On think I always wonder about is how people form their political beliefs. Perhaps the most problematic question I have is about political ideologies. Almost everyone who has strong political opinions has an ideology. Someone is a liberal, conservative, libertarian, moderate, or something else. I remember in the movie Traffic someone was asked whether he was a democrat or republican and he replied, "I'm an issue man." How many "issue-people" are there out there?

Political opinions involve (at least in part) falsifiable claims about how the physical world operates. You may have an opinon on whether the death penalty deters crime, whether foreign aid is effective in promoting third-world development, whether gun control reduces crime, or whether tax cuts for the wealthy stimulate growth more than other tax cuts.

The troubling thing is that these opinions are testable emprically, and are also able to be predicted through theoretical models. It seems that opinions about the existing data on a given issue should be independent from other opinons. Yet for some reason, beliefs on any of these questions seem to come in bundles. Why are conservaties and libertarians going to be for privatization and also against extensive welfare programs? Why are liberals the opposite? Why is the belief that gun control reduces crime linked to beliefs about the economy? Even moderates are not exempt from this; their political views are not all over the place, they are general in between two or three more "extreme" ideologies.

It seems that we should come to conclusions about different empircal issues completely seperately. Sure, if we do not have time to research one issue, and it is related to another issue we know something about, we can make our best estimates. But the link between beliefs occurs even for people who know a lot about many different issues. It also make sense for politicians to cluster around certain spectrums. But what about informed citizens?

I am trying to make my political beliefs more issue-based and independent from each other, but I am still generally a leftist. Guilty as anyone else.

Questions for debate:

Is ideology logical?

Does it make sense to be a liberal, conservative, libertarian, moderate, socialist, etc? If so, what is this based on?

Do your politcal beliefs result from a critical review of the existing evidence in regard to individual issues?

Note: I'm trying to focus on opinions about trends in emprical reality, not opinions on what is fair, who has what rights or responsibilities, and when a fetus is a human.

Is ideology logical?

An ideology is logical if it has a set of principles and takes positions on all issues based on these principles. Non-ideology involves inconsistent and hypocritical positions, often termed "fence-straddling." The conservative position on free speech is one example (i.e. "you can say what you want, except this, and this, oh, but you can say this, but not this, blah blah blah.")

In taking a logical position with respect to a claim, we have three choices - support, refute, or qualify. Fence-straddling is illogical.

Does it make sense to be a liberal, conservative, libertarian, moderate, socialist, etc? If so, what is this based on?

Some of the labels make sense - others do not. "Liberal" and "conservative" are muddled non-ideologies, especially since liberals do not have a consistent position on property rights, and conservatives do not have a consistent position on self-ownership. "Libertarian" and "socialist" both refer to classes of ideologies. Socialism ranges from anarchism to communism, with democratic socialism as its centrism. Libertarianism ranges from capitalism to anarchism, with mutualism as its centrism. As you can see, labels are horibly misleading and confusing.

Do your politcal beliefs result from a critical review of the existing evidence in regard to individual issues?

My political beliefs result from a consistent application of principles - namely, the principles of self-ownership, the right to work (worldly interaction,) the right to own the fruits of one's work, freedom of association, and freedom of communication. I do not straddle the fence on individual issues. I have critically reviewed the conclusions stemming from these principles and found them pragmatic - it is, in my opinion, a principled middle, not a muddled middle.

This is a very important issue to consider. Thank you.

"Is ideology logical?" Well, yes and no. I doubt that anybody has an absolutely logical political philosophy (for reasons that I will discuss below.) On the other hand, if your political philosophy has no logic at all, you're not even a fanatic (who would at least have some kind of internal logic based on an extremist premise.) You are simply a kook who can be ignored.

As many have often pointed out, the use of labels to identify one's political philosophy can be very misleading. However, it's a place to start. It would silly, for example, for me to deny that I am very liberal. Once I accept that label, I can explain what I mean by that; which issues are vitally important to me, which I can compromise on, and which I am ignorant about. What are these labels based on? Experience and observations, like most labels.

