Is government stupid or evil?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 дек 2023
- "I think it's frequently a mixture of malice and incompetence," Reason's Liz Wolfe says during her and Zach Weissmueller's recent interview with podcaster Dave Smith.
Watch the full replay of the first episode of Zach and Liz's new podcast, Just Asking Questions: • What is a libertarian?...
Subscribe to the Just Asking Questions podcast:
RUclips Music: • Just Asking Questions
Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/5SpySKA...
![Kehlani - Next 2 U [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MpI7ekFG8A0/mqdefault.jpg)
stupid and evil are not mutually exclusive, the government is both.
Exactly.
They're evil BECAUSE they're stupid, and lucky for us they are as incompetent as they are--otherwise they'd accomplish MORE evil.
Agree
The higher up you go, the more intentional and malicious it becomes.
and there's lot higher than the clowns they show us called government.
We must never forget when they coerced the children for use as shields to temporarily and marginally "protect" adults.
Yes truly despicable
"Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber."
Being stupid and being evil are _not_ mutually exclusive. The very concept of government is inherently BOTH simultaneously
Agree. However, stupid evil is not as dangerous as genius evil.
@Toolgdskli
No, it is worse. An evil genius knows they are evil. Stupid evil people do not know they are evil and think instead that they are going good.
@@jfangm Joe is stupid and evil. I'm sure he knows that he is evil although I am not sure if he knows that he is stupid.
@@jfangm As John said in Anna Sewell's Black Beauty:
"Only ignorance! only ignorance! how can you talk about only ignorance? Don't you know that it is the worst thing in the world, next to wickedness?-and which does the most mischief heaven only knows. If people can say, 'Oh! I did not know, I did not mean any harm,' they think it is all right. I suppose Martha Mulwash did not mean to kill that baby when she dosed it with Dalby and soothing syrups; but she did kill it, and was tried for manslaughter."
@@MollyOKami
"That wasn't my intent" was a former friend's favorite excuse when she got called out for her abusive or controlling behavior.
The concise answer is.......yes.
Even if you get an ethical politician in office, in the present state, the corruption and incompetence of the people around them would drive such a person out.
The fact that most, if any, politicians don’t call out this stuff on a regular basis means that they are all complicit
Exactly! We should judge them by their actions and their inaction.
Evil is always Stupid in the end.
So true. thank you for speaking up. We obviously need it now more than ever before.
speling
I’d say on a the local level, it’s more incompetence, and then as you move more towards the federal level, there’s much more malice involved
Thanks for continues updates! I am super excited about how my investments is going so far, making over $46k every week is an amazing gain
The crypto market is highly profitable with an expert broker just like Mrs Janis Claire morin.. I got recommended to her and since then my financial life has been a success
Same here, with my total portfolio of $106,400 made from my investments with Mrs Janis Claire Morin's trading platform, I'm totally convinced she's the best expert advicer I have worked with and her strategies are magical, she's such a blessing to me especially in this current dip
Awesome Remarks is all I have read and heard about Expert Ms Janis Claire morin for a while now. I will approach her with my £4,000 to see how it goes...
Fucking hilarious
Awful. You guys keep coming up with new variations on your spam. Your spam used to be a standalone comment of "how happy I am to to making $50,000 a month with my investments" followed by several comments with a different user name pointing out a specific person that made the investments a success.
"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." Thomas Paine
I'm with Dave on this one. They needed to make a distinction between boring middle class bureaucrats and higher level politicians. The higher level politicians are permeated by bad people.
No, they're all evil.
Doesnt matter, the end result is too destructive for the distinction between stupid or evil to matter, they dont belong in government regardless. Its hard to believe incompetence since the buttered toast always lands butter side down, but their intentions dont matter when it causes suffering.
The answer is “yes”
If you would say they're not evil because they're just selfish, greedy, inconsiderate, biased, willfully ignorant, and with a total disregard for the welfare of the nation, then that is more than a little borderline evil, since all of that is sinful in itself.
Yeah, if their motivation is self interest, then it's evil.
