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).
- For Asian countries, see the following:
- For East Asian countries, see East Asia News & Politics Thread: China, South Korea, Japan...
.
- For North Korea, see North Korea
.
- For China, see Official China Discussion Thread
.
- For North Korea, see North Korea
- For the Philippines, see Philippine Politics
.
- For South Asian countries, see The South Asia Politics, News, and Analysis Thread
.
- For Southeast Asian countries, see Southeast Asia Politics Thread
.
- For East Asian countries, see East Asia News & Politics Thread: China, South Korea, Japan...
- For Australia, see General Australian Politics Thread
.
- For Europe as a collective whole, see European Politics Thread
- For Eastern Europe as a whole, see Eastern European Politics
.
- For Finland, see Finnish politics
.
- For France, see French Politics
.
- For Germany, see German Politics Thread
.
- For Ireland, see Irish Politics Thread
.
- For Poland, see General Polish Politics/Other Issues Thread
.
- For Russia, see The General Russia Thread
.
- For the United Kingdom, see British Politics Thread
.
- For Ukraine, see War in Ukraine
.
- For Eastern Europe as a whole, see Eastern European Politics
- For the Middle Eastnote and North Africa in general, see General Middle East & North Africa Thread
.
- Discussion regarding Israel and Palestine is banned indefinitely and their thread
was locked accordingly.
- For the Arab Spring specifically, see The Arab Spring
.
- For Turkey, see Turkish Politics
.
- For Iran, see Iran Discussion
.
- Discussion regarding Israel and Palestine is banned indefinitely and their thread
- For Northern Americanote ...
- Discussion regarding the United States of America is banned and its thread
was locked accordingly.
- For Canada, see Canadian Politics
.
- Discussion regarding the United States of America is banned and its thread
- For Latin America, see The Latin America thread (VE, BR, AR, CU, MX...)
.
- For Argentina, see Argentine Politics Thread
.
- For Venezuela, see Venezuela and the Chavez Legacy
.
- For Argentina, see Argentine Politics Thread
- For the South Caucasusnote , see South Caucasus thread
.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Apr 25th 2025 at 9:51:19 AM
x4 &
x 2 A common refrain is they can be shot at but can't drink with their squad (officially). I'm sure it happens.
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"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 FeynmanIf 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.
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).
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.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."![]()
I find it hard to disagree with that.
On collectivism, well the UDHR
sayeth thusly:
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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 YangI 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

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 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:
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