Just re-arrange the words in the propaganda a little and the real source of a problem becomes a bit clearer
With internet access 24/7 for much of the population of planet earth, today, more and more people have much easier access to information that, say, half a generation ago would only be available to those with the ability and determination to seek it out.
It took time and effort and travelling around the country in order to visit libraries, interview witnesses and victims, making "freedom of information" requests to bureaucrats, and so on, to gather information and evidence of some of the crimes that were being continually carried out.
There used to be "investigative journalists" who could do some decent research , and attempt to have it published in newspapers and magazines. (Of course, because of the depth of information easily available to everyone nowadays via the web, we can now estimate to some degree the level of censorship they were subjected by their editors etc).
Today, if one is so inclined, enormous stacks of evidence can be found via a few mouse clicks that supports identification of perpetrators of murder, fraud, slavery, rape, torture, starvation, poisoning, pollution, theft, terrorism - (Incidentally, if you care to put the prefix "mass" in front of each of these crimes, the resulting list is contained in the job description of members of the political class.
Numerous research polls have been published, over the years, that claim to show that almost no-one really believes very much of what politicians say. (So, why do the majority of any population play along, when the ruling class decide to have another of their quadrennial popularity contests)?
To participate in the mass delusion of deciding which plastic-faced marionette gets to facilitate the blood-sucking of the productive class, until the next plug-ugly narcissistic psychopath is "chosen" for them to swoon over, would suggest a population either under mass hypnosis, or perhaps just incredibly stupid...............
(The word "stupid" is used here in the sense meaning, "self-harming. It doesn't mean (here) unintelligent)
When people do actually pay some attention to some particular political scandal they are told about, they are quite often just informed that the particular politician involved is accused of
"abusing his power" or "abusing his office."
This power can manifest itself in real action in the real world, almost always with terrible effects on individuals within a population.
Tragically, the reason the power is there, is, because the majority of a population has been taught to believe, there is a right to wield such power over real people. (Worse. This belief is that only a member of the political ruling class has this right. No ordinary person has a right to yield such power).
(With beliefs like this kicking around in the heads of the population, what could possibly go wrong)?
Happily, more and more people are being exposed to the idea that................
The problem is not the abuse of power......
The problem is the power to abuse....
Gengis Kahn didn't rule because people magically believed he had the right to do so, he ruled because he'd kill anyone who disagreed.
Disagreed with what?
Ghengis Kahn.
It's possible to disagree with a claim or an opinion. Genghis Kahn was not an opinion or a claim.
Please present an argument.....
"....he ruled because he'd kill anyone who disagreed...." This statement is either incomplete or meaningless. Explain what you mean..
What aren't you getting? Ghengis Kahn ruled by killing anyone who opposed him, not " because the majority of a population has been taught to believe, there is a right to wield such power over real people."
His power existed because he had the strength and skills to force everyone to follow his rule.
"...His power existed because he had the strength and skills to force everyone to follow his rule...."
Surely you're not trying to say that Genghis Kahn was just a thug that went around single-handedly beating people up and killing them just because they opposed his claim that he had a right to "rule" them.
Are you suggesting that maybe 1/2 dozen guys that opposed him couldn't just have got together and killed him before he caused any more trouble?
Did he rule over 1000's of people because they were all afraid of him? He's only one guy, after all. You can't really expect anyone to believe that, surely?
(There wasn't a "reply" button below your previous comment so I'm afraid I had to put my comment here).
Government by definition is the initiation of force
Yep!
Here it is - straight from the horses arse
there is no such thing as legitimate authority
Yep. Just seems to be a mass delusion, held by lots of people. Thanks for comment.