Politicians, in democracies, claim to care about all of their constituents, and their constituents repeat this sentiment of populism among themselves, but nowhere in me is this all-encompassing empathy that so many people seem to have(or pretend to have, as I pretend to have as well). If a person can't contribute to the grand human project, I would rather see them dead than see them fulfilled. I don't really believe there's some basic aspect of humanity that's missing from me. Humans have always been inhumanly callous, while pretending to be inhumanly kind.
It would be nice to talk openly about this in an anonymous context. Anyone stupid enough to openly espouse antipopulism isn't worth talking to, and anyone smart enough to lie is indistinguishable from a genuine populist, so of course they're the last person I could confide in.
>>55356128
Empathy comes naturally to me, so I can't relate to this sentiment *rimshot*
>>55356128
I'm hopeful that if we could talk about this for long enough, we might find that what we really want from the world can be shared, and that the best way to get it is through policy that populists wouldn't find particularly offensive.
You know, if you want to see human flourishing, if you want your empire to spread to the stars and last forever, you want your people to be sane, you want them to be educated, you generally want them to be happy, even if happiness isn't the point.
>>55356275
Even from a distance? Even for people you've never met? Dysfunctional people who you don't particularly like?
>>55356275
By the way, I don't recommend that those with too great a capacity for sympathy to sympathise (Heh) ignore this thread. You may note, here, the signature of those corruptible by power, who will lie on every step of their ascent, only to reveal their true nature once they're beyond being stopped.
If you want to talk those men down, you might like to try to do that here. You wont get many chances to speak with them directly.
>>55356128
What exactly is the grand human project? Do you realise that most of the great comforts of civilisation have emerged spontaneously from individuals or small enterprises pursuing their own ends? There is no telos of society, anon, so there is no place from which to rationally judge the worth of others from a purely social point of view (other than in terms of on which side of the law they stand).
>>55356466
>What exactly is the grand human project?
That's certainly not a question we can answer succinctly.
But, put it this way, I do not believe it involves four billion dole bludgers. Perhaps there is some way that everyone can be helped to make a sum positive contribution to it, but even if there is, the implementation will look quite different from whatever model of society that say, a hedonism utilitarian might come out with.
>>55356716
Oh I certainly oppose welfarism. The state should consist of rules of conduct that are enforced through the police and a system of courts. Nothing else.
Beyond that people should be left to their own devices to pursue and reach their own ends.
>>55357736
Hmm.. Just a guess, but would this be an accurate formulation of your approach?:
You consider everyone to have compartmentalized personal goals(and some who's effective goals are equivalent to their personal goals, who you might not like very much), while your actual goals are a sort of averaging of all those goals, an attempt to satisfy as many of them as you can.
Otherwise, I'm not sure you should be promoting individual freedom as an intrinsic good(if you were). Probably as an extrinsic good, but not as a fundemental thing.
>>55357736 , >>55358556
I mean, if you acknowledge that your goals disagree with those of others from time to time.. clearly there are some people you don't want left to their own devices, to pursue
their own ends.
>>55358556
>>55358711
My ends are my ends and I don't care what anybody elses goals are, so long as they do not interfere with the impartial rules of conduct imposed on us by the state - rules which allow us to plan for our own pursuits with a degree of stability and predictability.
>>55358711
People can pursue different ends to the extent that they so in their legitimate sphere of influence.
I would argue that all human problems stems from a failure to stay in your "legitimate" sphere of influence, which is your property.
This is so because the poor always want the property of the rich, and the rich want special protections from one another.
