3 ms·

As a counterpoint, "The Government" isn't some monolithic enterprise. It's made up of thousands of people working for the interests of themselves and millions

As a counterpoint, "The Government" isn't some monolithic enterprise. It's made up of thousands of people working for the interests of themselves and millions of others. Since it would be naive to suggest that there aren't those in public office or employed by the government who engage in morally dubious behavior, wouldn't it make sense to want more sane, rational, and "benevolent" people working there as well to balance it out? The idea that nobody should work for the feds or the state because others in power engage in bad behavior would imply that we should just give up and leave it to the "bad guys". I think that human nature means there will always be either evil or ineffectual individuals in positions of power but this just means the rest of us owe it to ourselves and the rest of our countrymen to push for better options...to stack the deck back in our favor as it were.

shit_parade2 11y ago
I put torture and the murder of innocents beyond merely morally dubious, but perhaps you have a more liberal view. Look beyond your self serving and hypocritical narrative, would you equally defend the bureaucratics under Stalin, what of an IT worker for ISIS? I'm all for improving a system and government which has faults. However it is maddening to watch people continue to lend legitimacy to a government that tortures and murders innocent people -- what is your red line, genocide? The US is quickly approaching in the 21st century that marker as well when applied to Muslims. I recommend you reflect on your moral views since they currently support the aiding of torturers and murders.
- xnull2guest 11y ago
  The thing is we aren't talking about morals and ethics. We haven't been. We are doing a deductive (and therefore flawed) analysis of benefits and costs. Case in point: societies also (feel they) benefit from genocide. This doesn't make it right. But we're not talking about right. We're talking about gain and advantage. We could have a really interesting conversation about right and wrong. But that's not what we're talking about in this tree of the conversation. So nothing you are saying, as interesting as it is, addresses the conversation points.

shit_parade2 11y ago

I put torture and the murder of innocents beyond merely morally dubious, but perhaps you have a more liberal view. Look beyond your self serving and hypocritical narrative, would you equally defend the bureaucratics under Stalin, what of an IT worker for ISIS? I'm all for improving a system and government which has faults. However it is maddening to watch people continue to lend legitimacy to a government that tortures and murders innocent people -- what is your red line, genocide? The US is quickly approaching in the 21st century that marker as well when applied to Muslims. I recommend you reflect on your moral views since they currently support the aiding of torturers and murders.

xnull2guest 11y ago
The thing is we aren't talking about morals and ethics. We haven't been. We are doing a deductive (and therefore flawed) analysis of benefits and costs. Case in point: societies also (feel they) benefit from genocide. This doesn't make it right. But we're not talking about right. We're talking about gain and advantage. We could have a really interesting conversation about right and wrong. But that's not what we're talking about in this tree of the conversation. So nothing you are saying, as interesting as it is, addresses the conversation points.