Government is evil...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

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.

---

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 BDunnell

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.

---

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 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.

---

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 Rudy Tamasz

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

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.

---

A self-regulating and self-governing society? Can such a thing even exist?

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

What you describe is still a government albeit cut down, not society governing itself. But at least you've made your libertarian agenda clear.

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

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

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.

---

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

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.

---

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?

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.

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.

---

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 Rudy Tamasz

All they had to do is to reluctantly acknowledge the fact of citizens' taking back their liberties.

---

Bit like the Tories now vs the bad old days of Liebour.