The History of Political Science and How it Effects Us Today

kelcaine

www.kelcaine.com
Supporting Member
Mar 31, 2022
554
1,532
93
Surrey
kelcaine.com
Political science is important to understand because it helps individuals make informed decisions about their political beliefs and participation in civic life. By analyzing political ideologies, policies, and institutions, citizens can engage more effectively in debates and decision-making processes.

Because this came up in another thread here and somebody suggested that we talk about political science and history in a separate thread, I figured I would make this thread, so people can share information and discuss this topic. There seems to be a lot of misinformation and disinformation out there in regards to a lot of topics out there, including this, so let’s share and learn this topic.

Political science is the study of politics and power from domestic, international, and comparative perspectives. It entails understanding political ideas, ideologies, institutions, policies, processes, and behavior, as well as groups, classes, government, diplomacy, law, strategy, and war. Although political science borrows heavily from the other social sciences, it is distinguished from them by its focus on power—defined as the ability of one political actor to get another actor to do what it wants—at the international, national, and local levels.

Modern university departments of political science are often divided into several fields, each of which contains various subfields: domestic politics, comparative politics, international relations, political theory, public administration, public law, and public policy.

Analyses of politics appeared in ancient cultures in works by various thinkers, including:

-Confucius (551–479 BCE) in China.

-Kautilya (flourished 300 BCE) in India.

-Ibn Khaldūn(1332–1406) in North Africa have greatly influenced the study of politics in the Arabic-speaking world.

But the fullest explication of politics has been in the West:

-Plato (428/427–348/347 BCE), whose ideal of a stable republic still yields insights and metaphors, as the first political scientist, though most consider.

-Aristotle (384–322 BCE), who introduced empirical observation into the study of politics, to be the discipline’s true founder.

So let’s begin to discuss this topic and how it affects modern day life for us all. Please keep this conversation respectful and to be an informative thread for people to understand this topic and to discuss it, ideas, policies laws, history, and more.
 

carvesg

Well-known member
Feb 2, 2010
1,312
1,431
113
Let's start by stating

I'm a full fledged libertarian and wanna live with all the commodities and infrastructures of a developed country but without the consequences and inconveniences of the rules, laws and taxation....just so people know where I'm coming from . 🌹❄🌴

Oh well ... Let me get back to my dream now or was I awake
 
Last edited:

VanCityNewb

Banned
Aug 3, 2015
1,043
1,892
113
One of the worst things in the world is trying to talk about political science with American conservatives.

Someone once lamented that they got a poliSci degree from Berkely, only for random conservatives to tell him that he didn't know anything, just because he got his degree at a California Marxist liberal indoctrination school. 😂🤣😂🤣😂

😕
 

kelcaine

www.kelcaine.com
Supporting Member
Mar 31, 2022
554
1,532
93
Surrey
kelcaine.com
One of the worst things in the world is trying to talk about political science with American conservatives.

Someone once lamented that they got a poliSci degree from Berkely, only for random conservatives to tell him that he didn't know anything, just because he got his degree at a California Marxist liberal indoctrination school. 😂🤣😂🤣😂

😕
But political science is different from politics for one, and I am going to guess these are the far right conservatives. Political science is a topic that encompasses varying viewpoints and is quite a broad topic. My first introduction to the topic was reading “Aristotle the Politics”. I find it really interesting to read works from the beginning of politics from over a thousand years ago, seeing how some things have changed and how some haven’t. If anyone hasn’t read it, it’s an interesting read.
 

carvesg

Well-known member
Feb 2, 2010
1,312
1,431
113
Just for starter ...for most Europeans we Canadians are viewed as conservative or Americans with healthcare; even Canadian liberals would be viewed as extremely conservative in Europe.

European christians base their liberalism and socialist views on the Bible or as much as American conservatives/Republicans use the Bible as their reference for their conservative views and control of someone's body or acceptable views on society . Jesus and new testament vs old testament but using Jesus as a rallying cry.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: oldshark

VanCityNewb

Banned
Aug 3, 2015
1,043
1,892
113
But political science is different from politics for one, and I am going to guess these are the far right conservatives. Political science is a topic that encompasses varying viewpoints and is quite a broad topic. My first introduction to the topic was reading “Aristotle the Politics”. I find it really interesting to read works from the beginning of politics from over a thousand years ago, seeing how some things have changed and how some haven’t. If anyone hasn’t read it, it’s an interesting read.
Thanks for the recommendation! I feel like that would go over the heads of most American conservatives. It's painful, just explaining to them that liberals and liberalism is all about small government, personal liberties and fiscal conservatism. American Republicans have rebranded conservatism to mean classical liberalism, and think that liberalism is actually social liberalism, without understanding the distinction.

Even libertarians, as I was previously mentioning, think that it's a squarely right wing philosophy. Which of course ignores that it's just a rebranding of liberalism, and literally came from left wing anarchists, socialists and communists.

But yeah, I think most armchair pundits just confuse political science with their local brand of politics, not bothering to understand the distinction.
 

ChromeGasCap

Yeah!
Jan 31, 2024
1,885
3,211
113
16.7653, -3.0026
I do not fall into any of these groups in the chart.
I am of the firm belief that non of our current ideologies fit within modern day needs.

Everyone throws out the need to tax corporations. I am of the belief that corporations should not be taxed at all.
There would be no need to tax corporations if the people within them were taxed appropriately.
I believe that business and the individual should be separate entities, and the individuals should draw an income from there businesses and be taxed appropriately.

If this were truly the case, there would be no need to tax business.
 

ChromeGasCap

Yeah!
Jan 31, 2024
1,885
3,211
113
16.7653, -3.0026
Also believe that transfers of money, local and international, should be monitored by the government, in the same way that large deposits are monitored and reported.
 

Bridge

Well-known member
Nov 11, 2014
955
984
93
I do not fall into any of these groups in the chart.
I am of the firm belief that non of our current ideologies fit within modern day needs.

Everyone throws out the need to tax corporations. I am of the belief that corporations should not be taxed at all.
There would be no need to tax corporations if the people within them were taxed appropriately.
I believe that business and the individual should be separate entities, and the individuals should draw an income from there businesses and be taxed appropriately.

If this were truly the case, there would be no need to tax business.
Interesting idea. What sort of entity would a business be? Could they still sue and be sued? Should corporations be allowed to grow without taxes and dominate the market?
 

ChromeGasCap

Yeah!
Jan 31, 2024
1,885
3,211
113
16.7653, -3.0026
I am not going to pretend that I have the answers to it all.
If a corporation sits on funds it could do many things:
1) Pay or hire more, which should be taxed appropriately
2) Funds availability for lawsuits etc.
3) Corporate responsibilities ie. environmental cleanup, capping of spent oil wells etc.
4) Innovation.
5) Diversification
These are some of the things that the funds could be used for, as it would not make sense to sit on funds for the mere reason to sit on them.
Tax payers should not be paying for any of the above, as they often times currently do.
 

ChromeGasCap

Yeah!
Jan 31, 2024
1,885
3,211
113
16.7653, -3.0026
As far as monopolization.
I do believe that anti-monopolistic measures should be in place.
Current anti-monopolistic measures only apply to the business/corporations and not to individuals (or at the investment level), perhaps this needs to change.
Short sellers are an example of investment level, and I am of the opinion that a viable company should not be able to be destroyed because some entity or individual decides to profit from it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rlock

ChromeGasCap

Yeah!
Jan 31, 2024
1,885
3,211
113
16.7653, -3.0026
Thats all from me on the topic, as I do not wish to hijack this thread.

My appologies.
 

carvesg

Well-known member
Feb 2, 2010
1,312
1,431
113
Everyone throws out the need to tax corporations. I am of the belief that corporations should not be taxed at all.
There would be no need to tax corporations if the people within them were taxed appropriately.
I believe that business and the individual should be separate entities, and the individuals should draw an income from there businesses and be taxed appropriately.

If this were truly the case, there would be no need to tax business.
Don't you think that since corporations are users of services and infrastructures ( roads , bridges , highways , water supplies, transit, etc ) that it's only fair that they pay as user payer ?

And as you know there's already a deficit in those departments in terms of tax dollar vs infrastructures and their maintenance. So it would require the workers to shoulder the entire taxation for an increase profit margin in the corporate world... profiting the few shareholders at the top .

I'd say you definitely lean toward the libertarian spectrum my friend.
 

ChromeGasCap

Yeah!
Jan 31, 2024
1,885
3,211
113
16.7653, -3.0026
Don't you think that since corporations are users of services and infrastructures ( roads , bridges , highways , water supplies, transit, etc ) that it's only fair that they pay as user payer ?

And as you know there's already a deficit in those departments in terms of tax dollar vs infrastructures and their maintenance. So it would require the workers to shoulder the entire taxation for an increase profit margin in the corporate world... profiting the few shareholders at the top .

I'd say you definitely lean toward the libertarian spectrum my friend.
The end result of any business is for Products and services to be procured by the end user.
Taxes and fees in between inception and end use, just increase the tally for all products and services to the end procurer.
Parts are manufactured for cars, as an example, yet the parts ultimately get used in the end product (the automobile), which gets purchased by individuals.
Granted businesses purchase vehicles also, those vehicles get used, in the business of providing products and services for end users.

EDIT: The current system encourages corruption, and makes it easier to blackmail a country to provide funds to help fund operations in order to remain in a country. This is simply ridiculous.
 

ChromeGasCap

Yeah!
Jan 31, 2024
1,885
3,211
113
16.7653, -3.0026
Perhaps with what I have divulged so far, I could be considered libertarian, my beliefs do not align in other aspects.
I also draw a HARD line on keeping religion out of politics, and from what I have observed, libertarians (at least in the USA) do not share this belief.
 

Pumped

Well-known member
Dec 13, 2022
562
1,337
93
Rather than looking at politics as ideology, I prefer to view it as envisioned by Foucault as a system of governance. For example, the chart above and the accompanying comment says that we shouldn't discuss communists as fascists, yet there are a number of political regimes that are described as 'communist' in theory that are fascist in reality.

Foucault also didn't like the triad of 'power, control, resistance' and offered a clearer alternative:

Governance of Self
Governance of Others
Governance of the Self by Others

When you step outside the endless arguments of trying to describe what someone's politics are or which political beliefs they follow or even the political party they support -- none of which actually coincide with the labels they are given or the policies they may enact -- then you can simply look at their form of governance and the internal inconsistencies that exist within what they are doing and saying.

Foucault's alternative also avoids the endless debate between Agency and Structure because governance is enacted at the personal level, among friends, family, at work, and in almost any relationship we have at any time with others. It also exists through the internalization of what Norbert Elias described as 'the Gaze'. It used to be a useful form of censure and control, but we can see from Trump that that line has not only been crossed but likely erased for good.
 

masterpoonhunter

"Marriage should be a renewable contract"
Sep 15, 2019
3,173
5,425
113
Don't you think that since corporations are users of services and infrastructures ( roads , bridges , highways , water supplies, transit, etc ) that it's only fair that they pay as user payer ?
I don't even think this is a question of what side of the political spectrum anyone is on, it is only ethical and proper. It really speaks to an overhaul of tax systems.
But, the fact that we give the political class the keys to the funds and the control of how countries exist lets the corruption reign supreme.
 

carvesg

Well-known member
Feb 2, 2010
1,312
1,431
113
I don't even think this is a question of what side of the political spectrum anyone is on, it is only ethical and proper. It really speaks to an overhaul of tax systems.
But, the fact that we give the political class the keys to the funds and the control of how countries exist lets the corruption reign supreme.
No its not a question about the political spectrum. I was asking ChromeGasCap who comes across as a sensible member to elaborate about not taxing corporations as I can't see how it could work in real life in our political and managerial system. He has his theory which would require some study and computing to see about its viability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChromeGasCap

apl16

Well-known member
Jul 26, 2011
1,392
473
83
Look left. Way left.
The end result of any business is for Products and services to be procured by the end user.
Taxes and fees in between inception and end use, just increase the tally for all products and services to the end procurer.
Parts are manufactured for cars, as an example, yet the parts ultimately get used in the end product (the automobile), which gets purchased by individuals.
Granted businesses purchase vehicles also, those vehicles get used, in the business of providing products and services for end users.

EDIT: The current system encourages corruption, and makes it easier to blackmail a country to provide funds to help fund operations in order to remain in a country. This is simply ridiculous.
I think you have the right idea but for things to work a lot things need to change such as strong anti-corruption rules and tax loopholes, and to be policed in a serious manner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChromeGasCap
Vancouver Escorts