Are governments just protection rackets for the 1%?

[James S Saint]

I think it's inevitable that Governments benefit at least the powerful, just because by definition any social structure is going to have somebody at the top, and any extremely elaborate social structure is going to have people that can manipulate the rules to their own benefit. But it's incorrect to say that that's all a State is for, or to put the cart before the horse and say that exploitation is why the state exists.

When the state becomes a tool with which to extort from the populace for sake of the wealthy, the state has crossed the line. Such is an ancient problem that, in the past, has only been overcome by serious rebellion of one type or another. But with today's technology, such rebellion is not possible. The lust for godhood over humanity has come to fruition, not with the goal of compassion for humanity, but for no other purpose but to ensure the luxurious survival of the few. And when other homosapians are no longer required for that end, there will be no more other homosapians.

All wars, plagues, diseases, "terrorism", and mass destruction are instigated with that one goal in mind. The temporary comforts afforded to the human cattle are provided for no other purpose and will be taken away (have been) when such services to the populace no longer serves the few.

That is crossing the line of just cause for support of a state, nation, religion, or any proposed authority. Better ways of living are available.

[Zero_Sum]

[Greatest I am]

Zero_Sum

Ok. Ignore the evidence and statistics.

Regards
DL

[Zero_Sum]

Zero_Sum

Ok. Ignore the evidence and statistics.

Regards
DL

Huh?

[Greatest I am]

Zero_Sum

Ok. Ignore the evidence and statistics.

Regards
DL

Huh?

You said.

"Do we live in a safer world? No, "

You ignore all the statistics that show otherwise.

That is not a good thinking trait.

Regards
DL

[Arminius]

Such broad sweeping statements about "Governments" as if they are all one kind of thing are moronic.

Just think for example of a company or any kind of corporation where you can find the same structure (mostly with the Pareto destribution of 20%/80% and a ruling 1%). Not wanting to value here, I am just saying that this is a structure that you can find very often.

[Zero_Sum]

Zero_Sum

Ok. Ignore the evidence and statistics.

Regards
DL

Huh?

You said.

"Do we live in a safer world? No, "

You ignore all the statistics that show otherwise.

That is not a good thinking trait.

Regards
DL

You think it is a safer world? Whatever, I'm not interested in your pro establishment mouthpieces that has some sort of statistical bias saying otherwise.

We're all going to find out real soon just how treacherous this world really is.

[LogicalMetaphysician]

First of all, I noticed that many people in this thread seem to be implicitly advocating anarchy.. That makes me happy! Mind if I ask what type of anarchy everyone prefers, individualist anarchy, or collectivist anarchy?

[Zero_Sum]

First of all, I noticed that many people in this thread seem to be implicitly advocating anarchy.. That makes me happy! Mind if I ask what type of anarchy everyone prefers, individualist anarchy, or collectivist anarchy?

I'm not an anarchist, I'm just smart enough to know that none of the governments that exist now are worth preserving.

[Greatest I am]

Huh?

You said.

"Do we live in a safer world? No, "

You ignore all the statistics that show otherwise.

That is not a good thinking trait.

Regards
DL[/quote]

You think it is a safer world? Whatever, I'm not interested in your pro establishment mouthpieces that has some sort of statistical bias saying otherwise.

We're all going to find out real soon just how treacherous this world really is.[/quote]

Thanks for showing that you are using a crystal ball instead of facts. Your faith is as foolish as religious faith that also ignores facts.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

First of all, I noticed that many people in this thread seem to be implicitly advocating anarchy.. That makes me happy! Mind if I ask what type of anarchy everyone prefers, individualist anarchy, or collectivist anarchy?

I'm not an anarchist, I'm just smart enough to know that none of the governments that exist now are worth preserving.

Yet you offer no alternative.

Regards
DL

[Zero_Sum]

First of all, I noticed that many people in this thread seem to be implicitly advocating anarchy.. That makes me happy! Mind if I ask what type of anarchy everyone prefers, individualist anarchy, or collectivist anarchy?

I'm not an anarchist, I'm just smart enough to know that none of the governments that exist now are worth preserving.

Yet you offer no alternative.

Regards
DL

That's because there is nothing worth preserving in that there is nothing to reform.

[Greatest I am]

That's because there is nothing worth preserving in that there is nothing to reform.

Yes there is if you follow the thinking of Socrates.

Look up Timocratic system and see that what follows what we have should be followed by that as it is a ruling system based on honor and duty. Something lacking in how we rule today.

