Thread replies: 16
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
File: hb_31.45_av1.jpg (122KB, 885x614px) Image search:
[Google]
122KB, 885x614px
There is a likely chance that political philosophy ends with this post, because I think I just solved it.
1. A political ideology is a set of beliefs.
2. People who subscribe to an ideology, to a large extent, also hold those beliefs, and become part of a school of thought.
3. There is no objective truth as to which school of thought is the correct one.
4. When member of opposing schools of thought collide, they debate, but neither can present an irrefutable argument for their ideology.
5. A belief in a particular ideology implies one would want to see their ideology implemented.
6. When a particular ideology is implemented, there is resistance from those who disagree with it, which leads to compromise or rebellion.
7. The only way to avoid these problems is for members of the same school to unite and to implement their preferred system, and for everyone else to choose the particular nation which operates under the system they prefer.
8. There can be no unhappiness living under the ideas with which you agree.
∎
>>
>>9233619
>People who subscribe to an ideology, to a large extent, also hold those beliefs, and become part of a school of thought.
No
>3. There is no objective truth as to which school of thought is the correct one.
No
>4. When member of opposing schools of thought collide, they debate, but neither can present an irrefutable argument for their ideology.
No
>5. A belief in a particular ideology implies one would want to see their ideology implemented.
Holy shit no
>>
>just, like, move out
Fuck, hadn't thought about that before.
Welp, OP solved politics.
>>
Point number 7 is where you miserably fell like an idiot
>>
>>9233623
Can you please tell me why you would not want to see your political system in action?
>>9233627
You'd only consider that if you were feeble. Not even leftists (the most feeble of all) consider than an option. Why should we give our good land to those we disagree with, rather than take it from them?
>>
You entire line of reasoning implies that people invariably subscribe to some sort of ideology, which is factually untrue. Most people just want to have livelihood, security, and be left the fuck alone. These people are unappeasable under any ideologically driven government because inequality is inherent to human nature. Unhappiness thus cannot be for all and discontent will inevitably discredit literally any political system
>>
>Collision or compromise are problems
>A school is unified and never revised
>'People should just choose their preferred nation' is not an ideology
>Happiness is the only value
>>
>>9233641
>You entire line of reasoning implies that people invariably subscribe to some sort of ideology, which is factually untrue
They don't explicitly, but they must have some sort of preference with regards to, for example, whether drugs should be legal or illegal, whether freedom of speech protects hate speech, or whether taxes should be high for the rich.
>Most people just want to have livelihood, security, and be left the fuck alone.
Then why are there protests every single day about issues like immigration? Evidently these people don't care just about themselves.
>These people are unappeasable under any ideologically driven government
But they'd have nobody to blame if they were ruled under their ideal system and that system were to fail.
>discontent will inevitably discredit literally any political system
That's because all political systems in history have been a result of a compromise between opposing beliefs.
>>
>>9233640
>he reply to everyone except to the only obviously correct post
that's why you're a blindfolded pseud
>>
File: Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg.png (41KB, 500x375px) Image search:
[Google]
41KB, 500x375px
>>9233671
I don't reply to anything below contradiction.
>>
>>9233684
Okay I guess you got me, back to the drawing board!
>>
>>9233688
You are an ass hat.
>>
>>9233688
And I don't waste time with such a fucking retard like you to teach you that you can't subvert nations and people as if the planet was a game board
>7. The only way to avoid these problems is for members of the same school to unite and to implement their preferred system, and for everyone else to choose the particular nation which operates under the system they prefer
So fucking stupid I even feel embarassed to reply
sage
>>
>>9233707
Okay let's look at this from another angle. Culture is probably the strongest force in societies (Marx), people will throw their principles out when tradition and custom is at stake. The USA is not going to dismantle over political beliefs -- Trump has apparently divided the country, but nothing will happen.
So you're right, I understand the chess piece fallacy, but don't all arguments for a particular system fall under this fallacy? Do you think you could get a nation to suddenly just follow Plato's Republic? Or get the supreme court to instantly rewrite our legislature to fit your ethical framework?
>>
Why can't we all live in the same place, but under different rules?
Like all those that voted democrat pay more taxes and get free healthcare, but republicans pay less but need health insurance.
Problem solved.
Thread posts: 16
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3