Radical Centrism

Gonz: A Radical Centrist Vision of Truth and Progress

Dr. Ernie — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 00:37:18 +0000

We believe:

1a) There are objective facts that exist independent of human experience
1b) These objective facts, when taken collectively, contain all of existence
1c) A fact is a piece of incontrovertible truth which exists at a specific point in time, or over a length of time
2) Under no circumstances can humans be perfect (or optimized)
3) As a result, humans can’t have perfect knowledge of facts

Result: No claim by humans of objective truth can be correct. Humans can only have working rules.

1) Humans can’t have perfect knowledge of facts
2a) Humans can improve their situation by applying solutions based on correct understanding of facts
2b) The human situation is the current state of either a single person, a group, or collective humanity
3) As a result, humans can improve their situation, but their application of solutions is imperfect

Result: There is a distinction between “correct knowledge”, which can help humanity improve its situation, and “perfect knowledge”, which is an impossibility involving total understanding.

1) Humans can improve their situation, but their application of solutions is imperfect
2a) Humans can improve their situation through careful study and application of innovation
2b) Innovation is anything created or concocted by humans that exists outside of nature
3) As a result, careful study and application of innovations can improve humanity’s situation, though imperfectly

Result: Broad (ideological, say) rules don’t suffice in improving the human situation.

1) Careful study and application of innovations can improve humanity’s situation, though imperfectly
2) Even though facts don’t change, our understanding of facts can change
3) As a result, our imperfection in applying innovations is a reflection of a lack of understanding

Result: When we change our position, it’s not an admission that we don’t think facts are absolute- it’s that we were wrong.

Overall, we’ve:

a) retained eternal objectivity, and removed objective truth from the controlling hands of humans
b) removed human perfectibility from consideration (destroying communism), yet protected things like transhumanism and futurism as incremental enhancement
c) defended the ability of humanity to continue solving problems
d) wholesale destroyed broad “moral imperative” ideologies (socialism, modern progressivism, evangelicalism), in favor of incrementalism

Billy Rojas: Radical Centrist view of Laissez-Faire Economics

Dr. Ernie — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:10:55 +0000

by Billy Rojas

Positions:

( 1 ) A laissez faire economic system works remarkably well at the beginning stage of almost any business, for example computers, but in the past such things as fast food, automobiles, and movies. Freedom to innovate and build business ventures is a great strength of laissez faire.

Corollary: Sometimes government research expedites the process. That is, results from government supported research projects can be borrowed intact and made into successful new businesses, as has happened with the Internet and simultaneously the computer industry itself. This was also true concerning railroads in the 19th century.

Corollary: The economic purpose of governance is to create fair markets. This does not always require action by the government per se but often it does because no other system can protect those without access to establishments which hold dominant economic power. Also, government, at least in theory, has a neutral referee function and can act as an impartial adjudicator. While this may sometimes not be the case, the ideal of fair judgement is important in maintaining some semblance of fair play.

( 2 ) In mature industries / businesses, laissez faire has an overwhelming tendency toward monopoly formation and the rise of super-corporations that make it impossible for smaller firms to compete. Hence the dozens of car manufacturers of the early 20th century eventually became just 3, and hundreds of TV enterprises have become just 9 giant businesses today. This happens in every mature industry except businesses that are strictly focused on local markets like restaurants and beauty salons.

( 3 ) A mythology of laissez faire distorts the reality of this system. Proponents of laissez faire tell us , for example, that the Free Market is always fair to all businesses and always self regulates for the common good.

Note: But such opinions are only true under special circumstances and
often are false and deceptive.

Corollary: According to this mythology, regulations always –maybe a few exceptions are allowed– are harmful to the economy and almost always are motivated by ideology-driven politics that serve the interests of special interest groups, especially labor unions.

Note: However, other interest groups may also deserve criticism, such as business cartels.

Critique: The Free Market is approximately as much a fiction as it is a reality. This is because of several factors, starting with the enormous power of finance capital, a phenomenon that makes a mockery of fair competition and any notion of real world market efficiency as a universal norm. A business may be efficient but maybe not, which ought to be obvious in considering finance capital itself, which gave us most of the mess that erupted in 2007 and really decked the economy in 2008. For sure, a good part of the blame can be laid on the doorstep of Fannie and Freddie, but there was so much else going on, like the creation of irrational derivatives for which the government had no responsibility, that it is clear beyond all reasonable doubt, that ideals like honesty and efficiency were not factors at all, because what mattered just about universally on Wall Street were get rich quick schemes, or get ultra rich schemes, and damn the torpedoes……..

