Woozle Hypertwin - woozle@hub.toot.cat

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 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.