the evolution of the popular theory of 'government' is probably the single most obvious and universal clue to its inherent ill will/malevolence.   what follows is a quick overview of how this theory has evolved over time, and how these changes reveal the inherent tyranny of 'government'.

(a) shamanistic/practical skill-based

the shamanistic theory of the propriety of 'rulers' depends on a supposed special connection between the 'ruler' and supernatural forces, which supposedly makes him/her fit to rule over his/her subjects.  this connection can be based on actual, hidden scientific knowledge (e.g. knowledge of fire) or fake knowledge (e.g. rain dance rituals).  

in the event of sound leadership, the issue of the 'ruler' maintaining control may never come up, and so the issue of 'governance' may not even emerge - high enough quality leadership would not require any forced participation.  however, in the event of dissent/contested leadership, this becomes an issue, and the nature of the response - which generally becomes standard practice for the 'ruler' - is a strong indication of the malevolence of the ruler's reign.  

this type appears to describe a large minority of indigenous cultures

(b) chieftain/combat skill-based

warrior 'government' - fitness for leadership determined by skill in combat.  

this type is characteristic of Spartan-style social structures, which are most common in combat-based or war-like societies, but also present in societies that understand combat skill as an indicator of general skill ("martial" societies).  

(c) usurped rule/"cloak/dagger"-based

'government' where best-fit rulership guidelines of all types have been called off, which retains procedural 'governance' rules, if at all, for the sake of illusion.  this type of 'government' radiates consequences through the society due to the deceptions inherent in the maintenance of unjust rule, notably the silencing of dissent based on injustices done, which naturally have exponential memetic effects.  

this type may overlap with type (a).

(d) direct democratic

typical of a society where social violence is accepted (possibly) - primarily towards threatening or possibly victimized outside groups - but where logical coherence in social practices has become a social expectation.  in the event where such a society has accepted major property imbalances, such as towards 'leaders', against gender differences, or other social differences, property schemes tend to be justified by myths of sub-group innate inadequacy, or possibly by perceived just compensation for labor.  different degrees of 'democracy' may exist in these systems, ranging from democratic votes on the labor of the group, to the allocation of resources to a subgroup, based on popular vote.

(e) monarchic/feudalistic/'divine right'

based on the rule of 'royals'.  rarely, if ever, benevolent.  

if benevolent, the 'royals' - often dynastic - are entrusted with directing the rest of a society, regardless of the quality of their decisions, ceding to the population in areas of non-expertise.  

if malevolent, the 'royals' represent the top piece of a rigid, allegiance-promotion, pyramidal/hierarchical social structure, and compartmentalize functions of rule into a violence-fallback 'government' structure.  this often entails engineering and military coordination in order to guard the 'royals' from popular uprising - i.e., city walls, castles, military/police/thug functionaires, and other self-defensive systems.  typically, these societies require some form of parasitic dominance relation with other societies, in order to placate the subjects of the society - citizens receiving preferential treatment to foreign subjects (resembling modern imperialism), thus, forming the middle-lower rung of the pyramidal economic structure of the society, beneath the ruling class, but above foreign subjects.

this type is associated with the theory of 'divine right', at least in a European context, due to the feudalistic theory of appointment of the 'royals' by deity that was disseminated in order to justify the brutal rule of the 'royals'.

(f) delegatory/republican/oligarchic

based on the ancient premise that some individuals are better fit for social overvision than others, and thus fit to rule.   highly strong tendency towards abusive plutocracy, averted only by extremely uncommon fitness of rulers.  typical of Greek and post-monarchy, pre-imperial Roman 'government', as well as most neo-classical, post-"Enlightenment" 'government' - first European, and then as proxy government 'colonially'.

if benevolent, the rulers are attempting to 'keep peace' in view of possible foreign threats and civil disagreements.  economic systems will often take a property-based approach, or less commonly, a communal approach.

if malevolent, the true rulers are often obscured behind the elected 'representatives', choosing to covertly exert power on them once they have entered into positions of power - otherwise, a consensus of malevolence is required amongst the 'representatives'.  

these systems are either inherently malevolent or benevolent, with a transitory period in between the two, due to a policy of polar attraction based on ideology of rule.   in explanation: benevolent systems will gradually eject corrupt elements because of the ease of identification and general transparency of financial details - corrupt behavior cannot be hidden, and evidence of bribe behavior is made obvious -  while malevolent systems will generally maintain near-total financial opacity, and somehow threaten or bribe benevolent 'representatives' in order to maintain a hegemony of policy.