As well, because of corporate size differentials, and economies of scale, any market in any established industry, is like going to a butcher shop where the butcher has his thumb on the scale. Small size businesses simply cannot compete –in terms of rates for shipping of lower volume goods, available legal counsel, and many other things.

( 4 ) Laissez faire, because it is over-lionized by many people, tends to be regarded as almost a God unto itself. Consequently, the market in an advanced Capitalist society tends ( overwhelmingly ) to become outright amoral or even immoral. This harms society generally since all ethical principles are thrown to the winds whenever some unethical “product” is perceived as offering large profits. Hence, marketing of inappropriate goods and services to children, and so forth.

Corollary: We can see the effects of immoral market forces in exaggerated form in the functioning of illegal businesses like recreational drugs, ”businesses” that indulge in a myriad of criminal activities for the sake of maintaining profit margins.

Corollary: Because of worship of the bottom line intrinsic to the laissez faire system even national security may be sacrificed for the sake of quarterly earnings. Hence massive technology transfer to America’s detriment. Hence willingness to agree to business contracts with nations like Saudi Arabia and China which, different as these particular states may be, are alike is seeking advantage in obtaining sensitive military hardware, as in the case of the Saudis, or such things as commercial jet basic assemblies, on the part of the Chinese. Laissez faire economic policy, in other words, can easily result in national disadvantage, which we can now see more clearly than before in the case of auto parts shortages etc, that were the result of the tsunami some months ago. It may be that there is much money to be made through usual laissez faire practices but when this results in national military security or national economic security vulnerabilities, then laissez faire can be seen for what it is, excellent in some ways, terrible in others.

( 4 ) The market simply cannot or will not do some things that are very useful to society. In such cases government may decide to act. Hence, the Interstate highway system, the Intercoastal waterway –the canal system used by Atlantic seaboard states– and Boulder Dam and other hydroelectric projects.

Corollary: Private businesses are very skilled at making maximum use of such projects and using new leverage from them to help build the overall economy. This is a prime example of the value of government / private sector co-operation for common good.

Corollary: Demonization of government is dysfunctional and stupid. Moreover, anti-government ideology is disrespectful toward James Madison and other Founding Fathers and toward the many thousands of Americans who took part in the ratifying conventions that brought the Constitution into being, the document which established our government. To pretend that the Constitution promotes bare bones minimal government is a misreading of history since it was intended to remedy the extreme weaknesses of the system in place under the actually minimalist system of the Articles of Confederation However, honest criticism of government failings is always a positive good and serves a valuable social and economic purpose. Reform of government sometimes is necessary and when it is, we should make sure it happens.

( 5 ) Because a functional market with laissez faire characteristics is an economic good, the Government has the responsibility to see to it that sufficient regulations are in place at all times such that some approximation of a “pure” laissez faire system operates for the national interest. This policy of necessary regulations is essential because of the built-in limitations and flaws in the laissez faire system itself. However, this also means all necessary regulations only, and the fewer the better. But enforcement of such regulations must be rigorous and the penalties should be such that no investor would even think about violating the rules.

Corollary: Regulation is a two-edged sword, both due to regulatory capture by industry, and also because regulation can create barriers to entry which prevents innovation. The cost isn’t infinite –sometimes it is worth it– but it isn’t zero either. Therefore it is vitally important to limit the number of regulations as much as possible, consistent with legitimate social or other needs. We also need some reliable, non-partisan means to evaluate the effects of regulation such that any problems with rules can be remedied with minimum delay and to good effect without significant burden to industry.

We need to give laissez faire full credit where it is deserved, it can deliver wealth to multitudes and create economic growth that benefits the entire nation. However, his is not all it does and sometimes this system is responsible for serious problems that demand redress.

Above all, we need to think about laissez faire in objective terms and never attribute virtues to it that are false to the facts.

Billy Rojas

December 12, 2011

Website: We Need a Conversational Shift

Dr. Ernie — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 23:51:57 +0000

http://www.conversationalshift.com/

We Need a Conversational Shift

The Present Paradigm

It seems that in most exchanges about politics and issues today, whether they be pundits or shows on TV and radio, debate in Congress, or exchanges among regular folks, the same arguments and accusations are made and impasses reached. Rarely is any new ground covered. Each side is stuck in its perspective.

