Are you pro-establishment or populist?

Government is established to support the people. Ergo, supporting the government is the best course to support the people.

I'm guessing that you base the assumption on the current task of the government from the populace's POV, correct?

Based on the social contract, Magna Carta, and John Locke's Treatises of Government.

I don't know what all that is, and I don't need to to see a different POV.

You should too. Here's the lead:
The government governs.

Who are the subjects? By what power do they remain governed?

People allow themselves to be governed in return for protection (primarily through the rule of civil law). The law of nature isn't sustainable; it proceeds society, and if that society decays into despotism, it follows as well. That's a shitty way of summing up Locke's second Treatise, but I would recommend you look into them.

"I need these people to work for me, so I will hire them, then I will make them do my jobs. Great, now I have enough money and power to make these areas mine, and if people wish to live in them I will tax them. Oh no, people are revolting, I better improve living conditions so that they don't bring me down."

People don't revolt because of a necessary use of the power invested in the governing power, they revolt because of extensive overreach, corruption, or totalitarianism. If that so happens, a return to the law of nature follows and the cycle begins anew.

Government is established to support the people. Ergo, supporting the government is the best course to support the people.

I'm guessing that you base the assumption on the current task of the government from the populace's POV, correct?

Based on the social contract, Magna Carta, and John Locke's Treatises of Government.

I don't know what all that is, and I don't need to to see a different POV.

You should too. Here's the lead:
The government governs.

Who are the subjects? By what power do they remain governed?

People allow themselves to be governed in return for protection (primarily through the rule of civil law). The law of nature isn't sustainable; it proceeds society, and if that society decays into despotism, it follows as well. That's a shitty way of summing up Locke's second Treatise, but I would recommend you look into them.

"I need these people to work for me, so I will hire them, then I will make them do my jobs. Great, now I have enough money and power to make these areas mine, and if people wish to live in them I will tax them. Oh no, people are revolting, I better improve living conditions so that they don't bring me down."

People don't revolt because of a necessary use of the power invested in the governing power, they revolt because of extensive overreach, corruption, or totalitarianism. If that so happens, a return to the law of nature follows and the cycle begins anew.

The point I was trying to make is that the person who got all of those things, or all of that power in other words, wasn't an authorative figure. He just wanted to make money and get power because he could. Thing is, he was smart enough to realize that he couldn't be so careless, and so he appealed to the people a little. The people become content, and he's on his way to make more money and gain more power.

Also, no. It's easy to think that we're in the safe 'cause the government is doing stuff for us, but they're essentially protecting their cattle.

I haven't stated that government is infallible, at all. Actually, that's entirely wrong. The point is that certain natural rights are given in exchange for the security of society, to protect their other rights and assets. This is the social contract. Government governs solely by the power invested in it by the people.

For a people to thrive, a government must be in place to support that growth, and give it direction. Supporting government isn't blindly accepting everything that's given: it's making sure that it continues to support the needs of the people.

Government is established to support the people. Ergo, supporting the government is the best course to support the people.

I'm guessing that you base the assumption on the current task of the government from the populace's POV, correct?

Based on the social contract, Magna Carta, and John Locke's Treatises of Government.

I don't know what all that is, and I don't need to to see a different POV.

You should too. Here's the lead:
The government governs.

Who are the subjects? By what power do they remain governed?

People allow themselves to be governed in return for protection (primarily through the rule of civil law). The law of nature isn't sustainable; it proceeds society, and if that society decays into despotism, it follows as well. That's a shitty way of summing up Locke's second Treatise, but I would recommend you look into them.

"I need these people to work for me, so I will hire them, then I will make them do my jobs. Great, now I have enough money and power to make these areas mine, and if people wish to live in them I will tax them. Oh no, people are revolting, I better improve living conditions so that they don't bring me down."

People don't revolt because of a necessary use of the power invested in the governing power, they revolt because of extensive overreach, corruption, or totalitarianism. If that so happens, a return to the law of nature follows and the cycle begins anew.

The point I was trying to make is that the person who got all of those things, or all of that power in other words, wasn't an authorative figure. He just wanted to make money and get power because he could. Thing is, he was smart enough to realize that he couldn't be so careless, and so he appealed to the people a little. The people become content, and he's on his way to make more money and gain more power.

But he is an authority figure. You don't have to be authoritative to have authority.

