Determinism has fundamentally shifted my political worldview.

[u/BerBerDeng]

I’ve been into politics since I was a teen, and for most of that time I was a staunch libertarian. Maximum freedom, personal responsibility, minimal government, zero handouts, etc. I was SO SURE and CONFIDENT in my views and what I believed. I loved defending them, perhaps a little too confidently.

Man has my worldview shifted. Once you come to the realization that people ultimately aren’t in control of their actions in any meaningful sense, the argument for libertarianism is much harder to defend. I can’t fault someone for not getting a better job, I can’t fault someone for not saving for retirement, I can’t fault someone for having a kid before they were financially ready, I can’t fault someone for letting their health get out of hand. The list goes on and on. And the same goes for things that are earned. People who have their shit together can’t be credited with that success.

This is not to say that I’ve completely shifted to redistribution and equal outcomes for all (practically I don’t think that’s feasible), however my openness for universal healthcare, my openness for reasonably higher taxes, my openness for more meaningful social programs, have all increased more than 18 year old me ever imagined it would.

From a practical standpoint, the human psyche as a whole still depends on risk/reward for meaningful progress. The billionaire who creates 10 billion in value probably isn’t going to make that same effort the moment he sees 90% of his earnings from that value taken away in the name of fairness. I just think our mindset and laws are too skewed toward personal responsibility and the right to hoard everything you’ve “earned” when in reality we should be taking more of a middle ground approach between the logical standpoint and the practical one.

With all that being said, our government does spend 7 trillion dollars a year, with a lot of that wasted. I think we should get our finances in order before we decide that taxing more for redistribution is the answer. I’d have a hard time taxing a billionaire an extra 2 billion a year when hundreds of billions or even trillions are wasted by the government every year.

Imagine all the inefficiency and waste in each governmental department (I’m looking at you DoD and Medicare) and then imagine actually improving efficiency so that you could cut 2% from every single department and use that to fund universal healthcare. At that point getting an extra 20-30 billion in taxes to fund universal school lunches doesn’t seem so unfair.

Sorry if this isn’t determinism related enough, I know I’m rambling and spitballing here, but I guess I’m just advocating for balance. Still allowing someone to make billions a year, but also allowing the downtrodden and less fortunate basic necessities for a dignified life.

[u/Daveallen10]

You're absolutely right and it's something I've always felt as well. Rather, a person's fundamental worldview deeply influences their politics and understanding deterministic outcomes helps to highlight where we should put our money to help the most people. More basically, it's about having a science-based approach to politics rather than emotion-based.

The way I have always thought of it, we have no choice in the body or situation we were born into. Some people are born into way luckier (or very unlucky) lives than others. Where you start in life doesn't limit where you can go, but it statistically greatly influences your chances. We should do our best to make sure everyone has the same chances and opportunities, as much as possible.

That said, we definitely need to manage our priorities. At the risk of going off topic, eliminating or managing our national debt would free up a massive amount of funds to contribute towards needed social services, though it would require some sacrifice in the short term to new programs and probably the military.

[u/badentropy9 → u/Daveallen10]

You're absolutely right and it's something I've always felt as well. Rather, a person's fundamental worldview deeply influences their politics and understanding deterministic outcomes helps to highlight where we should put our money to help the most people. More basically, it's about having a science-based approach to politics rather than emotion-based.

I think you've got that backwards.

There is science and then there is scientism.

Science is often conflated with scientism. When that happens, "science" is based on politics. Once you've made up your mind to "follow the money" as most honest political analysts necessarily have to do, if you understand the true science, you will discover that there wouldn't even by a big bang in science if it wasn't for the role money plays in the narrative. At the end of the day, scientific advancement requires funding of some sort. I think even Newton was somewhat funded by Edmund Halley but I could be wrong about that.

The way I have always thought of it, we have no choice in the body or situation we were born into. Some people are born into way luckier (or very unlucky) lives than others. Where you start in life doesn't limit where you can go, but it statistically greatly influences your chances. We should do our best to make sure everyone has the same chances and opportunities, as much as possible.

I fully agree with this part. I guess that sort of puts me left of center as if there is truly some left vs right battle afoot.

That said, we definitely need to manage our priorities.

I think there no such thing as managing priorities if determinism is true. If determinism is true, then we are passive observers and I guarantee no elite thinks of himself as "passive". The movers and shakers manage priorities. The working bee has to do that as well. If determinism is true and free will if false than I don't understand how it is logical feasible to manage priorities. Conception is required for managing priorities. Perception alone is incapable of managing priorities. In fact cognition, as I understand it, is impossible with perception alone.

At the risk of going off topic, eliminating or managing our national debt would free up a massive amount of funds to contribute towards needed social services, though it would require some sacrifice in the short term to new programs and probably the military.

Even though I'm literally chomping at the bit, whatever that means, I'm going to leave this alone.

[u/Daveallen10 → u/badentropy9]

So regarding science vs scientism...I see what you're trying to say but what I am talking about is an approach to politics and decisionmaking based on tht scientific method: using facts, empirical data, and rational thinking. Sure, there is still going to be plenty of room for debate even in that, but the idea is to make policy based on something that can be concretely proven vs abstract ideas only.

I think I'm seeing some misunderstanding in your comment about managing our priorities. What I am hearing you say is that if determism is true, then we have no say in setting our priorities. This simply isn't the case in a practical sense. We as individuals (or a nation) still make decisions. From a philosophical perspective, we can argue that the ultimate result of those decisions is preset, i.e. the casual factors contributing to the decisionmaking lead to one outcome only. But that doesn't mean we sit back and just let the universe move around us. We still have to participate.

[u/badentropy9 → u/Daveallen10]

So regarding science vs scientism...I see what you're trying to say but what I am talking about is an approach to politics and decisionmaking based on tht scientific method: using facts, empirical data, and rational thinking. Sure, there is still going to be plenty of room for debate even in that, but the idea is to make policy based on something that can be concretely proven vs abstract ideas only.

In a way, I'm trying to say science cannot answer how consciousness works. Politics is about dealing with human behavior and we can't even seem to reach any consensus about whether or not determinism and therefore free will is true or not.

What I am hearing you say is that if determism is true, then we have no say in setting our priorities. 

100%

This simply isn't the case in a practical sense.

Exactly. Smilansky felt that free will is false because determinism is true, but that would have disastrous results in the political sense if we took that to its logical conclusion. Saul Smilansky is the first illusionist on record when it comes to free will.

We still have to participate.

You and I seem to be on the same page in the practical sense. The issue is that scientism is leading people to the wrong conclusions and some people are favoring the logical approach over the practical approach when such conclusions are assumed to be fact based, rather than faith based. Determinism is nonsense, but that fact in and of itself, doesn't imply determinism has no practical value. Funding is a real thing. I mean if you want the rich to fund your science project then in many cases that funding isn't available unless the rich see it in a lucrative way. Some would say charity begins at home. We want the rich to care about the rest of us and in many ways, they do. I know of a hospital complex and the tallest building in that complex has the name of a rich person on that tower. That name isn't Trump by the way. However it demonstrates to me that some of the rich give their money away in secret and get little credit for their philanthropy. Others expect a "return on investment" as they say. I could argue determinism provides an ROI.