My Political Views

Last update: Nov. 11, 2011 (at bottom)

Introduction (Oct. 2009)

The ultimate criterion of a viable, working political and societal structure is whether it is able to sustain itself over many centuries without collapsing. This long-term view provides the means to objectively judge the prudence of any system of governance without resorting to subjective value judgments.

From this perspective, we can put aside ideals such as "democracy," "freedom," "progress," "equal rights," "free market," and our understanding of what is good and ethical, unless we have proof that the pursuit of these ideals actually contribute to a society's long-term success, i.e. its ability to avoid self-perpetuate itself indefinitely.

From a historical perspective, we can see that societies and political systems inevitably rise and fall. By analogy, we can assume that ours, too, is not permanent. If all political systems eventually are replaced by new ones, then how can their viability be gauged at all?

To avoid this dilemma, I propose to treat as "successful" systems that sustained themselves over a long period of time until intervention by factors outside of their control destabilized the system. An extreme example of such a case would be an unprovoked nuclear attack on an otherwise perfectly sustainable society, or a tsunami that destroyed all inhabitants of an island state. An "unsuccessful" system would be one that culminated in a substantial and permanent loss of human population and societal complexity due to factors that were largely within its own control.

Instead of examining only what is typically referred to as "politics," in this essay I will try to look at society as a whole and how it organizes itself — both economically and socially as well as politically. Hopefully, by the end I will be able to provide some opinions about how the United States and other modern developed nations could become more perpetually viable — that is, more likely to avoid collapse. These opinions I am calling my "political views."

Readers who have read books by Jared Diamond — particularly Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed — will recognize his influence on this essay. Six months ago, I had sketched out my views on political issues of the day, but was unsatisfied with the result. After reading Diamond's book, I realized that many hot-button, "Republican vs. Democrat" topics such as abortion or healthcare were of much less importance than things like forest and topsoil preservation, which rarely even enter political discussion. A view to the long-term success or failure of different practices has freed me from the confines of myopic political debate. Perhaps our bipartisan system encourages citizens to focus only on the points of disagreement between Republicans and Democrats rather than on the absolute importance of different issues facing society.

What constitutes "our society?" or "our practices?"
Our instinct as citizens of a particular nation is to think of our society, with its particular set of defining practices, as being confined to the boundaries of our own country. However, from an anthropological view we can see that many practices that define life in the U.S. have spread to other countries as well, or even originated there. For instance, suburbian development now exists in many countries of the world, not only the U.S. Automobiles are now used as transportation all over the Earth, commercial goods and even foods are very similar in many cities of the world, the same art forms are popular, etc. Some form of democracy and free market capitalism is practiced in most wealthy nations.

I think it is useful to group all modern, wealthy nations into a single group due to commonalities of lifestyle, social structure and priorities, and general practices. An archaeologist or anthropologist studying these nations in hindsight would recognize them as being closely connected and operating on similar principles, with some regional variation.

Defining features of modern, first-world society
If our society was somehow instantly frozen in time and buried under a few meters of dirt, and archaeologists of the future were allowed to excavate and study it, what sorts of features might they identify?

• Almost complete reliance on fossil fuels for transportation, manufacturing, heating, and packaging and as a source material for consumer goods. Global warming and pollution as a result of fossil fuel use.
• Great wealth. Most households own one or more automobiles and enjoy a very large per capita living area and a large number of personal possessions in comparison with past societies.
• Health successes and problems. Long life expectancy, low mortality, advanced medical knowledge and technologies. Unusually high rates of obesity, cancer, and diabeties due to a sedentary lifestyle, overabundance of food, and a high level of carcinogens.
• Dominant role of commerce and commercial entities. Largest, most dominant structures are usually office buildings and shopping centers, typically dwarfing religious edifices and government structures. Evidence that economic expansion was a top priority in government decision making.
• International integration. Goods are transported over great distances, and production processes typically involve several countries at once.
• Representative rule. All citizens above a certain age can vote. Citizens elect representatives to government office. Frequent change of elected leaders within a stable political system.
• Demographic issues. Population explodes for several centuries, then tapers off to a near zero growth rate. Rapidly aging population, leading to crises as shrinking working population must support an increasing number of older, nonworking individuals.
• Brief period of peace following centuries of wars. Almost complete absence of large-scale armed conflicts within society or between nations constituting modern, first-world society (within the past few generations, at least). However, wars are waged with outside nations for political and economic reasons.
• Very high level of societal complexity. Highly complex trade relations, procedures, laws, and regulations. Sophisticated procedures for regulating all areas of public activity.
• Very high level of education and access to information. Almost universal Internet and computer access. Most people spend years in school, both to learn trades and for personal enrichment. Common people are able to learn about any subject online and exchange information with anyone else in the world. Relative government transparency as a result.
• Large amounts of leisure time and income. A large proportion of household income is spent on nonessential goods, services, and recreation. Cultivation of sports, arts, crafts, and other hobbies. Working hours are limited to 7 or 8 hours a day 5 days a week, leaving much time for individual use. Dominance of electronic media for day-to-day recreation.
• Rapid societal change. Intergenerational changes in goods and lifestyle is slow until fossil fuels are harnessed, resulting in ever-increasing rates of change and a staggering amount of new innovations.
• Separation of church and state. Many nations are no longer dominated by a single religion, leading to a general divorcing of religion from politics. Citizens must deal with religious diversity and the option of choosing one's religion. Peaceful competition between churches as they are sidelined from politics.
• Ethnic mixing as a result of the ease of international travel, trade, and communication. People move from poor areas to prosperous ones, resulting in both immigration and migration from rural to urban areas within a single country. Resulting societal tensions and resolutions.
• Overwhelming urbanization. Few people live in rural areas, and a small number of farmers is able to support a very large urban population through advanced technology. Cities attain astounding proportions and demonstrate complex infrastructure. Transportation within urban areas is made possible through roads and cars.
• Environmental problems. Growing water problems in countries as demand exceeds supply in some areas. Agricultural practices lead to soil loss and groundwater depletion in many areas. Air pollution as a result of fossil fuel use. Waste disposal issues. Climate change. Wealthy countries are able to shift environmental costs to poor countries, where environmental degredation is more obvious and severe.

