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 11th Oct '14 3:17:52 PM by MarqFJA

CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#1676: Jul 14th 2019 at 6:09:09 PM

It's not the usage of force, but the monopolization of force that constitutes the foundation of statehood. A country where force has to be applied against a population by its own government on a large scale and with regularity is experiencing state failure. The point isn't that the state uses force, the point is that the state is the only entity that could ever hold the right to employ it.

"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."
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from a handcart heading to Hell Since: Mar, 2011 Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#1677: Jul 16th 2019 at 11:53:01 AM

Yeah the point of the monopoly isn't for the state to use force all the time, it's that nobody gets to use force other than the state.

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
KazuyaProta Shin Megami Tensei IV from A Industrial Farm Since: Jan, 2015 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Shin Megami Tensei IV
#1678: Jul 16th 2019 at 11:56:04 AM

When only the state can use force, you prevent the free use of force.

Watch me destroying my country
DeMarquis Who Am I? from Hell, USA Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Buried in snow, waiting for spring
Who Am I?
#1679: Jul 16th 2019 at 12:40:47 PM

Which is the point. One school of thought holds that the threat of war is the organizing principle of the modern nation-state, and therefore have an incentive to maintain a continuous low level threat directed at each other in order to strengthen the internal institutional power of the national government.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#1680: Jul 16th 2019 at 12:59:37 PM

Yeah the point of the monopoly isn't for the state to use force all the time, it's that nobody gets to use force other than the state.

That's a very insistent definition of a state.

It's also not one that reflects large numbers of loose confederations, alliances, and societies.

Or places where both the state and religious authorities for example wield power of condemnation.

Or places where the government is not who administers force like colonial ones. Two tiered states are very common historically.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 16th 2019 at 12:59:54 PM

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from a handcart heading to Hell Since: Mar, 2011 Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#1681: Jul 16th 2019 at 1:11:05 PM

It doesn't reflect them so much as explain them. The governing authority of a functioning state is the body with which the monopoly of force legally rests.

So loose confederations/alliances aren't a state but instead a collection of states, until the monopoly of force moves, then they become one state. So the EU isn't a state yet, because it doesn't have a monopoly of force over its territory, while the UK is a state, because the UK government has the monopoly of force over all of its territory.

In places where the actual monopoly of force and the legal monopoly differ you're looking at some variety of failed state, occupied state, client state or splintered state.

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#1682: Jul 16th 2019 at 1:40:47 PM

Hence why the most common definition of a state is a polity that holds a monopoly of force within a discrete territory.

I’d argue that the two most basic characteristics of a state are the ability to enforce its borders and the ability to hold a domestic monopoly of force. Every state has some way to do those two things at a minimum.

They should have sent a poet.
KazuyaProta Shin Megami Tensei IV from A Industrial Farm Since: Jan, 2015 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Shin Megami Tensei IV
#1683: Jul 17th 2019 at 11:03:16 AM

How important are defense treaties?

I personally think that International Cooperation is vital, especially in light of the new issues regarding China.

BTW, It's possible for a country ask for NATO membership?

Watch me destroying my country
AzurePaladin She/Her Pronouns from Forest of Magic Since: Apr, 2018 Relationship Status: Mu
She/Her Pronouns
#1684: Jul 17th 2019 at 11:46:16 AM

[up] Yes. Traditionally, it has only accepted members in North America/Europe/Anatolia, other allied nations get a different designation. That may change depending on what direction NATO decides to go in.

IIRC you need the approval of every member state though, which is why North Macedonia couldn't join. Greece blocked every attempt.

The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -Fighteer
KazuyaProta Shin Megami Tensei IV from A Industrial Farm Since: Jan, 2015 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Shin Megami Tensei IV
#1685: Jul 20th 2019 at 9:27:22 PM

I'm writing this with a Presentist bias, but I have a genuine hard time imagining Social Progressives actually doing stuff that could discredit themselves in the long term.

And while hard, I can imagine ways that Social Progressivism could ruin it's reputation. They're just so Alien Space Bats (for now) that I can't see them happening until the 2050 (At least). Maybe advodicating collective punishment against certain groups that are considered reactionary/ bigoted?

A Socially Progressive Violent movement would likely frame itself a righterous justice trying to solve social inequity via violence. As I said, they're unlikely by the 2020-s, so don't worry.

Edited by KazuyaProta on Jul 20th 2019 at 11:29:05 AM

Watch me destroying my country
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#1686: Jul 20th 2019 at 9:38:32 PM

I dunno, the Communists were originally the social progressives.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
KazuyaProta Shin Megami Tensei IV from A Industrial Farm Since: Jan, 2015 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Shin Megami Tensei IV
Soban Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
#1688: Jul 20th 2019 at 9:50:16 PM

One of things that conservativeism tends to be good at is retaining power already obtained as it is by definition going to be taking less risky strategies. Whereas progressiveism is much more likely to risk things on a bad idea. Additionally, we should remember that being progressive means progress towards a goal, a goal that has become more and more nebulous as successes are achieved.

CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#1689: Jul 20th 2019 at 10:04:21 PM

I'm just saying that we have people who claimed to be about social, racial, and economic equality that ended up killing everyone who disagreed with them.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
KazuyaProta Shin Megami Tensei IV from A Industrial Farm Since: Jan, 2015 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Shin Megami Tensei IV
#1690: Jul 21st 2019 at 10:31:02 AM

A world where Social Progressivism as we see it getting discredit is still a weird idea (and outright dystopic depending of what takes it's place)

Watch me destroying my country
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#1691: Jul 21st 2019 at 11:49:52 AM

One of things that conservativeism tends to be good at is retaining power already obtained as it is by definition going to be taking less risky strategies. Whereas progressiveism is much more likely to risk things on a bad idea. Additionally, we should remember that being progressive means progress towards a goal, a goal that has become more and more nebulous as successes are achieved.

Yes, there is less risk to Conservatism but that just means the certainty of defending a status-quo that's likely flawed at best. Worst actively unjust.

Conservatives opposed Abolition, Conservatives opposed the Civil Rights movement, Conservatives opposed Women's Lib, Conservatives have opposed all good change. Just because they've sometimes opposed bad change does not mean that the former is any less real.

Frankly, the view that progressivism has become more nebulous over time is nonsensical, progressives have always supported specific reforms in the name of advancing society. That's not new, nor is it any less concrete then Conservates and their defense of Tradition.

I'm just saying that we have people who claimed to be about social, racial, and economic equality that ended up killing everyone who disagreed with them.

Sure, violent revolutions tend to normalize violence. When Counterrevolutionary Terror is inevitable Revolutionary Terror becomes significantly more palatable.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jul 21st 2019 at 11:52:50 AM

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
KazuyaProta Shin Megami Tensei IV from A Industrial Farm Since: Jan, 2015 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Shin Megami Tensei IV
#1692: Jul 21st 2019 at 12:22:08 PM

Ultimately, I wonder if Conservativism might end up fully discredited.

Watch me destroying my country
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#1693: Jul 21st 2019 at 5:40:17 PM

Nah, there's no chance of that.

Beyond the insane ideology that Republicans call conservativsm it's a fairly timeless concept, people who are comfortable with a status-quo are naturally going to defend it and be skeptical of change.

That's why I feel comfortable criticizing it so harshly because I know that there is no chance that it'll permanently go away. Which is fine, as a progressive I want to change the status-quo so if we win then the conservatives of the future will defend the reality we create.

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#1694: Jul 21st 2019 at 6:28:08 PM

Let's hope not. Then when we have a just and equal society, people might overthrow that because there's no one to preserve it.

Conservativism is entirely relative to the society it's traditionalist for.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 21st 2019 at 6:28:31 AM

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#1695: Jul 21st 2019 at 6:29:05 PM

[up][up][up]The point isn't to make the possibility of maintaining the status quo unthinkable; the point is to make the status quo more progressive. Conservatism will never be eradicated because there will always be someone who wants society to stay put, but if we make the status quo they're defending something that we consider forward-thinking today, we will have done well.

It's also worth mentioning that progressivism is inherently utopian and avant-garde, so there will always be more left to do that conservatives will block the way towards achieving.

Edited by CrimsonZephyr on Jul 21st 2019 at 9:30:25 AM

"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."
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#1696: Jul 21st 2019 at 6:35:34 PM

I generally think the idea of utopia is not feasible, since everyone has a different idea of what utopia should be. One person's utopia is another person's dystopia.

Disgusted, but not surprised
Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#1697: Jul 21st 2019 at 6:45:19 PM

It depends a lot on what we mean by "Conservatism", too. Typically, the term's used to mean "supporting the status quo", which would make it rather timeless by definition.

Personally, I dislike that definition, since it's not an especially meaningful one. It describes circumstances of an ideology, nothing about its style or substance. For example, voting democrat in 2016 would have counted as conservative at the time by this definition. Or, better yet, supporting Communism in the USSR.

Mind you, I do think it's fair to describe Conservatism as more of a "style" of politics rather than a set of specific policies. It's a bit like "theocracy". You can have theocracies of different religions, but they do share the nature of being theocracies. In the case of Conservatism, I'd argue its definition is as follows:

-Objective Morality: Good and evil exist, and are naturally in conflict with each other.

-Individual Responsibility: The root of evil is human nature and most evils are caused by a person's individual failings, not a failing in society.

-Social Moralism: It's perfectly acceptable-and necessary-for society to attempt to enforce moral behavior in its individuals. What these morals are can vary wildly between different forms of conservatism.

-Pro-Culturalism: Participation and celebration of society is good and is how society can enforce morals.

"Any campaign world where an orc samurai can leap off a landcruiser to fight a herd of Bulbasaurs will always have my vote of confidence"
AlleyOop Since: Oct, 2010
#1698: Jul 22nd 2019 at 12:15:21 AM

In a fair-ish world, conservatism would be closer to "moderate", as in progressive but favoring a slower and more steady means of achieving that change, as opposed to more radical types who might implement change in a way ends up being unstable or difficult to maintain, or causes more logistical harm than good (e.g. assist the underclass by outright removing the overclass).

DeMarquis Who Am I? from Hell, USA Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Buried in snow, waiting for spring
Who Am I?
#1699: Jul 22nd 2019 at 1:24:42 PM

There is research supporting a definition of conservatism as being based around deference to authority, loyalty to the group, respect for tradition, a skepticism of novel ideas, and a general hostility to outgroups.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."
Soban Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
#1700: Jul 22nd 2019 at 6:21:16 PM

All of which are useful things for a group to have.


Total posts: 4,844
Top