I have personally encountered people who are part of the Federal beauracracy who are in intentionally malicious, but also who are so wildly incompetent that it I would not have believed it could be real had I not actually encountered them. The thing is Gov jobs draws both of those; the evil ones want the unaccountable power, while the incompetent ones are drawn to the unbelievable job security, since they would be fired for incompetence in the private sector, even a Union job. People who are not sociopathic or incompetent are generally happier working a private job instead.
I always figured that if I ran for office, my slogan would be "Hey, I can't be any worse."
Dave is a reasonable guy with a gift for communicating. I hope he continues to be out there doing what he does.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity
And on the flipside
Always attribute to malice that which cannot be explained by stupidity
I think the correct, full quote (which has an important subtlety that changes the meaning) is "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule it out."
It's pretty clear that it's mostly malicious 😅
Not necessarily malicious, but certainly and almost always self-serving. They (the rich and powerful) help each other at the taxpayer's expense.
@@donwold1622Agreed. I don’t think their primary goal is to hurt people, rather they just couldn’t care if they do on the way to achieving whatever their goal might be (usually the consolidation of power and enriching their friends).
There’s the evil ones that lead parties and then the stupid ones that think because the party leaders are popular they must be right
@@donwold1622I’m not sure it matters. The outcomes are the same and therefore we should see and behave towards the government according to the outcomes of their policies.
@@YegRon That's the same basis for Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, no? Everyone will act in their own self interest, not that of society. To expect more is our failure.
-bZj
"Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Sometimes it's both though.
Never ascribe to malice or stupidity that which can be adequately explained by both.
Seeing a lot of lack of adequacy for stupidity being an explanation...
I used to think this was a good rule of thumb too, but it seems to be used most often to calm people down. People who are rightfully angry and motivated to make change will hear this and it makes them feel better. And that makes them put up with the tyranny just a little more all the time. If seeing it as malice is what it will take to fire people up enough do what has to be done to to make changes, then I’m fine with ascribing everything to malice. The outcomes are the same! But for some reason people take it easy or are more forgiving when you tell them it’s not malice and it’s just incompetence/ignorance. So screw that! It’s malice if that’s what it needs to be to wake people up, to anger them enough to act, to make the necessary sacrifices to stop the tyranny.
"Evil" and "stupid" are both too simple. Self-interested AND under-informed describes the ENTIRE human race; which is why centralized authority must be avoided at all costs.
They’re not stupid at all.
It’s pure evil.
It’s definitely malice, incompetence couldn’t possibly cause this much harm in every single instance.
Right? Stupidity would create noise, not systematic signal.
Exactly! I think this discussion is actually a waste of time. I’d say that whatever people need to see it as to get them to a point where they’re willing to do ANYTHING to stop it, then just call it that. If malice makes people more likely to fight back then malice it is!
Stupid and evil are not mutually exclusive.
I have long been interested in an IQ test for politicians to be able to run for office. But perhaps we also need an 'EQ' test as well. There has to be a way to weed out politicians & technocrats who intentionally use public hysteria for government expansion. Perhaps even a test that quizzes politicians on their ability to explain free market economics as well. Because presently, democracy is just a popularity contest. And all the voters are like school children who want grape soda in the water fountain.
They will just buy off or rig the tests. In theory it’s nice but the only way is for people to get more involved and actually know who they are voting for.
whether one seeks rulership or not IS the test.
IQ has nothing to do with being decent. Average IQ would probably be more benevolent.
@@ruthlessreid9172 IQ is needed for difficult tasks. A personality test (the big 5) would be a good addition.
This is an interesting conversation.
We need more conversations like this. Thank you.
I agree, great convo
Porque no los dos?
When dealing with a bureaucracy, always assume incompetence until evidence points in another direction.
I think the incentives argument is also practical. For example, politicians are pressured by their party to raise $. The prestigious committee appointments are reserved for the high earners. And the lobbyists fund the politicians. Just breaking that system would remove a tremendous influence that corrodes all but the most idealist of politicians. (Without changing the structure)
How does that system get broken without changing the structure?
