Are governments just protection rackets for the 1%?

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

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

I agree. Please see my last post above.

Regards
DL

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: 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.

What will dasein do for ongoing market melt ups around the world, stagnant wages, and tell me about the price of tea in China?

An aristocracy or oligarchy (degenerated aristocracy). Both are two “sides of the same coin”.

Yes.

I almost want to bring the divine rights of kings back as a smart one would know how to reign in on an out of control aristocracy through public executions. Plato referred to this as the intelligent philosopher king. Makes me want to become a neo monarchist now. If the king or his paternal lineage got out of line you killed them supplanting with another king where the crowds would say, the king is dead, long live the king.

One thing is for certain, it will take a lot of body bags to clear up the corruption of both modern aristocracies and governments. If such a fate comes within our time I look forward to many public executions and people hanging from lamp posts. The rot within modern societies are deep and pervasive where the only way to clear it out is by cutting at its roots.

Better to depose than kill.

Kings are hereditary positions. These days, and with the size of governments, better to have the well educated in governance compete for the job.

No death is required if the public will pushes the political will to implement such a competition.

The public will likely have to revolt though before it can make it’s owners come to heel. That could even be a tax revolt so we need not just look to killing.

Regards
DL

Again, my understanding of dasein here revolves entirely around the extent to which others understand the gist of my argument here:

[b]a man amidst mankind…

That is the paradox, right? I am an individual…a man; yet, in turn, I am but one of 6,500,000,000 additional men and women that constitutes what is commonly called “mankind”. So, in what sense can I, as an individual, grasp my identity as separate and distinct from mankind? How do I make intelligent distinctions between my personal, psychological “self” [the me “I” know intimately from day to day], my persona [the me “I” project – often as a chameleon – in conflicting interactions with others], and my historical and ethnological self as a white male who happened adventiously to be born and raised to view reality from the perpective of a 20th century United States citizen?

How does all of this coalesce into who I think I am? And how does this description contrast with how others grasp who they think I am? Is there a way to derive an objective rendering of my true self? Can I know objectively who I am?

No, I don’t think so.

Identity is ever constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed over the years by hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of variables—some of which we had/have no choice/control regarding. We really are “thrown” into a fortuitous smorgasbord of demographic factors at birth and then molded and manipulated as children into whatever configuration of “reality” suits the cultural [and political] institutions of our time.

On the other hand:

In my view, one crucial difference between people is the extent to which they become more or less self-conscious of this. Why? Because, obviously, to the extent that they do, they can attempt to deconstruct the past and then reconstruct the future into one of their own more autonomous making.

But then what does this really mean? That is the question that has always fascinated me the most. Once I become cognizant of how profoundly problematic my “self” is, what can “I” do about it? And what are the philosophical implications of acknowledging that identity is, by and large, an existential contraption that is always subject to change without notice? What can we “anchor” our identity to so as to make this prefabricated…fabricated…refabricated world seem less vertiginous? And, thus, more certain.

Is it any wonder that so many invent foundationalist anchors like Gods and Reason and Truth? Scriptures from one vantage point or another. Anything to keep from acknowledging just how contingent, precarious, uncertain and ultimately meaningless our lives really are.

Or, of course, is that just my foundation?[/b]

As this, in turn, is reflected in both liberal and conservative narratives [political prejudices] regarding the nature of government in our lives. And of those rabid conflicts regarding what the role of government ought to be.

Folks like PK on the left and uccisore on the right seem intent on arguing from what I construe to be an objectivist frame of mind.

And to the extent I interject dasein into these debates, it revolves around that part of “I” which passes judgment on the behaviors of others — as either more or less in sync with behaviors it is said that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to embody.

In other words, in order to qualify as one of the good guys: “one of us”.

To respond to the OP:

Yes. The police are here to guard the wealth of the elite, the rest is just to kill time (and people of color). Laws are made by the wealthy elite and enforced only when convenient to them.

