Instigator / Pro
0
1493
rating
23
debates
60.87%
won
Topic
#4973

Which Political philosophy is better?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
20,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1479
rating
318
debates
39.31%
won
Description

Pro and Con provide their political philosophy.
Then rebuttle/dispute which is better.

Vote for who made better argument for their political philosophy.
Criteria to Consider:
Understanability
Articulation
Practicality
Resources
Usability
Personal insight

Round 1
Pro
#1
Round 1 contents:
  1. Definitions
  2. My political philosophy 
  3. Comparing my philosophy to more popular philosophies of today
  4. Examining how my philosophy can be applied
1. Definitions & how I use them.

Govt. System - also political system. The institution of govt. 

Branch of philosophy that is theoretical

Govt. action - an action or law that a government performs. 


. My political philosophy. 
   Philosophy in it self is very fluid. Similar to martial arts, there are parts that can be seen in 2 competing systems. Ex: knee strikes in karate can be seen and utilized more often in muy thai. The influence govt. has over its economy may be seen in capitalism, but is utilized more in communism. Therefore the most important parts to my political philosophy are:  

A. Be as water

 Be as water (youtube link) was popularized by Bruce Lee. This ideal is to never allow oneself to settle or accept only 1 thing. In martial arts, this means be open to learn from all systems instead of narrowing one's mind to a single system. Bruce Lee spoke on the importance of learning with other martial art systems, not to exclude ourselves from them. Political science and applying govt. systems needs to be the same way. Open and fluid to many systems to find the right fit for the populace. 


B. Transparency
Two ways to maintain transparency. 
First is to maintain short and long term goals; that are public & well known.  This practice follows educational ideal brought to us by Simon Sinek and his examining u.s. policy on war using game theory

In summary, Simon takes what govt. participates in (i.e. war), applies game theory to determine choices, goals, participants, etc. In doing so we can see that a country's goals helps develop stability and unity through knowledge. 

Second, reduce the amount of secrets. Although we may agree some secrets are necessary, we should maintain that quantity to the smallest possible. If some actions require secrecy then we can navigate risk vs.  reward, aligned with above goal system, to prevent secrecy - abstaining from that action. 

We may also have a law or obligation that requires a secret action to be made public within a short time period. 

Third, having an open (public) process to determine govt. actions that can be identified and explained in simple ways. Govt. systems should be explainable. How govt. operate should be explainable.  

Explaining why comes from experience/practice and research.  We research the materials to implement in effort to know all possible affects. Then put findings in practice around the country (like a business trying experimental services/products in select regions i.e. a new hamburger). 

C. Balance of power BY:
I Seek competition 
II  Eliminate competition. 
This applies to the political system only. Many govt.'s have tried to balance power between individuals and groups. We have a senate, house of representatives, etc. Every political group tries to control as much as possible to get power.  This is a game and the game is competition.  Eliminate competition, then there will be balance.  

D. Work smart first, then hard. 
Maintain our development based on sciences and innovations. Then utilize the "leather neck tough" mentality to get the job done to the highest quality. Why? 

Because working smart means efficiency. Using the least required resources with the least amount of impact on economy or nature. 

2. Comparing my philosophy. 
Govts. systems and political philosophies used today include (but not limited to) liberalism,  capitalismconservatism,  socialism, and more

These "ism's" (as I call it) guide laws and policies to fit an ideal. Although some share similar principals, they project a dangerous one-ness in saying only one "ism" should be used to build a govt. 

This is dangerous because it prevents flexibility in adapting to changing environments. Utilizing such a polarizing approach to politics is can rarely be seen as little to no country using these philosophies in their entirety.  

America uses socialist programs with capitalist policies.  China uses capitalist policies with communist agendas. 

Countries have developed into socialist democracies and democratic republics. Countries that have succeeded in securing a strong economy, safety for citizens, and over all growth have implemented several practices from multiple "isms." 

Therefore I introduce "political waterism. " The political philosophy we can all vote for. 

A philosophy to allow systems to adapt by using more than just one "ism."


4.  How my philosophy can be applied?  
There are many ways that the current u.s. govt., institution or whom ever may apply my above philosophy. I will promote the following means as 1 example. 

