5 ms·

By that definition, every conceivable grouping of human beings that has any sort of leadership has a government, but that definition is so broad as to be useles

by pluto9 8y ago

By that definition, every conceivable grouping of human beings that has any sort of leadership has a government, but that definition is so broad as to be useless. An after-work football club is governed by its rules, organizers, customs, etc, but the idea that it has a government is laughable.

manjushri 8y ago
>By that definition, every conceivable grouping of human beings that has any sort of leadership has a government, but that definition is so broad as to be useless. Well, that is in accordance with the dictionary definition. The bigger and more powerful the grouping becomes, the more practical the definition becomes. Which is why it could be a useful designation for an entity with psychological control over 2,000,000,000+ people, but not so much for a football league with ~100 people (though technically it still can be called a governing body).
- pluto9 8y ago
  You quoted that dictionary definition in another comment: >Government: the governing body of a nation, state, or community. Just because something purports to be a dictionary doesn't mean its definitions are useful or correct. That's a poor definition because it covers a large number of things that nobody ever uses the word "government" to describe, such as the football club. This is much more precise (from Webster): "the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it"
  - sattoshi 8y ago
    Définitions seem like pointless pedantry to me. People in this thread are using the term "government" in an usual way. They are describing a system, and a government is a good simplification of what they mean.
    - pluto9 8y ago
      It's a gross oversimplification of what they mean. I don't see how pointing that out is "pointless pedantry".
  - manjushri 8y ago
    The definition you cherry picked still seems to describe the management of Facebook. What specific part of the definition do you think excludes FB from being called a government? >nobody ever uses the word "government" to describe, such as the football club. FIFA manages football teams, and it describes itself as a government: >The Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA; French for "International Federation of Association Football") is an association which describes itself as an international governing body of association football, futsal, and beach soccer. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA
    - pluto9 8y ago
      I picked that definition because it's precise, whereas yours was vague. Not all definitions are of equal quality, and choosing a good one over a poor one is not "cherry picking". Specifically, Facebook is not managed by a "political unit". It's managed by its owners, who have authority over it because it is their property and they have property rights. Governments do not own their citizens. They only have authority because citizens agree, whether voluntarily or through intimidation, to respect that authority. And no, FIFA does not call itself a government. It calls itself a "governing body" in the text you just quoted. That is not the same thing, and their choice of wording is deliberate. I will concede that they are much, much closer to being a government than Facebook, though, by virtue of their organizational structure and how they derive their authority. Not that that's relevant to my previous example of a football club. We both know I meant a group of people who get together after work to play for fun, and that the people "in charge" of that are obviously not a government. Claiming that that's false because it's not 100% true for FIFA is a pretty egregious straw man.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - manjushri 8y ago
        >Specifically, Facebook is not managed by a "political unit". It's managed by its owners, who have authority over it because it is their property and they have property rights. Governments do not own their citizens. They only have authority because citizens agree, whether voluntarily or through intimidation, to respect that authority. You're comparing apples (FB code) to oranges (citizens). A fair comparison would be users to citizens, or platform code to national territory. Facebook does not own it's users just like a government doesn't own it citizens. A nation owns the land within it's boundaries just like FB owns the code on it's platform. >And no, FIFA does not call itself a government. It calls itself a "governing body" in the text you just quoted. That is not the same thing Again, a government is literally defined as governing body, even thougg you don't like it. Do you think there is a government that doesn't have a governing body? >We both know I meant a group of people who get together after work to play for fun, and that the people "in charge" of that are obviously not a government. Claiming that that's false because it's not 100% true for FIFA is a pretty egregious straw man. Claiming that we cannot call Facebook a government because a local football club is not typically called a government is itself an egregious strawman; apples to oranges again. FIFA is a far more comparable to an international entity like Facebook, isn't it?
Retra 8y ago
> that definition is so broad as to be useless How is it useless? That definition includes exactly all of the relevant features to this discussion. Groups of people with leadership. How they relate to each other. Your objection that the definition 'useless' only makes sense in the context that you didn't bother talking about anything but the definition. Focus on the material of the discussion, and perhaps it will seem less useless a definition.
- pluto9 8y ago
  > That definition includes exactly all of the relevant features to this discussion. Groups of people with leadership. How they relate to each other. Which is not what a government is. > Focus on the material of the discussion, and perhaps it will seem less useless a definition. The whole discussion is based on the idea that just because Facebook has rules and somebody in charge, it's equivalent to the government of a state and should be thought about as such. That's absolutely absurd unless you think that every association of people in which someone is dominant or customs exist has its own "government". Pointing that out is focusing on the "material of the discussion".

