Government

What is government?

What is the purpose and existence of government for?

Why do we need government?

What is government beyond a gang of individuals working together in coordination to control everybody else?

Why is government necessary?

What is the reasoning of government?

Quote :

What is government beyond a gang of individuals working together in coordination to control everybody else?

It certainly is that, mostly Oxbridge types in Britain. They have their own virtual society, with their own schools and living areas, where they do mix with the plebs they turn up and go home safely in limo’s. its all limited risk at the cost of societal dualism, perhaps if the mixed with the rest of us they’d want a more universal and fair society.

Is govt necessary? Well accountability certainly is, so how do we achieve that without govt? if no govt then why wouldn’t corporates gang up together and rule us without even forming a govt. there would be no democracy and hence no or limited accountability.

Perhaps our governments don’t have enough accountability themselves, after all which every party you vote for the same group of people wins. I’d say we need more decentralisation and better government along with a replacement of capitalism with mutually supporting networks.

Remember govt doesn’t matter as much as the kind of political system being used, and in china we got a communist govt with a capitalist system, so clearly we need something which isn’t a lie.

An honest govt, political model and system is needed in my mind, but you only get that if you have none of it ~ paradoxical isn’t it.

Here's a bit of input for ya TheJoker:

Anytime, ANY TIME, two or more individuals interact, a hierarchy is established.
This is an inevitable part of interaction.

Now, if they wish to establish a cooperative unity, such as a tribe, a gang, or just a club, this hierarchy translates itself into a form of government.

Your "anarchy" is about as realistic as making consciousness non-judgmental.

Best you just attack the system as it is....rather than the system in all its forms.

All systems have a hierarchy, meaning someone is at the bottom, and also rules and values....ideals.
But not all of them are created equal.

True anarchists recognize that....

Can't say Joker would qualify.

We're living in anarchy. It is merely what I would call an imbalanced kind :]]

attila of nazareth wrote:

Quote :

What is government beyond a gang of individuals working together in coordination to control everybody else?

It certainly is that, mostly Oxbridge types in Britain. They have their own virtual society, with their own schools and living areas, where they do mix with the plebs they turn up and go home safely in limo’s. its all limited risk at the cost of societal dualism, perhaps if the mixed with the rest of us they’d want a more universal and fair society.

Is govt necessary? Well accountability certainly is, so how do we achieve that without govt? if no govt then why wouldn’t corporates gang up together and rule us without even forming a govt. there would be no democracy and hence no or limited accountability.

Perhaps our governments don’t have enough accountability themselves, after all which every party you vote for the same group of people wins. I’d say we need more decentralisation and better government along with a replacement of capitalism with mutually supporting networks.

Remember govt doesn’t matter as much as the kind of political system being used, and in china we got a communist govt with a capitalist system, so clearly we need something which isn’t a lie.

An honest govt, political model and system is needed in my mind, but you only get that if you have none of it ~ paradoxical isn’t it.

Quote :

if no govt then why wouldn’t corporates gang up together and rule us without even forming a govt. there would be no democracy and hence no or limited accountability.

They already do it's just that you can't see it.

Presidents come and go but the same corporate masters on Wall St. always remain the same where they're never voted in for.

Welcome to the land of figureheads and puppets having their strings pulled.

All the bosses the same as the old differing only in minor personalities.

Quote :

Satyr: Here's a bit of input for ya TheJoker:

Sounds fun.

Quote :

Anytime, ANY TIME, two or more individuals interact, a hierarchy is established.
This is an inevitable part of interaction.

No such thing as mutual interests or trade?

Quote :

Now, if they wish to establish a cooperative unity, such as a tribe, a gang, or just a club, this hierarchy translates itself into a form of government.

Indeed.

A corporation even as well.

Quote :

Your "anarchy" is about as realistic as making consciousness non-judgmental.

My anarchy is extreme rebellion with the utter chaos that ensues afterwards.

My anarchism is the praise of chaos and entropy where the individual celebrates their rebellion regardless of the discord it may bring.

Individualism and rebellion is my anarchy.

Burning down the world around me is the ultimate self liberation especially destroying your opponents who would enslave you.

Better to take them out first before they take you out later. Life afterall is a zero sum game.

Your either with me or against me. It is either us or them.

Quote :

Best you just attack the system as it is....rather than the system in all its forms.

Attacking the system......Now there is somthing I can relate to.

Quote :

All systems have a hierarchy, meaning someone is at the bottom, and also rules and values....ideals.

The great master - slave dichotomy.

Quote :

But not all of them are created equal.

Of course not. Government is inequality enforced and mandated.

Poison IV wrote:

We're living in anarchy.

What will you do with your power and remaining last hours?

Life isn't fair, and you got the shitty end. You've had years of adulthood to make it better, however....

Poison IV wrote:

Poison IV wrote:

We're living in anarchy.

What will you do with your power and remaining last hours?

Life isn't fair, and you got the shitty end. You've had years of adulthood to make it better, however....

Most of what I have in mind is very illegal. Can't say here.



What did Sartre say? It's better to die fighting than to live the rest of one's life as a slave..

Something to that effect I believe.....

You're a slave to yourself, Joker, and you won't be free from that until you take control. The person you have become in your adulthood is a reaction to what you perceive as wrongs done to you by Other. You need to understand and embrace that, and then learn to let your past inform your present and future, rather than dictate it. You repeatedly relinquish control of yourself to anything and everything outside of yourself by placing the "blame" for the things gone wrong in your life on external forces, and if you continue to do this you are going to be stuck just as you are, until the day you die.

Now, feel free to bombard me with insults and the thinly-veiled anger you try to pass off as nonchalance.

BlurredSavant wrote:

You're a slave to yourself, Joker, and you won't be free from that until you take control. The person you have become in your adulthood is a reaction to what you perceive as wrongs done to you by Other. You need to understand and embrace that, and then learn to let your past inform your present and future, rather than dictate it. You repeatedly relinquish control of yourself to anything and everything outside of yourself by placing the "blame" for the things gone wrong in your life on external forces, and if you continue to do this you are going to be stuck just as you are, until the day you die.

Now, feel free to bombard me with insults and the thinly-veiled anger you try to pass off as nonchalance.

Go fuck yourself lesbian dyke slut bitch.

*sigh* You don't hurt me with this bullshit, Nick. The truth of the matter is, the only person you are hurting is yourself. Satyr tried to help you. IV tried to help you. Apaosha tried to help you. They STILL try. Now, despite your constant abuse, even I am trying to help you. Your anger wins out every time, though, doesn't it? What do you think these words do to me, or to IV or Satyr or Apaosha? They're meaningless. They have the same weight of a teenager saying they hate their parents for not letting them go to a party. It's just nonsense, and all of us see through it. Why can't you?

BlurredSavant wrote:

*sigh* You don't hurt me with this bullshit, Nick. The truth of the matter is, the only person you are hurting is yourself. Satyr tried to help you. IV tried to help you. Apaosha tried to help you. They STILL try. Now, despite your constant abuse, even I am trying to help you. Your anger wins out every time, though, doesn't it? What do you think these words do to me, or to IV or Satyr or Apaosha? They're meaningless. They have the same weight of a teenager saying they hate their parents for not letting them go to a party. It's just nonsense, and all of us see through it. Why can't you?

Suck my left testicle.

You're ridiculous. People don't go out of their way to help someone who has zero value. People here have shown interest in you, but it's waning, and quickly. Satyr may not go about things in what I consider the best way he could, but he's a great thinker whose interest should, at the very least, mildly flatter someone like you. IV is, quite honestly, out of your league in every way, and yet she tried to be tolerant, even friendly, towards you. I watched as both of these people engaged you, suspecting to myself what would eventually happen, and then continued to watch as you acted true to form and they grew tired of you. You, still running true to form, blame this on some fault of their's. You do not take responsibility for yourself. Instead of learning what you could from a couple of above-average, one might even go so far to say extraordinary minds, you rebel like a child, you kick and scream and hurl insults and cause such a ruckus that it becomes nearly impossible to tolerate you.