A. Having govt. separated into 3 groups with 4 sub groups in each. Each group would be identified as the following. 

I - Federal 
+ legislature
+ Law enforcement/military
+ utilities
+ economics 

II - regional/local
+ legislature
+ Law enforcement/military
+ utilities/infrastructure 
+ economics (i.e. resources & money)


III - advisory/judicial
+ 9 Judges known as prince/princess to oversee regional legislature and law enforcement - meet together for federal decisions - decided upon by expertise & voting
+ 9 council members for utilities/infrastructure - decided upon by professional expertise & voted for
+ 9 chamber members for economics  - decided upon by expertise & voting
9 war chiefs for war council - decided upon by voting & rank. 

B. In summary, words that best describe how my philosophy is applied is as follows: 

Meritocracy/Technocracy in a Constitutional Oligarchy 

Con
#2
My political philosophy is this.

It's broken up in two parts. Ascertaining no person is mistreated. Ascertaining the person that needs the constructive help the most gets the most constructive help ultimately. This is taken from a person author of a book titled the United independent compensatory code system concept. It has been rephrased to fit my position as it's my political philosophy. This is a code likewise to that of the individual of the book has implemented.

In short , summed up, it is a code of justice .

To unpack some terms , what is political or politics ?

It is the interaction, effects, counter effects between people.

What is philosophy? A system of proverbs, axioms, teachings for guidance.

My code is a system of justice. In which you will learn and be guided by do's and don'ts on the path of working towards no mistreatment which is correct treatment, using truth plus correctness of thought , speech and action regarding what is constructive.

A code is a way of doing things. Doing things require a doing of a thing. To do different things is to do one thing that is different from another thing that will require doing but not the doing of another thing because it's something different to do. These are do's and don'ts. Being aware of these do's and don'ts it provides guidance on what to do and not do .

How are these do's and don'ts learned about?

Quite relevantly there are questions that can and will be present in the mind. These questions are there in order to get to the fulfillment of a goal or result that would be in answer(s) to those questions.

Question number one.

What is it that you want to do?

Number 2 , why do you want to do what it is you want to do?

Three, how do you plan(what is the code) to do what it is you want to do?

Next, what do you expect the constructive result to be ultimately?

This begins as the thought, to applicable speech to action.

The actions or end results here will either be constructive or non constructive/destructive ultimately. They'll be mistreating or correctly treating.

The correct treatment is what justice is. The mistreatment is injustice.

Every person that is on code with justice interacting with one another are treating one another correctly, constructively helping those who need the constructive help the most.

This is a rough breakdown of everything. Of course there can be further breakdown and elaboration depending on questions and answers that follow here after.




Round 2
Pro
#3
Round 2 contents
Q&A. 

This is a fascinating system Mall. 
I am considering how it may be applied to the politics just as any political philosophy. 

Using Mall's system
A. What would this system look like used in the political arena (used in govt. & politics? 

B. How do we ascertain no one is mistreated and all obtain constructive help?  


C. Correct me if I am wrong. Sounds like there is a single book that determines code (or is the code) for the system. Therefore for everyone observed the same book. 
Who is the author and how do we gauge this book for morality or fairness? 

Is there a way to change this code or book? 

Do we vote for this book or is it implemented another way? 

How do we ensure everyone uses the same book?

C. As we all have access to the do and dont book.  Is there education system for learning it? 
Does this change how education operates? 

D. Three, how do you plan(what is the code) to do what it is you want to do

Can new code be created ? 
What happens if new code contradicts old code? 

E. How do we know what it means to be mistreated? To be mistreated can be vague sometimes.  

F. How do we identify who needs the help the most? 
What do we do once the help is identified? 



Con
#4
"This is a fascinating system Mall. "

Thank you. I thank you for taking time to read about it. There are those that refuse to read what I say but let this be the epitome of an exchange in appropriate responses.

"What would this system look like used in the political arena (used in govt. & politics?"

Due to the character space I can't elaborate but so far and return to ask you questions but in all feasible possible manner ...in answer to the question, what is government? I explained what politics are in essence. 

We're talking about people. People that govern themselves and govern people or a people. How ? It has to be done through some sort of interaction. This interaction will be of a constructive effect or not ultimately. When you look at laws for what they really are, they create ideally you can say justice supposedly which is proper or correct treatment of people.

"How do we ascertain no one is mistreated and all obtain constructive help?"

Basically through questions and answers. Basically like through those four questions presented. 

"Correct me if I am wrong. Sounds like there is a single book that determines code (or is the code) for the system. Therefore for everyone observed the same book."