This may be inherent in government itself. Anarchy (no, not mad max, like social sciences anarchy) may be the only way past that.

Maybe it would be good enough though, if we just made the system work better for us through wealth redistribution.

That is what is required,

The rich seem reluctant to do the right that right thing and the rest of us do not have the balls to make them do it.

There are not enough French for the French type revolution we need.

Regards
DL

For the most part I agree with this.
People are very selfish, greedy and gluttonous, especially government and the corporations and cults behind them, sometimes even to their own detriment, not just the ones they oppress.
I still vote for alt parties, like the NDP and Greens in Canada, in the hopes that if they actually got in for a change, maybe things would change a little for the better.
Sadly they’ll probably never get in, or by the time they do, they’ll’ve been completely corrupted, because the people are mostly ignorant, stupid, and only ever vote the way the talking heads tell them to.

I think humanity will in all likelihood either destroy itself by consuming much-most of the environment it depends on, or in nuclear war over these diminishing resources: gas, oil, uranium, arable land, water, or at least it’ll destroy civilization as we know it, plunging us into a new dark age it might take centuries or millennia to recover from, if we ever do.

In all likelihood, there won’t be a revolution against the establishment, their power is too deeply entrenched.
If anyone/thing survives the coming economic and ecological collapse, which’ll probably happen before the end of this century, it’ll be small, divergent groups and individuals who know how to survive tough times. Most, if not all people are going to die.
In spite of the internet and the greater access to alt media it affords, most of it has shilled out for the likes of Donald Trump, most of it was probably made up of shills to begin with, controlled opps.
People were probably much more ripe for revolution in the early 20th century than they are now in the early 21st.

Really?

Those words make sense.

The will drives the actions taken. Right?

Regards
DL

I hope your last is wrong.

If people, as they get smarter and better educated, should want to move progress more.

That is why universities in non-western countries, like China, try to control the curriculum.

China fears the revolution that education and knowledge bring.

Perhaps that is also why the U.S. is dumbing down it’s people.

youtube.com/watch?v=JVqMAlgAnlo&app=desktop

Regards
DL

One’s will, one’s knowledge, one’s network of people (especially if one has powerful allies), ones ability/disability, one’s class, one’s group, the type of society one lives in - say, if you live in Burma and are Muslim or you are Christian and live in Chicago - one’s health, one’s family - one could speak up against the autocratic regime, but the death patrols might grab your kids along with you. Potency, the ability to make change is dependent on a whole lot of things. Unless you believe in magic, but even then, does Iambiguous or you for that matter, have the kinds of magical powers that give everyone with the same will the same potency?

The so called educated have no will to fight, they’re all about thrifty consumerism and how to decorate the exteriors or interiors of their homes out competing their neighbors. The so called educated are full of the worst kind of decadent cretins. They’re all about the status quo and conformity under authority because they worship financial security to such a degree they’ll ruthlessly attack anybody to achieve it and destroy any group of people to acquire it. There is no faith in the so called educated segments of society since for the most part they’re enablers of the problems to begin with entirely being compartmentalized.

The only group of people that has any will to fight left is the lower classes of malcontents but this is problematic because most are either severely uneducated or ignorant and because many of them are susceptible in being co-opted by the upper echelons of society that seeks to keep them divided politically. The best that can be hoped for is a tiny educated and aware portion of the lower classes to fight back but once again what is problematic with that is there are so few of us scattered around the world. It would take a real banner to unite behind all around the world.

No, death and execution is the only solution to the problem. There is nothing beyond that will fix our global systemic problems.

This is why human beings need a strong and ruthless form of government organization that will for the most part restrain all egotistical-individualist manifestations of human nature utilizing such energies into something progressively collectivist where all benefit. If you leave individual human beings to their own devices they’ll eventually ruin any society, it takes an enlightened hand to whip them into shape for something much better otherwise human nature delves into unorganized chaos.

Bring back the dictatorship of the philosopher king.