4 ms·

at risk of sounding like an edgy libertarian, what do you think is the difference between a government and a gang with internal rules?

adventured 8y ago
Properly governments operate by the consent of those they govern. Gangs rule territory and the people within it almost strictly by violence. The closest similar in governments is a dictatorship, which must rule by the constant arbitrary application of violence to keep people terrified. A proper government operates by the peaceful consent - representative government, democratic systems, constitutional rights protections - of citizens of that government. This is obviously not always the case with governments, however it is overwhelmingly (nearly exclusively) the case in the more prosperous, stable nations. Gangs don't operate by the democratic vote of those that suffer/live within their dominion, they operate by the stray, subjective, whim based application of extreme violence. Codes of honor that are strictly adhered to within the mafia or gangs is wholly a fantasy, a lie, cheap hollywood bullshit at odds with all of history. Brutal behavior is a requirement of maintaining power as a gang. Gangs must also constantly murder or intimidate other neighboring gangs, to maintain their territorial control. Properly a government does not behave that way. The US doesn't need to kill everyone in Canada and take what they have, in order for the US to be prosperous or to maintain US sovereignty and power; the same goes for the relations between eg Finland and Sweden, or Australia and New Zealand. Gangs very specifically do not primarily operate by an objective application of rules of justice. Stable, prosperous nations & their governments tend to thrive precisely due to the application of objective laws, the steady enforcement of and protection of human liberty. Gangs operate by the subjective command at the top and the effective enslavement of productive people through terror. The rules are subject to arbitrary, often extreme, change when it's convenient to the gang's ruler/s. A new gang leadership can pivot the gang to an entirely different behavior on a whim; such behavioral change is wrong in a civilized nation, where human rights protections should be the primary concern and are not up for arbitrarily being tossed out the window. When the next leadership of the governments of Australia or Sweden come into being, they aren't going to randomly decide to murder a lot of people to establish their dominance. This list doesn't stop, the differences between a proper government and a gang is elaborate. They're nearly polar opposites.
- leetcrew 8y ago
  you had to use the qualifier "proper" four times in that comment, to the point where it's basically a no true scotsman argument. the "proper government" you describe is a pretty specific kind that has really only existed at scale in the west for a few hundred years. states in the rest of the world and through most of history seem to satisfy most of your criteria for gangs. i admit it's a silly argument to claim there is no difference between modern states and gangs, but it also seems problematic when your notion of a "proper government" only includes Western style constitutional republics.
  - adventured 8y ago
    Of course I used proper numerous times, it was pre-emptive. I did that on purpose, because it's pointing to the ideal. If I just said government generically, someone would chime in and point out Stalin or North Korea etc. and then declare my entire point to be wrong due to worst case examples. It does favor Western constitutional systems, they have worked very well overall and they're overwhelmingly and objectively superior in quality of life and happiness results. They've also tended to dramatically outperform other systems on income and wealth production, at all wealth brackets. People don't want to live in Myanmar, North Korea, Zimbabwe or Venezuela, they want to live in Sweden, Finland, Australia, Denmark, Germany, Canada etc. There are very, very few cases where this doesn't hold. Pick nearly any metric. Japan and South Korea both adopted Western style systems, the results speak for themselves compared to most other nations in Asia. GDP per capita leaders (a decent proxy for overall economic development): Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, Ireland, US, Denmark, Australia, Sweden, Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Canada, Germany, Belgium, New Zealand, Israel, France, UK, Japan, Italy, South Korea, Spain It's dramatic to say the least. They're all using Western style systems of government. The outlier list: Singapore, Qatar, UAE. Total population: 17 million, with two of those being energy states. There are very few exceptions, with Singapore being among a tiny list of those that has been a bit at odds with traditional liberal democratic norms and still results in a high quality of life in most respects. I wouldn't use Stalin's reign of terror and dictatorship as the role model for good government behavior or the ideal to pursue. Qualifying by saying "proper" is a necessity. I don't consider Stalin's approach to be a proper government in any regard. I'm skeptical that ruling solely through violence can be reasonably considered governing.