Correction, the book doesn't determine the code but presents the code . Things to do and not do as suggestions based on logic or cause and effect which came with the universe see . It is true that everyone that can observe or does observe the universe learns about what is constructive. For example they learn fire will burn, water is wet. 

"Who is the author and how do we gauge this book for morality or fairness?"

The author is Neely Fuller Jr.
We can gauge for fairness which is correct treatment or for the system of justice by the definition itself. In other words what is justice? It's about in short getting the most constructive help ultimately right, so the do's and don'ts to put into action that work towards that can be measured. 

Just like with those four questions I posed. If you're doing something or know before you do it , it won't have a constructive effect ultimately, towards yourself or anyone, that is the one stop shop in calculated progress in replacing any system of mistreatment with a system of justice (correct treatment).

"Is there a way to change this code or book?"

In short yes.

"Do we vote for this book or is it implemented another way?"

No you don't vote you can just read it or listen to a talkshow where the author answers questions from the audience every week currently regarding the book.

"How do we ensure everyone uses the same book?"

Well in an indepth sense, encourage them to observe the universe around them. That's all the book really is to do. Just regurgitates , points you back to the world around you .

My position is inspired by this book but I'm not solely as the epicenter offering a book. It's the world around you that has the code. You can however use the book to help along to perhaps quiet down the noise and distractions.

Alright.

"Is there education system for learning it?"

Yes, it's called the entire universe. The entire universe is a school. Have you ever noticed how some of the highest institutions of brick mortar places are referred to as universities?

"Does this change how education operates?"

No. Education in essence will always be what it is because we never stop learning. We're being educated 24/7.

To summarize your political philosophy is, the name of it is political waterism.

The working definition for it is a philosophy to allow systems to adapt by using more than just one "ism."

"The political philosophy we can all vote for. "

It's democratic just like the code I'm talking about. People can take it or leave it. Apply what they can or will and leave the rest alone. They can elect any part of the code to implement into their lives.

But your system that allows the adaptation of any other system namely with an "ism" that people can vote for, this could include an injustice system or namely "racISM"...."sexISM"..."socialism"...."marxism".............."anarchISM"...."chauvinism".......

The political waterism philosophy can be a double whammy. As the late great martial artist said..."now water can flowwww.....or it can crashhhh". 

Let us be careful at which side of the receiving end.

What does your political philosophy require you to do when you interact with me?

What are the similarities of both of our political philosophical systems?

Can both of our systems co-exist, why or why not?

What do you expect the constructive result to be of applying what you call political waterism?

How does political waterism differ from liberalism and libertarianism?

Is it true that your political philosophy is a free for all electing "isms" as FREEDOM of choice likened to liberalism?

The bottomline question , granted your system leaves us with the same effect, constructive, why would your philosophy be better than mine or take the place of mines?

That'll be it for now .













Round 3
Pro
#5
Thanks Mall for debate. 
I've read over your post, no questions or follow up come to mind. I find it hard to articulate criticism well enough. 

My best is: 
Your system seems to apply greater as an individual's moral compass rather something to structure a government on. Society as a whole may benefit but that might not change govt. to what it needs to be for economics, policy, etc. 

To promote such a system, people will look at themselves to decide what needs to change. That can be the hardest part in promoting it.  

Any system or philosophy is hard to support and promote. However I figure one may be easier than the other. 

My answers to questions
... your system  allows  adaptation of any  system  with an "ism", this could include an injustice system [like] "racISM"...."sexISM"..."socialism"...."marxism".............."anarchISM"...."chauvinism".......
Good point out. I applied my thoughts only to politics and the govt. system, not over all ideals that people bring into politics. 

I liked how you said it..."now water can flowwww.....or it can crashhhh". 

This is where transparency and the balance in power really come into play. Points 1a, 1b & 1c help prevent injustice from the govt. 

1a is all about exploring and applying systems that work. Followed up with 1d, work smart, takes research and modules to take parts from different systems to apply them. All recorded. All to be put in front of criticism.  

The balance of power (1c) helps prevent one group or section of govt., from developing all policies. So if anyone tries to make a law or apply tyrannical force or what ever on the people, another group/section is countering policies that "crash." 

Likewise, transparency (1b) helps the people know what the govt. is doing. Many aspects about corrupt govt's. start behind closed doors and away from public eye. Preventing this from occuring means the actions undertaken meet criticism from multiple eyes. Multiple people overview political actions. 

What does your political philosophy require you to do when you interact with me?

There is no requirement in a sense that any one person has to do a or b. There is no  one sided approach for what we can or can not do.  There are benefits to this. 

