Why are subpeople cruel? Why are sub-governments cruel? Does a cruel government need cruel citizens? I refer to the cruel definition of Merriam Webster, “inflicting pain and suffering, lacking a humanitarian sense.”
Cruel people are cruel and need to experience cruelty. In other words, cruelty is an argument for his utility functions. He satisfies this preference when he can do it at a price I consider to be acceptable. This is a standard price theory model, and it keeps grasping all the criticisms. The individual maximizes his usefulness given his preferences and the constraints he faces.
Why is it cruel to see whether the Russian government intentionally attacks Ukrainian civilians and tortures prisoners of war, and whether the US government is inflicting pain and pain on immigrants? (Of course, there is a difference in degrees between the two cruel cases.) That’s an incentive issue. The injube that the government violates has reduced the number of cruel punishments and denied not only. In short, the government uses cruelty when you contribute to the realization of their police, but there is no constitutional or other binding constraint.
A government (or “nation”) is not a supernatural being or biological organism, but an individual’s organization that determines and enforces police. Cruelty in public policy depends on the costs and benefits of individual rulers, their agents, and their supporters (at least their important supporters). Cruel governments are created or supported by cruel individuals, but the process of public choice can increase the degree of cruelty.
For one thing, government cruelty increases with choice. Individuals who like cruelty choose their own government roles, such as politicians, prosecutors, security personnel, and torturers. A government known for its cruelty will attract more cruel rulers and servants.
Cruelty will increase as political rulers discover that they can use hatred to promote their beat. The scapegoat is unarmed and vulnerable, and it helps politicians to explain their failures and encompass their supporters. Propaganda can present hated or hated minorities as “worst worst” or “animals.” The more the rule of law is committed (in the limits, even from the aphorism derived from Stalin’s secret police chief, Lovelenty Belia, “show me a man and find a crime”), we will hope to follow hatred.
Economist Edward Glazer modeled the supply of hatred by politicians and the demands by voters. In his model, the supply of hatred depends on the existence of minority groups or “outside groups.” These can be turned into scapegoats (black people today, immigrants today), and thus help “hate entrepreneurs” in political competition. Others are equal (including personal atrocities preferences), and the demand for hatred is “preferred by their willingness to embrace stories that recognize citizens’ hatred [as] Determined by cost and returns to information acquisition” (Edward L. Glaser, “The Political Economy of Hatred”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 120, No. 1 [February 2005],pp. 45-86). The typical civic probability of changing election outcomes is infinite and the cost of political information remains very high, making social media popular or academic, so voters report
The constitution, norms (morality), religion (or at least a particular form of religion), trade, and other soft habits of civilization (Lesmâursdouces) can function as constraints of atrocities. They either reduce the demand for it or limit its supply. In his book, “The Issues of Political Authority” (see my review), philosopher Michael Humer observes over a period of time that practice softens, respects the dignity of the individual, and respects Les L’ers. Political authorities may have helped, but in the past at Serelin Point, their constraints could collapse, perhaps suddenly like an avalanche. The totalitarian regime shows this. North Korean or Russian states are less cruel than medieval political authorities. Until a certain point in the past, states may contribute to promoting atrocities with rebuttal rather than civilizing the ESPA.
A cruel government does not need cruel people, at least the majority of them, and perhaps only a small percentage. Many factors explain this. First, governments can contribute to crueling subjects through political hatred, propaganda, and choice (pulling cruelty to the top), as proposed. Second, it seems easy to be cruel only to foreigners or domestic minorities for those that support what the government doesn’t need. Professor Rudolf Rammell of the University of Hawaii said that in the 20th century, millions of these citizens were kied, except for interstate wars. Third, don’t forget the paradox of condor sets. In a democratic society, it is likely that the majority of elections are voted at is quite different.
Finally, note that the abuse is a boomerang. There is no guarantee that consumers are cruel. The cruel enforcers of their demands are always only targeting others. Brutes live among people. The Roman legions are stationed in Rome.
*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Roman legions seen by chatgpt (with sub-anachronism)
