Government Is Not Corrupt
If something can become corrupted, or be made immoral or evil, then it follows that it can at first be neutral or good; it can be uncorrupt to begin with, or can be uncorrupted again after becoming corrupt.
What is inherently immoral--be it theft, coercion, rape, murder, caging, kidnapping--cannot be made into something moral or good, not by way of scribbles on paper called law, titles, badges, uniforms, police cars, tanks, elections, intelligence agencies, constitutions or flags.
The thing that distinguishes government from other terms such as organization, business, church, or community, is that it claims the right to use violent force to IMPOSE its will. Without that power, it is not government.
What is purely voluntary among humans is called by other names-- it is referred to as volunteering, charity, donation, community, organization, business, and cooperation.
Government in its very essence, however, is the claim of some humans to have the right to use deadly force to impose their will on other humans.
Government is not corrupted in the sense that most people mean when they call it "corrupt". It did not start off as something good and become corrupted into evil. It did not start off as something moral, or it would not have started at all.
This is why you cannot "infiltrate" government to make it into something good and to change its actors into people who act morally. If they all acted morally, there would be no government and they'd all walk away from politics and elections.
Hmmm, don't see the power-hungry sociopaths doing that now, do you? Control breeds more control, which breeds real chaos. Sociopaths who seek to violently rule others only know one function: control.
What many people irrationally believe is that somehow government is full of individuals who can represent them. Represent them to do what, exactly? How many people ever stop to consider what it is they need some strangers in D.C. to be doing on their behalf from hundreds or thousands of miles away?
I have said before, and it bears repeating, that a statist will always call it "corrupt" when their neighbors use the government to point the guns at them, yet those same statists call it "representation" when they succeed in pointing the same government guns at their neighbors.
Everyone who supports the state supports the government coercing their fellow men, but never themselves, and therein lies the clue to what government is. It is not some group of good individuals whose job was originally to do good things for people, and yet, "oops", somehow fell by the wayside. Government is a group of individuals who have always and will always thrive on using the threat of deadly force to rule over other human beings like cattle.
Since it is true that what is NOT corrupt to begin with cannot be uncorrupted, it follows that obviously what is purely immoral cannot be infiltrated for the purpose of being made moral.
When you understand what all government fundamentally is, you disavow all notions of being able to "change it from the inside".
Asking government to fix government is like asking cancer to cure cancer.
Asking Govt to act nice is like asking psycho not to be psycho.
Though, that's not entirely correct.
^ Though, the winner will still kill off the host anyway.
Goverments today are corrupt. I can say that Science is pretty much Corrupt too. Religion also.
The problem is not the corruption factor but whether people are willing to participate in such a corrupt model. Many people enjoy stepping on others in order to cilmb the ladder.
Like we say here in Steemit. If you don't like it, leave. I see no problem with the goverment as long as the people in there stay voluntarily.
Yes voluntarily being ruled is fine, but then it wouldn't be government. Maybe you can call it that, but it wouldn't be based on the principals of government as we know it.
Is it true your comment can be simplified to this: "Because we have not seen the principals of voluntary government before, it is not possible." ?
I was born onto this patch of dirt. I shouldn't have to leave because some power hungry maniacs say they have the right to violently control me. And where am I supposed to go? Every area of earth is under the control of one set of rulers or another.
You didn't read the post, did you?
“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.”
― Michael Ellner
Government is just violence we choose to do together ... or something like that.
It is strange how many cannot grasp that government is just a bunch of humans, and not the best of them. This does not have to make one an anarchist, just honest in support of giving power to a group of people to impose some view or other.
No. I've not been in on that choice, as to violently control my neighbour.
This paragraph interests me. Until the last few centuries or so, the majority of conflicts were a bi-product of religion/church. It has only been in the last 100-200 years that the prime reason for conflict were a combination of church and business. ...
that's because for so long the church was the government
That was the conclusion I kept coming back to as well.
But even in the Roman period there were many conflicts without church. Without government (state monopoly on the use of force) what evil could church do?
I have always thought that government, by its nature, is corrupt. Thanks for pointing out that corrupt is the wrong word. It does imply that there could be a possibility for government to NOT be corrupt.
Extremely well and succinctly said, sir. Bravo!
I am, in fact, a female. :) But thank you very much, and you may still call me "Sir" if it suits you. ;)
My apologies. I meant only respect. Do you know a gender-neutral term with the same sense as "sir"? Apparently, the military uses "ma'am" for addressing female officers, but I find that not right for civilian use, since it pretty much implies that the lady so addressed is married, and I usually don't know, nor do I consider it my business, unless told.
No need for apologies, I was not at all offended. :) I don't even mind being assumed a "Sir" at times. I don't care that much if someone calls me "ma'am" or "miss". I am married, but you needn't worry about how to address me. :)
More and more, even female officers are being referred to as 'sir'. At least in Star Trek. :)
I am reading your powerful articles for a while now . It's nice to know you are a woman . Great to meet you .
government is always ran by the wrong people, but we choose the wrong people so we should blame ourselves
While the worst possible people usually end up having political power, there isn't really such thing as the RIGHT people to coercively dominate everyone else.
I don't think he was implying that, I think he's saying that no matter how bad the government is, the fact that 2/3 of the population supports the government is a much bigger problem
You yourself, might be wasting your time voting, but since I don't, then "we" didn't choose anyone. You can take that on your own shoulders, thank you. ^_^
which is the only reason why you don't vote ... to maintain your false sense of moral superiority, not because it actually solves anything
What does voting solve?
Besides. No one represents me at all. So whom should I vote for? (No, I'm not gonna vote for the "lesser of two evils", I don't want any evil, thank you.)
great article @dragonanarchist
Perfect. Thanks, friend. Good stuff.
Have you ever read Better Angels of Our Nature by Stephen Pinker?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature
I think he makes a very sound argument that governments reduce violence. I am a strong believer on non-violence and I don't think we should simply ignore the arguments being made by Stephen Pinker in his book. His conclusions are based on very in depth statistical analysis and are worth much consideration!