Basically, the ordinary way to have political power is to organize groups of armed young men to fight for you. So, it seems entirely logical that the Founding Fathers wrote freedom of speech into the first amendment, and the right to bear arms into the second. Without at least the credible threat of violence, you can't force the government to do anything. But how will you threaten them if you're unable to organize, or if you are unarmed? And even if it doesn't get to the point of violence, how are you going to get support for an idea if you're unable to freely express arguments in favor of the idea? It is clear from this line of reasoning that freedom of speech is actually a political issue. Without freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, and without arms, you have no political power.

Libertarians often criticize government because it has a monopoly on violence. I think that's kind of the whole benefit of government, however. It is true that government is compulsory, and that it's generally incompetent. But in the case of choosing between the government and protecting myself from robbers without help from the government, there would have to be a very incompetent or malicious government in order for me to prefer facing the robber alone over having to pay taxes (it is actually getting to that point for me, but I'm not opposed to government in principle). I think the main benefit of government to individuals is that it has a monopoly on violence, which very likely means less violence overall.

I think the primary job of government is to limit freedom of action in zero-sum games (such as in murder or theft). Assuming that people are self-interested, and you stop them from competing in ways that are harmful to other people, then you don't need to know any of the details to know that the net effect is positive. This is probably why it became ubiquitous for governments to punish criminals, fend off foreign invasion, and not much else.

Pluses and minuses of different forms of government

Direct Democracy: By definition, it's not possible for a direct democracy to implement a policy which 51% of the people would be opposed to.

Limited Ruling Class (Aristocracy, Oligarchy, Republic, etc): If the ruling class has higher average political wisdom than the general population (such as by having higher IQ, or better education), then the government can implement wiser policies than would be possible in a direct democracy.

Monarchy: Monarchy is a simple and natural form of government. It is simple, because what is simpler than, "Person X is in charge"? It is natural, because power struggles tend to be unstable by nature, so that power becomes concentrated. The power being in the hands of 1 person is the natural result of power concentrating with time. Monarchy also has good incentives. The power and prestige of a monarch is the same as the power and prestige of his country. He is the owner of his country, whereas a president is a temporary guardian of an estate which he has no ownership in. The monarch is above bribery (what can you bribe him with that's worth more than the whole country?). The policies of a nation also tend to be stable over the life of a monarch. The line of succession is also usually clear in a monarchy, which reduces the frequency of civil wars.

The only downsides I can think of to monarchy are that it's arbitrary (why does having a great great grand dad who was awesome mean that you should be king?), and that in the case of having a bad monarch, the only remedy is rebellion.

Given the pluses and minuses of monarchy, it seems reasonable to me that it has been by far the most common form of government historically, but that dynasties do tend to get conquered from time to time and replaced by other dynasties.

Net Tax Payer Voting System: By definition, in a net tax payer voting system, it's not possible for 51% of the taxes to be involuntary. If 51% of the tax payers thought their taxes were too high, then they would vote to lower their taxes.

Military Service Prerequisite to Political Positions: This means, at least, that whoever is making decisions is not totally ignorant of military matters.

I understand that senators in Rome usually had military service. This has also been common for US presidents. Prussia, it was said, was a military with a state. Note that all these examples also performed very well militarily. It seems reasonable that governments with some connection to the military will tend to run their military better than those that don't.


It occurred to me while mulling over the net tax payer voting system, that a cryptocurrency with internal governance could be used to implement it (example are Cardano and Internet Computer Protocol). The government of a country could make a deal with some block chain (or a fork or derivative of some block chain), "If you vote to give us a 5% tax (or some other negotiated percent) on transaction fees and staking rewards, we will make your cryptocurrency the legal tender, so that all merchants have to accept it." This might be beneficial for both parties. The government would get voluntary taxes, and the government support would probably pump the bags of crypto holders. Because it's crypto, the vote could neither be rigged nor ignored. Whatever the results of the vote were would be automatically implemented, even if the government didn't like it. The government would be incentivized to try to protect the blockchain, and to convince tax payers and stake holders to increase taxes, hopefully at least partially by finding useful things to do with tax money. It seems reasonable to me that a majority of merchants might agree, "It is worth it to pay a 5% tax in exchange for having police, military, and a court system." But if there was something they didn't like, they could theoretically defund the government.