Unless you get rid of the committees and their leadership totally (thus changing the structure), *someone* is going be picking who gets those prime spots. That is inherently valuable, and can be exploited. Even if you somehow break the current system of exploiting it, you've now just got a power vacuum, and that power vacuum will be filled soon - there are just too many perverse incentives to keep out the opportunists for long.
@@steve470 yes, agreed. model-wise, right now we have a pyramid. but a free world works like a kaleidoscopic mandala. this is why we must REMOVE THE RULING BLOODINES. all orders come from the top. it's time the people learn that ALL rulership is illegitimate. the individual is sovereign, and consequences, both good and bad, come naturally.
some top families:
f a r n e s e
r o t h s c h i l d
o r s i n i
m e d i c i
w a r b u r g
inbred, papal lines and banking dynasties. oh, and don't forget the r o y a l s, who serve the p o p e.
Exactly! It’s really this simple: corruption is legal. We need to make it illegal and we need to enforce the laws. That’s it.
@@joleaneshmoleane8358 no. it's not corruption. the system is doing *exactly* what it was designed to do.
those who make laws don't have to follow them. that's how rulership works. what we need is to REMOVE THE RULING BLOODLINES completely. we need to be free to serve justice, as victims, to perpetrators. THAT is the only way that we will stop institutionalized scummy.
no state system of any kind will ever benefit us in any way.
The problem with politicians in the Democratic and Republican Party is they are owned by the large donors. It takes alot of money to get voted in and to stay there. Power is held by practically 1 party.
It is great to see presenters siting correctly.
The only reason someone would WANT a political leadership position is because that person WANTS to have control other people. Yes they do sometimes make stupid mistakes, but all their decisions come from a place of entitlement to power.
Ironically though, the only way in which one could dismantle the power and control over other people is to seek a political leadership position so that they have the power to do exactly that. Therefore, I would argue it technically matters what they intend to do with that power.
I suppose it is kinda like Aladdin, he used his third and final wish to free the genie rather than use it for himself. He used the power, to remove the power with legitimacy that would be immediately recognized and could not be revoked.
So I guess we have our answer- Aladdin 2024: Free The Genie! 😉
@@austincummins7712 This is what makes politicians like Ronald Reagan so incredibly unusual: he sought power in the government so that he could make the government less powerful.
if Malice ran the government we'd have much less of a problem
...oh, lowercase "m"
I don't always agree wirh Dave but his honesty is unmatched. Guys a class act.
That’s easy it’s Evil, the stupidity you see is performative.
Gov is not Love
Transparency and capitol punishment for violating your position
Have Liz and Zach got their boosters yet ? I'm pretty sure both were "highly compliant" during the pandemic.
It has been interesting to watch the Reason folks change their stance on the vax over time.
@@BrapBang They've had the right stance on the lockdowns... But on efficacy ? No.
Compromise that doesn’t stand on truth is still damaging.
Unaccountable power which requires no consent is an evil structure
Both?
🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES:
SOCIALISM (and its more extreme form, communism) is intrinsically evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is both a theoretical and a practical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system and therefore independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a relatively small number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him inordinate wealth.
Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”.
The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon.
DEMOCRACY is almost as evil, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will overwhelmingly vote for the candidate which promises to fulfil their inane desires, rather than one which will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law, morality, and ethics, currently available.
Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters - he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest).
The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler - they are most assuredly not. Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, healthy, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in righteous living (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), not in facts and figures or in technical training. Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate to wisdom. No socialist or democratic government will educate its citizens sufficiently well that the citizens have the knowledge of how to usurp their rule.
To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”.
It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. In fact, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”.
The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries.
Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly run without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists' distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”.
Most of the problems in human society are directly or indirectly attributable to this relatively modern phenomenon (non-monarchies), since it is the government’s role and sacred DUTY to enforce the law (see Chapter 12), and non-monarchical governments are themselves unlawful.
One of the many sinister characteristics of democracy, socialism, and other evil forms of governance, is the desire for their so-called “leaders” to control, or at least influence, the private lives of every single citizen (hence the term “Nanny State”). For example, in the wicked, decadent nations in which this holy scripture was composed, The Philippine Islands and The Southland (or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue), the DEMONIC governments try, and largely succeed, in controlling the rights of parents to properly raise, discipline and punish their children according to their own morals, compulsory vaccination of infants, enforcing feminist ideology, limiting legitimate powers an employer has over his servants, subsidizing animal agriculture, persecuting religious leaders (even to imprisonment and death, believe it or not. Personally, I have been jailed thrice for executing God’s perfect and pure will), and even trying to negatively influence what people eat and wear.
Not that a government shouldn’t control what its citizens wear in public, but it should ensure that they are MODESTLY dressed, according to the guidelines outlined in Chapter 28, which is hardly the case in Australia, the Philippines, and similar nations. At least ninety-nine per cent of Filipinas, for instance, are transvestinal, despite Philippines pretending to be a religious nation.
Cont...
There was so much interesting stuff here and then...
Crap. Just a bunch of crap, man.
@@LG-pt5kt, do you have any ACTUAL arguments to counter my perfect and pure pronouncements/teachings, or do you intend to simply make nonsensical assertions, or even more inane, make “ad hominem” attacks, Silly Sinful Slave? 🙄
Self interest vs incompetent is another good dichotomy to compare.
You don't have to do evil to fail in that direction while seeking only your own interests.
Answer: Yes
Right on Zach: incentives matter.
I'm still amazed every day that anyone listens to or takes Dave Smith Seriously.
I would argue stupid is a form of evil
Dietrich Bonhoeffer certainly agreed with you. He viewed stupidity- the deliberate ignoring of reality- as being a moral and not intellectual fault.
@@va3svd good to know that at least one person agrees with me
No. The right doesn’t want just a virtuous leader. We want to go back to the constitution and there to be little to no federal government. The problem is the establishment and the people in it. The problem is government.
@@PseudeaEpimetheus
I just don’t get that strategy by the Democrats. For one person that has student loan debt. Now you probably have 10 or 20 that paid their student loans and are like what the fuck?
Also, here’s the crazy thing. From what I understand they’re going to give people the money not go to The Lender and give The Lender $10,000. And Paul these people say they’re going to spend the money on other shit. They’re not gonna pay down their loans. It’s straight up buying votes!
Yeah, I felt like his characterization of "the populist right" as seeking to install a virtuous leader is just not quite accurate. There certainly are people who feel that way, but I don't think that is the majority. They have seen what the current power structure has done, and they have seen the timeline of that power being used by all parties and ideologies abusively. They want the cancerous, metastasized components of this government dissolved completely, not put to use for their own benefit.
I tend to stay open minded and analyze each individual and situation on its own merit but I cant help thinking about the known prevalence of sociopathic behaviors in executive leadership. Institutions can often draw bad people and corrupt good ones with perverse incentives. I think our government might be as bad or worse as corporate America, and thats assuming those are still separate things which is a debated issue.
Evil. Stupid doesn’t go out of its way to cause chaos.
Thinking of a country as if it were a body comprised of complex systems and an immune system that has to deal with threats and imbalances while striving toward stasis might be more helpful than thinking we can create a robotic system that will run perfectly if we just find the 'correct' algorithms. Stasis is a great goal, but stasis isn't a sustainable thing. There's constant flux. We are gonna at times end up at the extremes, i.e. a dangerous invading virus has driven us to suffer through a high fever and a purging sweat. We should be pursuing balance and excellence, not utopian perfection. Not all problems are solvable. Some things just are. The fact that we are in a constant struggle is just the way things are, and that's not a bad thing. It's the demonizing of conflict and struggle that are more of a problem than the conflict and struggle themselves.
Your saying the government exists?!?! Its not an amalgamation of "non-aggression"? You sir are far too reasonable to be a reasontv libertarian.
But for real "libertarianism" how they talk about it is exactly a virus to the state. But they have no self reflection of their own evil and incompetence.
I like Dave btw. He's an embarrassed conservative grifting off his libertarian image. This shows he understands politics.
