• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Government Is a Deeply Flawed Institution: A Clear and Concise Explanation

Ask yourself this: what percentage of your time and money is spent on people you don’t know? The answer is close to zero. Nearly 100% of your time and money goes to yourself and your family. Then come your close friends. After that, your casual friends and acquaintances. Strangers don’t even make the list.

In reality - not in the fantasy world of rhetoric - you don’t give a shit about strangers. Even if you volunteered at a soup kitchen for an hour and a half every week for your entire life, that’s still less than one percent of your time. Don't feel bad; we're all pretty much the same in this respect. Selfless actions are extremely rare compared to self-interested ones. It's just human nature, and it's not going to change anytime soon.

Now, suppose we hand you political power. How will you use it? The answer is obvious: to benefit yourself and your family. Then your close friends. Then your casual friends and acquaintances. Strangers don’t even make the list.

Even if a government were filled with decent, “normal” people, they would never act in the best interests of the country at large. They would do what people always do - look out for themselves, their families, and their friends. And that’s exactly what we see in the real world. It’s why Washington, D.C., has 10,000 registered lobbyists (and probably twice as many unregistered ones). Politicians will always put their own interests ahead of yours. Your so-called “representative” doesn’t even know your name - and doesn’t care to.

Government agents operate on self-interest, not for the common good. That's why government screws up everything it touches. Why it can’t even get the simple things right. It’s why defense contractors get filthy rich. Why healthcare costs a fortune. Why government drastically restricts the housing supply, thus condemning millions of young people to being lifelong renters. It’s why the money you have in the bank loses value with each passing year. This is why government sucks and why there is no fixing it - it doesn't matter who's in charge.

As uncle Milty put it, "The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests."




Do: Attack the argument.

Don't: Attack the messenger.

@Phys251
 
Click to expand...
That people with power do selfish things and abuse that power doesn’t mean government is bad or useless. Even the smallest communities of humans composed only of your closest loved ones require government. Someone must make and enforce the rules, and they do so unfairly as often as not. If you steal from your sister, you will face the consequences imposed on you by mom, or dad, or your sister. Those members of this community who can’t take care of themselves must be taken care of, even though this isn’t fair. Larger communities require more government. You must repay the favors of casual acquaintances whether you want to or not. If you are fortunate enough to have more power and resources than others, then you must help out a friend of a friend who is in a bind if you want to keep that friend. If you don’t obey the rules of the government, you will suffer social consequences imposed on you by everyone else and those consequences will often be unfair and result in you losing some of your power and resources.

Large scale governments of entire civilizations are in principle no different. The only differences in practice are a matter of degree. Because there are so many people involved, there is far more bureaucracy and corruption, and such governments usually don’t run particularly well and never impose justice fairly. But they are still necessary. Humans cannot live without government. It is an inescapable trait of our species. So rather than fool ourselves into thinking we can live without it, it’s better to devote our time and energy into doing the best we can to make our government as fair and efficient as possible, while knowing that we will never make it truly fair and efficient, and going about fixing all of the things that we inevitably break as we run our enormous, contrived, and absolutely essential government.
 
Name me one society where "freedom" from government works. One.

You may not like government, but civilization needs it to function.

The problem is when it goes authoritarian, like the righties and the Communists want to do. Moderation, like most things in life, is key.
 
aociswundumho said:
Even if a government were filled with decent, “normal” people, they would never act in the best interests of the country at large. They would do what people always do - look out for themselves, their families, and their friends. And that’s exactly what we see in the real world. It’s why Washington, D.C., has 10,000 registered lobbyists (and probably twice as many unregistered ones). Politicians will always put their own interests ahead of yours. Your so-called “representative” doesn’t even know your name - and doesn’t care to.
Click to expand...

This is just impotent special pleading -"B-but people are selfish!". Like, yeah. How is that a revelation? Why is that surprising? Why is that even wrong necessarily? So what, people are selfish so we can't have civilization? Mind bogglingly stupid conclusion about an observation most people get over in high school.

aociswundumho said:
"The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests."
Click to expand...

This is just such an unbelievably stupid thing to say - it's shocking that it came from an intellectuals mouth.

Libertarianism might be the most anti-human ideology conceivable. It isn't even propositional in nature, it's just uncivilized anarchy. Nothing stops the libertarian from retreating from society and living like a primitive and of course they don't, because they enjoy the fruits provided by civilization far too much. No one is stopping you from going into the woods and lecturing the trees about this abstract midwit garbage.

We might imagine long ago a world composed of individual families or very small tribes. They hunted and gathered and lived a humble life... until they ran into a bigger group. The world is run by human collectives pursuing common interests. Human beings are social animals and we reached the stars by collectivizing as a tribe in pursuit of a common goal. We naturally orient ourselves toward structured and ordered societies because they are safer and more prosperous. The libertarian seeks to strip man of his identity so that he can become this amorphous slime of production and consumption. It's so disgusting and repulsive on a foundational level that there are people who are so debased.

