Human Governments

[Vee]

Jeremiah 10.23 says that "It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.", affirming that humans are not capable of governing themselves.

The Bible also mentions a future kingdom that will be ruled by God himself ( Luke 1:33, Dan 2:44), but while we wait for that day to come, we are stuck with human governments.

Throughout history different kinds of government have had the opportunity to prove their worth. Some failed more than others but in my opinion, no human government has ever succeeded in solving people’s greatest problems: poverty, hunger, health care, education, employment, housing, life/work balance, citizen’s individual rights, etc.

Below is a list with the most popular types of government (definitions by www.dictionary.com):

Anarchy - a state of society without government or law.

Authoritarian - a governmental or political system in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.

Commonwealth - a group of sovereign states and their dependencies associated by their own choice and linked with common objectives and interests.

Communist - a system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. All economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

Constitutional - a government operating under an authoritative document (constitution) that sets forth the system of fundamental laws and principles that determines the nature, functions and limits of that government.

Democracy - a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

Dictatorship - the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator -a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.

Ecclesiastical - a government administrated by a church.

Emirate - the state or territory under the jurisdiction of an emir - a chieftain, prince, commander, or head of state in some Islamic countries.

Maoism - the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism developed in China by Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung), which states that a continuous revolution is necessary if the leaders of a communist state are to keep in touch with the people.

Marxism -the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, especially the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society.

Monarchy - a state or nation in which the supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in a monarch/king.

Oligarchy - a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.

Parliamentary government - a government in which members of an executive branch are nominated to their positions by a legislature or parliament, and are directly responsible to it; this type of government can be dissolved at will by the parliament (legislature) by means of a no-confidence vote or the leader of the cabinet may dissolve the parliament if it can no longer function.

Republic - a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

Socialism - a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Theocracy - a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God'sor deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.

Totalitarian - a government that seeks to subordinate the individual to the state by controlling not only all political and economic matters, but also the attitudes, values and beliefs of its population.

My question is: Can a human government ever succeed? If yes, which one(s) and how?


Personally, I don’t believe so because for a government to succeed, corruption would have to be eliminated and I don’t see that happening by human will. If we look at history, the more power people get the more corrupt they become.

 

[Nakosis]

Personally, I don’t believe so because for a government to succeed, corruption would have to be eliminated and I don’t see that happening by human will. If we look at history, the more power people get the more corrupt they become.

God him/her/it self could be corrupt. Who knows what desires an all-powerful being could have.

I understand folks hope God is benevolent, but who really knows? Does God really have my personal best interest at heart? Maybe, but if not, it's not like God is going to suffer any repercussions for screwing with me.

 

[Altfish]

Do you have an alternative to a human government?

 

[Sanzbir]

There is a GLORIOUS irony for a list of government types beginning with "Anarchy".

 

[Polymath257]

My question is: Can a human government ever succeed? If yes, which one(s) and how?


Personally, I don’t believe so because for a government to succeed, corruption would have to be eliminated and I don’t see that happening by human will. If we look at history, the more power people get the more corrupt they become.

What do you mean by saying a government succeeds? Does that require that it be perfect? If so, then no government, human or otherwise, will ever succeed.

On the other hand, governments can and have made it easier for people to achieve their dreams and find happiness, to raise their children, and to be productive, to help others, and to encourage exploration. They can, although with less success, attempt to establish justice and provide some safety to their citizens.

One of the brilliant ideas at the founding of the USA is the idea of having different branches of the government compete against each other, keeping them in check. Unfortunately, this doens't happen much in practice, with political parties taking over at the expense of institutional competition.

 

[Quintessence]

It doesn't seem reasonable to make the bar for success the resolution of so-called "greatest problems" of humans. All of those things listed are impossible to resolve in total. That doesn't make attempts to address them a failure. Furthermore, many systems of governance are not intended to address these supposed problems at all. Forms of governance are essentially means of enforcing particular social norms, and social norms are not agreed upon by all peoples. If we're going to assess the "success" of a form of governance, it should be with respect to how well it maintains the particular social norms it is attempting to put in place. Seems to me that by that measure, all of them are more or less successful when actually followed as intended.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Jeremiah 10.23 says that "It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.", affirming that humans are not capable of governing themselves.

