Is politics the root of all evil?

[Mr Rayon]

I have Russian friend who says that politics is the root of all evil. I laughed when he said this but then he asked me how many wars have not been started by politics and this got me thinking, is there any truth behind this?

 

Do you trust your most well-known politician?

 

I don't trust any politicians, not even the Australian ones.

[CaptainPanic]

Your Russian friend is completely right - Politics is responsible for all the things that happen with a country that they're running. They are often the ones who choose to go to war. So, yes, you could argue that they're the root of all evil.

 

However, it would be fair to say that they're also the root of quite a few good things. Having a government is arguably better than complete anarchy. It's nice that they build infrastructure. And the list of things that is ultimately organized by governments is enormous.

 

It's not a black and white question. The choice is not: "Government" vs. "No government".

What is important is to remember that politicians are not just reponsible, but they also have a responsibility to us (the people). And that we occasionally remind them of that responsibility if they forget, which they ultimately will.

[Athena]

Your Russian friend is completely right - Politics is responsible for all the things that happen with a country that they're running. They are often the ones who choose to go to war. So, yes, you could argue that they're the root of all evil.

 

However, it would be fair to say that they're also the root of quite a few good things. Having a government is arguably better than complete anarchy. It's nice that they build infrastructure. And the list of things that is ultimately organized by governments is enormous.

 

It's not a black and white question. The choice is not: "Government" vs. "No government".

What is important is to remember that politicians are not just responsible, but they also have a responsibility to us (the people). And that we occasionally remind them of that responsibility if they forget, which they ultimately will.

 

 

Going from your mention of anarchy I think a few of words come from the Greek god Apollo, like apologize and politics. This deals with reason, as opposed to brute force. It is inclusive reasoning, as opposed to being self centered. Ideally democracy is rule by reason, and citizens do more than vote. They also engage in the process of reasoning, so when a decision is made they understand the reasoning of it, and have a chance to influence the best possible decision.

 

On the other hand war is mass insanity. Individuals can lead us to war, and it is our fault if we allow this to happen, without making an effort to stop it. Hopefully, the Internet will make war obsolete. If people can share information, hopefully the people will resolve their differences, and not follow those who lead people to war. But then we also have to stop calling men of war Great. As we call call men like Alexander Great, we will have men like Cheney and Bush Jr. who want to go down in history as among the Great men who lead wars. I am not sure that following them is politics.

[imatfaal]

Athena - surely politics comes from polis - the city. And I don't believe, but will stand to be corrected, that polis is derived from Apollo (I think the polis predates Apollo). Apology comes from apo logos - which is basically "speech from" "words out of" and came to mean a story or account and after than apologoimai (speech on behalf of) and finally apologia (speech in defence). To equate democracy in some idealized form to rule of reason is incorrect - it is, always has been rule of the people not the enlightened.

[Marat]

I agree with the etymology of 'politics' as derived from 'polis,' or the Ancient Greek word for 'city.' Aristotle calls people 'zoon politikoi,' meaning 'political animals,' so that must be the derivation.

 

But taking politics seriously as the type of life that develops from the interaction of people in a community, where the naturally opposing interests of each individual have to be reconciled with each other, politics has to be recognized as a universal, necessary, and unavoidable epiphenomenon of civilized existence. So whether it is the root of all evil or not, it is simply unavoidable.

[Athena]

Athena - surely politics comes from polis - the city. And I don't believe, but will stand to be corrected, that polis is derived from Apollo (I think the polis predates Apollo). Apology comes from apo logos - which is basically "speech from" "words out of" and came to mean a story or account and after than apologoimai (speech on behalf of) and finally apologia (speech in defence). To equate democracy in some idealized form to rule of reason is incorrect - it is, always has been rule of the people not the enlightened.

 

It tickles me when there appears to be agreement and then at the last second, the appearance of agreement disappears like a popped balloon. You don't Apollo comes from apo logos, and that there is no connection between the polis and reason? You don't don't think democracy is the method for us knowing logos? Logos being a concept of reason, as the controlling force of the universe, and arguing being the method of understanding reason. Democracy being an imitation of gods, and even the gods being subject to reason.

