History Lesson

A long, long time ago, some guy convinced a bunch of other guys that he had divine right to rule everyone else, if not he convinced them he himself was a god or at the very least possessed magical powers and that, those that pay him tribute, could expect good things to happen to them , if not good things, then at the very least they could hope to avoid bad things happening to them. It was then believed that, refusing to pay tribute to the ruler would cause bad things to happen and that civilization itself would collapse if people did not please the gods by paying tribute to the rulers.Of course, the man claiming to have godly power convinced most of society of his legitimacy, but there were always a few minorities within society that simply didn't buy into the rulers divine right to rule. Force was then carried out against the skeptics in order to set an example for the rest of society. This is how "taxation" and "States" were born.-Cray

RC wrote:A long, long time ago, some guy convinced a bunch of other guys that he had divine right to rule everyone else, if not he convinced them he himself was a god or at the very least possessed magical powers and that, those that pay him tribute, could expect good things to happen to them , if not good things, then at the very least they could hope to avoid bad things happening to them. It was then believed that, refusing to pay tribute to the ruler would cause bad things to happen and that civilization itself would collapse if people did not please the gods by paying tribute to the rulers.Of course, the man claiming to have godly power convinced most of society of his legitimacy, but there were always a few minorities within society that simply didn't buy into the rulers divine right to rule. Force was then carried out against the skeptics in order to set an example for the rest of society. This is how "taxation" and "States" were born.-Cray

well, i would agree with you to a certain degree., but is not like everyone was duped., in fact, most educated in political matters, minds, where in cohorts with the so-called ruling god., for they understood what "benefits" derived from "it" ., and but of course, there where always dissidents., always have, always been., so tell me what's new?

wolfman wrote: so tell me what's new?

Printing presses, the internet....overall better communication.

Ideas spread easier and faster now.

With the ability to spread ideas better and faster, it amazes me the advantage the ruling class still has. Do you think people, generally speaking of course, like life the way it is and don't actually want change?

wolfman wrote:

but is not like everyone was duped., in fact, most educated in political matters, minds, where in cohorts with the so-called ruling god., for they understood what "benefits" derived from "it" .,

Just reread this and wanted to highlight and agree. This is the classic structure of the state, and maybe the main tool in how it maintains its power.

Think of the priestly class of the middle ages, think of the church officials that formed opinions for the masses to follow. Think of the way "heretics" were handled and the way they're handled today.(i.e. "conspiracy theorists")

Then think of the modern day Harvard professor. These are the intellectual class of people that provide the ideological cover for the state. The official opinion molders of society that are meant to intimidate the average person from ever questioning the authority. For WHO are YOU to question the state rulers? The Havard professor with all those fancy credentials says the state is just in its mass exploitation!

But who accredits the schools, or the banks, or any other powerful institution in society? The state.
Why would we expect them to dissent?
The "court intellectuals" have long benefited from state subsidies. Cozy life long jobs with nice benefits and often times get offered high positions in the state apparatus as a reward for spreading the propaganda throughout their career. not to mention the prestige they receive in return.

jennierock wrote:With the ability to spread ideas better and faster, it amazes me the advantage the ruling class still has. Do you think people, generally speaking of course, like life the way it is and don't actually want change?

It'll slowly change. We're still in the very beginning stages. The internet is in its infant stage. Just imagine 50 years from now, how much different people will think and receive information

Nothing will or can change if the people don't want it.
I have a question, just to make it clear. Do you or are you comparing the control of religion and the the government? In the most simple way, yes or no?

jennierock wrote:Nothing will or can change if the people don't want it.
I have a question, just to make it clear. Do you or are you comparing the control of religion and the the government? In the most simple way, yes or no?

I believe the state or as we call it now "government" (a misname IMO), has its origins in religion. That's the point of my original post. People in, lets say, 6,000 B.C. did not form a state with the exact same purpose of people today. They didn't do it because they believed the state will act as a government, as we know it today, they didn't imagine it would build roads, provide health care and education etc. The state was most likely created out of a religious belief, maybe in some individual, to who they thought they must pay tribute to because they're a representative of the gods or IS GOD himself. And maybe they believed that not paying tribute would cause more suffering. Life was rough and they had no way else to explain the hardships, so they looked to the gods for help.

Of course I would argue that people, although not exactly the same, still have a religious belief in the state. They still believe in the state and that the charismatic politician will magically fix problems throughout the land in which it rules over. Its just that today people don't consciously see the state as "the gods" but they still have a superstitious belief in the state rulers monopoly power to provide for a long list of things. And no matter how much the state fails, the people demand more help from the state. Its a system based on faith, not reason. The state is a religion full of different sects (theocracy, monarchy, socialism, democracy etc) full of its own mythologies (without the state we would have all starved to death and died), its deities (Abe Lincoln, etc), its rituals (voting, pledge of allegiance etc).

Note that this is not an attack on religion or faith based beliefs per se, its an attack on one specific religion or belief system :the state.

Think of the example I used in the middle ages. People at that time were deeply religious and so they trusted what the church officials said. And if the church officials approved of the state, then they were likely to go a long with it. Every now and then a skeptic may come a long and question church officials, not always to question their faith itself but question the structure and legitimacy of the official church and these people were heretics. Even back then, church officials were accused (probably rightly) of not having genuine intentions of serving God, but in being motivated in having a cushy job that holds prestige and receives state subsidies. And the same is true today, except today it won't work through the church, because people today generally believe in the separation of church and state(and the catholic church doesn't have any legal ability to enforce its sect on others, so there's the freedom of people to form other religious denominations) , so now the new church is the church of "science" and the priestly class has been replaced with the "scientific experts" and of course, chunks of the media left over from before the internet era ( TV and Radio media) which receives subsidies and is beholden to the state through licensing contracts and other subtle ways.
and just to clarify, I'm not saying the church always defended the state, as there were times in the middle ages when the church actually helped keep the states power in check, since the people had more trust and loyalty to the church than they did the king for the most part, this was actually possible.

jennierock wrote:the most simple way, yes or no?

sorry .lol couldn't answer that one with a simple yes or no.

You're funny. I saw that and I was like "ummm"