Category: Authority

CCCLX – The Commons, Feudalism, and Psychogeography

Property Taxes as a subject lies tangent to so many interesting areas. So let’s build a model here and include as much of it as we can.

We have to start with a country. Let’s call it Scootland, which is an island nation. It is proximate to Hambonia, Orthonesia, and Zippia–in case I need other examples.

Scootland is a Kingdom, with King Scoot on the Throne. This is basic context, we are going to turn now to the bottomest level and work up and see how that looks.

There are three kinds of land areas in Scootland. There’s the Cities, which are marked by high populations, dense construction, lots of economic activity and domestic and international trade. There’s the Rurlands (I don’t know a better term for Rural areas that is as succinct as the word City), which are marked by low, dispersed populations, agrarian economies and domestic trade. Lastly, there’s the Commons–undeveloped land that is rich in natural resources but the development of which includes certain challenges, challenges which include the development costs, clearing the land, accessing the natural resources; but some geographical challenges, like deserts or mountains or other obstacles. The Commons are available but in some cases not easy to develop.

The people of Scootland have birthright citizenship, but Scootland as a Kingdom follows a feudal model. Scootland is divided into Duchies which are administered by Dukes, Counties which are administered by Counts, and Baronies which are administered by Barons. Any political division smaller than a Barony is organized locally and follows locally defined rules. Each level of the Feudal system owes a duty of fealty to the level above, and a duty of custodial care to the subjects below. To be clear, Dukes and Counts do not have nothing to do, they each have a demesne to personally administer, but the rest of the territory is delegated to a subordinate noble.

Each Duchy includes all three types of land areas: City, Rurland, and Common, in varying proportion.

Question 1: Can we enclose the Commons?

The proposal I have seen approaches this topic a different way, so let’s provide some background. The Commons, you have heard from the oft-invoked “Tragedy of the Commons”. The Tragedy of the commons is the idea that there is unowned communal property and if everyone exploits it in self interest then the commons is degraded and unproductive for everyone involved. Enclosing the commons involves essentially ending the concept of the commons. It is no longer communal property and so can no longer be exploited for self interest. The commons becomes assigned. The proposal linked above effectuates this assignment by the use of corporate style shares. It gives the public responsibility for and custodianship of the commons, which incentivizes it’s careful use.

Scootland is a Kingdom, and the whole realm is the personal demesne of the King, delegated in part to the Duchies and other feudal hierarchs. Because the whole realm is subject to the King, there’s no need to enclose the Commons, it is already assigned–assigned to the Sovereign. The sovereign can delegate the commons to a subject for any reason, but there is no need for a special mechanism. Kristor’s proposal leverages Corporate structures, but as I pointed out to David the Barbarian in a comment on my previous article, the language of Shares implies a level of authority and control greater than mere ownership. The analogy is that if you own 51% of the shares of a company, you own the company; if you own 51% of the land area of the Kingdom, you are still subject to the Sovereign.

Question 2: How does the Sovereign provide for the needs of the Kingdom?

Taxes. There are two kinds of tax. The first tax is a Land tax, apportioned at some number of Scootbucks per Acre. It is the same for all land, regardless of type, productivity, level of improvement. The tax represents a rent–an acknowledgement that this land is delegated to me via ownership from the King. However, the Land Tax disproportionately affects the residents of the Rurlands, because their homesteads and farms are on the main a greater area than any given property in the Cities. This is offset by a flat Sales tax. The Sales tax applies the same rate to all sales transactions. This means that a property owner in a City will have one acre but build a 10 story apartment building. This owner will pay very little in Land Tax, but operating an apartment building is expensive work and so will pay proportionately more in Sales taxes on all of his transactions. A homesteader in the Rurlands will pay far more in Land Tax, but as a homesteader will be very self sufficient and need to pay very little in Sales Tax. These two taxes should be balanced against each other.

These two taxes provide a steady stream of income to the King, who can then use them to manage the budget, provide public projects, and have a standing army.

Question 3: What about local taxes from the Feudal Hierarchy?

All taxes would be collected at the most local level, and passed up the chain, each level taking a bite of the apple to fund their administrative budgets. A Baron would collect taxes directly, and pass some proportion (the majority) up to the Count, who would take some and pass some proportion (the majority) up to the Duke, who would take some and pass some proportion (the majority) up to the King. Everyone gets a cut, but always the lions share goes to the King.

Question 4: Why is a Feudal Hierarchy necessary?

