Sign in or 
Share this|
RickRolla |
politics
Aug 17 2010, 9:09 PM EDT
If a world wide outbreak does occur, is there a higher possibility of a political revolution afterwards?food for thought Do you find this valuable?
Keyword tags:
Politics
|
Troy_Redgrave |
1. RE: politics
Aug 17 2010, 9:21 PM EDT
| Post edited: Aug 17 2010, 9:22 PM EDT
There would likely be a liberal swing in governments that stayed in power, for the purposes of assisting those that were hurt or needed help getting back on there feet. And for those that fell... well, of course there would be change.
Do you find this valuable?
|
DevilNuts |
2. RE: politics
Aug 17 2010, 11:05 PM EDT
What type of "revolution" were you thinking? Obviously there would be plenty of jobs again, healthcare would be quite "reformed" and education would be knocked backwards a few generations....Many of the things that charge us politically would be in tatters. Were you thinking about some specific issue, or new ones? NOTE: Please don't turn this thread into a left vs right sh*tfest, as I believe something interesting may come out of it otherwise. Do you find this valuable? |
Carnack |
3. RE: politics
Aug 17 2010, 11:17 PM EDT
Yeah it would be a revolution.Suddenly crap would need to be judged on practicality as opposed to vote farming (which most people in government do). Laws would have limited power and would be ruled mostly by group hence you'd need to learn civil discourse lest you get a buckshot suppository. The rights we enjoy would also get an overhaul. Do you find this valuable? |
|
DevilNuts |
4. RE: politics
Aug 17 2010, 11:20 PM EDT
That I can definitely see. It would be an age of renewed pragmatism, that's for sure. I wonder if local religious practices would play more or less of an active role in new governments...? Do you find this valuable? |
|
Carnack |
5. RE: politics
Aug 18 2010, 12:58 AM EDT
| Post edited: Aug 18 2010, 3:21 AM EDT
"That I can definitely see. It would be an age of renewed pragmatism, that's for sure.It would depend on the type of role and more importantly the type of group as well as who would be employing it (religion). Let's face it if you can get rid of murder, and theft that's a big chunk of crime gone and crime will be fairly basic to squish in smaller groups. You kill someone? Dead. Rape? Dead? Theft? Dead (theft in a small group is tantamount to attacking the whole group). Not saying this will be the case but that isn't important. In this scenario it CAN be the case and it all depends on the group. Once the group hates you you are at the very least exiled. If you did a crime that might change. The biggest change will be a renewal of social glue. Suddenly we'd need to tie ourselves together and get rid of the hyphens. So the strongest groups will be those who learn to ignore differences in order to accomplish a given task. As to your comment regarding pragmatism I think it would be a fair comment to say it would be a bit of a mix. Unfettered pragmatism has (at least to me) made people colder. A mix would be ideal. Same with me butting heads over my attention to PR and Alex's utilitarian. Neither one is well-suited to running things but both together would result of a nice balance. Do you find this valuable? |
|
DevilNuts |
6. RE: politics
Aug 18 2010, 4:21 PM EDT
I wasn't even thinking about smaller groups, but actual national scale politics and government. Small groups are going to do their own thing for awhile until some order can be restored. dammit this really makes me wish they made a thirds season of Jericho. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Carnack |
7. RE: politics
Aug 18 2010, 4:37 PM EDT
| Post edited: Aug 18 2010, 4:43 PM EDT
"I wasn't even thinking about smaller groups, but actual national scale politics and government. Small groups are going to do their own thing for awhile until some order can be restored.Groups don't get big on their own. Problems cause fractures and people will break away as a result. In order to get large the controling body must be able to work through these problems in a way that can be tolerated by both sides. Even with "order" restored smaller groups won't matter overmuch provided their own thing doesn't cross others in a bad way. There will be a lot of things to focus on and that 200 person farming/hunting group living in the Rockies won't be one of them. Do you find this valuable? |
deep_sea_diver |
8. RE: politics
Feb 7 2011, 10:06 AM EST
"Groups don't get big on their own. Problems cause fractures and people will break away as a result. In order to get large the controling body must be able to work through these problems in a way that can be tolerated by both sides.Societys tend to follow a pretty well set course. Out of anarchy comes small tribes, lead by one man. These tend to band together into small feudal type systems under a minor king. These fifedoms stay in a state of flux till one Kingdom rises to the top. Eventually the monarchy is replaced with a parliment that is voted in by the people. This usually becomes too opressive and is overthrown, causing anarchy again. Do you find this valuable? |
boater1217 |
9. RE: politics
Feb 7 2011, 11:23 AM EST
If there is some type of national governing body it will be non-representative for some time, most likely military in nature. Local will be more on the tribal lines. Who knows what it will eventually look like.
Do you find this valuable?
|
SGTGerman |
10. RE: politics
Feb 7 2011, 3:34 PM EST
Tbh I think it could be a community thing - where everyone decides the punishment maybe? I'd rather than relgion etc - it seems to give a lot more freedom and flexibility. Do you find this valuable? |
