Are you a Liberal or a Realist?

[Taco-Calamitous]

Throughout most of our history, the international stage was viewed as a place of anarchy; sovereign states compete for security and power, looking out for their own self-interests. There is no higher authority to punish anyone for misbehaving, and every state wants to be at the top of the food chain, and will do whatever it can to get there. Alliances may be made, but no state can ever completely trust another state, because it is in no state's best self-interest to let anyone else know what all of its cards are. See Game Theory (no, not that one); specifically, the Prisoner's Dilemma. The simplest version of that is that two accomplices to a crime have been caught, and both have been offered a plea bargain. If neither one rats the other out, they will get a year's sentence. If one rats the other out, he or she will go free, but the other will get a ten year sentence. If they both rat each other out, they both get five. Essentially, in this simple version, Realists argue that it's in the best interest of one to rat the other out in most scenarios; if the other didn't rat them out, they go free. If the other did rat them out, their sentence is reduced by five years. Not ratting the other out risks having the other rat you out, so your sentence is the maximum.

In the last few hundred years or so, classical Liberalism became a thing. Liberal states would band together for the greater security of all (think League of Nations or the UN), and also to punish those who misbehave. Their worldview is that all states can work together, war can end, allies can be honest with each other, etc. It's been found that liberal states rarely go to war with one another (though obviously, they will still go to war with non-liberal states). So essentially, Liberalism believes the world is progressing past the need for Realism. (This is probably not the best explanation for either; I'm going by what I remember when I was reading this, heh...)

So yeah; which worldview sounds more realistic or reasonable to you? I think most of us would like to believe in the Liberalist Theory, but time and time again, and even now, the sovereign states of the world prove us wrong. In the US, our own government was spying on us, and was alsoi spying on our allies, like Germany. Clearly, we're not showing all our cards to the world; we're still looking out for #1. I think most of our citizens prefer it that way, anyway. Except for being spied on, probably. Also, even if we never openly go to war, we're still warring on each other economically, with all our sanctions. The Ukraine and Syria have been a bit like the proxy wars from the Cold War with present-day Russia, and China is getting really uppity in the South China Sea, making artificial islands so that they can claim more territory (also laying claim to the Spratly islands, islands in dispute by like 5 other countries who have a much more reasonable claim).

So yeah; I think the Realist theory is probably the more accurate way to describe the international scene, because we all suck.

[Spooniest]

Loaded question is loaded.

One is a political orientation, one is a philosophy...

I am a human being who votes for the sharpest knife I see heading for my enemies. Self-serving and reclusive, I have few friends influencing my politics. I don't care for the idea of it at all. Music and politics do not get along, period.

[Taco-Calamitous]

No. Liberalism and Realism are both Political theories in this case, as outlined in my first post. Did you read my post?

[Pete]

I think the ideals of the liberal global state system are good and what we should try to aspire to. That being said, humans as a whole, suck, and it's because of human nature that we can't have nice things. Jealousy and religion are the two biggest proponents of this.

China and Russia want to be the super powers that exist in the west, but are trying to do so at the expense of human rights and the environment. We're all hacking and spying on each other because we can't trust anyone with anything anymore. We've all burned bridges and gotten caught with our pants down, and there's really nothing that can be done. We all make promises and sign treaties that aren't worth paper they're printed on.

Religion is just as bad when it comes to the global view. We worry about people trying to kill us because a chapter of their book is different from a chapter of our book, even though they're all talking about the same people. It's all bullshit and we're letting some magical sky man make us believe that it's ok to slaughter people because they believe in a different magic sky man. Or better yet, we allow magic sky people to refute science in developing policy and law.

The reality of it all is that until we get rid of religion as a means of running society, we're ****ed. Believe what you want in your own home, but I firmly believe that until there's a global separation of church and state, we'll never really get anywhere. Most of today's politics are too rooted in it

[Spooniest]

No. Liberalism and Realism are both Political theories in this case, as outlined in my first post. Did you read my post?

You're still presenting them as two diametrically opposed and totally mutually exclusive stances.

No, I really stopped reading it at a certain point because it just sounds like an axe grinding on a big heavy stone to me.