Here's the thing though: even if I conceded that you're right on every point in theory, the ideology has no pragmatic merit. "B-but h-haven't you heard of the non-aggression principle?" you impotently plead with people intelligent enough to collectivize as they put your mouth on the curb.
 
Gozaburo said:
So what, people are selfish so we can't have civilization?
Click to expand...

No, people are selfish so if you allow a relatively tiny group of selfish people to rule over everybody else your gonna have a bad time. And isn't that exactly what we observe? There are 195 governments in the world, and only about 25 of them are real democracies. Then there are about 50 fake democracies. Then it's just varying degrees of socialism until you hit North Korea. Governments are objectively awful.

Gozaburo said:
Mind bogglingly stupid conclusion about an observation most people get over in high school.
Click to expand...

I put some do's and don'ts at the bottom of the OP. Attacking the messenger is one of the don'ts.
 
aociswundumho said:
No, people are selfish so if you allow a relatively tiny group of selfish people to rule over everybody else your gonna have a bad time. And isn't that exactly what we observe? There are 195 governments in the world, and only about 25 of them are real democracies. Then there are about 50 fake democracies. Then it's just varying degrees of socialism until you hit North Korea. Governments are objectively awful.
Click to expand...

When you say "governments are objectively awful" what is your standard of measure?
 
Trump totally ****s up today and embarrasses us all.

So the OP had to start a thread tonight trashing all government and telling the lie that none of us care about strangers to cover for the rapist/crook/felon.

It's like clockwork.
 
Gozaburo said:
When you say "governments are objectively awful" what is your standard of measure?
Click to expand...

As I said, there are only about 25 true democracies out of 195 countries. That means only about 12% are genuinely democratic, while the other 88% are at varying degrees of authoritarianism. If you agree that democracy is good and authoritarianism is bad, then it’s clear that governments, on the whole, are more likely to be bad than good. In fact, they are much more likely to be bad than good. I would call that objectively awful, because no one can seriously argue that authoritarianism is anything other than bad.
 
Phys251 said:
Name me one society where "freedom" from government works. One.

You may not like government, but civilization needs it to function.

The problem is when it goes authoritarian, like the righties and the Communists want to do. Moderation, like most things in life, is key.
Click to expand...

Since no society runs without a government, it should be asked which form is best.

Many will choose the rote answer, democracy, but that got us Obama, the last straw, and then Kamala almost won which was the second, and last, last straw, so we need to search for a new ideology as a nation, a new government, and I would like to suggest a form of oligarchic or monarchic fascism modelled on Franco or, possibly, Mussolini minus the unfortunate end.

Over on Truth Social, I have been fighting a sometimes cold, sometimes hot but always losing fight for the form of government I support, but I have often run-afoul of the Groyper Army, bunch of jack-booted storm troopers as far as I'm concerned - they are scary, which wants a full-on Nazi state complete with Sieg Heils, fancy uniforms and swastikas, so I would appreciate any support you care to spare.

Even a kind word helps.

MAGA.
 
Last edited:
aociswundumho said:
As I said, there are only about 25 true democracies out of 195 countries. That means only about 12% are genuinely democratic, while the other 88% are at varying degrees of authoritarianism. If you agree that democracy is good and authoritarianism is bad, then it’s clear that governments, on the whole, are more likely to be bad than good. In fact, they are much more likely to be bad than good. I would call that objectively awful, because no one can seriously argue that authoritarianism is anything other than bad.
Click to expand...

I don't concede that democracy is inherently "good", nor do I concede that governments with more centralized power are inherently "bad".
 
aociswundumho said:
In fact that's exactly what it means.
Click to expand...
He says as he types on a computer that is connected to the internet. You might as well assume that the human species is bad and unnecessary. Do you understand how hypocritical that makes you?
 
aociswundumho said:
In reality - not in the fantasy world of rhetoric - you don’t give a shit about strangers.
Click to expand...
IMO, this is the flaw in the argument. I may not spend my time with you or my money supporting you, but that does not mean I don't care about your wellbeing or your rights.
 
Gozaburo said:
This is just impotent special pleading -"B-but people are selfish!". Like, yeah. How is that a revelation? Why is that surprising? Why is that even wrong necessarily? So what, people are selfish so we can't have civilization? Mind bogglingly stupid conclusion about an observation most people get over in high school.



This is just such an unbelievably stupid thing to say - it's shocking that it came from an intellectuals mouth.

Libertarianism might be the most anti-human ideology conceivable. It isn't even propositional in nature, it's just uncivilized anarchy. Nothing stops the libertarian from retreating from society and living like a primitive and of course they don't, because they enjoy the fruits provided by civilization far too much. No one is stopping you from going into the woods and lecturing the trees about this abstract midwit garbage.

We might imagine long ago a world composed of individual families or very small tribes. They hunted and gathered and lived a humble life... until they ran into a bigger group. The world is run by human collectives pursuing common interests. Human beings are social animals and we reached the stars by collectivizing as a tribe in pursuit of a common goal. We naturally orient ourselves toward structured and ordered societies because they are safer and more prosperous. The libertarian seeks to strip man of his identity so that he can become this amorphous slime of production and consumption. It's so disgusting and repulsive on a foundational level that there are people who are so debased.