Regards
DL

[Zero_Sum]

That's because there is nothing worth preserving in that there is nothing to reform.

Yes there is if you follow the thinking of Socrates.

Look up Timocratic system and see that what follows what we have should be followed by that as it is a ruling system based on honor and duty. Something lacking in how we rule today.

Regards
DL

Yeah, that worked so well for the ancient Greeks. Where is modern Greece now?

[Arminius]

The only statistics you can trust are those you falsified yourself.

[Greatest I am]

That's because there is nothing worth preserving in that there is nothing to reform.

Yes there is if you follow the thinking of Socrates.

Look up Timocratic system and see that what follows what we have should be followed by that as it is a ruling system based on honor and duty. Something lacking in how we rule today.

Regards
DL

Yeah, that worked so well for the ancient Greeks. Where is modern Greece now?

They never got to the point of creating a Timocratic system as far as I know.

Regards
DL

[Zero_Sum]

They never got to the point of creating a Timocratic system as far as I know.

Regards
DL

And why do you think that is? Why was it never created?

[Greatest I am]

They never got to the point of creating a Timocratic system as far as I know.

Regards
DL

And why do you think that is? Why was it never created?

Democracy was a better way for the leaders to lie to their people.

The same applies today.

Regards
DL

[Zero_Sum]

They never got to the point of creating a Timocratic system as far as I know.

Regards
DL

And why do you think that is? Why was it never created?

Democracy was a better way for the leaders to lie to their people.

The same applies today.

Regards
DL

I am no fan of democracy especially the controlled kind that we have here where you'll get no argument from me on that.

[Arminius]

Timocracy:

A timocracy (from Greek τιμή timē, "price, worth" and -κρατία -kratia, "rule")[1] is a state where only property owners may participate in government. The more extreme forms of timocracy, where power derives entirely from wealth with no regard for social or civic responsibility, may shift in their form and become a plutocracy where the wealthy and powerful use their power to increase their wealth.
Timocracy and property

Solon introduced the ideas of timokratia as a graded oligarchy in his Solonian Constitution for Athens in the early 6th century BC. His was the first known deliberately implemented form of timocracy, allocating political rights and economic responsibility depending on membership of one of four tiers of the population. Solon defined these tiers by measuring how many bushels of produce each man could produce in a year, namely:

Pentacosiomedimni – "Men of the 500 bushel", those who produced 500 bushels of produce per year, could serve as generals in the army
Hippeis – Knights, those who could equip themselves and one cavalry horse for war, valued at 300 bushels per year
Zeugitae – Tillers, owners of at least one pair of beasts of burden, valued at 200 bushels per year, could serve as Hoplites
Thetes – Manual laborers

N. G. L. Hammond supposes Solon instituted a graduated tax upon the upper classes, levied in a ratio of 6:3:1, with the lowest class of thetes paying nothing in taxes but remaining ineligible for elected office.

Aristotle later wrote in his Nicomachean Ethics (Book 8, Chapter 10) about three "true political forms" for a state, each of which could appear in corrupt form, becoming one of three negative forms. Aristotle describes timocracy in the sense of rule by property-owners: it comprised one of his true political forms. Aristotelian timocracy approximated to the constitution of Athens, although Athens exemplified the corrupted version of this form, described as democracy.
Timocracy, comparable values, and Plato's five regimes
Main article: Plato's five regimes

In The Republic, Plato describes five regimes (of which four are unjust). Timocracy is listed as the first "unjust" regime. Aristocracy degenerates into timocracy when, due to miscalculation on the part of its governed class, the next generation of guardians and auxiliaries includes persons of an inferior nature (the persons with souls made of iron or bronze, as opposed to the ideal guardians and auxiliaries, who have souls made of gold and silver). A timocracy, in choosing its leaders, is "inclining rather to the more high-spirited and simple-minded type, who are better suited for war".[2] The city-state of Sparta provided Plato with a real-world model for this form of government. Modern observers might describe Sparta as a totalitarian or one-party state, although the details we know of its society come almost exclusively from Sparta's enemies. The idea of militarism-stratocracy accurately reflects the fundamental values of Spartan society.

