Let's start at the beginning. The statement requires the definition of two things, which can be formed into two questions.
1) What is government?
2) What is evil?
What is government?
Let's tackle the first one. We have to remember that the definition of something, is what separates it from anything else. I can not define a car by
saying it's something on four wheels. It could be a bus, a kids bike and so on. Not that it's wrong, but, it's incomplete. To define the government is
quite simple, but, its definition gets a lot of resistant from people, since they have been programmed since they were children, to believe that the
government is a force of good instead of evil.
Ask yourself. What is it that separates government from other 'legal' institutions? What separates it from a private business or company? What
separates it from charity? What separates it from everything else out there? Maybe it is our ability to vote? Surely some companies allow voting on
certain things so that can't be it. As an example, BioWare allowed gamers to vote on the looks of the default Female Shepard that was going to be in
Mass Effect 3.
The main thing that separates government from any other legal institution is... Violence
A private company tries to provide you goods in return for your money. In other words, they promise you certain things that a certain product will
give you, and based on that promise, they hope you'll voluntarily give your money to them. What separates government from charity is the same basic
concept as a private company. They say they'll help people with problem X, and collect money that people will give voluntarily. With government, your
money is forcefully extracted from you, with the promise that certain things will be delivered. But since it already gets the money, it's not required
to actually do anything.
All governments will claim that only it is allowed to enforce violence upon anyone it wishes. It claims to have the monopoly on violence, and anyone
who else who inflicts violence, will be punished, with violence. There is a sense of hypocrisy right at the center of government. In other words,
the main definition of government is, a legal institution that claims to have the monopoly on violence and acts upon that claim.
I know I'm
repeating myself a lot, but I want to make sure that it gets through to you.
Say the government never does what you want. What happens if you refuse to give the government money? They are supposed to represent you right? If
they don't represent you, are you free to stop giving money? That's how any private company or charity works. But... Of course not. They will
ultimately shoot you if you resist.
So, obviously, the next question is, is violence actually wrong? The answer is... Yes and no. I'm going to say that the initiation
is always wrong. In other words, if someone is trying to stab you for whatever reason, it's perfectly legitimate to shoot the person. In other words,
self defense is allowed, including with violence if no peaceful defense is available.
What is evil?
So, let's go to evil. What is evil? There are multiple ways of viewing it, but I'll mention the one that I think covers most (if not all) situations.
If we take any individual action or moral standard, and everyone should follow that action, it is evil if it causes the destruction of almost
everyone, and/or if a conflict arises. You can determine if something is good or bad by universalizing it.
As an example, let's take killing. Assume for now that there are two people in the world. Person A would say, "killing is good". What happens if both
people try to do the same thing? Well, one will succeed, the other one will not. There is inconsistency here, because everyone should be able to do
it, and person B can not do it. And even IF killing would be good, the one who got killed would be evil. I think we all agree that that does not make
any sense. Killing can not be logically good since it can not be universalized, therefore it is inherently evil.
If we take the same concept, and use say, sharing food, both of them will eat, and no one will be at a disadvantage, meaning, it is good. It does not
necessarily mean that not sharing food is evil however. If no one shares food, it does not stop other people from not sharing their food, which means
it's not necessarily evil. Remember that only one concept should be viewed at a time. Not sharing food may let people starve, but, letting people
starve should be taken as a stand-alone proposition to universalize.
Self defense comes in, when someone violates the universal moral rules. If someone tries to kill you, they will have violated the universal rules,
which means the rule can be violated towards that person. This is only allowable in individual situations. It's all about consistency. And even then,
you can use the same concept from above to determine if self-defense is good or evil. Try it out for yourself.
Now, this is not the only definition of evil. There are multiple ways of looking at it. If you wish to extend that view, you can watch these other two
perspectives on Youtube:
(imo this one is much better)
Obviously, the way I approach evil, there is no other conclusion than the government being evil. It wants to do something to everyone, but, imagine if
the government owes you money but wouldn't pay you. If you dare to even threaten the government, you'll be in trouble, even though we're basically
under constant threat. Every law is a threat to be shot upon resistance.
And even though there are multiple ways of defining what evil is, no matter which version you use, you will end up with the same conclusion if you
have the guts to see what kind of institution the government is. The government is inherently evil.
edit on 7-5-2014 by vasaga because: (no