What did you intend "self-necessary" to mean? Because everything is necessary to itself.

If you meant "self-serving" or "self-preserving", those things don't need to be justified. The government is designed from the ground up to keep itself intact. That's a large part of why there's a federal army. That's why they kill people for treason. That's why they pocket your tax dollars to pay for their lavish homes and lifestyles.

I find it a strange notion that anyone could somehow believe that any government is not trying to collectively serve its own best interests. It isn't like they're trying to hide that fact.

While the entire history of mankind has been riddled with examples of governments exploiting the general populace for their own ends, I'll give you a more recent example so you have less trouble relating to it. You should read about Project MKUltra to begin with, then there's a nearly infinite list of other examples waiting for you after that.

If you really believe that a majority of government officials would voluntarily disband the government and forfeit their power for the good of the common person, I'd say that you have a very skewed notion of human nature. This assumption would definitely deserve some attention if you wanted to justify your ideas.

'Relatively' short time in the evolutionary sense is still too long for it to have happened over the last 100 years. Humans have been around for 200,000 years, of which 100 years is only 0.0005%.

Also looking over what I tried to quote, I realized I butchered that quote.. I meant to say "If you JUDGE a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live the rest of its life believing it is stupid."

Also, can someone try this: http://free-iq-test.me.uk/trivia.html and tell us what you get? I got 71, but that seems incredibly low and I'm guessing this test is a joke that only displays that score.

Yes, I took it and also got 71. I changed some answers and got 71. I reloaded the page, filled in nothing, and got 71. Joke's on us.

Ah, ok good, haha. I thought I was a total idiot for a second

It appears there's 2 identical/correct answers for #24.

And I also got 71.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 29 2014, 2:22 am by NyM)uNkNowN.

I would like to add also that "government" can be interchanged equivalently with "corporation" and I would even dare to generalize to "any group consisting of a large number of members."

Self-necessary as in no longer existing for the sake of something else.


I understand that. But all of those things are understood to be perpetuating government for the sake of the people in one way or another. Eventually, if the predominant view (within government) is that government exists to satisfy its own needs rather than those of the people, then it would be correct to say that the government is not interested in the well-being of its citizens. I cannot say whether or not the U.S. Federal Government has reached that point yet.

And I also realize that this sounds a bit double-ended. Even Hitler said he was doing everything for the sake of his citizens, right? Well... yes. I'm not really sure how to draw a line there. The discussion strays into ethical philosophy, and that's notoriously difficult territory to navigate.


I never said that I believed that. In fact, I fall pretty far into the opposite side of the spectrum myself, and I'd most likely agree wholeheartedly with what Jack said if someone demanded that I make a clear statement on it. But at the same time, I try not to let assumptions pass by without question, even if I agree with them.


Which is kind of odd, when you think about it. How and why does human behavior change when expanded from individual to corporate?

I think I read somewhere in a book that people inside a group tend to act as a group, instead as a individual- which means that peer pressure affects the way they act.

no kidding?

groupthink, diffusion of responsibility, crowd psychology, etc.

Oh, I guess that might be why people see people get dumber... this is just speculation.
You could argue that since dumb people have easier methods to broadcast their dumbness, then you can also speculate that semi-dumb people may come in contact with the more dumb people and 'groupthink' to make them as a whole, a dumber group.

The government only gets perpetuated for the sake of the people because it's for the sake of the government. The government is interested in the well-being of its citizens up to the point that it infringes on the government itself. Every government is going to be interested in the status of its citizens, to some degree, since the money they need to continue existing comes from those citizens.

Not to mention that every government, even with its entire army, is smaller than the total population it governs (since the army is also part of the population, armed to the teeth, only fighting for the government voluntarily).

Literally all of a government's power is derived from the complacency of its citizens. It's in their best interests to maintain the status quo.


I don't think you really need to draw a line, since looking out for the interests of themselves and looking out for the interests of their citizens is not mutually exclusive. Though it's been made clear in the past, should those two things ever conflict, the government looks out for itself first. It makes itself the highest priority, under the guise of "looking out for ourselves IS looking out for the people, because we're so necessary to them!"


The mentality is often identical from the individual to the corporate group, but the behavior changes because the group provides an environment in which your self-serving desires no longer conflict with the desires of those around you. Most people want to put themselves first, and aligning their interests with other people allows them to do so while also becoming more successful with the help of their associates.