The truth of the matter is, that policy decisions can often have life-and-death consequences.
But also:
ONE WAY OF THINKING ABOUT politics is AS IF IT IS an extension of war by other means. Arguments CAN BE THOUGHT OF AS soldiers.
This seems like a contradiction. As you allude to, the fundamental question of politics is whose desires should and can legitimately be overridden by society—up to and including their desire not to be killed. With stakes so high, how can you justify placing good faith debate above using whatever tactics are necessary to avoid losing? It seems to me that if arguments aren’t soldiers, you aren’t actually engaged in politics.
[EDIT: also, you could actually be uncertain, or could be talking to aligned people who are uncertain, in which case having more-informative discussions about politics helps you and your friends make better decisions!]
I see it as the difference between a one-off prisoner’s dilemma situation and an iterated version of the prisoner’s dilemma.
War is arguably a one-off situation, where competition is king and you want to win at all costs. Politics and policy-making is more of an ongoing endeavour and in the scheme of things, requires cooperation.
Where there are good intentions involved (and that is the case much of the time—it’s just not publicised nearly as much), both sides of a debate will often want to come to a solution that is something that the other side can live with—and there is at least the potential for changing perspectives and positions. So having high stakes doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s all-out competition and war between arguments.
You write:
But also:
This seems like a contradiction. As you allude to, the fundamental question of politics is whose desires should and can legitimately be overridden by society—up to and including their desire not to be killed. With stakes so high, how can you justify placing good faith debate above using whatever tactics are necessary to avoid losing? It seems to me that if arguments aren’t soldiers, you aren’t actually engaged in politics.
Local validity!
[EDIT: also, you could actually be uncertain, or could be talking to aligned people who are uncertain, in which case having more-informative discussions about politics helps you and your friends make better decisions!]
I’m not sure I see the contradiction.
I see it as the difference between a one-off prisoner’s dilemma situation and an iterated version of the prisoner’s dilemma.
War is arguably a one-off situation, where competition is king and you want to win at all costs. Politics and policy-making is more of an ongoing endeavour and in the scheme of things, requires cooperation.
Where there are good intentions involved (and that is the case much of the time—it’s just not publicised nearly as much), both sides of a debate will often want to come to a solution that is something that the other side can live with—and there is at least the potential for changing perspectives and positions. So having high stakes doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s all-out competition and war between arguments.