4 ms·

>If individuals doing what was best for themselves at the present moment was intrinsically tied to longterm collective stability and wellbeing, then we wouldn't

>If individuals doing what was best for themselves at the present moment was intrinsically tied to longterm collective stability and wellbeing, then we wouldn't need government at all! I don't think that this helps your argument as much as you might think. Governments didn't spring up as some kind of a mutual agreement in society to benefit everyone. Governance in most places arose after someone conquered and subjugated them. Then through a very long cycle of violence and subjugation we arrived at more modern forms of governance, where governments pretend that it's for the good of the people. Yet at the same time those governments will not give people a choice - they will use force to make you comply. That is to say, we need governments to protect us from other governments. Nobles/royalty didn't rule because they all wanted to improve the lives of people. They ruled because they were nobility/royalty.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
thebradbain 6y ago
I think our arguments actually agree with each other: back then (and I concede now, to some degree), it was in the interest of a few to subjugate the many (as in, nobility carving out a political ruling class for their own advantage): if you could be rich and powerful, with little to no consequences, why wouldn't you. That's certainly in your individual interest. Collectively, though? It could be argued that, because the powers that be willingly prioritized their individual interest over their subjects ' collective wellbeing (be it intentionally "Let them eat cake"-style or because they were just dysfunctional rulers who couldn't keep their subjugates from starving, it doesn't matter; either way they dedicated more resources to themselves at the expense of everyone), these rulers were overthrown: the United States Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Cultural Revolution, etc. were all products of the elite few irresponsibly divvying up resources for themselves to the point where their subjects decided en masse it would be better to fight to change the system and possibly die rather than live under present conditions; regardless of how each of those revolutions turned out, what is clear is that if the government (or whatever powers that be) prioritizes its own interests too much over those it supposedly represents, it, too, will be overthrown (or at least, changed by external forces). Modern day governments have an intrinsic interest in making sure that doesn't happen, and a big part of that means making sure society is collectively content enough to not pull the plug. But now I'm just philosophizing.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

thebradbain 6y ago

I think our arguments actually agree with each other: back then (and I concede now, to some degree), it was in the interest of a few to subjugate the many (as in, nobility carving out a political ruling class for their own advantage): if you could be rich and powerful, with little to no consequences, why wouldn't you. That's certainly in your individual interest. Collectively, though? It could be argued that, because the powers that be willingly prioritized their individual interest over their subjects ' collective wellbeing (be it intentionally "Let them eat cake"-style or because they were just dysfunctional rulers who couldn't keep their subjugates from starving, it doesn't matter; either way they dedicated more resources to themselves at the expense of everyone), these rulers were overthrown: the United States Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Cultural Revolution, etc. were all products of the elite few irresponsibly divvying up resources for themselves to the point where their subjects decided en masse it would be better to fight to change the system and possibly die rather than live under present conditions; regardless of how each of those revolutions turned out, what is clear is that if the government (or whatever powers that be) prioritizes its own interests too much over those it supposedly represents, it, too, will be overthrown (or at least, changed by external forces). Modern day governments have an intrinsic interest in making sure that doesn't happen, and a big part of that means making sure society is collectively content enough to not pull the plug. But now I'm just philosophizing.