• Lung@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Well, US is doing exactly this too. It doesn’t appear so incoherent - from a perspective of achieving objectives while attempting to reduce casualties. (And making a ton of money in the process)

  • Carrolade@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Yes, states in and of themselves are not morality-driven entities, nor are they inherently consistent. They’re survival-driven and advantage-driven. This is how democracy is intended to function, because you can threaten the top leaders with being removed from office every few years, providing a strong incentive for good behavior that is in-line with their most fundamental goal of survival.

    No other system provides the same degree of incentive to the top leadership, who can police the citizens into fearful docility with overwhelming force if no mechanism for their regular removal is provided.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I’ve lived in a couple of countries in Europe, including over a decade in Britain.

      In general the British elites, mainly high middle-class and the very wealthy, are the single most fake people in Europe and they’re actually brought up thinking that’s exactly how people should behave - what they call there “Public Schools” (which, in an interesting demonstration of the exact principles I describe below, are in fact private schools rather than state-funded) which are frequented by the scions of the upper and upper-middle classes often teach kids this kind of behaviour, especially the more “elite” (in the sense of being for the children of the very rich) ones.

      The “English Gentleman” stereotype is not at all a person who does the right thing, it’s a person who projects the right impression, something altogether different.

      So it’s absolutelly normal for British Politics to have things like two seemingly opposite policies, one done with great fanfarre but de facto low effectiveness for the purpose of projecting the right impression and another which is done much more quietly and more effectivelly to achieving the true desired aims of the politicians over there (who at the moment, are all people who were born in wealth). Another very common strategy is to do something that overtly seems to produce a certain, positive, result but is done in such as way that the side-effects are much more powerful that the primary effect and produce a very different result (which at a later data, and adding insult to injury, is claimed to have been “totally unexpected”).

      Every single piece of policy from Britain (as the politicans are all from upper middle and upper class) as well as all the stuff done for the Press by members of the upper classes (especially the older landed kind), namelly the Royal Family, should be treated as a theatrical performance and not at all believed to be what first appearences make it seem.