Also you are forgetting that the purpose of the state is basically to serve the desires of its citizens,
(mind-killed)
That’s an interesting notion. I would have thought that the purpose of the state is to oppress its people, and that modern governments are so much nicer because checks and balances / political infighting cause them to be ground to a near-halt.
I should have said the supposed or stated purpose of a state is to serve the desires of its citizens. Maybe I should have been even more fancy and disguised “desires” as rights. Most people vote and behave like the government is the default engine for doing good as they define it, so it didn’t seem to controversial to describe it that way in this context.
You are obviously correct that government’s role (purpose is the wrong word to use) is to oppress its people. Government is nothing but a territorial monopolist of violence, though few people explicitly think about it that way. However it can sometimes be useful to be oppressed.
Also generally I’m of the opinion that in the long run formalized check and balances don’t really work. It seems pretty unlikely that anything like a stable equilibrium of actual power relations can be enforced by something as weak and easily worked around and gamed as laws or constitutions. Many Western Democracies don’t have a strong separation of powers formally and don’t seem any more or less nice.
Now while this may seem like a trivial difference, but it really isn’t. It basically means that formal definitions of the balance of power are for example unable to contain changes in actual power ratios be they caused by technology, culture or economics.
Keeping the polite fiction however works together with other aspect of “democracy” to convince its citizens it is legitimate. Much like divine right was a polite fiction with the same function in a different time. It seems to me very likley that that the reason democracy seems nicer is because it is much more capable of convincing and indoctrinating citizens that it is legitimate and good. A government capable of perfect brainwashing would never need to be mean at all to maintain power.
While I can agree there is a lot of political infighting isn’t this more a result of the iron law of oligarchy than anything designed on purpose?
While I can agree there is a lot of political infighting isn’t this more a result of the iron law of oligarchy than anything designed on purpose?
Meh. I’m agnostic about whether it was “on purpose”. Humans revolt and so select for governments that aren’t revolting.
I’m not sure how the iron law of oligarchy results in political infighting, and i’m skeptical of the iron law of oligarchy, but I don’t think that’s particularly relevant if we agree about the facts on the ground.
Also generally I’m of the opinion that in the long run formalized check and balances don’t really work.
Well, nothing works in the indefinite long run, unless your goal is entropy. It does seem to stop a lot of legislation from being passed / sticking in the US, which I suppose is only a benefit from a particular perspective.
(mind-killed)
That’s an interesting notion. I would have thought that the purpose of the state is to oppress its people, and that modern governments are so much nicer because checks and balances / political infighting cause them to be ground to a near-halt.
I should have said the supposed or stated purpose of a state is to serve the desires of its citizens. Maybe I should have been even more fancy and disguised “desires” as rights. Most people vote and behave like the government is the default engine for doing good as they define it, so it didn’t seem to controversial to describe it that way in this context.
You are obviously correct that government’s role (purpose is the wrong word to use) is to oppress its people. Government is nothing but a territorial monopolist of violence, though few people explicitly think about it that way. However it can sometimes be useful to be oppressed.
Also generally I’m of the opinion that in the long run formalized check and balances don’t really work. It seems pretty unlikely that anything like a stable equilibrium of actual power relations can be enforced by something as weak and easily worked around and gamed as laws or constitutions. Many Western Democracies don’t have a strong separation of powers formally and don’t seem any more or less nice. Now while this may seem like a trivial difference, but it really isn’t. It basically means that formal definitions of the balance of power are for example unable to contain changes in actual power ratios be they caused by technology, culture or economics.
Keeping the polite fiction however works together with other aspect of “democracy” to convince its citizens it is legitimate. Much like divine right was a polite fiction with the same function in a different time. It seems to me very likley that that the reason democracy seems nicer is because it is much more capable of convincing and indoctrinating citizens that it is legitimate and good. A government capable of perfect brainwashing would never need to be mean at all to maintain power.
While I can agree there is a lot of political infighting isn’t this more a result of the iron law of oligarchy than anything designed on purpose?
Meh. I’m agnostic about whether it was “on purpose”. Humans revolt and so select for governments that aren’t revolting.
I’m not sure how the iron law of oligarchy results in political infighting, and i’m skeptical of the iron law of oligarchy, but I don’t think that’s particularly relevant if we agree about the facts on the ground.
Well, nothing works in the indefinite long run, unless your goal is entropy. It does seem to stop a lot of legislation from being passed / sticking in the US, which I suppose is only a benefit from a particular perspective.
I think that selection filter is much weaker than most imagine. The poor don’t revolt.
Agreed.