You are living in a complex, mostly functioning nation state where the majority of conflicts is resolved in a civil manner. Not in a small tribal society where you might be murdered by someone physically stronger than you simply because he lusts after your partner. That simple fact proves how hyperbolic and naive your statement is.
Your statement is equally naive and hyperbolic. It's preposterous to think that humans haven't always had rules (well defined or not) to prevent petty BS from escalating. Of course the rules are different for a bunch of cavemen living in a group of <50 but rules and norms still existed.
I don't think that holds up to evidence. In tribes largely untouched by civilisation blood revenge is still fairly common. These are social norms, but without a neutral judge one party might execute revenge, the other party doesn't see their fault and instead retaliates, and you get an endless circle of bloodshed (which has killed entire tribes).
One of the major achievements making civilisation possible is a judge or court that can decide who is right and and who is wrong, preventing BS from spiraling in endless retaliation and counter-retatiation. In a small system that can work with just one universally respected person or person of authority, but once you scale it up to an entire country codified laws are incredibly useful for this. Codified laws means we need people making laws, which is exactly what the entire job of modern politicians is. Sure, we could have civilisation without politicians, but our countries would have to be a lot smaller than they are; a justice system without laws just doesn't scale.
> One of the major achievements making civilisation possible is a judge or court that can decide who is right and and who is wrong, preventing BS from spiraling in endless retaliation and counter-retatiation.
Well, no? Isn't that what is called "war"? You might argue that frequency of conflicts is lower, though I would be sceptical of that without further proof.
War happens, but places without a judicial system to solve conflicts between persons, families and regions don't seem to flourish, while many of the more prosperous regions and regions with the most wealth growth feature a judicial system that spans areas normally inhabitated by multiple countries (USA, China, EU, India).
Having a transnational judicial system in the EU (as the most recently formed example) allows coorperation and trade to a much greater extend. Sure, the EU might go to war at some point, but the circle of people and corperations you can trust to respect law and written contracts is very big, no matter if a war is going on or not.
While that's obviously a very good point, one could also argue that this is mostly due to law enforcement and culture. We live in a society where murdering someone gets you outcast pretty easily, and on top of that thrown in jail. Politicians ultimately only wrote down what is a large cultural consensus.
The problems start when politicians decide over smaller things that not everyone can agree on. I mean, damn, they'd be more than incompetent if they didn't get laws regarding murder right.
The latest screw-up of european politicians (the same who are responsible for GDPR) is the european copyright reform, which just shows a complete lack of both technical understanding and willingness to listen to experts who do understand the situation.
I'm not pretending the issues with politics and politicians do not exist, or that they are not enormous. However, a statement like "they have no good days" says more about one's own unwillingness to be politically active than anything else in my opinion.
wut? are we really comparing 21st century society with a tribal one?
by that measure we've solved pretty much everything.
when in reality the contrary is true: politicians are mostly career based opportunists and the inertial nature of our society pushes us to peace and prosperity.
..and how have politicians of the last, let's say 20 years, positively contributed to this? If the last good day was over two decades ago, I'm not sure how you're going to sell me this as a good thing.
Depending on where you live, politicians may have enacted any number of positive life improvements, like improved public transportation infrastructure, better regulations on working conditions, better pollution regulations, small business development programs, and on and on.
If you live in an area where absolutely nothing good has happened due to government in the last 20 years, your complaint about your local/regional government is entirely warranted.
Chalking it up to "politicians" as a whole is unhelpful; they aren't "all the same" (another thing I hear often), and if one thinks so, one is profoundly not paying attention.
