Anonymous landtrust 4w

Because objectively it is better for a government to work because the people they’re governing want it to work and not due to the government threatening violence on the people they’re governing?

5

Anonymous OP 4w

What if what the people want and what the people need are different things?

-3

Anonymous landtrust 4w

In what universe would using violence to force upon a people something they do not want but “need” be a good thing?

10

Anonymous OP 4w

They don’t realize the benefits of getting what they need until after they receive it. Everybody wants change, but nobody wants to change

-2

Anonymous landtrust 4w

Who decides what a people need? And why are you arguing for violence to be used against a people for the simple action of not wanting to conform to what a government that they do not want believes they need?

5

Anonymous OP 4w

The government decides why the people need. What you call “violence” is just enforcing laws the government passes. This isn’t really violence

-2

Anonymous landtrust 4w

And if the government isn’t wanted by the people, if they aren’t doing right by the people, and if they are imposing violence upon the people, then the people have every right to overthrow that government and put in place one that will govern with the people’s consent.

8

Anonymous OP 4w

The government can be wanted in some ways and not wanted in others. Like our current government. What’s important though is that the government does enough of what “the people” want, to justify doing what the people need in the short run. Everyone will support the government in the long run

-1

Anonymous landtrust 4w

When the government is shooting people in the streets for disagreement then they are not doing what the people want or need. That government deserves to be overthrown.

8

Anonymous OP 4w

Who said that’s what the people need? I’m talking about cultural revolution

-2

Anonymous landtrust 4w

So you believe the government should be allowed to force a culture on the people, through threat of violence, because the government decided they “need it?”

14

Anonymous OP 4w

Correct. This would lower crime, increase trust, increase productivity, improve social cohesion

-3

Anonymous landtrust 4w

So you are all for totalitarianism then

10

Anonymous landtrust 4w

Thats lame as hell

9

Anonymous OP 4w

I’m all for passing laws that bring results

-3

Anonymous #2 4w

How?

-3

Anonymous landtrust 4w

What you’re describing is cultural authoritarianism, totalitarianism, if it’s extreme and all-encompassing, fascism, if it’s tied to nationalism, purity narratives, or mythic “restoration”, and theocratic authoritarianism, if the culture being forced is religious. That’s a sad belief to have my dear.

8

Anonymous OP 4w

^^ which is why it’s lame as hell.

12

Anonymous #3 4w

How many times have you seen Toy Story 3 to have been able to recognize this?

6

Anonymous OP 4w

It’s not fascism. All it is is politics that yield results that benefit everyone. Although you would lose some freedoms, you will gain other (and arguably more important) freedoms like the freedom to have a stable and growing economy. And the freedom to live without fear of violence

-3

Anonymous landtrust 4w

So just to make sure I understand you correctly, you believe a centralized government should have the authority to limit individual freedoms, enforce cultural norms, and override dissent if it believes doing so will produce stability, economic growth, and social cohesion?

6

Anonymous OP 4w

Yes and all governments do this btw

-3

Anonymous landtrust 4w

There’s a difference between governments enforcing laws to protect rights and governments enforcing cultural conformity to achieve preferred outcomes. Those aren’t the same thing.

10

Anonymous OP 4w

Those are the same thing, you’re just framing it with different words

-2

Anonymous OP 4w

Do you think our cultural obsession with individual “liberties” is something natural about humanity? Or is it a culture the government built?

-2

Anonymous landtrust 4w

If they’re the same thing, then is there any limiting principle in your framework? Is there anything a government shouldn’t be allowed to restrict if it believes doing so would improve social cohesion or economic stability?

4

Anonymous OP 4w

The government shouldn’t restrict the collective

-2

Anonymous landtrust 4w

Whether individual liberty is natural or culturally developed doesn’t really change the structural question. Even if it’s a cultural value, the issue is whether a government should have the authority to override deeply held values by force because it believes a different culture would produce better outcomes.