Because the chain of authority is clearer and the responsibility for the deeds (or misdeeds) of government is more apparent. This is the benefit of a King, and so it makes sense that Delegations from the King would follow the same model.

What’s that word “Psychogeography”?

I read an article on Substack that introduced me to the concept and I immediately saw a connection to these ideas of Commons and Feudalism. It’ll be a bit of a walk, so bear with me. The article quotes this, in answer to the question “Why does no one ever notice [that Glasgow is a magnificent city]?”

‘Because nobody imagines living here…think of Florence, Paris, London, New York. Nobody visiting them for the first time is a stranger because he’s already visited them in paintings, novels, history books and films. But if a city hasn’t been used by an artist not even the inhabitants live there imaginatively.’

The key idea I want to take away here is “living there imaginatively”. This idea is tangent to but not the same as patriotism. The peasant, noble, and sovereign all must equally love the land and imagine themselves creating it into the best version of the country they love. The nation everyone loves lives in the collective imagination of the people; it is distinct from the nation everyone sees and the collective imagination blinds people to the reality they see. Because they see potential, even through the actual.

The Sovereign must love his country and imaginatively occupy it and see the consequences of his actions as taking reality closer to the beautiful imaginings. The Nobles and the peasants must do the same. That also ensures the effective exploitation of the commons.

So how do you incentivize this imaginative occupation of the kingdom? In one sense, by rituals and culture; in another sense by social checks and balances (social, not governmental); in a final sense by faith in God and an understanding that the beauty, goodness, and truth of the kingdom comes from God–it is borrowed, which makes us take better care of it.

Question 5: What are social checks and balances?

These are the social customs that control behavior. We’ve talked about how “politeness” precedes law, and this idea of social checks and balances taps into that. Social mores ensure stability between subjects and neighbors, but it is threats of conflict and tension that help ensure the Sovereign behaves properly and the people stay in line. The Sovereign has the advantage of authority, the people have the advantage of numbers. The Sovereign wants to keep the people happy, and if the Sovereign behaves badly then the people will be angry and want to hold the Sovereign accountable. If the people are behaving out of line then the Sovereign ought to bring a just and moderate exercise of authority to bear and restore order. It is a challenging balance but essential for an orderly society. It begins with a common understanding of social mores.

Question 6: Doesn’t all this sound pretty idealistic?

Yes, absolutely. Reality includes lots of variables and human behavior is very unpredictable. Controlling for multigenerational nobility and transfers of power, controlling for the political inclinations of humans and the quest for power, it is all very difficult. These do not represent a complete model for society, nor does it represent a proposal for our present society. The idea of all this is to explore the intersection of different ideas we have developed and to see how they work together. We aren’t developing a policy proposal, but a coherent model for how such a thing could work.

I’m going to leave this off here, because this is an expansive article that covers a lot of ground. Let me know what you think! I’m enjoying developing these thought experiments.

AMDG

CCCLVII – Harsh Doctrines (Romans Edition)

A harsh doctrine practiced with kindness: this is not a formula for hypocrisy, but the secret of all ancient, rich, and mature civilizations.
-Nicolás Gómez Dávila (Don Colacho)
(Previously)

Bless them that persecute you: bless, and curse not. Rejoice with them that rejoice; weep with them that weep. Being of one mind one towards another. Not minding high things, but consenting to the humble. Be not wise in your own conceits. To no man rendering evil for evil. Providing good things, not only in the sight of God, but also in the sight of all men.

If it be possible, as much as is in you, have peace with all men. Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord. But if thy enemy be hungry, give him to eat; if he thirst, give him to drink. For, doing this, thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head. Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil by good.
– Romans 12:14-21

Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation.

For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For therefore also you pay tribute. For they are the ministers of God, serving unto this purpose.

Render therefore to all men their dues. Tribute, to whom tribute is due: custom, to whom custom: fear, to whom fear: honour, to whom honour. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another. For he that loveth his neighbour, hath fulfilled the law. For Thou shalt not commit adultery: Thou shalt not kill: Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness: Thou shalt not covet: and if there be any other commandment, it is comprised in this word, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

The love of our neighbour worketh no evil. Love therefore is the fulfilling of the law.
– Romans 13:1-10

Now we that are stronger, ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let every one of you please his neighbour unto good, to edification.

