TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

General Politics Thread

Go To

This thread is for discussing politics, political science, and other politics-related topics in a general, non-country/region-specific context. Do mind sensitive topics, especially controversial ones; I think we'd all rather the thread stay free of Flame Wars.

Please consult the following threads for country/region-specific politics (NOTE: The list is eternally non-comprehensive; it will be gradually updated whenever possible).

Edited by GastonRabbit on Apr 25th 2025 at 9:51:19 AM

CenturyEye Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign? from I don't know where the Yith sent me this time... Since: Jan, 2017 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign?
#276: Jun 21st 2017 at 6:35:56 PM

A question of my own. Well a thought. The best place for a legal, average age of majority. And if one is still necessary.
We in the states arguably have six note 

  • 16—can go to war, the lowest age of consent stateside (at least b/w teens and adults not each other)
  • 17—in many states can be charged "as an adult" for crimes
  • 18—can vote, be held responsible for contracts
  • 21—the obvious
  • 24/25—can rent a car; fall into lower risk car insurance pools
  • Any arbitrary age that you can emancipate yourself and prove independence to the state.
And I've observed that an age of majority has several purposes: ritual joining of the community, legal responsibility, and economic expectations (you should be working by then—preferably earning enough to form a new household). And I have also seen ages from 13 to 24 given as the appropriate one. The later ages likely have much to do with the length of education.

So, in sum:
  • In contemporary times, the best way to identify an adult is...?
  • Besides a number, can some subjective, legal test be used? (At first I thought of "formal operational stage" in the sense of Piaget's stages of life, but, besides not being a psychologist and knowing little of the status of that theory, it immediately made me think of the literacy tests of the 20th century).
  • Is a legal age of majority separate from biological adulthood still necessary (i.e. allow people to do anything they (specific to the individual) can understand how to do: a 14 yo can bind himself to pay off a new car; a 16 yo can drink; a 12 year old can votenote )?
  • note 

edited 21st Jun '17 6:37:41 PM by CenturyEye

Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#277: Jun 22nd 2017 at 7:01:04 AM

Well, these are mostly arbitrary cutoffs. Brain development doesn't work on a timer and is not linear either. What is "biological adulthood"?

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Khudzlin Since: Nov, 2013
#278: Jun 22nd 2017 at 7:20:12 AM

[up][up] The age for being sent to war or being charged as an adult should not be lower than the age for voting and being able to enter contracts. And I see no good reason for the next 2 to be higher than voting age, either.

TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#279: Jun 22nd 2017 at 3:34:22 PM

I think the age to be sent to war should be hgh enough that we aren't talking about "our boys" anymore.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#280: Jun 22nd 2017 at 3:47:21 PM

I find it odd that you can fight in most countries (18) but can't drink or smoke (19 or 21) in a lot of them.

If you country lets you take a bullet for them, they should let you poison yourself legally.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#281: Jun 22nd 2017 at 3:49:06 PM

Because drugs are a bigger problem than war fatalities.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
CenturyEye Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign? from I don't know where the Yith sent me this time... Since: Jan, 2017 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign?
#282: Jun 22nd 2017 at 3:53:10 PM

[up]x4 & [up]x 2 A common refrain is they can be shot at but can't drink with their squad (officially). I'm sure it happens.

Well, these are mostly arbitrary cutoffs. Brain development doesn't work on a timer and is not linear either. What is "biological adulthood"?
Whoops. To clarify, as soon as people can reproduce. note . (I suppose there are the so far unconfirmed things I've heard about brain development peaking at 21-24, but I have no idea if that's ever been tested).

I myself is pulled between two lines of thought. On average, one has some knowledge and interest of what's going in the world by the mid teens (and say, 16 years, was an age of great responsibility in the past). And b/w 16 year-olds fighting stateside and voting in the UK, it seems to be a plausible line for adulthood (and all of the rights mentioned above).
OTOH, education, both of the hard knocks kind and formal kind, can be said to have if not completed then at least oriented you by say, 24. At the very least, an average person of this age should be able to make an informed decision binding himself to decades of college debt or years of military life.

In essence, pulled b/w extending suffrage and rights to people who certainly have opinions and stake in the society (they have to come of age in it after all) and protection of inexperienced minors, but the logic for both is the same, competence to make a decision that effects one's future indefinitely. (It's an old debate, but I thought I'd seek more perspectives on it).

edited 22nd Jun '17 3:54:10 PM by CenturyEye

Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#283: Jun 22nd 2017 at 3:53:39 PM

Hey, I support having drug consumption at about 19. I just find the paradox interesting.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#284: Jun 22nd 2017 at 3:58:35 PM

"As soon as one can reproduce" is much lower standard than anything commonly in use - there aren't that many places where the age of consent is 12 or 13, for example.

The problem with using brain development is that it is variable between people, that different aspects mature at different rates and unmeasurable in any case - brain structure is a very unreliable proxy for competence.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#285: Jun 22nd 2017 at 7:58:28 PM

If you are looking for a systematically consistent age criterion, there isn't one. "Adulthood" is whenever a given society considers that an individual has grown to the point that they can fulfill a societal obligation in a manner that the society finds acceptable. That's so subjective that there isn't any point in trying to objectify it. Also, even within a given society, the cut-off age for different responsibilities is going to be different. Most Western communities consider that it is harder to drink responsibly than it is to follow orders in a military unit, harder to handle those responsibilities than it is to manage a sexual relationship, or drive a car. There is no "right" or "wrong", since what constitutes "success" in fulfilling a responsibility is going to be culture bound anyway. One thing to bear in mind, however, is that these definitions rarely put the individual's needs as the first priority, rather it's what is considered best for the community in which they live.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#286: Jun 22nd 2017 at 8:06:18 PM

[up]Frankly that's how it should be (in my opinion), the community's needs should be placed above the individual. Because some can never matter more than all, because individuals are relatively short lived and inconsequential compared to Nations (and below them the various communities be it city, town, or any other subdivision).

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#287: Jun 23rd 2017 at 6:28:21 AM

That kind of collectivist nonsense is what I'd expect from someone who'd put "Spartan" in their name.

The function of collective entities is to serve the collective well-being of individuals, not the well being of the entity. There's a phrase for when our artificial creations take a life of their own and grow beyond their original purpose, always hungry for resources and sacrifices: "creating a monster".

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#288: Jun 23rd 2017 at 7:28:32 AM

That kind of collectivist nonsense is what I'd expect from someone who'd put "Spartan" in their name.
I don't admire the Spartans in the slightest, I use "Fourthspartan" as a reference to the first xbox gamertag I made when I was younger. On the rest I understand if you have differing opinions.

The function of collective entities is to serve the collective well-being of individuals, not the well being of the entity. There's a phrase for when our artificial creations take a life of their own and grow beyond their original purpose, always hungry for resources and sacrifices: "creating a monster".
Obviously individuals matter but they matter collectively, and no individuals is more important than the collective good. Hence why I consider collectives more important than any (or most) individuals.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#289: Jun 23rd 2017 at 7:36:02 AM

Sending 18-year old citizens into the military has a much greater potential for psychological and societal disruption than it would to allow them to grab a beer a couple years earlier. This idea of "collective benefit over individual pleasure" is pure nonsense when applied to the context of adulthood — the drinking (and in some American jurisdictions, the recreational drug use) age of 21 has little to do with ensuring societal cohesion, and everything to do with old mores leftover and unchanged because of high inertia.

"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#290: Jun 23rd 2017 at 7:43:01 AM

[up]Sure, I have no doubt.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
CenturyEye Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign? from I don't know where the Yith sent me this time... Since: Jan, 2017 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign?
#291: Jun 23rd 2017 at 6:36:35 PM

[up][up]I find it hard to disagree with that.

On collectivism, well the UDHR sayeth thusly:

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

At first glance it looks like a sidestep. Then it looks like stating the obvious. But then #1 seems especially important, because it's hard to take that as anything but a wholesale rejection of the f*** you got mine/ dog eat dog/ hell is other people thing that's become a fad in my own land.

Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives
TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#292: Jun 23rd 2017 at 7:12:58 PM

1 is just a special case of The Golden Rule. What I'm talking about is shit like "don't study for the job you want/marry who you love/conscientiously object/change religion because it's more convenient for the Nation/your team/your family if you do that. Think "Tyrion Lannister marrying his children off for the family's interest", not "Robert Baratheon buckling the fuck up and doing his job as a king for the good of all". Think "you've just enlisted to fight in a war for reasons you don't really understand, against people who may not be your enemy, for the sake of promises that will not be kept", not "voluntarily inoculate yourself with diseases so that we can study them and find cures for them". Think "you can't be an actor, what would people think!" instead of "you can't abandon your wife and children if they don't have the means to provide for themselves!"

Sacrifice needs to be justified, and needs to be earned. Blind loyalty is tantamount to insanity.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#293: Jun 24th 2017 at 7:43:10 AM

As a practical matter, most communities define "avoiding pointless conflict with pissed off members of the community" as being in the communities best interest. So, if there is enough pushback, there will usually be some flexabikity.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#294: Jun 24th 2017 at 7:49:29 AM

[up]Of course, generally the collective and individual interests align. And what benefits the collective will almost always trickle down and benefit the individual (though perhaps not equally). My position is merely that when they don't align, depending on context the collective interests should generally (or almost always) take precedence.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
CenturyEye Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign? from I don't know where the Yith sent me this time... Since: Jan, 2017 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign?
#295: Jun 24th 2017 at 8:26:59 AM

There are issues with that position though.

  • By collective does one mean the mass of individuals getting some benefit proportionally (something like Rawls Theory of Justice? Or the old "to each according to need idea?")
  • Or does collective refer to the benefit of an abstract entity? (I can't think of a fair example...)
  • Also, there's always the principal-agent issue. Every modern state is theoretically for the collective good. (Monarchies were, at times, for individual glory and being "the first servant of the state" depending on the zeitgeist). Even individualist rhetoric is justified by claiming that it makes us all better off in the long run.

Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#296: Jun 24th 2017 at 8:34:40 AM

By collective does one mean the mass of individuals getting some benefit proportionally (something like Rawls Theory of Justice? Or the old "to each according to need idea?")
More or less, the "group" one is part of. Generally the Nation.

Or does collective refer to the benefit of an abstract entity? (I can't think of a fair example...)
Somewhat this as well. In that Nations aren't just monolithic entities, they're social organisms that are composed of smaller interest groups and collectives.

Also, there's always the principal-agent issue. Every modern state is theoretically for the collective good. (Monarchies were, at times, for individual glory and being "the first servant of the state" depending on the zeitgeist). Even individualist rhetoric is justified by claiming that it makes us all better off in the long run.
Forgive my confusion but I don't see the issue. My view is that the individual should benefit the collective for two reasons.

1) It helps them, if one's collective is prosperous and powerful then that will almost certainly benefit their lives/standards of living. Compare the life of someone in the US to someone in Somalia. One collective is vigorous and powerful while the other is nonexistent, which clearly impacts their lives.

2) It's the right thing to do, people for the most part are short lived and unimportant. Thus to benefit one's collective is to rise above one's limitation and be part of something larger than one's self.

edited 24th Jun '17 8:37:21 AM by Fourthspartan56

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#297: Jun 24th 2017 at 8:00:59 PM

From Soviet Russia to Reagan's USA, trickle down doesn't work, and anyway what kind of chump settles for a trickle when upstairs they have a full tank?

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
WhatArtThee Since: Oct, 2015
#298: Jun 26th 2017 at 11:20:35 AM

I have a somewhat unpopular opinion: I think in the long term, Brexit and Trump are GOOD, because the idiocy of May's team and Trump and his cabinet have significantly weakened the far-right. Hofer losing in Austria, Wilders losing in Netherlands, Le Pen losing in France, and May losing her majority in the UK, coupled with UKIP losing all seats, have really weakened the momentum of the far-right, and I think this will continue.

The Guardian did an interesting article about this

edited 26th Jun '17 11:23:00 AM by WhatArtThee

Just another day in the life of Jimmy Nutrin
ViperMagnum357 Since: Mar, 2012
#299: Jun 26th 2017 at 11:23:44 AM

[up]Only if we survive, with our systems intact enough to recover and reform.

WhatArtThee Since: Oct, 2015
#300: Jun 26th 2017 at 11:24:32 AM

That is indeed true, this could be moot if Trump steers the US to authoritarianism if not fascism, and Brexit causes the EU to collapse.

Just another day in the life of Jimmy Nutrin

Total posts: 5,585
Top