2 ms·
> But most people will adamantly defend the goodness and necessity of government in the face of any undesirable action or aspect of a particular government. Yo
by md224 13y ago
> But most people will adamantly defend the goodness and necessity of government in the face of any undesirable action or aspect of a particular government.
You make that sound like a bad thing, but it really depends what the discussion is like. If someone criticizes the government and someone else responds with a smarmy comment like "hey, stop whining or move to Somalia" then yeah, that's just blind patriotism.
On the other hand, if someone says "The government did X wrong, therefore government is bad and should be dismantled," then I would say it's perfectly logical to respond with "Government also does Y and Z, which are both good, so maybe it's worth trying to reform rather than demolish." I wouldn't consider that blind patriotism, but rather a "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" style of reasoning. I'm not trying to take either side here (what kind of government we need or don't need is a valid open question), but arguing that government is still necessary despite failures in the system does not make someone a shameless government apologist; it can also be seen as a pragmatic position.
- baddox 13y ago> I would say it's perfectly logical to respond with "Government also does Y and Z, which are both good, so maybe it's worth trying to reform rather than demolish." Certainly so. That's why the libertarian/anarchist/anarcho-capitalist (whatever you want to call it) arguments I am most attracted to are the ones that attempt to show why societies without governments can also do Y and Z, and perhaps do them more effectively than governments. I dislike the more prominent libertarian line of argument, which appeals to "natural rights" and morality, and basically says "I don't care if government is the only way to do Y and Z, government shouldn't do it because it violates my rights."