Also, no. It's easy to think that we're in the safe 'cause the government is doing stuff for us, but they're essentially protecting their cattle.

I haven't stated that government is infallible, at all. Actually, that's entirely wrong. The point is that certain natural rights are given in exchange for the security of society, to protect their other rights and assets. This is the social contract. Government governs solely by the power invested in it by the people.

For a people to thrive, a government must be in place to support that growth, and give it direction. Supporting government isn't blindly accepting everything that's given: it's making sure that it continues to support the needs of the people.

Yeah, that sounds like what you'd read from a philosophy book. Do you think that is the case in real life?

For people to thrive? That's useful if the government doesn't have any goals except to improve the country, but a government may have other plans. Let's take World War One for example. The war essentially happened because nations wanted to see who were the superior kind. They chose to invest in a pretty much pointless war instead of focusing on improving the well being of the people.

Another example of how governments might not want the best for their people is North Korea.

Government is established to support the people. Ergo, supporting the government is the best course to support the people.

I'm guessing that you base the assumption on the current task of the government from the populace's POV, correct?

Based on the social contract, Magna Carta, and John Locke's Treatises of Government.

I don't know what all that is, and I don't need to to see a different POV.

You should too. Here's the lead:
The government governs.

Who are the subjects? By what power do they remain governed?

People allow themselves to be governed in return for protection (primarily through the rule of civil law). The law of nature isn't sustainable; it proceeds society, and if that society decays into despotism, it follows as well. That's a shitty way of summing up Locke's second Treatise, but I would recommend you look into them.

"I need these people to work for me, so I will hire them, then I will make them do my jobs. Great, now I have enough money and power to make these areas mine, and if people wish to live in them I will tax them. Oh no, people are revolting, I better improve living conditions so that they don't bring me down."

People don't revolt because of a necessary use of the power invested in the governing power, they revolt because of extensive overreach, corruption, or totalitarianism. If that so happens, a return to the law of nature follows and the cycle begins anew.

The point I was trying to make is that the person who got all of those things, or all of that power in other words, wasn't an authorative figure. He just wanted to make money and get power because he could. Thing is, he was smart enough to realize that he couldn't be so careless, and so he appealed to the people a little. The people become content, and he's on his way to make more money and gain more power.

But he is an authority figure. You don't have to be authoritative to have authority.

That's what I said? I was trying to say that authoritative figures are normal blokes, and not these great people, only I said it the other way around.

Also, no. It's easy to think that we're in the safe 'cause the government is doing stuff for us, but they're essentially protecting their cattle.

I haven't stated that government is infallible, at all. Actually, that's entirely wrong. The point is that certain natural rights are given in exchange for the security of society, to protect their other rights and assets. This is the social contract. Government governs solely by the power invested in it by the people.

For a people to thrive, a government must be in place to support that growth, and give it direction. Supporting government isn't blindly accepting everything that's given: it's making sure that it continues to support the needs of the people.

Yeah, that sounds like what you'd read from a philosophy book. Do you think that is the case in real life?

For people to thrive? That's useful if the government doesn't have any goals except to improve the country, but a government may have other plans. Let's take World War One for example. The war essentially happened because nations wanted to see who were the superior kind. They chose to invest in a pretty much pointless war instead of focusing on improving the well being of the people.

Eh, you're kind of oversimplifying WWI a bit. Unrest led to assassination, assassination led to involving contracted allies, which led to war, which led to certain countries taking advantage of the situation. Even in that case, you could say that the German Empire didn't necessarily govern by the word of it's people; it was dissolved in 1918 with the German Revolution, a result of dissatisfaction of the people.

Also, no. It's easy to think that we're in the safe 'cause the government is doing stuff for us, but they're essentially protecting their cattle.

I haven't stated that government is infallible, at all. Actually, that's entirely wrong. The point is that certain natural rights are given in exchange for the security of society, to protect their other rights and assets. This is the social contract. Government governs solely by the power invested in it by the people.

For a people to thrive, a government must be in place to support that growth, and give it direction. Supporting government isn't blindly accepting everything that's given: it's making sure that it continues to support the needs of the people.

Yeah, that sounds like what you'd read from a philosophy book. Do you think that is the case in real life?

For people to thrive? That's useful if the government doesn't have any goals except to improve the country, but a government may have other plans. Let's take World War One for example. The war essentially happened because nations wanted to see who were the superior kind. They chose to invest in a pretty much pointless war instead of focusing on improving the well being of the people.