It's malice, because they wouldn't do it, if they faced the consequences.
Why not both!?
Using a political power position, for monetary enrichment, is a crime. Making that, and prosecutions, immediately clear is a necessity. Dave is emotionally involved when REASON is the answer.
I like Reason. I like Dave Smith. I like the Mises Institute. I like Cato. No one should expect that all the people affiliated with these organizations or their libertarian-leaning views are in lock step or will never say something stupid. The movement is damaged by trivial and petty bickering. It shouldn’t be an argument about personalities that favor Rothbard vs. Hayek vs. Ayn Rand or populists against beltway-libertarians. Sure, talk about substance and philosophy. I just wish all these people would stop needling each other with ad hominem attacks and name calling. I support the bottom line philosophy shared by all - free minds and free markets, no free lunch.
This is a great clip and interview. Thanks to Reason and Dave.
The Soviet Union would always have a Stalin. The system selects for it.
And trying to explain to an extremist of either stripe just makes me want to pull my hair out. I'll be sharing this.
Yes.
Stupid and evil are not mutually exclusive. Government is and has been both
Yes
"Is it too much to ask for both" - Tony Stark
Regarding this whole "evil vs stupid" discussion and the differences between Zach and Dave, I think you were just talking past each other a bit. Dave is noticing the apparent malevolence (or as I describe it "self-interest empowered on a grand scale") as a pattern or end-result, and Zach is pointing out that the malevolence is not some inherent attribute of the government but is an observable symptom of the incentive structure (i.e. government != malevolence but rather government + flawed incentive structure = malevolence). In other words, the people in government do not inherently have malicious intentions, but one can argue that the incentive structure creates behavior that one might deem malevolent. I think the term "evil" is a stretch, but I understand what people mean when they use it here. The "evil" in this case is the pursuit of ones self-interest (in the guise of public interest or public service) empowered on a grand scale through government force and the resulting disregard or indifference to the citizens that it harms. I can understand how such a betrayal of public service might be deemed evil by some, especially in light of our founding principles and what our government was envisioned to be.
Regarding the comments about the populist notion of the "deep state" (or the original term was "dual state"), it is not a shadowy cabal of evil elites making decisions in back rooms or at Bohemian Grove (nor do I think most people believe that). It is a collection of permanent executive agencies and departments with semi-permanent, unelected actors which has slowly increased in size and power over the decades- mostly organically but sometimes intentionally. The incentive structure is very simple- they were put in place to "pursue American interests" and provide a mechanism for efficient transition of those interests to future administrations (wherein "American interests" is often synonymous with simply "the interests of those in power"). The result is a power structure within the state that is largely insulated from elections and preserves the interests of what we commonly refer to as "the establishment". It does not require "conspiracy" or evil intention to explain its origin, but it does have an interest in self-preservation which makes it organically behave as if it were a coordinated body of directed individuals (a "conspiracy" as it were). As Zach and Dave both said, it is a mistake to think that we just need to get these people out of power and replace them with "good people" (although cleaning these people out is a necessary first step). It requires, at a minimum, the restructuring of these institutions to eliminate the moral hazard and incentive structures in play. More than likely, it requires changes to the constitution to prevent such executive power abuses from metastasizing again in the future. Beyond that, we can quibble about how much of the issue stems from the constitution and representative government itself. I would argue that it is impossible to eliminate such incentive structures from a representative government, though I do not have a better idea to replace it with (perhaps the WWMMD or 'what would Michael Malice do?' is a starting point). At the end of the day, I don't think it matters, because the self-preservation instinct is so strong with the current structure that it would be extremely unlikely to marshal enough coordinated and unified interest in the citizens that we could change it (via the power structure's own defined legal mechanisms to make such changes) without it being rejected outright or [more likely] without preemptively being thwarted through infighting and fragmentation (which the current power structure will endeavor to cause).
Corruption is legal in America. We need to make it illegal. And then we need to enforce those laws. It’s that simple. The reason we have corruption is because we’ve made it legal. We’ve made it legal to buy politicians. We should simply make that illegal. Make it impossible.
Option C: "both."
Stupidity causes 10-100X more damage than evil.
"I like to invite guests on my show so they can listen to me talk" -- Dave Smith, probably
y'all are all too young to know this, but once upon a time only paper bags were used at grocery stores, and environmentalists complained we were cutting down all the trees and needed plastic bags to save the world. Fast forward about 40 years and now they are calling for plastic bags to be replaced with paper bags to save the environment
Have to agree heavily with the conversation segment starting with Hillary
Some of each, some are just greedy.
Evil and stupid, in that order.
I don't think I've ever heard Dave Smith say something i disagree with and your can tell when someone is trying to be ambiguous to avoid being dishonest and i don't think he's doing that
It’s not “structural”, it’s a result of Citizen’s United.
Reformulation of the question: Most people who enter government prefer coercive MEANS to voluntary means to accomplish objectives. Stalin may had had what he thought were good intentions. Millions of people world wide shared those intentions. But Stalin became frustrated when coercion didn't work. He was too stupid to realize that he was using the wrong method, so he assumed that what he felt were "evil" people were sabotaging his perfect plans. They had to be eliminated. This is how a certain kind of stupidity about MEANS leads to evil. Evil at a large sale is not possible without "good intentions".
Doesn't matter which it is. Both should be assumed when setting up government. That's why centralization is bad and government should be severely limited and never allowed to expand its power.
I wish Dave spoke up more.
The question is stupid.
The government is evil.
Evil lost to good 😊. God 👑 is Love.
Love never Fails 💖
Paper bags have a larger carbon footprint than plastic bags. Look it up
Why not both?
Yes. Next question?
Government is an intangible, like a corporation. It's not possible for government to be good or bad. Show me government: not buildings we say are owned by government, not people who work for government, not the charter that created government, show me government in and of itself. You can't, because it's an idea. PEOPLE can be good or bad, moral or immoral. Same with corporations and political parties. It is impossible for a political party to cast a vote in Congress - PEOPLE cast votes. PEOPLE take action in the name of corporations. PEOPLE act on directives issued in the name of the corporation or party or government.
Pure Evilness.
it is like Oprah and the Knight brothers Donnie's bandmates diagnosed with Anxiety that video is all over the internet talk about abuse of vulnerable adults she had one of them to the point of crying in the green room someone should have pulled her license after that truth
To answer the question in the title, “Why not both?”.
"Consent of the governed..."
yes
Man, putting Zach and Dave Smith in the same room is awesome. Shows you who a Libertarian is and who works at ReasonTV.
Personally, I find Zach's non-dogmatic approach compelling. Libertarians can't win elections because they can't get libertarians to vote Libertarian.
No one is voting for a guy like Zach
@@mannurse7421, Zach is not running for office. My point is that libertarians subject libertarians to purity tests. That is ridiculous given that we are in the game because we can’t agree with the major parties. Of course, we aren’t going to agree with each other. Are you waiting for someone who aligned with you on every single issue? That’s fantasy land.
the face of govt is stupid, the people pulling their strings are evil.
How bout both?
Both.
Weaponized stupidity is the most evil thing i can think of
Both. In every case.
Both
The answer is yes.
100%evil
They are both.
Can it be...both?
People that seek power are generally more narcissistic. People that seek power have such a desire for power and thus when they get some, they use that power to get more power. Their goal is not what is best for the country, their goal is to sell an image of what is best for the country that also gives them more power. Who spends so much effort to get this power and then seeks to give that power back to the people? If you think you would be good with that power, you clearly think you would be even better with more power.
This is called politics sir. Want to participate? What is the libertarian angle? You cant have one foot on the outside and the other half critiquing. This is inferior politics and arguably more narcissistic.
God didn't make her a journalist, he made her a "Presstitute".
Agree with Zach, it's about self interest. Watched Antony Davies "Why government fails" /watch?v=xxmXeLEcs9s and it was an eye-opener as to how government makes decisions. Lots of "I knew that" moments succinctly put together to show a much larger picture.
DAVE SMITH!!!!!!!!