I agree with some of your points, but not all. You continually equate government with 'force' or 'violence', when it's more accurately, the application of 'consequences' to behaviors that threaten the community.
I also would argue with some of your 'all or nothing' contentions. Just because crimes will always be committed in a community doesn't mean we stop prosecuting crimes. It also doesn't mean that we can't demand an overhaul of our broken criminal justice system and the factors driving crime. There are actual societal structural issues that perpetuate generational poverty and crime.
Could some problems be addressed outside of government? I don't believe this to be true. The benefit of government involvement is that systems are established (so the reliance on building infrastructure, schools, libraries, etc is shifted to the state). The weakness (as you note) is the inertia of the state to sel-corret without new or amended laws.
There are many thoughtful organizations that have done what you recommend: analyze root causes, but political polarization, a media ecosystem that is increasingly less interested in thoughtful nuance, and a populace traumatized by multiple interlocking existential crises make it almost impossible to create the conditions for thoughtful problem solving that you advocate. If anything, people are drawn to populist rhetoric in part due to the optics (artificial and false, of course) that there are simple solutions to complex issues.
One problem for democracy, or better said representative democracy, is that most people vote based on how they feel about X than how the think about X.
I read this and I cant help but wonder are we a people or just individuals competing for scarce resources. Do people stop their cars at red lights because it will be better for everyone if everyone does this. Where I live there is little traffic enforcement, people often do not stop for red lights, and there are many cases of hit and run accidents. Consider the poor pedestrian. Right turn on red has resulted in many pedestrian deaths. First of all people rarely stop at a red light when making a right turn. They may slow down. The look left to see if any traffic is coming but rarely look right to see if there is a pedestrian is in their path. And this is just one example.
Whenever anyone talks about the public interest you can hear the thoughts of many "sucker play"
This article went off the rails pretty early, when it asserted that "the state exists to affect certain kinds of social and economic change, to enforce certain social and economic rules...". The only proper purpose of government is to prevent others from using force or fraud against us to deprive us of life or property, or to punish them when they do. Any other use of government eventually ends up punishing people who have done nothing to hurt other people.
I agree with some of your points, but not all. You continually equate government with 'force' or 'violence', when it's more accurately, the application of 'consequences' to behaviors that threaten the community.
I also would argue with some of your 'all or nothing' contentions. Just because crimes will always be committed in a community doesn't mean we stop prosecuting crimes. It also doesn't mean that we can't demand an overhaul of our broken criminal justice system and the factors driving crime. There are actual societal structural issues that perpetuate generational poverty and crime.
Could some problems be addressed outside of government? I don't believe this to be true. The benefit of government involvement is that systems are established (so the reliance on building infrastructure, schools, libraries, etc is shifted to the state). The weakness (as you note) is the inertia of the state to sel-corret without new or amended laws.
There are many thoughtful organizations that have done what you recommend: analyze root causes, but political polarization, a media ecosystem that is increasingly less interested in thoughtful nuance, and a populace traumatized by multiple interlocking existential crises make it almost impossible to create the conditions for thoughtful problem solving that you advocate. If anything, people are drawn to populist rhetoric in part due to the optics (artificial and false, of course) that there are simple solutions to complex issues.
Aaron, you could try to make a podcast conversation with someone who is promoting liquid democracy https://medium.com/@memetic007/liquid-democracy-9cf7a4cb7f
One problem for democracy, or better said representative democracy, is that most people vote based on how they feel about X than how the think about X.
I read this and I cant help but wonder are we a people or just individuals competing for scarce resources. Do people stop their cars at red lights because it will be better for everyone if everyone does this. Where I live there is little traffic enforcement, people often do not stop for red lights, and there are many cases of hit and run accidents. Consider the poor pedestrian. Right turn on red has resulted in many pedestrian deaths. First of all people rarely stop at a red light when making a right turn. They may slow down. The look left to see if any traffic is coming but rarely look right to see if there is a pedestrian is in their path. And this is just one example.
Whenever anyone talks about the public interest you can hear the thoughts of many "sucker play"
This article went off the rails pretty early, when it asserted that "the state exists to affect certain kinds of social and economic change, to enforce certain social and economic rules...". The only proper purpose of government is to prevent others from using force or fraud against us to deprive us of life or property, or to punish them when they do. Any other use of government eventually ends up punishing people who have done nothing to hurt other people.