References:

Harper, Douglas (November 2001). ""Timocracy" etymology". Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved 2008-10-25.
Rep. 8.547e; Cahn, Steven M., Classics of Political and Moral Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 2002. ISBN 0199791155

[Zero_Sum]

Timocracy:

A timocracy (from Greek τιμή timē, "price, worth" and -κρατία -kratia, "rule")[1] is a state where only property owners may participate in government. The more extreme forms of timocracy, where power derives entirely from wealth with no regard for social or civic responsibility, may shift in their form and become a plutocracy where the wealthy and powerful use their power to increase their wealth.
Timocracy and property

Solon introduced the ideas of timokratia as a graded oligarchy in his Solonian Constitution for Athens in the early 6th century BC. His was the first known deliberately implemented form of timocracy, allocating political rights and economic responsibility depending on membership of one of four tiers of the population. Solon defined these tiers by measuring how many bushels of produce each man could produce in a year, namely:

Pentacosiomedimni – "Men of the 500 bushel", those who produced 500 bushels of produce per year, could serve as generals in the army
Hippeis – Knights, those who could equip themselves and one cavalry horse for war, valued at 300 bushels per year
Zeugitae – Tillers, owners of at least one pair of beasts of burden, valued at 200 bushels per year, could serve as Hoplites
Thetes – Manual laborers

N. G. L. Hammond supposes Solon instituted a graduated tax upon the upper classes, levied in a ratio of 6:3:1, with the lowest class of thetes paying nothing in taxes but remaining ineligible for elected office.

Aristotle later wrote in his Nicomachean Ethics (Book 8, Chapter 10) about three "true political forms" for a state, each of which could appear in corrupt form, becoming one of three negative forms. Aristotle describes timocracy in the sense of rule by property-owners: it comprised one of his true political forms. Aristotelian timocracy approximated to the constitution of Athens, although Athens exemplified the corrupted version of this form, described as democracy.
Timocracy, comparable values, and Plato's five regimes
Main article: Plato's five regimes

In The Republic, Plato describes five regimes (of which four are unjust). Timocracy is listed as the first "unjust" regime. Aristocracy degenerates into timocracy when, due to miscalculation on the part of its governed class, the next generation of guardians and auxiliaries includes persons of an inferior nature (the persons with souls made of iron or bronze, as opposed to the ideal guardians and auxiliaries, who have souls made of gold and silver). A timocracy, in choosing its leaders, is "inclining rather to the more high-spirited and simple-minded type, who are better suited for war".[2] The city-state of Sparta provided Plato with a real-world model for this form of government. Modern observers might describe Sparta as a totalitarian or one-party state, although the details we know of its society come almost exclusively from Sparta's enemies. The idea of militarism-stratocracy accurately reflects the fundamental values of Spartan society.

References:

Harper, Douglas (November 2001). ""Timocracy" etymology". Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved 2008-10-25.
Rep. 8.547e; Cahn, Steven M., Classics of Political and Moral Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 2002. ISBN 0199791155

In other words an aristocracy. The United States has its own aristocracy and they're all politically,socially, or economically inept.

[Greatest I am]

And why do you think that is? Why was it never created?

Democracy was a better way for the leaders to lie to their people.

The same applies today.

Regards
DL[/quote]

I am no fan of democracy especially the controlled kind that we have here where you'll get no argument from me on that.[/quote]

Respect grows.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Timocracy:

A timocracy (from Greek τιμή timē, "price, worth" and -κρατία -kratia, "rule")[1] is a state where only property owners may participate in government. The more extreme forms of timocracy, where power derives entirely from wealth with no regard for social or civic responsibility, may shift in their form and become a plutocracy where the wealthy and powerful use their power to increase their wealth.
Timocracy and property

Solon introduced the ideas of timokratia as a graded oligarchy in his Solonian Constitution for Athens in the early 6th century BC. His was the first known deliberately implemented form of timocracy, allocating political rights and economic responsibility depending on membership of one of four tiers of the population. Solon defined these tiers by measuring how many bushels of produce each man could produce in a year, namely:

Pentacosiomedimni – "Men of the 500 bushel", those who produced 500 bushels of produce per year, could serve as generals in the army
Hippeis – Knights, those who could equip themselves and one cavalry horse for war, valued at 300 bushels per year
Zeugitae – Tillers, owners of at least one pair of beasts of burden, valued at 200 bushels per year, could serve as Hoplites
Thetes – Manual laborers

N. G. L. Hammond supposes Solon instituted a graduated tax upon the upper classes, levied in a ratio of 6:3:1, with the lowest class of thetes paying nothing in taxes but remaining ineligible for elected office.