Eh, you're kind of oversimplifying WWI a bit

Yeah, I know.

but a foolproof example of how governments might not want the best for their people is North Korea.

The reason why I'm not so eloquent is because this really isn't my area. I've very little experience discussing these kinds of things.

Also, no. It's easy to think that we're in the safe 'cause the government is doing stuff for us, but they're essentially protecting their cattle.

I haven't stated that government is infallible, at all. Actually, that's entirely wrong. The point is that certain natural rights are given in exchange for the security of society, to protect their other rights and assets. This is the social contract. Government governs solely by the power invested in it by the people.

For a people to thrive, a government must be in place to support that growth, and give it direction. Supporting government isn't blindly accepting everything that's given: it's making sure that it continues to support the needs of the people.

Yeah, that sounds like what you'd read from a philosophy book. Do you think that is the case in real life?

For people to thrive? That's useful if the government doesn't have any goals except to improve the country, but a government may have other plans. Let's take World War One for example. The war essentially happened because nations wanted to see who were the superior kind. They chose to invest in a pretty much pointless war instead of focusing on improving the well being of the people.

Eh, you're kind of oversimplifying WWI a bit

Yeah, I know.

but a foolproof example of how governments might not want the best for their people is North Korea.

Again, breaking the contract. It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but dissolution is an inevitability whether it be from within or by another nation-state.

The reason why I'm not so eloquent is because this really isn't my area. I've very little experience discussing these kinds of things.

I don't mind, I just feel like there's some miscommunication here.

Also, no. It's easy to think that we're in the safe 'cause the government is doing stuff for us, but they're essentially protecting their cattle.

I haven't stated that government is infallible, at all. Actually, that's entirely wrong. The point is that certain natural rights are given in exchange for the security of society, to protect their other rights and assets. This is the social contract. Government governs solely by the power invested in it by the people.

For a people to thrive, a government must be in place to support that growth, and give it direction. Supporting government isn't blindly accepting everything that's given: it's making sure that it continues to support the needs of the people.

Yeah, that sounds like what you'd read from a philosophy book. Do you think that is the case in real life?

For people to thrive? That's useful if the government doesn't have any goals except to improve the country, but a government may have other plans. Let's take World War One for example. The war essentially happened because nations wanted to see who were the superior kind. They chose to invest in a pretty much pointless war instead of focusing on improving the well being of the people.

Eh, you're kind of oversimplifying WWI a bit

Yeah, I know.

but a foolproof example of how governments might not want the best for their people is North Korea.

Again, breaking the contract. It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but dissolution is an inevitability whether it be from within or by another nation-state.

The only way dissolution from within or by other states is possible is if the government is weak. If the government were to be strong, their reign of terror could go on forever. Also, North Korea is most likely gonna be left alone for quite a while since it'd inconvenience the big countries (Russia and China) to have to take care of the north korians.

The reason why I'm not so eloquent is because this really isn't my area. I've very little experience discussing these kinds of things.

I don't mind, I just feel like there's some miscommunication here.

The feeling's mutual, and a bit awkward truth be told.

Also, no. It's easy to think that we're in the safe 'cause the government is doing stuff for us, but they're essentially protecting their cattle.

I haven't stated that government is infallible, at all. Actually, that's entirely wrong. The point is that certain natural rights are given in exchange for the security of society, to protect their other rights and assets. This is the social contract. Government governs solely by the power invested in it by the people.

For a people to thrive, a government must be in place to support that growth, and give it direction. Supporting government isn't blindly accepting everything that's given: it's making sure that it continues to support the needs of the people.

Yeah, that sounds like what you'd read from a philosophy book. Do you think that is the case in real life?

For people to thrive? That's useful if the government doesn't have any goals except to improve the country, but a government may have other plans. Let's take World War One for example. The war essentially happened because nations wanted to see who were the superior kind. They chose to invest in a pretty much pointless war instead of focusing on improving the well being of the people.

Eh, you're kind of oversimplifying WWI a bit

Yeah, I know.

but a foolproof example of how governments might not want the best for their people is North Korea.

Again, breaking the contract. It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but dissolution is an inevitability whether it be from within or by another nation-state.

The only way dissolution from within or by other states is possible is if the government is weak. If the government were to be strong, their reign of terror could go on forever. Also, North Korea is most likely gonna be left alone for quite a while since it'd inconvenience the big countries (Russia and China) to have to take care of the north korians.

