My views are now post-political.
I realize now that the culprit of immorality and lack of progress never was one political system over another per se, but a philosophy unsuitable to man.
Just as we have undergone the process of post-industrialism, we will undergo a process of a coming post-political age. That is to say that philosophy as an applied theory, will take its place.
I still scoff at people who react to political problems in a moral way, confusing one for the other, despite the fact that I now react, in effect, in very much the same way.
This is linked to the fact that most ‘informed politicians’ and ‘informed’ intellectuals regard politics as removed from philosophy, not realizing that such a severance is a contradiction in terms.
Most people equivocate the two, rather than see them in a collaborative, reasoned interaction, in that their own morality is and was invisible to them, implicitly held and hence intrinsically believed that political systems required conformity to it, its non-conformity the result of personal morals such as spite or power lust.
The tricky part is that personal morals and hence, collective morals ARE responsible for the politics at present. The only difference between myself and most people now, is that I know how this operates, and in this way–they are still none the wiser.
I also realize that though morality and politics are not the same, one is very much to-do with the other, but only in that a political system is not to conform to, but is a consequence of, a moral philosophy.
I had understood this before, on some level, heard it said on abstract terms, but never saw how it REALLY applied.
One good example of how philosophy causes political tenets in law, is in how the health care system operates here in the US, in that the absolute pursuit of money on the part of corporations is the primary goal. i.e. doctors in the States vs. that of France for instance, require twice if not three times as much ‘compensation’ (money) out of the desire for profit vs. the value of what they do and offer as its own end.
The nature of a corporation, much like that of a psycho-path (as pointed out by a recent documentary) is one-tracked. That is, its nature is to achieve one goal, at any cost, namely that of the rights of other individuals.
In the case of a corporation, which is legally considered to be a separate individual, its goal is to achieve profit, monetary profit–at all costs.
This is the defense most republicans and old-school ‘individualist’ thinkers gave it, in saying that one was simply overlooking the nature of a political economy to accuse ‘it’ of personal-moral attributes such as greed or compassion. I agree, this is not the issue, even though corporations enjoy a very splendid personhood.
The root ssue IS however, inherent in the premise: Is it right, that is, moral in the first place to pursue money as an-end-in-itself??
THIS is the tenet that needs to be challenged. I might add that even in egoistic philosophical theory, which is the basis of virtually all sound capitalistic philosophy, money is never considered an end in itself–only the pursuit of happiness (or property) of every individual man, hence the terms: egoism and/or individualism.
Our system is set up as a series of checks and balances on the premise that the rights of each individual are never to be violated and that the role of the government is to protect individuals from EACH OTHER.
THAT is the premise of ‘life and liberty,’ NOT the pursuit of money at expense to individual rights.
The mistake, in error of this ‘inalienable’ set of rights which presented to it, its coffin, is the fabrication of a corporate entity to take on the rights of an individual.
This is a contradiction politically, and a moral violation of even egoistic and capitalistic philosophy, let alone any other more collectivist notions such as socialism.
That is why the current republicans have nothing to stand on in terms of their own alleged defense.
By allowing a corporation the rights of an individual, it removes the total responsibility of its owners, hence allowing them the ability to obviate liability, which in turn, is able to then harm, and violate the rights of others, i.e. allow the company to engage in illegal activities, and upon getting caught, then grants the corporate owners automatic impunity.
THIS in itself is also a violation of the founding principles of the constitution of the United States and yet is not seen in any way to be this way on the part of the mainstream public eye and left completely unquestioned in the general public political discussion.
Further, it is not simply a violation of the principles of the US, or of egoist-capitalistic philosophy, but of democracy itself.
The removal of this ‘right’ of corporate personhood would force business owners to take responsibility for their own actions and debts, hence re-instituting the basis of our former democratic republic that the law of corporate personhood undermines.
Underpinning all this, we let the law and the entanglement of this or that set of political doctrines distract us from the real issues which are the root of all those systems: philosophy.
The personhood of corporations reflects the deepest philosophical values of its members: money as an end in itself, which by definition, supersedes even the value what money can buy, but profit, itself, as its own end.
Consider that this amounts to nothing more than having money to have it, for the purpose of…having more of it–or of status, materials or whatever other excuse is given, but what is always in the end: nothing, the value of nothing at all, and the slavery purported to defend that nothing.
Think of it on these terms and know that no philosophy other than greed itself and the whim of brute force behind executive desks is what rules this country.
Neither communism nor capitalism, nor any sound political theory has ever come to pass in reality aside from the original constitutions of the free world and the extent to which their principles were upheld.
This, in essence, was the philosophy of individualism.
It is up to us to use the principles of that belief, if that is the philosophy we choose– to begin again.
For more information on corporations and corporate personhood, see the following links: