What is it, to be governed?

Post Reply New Topic

Quote from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon


"To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is it's justice; that is it's morality."


+truth.

ruveyn

Agreed, I don't trust the wisdom of any human mind to govern, all perception is stained.
And I don't trust any government not to be corrupt.

I don't know any government actually administratively capable of doing that. They are not even remotely efficient enough.

A government is a group of people that play on peoples fears and convince them that they can protect them from the boogeyman.

Not 100% no
As have been my recent experiences dealing with immigration authorities, consulates, etc.
They like to make you think they are.

Wow, Mr. Proudhon must have led a very eventful life full of run-ins with the law Was 19th century France really that bad? Sounds more like Cambodia under Pol Pot, if you ask me.

Despite the fact that I am being governed, I must say that I don't quite share his experience. As of yet, I've never been spied upon, enrolled, indoctrinated or preached at, commanded, admonished, prevented, reformed, corrected, punished, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed, repressed, fined, vilified, harrassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, or dishonoured by the government of my country.

Some of these things have been done to me by people who had no affiliation with the government, and these individuals and corporations would probably have done a lot worse if I had not been protected by a government sanctioned legal system. I'm pretty certain that I'm much better off in a properly governed democratic country than in whatever state of anarchy Proudhon envisioned.

Oh yes, without the government we'll all have much greater freedom, that's for sure. We'll be free to starve on the street for starters.

You would say that. No doubt you think those who are able should be forced to feed those who are not able. A true lover of liberty you appear to be.

ruveyn

I don't really see what this has to do with liberty. I'm as protective of my freedoms as the next guy, but I don't want the freedom to watch my neighbor starve to death while I live a life in luxury. One might as well demand the freedom to watch bum fights in a gladiatoral arena.

Yes. Although ideally that would be done while training those unable to be able to feed themselves.

Also, that isn't an original thought. It's paraphrased from an author I like (although he isn't really a socialist because he mocks all systems of government and economy equally).

To answer the OP's question:

I think government is designed from the ground up to keep us all in check whilst giving it's people the illusion that they are in control of it. Any 'rogues'/miscreants or malcontent that tries to usurp any part of it gets quelled. I think perhaps government wants to perpetuate apathy not equality and civility; an apathetic society will remain docile and subservient whilst a society that is truly equal and civilised would not need a government. Just my thoughts.

It has EVERYTHING to do with liberty. My liberty consists in part in not doing a damned thing to feed starving people whose existence I wish to be as brief as possible. Note, this is not the same as forcibly starving anyone. It means refusal to feed a starving person. Anything involving compulsion (legal or otherwise) is a reduction of my liberty and freedom.

And what is wrong with -watching- bum fights or refusal to watch bum fights? A properly limited government would not prevent duels as long as safety provision were made to prevent harm to third uninvolved parties. Watching is not the initiation of force or criminally negligent harm.

Except as required by an EXPLICIT legal contract I don't have to do a damned thing for a stranger. I owe strangers nothing positive a priori. In a properly limited government regime there would be no laws requiring me to help strangers in harm's way provided I did not positively put them in harm's way in the first place

I suspect you have a difficulty in understanding the difference between harming someone and not not helping them. But, I might be wrong. Maybe you think that people are obliged to help each other and can be forced or ought to be forced to help each other. In that case, you are pro-slavery.

ruveyn

ruveyn

Talk all you want about freedom, your position is morally indefensible.

Why would defending your personnal freedom be a stronger moral imperative than saving other people's life? I can't think an ethical philosophy that would defend apathy to death as "all right", yet be applicable to reality.

I sure would and I just defended my right to be heartless and uncaring (toward strangers). The defense is the principle of not initiating force against others (except in constraining the behavior of immature children under one's care). So much for "indefensible".

I do not live for the sake of others and I don't compel others to live for my sake.

Doing Nothing is not the same as doing Something. (Oops! There is another defense.).

ruveyn

You first "defense" is just unrelated to what I said. I never talked about forcing anyone into anything.

As I am heavily consequentialist, I believe doing nothing is the same as doing something if both have the same consequence. In any case, I never said it is like killing someone, only that it is not defensible.

If you can do something that would save a life for no significant cost, yet decide not to, your lack of action is reprehensible -- morally.

Would you drive past a dying person and say: "Meh. Whatever. I'll continue reading my newspaper"? There is no moral difference between that situation and refusing to help starving people, only psychological ones, which have no bearing on the ethical problem.

I am not saying government should force anyone to do anything, even though I think it should. I am talking about pure ethics.

But it IS defensible. Freedom to associate or not to associate is essential to civil liberty. Forcing people to be helpful is a form of slavery. You just happen to dislike my defense. Which is just fine. I consider being free to do or not do more important than being Good. If people want to be Good, then let them be Good (at their own expense, thank you). And if I do not wish to be Good, then I would take it very kindly if you did not try to force me to be Good.

ruveyn