by pluto9 8y ago

manjushri 8y ago

>By that definition, every conceivable grouping of human beings that has any sort of leadership has a government, but that definition is so broad as to be useless. Well, that is in accordance with the dictionary definition. The bigger and more powerful the grouping becomes, the more practical the definition becomes. Which is why it could be a useful designation for an entity with psychological control over 2,000,000,000+ people, but not so much for a football league with ~100 people (though technically it still can be called a governing body).

pluto9 8y ago
You quoted that dictionary definition in another comment: >Government: the governing body of a nation, state, or community. Just because something purports to be a dictionary doesn't mean its definitions are useful or correct. That's a poor definition because it covers a large number of things that nobody ever uses the word "government" to describe, such as the football club. This is much more precise (from Webster): "the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it"
- sattoshi 8y ago
  Définitions seem like pointless pedantry to me. People in this thread are using the term "government" in an usual way. They are describing a system, and a government is a good simplification of what they mean.
  - pluto9 8y ago
    It's a gross oversimplification of what they mean. I don't see how pointing that out is "pointless pedantry".
- manjushri 8y ago
  The definition you cherry picked still seems to describe the management of Facebook. What specific part of the definition do you think excludes FB from being called a government? >nobody ever uses the word "government" to describe, such as the football club. FIFA manages football teams, and it describes itself as a government: >The Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA; French for "International Federation of Association Football") is an association which describes itself as an international governing body of association football, futsal, and beach soccer. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA
  - pluto9 8y ago
    I picked that definition because it's precise, whereas yours was vague. Not all definitions are of equal quality, and choosing a good one over a poor one is not "cherry picking". Specifically, Facebook is not managed by a "political unit". It's managed by its owners, who have authority over it because it is their property and they have property rights. Governments do not own their citizens. They only have authority because citizens agree, whether voluntarily or through intimidation, to respect that authority. And no, FIFA does not call itself a government. It calls itself a "governing body" in the text you just quoted. That is not the same thing, and their choice of wording is deliberate. I will concede that they are much, much closer to being a government than Facebook, though, by virtue of their organizational structure and how they derive their authority. Not that that's relevant to my previous example of a football club. We both know I meant a group of people who get together after work to play for fun, and that the people "in charge" of that are obviously not a government. Claiming that that's false because it's not 100% true for FIFA is a pretty egregious straw man.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - manjushri 8y ago
      >Specifically, Facebook is not managed by a "political unit". It's managed by its owners, who have authority over it because it is their property and they have property rights. Governments do not own their citizens. They only have authority because citizens agree, whether voluntarily or through intimidation, to respect that authority. You're comparing apples (FB code) to oranges (citizens). A fair comparison would be users to citizens, or platform code to national territory. Facebook does not own it's users just like a government doesn't own it citizens. A nation owns the land within it's boundaries just like FB owns the code on it's platform. >And no, FIFA does not call itself a government. It calls itself a "governing body" in the text you just quoted. That is not the same thing Again, a government is literally defined as governing body, even thougg you don't like it. Do you think there is a government that doesn't have a governing body? >We both know I meant a group of people who get together after work to play for fun, and that the people "in charge" of that are obviously not a government. Claiming that that's false because it's not 100% true for FIFA is a pretty egregious straw man. Claiming that we cannot call Facebook a government because a local football club is not typically called a government is itself an egregious strawman; apples to oranges again. FIFA is a far more comparable to an international entity like Facebook, isn't it?

Retra 8y ago

> that definition is so broad as to be useless How is it useless? That definition includes exactly all of the relevant features to this discussion. Groups of people with leadership. How they relate to each other. Your objection that the definition 'useless' only makes sense in the context that you didn't bother talking about anything but the definition. Focus on the material of the discussion, and perhaps it will seem less useless a definition.

pluto9 8y ago
> That definition includes exactly all of the relevant features to this discussion. Groups of people with leadership. How they relate to each other. Which is not what a government is. > Focus on the material of the discussion, and perhaps it will seem less useless a definition. The whole discussion is based on the idea that just because Facebook has rules and somebody in charge, it's equivalent to the government of a state and should be thought about as such. That's absolutely absurd unless you think that every association of people in which someone is dominant or customs exist has its own "government". Pointing that out is focusing on the "material of the discussion".