Aristotle later wrote in his Nicomachean Ethics (Book 8, Chapter 10) about three "true political forms" for a state, each of which could appear in corrupt form, becoming one of three negative forms. Aristotle describes timocracy in the sense of rule by property-owners: it comprised one of his true political forms. Aristotelian timocracy approximated to the constitution of Athens, although Athens exemplified the corrupted version of this form, described as democracy.
Timocracy, comparable values, and Plato's five regimes
Main article: Plato's five regimes

In The Republic, Plato describes five regimes (of which four are unjust). Timocracy is listed as the first "unjust" regime. Aristocracy degenerates into timocracy when, due to miscalculation on the part of its governed class, the next generation of guardians and auxiliaries includes persons of an inferior nature (the persons with souls made of iron or bronze, as opposed to the ideal guardians and auxiliaries, who have souls made of gold and silver). A timocracy, in choosing its leaders, is "inclining rather to the more high-spirited and simple-minded type, who are better suited for war".[2] The city-state of Sparta provided Plato with a real-world model for this form of government. Modern observers might describe Sparta as a totalitarian or one-party state, although the details we know of its society come almost exclusively from Sparta's enemies. The idea of militarism-stratocracy accurately reflects the fundamental values of Spartan society.

References:

Harper, Douglas (November 2001). ""Timocracy" etymology". Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved 2008-10-25.
Rep. 8.547e; Cahn, Steven M., Classics of Political and Moral Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 2002. ISBN 0199791155

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_five_regimes

The aristocratic man is better represented by Plato's brand of philosopher: a man whose character and ambitions have been forged into those ideal for a just ruler through a rigorous education system designed to train intellectuals that are selfless and upright, and whose souls have been made calm and aware of the absolute Good by learning the Truth based on the Platonic Ideas. Plato envisages for this philosopher a disposition and ability that makes him the ideal governor of any state precisely because his soul knows the Idea of the Good, which is the metaphysical origin of all that is good, including happiness itself. Wealth, fame, and power are just shadows of the Good and provide only hollow and fleeting satisfaction. It is only the knowledge of the Good in itself that gives man enduring and real happiness. Thus, the philosopher who is exposed to metaphysical contemplation is not tempted to abuse his power in his pursuit of material goods, and his state policies are therefore dedicated to establishing only the Good in the state, not his personal interests.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

In other words an aristocracy. The United States has its own aristocracy and they're all politically,socially, or economically inept.

I agree. Please see my last post above.

Regards
DL

[iambiguous]

Such broad sweeping statements about "Governments" as if they are all one kind of thing are moronic.

Indeed, just as broad sweeping statements about liberal governments from conservatives are as moronic as broad sweeping statements of conservative governments from liberals.

It has been my experience however that those who tend to see the world from an objectivist frame of mind tend to embrace [morally/politically] one or another rendition of "right makes might".

That both liberals and conservatives are clearly up to the task of framing the role of government in terms of "one of us" vs. "one of them" doesn't really surprise me at all.

Though with respect to political economy does anyone here still actually believe that wealth and power [in the form of crony capitialism] doesn't prevail with respect to such issues as tax policy?

Does anyone here actually believe that "one man one vote" is "for all practical purposes" the order of the day on Capital Hill and in the White House?

In other words, in this day and age, are there actually still idealists among us?!!

In this day and age it is empiricism versus idealism but empiricism is winning as idealists have been rendered impotent. Of course trying to frame all of human society under empiricism alone creates many problems and has had idealists on the run from a standpoint of defeat for more than a century.

In any day and age the extent to which folks are impotent revolves by and large around the extent to which they believe that they are. For the objectivists however those who do not share their own political prejudices regarding either 1] the role of government or 2] the manner in which governments reflect the nature of political economy, may or may not in fact be impotent. But what counts far, far more is their rabid conviction that they ought to be.

Yet both sides are able to formulate reasonable arguments in defending either political narrative: http://www.debate.org/debates/Conservat ... -nation/1/

Provided of course the fiercest ideologues here can agree on precisely what it means to be a true liberal or a true conservative. And [it goes without saying] leaving out the stuff that folks like Marx and Engels tacked onto the debate.

Again, from my frame of mind, the focus here revolves less around determining [either empirically or in terms of political philosophy] who is more rational or more virtuous, and more in acknowledging the role that dasein, conflicting goods and political economy play in the actual formation of any one particular individual's set of values.

And this part above all else is where the objectivists [at both extremes] fear to tread.

Or so it surely seems to me.