It wouldn't matter so much except that you have the largest, most powerful, most all encompassing, and most universal state ever throughout the world.
If the state can basically leave people alone, then it doesn't matter if people agree on most things. Bob can stay in Bob's yard, and George can stay in George's yard. As the size of the state increases, it could still not matter as long as Bob and George are treated the same and the state isn't sticking its fingers into arguments between the two. Eventually, the state starts sticking its fingers into arguments between the two, but for the most part it doesn't have the capacity to do much about it. As the postmodern age arrives, the state suddenly is fully capable of micromanaging their lives, but maybe Bob can move away and George likes what the local state is doing. Then George forms a world government, and Bob and George are inseparable, and their arguments must play out on the global stage and it suddenly matters very much that they both agree exactly the same things because the all encompassing state will directly enforce one person's view or the other.
The state that requires every man, woman, and child to believe the same thing mandated by the state by democratic vote and be subservient to a centralised leadership of mega-elites is not a liberal one, no matter how big the plastic smile on the plastic mask it wears is.
If the state can basically leave people alone, then it doesn't matter if people agree on most things. Bob can stay in Bob's yard, and George can stay in George's yard. As the size of the state increases, it could still not matter as long as Bob and George are treated the same and the state isn't sticking its fingers into arguments between the two. Eventually, the state starts sticking its fingers into arguments between the two, but for the most part it doesn't have the capacity to do much about it. As the postmodern age arrives, the state suddenly is fully capable of micromanaging their lives, but maybe Bob can move away and George likes what the local state is doing. Then George forms a world government, and Bob and George are inseparable, and their arguments must play out on the global stage and it suddenly matters very much that they both agree exactly the same things because the all encompassing state will directly enforce one person's view or the other.
The state that requires every man, woman, and child to believe the same thing mandated by the state by democratic vote and be subservient to a centralised leadership of mega-elites is not a liberal one, no matter how big the plastic smile on the plastic mask it wears is.
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 1
I agree with the first half.
Governments are made up of people, and people can be better or worse. They can be more moral or less (and those morals can be different between people so two very moral people may act in opposite ways, or two immoral people may act in much different ways based on what they consider immoral), and they can be more competent or less competent, or more corrupt or less corrupt and self-serving.
A group of people can be either aligned with the people they rule over or they can be opposed to them. People with political power can be a smaller group or a larger group. The Greek democracy and Roman Republic of antiquity were built on the scarred backs of slaves, and ultimately the number of slaves was much larger than the number of citizens.
The benefit of democratic republics and constitutional monarchies over despotism or dictatorship or absolute monarchy is the peaceful transfer of power. When a government is particularly bad under dictatorial regimes, the nation must be bathed in blood, whereas under a republic the nation can be bathed in ballots. Constitutional monarchies can last quite long as well because the monarch is a figurehead compared to the legislative or executive bodies who can then be replaced if they are incompetent or hated.
The distinction between good and bad governance is important, and the fact that they can both exist is important. A badly run democracy is for a time much worse than a well run totalitarian dictatorship. That's one reason why the Roman empire rose out of the Roman Republic, but then the list of Roman emperors starts to look like a stock ticker for how often they were offing heads of state...
In a lot of ways, current western governments reflect our societies, and both are in a state of imbalance. Wise governance considers many factors, foolish government pretends only one thing matters at any given moment. That imbalance inevitably leads to poor governance and a pathological society.
Some of that is a total rejection of good ideas that need to exist because those same ideas can become tyrannical if taken to an extreme. It's not sustainable, and there needs to be some balance. Part of the problem is the decadence of the elite and semi-elite classes. Over time, they become disconnected from the reality of the world by a padded cell that is a comfortable and safe state. They don't realize that you can be hurt, you can die, you can starve, wars can start and things can happen in your homeland, and in that disconnection they make decisions that are objectively harmful which ultimately results in a new secular cycle...
Governments are made up of people, and people can be better or worse. They can be more moral or less (and those morals can be different between people so two very moral people may act in opposite ways, or two immoral people may act in much different ways based on what they consider immoral), and they can be more competent or less competent, or more corrupt or less corrupt and self-serving.
A group of people can be either aligned with the people they rule over or they can be opposed to them. People with political power can be a smaller group or a larger group. The Greek democracy and Roman Republic of antiquity were built on the scarred backs of slaves, and ultimately the number of slaves was much larger than the number of citizens.
The benefit of democratic republics and constitutional monarchies over despotism or dictatorship or absolute monarchy is the peaceful transfer of power. When a government is particularly bad under dictatorial regimes, the nation must be bathed in blood, whereas under a republic the nation can be bathed in ballots. Constitutional monarchies can last quite long as well because the monarch is a figurehead compared to the legislative or executive bodies who can then be replaced if they are incompetent or hated.
The distinction between good and bad governance is important, and the fact that they can both exist is important. A badly run democracy is for a time much worse than a well run totalitarian dictatorship. That's one reason why the Roman empire rose out of the Roman Republic, but then the list of Roman emperors starts to look like a stock ticker for how often they were offing heads of state...
In a lot of ways, current western governments reflect our societies, and both are in a state of imbalance. Wise governance considers many factors, foolish government pretends only one thing matters at any given moment. That imbalance inevitably leads to poor governance and a pathological society.
Some of that is a total rejection of good ideas that need to exist because those same ideas can become tyrannical if taken to an extreme. It's not sustainable, and there needs to be some balance. Part of the problem is the decadence of the elite and semi-elite classes. Over time, they become disconnected from the reality of the world by a padded cell that is a comfortable and safe state. They don't realize that you can be hurt, you can die, you can starve, wars can start and things can happen in your homeland, and in that disconnection they make decisions that are objectively harmful which ultimately results in a new secular cycle...