And I'm tired of police brutality being brought up, but innocent civilians keep dying at the hands of police officers. I'm also tired of talking about inflation and housing prices, but the numbers keep going up even when I close my eyes, cover my ears, and shake my head a lot.
Anyway, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. I posited an explanation for why tyranny in some form another seems like a default state in human organizations. If you think my explanation is wrong, I'd like to hear an actual argument or evidence against it.
I guess my comment was a bit of an axe-grind rather than a response to your statement. I saw "paradox of tolerance" and was triggered.
To clarify, I find it frustrating when people justify the government making laws that limit or take away existing freedoms by claiming that they are "preventing intolerance". I believe that laws are, first and foremost, justifications for the government to use force against you, and no government in the history of mankind has ever given a single shit about "preventing intolerance". They care about keeping the rich rich and the working class oppressed and powerless.
To your point, I completely disagree, and think it's extremely naive. Tyrannical governments seem to be the default because it's the easiest way for the powerful to control the powerless, which is the fundamental purpose of most governments throughout history.
> Tyrannical governments seem to be the default because it's the easiest way for the powerful to control the powerless, which is the fundamental purpose of most governments throughout history.
Okay, but that's the whole nature of OP's question: Why does tyranny arise again and again, as if it were a natural equilibrium state of some kind?
I don't see why government should be treated differently from other institutions in analyzing this question. Deebo and Lord Farquad were both tyrants; was the nature of their tyranny any different, just because one happened to represent "government" and the other didn't?
My proposition is that it requires constant effort and vigilance to prevent the rise of tyranny, because the forces that lead to tyranny are ever-present. So any society that exists temporarily in a non-tyrannical state is still subject to power grabs and takeover attempts by would-be tyrants.
Maybe you're implying that the existence of a state or government is what facilitates such tyranny; I've heard that one many times. I contend that if the state did not exist, then other people and institutions would fill the same role; that the nonexistence of a state would not represent an impediment to tyranny; and that the existence of a state is not itself a strong indicator of the presence of tyranny.
Depends who's doing the tyranising. The state can also protect against tyrany from other sources and a other times it is itself tyrannical. I mean that "the state", like " the people" is different things at different times and places.
Anyway, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. I posited an explanation for why tyranny in some form another seems like a default state in human organizations. If you think my explanation is wrong, I'd like to hear an actual argument or evidence against it.