Past-Focused Policy

A past-focused outlook is dominant on both the left and the right. The left looks at the sins of the past, and shapes policy based on those sins. The right looks at the positives of the past, and shapes policy based on those positives. But both are effectively saying that way the world evolves should be tied to how we got here. Neither has a strong future-focused vision of what the world should look like, with policies based on how to get us there.

Each has something they can gesture towards as a plausible future focus, but those things aren’t really motivating their policy preferences. Consider, for example, the left’s desire to address the past sins of racism. They can gesture at a future-focused goal of a more equal world, but their policy preferences don’t reflect that focus, instead emphasizing benefits to groups that have been wronged in the past. A universal basic income would do more to create an equal world than would race-based reparations, but the left would, it seems, prefer the latter, which serve to right a past wrong without a particular focus on whether they are the best and most efficient way to create a certain world.

The right, for it’s part, looks at a past of what you might call small-town social values, those that existed before the snooty left stuck their feminism etc. in everything. But rather than shape policies that encourage that kind of world (preferences for local businesses, support for stay-at-home moms and the elderly), their policy targets the threats of the past: punishing blue states and liberal social programs, and trying to lock down the borders to prevent the diverse society that already exists.

This trend is bad for the world. An over-focus on making sure that people get their just deserts, on closing the barn door after the horse has escaped, leads to a confused set of policies that don’t address any of the looming problems society faces. Policy should be based on what we expect to happen and how we can improve it. History plays a role in that, but not as the main focus of policy. History should only inform expectations; our policies should be future-focused. Both the left and the right need to do more to shape and articulate a vision for the future, and clearly explain how their policies will get us there.

Make a Constitutional amendment that obligates laws and regulations to measurably meet their stated rationale, then everything will change and you will get your wish.

Both the left and the right are controlled opposition for the uneducated idiotic masses, the real people in power are non-ideological where they’re all about acquiring power by any means possible.

First off, who’s going to pay for such an expense? Do you really believe in race based reparations?

Finally, if people’s sole existence is completely dependent on the state where it becomes their entire identity, how is that any different of the bondage of slavery?

They’re against open borders and some think that the original dominant ethnic population has a right to exist or thrive. This comes down all to revenge political agendas of the left that are anti-white or anti European.

Most problems human beings and civilization faces is because of this obsession of an ideal future. The problem arises in that nobody agrees what a future entails or should be.

K: for the most part, I agree with this post… a couple of things… the right focus on small town
values really is small town values that never existed…Ronald Rayguns vision of the past
being a small town in the fifties is great however that vision never existed…it is an
idealize version of a reality that never existed…the left does get lost in finding fairness
or justice for those who didn’t get it back when… justice is simply about treating
everyone equally and those who were treated differently were treated badly…
and much of the agenda of the left today is driven by this notion of justice…
treating people equally regardless of wealth or position… IQ45 recent
announcement that the President is above the law is just such a notion
of injustice… everyone must be treated equally or there is no such thing as
justice…this is a bedrock, foundational belief of the left… you cannot
know the left without understanding this…

I agree with you on this idea of policy being understood in terms of future
and not past expectations… this has been one of my many disagreements
with Obama… he didn’t create a vision of the future… of what might be
if we take this action and hold to these values…I don’t see anyone right
now creating such a vision and that is a major problem in America today…we
must have, we need a vision of where we need to be tomorrow…
the right tells us where we were and the left tells us where we are…
but we need to know where we will be…

Kropotkin

While I don’t have any particular problem with such an amendment, I don’t think it would solve the problem. You can come up with assumptions within the realm of possibility to make almost any policy proposal work (e.g. implausible but technically possible growth projections for the GOP tax bill). If you try to define a ruler against which to measure, you turn that ruler into a partisan tool, which parties can pack with their lackeys.

How about an amendment that requires a statement of rationale for every law, as well as quantifiable outcomes that we should expect from the law. That way we can at least test laws to see how well they achieve their goals, and perhaps hold parties accountable for repeated failures (although this too could be gamed by the other party pushing laws that try to thwart the other party’s predictions).

I don’t favor race-based reparations, though I do think that’s part of the rationale for a UBI, i.e. that some part of the current wealth distribution is due to injustice of many kinds (and moreover that that will always be true).

Are you really asking what the difference is between a universal basic income and slavery?

