(06-12-2018 12:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-12-2018 11:33 AM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  I see politics as the necessary interaction of self-interests in governance to gain position, authority and influence over the use/distribution of scarce resources and political capital.

But using 'politics' to be the 'mechanism' for 'political capital' is somewhat circular. The case can be made that 'political capital' *is* the direct result of politics.

I agree in part but I was thinking more about the level or the degree to which capital is gained or lost. For example, my ability to work within the framework of politics (the interplay/interaction between many variables) will determine how much support I can gain for my cause, idea, legislation, etc. It may require modifications based on others in order for it to advance forward. There will always be a result but it may not be the fully desired end.

(06-12-2018 12:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-12-2018 11:33 AM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Individual liberty gets watered down but IMO that is the trade off for a government system that elects representatives of individuals.

I cant think of any organized form of governance in which individual liberties *dont* get watered down. The purest form of 'individual liberties' is anarchism -- the antithesis of any form of organized governance. I would say that different forms of governance directly impact the levels of individual liberties in a major way.

But isn't anarchism typically a collective effort? It would seem anarchists are organized, strategic groups that select pre-determined locations, dates and times to riot or to promote anarchy. Is a lone terrorist, mass shooter or serial killer the purest form of individual liberty? They are imposing their will and desires directly upon someone else without regard to the recipient(s).

(06-12-2018 12:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Turning back to the original post -- the best path would be a political framework where the concentration of power doesnt enhance the 'feeding at the trough'. But the definition of the ability to form self-governance of *groups* of people tend to mandate that concentration; thus the 'feeding from the trough' can never be minimized or abrograted.

Thus, the system/institutionalization/processes of governance are too set and established over time for any real change without a revolution type of event (which we've seen throughout history of course). Rather, as I previously posted, it is best hoped to influence politics with representatives elected by the people sharing similar ideologies and platforms.