On Fri, 22 May 2015 08:45:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<
frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On 5/21/2015 10:56 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 May 2015 14:26:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <
frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/21/2015 1:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hey Frank, explain once more whatever difference you can see between
>>>> government and the lesser mafias.
>>>
>>> There are many. I suppose one way of summarizing is that I think
>>> society would not only survive, but thrive without the "lesser mafias" -
>>> in which I imagine you'd include ghetto gangs, biker groups that murder
>>> each other, drug cartels, etc.
>>>
>>> Absence of legitimate government, on the other hand, gives you poverty,
>>> total lack of security and cholera. Again, refer to Mogadishu.
>>
>> You use too many words. While a "Lack of Government" certainly ends
>> up with poverty, etc., but a (to western eyes) non-legitimate
>> government doesn't necessarily result in the same thing. Under the
>> Emperors in both China and Japan there were (for their times) wealthy
>> people, in medieval Europe there were wealthy people and one might
>> even mention the early Roman Church that was, in a sense, a
>> dictatorship was, at one time, the major financial power in Europe.
>
>I get your point. And I know that some people feel that a benevolent
>dictatorship may be better than democracy, at least in some situations.
>
My own experience is that a benevolent dictator, in this case Lee Quan
U, P.M. and leader of the People's Action Party, in Singapore, for
most of its history, certainly did prove the point and I can remember
when Singapore revealed that there had been "ONLY 10% growth this
year", a period when the U.S., for instance, was bragging about single
digit growth. And during the growth years no one had a thing bad to
say about Lee he was, honestly, a Hero, and still is for that matter.
Unfortunately in his later years he also proved the shortcomings of a
dictator as he became, very out spoken and dictatorial (:-) although
by that time he had resigned the premiership and had become the
"Minister Mentor" with no official powers. He did continue to tell the
truth though, as when he made a speech in Manila and said that the
main problem in the Philippines was that they were a lazy and indolent
people. Perfectly true but hardly the polite thing to say, as an
invited (and likely well remunerated) speaker :-)
>But my inclusion of the word "legitimate" was recognition of the fact
>that there will always be some sort of "government." When all other
>systems fail, the "government" function is assumed by the meanest,
>roughest guy with the most effective weapons and staff. Some "Drown the
>government in the bathtub" freaks seem to forget that.
Interestingly, the earliest forms of "democratic" government (which I
believe you mean when you say legitimate) understood its shortcomings
and had provisions for the appointment of a temporary "leader" in
cases of disaster, or war. And, the Greek and Roman democracies were
not what would be considered "proper" today as both were configured so
that the rich and powerful effectively controlled things.
--
Cheers,
John B.