See, like this. 25% of US citizens aren’t white. When we talk about “the US”, it includes a whole lot of people that aren’t white. When the right talks about a version of the US that is all white, they’re talking about a time that never really existed, and never will exist, and they’re failing to describe a realistic vision of the future.

While I don’t agree that this is true of “most” problems, I do agree that over-commitment to an ideal is dangerous. This is a solid response to my argument here, and one that I will need to think about more.

This is true, though I think a similar argument can be made about the left. A significant part of the white population wasn’t here during slavery and the benefits they get from it are at most incidental; instead they came to the US destitute, escaping persecution in their native lands. Similarly many the non-white citizens descend from the oppressor class of other countries/cultures, e.g. those wealthy and powerful enough to evade wars, or to send their children to US universities. A past where all white people lived large on the backs of all non-white people never existed.

What’s the difference between universal basic income and receiving a small poultry sum of money living off of an Indian reservation? Is everybody going to be on an universal basic income? If no, who won’t be?

Is everybody on a universal basic income going to be herded up into neighborhood favelas?

Where’s the money going to come from to fund this societal operation?

It seems universal income will be the final act of dealing with all the undesirables, obsolete people, outcasts, and lost causes. Certainly you can see where that dangerous rationale leads to.

You know what I think, I think this failed modern society will become so brutally oppressive eventually that many in great numbers will flee to inhospitable wastelands just to escape in living and government organizations will fear that their tax serfs or slaves will be running away [can’t have that] doing everything they can to stop them. That’s my vision of the future in how all of this ends.

[Assuming we even get to that point.]

Were native Americans free on the first Indian reservations, yes or no? They also were completely dependent on a Federal government for all their needs in living.

Before the 1965 immigration act 80% of the United States population was European/white and it is predicted that this number will drop down to 50% around 2045. The same thing is happening in Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. If you think there will be no violent repercussions or considerable consequences to this kind of population replacement and diminishing you are naive. If you deny the magnitude of anti-white and anti European sentiment in neo liberal government institutions you’re not paying attention.

I am still sticking by my statement of most, it will have to be a situation of where we agree to disagree.

When you come to the rest of your conclusion let me know.

That is what I said.

As I intend the policy, UBI is universal, in the sense that everyone receives it; it’s unconditional, so there is no means testing or geographic requirement; it’s small, so it’s not a life of luxury but it satisfies bare minimum needs; and it can be paid for by replacing the patchwork of welfare programs and targeted tax breaks, and new taxes that generally fall on socially costly things like pollution or on groups that can afford them like land owners.

If you’re interested, I’ve laid out my arguments for UBI in more detail here, and discussed some of the mechanics of funding and distributing it here. I’m also happy to continue this discussion here or in either of those threads.

I don’t think they were particularly free, no, but I don’t think it was the money they were being given that did that to them: I’d put the blame much more on the rampant discrimination following the completed destruction of their land and cultures.

In fact, one of the best arguments for UBI comes from studies of Native Americans when they began to receive money from tribe casinos. These studies found improved outcomes on multiple freedom-increasing dimensions, from mental health to education.

I am probably reading this point wrong, but it seems like you’re justifying white resentment by calling me naive to think that white resentment isn’t necessary. Almost as though you’re arguing that there should be violent repercussions because there will be violent repercussions. But that’s circular and you didn’t put it that way, so I’m sure I’m just not following, I just don’t see how else this is relevant. The left’s aim (which I’m actually criticizing here!) has been to redress wrongs they perceive in the narrative of an imagined past. The right’s aim (which I’m also criticizing) has been to return to that imagined past. The left gets it wrong by rejecting neutral policies because they don’t symbolically redress past wrongs. The right gets it wrong by rejecting neutral policies because they see a move from pro-white to neutral as somehow anti-white.

All my conclusions are just premises for the next thing :slight_smile:

Having thought a bit more about it, I still agree that ideals in general can be harmful, and I still disagree that most of our problems are because of adherence to ideals. But I will say more to the former: I don’t think ideals are avoidable. Even if our goals are modest and iterative, they still must rely on a modest and iterative ideal of what the world should look like. They still also allow for things to get worse before they get better (even if it’s only modestly worse to get modestly better).

So I don’t think the choice is between pursuing ideals or not pursuing ideals. Rather, it’s about what those ideals are and where they reside, e.g. past or future, and how far in either direction. I think a future-focused ideal is preferable (and I think suggestions like James’ amendment would keep our ideals set in a future that we can realistically expect, and therefore potentially achieve).

By a large measure , the problem with an amendment, or any other remedy is, that the political basis of referring to such needed rationale-ideal hides a disconnect not only along party lines, but with the anti-historical trend advancing and undermining its philosophical underpinnings.

Public policy can be stretched only so far to accommodate the thinning out of black letter version of the good old days.

Testing outcomes vis. such rationale statements sound like they may work, however the swamp being what it is on either side,there may may not be guarantees against pfiltering them with non factual data. It may serve as a possible plan for the future, maybe.

So, does anyone have an income outside of universal basic income? For instance would a lawyer in Washington D.C. have an income beyond universal basic income? Also, is the rate of universal basic income the same for everybody? Will some individuals still have more wealth than others? Your source for a universal basic income through taxation is problematic because there is no large political will to implement such a program from any political party moreover the individuals that are masters or gatekeepers of industry and infrastructure are cut throats who do not in any significant ideological form believe in sharing wealth in collective distribution. Then there are all their underlings that work for them that also ideologically won’t support it. Just exactly how would you overcome this tremendous hurdle?

There are many forms of discrimination where socio economic classism is the most embedded form of them all.

I’ve lived near several reservations and not all native Americans share in the wealth of a tribal casino just so you know. A great deal of them still live in poverty to this day.

Yes, I do justify white resentment and anger viewing it as natural due to the historical underpinnings that have played out the last hundred years. Violent rebellion and retribution is always a particular possibility if things get to a breaking point of no return however with that said if a peaceful solution to the conflict could be ascertained I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to that. The only problem is that there are many different kinds of white political factions concerning this resentment as you call it and not all of them are as diplomatic as I am in terms of negotiation or coexistence. You might get some to try in negotiating peace like myself while the more radical ones politically believe in peace not whatsoever. They have a no tolerance, coexistence, or peace mindset. It depends on what kind of resenting European of us you speak with.

There is also the problem of various individuals and groups that are vested in maintaining the current status quo against ethnic whites and Europeans that so far have no interest in changing their agenda where so long as they exist I can definitely tell you no peace or negotiation of any kind will ever exist if their objectives are continued increasing ethnic hostilities.

You’re right that idealism is unavoidable but some ideals are less dangerous than others where some also have horrendous consequences. Still yet, there will never be any kind of ideal to be realized that will get rid of human conflict completely. We can only realistically aspire towards minimization of human conflict. At our present course there is only the maximum of human conflict where many of us understand the dangers in all that.

I can agree with the statement on unequal distribution by tribes unto their membership of monetary gains. When I asked a cashier if she sees big winners on a regular basis, she replied that when the tribal leaders come into play, tens of thousands are bet in a single play, and none of which is recirulated because that’s against lawful distribution. So the climate perpetuates its swampish aura, and that lawful public policy decision may have a questionable outcome.

Agreed. When I lived near the reservations it was a constant to hear about the ongoing corruption of tribal council members. Charges of financial embezzlement and swindling of tribal money happens frequently.

So on the basis of that specific example, a line could be drawn to a more general one that infringes on what a reasonable approach would comprise of in an equitable distribution ?
At least in today’s and more likely in expected near future testing of credibility in this regard? Or are You unwilling to go that far?

Is this directed towards me?

Of course not, and it is not a negation of anyone’s views, only an exploratory attempt to see how this issue is going.

Addressed to Carleas then?

No it’s not addressed to him either. This forum has been started by him , and it is the issue what is addressed, since its an open discussion. That comments pertain to his opinions, do not extend to ad hominem prescriptions, I hope.

I think the left and right are very forward-thinking. It seems to me a lot of their policies and rhetoric are completely wrapped up in trying to avoid the dystopias they think the other faction is trying to bring about. We just got done hearing that tax cuts are literally the end of the world, and we hear plenty that Muslim immigration is the end of the world as well. It seems to me that the fear and resentment each side has for the other is largely motivated through poor attempts at predicting the future.

Yes, both are very good at creating dystopias, with the left we are being pushed into communism and with the conservative right corporate financial fascism, what choices to choose between! Talk about being herded into false paradigms!

Whatever happens to the reasonably wise moderate agenda?