively expanded federal autocracy as well as responsibility over the global politics. By contrast, Trump administration still uses the federal authority and some intervention to the foreign affairs for securing the national interest of the USA as the realistic necessity. For the time being, Trump's political manifesto seems to be balancing between the powerful political mainstream elites and the silent majority.

Going to back to the original title of this article, it does not seem to be quite feasible to refer Trump as Jacksonian. At the same time, by means of the political implementation relative to the current world situation where the US federal authority is big as much, it should be quite reasonable to call Trump as Jacksonian. Andrew Jackson himself was more drastically anti-federalist decentralist than the majority Jeffersonian unlike Donald Trump. But yet, the populism of Trump where the silent majority claim for more decentralisation than what the status-quo offers is resemblance to the contemporary Jackson's administration.

As shown in my US political spectrum chart, the keyword connecting Jackson and Trump is the populism. Trump won the presidential victory due to the supports of the majority population being tired of the intense globalist federalist regime. Description of Trump as Jacksonian can be by means of the relative term more than absolute. However, the rise of Trumpism indeed reveals the fatigue of the USA being the global leader, and then it seems to be inevitable to see the rise of the isolationist cohorts in the US political history. 

This realistic isolationist revolt seems to emerge as the counterweight against the overweight on the globalist federalism of the 20th century and the earlier 21st century. In the past when the government status-quo focused on the isolationism prioritising the internal development over the trade and diplomatic interventionism (globalism), the silent majority aspired for the globalism. Furthermore, when one individual state is incapable to protect citizens' individual liberty and right, these citizens expected for the federal intervention. All in all, there tends to be a conflict between the political ideological segments whenever there is an imbalance of the power. 

On the other hand, there is still a strong demand for the federal authority and its expansionist intervention by not only the globalist cohorts inside the USA but also the world outside the USA. The realist expansionists such as corporate elites, the high-tech engineers, and those embracing their service provision require the federal government providing the moderation of business and legal matters and the military force and the law enforcement securing their safe trade routes.  The idealist expansionists expect for the US federal government and as the guardian of the liberal democracy in both domestic and foreign affairs through the welfare provision, the diplomatic relations, and the military force if necessary and effective. 

The expansionism lead by the federalism is beneficial for promoting individuals' liberty and right through their free market under the unified economic and legal system as well as the guardianship of liberal democracy promoting the world piece and freedom. Overall, all these  4 political interest group aspire for their objective of accomplishing the well-being of the nation in their own unique way. It is just a matter of the frustration of one over the others when one of the major 4 political interest groups is marginalised.

Considering the conflict of these political interests, a rise in Trump's popularity is not an unusual phenomenon in the US history. This phenomenon represents the polarisation of the nation, and it is natural for the US democracy.  Hence, Trump represents one of the 4 political segments to revolt against the others.

 

Manifesto Fictosexualism!

 

I would like to declare for the manifesto insisting on the rise and the full right of Fictosexualism! 

This is one of the glorious cause of supporting Progressive Libertarianism /  Classical Liberalism!

I follow the ethics of my admirable philosopher Jeremy Bentham saying "The greatest sum of pleasures with the lowest sum of pains is the principle of moral and legislation." Nobody harms and an individual gains the happiness from being fictosexual!

I sincerely despise the staunch Christians, feminists, and the staunch structuralists, persecuting my personality trait!

... Japan 日本 !

I have been criticising Japan since the beginning of this site establishment. This criticism of Japan is based on both the objective social scientific analyses as well as the subjective perspective based on my own life experiences. However, I have recently realised that the characteristics of Japan strongly and repeatedly accused seem to be originated from the political establishment explained in the recorded history. 

The Tenno regime has formed the totalitarian characteristics. This has based the highly stratified social structure transforming the majority citizens' personality to be subservient to their authority. The intensively cohesive social norms and values are definitely the derivatives of this stratified social structure. 

Even during the Shogunate periods from the 12th to the 19th century, this cohesive social structure thrived despite the relatively weaker influence of the aristocratic central authority. Yet, the subservient personality of the Japanese mass was hardly discouraged so that their loyalty to any authority was strong regardless of Tenno or Shogun. Perhaps, this unchangeable subservient personality was derived from the Japanese geographical isolation in the world where the enlightenment from the outside hardly reached there. 

Since the 19th century, Japan has adopted the Western style modern governance and capitalist economy. Some elites Japanese have successfully been enlightened to become progressive thinkers attempting to transform Japan to the modern nation state deserving the majority citizens. Nevertheless, the underlying characteristics and personality of Japanese people subservient to their authority has never changed. 

Even though some enlightenment ideal has been introduced, the true enlightenment for emancipating majority Japanese individuals from their superstitious loyalty and servile personality has hey never been achieved. This is the fundamental cause of perpetuating the political and social corruption hurting the Japanese majority mass as a suicidal attitude of themselves. It seems to have required much more fundamentally drastic reform in Japan to enlighten them.

There has been criticism by the social anthropological theory of this socially pathological trait is rooted in the establishment stage of the authoritarian figure shown in the recorded history. The original Japanese civilisation identity was originally related to the Shintoist shamanism which followed the tranquil communitarian paganism promoting more egalitarian and mutualist social norms and values.

There is certainly an attractive element in Japan and Japanese humans and their civilisation which has been retained since the prehistorical period. The prehistorical ancient Shintoist shamanism and pagan practices had brought up Japanese individuals as highly spirited enough to compassionately cohabit with neighbouring individuals and natural environments. Their virtuous characteristics such as diligence and humbleness must have been born out of this period. 

The authoritarian establishment introduced in the early historical record destroyed that prehistorical sacred pagan Japan. The social anthropological theory claims that the peaceful pagan tradition of the Japanese civilisation has been hijacked by the authoritarian oppressors. The subservient personality of the Japanese mass must be formed by that oppressive structuralist regime forcing the excess centralisation of politics and the unconditional subservience of the Japanese mass to these oppressive rulers. 

The Japanese indigenous individuals were conquered by the few numbers of arrogant nobles heavily influenced by the oppressive authoritarian totalitarianism. These oppressors hijacked Shinto by replacing the original peaceful egalitarian paganism with the oppressive authoritarian counterpart. Its indoctrination has imprinted the servile and intolerant personality into the Japanese mass. 

In order to overcome from the current distressful social crises, it is the time for Japan and Japanese to reincarnate the sacred spiritual prehistorical Japan! It is not worth to give up this attempt to fight back against the oppressive status-quo exploiting individuals with the millennium long indoctrination!

