As I described briefly in my post "One Final Post", I have tried several times to provide a short synopsis of my political philosophy, and each time I have failed to do so in a satisfactory manner. Despite that, I think it is important to continue to try, as an explicit description of my political philosophy could be quite useful. Useful for me, as putting my thoughts into a concrete form is helpful in both bringing to light any contradictions or omissions, and useful for my readers who will understand the thoughts and assumptions which form the foundation of my arguments, and they can then decide how much weight to give my arguments based upon the degree to which they agree with my assumptions. Not to mention that those assumptions are, in themselves, a sort of political argument, and so by making explicit my political beliefs I will also be arguing for the validity of those beliefs, and, hopefully, showing the error of conflicting premises and the political systems which depend upon them. (For example, the many authoritarian systems which rely upon an assumption of general incompetence -- see "Man's Nature and Government", "Our View of Our Fellow Citizens"and "Seeing People As Stupid".)

The problem with any such post is deciding where to start. In the description of this post provided in "One Final Post", I started by defining myself as a "conservative, libertarian federalist", and proceeded to define each term. On the other hand, in "A True Conservative Platform" I started with an itemized political agenda, ignoring all underlying philosophical questions. And, at the other end of the spectrum, in "My Vision of Government" and "My Vision of Government Part II" (and "Prelude", "Revisiting an Old Post" and "Symmetry and Asymmetry in Government", as well), I started with some basic premises and began building upon them, much as I did in "Planning For Imperfection" and "Greed Versus Evil" in defending the free market, or in "The Citizen Dichotomy" and "The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism" in taking apart the assumptions underlying liberalism. And each approach has something to recommend it. But, in this case, I think I will follow the final approach, and start with some very low level assumptions, explaining the way I conceive of man, and from there build up to my understanding of the nature of society and government, and finally to a specific ideology and the political implications of the same.

But that presents some difficult questions of its own. Where to begin? How basic is basic enough? No matter where I start, I am afraid someone will object to some assumption, whether it is the assumption that the evidence of our senses is trustworthy or that reason can truly know reality. So, there is no point in trying to find some ground level upon which everyone will agree, as I have learned over the years that there is no fact so obvious that there is not someone willing to dispute it. So, it is a fool's game to try to base a philosophy upon a premise upon which absolutely everyone can agree. In fact, it is pretty far fetched to think there are even facts with which all reasonable people can agree. No matter where we start, it will be a matter of some controversy, and so, I find it best to just state my assumptions, provide the arguments that persuade me they are true, and leave it at that. There will be some dispute no matter what I say, so it is best to just dive in and deal with the arguments afterward. Any other alternative simply adds many lengthy digressions, adding little to the argument, and resulting in no fewer disputes.

My political philosophy arises from my assumptions about human nature. These are basically as stated in "Man's Nature and Government" and "The Citizen Dichotomy". As I understand it, there are two ways we can view our fellow man, as a being mostly like ourselves, or as a begin who differs from us in one or more respects. This sounds strange, I know, but it really does lie at the foundation of most political philosophies, as you shall see.

The latter assumption, that others are different from us, is, unfortunately, the more common, usually taking the form described in "Seeing People As Stupid", "Those Other People", "Deadly Cynicism" and "Our View of Our Fellow Citizens". That is, we imagine that, while we can be trusted to manage our own affairs, the bulk of humanity is in some way deficient, and needs some form of assistance in making decisions about important matters in their lives. The reason for this incapacity is unimportant, it may be because they are intellectually inferior, because they are unable to make significant connections, because they are easily misled or even because malicious forces are manipulating them, the specifics do not matter. What matters is that there are many people in the world who, unlike ourselves, need to be told what to do.

There is, implicit in this assumption, a second assumption, as described in "The Right Way". That is that these other people, in addition to not being able to manage their own affairs, have difficulty telling what they need. Under traditional economic analysis, an individual's desires are taken as a given, and so his desires are not open to analysis. But, for us to claim that an individual needs guidance, we must also assume that his own assumptions about his needs are, in some respect, deficient as well, and so he must be shown the "right way" to pursue the "proper goals".

Finally, this thesis contains one more provision. As a theory which consistently posited a defective humanity would result in the pessimistic assumption that we are all doomed, as such a defective group could not form anything but flawed governments, there is the necessity for positing a group of elites, who can help guide this group. It is rarely stated explicitly, as it is bad form to voice elitist pretensions in an elective states, but it is necessary, and implicit in the assumption "we" are different. As I described in "The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism", every proponent of a paternal state, caring for its misguided citizens, must assume those in charge are smarter than the average, or else it makes no sense.

And so, we end up with the trinity of ideas which underlie all forms of intervention. The assumption of an incompetent populace, the assumption of objective economic valuation and, finally, the assumption of an enlightened elite capable of providing guidance.

On the other hand, my political philosophy rests on the opposite assumption, that others are mostly like me, that they are capable of determining the best course of actions, and that, in terms of providing for their happiness, they are the best judge of what would and would not make them happy. In other words, that there is no objective economic value, but that the worth of any given good or service is what an individual determines it to be for himself.