5

Anonymous OP 4w

The point of individual liberty being developed by the government shows that your values can be changed

-3

Anonymous landtrust 4w

What do you mean by ‘the collective’? The majority? The state? a unified cultural identity? And who determines what the collective’s interests are when individuals disagree?

10

Anonymous landtrust 4w

Influence and coercion aren’t the same thing though. Governments inevitably shape culture through policy, education, and institutions. The question is whether they should have the authority to forcibly override existing values because they believe a different value system would produce better outcomes.

13

Anonymous OP 4w

Enough.

3

Anonymous #3 4w

Based

3

Anonymous OP 4w

The collective is the unit that exists beyond the group of individuals. I as an individual don’t get to dictate how the collectives interests are determined. But I imagine it would be some kind of qualitative democracy

-1

Anonymous OP 4w

Today, government arrests you for breaking a law. This is overriding your values because the government decided it’s better for society. It’s the same thing.

-1

Anonymous landtrust 4w

When you say the collective exists beyond individuals, how is it meaningfully distinct from the aggregation of individuals? And if individuals don’t determine its interests, who concretely does?

6

Anonymous landtrust 4w

In your example, the law exists to prevent harm to others. In the scenario we’ve been discussing, the state is restricting people not for harming others, but for failing to conform to a preferred cultural model. Those aren’t identical just because both involve enforcement.

9

Anonymous OP 4w

The same way you as a person are more than a group of organs. And your organs are more than a group of cells. The collective is more than a group of individuals

-1

Anonymous landtrust 4w

The difference is that organs don’t have independent consciousness, agency, or rights. Individuals do. A society isn’t a biological organism with a single mind. It’s a collection of conscious agents who can disagree about what the ‘whole’ should be.

9

Anonymous OP 4w

How do you know the collective doesn’t have a single mind?

-2

Anonymous OP 4w

How is failing to conform not harming others?

-2

Anonymous landtrust 4w

If the collective had a single mind, it would express a unified will. But societies consistently display persistent disagreement, pluralism, and internal conflict. That suggests not a single consciousness, but multiple agents with competing perspectives.

5

Anonymous OP 4w

The collective does express a unified will. Conflicts doesn’t mean there’s no unified will. It’s just the individual lashing out

-2

Anonymous landtrust 4w

If non-conformity is harm, then any minority viewpoint becomes inherently harmful. Is that your position?

6

Anonymous landtrust 4w

If conflicts are just individuals ‘lashing out,’ then how do you distinguish legitimate disagreement from harmful behavior? What makes one dissent valid and another just lashing out?

7

Anonymous OP 4w

No. Non conformity is not the same as holding a minority viewpoints. And by minority, I’m talking about qualitative minority, not quantitative minority

-1

Anonymous landtrust 4w

And when you describe dissent as individuals ‘lashing out,’ how does your framework prevent minorities from being categorized as harmful simply for existing outside the dominant norm?

8

Anonymous OP 4w

Using proper channels of communication

-1

Anonymous OP 4w

Minorities do exist inside the dominant norm

-1

Anonymous landtrust 4w

What determines whether a qualitative minority is legitimate dissent or harmful deviation? Who draws that line?

7

Anonymous OP 4w

I already answered this sir

-1

Anonymous landtrust 4w

What counts as a ‘proper channel’? And who decides whether a given minority viewpoint is using the proper channel versus being disruptive?

7

Anonymous OP 4w

A proper channel is one authorized by the government

-2

Anonymous landtrust 4w

If minorities only ‘exist’ insofar as they remain inside the dominant norm, then what happens when a minority challenges that norm itself? Is that automatically illegitimate?

9

Anonymous landtrust 4w

So if the government defines what counts as a proper channel, and dissent must go through channels authorized by that same government, what recourse exists if the government itself is the problem?

