It's basically television^1000. TV was also constantly criticized for reducing critical thinking skills and championing mediocrity. Douglas Adams put it best of course: "the future is the same old stuff with faster cars"
Just redistribute the resources, cap prices and let the economy prop up itself. The rich have to give it up for sake of stability and greater good. I'm sure they will understand lol
Laws are many things and one of those things is a concern for justice. As far as self-perpetuation of the state, yes this is how a state operates, this is the nature of it. As for "the government," what is it? It's not a monolithic thing that you can just point your finger to. It depends on the nature and character of the citizens and the established customs of the nation, of which laws are a part. If we're talking about ancient Mesopotamia, then this is probably a tyrannical aspect. But there are many types of governments and constitutions. This dismissive attitude for "the government" is really not a practical, and even kind of a juvenile mentality.
The obtuseness and the soullessness of the user excited by this trick is what is most sad about this situation. "Look at me, I'm a cartoon!" speaks of the arrested development and some kind of a consciousness stunted by some autistic juvenescence prevalent in modern people. This pupa is really excited about living, I suppose.
Sure. They say the best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship, while the worst form is a malevolent dictatorship. The problem is that the former almost always turns out to be the latter in disguise, or at least devolves into it rather quickly.
What a ridiculous statement. Any dictatorship is a subpar expression of a state. We don't have to figure out the best government. We already have all kinds of ideas about this collected from millennia of thought on this subject. We just have to study and bring it into reality.
> We don't have to figure out the best government. We already have all kinds of ideas about this collected from millennia of thought on this subject.
Except for 99.9% of those millennia, humanity had very different challenges than it does today. One of the biggest being effective communication between people. There's a reason the U.S. constitution talks about sending delegates to Washington D.C. Another being an abundance of basic necessities that simply did not exist when Voltaire was writing. Increased globalization, vast changes in technology, bitcoin, AI, automation, social media, etc. Why would you assume political theory from even 100 years ago holds up in the face of all those differences?
And political theory, like history, tends to be written by the victors. What percent of all laws ever written were about maintaining the status quo for the people currently in power? It's a lot; I wouldn't be surprised if it's over 90%.
There's no reason to believe that humanity has "figured government out" by now. There's still plenty of room for experimentation in what works best in today's world. For example, why can individuals not collectively draft legislation, in the same way they can draft Wikipedia articles or open-source software? What would it take to make that happen?
The baseline theory of the state is exhausted. It's like figuring out how to build a car. We have all the ideas already, and the little innovative improvements are the cherries on top. We have quite a few modern political thinkers as well as ancient ones, not victors, but real critical thinkers and historians. As far as communication problem, yeah you may be right, but this is a problem of implementation, not architecture.
And come on, "Galadriel" and some mythical pharaoh? This is your argument-viable examples? I think a little too much fantasy is overtaking your thoughts; you might want to switch to non-fiction for a few months to balance yourself out.
Galadriel. She would be a great and terrible queen. All would love her, and despair.
> People that don't know any history?
For some reason, I find that people who accuse others of not knowing history tend to be the most ignorant of it themselves. History buffs don't seem to be walking around telling other people they "don't know any history". Just an observation.
For an example of a benevolent dictator, look at King Leopold II of Belgium, the Builder King. Loved by his people. Created the Royal Trust, donating a most of his properties to the Belgian nation. Brought culture and prestige to Belgium.
For an example of the atrocities of a malevolent dictator, look at King Leopold II of Belgium. The butcher of the Congo. Unbelievable exploitation and atrocities committed under his rule.
Or look at Ashurbanipal, the last "Great King" of Assyria, who built one of the greatest libraries in history; a collection of human knowledge surpassed in the ancient world only by the Library of Alexandria. And a genocidal maniac who spent months not just pillaging and raping opposing cities long after they had been defeated, but destroying any trace of the people who lived there, salting the land, and seeding the ground with weeds so that it would be impossible to ever re-build.
A wise builder-king with the power and drive to make the nation and world a better place for all its people would absolutely be the best government humanity has been able to achieve so far. Checks and balances are a necessity for a functioning government, but they do bog things down.
My point, of course, is that this is completely counter to human nature, and has (almost?) never been achieved, even in those times that it appears that it has.
reply