Lest critics try to raise straw man arguments against this theory, let me start by saying that this theory doe snot assume perfection.It does not state that each individual is going to know the best way to achieve his goals, or that his actions will always result in the maximum possible satisfaction. I admit freely that humans are fallible. (I assume the other position admits this as well, as positing perfection seems to be unrealistic, even for their hypothetical elite.) All I do say is there is no way in advance to determine who is best suited to determine the best methods, and, as an individual has the greatest interest in his own happiness, placing him in charge of his own actions will tend to produce the best results, as his personal motivation to make himself happy tends to minimize mistakes. It is not perfect, but it does produce a system which tends to push us in the direction of perfection more than any other system.

And that is the foundation upon which my philosophy is built. As opposed to an incompetent populace, controlled by an elite using objective values, I believe in a homogeneous mass of competent adults, guided by their subjective valuations, working collectively, but independently, to produce the greatest possible mutual satisfaction. (For a more in depth analysis of some of the specifics see the previously mentioned "Greed Versus Evil", as well as "An Analogy",  "Planning For Imperfection", "The Limits of "Scientific" Management" and "Fairness and the Free Market".)

I suppose I should add one additional step, as it is important to understand prior to moving on to more explicitly political thoughts. And that is the idea of rights, and of social contracts, but from a functional, as well as theoretical/ethical viewpoint. You see, I agree that individuals are endowed with the right to life, liberty and property, as in a state of nature they would have every right to defend those prerogatives with force if they needed to do so. Upon entering into society, they deputize the state to act in those capacities for them, but do not surrender those rights.

Why do I say this? Simple. Because the state serves a purpose for individuals. Were the state without benefit, they would see no reason to leave the state of nature. So they enter a social contract for a purpose, that purpose being more efficient defense of their rights, a more peaceful coexistence, a more predictable life, and all the other benefits inherent in civilized life. And because they get benefits from society, they also want that society to remain stable, as instability would deprive them of the benefits of social life. But, as I wrote in "Symmetry and Asymmetry in Government", the most stable societies are those that provide the most evenly distributed rights, and allow citizens to continue to exercise their own rights. I recognize (in "Bad Economics Part 9") that there are some circumstances where individuals may be willing to surrender their rights under dire circumstances as security or stability make it worthwhile. But in the long term, survival of a society depends upon even distribution of rights and recognition of individual exercise of the same rights. Those two, along with predictable rules, are the necessary precursors of successful societies. (For a more comprehensive argument on this topic, read the posts linked in this paragraph, as well as "Misunderstanding Democracy", "The Single Greatest Weakness", "A Rational Approach to Punishment" and "The Danger Inherent in Banning "Bad Ideas"". They provide a more comprehensive examination of this topic than I can provide in the space available, as well as explaining the reason elective government is the preferred form of government in terms of long term stability.)

And it is from those premises that I re-enter familiar territory, the six basic principles I established in "My Vision of Government". For the benefit of those who have not read that post, I will reproduce them in their entirety:

1. Privacy - Unless there is a good reason for government to be involved, it shouldn't be
2. Universality - Unless there is a very good reason to distinguish one person, one product or one transaction from another, all must be treated the same.
3. Delegation - The government has rights only because citizens delegate it to act on their behalf. It has no rights an individual does not.
4. Inalienability - Deputizing the government does not strip an individual of any rights, he still retain his rights even while the government acts as deputy.
5. Narrowness - All government should be as narrowly empowered as possible. The government should have no more power than necessary, and that power should be granted to as small a division of government as necessary.
6. Proximity - This really is just an elaboration on narrowness. Government should operate as close to the citizens as possible. A decision should be on a town or locality basis, unless it must be on a state level. And on a state level unless it must be national.

And that brings me to a crossroad. I can simply proceed with explaining each of these principles, or I could jump to the larger, unifying principles which embody them, and explain why I have chosen to describe my views as "conservative, libertarian federalism". The first may be easier, but as the latter would likely provide a more easily understood framework, and prevent serious misunderstandings, I think I will follow that course.

Each of the three elements of my description is an essential part of my philosophy, and every element interacts with the others, helping to both expand and restrict the others, keeping government both large enough to function, and limited enough to prevent it from overwhelming the citizens. By combining the three elements I like to think I manage to avoid the many weaknesses that each one has when viewed in isolation.

Let me start by reproduce the brief summary of the three elements I gave in "One Final Post":

I am at heart a libertarian, as I believe the principles I laid out in "My Vision of Government" and "My Vision of Government Part II". I believe government should exist solely to protect our rights to life, liberty and property. I think the best basic statement of this may be "Symmetry and Asymmetry in Government".

On the other hand, I am a federalist, as I believe we cannot impose libertarianism from above, and that even when we have full freedom, there will be specific details about which individuals could still differ. (Eg. what is the right punishment for robbery) So, I would prefer to see government broken down into the smallest possible units, so that good ideas get a fair shake, and then might spread by example. I explain this best in  "Why I Am Not A Libertarian", "The Benefits of Federalism" and "Consolidation and Diffusion".

