Im watching cop interaction videos and one thing i heard a few cops say now to people who refused to answer questions or give them a hard time.. they ask "Why do you hate cops so much?".... no no no buddy, these people dont hate you, they are **scared** of you, big difference. People just dont tend to like people they are scared of, but that is secondary!

@freemo Kinda scary how you consider me wrong on so many things, then you say such simple, yet useful truth. Reality is confusing, don't you agree?

@admitsWrongIfProven you are probably just noticing i am more direct about things i disagree. It isnt that i find you more wrong than anyone else might. Im just more likely to tell you.

@freemo That is a good point, another one for the wonder i have.

I generally see you as someone who wants to be kind, but i also see the "people should work for their keep", which i cannot reconcile with the rest.

After all, i am convinced people generally want to be useful. So pushing is not the direction that would help.

Some disconnect exists, and i cannot put my finger on what it is.

@admitsWrongIfProven No I dont think people should work for their keep. I can think of plenty of examples (like inheretance) where they don't and I'm ok with it.

What I think is that people shouldnt be forced to let you steal from them so they dont have to work for their keep (communism for exmaple)

@freemo Wait, stealing by random luck is good? I need a new random luck generator installed.

@admitsWrongIfProven Inheretance isnt stealing, the person wanted you to have it. Taxes are stealing in the sense that you are taking money against someones will to get it to someoneone else.

That said I''m actually not against taxes, but only when it benefits the greater good (and base line welfare that keeps people froms starving does that)

@admitsWrongIfProven what do you think of this argument?

@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.