6 ms·

Why should people trust any government in the first place? Governments nowadays came to replace institutions of organized religions as the way to gain a high

Why should people trust any government in the first place? Governments nowadays came to replace institutions of organized religions as the way to gain a high social status and security, and hence became as bloated, inefficient and corrupted as old, unreformed churches of the past. No sane people would 'trust' such social formations which sole purpose is self preservation and parasitic growth.

lostlogin 10y ago
I think you need to look at "Churches of the past" a little harder. Churches had their time and while we haven't managed to get rid of them yet, we are a lot better of with a separation between them and the state.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- tremon 10y ago
  But we replaced it with the Church Of Capitalism, which has its own sets of dogma. Maybe we need a separation of finance and state?
- dschiptsov 10y ago
  The idea of "service to common men" goes back to antiquity. Mahayana Buddhists modeled their bodhisattvas after Brahmana priests in order to justify why peasants must pay taxes to monasteries, or why a monastery owns all the land. Catholic Church is famous for its middleman's role between men and god, where one could buy release from one's own sins. Actually, all organised religions degrade to this or that form of bargain with help of authorized servants of the common folk. Governments just have reused this thousands years old meme that they are necessary public servants, that without them whole world would collapse the very next day they stopped performing their rituals. We are not even speaking here about primitive authoritarian governments which have nothing but self-preservation and continuous increase of power and wealth in their agenda.
- rmsaksida 10y ago
  I don't think parent is suggesting we should replace the state with religious institutions. He refers to those past institutions as "bloated, inefficient and corrupted". His point, I believe, is that governments are largely selfish institutions and this is important to understand the decline in public trust. If the main interest of the government is self preservation - by any means necessary - their actions do not necessarily reflect public interest. Governments only have to care about the public enough to prevent revolts and, in the case of democracies, to secure a reelection. Thanks to modern advertising, they don't even have to do that much - they often get away with just pretending. It is natural that, over time, trust in government will erode.
- CM30 10y ago
  What about outside the US, where there is no seperation of Church and State?
  - lostlogin 10y ago
    The church and state are better separated in many places outside the US. I'm in New Zealand.
pluma 10y ago
I think governments are still more trustworthy than businesses, though. At least with governments you get to pretend that you elect people into office who have your interests at heart.
- dschiptsov 10y ago
  It seems that a government service originally was within that "natural" framework of division of labor (which exists even for non-human species). Defense and law enforcement and other necessary specializations are obvious examples. Cells has specializations which makes higher life forms possible. But as long as government employees start to form its own cast or a social class with higher social status than mere soldier, policeman, teacher or a civil servant the whole thing is being transformed into an ugly social hierarchy of corruption, greed and self-preservation, which is so common in the history of all nations and cultures.
  - pluma 10y ago
    Oh, I'm not arguing governments are inherently and permanently trustworthy. I certainly wouldn't trust any government in existence right now. However in principle a government is tasked with overseeing the protection and prosperity of a group of people (its subjects) whereas a company is tasked with protecting the interests of its owners (e.g. investors). A company merely operates on its customers (or its users in the case of companies like Facebook where the users are the product, not customers). A government operates for its subjects. At least that's the general idea if you follow Thomas Hobbes, John Locke or Rousseau. I'm certain there are quite a number of governments around which disagree with this definition.
- marknutter 10y ago
  Neither are trustworthy and neither should be trusted implicitly. But to pretend that people can't have any effect on businesses like they can on government is just silly. Businesses can't tax the population. They rely on consumers buying their products and services, and if that doesn't happen they fail. People vote with their dollars all the time and businesses are forced to respond or die. The government has no such constraints and can continue forward with whatever terrible policies they want so long as they spend the majority of their time and effort securing re-election.

lostlogin 10y ago

I think you need to look at "Churches of the past" a little harder. Churches had their time and while we haven't managed to get rid of them yet, we are a lot better of with a separation between them and the state.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
tremon 10y ago
But we replaced it with the Church Of Capitalism, which has its own sets of dogma. Maybe we need a separation of finance and state?
dschiptsov 10y ago
The idea of "service to common men" goes back to antiquity. Mahayana Buddhists modeled their bodhisattvas after Brahmana priests in order to justify why peasants must pay taxes to monasteries, or why a monastery owns all the land. Catholic Church is famous for its middleman's role between men and god, where one could buy release from one's own sins. Actually, all organised religions degrade to this or that form of bargain with help of authorized servants of the common folk. Governments just have reused this thousands years old meme that they are necessary public servants, that without them whole world would collapse the very next day they stopped performing their rituals. We are not even speaking here about primitive authoritarian governments which have nothing but self-preservation and continuous increase of power and wealth in their agenda.
rmsaksida 10y ago
I don't think parent is suggesting we should replace the state with religious institutions. He refers to those past institutions as "bloated, inefficient and corrupted". His point, I believe, is that governments are largely selfish institutions and this is important to understand the decline in public trust. If the main interest of the government is self preservation - by any means necessary - their actions do not necessarily reflect public interest. Governments only have to care about the public enough to prevent revolts and, in the case of democracies, to secure a reelection. Thanks to modern advertising, they don't even have to do that much - they often get away with just pretending. It is natural that, over time, trust in government will erode.
CM30 10y ago
What about outside the US, where there is no seperation of Church and State?
- lostlogin 10y ago
  The church and state are better separated in many places outside the US. I'm in New Zealand.

pluma 10y ago

I think governments are still more trustworthy than businesses, though. At least with governments you get to pretend that you elect people into office who have your interests at heart.

dschiptsov 10y ago
It seems that a government service originally was within that "natural" framework of division of labor (which exists even for non-human species). Defense and law enforcement and other necessary specializations are obvious examples. Cells has specializations which makes higher life forms possible. But as long as government employees start to form its own cast or a social class with higher social status than mere soldier, policeman, teacher or a civil servant the whole thing is being transformed into an ugly social hierarchy of corruption, greed and self-preservation, which is so common in the history of all nations and cultures.
- pluma 10y ago
  Oh, I'm not arguing governments are inherently and permanently trustworthy. I certainly wouldn't trust any government in existence right now. However in principle a government is tasked with overseeing the protection and prosperity of a group of people (its subjects) whereas a company is tasked with protecting the interests of its owners (e.g. investors). A company merely operates on its customers (or its users in the case of companies like Facebook where the users are the product, not customers). A government operates for its subjects. At least that's the general idea if you follow Thomas Hobbes, John Locke or Rousseau. I'm certain there are quite a number of governments around which disagree with this definition.
marknutter 10y ago
Neither are trustworthy and neither should be trusted implicitly. But to pretend that people can't have any effect on businesses like they can on government is just silly. Businesses can't tax the population. They rely on consumers buying their products and services, and if that doesn't happen they fail. People vote with their dollars all the time and businesses are forced to respond or die. The government has no such constraints and can continue forward with whatever terrible policies they want so long as they spend the majority of their time and effort securing re-election.