There are some issues on which the consideration of evidence is critical to how I stand. For one example, although I accept the labels of liberal and feminist, I am a passionate moderate on the issue of abortion. This is because the scientific evidence convinces me that, at some early point, the thing which is created when a human egg merges with a human sperm cell is not capable of experiencing suffering (or anything else) and is therefore not an object of moral consideration. On the other hand, the same scientific evidence convinces me that, at some later point, the thing develops into a being which can experience suffering, and which is therefore worthy of moral consideration.

On the other hand, there are some issues which do not depend on evidence at all, as far as I am concerned. For example, some base their opinions about same-sex relationships on whatever evidence can be found as to what extent sexual orientation is innate or not. Frankly, I don't care. I accept, as a moral absolute, that same-sex relationships are ethically identical to opposite-sex relationships. Hence I support same-sex marriage with exactly the same legal status as opposite-sex marriage. It's difficult for me to imagine what kind of evidence could make me change my mind.

Being principled is a big step toward being logical, but those principles must not defy logic, and the application of them must also not defy logic. Logic is a unique nexus between rhetoric and mathematics that allows the synthesis of new principles based on old ones, and also allows one to test the reasoning that connects a premise to a conclusion.

If the body of thought comprising an ideology proceeds from sound assumptions according to the well-established rules of logic, then the ideology is logical. Whether the assumptions or principles themselves are flawed can be a matter of debate, but if the logic between the assumption and the conclusions are logical, I would call the ideology logical.



I might disagree here-- certainly some non-ideology involves picking mutually exclusive assumptions, but that can happen in illogically-applied ideologies as well. If one is very careful, one can formulate an ad hoc set of principles as they experience the world, and those principles might not fit any pre-defined ideology, but they might be entirely consistent and logical. There is, prehaps, greater danger for inconsistency if you "roll your own" set of principles and apply them yourself, but that just makes the process more difficult and challenging, not impossible.

It is common to start off building ones own set of principles, realize they match some well-established ideology, and then adopt the well-established ideology. Standard ideologies have the advantage of being refined in the crucible of intense public scrutiny by many great minds. Personal, ad-hoc ideologies (non-ideologies?) can be more error-prone and as a result are not usually trusted. However, most of the well-defined ideologies began with one person or a small group of people piecing it together on their own, so it is possible for the "lone ideologue" to actually be onto something.



Well, conservatives tend to level that same charge at liberals, too... one side blames the other for trying to protect young eyes and ears from obscenities, the other side starts talking about political correctness and censorship of history and certain philosophies because they don't jive with the liberal world view anymore. Each side accuses the other of trying to be the speech police or the thought police.

Any liberal who says conservatives are inconsistent for wanting to give parents a fair shot at protecting their kids from obscenity shouldn't have any problem whatsoever with displaying the ten commandments in a courtroom, if they want to maintain that they consistently apply their views on free speech.



If you classify withholding judgement as fence-straddling, it's not technically illogical, it's just slow or deferential, as in the case of abstaining from a vote instead of picking a side. Wanting to take both sides of an issue is fine so long as the two sides are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps under the category of "qualify," it is also reasonable to propose a different solution that eliminates the need to support or refute a claim.



Agreed, but if you have a specific set of principles and they fit under one of these broad labels, then you can claim to have a logical ideology that is in one category or another. If you do hold to some standard ideology, you generally have to name someone within that school of thought with whom you agree, or else prepare yourself to be lumped in with all the extremists and crazies who also give themselves a particular label.

The alternative, calling yourself an independent, an issue-person, a moderate, a centrist, a rationalist, undecided (not all of these being interchangeable), will not protect you from the name-calling (waffling flip-flopper!!!), but at least you get to formulate and explain your own positions rather than having them dictated to you.

