[extropy-chat] Re: A view of what politics is

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

On 10/16/05, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So perhaps we can merge the two definitions as:
> 1) Bad Politics is the organized application of violence to achieve
> dominance
> 2) Good Politics is solving conflicts without using violence


### That's progress but questions remain. To avoid overinclusiveness, you
need to specify what is not Good Politics but still solves conflicts without
using violence.
------------------------------------------------

> 3) We are halfway between Bad Politics and Good Politics, the degree
> depending on specific local practices.
> 4) We should move away from 1 and towards 2.
> Regarding the apples thing, I cannot answer without more info on the
> trading mechanism. Having to trade apple at gunpoint, and being paid
> with the right to stay alive until next time, is what I would call Bad
> Politics.


### Let's assume that it involves two farmers, peers in all respects. One
has an apple, and intends to feed it to his hogs. The other desires the
apple with all his soul, dreaming of the juicy, crisp, flavory crunch.
Obviously, there is a conflict between their desires as to the preferred
fate of the apple.

Being honest people, and utterly respectful of each other, they would never
threaten violence (unless threatened). After some friendly negotiations,
where violence is not even a dark unsaid shadow, they exchange the apple for
some corn. Both farmers, and the hogs, are better off.

Is this politics?

Rafal

PS. As you may realize, what I am driving at is to say that all politics is
bad, and all "good politics", is in fact trade, or forbearance.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20051016/e5a795fc/attachment.html>