The whole concept of liberalism is based on the assumption that governments are extremely dangerous and potentially evil and in need of constant control by both the public and it's own institutions. Even if it appears that a specific government or institution is doing good work, it is extremely dangerous to accept that as anything other than a temporary and potentially deceiving state of affairs.

Constant distrust and suspicion of power is crucial to a free and prosperous society. Politicians, officials and even private executives should never receive praise from the public, if they are doing good work the public should just shrug and say to themselves "yeah, ok, you're not horrible right now". Governments are never good, at best they are not actively harmful.

> Governments are never good, at best they are not actively harmful.

Except of course, when they are doing good.

Government is essential and its hard - attempting to juggle the needs and rights of diverse and disparate people. I get tired of the mantra that the people involved in government are inherently evil, bad, out for themselves etc. Many people who get into politics do so out of a true desire to make the lives of their fellows better - whether you agree with their stances or not.

I'm not saying that it is inherently evil, I'm saying that you as a member of the public must assume that it at least has that potential at all times for it to function as intended.

And the grand-(N)-parent 'bkor already answered this by saying that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Yes, the government has potential for doing enormous evils, which comes from its very nature - it's large and has monopoly on violence. But people having a cooperative, instead of antagonistic approach to government helps that potential to go unfulfilled.

That's a very cynical view of government and of society in general. You basically don't trust other people to do good just for good's sake. I'm going to assume that this view is informed by your own experiences, but your personal experience might not hold up everywhere. I'm originally from the Netherlands as well, and while the government does fuck up, life is still better with a government than without, so in the balance it would seem to me that government is a force for good.

>> Governments will always do evil. Not to everyone, all of the time - but they are by nature evil.

>If a lot of people assume this

I come from Norway - by many assumed to be among the most human and decent countries in the world.

When a refugee storm hit Norwegian borders a few years ago, the cabinet assigned Antichrist herself, Sylvi Listhaug, to deal with it. It would not surprise me if Trump's advisers had her misdeeds (and results) in mind when they designed their current policy.

That's Norway - the country who hands out the Nobel Peace Price.

Do yo know how Norway gets rid of it's aging population? They thirst them to death. No assisted death option like in the Netherlands. Just unimaginable pain and fear at the and of life.

In Norway today, a man is serving life in prison for murdering and raping a 8 year old girl. He is innocent. Everybody knows he is innocent. But the Justice system is incapable of admitting mistakes - so he remains in jail.

I don't want to make software for governments. Because, even those who hand out Peace Prices and pretend to be soo accepting and liberal - even those commit unimaginable evil every single day of the year.

It's quite a leap from: "Any government will do things that I consider evil" to "Governments [...] are by nature evil." Especially as context suggests you don't mean this to read "Governments are by nature capable of both evil and good." [1]

The former is almost trivially true, at least in the narrow reading supported by your examples, mostly a function of their size. The latter a vast sweeping philosophical generalization that is backed up by nothing.

All your examples show is that there are instances of them failing to live up to your ethical standards (which it seems I largely share). Would you rather have no laws than imperfect laws? No justice than imperfect justice?

[1] That would make it a non-sequitur that you would single out governments but are OK with individuals and corporations using your software.

I don't know anything about Sylvi Listhaug, assisted death in Norway or the man allegedly falsely accused. You might be right about all of it but it still comes across as a ridiculous combination of strawman arguments and conflating the entire public sector and all laws into suspicious "government". Basically it boils down to "because it's not perfect, it's evil".

Would you rather there was no government?