Here's the thing though: even if I conceded that you're right on every point in theory, the ideology has no pragmatic merit. "B-but h-haven't you heard of the non-aggression principle?" you impotently plead with people intelligent enough to collectivize as they put your mouth on the curb.
Click to expand...

Your assertion that aociswundumho is an intellectual is charming.

Nat, on the other hand....

MAGA.
 
Last edited:
NatMorton said:
IMO, this is the flaw in the argument. I may not spend my time with you or my money supporting you, but that does not mean I don't care about your wellbeing or your rights.
Click to expand...

Of course it does. Acta non verba. Words don't mean shit, actions are what count.
 
aociswundumho said:
Of course it does. Acta non verba. Words don't mean shit, actions are what count.
Click to expand...

Your entire philosophy runs into the dual problems of humans

A) having empathy

b) naturally gravitating towards a hierarchy
 
People still openly admit to admiring Milton Friedman?

'Milton Friedman is often criticized for his involvement with Augusto Pinochet's regime in Chile. Some argue that Friedman was a "monster" for his role in advising Pinochet on economic policies, which were implemented under a brutal dictatorship that killed thousands and tortured many more. Friedman met with Pinochet in 1975 and advised him on economic policies aimed at reducing inflation and government spending, which some economists argue contributed to economic instability and a severe recession. Despite the human rights violations and repression under Pinochet's rule, Friedman and other neoliberal economists like Friedrich Hayek defended the regime's economic policies as a "miracle" that led to economic growth and eventually a transition to democracy. However, critics argue that the economic reforms did not significantly benefit the poorest members of society and that the repression was necessary to implement these policies.'

...

Milton Friedman is a central figure in Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine," where she argues that his economic theories and the Chicago School of Economics played a significant role in the implementation of neoliberal policies through what she terms "disaster capitalism." According to Klein, Friedman's ideas were first tested in Chile under the Pinochet regime after the 1973 coup, where economic shock therapy was applied with the support of the military dictatorship. This approach, which Klein calls the "shock doctrine," involves using moments of collective shock—such as wars, coups, terrorist attacks, market crashes, or natural disasters—to push through radical pro-corporate measures. Friedman's influence extended beyond Chile, impacting policies in various countries including Russia, Iraq, and post-Katrina New Orleans. Klein's work critiques the notion that free-market capitalism triumphed democratically and instead highlights its reliance on violence and shock to implement its policies.'


 
Jredbaron96 said:
Your entire philosophy runs into the dual problems of humans

A) having empathy

b) naturally gravitating towards a hierarchy
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with the argument? If I got something wrong in the OP, then quote and text and explain why.

Dans La Lune said:
People still openly admit to admiring Milton Friedman?
Click to expand...

If the quote I used from him is wrong, then explain why it's wrong.
 
aociswundumho said:
What does this have to do with the argument? If I got something wrong in the OP, then quote and text and explain why.
Click to expand...

The entire premise of your post is that because people are inherently selfish government is inevitably pointless. It's a position contradictory to human nature, which is why every human civilization that has ever existed has had some form of government.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
The entire premise of your post is that because people are inherently selfish government is inevitably pointless.
Click to expand...

Do you agree with this part:

"Even if a government were filled with decent, “normal” people, they would never act in the best interests of the country at large. They would do what people always do - look out for themselves, their families, and their friends. And that’s exactly what we see in the real world. It’s why Washington, D.C., has 10,000 registered lobbyists (and probably twice as many unregistered ones). Politicians will always put their own interests ahead of yours. Your so-called “representative” doesn’t even know your name - and doesn’t care to."

If no, explain what I'm getting wrong.

Jredbaron96 said:
It's a position contradictory to human nature, which is why every human civilization that has ever existed has had some form of government.
Click to expand...

Slavery has also been nearly universal in human civilizations. That's not an argument to have slaves.
 
aociswundumho said:
Do you agree with this part:

"Even if a government were filled with decent, “normal” people, they would never act in the best interests of the country at large. They would do what people always do - look out for themselves, their families, and their friends.
Click to expand...

No, in fact this is exactly where you go off the rails, if for no other reason you apparently can't conceive of governance that doesn't just impact their immediate family and friends in a positive manner.

aociswundumho said:
Slavery has also been nearly universal in human civilizations. That's not an argument to have slaves.
Click to expand...

That's not even a good counter argument. So has murder, disease, and pets. Don't be obtuse.
 
aociswundumho said:
Do you agree with this part:

"Even if a government were filled with decent, “normal” people, they would never act in the best interests of the country at large. They would do what people always do - look out for themselves, their families, and their friends. And that’s exactly what we see in the real world. It’s why Washington, D.C., has 10,000 registered lobbyists (and probably twice as many unregistered ones). Politicians will always put their own interests ahead of yours. Your so-called “representative” doesn’t even know your name - and doesn’t care to."

If no, explain what I'm getting wrong.
Click to expand...

That sounds like an argument against having any government at all.

Slavery has also been nearly universal in human civilizations. That's not an argument to have slaves.
Click to expand...

MAGA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom