If government suddenly had the option to have everything they want without the need (or option) to dominate and rob and humiliate and rape and murder and mame and destroy, would they take it?
hashem:If government suddenly had the option to have everything they want without the need (or option) to dominate and rob and humiliate and rape and murder and mame and destroy, would they take it?
Doesn't government already have that option and just resort to aggression because such actions are convenient and seen as legitimate?
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
hashem: If government suddenly had the option to have everything they want without the need (or option) to dominate and rob and humiliate and rape and murder and mame and destroy, would they take it?
Sounds like a more specific question you're getting at would be whether or not the government is simply set on enslaving its citizens. I would say many people in the government have good intentions and think that they are truly helping us like people help a lost puppy. But they're wrong.
Doesn't government already have that option Well, not the way I mean it. I mean if magically everyone who controlled the State could have all their desires achieved instantaneously without affecting anyone (magic), would they take it or do people feel like the State's controllers actually get off on dominating and humiliating their "inferiors" to no end.
hashem:Well, not the way I mean it. I mean if magically everyone who controlled the State could have all their desires achieved instantaneously without affecting anyone (magic)[...]
Meaning, if there were no such thing as scarcity--how would goods be allocated in a Garden of Eden Scenario?
Haha, not really...
I think it's more of a "inside the mind of a ruler" type of question. Take away the need for domination and humiliation, and do they all settle down peacefully as normal people or is their an innate drive in the ruler type that makes him crave the ability to dominate and humiliate other humans.
Depends on the ruler. Some people, once they get even a little bit of power, go nuts. I'm sure you've seen it in regards to people low in the bureaucratic totem pole. Not all of them get crazed with power, but you see some people relish what little they have. So, it would kind of depend on what type of person is in government.
There is no "the government", it is not a singular entity, something just made up of individuals, and also I'd like to throw out there that the government really doesn't rape that much... Anyway, a thing that a lot of people with an anarchistic bent tend to miss is that most people in the government really aren't sociopathic as such. They tend to be people with fairly good intentions (so long as you define "fairly good" as "usual societal values") who usually, not always, have a very lage ego and tendencies towards domination over other people. Only in rare cases are they actually really evil people.
So to answer your problem then I think that most of them could, if possible, achieve all of their ends instantly, then they would, and I would like to throw out there that if they could suddenly achieve their ultimate ends then the world would, on the most part, be a much better place, but for a significant number of them, whether or not they realize it, domination and the governmental process, is part of the end that they truly seek.
It is interesting that at least 2 people percieve what they consider controllers of the State to be much more benevolent than I would ever accept at this point in my understanding. Maybe I've just read to many negative stories, but I can't really concieve of a benevolent ruler, and I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around what is meant by "the government really doesn't rape much"... After all, it is governments who permit child sex slave trades and government leaders have been accused of child sex parties and the rates of rape in areas of the government where there is most power (i.e. the military) are just mindblowingly staggering.
Would it change anything if I clarified that by "government" or "controllers of the State" I mean officials and "head" type positions (i.e. fed chairman), and extending to the people who actively support and would like to be officials and head type positions?
Well, I think the higher up the food chain the less benevolent/more malevolent the people become. There are always exceptions. You can have malevolent clerks and benevolent representatives (I'm looking at you, Ron Paul).
But certainly, I think in head type positions, those people are very rarely, if ever benevolent (I don't consider congress to really be head type, though that's just in America).
They tend to be people with fairly good intentions
I think a child protection agency is the perfect illustration of how statutory law can literally upend morality - children are systematically abused by people who are just doing their job (they are no more "evil" or "perverted" than a UPS delivery man), a job which the vast majority of people consider to be highly honorable and decent. Yet children are being abused. Systematically.
This pattern is ubiquitous wherever the would-be central planners of economy, law, morality or any other aspect of social order assert themselves. I call it "the Complex" in reference to Ike's MIC speech and this book. It's a system that no one designed even though it is used self-consciously by those in the pinnacles of power. It's not just government - it's religion, it's the military, it's family, it's language, it's culture, it's media and entertainment, it's the whole shebang. The Complex is the the result of just two causes: human nature and the environment, where the environment includes all the facts of our present circumstances (including technologies, historical ideas, etc.)
Law and social norms (morality) are what we need to "bridge the gap" between our caveman brains and our post-agricultural, post-industrial environment. Centrally-planned law and social norms are not; they are government policy pronouncements and dogmas masquerading as law and social norms. When the government says "We will punish you for driving your car faster than this speed", that doesn't contribute one iota to the social order. It's just a policy pronouncement, an arbitrarily conditional threat.
When central-planning of law and social norms - that is, policy pronouncements and dogmas - displace actual law and social norms, there is no longer any reference by which the individual can judge what he should and should not do. The individual is living in a moral vacuum. Self-interest in a moral vacuum is everything the Hobbesian myth says it is - simple brutality. But it's absurd to point to the very agent which has brought about this moral vacuum - the Complex - as the solution to that same moral vacuum.
Clayton -
Been thinking more than studying lately, the former is easier.... Some day I hope we can download books straight to our brains. Thanks for the thoughtful responses.
"Maybe I've just read too many negative stories, but I can't really concieve of a benevolent ruler"
I think that it is obvious, from listening to most politicians that they at least have good intentions. You have to be hella evil to go into an office if you realize that your only actual motivation behind this is to harm others. The other thing is that it really doesn't make financial sense. Most politicians are relatively successful lawyers, it's probably a net loss to go into congress, and no matter what being a congress person is probably a lot more stressful, even if you are just in it for the power. You also have to remember that power within the United States is spread so far apart that it's hard to call any politician a "ruler", because even if you're one of the most powerful people in the world by being a senator, the fact is your base influence over any one law is still (1/100)/2 * %Chance of veto and rejection or it still being passed * %Chance of it being overturned by a court or some other legal technicality * %Chance that the law, once enacted will work out the way you wanted to. Even if everything else is 100% chance, you have .5% chance of getting something you want passed. Do you really think that people who evil, and yet so intelligent they can hide their true intentions go somewhere where they have that much power?
Also, I have a hard time watching Barrack Obama, or most of the other presidents and believing that they really have/had negative intentions. If Obama was smart enough/a talented enough actor to perform that well then he would be able to uphold his public image far better than he does, and I feel that way about most candidates. Even if you argue that most politicians are doing what they are doing because of an innate need to control others, then they still justify it to themselves by telling themselves that it's for the good of the people.
"I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around what is meant by "the government really doesn't rape much"... After all, it is governments who permit child sex slave trades and government leaders have been accused of child sex parties and the rates of rape in areas of the government where there is most power (i.e. the military) are just mindblowingly staggering."
they
Who is this "they" in your question? Every single government agent?
Wheylous, I was suggesting maybe "they" (controllers of the State) could be: "officials and "head" type positions (i.e. fed chairman), and extending to the people who actively support and would like to be officials and head type positions"
Neodoxy, my view of those who weild power through the State is almost 180 degrees different from yours. When I say maybe I've read too many stories, I'm not talking about fairy tails, but documented incidents that I've come across over just the last 5 years since I "woke up". If I refuted your whole post point by point it would look like I'm trying to argue with you but I'm really just trying to analyze the mind of powermongers.
Do I think every congressman/senator is a homosexual pedophile rapist? I have encountered enough evidence to assume that they are, until I see stronger evidence to the contrary. Going with my theory of accepting the evidence and deducing the implications, my concern is therefore along the lines of: is it the rise to power that corrupts them, or is their something about their personality that drives them to act corruptly and thus rise to power? If I ever figure that out, then I will know whether they just want a lot of things and the evil is a necessary byproduct, or if they are just evil and acquiring a lot of power is the necessary byproduct.