What is government?
- Thread starter Avatar4321
- Start date
Yurt
Gold Member
I guess I'd have have to revise my definition to include interplanetary and interstellar locations as well.
I don't get it.
then what is god's government?
The Christian God will rule the Human race through Jesus Christ as King with the 144000 summoned to Heaven as his assistants. This will occur after Satan and his evils are wiped from the earth and it is transformed into a paradise. Man will become semi immortal ( the Bible says Jesus will rule for a thousand years) with no death, disease or sickness.
You would have to ask Jews and Muslims and other religions about their beliefs.
are you replying to me? i have a hard time following the quote function here as it quotes all previous quotes....
actually, the christian god already rules. he sent his son down here, the blood to atone for sin, the perfect blood.
whether you believe that or not, is up to you. those are the facts. you have been told. you don't like the facts, you disagree, then you can spend your life proving god and his son does not exist and the facts i presented do not exist. or, you can simply say he doesn't. your faith against the faith that believes.
your choice. i don't judge you either way, i straddle the proverbial log.
Gunny
Gold Member
Yeah I have some issues. I don't like elected politicians that wipe their asses with the Constitution. Some ******* morons are voting for the fuckers. I mean WHO would vote for Pelosi and Reid? They're retards. They don't represent anyone but weak-ass pussies who have no idea what reality is.
RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
God does not rule the earth yet, in fact he gave the earth to Satan to prove his claim that man could rule himself. I suggest you read the bible. However if we are in the end times then God HAS begun to establish his Government again. Jesus came to provide us a means to be saved and will return to rule those that are saved.
Yurt
Gold Member
gunny...
are these people americans? assuming citizenship....good lord, never had to say that 20 years ago. but gunny, aren't these people americans?
didn't these people you speak of call republicans worse...they called republicans traitors.....morons, idiots....
"WHO"
MILLIONS GUNNY, MILLIONS
and they are not weak assed pussies, they can organize and win the vote(s).
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
I didn't ask you, moron. I commented on your oversight, and then provided it myself. Had I been asking you, I obviously wouldn't have given it myself. Duhhh.
Step away from that keyboard and plug in your brain.
Yurt
Gold Member
how does god not rule the earth?
manu1959
Left Coast Isolationist
dude the walk the streets here like zombies.......every day is a new ******* adventure here.....
Gunny
Gold Member
Which means they aren't weak-ass pussies how? Just because they can hide behind their doors and slip each other the wood doesn't make them any braver in daylight.
Epsilon Delta
Jedi Master
I don't disagree with what you say here, but I would compliment it as such:
Government attempts to provide some manner of control: it's policies reflect the interests that are being protected- the kings, then the nobility, and now the parliaments and the closely intertwined political and financial elites that staff and run them. As we go back in history up to a certain point, the power of 'government' is held in an increasingly centralized way; Absolutism for example. But the nobility demanded representation, and eventually kings had to grant them; the House of Lords in the past for example. Then the wealthy males forced the ruling elites to allow them to vote, and people on down the economic ladder continued to struggle until all males could vote. Then women and minorities struggled for representation which eventually had to be granted. And now the majority of the world's governments are democratic; at least far more democratic than 50 or even 25 years ago, all due to the struggle of various layers of society struggling for greater freedom- for further decentralization of decision-making, against the wishes of those who hold most power in the status quo. With democracy, at least there is an arena in which different sectors can vie for power, and elites or absolutists can no longer maintain total control through repression, though they continue to do so through economic strength. It's a continuum that never ends- I don't see how we can assume that this is the best that can be done? Take the 2004 election- two members of related elite families, who went to the same elite school, even were in the same bizarre elite college club, and most importantly received their funding from the same institutions and ultimately respond to that constituency, and its the same in most places. True, now at least we can all talk about it, we can read about it, and we can veto someone who is doing a really bad job. But those gains have to be used to make further gains.
Take the Bolivian elections- you can say what you want about Evo Morales, but the fact is that there's few places which present such a stark example of a small, rich, white elite ruling over a mass of impoverished indian peasants, and it is almost unprecedented that the impoverished indians, a large certifiable MAJORITY of the population, actually were able to "hijack" the state by electing one of their own and use it for their own means- increasing living standards for the large majority, distributing the proceeds from natural resources in an equitable manner, and facilitating the equalization of income, and thus opportunity- a necessary step in a country so violated by centuries of institutionalized racial hierarchies of wealth and political power.
In that regard it is no different from the old Absolutist Kings, who also forged and utilized the state primarily as a way to meet goals and objectives (maximizing power, honor, wealth, etc), at the expense of their subjects but often at great benefit to themselves [for example, North Korea may be a failed state, but its sole voter/ruler/king is doing very well for himself). Hence, it is plain to see that government does have a principal function: to maximize welfare (the welfare of the interests who are in control: kings, elites, or people) and to more efficiently achieve major, large-scale goals (i.e. conquest, economic development, etc.). My point here is that government is there- the institutions and the structures are there- and they can be utilized, or "captured" by elites or by popular forces (as you said). Further decentralization of decisionmaking requires decentralization of economic power, essentially because of the way our system works. Massive centralization of wealth means regressing back to even more stringent forms of centralized political power- even in America, the same corporate donors who fund the spectacular billion-dollar elections obviously do so in order to establish and protect their own agenda, and recent increases in inequality exacerbate that trend. The same corporate donors are then sometimes rewarded by being put in top cabinet positions, either from Wall Street or other Big Business sectors (corporate connections are almost a prerequisite in a political resume).
