All governments are inherently evil

Do you all really believe there is no other way to keep peace without using a violence monopoly? You need to use a monopoly of violence to keep peace?

Wow, asking that question itself already hurts by brain. It's like eating meat for animal rights, burning books for education and having sex for virginity.

That's just not fair.

As a kid growing up, my parents governed me by way of house rules; keep kids safe and healthy while providing discipline and sustenance. That kind of governance we know as love. "If I didn't care, I wouldn't discipline you."

That's all well and good, but but but-

I think it would be an overwhelming task to love everyone equally from an authoritative position. Some people are just plain and simple agitators of smooth goings-on, Cain and Abel. One wants to honor parent, guardian, higher-up- while the other one wants to please only himself...

If you ask me, I think all the wrong kids are getting grounded.

a reply to: vasaga

There is a logical fallacy in your argument.

Killing can not be logically good since it can not be universalized, therefore it is inherently evil.
- See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

You assume that there is only good or evil. This is false duality. And it is a huge assumption leap that good/evil even exist.

originally posted by: th3dudeabides
a reply to: vasaga

There is a logical fallacy in your argument.

Killing can not be logically good since it can not be universalized, therefore it is inherently evil.
- See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

You assume that there is only good or evil. This is false duality. And it is a huge assumption leap that good/evil even exist.

Really? What other option is there?

The argument that good and evil don't exist doesn't hold any water. By even starting an argument with someone, one has to assume that one can be right or wrong, and secondly, that it's better to be right than being wrong. This means that being right is good. So you can not ever exclude the existence of good. And for good to have any meaning, it has to have another contrast as the polar opposite.

It depends on how deep you want to go, if you want to discuss the similarities and differences between bad, wrong and evil. But I have yet to see any sound argument that logically discards good and evil, right and wrong and so on.

a reply to: vasaga

There are only good and evil actions.....which we label as such.

They don't exist as forces in the universe, fighting some kind of cosmic war......they're nothing more than arbitrary, subjective terms people use to label said actions. They don't really exist.

However if you do indeed think such things exist, then this thread is already worthless.

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: vasaga

There are only good and evil actions.....which we label as such.

They don't exist as forces in the universe, fighting some kind of cosmic war......

Where exactly did I say they were 'forces' that were fighting with each other? Did you read the OP?

originally posted by: Prezbo369
they're nothing more than arbitrary, subjective terms people use to label said actions. They don't really exist.

What is more real? The light entering your physical eyes, converted to electrical signals that are interpreted by your brain, or the individual experience of seeing?

In case you're missing the point (which you probably are), even if we assume it's subjective (which I don't think it is), subjective experience is of a lot more value in life than cold hard dry facts. Since experience is basically the main aspect of our daily lives, we can not dismiss experiences as simply being subjective and thus non-existent. So even if you consider it subjective, you can argue that positive subjective experiences are preferred by everyone over negative subjective experiences. And if we acknowledge that the subjective experiences of everyone is different, we can agree that we require the consent of another person before certain actions are done that influences another person. Refusing to ask or wait for that consent would be considered evil...

In the end, you will never get around the fact that there is something that all of us prefer, which will simply lead you back to universality, which I briefly explained in the opening post.

originally posted by: Prezbo369
However if you do indeed think such things exist, then this thread is already worthless.

If you think it's worthless, you are free to stop reading and stop posting.

a reply to: vasaga


this is a great post, id love to reproduce it with your permission here:
direct democratic republic

the goal of that site is the establishement of a direct democracy and the elimination of the political class..
fromy our point of view, the elimination of evil!

a reply to: okamitengu

Sure. Go ahead. Please provide a link to here if you can. And also provide me with a link to where you copied it. I really want to see as many reactions as possible.

[...]
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.

Do monopolies tend to provide less or more of the supplied service/product than in case of free market?

So monopoly on violence (government) provides less violence than free market (private security companies and gangs facing cut throat competition (pun intended))?

