Your alternative presumably is the current system, where a few self-selected people, kept in power exclusively by wealth, caste, and social connections - often in defiance of real wisdom or foresight - force everyone else to act in ways that benefit that self-sustaining governing class at the expense of everyone else.
There are two moral alternatives: either you impose the yoke of government on people, then give them majoritarian control over government, or you have no government. The latter sucks for people who make up the 1% now, because it's government that keeps the merchant/capitalist/industrial class from being dominated by the warrior class.
Government is not intrinsically bad. It can be a tool by which powerless people can get together in large numbers and overcome a small number of powerful people. Of course, the few powerful people will try to distort the democratic process for their own benefit.
You seem to think that the rich minority will always win out. But sometimes the poor majority can change the system. For example in the USA in the Great Depression, and after WW2, government tended to favor the working classes much more than it does now.
Nah that's absolutely the wrong question, and the very question those in power want you to ask. Putting different people in charge won't fix it either. The problem is fundamental to human nature, we're not accustomed to being free. Kings used to fear democracy because they were worried that we'd become free, instead as soon as we were free we started electing new kings. Even in the good ole' US they wanted to elect George Washington dictator for life.
You should instead ask, how can I setup my environment so that I am not subject to the will of others... Don't ask the government for your freedom, take it from them.
that's really dangerous, because the will of the people can get really hairy.
Besides, if the will of the people is to take care of everyone through social services, then why do you need a government to do it? It should just happen naturally. What you are saying, is that a few select people that are chosen by a popularity contest should be given the authority to make people do things against their will.
But the system is not the government. It is an emergent system created by the interaction of people. You don't have to accept the government as the primary authority that determines how you live your life. If enough people do that the culture changes and so will the "system".
I mean look at how inefficient governments are… Have you ever seen one make a solid economic plus? Those archaic structures are pretty much already crumbling.
I hope and think that the kind of shit these systems are doing right now are just the death throes of an obsolete institution desperately trying not to fade into irrelevance.
That's the kind of claptrap nonsense that got us here.
Government is - at best - an emergent agent with a lot of internal incentives to keep itself going. It does what the people in it want to do. It does what legislation tells it to do modulated by the people interpreting and implementing those statues.
Big Banks and certain Companies and industry advocacy groups spend a lot of money on putting people friendly to them into Government, and that introduced a bias in the collective decision-making process. It should be (and will be eventually) counteracted.
Sure, there are different ways to do something about this, the extreme is of course to abolish the Government, but if you were to think a bit about the consequences and requirements of such a change, you'll see that it's not really the best option.
Replace "government" with "society" (and centuries of moral philosophy too).
If all good/bad decisions were made by individuals, we'd basically have anarchy and rule of the strongest - as most people would probably decide that "good" is what benefits themselves and their close friends.
I like the idea of self-government and I'd like to extend the concept a bit further. We should be seeking to self-govern in such a way that the government is not necessary.
Now, the next step would be to realize that the underlying problem here is the existence of Government itself.
It's an arrangement where a small group of people:
- Is in a position to accept bribes in exchange for influence.
- Decides everything for 300 million *individuals*.
- Uses other people's money (or conjures more out of thin air).
- Is not responsible for their actions.
No system of government really works that well because most people "defect" in the sense of the prisoners dilemma. So instead of working for the public good, the government ultimately becomes a means of exploiting the public good for powerful individuals' advantage.
Pretty much everyone government ultimately devolves into a form of "mafia" -- a relatively tight network of powerful individuals united by some fairly strong bond such as familial/ethnic ties. This network can count on each other to "cooperate" and not "defect", while the public/masses just can't coordinate and cooperate enough to oppose them.
Often bc the alternative is nothing ever can get done. Which maybe if you think there should be no systems at all you'll think is a good thing, but the majority of people enjoy some things the government provides.
The question is - cui bono?
Your alternative presumably is the current system, where a few self-selected people, kept in power exclusively by wealth, caste, and social connections - often in defiance of real wisdom or foresight - force everyone else to act in ways that benefit that self-sustaining governing class at the expense of everyone else.
reply