There is an odd kind of dividing line between the way politics really is a the way intellectuals think it ought to be.
Prosperity and freedom go hand in hand along with the influence of England. The difference between any place that has once been an English colony and anywhere else is striking. The USA Australia, Hong Kong, India etc. [Any place that has once had English law imposed on it by force is now free and prosperous. Even Japan which had English institutions imposed on it (by the USA) by force is now a first world power. ]
And yet England and its institutions were never founded on deep philosophical ideas.
Even the very existence of Parliament was because Edward I needed money. [Edward I is not my favorite English King.] [Can you imagine if England's institutions had been founded on some philosopher? Right about that. It would be a disaster.]
Is maybe politics is inherently not an exact science. Still how people that analyze it get it so wrong is curious. Why should it be more wrong that other things that are not exact sciences like medicine? Or maybe that is exactly the point? Medicine also tends to be highly subjective.
Edward I needed money. the heads of towns and villages had revenue by not the king. So the king made Parliament so the representative had to give money to the king in order to be able to sit in Parliament. That is no representation without taxation.
[I am not being critical of all people that think of a connection between politics and philosophy.
Kelley Ross of the Kant Friesian school of thought does suggest a connection between Kant idea of individual autonomy and the system of the USA Constitution. That seems to be right.]
Michael Huemer holds from no government but with private property. However this issue was addressed o the Federalist Papers. The idea of separate corporations being in charge of security seems to be destined to be such that alliances are made between them that anyway become a default government based on power and force.
Prosperity and freedom go hand in hand along with the influence of England. The difference between any place that has once been an English colony and anywhere else is striking. The USA Australia, Hong Kong, India etc. [Any place that has once had English law imposed on it by force is now free and prosperous. Even Japan which had English institutions imposed on it (by the USA) by force is now a first world power. ]
And yet England and its institutions were never founded on deep philosophical ideas.
Even the very existence of Parliament was because Edward I needed money. [Edward I is not my favorite English King.] [Can you imagine if England's institutions had been founded on some philosopher? Right about that. It would be a disaster.]
Is maybe politics is inherently not an exact science. Still how people that analyze it get it so wrong is curious. Why should it be more wrong that other things that are not exact sciences like medicine? Or maybe that is exactly the point? Medicine also tends to be highly subjective.
Edward I needed money. the heads of towns and villages had revenue by not the king. So the king made Parliament so the representative had to give money to the king in order to be able to sit in Parliament. That is no representation without taxation.
[I am not being critical of all people that think of a connection between politics and philosophy.
Kelley Ross of the Kant Friesian school of thought does suggest a connection between Kant idea of individual autonomy and the system of the USA Constitution. That seems to be right.]
Michael Huemer holds from no government but with private property. However this issue was addressed o the Federalist Papers. The idea of separate corporations being in charge of security seems to be destined to be such that alliances are made between them that anyway become a default government based on power and force.
