...isn't it?
Printable View
...isn't it?
But is it a necessary evil?
First, the term 'evil' is too strong (in most instances of its use, not just this). Second, if government is 'evil', so too are large tracts of the private sector.
It is necessary. Human societies of today are too sophisticated systems to survive without it. But it is still evil. Whenever you delegate it some responsibility, government always ends up taking more that people wanted to delegate. It assumes a self-sufficient and self-indulgent role and starts telling everybody what to do. My thesis is aimed against that popular misperception that government is the guard of human rights and liberties. In my view, it is the first usurper thereof.
Judging by the fact that over a hundred people viewed this thread without responding, there isn't too much disagreement over that. ;)
It certainly can be. But don't forget that it can also convey new human rights and liberties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
The "other guys are bad, too" argument is weak. We all know the private sector has its downsides, too, but this is not what we are discussing here.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Why is it a weak argument? I would have thought that a discussion on the subject has to include at least mention of the fact that it is not only government that some could describe as 'evil', or are you against such a debate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
First, I didn't mean to discuss all evils of this world in one thread. Second, redirecting critique from the initial topic of debate to something else is a trick often used to dilute the debate and render it meaningless. Bringing something else into the debate only makes sense if it is something reasonably comparable to the major object of the debate. If we get to discuss government welfare vs private retirement packages, or government owned companies vs private companies, putting the government and the private sector together is perfectly justified. So far, though, I have only been thinking about government as a phenomenon of human society in general.
Points well made, though I would still argue that the private sector is just as much a phenomenon of human society in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
I wonder how many simply viewed it and thought "oh look... another Rudy rant", and didn't bother responding ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
Sorry Rudy but you're artificially choosing what is acceptable to discuss and what is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
If you are going to discuss the merits of government then it is only natural, even essential to discuss alternative systems. This could be the comparison of government with the lack of government (ie anarchy) or public vs private sector.
Ultimately though the government is not inherently evil or good. It is merely a tool for those who hold power and its effects are merely a reflection of the intention of those people. A car is not inherently good or evil either in much the same way.
Is government a chicken?
All governments are chickens, but some are more chicken than others...
And are corporations the egg?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
And artifically choosing to describe government as 'evil' and saying only of the private sector that it 'has its downsides'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
"government" includes the administration and policy direction of power and wealth; the private sector very much engages in this.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
If Rudy chooses to describe "government" as "evil" then, is this a reflection on how he sees human nature generally?
Governments aren't evil, people are. Sometimes people who form a government are especially evil.
I'm not even in favour of the use of the word 'evil' to describe a person in most instances. The idea of an individual being either 'good' or 'evil' is very simplistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Well, I was being simplistic, like those who say "guns don't kill people, people do".Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
So was Ian Brady or Fred West evil or just misunderstood?
Right wing government in democracies are less controlling, in the UK we are in the process of being freed after 13 years of left wing interfering / meddling. Justifying their own existence. Thank god.
I wasn't aware that was the only choice available.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Victims of society were they, just needed breast feeding when bairns?
People are generally more complex than simply being 'bad' or 'good'.
Am sure their victims agree................
maybe they were thinking to themselves 'now I wonder why he is shoving that massive spike up my VJ whilst his missus bashes my head with a hammer they're not all bad as Fred kindly changed that lightbulb for me lastnight'
If we are to discuss an alternative in general to government in general, that would not be the private sector. That would be the society itself. A self-regulating and self-governing society, that is. In such a society the central governmentonly takes care of a few selected things (diplomacy, defense, some communications, taxation to support the abovemtnioned) and that's it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
There is a lot of evil in human nature in the shape of lust, violence greed and other dark instincts. Correct me if I'm wrong. Those who want to be in power and govern others tend to live by those instincts a lot more than an average Joe. I.e. giving them more power is cultivating evil. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Why your obsession with this word 'evil'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
There's a jewellry store close to my office that is called ИВЕЛ. The name is completely meaningless in Russian, but it sounds very close to "evil" in English. I pass it by every now and then and here you go.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
You come across as naive with comments like that, they are just two examples. Why don't you just answer the question - a simple yes or no would have done.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
What you describe is still a government albeit cut down, not society governing itself. But at least you've made your libertarian agenda clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
BTW earlier you complained that government only acts to cut down on human rights. Can you expand further on this? What kind of human rights are you talking about? The kind that was enshrined by the rebel American government in 1776? Or maybe you're thinking about the rights declared by the French government in 1789. Perhaps you're thinking about the more informal unwritten guaranteed rights given by the British government in the mid 17th century.
