Breaking away is not a real solution to underlying problems

Discussion in 'Political Science' started by kazenatsu, Apr 14, 2022.

  1. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    35,553
    Likes Received:
    11,643
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are many Libertarians who imagine creating an island somewhere where they could be free from so many restrictive laws. Simply start another country afresh. There are many Conservatives who talk about wanting to break away to form a separate state, country, legal jurisdiction, so they are not subject to the politics and tyranny from the Left.

    But I believe these Libertarians and Conservatives are short-sighted.
    What I believe these Libertarians and Conservatives fail to understand is WHY people within their same jurisdictions support these laws and politics in the first place.

    Even if they broke off into a separate legal jurisdiction, I predict it would only be a matter of time before groups started forming within their ranks that supported the laws and politics that Libertarians/Conservatives were trying to get away from in the first place. It might only be a few decades before this happened. The same process would happen all over again.

    Without being able to have a better understanding of what the causes are of different peoples to have the political beliefs they have, I believe these Libertarians and Conservatives, idealistic as they may be, are ultimately doomed to failure.
     
  2. yangforward

    yangforward Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2022
    Messages:
    4,090
    Likes Received:
    1,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A very good point.

    What would be wonderful is if clear statements were made as to exactly what the different opinions or philosophies are, and why people hold them,

    to allow people to make informed choices.
     
  3. yangforward

    yangforward Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2022
    Messages:
    4,090
    Likes Received:
    1,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    At present, multiple possible sources of conflicting information define each position.

    For example, a person could choose to be a libertarian as defined by the works of Thomas Paine, who advocated a type of Universal Basic Income.

    I think UBI is a good solution to the concerns of both sides.

    It provides for the very poor, which the right-wing people I've met feel is a good idea. The poor would receive only 20% of the income of the average American and would still want to work to supplement this income.

    And it would not produce multi-acre offices of pen-pushing bureaucrats or Big Government.

    And I don't think anyone on the Left wants to fill huge offices with people doing pointless jobs when there are many worthwhile things to be done.
     
  4. yangforward

    yangforward Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2022
    Messages:
    4,090
    Likes Received:
    1,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Maybe I am cynical, but I suspect the people who run politics are happy that the terminology is ambiguous because it means people discussing politics will get angry and never reach an agreement.

    That keeps the public divided and ineffective.

    Although the public is allowed to vote every four years, it generally gets wasted while people argue with each other.

    And the public becomes polarized and exaggerates the essentially non-existent differences between the two parties.
     
    Adfundum likes this.
  5. Adfundum

    Adfundum Moderator Staff Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,820
    Likes Received:
    4,249
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Cynical or not, I think those in power or who want power know that keeping things ambiguous works really well. And I do believe we have slight differences of opinion that get inflated with hyperbolic terminology. And over time that ambiguity becomes "accurate" and "unquestionable" in the minds.

    We all want to be free to choose what we want, to think how we want. Yet we love those leaders who seem powerful and will prevent the other side from having their way.

    Do people actually discuss politics anymore? It seems that it's not about discussion at all. It's more about yelling and attacking others for daring to have a different opinion. IMO, having differences of opinion is an absolute necessity in a free society--something we seem to be quite intolerant of.
     
    Pants and yangforward like this.
  6. yangforward

    yangforward Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2022
    Messages:
    4,090
    Likes Received:
    1,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We have a severe case of good old tribalism - them vs. us.

    So, however bad a president is, like GWB starting two wars or GI Joe on Dec 9th, telling Pres. Zelensky that he can join NATO,

    their own party will still support them.

    Their own party will defend the decision however little sense it makes, so the other party won't look like they're right.

    A lot of people are not all that interested in whether their party wins but really don't want the other party to win.
     
    Adfundum likes this.
  7. yangforward

    yangforward Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2022
    Messages:
    4,090
    Likes Received:
    1,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The result of tribalism is pretty much total job security for everyone in Congress.

    Overall Congress is very unpopular yet the probability each person in Congress who decides to run again, has of being re-elected is well over 90%.

    So Congress has almost no accountability.