5

Anonymous landtrust 4w

Ma’am*

3

Anonymous OP 4w

Collectives don’t challenge the norm itself. It either changes over time collectively, or it’s individuals lashing out. The distinction of “minorities” is insignificant

-2

Anonymous landtrust 4w

Norms don’t change abstractly ‘as a collective.’ They change because individuals or small groups challenge them first. Every major social shift began as a minority position outside the dominant norm.

6

Anonymous OP 4w

How could the government be the problem when the government simply enforces the collectives will? Who decided that the government was the problem? A group of individuals?

-2

Anonymous landtrust 4w

That assumes the government perfectly represents the collective’s will. How do you verify that? What mechanism exists to determine when it doesn’t?

9

Anonymous OP 4w

I disagree. The environment changes which gives opportunities for norms to change. Individuals can will their own individual preferences but social norms changing are purely social

-2

Anonymous landtrust 4w

Environments don’t change norms on their own. People interpret changes in the environment and act on them. That still requires individuals or groups articulating alternative positions before they become socially adopted.

8

Anonymous OP 4w

It doesn’t have to perfectly represent the collective will. It’s verified socially and unconsciously

-1

Anonymous landtrust 4w

What does ‘verified socially and unconsciously’ mean in practice? If verification isn’t explicit, procedural, or contestable, how do individuals know when the government no longer reflects the collective will?

9

Anonymous OP 4w

Environments don’t change norms on their own. Environments give opportunities for the collective norms to change, which happens at the social level

-1

Anonymous OP 4w

It means that you instinctively know the government represents you

-2

Anonymous landtrust 4w

When you say norms change ‘at the social level,’ who is actually doing the changing? Social level isn’t an actor. Are you saying no individual or minority group can intentionally influence norms?

7

Anonymous OP 4w

The collective is doing the changing

-1

Anonymous landtrust 4w

If legitimacy is something people ‘instinctively know,’ then how do you explain persistent political disagreement? Do people have conflicting instincts? And if so, which instinct defines the collective will?

8

Anonymous OP 4w

It’s explained through individualism

-1

Anonymous landtrust 4w

When you say ‘the collective’ is doing the changing, what does that actually refer to? A vote? Cultural leaders? Public opinion trends? If no identifiable actors are involved, how does change occur?

7

Anonymous landtrust 4w

So if it’s explained through individualism, then individuals’ beliefs and actions are what ultimately shape norms. In that case, how is ‘the collective’ anything more than the aggregation of individual agents?

6

Anonymous OP 4w

It refers to the collective unconscious

-1

Anonymous landtrust 4w

If the collective is an unconscious structure emerging from individuals, then it still depends on individual minds. In that case, how can it have authority over those individuals?

8

Anonymous OP 4w

If you’re asking who’s the boots on the ground, it’ll always be people like me and you

-1

Anonymous landtrust 4w

Right, so if it’s ultimately people like us making decisions, then authority still comes from individuals exercising judgment. In that case, what makes one group’s interpretation of the collective legitimate and another’s illegitimate?

5

Anonymous OP 4w

No, people like us enforce decisions. We, as individuals, aren’t making the decisions

-1

Anonymous landtrust 4w

Okay, then who is making the decisions? If individuals don’t decide and the collective is unconscious, what concrete entity is issuing the decisions that others enforce?

10

Anonymous OP 4w

I’ve answered this question already ma’am

-1

Anonymous landtrust 4w

I’m asking for a concrete entity. If I missed it, feel free to restate it clearly.

9

Anonymous OP 4w

The government

-1

Anonymous landtrust 4w

Then what distinguishes the government from the collective? If it defines, interprets, and enforces the collective will, how is that different from the government simply defining the collective as itself?

3

Anonymous OP 4w

If the government both defines the collective and enforces its will, then the distinction between ‘the collective’ and ‘the government’ disappears. That’s the circularity I’ve been pointing to.

8

Anonymous OP 4w

The government is the tool of the collective

-1

Anonymous landtrust 4w

The collective is the unconscious driver and the government is the tool to enforce it

-1

Anonymous landtrust 4w

If it’s a tool, how do you distinguish between the collective directing the government and the government defining what counts as the collective?

10

Anonymous landtrust 4w

Oh we have fully committed to the metaphysical model, ok. If the collective is unconscious and the government interprets it, then the question becomes who gets to interpret the unconscious. That’s where power enters the picture.

5

Anonymous OP 4w

That distinction is implicit

-1

Anonymous OP 4w

I’ve said like 4 times now it’s the government who decides

-1

Anonymous landtrust 4w

If the distinction is implicit, can you explain what concretely separates the collective from the government? What prevents the government from simply defining what counts as the collective?

10

Anonymous landtrust 4w

If the government ultimately decides, then the collective isn’t directing it, the government is defining and interpreting it. At that point, the ‘collective will’ just becomes whatever those in power say it is.

6

Anonymous OP 4w

The government is the tool the collective uses to enact its will. The government cannot go against this will the same way any individual cannot go against this will. It’s simply not possible

-2

Anonymous OP 4w

The collective is directing it because the government cannot go against it

-2

Anonymous landtrust 4w

If it’s ‘simply not possible,’ then this isn’t a political theory anymore, you’re defining the collective in a way that makes disagreement or deviation impossible by definition. That makes it unfalsifiable.

7

Anonymous OP 4w

You can disagree and you can deviate in theory the same way in theory you can do anything. In reality it’s not possible for the tool of the collective to be used against the collective

-2

Anonymous landtrust 4w

If the government can’t go against the collective by definition, then any government action automatically counts as the collective will. That makes the claim unfalsifiable, there’s no possible case where the government could act illegitimately.

5

Anonymous OP 4w

The government cannot turn against the collective the same way a wrench cannot turn against the mechanic

-2

Anonymous landtrust 4w

You’re not describing a mechanism. You’re defining the outcome as inevitable.

7

Anonymous OP 4w

Who decides whether the government is acting illegitimately?

-2

Anonymous OP 4w

It’s inevitable that the wrench follows the hand of the mechanic

-1

Anonymous landtrust 4w

A wrench can absolutely be used against a mechanic if someone else picks it up. That’s why institutions and power matter. Calling the government a ‘tool’ doesn’t explain who holds it or how it’s constrained.

10

Anonymous landtrust 4w

No single entity ‘decides’ it in the abstract. Legitimacy is contested through institutions, elections, courts, public dissent, and political opposition. That’s the difference between a theory with mechanisms and one that defines legitimacy as automatic.

6

Anonymous OP 4w

There isn’t a “someone else”. It’s just you and the wrench. So who decides whether the government is acting illegitimately?

-1

Anonymous landtrust 4w

You’re reducing a complex political system to a single agent and a tool. That’s the assumption I’m challenging.

5

Anonymous OP 4w

Everything you just described derives from the government. So you’re saying only the government can say itself isn’t legitimate?

-1

Anonymous landtrust 4w

You’re assuming the government is the source of all authority. I’m describing a system where authority is distributed and contested, as in the real world.

7

Anonymous OP 4w

It only appears too complex because right now the collective will is weak

-1

Anonymous OP 4w

Contested by who?

-1

Anonymous landtrust 4w

Calling complexity a sign of ‘weakness’ doesn’t address the structure I described.

11

Anonymous OP 4w

That’s not what I said

-1

Anonymous landtrust 4w

Contested by other institutional actors, opposition parties, courts, civil society, media, and citizens. That’s what distributed authority means.

4

Anonymous landtrust 4w

Okay, then clarify what you meant. You said complexity only appears because the collective will is weak. I’m arguing complexity is structural, not a temporary symptom. What am I misunderstanding?

