Just like a lawyer represents my interests without also following my level of knowledge of the law, a politician should be able to represent my interests with a higher level of understanding of how to achieve the best results than I have.
Quite frankly I vote for a representative because I do not devote my life to the intricacies of everything a government handles, and I shouldn’t have to. There’s a reason politicians campaigns don’t go into the finite details of everything. We have to able to trust politicians to represent our interests at a higher level than “do what I tell you to”, because it can’t work that way. They’re the people you hired to do the things you don’t have the time to do or know how to do.
Politics is the art of the possible.
Politics is about the characteristic blend of conflict and co-operation that can be found so often in human interactions. Pure conflict is war. Pure co-operation is true love. Politics is a mixture of both.
Politics is “who gets what, when, how”.
Many of the wisest political scientists of this and previous centuries agree that democratic institutions are especially difficult to establish and maintain — because they make heavy demands on all portions of a population and because they depend on complex social, cultural, and economic conditions…
In the relatively few places where they exist, democratic governments have come into being slowly, after extended prior experience with more limited forms of participation during which leaders have reluctantly grown accustomed to tolerating dissent and opposition, opponents have accepted the notion that they may defeat but not destroy incumbents, and people have become aware of government’s effects on their lives and of their own possible effects on government…
In neither Nicaragua nor Iran did they realize that the only likely result of an effort to replace an incumbent autocrat with one of his moderate critics or a “broad-based coalition” would be to sap the foundations of the existing regime without moving the nation any closer to democracy. The fabric of authority unravels quickly when the power and status of the man at the top are undermined or eliminated.
Về trình độ hiểu biết: Người thủ lĩnh chính trị nhất thiết phải là người thông minh, hiểu biết sâu rộng các lĩnh vực; có tư duy khoa học; nắm vững được quy luật phát triển theo hướng vận động của quá trình chính trị; có khả năng dự đoán được tình hình; làm chủ được khoa học và công nghệ lãnh đạo, quản lý.
Về năng lực tổ chức: thủ lĩnh chính trị là người có khả năng về công tác tổ chức, nghĩa là biết đề ra mục tiêu đúng; phân công nhiệm vụ đúng chức năng cho cấp dưới và cho từng người; biết tổ chức thực hiện nhiệm vụ chính trị; có khả năng động viên, cổ vũ, khích lệ mọi người hoạt động; có khả năng kiểm soát, kiểm tra công việc.
Về đạo đức, tác phong: thủ lĩnh chính trị phải là người có tính trung thực, công bằng không tham lam, vụ lợi; cởi mở và cương quyết; có lối sống giản dị; có khả năng giao tiếp và có quan hệ tốt với mọi người; biết lắng nghe ý kiến của người khác; có lòng tin vào chính bản thân mình; có khả năng tự kiểm tra bản thân, khả năng giữ gìn và bảo vệ ý kiến của mình; có lòng say mê công việc và lòng tin vào cấp dưới.
The use of the phrase “rule of law” can be traced to 16th-century Britain. It was employed in arguing against the divine right of kings. However, the principle, if not the phrase itself, was recognized by ancient thinkers. Aristotle wrote: “It is more proper that law should govern than any of the citizens.”
People always act like politics is like this little add-on thing like a food preference, rather than something deeply rooted in personal convictions about right and wrong and even psychological tendencies.
People say, If the Congress were more representative of the people it would be better. I say the Congress is too damn representative. It’s just as stupid as the people are; just as uneducated, just as dumb, just as selfish.
Party discipline tends to be strong in countries using the Westminster system, in which a vote by the legislature against the government is understood by convention, to cause the government to “collapse.” Thus, it is rare for members to vote against the wishes of their party. Party leaders in such governments often have the authority to expel members of the party who violate the party line.
Notably, the Act did not define national security, which was conceivably advantageous, as its ambiguity made it a powerful phrase to invoke against diverse threats to interests of the state, such as domestic concerns.
There are 2 kinds of political actors in this world: insiders and outsiders.
Outsiders are free to speak their truths, Summers explains. But the price of such freedom is irrelevance int he halls of power. Insiders, by contrast, have a seat at the table where history is made. But to keep those seats, they must take care not to criticize other insiders. So, Summers ask his dining companion, which are you?
Plato: chính trị là “nghệ thuật cung đình” liên kết trực tiếp của người anh hùng và sự thông minh. Chính trị là nghệ thuật cai trị. Cai trị bằng sức mạnh là độc tài, cai trị bằng nghệ thuật mới là đích thực.
Hiện nay, trên thế giới đã có 4 cách hiểu khác nhau về chính trị:
- Nghệ thuật của phép cai trị.
- Những công việc của chung.
- Sự thoả hiệp và đồng thuận.
- Quyền lực và cách phân phối tài nguyên hay lợi ích.
It is interesting to note that there is no idea of revolt to a great extent in revolution. It is actually a kind of movement that aims at the betterment of socio-economic conditions of a country or a province. On the other hand, rebellion is filled with the idea of revolt. It is a kind of total disagreement with the policies of a government or a rule.
Rebellion often results in war. On the other hand, revolution does not often result in war. In fact, revolution aims at newer methods and approaches of solving socio-economic problems. Most revolutions are started by a person who is generally considered as the revolutionary leader. He is hailed as the leader of the revolutionary movement.
All of the human technology stack is based upon investment. Not merely in the modern, financial, sense, but the investment of effort.
If I am a protohuman, using a stone as a pounding tool, I do not care if you take my stone. I will simply pick up another stone. But if I chip my stone into a spearhead, then I will not let you take my spearhead, because that would take away the effort I have invested.
From the moment humans gained the ability to build and farm, land became something they could invest effort in.
And land ownership became necessary so they would do that.
All of the bullshit ya’ll think is so important: governments, laws, philosophical principles about rights, etc… these are all just tools, possible means of protecting investment.
It doesn’t matter what set of tools you use, so long as they work and investments are protected. If a man can be certain his investments will not be taken away from him by parasites, thieves, and robbers, he will invest. If he is certain that they will, he will not invest.