It is not better to be feared than to be loved; a content population is a motivated population. I dare say it's one of the reasons that North Korea remains a third-world country. It's not strong, from within or externally; like you said, it'd just be an inconvenience to other powers to dissolve it at this point in time.

Also, no. It's easy to think that we're in the safe 'cause the government is doing stuff for us, but they're essentially protecting their cattle.

I haven't stated that government is infallible, at all. Actually, that's entirely wrong. The point is that certain natural rights are given in exchange for the security of society, to protect their other rights and assets. This is the social contract. Government governs solely by the power invested in it by the people.

For a people to thrive, a government must be in place to support that growth, and give it direction. Supporting government isn't blindly accepting everything that's given: it's making sure that it continues to support the needs of the people.

Yeah, that sounds like what you'd read from a philosophy book. Do you think that is the case in real life?

For people to thrive? That's useful if the government doesn't have any goals except to improve the country, but a government may have other plans. Let's take World War One for example. The war essentially happened because nations wanted to see who were the superior kind. They chose to invest in a pretty much pointless war instead of focusing on improving the well being of the people.

Eh, you're kind of oversimplifying WWI a bit

Yeah, I know.

but a foolproof example of how governments might not want the best for their people is North Korea.

Again, breaking the contract. It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but dissolution is an inevitability whether it be from within or by another nation-state.

The only way dissolution from within or by other states is possible is if the government is weak. If the government were to be strong, their reign of terror could go on forever. Also, North Korea is most likely gonna be left alone for quite a while since it'd inconvenience the big countries (Russia and China) to have to take care of the north korians.

It is not better to be feared than to be loved; a content population is a motivated population. I dare say it's one of the reasons that North Korea remains a third-world country. It's not strong, from within or externally; like you said, it'd just be an inconvenience to other powers to dissolve it at this point in time.

I fail to see how what you wrote is relevant to the initial claim that the government is there for helping/supporting the people.

Also, no. It's easy to think that we're in the safe 'cause the government is doing stuff for us, but they're essentially protecting their cattle.

I haven't stated that government is infallible, at all. Actually, that's entirely wrong. The point is that certain natural rights are given in exchange for the security of society, to protect their other rights and assets. This is the social contract. Government governs solely by the power invested in it by the people.

For a people to thrive, a government must be in place to support that growth, and give it direction. Supporting government isn't blindly accepting everything that's given: it's making sure that it continues to support the needs of the people.

Yeah, that sounds like what you'd read from a philosophy book. Do you think that is the case in real life?

For people to thrive? That's useful if the government doesn't have any goals except to improve the country, but a government may have other plans. Let's take World War One for example. The war essentially happened because nations wanted to see who were the superior kind. They chose to invest in a pretty much pointless war instead of focusing on improving the well being of the people.

Eh, you're kind of oversimplifying WWI a bit

Yeah, I know.

but a foolproof example of how governments might not want the best for their people is North Korea.

Again, breaking the contract. It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but dissolution is an inevitability whether it be from within or by another nation-state.

The only way dissolution from within or by other states is possible is if the government is weak. If the government were to be strong, their reign of terror could go on forever. Also, North Korea is most likely gonna be left alone for quite a while since it'd inconvenience the big countries (Russia and China) to have to take care of the north korians.

It is not better to be feared than to be loved; a content population is a motivated population. I dare say it's one of the reasons that North Korea remains a third-world country. It's not strong, from within or externally; like you said, it'd just be an inconvenience to other powers to dissolve it at this point in time.

I fail to see how what you wrote is relevant to the initial claim that the government is there for helping/supporting the people.

Government is formed to protect the interests of the people. It may deviate from the course and begin serving it's own interests; that is when it dissolves, and the law of nature returns before another society forms.

Also, no. It's easy to think that we're in the safe 'cause the government is doing stuff for us, but they're essentially protecting their cattle.

I haven't stated that government is infallible, at all. Actually, that's entirely wrong. The point is that certain natural rights are given in exchange for the security of society, to protect their other rights and assets. This is the social contract. Government governs solely by the power invested in it by the people.

For a people to thrive, a government must be in place to support that growth, and give it direction. Supporting government isn't blindly accepting everything that's given: it's making sure that it continues to support the needs of the people.

Yeah, that sounds like what you'd read from a philosophy book. Do you think that is the case in real life?