Finally, I am a conservative because I believe changes should be made slowly and gradually, and we should respect the precedents of the past, changing them only when there is a very good reason, and then only in bits and pieces. I respect the fact that tradition represents the best thoughts of very many people, many quite clever, over a very long time, and I should not reject their conclusions lightly. I explain this best in "In Defense of Standards", "Addenda to "In Defense of Standards"", "Bad Economics Part 9", "Changing Incentives" and "How Fast Things Change".

But, perhaps it would help to provide some concrete examples of how the various aspects interact.

For example, libertarianism. I have been critical in the past of libertarianism's tendency to try to impose a "one size fits all" solution from above. And others, as I know well, often find the libertarian solutions, including my own minimal government solutions, to be excessive. They agree that government is too small, but are wary of completely eliminating the role of government in various areas.

And that is where both federalism and conservatism come in. The conservative tendency is to say "we will keep this long standing rule until it seems there is a very good reason to change it." And even then, the conservative response is to make the smallest change necessary. So, in most cases, when they are working adequately, government regulations would remain in place.

But the federalist part allows for one exception. Let us say one state decides that they believe the benefits of change DO outweigh the benefits of the current system. That single state could experiment with deregulation. The other states, true to their conservative principles, could keep the system as it is now, while the other state could try deregulation. And, over time, the citizens fo each state could look at the two different outcomes, and decide for themselves if the change was worth the cost. Even more, they can also choose to not adopt one position or the other, but a variety of half-way steps in between the two, providing samples of dozens of different answers, allowing the other states to compare not just two answers, but a whole gamut of solutions. And from that array of answer, eventually the best will spread to more and more states, until at length it becomes the de facto solution. (Though, should some states remain which find it inconvenient, they could still keep the old solution, or some other answer, allowing for a variety of answers, instead of a single imposed solution for everyone.)

And likewise libertarianism, by providing a framework and a direction in which to proceed remedies many of the shortcomings of conservatism. As I mentioned before, conservative has come to mean too many things to too many people. As "tradition" is too broad, covering too many possibilities, it is possible for someone to claim to be "conservative" while supporting a huge range of positions. So, by combining libertarianism with conservatism, I provide a general direction, I limit the number of acceptable views. Rather than blindly allowing equal weight to any existing viewpoint, we assign additional weight to those views which promote individual liberty, support individual rights, or limit the size of government. Likewise, by combining federalism, we eliminate the many nominally conservative views which endorse larger central government. The admixture of libertarian and federalist principles serves to define conservatism, creating a much more clear understanding of what is and is not acceptable.

Which brings me to my final point, the relative weights of the principles. It is fine and good to say that I support all three, but in practice the three do sometimes conflict with one another, and in those cases we must ask which takes precedence.

It is tempting to say that individual rights are the defining aspect, that we should always favor the protection of rights, but that creates as many troubles as it avoids. For instance, it could easily be sued by libertarian types to strike down almost any government act as a violation of individual rights. So, though it is tempting to say we must "always" protect rights, I think in some cases we need to allow that existing infringements of rights will persist for a time, or even that some token violations may arise.

Likewise, veneration of tradition raises similar problems. While I have made a strong case ("Inversion of Traditional Values", "How Fast Things Change") that our lack of respect for existing traditions causes untold harm to our society, it doe snot follow that we should always stand on the side of tradition. Valuable as tradition is, wise as the best minds of the past may have been, tradition can be wrong. I have not yet written the post I planned ("FYI") making the distinction between respecting tradition and being bound by it, but I think the distinction is clear enough. We do need to show deference to the practices of the past, but as we do not live in paradise obviously existing practices can be found lacking, and so we have to be able to break with tradition if we are to improve our lot. Meaning, while we must honor the past, we also need to retain the ability to change.

And so, I am forced to argue that federalism is to take preeminence. As we will undoubtedly make mistakes, and as from time to time the populace will be moved by passion rather than reason, we will inevitably have bad laws. And, on the other hand, we will form time to time choose to eliminate traditions we should keep, or we will choose to keep traditions we should eliminate. If changes are predominantly made on a state level, or even a local level, then errors will have the most limited scope possible. In addition, because we will have examples of the right choice with which to compare,w e will be able to spot the mistake and correct it. Which means that federalism, as a principle, should take precedence over libertarianism.

That does not mean that I place no value on libertarian or conservative principles, when making changes I believe we should both favor those changes which increase individual freedoms, and also defer to established practices, but I believe we should implement those on a local level, allowing them to spread through imitation due to the observation of beneficial results.

I could go on, but I think that provides the best brief summary of my political views I could provide. I could probably go on, but I would just end up repeating other posts I have written, so I will leave it at that.

POSTSCRIPT

Some will argue that politicians will spin the results of competing state responses, and thus citizens will be unable to decide between the various answers allowed by federalism. But history argues otherwise. During the colonial era, when various northeastern states experimented with schemes such as land banks, the subsequent collapses were rightly blamed by other states on those experiments. Yes, northeastern politicians looked for scapegoats, but outside of some interested parties protecting their self-interest no one was fooled. If an issue as complex as banking theory can be easily understood in an era when information took a long time to travel and during which educational standards were much lower, then there is no reason to think modern results would be worse.