Effect before cause

[Epicurean]

Here I would like your opinion on looking on the effects of political ideas before the causes. To me it seems that a lot of people have a lot of problems with different political ideas, when the actual effect of the idea is beneficial or the same as other political ideas said people doesn't have issue with.

Take for example this one, not to rare, political issue: People living of money they haven't earned themselves.

I can see this resulting from two main sources. On one hand you have government benefits, and on the other you have inheritance. A lot of people seem to have issues with the
former, but not the latter, even though the result is the same. That is, they don't like people living off benefits, or rather the government providing said benefits, but
don't like taxation on inheritance. Now, you can argue that inheritance is about your right to control your own property. But at the same time benefits originate in political
decisions and decision-makers, whom in turn comes from people using their right to vote. So does this mean that the right to property comes before the right to vote, or rather
the right to an opinion, and is that not just an opinion in itself?

This above is only to serve as an example, my question is, do you think politics would work better if we focused on the actual results rather than the specific methods involved?
Personally I think it would, as it's a lot easier find a goal to reach for, and then work out the most efficient way to reach it while avoiding inconsistencies.

[Claudius Gothicus]

This above is only to serve as an example, my question is, do you think politics would work better if we focused on the actual results rather than the specific methods involved?

No, that kind of thinking led Russia to a rapidly advancing Industrialization that also costed tons of human lives, just to give an example.

Personally I think it would, as it's a lot easier find a goal to reach for, and then work out the most efficient way to reach it while avoiding inconsistencies.

This statement is a contradiction in itself, first you postulate the prevalence of means over ends and now you propose the ''avoid inconsistencies'' speech? Get you mind straight man, you either make the ends prevail over the means(basically irestricted and irresponsible progress) or you stick to the methods without paying attention the ends in fear that these might damage someone(purely reactionary conservatism).

The synthesis of both ways is accepting responsabilities, we live in a world full of uncertainties and risks and someone sooner or later is going to screw up, the solution is that those who do ethically accept it.

Liberal Democracies focus themselves A LOT in the method and means of exercising policies because it's the only way of making someone responsible for the possible risks, and at the same time get things done without costing way too much(in both terms of capital and humans).

[Epicurean]

No, that kind of thinking led Russia to a rapidly advancing Industrialization that also costed tons of human lives, just to give an example.

Yeah, as if a authoritarian, communistic war-ridden nation led by mad men is the only example. Please refrain from silly and unnecessary exaggerations.

This statement is a contradiction in itself, first you postulate the prevalence of means over ends and now you propose the ''avoid inconsistencies'' speech? Get you mind straight man, you either make the ends prevail over the means(basically irestricted and irresponsible progress) or you stick to the methods without paying attention the ends in fear that these might damage someone(purely reactionary conservatism).

I suppose I should clarify that I meant prioritizing the end result over the means, as I don't perceive this to currently be the case, not one or the other. Take taxation for example, if you prioritize the actual process of collecting taxes, you risk getting stuck in the whole flat tax vs progressive tax discussion. If you instead focus on the ends, that the state needs to collect a specific amount (avoiding the discussion of how big this amount should be), you turn the question into "should the rich pay less which results in the poor paying more, or should the rich pay more so that the poor can pay less", an issue I think is a lot easier to reach an agreement on. That is what I mean with politics working more efficient by focusing on the end result.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Yeah, as if a authoritarian,

Which has everything to do with overruling the means toward a ''Big End''.

communistic

You mean State Socialism, and again, Lenin's theory delves a lot into the whole ''ends justify certain means'' thing.

war-ridden nation

The Russian Civil War ended in 1921, the Five-Year Plans started in the late 20's.

led by mad men is the only example.

To accuse the Soviet Bureaucracy of madness and mental illness is simply inaccurate, they did it all under a pretty rational scheme and well aware of the consequences.

Please refrain from silly and unnecessary exaggerations.

It's not an exaggeration, it's an historical example of downplaying a major humanitarian crisis in favor of the ending result, Heavy Industry in 10 years.

Take taxation for example, if you prioritize the actual process of collecting taxes, you risk getting stuck in the whole flat tax vs progressive tax discussion.

Which is a pretty valid debate in itself and can be easily backed through data and theory. There's not need to turn it into a what ends does it pertain, that would only lead the discussion into the infertile philosophical fields of Conservatives against Progressives.

If you instead focus on the ends, that the state needs to collect a specific amount (avoiding the discussion of how big this amount should be), you turn the question into "should the rich pay less which results in the poor paying more, or should the rich pay more so that the poor can pay less", an issue I think is a lot easier to reach an agreement on.