These characteristics and practices -- rather than the specific issues that are currently at the forefront of our political awareness -- are the sorts of things we must look at when examining society as a whole and how well it is coping with the challenges of existence.

TO BE CONTINUED (10/8/2009) ...

The rest of this page is the original text of this article, reflecting my political views of the time. As you can see, it suffers from a lack of perspective and focuses too much on issues of little long-term importance.

ADDED 9/12/2009: I have realized that my views on politics are still much too primitive and uninformed to make a strong statement on the matter. Politics is an extremely complex field, and one that I am not naturally good at understanding. I always end up on the scientific or philosophical side of issues and have little appreciation for what the real-life implementation of policies entails. Thus, take the following article as a brief sketch of my views in the process of formation. I have much stronger things to say about other aspects of society than how government should carry out its duties.

For now this page will have a brief summary of my views on political matters in the United States. Over time I will probably flesh this page out.

Role of government
In approximate order of priority, the government's job is to 1) ensure the survival of humanity, 2) ensure the survival of the nation in accordance with the will of the people, 3) protect individual freedoms, and 4) promote the health and welfare of its citizens. In addition, it has the duty to respond to requests from intergovernmental organizations to help promote welfare and security in the rest of the world when necessary.

National security
I have no strong views on national security. You gotta do what you gotta do. I support increasing the role of international organizations such as the UN in the resolution of all manner of international conflicts, as well as perfecting the operations of these organizations.

Healthcare
I think universal healthcare is the way to go. This is what most other developed countries have done, with relative success. The health insurance system in place in the United States serves to suppress the use of healthcare services rather than their prudent use. Too much money is going to insurance companies who provide no real services, rather than to actual healthcare providers. Insurance middlemen need to be eliminated by guaranteeing healthcare to all (with some stipulations to avoid blatant overuse). This will help reduce fear in society surrounding the potential inability to pay for the cost of illnesses and accidents. Systems should be developed that encourage doctors to make house calls rather than having the sick come into a sterile office setting for to wait, file paperwork, and be run through standard procedures. Healthcare should not be a corporate experience, but a private and nurturing one. A prudent healthcare system should maximize the level of health and happiness in society while trying to keep expenditures to a reasonable minimum. Healthcare could be funded in large measure by taxes on foods and activities that increase one's risk of needing healthcare.

Health and lifestyle
I believe that the government in our days should promote the overall health and well-being of its citizens. It should apply legislative leverage to encourage citizens, groups, and businesses to pursue practices that are conducive to health -- things like reducing pollution, promoting healthy lifestyles, preserving natural lands, etc. Foods that have been scientifically proven to involve health risks should be taxed to fund healthcare to address the problems the foods cause. Unfortunately, without substantial taxes on unhealthy food, a large percentage of Americans do not have the willpower to eat good food. This is a liability for the healthcare system. By making good food and good practices comparatively cheaper than poor ones, healthcare expenditures can be reduced. Policies should be pursued that make it advantageous to walk or use a bicycle instead of drive a car. Eventually, large subdivisions with 25% of their total area paved over should become a thing of the past.

Sustainability
As an issue of overwhelming international significance, the government should enter into treaties with other nations to reduce harmful ecological practices such as pollution, destruction of key natural habitats, species extinction, fossil fuel emissions, ozone depleting emissions, etc. etc. The government should enter into "cap-and-trade" type agreements with other countries to jointly curb population growth. Sustainability needs to become an all-encompassing governance concept, and there should be taxes on consumption that cover the cost of maintaining sustainable practices. Plastics should be taxed to pay for adequate recycling. Water should be taxed to pay for the full costs of maintaining healthy watersheds.

more to come soon eventually...

Conclusion (Nov. 2010)
I now see much of the text on this page as naive, though true to a large extent. Politics does what politics has to do. Politics is far less about heeding the will of the people or providing for the collective well-being than I would like it to be. As a result, I've lost interest in outlining "best practices" that I know will not be implemented. I am very pessimistic about the political and economic future of many countries (particularly the U.S.) due to diminishing resources that are changing the rules of the economic game. Of course in theory it would be nice to see a dramatic shift in political and economic strategy towards the sustainable, with the government nobly electing to self-simplify and downside of its own accord. Of course this will not happen for a host of reasons. Therefore, it makes more sense to focus on individual and local solutions where we actually do have the power to change our fate. The solutions are easy in theory but sometimes hard in practice, particularly for people with debt:

• achieve financial stability and security, even if it means vastly downsizing expenditures and lifestyle
• rely less on official economy and more on barter, mutual community support, and home production
• pursue greater self-sufficiency in food, clothing, shelter, transportation, healthcare, etc.
• develop informal, cooperative relationships within your community

These recommendations boil down to reducing your exposure to economic fluctuations and financial risks and to becoming independent from increasingly undependable official institutions and mechanisms. The initial goal of this entire article was to suggest policies that would promote these same principles on a national level. What can't realistically be done yet at the national level is probably still the best solution at the local and individual level.

ADDED 11/11/2011: I have largely lost interest in politics for the time being. Sure, it's an interesting topic, but it is too subjective, i.e. there is little way of assessing whether policies are right or not. Politics is a matter for philosophical debate, whereas I am ultimately more interested in science and in personal development (mine and others').