If you have been formulating your own opinions and you would categorize yourself under the umbrella of liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc., find out what some of the top books about that ideology are that are criticised only for their assumptions and not their logic-- read them, and see if you still agree with them. Then, read the top workds of opposing and nearby viewpoints. If nothing fits, you're still going case-by-case. If something fits like a glove, then study it deeper, get to know its strengths and weaknesses. After that, you can deflect false charges against your ideology pretty easily by citing sources that more specifically identify what you believe and what you don't believe.

I'm still looking for something like that-- haven't found it yet. Maybe I'll have to start the Jack22ist movement-- population 1.



Yes, that blended with human considerations-- ethics, morals, collective conscience, my own conscience. Taking only a utilitarian approach (evidence of what works best determines policy) ultimately leads to either a benevolent dictatorship (good for the entire population as well as individuals) or a malevolent dictatorship (bad for either the population or many of the individuals within it). I don't trust any dictatorship not to become malevolent over time, so I distrust anyone who promotes dictatorship under the guise of pure utilitarianism-- but I certainly don't mind using utilitarianism as one of many ethical tools in helping determine a wise course of action.

I also tend to have a case-by-case position on issues that often put me all over the political map. Most companies don't need government regulation, but some entire industries do, and at minimum the Government should keep an eye out for corporate trouble-- whistleblower hotlines are good. Protecting the environment from evil corporations is a good think, but taking thousands of acres of farmland away from family farmers because a rare beetle was found on one tree is going too far. Some regions and industries still suffer from institutional racism and sexism, but good progress has been made in most parts of the country since the 1960's-- the law should adapt. Most religions are harmless and even beneficial to society, in some cases intertwined with history, and as such aggressive censorship under false pretences of disestablishment is no less than reverse fascism-- such efforts should be ended in the interest of free speech if not free exercise. I usually think libertarianism is a good default position, but needs tons of exceptions to accomodate an imperfect world.

I don't believe any of my positions are inconsistent with my core principles, and when I occasionally find mutually-exclusive assumptions, I work something out to be more consistent. I don't assume my personal ideology is perfect, but I think it would work really well if anyone were to ever try it-- said like a true extremist. But of course, it just seems like common sense to me. Welcome to Jack22-ism, population 1. Chasing windmills is optional.

Fronzy: Thanks for replying. I think you are talking about something a little different from what I meant, but it does address the topic in general.



I think that could be logical as long as they don't justify the first one with the unconditional right to speak. Maybe certain kinds of speach are damaging, and certain kinds are not. We all know you can't yell fire in a theatre.



But is this necessarily bad? I mean, what if the evidence shows that property rights are good only in some instances? For example, redistribution reduces poverty, but preserving property in other cases works pretty well.

Now, I think many liberals will say that you have a right to decide what you will to as it affects you individually, but people also have the right to freedom from deprivation, so society has a responsability to provide this oppertunity. Then, however, this ideology shapes their belief on whether welfare reduces poverty. This does not make sense in my opinion. Principles about how the world works can logically determine what you think works in a specific situation, but principles about what should happen have nothing to do with how the world actually works.

I am a liberal not because I have much of an underlying ideology, but because most of my beliefs correspond with what liberals think. I do believe in certain principles, such as harsh punishment does not solve social problems, but I always try to question them and refine what I actually believe based on hard evidence and theoretical models specific to the issue. I do not believe in rights or responsibilities or anything like that though.



But what if you found new evidence that showed that such principles were not pragmatic? Would there be anything wrong with a "muddled" middle if it fit with reality? What if there was new evidence that state-owned steal companies were just incredibly efficient and with certain regulations were not corrupt at all? Would you modify your ideology?

Victoria: Thank you for your post. I agree with you that it makes sense to summarize your beliefs by the ideology that is closest you your personal one, but you should not be trapped into believing everything on its mainstream platform.



What if it was discovered that same-sex couples were twice as likely to commit murder or something like that? Now, I know that it is a rediculous example, but nothing is impossible. Would you be against them if you thought they were truly damaging to others?

