I didn’t read it, what happened?
Discussion
Interesting conclusion
No such thing as a good government
If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
We can have governance without governors, though.
A majority of humans came to live under nation-states only in c. 1500 AD
If men aren’t angels, government will always be tyrannical
Men are not angels, so lets build a government out of those men that are not angels.
This 🎯
This is the full quote from James Madison:
“It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices [checks and balances] should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
Sounds like a fucking statist. What checks and balances actually work? The checks and balances have to be the people because the useless piece of paper known as the constitution certainly isn’t checking or balancing anything. All the members of different government branches are bought and compromised. The real checks and balances have to be the people. The people have to be willing to overthrow their rulers when they become tyrannical. And if it comes down to the people, then why have a government to begin with? The only answer is to control and extort you.
Madison would actually agree with you on most of these points. He shared the same fears.
Madison would argue that he wasn’t defending government because he trusted it — he was defending government because he didn’t trust it.
He believed humans are flawed
He believed government itself is a threat
His solution: build a government designed to fight itself
He saw government as a tool, not a virtue
His whole project was: Given that people are flawed, how do we prevent any one group from dominating everyone else?
Why do we keep quoting dead people who tried to build a system that has clearly failed?
I shouldn’t even say we. Why are you quoting him?
Because I found I tend to learn more from dead people than living people. 😄
Well this living person taught you something today which that dead person could not
I am not sure what that is because I don’t think you acknowledged his premise that humans are flawed. I am actually not sure what your proposed solution is, just let humans fight humans instead of government fight government?
Hypothetical scenario: disband the constitution and the United States government. Over or under bet that China or Russia will move in?
They’ll move in and do what?
Make you pay Chinese taxes lol
What’s stopping them from doing that now?
The military operated by retards in the government
What is a military?
You tell me, sounds like you’re looking for a specific answer
Making assumptions now?
I’m simply using the Socratic method as you often enjoy doing. You can find the answer yourself
I am not making any assumptions, I am asking you what your definition of a military is
You said I’m looking for a specific answer. I never said I was. That makes it an assumption.
I asked you first. If you’re interested in learning a different perspective then answer it. Use the dictionary or whatever you like. If you’re just gonna throw it back at me, when you’ve argued that we need a government with all these nonsensical things, that clearly have failed, then just drop the convo because it’s a waste of time discussing with someone who has already made up his mind.
If I am learning a different perspective I’d prefer to use the dictionary you have
I’d rather use your dictionary to avoid confusion or disagreements
This is Google’s dictionary
Is it impossible to have armed forces without a government?
What is the definition of a government?
A group of individuals that use violence, coercion, and other forceful means to compel others to do what they want with or without consent.
This may be where our dictionaries depart
They used the same word inside the definition. This dictionary definition doesn’t work. Not surprising.
Yes humans are flawed. So his solution is to give flawed humans ultimate power over others? Makes no sense
My proposed solution is to stop supporting and legitimizing monopolies on violence and theft using all these mental gymnastics about checks and balances and other nonsense.
So do nothing?
Not sure how you equated what I said to doing nothing
I didn’t, it was framed as a question. So what do we do instead?
I told you what to do. Scroll up and read it again.
lol, I read you said to stop doing things
Uh huh. Keep going you’re almost there.
nostr:note158m7c4mwk42w5s9lldcas8pstjj5at800kuw329wyve22gwcyg6qr6y62d
😂
Who are these people? All these retards I see roaming around that can’t take accountability for anything.
Exactly. They will never take accountability. There are no checks and balances in government.
Things got better.
https://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf
Then the outside world noticed, decided they were setting a dangerous example, and spent hundreds of billions to liberate them again. Not just the West; the AU, Turkey, UAE and Ethiopia decided to get violently involved.