Theye Are Evil

The ostensible purpose of any government is to do the right things for the people over whom they govern.  That which defines "right things" may vary significantly from nation to nation, but I believe it is safe to assume that the purport is universally beneficent, on paper.  We could go on almost endlessly discussing the variations of world views of what entail beneficence, which will likely get us nowhere.  Therefore, allow me the indulgence of setting the theoretical normative model of the United States as the best representative standard.  I do believe that most of the people on planet earth would have little complaint on that account.

Given the standard, I must assert that Theye, those who occupy the positions of greatest material power on the planet, are evil.  As some of you may recall, I rarely employ that appellation because I believe that it is a word of great power due to the extreme nature of its semantic.  Evil manifests as great destructive power that is wielded with injustice, whether in major or minor degree.  But don't take my word for it, let us see what the Oxford dictionary says about it:

evil (n.) "anything that causes injury, anything that harms or is likely to harm; a malady or disease; conduct contrary to standards of morals or righteousness," Old English yfel (see evil (adj.)).

Samuel Johnson's put it this way:

E'VIL §, e'-vl. 159. a. [ypel, Sax.] Having bad qualities of any kind ; not good. Deut. xxii. Wicked bad; corrupt. St. Matthew, xx. Unhappy; miser- able ; calamitous. Exodus. Mischievous ; destruc- tive; ravenous. Genesis, xxxvii.

 

E'VIL, e'-vl. n. s. [generally contracted to ill.l Wickedness ; a crime. Shal'. Injury ; mischief. Proverbs. Malignity;corruption.Eccles.ix. Mis- fortune ; calamity. Job, ii. Malady ; disease. Shak-speare.

E'VIL, e'-vl. ad. Not well, in whatever respect. Shak. Not well ; not virtuously. John, xviii. Not well, not happily. Deut. vii. Injuriously ; not kindly. Deut. xxvi. It is often used in composition, to give a bad meaning to a word.

My characterization of evil is less generalized, focusing in on "government" action in particular, and I believe it is accurate.

Assuming all of the above, how then can it be taken by anyone in posifesession of even two functioning brain cells that "government" is anything other than evil?  If the ostensible purpose is to do good, yet the net result of nearly everything its agents and operators do is evil in one form and degree, or another, how is it even remotely possible that anyone could assess such entities and their constituent members as anything other than evil?

A standard argument against such a characterization is that in the cases of an evil outcome, the intentions of the actors was benevolent.  This, of course, is pure falderal; utter nonsense; complete malarky; fully, idiotically, and so very transparently a falsehood.  For one thing, intentions count for nothing in such cases, but only the results.  If you doubt, then I recommend you comb through criminal case files where the defendants were convicted of various felonious acts, despite their good intentions having been clearly established.  While such intentions may at times serve as mitigating factors where sentencing is considered, they have little to no bearing whatsoever where the crimes themselves are concerned.  This is common practice in the courts.  The man who kidnaps his neighbor's daughter and burns her alive at the stake in the sincere belief that he was saving her immortal soul from eternal hellfire will almost certainly be convicted and sent to prison or the psych ward, perhaps for life several times over in any event, his "good intentions" notwithstanding.

If this standard, which in my estimation is quite reasonable, applies to the common man in matters of criminal acts, then why does the same standard not apply to the human beings who have donned the mantle of the public trust pursuant to governing under the aforementioned standards and purport to purpose?

There is also an argument that claims those in "government" who produce evil outcomes do so not with intent, but because they made a mistake.  The most such people will admit is that those who precipitate evil upon the victims over whom their activities look suspiciously similar to lording, are bumbling dolts, which for some reason that is never really made clear, renders them somehow innocent of any crime.

I cannot accept any such feeble excuses.  The people who take up the mantle hold positions of special trust for which no such excuses can be reasonably held as valid.  Furthermore, those holding the loftiest positions in the halls of governance, especially those who have retained their seats for decades on end, cannot credibly claim ignorant good intentions or that their collective results are the product of an impossibly long string of accidents.

Intelligent men of good character, when they observe an undesirable result of their actions, much less those that might be rightly deemed as evil, admit their failure and make amends.  When was the last time you witnessed such an occurrence in the halls of "government"?

What we do see on a daily basis, are men whose scheming produces all manner of injury that could be characterized as nothing better than evil.  We see them never backing away from their rotten outcomes, save to do so in the sense of public relations in order to disassociate themselves while doing nothing to correct the damages they have caused their constituents.  Indeed, in many cases such people double down time and again, most especially when said constituents raise cries of howling protest against what has been done.  The criminals in such cases almost never admit their failure, which in itself is sufficient indication that what they have done cannot be reasonably credited to accident, blundering, or good intentions gone sideways.

All that remains, then, is evil.  Such people are evil, must be unapologetically regarded as such, and must be be held to account in the most grim nature.

There is no place for easy forgiveness where the crimes of people in positions of public trust are concerned. If you are not up to the tasks in question, then do not step up to the responsibility, whether your inadequacy is intellectual, experiential, ethical, or moral.  When such people bring unjust harm upon those to whom they swear oaths of good faith and competent service, they must be held strictly accountable for their acts, forced to make all possible amends, and be imprisoned most harshly as both penance for their acts of evil, and to serve as examples to the rest as to what awaits them when they do wrong, regardless of the reasons for it.

Because the acts of "government" are so consistently evil in their net results, it must be assumed that the overarching cause is outright malevolence, or a felonious disregard for the welfare of one's fellows, particularly and especially in light of the aforementioned oath. Such must be met with grim force that is devoid of all equivocation and reticence.  To do less is tantamount to approval.

Give it a think, and as always please accept my best wishes.