Okay... if we consider those societies with the least worst human rights situations, would those really correspond to the ones where "the state" fears some imminent uprising? On the contrary, these are all stable democracies with relatively high confidence in institutions.
It's about the power dynamic and how it informs the relationship between the electorate and elected (or, for that matter, other hierarchical structures.) The theory is that policymakers treat people better if there are real consequences for not doing so, such as losing their elected seat. (Or more...extreme consequences.)
Another version of this would be a manager giving their unionized employees a raise because of the threat of a strike. Whether you frame it as fearing the employees or frame it as cold logic, the dynamic between a union and their boss is fundamentally different than between a single employee and their boss.
Oh I get all that, but it is boiled down to a power dynamic over fear which really isn't representative of what is going on. This adversarial view of the world probably prevents people from actual working together towards solutions. This is what I mean by cooked
Your example of a private enterprise and a union does not jive well with a government that is run by fellow citizens with the goal of serving their community.
Considering a lot of the anti-government propaganda comes private enterprise kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth. One of the biggest issues we face is regulatory capture. Business likes to control the government and then blame them for the problems they are creating.
Fear is simply the wrong way to frame this and I believe supports a bunch of unhealthy thinking that is counterproductive to solving our problems.
You talk with the other person and come to an understanding. Or both of you agree to ask another member of the community to arbitrate. Or you bring it up at the next community meeting. There are several ways to end a dispute that doesn't require a government.
The social contract goes both ways. It's the duty of the state to protect and serve the citizens and it's the duty of the citizens to ensure the state is doing so. Noblesse oblige, to be noble one must oblige or put simply power ought to be given to those who serve the people and taken from those who do not.
The constitution is just words on a paper without the threat of the people to back it up. It's up to all of us to keep the rights we can defend.
the people fearing the government is tyranny
the government fearing the people is liberty
Okay... if we consider those societies with the least worst human rights situations, would those really correspond to the ones where "the state" fears some imminent uprising? On the contrary, these are all stable democracies with relatively high confidence in institutions.
Imagine a mental framework where you are only happy when they fear you. If this is how people actually think we are cooked.
It's about the power dynamic and how it informs the relationship between the electorate and elected (or, for that matter, other hierarchical structures.) The theory is that policymakers treat people better if there are real consequences for not doing so, such as losing their elected seat. (Or more...extreme consequences.)
Another version of this would be a manager giving their unionized employees a raise because of the threat of a strike. Whether you frame it as fearing the employees or frame it as cold logic, the dynamic between a union and their boss is fundamentally different than between a single employee and their boss.
Oh I get all that, but it is boiled down to a power dynamic over fear which really isn't representative of what is going on. This adversarial view of the world probably prevents people from actual working together towards solutions. This is what I mean by cooked
Your example of a private enterprise and a union does not jive well with a government that is run by fellow citizens with the goal of serving their community.
Considering a lot of the anti-government propaganda comes private enterprise kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth. One of the biggest issues we face is regulatory capture. Business likes to control the government and then blame them for the problems they are creating.
Fear is simply the wrong way to frame this and I believe supports a bunch of unhealthy thinking that is counterproductive to solving our problems.
Instead of always having a portion of the population always living in fear, we should just stop doing states and manage things ourselves
How do you handle disputes?
You talk with the other person and come to an understanding. Or both of you agree to ask another member of the community to arbitrate. Or you bring it up at the next community meeting. There are several ways to end a dispute that doesn't require a government.
V for Vendetta - Governments Should Be Afraid Of The People
TLDW: skip to 2:00, but don't, context is good.
The social contract goes both ways. It's the duty of the state to protect and serve the citizens and it's the duty of the citizens to ensure the state is doing so. Noblesse oblige, to be noble one must oblige or put simply power ought to be given to those who serve the people and taken from those who do not.
Are you implying i don't have to be a wizard to cast a fireball?
Live your dreams.