Embed Notice

@Hyolobrika @freemo I agree, but i think it is very narrowly framed.

Basically, to be a society (get the benefits of working together), we need some kind of agreement.

Now this is a big thing, it can enable society member to survive what loners could not, like broken bones or a famine.

As agreements get older, it is possible to loose some of the initial purpose of helping each other. There can be power not flowing from the agreement but from gatekeeping - as is today, getting into politics at a country level is way easier if one belongs to certain groups.

So the base notion that there is a threat of violence is correct, but the consequences are variable depending upon congruence of the actual goals of policy makers and enforcers with the goals of the people.

So an agreement of people is good in principle, but a specific gouvernments adherance to that can decline until it is no longer a positive influence. Notably, dictatorships under dictators that only wish for their own personal good would be at that point.

So i would say yes, but there is more to it. Keeping laws as lean as possible while still reaching the (assumed to be good) goal is a good idea. Making as little laws as possible, not regulating things that have no impact on well-being of the people, also good.

But that assumption of a good goal here is not fulfilling itself. Also, missing a necessary goal would also be detrimental.