Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Relationship

Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 6:04:50 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Well, as politics is directly connected to the welfare of the people--it relates quite heavily. For example each policy and law that is enacted is done so through *political* decision-making, and the individuals that that will be impacted by or be subservient to those policies/laws will be the people: this doesn't extend exclusively to citizens residing in the country they're enacted in either--if one is to consider foreign policy and immigration policy.

In terms of how the welfare of the people can be impacted in negative and positive ways, you can look at a few varying examples: for one, a welfare policy that is passed through--this could be an *increase* or a *decrease* on the amount of money the said recipient will get; that is politics directly interacting with them and their welfare. A second example would be a policy to either make gay marriage *illegal* or *legal*, once again, this is direct interaction of politics and people.

Thirdly you could use the example of tax, and/or the *increase* or *decrease* of it--this a policy that would affect all working citizens in each respective country, and one that is made as a result of politics.

One could argue that there's different types of 'welfare', whether they be financial (examples one and three would refer to this.) or welfare that relates primarily to the equality of people (example two.)

In any case, politics is perhaps the most paramount thing in any country/state as it extends to every sector and impacts every person: regardless of financial status, racial identity, religious identity, etc; the point is that no-one is exempt from it. The only things that are up for dispute is who makes political decisions--in a democratic state policies again have to be approved and passed through, varying parties will exist, and the ability to actually elect representatives is there. Whereas in an authoritarian state is it is often a one-party system with the leader or ruler of that party making all of the decisions, with there being very little if any room for contention and debate.

Essentially, politics can either be to the detriment or benefit of the people; but its influence and its importance is indisputable.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Rigoletto
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 6:16:57 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 6:04:50 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Essentially, politics can either be to the detriment or benefit of the people; but its influence and its importance is indisputable.

It's only a detriment of the people when they won't allow the government do its job to serve the people equally, fairly, and without prejudice.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 6:35:16 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 6:16:57 PM, Rigoletto wrote:
At 4/5/2016 6:04:50 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Essentially, politics can either be to the detriment or benefit of the people; but its influence and its importance is indisputable.

It's only a detriment of the people when they won't allow the government do its job to serve the people equally, fairly, and without prejudice.

In the circumstance that the government is *not* doing any of those things--discontent is somewhat justified.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Rigoletto
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 6:37:41 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 6:35:16 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 4/5/2016 6:16:57 PM, Rigoletto wrote:
At 4/5/2016 6:04:50 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Essentially, politics can either be to the detriment or benefit of the people; but its influence and its importance is indisputable.

It's only a detriment of the people when they won't allow the government do its job to serve the people equally, fairly, and without prejudice.

In the circumstance that the government is *not* doing any of those things--discontent is somewhat justified.

In my opinion, if the government furthers social justice, they are benefiting society.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 6:49:31 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 6:37:41 PM, Rigoletto wrote:
At 4/5/2016 6:35:16 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 4/5/2016 6:16:57 PM, Rigoletto wrote:
At 4/5/2016 6:04:50 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Essentially, politics can either be to the detriment or benefit of the people; but its influence and its importance is indisputable.

It's only a detriment of the people when they won't allow the government do its job to serve the people equally, fairly, and without prejudice.

In the circumstance that the government is *not* doing any of those things--discontent is somewhat justified.

In my opinion, if the government furthers social justice, they are benefiting society.

It depends on what your definition of 'social justice' is and how they are furthering it. Besides, that's just one example.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 6:52:36 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 6:37:41 PM, Rigoletto wrote:
At 4/5/2016 6:35:16 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 4/5/2016 6:16:57 PM, Rigoletto wrote:
At 4/5/2016 6:04:50 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Essentially, politics can either be to the detriment or benefit of the people; but its influence and its importance is indisputable.

It's only a detriment of the people when they won't allow the government do its job to serve the people equally, fairly, and without prejudice.

In the circumstance that the government is *not* doing any of those things--discontent is somewhat justified.

In my opinion, if the government furthers social justice, they are benefiting society.