If this is the way you wish to conduct yourself, at least be honest about it. I don't think I've contributed even one noteworthy tidbit on this forum, but I know that. I recognize my limitations here. You are severely over-estimating your abilities, completely blinded by the lies you tell yourself. Those lies are what keeps you comfortable, they keep you from having to face who you really are and take responsibility for that person.

I'm done bashing my head against the brick wall that is you, for now.

Quote :

What is government?

I define government as a group of individuals who specialize in protecting people from themselves and other people. They force people to buy this service from them, via taxation. I tend to think of government as a shepard and the people as sheep, ala Thrasymachus. The shepard protects his flock from internal and external wolves (liars, cheaters, thieves, murderers, rapists, jokers, etc), wayward or black sheep (citizens who don't pay their taxes, consensual/victimless crimes e.g. dug addicts and drug dealers, proletariat and bourgeoisie) and other domestic and foreign shepherds (mafia, foreign governments).

Quote :

What is the purpose and existence of government for?

As mentioned above, it's purpose is to protect people from themselves and other people, and to shear them, to extract wealth, power and resources from them, in exchange. Sometimes the exchange is fair, or equal (though, how we define fair and equal in this context is more than a little arbitrary and subjective), more often than not, it benefits the government more, as we'd expect from a coercive relationship.

Quote :

Why do we need government?

No man is an island, we depend on others to survive, and for companionship. However, some men are more independent and self sufficient than others, and some societies are more independent and self sufficient than others. There are advantages and disadvantages to interdependence. When we rely on others, we risk being taken advantage of, not being adequately compensated, reciprocated and reimbursed for the goods and/or services we provide, as individuals tend to value themselves, their friends and family more than others. On the other hand, we can also gain more than our fair share in the exchanges.

I'm going to digress a little. Some individuals have evolved traits that've enabled them to become adept at lying, cheating, deceiving, manipulating and swindling others. They are clever, crafty, callous, cold, shallow and superficial. They are the parasitical class, and sometimes they work together to better deprive others of their wealth. Of course, there's no honor among thieves, however, as Abby (Abstract) says, those who are more adept at devising conspiracies, are often more adept at detecting conspiracies (or was it the other way 'round, hmmm), so in some cases, the crafty and clever among us (not necessarily the more creative or intelligent, btw) have selfish reasons not to attempt to exploit one another. Naturally, men like these gravitate towards certain institutions, where men need not be creative or productive, and the exchanges are more coercive/hierarchical i.e. banking, government etc.

A society with more parasites than producers cannot survive for long. A society with a few parasites and many producers survive for a long time.

Other advantages of living in a society, are- the practice makes perfect principle, and the fasci principle (one rod is easily broken, a bundle of rods isn't). If I have to do everything myself- hunt for myself, make my own soap, my own clothing, etc, I will be able to do everything only so well, but if I specialize in doing one thing, I can get a lot better at it a lot quicker. Let's say I, you, and Abby live alone in the wilderness. I have to hunt for myself, make my own soap and clothing, you for yourself, and Abby for himself. Now, let's say one day we decide to get together and divide responsibilities. I hunt for all of us, you make soap for all of us and Abby make clothes for all of us. Now, I will get really good at hunting, for I'm doing it more often, I'm doing it for all of us, therefore, I will catch more food/better quality for I, you and Abby than I, and you will make better soap for me, you and Abby, you see where I'm going with this. There's drawbacks though. One, man evolved to generalize, do many different things, not specialize, do one thing. However, we also evolved intellect, and intellect is able to override instinct and devise ingenious methods for maximizing production and consumption. Some are more disciplined than others, more adept at living in high civilization with a high level of specialization, more able to endure tedium, monotony, drudgery and boredom. Also, we specialize in things we're naturally good at, such as the smart man specializing in science and philosophy, and the dumb, burly man specializing in policing or construction. Another draw back is- humans fatigue more when they subject themselves to the same physical/mental activity over and over gain, which is why perhaps, we should strike a balance between civilization and barbarism.

