h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The One and the Many - A761771
Author: Pattern-chaser - U131178

This is a short (and sweet? ) entry on the subject of politics. It says that there is a conflict betwen the individual and society, and concludes that a Middle Way between the two is a requirement for any practical political system.

The most important question (to me) is whether it is necessary, or does it just state the obvious? Your verdict(s)?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Hi Pattern-Chaser,

What you say is interesting, but I'm not sure that opinion pieces are suitable for the guide. Why not post a link to this piece from H2G2 Speaker's Corner, which is a place for opinion pieces to get a proper airing, where people can read and respond. I've certainly got a few thoughts on this, but here's not the place.

I think there are a lot of very interesting issues in this entry, and I'm sure lots of people have lots to say about it. I'd suggest removing this from peer review and posting a link at A756605

What does everyone else think?

Otto

I'm inclined to agree with Otto, however I have reservations (sorry Otto). At present, I wonder how many people are going to Speaker's Corner. Oh, I know, it will take time to build up as it's a new thing, however there are *so many* entries in PR at present, it's a hard job keeping up with them. I've had an entry in PR for two days, and no-one has commented (apart from me) so far . Bossel had one that was there for several days before comment.

Back to the subject of this one. It's potentially a vast subject and I don't think that this entry covers it in sufficient detail. There is a case against free speech in certain circumstances, eg inflammatory racist speeches.

I think one of the problems for governments in an age where populations are so high is that people tend to lose their sense of needing to contribute to their communities.

If you look at older models of community, where the numbers are not so great, there appears to be more harmony. People pull together and know what's expected of them. I could go on, but I won't.

I'd be interested to hear what other people think.

Otto is "not sure that opinion pieces are suitable for the guide." Well, Otto, you won't be surprised, I'm sure, if I say I've heard that before. And I'm afraid I dismissed it then too. Can you imagine an entry on politics that *wasn't* an opinion piece? It's either opinions or no politics in the Guide, in my, er, opinion.

Zarquon's Singing Fish, on the other hand, had some comments on the subject matter: "It's potentially a vast subject..." What is? Politics? "...and I don't think that this entry covers it in sufficient detail." If politics, I agree. I would hate to have to read - or write - a comprehensive entry on politics!

"There is a case against free speech in certain circumstances, eg inflammatory racist speeches." Well, I *did* say <> The trouble with generalisations is it's too easy to quote one opposing example, and attention is diverted from the main subject.... Of course there *are* circumstances where the generalisation doesn't apply, and your example may well be one. I *did* say "probably".

Does anyone think that the individual/social slant on politics is worth discussing, or is it too obvious?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Ouch! Did you just poke me in the eye?

I still think it's a big topic. You have to cover things like the what to do about those who can't fend for themselves, those who won't and increasingly, coping with the disaffected and the criminal. These sections have to be coped with whatever the colour of your politics.

Well, I suppose you could always expose the weak children on the hillside as they used to, but ....

Hi Pattern-Chaser,

I really wasn't sure how to respond to this. I don't disagree with what you say, but I feel that this entry doesn't do enough to earn its conclusions. But then I'm a philosopher...

A really good edited guide entry on the individual and the state would be a massive undertaking. It could show that they are good reasons for thinking that any system that ignores one over the other will fail, or at least lead to disaster of one flavour or another. Like you, I think that the solution lies somewhere in the middle, with the balance more towards society rather than an individual.
However, it's not a guide entry I'd undertake - and I'm researching an MPhil in a related area. A really good answer to this question would be worth a PhD.

But then I'm probably too involved to respond to this, but couldn't help it! I *don't* want the guide to become the domain of self-proclaimed experts, but equally I'd like to contribute something (if I can) to the development of entries I know something about. So I don't really know what to say than to say that this entry bites off substantially more than it can chew in this format. A nice guide entry might be made out of a kind of adversarial "argument for the individual" versus "the argument for the state", and this is the kind of thing I'm trying to encourage at Speaker's Corner, which has yet to get going properly! I'd be more than happy to have a go at the "argument for the state" bit if you'd like me to, and I'm sure others would like to bring forward arguments as well.

To give you an idea about why I think this bites off more than it can chew:

One problem is in defining terms. As you're obviously aware "socialism" has many meanings, and we haven't even got started on the meaning of "liberal" yet! And I'm not clear about the distinction between "strategy" and "tactics". Do you mean that the guiding principle ought to be socialist, but with as much freedom as possible, as far as is compatible with equal freedom for everyone else and the general welfare of society?

What would you do about "hard cases"? To use a common example, would it be wrong for a town mayor to hang an innocent man to appease an angry mob which would otherwise go on a murderous rampage, killing many other people.

If the state or the many comes out on top over the individual, what is the state *for*? Socialism has the state trying to redistribute wealth wherever possible, but a state with little individual freedom might be very different. It might be a religious state, commanding obedience, or it might be a kind of science-mad knowledge based state where everything was subverted to progress and knowledge.

Marxists typically would reject that idea that communism is anti-individualist. Rather, the individual finds her fullest expression as part of a state, free from the "false consciousness" imposed by capitalism.

BTW, I can imagine a piece on politics that wasn't an opinion piece (well, on political philosophy anyway) - because I'm writing one! (The Political Philosophy of John Rawls - it's not remotely finished so I'm not posting a link). I don't think it's neccesarily true that "there are no absolutes in politics" - this is a very fashionable view, but it needs to be argued for, and might imply some very deep assumptions about ethics, morality etc.

What does everyone else think?

Otto

I would like to say that this is a good entry, but I can't.

For a start, there is not enough of it to make it worth the time of any half decent scout recommending it.

It also ignores just about everything that impacts on the individulity/society balance.

It ignores the facts of human nature that when they get control of one aspect of their lives, they want to influence all of the other aspects that restrict that control.

It ignores that fact that the only thing worse than individuals making their own choices and making a mess of it is a centralised system trying to make those choices for the individual without taking local context into account.

I look forward to reading this when it is at least 4 times it's current length, but at the moment it is barely even an opinion piece, and more a request for comments prior to writting that opinion piece.

good luck with working on it.

wrote "Ouch! Did you just poke me in the eye?" Ooops, sorry, it wasn't deliberate.

"I still think it's a big topic. You have to cover things like the what to do about those who can't fend for themselves..."

Everyone seems to think this is too big a topic, so I'd better assume you're all right. Y'see, it was never my intention to pursue the one and only example I put in the entry, that you picked up on. If I was pursuing this idea, I'd remove the example and leave the main text without one.

I wouldn't even try to determine what to do about those who can't fend for themselves. That's the job of a specific political ideology, and I'm just making a point that applies to *all* ideologies.

All the entry says is that political ideologies are oriented toward the individual (right-wing), society (left-wing), or both. Simple though this may be, it isn't immediately obvious from terms like "left-wing", "right-wing", "capitalist" and so on. It seems that just pointing this out is neither useful nor informative, to judge by the reaction I've had.

Will everyone please consider this entry withdrawn, at least in its current form, and thanks for your comments.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

why is it that so many people equate the libertarian/authoratarian agenda with left or right wing. while there are superficial connections, they are also very far apart.

Xyroth asked, in reply to my last posting, "why is it that so many people equate the libertarian/authoratarian agenda with left or right wing"?

I think I probably agree with you, Xyroth (Hi there! Long time no speak! ), but I wonder what I said to make you reply so? I equated left-wing with 'society-ism', and right-wing with individualism.... Wouldn't libertarian/authoritarian issues have more to do with the degree of brutality with which a particular ideology is implemented?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

what did you say to get that reply?

"All the entry says is that political ideologies are oriented toward the individual (right-wing), society (left-wing), or both. Simple though this may be, it isn't immediately obvious from terms like "left-wing", "right-wing", "capitalist" and so on. It seems that just pointing this out is neither useful nor informative, to judge by the reaction I've had."

as to the brutality aspect, that is more periferal. Fundamentaly, it is to do with trust.

if at a fundamental level, you basically trust people, then you tend to be an individualist and libertarian (as that agenda is about restricting the limits on the individuality). if you don't really trust people, then you want some central authority to make your choices for you and/or them, and you then get movement towards some form of authoritarianist setup.

as left-wing, right-wing, facist, stalinist, etc are all mainly to do with liking (broadly speaking) the system, just not the people at the top of it, then all of these vaguely extremist ideologies are broadly authoritarian.

I hope that that clears that tiny point up.

about the article, I hope you do some more work on it and bring it back later.

<>


Hmmm, you wouldn't have individualist tendencies, would you?


<>

Well thanks for the thought , but there is no article to work on. I have no intention of trying to pen one on 'politics' - far too much subject matter, as several commentators have noted. The observation that politics can be viewed from an individual/social perspective was what was on offer. This is clearly not enough to justify an Entry.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I have updated the text of this Entry in line with comments received. I have also marked it 'not for review', as it is clearly not useful and/or informative enough to justify an 'official' Guide Entry.

Thanks to everyone who commented.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Hmmm, you wouldn't have individualist tendencies, would you?


If you have encountered me much around this site, especially in disagreement with the actions (rather than the aspirations) of the editors, you wouldn't need to ask that question.

Yeah, we've met before. Just playing!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Given that you've marked the entry as "not for review", would you be willing to withdraw this thread from Peer Review now?


Mikey

I'm putting together a collaborative entry on the topic at A810109 - all are welcome.
As the quote goes, "Let's have a heated debate"...

Is there a reason this thread is still in Peer Review?


Mikey, the

I don't know either

Ooops. This much for my outdated list of links