Jack22: Good ideas, definately an insightful post. I just have to defend this attack on utilitarianism though:



If a certain approach leads to bad things it is not utilitarian. I agree that a benevolent dictatorship will not be that way for long. Therefore benevolent dictatorship is not utilitarian, because it makes everything worse, if only in the long run (although I don't think even the best-intentioned dictatorship would work even in the short run). Utilitarianism is not idealist at all, in fact it is the opposite. If something just isn't going to work, it is not utilitarian.

Now I agree that you need morals because how else are you going to decide what is good and what is bad? But once you decide that, I think utilitarianism makes the most sense - do whatever works to create more good and less bad.

Thanks, catquas.



I agree with your conclusions here. I think our differences are primarily terminological-- when I mentioned "pure utilitarianism" I meant the brand of it that seeks only efficiency and tries to make no moral judgements-- I personally don't see how this kind of "pure utilitarianism" can really exist, but some people espouse it. Like you, I think at some point whenever you apply utilitarianism you have to make a distinction between what is good and what is bad, and thus you're making moral judgements even within the context of utilitarianism.

But those who just look at efficiency, mostly disregarding moral ethics, and believe a benevolent dictatorship can exist without ever turning malevolent, would not consider a benevolent dictatorship to run counter to utilitarianism. Here again, we see a disagreement primarily of assumptions rather than logic. You and I would agree that dictatorships are non-utilitarian because we are applying some degree of moral ethics to conclude that they would turn malevolent-- but if others take out the moral and ethical considerations, and try to proceed based on efficiency alone, they can apply sound logic to "pure utilitarian" (non-moral) principles and conclude a benevolent dictatorship is a reasonable way to go.

You and I might disagree about benevolent dictatorships working in the short term-- if the person or people dictating law are truly benevolent, they will very often (if not always) make the judgements that are in the best interest of the people and do not violate morals, ethics, or utilitarian concerns-- such benevolent dictators could arrive at decisions very quickly and could cut out all the expense and mess generated by representative democracies-- no expensive elections, no long debates, no campaign corruption, no political arguments that pit one half of the population against the other-- everywhere there is peace, harmony and efficiency. The only fly in the ointment is "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"-- benevolence plus power yields malevolence-- human nature has an ugly side. This was the central issue of the reformation, the enlightenment, and ultimately the American Revolution. But before that, history records some dictatorships temporarily being both effective and benevolent-- they were abolished only because people realized that the great catastrophes of malevolence were no longer an acceptible risk.

For an example, take the United States-- we are organized under Judicial Review and anti-constructionism as a judicial dictatorship that has a component of representative democracy-- but when the rubber meets the road, it is ultimately judges who dictate law. When the judicial dictators are benevolent, everything works fine-- but if they ever turn malevolent or capricious in overturning democratically-enacted laws of the land that do not specifically voilate the word or intent of the Constitution-- our benevolent judicial dictatorship has just become a malevolent judicial dictatorship. The only long-term solution I can see to this structural weakness is to check Judicial Review with a constitutional amendment giving Congress the same check on Judicial Review that it has on the Presidential Veto-- mustering a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress is such a long shot that it is only presumed to happen when the other branch of government is really and truly wrong. Then, we would be structurally rebalanced into a representative democracy with an element of judicial dictatorship, rather than vice versa. Judicial Review is not in the Constitution-- it was orignially asserted by the principle of Silent Consent, that the People would pass an amendment to control it if it were to ever get out of hand. I believe that time has come.

I agree. Logically it is impossible. You cannot say something is effective if you don't define what you are trying to achieve in the first place. You have to have values before you can decide what is it utilitarian. People who espouse this "pure" utilitarianism have assumed certain goals are good but do not realize that they have, claiming that there is some "objective" standard of effectiveness.



I disagree. I think that we are using logic and experience to decide this. I have never heard of a country which had a consistent benevolent dictatorship. It also makes sense that absolute power corrupts, and that even if it does not a dictator is likely to consider his interests above those of others, etc. I really don't think this is because of what values I have, it is because of sense.

