re: why govts get bigger

[gregguy@aol.com]

 frode@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Frode Odegard) writes:

So you are saying that acting in one's own rational self-interest is
compatible with acting upon somone else by force?  
(Yes, in case of protection of one's life or, in some cases, one's property.
I didn't say the government was acting rationally in everything (or indeed,
most things) they do; only that force is a natural response to being
threatened. That we perceive the government as the real threat has little
bearing on their actions, I suspect.)

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?
(Indeed, but history is full of individuals banding together to act in their
own self interest. I may not share the interests of the federal employee
unions, the lifetime bureaucrats and career politicians, but I can certainly
see what their motivation is for acting the way in which they do. Does
government have consicousness? Certainly not. But does it, through its
various entities and arms, exhibit the characteristics of both mob-rule
mentality and a cornered animal? Yes, quite often it does.)

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?
(OK, you caught me in a writer's flourish here... Nirvanna was,
categorically, not the correct word. As for the second part of your statement
above, I agree -- but I also think there are millions of people in government
who live and breathe a "box mentality" that convinces them very little of
their self-interest is unlinked to the great monstrosity that is our
government. They are perhaps the last true serfs in this country, mentally if
not monetarily.)

(I agree with your subsequent statements)