| Political Philosophy |
| Jim Hlavac |
| Politics Home The Practicalist The Socialist Era Politics Re-Explained Fundamentals Domestic Affairs Economic Theory Foreign Affairs Libertarian Ideas Political Theory Philosophy Royalty & Theology |
Political Philosophy
| Political Philosophy Sections |
We live in uncertain and confusing times. To hear most people say it, this
is something new. In fact, it has been the condition of mankind for
thousands of years. There is no glorious past to go back to. We are too
quick to romanticize the past. "Oh Camelot!" So many people cry, "where
are thee?" Well, we forget that it was good to be the king, but in those
days it was downhill for everyone else.
It's been said that we are at the end of history. Yet history moves
along because history is really the future. Everyone wants to know what's
going to happen. There are people who want to make sure the history
that is written is the history that they want to create while eliminating the
prospects of all other people's histories.
People all over the world are totally perplexed at what is being
reported in the press. This confusion stems from a myriad of sources:
from the sheer amount of information, from the bewildering number of
languages and countries and peoples, from the vast geography of the
world itself. And it comes from the fact that words used by one person,
such as democrat, republics, Republican and Democrat, and conservative,
and liberal, liberty, libertarian, socialists, and Christian Democrats, and
labor rights, and human rights, and the rights of countries, -- and on an
on -- are used differently by different people. Often they mean totally
opposite things. All the terms used to describe the politics and economics
of the world are used in whatever way the person using them intends.
They are left with no meaning after so much misuse. Anybody can make
any argument they want, that is totally opposite what somebody else is
saying, using the same words.
Consider this: we are told that the conservative military government in
Burma is working for human rights. And we are told that the
Conservative political party in England is working for human rights. We
are told that the conservative Communist Party in Russia is for human
rights and we are told that the conservative Chilean political party is for
human rights. Conservative Christians, Muslims and Jews are all working
for human rights. The conservatives in the all the political parties in
America are working for human rights. Conservatives in France and
Germany are working for human rights. Conservatives in Cuba and North
Korea are working for human rights. Conservatives in every country from
Brazil to Zimbabwe are working for human rights.
Indeed. So what's a conservative and what's a human right? How
can you tell from all the different senses one uses a word? With these
ever shifting meanings of the words it becomes impossible to really figure
out what someone is saying. If you are a person who says you're not
conservative but instead a liberal. Well that's easy enough, look:
Consider this: we are told that the liberal military government in
Burma is working for human rights. And we are told that the Liberal
political party in England is working for human rights. We are told that
the liberal Communist Party in Russia is for human rights and we are told
that the liberal Chilean political party is for human rights. Liberal
Christians, Muslims and Jews are all working for human rights. The
liberals in the all the political parties in America are working for human
rights. Liberals in France and Germany are working for human rights.
Liberals in Cuba and North Korea are working for human rights. Liberals
in every country from Brazil to Zimbabwe are working for human rights.
So don't worry, all the liberals are working for human rights. Surely
their definitions of human rights all differ. Or are all the liberals all
different? Are there conservative liberals and liberal liberals? Are there
liberal conservatives and conservative conservatives? And of course you
can plug in the word moderate:
Consider this: we are told that the moderate military government in
Burma is working for human rights. And we are told that the Moderate
political party in England is working for human rights. We are told that
the moderate Communist Party in Russia is for human rights and we are
told that the moderate Chilean political party is for human rights.
Moderate Christians, Muslims and Jews are all working for human rights.
The moderates in the all the political parties in America are working for
human rights. Moderates in France and Germany are working for human
rights. Moderates in Cuba and North Korea are working for human rights.
Moderates in every country from Brazil to Zimbabwe are working for
human rights.
Look again, all these moderates all over the world working for human
rights. Do you know what human rights are yet? So now I suppose we
can have moderate liberals and liberal moderates. And of course we can
also have conservative moderate liberals and liberal moderate
conservatives.
Now when it comes to the actual names for the political parties
espousing their claim to be working for human rights we get such
charming things as the Farm Labor, Workers, Conservative, Liberal,
Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Peoples Democratic Party, Christian
Democrats, Christian Republicans, Hindu Nationalists, Muslim Nationalists,
People's Liberation Front, Popular Front, Democratic Populists, Labor,
Republican Democrats, Democratic Republicans, Liberal Republicans,
Liberal Democrats, All People's Front, All People's Party, Progressive,
Progressive Conservatives, Progressive Liberals, Christian Moderates --
and it goes on and on and on. And then there are hundreds more parties
with local names, like Baathists and Likud, the Irish Nationalists, All
Singapore League, and that list goes on an on, too. Some claim they are
conservative, some liberal and some moderate. And to a party they are all
working for human rights.
And we're told there are all sorts of different governments:
Communist, Socialist, Democratic, Social Democracies, Republics,
Kingdoms, Parliamentary Democracies, Theocracies, One Party States,
People's Republics and Constitutional Monarchies, and more. All, of
course, claim they are working for human rights.
Their parties and the leaders of those parties come before the United
Nations each year to claim they are diligently working for human rights.
And each and every one of them uses the same words. Within the United
States all these words are quoted and used and reused by the press and
anybody who talks about politics. So if the words mean so little any more
and anybody can apply any definition they want to them how can we
begin to fathom what is happening, and what might happen? It is
impossible.
