BP wrote: I am not sure I see your point. Government policies affect the behavior of its citizens, but it also creates black markets. Wealth is only increased by production. And every rule and regulation have unintended consequences. Again, government cannot run an economy as efficiently as a free market (making decisions everyday based on wants and needs, supply and demand).
Governments influence demand, just like every enterprise influences demand. Governments happen to use coercion and propaganda to influence demand, from mandatory purchases to subsidized or favored markets to penalized markets or criminalized markets.
That is the entire point of government, right? The powerful will form governments to influence the economic activity of the humans nearby….
As for wealth being increased by production, sure. However, when the Israelites invaded the Midianites and massacred almost all of them (except for the 24,000 virgin girls they captured), what did the Israelites do with the wealth of the Midianites? Did they destroy it (like setting their fields and homes on fire)? Or, did they POSSESS that wealth?
Governments do not increase wealth, they redistribute it… and sometimes destroy it. The Israelites might have just killed one million head of livestock that the Midianite herders had accumulated. However, they seemed to favor the outcome of killing the Midianites instead and then capturing all of those livestock (plus the 24,000 virgin girls that they enslaved, plus a few thousands shekels of gold that they gathered from the Midianite nation).
Governments redistribute inventory. They destroy inventory (like when the officials of the state of Pennsylvania dumped out thousands of gallons of perfectly good milk because it was a crime to sell unpasteurized milk). Why didn’t the officials just pasteurize the milk and THEN sell it? They are not producers or sellers. They are a military operation of governing the human resources!
Governments also raise demand for various things and suppress demand for other things (like by criminalizing them or threatening to destroy all supply of that thing). When governments set prices on things (like unnaturally low prices for a grain), they are not seeking “an efficient method for resolving economic competitors.” They are imposing prices! They are putting small farmers out of business to favor the interests of the giant corporations of industrial agriculture.
In 2008, when there were major gasoline shortages in the northeast due to storms, the governments that imposed penalties on “profiteering” interfered with market forces. They removed the incentive for the private market to bring fuel to the areas. They greatly increased the severity of the crisis in those areas. Of course!
Of course they also put people on TV to make statements about how they were helping to resolve the crisis smoothly. That is just the normal lying of PR spokespeople. They are actors reading a script written by a fiction author.
As for efficiency, I do not know if a pirate ship is “more efficient” than a government naval battleship. The reality is that inequality and alliances exist.
Small kids are not as powerful as big kids. However, it is the relative lack of power that can lead to alliances and even governing institutions.
As for black markets, when I look at wolves or bees, I see only black markets. What is remarkable and strange about governments is that they create “white markets.”
As for unintended consequences, I do not mind if that is true or not. Lobbyists plan government interventions and then create propaganda campaigns to justify and promote those interventions. The alleged “intended consequences” may be entirely bullshit from the beginning.
Like Thomas Jefferson writing some inspiring words about liberty and universal human rights, then going home and f***ing his slave mistresses at gunpoint. Beware of what government-regulated professionals tell you about the governments that regulate them.
BP replied: But we do not need government. You appear to be contorting to justify government actions. You have not said one thing that changes my mind on the evil of government.
JR responded: Whether you label government evil or justified is irrelevant to me. Governments are just a group of people advancing their economic interests predictably.
I don’t care if you say that when hyenas bully a lion and steal a fresh carcass from him, that is evil and unjustified and “not needed.” The whole framework of “moral shaming” is just an exercise in the propaganda ideals that governing institutions have programmed in the masses. It is reactive denial.
Is the conspiracy to deceive children about Santa Claus effective? That is my first question. Whether you have been programmed to vilify it or glorify it could be trivia to me.
The Santa deception is once again purely economic. It advances the interests of those who indoctrinate the targeted population.
It governs the attention and behavior of the targeted population effectively. It is VERY efficient (relative to things s like only issuing bribes of compensation or threats of spanking- the Santa deception creates a huge reward pay-off plus a threat of humiliation… if Santa only fills the stocking with chunks of coal). That is why in the “open market” of parents disciplining children, the parents consistently resort to the fraud of Santa Claus (or of Saint Peter / Osiris waiting to weigh your soul at the gates of heaven).
