Join the new world

It seems clear to most, that a healthy democracy is one which ensures power is not centralized to the point where tyrannical influence is within reach of one person, or one group of people. Since this time, eons ago, there has been an acknowledgement that opposition, so long as its logical, is healthy. Why?







One school of thought, is that the benefits of opposition, and the acceptance of different opinions comes from the Socratic method of reasoning, as reported by Plato: Dialectic reasoning. Its also referred to as Platonic, or Socratic, dialectic.

The general idea, is that you must not have one group ruling a country unchallenged. Through ultimate power, comes tyrannical rule, because of poor governance and no accountability. To counter this, systems of government ensure that balances, checks, and limitations are placed upon those who rule. That way, government progresses through consensual change, from more than one ideology, group, or belief.

This idea is simple to manifest:


- Two brains are better than one

First and foremost, encouraging more people ensures that you have more knowledge, and this will ensure a better solution in the end. As well as this, it ensures that not only can different ideas be explored, but also, different methods of implementation. A group can hypothesize, as well as envisage more things, with more solutions, quicker.


- Counter arguments usually herald a third way

In law, a counter-offer is two things: firstly, a rejection of the original terms in their current form. This is something, in politics, which can be intensely useful; as people can incorporate their own beliefs and methods, with beliefs and methods from their opposition. But whilst doing this, they are seen to be sticking to their own political beliefs, or ideology: which is vital for any party. If you betray your userbase, you will not be in power to see any reforms you propose.







It is through opposition; healthy discussion between parties not afraid to stand up to each other; which ensures that not only are improvements foun😛 but they are meticulously planned, and that they are mutually useful. Its important that we improve, and progress, through consensus. To reform, or enact without consensual belief ensures that your reforms are limited to your dominance. You don't want reform to change when the balance of power tips out of your favour.

Dialectic argument is what we used to have: argument about change. Argument for a purpose. Argument with a goal in mind. Just as everyone accepts war requires a goal; as do domestic arguments. Without a goal, without a reason, argument is just as pointless as Lulz warfare. As soon as arguments are there for selfish reasons, or for personal vendettas, or even for RL beliefs: they become unproductive. This is what we have now. Two sub-groups, who are fighting their mutual vendettas, within two groups on opposing sides of the political spectrum.

The arguments have no merit, no value; no purpose, other than to fulfill each sub groups raison d'être: to win a political point. It is time, to look at the bigger picture. ITS TIME TO MOVE ON.

I may be part of one party: but I am not part of either side of the argument. Most people are getting really tired of the proxy arguments which continue, and diversify, daily. Both sides need to move on: because this isn't productive anymore. This is just boring.


jamesw
A bored idiot.


http://i43.tinypic.com/10r22yu.jpg" />
http://i44.tinypic.com/11h565y.jpg" />
http://i43.tinypic.com/etbinn.jpg" />
http://i41.tinypic.com/2nu3qlt.jpg" />
http://i42.tinypic.com/r072x1.jpg" />
http://i40.tinypic.com/1z4v9g3.jpg" />
http://i39.tinypic.com/23mtu86.jpg" />
http://i39.tinypic.com/okvfpt.jpg" />