151–160 of 229 posts
My pet theory is that democracy is more tolerable because it alternates between incompetent people fast enough to keep people's hopes alive.
My pet theory is that democracy is more tolerable because it alternates between incompetent people fast enough to keep people's hopes alive.
Democracy comes in different flavors. There is even a kind without career politician. Checkit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
Is it too much to ask the author to define his terms? The nature of truth is subject to an ongoing epistemological debate. The author's unspoken presumption is that fallible humans can even approach truth. Is it not more honest in a way if a politician or a criminal accepts that he can not do truth justice, and proceeds with the sausage making? Like an actor winking into the camera, self-irony becomes an important pa…
> Is it not more honest in a way if a politician or a criminal accepts that he can not do truth justice, and proceeds with the sausage making? No. It's not better. That way lies Russia. If you already believe all politicians are liars, how is it at all helpful for a politician to tell you something you already know -- that he or she is lying? Postmodernism is poison. Don't give up on the truth. Even if it were true t…
If there is anything that postmodernism has taught us. It's that bite-sized "truths" like this can never encompass an actual truth or reveal any meaningful reality.
Is it too much to ask the author to define his terms? The nature of truth is subject to an ongoing epistemological debate. The author's unspoken presumption is that fallible humans can even approach truth. Is it not more honest in a way if a politician or a criminal accepts that he can not do truth justice, and proceeds with the sausage making? Like an actor winking into the camera, self-irony becomes an important pa…
> Is it not more honest in a way if a politician or a criminal accepts that he can not do truth justice, and proceeds with the sausage making? No. It's not better. That way lies Russia. If you already believe all politicians are liars, how is it at all helpful for a politician to tell you something you already know -- that he or she is lying? Postmodernism is poison. Don't give up on the truth. Even if it were true t…
Please don't misread my comment as a prescription towards a political end. It does not follow that I would endorse any politician, nor does it follow that I subscribe to "the ends justify the means".
>If you already believe all politicians are liars, how is it at all helpful for a politician to tell you something you already know -- that he or she is lying?
I take it as a courtesy when their spiel is over the top and theatrical. It is a small conciliation when they embrace the absurdity of their position and go overboard. The presumption of political truthiness is insulting to me as a viewer. I understand that they are in a position that requires them to lie and cheat. I empathize, but I don't support them or endorse the process.
>Don't give up on the truth.
In the context of politics, these 'truths' are often highly subjective and ideologically driven.
Consider the drug war and all of the studies which were funded/suppressed to justify prohibition. Yet today cannabis is regarded as a panacea by many.
Even in the material sciences knowledge is constantly revised. Yet so many are willing to stand on this false summit and beat their chests as if they have reached the apex of understanding. In the case of politics what follows is the coercive force of the state to achieve some ends suggested by their limited understanding.
No, I haven't given up on truth. I reject politics as a means to any end.
>Some politicians take none of those steps.
Again with "This time is different", I'll call this special pleading. Believing in politicians and expecting change is like loaning money to an addict.
I think the rise of lies has little to do with humans being hardwired to resolve questions using emotions over reason. We prefer lies because we want a complex world to be simple, predictable, and manageable. Obviously it's not, so the only way that powerless people can believe their lives aren't spinning out of control is for authority figures to tell them what they want to hear: 1) every problem is simple and 2) a…
Hate to be political, but as one Trump supporter said, when asked on Trump and his lies: "I think what most liberals are missing is that this isn't about right and wrong, it's about winning and losing. I've attached my entire worldview to this man and I am going down with the ship. Not one of you is going to convince me otherwise." Some people are simply willing to accept lies, if it resonates with their beliefs. A m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The relevant word isn’t “force” it’s “consent”. All forms of government to some extent or another have to maintain a monopoly on legal violence and use force. The distinction with democracy is that the government secures and maintains the consent of those being governed.
There are plenty of people who don't consent on a daily basis. The actions range from peaceful protests to traitorous acts. How does a democracy deal with them? Force.
I think the rise of lies has little to do with humans being hardwired to resolve questions using emotions over reason. We prefer lies because we want a complex world to be simple, predictable, and manageable. Obviously it's not, so the only way that powerless people can believe their lives aren't spinning out of control is for authority figures to tell them what they want to hear: 1) every problem is simple and 2) a…
There is an excellent SMBC comic on politics: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-08-21 . Transcribing the headings (not the complete dialogs): " 1. If you have a self-consistent view, you're going to have problems. 2. In a self-consistent framework, you have infinite regression problems. 3. If you want your group to hold together, you need an ideology that doesn't make any sense. 4. Once you have a nonsensical pl…
Democracy is ostensibly majority rule (don't nitpick). The majority of people are poor. Therefore, democracy is the rule of the poor (Aristotle). We do not live in a democracy.
If the poor were truly in charge, why would they choose to remain poor?
The poor have the opportunity to vote, and rule indirectly, and yet for many reasons often vote against their own best economic interests. Some of those reasons are good, and some are not.