"Government is a necessary evil"

[ooo]

Coming from other idealisms, to me government is a "necessary evil". It is because we don't seem to have advanced much in terms of humanity in the last centuries, we can't self-administer ourselves and think of someone else's rights at the same time, we've been fed with a consumeristic ideology that makes it impossible for us to be independent in a true sense, it makes it impossible for us to think in ways that are not consumeristic.

To obsess over security, safety, wars and violence, is a rather propagandistic way to incite fear and terror in a mass of people that is too bombarded by subliminal message to even think about/know what is going on. Wars today are economical, hardly physical, at least for us living in the enlightened side of the world, but this doesn't make things less damaging.

Liberalism is an ambiguous term for me because I use it to design a certain Americanism that is revolved around the market and economy, but if this is the aim of an ideology, what's the good for people coming out of it? The good will be an economical one, and not for the lesser wheels of the chariot, but for the ones who ride on it. And it will be good as long as the chariot keeps moving and trading, otherwise we fall in the greatest ignominy, that of being "useless", as if we were tools.

Gvmnt is not "necessarily good, otherwise it's bad", that's a reather dualistic view that badly applies to the laws of compromise of which the relationships among citizens (=politics) is made of. There are good and bad gvmnts, probably the best gvnmt we can look after is one where the values of democracy, a word that contains a good deal of sociality, are respected and applied. That seems to be lacking in a good part of our beloved state of things, today.

[Ave]

It is because we don't seem to have advanced much in terms of humanity in the last centuries

Why do you say that? Have you not seen statistics on the decrease of violence and wars over the last few centuries? Also, statistics show that violence is on the decrease in most places in the world. There are places where it is rising or steady, but that is concentrated in the area between Africa and the Middle East.

So I am not sure what you mean by "in terms of humanity", but if you mean our modern conception that each individual has worth and individual rights, this is something that didn't exist before the last few centuries. Before the birth of humanism in renaissance Europe, there was no concept of "human rights" and "individual worth", I think you would find the ideas of Pagan antiquity as well as medieval Christianity and Islam very alien to your mindset.

Gvmnt is not "necessarily good, otherwise it's bad", that's a reather dualistic view that badly applies to the laws of compromise of which the relationships among citizens (=politics) is made of. There are good and bad gvmnts, probably the best gvnmt we can look after is one where the values of democracy, a word that contains a good deal of sociality, are respected and applied. That seems to be lacking in a good part of our beloved state of things, today.

Why is one government good and another bad? Why is democracy preferable to any other system?

Just...why.

[ooo]

Why do you say that? Have you not seen statistics on the decrease of violence and wars over the last few centuries? Also, statistics show that violence is on the decrease in most places in the world. There are places where it is rising or steady, but that is concentrated in the area between Africa and the Middle East.

because violence is not just physical, if you can destroy a country just by sending it bankrupt, that's no much different than killing its people. it's kind of more unsettling because we're continuously told we're nothing without money, while at least, once, we would have been nothing without our own lives, which seems a more reasoned start. wars still exist more than ever, but maybe you don't know of them? a good deal of the wars world wide have our contribution, the fact that we chose not to make them on our territory doesn't mean they're not there... our money make them, and we in our safety spot are now most sensitive to these kinds of economic "wars".

So I am not sure what you mean by "in terms of humanity", but if you mean our modern conception that each individual has worth and individual rights, this is something that didn't exist before the last few centuries. Before the birth of humanism in renaissance Europe, there was no concept of "human rights" and "individual worth", I think you would find the ideas of Pagan antiquity as well as medieval Christianity and Islam very alien to your mindset.

let's not compare antiquity to today so shallowly please, there was a totally different world once, it's not fair to draw such hasty comparisons.

Why is one government good and another bad? Why is democracy preferable to any other system?

Just...why.

because a bad government favors the state and who controls it, a good one favors the citizens and their human rights. democracy should obviously grant the second one, but it's as utopic as saying "anarchy".

[Ave]

because violence is not just physical, if you can destroy a country just by sending it bankrupt, that's no much different than killing its people. it's kind of more unsettling because we're continuously told we're nothing without money, while at least, once, we would have been nothing without our own lives, which seems a more reasoned start. wars still exist more than ever, but maybe you don't know of them? a good deal of the wars world wide have our contribution, the fact that we chose not to make them on our territory doesn't mean they're not there... our money make them, and we in our safety spot are now most sensitive to these kinds of economic "wars".


let's not compare antiquity to today so shallowly please, there was a totally different world once, it's not fair to draw such hasty comparisons.


because a bad government favors the state and who controls it, a good one favors the citizens and their human rights. democracy should obviously grant the second one, but it's as utopic as saying "anarchy".

I don't even know how to debate a post like this.

None of what you write is based on reason or fact. It is frankly incoherent.

Try to organize your own thoughts better. Give examples of what you mean. Don't be so vague and ambigous when saying I am drawing hasty comparisons about antiquity, but refute my statement correctly.

Not trying to be mean or hostile btw. I am just saying I cannot debate your post because it is not making a coherent argument in the first place, frankly I have this issue with your posts on here generally speaking.

[ooo]

I don't even know how to debate a post like this.

None of what you write is based on reason or fact. It is frankly incoherent.

If you don't understand something it doesn't mean it's nonsense.

I don't really see much incoherence in what I say (maybe with your statistics?), I think it's more incoherent to want to divide the world in "what we have now is the best otherwise it wouldn't be so". Just for instance most european countries have access to free instruction and free health care, while a 18% ca. of the US population can't access an health insurance and there are freaking high rates to access an university, and just to talk about statistics, US universities are often top-ranked worldwide.. (guess who makes those stats?), and in here... we use to have a laugh at the level of said instruction. So is this the best possible?

I think this was a good example of how the money make the world go round, but maybe I just suck at expressing myself : )