We don’t need to ban all politicians. Just ban the other guy’s politicians. 
In every society, people have competing interests, and in every society, politics is how we resolve these disagreements without resorting to violence (and sometimes with. Violence can be a political act too).
Politics isn’t the problem. Authoritarianism, radicalism (the concept that you are under massive stress and the end justifies the means) and incompetence is the problem. If you eliminate those government works pretty well.
For all the bickering about the US government, its not bad. Military defense, police, roads, scientific investments, education, pensions and medical care for the elderly, social safety nets, consumer protections. I’m happy.
Why would ending politics end hatred among races and religions? Or end corruption?
Also, politics is, from what I know, a natural state of human affairs. The social group which has political unity has an advantage over the non-political one.
Even street gangs are arguably political organizations. You have leaders, membership and organization. This makes it easier to prey on those who are not members of your group.
So even if you destroy government, new governments will arise. It happens in Afghanistan & Somalia. Even w/o a central government, you just get warlords. And those warlords are even more corrupt, evil and destructive than the original governments, generally.
I like it, but it’s only the beginning. We could fly if we only got rid of the physicists.
More seriously, the fact that we have politics in the first place and have been able to overcome the Hobbesian dilemma might as well be miraculous. We are able, as a people, to make and implement collective decisions and deliver collective benefits despite our own inclinations to maximize. In fact, I am going to raise a toast to politics as soon as I have a beer in my hand.
Every human interaction is political.
It’s not that we NEED politics, it’s that it’s a fundamental part of human existence.
Yes! Yes!!
Did anyone ever vote on Newton’s Laws? What part of the Constitution subordinated the will of our elected representatives to the dictates of a long-dead foreigner? Keep your natural laws off my body!
That politics is a “fundamental part of human existence” is by no means obvious despite the fact that it is frequently asserted. I would argue that it is a quite remarkable artificial solution contrary to human nature.
That hinges on the natural/artificial dichotomy which I think is a fallacy. The idea that human artifice is not natural doesn’t make any sense. That’s like saying that anthills are not natural because they are artificially created by the ants. Oh yeah, we just assume all kinds of intentionality to humans that we don’t give to ants, they are just doing everything instinctually, but we of course are making choices.
Politics are the art of deciding who gets what, when, where, how and why. Appealing to the authority of your Mother is inherently political. The resource distribution of basic pack units is the essence of politics. After that it’s just a matter of scale and complexity. If you and I are members of the same litter, there will be a political relationship, there will be social hierarchy. This is true of other mammalian species as well.
This is a non-sequitur. Of course human artifice is natural. Everything is “natural” if itn’s “supernatural”. This is not an important distinction. What is important is whether politics can be derived from “human nature”, such as it is. I argue that no, it cannot be, certainly not from the Hobbesian conception of human nature that I largely agree with.
Your definition of politics is unconventional. To be honest, I am not sure that it is a very useful analytical category because, as you said, it might subsume all human relations. I’d rather stick to a somewhat more precise definition.
Politics is the method we use to resolve conflicts without resorting to violence.
I haven’t read enough Hobbes I suppose. But I think politics CAN be derived from human nature specifically because it is about managing human need.
A more limited definition you mean. 
That’s the definition I was taught by my Father who is a lobbyist, and it is shared by my friend who is a part-time political science professor and who works for a US Senator and lots of political campaigns. In fact, I cited the latter’s definition directly. ‘Who gets what, when, where, why and how?’, is precisely the definition he uses in his words.
But please explain how you define it?
Sure. Last night a group of friends decided they wanted to see a movie. They had to choose between Avatar and Sherlock Holmes. After discussing the matter amongst themselves, they decided to see Sherlock Holmes. They saw the movie, talked about it, and parted amicably, a good night out having been had by all. No leadership was required.
The leaders in that situation would be the producers of Avatar and Sherlock Holmes. So basically what you are saying is that you voted for Guy Ritchie over James Cameron.
And it was a small number of people, in a society kept in order by a government. Try to get something done with a thousand people, somewhere with no government to keep order. And if you manage it, try to do it again and again - societies don’t just do one thing, then part amicably and go home. They are home. It’s not enough to just pull off one task one time to make a stable society.
Right, and around the corner the group of kids who decided to play tag instead of hide and seek were voting for which leader now?
They were closer to anarcho-syndicalists than your group that was making a decision of which consumer product to use your capital on.
But Der Trihs hit the nail on the head.
The one who suggested tag. And besides, even in groups without formal leadership, there are still relationships and hierarchies.
The Leviathan is really worth reading. You can solve your human need problems quite apolitically. You can kick the shit out of your neighbor and take his stuff.
I mean more precise. It may or it may not be more limited.
That could be God’s definition and it still would be inadequate. It encompasses pretty much all human relations and is impossible to separate from economics. If everything relating to the distribution of anything is politics, then what can we actually say about politics? Not a lot of any value, I don’t think.
I do tend to think of politics in a somewhat academic way given my current career choice. I want to be able to desctribe a range of political phenomena so I can say things systematically about them. I think politics is how groups of people make collective decisions and implement collective action. There is a lot of overlap here with economics, sociology, and anthropology. The difference is in the method and in the questions that questions that we find interesting. This can take a variety of shapes, but it seems to include both institutions and decisions under the shadow of coercion. All of these things here are definable, but I will spare you definitions that may be unnecessary. 
His definition is straight out of my political science class too. For reference, here is Merriam Websters definitions (bolding mine)
When a group of friends decide which movie to go to, that is a political decision. You seem to think that politics needs fighting and bad feelings. Agreeing how to split up the chores at home is politics. A child who asks his mother instead of his father for something because he knows his mother is more likely to say yes has made a political decision. Government is just one format for politics to take place in.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that the fifth definition on this list is how we really should be thinking about politics? Do you take your cues from subordinate entries in an online dictionary for everything?
A group of friends deciding which movie to see is a great example of collective decision-making yielding collective action. It is a great example of a political decision. How friends organize together is sociological, the cultural norms that inform this decision is anthropological, and how they aggregate their preferences and round up everyone to actually see the movie is political. Nowhere did I stipulate anything about government, bad feelings, or infighting. I do not know what you are talking about.