I wrote this after realizing that politics is very depressing when one is always against something, and not clear on what one is striving for. I would write it differently now, 25 years later, but most of it still makes sense to me. I am much more like a classical Enlightenment liberal now and much less interested in what Noam Chomsky has to say. In any case, producing this document was a useful exercise that i recommend to everyone aged 25-30.

---

In the following I have tried to reduce the basis for my political beliefs to a small
number of axioms. This is followed by an elaboration of each axiom
(with suggestions for further discussion).

Important Note: in “Justification” sections I shall refer to my own and others’
observations of “human nature”. There is strong disagreement on what this means
or is. It is clear that humans have certain behavioral tendencies, not all
shared by all animals. Opinions differ on plasticity of these (“nature versus
nurture”). I think that it is clear that there is a wide range of possible human
behavior and that environmental factors can influence it. Beyond this I will not
commit myself now.

I expect plenty of opportunity for argument here. The question then arises as to
how much I could revise these axioms if, say, it was proven that some humans can
never be trained to think logically, or avoid murder. This is a good question. My
feeling right now is that they would not change much. I suspect that I simply
would not believe such a proof! Science in action …

Basic axioms:

0) [Humanism] Humans can and should solve their own problems.
1) [Democracy] Human society should be fair.
2) [Science] Science is the key to improvement.
3) [Ethics] Ends do not justify means.

Elaboration:

0) This form of humanism is agnostic on the question of supernatural beings but
holds that their existence or otherwise is irrelevant. It asserts that it is
possible for large human societies to thrive sustainably (this is not an
empirical observation, but optimism).

Implicit in the axiom is that humans are treated as a single group for political
purposes. It hints at a solidarity at the species level. This has been considered
a radical idea historically, as only certain types of humans have been
considered worthy enough to have political power.

Talking points:

a) Nothing is mentioned here about rights of nonhuman species.

b) How to define humans as above? Do I mean adults, adults within a few standard
deviations of the mean in intelligence, etc? Do foetuses ever count (a touchy
one!)

1) This is a view of democracy which goes well beyond what is normally meant by
that term (in my opinion, common usage is a debasement of the real meaning). It
is best summed up by the Greens’ “appropriate decision-making”. In other words,
individuals should have control over decisions in proportion to how the
consequences of those decisions will affect them. This includes not just those
aspects of behaviour usually covered by the term “human rights”, such as rights
of life and property but also economic decisions on investment and production,
for example.

This view of democracy does not mean merely the formal trappings of electoral
procedure which legitimize decisions taken by an elite managerial class, which
can certainly be allowed in an “oligarchy” or government by an elite
(“well-meaning” or not). It also does not mean “corporatism”, or decision-making
only via membership of a powerful interest group, such as a labour union or
professional organization.

Justification: Observation of history seems to show that humans are particularly
prone to corruption by power. Psychological experiments apparently bear this out.
It is a priority to avoid dictatorships because of the suffering which ensues.
Perhaps nonhumans (like ants) can handle them but I think the evidence is
conclusive that humans simply cannot. Huge concentration of political power is
bad for this reason. In addition (this ties in with axiom 2 also) more diversity
of opinion leads to better thought-out decisions which work out better for
(almost) everyone.

Talking points:

a) Relative equality of outcome, not merely of “opportunity” (even taking into
account “affirmative action”) is required. This is considered rather extreme in
our time and place. I don’t think it acceptable that small changes in performance
should lead to enormous disparities in outcome. A “fair” race where you die if you
come second and live if you win is not acceptable.

b) Individual freedom is strongly stressed. Arbitrary deprivation of freedom is
inherently unfair. The main difference between mine and many more popular
political philosophies is an equal emphasis on the exercising of one’s rights and
the responsibility not to infringe on the rights of others in so doing. This is a
difficult point, of course, which requires careful compromise.

Probably the best fit, using the names of well-known philosophies, is libertarian
socialism or socialist anarchism.

2) “Science” has at least three distinct meanings – a process of enquiry
according to certain rules, the resulting body of theory, and the human cultural
institution formed by the practitioners. Technological fruits of science are
considered separately, but recognized as highly likely to proceed from theory.

The aspect stressed here is the process of enquiry. Key methodological
differences of (properly practised!) science from other ways of knowing are:
nonexistence of authority, tolerance of diverse views, rigorous standards of
evidence and argument, a transparent evaluative process.

This axiom calls for extension of the scientific method to human affairs in
general, to the maximum possible degree.

Justification: Humans, particularly en masse, appear to have strong innate
tendencies to irrational, self-destructive behaviour. In addition we seem to be
ill-equipped by evolution to deal with assessing varying degrees of risk, and
with probability in general. Applying scientific thinking is the best way I know
to avoid particularly egregious errors. I don’t feel I need to elaborate more,
since you all surely believe this.

I am not arguing for a robotic, completely unemotional race of superhumans. I believe
that basic logic, probability and mental hygiene are attainable by almost everybody.

Talking points: The book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by
Carl Sagan, gives an excellent description of the role of science as a check on human
error. It explains better than I could what I really mean!

3) This argues against the use of (physical) force to resolve political conflict
and in favour of argument. It does not imply pacifism, which asserts that force
is not appropriate even when attacked. It also argues against deception,
evasion, equivocation and just plain lying as a tactical device. Process is more
important than outcome, and the process is itself a goal.

Justification: The main reason is that this is another check on error. Force (probably
for evolutionary reasons) is very seductive and soon becomes an end in itself. Deception
is not only unfair to others but one is very likely to deceive oneself in practising it.

Talking points: The entire public relations industry and most of the advertising
industry routinely violate the lying part of this axiom, and probably all governments violate the
force part, many rather spectacularly. I can envisage situations when I might allow a
bending of this “rule”, but very few.