Or, if it is not a fraud, that is still irrelevant from the perspective of predicting what the parents will do. Once they start talking to the children about how Osiris is a psychic voyeur who can keep score of how pure the thoughts of the children are, then that is a distinct economic activity from the parents thinking of Osiris privately or ending their prayers by invoking the name of the god Amun.
Once they start speaking to the children and deliberately influencing the attention of the children, then they are engaged in governing.
When they say that there is a shameful kind of behavior called lying, they are attempting to influence and dominate the children.
Anyone fluent in the Hebrew language can see the actual regulation was a prohibition against perjury under oath. The Levite caste rules over The other 11 genetic lines of the Israelites and conducts court rituals in which witnesses are called to the temple and commanded to bear witness in regard to particular matters of controversy.
There are specific penalties for “bearing false witness.” At first, these regulations were only applied by the Levites to their nation of the 12 tribes of Israelites. However, as of the time of Noah and the great flood, there was a seventh commandment added to the prior six given to Adam. The seventh commandment was to impose courts of justice (social domination) over all of humanity, whether those people were genetic Israelites or not. It was the declaration of a global government that claimed universal authority.
Also, when they say that murder is prohibited, that is not the same as prohibiting killing. Perjury and murder are invented legal categories which the Levites used to regulate and punish select individuals who had been accused of a criminalized behavior.
Of course, killing itself was not prohibited. It was merely regulated and ritualized.
When the Levites conducted a public ritual of human sacrifice, of course they killed the criminal convict. When the Israelites invaded and massacred the Midianites, that was an instance of government-endorsed killing.
Also, when children are brainwashed with moral anxieties about lying and killing, that is still an economic activity. The rulers are ruling the ruled.
When the high priest grants a pardon to Lt. Col. Oliver North for committing perjury, that is still legally valid within the rules of the system of social domination. The rulers issue a military threat to the masses that the rulers are claiming the right to penalize perjury. However, whether or not the ruling class exercises that right in a particular case is a matter of their own discretion and priorities.
So, I am not contorting to justify the behavior of governing nor contorting to vilify the behavior of governing. I am telling you that it seems quite predictable to me that hyenas will “extort tax debts” from a solitary lion who is unable to adequately fend off the hyenas. Further, all of the activities of humans governing humans are economic and predictable. In general, many governments even publish very clear declarations of the methods that they intend to use to extort wealth from and otherwise govern their targeted populations.
When the church of Scientology was able to get the IRS to back down, their “non-violent” warfare was also economic and predictable.
I presume that when the FBI’s most wanted fugitive, Marc Rich, wanted to get a pardon for his tax crimes, he strategically took action. Did his ex-wife Denise have sex with Bill Clinton and then document those activities for use as blackmail? Did Mr. Rich make massive donations to the Clinton foundation before the pardon or after the pardon or both?
Those are generally matters of trivia. Marc Rich was legally pardoned. That is the important detail practically.
The “Church” of Scientology got the IRS to back down. How they did it might be intriguing or not.
When the US department of Justice went after the diamond cartel DeBeers, either the leaders of DeBeers complied with the threats or politely told the DOJ agents that “it is in the best interests of you, your career, and your family that you lose the paperwork on this case and focus on other cases.”
Either that response was effective or not. (It was.)
So, do I justify governments? I respect the social influence of the US government… as well as organizations that routinely get the US government to back down, such as DeBeers. I also respect hurricanes and volcanoes.
I could justify my own actions and inactions. Or I might not.
But if I am not threatened by someone harassing me and trying to bully or intimidate me with threats of imprisonment or fines or torture or execution, then why would I take the time to justify anything at all? To an employer or a client, I discuss which actions are most justified, inviting their input.
When relevant, then I may consider justifications. Otherwise, I do not agonize over justification like I did when operating according to the programming of my youth.
Yet I still respect that programming. Sometimes it still may be very relevant and useful. I am not ashamed that I have been programmed to vilify certain things and glorify others.
I am not ashamed that I have been deceived through programming to prejudice me with confirmation bias. I have been programmed with biases so that I hysterically defend “familiar doctrines” and hysterically reject “potential threats to my crumbling justifications for my worship of familiar doctrines.”