[Pete]

I don't see it as an axe to grind. If you don't like the term liberal, swap it out with idealist. Ideally countries would band together in ways to benefit everyone, and punish the bad. What winds up happening, is that some countries get burned, some get left to fend for themselves and some "win". Look at the past 30 years of American policy in the middle east. We supply a group of cave people with weapons and training and tell them to fight the Soviets. We leave them to die and 15 years later they're flying planes into lower Manhattan.

I can't say for sure, but I'm confident if we didn't even bother trying to stop the spread of communism in places that ultimately don't matter, Vietnam, 9-11 and the subsequent 15 years wouldn't be as they are.

Then again, hindsight is always 20/20

[Spooniest]

Excuse me...

(vomit)

...Ahem. I apologize for posting in this thread. I detest the entirety of the human race at moments like these. It is best if I say no more.

[Pete]

The truth hurts

[Taco-Calamitous]

You're still presenting them as two diametrically opposed and totally mutually exclusive stances.

No, I really stopped reading it at a certain point because it just sounds like an axe grinding on a big heavy stone to me.

...I presented two theories of Political Science that are called Realism and Liberalism. I did not come up with those names. That is what those who have far more experience in the field than me chose to name them. Liberalism may mean something else in other places (aka American Politics), but it does not mean what you are used to it meaning in this instance. My stance on the matter is as objective as it can be with the information that has been presented to me in the classes that I have been taking.

I presented a question that was presented to me in my class to the forum, because I found it an interesting question. You are misinterpreting, and putting words in my mouth.

[Rowan]

I dont believe in altruism therefor I do not believe in any political theory that sugguests its best interests lay with those of the people. liberalism, democratic, socialist, green, communist etc are just labels used by people in power to fool those with none. Giving people a vote allows you to believe that your opinion matters, that you have some form of say and influence, when in fact its just an illusion created by those who would rather see you work 55 years of your life in mundane labour jobs and have you pretend like you ever had a choice.

Realism> anything else.

[Clint]

Liberalism sounds ideal in theory, but in practice, as seen with organizations like the League of Nations and the UN, all it really does is act as a system to enslave the population and force them to submit to a single ideology. Human beings are more complex than that. Presenting a false narrative of freedom is insulting to our intelligence, that's assuming that the people aren't misguided sheep following the most dominate leader.

All these narratives and promises are things that politicians will never keep. Liberalism, democracy, socialism, fascism, communism are all the same. A small minority in power striving to keep the rest of us out of power and dependent on them so that they don't become irrelevant. The greatest form of government is that which governs least. Sovereignty provides more individual freedoms and liberties than any other system of control ever could.

Essentially what I'm getting at is that liberalism doesn't exist. It's a false ideology used as a political tool to keep people naive, as they continue to vote brutes who only care about money and power into office. The world has always been run by liars, thieves, and murderers. Just think about wolves. The alpha is the most aggressively dominate one in the pack. Humans with power are no different. They gain their power because they are aggressively dominate. They aren't good people, and they certainly aren't looking out for anybody except themselves.

The world has never seen liberalism, and it never will. But I'm still hoping for the simultaneous collapse of every single government around the world. Allow people to arm themselves, kill off all those aggressive dominate assholes who control the world, and live out the rest of their lives in peaceful anarchy.

[Alpha]

ITT: anarchists

[Taco-Calamitous]

Y'know, it's interesting, because I also posed this question to another forum I go to, and the people there seemed to lean more towards Liberalism. One person talked about how, one thousand years ago, the UK, France, and Germany were made up of many different kingdoms who all warred on one another, and then later on, each of those states were formed from those kingdoms. Everyone was healthier and happier for it. He argued that human history is leading towards unification, and that realism isn't really a thing. Then again, I don't know that that really touches on governments spying on their people, or the very real oligarchies that control most of our lives. It was just interesting to me to see the rather different responses based on the two forums; is it an age difference (I know at least two of the guys on the other forum are older gentlemen), a difference of culture (be it geographically or forum based), or just a different outlook on life?

Also, I'll note that no one on that forum thought I was calling out modern American Liberals, or that I had an "axe to grind." It's as if they actually read the message before responding, and not just the thread title

[Rowan]

Y'know, it's interesting, because I also posed this question to another forum I go to, and the people there seemed to lean more towards Liberalism.

colour me surprised. Liberalists are the enablers of terrorism. I strongly believe that its this pathetic idealolgy thats caused so much havoc in the world. Its such a hypocritical idealogy. Its tagline should be "Freedom for everyone... until you do something I disagree with"

[Alpha]

colour me surprised. Liberalists are the enablers of terrorism. I strongly believe that its this pathetic idealolgy thats caused so much havoc in the world. Its such a hypocritical idealogy. Its tagline should be "Freedom for everyone... until you do something I disagree with"

Yeah but terrorism is an expression of realism.