The Bible also mentions a future kingdom that will be ruled by God himself ( Luke 1:33, Dan 2:44), but while we wait for that day to come, we are stuck with human governments.

Throughout history different kinds of government have had the opportunity to prove their worth. Some failed more than others but in my opinion, no human government has ever succeeded in solving people’s greatest problems: poverty, hunger, health care, education, employment, housing, life/work balance, citizen’s individual rights, etc.

Below is a list with the most popular types of government (definitions by www.dictionary.com):

Anarchy - a state of society without government or law.

Authoritarian - a governmental or political system in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.

Commonwealth - a group of sovereign states and their dependencies associated by their own choice and linked with common objectives and interests.

Communist - a system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. All economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

Constitutional - a government operating under an authoritative document (constitution) that sets forth the system of fundamental laws and principles that determines the nature, functions and limits of that government.

Democracy - a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

Dictatorship - the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator -a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.

Ecclesiastical - a government administrated by a church.

Emirate - the state or territory under the jurisdiction of an emir - a chieftain, prince, commander, or head of state in some Islamic countries.

Maoism - the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism developed in China by Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung), which states that a continuous revolution is necessary if the leaders of a communist state are to keep in touch with the people.

Marxism -the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, especially the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society.

Monarchy - a state or nation in which the supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in a monarch/king.

Oligarchy - a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.

Parliamentary government - a government in which members of an executive branch are nominated to their positions by a legislature or parliament, and are directly responsible to it; this type of government can be dissolved at will by the parliament (legislature) by means of a no-confidence vote or the leader of the cabinet may dissolve the parliament if it can no longer function.

Republic - a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

Socialism - a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Theocracy - a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God'sor deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.

Totalitarian - a government that seeks to subordinate the individual to the state by controlling not only all political and economic matters, but also the attitudes, values and beliefs of its population.

My question is: Can a human government ever succeed? If yes, which one(s) and how?


Personally, I don’t believe so because for a government to succeed, corruption would have to be eliminated and I don’t see that happening by human will. If we look at history, the more power people get the more corrupt they become.

However we feel or think about government, it is an unavoidable necessity. Whether locally, nationally, or internationally the smooth running of our very human affairs requires that we cooperate and work together to make the best decisions in everyone's interest.

We have come a long way in just 150 years. Whether from the perspective of universal education, the rights of women, overcoming prejudice of all kinds, scientific achievements, and levels of prosperity that are unprecedented in human history.

Another important achievement is the united nations that had proved essential in the aftermath of two war worlds. But don't JWs view the united nations as the beast in the book of revelation? Is that what you really wanted to talk about?

 

[Vee]

Another important achievement is the united nations that had proved essential in the aftermath of two war worlds. But don't JWs view the united nations as the beast in the book of revelation? Is that what you really wanted to talk about?

Hi. I wasn't thinking about that, no. The United Nations played it's role in history and was very important to get us to where we are today.
I was really talking about the success of governments in addressing societies issues.

 

[metis]

Can a human government ever succeed? If yes, which one(s) and how?

They often succeed but then they often fail.

In a democracy, the people are the government, so if we want a say in what is going to affect us, then why refuse to vote and leave it to others to determine our own fate?

If we look at history, the more power people get the more corrupt they become.

And that can be applied to religious groups as well, so should one not join any of them?

If you want less corrupt government, let me recommend that you vote and try to put in people who are not corrupt. If one doesn't vote, then they're part of the problem, so then they shouldn't complain about "corrupt government".

 

[Pudding]

Jeremiah 10.23 says that "It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.", affirming that humans are not capable of governing themselves.

The Bible also mentions a future kingdom that will be ruled by God himself ( Luke 1:33, Dan 2:44), but while we wait for that day to come, we are stuck with human governments.

