I think the problem with politics is that people forget that societies are like people: they change.
So, to quote some Popperian philosophy:
“The fact that change is never going to stop renders the very notion of a blueprint for the good society nonsensical, for even if society became like the blueprint it would instantly begin to depart from it.”
Imagine that instead of trying to tell society how to be perfect you had an even easier job: how to instruct a single human being in the art of perfection.
I don’t think that would be a very easy task—even for a rationalist.
Now, let’s say we had somehow succeeded with that one person, and that person didn’t change.
Could we apply the same techniques to other people?
Probably not. We’ve have to change them—at least a little—to fit the others.
We’re individuals. We don’t conform to a mold. We don’t live in utopias. We change.
Therefore, politics will always be flawed.
Hydraulic engineering is not an exercise in identifying the “perfect state of fluids” and then trying to fix fluids in that state. It is an exercise in identifying the properties of fluids that govern how they respond to various forces, and then using that knowledge to build fluid-dynamic systems that behave in useful ways.
Done right, politics is similarly an exercise in identifying the properties of humans that govern how they respond to various forces, and then using that knowledge to build human-dynamic systems that behave in useful ways.
The fact that individual humans change in the process of traveling through these systems is undeniable, but no more relevant to the perfectibility or imperfectibility of politics than the fact that different water flows through my pipes every day is to the perfectibility or imperfectibility of plumbing.
Your argument works against literally everything (it seems to be saying “things which are not perfect are not valuable”). It is therefore not effective against politics.
I think the problem with politics is that people forget that societies are like people: they change. So, to quote some Popperian philosophy: “The fact that change is never going to stop renders the very notion of a blueprint for the good society nonsensical, for even if society became like the blueprint it would instantly begin to depart from it.” Imagine that instead of trying to tell society how to be perfect you had an even easier job: how to instruct a single human being in the art of perfection. I don’t think that would be a very easy task—even for a rationalist. Now, let’s say we had somehow succeeded with that one person, and that person didn’t change. Could we apply the same techniques to other people? Probably not. We’ve have to change them—at least a little—to fit the others. We’re individuals. We don’t conform to a mold. We don’t live in utopias. We change. Therefore, politics will always be flawed.
(shrug)
Hydraulic engineering is not an exercise in identifying the “perfect state of fluids” and then trying to fix fluids in that state. It is an exercise in identifying the properties of fluids that govern how they respond to various forces, and then using that knowledge to build fluid-dynamic systems that behave in useful ways.
Done right, politics is similarly an exercise in identifying the properties of humans that govern how they respond to various forces, and then using that knowledge to build human-dynamic systems that behave in useful ways.
The fact that individual humans change in the process of traveling through these systems is undeniable, but no more relevant to the perfectibility or imperfectibility of politics than the fact that different water flows through my pipes every day is to the perfectibility or imperfectibility of plumbing.
Your argument works against literally everything (it seems to be saying “things which are not perfect are not valuable”). It is therefore not effective against politics.