I think that's the point of having gov.

originally posted by: Shadow1024

[...]
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.

Do monopolies tend to provide less or more of the supplied service/product than in case of free market?

Uh... Assuming the same price, they will probably provide less. Do not forget the price. That's actually assuming that monopolies can exist in free markets, which isn't really the case. No, we don't have an actual free market right now, since we have taxes, subsidies, lobbying etc.

originally posted by: Shadow1024
So monopoly on violence (government) provides less violence than free market (private security companies and gangs facing cut throat competition (pun intended))?

I think that's the point of having gov.

Interesting point of view. But remember what the other side means. For the same violence, we would pay a higher price. Considering the amount of wars governments actually have and have had, there is no indication that there is any less violence. There might be less violence in select areas. There is 'low' violence in the US right now, but high violence by the US in the middle east. If the US government wasn't there, I doubt the american citizens would be bombing all those countries.

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Shadow1024

[...]
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.

Do monopolies tend to provide less or more of the supplied service/product than in case of free market?

Uh... Assuming the same price, they will probably provide less. Do not forget the price. That's actually assuming that monopolies can exist in free markets, which isn't really the case. No, we don't have an actual free market right now, since we have taxes, subsidies, lobbying etc.

originally posted by: Shadow1024
So monopoly on violence (government) provides less violence than free market (private security companies and gangs facing cut throat competition (pun intended))?

I think that's the point of having gov.

Interesting point of view. But remember what the other side means. For the same violence, we would pay a higher price.

You mean that hiring a group of paid thugs to beat c*** out of person who made you angry may be more expensive in stable democracy / stable dictatorship, than in tribal society or failed state? I would not oppose such notion.

Considering the amount of wars governments actually have and have had, there is no indication that there is any less violence. There might be less violence in select areas. There is 'low' violence in the US right now, but high violence by the US in the middle east. If the US government wasn't there, I doubt the american citizens would be bombing all those countries.

Technical question - have you read Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature"? Because he actually did the analysis that you are doing right now on, but he did it deeper and used statistical data (for intra-tribal skirmishes, war casualties and crime casualties).

Governments are made up of people like you and me. When people worship other people we begin to see this justified separation happen. In any organization, even churches, too much power is not a good thing. We're told to not do this in the Bible. No - my intention isn't to take anything in that direction; I'm only referring to a historical reference.

So are governments evil? No, because it's the people that support the structure. I think people in higher positions do evil but to idolize (either through fear or awe), makes us evil too. I am always astounded to see the presidents handlers scamper to do his bidding. It's disturbing but it's human nature at the same time. This happens in much lower positions too.

It takes a very special person to be put into a position of authority. Someone who tells people to knock it off, come out of their trance and stop behaving as less than. Special people who aren't comfortable being idolized don't often take those positions though.

originally posted by: Shadow1024
You mean that hiring a group of paid thugs to beat c*** out of person who made you angry may be more expensive in stable democracy / stable dictatorship, than in tribal society or failed state? I would not oppose such notion.

I said price. That doesn't necessarily mean money. It can be lives, environmental destruction, loss of freedom and so on.

originally posted by: Shadow1024
Technical question - have you read Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature"? Because he actually did the analysis that you are doing right now on, but he did it deeper and used statistical data (for intra-tribal skirmishes, war casualties and crime casualties).

Nope I haven't.

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Shadow1024
You mean that hiring a group of paid thugs to beat c*** out of person who made you angry may be more expensive in stable democracy / stable dictatorship, than in tribal society or failed state? I would not oppose such notion.

I said price. That doesn't necessarily mean money. It can be lives, environmental destruction, loss of freedom and so on.

originally posted by: Shadow1024
Technical question - have you read Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature"? Because he actually did the analysis that you are doing right now on, but he did it deeper and used statistical data (for intra-tribal skirmishes, war casualties and crime casualties).

Nope I haven't.

I strongly recommend that book. Pinker was quite good at finding actually statistics.

In The Better Angels of Our Nature: The Decline of Violence in History and Its Causes, the celebrated evolutionary psychologist and bestselling author argues that we – the human race – are becoming progressively less violent. To the consumer of 24-hour news, steeped in images of conflict and war, that may sound plain wrong. But Pinker supports his case with a wealth of data.

Drawing on the work of the archaeologist Lawrence Keeley, Pinker recently concluded that the chance of our ancient hunter-gatherer ancestors meeting a bloody end was somewhere between 15% and 60%. In the 20th century, which included two world wars and the mass killers Stalin and Hitler, the likelihood of a European or American dying a violent death was less than 1%.

Pinker shows that, with notable exceptions, the long-term trend for murder and violence has been going down since humans first developed agriculture 10,000 years ago. And it has dropped steeply since the Middle Ages. It may come as a surprise to fans of Inspector Morse but Oxford in the 1300s, Pinker tells us, was 110 times more murderous than it is today. With a nod to the German sociologist Norbert Elias, Pinker calls this movement away from killing the "civilising process".

In so doing, he challenges several enduring myths. It's not true, says Pinker, that man in primitive societies, being at one with his environment, was less inclined towards violent struggle. Nor was the church-focused village a more peaceful environment than the model that replaced it, the impersonalised cities of the Industrial Revolution. In short, the book is a corrective to the widely held belief that humanity is locked into some sort of moral decline.

www.theguardian.com...

There is some irony, that as person who was an anarchist as teenager he makes strong (and very well documented points) for the Leviathan.

EDIT: Hea actually also found quite strong data concerning willingness of countries to go on war, he has quite good data, that's nowadays not as fashionable as it used to be.

Absolutely agree...

I would go as far to say that evil would be too kind of a word.

Diabolical might be a bit more accurate.

I actually see it more like a cult than a government.

Surely these hook 'em Horns gestures can't ALL be Longhorn fans, I mean COME ON...

There are just FAR too many things that do not add up for it to be just governmental issues.

This for example:



Or this:

By adopting this chameleon strategy, this satanic cult infiltrated and subverted most governments and religions, and established an invisible tyranny without drawing much attention. ~ Henry Makow Ph.D.

"Governments do not govern, but merely control the machinery of government, being themselves controlled by the hidden hand." ~ Benjamin Disraeli; Prime Minister of England

“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.”— Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States

"Danny Casolaro called it "the Octopus". A vast, interlocking network of criminal conspiracy that reaches into every branch and agency of the U.S. government, many other national governments, and every sector of our societies."

George Washington likened government to fire. The Constitution was designed to be a cage or fireplace of law to keep the government in a more passive role.

But think about how fire is. It can be both a very positive and useful thing, and it can be a horrible and destructive thing. Generally, fire is at it's most useful when it's constrained and controlled and we, the people, us it. We use the warmth it provides or we use it's flame. However, it does not act on us directly. It's when fire acts that we suffer.

The same is true of government. It should provide an atmosphere or environment where we can use it or not as we need. This is what the Constitution was meant to do - make a fireplace that constrained it and contained it - for our use. Instead, we have people who have gotten into power that have steadily broken down that fireplace and unleashed the fire to act on us. And when fire runs free it burns and destroys indiscriminately - the same is true with government. And even worse, once fire is set free it usually continues to grow and grow and becomes harder and harder to contain again until it burns out everything and leaves nothing. Government is the same; look at Detroit.

So, I would say that it's not necessarily the government that is evil. It's simply a tool, and necessary one to some extent. It's the people in power that are the evil. When Obama said that the Constitution was bad because it was a charter of negative liberties, he was missing the point. The government is not supposed to act on our behalf. The Constitution was desgined to prevent it from doing that for exactly the reasons I described above.

Benjamin Disraeli said it best: "governments do not govern..."

They hide behind the façade of a fake government while using the MSM to propagate the mythical illusion of "choice".

