To be honest, my analysis is not going to penetrate too deep in answering the question raised in the title above. At most, I will have shown things for what they really are, and this might aid someone who is sincere in furthering their understanding of political systems.
THANKS, ‘STEF’ (feeling close a!)
It is Stefan Molyneux whom I would credit the most for raising awareness of the relevance of child rearing as a means of understanding why people look to the state as a remedy for social ills, even as it has been shown since the dawn of civilization that the government is the very manifestation of such a malady.
Basically, the careless attitude is: there’s a need for so-and-so, so the government should do this and that*.
In fourth grade, I had a teacher, Miss Messina. Mukhang mataray but she wasn’t totally horrible. Except for this one time, the humiliation of which has stayed with me for over two decades now.
At the end of our Christian Life Education class, she made me and my classmates stand up. And then she told us, “Now squat.”
Although known as a form of punishment, none of us had done anything to warrant her command. But we squatted anyway. Because she said so.
After telling us to stop squatting, she gave her explanation, which amounted to “I can make you do anything I want.” I’m paraphrasing, but not by much.
I doubt my other classmates remember this incident, but it’s a prime example of how outside authority has usurped free choice and use of reason. When Miss Messinas ‘prove’ to impressionable kids looking for guidance that might makes right, is it really a surprise that they grow up with an almost reverential attitude towards government ‘benevolence?’
Indeed, she may simply have been trying to show who’s the boss in class. Or she may have wanted us to place our trust in her, she who was only acting for our welfare. Or any number of reasons that sound, coincidentally, like campaign speeches (‘common good,’ ‘unity,’ ‘good governance,’ ‘strong leadership,’ etc.)!
Of course, I can’t blame a simple-minded teacher for all that is wrong with the world. But such acts, which are tantamount to abuse, are symptoms of a rotten and predominant mentality yet to be outgrown.
In fact, when or if the state is finally shed from society, this would only be part of an overall change in attitudes ― but not a change in human nature. The pursuit of self-interest and profit will remain, but directed towards longer- and longer-term endeavors. In fact, social evolution from the days of savage hunters to the present, has been about the pursuit of profit, only that over time, individuals’ timeframes expand, making for peaceful and mutually beneficial coexistence.
* And if you somehow get it through people’s heads that they are resorting to violence as a substitute for peaceful interactions, they might say that government is a necessary bad; people are either too stupid or hard-headed to do what’s good for them, unless by force.
But further quiz them on how they imagine this government to be appointed or held any more accountable than an ungoverned and supposed stupid constituency, and you’ll be given a half-hearted suggestion of ‘checks and balances’ (did the division between executive and judicial branches do anything to resolve the recent NAIA standoff? and hasn’t the legislature always been the pawn of the executive? etc.), or perhaps they would provide a deluded vision of an all-wise dictatorship that punishes ‘useless scum’ but otherwise doesn’t interfere in everyday affairs (Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot weren’t up to it but let’s give someone else a shot).