We tend to look at the other side as the adversary, whose voice we believe must be silenced. And, when we do have an “open” conversation, it’s usually among those who share our thoughts. What I’m describing is the prevailing paradigm of communication, which has been going on for centuries.

Meanwhile, problems keep surmounting, while real solutions remain elusive. Many of the old solutions that once worked, no longer apply. We’re coming to a point in human history, when, in order to come to terms with our problems, we need to shift our thinking and communication to a new paradigm.

A New Paradigm

Under such a new paradigm, the old band-aid measures and watered down compromises that passed for solutions will give way to fresh, creative approaches, which result from a synergy of both sides working together.

Communicating under a new paradigm doesn’t mean there will be total agreement on every point. There will still be disagreements, which is natural in our diverse society.

However, a greater discernment will develop as the mindset that was frozen in its beliefs begins to melt, freeing the mind to explore new possibilities. Such discernment will assist us in making the distinction between what we think is a threat from what actually is.

Consequently, the fear, distrust, and ignorance we’ve held and expressed by demonizing the other side will be replaced by a greater sense of peace, trust, and understanding. So, instead of trying to eliminate the opposition, both sides will recognize that each side has legitimate concerns, and therefore will seek greater cooperation and synergy toward one another.

Our political system works best when both sides engage in constructive political discourse and are able to reach a consensus that truly benefits the nation and its people, without disenfranchising large segments of the population.

Conversational Shift

I’d like to introduce two terms: First, The Conversational Shift defines the leap from the present paradigm of polarized communication to a new, positive paradigm. This shift is the bridge for overcoming polarized politics and will take society several years to achieve.

Second, a conversational shift denotes an incremental, positive change that occurs in a discussion between those with divergent points of view. More than one shift can occur in an exchange. It’s through the baby steps of many conversational shifts over many discussions that will ultimately lead to The Conversational Shift.

As we make conversational shifts, we can start seeing some of the benefits soon after, including improved communication, greater cooperation and synergy, and self-healing.

Certain techniques can be used to help bring about one or more conversational shifts in a discussion.

For example, acknowledging the other side’s concerns and values at the start of a discussion is one of the most, if not the most, effective techniques for creating a conversational shift, since it requires a penetration through the wall of resistance, fear and anger that sets people so much apart.

Facing and overcoming this resistance and negative emotion, not only brings about better communication, but contributes to individual self-healing.

As people use these techniques, they will begin to face and work through those suppressed aspects within themselves that are behind the polarized communication. As they make more conversational shifts, the momentum behind the polarized communication will grow weaker, while a more holistic communication will take root and grow.

Rest assured, having a conversational shift doesn’t mean we have to give in to evil, darkness or danger; nor do we have to agree on everything or concede on every point; nor do we have to have a perfect or near perfect conversation.

When a conversational shift does occur, it will energize the discussion to a new level, making it easier for other shifts to take place during the same exchange.

In subsequent articles, I’ll share some of these techniques and apply them to hypothetical discussions. These techniques will not be a long, drawn-out, to-do list, but rather individual techniques that can be used alone or with others, at your discretion. The idea is to keep their application simple, flexible, and practical, in order to account for the many different circumstances, human temperaments, and forums of communication.

For these techniques to work, it’s important to employ them with sincerity, rather than use them to manipulate the opinion of others.

These techniques are not new. They’ve been used in relationship counseling for years. However, to my knowledge, they are seldom used in the context of people or groups having political conversations, the focus of this article.

As we use these techniques and make incremental progress in our communication, The Conversational Shift will eventually arrive. In addition, as we make progress, our abilities to work together to come up with more effective solutions will grow.

A Radical Centrist Vision for the Future by Billy Rojas

Dr. Ernie — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 21:26:11 +0000

RadicalCentrism.org is proud to announce a monumental new work by Billy Rojas:

A Radical Centrist Vision for the Future

100 New Constitutional Amendments for the 21st Century

This exhaustive treatise lays out a comprehensive vision of not just how to interpret the constitution, but how to update it to address governance and civic issues of critical importance to the American body politics.

You’re guaranteed to find many things you agree with, some you disagree with, and a few that will challenge you deeply.

Please read it over, then come share your thoughts with Billy (and the rest of us) on our forum.

Article: Nick Clegg tells Lib Dems they belong in ‘radical centre’ of British politics

Dr. Ernie — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 22:46:10 +0000

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/mar/13/nick-clegg-lib-dems-centreNick Clegg tells Lib Dems they belong in ‘radical centre’ of British politics | Politics | The Guardian

• Allegra Stratton and Patrick Wintour

• guardian.co.uk, Sunday 13 March 2011 12.11 EDTNick Clegg has told Liberal Democrat delegates that they are now the party of the “radical centre”, hours after the party voted to commit itself to the traditions and beliefs of social democracy.

In his address wrapping up the party’s two-day conference, Clegg pushed ahead in his attempt to redefine the Lib Dems. His speech rejected the “tribalism of left and right” and instead made its pitch to middle-income earners – “alarm clock Britain”.

Clegg said: “We are liberals and we own the freehold to the centre ground of British politics. Our politics is the politics of the radical centre. We are governing from the middle, for the middle.

“Lloyd George’s ‘people’s budget’ to make the wealthy pay their fair share and give a pension to all those who had worked hard. Keynes’s plans to make our economy work for everyone and provide jobs for all. Beveridge’s radical blueprint for a welfare state to give security and dignity to every citizen. They may not have called it alarm clock Britain but they had the same people in mind.”We are not the heirs to Thatcher. We are not the heirs to Blair. We are the heirs to Mill, Lloyd George, Keynes, Beveridge, Grimond. We are the true radicals of British politics.”

The two other traditions in British politics had failed middle-income earners, he said, “because both of those political traditions forget about people and place their faith in institutions. For the left, an obsession with the state. For the right, a worship of the market. As liberals, we place our faith in people.”

While he sought to persuade his party that they were now at the centre of British politics, delegates had earlier passed a strategy paper that called for the Lib Dems to fight as a party of social democracy.

The motion that was passed said: “The UK Liberal Democrats are based firmly in the historical and global traditions of the liberal and social democratic philosophy and beliefs.”

At the opening rally on Friday night, the party president, Tim Farron, said: “In the old days, some people would say the Lib Dems are a party of the centre-left. That is the party I still belong to.” the party’s deputy leader, Simon Hughes, said: “Our job is to be, yes, an alternative to the Tories. But our job is to replace Labour as the radical alternative to the Tories in Britain.”

The public pronouncements by Hughes and Farron are slightly at odds with some ministers who have come to accept they may fight the next election on the centre, and possibly even from the centre-right, against Labour. They believe that some leftwing supporters may not in future come back to the Lib Dems.

The motion also called on Lib Dem MPs, peers and ministers to spell out more clearly “those policies which derive from the Liberal Democrats’ existing and emerging policy platform” and “those aspects of government policy which originated from the Conservative party policy platform”. The motion went on to say that the party would fight the election as an independent party “with no preference for future coalition partners”.

In his speech, Clegg said: “The old political establishment, on the left and on the right, hate what’s happening to our politics. The old left screaming betrayal every time politicians work across party lines or make a compromise.

“The old right simply horrified to see Liberal Democrats in government at all. We are showing that new politics, plural politics, coalition politics, can work for this country. And it terrifies them. There are enemies of reason across the political spectrum.”

The concept of “alarm clock Britain” has surprised some who believe it is an odd formulation that requires too much explaining.

In his speech, Clegg set out again what he meant by alarm clock Britain: “Everyone who wants to get up and get on. People who, unlike the wealthy, have no choice but to work hard to make ends meet. People who are proud to support themselves but are only ever one pay cheque from their overdraft. People who believe in self-reliance but who don’t want to live in a dog-eat-dog world. Who want everyone who can to work hard but want children, the elderly and the vulnerable to be looked after, too.”

Clegg also raised an allegation that Labour-run Manchester council was making deeper cuts than the Lib Dem council in Sheffield and as such the scale of cuts being brought in may be politically motivated.

He said: “I cannot tell you how proud I am that not a single Liberal Democrat-led council is closing a single Sure Start children’s centre. Sheffield has had a budget cut of more than 8%. Every lost job is a loss we all feel keenly, but the Liberal Democrat council here has kept compulsory redundancies down to 270. And they have kept open every children’s centre, library and swimming pool. But cross the Pennines into Manchester, a council having to make almost identical savings, you’ll find a Labour council letting nearly 2,000 people go. So don’t let Labour take the moral high ground.”

