Greg Brooks (gregguy@aol.com) writes:
Governments act as any rational being acts -- in their own self interest. As the distillers of laws and collectors of taxes, however, they just have a better shot at self-interest nirvanna than the rest of us.
So you are saying that acting in one's own rational self-interest is compatible with acting upon somone else by force? Um, and how can you epistemologically justify looking upon the government as being a rational being, as having a consciousness? It consists of many separate individuals, does it not? Finally, isn't self-interest nirvanna a contradiction in terms? Nirvanna means merging with something greater, extinction of the self etc. But isn't the only rational standard of value, the ultimate self-interest, the preservation and flourishing of one's self, of one's life? I'm very curious about why people think governments are allowed to grow so oppressive - maybe this has something to do with whether people in a society think big government is good. It appears to me that most people these days are of the opinion that government should 'help people' instead of protect what our founding fathers saw as inalienable rights. It also seems to me like the whole concept of rights has been perverted, that political leaders now believe that _needs_ make rights, such as the "need" for health care or an information superhighway for all Americans. For those who've forgotten, this country was not founded as a democracy but as a republic. - Frode