skirkle, let us discuss politics, redux

[Kuya]

So skirkle, what's your opinion on the names political parties use? I think that the joke has been that they use names that have nothing to do with who they are and what they believe in. For example, why is it that the Republican party seems to hate the rule of law when it comes to the president's authority? Do you think they explicitly do this in some orwellian-tricking the lowest common denominator scheme or do you think that they once represented what the name says, but have since changed? The latter might apply to the British Labour party.

[Krye]

Kuya how come when I want to discuss things you ignore me?

[Conrad]

Interesting question. Well, both parties were, in a way, created to go against the grain -- Andrew Jackson's Democratic Party heralded the common man as the true heir to America, ironically naming the party after that of Thomas Jefferson, an aristocrat and one of the Founding Fathers. Meanwhile, the Republican Party was created during the antebellum period, touting equal rights in a divisive environment. The parties no longer resemble their ancestry: the Democrats had been the party of the South for over a hundred years until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the subsequent election strategy employed by Richard Nixon four years later. The Republicans, despite showing inklings of their current form in the presidencies of McKinley and Taft, remained progressive-minded during Roosevelt's Presidency, and was not until the 1920s that the GOP manifested the big-business ethos we see today.

To answer your question though, I believe the party names remain the way they are simply out of tradition and not for any practical purpose.

[Kuya]

I agree, thus this was the shortest politics thread yet!

[Kuya]

Kuya how come when I want to discuss things you ignore me?

Why don't we discuss the intricacies of realism in international politics?

[Conrad]

What other political-related discussions can we have in this thread, Kuya?

[Conrad]

Why don't we discuss the intricacies of realism in international politics?

Why do we want to talk about Brazil and China?

[Kuya]

Ah i know, what are your opinions on anarchism? I've been having discussions about it in general lately. In my opinion, i find it a chore to argue with them, because their arguments are logical enough that you feel compelled to address them, but at the same time you feel their arguments are just very unhinged.

[Kuya]

Why do we want to talk about Brazil and China?

Brazil has carnival, but i don't know what we want from china.

[Conrad]

I dislike being serious on BG, or at least in General.

[Kuya]

You can't be serious most of the time in General. It is a waste of time.

[Conrad]

Ah i know, what are your opinions on anarchism? I've been having discussions about it in general lately. In my opinion, i find it a chore to argue with them, because their arguments are logical enough that you feel compelled to address them, but at the same time you feel their arguments are just very unhinged.

Anarchy is a ruse. How can society exist without government? Humans are, by nature, devious and paranoid human beings that would become completely feral if not governed by some set of laws and societal rules. Even primitive societies had class structures and heads of clans instated to delegate responsibility and order to the rest of the tribe. To live without societal rules would swiftly result in chaos.

[Shiroikage]

anarchy is a fucking headache to talk about because the fact is, in very small groups, yeah, probably it does stand a good chance of working, but on any large scale, it's likely to clusterfuck

[Conrad]

shiro, you are not skirkle how can this be

[Shiroikage]

i think i misread skirkle as skirkle and my brain made me post anyways

[Conrad]

It is okay, I don't mind having you involved in our political discussion.

[Kuya]

Let me play devil's advocate, so maybe you and me can find out the best way to neutralize anarchists.

Your point of view seems to rely on the principle that human nature is negative, so if we assume it isn't then we deligitimize your point. How would you reply in this instance? Proof that humans are by nature devious and paranoid i imagine.

An anarchist would probably follow that rules are not dependent on the existence of a hierarchy and or a State. Much like atheists would say that morality is not dependent on religion. How would you retort to this?

[Kuya]

anarchy is a fucking headache to talk about because the fact is, in very small groups, yeah, probably it does stand a good chance of working, but on any large scale, it's likely to clusterfuck

Yea, that was my reply too. The onus is really on them to prove how such a messy thing would work, but they seem to often rely on the "let things work out naturally" gambit in order to avoid elaborating a solution to every problem a Stateless society composed of millions would bring.

[Conrad]

Aren't rules, even in the absence of a hierarchy or State, still indicative of a social order and would invalidate an anarchic structure? Rules would require their enforcement, which would require further regulations on society and thus they would be placed in an equal situation. Even political parties in America that promote a diminished and weakened government (the Libertarian Party is the most prominent and best example) still believes in the three branches of government, and merely promotes a laissez-faire approach to both economic and societal issues.

[Conrad]

Regarding your analogy, though I do find morality to be independent of religion, I do not see how order can be maintained in a system that does not promote order.