Are governments just protection rackets for the 1%?

Public welfare is a kind of state enslavement and patronage. Police enforce laws commanded by the establishment. Public infrastructure is just a way of publicly maintaining the controlled plantation or reservation. State militaries are armed mercenaries at the state’s disposal for the acquisition of resources.

Sorry, I just can’t see what you do.

I am a bit of a skeptic concerning human morality and ethics so I don’t share your views. Eventually however when things get so horrible people will organize themselves in the name of their own self interests of survival (common people), that is a given, however nobody will agree to any singular specific point of view hence why we’ll see multiple revolutionaries instead of just one. There will be much infighting everywhere. I can’t really say I have much faith in democracy either.

You can characterize things as cynically as you want, it doesn’t change the fact that many states give their citizens food, shelter, and protection from crime, disease, and war. Like for example this:

“. Public infrastructure is just a way of publicly maintaining the controlled plantation or reservation.”

All you’re doing here is ascribing motive. First of all, it makes no sense to ascribe motives to hypothetical people (we aren’t even talking about some particular state or another), and secondly the motive has nothing to do with whether or not the poor people are benefited. If all Government authorities are cackling supervillains in the way you describe and create roads and libraries to ‘maintain the controlled planatation’, that doesn’t change the fact that the poor get to benefit from roads and libraries.

Yes, a herd of cattle benefits from a barn and constant feed also. Like I said, we will not see eye to eye on this in the same manner and yes, I am quite very cynical when it comes to the course of human civilization. If we’re to speak of crime not a single day goes by where all governments aren’t committing some or many.

Perhaps I should have said moral intelligentsia.

The French Revolution, just to name one, was led by the people and not the army, which was controlled by the rich.

Any such revolution must have the population behind it or it is bound to fail. The French Revolution itself was not the best way to do things, as they had not planned for the substitution of governance well, but it is touted as having brought democracy to the West.

Regards
DL
[/quote]
I am a bit of a skeptic concerning human morality and ethics so I don’t share your views. Eventually however when things get so horrible people will organize themselves in the name of their own self interests of survival (common people), that is a given, however nobody will agree to any singular specific point of view hence why we’ll see multiple revolutionaries instead of just one. There will be much infighting everywhere. I can’t really say I have much faith in democracy either.
[/quote]
Neither do I as I do not think it really exists anywhere.

I do not see this as a question of morality towards the poor as we have that under good control.

I think that we the people are seeking a better and more moral way for self-pride more than anything else. We are becoming more moral in our thinking and are tired of the rich holding us back from the better systems we can envisage.

economist.com/news/leaders/ … should-aim

Pride, not poverty will and should be our focus. We should seek to rule for honor and duty, not for the cash.

Regards
DL

We already had noblesse oblige and the divine right of kings. The left (plagiarizing Machiavelli) flushed them.

I still can’t say I hold much faith or credibility in human morality and ethics I_Am.

We’ll have to disagree on that note.

And yet all political parties are purely Machiavellian.

That’s another one of those generalizations you can’t prove or even give evidence for that is based fully on faith that your audience will be as cynical as you are.

Can you prove otherwise? I think not.

The peasants came up with the right of kings?

Who knew?

Regards
DL

Good analogy.

Perhaps these will help you gain confidence in the trend I see.

youtube.com/watch?v=_ADgh3yCSdM

youtube.com/watch?v=aLulcfyqrc0

Regards
DL

No, neither of us can prove vast sweeping generalizations about what’s going on in the minds of millions of anonymous strangers. But I didn’t make a claim along those lines, I simply poked fun of yours. If “you can’t prove I’m wrong” is the only thing you have in support of a position, that position sucks and you should get a new one.

Sorry, I’m afraid not. I’ve read everything on the subject and nothing convinces me of any kind of validity.

You obviously disagree with me otherwise there wouldn’t be any opposition to what I’m saying which means you’re obviously trying to prove the direct opposite of my position for if you weren’t, what are you arguing?

I should get a new one? Humor me, what would that be?

Not everything or you would not be that pessimistic.

Here is one example on an issue you likely do not recognize as getting better.

ted.com/talks/steven_pinker … anguage=en

Regards
DL

The decline in physical violence can be ascertained only because of the modern digital surveillance state and in combination with modern CSI practices of law enforcement. No, surprise there when it is hard to have a fart in the wind without FEDS or government agencies knowing about it. Organized crime hasn’t been able to recover very well with the initiation of the internet era. Nonetheless, this same surveillance is an asset of the tyrannical state which is why the state is lawless because it controls and surveys all information now. The state’s reach towards anybody has become limitless.

It has made the tyranny of the state that much more bolder in feeling invulnerable to which it is in the age where anonymity has become a thing of the past. You trade in obvious straight forward violence for security of a state that uses subtle quieter forms of violence in a silent war against the populace. Do we live in a safer world? No, I tend to disagree with that assessment.

Pinkerton is an establishment cheerleading whore.

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.