The best example today of the totally different uses of the same words
is Iraq, France and America. All of them are using the same words, yet
they disagree once they get beyond the surface words.
is something new. In fact, it has been the condition of mankind for
thousands of years. There is no glorious past to go back to. We are too
quick to romanticize the past. "Oh Camelot!" So many people cry, "where
are thee?" Well, we forget that it was good to be the king, but in those
days it was downhill for everyone else.
It's been said that we are at the end of history. Yet history moves
along because history is really the future. Everyone wants to know what's
going to happen. There are people who want to make sure the history
that is written is the history that they want to create while eliminating the
prospects of all other people's histories.
People all over the world are totally perplexed at what is being
reported in the press. This confusion stems from a myriad of sources:
from the sheer amount of information, from the bewildering number of
languages and countries and peoples, from the vast geography of the
world itself. And it comes from the fact that words used by one person,
such as democrat, republics, Republican and Democrat, and conservative,
and liberal, liberty, libertarian, socialists, and Christian Democrats, and
labor rights, and human rights, and the rights of countries, -- and on an
on -- are used differently by different people. Often they mean totally
opposite things. All the terms used to describe the politics and economics
of the world are used in whatever way the person using them intends.
They are left with no meaning after so much misuse. Anybody can make
any argument they want, that is totally opposite what somebody else is
saying, using the same words.
Consider this: we are told that the conservative military government in
Burma is working for human rights. And we are told that the
Conservative political party in England is working for human rights. We
are told that the conservative Communist Party in Russia is for human
rights and we are told that the conservative Chilean political party is for
human rights. Conservative Christians, Muslims and Jews are all working
for human rights. The conservatives in the all the political parties in
America are working for human rights. Conservatives in France and
Germany are working for human rights. Conservatives in Cuba and North
Korea are working for human rights. Conservatives in every country from
Brazil to Zimbabwe are working for human rights.
Indeed. So what's a conservative and what's a human right? How
can you tell from all the different senses one uses a word? With these
ever shifting meanings of the words it becomes impossible to really figure
out what someone is saying. If you are a person who says you're not
conservative but instead a liberal. Well that's easy enough, look:
Consider this: we are told that the liberal military government in
Burma is working for human rights. And we are told that the Liberal
political party in England is working for human rights. We are told that
the liberal Communist Party in Russia is for human rights and we are told
that the liberal Chilean political party is for human rights. Liberal
Christians, Muslims and Jews are all working for human rights. The
liberals in the all the political parties in America are working for human
rights. Liberals in France and Germany are working for human rights.
Liberals in Cuba and North Korea are working for human rights. Liberals
in every country from Brazil to Zimbabwe are working for human rights.
So don't worry, all the liberals are working for human rights. Surely
their definitions of human rights all differ. Or are all the liberals all
different? Are there conservative liberals and liberal liberals? Are there
liberal conservatives and conservative conservatives? And of course you
can plug in the word moderate:
Consider this: we are told that the moderate military government in
Burma is working for human rights. And we are told that the Moderate
political party in England is working for human rights. We are told that
the moderate Communist Party in Russia is for human rights and we are
told that the moderate Chilean political party is for human rights.
Moderate Christians, Muslims and Jews are all working for human rights.
The moderates in the all the political parties in America are working for
human rights. Moderates in France and Germany are working for human
rights. Moderates in Cuba and North Korea are working for human rights.
Moderates in every country from Brazil to Zimbabwe are working for
human rights.
Look again, all these moderates all over the world working for human
rights. Do you know what human rights are yet? So now I suppose we
can have moderate liberals and liberal moderates. And of course we can
also have conservative moderate liberals and liberal moderate
conservatives.
Now when it comes to the actual names for the political parties
espousing their claim to be working for human rights we get such
charming things as the Farm Labor, Workers, Conservative, Liberal,
Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Peoples Democratic Party, Christian
Democrats, Christian Republicans, Hindu Nationalists, Muslim Nationalists,
People's Liberation Front, Popular Front, Democratic Populists, Labor,
Republican Democrats, Democratic Republicans, Liberal Republicans,
Liberal Democrats, All People's Front, All People's Party, Progressive,
Progressive Conservatives, Progressive Liberals, Christian Moderates --
and it goes on and on and on. And then there are hundreds more parties
with local names, like Baathists and Likud, the Irish Nationalists, All
Singapore League, and that list goes on an on, too. Some claim they are
conservative, some liberal and some moderate. And to a party they are all
working for human rights.
And we're told there are all sorts of different governments:
Communist, Socialist, Democratic, Social Democracies, Republics,
Kingdoms, Parliamentary Democracies, Theocracies, One Party States,
People's Republics and Constitutional Monarchies, and more. All, of
course, claim they are working for human rights.
Their parties and the leaders of those parties come before the United
Nations each year to claim they are diligently working for human rights.
And each and every one of them uses the same words. Within the United
States all these words are quoted and used and reused by the press and
anybody who talks about politics. So if the words mean so little any more
and anybody can apply any definition they want to them how can we
begin to fathom what is happening, and what might happen? It is
impossible.
The best example today of the totally different uses of the same words
is Iraq, France and America. All of them are using the same words, yet
they disagree once they get beyond the surface words.