A Simple Theory of Political Philosophy (STOP²)

By Leon Felkins

Written 12/28/95 -- Copyright 1995

Latest Revision: 5 December 2002

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods." -- H. L. Mencken

Introduction


There is probably no other field of study by the human race that is as full of nonsense as the subject of Political Philosophy. I believe that it would give even Religion some strong competition!. Otherwise rational people, intelligent people, even people educated to the highest level from our most prestigious universities, blindly follow some of the most ridiculous beliefs (memes) when it comes to politics. If fact, we are so confused about how to solve the problems caused by politics and governing that we waste billions of dollars and an incredible amount of effort absolutely uselessly.

We really need to take a new approach as we are getting nowhere with our present approach. And it really is a serious matter. Humanity has suffered greatly and is likely to continue to suffer if we do not come up with a better approach.

Of course, I am not so vain as to think I have the answers. No, I don't have the solutions, but I can make suggestions on a new approach to politics in which some answers might be found. And secondarily, I hope to show why the current approaches are absolutely futile. If you think (or know) I am wrong, then please show me my errors. Maybe together we can come up with something useful.

Human Behavior - It's quite simple!


We humans tend to glorify ourselves a bit when we 'go off' about how complex we are. In many ways we are very complex -- too complex for us to ever completely understand. But in some other important aspects of our makeup we have exaggerated our perception of the complexity. I would like to elaborate on those areas that I believe to be quite simple yet have tended to be viewed as complex.

The most fundamental rules for understanding human social behavior are the following:

#1: People tend to do that for which they are rewarded and tend to avoid that for which they are punished!

#2: What a group does is determined by what the individuals in the group do!

(A friend pointed out that there is a classic paper on this concept: "On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B", by Steven Kerr, originally written in 1975)

Wait a minute, you say, 'Those platitudes are so ridiculously simple and obvious as to be useless'. I think not -- but if you do then my challenge to you is to try them the next time you are puzzled by some political activity. For, if you accept these rules as useful interpretations of political and group behavior, then your understanding of why politicians do what they do will be vastly different from what the press and folk wisdom would have us believe.

Consider this simple example: Why do government agencies not go away when they have reached the end of their usefulness? For example, the Rural Electrification Association (REA), which did a great service to our country by assisting in the electrification of our rural areas several decades ago, is still in business even though everyone has electrical power that wants it! Why?

Applying Rule #1, we can easily understand. They are in business because they are well rewarded for staying in business. They have cush jobs with good pay and little to do. It should be easy to solve this problem now that we understand it.

For more on the subject of group behavior, follow the link to my essay titled, Social Behavior.

Are Politicians and Government Employees to be Despised?


It would be a waste of time and adrenalin! The people that occupy the government are basically the same as you and me. It is the system itself that ferments the dishonesty, graft and abuse. History has proven so many times that if you take all the bums in the government and replace them with we of "honorable intentions", all goes to hell in a matter of months! I am not denying that government attracts a certain personality. No doubt that it does attract those who like power and those that tend to shun the thought of genuine hard days work. That much I will admit, but that is not the real problem. The various essays on this web site support my claim that there are more fundamental problems at work, the problems associated with Social Dilemmas, in general, and those described in the Theory of Public Choice, in particular.

Kicking politicians is about like smashing your car because it doesn't run worth a hoot after you rebuilt the engine! This gem of human behavior we apparently learned from the Christian religion that tells us that God is beating the hell out of us because he became very annoyed at our behavior very shortly after he put us together!

For the most part, the politicians in Washington wouldn't be there if they were not doing the bidding of their constituents. In my particular area of the country, while we hope that others are cut back, we will fire our Representatives unless they bring home the Bacon (Pork?)!

The Realities of Politics and Governments


The realities of government are even worse than you have imagined. In fact, until recently, most folks were extremely naive about their government. Only now have they begun to wake up. But now maybe it is too late. It should have been restrained many years ago but the citizens were too busy falling over themselves trying to send more money to Washington. We were taken in. Let us hope we don't forget.

I have a short essay here on Political Realities that you may want to take a look at. It is not a pretty site!

The Justification for Government


Is there, in all republics, this inherent and fatal weakness? Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?
— Abraham Lincoln, July 4, 1861

The idea that a government is necessary to keep peace among the members of society is an old one. In Hobbes' famous Leviathan, written in 1651, he expounds on the nasty nature of human beings and the necessity of having a government to keep peace. Garrett Hardin in his famous essay, "The Tragedy of the Commons" expresses the need for "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon".

In other words we need a pack of referees such as the football players have agreed to. The idea seems to work quite successful for them. The football players hire the referees, pay them, respect their decisions, etc., all because they realize that they could not play the game without them. Why not? Of course, part of the need is for someone to act as a judge on close calls. But a bigger part is to keep down cheating. It is accepted by the football players that, left to their own devices, they will cheat. Hardin and Hobbes are saying that the rest of us also need a referee -- which is commonly called "a government".

Note that the football players pay the referees and they also control the books. The mistake we have made with government is that we have agreed to pay them but we also stupidly said, "We will let you keep the books". When we did that, we lost control!

In this section, I will post links to anything I can find on this concept. Maybe if we put our heads tougher, we can figure out a way to take back the "books". I promised at the beginning of this essay that I would make a suggestion of two on what we might do to take back the control of our country. Well, there you have it: take the books away from the politicians and give them to a professional account firm! If it works for General Motors, it ought to work for the government!

For more information:

I found this series of Political Philosophy lectures, by Chris Bertram, that will serve as an introduction to what some important philosophers think about the justification for government. Russell Hardin discusses the difficulties in rationally justifying government in his paper, "Rationally Justifying Political Coercion", Journal of Philosophical Research, Vol. XV, 1989-90. More links will be added when and as I find them.

An argument that government coercion is not necessary is presented by Don L. Tiggre in his essay, "Hard Questions on Freedom".

Here is a short essay, "Political Philosophy Discovers Common Sense", one of Dr. Clancey's lectures, that discusses government's obsessive desire to redistribute the private wealth and goods that their citizens may acquire -- by hook or crook.

Back to the "Politics" Page

Back to the Rational Life page