For Christ did not please himself, but as it is written: The reproaches of them that reproached thee, fell upon me. For what things soever were written, were written for our learning: that through patience and the comfort of the scriptures, we might have hope.
– Romans 15:1-4

Neither yield ye your members as instruments of iniquity unto sin; but present yourselves to God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of justice unto God.
– Romans 6:13

AMDG

CCCLII – Else, Instead, Next

Or, An Apologia for Idiocy, Part 4
(Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Jack’s Additions)

I spent the last article refining my case against classical liberalism, but there are some glaring and obvious questions that would pop up and that are important to address so we can turn this diss-track contra democracy into something productive and forward looking. There are three questions, and I will take them in turn. This article has been sitting in my drafts for an awfully long time so whatever I originally intended here, I am going to abbreviate and perhaps expand on later.

What else can we do if we do not vote?

Anything. Any action can make a difference. Top of the list should be prayer. Second, consider the Corporal and Spiritual works of mercy. Govern your life seriously, and in conformity with the truths of the Church, and you will be amazed at the difference you can make on the society immediately around you.

There’s an anecdote I read many years ago, about an experiment in traffic. On the highway, stop-and-go traffic can start by any sudden slowdown, and begin a chain reaction that lasts for hours, even after the original obstruction is cleared. But stop-and-go traffic naturally means that you can travel at the average speed, such that you are slow during the clear periods and time your pace to arrive at the stopped traffic just as they start to move again. Someone actually performed this experiment and found not only that their experience was better but traffic began to actually clear up around them. People in neighboring lanes were changing their behavior and before long one persons influence had mitigated or cleared a hole in the traffic.

This happens in society too. One person unwaveringly acting virtuously can have a huge influence on the people around them. The reverse is true too, which is why we should be so self conscious about sin.

The great thing is that any of these actions is much more effective on a practical level than voting, whose “benefits” are abstract and miniscule.

What ought we prefer instead of democracy?

I didn’t realize this but cruising around Zippy’s blog as I do sometimes, I saw a commenter say that classical liberalism has been expressly condemned by the Church as a heresy, by name. So I was initially going to hedge but honestly, let’s not beat around the bush: We should prefer Monarchy. Clear, unambiguous, unequivocal authority structures. This is natural to God and to Man and would simplify life tremendously. It simplifies life morally too. No ambiguity about who is responsible for what, no political gamesmanship.

What ought we do next to move towards the ideal?

I hesitate to say we ought to advocate for Monarchy. First, it is expressly forbidden by the American constitution so it would be a dramatic deviation, it is an unrealistic expectation. A more realistic expectation is to just encourage people not to vote. Change the political culture. Live it and show people the fruits of your life. Especially because agitating means political activism, which we should not do. We should live as if we are in a Monarchy, and pray for the realm and for the good of the country and obey the law and the magistrates and be good neighbors and good Christians. God is our King, so we need not desire an earthly king. We need only conform our lives to God, the rest will follow.

AMDG

CCCLI – Ritual Politics & The Peasant

Let’s talk about Ritual. Ritual here is a culturally important action which is bound up in ceremony, habit, and performance.

The important elements then are:

  • Cultural Importance – things that are not culturally important are not preserved in ritual
  • Ceremony – things that are rituals are surrounded with pomp and circumstance befitting a culturally important matter
  • Periodicity – rituals are observed at prescribed times of year
  • Performance – rituals are performative, proper observance of rituals are pleasing to the public and give the performer a pleasing association in the eyes of the public.

Liturgy is a description of Catholic rituals. Liturgy is culturally important because it pertains to worship of God; Liturgy is Ceremonial because it is surrounded with pomp and circumstance appropriate for worship; Liturgy is periodical because it happens every Sunday (every day even), with grander and more expansive liturgies reserved for grander holy days; Liturgy is performative because priests must perform the liturgy properly to afford proper worship to God, and a “good priest” is one who gives due respect to God through his liturgical performance.

This is a very antiseptic way of describing Catholic rituals, but you get the point, I hope.

There are political rituals as well. You know some of them as cliches: The Mayor holding big scissors at a ribbon cutting ceremony; the “breaking ground” ceremony where men in clean suits step on a shovel in a patch of pre-turned earth. Inaugurations of Presidents are highly ritualized political events.

