3 ms·

I'm with you on balance: state is better than no state. However, I don't think the matter is as clear cut as you think. A few examples (I'll try to match them t

by avz 12y ago

I'm with you on balance: state is better than no state. However, I don't think the matter is as clear cut as you think. A few examples (I'll try to match them to yours): Public infrastructure projects often involve bribery and cronyism. Public school system may be used for ideological indoctrination. National safety nets foster risk aversion and allow young people to throw off the burden of care for their elderly. Police may be overly brutal when protecting your wealth from banditry. The means of protection of your land from outside invaders can become the means to invade outsiders and to conduct mass surveillance of the locals. It's a superhard design challenge to create a set of checks and balances which prevent abuse of power.

georgemcbay 12y ago
I don't disagree; I just think going from "there is a lot wrong with our current government" (and clearly there is) to "government is evil" (or immoral) is such a huge, huge leap of logic that I don't understand how rational people can make it. The very idea that anything like modern society is possible without government is entirely faith-based (since there are no successful examples to prove it) and, I would argue, very naive on the subject of the many failings humans have when not regulated by outside checks and balances.
- snitko 12y ago
  It's not a huge leap of logic. Logic is logic. If a person goes and kills a bunch of people, or orders to kill a bunch of people - you call him what? Murderer. You don't care whether he also helps old people in the nursing home or teaches children or helps the poor - those actions don't make him less of a murderer. And yet, when a government takes tax money by force or threat of force and spends them on bloody wars where many people die, you say "but it also builds roads and educates our children and enforces private property, so it's not that bad, it's not evil". Well, it is. You're just avoiding using logic when it comes to government, it somehow is exempt from logical thinking for many people. If you can't come up with a solution how to build a society without government and taxation, you're simply not thinking hard. The fact that there is no country on earth without government (except for Somalia, which you cannot compare to, say, the US, but which you SHOULD compare to the surrounding countries) means nothing. In the 16-th century there was no country on earth without slavery. In the same century hardly anyone in the society could imagine how to organize it without God, because, supposedly, without the fear of God humans would go crazy and start killing each other. So, please, stop and think about this: if there was no way for anyone to form a government, how would I solve all the problems governments are currently responsible for. It's a useful exercise.

by avz 12y ago

georgemcbay 12y ago

I don't disagree; I just think going from "there is a lot wrong with our current government" (and clearly there is) to "government is evil" (or immoral) is such a huge, huge leap of logic that I don't understand how rational people can make it. The very idea that anything like modern society is possible without government is entirely faith-based (since there are no successful examples to prove it) and, I would argue, very naive on the subject of the many failings humans have when not regulated by outside checks and balances.

snitko 12y ago
It's not a huge leap of logic. Logic is logic. If a person goes and kills a bunch of people, or orders to kill a bunch of people - you call him what? Murderer. You don't care whether he also helps old people in the nursing home or teaches children or helps the poor - those actions don't make him less of a murderer. And yet, when a government takes tax money by force or threat of force and spends them on bloody wars where many people die, you say "but it also builds roads and educates our children and enforces private property, so it's not that bad, it's not evil". Well, it is. You're just avoiding using logic when it comes to government, it somehow is exempt from logical thinking for many people. If you can't come up with a solution how to build a society without government and taxation, you're simply not thinking hard. The fact that there is no country on earth without government (except for Somalia, which you cannot compare to, say, the US, but which you SHOULD compare to the surrounding countries) means nothing. In the 16-th century there was no country on earth without slavery. In the same century hardly anyone in the society could imagine how to organize it without God, because, supposedly, without the fear of God humans would go crazy and start killing each other. So, please, stop and think about this: if there was no way for anyone to form a government, how would I solve all the problems governments are currently responsible for. It's a useful exercise.