I’m currently a political science major in my second year. I’m on track and I’m planning to use it towards law school, but I’ve been recently debating on taking a minor in MIS, finance, or economics. I want to open up more job opportunities in case I can’t find a job after law school. I heard a lot of lawyers end up being teachers or working a government job, which isn’t a bad thing, but it isn’t ideal for me. I have always been interested in technology, so I feel like it wouldn’t hurt to make changes now, especially since we’re in the age of AI.

Initially, I was planning to go into big law.

Should I change my major and instead minor in poli sci, or take a minor which wouldn’t place me too far behind on graduating? Which one of the degrees would be best suited for making money coming out of college in case law school doesn’t work out?

I’m an undergrad primarily studying a double degree Urban and Regional Planning alongside Philosophy. I’m planning on majoring in International Politics next year alongside Philosophy, and was hoping for some pointers on books that would introduce me to political science/theory and history. I have a decently good entry-level knowledge to politics, mainly the more philosophical texts, such as On Liberty by Mill, Marx, Foucault, Aristotle etc.

I’m looking to dive even deeper, connecting political theory/science/philosophy to history, and reading texts that give me a clear and comprehensive picture of (primarily western) politics, as well as Chinese politics and history.

Apologies also if my post is poorly worded. I just woke up lmao

Cheers!

The "Party" (not sure about the political correctness here since it’s a "just" a List) established itself mainly as an anti-corruption movement, but I can’t imagine that all their members share the same opinion on certain topics (for example in the discussion around the independency of Kosovo, or "simpler" stuff like economics, foreign affairs,…), which they will have to deal with sooner or later.

Am I wrong for thinking that their party/list will shatter into many smaller parties until there is nothing left of it?

Theoretically it’s not a bad thing, but there’s this risk that old SNS voters go back to SNS since they may feel like the students party is too instable and paralyzed in their decision making since their opinions vary too much.

A state receiving military support can keep formal authority over its peace negotiations while depending on an ally for the means to keep fighting. That separates the right to reject a settlement from the practical ability to sustain the rejection.

Dependence alone doesn’t show how much leverage the supplier has. An ally may keep delivering essential equipment because the recipient’s survival serves its own security interests, and the recipient may have alternative suppliers, domestic production or reserves to withstand an interruption.

The kind of support matters too. Withholding future deliveries builds pressure over time, while restricting intelligence or communications can bite much sooner.

Credibility matters as well. A supplier may threaten to reduce support, but following through could damage its strategic position or its reputation with other allies, and a recipient that understands those costs may resist despite its material disadvantage.

Leverage may depend less on the volume of assistance than on control over capabilities that are essential, hard to replace and vulnerable to interruption. Even then, influence has to be separated from agreement between partners who already prefer similar terms.

That leaves an empirical question: what would show that dependence changed the recipient’s negotiating position? A concession after a threat to withdraw support could suggest leverage, but it could also reflect battlefield developments, domestic pressure or a reassessment of the settlement on offer.

How can researchers distinguish concessions induced by an ally’s control over essential military support from concessions the recipient would have made anyway?

So i revently came and cross the terms liberal and conservative.

I am astonished how broadly these labels are mentioned in context of role of government, social or cultural rules and economic preferences.

However an individual can have its own preferences like someone can be activist but still values tradition

In video games like rimworld individual lables and opinions makes much sense but even so two opposite spectrums never emerge

Everywhere in broadcase and mass communication i can see the liberal and conservative division but I never intuitively understand them

Can anyone explain is there any benefit of such classification or is it just a political tool.

Richard Werner showed that commercial banks dont need to borrow money to loan it,... they print it out of thin air and then loan it out. The implications is that a small group of banks controls at large what a nation builds on their behalf. This becomes an extremely political process.

Trying to understand why things like the AI bubble with very little retail demand can find so much capital... this is what made this make sense. AI is insolvent, but the banks dont care since they get bailed out.

So obviously this seems extremely unfair, and of course everyone should then refuse to participate in such a system. Even if they knew this is what it was. But of course no one revolts because of the prisoners dellima. And the people who try and change things for the better, the whistle blowers etc... they get crucified by society. Being a leader to change the regulations and having caps on who/ how money can be created to make things better for the community is thankless, and often this can destroy ones career etc.

This leads to the main topic, reformist to tyrant trajectory and the iron law of oligarchy. People get corrupted as an ends to the means... to eventually do good. The folks who do things by the book, are handy capped.

This stream of thought is why Im asking if this is a wildly accepted view of the political science community. To me this idea explains what Ive seen, better than anything else and it predicts some pretty scary things. It also seems to suggest a way to game systems,... which in American society is to solve some problem that these banker types care about and then sell equities/ shares dumped on the public.

I know I have a lot of themes going on in this post, but I wanted to capture the major themes of what Ive noticed about systems at large.

Found an interesting way to break down political ideologies by the structural definitions of traditional political labels. Rather than just give you a list of policy positions you ascribe to, it places ideologies into one of six cells on a matrix. Hope you guys find it helpful.