Where does your political/economic philosophy begin?Again, some more ramblings. Please feel free to jump in, add your own thoughts, challenge mine.I start thinking about my philosophy of politics and economics with the following idea: People are different. Additionally undeniable is that people need other people to survive. While some people may be more equipped to survive with no help from their fellow man, eventually their dependency on others is exhibited. Living in a group, then, is a prerequisite to a better life. Obviously, to judge whether or not someone is truly better off living in a group or outside of it, the composition and characteristics of the group must be examined. If the only alternative is to live with people or without people, almost always, group membership is preferred. The most basic group is the family, a social construct but also one that is rooted in the biological reproduction. I suspect if we could look deep into our past we will find examples of women having many children with many different men. (I am sure scholars have explored this and attempted to document it one way or the other.)Did women automatically take care of their young? Are they programmed to do this? In nature how varied is a mother’s treatment of her offspring? We know for sure that men are often not willing to care for their offspring, and I guess there are examples of women doing the same. Because reproduction is not always planned or desired, the female who bears the child is in many instances the one who must make decisions about the welfare of the child. As human beings have “evolved” (not the correct term, is it?), how they view family and a mother and father’s responsibilities to their offspring has changed.The more I compose my thoughts, the more I am attracted to the disciplines of philosophy and anthropology as I attempt to develop and refine my perspective on economics and politics. If we look at other forms of life, we see that cooperation and conflict are embedded in this "natural" world. Humanity is not far removed, if at all, from these same realities. To go to the extreme and proclaim that people are prone to fight more than to cooperate is to ignore the reality that nature exhibits. It is easy to imagine a condition where people roamed the Earth looking for food and shelter. One extreme of this example involves every man and women competing with each other for survival. But the reality, I think, is more complicated. Competition and cooperation are two sides of the same coin. Both forces play a vital role in survival. In fact, to the extent that a group tries to emphasize one of these tendencies over another, there will be resistance. (more can be said here. need to develop this) For a variety of reasons, people are different. This has implications for the group. The larger the group, the more positive and negative human characteristics the group cumulatively possesses. It is essential for society to decide how to maximize the social and minimize the antisocial. When people are left to their own devices, some people will amass more property than others. This is due to differences in talents, abilities, luck, circumstances. People are different, so it is natural that people will vary in their ability to accumulate wealth, expecting the opposite is to deny reality.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar<