Problem is the whole confederation is already built on compromised beliefs, and as right as you may be, compromising further on some issues means total capitulation.
What if engaging in Machiavellian behaviour is the precise polar opposite to our value of say for example, free and fair elections? If we lower our standards to the opposition on matters fundamental to democracy, how can we expect our society to reflect those kinds of values?
Ultimately with that dilemma it's a similar failure, but you may be right. A war of ideas cannot be won while your side is censored and misrepresented, and having the power to prevent that may well be a way to battle to a victory of that war.
I agree, and I don't like it. Exactly why you'll never see me in politics. Just because I hate it doesn't mean I don't at least understand that it may be a necessity.
Problem is the whole confederation is already built on compromised beliefs, and as right as you may be, compromising further on some issues means total capitulation.
What if engaging in Machiavellian behaviour is the precise polar opposite to our value of say for example, free and fair elections? If we lower our standards to the opposition on matters fundamental to democracy, how can we expect our society to reflect those kinds of values?
Would you rather capitulate on your moral compass and win, or never compromise and lose utterly?
You can't fight fair against and adversary that refuses to do so.
Ultimately with that dilemma it's a similar failure, but you may be right. A war of ideas cannot be won while your side is censored and misrepresented, and having the power to prevent that may well be a way to battle to a victory of that war.
I agree, and I don't like it. Exactly why you'll never see me in politics. Just because I hate it doesn't mean I don't at least understand that it may be a necessity.
I don't understand how to pick a representative that goes against what we want to get what we want.
Like a bulldog? A martyr? A dirty lawyer?