Might take another civil war for the country to realize how important the concept of "equality under the law" is.
SJW movements can divide us up enough to get us there.
Rigoletto
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 7:25:48 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 6:49:31 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 4/5/2016 6:37:41 PM, Rigoletto wrote:
At 4/5/2016 6:35:16 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 4/5/2016 6:16:57 PM, Rigoletto wrote:
At 4/5/2016 6:04:50 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Essentially, politics can either be to the detriment or benefit of the people; but its influence and its importance is indisputable.

It's only a detriment of the people when they won't allow the government do its job to serve the people equally, fairly, and without prejudice.

In the circumstance that the government is *not* doing any of those things--discontent is somewhat justified.

In my opinion, if the government furthers social justice, they are benefiting society.

It depends on what your definition of 'social justice' is and how they are furthering it. Besides, that's just one example.

Equality of peoples- be it by gender, race, culture, religion, etc. None should be prioritized above another.
I understand what you mean, nonetheless.
Rigoletto
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 7:26:58 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 6:52:36 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/5/2016 6:37:41 PM, Rigoletto wrote:
At 4/5/2016 6:35:16 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 4/5/2016 6:16:57 PM, Rigoletto wrote:
At 4/5/2016 6:04:50 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Essentially, politics can either be to the detriment or benefit of the people; but its influence and its importance is indisputable.

It's only a detriment of the people when they won't allow the government do its job to serve the people equally, fairly, and without prejudice.

In the circumstance that the government is *not* doing any of those things--discontent is somewhat justified.

In my opinion, if the government furthers social justice, they are benefiting society.

Might take another civil war for the country to realize how important the concept of "equality under the law" is.

Ha. A revolution will suffice; hence we vote for Sanders.

SJW movements can divide us up enough to get us there.

Eh. Most SJW movements are good intentioned.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 7:34:11 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 7:25:48 PM, Rigoletto wrote:
At 4/5/2016 6:49:31 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 4/5/2016 6:37:41 PM, Rigoletto wrote:
At 4/5/2016 6:35:16 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 4/5/2016 6:16:57 PM, Rigoletto wrote:
At 4/5/2016 6:04:50 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Essentially, politics can either be to the detriment or benefit of the people; but its influence and its importance is indisputable.

It's only a detriment of the people when they won't allow the government do its job to serve the people equally, fairly, and without prejudice.

In the circumstance that the government is *not* doing any of those things--discontent is somewhat justified.

In my opinion, if the government furthers social justice, they are benefiting society.

It depends on what your definition of 'social justice' is and how they are furthering it. Besides, that's just one example.

Equality of peoples- be it by gender, race, culture, religion, etc. None should be prioritized above another.

I agree, my point was mainly referring to the scenario in which a government isn't prioritising any of the above.

I understand what you mean, nonetheless.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Rigoletto
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 7:35:59 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 7:34:11 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 4/5/2016 7:25:48 PM, Rigoletto wrote:
At 4/5/2016 6:49:31 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 4/5/2016 6:37:41 PM, Rigoletto wrote:
At 4/5/2016 6:35:16 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 4/5/2016 6:16:57 PM, Rigoletto wrote:
At 4/5/2016 6:04:50 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Essentially, politics can either be to the detriment or benefit of the people; but its influence and its importance is indisputable.

It's only a detriment of the people when they won't allow the government do its job to serve the people equally, fairly, and without prejudice.

In the circumstance that the government is *not* doing any of those things--discontent is somewhat justified.

In my opinion, if the government furthers social justice, they are benefiting society.

It depends on what your definition of 'social justice' is and how they are furthering it. Besides, that's just one example.

Equality of peoples- be it by gender, race, culture, religion, etc. None should be prioritized above another.

I agree, my point was mainly referring to the scenario in which a government isn't prioritising any of the above.

That's fair. :-)
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 10:27:45 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 4:59:43 PM, UUU wrote:
How does the politics relate with the welfare of people?

It's the job of the political system to make sure that the people are secure enough to ensure a stable society. Camus held that the act of rebellion constituted an assertion that there is a part of human nature which must always be defended. In order to ensure its own survival, a political system must both prevent rebellion by respecting that part of the governed masses (as Machiavelli put it, to always leave the people secure at the very least in their belongings and loved ones), and must also represent them on the national stage deftly, and with devastating force where necessary.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -