My End Goal of Political Action

What is the end goal of political action? This is a fundamentally important question, and yet it is one that is rarely answered by political commentators. If we don’t know what goal they’re aiming at, how can we know whether their recommendations are good or not? Only when both the end and the proposed means to achieve it are clearly laid out can we evaluate whether we agree with a particular political proposal or not.

As such, it is high time that I laid out my own political end goal, so that my subsequent policy proposals can be evaluated based on how well they advance this goal.

Empowerment as the end goal

For me, the ultimate political end goal is human empowerment. The Oxford Dictionary defines ‘power’ as: “The capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events.” Well, I think that this is a marvelous thing; the more of it that I, and the people I care about, possess, the better!

The more power that you possess, the more you can shape the world to better suit your individual preferences and desires. Since I believe that individuality is the most precious thing that we have, I believe that power, which allows us to better suit the external world to our individuality, is the second most precious thing. As such, I believe that maximizing the aggregate, individual power levels of the members of a group of humans, is the best thing that can possibly be done for that group.

Why not happiness?

‘Hold on!’ a critic might interject. ‘Power is only good as a means to the ultimate end of happiness. It should not be considered as an ultimate end in its own right.’

I disagree; I actually think that happiness is a pretty rubbish ultimate end to pursue. This is because happiness is a very slippery concept. There are no units of happiness, and it is impossible to say which of two people is ‘happier’ than the other, or even to determine whether a single person was happier at one point in their life than they were at another point.

Some hardcore science types will suggest that happiness is actually perfectly measurable; it’s simply a question of measuring the levels of the neurochemicals associated with this emotion (dopamine, endorphins, oxytocin, serotonin, etc…). But if achieving this kind of ‘chemical happiness’ were the ultimate end goal of human endeavor, then all people would need to live a perfect life would be some drugs. Just take a bunch of ecstasy and heroine, revel in the euphoria for a while, then leap off a tall building. Why not? Nothing in the ‘science’ tells us that we could do any better.

Those not down for such a drug bender suicide pact must admit that happiness is indeed a vague and slippery concept. By contrast, power is much more definite. Either one does, or one does not, have the option available to soar through the skies in a giant metal flying machine whilst sipping champagne. People of at least moderate means in the modern world have this option; people living in the past did not. Therefore, modern people are better off in this regard. See? Much easier than trying to compare happiness levels!

Why not freedom?

The libertarian-minded might ask why I make power, rather than freedom, the goal. Power, after all, can have a sinister side: the power of the consumer to choose whether he shall have orange or cranberry juice with breakfast is on the same spectrum as the power of the slave master over the lives of his slaves. When one prioritizes freedom over power, the pretensions of the slave master are cast aside, while the freedom of action of the consumer is preserved.

While this is all true, freedom is woefully incomplete as an end goal for political action. This is because being free from violence and coercion is only half the story. Without the positive ability to actually act on the world, such freedom is useless. The government may not actively prevent a poor man from owning a yacht, but without the resources to actually acquire one, such a permission is quite academic. Placing power as the goal recognizes that both freedom and aptitude/resources are necessary in order to shape the world to your liking. To focus on just one of these necessary aspects, and to ignore the other, seems a bit senseless to me.

Power for whom?

Alright, so human empowerment is the end goal. But who exactly is it that I wish to empower? Everyone in the world? No, that’s too broad. Only people living in Canada? No, that’s too narrow. I propose to set my target group as citizens of the developed countries in the Anglophone cultural sphere, including Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand. Why? Due to cultural and linguistic similarities, I generally sympathize more with citizens of these countries than I do with citizens of other countries. Of course, I care far more about my own empowerment, and the empowerment of those closest to me, than I do about the empowerment of everyone in the Anglosphere. But when writing political commentary with a broad target audience, one cannot just make proposals that will most benefit you and expect to be taken seriously. As such, the Anglosphere (where pretty much everyone can read English, the language of this blog) seemed like a logical grouping for my empowerment efforts.