Philosophy rules them all, obviously, and adjudicates between them, and in the darkness binds them. — unenlightened

This had me laughing. Nice Lord of the Rings reference.

In seriousness though, I think it's true. I let "church" be the representative for religion, and religion (in my view) asks similar universal human questions that philosophy does. Religion also pre-dates philosophy -- at least the type of philosophical questions we're used to.

Which is the greatest advantage to control?
Brute force, money, or opinion.
Opinion. — Yohan

Yes. It's what Hume talks about in the opening of his "First Principles of Government":

NOTHING appears more surprizing to those, who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and the implicit submission, with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers. When we enquire by what means this wonder is effected, we shall find, that, as Force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular.

I think that's exactly right.

Syād ...

Corporations trump the state (business lobbies).
The state trumps the church (separation of church & state).
The church trumps corporations (ethics & commerce).

Rock-paper-scissors!

Syād — Agent Smith

You’re overusing this. FYI.

Not sure, but I'm way more scared by corporations than by democratic governments, even shit barely democratic ones in which the democratic recourse is to throw the Wanker Party (left wing) out and elect the Cunt Party (right wing) instead once every five years (and vice versa). The people can't get rid of corporations at all. The only defence we have against corporations is regulation.

I'm just an idiot, correct what's wrong with that. I'm not a political scientist.

Consider the question the following way:

A) Which one of them can simply be terminated by a degree from a judge?

B) Which one of them can terminated by it joining another, by annexation or invasion by force?

C) Which one of them dies basically as the last human person believing in it dies?

If we understand "Church" as Religion, then it is at least the most persistent. In our secular society the Church may look as to have the least power, but looks can be deceiving.

Not sure, but I'm way more scared by corporations than by democratic governments — bert1

Yes. Unfortunately, they essentially own the government. So in practice they run the state. They need a strong state to survive.

It’s a brilliant move, too, because anything wrong with society can be blamed on the government. The private sector gets a free pass. People began to take notice around 2009, when the private sector needed a huge bailout from the state.

Yes, that's my general impression too. We need some kind of electoral reform to do away with fist past the post voting systems that always result in a two-party system.

You’re overusing this. FYI. — Xtrix

Syat ... true!

I think if anything it was understated. They own the regulators, some of whom even own stocks in the industries they are regulating. Plus the revovling door stuff, the campaign finance, the control of media via advertising revenue and investment ownership, etc.

Once having a corporation was considered a priviledge and one's corporate charter could be withdrawn. Those days are long gone.

We need some kind of electoral reform to do away with fist past the post voting systems that always result in a two-party system. — bert1

Be careful about what you wish, multi-party system can lead to a chaos. Whenever you have multiple politicians with different views it is harder to promote laws or manage the state. In my honest opinion, it is more efficient to hold a two-party system. At least, you will have the assurance that they will run the country.

I would also go so far as to point towards the state as 'our' most powerful institution. The current wielding of power by the world's (super)powers (Russia/USA/China but not neccesarily in that particular order) clearly seems to lend validity to such reasoning.

We need some kind of electoral reform to do away with fist past the post voting systems that always result in a two-party system. — bert1

It is indeed strange that we’re one of only a few developed countries that don’t have a labor party or something similar. We have, as many others have pointed out, two factions of one party: the corporate party. I think destroying that is a good idea. Whether that means electoral reform, I don’t know.

There is nothing positively good about democracy. It provides a good mechanism for a utilitarian style system(the greatest happiness for greatest number) but there's no reason to be excessively prodemocracy. That means a democratic system needn't be as democratic as possible. The point of the system is to create long term stability, with opposing but not revolutionary parties (theres a republican party in USA but not in Canada). I cant decide if the American system is broken or works too well.