There are two kinds of rituals, political or otherwise: Vain, and Purposeful rituals. Purposeful rituals fulfill some purpose and have some definite reason for existing. Mass is an act of worship, and so is a very purposeful ritual. The ritual helps to lend some universality to the Mass, so that one can go anywhere in the world and still recognize the elements of the Mass. Vain ritual has a purpose that satisfies the performer, rather than the people. The ribbon cutting ceremony is for the publicity of the Mayor, not for the edification of the people. He wishes to be seen doing things in public, so he obliges the ritual for his own purposes, not for any real public purpose.

In my previous article, I assert that voting is a ritual observance in America.

  • It is culturally important that people vote, people call it a “civic duty”
  • It is wrapped up in ceremony–the private act in the ballot box and the grand results parties for the politicians in question
  • It is periodic, happens in November every year, with a major ritual happening every 2-4 years.
  • It is performative, in that the act of voting has very little in the way of practical effect but it makes us feel good to wear an “I voted” sticker, and offers legitimacy to the politician who ends up winning the vote.

In the previous article, I leave essentially unanswered the question of why we should not vote, because I offered that politics is a tool at the disposal of the modern peasant.

In that article, we broke the practice of politics into three categories: Theory, Practice, and Ritual. Political practice involves two subdivisions: Governance and Plebiscite. Governance means the decision making actions of an individual in carrying out the duties required by the office he is elected into. Plebiscite means the decision making actions of a mass of people in answering questions put to them by the Governors. This includes questions such as “who should my successor be?” or “should we raise taxes in 10 years or now?” or “should moral degeneracy be legal or not?”

Let’s imagine ourselves as a peasant and consider all five aspects of politics then.

Ritual – A peasant must be aware of the rituals and customs associated with a people. This awareness helps him to cultivate his livelihood. But a peasant must be extremely selective about which rituals he participates in. The rituals we participate in reflects us and reflects what we consider important. It is impossible to cast a vote dispassionately–the ritual of voting inextricably ties us to the outcome of the vote, and even if we want to be dispassionate, we have not acted in a way that is dispassionate, and involvement in politics will become a priority to us. Likewise, participation in the Mass inextricably ties us to the worship of God. It is impossible to attend Mass, whether receiving Eucharist or not, and not become involved in Worship. Repeated involvement in the Mass will inevitably become a priority to us. Remember, a peasant has three projects: Spiritual, Personal, and Communal, in that order. If a given ritual helps the community but does not help the spirit, it should be avoided. Voting, then, should be avoided because it is a chiefly communal act but it is deleterious to our spirit.

Plebiscite – A peasant must be aware of the decisions being put up to plebiscite, but must not participate in it. A peasant’s chief focus should be his three projects, and the Plebiscite does not fall under his domain unless the peasant is in the position of authority. An authoritative peasant must be aware of the decisions too but has an obligation to exercise his authority in justice. It is exceedingly difficult for a peasant to remain a peasant when in a position of power in a liberal society; the exercises of authority are much blurrier. So while I would discourage a peasant from seeking power, a person in power may seek to do so with justice and a peasantly outlook, at which point he must simply be very careful.

Governance – A peasant typically would not even be aware of political acts of governance, but again supposing a peasant was in a position of authority, these acts are simpler and easier to understand how to carry them out in conformity with the spiritual project of the peasant. Authoritative peasants have a duty to act morally and for the custodial good of their subjects, and political acts of governance must be evaluated with this foremost in mind.

Theory – A peasant, regardless of position or project, has little need for political theory, unless such an education aids the pursuit of his projects. An authoritative peasant may need to understand how people think in masses and how to leverage that for the success of some just and good act of governance. It is exceedingly difficult but not impossible. A non-powerful peasant shouldn’t need to know the difference as long as he understands the duty to obey authority and act morally.

You see how democracy makes the life of a peasant more challenging? Politics introduces complications and obstacles to a simple, spiritual, peasantly life.

AMDG

(j) – Reality Denialism

The existence of Jesus is beyond dispute. The first person to use the word “Christian” was a (pagan) Roman historian who was describing affairs in the Levant and the followers of the strange man called Christ.

Any worldview that does not by default assume that Jesus existed, or which denies the deeds of Jesus which are thoroughly attested to, is reality-denialism on the same level as flat-earthers.

Can you imagine a flat earther coming up to you and saying “PROVE TO ME THE EARTH IS ROUND! You can’t, huh? You make all these claims but you’ve got to bring the proof!”

It’s just another brand of Smithfield Hams™ Pig Ignorance. The person who is required to bring “proof” is the person making claims that are contrary to the facts on the ground. If you’re going to tell me the sky is Green, I’m going to need to see a powerpoint or something.