Utilising this political philosophy will be less of a up hill battle because Govt. can be made with contracts, bills, codes of conduct, etc. This means promoting and supporting such a philosophy alters how we look at govt., not our entire being. 

What are the similarities of both of our political philosophical systems?
Both do not explicitly rely on a single approach to politics and developing policy. 

They appear to be different in that your system applies to more than just politics. Mine is focused on politics. 


Can both of our systems co-exist, why or why not?
They can co exist. Because neither directly conflict the other. 

What do you expect the constructive result to be of applying what you call political waterism?
Constructive part is getting people to work together by taking away what they think separates them. A liberal doesn't want to work with a conservative because they separate what they assume can not work together. All for the sake of keeping to one ideology. This is competition.  

Policies have an ability to over lap, however. As pointed out earlier, many countries use parts from liberal and conservative inspirations. We should focus on this truth and rely on scientific means to produce policies that work. 


How does political waterism differ from liberalism and libertarianism?
These philosophies focus on using their 1 approach to creating policies. Which means liberalism (on average) will not use approaches that libertarianism produces. 

Finding middle ground is a rarity as well because groups aim to gain control of votes or seats in the house & senate. Then rely on campaigns to to control opinion to ensure their will is done. This is competition. 

Which brings us to the next difference. These political philosophies remove competition by being the only source. The only party to make decisions. 

Political waterism aims to remove competition by ensuring a balance of power. Which means any political parties may co exist but the thing they want to control needs to change to remove that desire for control. 

How this is done depends on what that thing is which people want to control. 

Is it true that your political philosophy is a free for all electing "isms" as FREEDOM of choice likened to liberalism?
I do not understand the comparison. My philosophy uses evidence to push for policies in individual cases. Ex: economics may use socialism vs. taxes use conservatism. 

Liberalism applies what it thinks is liberalism to all things in politics/govt. Which means there is no freedom of choice because you cant choose the opposite. 

Ex:
Let's say those who support liberalism are liberals. Liberals on average do not support conservative policies. 
Where as waterists(?) or those who support political waterism would be open to supporting policies from both liberalism and conservatism. 


The bottomline question , granted your system leaves us with the same effect, constructive, why would your philosophy be better than mine or take the place of mines? 

The biggest part is relying on evidence to support political policies. If all we have to rely on is how we treat one another, that does not give outline for choosing what policies to vote for or create.  In some areas your system can help us rule things out, but some parts will still rely on using liberalism vs. conservatism instead of asking "which parts of both could we use? " 


In conclusion 
Thanks again for debate. Thanks for readers to take time to read. Cheers. 

Con
#6
"Your system seems to apply greater as an individual's moral compass rather something to structure a government on. Society as a whole may benefit but that might not change govt. to what it needs to be for economics, policy, etc. "

Society, government, economics, policy and etc. can and or are all interconnected. As it comes down to do's and don'ts and results. No matter what you're talking about. This is a universal system or philosophy or political philosophy, whatever you want to call it that applies everywhere. You witness it everywhere whether you take notice.
If there were more rounds we could have unpacked this.

"To promote such a system, people will look at themselves to decide what needs to change. That can be the hardest part in promoting it.  "

But that is the system. People looking at themselves asking those four questions I posed. Nothing hard or difficult there. I believe you've had difficulty in understanding what I'm saying as a whole. But it does take an unconventional way of looking at things to follow what I'm saying.

"Any system or philosophy is hard to support and promote. However I figure one may be easier than the other. "

See the system I'm talking about is just the natural one that came with the universe. I think you're still thinking of one I just came up with , made up, invented. I'm only pointing you back to what has already been there, been here before us. I offer it saying it's mine that I use.

"Good point out. I applied my thoughts only to politics and the govt. system, not over all ideals that people bring into politics. "

Ok well your definition just has to be tweaked to specifics.


"There is no requirement in a sense that any one person has to do a or b. There is no one sided approach for what we can or can not do. There are benefits to this. 

Utilising this political philosophy will be less of a up hill battle because Govt. can be made with contracts, bills, codes of conduct, etc. This means promoting and supporting such a philosophy alters how we look at govt., not our entire being. "

Ok your political philosophy affects me, does it not? Directly or indirectly there's a cause and effect, either constructive or non constructive ultimately. When you say "not any one person ", well who? How many?