 

There appears to be different ideas about Apollo's name. One of them given by Wikipedia is this "Doric απέλλα (apella), which means "assembly", so that Apollo would be the god of political life". It might just be a romantic notion, but democracy is a group mind. It is what we can know by coming together with all we know, and arguing about what is true, what is the law, so we can determine our laws, that we should live by? It has everything to do with logos.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Athena

[Marat]

But how does that supposed etymology of 'politics' square with the widely-shared notion among the Ancient Greeks, led by Aristotle, that democracy -- usually understood as 'mob rule' -- is the worst form of government, while aristocracy, rule by the best, the 'aristoi,' is the best? I'm sure they wouldn't have wanted to associate Apollo with any corrupt institution.

[imatfaal]

It tickles me when there appears to be agreement and then at the last second, the appearance of agreement disappears like a popped balloon. You don't Apollo comes from apo logos, and that there is no connection between the polis and reason? You don't don't think democracy is the method for us knowing logos? Logos being a concept of reason, as the controlling force of the universe, and arguing being the method of understanding reason. Democracy being an imitation of gods, and even the gods being subject to reason.

Apo logos [math]\neq[/math] apollo.

 

I didn't doubt any connexion between the polis and reason - I challenged the view that democracy meant rule of the reasoned, cos it just doesn't. Marat has pointed out the etymological difference in roots between demos - the people, the crowd, the mob and aristos - the best, the most excellent. Much of the development of the logos was after the fall of Athenian democracy - Aristotle floriated under the rule of Phillip of Macedon (who did not allow the Athenians into their strange breed of one soldier one vote)

 

The Greeks not only worshipped the gods they held them in a fair amount of scorn - the gods were cruel, vindictive and petty. You didn't cross the gods because if you did they were likely to send you mad and destroy you - they most certainly were not subject to reason. democracy was a creation of man - the political animal

There appears to be different ideas about Apollo's name. One of them given by Wikipedia is this "Doric απέλλα (apella), which means "assembly", so that Apollo would be the god of political life".

 

the whole wikipedia paragraph on the possible derivation of the name Apollo is quite revealing

Several instances of popular etymology are attested from ancient authors. Thus, the Greeks most often associated Apollo's name with the Greek verb ἀπόλλυμι (apollymi), "to destroy".^[4] Plato in Cratylus connects the name with ἀπόλυσις (apolysis), "redeem", with ἀπόλουσις (apolousis), "purification", and with ἁπλοῦν(aploun), "simple",^[5] in particular in reference to the Thessalian form of the name, Ἄπλουν, and finally with Ἀει-βάλλων (aeiballon), "ever-shooting". Hesychius connects the name Apollo with the Doric απέλλα (apella), which means "assembly", so that Apollo would be the god of political life, and he also gives the explanation σηκός (sekos), "fold", in which case Apollo would be the god of flocks and herds.

 

It might just be a romantic notion, but democracy is a group mind. It is what we can know by coming together with all we know, and arguing about what is true, what is the law, so we can determine our laws, that we should live by? It has everything to do with logos.

 

Unfo - it is a romantic notion - and perhaps one we should strive for. But in reality what you are describing is a utopian vision of full functioning participatory democracy formed of like minded philosophers - and no where in the world has ever even begun to approximate that.

[islamuzlum]

I don't think politics is the root of all evil; it's the person itself who is in power who is hunger for power I guess.

[Mr Rayon]

Your Russian friend is completely right - Politics is responsible for all the things that happen with a country that they're running. They are often the ones who choose to go to war. So, yes, you could argue that they're the root of all evil.

 

But would this mean that Barrack Obama is Satan?

[CaptainPanic]

Your Russian friend is completely right - Politics is responsible for all the things that happen with a country that they're running. They are often the ones who choose to go to war. So, yes, you could argue that they're the root of all evil.

 

But would this mean that Barrack Obama is Satan?

You quoted only 1/3rd of my post.

Did you even read the rest of that post? Because I think that answers your question already.

 

However, it would be fair to say that they're also the root of quite a few good things. Having a government is arguably better than complete anarchy. It's nice that they build infrastructure. And the list of things that is ultimately organized by governments is enormous.

 

It's not a black and white question. The choice is not: "Government" vs. "No government".