AMDG

(h) – Why You Have To Clean Your Room Even If Your Dad Is A Drunk

From my previous article:

it is the proper role of a sovereign, of a father, to demand something of the people, of his sons. The demand must be done in justice, but the demand cannot go the other way. A son cannot demand respect from his father, but a father can demand respect from his son.

Things that are true: You have to obey your Dad, your Dad must care for you as he cares for his own body, these two requirements are not codependent.

To clarify, you are not freed from your obligation to your Dad if he does not care for you. Your Dad must care for you even if you don’t listen to him. These obligations are independent.

You have to listen to your Dad because he is your dad and not because of anything that qualifies him as such. Your Dad holds the office, which he earned through the rites and privileges proper to matrimony. His ascent to the office predates your consciousness of it, and his authority to claim the office of Father comes from the office of husband.

You are born into a condition you have no control over. Your Dad might be a Swell Guy, he might be Ivanhoe, he might be Dingus McDougal, and he might be a drunk. But in each of those scenarios, the common element is that he is your Dad. If he tells you to clean your room, you must obey his lawful command. His obligation to care for you and only issue lawful commands is equal and opposite, but again, independent.

So too the Church. QED.

CCCXLVII – Coriolanus And Politics

Inspired by Wood’s article about Shakespeare’s Coriolanus, I downloaded the kindle book to sate my instant gratification and then, feeling intellectually unable to chew the meat of reading, I chose to drink the softer fare that is the 2011 film Coriolanus starring Ralph Fiennes, which adopts the Shakespearian dialogue in a more modern setting.

I’ve just finished watching it and so wanted to share my mental notes.

The Role of Wife and Mother
In the movie, the wife and mother are introduced together, yet it is the mother who speaks more, has more lines, whom Coriolanus speaks to more, and listens to more. I think from a literary perspective it speaks to the mother knowing Coriolanus best and to Coriolanus respecting her best. The wife’s pleading, and even their sons pleading, do not move him at the end of the film, but it is the mother, who is in turn rewarded for her efforts at peace.

From a literary perspective I am sure there is much better meaning to be drawn from this, but off the top of my head the fact that wife, mother, and son are almost always together tells me that they are to be taken as a unit. The mother is the iron in his veins, the wife is the gentleness in his heart, and the son is the future he wants to build. When Rome banishes Coriolanus, he is separated from his heart and his future, and has only the iron in his genetics. That is also why the heart-wrenching appeal from his iron mother for the future of Rome moves him.

I do not think these were healthy relationships.

What Profiteth It A Man To Give Up His Soul For The Whole World
I may have misremembered that scripture. Coriolanus in the film knows how he feels but doesn’t know what he wants. He feels contempt for the plebs, and is unwilling to compromise on that feeling. He is essentially given the consulship, as the spoils of war. He doesn’t know whether he wants it as a title, wants it for his political career, wants it as spoils as such. He is willing to compromise what he wants in order to protect what he feels. He wants the consulship, but it’s not worth it if he has to surrender his contempt for the plebs.

Going From Crowd To Crowd
It was also interesting how Coriolanus went from crowd to crowd to gain and then lose their love and trust. When he first asks for the approbation of the crowd, they give it to him. Then the agitators take it away. Then he is exiled and goes to Aufidius, and wins the love and approbation of the Volscian army, and then with the peace treaty loses it. When your goal is to please the people, the first question is which people and the second question is why, anything after that tackles what do they want and things like that. Being a people pleaser killed Coriolanus.

This reminded me of the recent discussion about the Church and is a good reminder that the people who complain about the Church now will complain about the Church even if she surrenders her soul and gives in to every demand. It is the proper role of the Church to demand something of people, it is the proper role of a sovereign, of a father, to demand something of the people, of his sons. The demand must be done in justice, but the demand cannot go the other way. A son cannot demand respect from his father, but a father can demand respect from his son. Coriolanus didn’t demand respect but he didn’t give it either. When he sought respect because it was necessary, the people took the only lever they had over the man and killed him with it. The people will crucify the Church the same way if she begins to acquiesce.

Know Your Role
Coriolanus was a military man who stepped into the world of politics. Menenius was a politician who stayed out of the world of war. Know your limits, know the things you are good at. It’s like what is popularly referred to as the Peter principle: you rise to your level of incompetence.