Past presidents of the United States and other high profile political leaders have repeatedly issued warnings over the last 214 years that the U.S. government is under the control of an “invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.”

According to six of our former presidents, one vice-president, and a myriad of other high profile political leaders, an invisible government that is “incredibly evil in intent” has been in control of the U.S. government “ever since the days of Andrew Jackson” (since at least 1836). They “virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both parties… It operates under cover of a self-created screen [and] seizes our executive officers, legislative bodies, schools, courts, newspapers and every agency created for the public protection.”

“A power has risen up in the government greater than the people themselves, consisting of many and various powerful interests, combined in one mass, and held together by the cohesive power of the vast surplus in banks.” – John C. Calhoun, Vice President (1825-1832)

From Washington to JFK: Former Presidents Warn About Illuminati

originally posted by: Dianec
Governments are made up of people like you and me. When people worship other people we begin to see this justified separation happen. In any organization, even churches, too much power is not a good thing. We're told to not do this in the Bible. No - my intention isn't to take anything in that direction; I'm only referring to a historical reference.

So are governments evil? No, because it's the people that support the structure.

Maybe. But in the right circumstances, people like you and me commit atrocities, and that's exactly what these roles in government allow. Have you ever heard of the stanford prison experiment? Not exactly a government, but, it shows that when certain people are put in specific roles, they will do things that they would not normally do. That means that a concept or specific idea has real world power over the very people who create that idea. And it's no different for a government. Here's most of what you need to know:

originally posted by: Dianec
I think people in higher positions do evil but to idolize (either through fear or awe), makes us evil too. I am always astounded to see the presidents handlers scamper to do his bidding. It's disturbing but it's human nature at the same time. This happens in much lower positions too.

Which is why certain roles or ideas need to be avoided or supported. By supporting the idea of government we are inevitably supporting putting people in positions where they will do evil. If we want to abolish evil, we must stop supporting the idea of a government.

So are governments evil? No, because it's the people that support the structure.
It takes a very special person to be put into a position of authority. Someone who tells people to knock it off, come out of their trance and stop behaving as less than. Special people who aren't comfortable being idolized don't often take those positions though.
Very true. And probably they know somewhere in their mind that such a role would change their behavior.

I think more people should be aware of the stanford prison experiment. It's very telling.

a reply to: Shadow1024

Sounds worth reading. I'll look into it.

a reply to: vasaga

I agree and you bring up a good point with regard to the Stanford experiment. Once people are aware of these things there is no excuse to engage thereafter. Those in office are supposed to be educated so one can assume they know about experiments such as this one and those similar to it. Still they cannot seem to resist their ability to wield power, and have people fall in line to see to their whims. Is it still a human tendency that is uncontrollable even when it has been brought to consciousness? I would say no. Its a choice. When they know how people will embrace their roles as oppressed (or wherever they steer them), it is evil (wrong, immoral, unethical). I get that if 95%'of them are using power inappropriately, personal responsibility goes out the window as the behavior is so widely disbursed it dilutes ones own sense of responsibility. This is another well known phenomenon, and they should be aware of these things and rise above.

On the other hand, not everyone does bad things just because others are doing them, and for those who won't its because their own value system is deeply engrained. They have an ability to step back and question their actions or inactions. They don't lower their own bar to the level of others but rather have theirs firmly set. I often wonder if this was the cause of some of the assassinations we've seen in our leadership.

I admit I get frustrated, in spite of the knowledge of social psychology. It's like watching a movie (although quite realistic), where 5 million are afraid of 50. Five million people starving and suffering because 50 frighten them. This isn't happening yet (in the U. S.), but we see it elsewhere and historically. With the Stanford experiment participants have break downs before leaving. They can leave sooner but don't. People attempt to acclimate and take cues from those around them, but the people who lead others out of oppression are those who take a leap of faith and break the cycle.

Thanks for the reminder of the experiment. I think it is quite relevant to this topic.