The Political Thread

[Professor Bear]

120 thousand people died in the UK because of government mismanagement, and no less than the BBC said that 120 thousand extra deaths were the result of people dying "with benefits cuts", not of.  Making 100 thousand dead Americans disappear is a doddle.

[Funt Solo]

Here's a short and partial definition: "Government is a means by which organizational policies are enforced, as well as a mechanism for determining policy". That's from Wikipedia.

Well, if that's what you think government is for then that's fine.

Not to get too drawn into this, but it's not what I *think*, it's the definition of what it is. We might as well discuss re-defining the value of zero, as to try to re-define a word that already has a (consensus-driven) meaning.

[Tjm86]

We might as well discuss re-defining the value of zero, as to try to re-define a word that already has a (consensus-driven) meaning.

Ah well, that's an easy one ... after all zero can be contextual.  So it doesn't necessarily mean 'nothing' per se.

[The Legendary Shark]

Funt, if that's your preferred definition then, as I say, that's fine. I personally don't like that definition because of the reason I gave, which is why I offered a definition of my own for your consideration.

As enforcement is a part of that definition then I must assume, for the moment, that you are happy with (or at least accepting of) having government policies enforced on you. Is this an accurate assumption or am I in error?

[Funt Solo]

I don't have control over the definition of government. It is what it is. Man.

(Laws are made, and enforced. Whether I like those laws has nothing to do with the definition of what a government is and does.)

[JayzusB.Christ]

I was just thinking, when Trump said a couple of weeks ago that a vaccine was around the corner, he was lying but he may just have been right.  Even a stopped fascist sociopathic gobshite tells the right time once a term.  Too late to save his sorry, fat, loser's arse, fortunately.

[The Legendary Shark]

Okay, Funt, let's not agree on even a definition, that way we can keep on talking past one another and getting nowhere - but at least we won't have to explore our own beliefs.

[Funt Solo]

Shark, you started with wanting to define what government is. My point is that it already has a definition (that is outside our control). I don't see how you get to a disagreement from there. Anyone may wish for the definition to change over time, or to be different right now: in the former case there is hope, in the latter, none.

[The Legendary Shark]

Because, if you define government in a way that requires its imposition from above, and I define it in a way that requires individuals' consent, we're going to be starting off at cross-purposes when considering what each of us thinks government is for.

Now, if you want to first discuss the merits and otherwise of imposed government over voluntary government then I'm happy to do that as it does touch upon the question of what government is for - is it for ruling or is it for organisation; both or neither?

[Funt Solo]

I seem to be failing to get across the point, which (again) is that it's not my definition. I just quoted what seemed like a fair description of an actuality from a Wikipedia page. Here it is again:

"Government is a means by which organizational policies are enforced, as well as a mechanism for determining policy"

That's what government (of a country, or a business, for example) actually is. People who speed are given tickets. Murderers are confined. Tax avoidance is taken to court (well, unless you've found a cunning loophole). New laws are made. Old laws are rescinded. HR sends out a memo. You can see this for yourself in the same way I can see it.

Summary: I cannot engage in a fanciful entreaty to re-define something that is self-evident. You might as well ask me to re-define mountains.

[The Legendary Shark]

I'm not asking you to redefine anything. I'm simply asking that we define terms before we start, sticking to a definition we can both agree on.

Also, I'm not interested in what Wikipedia thinks in this instance, I'm interested in what you think.

[Leigh S]

Good luck with getting everyone to agree to your new Organisation method for Society there Shark,  while you are still quibbling about the definition of Government!

You have to have A system - seems to me you are (or maybe should be) more interested in the defiinition of policies than the definition of Gvt?

I'm not asking you to redefine anything. I'm simply asking that we define terms before we start, sticking to a definition we can both agree on.

Also, I'm not interested in what Wikipedia thinks in this instance, I'm interested in what you think.

[Funt Solo]

Also, I'm not interested in what Wikipedia thinks in this instance, I'm interested in what you think.

I've already told you what I think, in my previous post. It feels like maybe you want me to engage in a discussion about some other topic.

[TordelBack]

It seems pretty clear from here: Sharky believes that government's role should be limited to organisation of voluntary participants, without coercive powers over the individual, while Funt presents the conventional definition that also foregrounds organisation, but adds enforcement of regulations which is not necessarily consensual wrt each individual, although it may be so at a societal level.

The former is an aspiration, albeit based on precedent, the latter is the present case in the vast majority of situations.

That seems fairly simple, and distinct.

[Funt Solo]

Like a large oil tanker, if we wish to change course, we need to make adjustments to our current course, in order to get the behemoth to change its path. It will react slowly, as it is heavily laden and already has momentum.

So, you have to accept the oil tanker as it is before you can make changes. You cannot deny its existence. You are left with only three choices: engage with the tanker, ignore the tanker or destroy the tanker.