|
A Serious Political Question (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
everything in politics has some form of classification or another. perhaps the OP is just curious and wants to learn more about his own beliefs. he could do worse than starting with a few basic definitions. |
At a high level of generality, maybe, but if your entire political philosophy can be summarized in one word, then it can't be very nuanced.
These rough classifications only serve to facilitate the degeneration of political dialogue into a game of whack-a-strawman, so I don't see much merit in the exercise of trying to determine which of them best approximates one's beliefs. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
At a high level of generality, maybe, but if your entire political philosophy can be summarized in one word, then it can't be very nuanced. |
well of course not. however, your ideas are much more likely to lack nuance if you also lack the resources with which to explain or understand them. i'd hardly expect someone to jump right into daas kapital, on liberty and two treatises on government in an effort to better understand their immature and ill-defined beliefs. you have to start somewhere, and a rough approximation is better than nothing. that's not to say this is what the OP is doing of course, but his inability to properly elucidate his beliefs could easily be explained by unfamiliarity with the subject as a whole, which in turn could be remedied by being given an approximate ism in order to get the ball rolling.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
These rough classifications only serve to facilitate the degeneration of political dialogue into a game of whack-a-strawman, so I don't see much merit in the exercise of trying to determine which of them best approximates one's beliefs. |
are you telling me its wrong to categorise and hate hippies? :( |
|
|
| couch-potato |
| Maybe he just does want friends. |
|
|
| floyd741 |
I think I'll start at Democratic Socialism and go from there as it does (at least in comparison with Libertarian Socialism, another idea I thought seemed good) removes some of the more idealist views and seems to be much more workable. Though I think the government should be limited, I certainly don't believe so to the point of anarchism, which seems to be more of what lib. soc. is about.
Thanks for the replies everyone, they really did help. |
|
|
| EgosXII |
idealists... *sigh*
anyways sounds like the ideal version of socialism. Not sure about democratic since your focus seemed to be entirely on social stability and economics, and you would most likely get that with an oligarchy of some kind, rather than a huge beauracracy etc... You're idea of limited government really does not gel with stability either...
whether or not that view is one that you should have is most likely the next good question to ask, most likely by looking at societies who have tried to implement the types of government you believe could ever work :)
i understand you like the idea of libertarianism, but honestly you can't have class cohesion without a strict government. Democracy thrives on inequality, that's what capitalism is. Inequality upsets people though, without a government with the monopoly on violence you can't have a state. It's a key definition of the State system, and it's pretty much proven in any political system by this stage...
You want people to be happy with inequality somehow, and not have a system set up which is able to handle almost anything that can go wrong...?
see: USSR, China, North Korea. They had similar models as you, but the point is the implementation. Reading marx is lovely and makes you tingly, just like reading the UN charter, but what does it all mean?? |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
Reading marx is lovely and makes you tingly, just like reading the UN charter, but what does it all mean?? |
The thing with reading anything that is suffixed with an -ism is that you tend to end up thinking you have *the* answer, an enticing trap that ultimately limits perspective. If you actually have the (somewhat masochistic) desire for intentional confusion as to what it all means, try reading this:
 |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: |
once you know that death happens to the body and not you... |
ROFL. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| You should also account for the fact that, as you grow older and experience more, your political beliefs are subject to be turned completely upside down. Not necessarily of course - some experiences only serve to strengthen one's convictions, but aside from what others have said about the futility of trying to encapsulate your views merely to adhere to established philosophies, you should always stay open to the fact that you might just be completely wrong about things, so far as your future self is concerned. |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
ROFL. |
Try reading the entire book, you . I dare you. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| Are there wizards with claymores?? |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
Just substite 'G(andalf)' for 'M' and you're laughing.
M: Desire is the memory of pleasure and fear is the memory of pain. Both make the mind restless. Moments of pleasure are merely gaps in the stream of pain. How can the mind be happy?
Q: That is true when we desire pleasure or expect pain. But there are moments of unexpected, unanticipated joy. Pure joy, uncontaminated by desire -- unsought, undeserved, God-given.
M: Still, joy is joy only against a background of pain.
Q: Is pain a cosmic fact, or purely mental?
M: The universe is complete and where there is completeness, where nothing lacks, what can give pain?
Q: The Universe may be complete as a whole, but incomplete in details.
M: A part of the whole seen in relation to the whole is also complete. Only when seen in isolation it becomes deficient and thus a seat of pain. What makes for isolation?
Q: Limitations of the mind, of course. The mind cannot see the whole for the part.
M: Good enough. The mind, by its very nature, divides and opposes. Can there be some other mind, which unites and harmonises, which sees the whole in the part and the part as totally related to the whole?
Q: The other mind -- where to look for it?
M: In the going beyond the limiting, dividing and opposing mind. In ending the mental process as we know it. When this comes to an end, that mind is born.
 |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
 |
|
|
|
|
