4 ms·

Not sure I follow. In a government, the primary need is that the people feel free, feel like they're not being ordered around by a dictator, that they can have

Not sure I follow. In a government, the primary need is that the people feel free, feel like they're not being ordered around by a dictator, that they can have fun or do what they want or set their own rules. Any rigid structure of governance that is focused on anything else will eventually fail. The constitution is a list of things the government can't do.

jhanschoo 7y ago
> In a government, the primary need is that the people feel free, feel like they're not being ordered around by a dictator, that they can have fun or do what they want or set their own rules. > Any rigid structure of governance that is focused on anything else will eventually fail. I don't think we are contradicting each other. The need to feel free and have flexibility in certain aspects of governance is a political need that needs to be balanced. An education in governance should address this aspect so that citizens are more tuned-in to abuses of office and institutions that infringe on freedoms that most citizens have not chosen to yield to the government. Even though we were not contradicting each other, I do not completely agree with this. > In a government, the primary need is that the people feel free, feel like they're not being ordered around by a dictator, that they can have fun or do what they want or set their own rules. I think you recognize that this freedom here is quite qualified. The freedom to do what we want or set our own rules certainly need to be qualified at least around to the extent that they do not cause negative consequences to other people. Where the exact boundaries are are always shifting depending on the specific circumstances and population, and this is why various needs need to be balanced by government; i.e. the extent of this freedom is being balanced by other societal needs. Hence I would say that prima facie, a primary objective is a balance of freedom and well-being of the citizenry, with neither need superior over the other. On the other hand, > [the freedom to] set their own rules may sometimes be done most efficiently and reliably through governmental institutions, using government institutions to conduct certain self-funded voluntary programs.
vkou 7y ago
> Not sure I follow. In a government, the primary need is that the people feel free, feel like they're not being ordered around by a dictator, that they can have fun or do what they want or set their own rules. There are plenty of governments who have never felt that to be a primary, secondary, or even tertiary need. 'Plenty' here refers to an overwhelming majority of governments, through an overwhelming majority of recorded history. > Any rigid structure of governance that is focused on anything else will eventually fail. Are you basing this on the brief, half-century window of human history where liberal democracies governed something between a quarter, and a third of the world's population? When I look at human history, it seems to be that despotism is the norm, and liberal democracy is a quirky, novel fad, that may fizzle out, just like acid-washed jeans, and pet rocks did.

jhanschoo 7y ago

> In a government, the primary need is that the people feel free, feel like they're not being ordered around by a dictator, that they can have fun or do what they want or set their own rules. > Any rigid structure of governance that is focused on anything else will eventually fail. I don't think we are contradicting each other. The need to feel free and have flexibility in certain aspects of governance is a political need that needs to be balanced. An education in governance should address this aspect so that citizens are more tuned-in to abuses of office and institutions that infringe on freedoms that most citizens have not chosen to yield to the government. Even though we were not contradicting each other, I do not completely agree with this. > In a government, the primary need is that the people feel free, feel like they're not being ordered around by a dictator, that they can have fun or do what they want or set their own rules. I think you recognize that this freedom here is quite qualified. The freedom to do what we want or set our own rules certainly need to be qualified at least around to the extent that they do not cause negative consequences to other people. Where the exact boundaries are are always shifting depending on the specific circumstances and population, and this is why various needs need to be balanced by government; i.e. the extent of this freedom is being balanced by other societal needs. Hence I would say that prima facie, a primary objective is a balance of freedom and well-being of the citizenry, with neither need superior over the other. On the other hand, > [the freedom to] set their own rules may sometimes be done most efficiently and reliably through governmental institutions, using government institutions to conduct certain self-funded voluntary programs.

vkou 7y ago

> Not sure I follow. In a government, the primary need is that the people feel free, feel like they're not being ordered around by a dictator, that they can have fun or do what they want or set their own rules. There are plenty of governments who have never felt that to be a primary, secondary, or even tertiary need. 'Plenty' here refers to an overwhelming majority of governments, through an overwhelming majority of recorded history. > Any rigid structure of governance that is focused on anything else will eventually fail. Are you basing this on the brief, half-century window of human history where liberal democracies governed something between a quarter, and a third of the world's population? When I look at human history, it seems to be that despotism is the norm, and liberal democracy is a quirky, novel fad, that may fizzle out, just like acid-washed jeans, and pet rocks did.