For people to thrive? That's useful if the government doesn't have any goals except to improve the country, but a government may have other plans. Let's take World War One for example. The war essentially happened because nations wanted to see who were the superior kind. They chose to invest in a pretty much pointless war instead of focusing on improving the well being of the people.

Eh, you're kind of oversimplifying WWI a bit

Yeah, I know.

but a foolproof example of how governments might not want the best for their people is North Korea.

Again, breaking the contract. It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but dissolution is an inevitability whether it be from within or by another nation-state.

The only way dissolution from within or by other states is possible is if the government is weak. If the government were to be strong, their reign of terror could go on forever. Also, North Korea is most likely gonna be left alone for quite a while since it'd inconvenience the big countries (Russia and China) to have to take care of the north korians.

It is not better to be feared than to be loved; a content population is a motivated population. I dare say it's one of the reasons that North Korea remains a third-world country. It's not strong, from within or externally; like you said, it'd just be an inconvenience to other powers to dissolve it at this point in time.

I fail to see how what you wrote is relevant to the initial claim that the government is there for helping/supporting the people.

Government is formed to protect the interests of the people. It may deviate from the course and begin serving it's own interests; that is when it dissolves, and the law of nature returns before another society forms.

I accept both possibilities, why can't you?

The government is formed to serve its own interests, but then it may deviate to supporting people. That is kind of what happened to Spain during the facistic era. The new government wanted the strong to rule over the weak, but then some generations down the guy brought in democracy out of the blue.

I also believe it's the other way around. You are right, but you are wrong in limiting it to only one way.

Also, no. It's easy to think that we're in the safe 'cause the government is doing stuff for us, but they're essentially protecting their cattle.

I haven't stated that government is infallible, at all. Actually, that's entirely wrong. The point is that certain natural rights are given in exchange for the security of society, to protect their other rights and assets. This is the social contract. Government governs solely by the power invested in it by the people.

For a people to thrive, a government must be in place to support that growth, and give it direction. Supporting government isn't blindly accepting everything that's given: it's making sure that it continues to support the needs of the people.

Yeah, that sounds like what you'd read from a philosophy book. Do you think that is the case in real life?

For people to thrive? That's useful if the government doesn't have any goals except to improve the country, but a government may have other plans. Let's take World War One for example. The war essentially happened because nations wanted to see who were the superior kind. They chose to invest in a pretty much pointless war instead of focusing on improving the well being of the people.

Eh, you're kind of oversimplifying WWI a bit

Yeah, I know.

but a foolproof example of how governments might not want the best for their people is North Korea.

Again, breaking the contract. It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but dissolution is an inevitability whether it be from within or by another nation-state.

The only way dissolution from within or by other states is possible is if the government is weak. If the government were to be strong, their reign of terror could go on forever. Also, North Korea is most likely gonna be left alone for quite a while since it'd inconvenience the big countries (Russia and China) to have to take care of the north korians.

It is not better to be feared than to be loved; a content population is a motivated population. I dare say it's one of the reasons that North Korea remains a third-world country. It's not strong, from within or externally; like you said, it'd just be an inconvenience to other powers to dissolve it at this point in time.

I fail to see how what you wrote is relevant to the initial claim that the government is there for helping/supporting the people.

Government is formed to protect the interests of the people. It may deviate from the course and begin serving it's own interests; that is when it dissolves, and the law of nature returns before another society forms.

I accept both possibilities, why can't you?

The government is formed to serve its own interests, but then it may deviate to supporting people. That is kind of what happened to Spain during the facistic era. The new government wanted the strong to rule over the weak, but then some generations down the guy brought in democracy out of the blue.

I also believe it's the other way around. You are right, but you are wrong in limiting it to only one way.

Government is formed to protect the interests of its people. In the case of fascist Spain they believed in a hierarchy, and so they founded their government on that principle.

To that end, I'll concede that the principles on which a society is formed do lend a good deal of information to how long it will last, or whether it's a "good" government.

Also, no. It's easy to think that we're in the safe 'cause the government is doing stuff for us, but they're essentially protecting their cattle.

I haven't stated that government is infallible, at all. Actually, that's entirely wrong. The point is that certain natural rights are given in exchange for the security of society, to protect their other rights and assets. This is the social contract. Government governs solely by the power invested in it by the people.

For a people to thrive, a government must be in place to support that growth, and give it direction. Supporting government isn't blindly accepting everything that's given: it's making sure that it continues to support the needs of the people.

Yeah, that sounds like what you'd read from a philosophy book. Do you think that is the case in real life?

For people to thrive? That's useful if the government doesn't have any goals except to improve the country, but a government may have other plans. Let's take World War One for example. The war essentially happened because nations wanted to see who were the superior kind. They chose to invest in a pretty much pointless war instead of focusing on improving the well being of the people.

Eh, you're kind of oversimplifying WWI a bit

Yeah, I know.

but a foolproof example of how governments might not want the best for their people is North Korea.

Again, breaking the contract. It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but dissolution is an inevitability whether it be from within or by another nation-state.

The only way dissolution from within or by other states is possible is if the government is weak. If the government were to be strong, their reign of terror could go on forever. Also, North Korea is most likely gonna be left alone for quite a while since it'd inconvenience the big countries (Russia and China) to have to take care of the north korians.

It is not better to be feared than to be loved; a content population is a motivated population. I dare say it's one of the reasons that North Korea remains a third-world country. It's not strong, from within or externally; like you said, it'd just be an inconvenience to other powers to dissolve it at this point in time.

I fail to see how what you wrote is relevant to the initial claim that the government is there for helping/supporting the people.

Government is formed to protect the interests of the people. It may deviate from the course and begin serving it's own interests; that is when it dissolves, and the law of nature returns before another society forms.

I accept both possibilities, why can't you?

The government is formed to serve its own interests, but then it may deviate to supporting people. That is kind of what happened to Spain during the facistic era. The new government wanted the strong to rule over the weak, but then some generations down the guy brought in democracy out of the blue.

I also believe it's the other way around. You are right, but you are wrong in limiting it to only one way.

Government is formed to protect the interests of its people.

That's all you had to say. Yes I agree with that. Governments are formed, as in chosen to be made by a large amount of people, in the interest of the people, 'cause that makes sense.

Governments are however not always made that way.

Also, no. It's easy to think that we're in the safe 'cause the government is doing stuff for us, but they're essentially protecting their cattle.

I haven't stated that government is infallible, at all. Actually, that's entirely wrong. The point is that certain natural rights are given in exchange for the security of society, to protect their other rights and assets. This is the social contract. Government governs solely by the power invested in it by the people.

For a people to thrive, a government must be in place to support that growth, and give it direction. Supporting government isn't blindly accepting everything that's given: it's making sure that it continues to support the needs of the people.

Yeah, that sounds like what you'd read from a philosophy book. Do you think that is the case in real life?

For people to thrive? That's useful if the government doesn't have any goals except to improve the country, but a government may have other plans. Let's take World War One for example. The war essentially happened because nations wanted to see who were the superior kind. They chose to invest in a pretty much pointless war instead of focusing on improving the well being of the people.

Eh, you're kind of oversimplifying WWI a bit

Yeah, I know.

but a foolproof example of how governments might not want the best for their people is North Korea.

Again, breaking the contract. It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but dissolution is an inevitability whether it be from within or by another nation-state.

The only way dissolution from within or by other states is possible is if the government is weak. If the government were to be strong, their reign of terror could go on forever. Also, North Korea is most likely gonna be left alone for quite a while since it'd inconvenience the big countries (Russia and China) to have to take care of the north korians.

It is not better to be feared than to be loved; a content population is a motivated population. I dare say it's one of the reasons that North Korea remains a third-world country. It's not strong, from within or externally; like you said, it'd just be an inconvenience to other powers to dissolve it at this point in time.

I fail to see how what you wrote is relevant to the initial claim that the government is there for helping/supporting the people.

Government is formed to protect the interests of the people. It may deviate from the course and begin serving it's own interests; that is when it dissolves, and the law of nature returns before another society forms.

I accept both possibilities, why can't you?

The government is formed to serve its own interests, but then it may deviate to supporting people. That is kind of what happened to Spain during the facistic era. The new government wanted the strong to rule over the weak, but then some generations down the guy brought in democracy out of the blue.

I also believe it's the other way around. You are right, but you are wrong in limiting it to only one way.

Government is formed to protect the interests of its people.

That's all you had to say. Yes I agree with that. Governments are formed, as in chosen to be made by a large amount of people, in the interest of the people, 'cause that makes sense.

Governments are however not always made that way.

That's been my point since the beginning. A mistake in word choice.

Populist for fucking sure