3 ms·

Nothing wrong with joining a political party, empowering the single-party state, for better job prospects? Nothing wrong with acting contrary to your believes

Nothing wrong with joining a political party, empowering the single-party state, for better job prospects? Nothing wrong with acting contrary to your believes in order to get ahead of someone honest? Nothing wrong with it? What is right with it!?

orthecreedence 5y ago
There's a single party in the US, and people here seem fine with it. In fact, because that party has two factions, we call it "freedom."
xnyan 5y ago
A single party state is not an inherently evil thing. I think you can make a pretty strong argument that history has shown more negatives vs positives of single party states, but that’s not the same thing. Acting contrary to your beliefs, not theirs necessarily, and since when is people joining a group for the purposes of mutual benefit (and yes, competition against outgroup members) dishonest? There’s absolutely nothing inherently wrong with any of these behaviors, and I’m sure that there are many instances of behaviors you support in other circumstances.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > A single party state is not an inherently evil thing. There’s different kinds of single party states: first, a transitory single party state that “single party” because the current political climate leaves only one party currently competitive but where other parties are not structurally prevented from competing, and thus factionalism within the dominant party will lead to the single party condition being short-lived (e.g., the U.S. during Democratic-Republican single-party rule in the 1810s-1820s.) This, while it can have problematic aspects, is not inherently evil or inconsistent with democratic governance. On the other extreme are systems where the dominant party has a structural (possibly in-law) monopoly or at least privileged status. As systems of public governnance, these are inherently evil.
Ekaros 5y ago
I don't think changing that to two-party makes any difference, when the parties just switch which one is in power.

orthecreedence 5y ago

There's a single party in the US, and people here seem fine with it. In fact, because that party has two factions, we call it "freedom."

xnyan 5y ago

A single party state is not an inherently evil thing. I think you can make a pretty strong argument that history has shown more negatives vs positives of single party states, but that’s not the same thing. Acting contrary to your beliefs, not theirs necessarily, and since when is people joining a group for the purposes of mutual benefit (and yes, competition against outgroup members) dishonest? There’s absolutely nothing inherently wrong with any of these behaviors, and I’m sure that there are many instances of behaviors you support in other circumstances.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> A single party state is not an inherently evil thing. There’s different kinds of single party states: first, a transitory single party state that “single party” because the current political climate leaves only one party currently competitive but where other parties are not structurally prevented from competing, and thus factionalism within the dominant party will lead to the single party condition being short-lived (e.g., the U.S. during Democratic-Republican single-party rule in the 1810s-1820s.) This, while it can have problematic aspects, is not inherently evil or inconsistent with democratic governance. On the other extreme are systems where the dominant party has a structural (possibly in-law) monopoly or at least privileged status. As systems of public governnance, these are inherently evil.

Ekaros 5y ago

I don't think changing that to two-party makes any difference, when the parties just switch which one is in power.