RE: Are you Anti-Political?
February 3, 2022 at 7:57 pm
(This post was last modified: February 3, 2022 at 7:58 pm by vulcanlogician.)
(February 2, 2022 at 9:01 am)Lobster Lover Wrote: I'm anti-political as well as unsocial. Ultimately, I'm anti tribal.
Are you pro-politics in general? Pro-democracy but otherwise against politics? Are you apathetic about politics? Are you pro some other form of politics? (Meritocracy, Aristocracy, Monarchy, Communism, etc, etc)?
How much do you care about politics and in which direction?
Are you, perhaps, some combination of the above depending on your mood, or whatever?
I have attached a poll.
IDK where this thread has gone since the OP and page one. Like Angrboda, I dropped out at 2016 (two years before her, anyway). It wasn't serious Trump-disillusionment. Trump was more the straw that broke the camel's back. I used to be really into politics, but have since become just... disillusioned. I could give a fuck about current politics. But I'm still interested in underlying principles.
To me, proper politics isn't about tribes. It's about ideas. Each ought to (preferably using reason/logic) come up with a political party that supports their aims and values. But politics is seldom about that in practice. Democracy, as much as I like it, forces politics into the realm of demographics, that the demographics involved end up resolving political disputes rather than which idea or political philosophy is best.
I tend to think anarchism is the best system, IF we could get it to work. We may be able to, we may not. Something I don't like about anarchism is that it seems unstable-- it could lead out of itself. I've done quite a bit of thinking about whether some stable "republican" (small "r") form of anarchism could be conceived of that didn't have this issue.
I also like meritocracy. But meritocracy isn't without its shortcomings. When you get right down to it, excellence is a disputed term, and who REALLY wants a system that emphasizes rewarding those who have merit over those who don't. Like, meritless people serve an important purpose. Even from a utility standpoint, meritocracy has trouble seeing beyond its own nose. It's like going into an ecosystem and trying to remove the organisms that "serve" that ecosystem and remove the organisms that don't. But the fact is, the organisms presence (even the "worthless" ones) all make a contribution to what the ecosystem is in the first place. I tend to look at human social life on those same terms. But still, I like the idea of some kind of meritocratic structure being present in society.