The government’s role in its society is its own continuation, precisely balancing national needs with the complacency of the populace, the citizenry filling the role of the creators and judicators, giving the government its conception, as well as holding the threat of rebellion in
the event that a government loses balance to the point where its termination is
necessary. This creates a cycle of a thesis set by the government that if unfavorable by the masses creates an antithesis, which will result in the synthesis of either the rebalance of power or a compromise for the appeasement of the people.
What exactly is the government? Does it operate by laws of self-preservation. Why does it fail? Explain this dialectic. How is it that the "masses" and the government conflict? Why is it necessarily "dialectical."
ReplyDeleteThis is really interesting, Pippin!
ReplyDeleteIn this case, rebellion would be necessary for government improvement. Would that mean that the government is never completely stable? Would continuous power changes make the overall concept of society and morality muddled? Also, how would the public establish a better government? Would the lead rebels just assume power? Just some questions to think about.
I really find this intriguing!
ReplyDeleteWhat are the national needs? How do citizens become the creators? You cover the citizen and government relationship, but what about the relationship between citizens? Overlapping consensus? Majority vs. Minority, how do these come into play? I agree with Jessye, it does seem like there is never stability within the government, and if that is so how does the government handle rebellion? Does it simply give in everytime, or does it fight back to hold its position?