OpinionIt's possible to have a working government without politics, i.e. an issue can be debated and decided upon without political divisions.
      – Lee J Haywood, 2010-02-10 at 11:04:02   (10 comments)

On 2010-02-10 at 11:07:49, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Wikipedia says that "politics is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions" but generally I understand the word to be used to indicate the war between conflicting parties with separate agendas/manifestos. I suppose a single-party republic doesn't necessarily count because it still has a political party, but at the same time there's still room for debate even when everyone agrees on the same basic goals.
On 2010-02-10 at 11:55:01, Thelevellers wrote...
I agreed, as it is THEORETICALLY possible. In practice however I don't see it happening. An ideal world would be one where all things are debated in this way... Kind of on topic, I re-took the political compass test recently, and found myself the furthest left I've ever been (almost as far as is possible!), I like to re-take because my views change depending on mood and what debates I've had recently/in the intervening time, but this was the most dramatic change I've seen. I was reminded of that mostly because I finally went with 'strongly agree' on the 'one party politics avoids the delay of democratic process', because it does, I just think the delay is worth having... Never quite sure how you're meant to answer those questions, which double-y affects the changes...
On 2010-02-11 at 11:32:48, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I sort of agree with the idea of having one group in charge and another auditing them (a shadow government, if you will) to make sure that they don't act against the best interests of the public. I don't agree with parties opposing each other for the sake of it, which often seems to happen. We all know what it means for someone to be a 'policitian' and the phrase 'competent decision maker' isn't the first one to come to mind. http://imgur.com/o8jCW
On 2010-02-11 at 17:54:14, Thelevellers wrote...
Dammit that link is SO true! I think I would agree with the method of government mentioned - I hadn't thought of sticking an auditor shadow government, that has potential... I am definitely sick and tired of the pointless 'you say that so we simply CANNOT agree with you' bollocks in modern politics - especially as it means I cringe every time the Lib Dems come up with a good policy as it will (realistically) NEVER get enforced.
On 2010-02-11 at 17:56:22, Thelevellers wrote...
Something that has made me smile, and may tickle your fancy Lee, is Mark Thomas's radio 4 series 'The People's Manifesto' - first episode available until about 7 tonight - where he asks the audience to suggest policies that they would like enacted, and they vote at the end which are their favourite. There is a book of the ones selected from his UK tour last year which I got and it's got some really interesting ideas in it. In fact... *makes new topic*
On 2010-02-12 at 11:40:07, Lee J Haywood wrote...
As I've said before I really have no interest in politics - hence my topic relating to wanting a world without politics! Having a benevolent dictatorship with auditing to keep it fair seems like an ideal to me, but (as Minority Report informs us) any system with humans is guaranteed to be flawed. It's difficult to see how you could ever stop personal interests applying, given that there's no 'right' answer to any given issue.
On 2010-03-06 at 18:35:43, DigitalBoss wrote...
Well, you have one group of people that like to earn their own way through life, and then you have others that do not, along with the ones that want their votes. Enter politics.
On 2010-03-07 at 00:04:03, Thelevellers wrote...
You missed out the group that want to earn their way through life and are happy to share their earnings with those less fortunate than themselves... That's the category I fall into: I have spent time on benefits when I couldn;t find a job, and was immensly greatful for them, but it was always a stop gap while I sorted my life out. Now I have a job, and although I see a large chunk go missing every month, a chunk I could do with, I don;t begrudge it because I know I am at least better off than a lot of people, and that some of that money goes to help such people. Sadly a large amount also goes to funding wars I don't agree with, but in theory I can vote in a party that wouldn't do that. (In pratice of course all three major political parties in this country are pretty much identical once you get past the top layer of cosmetic differences they have applied to give the illusion of a choice...)
On 2010-03-07 at 19:49:52, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: That is called charity. I am all for charity. It is not the place of government to take it by force.
On 2010-03-07 at 21:51:36, Thelevellers wrote...
But many people don't believe in charity, and charity doesn't always reach those that need it. charity is imperfect, just like the benefits system, which is why the two together, in theory, sort most problems. I'm not saying the current tax system in any country is perfect, but I'm happy enough so far. In act, i would have no issue with living in Sweden, where the average tax rate is 50%. They at least steer clear of most (if not all) stupid wars, and look after each other, as they have a very helpful society, that helps encourage many attributes that I like. Such as re-using stuff (second bikes are the norm, as opposed the the exception) and helping other people in society.