    When the President and Congress agree on something it will happen and the public won't get a say in any of it.
     
    Adfundum likes this.
  8. yangforward

    yangforward Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2022
    Messages:
    4,090
    Likes Received:
    1,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I find it fun and a good mental exorcize to discuss political ideology.

    But when I took a quiz a few years back, I found I could not identify which party took which action. There appears to be no connection between advertised policies and reality.
     
    Adfundum likes this.
  9. Adfundum

    Adfundum Moderator Staff Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,820
    Likes Received:
    4,249
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ha! So true. It's pretty ironic. But we (as in humans) really don't seem to do much but echo those angry talking heads on TV and podcasts.

    And because discussing political ideology in a meaningful way really is an exercise, it's hard to do--in a reasonable way. It requires a more thorough understanding of topics, and a willingness to understand and accept the nuances of language usage. It's a problem I'd say is as old as humans, but made much worse by technology.

    Long ago I complained often about Gingrich's legitimization of polarized language to create a very binary and divisive political atmosphere. It was that Us/Them approach with a list of words and phrases politicians should use to vilify political opponents. It has been so terribly effective that we are reduced down to reactionary short-thinking and stereotyping rather than thinking critically about issues and discussing them. I guess that's why he said language was a Key Mechanism for Control. Such a blatant reference to using language for political gain (or control, as Gingrich called it) says something not so flattering about the public.

    Edit--I messed up linking to the article. The article isn't mine.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2022
  10. yangforward

    yangforward Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2022
    Messages:
    4,090
    Likes Received:
    1,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Whether we should echo those talking heads is a question we need to reassess from time to time.

    At the beginning of life, children soak up the culture they are in, the family they are in, and learn the norms around them.

    Somewhere in their teens they have to become independent thinkers, but it would be too large a task to reject everything they have learned and start again.

    Testing ideas for consistency, historical continuity, and just plain making sense takes time and effort.

    The good news is most people can continue to use the social norms they grew up with without having to rethink each habit each time they repeat it.

    But in the field of American Politics that isn't true. It is mostly falsehood, and it is a minefield for the unwary.

    You have to rethink everything. Not just the obvious but also to identify and assess the fundamentals generally taken for granted.
     
  11. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    28,624
    Likes Received:
    21,777
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Probably true. A better answer is creating 'islands' of political autonomy by decentralizing instead of seceding. It starts with city council, county organizers and a unified will to not comply, which is far easier to obtain in the local setting than it is at the state or national level. Even FedGov wouldnt be able to get away with trying to occupy and forcefully compulse an entire town who had their locally elected govt behind them.
     
  12. yangforward

    yangforward Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2022
    Messages:
    4,090
    Likes Received:
    1,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Very True.

    I think what's happening might be that the rules of interaction are entirely different in government from the local ones.

    When the government has a big pot of money, everyone tries to get as much for themselves as possible by any means possible.

    So the 'defense industry' (weapons makers) cry Pearl Harbor, or these days it would be 911, to get the money flowing.

    That can increase the size of the pot of money somewhat, but it is primarily a 'zero sum' game where the players try to get as much for themselves from a fixed size pot.

    Start a war though and then there's even more money.
     
  13. yangforward

    yangforward Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2022
    Messages:
    4,090
    Likes Received:
    1,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In contrast, local and family interactions must consist of a balance of give and take.

    Win-win trades are the ones people are most likely to take part in.

    People can most easily track gains and losses and are most able to balance synergistic arrangements at a local level.
     
  14. yangforward

    yangforward Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2022
    Messages:
    4,090
    Likes Received:
    1,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps our international politics goes so badly wrong because it is done by the government which normally plays a 'we win you lose' type of game.
     
  15. Adfundum

    Adfundum Moderator Staff Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,820
    Likes Received:
    4,249
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I like the island idea, even though it's got some flaws. One problem I see is that no matter where you are, people are going to have opposing ideas. But in the larger picture, what is best for an urban environment is usually not so good in a rural environment.

    Exactly. And that game is not beneficial. It's purpose is to get the votes. That's all that seems to matter anymore.
     

Share This Page