As for benevolent dicatorships, I guess they can work in the short-term, but you have to make sure the person knows what he is doing as well. Take Mao. Maybe he did not put himself first, but he really messed up. Also, it is hard to determine whether someone is actually benevolent. I think that in any given year a fully-fledged democratic government does more good than any real-world dictatorship would, even the most benevolent examples.

That doesn't mean I don't question this belief though. I have been reading some arguments against democracy in China and they do make some sense.

I think judicial review has done more good than bad in the past. I don't know how this would be impacted by regulating it. I don't really care about democracy on "principle", and checks to it are good if they work towards achieving ends that I value (because of morality). Really, most judicial judgements have struck down bad laws.

The inconsistent liberal position on property rights may not be bad, but it sure is confusing. Under this "mixed economy," certain people can steal and certain people cannot. It is ultimately, therefore, inegalitarian.

There are, however, positions on property that are both centrist and consistent. For example, in the libertarian camp there are capitalists on the right and anarchists on the left. Capitalists assert that a genuinely free economy must be one where everything is private property - anarchists assert that a genuinely free economy must be one where everything is common access. My position, which I consider centrist, is a qualifying argument - that the domain of private property should extend to all things harvested, cultivated, or produced by human labor, and the domain of common access should extend to everything else (except humans, who are self-owning.)



Well, the assertion that people have a right to freedom of deprivation, that is to be provided by society, is called a positive right, or artificial right. It is a right that can only be taken through the inaction of others. In contrast to this is the negative right, or natural right - a right that can only be taken through the action of others. Self-ownership is such a right.



If there were evidence that my ideology is not pragmatic, then I would review my principles and modify them so they result in more pragmatic conclusions. I would not become muddled.

I don't see whats confusing about it. Property rights are a legal mechanism which is useful in some circumstances and not in others. Sure, in a way it is inegalitarian that some can steal and some can not, but everyone has the potential to influence what is stolen and what it is used for. In the same way, in a capitalist economy some people make more than others, but everyone has the potential to make a good amount of money. There is nothing inherently good about egalitarianism. People should be as equal as possible in terms of social status and power (I think that is all, but maybe I left something out) while allowing for proper leadership. Equality of other things is not that useful.



But if rights are determined by how well they work, which you seem to suggest by saying your ideology is pragmatic, what makes one right more "natural" than another? Shouldn't there be a dividing line like this: Good rights are those that if enforced lead to good results, and bad rights are those that if enforced lead to bad results?

The issue, though, is that under any authoritarian economic system, there is inevitably inequalities of social status - there are the stealers and the non-stealers. And who has the potential to influence what is stolen? Thugs, and no one else!



The problem with that reasoning is that the terms "good" and "bad" rest solely on individual preferences. So ultimately an individualistic system of rights is the only "good" system of rights.

Who said anything about an authoritarian economic system?



First of all, to say that something is pragmatic, you first need a standard of good and bad. Second of all, you just contradicted yourself. If good and bad rest soley on individual preferences, then an individualistic system cannot be the only good system of rights, because it is just your individual preference which others might differ with.

Now, I would agree that it is quite rediculous to have a law that says "the government should have the power to do good things and shall not be allowed to do bad things." But I do think it makes sense to vote for a promote laws you think result in good, instead of saying that these laws are somehow "natural". I think most of us would agree that certain things are good and certain things are bad. Human life is valuable, and so is quality of life. Thus poverty and crime are bad.

I'm a strong supporter of free enterprise, though. I just don't think it's cool to leave people to starve, so I support welfare. I know it's expensive, but it won't kill us...and I'm going to vote for whatever tax allocation involves me paying less. It's not some stupid, populist, soak-the-rich ideology at work here: I just don't want to pay more than I can't push over to someone else, hahaha.

Sheesh, libertarians spend so much time insisting on legislating their morality.

My individual opinion is that leaving people to starve is not cool, and I will continue to vote based on this opinion.

I don't want one, though. Are you saying that it's somehow immoral for me to vote based on my individual preferences? Sheesh, you're really big on trying to push your morality on other people, aren't you?