Political environmentalism, alliance

Human society works according to the rules of politics. If these rules are bad, it can cause too much suffering to the people. That is why it is worth of making politics more perfect, in which the role of ethics multiplies. Freedom, justice, prosperity and sustainability should belong to the most important goals of politics. In order to achieve this, the democratically elected will and the wise will should correspond more and more to each other, and that is why the basic knowledge about worldview, ethics and politics should be taught in public education, at least briefly. Environmental problems shall cause changes in politics, too. Meanwhile, the hereby mentioned political values should be taken care of, because it is possible that while the weight and role of one value gets stronger, the weight and role of the other weakens.

In hard times, power often gets centralized and falls into the hands of rulers, and it cares about liberal laws less, or at least history shows such examples in wars. In these circumstances, the maintenance of order and the distribution of goods is often done better by intelligent people than by outdated laws. This insight might have been known by the Ancient Roman Republic too, because they allowed official dictators in emergency. Thus, environmental problems mean a theat to the freedom of people, because it is difficult to remove a ruling class once it is not wanted. In many cases, liberal parties are in alliance with green parties, perhaps partly due to the before-mentioned threat but not only because of that, but because freedom and sustainability are good concepts, and these people support good concepts. Perhaps that is why these parties used to ally with the socialists, too, as socialism means social justice, which is a good idea. It is another question whether these parties do what is included in their names.

But how to protect freedom in a world which is less and less free and advances towards a future which may need strong rule? The answer is not by radical or conceptual liberalism that loses the support of the majority by maintaining controversy. If a liberal party keeps choosing the way it deems good, e.g. it supports the marriage of homosexuals, then it can lose a lot of healthy voters, and it is possible that it will not get the support to govern because of this reason. A liberal party should represent the liberal 80% of the population instead of the liberal 20%, but it is better if it represents the 100% of the population. Thus the parties of wise people in politics should be similar to each other, as the will of the people is similar to itself, and wisdom is similar to wisdom too. Instead, liberalism shall show itself where it helps in life, for example, in general, due punishing taxes or incentives should be set instead of prohibitive or coercive laws.

It is not sure that changing the political system would prove to be detrimental, provided that it corresponds to the afore-mentioned four values more: freedom, justice, prosperity and sustainability. It is possible that ideal political systems differ very much from what people have had so far. For example, it is probable that more equality of chances can be provided to people if real estates and debts

- and even shares and the like -

were not inheritable, but every person would start his/her adult life with real estates of approximately equal value, and without debts and public debts. Achieving this goal is, however, not easy, and it needs longer studies in the area of political philosophy, so this is outside of the borders of this book. This was only mentioned as an example to show that probably there would be a more just way to divide land than by inheritance. For dividing money and moveables, however, probably there is no better solution than inheritance, because the parents can give these as gifts to their children, and it might not even be possible to create a good law which restricts the inheritance of these things. As far as there is equality of chances in the area of real estates, it is not very bad that there are wealthier people, because this way people feel motivation for success, and part of them can be happy enough, and the rich can even improve this Earth in some ways a community would not.

Further readings

(these were not necessarily read by the author):

Aristotle - Politics (from a famous ancient greek author)

Robin Lane Fox - The Classical World: An Epic History of Greece and Rome (Penguin Books, 2006)

Karl Marx - Capital: Critique of Political Economy (1867)

Political environmentalism, warning

Politics could change the world much, but accordingly, politics is not without risks. Many interests collide there and people are competing there with all their talents, which is not always ethical. Politicians can make people believe that other politicians are worse than they are in reality, so the people would hate politicians more, which would make things worse. Politicians can also mislead or trick people to win support, which would make the way of a righteous politician harder. Generally, politicians are just as good as human nature is, that is why it is not advantegous for an enlightened person to compete with them. If an enlightened person wants to change politics, it may be enough for him/her to share thoughts and ideas, and if those thoughts and ideas are proper, probably there will be people who use them anyway. It is better for a politician to consider a philosopher's idea than to make a biased decision, and it is better for philosophers, too, if their ideas are double-filtered by politicians.

In a democracy, political power is just for 4-5 years, which is not as secure as the power of a wealthy person. That's why it seems to be more noble to seek economic power instead of political one. A wealthy person can hide more easily than either a politician or a celebrity, which may be important in the age of technology. The life of the wealthy is desired, because they do not have to work if they do not want to, and they can satisfy their desires easily. The life of politicians, on the other hand, is many times about struggle and danger, at least in those ages when mankind is not meek enough.

If a politician makes an error, then many people will hate him for it, but if a wealthy person makes an error, he/she usually loses only money. To be unsuccessful, however, is not always the same as to make errors, so it is possible that the people will hate a politician even if that politician is good, e.g. if it is a necessity that the living standards fall, and politicians cannot do anything to prevent it from falling.

A politician usually has to follow the philosophy of a party, but a rich person can choose his/her own philosophy. This, however, does not need to be the case in an ideal political system where

it would be a civil right to enter into and remain in any party, and the elections inside parties would be democratic

. However, we do not live in such an ideal political system, so it is probably better for a free mind to be rich than to be a politician.

Politicians should usually make an oath, and the text of the oath may be imperfect or it may demand too much from a righteous person. This, however, does not need to be the case in an ideal political system, where no oath should be made, only obligations shall be formulated. However, we do not live in such an ideal political system, so it is probably better for a righteous person to be rich than to be a politician.

In a small country, the power of the politicians is bounded by international agreements just like the power of the rich is bounded by laws. If people have to act according to fix rules anyway, then it is more worth in a small country of being rich than to be a politician because a rich person can affect not only one country, but other countries, too.

The rich can decide freely whether to invest their capital into environmentalism. Countries, however, are obligated to do what is the will of the people anyway, and they cannot differ from it much.

...

Further readings

(these were not necessarily read by the author):

Andrew Carnegie - Autobiography of Andrew Carnegie (London, CONSTABLE & CO. Limited, 1920)

Ron Chernow - Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. (1998)

Bill O'Reilly, Martin Dugard - Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination That Changed America Forever (Henry Holt and Co., 2011)

Bill O'Reilly, Martin Dugard - Killing Kennedy: The End of Camelot (Henry Holt and Company, 2012)