The funny thing about realists is that often their perspective feels defeatist, even when posturing. E.g. a realist tends to be "hard on terrorism". Yet a realist, if the shoe was on the other foot, would be a terrorist. That's why ISIS isn't exactly suing for peace. The world could do with less ISIS, for the same reasons it could do with less Trump. An honest realist knows that a war on terrorism cannot be won.

For myself, I'm just content with people believing that my country doesn't really exist, and living in a small town thereof, just getting on with my life, feeding my chickens. Fight over the mote of dust all you want.

[Rowan]

Yeah but terrorism is an expression of realism.

The funny thing about realists is that often their perspective feels defeatist, even when posturing. E.g. a realist tends to be "hard on terrorism". Yet a realist, if the shoe was on the other foot, would be a terrorist. That's why ISIS isn't exactly suing for peace. [B]The world could do with less ISIS, for the same reasons it could do with less Trump. An honest realist knows that a war on terrorism cannot be won.

For myself, I'm just content with people believing that my country doesn't really exist, and living in a small town thereof, just getting on with my life, feeding my chickens. Fight over the mote of dust all you want.

I disagree wholeheartedly. All wars can be won but that doesn't mean that there arn't long lasting impacts, if thats what you're getting at. You say a war on terrorism cant be won, so whats your answer then? Lay down arms and allow them to continue murdering people? I mean, yeah go on with your life by all means and just let everyone else fight and die for your right to feed your goddamn chickens.

[Heartless Angel]

Yeah but terrorism is an expression of realism.

The funny thing about realists is that often their perspective feels defeatist, even when posturing. E.g. a realist tends to be "hard on terrorism". Yet a realist, if the shoe was on the other foot, would be a terrorist. That's why ISIS isn't exactly suing for peace. The world could do with less ISIS, for the same reasons it could do with less Trump. An honest realist knows that a war on terrorism cannot be won.

For myself, I'm just content with people believing that my country doesn't really exist, and living in a small town thereof, just getting on with my life, feeding my chickens. Fight over the mote of dust all you want.

It's not defeatist. It's just the Nash Equilibrium of this game we play. It's the play which gives us the best outcome assuming we can change ONLY our play. The world could do with less Trump, if it HAD less ISIS. But at long as iSIS is around, liberalism is a losing play.

[Alpha]

It's not defeatist. It's just the Nash Equilibrium of this game we play. It's the play which gives us the best outcome assuming we can change ONLY our play. The world could do with less Trump, if it HAD less ISIS. But at long as iSIS is around, liberalism is a losing play.

I do actually totally agree with this. The conclusion is that we have a prisoner's dilemma, and although deep down inside we know that there is an ideal world out there just beyond our reach (idealism), the reality is that the moment we try to grasp for it, some dick will rip it out from under our feet. Our only choice is to do something about that dick (realism). Catch-22, the world sucks.

[Pete]

The sad fact is that with groups like Isis, there's no negotiating and no way of knowing even who's a part of it. Their play will never change, only escalate. They won't rest until were all dead or adhere to their rules and beliefs. To effectively combat them you have to be more crazy than they are.

That in itself is a catch 22. To protect the world, you have to be prepared to destroy some of it.

[Spooniest]

Video gamers saying the solution to the world's problems is to hurl bombs at people.

How droll.

[Pete]

Thanks Spooniest. You're contributing so much to the conversation. When you grow up, get a job and start being effected by things outside of moms basement feel free to contribute.

God forbid people have opinions on things other than Final Fantasy.

[Taco-Calamitous]

I think it's important to note, too, that Realism and Liberalism are actually theories of how and why people, NGOs, and states interact with one another, not the actual practices and classifications of states, themselves. Although Liberal states are called Liberal states, so... maybe I need to reread some of my earlier readings in this class, heh... But yeah. It's not necessarily that Realists think that this is the way states ought to behave; it's how they think they DO behave. Realists account for alliances, but think them to soon be discarded, because no state fully trusts another state.