In order to reach that debate you first need to solve the ''how big'' debate(which is unavoidable in any modern democracy). And once you reach your actual debate the ''who should pay more one'' it's pretty damn obvious that the winners will be progressives, so conservatives won't accept it.

In other words, debates are carried out the way they are(taking into account the methods, the utility and functionality of each perspective) because it's the only way to reach to impose a view over the other.

[Vizsla]

Here I would like your opinion on looking on the effects of political ideas before the causes. To me it seems that a lot of people have a lot of problems with different political ideas, when the actual effect of the idea is beneficial or the same as other political ideas said people doesn't have issue with.

Isn’t the main problem agreeing what the actual effect of a given political idea would be in the real world when you actually put the policy into effect?
There is no scientific method of policy and political ideas. Maybe there should be.


Thread title made me think of this.
From a comments section I read on some website:

The barman says:
‘Sorry, we don’t serve neutrinos.’
A neutrino walks into a bar.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

The barman says:
‘Sorry, we don’t serve neutrinos.’
A neutrino walks into a bar.

The answer is the neutrino is looking for a fight.


Why can't the both of them be looked at equally?

[Claudius Gothicus]

The answer is the neutrino is looking for a fight.


Why can't the both of them be looked at equally?

Maybe he's looking for an explanation.

Why can't the both of them be looked at without prejudice?

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

Maybe he's looking for an explanation.

My explanation is that the means are often effects as well. If you need to get firewood, the mean is cutting down a tree and one of the effects is a tree being cut down. If you want something from a hostile nation, the means of obtaining is an invasion (or diplomacy). An invasion is both a mean and an effect. Your example was good too.

[In3x]

I don't think that the results that arise in your example are the same.

I think the specifics of how we get to a certain point are crucial. I think it's entirely possible that the easiest or most efficient way of reaching a goal may not always be the best way, I do not think the ends justify the means.

I am also unsure of why you think certain rights would have precedence over others. I suppose I could probably be persuaded that the rights you have over your own body and property are more important than your right to vote, but I'd like to feel that I can have these rights as well as my right to vote without any problems arising.

[Menelik_I]

Take for example this one, not to rare, political issue: People living of money they haven't earned themselves.

I can see this resulting from two main sources. On one hand you have government benefits, and on the other you have inheritance. A lot of people seem to have issues with the
former, but not the latter, even though the result is the same.

These are completely different things, people don't oppose Welfare because ''people are living on income they haven't earned'' but because they are LIVING OFF OTHER PEOPLE TAXES, ie INCOMES.

Just for that the whole OP is deconstructed.

[Epicurean]

These are completely different things, people don't oppose Welfare because ''people are living on income they haven't earned'' but because they are LIVING OFF OTHER PEOPLE TAXES, ie INCOMES.

Some people oppose it, others vote people into power who puts it into practice.

To accuse the Soviet Bureaucracy of madness and mental illness is simply inaccurate, they did it all under a pretty rational scheme and well aware of the consequences.

True if the state puts as its ultimate purpose industrialization. If it instead puts serving its population without hurting it, the argument is pointless.

[Claudius Gothicus]

True if the state puts as its ultimate purpose industrialization. If it instead puts serving its population without hurting it, the argument is pointless.

Industrialization was a pretty rational sub-objective for their general one, which was ideologically speaking the triumph of the working class.

In order to reach an important level of proletarians you need to create industries that have proletarians(because only the proletariat as a new kind of man can create the communist future), in that case the industrialization of Russia and the USSR in general was a pretty rational and adjusted method.

And regarding the ''serving it's population without hurting it'' part you need to heavily interpret Marxist-Leninist theory to find the answer to ''why were all of those excesses rational under the soviet scheme?''.

In Marxist theory you encounter no real ''method'' to bring about the communist form of production and how to deal with the intermediate phase, ''Socialism''. So Lenin had to improve that part because he was actually aiming at creating such a State.

What Lenin did was reaching a pretty heavy conclusion, since the Bourgeois are not going to give away the Means of Production peacefully the only way to reach a Communist Society is by taking these away from them violently, through revolution. Therefore the Ends start justifying the Means, from there it's a slippery slope...

Communism is the inevitable path for Human liberation, understanding mankind as ''the New Soviet Man'' you can pretty easily discard anyone who opposes you through the means necessary, because to do otherwise would be to risk the revolution and the freedom of the proletarians. So, as you can see it's a pretty well though Vicious Circle, it's not the product of some madmen, but the creation of some very intelligent and organized individuals.