What is important is to remember that politicians are not just reponsible, but they also have a responsibility to us (the people). And that we occasionally remind them of that responsibility if they forget, which they ultimately will.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Politics discussion belongs in the politics section

[Incendia]

i. Morality is a construct of the mind.

ii. It is not politics which is the root of all 'evil', the wars were started by people with power. It was not the power that started the war.

iii. Humans can do 'good' as well 'evil'.

[Mr Rayon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebezjhl5ARM

[Greg Boyles]

But how does that supposed etymology of 'politics' square with the widely-shared notion among the Ancient Greeks, led by Aristotle, that democracy -- usually understood as 'mob rule' -- is the worst form of government, while aristocracy, rule by the best, the 'aristoi,' is the best? I'm sure they wouldn't have wanted to associate Apollo with any corrupt institution.

 

Perhaps voting should be a privaledge that can be earned by anyone through education and recommendation by peers rather than an automatic right.

 

As to how to setup up such a system so that the political and business classes do not entirely control who gets the vote, I don't know.

[JohnB]

Perhaps voting should be a privaledge that can be earned by anyone through education and recommendation by peers rather than an automatic right.

 

Why would education or acclaim be a valid reason for voting? Education can impart knowledge but not wisdom, nor can it actually stimulste a civic "care". Acclaim would mean a nation governed by Britney Spears and Lady GaGa.

 

I must admit I tend to be rather "Heinleinian" in this. To have a well functioning system, authority must always equal responsibility. Giving authority without responsibility is a recipe for disaster and similarly a person cannot be held responsible for things that they have no authority or control over.

 

We try to make politicians responsible by elections, if they don't do a good enough job, they lose their position. However this makes no move towards addressing the problem of choosing the politicians in the first place. Ideally we would want politicians who value the society over themselves, thereby (hopefully) they would make decisions in the best interests of the society rather than their own interests.

 

Voting or being a politician is the ultimate authority over the State and should be balanced by accepting ultimate responsibility for the State.

 

To my mind the only groups that fit the "ultimate responsibility" category are military and emergency service personnel. (Especially Police) Only these groups have voluntarily shown that they value the society they live in so much that they are willing to place their own lives on the line in defence of that society. Many in the military or emergency services have "paid the ultimate price" for the safety of society, as such, and as a group, they have demonstrated a greater concern for the welfare of society than any other group.

 

As I said, authority and responsibility should balance. A person who wants to assert ultimate control over the State (by voting or standing as a candidate) should demonstrate that they are willing to accept ultimate responsibility for the State.

[Greg Boyles]

I must admit I tend to be rather "Heinleinian" in this. To have a well functioning system, authority must always equal responsibility. Giving authority without responsibility is a recipe for disaster and similarly a person cannot be held responsible for things that they have no authority or control over.

Or the appropriate education to comprehend the issues, e.g. econimist or business background politicians being in charge of environmental portfolios!

 

We try to make politicians responsible by elections, if they don't do a good enough job, they lose their position. However this makes no move towards addressing the problem of choosing the politicians in the first place. Ideally we would want politicians who value the society over themselves, thereby (hopefully) they would make decisions in the best interests of the society rather than their own interests.

A big part of the problem is that they pander to the lowest common poorly educated denominator is society and unfortunately that is rather a lot of us. That lowest common denominator responds more to emotion and irrationality than it does to science and common sense.

 

Hence remove the voting rights from that segement and the current crop of idiot politicians no longer have a client base. They can earn back that right to vote if they improve their education level, including perhaps some ethics.

 

Some body posted that Socrates or some other famous ancient philosopher thought that democracy or rule of the mob was the worst form of government. Particularly with the climate change issue he has a point.

 

 

Classic case in Victoria......

 

Those fwits Steve Bracks and John Brumby push for population growth in Victoria and therefore have to be seen to be doing something about the severe water shortages that it (combined with the drought) causes and hence they order the Wonthaggi desalination plant which results in everyone's water bills rising dramatically to pay for it.

 

Then it rains and the desalination plant is not needed but they have left no means of escape from the contract for tax payers. And what's more they have allowed the developers to get more money than quoted if they have cost overruns.

 

Then they are turfed out of office and bear no further responsibility for their f up.

 

Why didn't they put the brakes on immigration into Victoria by taking us off the priority list during the drought. Then perhaps they would not have had to order the desalination plant.