Refreshing Truth
Coriolanus was kind of a Trumpian character, or vice versa. You got the sense he said what he felt and said what he meant and you didn’t have to read tea leaves to figure it out. It is refreshing. People crave truth. Public discourse would be so much nicer if we had trust in what people were saying. It also plays all your cards: You can’t get anything done if you tell everyone your plans, because the secretive conspirators will always keep their plans secret and work against your own.

Aufidius as Foil, or as Macguffin?
I realized in writing this that I haven’t talked about Aufidius very much. He’s set up kind of like a foil but doesn’t operate like one. He’s a means to the literary end, a macguffin that moves the story–at least, the way he’s set up in the movie.

If I had to force him into the role of a foil, I would say he is living the life Coriolanus wished he lived. He had the respect of his men, and he earned it on merit. He knew what he wanted, was connected to some transcendent cause for the Volscian people and not for himself. He only talks about his feelings in connection with hating Coriolanus, but otherwise is not presented as a very deep character.

Connecting our work to the transcendent gives us meaning and purpose, and this is a great example of that. Materialism vs. Transcendence. And Transcendence is the only party that didn’t need or even try to compromise. In the end, it was guided by the same set of values it always was guided by, and the pursuit of those values allows Aufidius to kill Coriolanus without issue.

This was a great recommendation and a great movie. Lots to chew on!

AMDG

CCCXXXVIII – Collective Action

I was refreshing my memory of my own explorations of voting when I found a couple articles which I wrote in favor of voting. For your edification, if you would like to follow my reasoning–follow my trail of thought from popped brain to staunch non-voter, look at these links:

Confusion: XXVIII – Everything I Just Said Was Wrong (No. 2)
Deeper Confusion: XXIX – Everything I Just Said Was Wrong (Was Wrong)
I Got There: CXII – Veni, Vote, Vici

I am sure there is more, click the links within those articles to follow my full argument yourself. Tackling the issue of voting was one of the first projects of this blog.

The topic here is about collective action. Does more Catholics voting change the dynamic of voting?

I like to go to extreme hypotheticals. Let’s suppose some scenarios: A) Our control scenario, which resembles the current state of things; B) No Catholics Vote, as a rule; C) All Catholics Vote, as a rule; D) Only Catholics Vote, as a rule.

Voting is wrong for two primary reasons:

  • If you accept the process you accept the outcome
  • Voting allows subtle cooperation with sin

In the control scenario, A, the argument is that Catholics voting is doing some good. In states like California and New York, the Catholics that vote are an extreme minority–and that is assuming all Catholics are orthodox, which is not a given. So while they vote, their governments still pass Abortion legislation, still legitimize homosexual civil unions, and various other evils.

In Scenario B, for Catholics in states like California and New York, there will be no discernable difference in the political outcomes. Because Catholics, on the main, tend to be right-liberal in their voting habits, there may be an impact on right-liberal states. Let’s suppose that South Dakota is a state that is on the margins, and when Catholics cease to vote South Dakota will go from a red state to a blue state. Let’s suppose further that Florida is a state that is strongly on the other side: when Catholics cease to vote there are enough right-liberals that there will be no discernable difference in the political outcomes. So in Scenario B, the only discernable impact that Catholics not voting will have is on marginal states where Catholics represent a substantial voting bloc and their withdrawal from civic life means a change in the ruling party. In this scenario, let’s say that the left-liberals in South Dakota immediately pass legislation legitimizing homosexual civil unions and legalizing abortion, among other evils. The responsibility for these acts is not on the Catholics who did not vote. I am not responsible for a murder I failed to prevent, neither am I responsible for legislation I did not positively enact. If I was a Catholic legislator and I failed to oppose the legislation, that would be one thing; just as it would be different if I was witnessing an assault and failed to come to the aid of the victim, who later was murdered. The fact that I am not actively seeking out murders to prevent does not make me culpable for those murders. Neither is it morally valid to blame or punish a group collectively. Culpability is measured individually, and even if every Catholic in South Dakota conspired to not vote, they made an individual choice to participate in the Conspiracy. Their choice to vote or not vote is permitted. If a single, solitary Catholic voted, there would be no discernable difference in the political outcomes.

Scenario B) demonstrates that Catholics not voting does not result in Catholic responsibility for the outcomes. In fact, it makes Catholics even less responsible for the outcomes, because they did not participate in the decision making process.