adventured 8y ago

Properly governments operate by the consent of those they govern. Gangs rule territory and the people within it almost strictly by violence. The closest similar in governments is a dictatorship, which must rule by the constant arbitrary application of violence to keep people terrified. A proper government operates by the peaceful consent - representative government, democratic systems, constitutional rights protections - of citizens of that government. This is obviously not always the case with governments, however it is overwhelmingly (nearly exclusively) the case in the more prosperous, stable nations. Gangs don't operate by the democratic vote of those that suffer/live within their dominion, they operate by the stray, subjective, whim based application of extreme violence. Codes of honor that are strictly adhered to within the mafia or gangs is wholly a fantasy, a lie, cheap hollywood bullshit at odds with all of history. Brutal behavior is a requirement of maintaining power as a gang. Gangs must also constantly murder or intimidate other neighboring gangs, to maintain their territorial control. Properly a government does not behave that way. The US doesn't need to kill everyone in Canada and take what they have, in order for the US to be prosperous or to maintain US sovereignty and power; the same goes for the relations between eg Finland and Sweden, or Australia and New Zealand. Gangs very specifically do not primarily operate by an objective application of rules of justice. Stable, prosperous nations & their governments tend to thrive precisely due to the application of objective laws, the steady enforcement of and protection of human liberty. Gangs operate by the subjective command at the top and the effective enslavement of productive people through terror. The rules are subject to arbitrary, often extreme, change when it's convenient to the gang's ruler/s. A new gang leadership can pivot the gang to an entirely different behavior on a whim; such behavioral change is wrong in a civilized nation, where human rights protections should be the primary concern and are not up for arbitrarily being tossed out the window. When the next leadership of the governments of Australia or Sweden come into being, they aren't going to randomly decide to murder a lot of people to establish their dominance. This list doesn't stop, the differences between a proper government and a gang is elaborate. They're nearly polar opposites.

leetcrew 8y ago
you had to use the qualifier "proper" four times in that comment, to the point where it's basically a no true scotsman argument. the "proper government" you describe is a pretty specific kind that has really only existed at scale in the west for a few hundred years. states in the rest of the world and through most of history seem to satisfy most of your criteria for gangs. i admit it's a silly argument to claim there is no difference between modern states and gangs, but it also seems problematic when your notion of a "proper government" only includes Western style constitutional republics.
- adventured 8y ago
  Of course I used proper numerous times, it was pre-emptive. I did that on purpose, because it's pointing to the ideal. If I just said government generically, someone would chime in and point out Stalin or North Korea etc. and then declare my entire point to be wrong due to worst case examples. It does favor Western constitutional systems, they have worked very well overall and they're overwhelmingly and objectively superior in quality of life and happiness results. They've also tended to dramatically outperform other systems on income and wealth production, at all wealth brackets. People don't want to live in Myanmar, North Korea, Zimbabwe or Venezuela, they want to live in Sweden, Finland, Australia, Denmark, Germany, Canada etc. There are very, very few cases where this doesn't hold. Pick nearly any metric. Japan and South Korea both adopted Western style systems, the results speak for themselves compared to most other nations in Asia. GDP per capita leaders (a decent proxy for overall economic development): Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, Ireland, US, Denmark, Australia, Sweden, Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Canada, Germany, Belgium, New Zealand, Israel, France, UK, Japan, Italy, South Korea, Spain It's dramatic to say the least. They're all using Western style systems of government. The outlier list: Singapore, Qatar, UAE. Total population: 17 million, with two of those being energy states. There are very few exceptions, with Singapore being among a tiny list of those that has been a bit at odds with traditional liberal democratic norms and still results in a high quality of life in most respects. I wouldn't use Stalin's reign of terror and dictatorship as the role model for good government behavior or the ideal to pursue. Qualifying by saying "proper" is a necessity. I don't consider Stalin's approach to be a proper government in any regard. I'm skeptical that ruling solely through violence can be reasonably considered governing.