one of the principal examples of delegatory 'government' in history, the Roman Republic, turned into a covert dictatorship circa 50 B.C.E., and an open empire/imperial system gradually, closer to ~20 C.E..  

another major example is the covert corruption of the U.S. "republican democracy", immediately at its creation.

these examples establish that rule by 'republic', presumably due to the reduction of the possible points of corruption, from the society as a whole to a small set of 'representatives', in the absence of any popular check or balance, will inevitably find itself under the control of a single individual.  thus, type (f) overlaps with type (c), and possibly also type (e).

evolution of 'government' theory re: information age

the presence of 'government' began in the illiterate ages, and has continued into the internet age.  the theories supposedly justifying 'government' have changed with direct regard to what portion of the population was capable of investigating their excuses for 'rule'.

semi-literate Greece and Rome saw the beginning of 'delegatory' government, as the middle/upper class in the society started to investigate the excuses for rule, while mostly-literate "first world" societies, from ~1700 to 2013, have seen a gradually evolving form of public relations from 'government', typically based around worship of politicians based on false descriptions of their actions of office.  

this resurgence of 'democratic government' theory coincided with a huge growth in literacy rates, as the 'governments' of the 'first world' needed to excuse their activities to the public, by giving the appearance of public accountability.  this worked well with the medium of television, since coverage could be covertly controlled, as it is today - but this 'public debate control' has ceased functioning in the internet era.  a great example, discussed previously in this blog, is of how the "change.gov" petition system has demonstrated a complete unaccountability to democracy on even the advertised 'Democratic' party of the 'government', as popular demands were completely ignored and even mocked.  this represents an actual public relations failure - the 'government' attempted to create a controlled environment to give the illusion of accountability, and in doing so, revealed their unaccountability.

thus, we see that 'government' only gives the appearance of benevolence to the maximum extent it can, without compromising its mission of exploitation.  we also see that it only gives off that appearance if the population has begun to collectively wonder if it actually has their interests at heart.


these rationales/systems of 'governance' shown a direct conflict between popular well-being and the consolidation of rule.  we see that the risk of corruption is overwhelming when rule has been consolidated under a single individual, and that 'republican'/'delegatory' systems, which attempt to consolidate rule but keep it from becoming centralized, have a strong tendency to centralize anyway.   this demonstrates an inherent flaw in the theory of 'government' - the presence of socially hierarchical 'power' must also create incentives for the abuse of 'power'.

however, due to the social conflicts that originally spawned the institution of 'government' as a social arbitration system - divergences of opinion between two or more parties, which require some kind of binding solution - we are faced with a dilemma of how to resolve this conflict of interest present in 'rule' of a society.  

the question facing someone wishing to totally eliminate 'rule' is this - how can social conflicts be fairly arbitrated in the absence of some central authority?

the answer is well-known, simple, and obvious.   a logical system of ethical conflict resolution must be adopted by the members of a society - something to which, thankfully, billions of individuals have contributed, for countless years.  

two major divergences from this system of ethics exist.  intra-special and inter-special.  some people claim personal exemptions to ethical behavior, often based on their personal suffering, within their own species - additionally, and more commonly, many individuals claim that the suffering of other species is irrelevant (which, interestingly, has profound effects on their own species, due to questions of land use, political dissent/protest, and ecosystem destruction issues).

ignoring 'desert island', survival scenarios, which may pit individuals against each other in a battle for scarce resources, and dealing only with typical social situations - in which widespread scarcity is currently a partially adopted myth - there is no valid reason for barriers to adoption of a common system of ethics - which would entail the spawning of mutually cooperative behavior across the entire society - to be considered as real or valid.  

stunningly, in fact, barring whatever naturally predatory behavior in the 'animals' that is natural and unavoidable (which is evidently not all current predatory behavior), we can almost seamlessly extend this logic to the entire animal kingdom.  we are not actually in unavoidable conflict for scarce resources - our challenge is actually in promoting non-destructive, common-sense use of resources.  basic boundaries and principles of behavior, in virtually every situation that a conscious being on this planet can encounter, are sufficient to avoid any third-party conflict resolution from ever being necessary.