In Scenario C, we get a similar calculus. Catholics in New York and California see no discernable difference in outcomes because they are an extreme minority. Catholics in Florida see no discernable difference in outcomes because right liberals already had control, so that control is just stronger. Catholics in states on the margins would see some change–lets consider Virginia a state that would swing right-liberal if a unanimity of Catholics voted. In Virginia, the legislature immediately passes legislation outlawing abortion and delegitimizing homosexual civil unions. The responsibility for these acts is not directly on the Catholics who voted, but it is indirectly on the Catholics who voted. The responsibility is on the Catholics in the legislature who enacted the legislation, and who argued for it or against it. Catholic voters in this case made an individual choice to participate in the election, and their choice put people in place to make decisions, which gives the voters some culpability for the outcome. But if a Catholic has some culpability for voting when they win a vote, they also must have culpability for the outcome when they lose a vote. Catholics voting in New York or California have some culpability even though their candidates lost, because they participated in the process.

Scenario C) demonstrates Catholics voting makes them somewhat culpable for the outcomes because their positive action had a direct consequence. This raises a point we can explore more in the next scenario.

In Scenario D, where only Catholics vote, we can presume the nations electoral results would be overwhelmingly right-liberal, although we know intuitively it would not be unanimous. This demonstrates that the positive action on the part of Catholics has a direct consequence on the political outcomes. But the positive action is not just voting for the right-liberals, the positive action is voting at all. Some Catholics would vote for left-liberal candidates and issues, and they would equally be subject to the outcomes of the elections, regardless of whether left liberals or right liberals win. If a single Catholic refuses to vote, they are not taking a positive action, the same way that my refusal to stop murders in my area does not make me responsible for those murders. Refusing to vote is the absence of action and it is not action. Inaction, again, can be a moral evil if I do nothing while someone is assaulted right in front of me; or if I am a catholic legislator presented with a law that would legitimize homosexual civil unions or legalize abortion or other evil. I can put it to you this way: If one Catholic is busy at work and forgets to vote before the polls close, is that Catholic culpable for the outcome of the election, regardless of who wins? The answer is obviously no. Does that change if this Catholic chose not to vote? The answer may be less obvious, but is still no.

Scenario D) demonstrates that only positive action can make a person culpable for a moral evil, and the choice is not between voting for one candidate or another, but between voting at all and not voting.

Let’s put one more scenario out there for consideration.

Scenario E is where nobody votes at all. Maybe it’s some big coincidence, there’s a pandemic, a big storm, record heat in the hot places, record cold in the cold places, nobody goes out and nobody votes. Not a single ballot is received, not even by the candidates running for various offices. Nobody votes. What happens?

Well, there would be no discernable difference in political outcomes because everything would stay the same, for a time. Probably the people in office would stay in office and everything would continue running. Who is culpable for the actions of the legislators then?

The answer is–the legislators. The people who did not vote would not be making a positive endorsement–silence does not imply consent–but it does admit acceptance of whatever happens. Effectively, our government would be a government ruling by decree, since it would not have the legitimacy of the people.

If one person voted in each state, then the responsibility for the outcomes would fall on those 50 people, and not on the population who decided not to vote.

Therefore, not doing something does not make you responsible for the things other people do unless your singular participation would have changed the outcome. No elections are won or lost by a single vote, and if they were it would be impossible to tell whose vote was the deciding vote. So culpability for election outcomes is remote, even when you do vote, but it is nonexistent when you decide not to vote.

QED

AMDG

CCCXXXI – Winners, Losers, and N/A

Or, An Apologia For Idiocy, Part 2

Chivalric Catholic has ably laid out a response to my volley as regards voting. In the comments, I discussed a few points of clarification and I think between his articles and comments and my own (with the support and a separate line of attack ably set forth by Jack in the comments), we have set the stage and have clearly defined parameters for what we are talking about.

I am not, however, going to do a point by point response to Chivalric Catholic’s post–in the comments I said I like to get at first principles, to try to go back through the taxonomy of dialectic and find our first common ancestor and then examine where our worldviews diverge. I think I have identified it, but in looking through my post and CC’s response, I don’t think I made the point explicit. So here I will lay out what I think the root is and then respond to some general principles CC identified in his post.

Not My President

The key question is this: Who is bound by the results of a vote?

I approach this idea in two places. Here:

Another ironclad truth is that the losers of a vote are bound by the results of the vote as much as the winners.

and here:

Would your [opinion as to who committed an evil act] be different if the Population voted 60/40 to legalize abortion? If the vote was 50/50, with the legalize abortion crowd winning by 1 vote? What if the population voted unanimously, minus one dissenting vote?

