hyakku, at times I am not only talking to you but using you as an example for others. While you mull over your eclectic approach to find what works for you, I'm looking at the damage being done by the left and how to restore limited government and fiscal responsibility for the benefit of society as a whole.
I certainly see areas of agreement with you, but to succeed at them requires understanding the pitfalls of mixing a socialist leaning government with a capitalist economy. While you seem ready to conduct some grand experiment, most of us are not ready to risk all for some perceived progress. It is a function of your age and enthusiasm.
It doesn't require experimentation or hesitancy. It requires OPEN, comprehensive deliberation. None of those approaches need to conflict each other. All of them, in fact, complement each other quite well in that they all recognize the importance of liberties and rights of an individual, but also recognize that abiding in an anarchic international system, we've gotta be willing to establish and maintain a legitimate order. If we don't do this, whether we're talking about a domestic political order, an international nuclear order, or whatever you want to refer to, then seemingly tried and true methods won't work either.
You have to come to grips with the fact that we are at a unique moment in history. The mobilization of labor and information at rapid speeds is DRASTICALLY affecting the world, similar to how the onset of modernity, the agricultural or industrial revolution drastically changed their worlds then. Interdependence and globalization ensure that a new approach will be needed, because these are NEW phenomena.
I consider my kids educated. The oldest was able to take an African Studies class and articulate her viewpoint much to the dismay of her class Several times the professor had to point out she was the one using reason and fact, encouraging the rest of the class to use her example. In your case, I hear the voices of people you consider learned and a regurgitation of their talking points.
I don't consider too many people learned. In fact, there are few, if any political philosophers that I can say I readily identify with. Even a rather contemporary writer who I enjoy reading, G John Ikenberry, doesn't accurately reflect all my views.
Unfortunately for you, you are still making over reaching assumptions. These viewpoints i've accumulated over these years have been a result of constant debate and consumption of both classical and contemporary historical accounts. From there, I apply my own paradigms and interpret the situation the way i believe makes the most sense. This is bias, and of course we all have it, but it is my OWN bias, not one accumulated from sitting in classrooms. I can guarantee you this because I'm largely self educated coming from a pathetic high school district, and being only a sophmore in college I don't really think that it's too much bias, especially considering that, once again, I study International Relations, not political science. Therefore I'd have to question
who these people that influenced me would be.
I don't care about the ideals of a philosopher if they aren't pragmatic or practical, hence my issue with many liberal, social constructivist, and classical realist viewpoints in my field of study.
It's ironic, because outside of this board, a lot of people brand me as callous and oftentimes as a utilitarian. Here though, I'm apparently espousing liberal propaganda if i'm for a loosely, but efficiently regulated free market, a more Jeffersonian foreign policy approach, and hold the (accurate) belief that energy securitization should be a huge priority for the American government.
I guess everything's really in the eye of the beholder
.
.