So, there you have it, some people specializing in removing/re-educating wolves, black sheep and other would be shepherds from society, in short, parasite management. That which is most able to remove/re-educate parasites is also most able to become a parasite, either through it's own stupidity/mismanagement, or it's own greed. This why constitutions, rights, republics and democracies were invented, so the productive class could make sure government would oppress the parasitic class and not the productive class.

The two major political ideologies are, the libertarians and the communitarians. Libertarianism is an affective strategy when the people are able to govern themselves well, when there are few parasites, communitarianism is affective strategy when the people are corrupt and evil. However, since government is composed of people, it follows electing a big government may not solve the problem, perhaps the problem cannot be solved, if the majority of people are parasites and/or retarded, the majority of the government will be parasites and/or retarded. So really, if you elect big government because evil and corruption is rampant, you've already failed.


it's getting late and I'm losing thought power.

Is government, is society good or bad? It depends on context. Society gives us the power of efficiency, to get more bang for our buck, but this also leads to decadence when it succeeds, and people become isolated from the real world (see Satyr), greedy, glutinous, I mean, in some ways, technology has improved our lives, sure, but in others, what with the computer viruses, and the radiation from computers and cell phones, drug abuse and additives in our food, car accidents, pollution, nuclear meltdowns, environmental degradation, society with it's increase in productivity has aided us in many ways, but spoiled us in others. Society fails when parasites increase, but are parasites inevitable? Perhaps a society obese from over-consumption, requires parasites to slow down it's growth, the more excess our bodies/society produce, the more cancers, diseases, parasites and viruses can feed off of us, so, perhaps the key is, not too produce so much excess garbage in the first place, and think of civilization more as a necessary evil. Man, being physically impotent, cannot live without a modicum of civilization.. he certainly cannot live well, but too much can be just as detrimental, and the more immigrants, and the more affluent a society becomes, the more it atrophies, scavengers increase, as there is more food to supply the unproductive. So, perhaps the best strategy for eliminating parasites, rather than electing a big government, is a preventative one, for the productive not to be so damn productive in the first place, to produce only the only the necessities... but this does not seem to be the cycle of civilization, man grows and grows, like a scourge upon the earth, until he implodes, withers away and dies of decadence, hedonism, materialism, filth and waste, shrivels up and dies, civilization is temporarily lost, only to be rediscovered centuries later, and the process repeats itself, 'till humanity evolves sufficiently biologically and culturally to learn this lesson.


To summarize, government has advantages and disadvantages, it depends on who you ask. For a would be predator such as yourself, of course government is no good, you wish to prey on human flesh, government keeps you from this flesh, but for the liquor store you're about to prey on, or the bank, government is a very useful thing indeed, even if it occasionally abuses them, it keeps them from the wilderness, the wolves such as yourself. The question the producers have to ask themselves is, which coercive parasite would they rather endure, jokers, the current government or a new government? If government is made up of jokers, or something even worse, then maybe they would chose anarchy, reformation or revolution, but if it is made up of parasites they can tolerate, ones who demand some tax now and then, but mostly do not interfere with them, except to help them, like a libertarian government, or a genuinely caring communitarian government, then they would obviously choose government over a society where your kind could roam free, uninhibited, those who feed off of human productivity and produce little or nothing of their own.

You see, society is very complex phenomenon, there's no easy answers, or we wouldn't be having this conversation, there are pluses and minuses to everything, the answers are not as simple as government is good or government is bad, you have to delve deeper, there's reasons for nearly every philosophy and institution, from anarchy to state communism, from hospitals to banking, you have to get past your prejudices, harness your intellectual empathy. For you, in your present state of awareness, government is hindering you from exploiting people, but for those naturally diligent, fearful, honest, productive, do-gooder types, government, when checked and balanced, is a good thing, they are happy to peacefully exchange goods and services with one another, live a comfortable, predictable and cozy life, and enjoy the benefits of living in a society with a high degree of specialization and sophistication, purchase the latest gadget and/or gismo, you will never convince those people government is inherently evil, no matter how hard you try, maybe you can convince them this current government is evil, maybe.

The question becomes one of "What form of society?" one envisions as leading to a particular ideal.

What's your ideal government, Satyr?

Satyr wrote:

Here's a bit of input for ya TheJoker:

Anytime, ANY TIME, two or more individuals interact, a hierarchy is established.
This is an inevitable part of interaction.

Now, if they wish to establish a cooperative unity, such as a tribe, a gang, or just a club, this hierarchy translates itself into a form of government.

Your "anarchy" is about as realistic as making consciousness non-judgmental.

Best you just attack the system as it is....rather than the system in all its forms.

All systems have a hierarchy, meaning someone is at the bottom, and also rules and values....ideals.
But not all of them are created equal.

Now this (even though I don't agree with all your conclusions) is why I love ya, satyr:

Some of your glass-half-empty arguments are perfectly beyond dispute.

I can steal from you and use your points to different ends.

Your reference to evolutionary psychology makes them so fundamental as to make them useful to anyone.

When the first peasant who fought back against the warrior on the horse and got his head chopped off.. that is when the state start to exist. the goverment cam into being when the rider rode into some other village and showed the peasants the head of the one who did not obey him. So they learned their lesson.

Yes, the warlord/mafia takes, but it also offers protection, from other warlords/mafia and common punks in addition to itself. There's beneficial warlords and detrimental ones. The peasants ought to obey the warlords who don't take much more than they need to sustain themselves and protect the peasants from worse warlords, and common punks. It can be a mutually beneficial relationship, the sheep benefit from a wise, benevolent shepherd, would they be better off in the wilderness amongst the ravenous wolves? So what if they get sheared now and then, and some of the plump ones are slaughtered? What about the heroism the shepherd demonstrates in defending his flock from predators?

eyesinthedark wrote:

What's your ideal government, Satyr?

Timocracy, the precursor to democracy...Read Hanson's The Other Greeks.

One more for the little boy nipping at my heel:

little boy wrote:

Now this (even though I don't agree with all your conclusions) is why I love ya, satyr:

Some of your glass-half-empty arguments are perfectly beyond dispute.

That you still suckle on that cliche is what exposes your simplicity, little boy.

Keep repeating the "glass" metaphor as the glass is both half empty and half full, if you wish to use it as a symbol of the human condition...yet outside this subjective perspective there is no boundary, as the glass suggests and there is no absolute to be make a "half" with.
If my description of reality scares you little boy, you having brought up in your "positive" liberal viewpoint where even a retard deserves this and that and life is sacred and being born gives you "rights" then this is YOUR problem.

If I were to tell a kindergarten class that Santa Clause was not real and ti was a metaphor and blah, blah...how would the children react to my "cynicism"?
I suspect like you and your classmates do...crying...accusing me of being a meany begging for a pacifier to fill their empty brain with comforting endorphins with.
Yes in your either/or dualistic scenarios the glass is either half this or half that, just as deeds are good and evil, and reality is black and white.

Thanks retard.
You're about as challenging as a three year-old's jigsaw-puzzle.

Quote :

Timocracy, the precursor to democracy...Read Hanson's The Other Greeks.

I'll take a look.

Here is my perception. Tell me what you think.

"God" is not dead. God has evolved into government as a sort of all father figure head.

Government is the sacred bull mascot and we all worship or idolize it's heel.

We all allow ourselves to be commanded by this entity and it's followers.

At the very least we obey for fear of punishment or execution.

We live in a state where father or big brother knows best.

It is heresy to question the great father and it's political servants.

Politics is just another form of organized religion of course.

We can call it religious socialism for that is what all government and politics is.

Even the governments that don't claim to be socialist or even claim to be anti socialist are just religious socialists in disguise in their insistence that government needs to exist.

Wherever any sort of government exists it's religious socialism prevails.

Politicians and followers claim to be able to interpret the will of government.

They claim to have hidden knowledge or interpretations of the will of "God" that is government.

It is always a competition of who's interpretation is best.

Government is "God" which is why only it's violence is permitted.

Anarchists of course represent the Luciferian tradition of rejecting "God" by their dismisal of government.

Anarchists believe in a world of it's complete absence. Anarchists are political atheists.

Why is it that only the violence of government is permitted?

Because according to government it's violence is a sacred duty performed by it's followers and servants where it needs no justification in it's performing of it.

Of course there is no proof of the sacred as it is largely a fantasy of imagination perpetuated by government and it's followers or servants but since their religion is enforced by violence by enacting articles of what they call law, who is to argue otherwise?

The government doesn't need the people's consent do anything. If the people give their consent blindly it's just a added bonus but never required.

Government is "God", remember? It can do whatever it wants.

It's sorta of like Abraham and Isaac where killing your son is ordinarily considered "evil" but if "God" says kill your son in my name only then does it become alright to do so.

Collateral damage and sacrifice are the same.

Social inequality is like "God" terrifying and ruining a greater portion of people's lives altogether into scarying the rest of everybody else into obedience. Do all of this in obedience or suffer the same fate of others I have cursed to entire lives of suffering becomes the motto of government as it was of other "Gods" in the past.

Those that understand the authority of government to be entirely fictional, fabricated, delusional, and a facade know far better such as the anarchists.

In this case we could call this it's twilight or peak government upon that heretical realization.

Only a few realize this knowledge but as time goes by I like to think that this hidden knowledge will eventually grow in numbers.

For now the cultic followers and servants of government far outnumbers those that reject it in disbelief.

Thoughts?


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Governments are power regulatory structures. In a hypothetical case of a robber who wishes to take money from a Civilian, the Civilian can only give the robber so much of his own wealth to the robber in exchange for his life because there are restrictions put upon the Civilian in the heat of the moment. The Civilian can only withdraw $500 a day, can only transfer $5000 and etc. before the bank puts a freeze on the account. At that point the robber must extend the interaction to abduction/kidnapping to milk any more money, or make the Civilian appeal to the bank and/or tell the bank to comply or else he'll kill them. At the former point, there would likely be government requirements put upon the bank to not accept such high transfers without more processing done, and at the latter point, the bank is faced with the gun of the government telling it that it will be criminally liable for surrendering funds. The bank has no interest in breaking the law, which does not allow exceptions: the state is the only legitimate agent allowed to steal from citizenry. As such, the criminal has no real incentive to continue holding onto the Civilian. To make it go any further, they'd have to make it a political show/stunt for their specific robbery to get people outraged that the government disallows criminals like themselves to thieve more.

The Civilian is thus protected from ruin by having a limit put upon him by the government in times of distress; becoming a worthless asset that would only increase the costs for the criminal if they murdered rather than released the Civilian.

Government is becoming the only legitimized message for the use of force, no matter if you advocate a separatist state - only the current regimes will be recognized, and the encroachment upon Europeans as a people is only accelerating

The government finds Christian piety a useful tool to promote...


From: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Related:

The fall back position is what has worked in the past.
For Marxism it is Judeo-Christianity.
It's why Putin pretends to be a devout Orthodox Christian, and why when post-modernity reached the absurd end of its own 'logic' the Christians were the only ones permitted to criticize and pull it back.
It's a reset button.

The underlying dis-ease, in both, is nihilism, except one retains some contact with reality, primarily on the delicate issue of sex while the other goes all-out insane, eradicating all connections with reality.
Peterson emerges, and before him others....to talk common sense to those who are going insane with the idea of reinventing themselves from nothing...salivating at the idea of dismissing the determining past.

The more knowledgeable salivate with chaos, randomness, where they can build their fantasy lands, or avenge themselves against existence.


I don't accept the subliminal stuff.
It's a bit far fetched.
When they wrote the anthem propaganda and brainwashing was in its nascent stage.
A cigar is usually just a cigar.