How does government only cutting down on human rights go with the massive expansion of liberties in East Europe after the fall in the Berlin wall enacted by those governments? How about the fall of Apartheid, also with new rights given to blacks by the South African government?
Perhaps you could then consider that your arguments are just a tiny bit simplistic.
No it wouldn't, unless one is being overly simplistic. This was not a question to which a 'yes/no' answer would ever suffice, unless one sees the world, and everyone in it, in black and white.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Well, a yes or no would suffice - if you so felt the need you could then, in a new sentence, elaborate to qualify the responce.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
No it wouldn't suffice! Neither option put forward was accurate. Still, if you want to view individuals in the simplistic terms of being either good or bad, so be it.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
I don't wish to correct anything that is wrong because I agree with you. However, I don't see private enterprise as somehow being a curb to evil either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
Without some degree of power wielded by regulators, private enterprise will do precisely as it sees fit. If that includes ruining the environment in the process, or perhaps devaluing human labour then it will do. Things like the provision of fire services, the abolition of slavery and even regulations to do with the treatment of waste water all came about because Government had the power to act.
A self-regulating and self-governing society? Can such a thing even exist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
"everyone from the lowliest peasant, to kings and princes are motivated by self-interest"
- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book 1. (1776)
The thug who robs a 7-Eleven, a lazy plumber who takes too long to do a job, the bankers on Wall St, even the priesthood who do "naughty things", are all "motivated by self-interest". Given that you yourself concede that "There is a lot of evil in human nature in the shape of lust, violence greed and other dark instincts", what possible basis can there be for a
"self-regulating and self-governing society"?
It would be a one-way road to Chaos and it probably couldn't afford the diesel to get there.
For specific examples you might want to consider Magna Carta that the people of England made the King to sign at a gunpoint (except there were no guns back then). The American Constitution starts with "We, the People of the United States..." and its preamble includes no mention of a government. I'm less excited about the French and what they did as they have that thing about "etat" being responsible for all things under the sun, good or bad. In any case it's the people that's the source of rights and liberties, not the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
I also had a sarcastic grin on my face as I was reading your point on expansion of liberties in Eastern Europe enacted by the governments. Being an East Europena and having taken part in the events back in 1989-1991 I can testify that the communist governments that we wanted to take our liberties back from had little sympathy for our cause. In fact, they opposed it as much as they could. Bureaucrats that replaced them are not much better.
Have you, perhaps, slightly misunderstood the point — namely that those communist governments were replaced by administrations that gave at least some liberties and freedoms, previously denied, back?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
The American constitution that governs what exactly? Doesn't it set out the organisation of government and the extent of its power especially in relation to its subject people? How does that not relate to government?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
Regardless no East European government went through a phase where there was a lack of government. There was transition from Communist rule to 'democracies' of varying types where new governments increased personal freedom. Is that not correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
I could also add (beyond the abolition of racial segregation laws in the US and South Africa) the introduction of universal suffrage and introduction of legislation to prevent society discriminating against particular sexes, races and religions all of which are further examples of governments increasing human rights around the world.
The points I raised indicate that governments not only take away but bestow human rights. Your original statement that governments only take them away is still therefore absolutely wrong.
All they had to do is to reluctantly acknowledge the fact of citizens' taking back their liberties. They have succeeded in usurping many of those yet again since that time. King John comes to mind again.
Of course you could, if Dr Shipman worked for free every other Saturday it doesn't mean he is a good person because he killed all those folk, so that over rides and good deed he may have done so he was bad. Only a dithering idiot wouldn't be able to answer that re Brady/West.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Bit like the Tories now vs the bad old days of Liebour.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz