Government is evil...

[Rudy Tamasz]

...isn't it?

[Mark]

But is it a necessary evil?

[BDunnell]

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.

[Rudy Tamasz]

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.

[BDunnell]

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.

It certainly can be. But don't forget that it can also convey new human rights and liberties.

[Rudy Tamasz]

if government is 'evil', so too are large tracts of the private sector.

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.

[BDunnell]

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.

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?

[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.

[BDunnell]

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.

[donKey jote]

Judging by the fact that over a hundred people viewed this thread without responding, there isn't too much disagreement over that.

I wonder how many simply viewed it and thought "oh look... another Rudy rant", and didn't bother responding