pragmatic psychoanalysis of government

[Advocate]

Government is sociopathic, inefficient, psychotic, wasteful, borderline, filthy, dyslexic, ignorant, schizophrenic, and violent... and you still treat it as legitimate?!

If it were a person you'd recommend the death penalty.

[henry quirk]

Government is sociopathic, inefficient, psychotic, wasteful, borderline, filthy, dyslexic, ignorant, schizophrenic, and violent... and *you still treat it as legitimate?!

**If it were a person you'd recommend the death penalty.

*Not me.

**I do.

[promethean75]

Nuh uh 'government' can't be any of those things, but people can be.

Abstract entities such as the 'state' don't really exist. Only individuals exist... and when they're in a bigass group it's called a 'state'. But to be critical of government in general is to say that it's impossible for individuals to govern well... and that's probably not true. What you're angry at are conditions x, which u attitribute to the decisions of the individuals in office, not the office itself.

Note how anarchists rage so much about government. That's becuz so so many individuals in government have been total assholes throughout history. But the goddamn anarchists know civil existence isn't possible even on the smallest scale without governing and the consent of the governed.

[Iwannaplato]

Government is sociopathic, inefficient, psychotic, wasteful, borderline, filthy, dyslexic, ignorant, schizophrenic, and violent... and *you still treat it as legitimate?!

**If it were a person you'd recommend the death penalty.

*Not me

You don't treat it as legitimate or you don't believe/consider it legitimate? IOW if you don't treat it as legitimate this might or perhaps even should entail, not paying taxes, driving without a liscence if you drive, ignoring police orders, perhaps not using cash but just barter, and so on.

[henry quirk]

You don't treat it as legitimate or you don't believe/consider it legitimate?

Both.

IOW if you don't treat it as legitimate this might or perhaps even should entail, not paying taxes, driving without a liscence if you drive, ignoring police orders, perhaps not using cash but just barter, and so on.

I won't discuss, on a public forum, what I may or may not be doin'.

I'll only say: there's no wrong way to enact Irish Democracy.

[Iwannaplato]

I won't discuss, on a public forum, what I may or may not be doin'.

Fair enough and it's an implicit answer of sorts.

I'll only say: there's no wrong way to enact Irish Democracy.

I'm skeptical that's the case, but it's all so general (even with 'Irish' in there), I can't really say.

But you managed to convey if not say things, so thanks.

[henry quirk]

Fair enough and it's an implicit answer of sorts.

I'm skeptical that's the case, but it's all so general (even with 'Irish' in there), I can't really say.

You do know I'm not referrin' to the Irish or democracy when I say Irish Democracy, yes?

But you managed to convey if not say things, so thanks.

[Iwannaplato]

You do know I'm not referrin' to the Irish or democracy when I say Irish Democracy, yes?

I didn't, felt dumb, googled, now I do.

[henry quirk]

You do know I'm not referrin' to the Irish or democracy when I say Irish Democracy, yes?

I didn't, felt dumb, googled, now I do.

Quiet non-compliance and subversion. You can't do either in a wrong way.

[Toppsy Kretts]

Government is sociopathic, inefficient, psychotic, wasteful, borderline, filthy, dyslexic, ignorant, schizophrenic, and violent... and you still treat it as legitimate?!

If it were a person you'd recommend the death penalty.

concerning your view on a government
How would you present an established way to in the sense to "govern" a society or nation?

[Advocate]

[quote="Toppsy Kretts" post_id=657743 time=1690136661 user_id=23423]
If it were a person you'd recommend the death penalty.
[/quote]

concerning your view on a government
How would you present an established way to in the sense to "govern" a society or nation?
[/quote]

Can you rephrase the question?

[commonsense]

Government is sociopathic, inefficient, psychotic, wasteful, borderline, filthy, dyslexic, ignorant, schizophrenic, and violent... and you still treat it as legitimate?!

If it were a person you'd recommend the death penalty.

I’d rather recommend treatment for that person in order to create a healthy and productive member of society.

[commonsense]

Let’s say your house is on fire. You wouldn’t need a government to put it out. You could put it out yourself.

But what if your next-door neighbors’ house was on fire? You could wait until the fire burns your house, and then put it out yourself without need for government.

But you could prevent your house from burning if you put out your neighbors’ fire. Now you’re talking about a society. Or if the fire trucks come, you’re talking about a government.

So, while you can be self-reliant and independent, if your neighbors can’t be, someone Hass to help them.

[rootseeker]

Do you mean "government" or "the government"? Perhaps a government that actually had the full consent of the governed as a signed written social contract, with provisions of common contracts like a cancellation process, would not result in these problems. How can an organization of good originate from a foundation of evil?

The more important an agreement is, the more it needs to be signed and written on paper. Yet there is no genuine agreement of social contract for any modern government. The process is that they operate as owners of humans within specific geographic coordinates.

An actually fair concept of Democracy would begin by everyone representing them self, then voluntarily with full consent, signing up for a government organization. Since about 4 in 5 people want such an organization type, that would clearly happen if governments were suddenly incapable of achieving the intimidation required for authoritarian government styles of today.

[Age]

Do you mean "government" or "the government"? Perhaps a government that actually had the full consent of the governed as a signed written social contract, with provisions of common contracts like a cancellation process, would not result in these problems. How can an organization of good originate from a foundation of evil?

The more important an agreement is, the more it needs to be signed and written on paper.

But the one and ONLY True 'governance' that can and DOES work NEVER needs/needed ANY piece of paper to be signed. In fact NO ACTUAL 'agreement' HAD TO be sought NOR reached, for ANY one to 'sign' NOR to 'agree with'.

Yet there is no genuine agreement of social contract for any modern government. The process is that they operate as owners of humans within specific geographic coordinates.

An actually fair concept of Democracy would begin by everyone representing them self, then voluntarily with full consent, signing up for a government organization. Since about 4 in 5 people want such an organization type, that would clearly happen if governments were suddenly incapable of achieving the intimidation required for authoritarian government styles of today.

But 'governments', themselves, are NOT even needed. As it is 'self-governance' that ONLY works, SUCCESSFULLY.