ONE RING TO RULE THEM ALL i.e. government

[an anarchist]

The Ring from Lord of the Rings I think illustrates government quite well.

A fair comparison?

Best we cast the concept of government into a volcano I say!

I've made this comparison on this site before, now I make a thread.

The Ring has two issues.
1. It grants the user immense power.
So if a negative actor(s) control it, obviously bad things will entail. There is motivation for negative actors to actively seek out the ring.
2. It corrupts the user.
Even if the user is well intentioned, the Ring is connected to Sauron.

I think the first issue is an easy comparison to make with government.

Government is the ultimate arbiter in all matters, including matters pertaining to itself. Government is supreme law. But it is ultimately a collection of individuals. Those individuals are in control of everyone else. Such a position is alluring for negative actors. I don't think we have to look far for current examples e.g. corporations lobbying politicians to legislate in their favor despite possible safety concerns.

The second issue with the ring I am definitely more hard pressed to make the connection with the concept of government.

I do believe government is inherently immoral/evil. Control over another individual's life, liberty, and/or property without their consent is wrong. And government can only exist in constant violation of these individual's rights. I for one do not wish to be ruled by government. Yet they rule me.

A good intentioned politician puts himself in a position where he is proliferating an immoral system. Of course politicians become corrupt if they didn't start off corrupt. They become products of their environments.

What do you think?

 

[Twilight Hue]

The Ring from Lord of the Rings I think illustrates government quite well.

A fair comparison?

Best we cast the concept of government into a volcano I say!

I've made this comparison on this site before, now I make a thread.

The Ring has two issues.
1. It grants the user immense power.
So if a negative actor(s) control it, obviously bad things will entail. There is motivation for negative actors to actively seek out the ring.
2. It corrupts the user.
Even if the user is well intentioned, the Ring is connected to Sauron.

I think the first issue is an easy comparison to make with government.

Government is the ultimate arbiter in all matters, including matters pertaining to itself. Government is supreme law. But it is ultimately a collection of individuals. Those individuals are in control of everyone else. Such a position is alluring for negative actors. I don't think we have to look far for current examples e.g. corporations lobbying politicians to legislate in their favor despite possible safety concerns.

The second issue with the ring I am definitely more hard pressed to make the connection with the concept of government.

I do believe government is inherently immoral/evil. Control over another individual's life, liberty, and/or property without their consent is wrong. And government can only exist in constant violation of these individual's rights. I for one do not wish to be ruled by government. Yet they rule me.

A good intentioned politician puts himself in a position where he is proliferating an immoral system. Of course politicians become corrupt if they didn't start off corrupt. They become products of their environments.

What do you think?

Sadly my galactic invasion force is yet still on backorder.

 

[icehorse]

Replace "government" with "oligarchy" and I think the OP is apt.

 

[Revoltingest]

The Ring from Lord of the Rings I think illustrates government quite well.

A fair comparison?

Best we cast the concept of government into a volcano I say!

I've made this comparison on this site before, now I make a thread.

The Ring has two issues.
1. It grants the user immense power.
So if a negative actor(s) control it, obviously bad things will entail. There is motivation for negative actors to actively seek out the ring.
2. It corrupts the user.
Even if the user is well intentioned, the Ring is connected to Sauron.

I think the first issue is an easy comparison to make with government.

Government is the ultimate arbiter in all matters, including matters pertaining to itself. Government is supreme law. But it is ultimately a collection of individuals. Those individuals are in control of everyone else. Such a position is alluring for negative actors. I don't think we have to look far for current examples e.g. corporations lobbying politicians to legislate in their favor despite possible safety concerns.

The second issue with the ring I am definitely more hard pressed to make the connection with the concept of government.

I do believe government is inherently immoral/evil. Control over another individual's life, liberty, and/or property without their consent is wrong. And government can only exist in constant violation of these individual's rights. I for one do not wish to be ruled by government. Yet they rule me.

A good intentioned politician puts himself in a position where he is proliferating an immoral system. Of course politicians become corrupt if they didn't start off corrupt. They become products of their environments.

What do you think?

You got it about right.
Government tends to exist for itself
more so than the populace.

 

[Tomef]

The Ring from Lord of the Rings I think illustrates government quite well.

A fair comparison?

Best we cast the concept of government into a volcano I say!

I've made this comparison on this site before, now I make a thread.

The Ring has two issues.
1. It grants the user immense power.
So if a negative actor(s) control it, obviously bad things will entail. There is motivation for negative actors to actively seek out the ring.
2. It corrupts the user.
Even if the user is well intentioned, the Ring is connected to Sauron.

I think the first issue is an easy comparison to make with government.