Throughout history different kinds of government have had the opportunity to prove their worth. Some failed more than others but in my opinion, no human government has ever succeeded in solving people’s greatest problems: poverty, hunger, health care, education, employment, housing, life/work balance, citizen’s individual rights, etc.

Below is a list with the most popular types of government (definitions by www.dictionary.com):

(snip)

My question is: Can a human government ever succeed? If yes, which one(s) and how?


Personally, I don’t believe so because for a government to succeed, corruption would have to be eliminated and I don’t see that happening by human will. If we look at history, the more power people get the more corrupt they become.

Throughout the story of Bible God's government have had the opportunity to prove his worth. God is omniscient and omnipotent.

He fail to prevent the corruption from happening in the garden of Eden. He rules the heaven but fail to prevent the corruption of Satan from happening there. He regret creating men so he destroy all humanity except a few and hope the remaining humans will prosper the earth and obey his government and live according to his rules but he still fail to prevent the corruption of humanity from happening. Finally he sends Jesus to threaten all humanity to obey his government otherwise non-follower will be burn for eternity. What is the difference between this God's government with human's version of totalitarian and authoritarian government? Human's government doesn't achieve perfection in reality world, neither does God's government as shown in the story in the Bible.

Furthermore, what have your God done to solve people’s reality problems of poverty, hunger, health care, education, employment, housing, life/work balance and citizen’s individual rights?
You haven't present one iota of your God's contribution but proceed to complain about the imperfectionness of humanity's attempt in solving humanity's problem.

 

[danieldemol]

I believe governments that tax people progressively based on income are necessary to redistribute wealth and have historically shown far greater success in my country than attempts at government minimisation/abandonment.

In anarchy which follows the removal of all government the ability of the wealthy to gain a higher percentage of the wealth goes unchecked by the needs/demands of the masses.

 

[sayak83]

Jeremiah 10.23 says that "It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.", affirming that humans are not capable of governing themselves.

The Bible also mentions a future kingdom that will be ruled by God himself ( Luke 1:33, Dan 2:44), but while we wait for that day to come, we are stuck with human governments.

Throughout history different kinds of government have had the opportunity to prove their worth. Some failed more than others but in my opinion, no human government has ever succeeded in solving people’s greatest problems: poverty, hunger, health care, education, employment, housing, life/work balance, citizen’s individual rights, etc.

Below is a list with the most popular types of government (definitions by www.dictionary.com):

Anarchy - a state of society without government or law.

Authoritarian - a governmental or political system in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.

Commonwealth - a group of sovereign states and their dependencies associated by their own choice and linked with common objectives and interests.

Communist - a system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. All economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

Constitutional - a government operating under an authoritative document (constitution) that sets forth the system of fundamental laws and principles that determines the nature, functions and limits of that government.

Democracy - a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

Dictatorship - the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator -a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.

Ecclesiastical - a government administrated by a church.

Emirate - the state or territory under the jurisdiction of an emir - a chieftain, prince, commander, or head of state in some Islamic countries.

Maoism - the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism developed in China by Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung), which states that a continuous revolution is necessary if the leaders of a communist state are to keep in touch with the people.

Marxism -the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, especially the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society.

Monarchy - a state or nation in which the supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in a monarch/king.

Oligarchy - a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.

Parliamentary government - a government in which members of an executive branch are nominated to their positions by a legislature or parliament, and are directly responsible to it; this type of government can be dissolved at will by the parliament (legislature) by means of a no-confidence vote or the leader of the cabinet may dissolve the parliament if it can no longer function.

Republic - a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

Socialism - a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Theocracy - a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God'sor deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.

Totalitarian - a government that seeks to subordinate the individual to the state by controlling not only all political and economic matters, but also the attitudes, values and beliefs of its population.

My question is: Can a human government ever succeed? If yes, which one(s) and how?


Personally, I don’t believe so because for a government to succeed, corruption would have to be eliminated and I don’t see that happening by human will. If we look at history, the more power people get the more corrupt they become.

