All governments are inherently evil

Let's start at the beginning. The statement requires the definition of two things, which can be formed into two questions.

1) What is government?
2) What is evil?

What is government?
Let's tackle the first one. We have to remember that the definition of something, is what separates it from anything else. I can not define a car by saying it's something on four wheels. It could be a bus, a kids bike and so on. Not that it's wrong, but, it's incomplete. To define the government is quite simple, but, its definition gets a lot of resistant from people, since they have been programmed since they were children, to believe that the government is a force of good instead of evil.

Ask yourself. What is it that separates government from other 'legal' institutions? What separates it from a private business or company? What separates it from charity? What separates it from everything else out there? Maybe it is our ability to vote? Surely some companies allow voting on certain things so that can't be it. As an example, BioWare allowed gamers to vote on the looks of the default Female Shepard that was going to be in Mass Effect 3.

The main thing that separates government from any other legal institution is... Violence.

A private company tries to provide you goods in return for your money. In other words, they promise you certain things that a certain product will give you, and based on that promise, they hope you'll voluntarily give your money to them. What separates government from charity is the same basic concept as a private company. They say they'll help people with problem X, and collect money that people will give voluntarily. With government, your money is forcefully extracted from you, with the promise that certain things will be delivered. But since it already gets the money, it's not required to actually do anything.

All governments will claim that only it is allowed to enforce violence upon anyone it wishes. It claims to have the monopoly on violence, and anyone who else who inflicts violence, will be punished, with violence. There is a sense of hypocrisy right at the center of government. In other words, the main definition of government is, a legal institution that claims to have the monopoly on violence and acts upon that claim. I know I'm repeating myself a lot, but I want to make sure that it gets through to you.

Say the government never does what you want. What happens if you refuse to give the government money? They are supposed to represent you right? If they don't represent you, are you free to stop giving money? That's how any private company or charity works. But... Of course not. They will ultimately shoot you if you resist.

So, obviously, the next question is, is violence actually wrong? The answer is... Yes and no. I'm going to say that the initiation of violence is always wrong. In other words, if someone is trying to stab you for whatever reason, it's perfectly legitimate to shoot the person. In other words, self defense is allowed, including with violence if no peaceful defense is available.

What is evil?
So, let's go to evil. What is evil? There are multiple ways of viewing it, but I'll mention the one that I think covers most (if not all) situations. If we take any individual action or moral standard, and everyone should follow that action, it is evil if it causes the destruction of almost everyone, and/or if a conflict arises. You can determine if something is good or bad by universalizing it.

As an example, let's take killing. Assume for now that there are two people in the world. Person A would say, "killing is good". What happens if both people try to do the same thing? Well, one will succeed, the other one will not. There is inconsistency here, because everyone should be able to do it, and person B can not do it. And even IF killing would be good, the one who got killed would be evil. I think we all agree that that does not make any sense. Killing can not be logically good since it can not be universalized, therefore it is inherently evil.

If we take the same concept, and use say, sharing food, both of them will eat, and no one will be at a disadvantage, meaning, it is good. It does not necessarily mean that not sharing food is evil however. If no one shares food, it does not stop other people from not sharing their food, which means it's not necessarily evil. Remember that only one concept should be viewed at a time. Not sharing food may let people starve, but, letting people starve should be taken as a stand-alone proposition to universalize.

Self defense comes in, when someone violates the universal moral rules. If someone tries to kill you, they will have violated the universal rules, which means the rule can be violated towards that person. This is only allowable in individual situations. It's all about consistency. And even then, you can use the same concept from above to determine if self-defense is good or evil. Try it out for yourself.

Now, this is not the only definition of evil. There are multiple ways of looking at it. If you wish to extend that view, you can watch these other two perspectives on Youtube:
Perspective 1
Perspective 2 (imo this one is much better)

Obviously, the way I approach evil, there is no other conclusion than the government being evil. It wants to do something to everyone, but, imagine if the government owes you money but wouldn't pay you. If you dare to even threaten the government, you'll be in trouble, even though we're basically under constant threat. Every law is a threat to be shot upon resistance.

And even though there are multiple ways of defining what evil is, no matter which version you use, you will end up with the same conclusion if you have the guts to see what kind of institution the government is. The government is inherently evil.

Food for thought, I commend your perspective.
My only question would be, what about governments that are born in the act of trying to right the wrongs done to the people by other "evil" governments?

I have no idea how many there are out there, but I bet there are a few. America's foundation was forged in these kinds of efforts. Now if there is a trend happening, albeit slowly, where at least the foundations of a growing number of governments are slowly becoming less and less "evil" does it negate the premise of your OP?

One could say that human nature is inherently evil. I would say that sheltering ones children doesn't do them any good in the long run. Governments fail in the same purpose to some degree. The struggle to gain control of the greedy egocentric sides of our nature is an age old struggle. In my eyes the blight of our failing governments is symbolic of this same struggle.

a reply to: Quauhtli

I think that you make a valid point. A transition (albeit slow) of governments towards an essential humanitarianism. I'm not sure if it's happening now with the US (I sort of doubt it), but I think that it will be a trend with most governments in the future. That's just my opinion.

a reply to: vasaga

You presented an insightful and logical thought experiment that succeeds. Governments are inherently evil and that should be common sense, unfortunately, common sense is a commodity that seems lacking in the majority these days (present company excluded of course, since ATS is mainly comprised of critical thinkers).

Cheers - Dave

Oh, this is as easy fix.

We simply cure these evils through legislation. If that doesn't work, then we use state intervention and kill all detractors.

Done and done.

I anxiously await the phone call from the Nobel committee. Thank you.

The progress of mankind towards a humanitarian society (government) has been ............nil...........
Think about it......there has been absolutely NO progress in this direction, that hasn't been turned and subverted somehow.....
Take charity for instance.....its now a big business for some corporations....
Even church charity has gotten into the act....with places like the Salvation Army charging ridiculous prices for stuff they get free.......all the while taking severe advantage of those who work for them....and giving out the impression they are doing it out of kindness.....nothing could be further from the truth....
So the religion of the people is used against them for profits.....
The governing of the society happens in much the same fashion....nothing they do is for the right reasons, and the reality of things is masked with flowery and unearned praises.....repeat this often enough, and the people end up in a dissociative mental condition.....confused and easily manipulated.....
What kind of life is it to live in a world where nearly everything is a lie........

a reply to: vasaga

"Government" is a substantive word derived from the verb "to govern." Anything that determines the smooth functioning of a system "governs" it. A flywheel, for example, prevents a motor from flying apart by channeling its energy into angular momentum. It is called a "flywheel governor." By analogy, any element of society that helps maintain its smooth functioning is its "government." Not all governments use the same methods to keep society functioning.

"Evil" is a concept used to characterize events or behaviors which we do not like or understand. It is applied to different "objects" by different groups and individuals. It is a a subjective value judgement, not an objective quality.

Your OP ultimately expresses your opinion that all civic institutions are based on violence, and you dislike that. I simply disagree. Government is a necessary part of human society. Some systems of government are more coercive than others, some less formal, and so forth. Any government that does not have at least the tacit approval of the people in the society it governs will eventually fall. History demonstrates this over and over again.

"A government is an institution which prevents injustice other than such as it commits itself"
- Ibn Khaldūn (Abū Zayd ‘Abdu r-Raḥmān bin Muḥammad bin Khaldūn Al-Ḥaḍrami; May 27, 1332 AD – March 19, 1406 AD) was an Arab Muslim historiographer and historian, regarded to be among the founding fathers of modern historiography, sociology and economics.

a reply to: stirling

I know exactly what you mean. But before we can explain that, we have to start at the core of our problems. which is wanting someone else to fix everything for us. It's the only reason people believe God will save them, it's the only reason people believe the Government will save them, it's the only reason people believe *insert anything here* will save them. The abolishment of responsibility of the individual is the main problem.

But no institute gets more 'faith' than the government with regards to fixing everything for us. There are quite a few people that want to resist religions in their entirety. There are quite a few people that understand that charity is abusing the money they receive. There is almost no one that wants to resist governments in their entirety. In general, people still believe that if the right people get into government, everything will get better. After a few thousand years of trying this model out, I think it's time to realize that this method is not working.