Currently, Cardano and ICP are run by stake holders. But it would make sense to tax transactions, which would be paid by merchants (such as by Walmart, if we were to transition to a crypto system). So, the block chain may want to create a special governance system just for taxes. It would seem fair to me if they hard-coded it so that the staking tax rate was always equal to the tax rate on transactions (or some fixed ratio), and gave everyone who paid taxes a vote on tax rates proportional to the amount of taxes paid. They might make the voting power decay with time, such that (perhaps) a dollar paid in taxes last year is as good as $0.50 this year. But the stake holders should retain all other voting privileges, because Walmart knows nothing about the governance of something like Cardano.

So, these thoughts lead me to the idea that it would be neat to have a government where military service was a prerequisite to having political power, but where the tax system was created bottom-up by tax payers through a crypto governance system. That way, the people with military experience would be the ones deciding what to do with the military, the people paying taxes would be the ones deciding how much they should get taxed, and the people who understood how money worked (they created a block chain and run it) get to print the money.

It seems reasonable to me that the only unique political idea I actually came up with was related to crypto. This is because crypto is new. People have been trying to run governments for a long time, and as I argue here, politics is a very difficult problem.

All else being equal, those who don't seek power will tend to have less of it than those who do. — Brendan Golledge

What if none of us sought power? Is that a possibility in the near future, say, three generations?

I believe it's often fear of what other governments might do that keep governments from becoming totally tyrannical, corrupt, and incompetent. — Brendan Golledge

I think that it's far more that the people working for the government want to serve well and the people that are governed themselves either accept or not the government. People who have some job usually want to do it well, those working in the public sector aren't different from others. Outside governments rarely check on the doings of other states or then there has to be dramatic violations from the ordinary.

Corruption and autocracy is something that people simply adapt to, it becomes "the way how things are", the "way of the land".

. In practice, all governments are rule by men. — Brendan Golledge

Don't generalize the US reality to the World. Women can have a considerable role.

Share of women in the US Senate: 25%
Share of women in the House of Representatives (US): 29%
Share of women in the Danish Parliament: 45,3%
Share of women in the Finnish Parliament: 46%
Share of women in the Swedish Parliament: 46,4%
Share of women in Mexican Congress: 50%

How are you going to force 100% of the population to be uninterested in power? If even 1% decided to be jerks and abuse everybody else, then there would still be problems exactly like today.

I believe that there are bureaucrats who take their job seriously, and that there have even been absolute monarchs in the past who believed that they were accountable to God. But it is a fact that being on top of the hierarchy means that there's nobody to stop you if you want to be a jerk. And I believe that a large percentage of people would be jerks if they had the chance, and that they have been jerks, are being jerks, and will be jerks.

And I was using "men" in the old way to refer to people in general. I wasn't considering the issue of female representation in politics, although it is a historical fact that usually male humans held political power. You can see an example here from the King James Version of the Bible how "man" is sometimes used to mean people in general, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." This sentence makes no sense if "man" is means only "male human". JRR Tolkien does the same things in his books; he refers to humankind as, "men", as distinct from elves and dwarves.

JRR Tolkien does the same things in his books; he refers to humankind as, "men", as distinct from elves and dwarves. — Brendan Golledge

Yes, because that is how people spoke during the Middle Ages, they used the word "men" as a synonym of "human", as you have pointed out. But Tolkien did this for Aesthetic and artistic reasons (i.e., he was trying to evoke "medievalism" through language itself), not because he was a misogynist. After all, it was Éowyn, in full plate armor, who delivered the killing blow to the Witch-King of Angmar, Lord of the Nazgûl. And she was able to do this because no "man" (male) could do so, only a woman had the power to kill the leader of the Nine Corrupted Men.

How are you going to force 100% of the population to be uninterested in power? — Brendan Golledge

What about using education, value-based upbringing, and community engagement? I'm not saying it's going to be easy, but consider how most of the world has become highly consumerist in just a few generations due to deep marketing. Why wouldn't a similar approach work for a noble purpose, rather than just serving selfish or superficial goals?

Over the last century, the use frequency of "men", "women", "human", and "people" in print has changed quite a bit.

In 1922 the most common collective term was "men" with "people" a close second. "human" and "women" trailed behind in close third and fourth place. In 2022, "people" was far and away the most common collective term, while "human", "men", and "women" trailed in close second, third, and fourth place.

"Men" as the preferred collective term prevailed long after the medieval period--into the 20th century. We can say that today, "people" is the preferred collective term -- much more so than human, men, or women.

This information is from Google N-Gram.

"Men" as the preferred collective term prevailed long after the medieval period--into the 20th century. — BC

Of course it did. All I'm saying is that Tolkien was aware of that, and he made the decision to use the word "men" in Lord of the Rings anyways. Because he did it for other reasons, such as evoking "medievalism" through language itself. He was not a misogynist, or at least he wasn't as misogynist as the average person of his generation.

We can say that today, "people" is the preferred collective term -- much more so than human, men, or women. — BC

"Folks" is also a term that has been used for a long time, and people still use it to this day.

EDIT: As anyone can see, "folks" is much less used than the other terms, and arguably always has. But that doesn't mean that it's somehow a less "worthy" word that the word "people".

Interesting point about Tolkien: Roughly 80% of the words in the Lord of the Rings trilogy are Anglo-Saxon words that make up the 'core' of English. Around 20% are derived from the French of the Norman conquest. The mostly short, common words in the core make the text easy to read, very accessible, and distinctly flavored.

If one wants to produce a text that will be equally easy to read and as accessible, one can use this set of a few thousand words. Allowing short common words derived from French makes it a little easier to write more complex text.

Of course, Tolkien also utilized the social structures of a folk-tale past, in which were wizards, orcs, elves, demons like Sauron. and witch kings. I've read LOTR maybe 10 times, and read some of his other books (like the Silmarillion). At this point in my life, I probably won't read him again, but he never became tiresome or stale.

I also will not go through the dictionary again looking for common and obscure Anglo-Saxon words. When I did that, the Internet didn't exist yet. Today one can find word lists like that.

Sorry, @Brendan Golledge for distracting from your worthwhile OP.

Men are mortal. — Brendan Golledge

True. Looking down the barrel at my own mortality. And at this point, there seem to be insoluble political problems stacked up like cord wood. I attribute these plentiful insolubles to the facts of our primate heritage: On one hand, we have this big brain which is capable of complex thought. On the other hand the brain also runs a powerful, and generally none too rational emotional operation. Who's running the show -- the prefrontal cortex or the limbic system? Seems like the limbic system is, as often as not, in charge.

True. Looking down the barrel at my own mortality. And at this point, there seem to be insoluble political problems stacked up like cord wood. I attribute these plentiful insolubles to the facts of our primate heritage: On one hand, we have this big brain which is capable of complex thought. On the other hand the brain also runs a powerful, and generally none too rational emotional operation. Who's running the show -- the prefrontal cortex or the limbic system? Seems like the limbic system is, as often as not, in charge. — BC

This is very interesting and illuminating, it's probably in the top 10 smartest things I've ever heard (yes, really). Can you please elaborate on this point?

I could elaborate, but if I did, I would spoil the good impression I made on you. Besides, it's highly unoriginal. It's just pieces I picked up elsewhere.

Like some insightful person summed up: Copernicus showed that we are not the center of the universe; Darwin revealed that we are descendants of apes; and Freud tells us that we are not even masters of our own houses. If that wasn't enough, biologists keep finding examples of other animals capable of thinking. Our machines might out-maneuver us.

Like some insightful person summed up: Copernicus showed that we are not the center of the universe; Darwin revealed that we are descendants of apes; and Freud tells us that we are not even masters of our own houses. — BC

I've heard that story, a few of my professors used to say that when I was a student at the Uni, but if I'm not mistaken it was Freud himself who said that. And given his psychoanalytic ideas on narcissism, I'm not sure if I can seriously believe Freud when he compares himself to Copernicus and Darwin. They, unlike Freud, were scientists. Freud was a pseudo-scientist, in Mario Bunge's sense of the term "pseudo-science".

In that regard, the idea that "we are not even masters of our own houses" is something that can be more accurately explained by cognitive neuroscience, not psychoanalysis.

True enough, cognitive neuroscience has much more explanatory power than psychoanalysis does. However, Freud (born in 1856, died in 1939) predates cognitive neuroscience. "Psychology" as an academic field had barely gotten off the ground when Freud was busy cooking up baloney.

I don't know WHO came up with the Copernicus/Darwin/Freud quote, but I don't think it was Sigmund Freud--I'm pretty sure the quote jelled well after Freud's death. It is the case, however, that Freud was quite pessimistic; he didn't think that happiness was in the cards for us. His psychoanalytic theory (such as it is) doesn't lead one towards optimism.

EDIT: You might like knowing that one of the founders of modern propaganda and public relations was Signund Freud's nephew -- Edward Bernays.

EDIT: You might like knowing that one of the founders of modern propaganda and public relations was Signund Freud's nephew -- Edward Bernays. — BC

Sure. Psychology in general, not just psychoanalysis, has some rather dark episodes in its history. I think that the good ol' behaviorists were the worst offenders in that sense. Watson worked for cigarette companies, giving them marketing advice from the point of view of a professional psychologist that focuses on people's behavioral habits. Skinner had a plan for the U.S. military, which was essentially a proposal to construct pigeon-guided missiles, after properly training the pigeons in a behaviorist fashion. Luckily, that project was not approved.

EDIT: the wiki for Project Pigeon

a proposal to construct pigeon-guided missiles — Arcane Sandwich

Very steam punk! Big steam engines driving a missile with a flock of pigeons in the nose cone pecking away.

Walden Two is Skinner's utopian novel / science fiction (depending on how you feel). When I was much younger and encountering Skinner I found behaviorism somewhat repellent. Skinner didn't believe we had free will. I used to think we did. It seems like we do because there are too many behavioral determinants to even begin keeping track of. Now the idea of not having free will seems like a commonplace.

(Nobody has free will except me and thee, and even thee seems a bit influenced by external factors.)

Maybe behaviorism isn't warm and fuzzy, but there is a lot less bullshit in it than Freudianism or Jungianism.

I think there's free will. My philosophical hero, Mario Bunge, argues for it, and he shows why the concept of free will is not incompatible with modern science.

Classical behaviorism is definitely dark stuff, more so than psychoanalysis, I would argue. Luckily, both of them are relatively obsolete nowadays. Cognitive neuroscience is "where it's at" as far as psychology is concerned, IMHO.

@Brendan Golledge @Arcane Sandwich - settle down please.

Sure thing, my apologies.

The OP is Parochial Drivel.

Folk who cooperate will always be better off than those who do not. The myth of masculine competition is talk amongst the boys around the camp fire; it keeps them out of the way while everyone else gets on with making things work.

Here's the first three sentences:

Humans have material bodies with material needs. So, the material is the most immediate cause of everything that happens. Therefore, if a person has the power to kill you, he has power over you to make you do anything, up until the point where you'd rather die. — Brendan Golledge

Read that again to yourself, slowly. It's not an argument, not a sequence of ideas that follow one from the other. It's a sequence of assertions, with an illegitimate "therefore" thrown in, presumably as a pretence to rationality.

Humans have minds as well as material bodies. Nor does it follow, from our bodies being material, that most of the causes of our actions are material; that we have minds implies instead that at least some of our actions are chosen rather than caused by our material circumstances. That's what a mind does.

Then there is the odd jump to violence. And the post goes down hill from there.

Hence, drivel.

Parochial, becasue the view taken is yet again the American Myth, this time in its libertarian variation, the Robert Heinlein Republican machismo. It's self-justification when what is needed is self reflection.

You're another moron who replies to my threads... — Brendan Golledge

I'll agree that replying to your thread is moronic. Better things to do.

Cheers.

↪Banno
You're another moron who replies to my threads in order to argue against fantasies in your own mind which have nothing to do with anything I ever said or thought. — Brendan Golledge

That's a fallacy. Specifically, an ad hominem fallacy. If a moron says that 2 + 2 = 4, and you say "that's false because you're a moron", then the person who is wrong is you, not the moron, however moronic he may or may not be.

See https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/950033

Yup, it's trollish behavior.