Edited August 14, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[JohnB]

Hmmm, something we actually agree on.

 

Or the appropriate education to comprehend the issues, e.g. econimist or business background politicians being in charge of environmental portfolios!

 

Why is it that a person can work their way up through say, the education ranks, finishing up as Regional Director in charge of dozens of schools, but if they go to Parliment the absolute, guaranteed, one and only portfolio, that they will never get is "Education"? I thought I was the only one who thought that this was bloody silly. A surgeon will never get "Health". Are we the only democracy on the planet that is this dumb?

 

A big part of the problem is that they pander to the lowest common poorly educated denominator is society and unfortunately that is rather a lot of us. That lowest common denominator responds more to emotion and irrationality than it does to science and common sense.

 

Hence remove the voting rights from that segement and the current crop of idiot politicians no longer have a client base. They can earn back that right to vote if they improve their education level, including perhaps some ethics.

 

I think that you are equating "education" with "Wisdom and Knowledge". The two don't go together. A freshly minted BSc isn't more likely to vote rationally than a 50 year old who has started with nothing and built up a large business. The 50 yo is more likely to vote rationally because his and his employees livelihoods depend on the economy, the BSc only cares whether he gets a job or not. In many cases, people with degrees are chattels to be bought as needed and dispensed with when not. (Sorry if that hurts any feelings anywhere.) I have a Solicitor so that I don't need a law degree, I have an accountant so that I don't need that degree either. In some cases, degreed people are like plumbers, just tradesmen and nothing special.

 

Similarly if education "responds more" to science and common sense then why are so many govt programs complete clusterf*cks? They were designed, implimented and over seen by a large number of people with relevent degrees, so they should have been outstanding successes shouldn't they? Not having a degree doesn't make a person a yobbo and having one doesn't make a person smarter or more rational.

 

Nor can I agree about "Ethics". Whose ethics? Yours? Mine? Bob Browns Greenshirts? The Union bloke who stills calls people "Comrade" and is waiting for the uprising? One of the Lib/Nats that has their "Born to rule" ethos? Ethics like morality is ill defined and possibly undefinable. Aside from the basics "Don't lie, cheat or steal" what can be taught that can be agreed upon?

 

I won't give you an argument over Bracks and Brumby except to say that Bligh gives them both a good run for their money. It takes a very special kind of stupid to more than double govt income in 10 years and still be short on money. (Mind you it takes an even more special kind of stupid to not be able to beat such a govt in an election. )

 

As to Wonthaggi, why they didn't take the cheaper and better option of a new dam I will never know. (Actually I do know, the Greens would have raised merry hell over the idea.) Not only supplying drinking water a dam would have helped in flood mitigation. (Could it have been that they litened to the educated and degreed "experts" who said it wasn't going to rain any more? )

 

Either way, Bracks, Brumby, Bligh and the rest did absolutely nothing before going to Parliment that in any way showed that they value society over their own personal ambitions. (Gillard is another great example.)

 

Put it another way. If we were voting for President of the Australian Republic, I would put General Peter Cosgrove with his proven record of caring for and looking after those under him and his proven ability to make the hard choices and actually get things done against any and all politicians from any party we currently have. Which is why our next Premier will almost certainly be Campbell Newman, an ex officer with a high honours civil engineering degree.

Edited August 15, 2011 by JohnB

[systemist]

I have Russian friend who says that politics is the root of all evil. I laughed when he said this but then he asked me how many wars have not been started by politics and this got me thinking, is there any truth behind this?

 

Do you trust your most well-known politician?

 

I don't trust any politicians, not even the Australian ones.

 

Consider this: is evil the root of all politics?

 

If politics is taken as collectively decision making, then, human emotions can add the dimension of 'evil'

[imatfaal]

man is the political animal - if evil is the root of all politics then it is so tied up with humanity to be indistinguishable from it.

[systemist]

Humans can in the end manipulate anything. Since they created it, they have the power to manipulate it. They've manipulate religion for political purposes above all!

[imatfaal]

we control very little and manipulate even less - those who are successful are those who understand trends and directions quicker than the crowd and have the temerity to back themselves. you could equally say that religion manipulates politics for their own ends.