This thread is permanently archived
Political Alignment

| So I've been drawing parallels between the political and alignment spectrum (because I'm bored), and this is what I came to.

Good <-> Evil
Liberal <-> Conservative

Order <-> Chaos
Authoritarian <-> Libertarian

Despite this, liberals can be some of the most vitriolic people ever, and every attempt at creating a heaven/utopia always fails horribly. What is wrong with us as a species? Are we simply impossibly evil?

| >>519188 I think it's a matter of understanding the potential consequences of an action. If you focus on the idea that there exists a good or evil, you're already at a problem since every individual sets out a different value for those points. Even on this board alone there's plenty of different views on what's good or evil.

What we could do is take a calculative approach and see which action would govern the least suffering.

| Because we are dumb and usually don't listen to reason.

The biggest problem in the world right now excluding the jews is population. Less people, less pollution, less variables, less mouths to feed, less difficulty to create an utopia.

| >>519188
Well, your alignment scheme is worth nothing as long you don't define what exactly the terms you you use mean.
What "Good" and "Evil" means differs from the philosophically/theologically pov.
What "Liberal" and "Conservative" means massively dependent on the current state of things, the status quo and on (economical) power and interest conflicts.
Distinguishing between "Order" and "Chaos" depends massively on education/research/knowledge on the world, which is not static.

| "Authoritarian" vs. "Libertarian"
This "antagonism" also doesn't solve the contradiction which exists, since an authority can be used to guarantee liberties and liberty can be used as an cynical excuse not to solve actual (e.g. social-economical) issues, which lead to autocracy.

| >and every attempt at creating a heaven/utopia always fails horribly
How do you know? Can you see into the future? Just imagine where technology would be with this attitude. What do you think how many attempts failed horribly until people could travel in flying machines?
Also: Not everything which is sold as an "attempt to create heaven/utopia" is, stays or even ever was actually really such an attempt. It failed so far always when there was too much Power in too few hands.

| what if i'm a good orderly libertarian conservative?

| I think it's fair to say though that liberal policies are comprised of things related to change and acceptance, whereas conservativism is about trying to keep existing or traditional functions of society. >>519195

| >>519238 I understand that a mere label doesn't define a person as a whole. Even in DnD, there can be a genocidal lawful good paladin who only sees the world in black and white, or the neutral evil necromancer who just does what he feels is best for all, albeit without regards for consequences.

And is it not true that everytime the proletariat try to run things, everything goes south?

| >>519432
>And is it not true that everytime the proletariat try to run things, everything goes south?
When did this ever really happen?
In the current state the proletariat has to suffer for every mistake the capitalists make. E.g. when "system relevant" banks go bankrupt, they need to "save" them with tax money. Or when things generally go down and conflicts break out they are recruited to fight for god(s), leader(s) and/or the nation - against their proletarian brothers.

| >>519696
I think most of will agree that corruption is bad, but pure capitalism & old fashioned conservatism would say to let them fail rather than save them.

You can say that the 'communist' systems that have turned up in the past weren't truly communist, but the same could be said of most current 'capitalist' systems. State sponsored capitalism just isn't the same.

| >>519702
>You can say that the 'communist' systems that have turned up in the past weren't truly communist
Which is a fact...
>but the same could be said of most current 'capitalist' systems.
Also this is correct. But I believe that the capitalist systems were temporarily better because they had to compete with the 'communist' systems which led to improved civil rights, decolonization, social-liberalism and social-market. As soon the 'communist' systems 'collapsed' things went back

| ...a process, that is still going, beeing accelerated by the information technological revolution.
Just look how the things developed after the short euphoria and liberal decade after the downfall of the soviet union: rising nationalism (and religious fundamentalism as a heritage of western colonial and anticommunist policy), increasing conflicts, decrease of civil rights, decrease of labor rights, rise of autocratism, increasing gap between poor and rich and returning arms race.

| Once and for all: The fail of "real socialism" systems don't say anything about socialist or communist criticism or analysis of capitalism. In order of the catastrophical post-soviet Jelzin era there was a saying in russia that sums it up: "Everything communists said about communism was a lie, but everything they told about capitalism was true".

| Me as an active unionists and former social democrat that enjoyed the benefits of a liberal society became very skeptical up to rejecting to capitalism, as seems rely pretty much on the worst features of humanity. I'm not that way and I want to be it and I'm sure most people are not satisfied with how things are developing. Unfortunately lots of them are easy prey for far-right propaganda, may it be nationalistic, racist or religious fundamentalist taste.

| Communism ignores negative human traits, while Capitalism wmphaoszes it. Communism fails because it assumes everyone will always do the right thing. Capitalism fails because it encourages people to do what isnt the right thing. Its an ancient paradox. How do you create a system that acknowledges the bad, encourages the good, but isnt tyrannical? Religion was the closest thing to that for years, but its too easily taken advantage of. 1/2

| Mixed systems (read: ALL currently existing systems) are the only ones that work, thus why they exist. But they are are all still flawed. There is nothing all this planet that is without flaws. To truly make something work, it is necessary to know that it will always have flaws, amd work around them accordingly. And, as everythong goes in this world, everything eventually breaks down. Its just about making the changes and repairs as smooth as possible.

Total number of posts: 17, last modified on: Wed Jan 1 00:00:00 1546897564

This thread is permanently archived