The soulless structure of the government is not much different than the soulless structure of a corporation.
Very different for a fundamental reason: at least in the US, one exists to serve the people, the other to extract the maximum amount of profit possible from the people. But to your point, they have similarities in that they are both entirely constructed of flawed humans. That difference in purpose though, makes a huge impact on we interact with them, what we expect of them, and our ability to influence them.
The idea that a government will serve a people forms the basis of it’s legitimacy, but as long as a government rules over people, it does not need to serve them. It doesn’t matter whether or not the power is derived from the divine right of kings in a monarchy, or the tyrrany of the majority in a democracy (or alternatively, the tyrrany of the largest minority), the relationship of the governed and the government is always a relationship of subjugation. If enough votes are cast, people will be subjugated. Novel ways will be found to abjectify a group, imprison them, and subjugate them without breaking laws.
Saying the government serves the people doesn’t change the oppressive nature of the structure, and to say that the democratic coat of paint prevents it from being used to oppress is just naive.
The reason I consider both to be soulless is because the organization itself, be it a branch of government or a bureaucratic office, has their support based on political capital. If it becomes inconvenient to support the queers, their support is gone. This is the same with businesses, with monetary capital being the deciding factor of support.
You are right that the means of interaction is different betweeen the two, but that goes down to the currency used to interact with them.
Very different for a fundamental reason: at least in the US, one exists to serve the people, the other to extract the maximum amount of profit possible from the people. But to your point, they have similarities in that they are both entirely constructed of flawed humans. That difference in purpose though, makes a huge impact on we interact with them, what we expect of them, and our ability to influence them.
I disagree.
The idea that a government will serve a people forms the basis of it’s legitimacy, but as long as a government rules over people, it does not need to serve them. It doesn’t matter whether or not the power is derived from the divine right of kings in a monarchy, or the tyrrany of the majority in a democracy (or alternatively, the tyrrany of the largest minority), the relationship of the governed and the government is always a relationship of subjugation. If enough votes are cast, people will be subjugated. Novel ways will be found to abjectify a group, imprison them, and subjugate them without breaking laws.
Saying the government serves the people doesn’t change the oppressive nature of the structure, and to say that the democratic coat of paint prevents it from being used to oppress is just naive.
The reason I consider both to be soulless is because the organization itself, be it a branch of government or a bureaucratic office, has their support based on political capital. If it becomes inconvenient to support the queers, their support is gone. This is the same with businesses, with monetary capital being the deciding factor of support.
You are right that the means of interaction is different betweeen the two, but that goes down to the currency used to interact with them.