Woozle Hypertwin

Durham, NC, Wed, 06 Feb 2019 13:46:20 -0500

One of the primary jobs of government is (or should be) to protect the weak from the strong.

Government should never protect the strong from the weak.

(Discuss.)

government metapolitics

show all 9 comments

Isaac Kuo

Wed, 06 Feb 2019 14:36:26 -0500 from Diaspora

I think there are cases when the government should, in limited senses, protect strong individuals from weak individuals. For example, we have laws which are supposed to deter all murder (even if in practice, our system is horrifically racist).

One of the desired effects is to protect wealthy individuals from being murdered by others, no matter how weak they are.

Woozle Hypertwin

Wed, 06 Feb 2019 14:52:22 -0500

If someone can't adequately defend themselves against an attacker, I'd say that means the attacker is the stronger of the two and the rule still applies.

(In practice, though, most wealthy people can afford security far better than anything the government can afford to make publicly available.)

Isaac Kuo

Wed, 06 Feb 2019 15:07:39 -0500 from Diaspora

Most wealthy people can't afford security can't afford security better than what the government can afford. Oh sure, the tip of the pyramid spire can, but most of the 1% can't.

It's a case where private solutions are extremely inefficient and expensive compared to shared public solutions. It's like trying to fight fires on an individual apartment level compared to government regulations forcing the use of sprinklers and providing shared fire fighting services. If an apartment highrise is on fire, private firefighting services only protecting wealthy apartment residents just isn't going to work well.

Similarly, a city which is completely overwhelmed by rampant unchecked crime, except for hired thugs? Not a safe place to be, and you'll notice they're not popular places for the wealthy to live.

Woozle Hypertwin

Wed, 06 Feb 2019 15:13:20 -0500

Well... not to belabor the point (because I think my point about who is the weaker in an attack situation holds regardless), but even medium-wealthy people often live in gated communities where the level of security is a stronger deterrent to violent crime than is police presence.

That said -- sure, there are a lot of wealthy people who choose to live alongside those significantly less-well-off, and they certainly deserve protection from physically-powerful attackers.

Wed, 06 Feb 2019 16:37:03 -0500 from Diaspora

Governments always protect the strong from the weak, because the strong have the power to change the government as they see fit. The only solution is to make the strong less strong, decrease the wealth gap, and restore the middle class. Rule of law merely becomes another tool of the powerful, when there's enough inequality to rule by force.

Also stop calling them strong, when they're pitiful weaklings who have connivingly cheated and tricked everyone else into helping them. I just call them rich fucks.

Woozle Hypertwin

Wed, 06 Feb 2019 17:14:38 -0500

Well, yes, but we're talking about what its role should be.

...and I'm also looking at different types of strength, not necessarily implying virtue; wealth is a kind of strength in that it means you can coerce others to provide you with various forms of physical defense, even though it may not make you any physically stronger yourself.

Isaac Kuo

Wed, 06 Feb 2019 17:23:17 -0500 from Diaspora

Anyway, sorry for sending this discussion off to the side.

Getting to the main point...

My philosophy is that the government should address needs where addressing them via government is better than addressing them via non-governmental means. The criteria for determining where government is "better" is up for debate and refinement, but that's my overarching principle.

Sometimes, that means the best solution is some sort of universal protection net.

On a more fundamental level, I believe that the society (which includes the government as well as everything else) should serve all, and that does include the wealthy and already privileged.

Right now, the problem is that society has been generally going in the wrong direction on this since Reagan - increasingly increasing the lopsided-ness of serving the wealthy and privileged at the expense of everyone else.

Wed, 06 Feb 2019 19:37:08 -0500 from Diaspora

People who are strong don't need to exploit others to live. It's insulting that you'd try to equate a filthy rich scam artist with a doctor doing charity work in a third world country. So no, you shouldn't consider them different types of strength. One is strength of character, resolve, and compassion. The other is only stealing the strength of others. I mean I know you didn't mean to insult anyone, but I just get a really bad vibe from calling financial traders "the strong."

And as for what the government should do, you might as well say that serial killers should spend their time petting kittens instead. You're begging the question, "Why are there strong people we need to be protected from in the first place?" (because it's one of the primary jobs of government?)

Maybe I'm full of it. But it just seems fundamentally absurd, and blaming the victim to be all "Oh no, how did we ever decide to make the government protect rich people, how could we have been such bad people who are failures?" I ain't at fault that the government's corrupt, because it's impossible for government not to be corrupt in the presence of a massive wealth disparity. Telling yourself you "should" fix it is just wallowing in guilt, and focusing on the wrong problem.

Woozle Hypertwin

Sun, 10 Feb 2019 10:33:15 -0500

Cy: I think you're using a different definition of "strong" than I was/am. Perhaps "powerful" gets my point across better? ...as in "One of the primary jobs of government is (or should be) to protect the disempowered from the powerful."

When I say "should", I'm talking about goals for redesigning how it works, not guilting anyone.

We agree about wealth disparity being the root of the problem.

Woozle Hypertwin

woozle@hub.toot.cat