6

Anonymous OP 4w

So in other words, legitimacy is contested by either: the government or: the individual. I agree with you. I just think the individual should put aside his interests for the sake of the collective

-1

Anonymous OP 4w

No. I said you may think politics is complicated, but that’s only because the collective will in our country is weak. We have multiple competing interests that are foreign to the collective will. This is also why this is a difficult concept to grasp because it’s never been part of our country before

-1

Anonymous landtrust 4w

That shifts the debate from how legitimacy works to what individuals owe the collective. Those aren’t the same question.

8

Anonymous landtrust 4w

Competing interests aren’t ‘foreign’ to politics they ARE politics. Pluralism isn’t a deviation from collective life; it’s how modern societies function.

6

Anonymous OP 4w

I said the competing interests in America are foreign to the collective will. I didn’t say competing interests are foreign to politics

1

Anonymous OP 4w

I asked you who gets to decide whether the government is legitimate and you said the government does, and individuals do. I agree with you. I also think the individual should put the collective first

1

Anonymous landtrust 4w

If competing interests are ‘foreign’ to the collective will, then the collective isn’t describing society as it exists and is instead describing an ideal of unity. Modern societies are plural by structure. Calling disagreement ‘foreign’ assumes a level of homogeneity that doesn’t exist.

3

Anonymous landtrust 4w

Whether individuals should prioritize the collective is a moral question. My point was structural: legitimacy remains contestable. Even if someone believes individuals should defer, the ability to dissent still has to exist or legitimacy becomes automatic.

4

Anonymous OP 4w

Why? If they’re truly foreign then they are not describing society

0

Anonymous OP 4w

I agree legitimacy can either be contested by the collective (the government) or by individual or groups of individuals. The disagreement we have is whether that SHOULD be the case

0

Anonymous landtrust 4w

If they’re ‘truly foreign,’ then who determines that? If a significant portion of the population holds those interests, calling them foreign doesn’t make them disappear. It just means the concept of the collective is excluding real people.

4

Anonymous landtrust 4w

If individuals and groups can contest legitimacy, then by definition the collective will isn’t a single unified voice. That’s the structural point I’m making.

3

Anonymous OP 4w

Anything beyond the collective existence is foreign. For it to become collective is emerges subconsciously and collectively internally, not an outside force forcing its will on the rest of society (which is what we have today). A “significant population” isn’t the point. It’s not simply a quantitative majority

1

Anonymous OP 4w

Individuals and groups can contest the collective, but not as the collective, as individuals. This doesn’t mean the collective isn’t a unified voice, it just means they are being individualists

1

Anonymous landtrust 4w

If the collective will isn’t identifiable through institutions, majority preference, or observable disagreement, then how is it distinguished from interpretation? What makes it anything more than whoever claims to speak for it? In all honesty my guy the point you’re trying to make is a philosophical ideal, not a description of how modern political societies function.

5

Anonymous landtrust 4w

You’re defining unity normatively. I’m describing political structure descriptively. Those are different levels of analysis.

1

Anonymous OP 4w

Institutions, majority preference, and observable disagreement can reflect the collective will. Those things aren’t defining the collective will. You can claim to speak for the collective, that doesn’t mean you do. It’s an unconscious and *collective* force. You, as being part of that collectively, instinctively understand thi

1

Anonymous landtrust 4w

You’re describing an inner, emergent unity. I’m describing a system that has to operate through observable mechanisms. Without those mechanisms, the concept can’t constrain power.

5

Anonymous OP 4w

Yes, we agree the descriptions, what ought to happen is where we disagree

1

Anonymous landtrust 4w

Then we’re debating political values, not political structures. That’s a different conversation.

1

Anonymous OP 4w

Look how it started. It’s always been about values, you just had questions about structure as well

1

Anonymous landtrust 4w

Now my dear this has been very very fun, I believe we have diverted quite a bit from where we started, I have work in 20 minutes so I need to drive, so I will leave with my original point that is if authority isn’t grounded in consent, then disagreement becomes deviance rather than political participation. That’s the structural consequence.

4

Anonymous OP 4w

Thanks for chatting I’ll see you later

1