Politics are futile: agree or disagree?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Norsefire, Feb 3, 2010.

  1. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    If there is anything that is limiting human progress and organization and order, it is this thing called "politics"; it is a natural side-effect of this 'democracy', where we determine the fate of the country according to what happens to be in vogue. Though truly, all countries suffer from politics, democratic or not.


    In the US, this liberal-conservative division is completely unnecessary; do people not realize that you don't have to live together? In my opinion, the best thing to do is to create separate gated communities, where some are for conservatives and some are for liberals, and then let them both live in peace and enjoy their lives, and never have to bother with politics again.

    Or, we can stay the way we are, and have both hate the other when they are in power, and have this constant stupidity in our public offices. I like the former idea alot better: have two separate communities, one for each, and then we can stop with these politics. Liberals wouldn't even have to acknowledge the existence of conservatives, and vice versa; it'd be best.

    It's like we're fighting over the same bedroom, when really, it'd be best to have our own rooms.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    I'd say lack of ethics and morals are two main problems.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    They are not futile. But I do agree, I'm damn sick of the mob rule and it's decent into mediocrity.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    That is the problem with democracy: it doesn't take into account that most people aren't fit to rule. It's like letting non-doctors vote on a medical issue. It's stupid.
     
  8. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,634
    We don't actually have a direct democracy. We elect politicians, who are in effect "specialists" in politics (hence we disproportionately elect lawyers).

    So another proper analogy would be "It's like letting people select their own doctors, who then develop a consensus diagnosis."
     
  9. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Once computers are smart enough to decide for us, let them do it and just sit back and relax, until then democracy is the best we got.
     
  10. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    Nonsense

    You completely miss the point: no, it isn't. The best thing would be two divide into liberal and conservative communities, so that way neither is angry or upset.
     
  11. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    That almost happened, we called it the civil war.
     
  12. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,634
    You are just wrong. Liberals need conservatives to keep them from giving away the store, and conservatives need liberals both to keep the system adaptable (because conservatives hate watching systems evolve and change, even in response to new and different circumstances).

    Voting works not because the the individuals are well suited to rule, but because the consensus position is generally a safe response. If you split that consensus into conservative and liberal (two positions that have only themselves emerged in the past 100 years and likely will change again in the future), then you will have created two failed states out of one healthy one.
     
  13. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    And yet it didn't happen, so why not actually do it for real this time?

    If liberals are so sick of conservatives and vice versa, then we need two states, one for each.

    Though during the civil war, they were both Conservatives.
     
  14. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    So every time there is a fracture in political beliefs, divide? You would end up with a lot of very small divide communities, its the collective that is strong, divided they are weak.

    I rather just keep things stable as they are until the singularity.
     
  15. clusteringflux Version 1. OH! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,766
    It's not as simple as Libreal Vs. Conservative. People put these broad labels on because it's easier than saying: "I'm a pro-life, anti-war, gay, christian, pot smoking, socially liberal, fiscal conservative". (one exists somewhere)

    But we have separated to a great degree, already. Real people live in the USA and party line, vote whore robots live in Washington DC.
     
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    (Insert Title Here)

    I would reject this premise outright. Though the word comes from a time when people first experimented with democracy, politics have always existed in human society. One could probably say democracy is a natural side-effect of politics: Were people robots following a program without any independent thought or passion, politics wouldn't exist.

    At what point did segregation actually work? In order to never bother with politics again, humans would need to be hermits, separated from one another as individuals. If we were better off as hermits, we would not have evolved as social creatures.

    I find it striking that the notion of conducting yourself with some measure of honesty and decency unsettles you so greatly.
     
  17. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,634
    Even if the solution of separation worked in theory, please describe a mechanism of physical segregation that is practical. Who exactly is going to leave their homes behind because of such a crazy scheme? This is a country where the avereage man and woman isn't even all that enthusiastic about voting, and you are talking about splitting up families to live in different nations. (Or do you imagine that we would have two states occupying the same land?)

    You also have to account for what happens to people whose views change over time (especially as both states fail miserably), and how you separate/deport those children in Conservamerica who grow into liberals, a Liberamerica who turn into conservatives.

    I of course assume that people who are liberal on social issues and conservative on economic ones will get their own (third) country. They might as well, since that country might well survive.
     
  18. Cellar_Door Whose Worth's unknown Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,310
    Meaningless. Since when did public opinion carry enough weight to rule anything?
     
  19. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    When there is a fracture as significant as it is now in the United States, then yes, you must divide...because staying together means hating each other. Just look at all the conservatives and liberals today, trying to force their junk down each others' throats.

    Actually, I would say that politics are a natural side-effect of democracy. Democracy forces government to tolerate different groups of people; if we were not democratic, we could have only one ruling ideology. It would be gruesome at first, getting rid of the others, but eventually it would mean greater stability and, most importantly, long-term direction.

    With democracy, it's a game of ball, back and forth.

    Human beings don't need to be hermits; they just need to live with those like their own. Politics arise when there are differences among people. Of course there will always be differences, but the major things ought to be uniform, and it would mean that there will be a lot less politics. For instance, if everyone in the US were a democrat or a republican, then people would fight alot less. They can still differ on this or that detail, but they would still be together for the most part.

    Which is why it would be best to separate and have conservative governments and liberal governments, and funnel people that way.


    There's no reason to oppose that idea, unless you want to force your ideology on the conservatives.


    I would, and I'm sure others would too; it'd be finally an escape from politics, and the creation of a great, homogeneous, long-term community where there could finally be peace.

    If people are too lazy to move, they can stay and enjoy the stupidity.
     
  20. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,634
    I think you'd find it was a very small percentage (and certainly 99.9% conservatives), the the federal gummint would be agin' it to the extent you thought your were going to take land away from the United States. Plus, they would enforce their view using higher powered weapons than you'd have.

    That said, if you could serve as the Pied Piper who leads all the tea party activists onto some god-forsaken patch of scrub in the hinterlands of America, I'd happily write my senator and ask that your group be allowed to go. In fact, forget taking all the tea partiers (I am being greedy), if you could please just take Glen Beck, that would be service enough.

    Westward ho, young savior of America!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    Hitler probably was able to enforce his policies through brutality as well. What's your point?

    My point is that it would be best to divide the country, ideologically.

    It's only a matter of time before the straw breaks the back, and we have another civil war.
     
  22. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    head vs. wall

    I know. Thanks for repeating it.

    Which is why dictators never get killed or overthrown.

    When I think back on nations that have culled population, I think I see your point. It's why nations like the United States and Britain are so far behind Iran (Shah Reza Pahlavi), the Soviet Union (Stalin), Uganda (Idi Amin), and Kampuchea (Pol Pot), just to name a few. If only we could enjoy the peace, prosperity, and progress of those apolitical utopias.

    You really think that will do it?

    You know what's really creepy about that? You actually seem to be overestimating human group dynamics. I mean:

    (chortle!)

    (guffaw!)

    In order for there to be the kind of peace you believe in, you will also need material equality, and I would think the Soviet tyranny should have made a point or two about how difficult that is.

    And you would pretend that the segregated peoples would leave each other alone?

    Well, by your theory, I could skip forcing the ideology, and just force death on them.

    It would be gruesome at first. But then things would get better. Until some of the differences between people began to shake out into their own spectrum of liberal and conservative.

    Whether naƮvete or malice, your solution is no solution at all. It's something of a pipe dream. A crack pipe dream.
     
  23. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    naaw, I think we should divide when states actually vote to secede, if only we had let the south go!
     

Share This Page