People are and must continue to struggle against such blatant muscling of the political system in favour of a small privileged class. That is when government is truly "by for and of" the people, as it should be, according to all the nice fourth of July speeches, and when it functions "best" (that is, representing and protecting the interests of the majority who elected them, not the short-term profits of the donors that fund them).
And that's my little rant on States.
Diuretic
Permanently confused
Govt is a necessary evil.
RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
I absolutely love the dumb shits that advocate little or no Government. Anarchy does not work, the only "free" people in anarchy are those able to beat everyone else. Only the ruthless and the strongest would have any freedom with no government. Most everyone else would be no better then slaves or serfs. They would live in fear and would be subject to the whims of the strongest.
Diuretic
Permanently confused
Anarchism is a mature political theory which I don't claim to fully understand. Nor do you, obviously. The difference between you and me is I know my ignorance and admit it.
Epsilon Delta
Jedi Master
It's not too hard to understand... There are too many variants to be in any way dogmatic, there isn't any particular set of principles or policies that lead to it. The only necessary condition is that society must not be organized in a hierarchical manner, because societies organized in a vertically hierarchical way are undoubtedly run for the benefit of the higher echelons of the hierarchy, while those at the bottom, due to their subservience can't truly realize their potential. The only way for all of society's members to realize their potential is to stand and interact with one another in terms of equality, not in terms of domination and coercion.
Anarchy also means chaos, though. There's been of course total chaos as well, when a government just collapses. If the government were to collapse right now, we wouldn't have anarchy in the sense described above- it would just be chaos. Like the international system. There is no formal hierarchies, no real rule of law that controls the behaviour of states, and no overarching authority and so we see pretty much exactly what RGS described- anarchy as chaos, the rule of brute force, the strongest doing what they can and the weak doing what they must. This used to be done blatantly and normally, and although it continues today, there is a clear difference. Over the last 60 years or so we've created international institutions that attempt to regulate this state of affairs, both "soft" and "hard" international law that is continually being enriched and strengthened, and whose only source of power is the authority derived from the legitimacy of these institutions; compliance with the "laws" of the international system most often relies the fact that states mostly WANT to be included in the system, most don't want to be pariahs (especially democracies), they want to be seen as good players in order to ease further cooperation. In effect, states have become much more civilized today than in the past due to the institutions that have been created to establish some kind of order. For example, the UN offers little coercive power- it can't really force to much on states; compliance with its goals rests on its perceived legitimacy of its "moral" authority as the voice of the international community among the people or the elites of a given state.
My view of Anarchism is somewhat similar: we can have institutions and clear norms that offers groups and individuals incentives to remain part of the community; not force them to follow those norms through coercion. That is why statehood is ironically a necessary step before we can have Anarchy not in the sense of chaos but of a just society- it has allowed us to evolve in our relations with each other from the brutal chaotic form to one in which groups and individuals can organize effectively and achieve things like advance technologically, educationally, and politically (which would be impossible if everyday's goal is survival, as in chaotic anarchy). What has to be done is keep these positive things- peaceful arenas of mutually beneficial transactions among voluntary equals, but do it through the continual decentralization of political and economic power so that these institutions can function effectively, instead of being skewed towards a particularistic set of elite goals, to the point that political power is exercised by the community as a whole. Democracy is another logical step in there... When Kings ruled they would say that Democracy was chaos, it was almost synonymous with Anarchy really, "too many peoplee can't make decisions," "it won't be effective," "it'll be chaos". The struggle for Anarchism is simply going further than the democracy of today, but of course the establishment (now Parliaments) likewise says that anything more than what we have is "too radical" or "going too far" essentially because of the same assumption that people can't rule themselves. Anarchism is about reaching a point when we don't have to choose between 2 or 3 choices for a "ruler" handed down by the political machine and ratify them, but when we all represent our own selves.
Yurt
Gold Member
ok...i just meant that these so-called weaklings have the ability to organize and win elections...just don't want to underestimate that
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
Very true; hence, the "necessary" part of that phrase. But government IS an evil, because its existence requires allowing power to reside in the hands of the individuals chosen to act in that capacity, and power corrupts. That's why it is necessary to keep a very close watch on what those people do, and to keep a tight rein on the power surrendered to government by the governed.
Diuretic
Permanently confused
They start off squeaky clean in politics and quickly become corrupted. It's not just money corruption, it's power and infuence corruption.
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
It's probably more the power than the money. On a certain level, money is more a way of keeping score than anything.
Similar threads
- Poll
New Topics
-
Two questions about the Islamist who threw explosive device into NYC crowd
- Started by Lisa558
- Replies: 6
-
Did anyone bother to watch the NASCAR race yesterday on HBO/MAX?
- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 0
-
Israel struck the Moscow imperial Cultural Center in Lebanon—almost completely destroyed.- Started by Litwin
- Replies: 0
-
Trump said he ended the Congo-Rwanda war. He lied: Washington Post.- Started by Conservative from Georgia
- Replies: 8
-