Either way, a person or persons using this system will cause them or require them to commit action which will affect everything else. This is why I asked the question but you haven't considered your system on an individual level as it looks.

"They appear to be different in that your system applies to more than just politics. Mine is focused on politics. "

Ok so a similarity is politics. I don't believe that's all but you've exhausted the chance to expound unfortunately.

"They can co exist. Because neither directly conflict the other. "

I believe they are in a way interconnected.

"Constructive part is getting people to work together by taking away what they think separates them. A liberal doesn't want to work with a conservative because they separate what they assume can not work together. All for the sake of keeping to one ideology. This is competition.  "

Work together towards getting what to do what? You haven't got to the bottom line result that you expect to be constructive see. So your system needs further elaboration. It's not at it's best or the best when you have folks like me that still walk away with questions being unclear on how this system of yours is constructive and what it requires you or has you to do towards me.


"We should focus on this truth and rely on scientific means to produce policies that work. "

That works for what in order to get what see?

Bottom line bottom line bottom line comrade.

"Political waterism aims to remove competition by ensuring a balance of power. Which means any political parties may co exist but the thing they want to control needs to change to remove that desire for control. 

How this is done depends on what that thing is which people want to control. "

I don't really understand all of this with "balance of power" and "competition ". Just too vague and you mention control.

To be liberal to have freedom is control.  You say "any political parties may co exist". That would include liberalism. Your system itself is liberalism by allowing any "ism" in a political party.


"I do not understand the comparison. My philosophy uses evidence to push for policies in individual cases. Ex: economics may use socialism vs. taxes use conservatism. 

Liberalism applies what it thinks is liberalism to all things in politics/govt. Which means there is no freedom of choice because you cant choose the opposite. "

As soon as you say "allow " , that is liberalizing. Then adding on "systems to adapt by using more than just one "ism." That's much liberty which is what liberalism grants.

My offering for a system is restricted to constructive results and non constructive results. That means a lot of things we may want to be free to do we can't do based on knowing the result.


"Ex:
Let's say those who support liberalism are liberals. Liberals on average do not support conservative policies. 
Where as waterists(?) or those who support political waterism would be open to supporting policies from both liberalism and conservatism. "

Yes that's liberalism all around. Why conservatism is conservatism is because it does not lend or mix with anything. It doesn't allow for any freedom of change or openness. It's obviously retaining things as is without progression except for progressing to a standard that can still be rooted back at the foundation of which what was originally , conserving it.

"The biggest part is relying on evidence to support political policies. If all we have to rely on is how we treat one another, that does not give outline for choosing what policies to vote for or create. In some areas your system can help us rule things out, but some parts will still rely on using liberalism vs. conservatism instead of asking "which parts of both could we use? " 

I presume you want constructive results although not definitely outlined, it's what you want. So do I. Well being open to any "ism" to liberalism, you begin to sabotage what could be constructive.

The thing maybe you haven't realized is what "politics" boil down to. All laws , regulations and policies in place are to do comes down to how we interact with one another on a daily basis see. This is why I point out the bottomline. This is the bottomline. You have not hit the bottomline in your position.

You mentioned about what policies to vote for. You said " If all we have to rely on is how we treat one another, that does not give outline for choosing what policies to vote for or create. " 

  Well the policies to vote for in order for us to do what or to live like what? See I'm on the bottomline and you're going away from it going back to an incomplete objective. Yes vote in the policies but in order to how they cause us to interact with one another how? So it does come down to treatment. You got to get the whole picture.  You got the crust but now let's get to the filling of that pie.

So when talking about what's better, it is more subjective. Who's system would work better for who? It's subject to the individual isn't?

My system is democratic so it's designed to fit the person the best way possible. Now if that person wants more clarity in knowing the bottom line as "what would this system accomplish for me at the end of the day on an individual level in how I interact with people or a person and how they interact with me and I don't know when I meet these people on a constant basis everyday throughout the day now , right now, it may not be the best system. " At least not one that has a good explanation on many things leaving me asking questions being unsure, not knowing what it bring about in a practical sense. 

Things just don't stop at government. It continues to flow like the water we've been talking about. Everything flows from thought to applicable speech to action. If it is best to invest in a detailed system knowing the in's and out's and what it does for me day by day , not just at an abstract level but knowing what result it gets me, the result I'm looking for at the end of day, that system is best.

You're system couldn't seem to deliver those details readily. If I can know what something will do for me right now in a practical sense as I'm a practical moving being interacting with likewise beings, let me have at it.