What would constitute success? Suppose the criteria is to effectively utilize human potential of a society, then it is difficult to argue with the near exponential growth of that over the last 15,000 years from caveman stage. It could be said that the "kings" have succeeded in increasing our power while the "philosophers" and "priests" have failed to increase our wisdom... which is the source of the modern dilemma (too much power, not enough wisdom to wield it). Both the credit (for greater power and awe-inspiring achievements through technological revolution) and the blame (for neglecting concomitant growth in wisdom traditions creating atrocious examples of moral failure on an industrial scale) lies at the feet of the West. I see problems to continue unless ethics become as much a focus of society as STEM education is. If demagogues like Trump and Brexit groups still get elected by rabble rousing sophistry, nothing has changed since Socrates and Confucius identified the problem and started the project of eudaimonic philosophy.

 

[metis]

I believe governments that tax people progressively based on income are necessary to redistribute wealth and have historically shown far greater success in my country than attempts at government minimisation/abandonment.

And the research on this shows that you are correct. Getting money into the hands of lower-income families has the greatest impetus to stimulate economic growth as long as there's enough investment money coming in.

Poorer and lower-middle income families are far more likely to spend their money locally, which is where good economic growth needs to start. Upper income families may not spend additional money through tax breaks or they may spend it in foreign investments.

 

[metis]

In anarchy which follows the removal of all government the ability of the wealthy to gain a higher percentage of the wealth goes unchecked by the needs/demands of the masses.

On top of that, there needs to be another consideration of not voting.

Let's say that because of religious reasons, no observant religious person votes. If they form much of the background for a truly moral society, but if they don't vote, then guess who does vote to determine the direction of that society? [rhetorical]

The mistake some make is that they take the "render unto Caesar..." statement from Jesus in a manner that I think quite clearly Jesus didn't actually mean. Basically, because of the issue of money-exchange at the Temple, Jesus appears to be saying "pay your taxes-- it's only money".

Since we had very little political power there at that time (only what the Romans allow us to have), we couldn't form the government, but in previous and then much later times, we did. After all, according to Torah, God actually chose some of the leaders to become king, such as David. If government is somehow so intrinsically bad, then why did God do that at times, plus give us Laws that even kings had to abide by? [again, rhetorical]

 

[Vee]

I see problems to continue unless ethics become as much a focus of society as STEM education is.

That would be one of my biggest dreams.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If you want less corrupt government.....

Doesn’t everyone, really?

....let me recommend that you vote and try to put in people who are not corrupt

How’s that working out? Not too good, it seems.
(Why not? Maybe, because what Luke 4:5-6 and 1 John 5:19 says is accurate?)

 

[metis]

How’s that working out? Not too good, it seems.
(Why not? Maybe, because what Luke 4:5-6 and 1 John 5:19 says is accurate?)

Then your expectations are unrealistic.

Using what you're essentially saying here, then all religions and denominations, including yours, are "corrupt" as well since there's some people in them that are corrupt. If moral people don't vote and/or get involved, then immoral or amoral people will totally dominate government and all other institutions, including yours. Jesus was certainly not anti-government, nor was God by all indications.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Then your expectations are unrealistic.

Using what you're essentially saying here, then all religions and denominations, including yours, are "corrupt" as well since there's some people in them that are corrupt. If moral people don't vote and/or get involved, then immoral or amoral people will totally dominate government and all other institutions, including yours. Jesus was certainly not anti-government, nor was God by all indications.

The Scriptures inform us that invisible spirit forces are controlling politics behind the scenes. All you have to do — like I just did — is peruse the ‘politics’ forum. You’ll see the frustration that people feel toward their rulers. The only solution is God’s Kingdom, in the hands of His Son.

When they wanted to make Jesus King (and He would’ve been the best), he got away from them.

 

[savagewind]

Jeremiah 10.23

You might have Jeremiah wrong. Can you handle it?
It might mean: [Brace yourselves.]

I know Jehovah that not of man* [is] God's way. Not a man** going [is what] establishes God's stride.



*Mankind
**a man

 

[savagewind]

Dan 2:44)

I am pretty sure you have Daniel 2:44 wrong also. But, really, who cares?