It's kind of hard though, when an institution says, don't worry, just work and give me part of your money, you can sit around doing nothing or enjoying life in your free time, we'll take care of the rest for you ok? But.. After the promise has not been fulfilled for a very long time, it's the duty of every individual to stand up, and stop giving money to a system that only makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.

The first step to realizing the abolishment_of_responsibility-issue, is to show people that the government is inherently evil, and not here to save them, but to parasite on them. If we can make people realize that, the shift of responsibility slowly but surely will go towards the individual. And any institution that wants to be a parasite on the people will be more easily detected and can not take hold on the people.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: vasaga

"Government" is a substantive word derived from the verb "to govern." Anything that determines the smooth functioning of a system "governs" it. A flywheel, for example, prevents a motor from flying apart by channeling its energy into angular momentum. It is called a "flywheel governor." By analogy, any element of society that helps maintain its smooth functioning is its "government." Not all governments use the same methods to keep society functioning.

Yeah well, what a word is derived from does not make that its true meaning. That's like saying that 'pedophile' means friendship to children (based on pedo
and philia) , rather than a sexual child abuser. The true meaning of government is still a legal institution that uses violence at its core to achieve what it wants. It's basically a mafia model.

originally posted by: DJW001
"Evil" is a concept used to characterize events or behaviors which we do not like or understand. It is applied to different "objects" by different groups and individuals. It is a a subjective value judgement, not an objective quality.

It is an objective quality. People's inability to understand it does not make it subjective.

originally posted by: DJW001
Your OP ultimately expresses your opinion that all civic institutions are based on violence, and you dislike that. I simply disagree. Government is a necessary part of human society. Some systems of government are more coercive than others, some less formal, and so forth. Any government that does not have at least the tacit approval of the people in the society it governs will eventually fall. History demonstrates this over and over again.

Yeah, every government has fallen because every government is inherently evil, and sooner or later people will realize it. The main mistake the people keep making is installing another government.

a reply to: vasaga

I know exactly what you mean. But before we can explain that, we have to start at the core of our problems. which is wanting someone else to fix everything for us. It's the only reason people believe God will save them, it's the only reason people believe the Government will save them, it's the only reason people believe *insert anything here* will save them. The abolishment of responsibility of the individual is the main problem. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is not a quality of government, it is an attitude that some individuals develop. I agree that it is wrong to look outside oneself to look for the solutions to all one's problems. The function of government is to reduce traffic fatalities by getting everyone to agree to drive on the same side of the road, not to provide everyone with a car, and certainly not to banish death completely.

"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." - can't remember where the quote came from

a reply to: vasaga

Yeah well, what a word is derived from does not make that its true meaning. That's like saying that 'pedophile' means friendly love to children, rather than a sexual child abuser. A government is still a legal institution that uses violence at its core to achieve what it wants.

No, but it can help you to understand the concept behind the word. You have not addressed my assertion that any arrangement or institution that facilitates the smooth operation of society, from book clubs to empires, is its government. The majority of human societies are governed by mutually agreed upon rules of conduct, ie; "Roberts Rules of Order," rather than violence. It is rare that a conductor has to use physical violence against a cello player, or a study group turns into a bloody riot in the library. These are examples of human social interactions governed by consensus. Most humans engage in such "government" more often than they participate in national politics.

It is an objective quality. People's inability to understand it does not make it subjective.

Please define this term and explain why you believe it to be objective. Account for the reason why two groups of people can see the same action as being either "good" or "evil."

Yeah, every government has fallen because every government is inherently evil, and sooner or later people will realize it. The main mistake the people keep making is installing another government.

Does your definition of evil explain why a government would fall? What is the mechanism?

originally posted by: Quauhtli
Food for thought, I commend your perspective.
My only question would be, what about governments that are born in the act of trying to right the wrongs done to the people by other "evil" governments?

I have no idea how many there are out there, but I bet there are a few. America's foundation was forged in these kinds of efforts. Now if there is a trend happening, albeit slowly, where at least the foundations of a growing number of governments are slowly becoming less and less "evil" does it negate the premise of your OP?

One could say that human nature is inherently evil. I would say that sheltering ones children doesn't do them any good in the long run. Governments fail in the same purpose to some degree. The struggle to gain control of the greedy egocentric sides of our nature is an age old struggle. In my eyes the blight of our failing governments is symbolic of this same struggle.

If it uses violence at its core for imposing things, instead of only for self-defense, it will always end up to be a large government empire. It's basically what happened to the US. Destroying evil is not the same as creating good.

a reply to: vasaga

Destroying evil is not the same as creating good.

A meaningless assertion until both words are defined. For example, was it "good" for Hitler to exterminate the "evil" Jews? Many Germans believed it was.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: vasaga

Destroying evil is not the same as creating good.

A meaningless assertion until both words are defined. For example, was it "good" for Hitler to exterminate the "evil" Jews? Many Germans believed it was.

Did you read and comprehend the opening post?

I am in nearly complete agreement with what you say, but the origins of such things as government must be considered to determine the manner and enabling factors which they arise from.

In the past when we were at the mercy of nature (as we still are regardless of whether we are willing to admit it), people banded together to help work toward survival and gather and share resources and to defend each other from those who would try to do the same at the expense of others (competing groups or "tribes").

In banding together toward a common goal people's numbers multiplied and those who offered up reasoning and management skills which contributed toward the common good of all became more important and more powerful, and in turn started to compete with others possessing the same management skills.

Anyway, I don't feel like going on about it and prefer to contemplate which steps were probably involved regarding the development of this mess we are forced to live in today...

-Humans feared nature and the threats it presented and banded together for mutual protection.

-Humans became more prolific and multiplied, in their arrogance they needed to invent an all powerful being which they supposedly arose from, since they thought they were just so damned awesome they must have come from someone or something more awesome than themselves.

-The humans that supposedly had a more complete knowledge of the imaginary creator became powerful and respected, even though they were full of # and they knew they were, and they still do.....

-By the blessing of those who supposedly had the inside line to the big guy upstairs, non religious leaders were chosen somehow, more than likely the most powerful tribesmen with the most ruthless of the humans who provided protection.

-Kings arose by the blessing of the church, collected taxes and developed corporations as proxies to collect taxes and resources from a distance, the guys who had the inside line to the big guy upstairs stood very close by under the King's protection.

-The system described above became "Old School", too many people began to see it for what it was, so a twist on the system was developed to make the ignorant masses think they were somehow free or some other crap to placate them and keep them calm.

-Error begets Error and we end up here, stuck in the mud as we are.

Don't give it too much thought or your friggin head might explode .

a reply to: vasaga

Did you read and comprehend the opening post?

Yes. I simply find your definition inadequate. Is sharing food with a murderer good or evil? According to you, there is only one correct answer.

a reply to: vasaga

Well done.

Foundng Fathers quandary was the limitation of government (limited government).

They understood the potential evil of big government, centralized government, bureaucratically based government.

It has to exist but in the most controlled form. Governments are a necessary evil.

And that is how everyone accepts the evil of it. Its "necessary".

originally posted by: vasaga
And even though there are multiple ways of defining what evil is, no matter which version you use, you will end up with the same conclusion if you have the guts to see what kind of institution the government is. The government is inherently evil.

I'm picking up a strong Thomas Paine vibe from this opening post.






Myself, I lean more towards the Benjamin Franklin perspective.





Wishing away government, or even condemning it all as a "necessary evil", doesn't really lead to a solution. Where turning the tables does clarify things greatly. There is no authority/power that the government gets except that people had it first. From us. From we the people. To wish away government is to wish away part of ourselves.

Instead, wouldn't one better be served by reexamining the balance of power, and what government has done with the little bit granted them so far? What I'm saying is that those are my nukes, they are your nukes, they are our nukes. Before we throw government off the planet forever, tell us... what do you plan to do with the nukes? Or any of the weapons for that matter.




Mike Grouchy