Article: How I became a radical centrist and why you should also become one | ViewsHound

Dr. Ernie — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 00:05:36 +0000

By Jack Davis - Sunday 30 Oct 2011

http://www.viewshound.com/politics-usa/2011/10/30/how-i-became-a-radical-centrist-and-why-you-should

I explain my unexpected and strange transformation from a right-wing ideologue to a passionate centrist. Please join us—you have nothing to lose but your dogma.

The Case for Centrism

I’ve followed politics for years, but for most of them, I was a dogmatic right-winger. This was not the product of deep thinking; it was probably the natural result of growing up in a conservative household. My parents hated liberals and leftists; they sincerely thought these people were out to destroy America. For most of my life I took a right-wing party line, going as far to join the John Birch Society! I never seriously examined my ideology. I knew that the people on the other side were ignorant and had the worst intentions; there was no point in talking to them.

Incredibly, a baseball (really) book radically changed my thinking. I had been a fan of a writer named Bill James since I was in high school, many years ago. He wrote a book in 1994 called What Happened to the Hall of Fame, and I decided to check it out. Unexpectedly, he discusses his political beliefs on page 28. After reading this page, my thinking changed forever (really). He explained eloquently why he was a moderate. These are the five sentences that changed my ideology forver:

It is my observation, listening to political partisans, that there is some truth in what everybody says, but that they will all distort the truth to defend their position.(emphasis added). In my judgment, everyone on the political landscape,from Rush Limbaugh to Howard Metzenbaum (former liberal Senator from Ohio) is right about some things; I will listen to any of them and think that there is some truth in what he or she is saying. But at the same time, they all B.S. They all wear blinders. They say things they know or should know are not true, but which they feel they must say to defend the extreme positions they have taken. (emphasis added).

I thought about this for a few moments and realized he was exactly right. My thinking had been shallow and dogmatic. I had been certain about things I could not be certain about. I started reading books and magazines that I would never have looked at before— leftist magazines like Mother Jones, The Nation, and The Progressive., among others. After reading these magazines, I realized James was 100% correct. The leftist writing I suddenly followed had some legitimate points that I had never before considered. To my family’s horror, I embraced (and still do) many items on the leftist agenda. National health insurance was no longer evil “socialized medicine,” it was the moral and sensible thing to do. The pro-choice side of the abortion debate really did have some merit, and campaign finance reform was absolutely necessary to control corporate power.

At the same time, I also realized much of the leftist ideology was wrong. I could not justify racial preferences, abortion on demand, and very high tax rates, among other things. When I talked to liberals, I saw the same hostility and closed-mindedness I had seen on the right. I noticed many leftists didn’t even attempt to address conservative arguments —they simply impugned the motives of the other side: opponents of affirmative action or open immigration were racists, pro-lifers were making “war on women,” etc..

It’s been almost ten years since I read James’ argument and I am as firmly centrist today as ever. The phrase “radical centrist,” a term coined by a centrist pundit named Matt Miller, is the perfect label for me. I passionately oppose rigid ideology. It’s very hard for me to understand how anyone can be an ideologue, whether right or left. Every time I hear a right wing ideologue, e.g. Ann Coultertrade insults with a leftist ideologue, e.g. Keith Olbermann, the same thought comes to my head: You’re both right. Your opponent is ignorant, tendentious, and misguided—and so are you.

Article category: USA
Article tags: centrist, ideologues, centrism

Part 1 – 100 New Constitutional Amendments by Billy Rojas

Dr. Ernie — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:45:15 +0000

A Radical Centrist Vision for the Future:

100 New Constitutional Amendments

Billy Rojas – RadicalCentrism.org – 2011

Update: The contents of this page have become part of the sub-site A Radical Centrist Vision for the Future: 100 New Constitutional Amendments for the 21st Century.

Rational Irrationality: Where Is the New Keynes? : The New Yorker

Dr. Ernie — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:23:02 +0000

John Cassidy on economics, money, and more.

OCTOBER 25, 2011

WHERE IS THE NEW KEYNES?

Posted by John Cassidy

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2011/10/where-is-the-new-keynes.html?currentPage=all

On Monday, I was on Leonard Lopate’s WNYC radio show talking about my recent article on John Maynard Keynes. (The piece is no longer behind a firewall. You can read it here, and listen to the interview here.) At the end of the show, Leonard asked me an interesting question: Has the financial crisis and Great Recession produced any big new economic ideas? My immediate response was that it hasn’t, or, if it has, I wasn’t aware of them. After the show, I thought about the question a bit more.

I still think the answer is no. There is nothing to compare with Keynesianism or Monetarism or even the so-called Washington Consensus of the nineteen-eighties and nineteen-nineties. Certainly, there is no new Keynes. But I do think that some important ideas have been discovered—or, rather, rediscovered. Here are six of them, together with some tips for further reading, one of which is rather self-serving:

1. Finance matters. This lesson might seem obvious to the man in the street, but many economists somehow managed to forget it. Two who didn’t were Hyman Minsky and Wynne Godley, both of who were associated with the Levy Institute for Economics at Bard College. Minksy’s now-famous “Financial Instability Hypothesis” can be found here, and one of Godley’s warnings about excessive household debt can be found here. (It is from 1999!)

2. Credit busts are different from ordinary recessions. On this, the most widely quoted work is Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff’s historical survey, “This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly,” which details how debt overhang in the public and private sectors tends to produce “lost decades.” For an old but still very readable account of how debt overhang can create deep recessions, I would recommend Irving Fisher’s famous essay from 1933. For something more recent, I recommend this essay by Ray Dalio, the head of Bridgewater Associates, the world’s biggest hedge fund.

3. Positive feedback and multiple equilibria have to be taken seriously. With the rise of rational expectations theory, the idea that financial markets and entire economies can spiral into bad outcomes—and for no very good reason—was relegated to a mathematical curiosity: so called “sunspots.” Now, the notion is back, and for good reason. It appears to describe the world pretty well.

The role positive feedback played in amplifying the credit crisis of 2008 has been studied extensively, and this article by Princeton’s Markus Brunnermeier provides a good survey. Turning to what is happening in Europe, Paul De Grauwe, of the Brussels-based Center for European Policy Studies, and -23109?pagewanted=all”>Paul Krugman have both written interesting analyses of the Euro system from a multiple equilibrium perspective.

4. Especially in financial markets, self-regarding rational behavior isn’t necessarily socially optimal. I wrote a lot about this in my book, “How Markets Fail: The Logic of Economic Calamities.” For those seeking a more technical analysis, I would recommend “Risk and Liquidity,” by Princeton’s Hyun Song Shin.

5. Monetary policy doesn’t always work very well. This lesson should have been relearned in Japan. One person who did relearn it was Paul Krugman. This essay of his from 1998 explains how economies can get stuck in a “liquidity trap,” and is still worth reading, as his book “The Return of Depression Economics,” an updated version of which was reissued in 2008.

6. Fiscal stimulus programs don’t provide a panacea for deep recessions, but the alternatives—do-nothing policies or austerity—are much worse. If you doubt this, I would suggest you look at what is happening in Greece and the United Kingdom, where austerity programs have been in effect for more than a year. As for the Obama stimulus, most serious studies show it did have a positive impact on G.D.P. growth and job creation—as detailed in this helpful post by Dylan Matthews on the Washington Post’s Wonkblog.

Looking at this list, anyone familiar with Keynes will quickly realize that almost all of the points on it can be found in his writings, at least in embryo form. If economics is about building internally consistent models of toy economies from first principles, he wasn’t a great economist. If it is about providing telling insights into how real economies function and malfunction, he still has few rivals. That is why he never goes away.

Endnote: Others will have different ideas about the lessons learned in the past few years. I’d be interested in seeing them. But please, spare yourself the effort of posting a comment to say that Keynesian stimulus programs don’t work or that a return to the Gold Standard is our only salvation. Those are old canards, not new insights.

Keynes in 1925. Photograph: Bettmann/Corbis.

Zoasophy: Re-Engineering The PreFuture of Philosophy

Dr. Ernie — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:43:26 +0000

From Dr. Ernie:

I am “done” with philosophy.

I’ve moved on to something I call “zoasophy”. Zoasophy is related to Philosophy the way Engineering is related to Science — the goal is to actually build systems that work, not just think about them.

The word “zoasophy” means “liver of wisdom”, in contrast to philosophy which means “lover of wisdom.” It comes from the greek word “Zoa” meaning life, as in zoology and Zoe Girl. Not “liver” as in the bodily organ — that would be hepatosophy.

The foundational principle of Zoasophy is:

The Truth is What Works
What Works is not the Truth

That is, the ultimate test of truth is whether it actually works. At the same time, just because something works does not mean it is true. Truth emerges from repeated examination of results and competing hypotheses, as encapsulated in my Radical Centrist Manifesto.

As such, zoasophy shares much in common with pragmatism, in that we care about the “cash value” of ideas. But where pragmatism is traditionally analytic — trying to uncover truth — zoasophy is primarily synthetic, trying to construct useful (if imperfect) truths. It is similar to what little I understand of Frank Ramsay‘s approach to truth. [Update: and, as pointed out by several people, the activism of philosophers John Stuart Mill and John Dewey, whom I need to learn more about].

Zoasophy is closed related to “prefuturism”, another neologism I toss around. The pre-future is — obviously! — what comes after the post-modern.

More specifically, a prefuturist believes we are continually creating a future with a deeper understanding of truth and reality, but we aren’t there yet — and never will be. Everything we make is flawed and imperfect, and usually in some ways worse than what went before, but overall we can move things incrementally forward.

Thus, zoasophers believe in the improvability but not perfectibility of human constructs — including perhaps our selves. In particular, we believe that rational arguments can approximate but not quite capture the real world. That is, our mathematical and conceptual models can become extremely good at capturing many aspects of the real world, but are only partial approximations, and must continually be tested against reality — especially in new contexts.

Ultimately, the real test of a zoasopher is not what they say, but how they live. Or rather, their ability to actually live as they say they will, and achieve the results they claim for the reasons they provide.

Which is why, as a good zoasopher, I should probably stop talking about it and go back to practicing it…

Americans may be ready for Radical Centrism

Dr. Ernie — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 21:20:28 +0000

Kevin Kervick

Manchester Independent Examiner

September 20, 2011

According to a poll released today, forty-nine percent of likely American voters believe neither political party in Washington is representing the American people. Does this mean America may be ready for Radical Centrism?

Radical centrism would offer a clear philosophical alternative to the major political philosophies that was compelling enough to be embraced by a plurality of American citizens. The platform would contain some ideas that are embraced by Progressives and Conservatives but it would also offer new ideas that transcend the ideas commonly expressed by those two groups. The Radical Centrist platform would not offer a middle ground. It would be a more original and ideologically consistent alternative to the establishment positions that are sucking up most of the oxygen today.

Independent Americans may be seeking such an alternative. They see the primary political parties as intransigent, impractical, and mercenary. They don’t like either choice.

Americans do not seem to be happy with any of the current Presidential Candidate choices available to them. President Obama has approval ratings in the forty percent range in several national polls. A “generic” Republican candidate enjoys a modest lead over President Obama in several recent polls. However, in head to head match-ups among likely voters, President Obama is outperforming all of the announced Republican Presidential candidates. Most voters do not approve of President Obama’s performance but they do not think any of the Republican options will do any better. Americans seem dissatisfied with Democrat and Republican politicians generally. Consequently, this may be the time for a spokesperson to emerge for Radical Centrism who would challenge the conservative and liberal establishments that have put their chosen political parties in a stranglehold.

Radical Centrism could find its voice in common sense New Hampshire, a place that prides itself on independent thinking. New Hampshire citizens are well educated, free-thinking, and iconoclastic. They tend to be optimistic, patriotic, and libertarian. If Radical Centrism were to gain momentum in America it could start in a place like New Hampshire.

One candidate who could trandscend the Republican – Democrat divide in New Hampshire is Congressman Ron Paul, a libertarian thinker who has a strong organization in New Hampshire and nationally. While Congressman Paul is running for President as a Republican, his Radical Centrism is evidenced by his unique opposition to both the welfare and warfare states and his plan to reign in and eventually abolish the Federal Reserve, a position that more and more Americans are starting to embrace.

Contrary to the other Republican candidates in the race, Paul’s campaign is independent, populist, and energized. Paul is a respectable solid third at thirteen percent in the most recent national poll by Gallup, at striking distance from both Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, neither of whom is polling above thirty-five percent in the same poll.

Most Americans are dissatisfied with the direction of the country and they have little faith that politicians in the current political parties will do anything about it. Thus, Americans may be ready for something new.