Quote:
Quote by: Winter wind  Wow, earth to grandpa.
Try to land in the pacific ocean. |
Ah, condescension.
Quote:
Quote by: Winter wind Government may not exist as an entity, but it is
there.
It makes laws and enforces them an a system of
society.
I don't trust the individual person enough that they would
follow the rules that I like (like not stealing) unless
they were certain of a punishment that followed.
There may not have to be a government, but a
center-place where people can come together to make decisions.
No man is an island, so we have to find
a system of collective communication.
One way is through government. |
I don't think there is anything earth shatteringly horrible or idiotic about addressing elementary truths. Governments are abstract collecttivist entities. They are fallible, which is precisely why they should have very limited power. A powerful (in the sense of coercive) system can only exist with delusion and ignorance. It's also reasonable to assume there would be few laws in a truly democratic society, for law enforcement tends to mean elite positions of power. This certainly doesn't mean human beings will abolish literally all rules or all standards, but we should realize that society itself has abstract properties. The legitimacy of a given rule can certainly be questioned.
Yes, we have to call organizations of people something, and "society" is an adequate word, but its organizations are indeed abstract, fallible and alterable.
As for trusting individuals, I also do not have limitless trust in them. That's why I do not respect the authority of any one individual, or any one group, or any one opinion. A wide range of alternative views ought to be considered, when possible (and it often is).
For example, when you go toa doctor you may still get a second opinion. That principle can be applied quite generally. Environments in which people simply carry out orders do not encourage such critical thinking, nor are they intended to.
You mention stealing, which certainly deserves discussion. Is it wrong simply because thieves don't follow the rules? How wrong is it? Is it correct to punish all instances of theft? Is it possible for punishments to be worse than the alleged crime?
It's true that all organizations (even informal ones) have governing tendencies, and these bodies make choices regarding things life theft, murder, rape. However, some of these organizations are themselves systems of theft, and some politicians are undoubtedly criminals. In fact, it's not absolutely crazy to consider warfare de facto criminal behavior. Quite simply, if we acted like the state, we'd all be in jail.
Yes, the government is responsible for "collective communication," but on a selective, ideological basis. This is true for a leader like Saddam Hussein or for US presidents.
It's also true for our education system, which often does promote the status quo. That's the problem I'm highlighting here, not some bizarre theory that all rules and standards can instantly be scrapped. You're presenting a false dichotomy, and predictably. We're taught that if we challenge all authority, it means instant chaos. No, it doesn't. It means basic intellectual principles being applied. It's simply analysis.
Grandpa h.