The alternative required for replacing the current dysfunctional world socioeconomics

The current entire world is a full of mess. This should be no longer called the functional order.  This is the disorder perpetuating various social diseases and social exclusion of majority individuals.  In terms of economic, political, and sociological perspectives, this world socioeconomic situation is undoubtedly dysfunctional enough to need an alternative replacing the current socioeconomic structure. Please kindly read the linked articles:

Economic issues:

Domination by Corporatism,The New Totalitarian

http://art-blue-liberalism.blogspot.com/2017/04/domination-by-corporatismthe-new.html

Monopoly of Corporatism Expands in Present Day Capitalism: Average Cost shifts Rightward

http://art-blue-liberalism.blogspot.com/2018/03/monopoly-of-corporatism-expands-in.html 

Let's be sceptical about Corporate Capitalism!

http://art-blue-liberalism.blogspot.com/2022/06/lets-revolt-against-corporate-capitalism.html

The current market economy is monopolised by the elite corporate tycoons. Even though the status-quo claims for the equality of opportunity to compete under meritocratic ethics, the income distribution mechanism has already become too asymmetric to merely rely on the labour market competition. Therefore, some degree of the equality of outcome for all the individual is required to accomplish the equality of opportunity more than ever.

Political issues:

Democracy of the modern world under challenge

http://art-blue-liberalism.blogspot.com/2022/07/democracy-of-modern-world-under.html

The Good Communism: Anarch-Syndicalism

http://art-blue-liberalism.blogspot.com/2022/07/the-good-communism-anarch-syndicalism.html

The Japanese Anarchist Communism

http://art-blue-liberalism.blogspot.com/2022/07/the-japanese-anarchist-communism.html

Crypto currencies based on the Block-chain technology e.g., BItcoin and the P2P networking are like Stirnerism in economy and finance!
http://art-blue-liberalism.blogspot.com/2022/06/crypto-currencies-based-on-block-chain.html

 

The decision making process is centralised more than ever. The nation state government no longer deserve their individual citizens. Not only the authoritarian political structure but also the counterpart called the Liberal-Democracy put priority on the interests of the few number of the politically powerful peers not allowing to reflect the opinion of the majority individuals.  By referring to the P2P (Peer To Peer) system, it might be far more effective to install the spontaneous order based on the multiple interactions of individuals without any centralised structure. The spirit of the participation will encourage these autonomous individuals to voluntarily improve their living standard by taking advantage of the remarkably developed information technology. 

Social issues:

Suicide and Community

http://art-blue-liberalism.blogspot.com/2021/11/suicide-and-community.html

Tolerating Uselessness

http://art-blue-liberalism.blogspot.com/2022/05/tolerating-uselessness.html

Manifesto Spiritual Libertarian - the Libertarian for the coming age of Ying 陰

http://art-blue-liberalism.blogspot.com/2022/06/manifesto-spiritual-libertarian.html

The polarisation between the ruling class and the useless class rises in the society of the entire world. Those who are not "conforming" of producing the enough productivity fulfilling the interests of the ruling class are often socially excluded. As the factors of production demand individuals with conforming skills and talents more and more, more individuals tend to be labelled as "useless". so that their meaning of living is taken away and eventually falling into the state of the Anomie (normlessness). It is the time to rebel against the fixed norms and values imposed by the ruling class to emancipate individuals and their spirit to imagine and eventually form the new alternative liberating the autonomous individuals!

The Good Communism: Anarch-Syndicalism

The word Communism tends to be often prejudicially quoted as a synonym of authoritarianism/totalitarianism based on a nation state government administration. The authoritarian characteristics of the orthodox Marxian doctrine often represents the socialism aspiring to evolve to communism eventually. Then, the word communism is often seen as the enemy of Liberalism promoting individuals' liberty and autonomic right. However, there is another form of communism defying the existence of one single state authority commanding economy, the means of resource distribution, and society (the interaction of individual citizens), which is compatible with Liberalism. 

 

The United Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) was the former suzerain nation of the socialist nations following the orthodox Marxist doctrine advocating for the socioeconomic evolution towards communism. The USSR no longer exists while there are still remaining remnants of the nations which still retain the Soviet style socialism. These remnants are controversial because many of them seem to have abandoned their original political principle. Furthermore, the main point of this essay is to affirm that the orthodox Marxism is not only the political philosophy supporting communism.

Some Asian socialist states ruled by a Communist/Marxian-socialist party seem to have diverted from the direction of their original communist ideal. They have actually adopted the intense capitalist practices while they self-proclaim to maintain their Marxist principle as their excuse to prop up their one-party dictatorship. Therefore, their characteristics are actually opposing to the communist ideal aspiring for the egalitarian socioeconomic state.

Cuba might be only one socialist nation maintaining the orthodox Marxian style communism in a legitimate way. It still keeps the state ownership based economy as well as the diverse distribution of resources securing their reasonable standard of living. At the same time, Cuban government implements the Soviet style autocratic paternalism to cohesively unify her individual citizens under the oppressive one-party authoritarianism suppressing individual liberty. This is the factor that the orthodox Marxism is not compatible with Liberalism.

By contrast, there is another form of communism called Anarch-Syndicalism  which aspires to establish the egalitarian socio-economy without an autocratic paternalism such as the orthodox Marxian proletariat dictatorship. Its economy and political administration are run by cooperative unions of individuals which are spontaneously formed by individuals' voluntary cooperation without a cohesive force of any authoritarian organisation. Therefore, it relies on each autonomic individual citizen to manage their own political administration with their free will free from authoritarian oppressions. 

This is a anarchist political philosophy defying the existence of nation state government, the cohesive institutionalised authoritarian organisation. This is a radical socialist political philosophy defying not only the oligarchy by the capitalist class elites manipulating socio-economy but also the monetary market economy demanding an intense conformity for all individual citizens as the means of production. This is a libertarian political philosophy promoting equal treatments to all individuals regardless of their gender, ethnic, and physical characteristic origins inside this mutualist community avoiding any stratified institutional administration. 

Anarch-Syndicalism is perhaps only one anarchism having been practised in real through the history. The Second Spanish Republic centred in Catalonia in the early 20th century was the innovative state adopting the Anarch-Syndicalist system for economy as well as political administration. Even though it lost the Spanish civil war then, it can be said to be reasonably successful enough to maintain the state under such an administration sufficient enough to continue fighting back. 

Their participatory economy, where various business decision-making processes of one firm are democratically managed by its trade union members, was successful enough to maintain the productivity required to fight against their opposing force. Because their profit was returned to each individual worker participating their production, the motivation of their daily business activities as well as their contribution to the entire commune was high enough to fight back against their opposing force. This can be compared to the direct democratic state of the ancient Athens where individual citizens were so proud of themselves as its non-expendable core-members of their state that they had such a strong voluntary spirit to keep fighting in a war.

In Japan, there were some politicians who were advocated to Anarch-Syndicalism before the World War 2 (WW2). Even though this policy was not put into practice in real, this political movement was influential to the various contemporary rebellious political factions against the contemporary Western capitalist imperialism. This influence is non-negligible for explaining the spiritualism of the contemporary status quo Touseiha administration during the WW2 despite their different political characteristics.

A former Japanese government bureaucrat Kunio Yanagida was inspired by an anarchist communist philosopher Kropotkin whereas he was a strong Japanese nationalist at the same time. Mr. Yanagida had a unique attitude towards the issue of the Japanese monarchy Tenno system. He attempted to restore the pre-modern traditional Tenno system linked to the original Shinto shamanism while criticising the current modern monarchism strongly tied up with the modern nation state and its modern state capitalism. His own plan was to establish an Anarch-Syndicalist state of Japan based on the decentralised pastoralist environment where all the autonomous individual habitants mutually cohabit together with their own free will.

The idea of Communism should not be monopolised by the orthodox Marxists; There is a variety of Communism which actually challenges against the orthodox Marxian style and is compatible with Liberalism. There have been various new political philosophical movements of challenging the combination of capitalism and modern nation state government. Michel Foucault was a remarkable philosopher accusing the oppressive characteristics of the entire modernity. 

Foucault's philosophy is often criticised as an anachronistic because he seemed to romanticise the pre-modern feudalist society to a certain extend. Yet, his theory clarifies how the emerging modernity with its nation state and capitalism has deteriorated individuality of autonomous individuals by forcing the conformity to the ruling class interests and the entire monstrous mechanism of the modern nation state. His idea was to respect each unique characteristic of individuals not undermined by an institutionalised socioeconomic structure, and his policy is often introduced as the postmodern Anarch-Syndicalism. 

In conclusion, Communism itself is not a bad idea as long as its form is compatible with Liberalism such as Anarch-Syndicalism. For the time being, capitalism with its monetary based market economy prevails as a popular socio-economy. Nevertheless, it is always worth off to brainstorm to evaluate any other future socio-economic alternative. Hence, Anarch-Syndicalism as a good form of Communism can be a good candidate.

Stirnerism: The most theoretically completed but the least feasible political philosophy

 

Max Stirner is a political philosopher who invented the idea and the logical construction of individualistic anarchism. This essay comprehensively refers to his political philosophy as Stirnerism. Stirnerism is a unique theory which challenges not only the other non-anarchist political theories but also all the existing anarchist theories. At the same time, Stirnerism seems to be the most theoretically completed but the least feasible political philosophy to implement in real.

In terms of the mainstream political analyses, the establishment of anarchist state falls into either the communism rejecting the private property right and the monetary economy or the survivalist capitalism where none provides the re-distribution of the wealth even when the monopoly oppresses the mass. By means of the feasible policy implementation, it is more likely to end up with resulting in such a state. Stirnerism attempting both protecting the private property right and preventing the wealth monopoly by few.

Stirnerism claims for relinquishing not only the hereditary monarchy and aristocracy but also the nation state itself as well as the entire legal system propping up it. This is the characteristics shared with the other forms of anarchism.  In contrast to other forms of anarchism, Stirnerism distinguishes itself from the contemporary anarchism by insisting on preserving the private property right for each individual and the market economy as a form of their freedom of exchange and choice. It appears each individual's own right to materially deserve her/himself and their own natural desire and own freedom of choice as one of its fundamental principles. Stirnerism regards that the existence of nation state government hinders individual freedom and right instead of protecting them.

 Stirnerism also claims for preventing the monopoly by few hijacking the pure free market economy to protect majority individuals' right to enjoy their freedom and right. In another word, it insists on discouraging another form of government, such as a monopolistic corporation and an organised criminal faction, monopolising both economy and society. This is what John Maynard Keynes thought of with the government positive intervention by reforming its governance instead of abolishing it. By means of economic and social policy, Stirnerism and Keynesian share the similar quality despite their complete characteristic difference. 

To accomplish these Stirnerist attempts, the existence of the cooperative which is sustained by each individual's voluntary contribution to a public administration. The efficient and fair administration of public goods and services will be the key to accomplish Stirnerian deal which is identical to Keynesian policy. Stirnerism replaces nation state government with an alternative operatable form of governance without a nation state, which is the spontaneously established cooperative by the voluntary union of individuals.

This problem which this public sector model based on the cooperative faces is that it requires the high competency level of all individuals participating in its socioeconomics. Like the P2P computer network system, all the participants must have a reasonably high specification level to cooperatively sustain the entire network structure. Each individual must be knowledgeable about the fair judgement and aware of their self-responsibility of contributing to their public goods and services (I.e., the free ride must be prevented with the best effort).  

Instead of one or few authorities commanding the majority to do what they have got to do in their daily life, the majority mass have a lot of responsibilities as an exchange for their freedom and right.  These mass individual must be enlightened enough to look after themselves and be knowledgable and responsible about forming a contract with the other individuals.  In another word, individuals have to be aware of themselves as social beings who are responsible enough to accomplish their social duty as their exchange for living there with their autonomic freedom and right. 

Overall, having taken these issues into consideration, Stirnerism sounds really ideal whilst it also sounds a lot of works to implement in real. More than the other political philosophical theories, it requires almost all individuals participating together to be enlightened enough to understand  and fulfil the required specification necessary for Stirnerian P2P style social contacts.  Perhaps, some future technological advancements may provide individuals with the solution to enable it to be feasible. Hence, it is still challenging to put Stirnerism into practice in real world even though it is still a very attractive as well as interesting theory worth considering for its implementation.

Pour l'europe unite, je suis d'accord avec vous, monsieur! 🙂 Vive l'europe! :D 😃🇪🇺

 

Pour l'europe unite et le monde, je suis d'accord avec vous, monsieur! 🙂 Vive l'europe!😃🇪🇺

 

Is Dictatorship bad?

 - According to Aristotle:

Dictatorship can either the best or the worst political system depending on the quality of this dictator.  If this dictator had a good quality, it would lead to the best.  If this dictator had a bad quality or not good enough, it would fail to the worst.  Democracy is the safest bet because it will neither be the worst nor at least worse than it is expected because the majority have always the right and the opportunity to reflect their opinion over their politics.  Because there are not so many remarkable figures talented enough to be called "good" all the time.  Furthermore, the geographic and demographic nature of this political region matters to select its political characteristics: The geographically and demographically big nations tend to require a more centralised system such as dictatorship for its administrative efficiency; By contrast, the smaller nations tend to be happy with a more democratic system. Only the successful example maybe the ancient Macedonian empire lead by Alexander the great who had actually been personally tutored by Aristotle himself.  

- According to Machiavelli: 

Any political system regardless of dictatorship or democracy tends to claim for one charismatic figure leading the rest.  Anyone who can achieve to obtain such a position through the various conflicts in a politics shall be the ruler as long as this person can be accountable for the result of their actions.  People are often prone to obeying a charismatic figure showing their ways to stabilise their society because people cling to the already established ideas rather than making their own efforts to innovate themselves.  Furthermore, during a chaotic period, majority people do not have their own time and energy to self-govern themselves so that they are weak against powerful bandits pillaging their communities.  Then, people may call for a stronger and more charismatic force protecting their community and attracting their attention.  Nevertheless, a ruler must keep their charisma and understand the custom preserved in a long period which people are familiar with to effectively rule them.  In addition, a ruler must be careful against any opponent who is plotting to defeat to replace the position with theirs.  In order to maintain the political power, not only the force but also the charm for attracting the subordinates are necessary. Thus, the power game will never end so it is not easy for a ruler to stay being a ruler.  

- According to Montesquieu:

The most powerful, functional, and preferable political system is democratic-republicanism which opposes to dictatorship.  However, less dictatorial implies more competence of each individual citizens politics requires.  Under a tyranny, the rest majority just simply obey what a tyrant commands so neither law nor civic compliance is relevant.  Under a monarchy or an oligarchy, favouring for the interests of nobles/oligarchs, the powerful minority, is the priority so law and compliance are kept minimum to protecting it.  Under democratic-republicanism, the majority of people enjoy their freedom unless it neither invades the others' nor disturbs their social order and stability.  So, majority citizens there must understand and comply with their social contracts such as laws and ethical standards.  Civic individuals must always study and think themselves to understand and furthermore develop their own political system. Otherwise, they may easily abandon their democratic right away to welcome a more dictatorial politics. 

- According to Hobbes: 

Everyone should be equally treated under a law.  On the other hand, a stable politics tends to requires one absolute sovereign holding an absolute power of its decision making processes in order to stabilise it for avoiding a chaotic situation nobody agrees with anything during the decision making process.  The equal distribution of political power leads to the chaos where everyone clings to their own interest at first by ignoring the rests.  Therefore, regardless of the talent of this absolute sovereign, it needs someone forcibly inducing one solid conclusion to stabilise the politics as long as this sovereign functions by following the law.  The law shall exist as a guideline/best-practice as well as wisdom of stabilising and keeping it to be developed.  The bureaucratic process based on the law stabilises and prevents it from chaos while an absolute sovereign there simply works for its function merely as a stabiliser in case of preventing politics from chaos. 

- According to Bentham:

This formula is quoted from "Fragment on government" by Jeremy Bentham which shows how the sum of utilities (pleasures minus pains) is derived from by means of each different political function, monarchy (rule by one), aristocracy (rule by few), and democracy (rule by majority).  This aristocracy means not only the rule by nobles or oligarchs but also bureaucrats of the modern governments and corporate tycoons ruling the modern socioeconomics.  

 

There used to be a time when the existence of monarchy was in a high demand. At this time, the community network of the majority individuals was so primitive that it was restricted by obstacle of natural landscapes and communication barriers mainly of language. Then, conflicts between various feudal tribes were common, and people sought a powerful charismatic figure binding people together. Under a threat of frequent conflict, there needed to be someone who has an ultimate power of final decision making processes when the outcome of their discussion was unstable without some enforcement unit stabilising it.

Then, as shown in the algebra, initially introduced by Jeremy Bentham's Fragment on Government, individuals used to demand the strength of monarchy stabilising their living environment while sacrificing utility (pleasures minus pain) drained by monarchy monopolising their resources in their living environment.  

On the other hand, thanks to the development of international trades and information technology, the strength which monarchy provides with individuals is insignificant for maximising the sun of the utility any more. The global trade based on the free market equilibrium has enabled individuals to mutually agree with each other through the spontaneously derived market equilibrium force without any physical single authority enforcing the decision making process. The information technology development has enabled citizens to rationally accept and understand pluralistic norms and values of various unique individuals living in various different regions and cultures, and to even start to share new norms and values in a shared cybernetwork.

The aristocrats nowadays mean corporate elites and government bureaucrats. The form of this modern aristocracy is now interpreted as meritocracy. There tends to be a gap between those who are able to obtain talents and skills highly demanded for sustaining modern technologies and trade affairs and those who are in the shortage of them. As long as this gap exist, individuals hardly forfeit the utility derived from modern aristocrats' wisdom even though majority individuals have to accept the economic and social inequality caused by this distribution which these modern aristocrats own a higher share of control-ability.  

Even Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, the devote supports of democracy, argued that the tyranny by mass is dangerous as much as the tyranny by one/few. They affirmed that there need to be law and legislation and a rational (legal) authority monitoring the system based on them not to induce such a havoc while maintaining to deserve for the happiness of individual citizens living there. Thus, law becomes a significant factor to balance the restriction by law and legislation monitored by the rational authority and the mass’s desire.

In the developed stable civilisation which succeeds in maintaining the balance regards highly of the rule by law. The well-defined law functions as the explicit guideline for both rational authority and mass to refer in order to accomplish their happy productive balance. By contrast, the civilisation which puts priority only on doing favour for a particular group of citizens, including both aristocracy (Favouring minority elite) and socialism (Favouring majority mass), depreciate the aggregate prosperity of this civilisation.

On the other hand, regardless of the aforementioned functionality of relatively dictatorial political systems, human-beings usually feel happier in a less dictatorial politics i.e. a more democratic counterpart.  My econometric project "Happiness related to Monarchy, One Party, and Democracy" has proven that the Happy Planet Index (HPI) measuring the sum of people's happiness/utility in each country is maximised when their political system is more democratic than dictatorial. 

This quantitative analytic experiment indicates that the honesty of the democracy and the majority's opportunity and right of reflecting their political opinions are simply but crucially important for their happiness overall regardless of any merit advertised by more dictatorial counterparts.  Thus, as long as it is feasible to accomplish under a given condition, the utilities provided by democracy as the honesty of administrating politics as well as representing and utilising the cooperative power of majority seems to overwhelms the rest counterparts.  

- According to Thomas Paine:

It is a common sense that it has simply been the case that the fortunate powerful ones have dominated over the majority others with their force in a long period of our human history.  These rulers having been merely lucky enough to be fortunate and physically powerful have subjugated the majority humans with not only their military forces and superstitious charisma but also their indoctrination and propaganda processes.  We, the human beings, must be awaken from these false consciousness having fooled us to establish the true democracy based on rules for the people by the people of the people!

Stirnerism can be explained as the blockchain P2P network like Bitcoin

> Is Stirner an anarchist?

There are some arguments claiming Max Stirner is not really an anarchist because his theory regards highly of some sorts of system orders without a unified autocracy and spontaneously determined contracts.  

What defining Stirner's socio-political theory (Stirnerism) as an anarchism is that it attempts to dismantle all the architecture of the modern bureaucratic system and monopoly of both government and huge private corporations.  Furthermore, it suggests, instead of managing public goods and services in the centralised authority, free individuals cooperate together when these public things are needed to manage under a naturally made contract.  

It can be somehow similar to the fundamental form of direct democracy where all the decisions are democratically determined by means of individuals' direct representation of voices.   Nevertheless, there is a fundamental difference with the political system of direct democracy and Stirnerism. The former still owns a congress or some form of the centrally controlled organisation monitoring the whole system.  By contrast, the latter is not supposed to have any central control tower of managing politics and social issues.

 In another word, Stirnerist anarchism is different from a radical anarchism disregarding the public managements and contract-forming.  It is quite difficult to explain what Stirnerism really is.  Nonetheless, thanks to the current notable development of the information technology, it has become easier to image what Stirnerism will be like nowadays.  

> Stirnerism is like the blockchain based on the P2P network 

Frankly speaking, Stirnerist socio-political structure can be compared to the network of the blockchain like the one used in the cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin.  This network system does not have any central server monitoring the entire system as a control tower.  

Instead, each individual computer calculates and verifies the interactions and actions among the community utilising this network system.  This is called the peer to peer (P2P) network where their application architecture is distributed among these individual computers.  These individual computers participate in their tasks and workloads as the peers.  The privilege and the equipment are equally distributed among these peers, and there is no authorities overriding their rules of activities. 

This network architecture is what Stirnerism attempts to apply to the socio-politics of human individuals.  These individual humans are supposed to cooperate as the peers to share the tasks and the workload according to their needs and skills.  There is no unified central authority overriding their mutually formed peering connection. 

 

On the other hand, the P2P network system of both the blockchain and Stirnerism contains some fundamental problem.   This P2P system tends to be still inefficient when it comes to the management of data serving and access authentication.  

Establishing an centralised system is efficient to store and serve the collectively used data, services, and public goods because maintenance can be concentrated on the limited places.  By contrast, the P2P network requires all agents to share the same responsibility of maintaining, managing, and updating their quality of what required to prop up this whole entire system.  

This is why each transaction of Bitcoin still takes about at least 10 minutes.  In addition, organising human individuals in terms of the P2P network is far more extraordinarily challenging than setting up the computers. The setup for individuals cannot be flexibly adjusted as same as the artificial creations, and it is beyond our comprehension by means of the imaginablity of the current human civilisation. 

 

Yet, there is still a hope for accomplishing Stirnerist P2P public management.  At least, Stirnerism has become imaginable to establish to the certain extend by comparing the socio-politics with the hard scientific technology since the introduction of the blockchain and its P2P network. 

In the past when the information technology is not developed as much as nowadays, there has no civilisation having succeeded in establishing such an individualist mutualist anarchist society like Stirnerism even for a short time period.  This is simply because it was unimaginable.  

Some hints from the development of the hard science can be linked to developing soft-science and arts of politics, sociology, and economics in the future.  When a hard scientist discover some feasible solution of transforming the current P2P network system to the more efficient and manageable alternative, it will be beneficial for a soft scientist to innovate their own theory.

Happiness related to Monarchy, One Party, and Democracy

Published on 12/07/2012 12:57 British Summer Time



Jeremy Bentham created an algebraic formula demonstrating the sum of utility derived from how national political system is structured. The algebraic formula is as follows:

Increasing the weight on one branch of these three decreases the weight on the other two branches. Bentham argued that the current (Contemporary) British system balances the weights among these three branches at the feasible level to maximise the utility.

Nonetheless, Bentham also insisted on abolition of sovereign = monarchy or dictator when his/her existence starts reducing the sum of utility rather than increasing it, and then the revolution shall be emerged. The coefficients of these variable, their sign (+/-), and their significance vary across different time, place (culture and civilisation), and occasion (GDP growth, etc).



At the contemporary time period when Bentham was alive, there was little objective ways to measure the sum of individuals' happiness in each nation in the world. By contrast, due to the development of the information technology, we have become able to collect some peer assessed numerical indices of various social scientific data sets. This happiness index is also collected by objective view points and survey methods under an academic peer assessment. Thus, it is interesting to assess Benthamite calculus owing to this world happiness index.

The data showing how the political system is structured in each nation in the world is quoted from "The Independent Map of the world in 2005". The binary variables are used as the indices to show how one nation's politics is structured e.g. Absolute Monarchy, One Party system, or Indirect/Direct Democracy. There is only one change from the original Benthamite algebra, which is that Aristocracy implies the executive member of a national legislature. As Bentham mentioned Aristocrats were those who have wisdom to govern, so it is equivalent to the government and bureaucratic elites. (He mentioned the House of Lord whose member is not elected from citizens. So, as the members of the legislature is directly appointed by an authoritarian legislation not by individual citizens) Then, many countries governed by one party technocratic policy is seen to be a pure aristocratic system. Absolute monarchy is assumed not to have any influential technocratic institution i.e. aristocracy. (Saudi Arabia and Morocco) whereas the constitutional monarchist nations have an influential parliament (E.g. Arab Emirates). All indirect democratic countries hold both Aristocracy = Technocratic Legislature and Democracy. They are still democratic but not the pure direct democracy. Only the nation seen to be a pure direct democratic is Switzerland in this analysis. Thus, the binary variable representing Monarchy is zero, the binary variable representing Aristocracy is 1, and the binary variable representing Democracy is 1.


**************** An important note ****************

The binary variables are usually 0 or 1, but there are some exceptions.

-> All the British Commonwealth nations have the binary variable denoting "Monarchy" that is 0.3 instead of either 0 or 1. These nations technically have a monarchy but s/he is not their own monarchy living in their countries, and his/her influence is not that strong as much as those nations having their own monarchy like Britain and Japan.

-> The "transient" democratic nations have the binary variable denoting "Democracy" that is 0.5 instead of either 0 or 1. It is still democratic but not a stable democracy. So, the effect of the variable "Democracy" is considered to be marginal.

**************** ***************** ****************

In addition, the Happy Planet Index (HPI) used as the dependent variable in this regression analysis is highly affected by the "natural climate" in these nations. Some nations in a certain latitude mark a significantly higher HPI than the others. Therefore, the absolute value of nation's latitude and its squared value, as the exogenous explanatory variables, are regressed on the HPI as same as the previously mentioned binary variables. The reason why the binomial function of Latitude, instead of a single variable (The linear function), is to demonstrate the parabolic function. The linear model (Regressing only on |Latitude|) only express either the right middle of equator or the North pole and the South pole are the happiest place to live. But, the HPI certainly shows that the optimum latitude to maximise the happiness is somewhere not far away from equator but not the zero latitude point.

All in all, the formula for the regression analysis is as follows:

*** The dependent variable is the natural log of the Happiness Planet Index (HPI) ***

The binomial function showing the climate effect (Latitude) is "the absolute value of Latitude + The squared value of Latitude".

In addition, there are the three binary variables. There are three binary variables showing the pure effect. The first one describes the pure effect of Monarchy. The second one describes the pure effect of Aristocracy. Then, the third one describes the pure effect of democracy.

The rest of variables are the binary variable denoting the interactive effect by two or three variables together. The interaction effect by "Monarchy" and "Democracy" is not assessed because there is no country having both monarchy and democracy without an aristocracy=technocratic executive branch.



The coefficients and their significance is as follows:

The coefficients of the variables showing the climate effect are 0.02256 for the coefficient of the absolute value of Latitude and -0.0004 for the squared variable of the latitude. Then, the formula shapes an upward parabola shown in the picture below.

Therefore, the place where the latitude is either +31 or -31 maximises the happiness of people living.



All the three binary variables denoting the single effect have a significant and positive coefficient. Both the interaction of Monarchy and Aristocracy and the interaction of Aristocracy and Democracy have a significant and negative coefficient. The coefficient of the interaction of all three variables is non-significant, so that the half of the coefficient value is used. The HPI derived from each different political structure is as follows:

This is a bar graph showing the policy effect on the H.P.I.:

These trends can be roughly visualised in a picture graph like this:

A nation with the direct democracy (Monarchy = 0, Aristocracy = 0, Democracy = 1 ) produces the highest HIP. But, Switzerland is the only nation with such a system in the world. So, it is not sure if it is still significant number of the sample to prove its superiority.

The absolute monarchist nations, (Monarchy = 1, Aristocracy = 0, Democracy = 0 ) is the second best. But, there are only Saudi Arabia and Morocco as the examples. Furthermore, all the other monarchist nations without any democratic structure (Monarchy = 1, Aristocracy = 1, Democracy = 0 ) showed the lowest HPI. Thus, it can be seen that, in general, monarchism without any degree of democracy is more likely to cause unhappiness rather than happiness.

The nations with one party system mark the second lowest HPI. Even though these nations are more efficient to be stablised than those lowest developed nations, the transient democratic nations, and any non-democratic monarchist nations. Nonetheless, they seem to sacrifice happiness for their stability.


Some of the constitutional monarchist nations with democracy seem to be happier than democratic republic nations. But, majority of the constitutional monarchist nations are less happier than democratic republic nations.

The democratic republic nations, though their democracy is indirect, such as the United States of America and France are the happiest nations next to Switzerland, the direct democratic nation.



All in all, Democratic Republican nations at the latitude of 31 or -31 seem to be the happiest ones. It also looks like that we can try to establish another Direct Democratic country because it looks like maxminising the happiness of individuals in a nation. Nonetheless, only the sample is Switzerland and it is never known if the similar model is applicable to increase the happiness in another country in reality. The democratic republic nations perform well among all. The performance of the constitutional monarchist nations with an indirect democracy varies.

Hence, this econometric analysis seems to be able to assist Jeremy Bentham having argued that, if monarchy start causing disutility rather than utility, then it is time for revolution! Perhaps, we have never known that there will be a revolution for the cause of Direct Democracy, the unknown ideal, in the near future? The Direct Democracy seems to maximise individuals' happiness at the optimum level (Though there is not enough number of the sample to prove in reality) by means of this statistic inference.



* It was difficult to find if the model creates heteroscedasticity: Some tests said no, but the other said yes. But, this analysis was mainly composed of the binary variables, and the dependent variable used in this analysis is not a precisely scientifically accurate variable. So, the aim of test should not be strict as much as the other econometric analyses.

New Alternative Political Compass

Case against State-Capitalism

We have believed that the road to serfdom was evaded since the end of the cold war with a victory of capitalism over the socialist-empire, the excess form of socialism which was considered as the serfdom. Nevertheless, we are still in danger of being unintentionally guided to a serfdom. The modern industrial world has increased the material productivity and the political stability under the common interest in pursuing a material prosperity. At the same time, this has also produced the cost for individuals to live in an intensively cohesive structure.


Capitalism mentioned in this short essay refers to the State-Capitalism whose economic and political system is based on a stratified corporate structures backed up by a nation-state government. This capitalism requires the law enforcement (The judicatory body of nation-state) and the centralised economic planning by central-banking and governmental fiscal policy (The legislative body of nation-state). Individuals and their private corporations are free to compete as long as they follow the unified rigid rules imposed by a single autocratic body called nation-state.

These individuals and their corporations are actually not free to act and compete because some of them are privileged more than the others. The nation state's government and judicature set their roles suitable for their peer groups which are loyal to the authority or their nation-state. So, their freedom of action is still restricted by the roles and their competition is based on the authoritarian interests of a nation-state's autocracy and its fellow peer corporate elites.

This state-capitalist political structure is a resemblance to the static monarchist political structure explained in Fragment on Government. Even though a monarchy is merely a constitutional, the status-quo having been maintained so long time has already established the unbreakable hierarchy of power and wealth. These peers of monarchy have already monopolised their power and wealth as much as they are able to prevent their potential competitors away from gaining more power than the already existing status-quo even under a free market competition.

They are protected by the old-fashioned law and legislation which indirectly enable monarchy and its peers to keep holding their power and control over the entire nation and its citizens. Bentham then claimed for replacing the law and the legislation unfairly privileging these peers with the new alternatives in order to liberate individuals from this control-ship.


Many socialists refer to capitalism as an antithesis of socialism. The word capitalism was invented by socialists in order to refer to the policy based on the free market mechanism and private property ownership which socialists oppose to. Capitalism has started to be mentioned as one political ideology since many anti-socialist individuals supporting a freer market system started using this terminology capitalism as their believing antithesis of socialism. But, this seems to be doubtful because there are many characteristics in common between these two political ideologies. Both are the modernist political ideologies requiring a systematic autocratic nation-state and the zealous moral universalism putting an excess emphasis on altruism and cohesion.

Both capitalism and socialism frequently put emphasis on excess-conformity and staunchly regulate individuals and their freedom of action, life, and thought by condemning egoism as vice. Socialism forcibly integrates individuals into its autocratic cohesion meanwhile capitalism simply spontaneously excludes individuals, who are disloyal and/or useless for their interests, from the means of acquiring material well-being and status honour. Both are the homogenous political ideologies discriminating and ostracising who are too unique and eccentric.

Whenever individuals are employed by a corporation to spend their time and efforts for it, they must have realised that many of corporations do not base their business management on the rational market mechanism. The management of these corporations is influenced by the irrational preferences of both the high class members, the minority but powerful executive committees, and the peer-groups of the majority employees. The executives often tend to put priority on their personal favour and their biased view on unique individuals over individuals' competence and merit. The majority workers form their peer group to purge the other individuals hardly integrated into their peer group due to their jealousy and discrimination.

Because of this employment scheme biased by these irrational causes, the market equilibrium of demand and supply of the human-capital is hardly accomplish-able, and the mobility of human capital is far more rigid than the market structure explained by the free market principle, the classical economic theory of capitalism. There is then the political influence on the corporate structure. The modern corporate structure is unnecessarily big and complexly stratified as same as the bureaucracy of a nation state, and this does not look like how the private sector structural model is supposed to be by the free market principle.

The existence and the prosperity of these corporations are secured by the law enforcement and regulations designed and imposed by the single nation-state's authority, and these corporations aid the nation state authority by doing its favour. Unlike a pure form of socialism, how both various private corporations are incorporated into one unified nation-state bureaucracy. But, this capitalist structure is identical to the state-socialist counterpart seen in the USSR. Lenin had actually embraced the growth of state capitalism in The State and Revolution as the modern capitalism becomes more bureaucratic and incorporate into the nation-state's bureaucracy.


The solution to overcome from the rigidly structured capitalism is certainly not a political revolution because a political revolution simply replaces one stratified politics with another stratified counterpart such as socialism. Moreover, remaining the status-quo just perpetuates the authoritarianism of politics repressing individuals' liberty. As long as individuals rely on any form of stratified political structure, these individuals are manipulated to live like cattle or cogwheels propping up the oppressors of individuals' liberty.

The rebellious mind of individuals is the key of the solution. No violence is required for this rebellion: Individuals just need to keep their strong self-esteem and being honest about their pure ego and natural desires. For the time being, the current excessively stratified modern world politics is hardly relinquished at once. So, the gradual step of liberating individuals is the feasible pathway. We, individuals, should use them instead of being used as they can still bargain with government and corporations for our own interest. Individuals will simply need to be enlightened to maintain their self-esteem by preventing themselves from being used by either government or corporations.

Political Compass Revised The Comparison between the Old and the New, Left and Right wing --- Part 3

... previous

... previous

6. New Right-wing
The New Right-wing represents Neoliberalism, Utilitarianism, Objectivism, and the developmental dictatorship. This is the political ideology which many human individuals love to hate, and the previously introduced New Left-wingers regard of as their arch-enemy. Unlike the other political ideology groups on the other sides of spectrum, the New Right-wing does not offer any sweet-sounding dream song.

The other political ideology groups on the other sides of spectrum may provide them with some instant satisfaction for promoting their superstition and their rights to act and acquire something. However, these ideologies are less likely to induce the prosperous consequence they would want to induce. These individuals only believe that their believing policy induces the prosperous outcome meanwhile they are not practically guaranteed at all.


The New Right-wing supports the justice determined by the equitable reward and punishment rather than the principle. The incentive to reward for something profitable and comfortable and to punish for something deteriorating the living standard and violating fairness is effective in order to keep the stable and productive distribution and the stable and progressive order. In addition, the principle base of law and contracts should be simple but flexible and practical rather than an ideal abstract one.

As same as the Old Left-wingers, they think highly of the responsibility of acquiring right and liberty and the inevitable conditions imposed by the objective realities so that they insist on the equitable reward and punishment instead of protecting the unconditional right based on the abstract principle. Their difference from the Old Left-wingers is whether they regard of liberty as an impregnable natural right or a useful tool to derive a desirable consequence.

The New Right-wingers regard of the social class as an inevitable factor under. But, unlike the Old Right-wing, the class stratification shall not be based on the zealous worship of superstition and the rigid social norm and value. This stratification process needs to be formed under what the objective realities such as the natural resource limitation, mathematical and scientific factors, and the market mechanism, of the world instruct as.

There is no need of law & order and any structured institutes such as family, company, government, and nation unless there is no resource limitation. Furthermore, there is no norm and value naturally impregnable and rigid in the world: All norms and values are artificially created so that should be flexibly transformed, altered, newly created, and deleted. This change may occur either he nature, the antinomy of artificial concepts, or technology, the mixed factor of nature and artificial, evolves.

Instead if either a human sovereign, such as monarchy and dictator, or an unproductive illogical superstition, individuals ought to be directed by these objectives and treated differently owing to the exogenous objective realities which are based on either the interaction effects of various individuals and the nature or the technological evolution not fully controllable by each one human individual’s effort. Then, individuals can optimise their resource distribution, the incentive to encourage them contributing to increase the greatest sum of the aggregate utility, and cohabit together under an agreeable contract with each other.

The level of both the law enforcement authority and the government intervention into economy depends upon different material and spiritual development of each civilisation and individuals themselves living there. When majority of individuals are rational enough to understand the previously mentioned objective realities and the mechanism to be adapted to, any authority over distribution system and contract creation and management is less likely to be demanded. By contrast, when either majority of individuals are ignorant and immature enough to be unable to understand he previously mentioned objective realities and the mechanism to be adapted to, then some rational paternalistic guardian selected by means of the feasibility to adapting to the objective realities to guide the majority.

Political Compass Revised The Comparison between the Old and the New, Left and Right wing --- Part 2

... previous

... previous

4. Old Left-wing
After civilisation of human individuals became matured enough to preserve the record of their knowledge and wisdom, they started thinking differently and the notion of individualism was born among these human individuals. They started realising that they are able to overwhelm the fear and improve their living standard by developing technology and individuals’ voluntary will under right procedures. They researched and developed the procedures from learning about the objective realities such as resource limitation in the substantial world, the market mechanism, and mathematical and scientific factors. They became also enlightened to know that their social norm and value can be flexibly changed by not sticking to their rigid tradition and loyalty to their human authorities. This enlightenment has enabled them to act and think by means of their own invincible will and mind influenced by neither their authority and superstition nor any others.

Various liberation and revolution in the early modern period originated from this enlightenment movement. These revolting individuals became sceptical about their old common sense basing their old ruling traditional status quo, and then started claiming that they would form and develop their civilisation far better than their traditional status quo. Then, they also started believing that there is an impregnable individual right naturally endowed to all individuals equally, and then started claiming for abolition of any social class.

Under this revolutionary ideal, technically speaking, all individuals must be treated equal as long as the distributable resource is available and these individuals claiming for their right bear responsibility to negotiate with the others. In addition, their freedom of speech, thoughts, and choices is widely permitted as it is their right. Those who believe in this ideal expect that the material and spiritual development is eternally unlimited as long as the power of their imagination prevails. But, many of them also affirm that there is a limitation to provide individuals with their right and require, and it is required to spend sufficient time to increase the resource to offer a higher degree of liberty for individuals. Therefore, individual right and liberty are mandate but highly conditional to provide under the natural restriction.


5. New Left-wing
Meanwhile some of these revolutionaries affirm that right and liberty for all individuals are conditional, the other newly emerging revolutionaries argue that they shall be unconditional. These new radicals explain that their scientific ethical theory enables individuals to acquire their ultimate freedom of living as long as they follow the required ethical code. These revolutionary radicals, collectively called the New Left-wingers in this essay, insist that individuals with their unlimited ethical imagination and aspiration rooted on it may overwhelm the barrier of the objective realities, and eventually control over these objective realities. Moreover, they claim that distribution of the rights and protection of individuals’ life security must unconditionally be a top priority over anything regardless of the disequilibrium condition of the resource distribution.

According to their idea, their logical inference to conceive what has been claimed as the objective reality is a false hypothesis deserving their enemy camps. They also claim that which fundamental principle, equivalent to a mathematical axiom, they refer to is far more important than the logical inference for deriving their desiring outcome. According to this theorem, all the logics are subjective because there is no unified objective measure like a mathematical axiom enabling their logical inference to self-contradict and self-verify itself. Therefore, they “invented” an axiom for ethics like an axiom of mathematics which, they think, leads individuals to preserve their unconditional human right. Then, they express that this invented ethical axiom ought to be enthrone in order to alter the whole world natural and social structure.

However, even though they say their new alternative principle shall be objective but this principle is invented from their mere faith which is equally subjective and irrational as much as the superstition maintained in the Old Right-wing world. The mathematical axiom is merely the mathematical theorem which is used in mathematical procedures and their theoretical application. This only exists, as a rule set by the peer groups, to enable the applied theories based on mathematical modelling to self-verify and self-contradict so that it only affect their validity of theories and hardly directly affects the decision making processes of daily politics and individuals’ personal lifestyle. By contrast, their claiming ethical principle as the axiom of our politics and personal life directly affects decision making processes and daily life choices. The fundamental concern is who and how to determine what the leading universal ethical principle is. The universality of moral is still debatable to judge whether the moral validity measurement is universal and relative. Therefore, even though they claim that their claiming ethical principle is an ultimate objective and universal, it still sounds hypothetical by means of the perspective of majority others who are either not familiar with the study of ethics or sceptical about their logical deduction.

It is also the matter of who control the resource distribution to adjust it to their claiming ethically desired state. It requires a huge degree of controlling both moral and material distribution in order to accomplish their desired state. First of all, it ignores the equitable reward and punishment for individuals to motivate to increase their productivity, discourage from causing civil-disorder, and maintain the stable and productive equilibrium of the distribution. When the justice is determined by the principle rather than the equitable reward and punishment, these peer groups who sound more plausible to these peer groups taking the actual controlling power over the court of judgement. In order to keep the stable and productive distribution and the stable and progressive order, then the positive equitable law is more desired. But, these New Left-wingers deny this aspect to zealously cling to their claiming ethically correct state which is merely a utopian dream world. They believe that, even though their claiming ethic base order may disturb the short term instability and unproductivity, the human individuals’ aspiration of pursing their ethics enables individuals to resist against the temporary harms. Thus, rather than the fairness, these New Left-wingers cling to expecting individuals’ genuine patience and collective responsibility based on altruism i.e. sacrificing individuality for collectively protecting all individuals’ survival and morally well-being.

... continue reading:

Political Compass Revised The Comparison between the Old and the New, Left and Right wing --- Part 1

1. The Critique of the Original Political Compass
The original political compass based on the Left/Right (Collectivism/Capitalism) axis of the economic and the Authoritarian/Libertarian axis succeeds in explaining about the complex characteristics of political ideologies which are not enough to be explained by the single linear political spectrum. Nevertheless, this political compass analysis seems to over-simplify the philosophical backgrounds of these political theories. Firstly, it easily equalise Authoritarian to Theocracy, and Secularism to Libertarian. Secondly, it lacks differentiating between the teleological focus (consequence first) and the deontological focus (Duty/Will first). Overall, this cannot distinguish the philosophical intention, the rationality behind determining the degree of intervention.



First of all, this neglects considering about the necessary law enforcement whose principle is rational enough to be fair, and about the critical difference between chaos and self-governance. Many political philosophers affirm that, in order to secure liberty for individual citizens, the rule by law and its enforcement are essential. For instance, Montesquieu argued that liberty and equality require significance of law. The original political compass seems to mix up the rule by law with the law by rule.

Secondly, this original compass equalises the theocratic regimes to the authoritarian left. It can be easily imagined that these two camps, the secular authoritarian left and the theocratic authoritarian left, would strongly condemn its labelling based on this compass. Even though both Authoritarian-Leftists are anti-capitalism and highly authoritarian, their philosophical principle is completely opposite to each other.

Thirdly, the original political puts an excessive emphasis on distinguishing their policy practice and ideal, which majority of the New Left-wing nowadays believe in, from the state socialism imposed by the socialist nations under various Communist party regimes. Nonetheless, even though their external characteristics is different, their quality is still essentially identical to each other in both good and bad way. Both are fundamentalistic secular as though it were a fundamentalist monotheism without God, and supporting revolutionary subversion of the world. Only the difference is their process and the tools they apply to their aim.

2. How the Revised Political Compass is Revised
The revised compass presented here takes account of both the consequence they aspire to induce and the duty they are obliged to. Unlike the original political compass, the axis introduced does not mention about the scale of intervention by either government or any other autocratic institute such as a feudal lord, religious organisation, or private corporation into both economic and social schemes. By contrast, this revised compass based on these axes representing political thinkers’ action planning and mind principle enables to analyse how the intervention is applied more or less by means of their philosophical objective.

The vertical axis represents political thinkers’ action planning. It measures whether political thinkers focus on individuals’ right and duty or the overall consequence induced by individuals’ actions. The Deontologists on the left hand side scale claim that politics must put the highest priority on the universally absolute principle, basing individuals’ right and duty, all individuals ought to follow over any hypothetical estimation and thought. By contrast, the Teleologists on the right hand side scale think that politics has to be functional as a whole part so that the hypothetical estimation and thought to draw the big picture of their governing state are essential. Then, the Teleologists argue that fundamentally sticking to the absoluteness of moral right and duty is meaningless because these measure vary across different times, places, and occasions in order to form a stable functional structure in each different situation.

The horizontal axis represents political thinkers’ mind principle basing their action planning. It measures how the principle individuals’ actions and mind are base on. The bottom scale indicates the principle which individuals pursue in by means of their subjective wish, emotional attachment, and fear of the others. Those who obey this principle follow what individuals are taught or commanded to believe or what is wished to become true in real. The top scale indicates the principle guided by the objective realities such as resource limitation in the substantial world, the market mechanism, and mathematical and scientific factors. Those who understand this principle use analyses based on logical inference to determine their decisions and establish their rule.

3. How the 4 Category groups are characterised on this compass
- Old Right-wing
When the technological development and the civility of individuals are at the primitive level, politics tends to be a primitive form as the simplicity, more than the complexity, prevails to satisfy their needs and wants. These individuals living there are often under the constant threat of harsh disasters, fatal endemic diseases and persistent lethal assaults by neighbouring tribes. They have little methods to protect themselves from these threats because technology and civility of individuals living in this kind of world are significantly insufficient enough to prevent these threats. Then, their mind tends to dominated by fear, and their priority is to prevent their haunting fear. Furthermore, such a situation is less likely to enable individuals to form their rational mind set and voluntarily fairly compete and cooperate together. Therefore, the first political priority is establishing a strong cohesion bundling individuals to one community group.

In this case, resource distribution is too limited to distribute equally among all individuals, and there tends to be little technology and wisdom to develop their rationality encouraging fairness. So, the wealth and the opportunity are inevitably unequally as well as unfairly, and majority individuals tend to take their situation for granted. Under the substantially low resource and technology level, this unequal distribution prevented from a competition is an effective way to concentrate all the resources available to one authorised institute to use them for sustaining one strong figurehead charisma and mature the cultural standard within one family or religious organisational structure. In such a world, majority subordinates obey and unconditionally contribute to their powerful minority such as feudal lords and religious authorities because of the majestic charisma as an authority figure of their belonging community. These individuals strictly follow their retained tradition and worship a superstition which they are emotionally attached to. They feel secured under an umbrella of one cohesive community even with a sacrifice of their material well-beings and their individual rights.

... continue reading: