Argue for a position that you do not believe in

Awesomelyglorious · Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 1:29 pm Post subject:

Ok, the purpose of this thread is as a bit of a brain stretcher. I just want people to take some time to argue against their own position/for an opposing position. This can be positions on religion, positions on politics, positions on philosophical ideas, etc.

I'll start:

People have lived for years under various forms of governments, some governments thriving and others failing, but what people ultimately need is a strong, socialistic government to run their society. The reasons for this are the following: social order, moral order, and social purpose.

A strong government is what is best for attaining the ideal of social order, which is what people ultimately want and seek. Order is necessary for the formation of families, it is necessary for the formation of lives, and it is healthy for people to have as our ancestors lived in ordered societies for generations before our own. Strong governments can provide while weaker systems cannot because stronger governments are more willing to intrude on their citizens than weaker systems, because strong governments can quelch a lot of the diverging interests in systems such a market economy, and because strong governments can control the psychological influences that corrupt individuals. The combination of these 3 strengths will allow a strong government, if given equal resources, to do much more towards this cause of improving human life.

As well, a system with a strong order will be able to provide more moral order, and thus be a strong psychological support of it's citizens. Perversions of the social order are often brought on by damaged minds, and the best way to address these minds is to heal them before they ever become an issue. Doing so will help their pain, and the pain of society as well. Not only that, but the provision of moral order will make people happier and healthier because it will help alleviate existential depression, bring about greater social cohesion and connections are very much associated with emotional health, and provide good self-enforcement against destructive activities to the self or others. Essentially, moral order will help prevent psychological disorder by keeping people plugged into society and cognizant of the bad nature of hurtful social action.

Finally, a strong, socialistic government will provide societal purpose. If we want to get a man on mars, we will do so, if we want something else, then that will be done as well. This means that if a goal exists that is necessary to deal with for the good of human existence, a strong socialistic government will get it done, such as with addressing global warming, or any other cause. This strong societal purpose will also increase social bonds between people, for just as we see people join clubs and churches, they will be joined with their nation under the ideal of common cause, which will increase satisfaction. It can be argued that the uncommon purpose of the market is it's strength, but by dividing society and pitting man against man, I would have to argue that this is a weakness as it ultimately hurts the people within the society and few numbers of goods can be worth this constant battle.

Now, it can be argued that my system stands against the individual, that it could be corrupt, and that it may be less efficient with information, however, I would like to address these points. For the first point, I would like to say that the individual is an atomistic fiction as each individual precedes from a culturally determined environment. We do not so much stand against the individual as we seek to improve him, as people do not yearn for freedom so much as fulfillment, and our system will provide that fulfillment that leaves men so empty. For the second point, I would argue that mechanism design is improving and has been for a significant period of time, all that we need to do in order to hold back the sway of corruption is to create mechanisms to halt it's growth so that it can be identified quickly and effectively, and removed in the same manner, and as well, rely on the moral order provided by society and the public education and perhaps even child rearing system to prevent serious moral problems from arising. Finally, as for the point of efficiency, yes, I can admit to an efficiency problem that may arise from a less individualistic system, however, my opponents should admit to problems of maintaining the public good of research, and in providing societal stability under their idea. The fact is that research, especially of the theoretical sort, is a public good that would likely be underproduced by the market and that this research is important for improving social good. Not only that, but even though the opposition would argue that the human being is good at taking care of himself, I would argue that psychological research shows that he is not, as man is marred by various personality deficiencies, cognitive biases, and is finding himself in a world that his original capacities were not designed to deal with. Because we cannot adjust the man so easily, let us adjust the environment so that we may have him be satisfied. Certainly censorship, and other things may have to occur, but in the end, most will agree with our system.

End

A bit lengthy on my part, but hopefully I did a good job. Anyone else want to try?