3 ms·

You are assuming this is unintentional. Giving bureaucrats and criminals working with them power through incompetence of the central government ... forgive me f

You are assuming this is unintentional. Giving bureaucrats and criminals working with them power through incompetence of the central government ... forgive me for doubting that this was a design feature. It redivides the power between individuals and the state, including criminals working with (small parts of) the state. I believe anyone who can get a majority of 1.3 billion people to vote for him did not miss this. I mean what's with the "Caesar can do no wrong" attitude on this site ? States are evil. The best possible case is that they might be, at times, the lesser evil.

lmcm82 8y ago
>States are evil. The best possible case is that they might be, at times, the lesser evil. Calm down there American.
- candiodari 8y ago
  I am European. Just because it's a less popular opinion, it's not any less true. I don't even understand the logic itself. States are supposedly not evil, and we need them because ... well because people are more evil. That's the idea. But states are people. Isn't that by itself a massive contradiction ? The difference between, say, the Netherlands and Monsanto is the method of incorporation, and the legal authority it therefore has. Not the resulting decisions. That's, of course why the Netherlands got rich by having it's military protect and pay raping pirates, in trade for their loot, including of course, if they had to sell the passengers to prostitution houses and mines, and still does things like extracting money from it's poorest citizens through mental health "care". Monsanto merely mass-poisons people. But the big difference is: 1) the dutch state has never apologized 2) has never paid any restitution to anyone 3) never will
  - krageon 8y ago
    You picked one of the countries with the most evil government (historically, I make no claim either way about the current situation) as an example. Of course it's going to look bad in that case.
    - candiodari 8y ago
      Okay. Name one that's decent. A single one. And let's look up what they've done ... I mean perhaps the really tiny ones are better, but that's really more for lack of options, not lack of will to commit atrocities. Recently there was -yet another- mental health (for children no less) scandal in the Netherlands. Yes, the government that supposedly fairly hosts the international court can't even respect basic human rights in it's own country. Which brings the question if either of these things is really their goal (where for instance mental health "care" is often accused to be about locking people out of sight, at any cost (to those mental patients), and the international court is about international politics, not justice (for instance the Jugoslavia tribunal only ever convicted people from one side of the conflict)).

lmcm82 8y ago

>States are evil. The best possible case is that they might be, at times, the lesser evil. Calm down there American.

candiodari 8y ago
I am European. Just because it's a less popular opinion, it's not any less true. I don't even understand the logic itself. States are supposedly not evil, and we need them because ... well because people are more evil. That's the idea. But states are people. Isn't that by itself a massive contradiction ? The difference between, say, the Netherlands and Monsanto is the method of incorporation, and the legal authority it therefore has. Not the resulting decisions. That's, of course why the Netherlands got rich by having it's military protect and pay raping pirates, in trade for their loot, including of course, if they had to sell the passengers to prostitution houses and mines, and still does things like extracting money from it's poorest citizens through mental health "care". Monsanto merely mass-poisons people. But the big difference is: 1) the dutch state has never apologized 2) has never paid any restitution to anyone 3) never will
- krageon 8y ago
  You picked one of the countries with the most evil government (historically, I make no claim either way about the current situation) as an example. Of course it's going to look bad in that case.
  - candiodari 8y ago
    Okay. Name one that's decent. A single one. And let's look up what they've done ... I mean perhaps the really tiny ones are better, but that's really more for lack of options, not lack of will to commit atrocities. Recently there was -yet another- mental health (for children no less) scandal in the Netherlands. Yes, the government that supposedly fairly hosts the international court can't even respect basic human rights in it's own country. Which brings the question if either of these things is really their goal (where for instance mental health "care" is often accused to be about locking people out of sight, at any cost (to those mental patients), and the international court is about international politics, not justice (for instance the Jugoslavia tribunal only ever convicted people from one side of the conflict)).