I do not agree with you on this. Politics isn't bad, democracy isn't bad. The true definitions of these concepts are in existence for the betterment of the society. Where's problem occurs is in the execution of the concepts
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Do I have the authority to govern you? No. So I cannot delegate to anyone else such an authority either. Claims of political power are thus usurpation, and wholly illegitimate.
There is no agent/principal relationship between a politician and those who voted for him, much less such a relationship between the politician and those who voted against him, did not vote, or could not vote. Thus, democracy is a sham.
Society does not exist except as a description for the peaceful exchanges and interactions between people. Government is by definition a territorial monopoly on violence. People who call themselves "government" necessarily claim a special authority to violate the life. liberty, and property of everyone in the region they "govern." The incentives of political power guarantee corruption regardless of the intentions of the people in "government" or the founders of the "government." Politics is inherently anti-social. It cannot be executed justly, fairly, or for the betterment of "society" by its very nature.
Why do you disagree? What specific reasoning has led you to the position you hold?
You are talking about the practicality of the concepts... My point is the theoretical definitions of the concepts in themselves are not evil. The practicality of it however has been tainted by the human nature in its active form, hence your stance.
If a concept fails to work in reality every time it's tried due to readily-explainable phenomena, it isn't a theory, and it needs to be discarded. There is no way political power can work as advertised. That is why politics and economics can only be understood by beginning at the level of individual human action, and not at the scale of, "It would be great if..."
Now I get your point... It should be "what is" and not "what ought to be"
Almost. It's "what is" versus "what people imagine."
Imagine if I told someone making a sacrifice to Neptune/Poseidon before going on an ocean voyage were a complete waste, and the priesthood was knowingly or unknowingly suckering the people there to give offerings, but I was told in response it was necessary to ensure a safe voyage anyway. Tradition and the teachings of past generations become a burden and an impediment to progress if they are not periodically reexamined for validity.