Government is the ultimate arbiter in all matters, including matters pertaining to itself. Government is supreme law. But it is ultimately a collection of individuals. Those individuals are in control of everyone else. Such a position is alluring for negative actors. I don't think we have to look far for current examples e.g. corporations lobbying politicians to legislate in their favor despite possible safety concerns.

The second issue with the ring I am definitely more hard pressed to make the connection with the concept of government.

I do believe government is inherently immoral/evil. Control over another individual's life, liberty, and/or property without their consent is wrong. And government can only exist in constant violation of these individual's rights. I for one do not wish to be ruled by government. Yet they rule me.

A good intentioned politician puts himself in a position where he is proliferating an immoral system. Of course politicians become corrupt if they didn't start off corrupt. They become products of their environments.

What do you think?

Governments are made up of individuals, but those individuals are divided up into interconnected but largely or somewhat independent bodies. That’s why a European style government is generally better than a monarchy or other type of autocracy, i.e. no one person or even one small group of people has ultimate power. The judiciary, military, government, civil service, the private sector, individuals of great wealth, the media, different strands of activism, and so on, all influence what happens in the country. The public, insofar as people stay informed and take action, has genuine relevance in a functioning democracy.

That doesn’t mean any government works perfectly, nothing involving people ever has or ever will. But in the UK, for example, there are limits to what a person can get away with. Push to far, or in the wrong context, and you lose power, as with Boris Johnson. The judiciary frequently make decisions the govt in power opposes. One element of the structure pushes against the others. Corruption, influence, manipulation all happen, it goes without saying, but within certain (highly malleable) tolerances. The weakest link in the chain however is not the politicians but dumb people who believe any old crap they see on YouTube, and don’t have the sense to educate themselves.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Even the Elves and Dwarves and Men of Numenor had governments. Even the Hobbits of the Shire had a government.

It wasn't about getting rid of government, it was about getting rid of BAD government...

 

[Tomef]

Control over another individual's life, liberty, and/or property without their consent is wrong.

There is consent. We all live under different kinds of social contract.

This is basically what most of the Greek tragedies are about; the individual is fated to come up against the state monopoly on violence, manifested in various ways, and be sacrificed at its altar. The underlying, quite reasonable, belief is that without the social contract there is chaos. It may be that humans didn’t face that conundrum to the same degree in the pre-agricultural world, but there’s no turning back the clock.

 

[an anarchist]

The underlying, quite reasonable, belief is that without the social contract there is chaos.

So they say it's "reasonable".

I just think many people agree so it seems "reasonable".

To imagine or accept a political philosophy that has no government requires a paradigm shift in thinking. We are raised to believe in statism and this mystical "social contract". So it is not a flip of the switch to realize that a "social contract" is not necessary or inherent. In my opinion.

 

[an anarchist]

There is consent.

Not from me

 

[Tomef]

Not from me

Just by using the internet you demonstrate consent. The internet originated within an organ of the state, ditto the power grid and so on.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The price of having anything resembling civilization is that we must all be part of a system of governance. In some nations, they are quite oppressive and not very responsive to individuals and minorities. Others are more open. In either cast, to keep them in anywise 'good' requires constant vigilance and effort. You want freedom? Then participate in the system to ensure that all have freedom.

 

[Tomef]

So they say it's "reasonable".

I just think many people agree so it seems "reasonable".

To imagine or accept a political philosophy that has no government requires a paradigm shift in thinking. We are raised to believe in statism and this mystical "social contract". So it is not a flip of the switch to realize that a "social contract" is not necessary or inherent. In my opinion.

We can imagine alternative systems. There was a largish anarchist community in Spain during part of the civil war period. Until it works on a large scale it hasn’t worked, though. Balanced democracies, as in Western/Northern Europe are the closest any country has got so far to a fair and balanced mode of social living.

There’s nothing mystical about the social contract, though. Any situation where a person becomes part of a group that provides things like a steady supply of food, shelter, education, protection from the aggression of others (within or outside of the group) involves some kind of social contract.

 

[sayak83]

The Ring from Lord of the Rings I think illustrates government quite well.

A fair comparison?

Best we cast the concept of government into a volcano I say!

I've made this comparison on this site before, now I make a thread.

The Ring has two issues.
1. It grants the user immense power.
So if a negative actor(s) control it, obviously bad things will entail. There is motivation for negative actors to actively seek out the ring.
2. It corrupts the user.
Even if the user is well intentioned, the Ring is connected to Sauron.

I think the first issue is an easy comparison to make with government.

Government is the ultimate arbiter in all matters, including matters pertaining to itself. Government is supreme law. But it is ultimately a collection of individuals. Those individuals are in control of everyone else. Such a position is alluring for negative actors. I don't think we have to look far for current examples e.g. corporations lobbying politicians to legislate in their favor despite possible safety concerns.

The second issue with the ring I am definitely more hard pressed to make the connection with the concept of government.

I do believe government is inherently immoral/evil. Control over another individual's life, liberty, and/or property without their consent is wrong. And government can only exist in constant violation of these individual's rights. I for one do not wish to be ruled by government. Yet they rule me.

A good intentioned politician puts himself in a position where he is proliferating an immoral system. Of course politicians become corrupt if they didn't start off corrupt. They become products of their environments.

What do you think?

How have the corporates and companies treated you?
Have you been oppressed by any government?
Are your beliefs consonant with what you have experienced?

 

[an anarchist]

Just by using the internet you demonstrate consent. The internet originated within an organ of the state, ditto the power grid and so on.

Nah.

The State monopolizes violence as well as control of the economy. So of course the State is often the one with the patents and behind the research. They own the world. I believe we would be better off technologically if we were in a anarcho-capitalist market environment, but that's my opinion.

Example. The State's existence disrupts the economy. I am lower class poverty wise. When I can, I take government benefits. I see no hypocrisy. I would be better off without a government screwing up the economy in the first place. But I still got to survive and take the options I got.

I use technology that government helped create. Does not mean that the technology would not have been developed absent of government. The strongman says we have to listen to him because he is in charge and directs the research we use. Circular logic.

You don't have a point really. I'd rather not make this thread about the "social contract" . But perhaps its relevant, I dunno.

 

[an anarchist]

How have the corporates and companies treated you?
Have you been oppressed by any government?
Are your beliefs consonant with what you have experienced?

I am currently in a spot where the government offices are taking my former employers side. My former employer discriminated against me and didn't let me use sick leave, so I had to quit. Then my former employer lied to the government offices about my employment status so now I can't get benefits.

I am going to the government about the discrimination and retaliation because that's what my family advised and that's what you are supposed to do. I can't beat the managers up I can't be like that anymore so I am doing what I am supposed to do and am complaining to the government.

But so far the government has covered for the employer and is not helping me.

So screw them both.

 

[Tomef]

Nah.

The State monopolizes violence as well as control of the economy. So of course the State is often the one with the patents and behind the research. They own the world. I believe we would be better off technologically if we were in a anarcho-capitalist market environment, but that's my opinion.

Example. The State's existence disrupts the economy. I am lower class poverty wise. When I can, I take government benefits. I see no hypocrisy. I would be better off without a government screwing up the economy in the first place. But I still got to survive and take the options I got.

I use technology that government helped create. Does not mean that the technology would not have been developed absent of government. The strongman says we have to listen to him because he is in charge and directs the research we use. Circular logic.

You don't have a point really. I'd rather not make this thread about the "social contract" . But perhaps its relevant, I dunno.

It’s relevant in that without addressing that it’s all just theoretical. Theorising about a different form of government while living within the boundaries of what the existing government provides is living under the terms of the existing social contract. If that government is replaced by some other form of social organisation, then you would have a different contract to live under. The only way you can say you don’t consent is by opting out entirely, as some people do. What you’re saying is that you consent but you don’t want to, which isn’t the same thing as not consenting. Consenting by action negates non-consent in intent.

 

[an anarchist]

There’s nothing mystical about the social contract, though. Any situation where a person becomes part of a group that provides things like a steady supply of food, shelter, education, protection from the aggression of others (within or outside of the group) involves some kind of social contract

Contracts could be voluntary. The social contract implies coercion. At least, that's how people who use the term means it as. Coercion to participate in government.

Contracts should be on a completely voluntary system.

 

[an anarchist]

What you’re saying is that you consent but you don’t want to, which isn’t the same thing as not consenting. Consenting by action negates non-consent in intent.

What I am saying is that I don't consent.

 

[an anarchist]

Are your beliefs consonant with what you have experienced?

Completely unfortunately

 

[Tomef]

Contracts could be voluntary. The social contract implies coercion. At least, that's how people who use the term means it as. Coercion to participate in government.

Contracts should be on a completely voluntary system.

Well yes, pretty much. I agree not to commit crimes against my neighbour and my neighbour agrees not to commit crimes against me. Perhaps neither of us has any intention to, and within a small group living in close proximity maybe that’s enough. But once you get beyond that, there needs to be some coercive power. Small European settlements in the early Middle Ages lacked the coercive means to prevent marauding bandits from taking everything they had, so they formed contracts with patrons who offered some level of protection. Two thirds of a millennia later, we have a much more equitable system, but the power the state has to enforce the contract remains. The alternative is more localised forms of coercion. Go down that route and soon you’re back at the villages versus bandits stage again. It’s quite possible some improved version of the current system will evolve, eventually, but there hasn’t been anything better so far on a large scale.