forbidden...forbidden...forbidden...forbidden...Make that illegal.
Instead of suggesting you are a dreamer, I’d rather ask what your plan is.
I haven’t got one. That’s why this is in the Discussion section.
My problem with the proposed solution of “make that illegal” isn’t that it’s intellectual dreaming, it’s that it’s too practical and not abstract enough. Systems of people and their interactions flow in natural ways that can’t be brutally criminalized into nonexistence without disturbing the whole system.
Trying to solve a problem and then patching against the solution’s unintended consequences is the wrong approach, and it’s one engendered by not holding off with solutions and by zooming in on the party issue.
The way I think about things, “What other disadvantages are provided by the existence of political parties?” isn’t the right question. Advantages and disadvantages are relative to complete systems, and political parties are not preponderantly important as against all the other variables in the social system. Also, worlds without a particular set of laws are to be compared against worlds in which there is that set of laws: one such might be imprisonment for whipping votes, for example. Notably, one does not compare a world in which the criminalized behavior is absent, and in which all else remains static, to one in which the behavior is present.
Laws are either silly or legislating against something some people want to do (and others don’t want them to do). All laws are therefore suspect, particularly when they target an amorphous and undefinable thing like politicking. People naturally want to do these things, for valid game-theoretic reasons. Punishing doing them efficiently, punishing getting caught doing them, will not end the activity or the effects of the activity.
Just to be clear: You favor total anarchy? The conclusion of all your argument seems to be that nothing can be analyzed and nothing should be done, in general, for any problem. “It’s complex; therefore, you shouldn’t think about it.”
“It’s complex; therefore, you shouldn’t think about it.”
No.
It’s complex, therefore thoughts about it should probably be complex.
Banning proximate causes of ill is usually not a proposal that respects the complexities of a situation. It’s reminiscent of the war on drugs, the war on crime, the war on poverty, the war on terrorism...just about the only thing that could be a more perniciously deranging political cause than a war on a random abstract noun is a war on politics itself. That takes all the usual problems to the meta level.
Just to be clear: You favor total anarchy?
I had not expected that severe misinterpretation of what I wrote and notice my own surprise and stupidity.
My problem with the proposed solution of “make that illegal” isn’t that it’s intellectual dreaming, it’s that it’s too practical and not abstract enough. Systems of people and their interactions flow in natural ways that can’t be brutally criminalized into nonexistence without disturbing the whole system.
Trying to solve a problem and then patching against the solution’s unintended consequences is the wrong approach, and it’s one engendered by not holding off with solutions and by zooming in on the party issue.
The way I think about things, “What other disadvantages are provided by the existence of political parties?” isn’t the right question. Advantages and disadvantages are relative to complete systems, and political parties are not preponderantly important as against all the other variables in the social system. Also, worlds without a particular set of laws are to be compared against worlds in which there is that set of laws: one such might be imprisonment for whipping votes, for example. Notably, one does not compare a world in which the criminalized behavior is absent, and in which all else remains static, to one in which the behavior is present.
Laws are either silly or legislating against something some people want to do (and others don’t want them to do). All laws are therefore suspect, particularly when they target an amorphous and undefinable thing like politicking. People naturally want to do these things, for valid game-theoretic reasons. Punishing doing them efficiently, punishing getting caught doing them, will not end the activity or the effects of the activity.
Just to be clear: You favor total anarchy? The conclusion of all your argument seems to be that nothing can be analyzed and nothing should be done, in general, for any problem. “It’s complex; therefore, you shouldn’t think about it.”
No.
It’s complex, therefore thoughts about it should probably be complex.
Banning proximate causes of ill is usually not a proposal that respects the complexities of a situation. It’s reminiscent of the war on drugs, the war on crime, the war on poverty, the war on terrorism...just about the only thing that could be a more perniciously deranging political cause than a war on a random abstract noun is a war on politics itself. That takes all the usual problems to the meta level.
I had not expected that severe misinterpretation of what I wrote and notice my own surprise and stupidity.