Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MichaelFarker
How does a government that is firmly in control enjoy a greater opportunity to rule fairly?
I've wondered for over a decade why many consider this to be true, ever since I discussed it in a history class. It feels reasonable but I'm having a hard time formulating support for it.
I'm thinking about it tonight because of a passage I just read:
"The soldiers were there ... to remind the huge crowd ... Axum rules by the spear, when all is said and done. ... The crowd [felt] no resentment ... That rulers will rule, was a given. That being so, best to have a strong rule, and a firm one. That makes possible—possible—a fair rule as well." (Drake, Flint Fortune's Stroke)
|
First rule of understanding politics:
There are classes in societies, these classes of people have conflicting interests so all that you read may not be true and may be words of an enemy.
Because they are the words representing a particular class interest.
I've never heard of this quote before or statement.
Let's analyse:
So the soldiers represent and remind the masses of the power of the state.
Ok, in whose interest is the state working?
The masses accept this and can't see an alternative at this time.
This being so, 'best to have a strong rule and this makes possible a fair rule as well. ' This is a nonsense summary.
The person means they want military rule and this makes possible a fair rule.
It also makes possible an unfair rule, a dicatorship, massacres. It makes possible anything against the masses.
I see the statement is basically saying a government that rules by law, backed by the power of the armed forces can implement rule better than one that doesn't have armed support of the state. The idea that this is fair is obviously stupid. Fair for whom? Fair for which class? Fair for all?
I guess they are saying the choice is military authoritarian rule or anarchy.