Chivalric Catholic responds to the latter argument here:

Well, the short answer is that the ones who committed an evil act are the ones who tried to make abortion legal. Whether that is a single king or a majority of citizens is irrelevant, since a person is only responsible for his or her own actions. Whether it is a single king or 51% of voters is irrelevant.

Let me digress for a moment. When Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016, there were immediate protests. Trump won the office with a majority of electoral votes but a minority of raw votes. Our political system determines political victory based on the electoral college, so Trump won in the only sense that mattered. Our system is a Republic, and the electoral college is the “republican” system (in the political systems sense, not the political party sense). Our forefathers established this system and everyone up until this election agreed to the rules.

Because of political polarization, the side with the most raw votes lost and took to the streets in protest. They made a few general arguments. First, that because Trump lost the popular vote, he was not their president–that their allegiance lay only with who they voted for, and not with the person whom their political system determined would be the president. They also argued that the people who lost would also not be represented–that Trump would only cater to the interests of the people who voted for him, and not for the people who voted against him.

My position is that both of these arguments are wrong, and both of these arguments illustrate the dangers of classical liberalism.

I Pledge Allegiance To My Vote

The protestors first argument was that their allegiance lay with the winner of the popular vote, and not with the person whom the system produced as victor. This is obviously fallacious, but there is some sense to it. Because they lost, so their implicit reasoning goes, they are excluded from the political system, and so in absence of a leader for the excluded people, they choose their candidate. It is almost a “government-in-exile” argument.

One of the logical consequences of this argument is that the side that wins only has legitimacy to the polity that won, and has no legitimacy to the polity that lost. In other words–Trump enjoyed 100% support from the electorate, because the 48% that did not vote for him don’t count.

This line of thinking is false, dangerous, and a natural consequence of classical liberalism.

This line of thinking is false because, as I have argued elsewhere, when you consent to the process you consent to the outcome. Trump ruled over the 46% of people who voted for him and the 48% who did not. The losers of the vote are citizens, and thereby acknowledge and accept and agree to obey the political customs of the United States of America, and one of those political customs is that we decide presidential elections by voting, and then aggregate our votes using the Electoral College, and the Electoral College decides on the outcome of the election. The losers of the vote are bound by that outcome, and if Trump passed a law that declared long hair illegal, even if that law were unjust, both the people who voted for him and the people who did not would be bound by that law.

This line of thinking is dangerous because it creates political instability. If 48% of the populace refuses to abide by the political customs they are bound to as citizens of the United States of America, then there is a question as to which political customs they would accept. The whole exercise is destabilizing. In order to have a stable government, even in a democracy, everyone must agree to the rules and stick to them even when it hurts. This applies to any form of government.

This line of thinking is a natural consequence of classical liberalism, because classical liberalism teaches us that we have the power to decide the presidency. At the turn of the century, there was a politician named Huey Long who Hambone and I like to talk about as a man too wise for his own good. He was a socialist candidate, and his slogan was “Every man a king”. This is exactly what classical liberalism makes us think and believe–every man is a king–or could be king–or if not, could decide who is king. This is exactly what voting is–it is deciding who will be an agent for the people, who collectively are sovereign.

Ruler over those who agree to be ruled

The second argument implicit in the anti-Trump protests was that the people who did not vote for him were not represented. Trump only needed to pander to the interests of the people who voted for him, and everyone else had to wait their turn to rule.

The problem with this argument is partly what I discuss above–that the losers of the vote are equally bound by the outcome. The other part is that is the reciprocal: the winner of the vote is equally ruler over the people who do not want him to rule.

We see this problem all the time in Medieval times–a King dies, his unpopular brother takes the throne, he has to scramble to make peace and assuage all the subtle factions to ensure they don’t assassinate him or the people don’t rise up in revolt. A King is one flesh with his people and that includes the people who hate his guts. A sovereign who only pandered to the people who liked him would quickly find himself unpopular and on the outs. A sovereign who tried too hard to appease the people who hate him would quickly find himself unable to please anyone and unable to get anything done. A sovereign must strike a balance and must find a way to rule an entire people with tender, loving, filial care.

Abortion, Democracy, and Why Your Vote Matters

We have now all the pieces, I think. Let’s suppose for example that abortion was to be decided by plebiscite, a national-scale referendum where the Government would put it to the people a heads-or-tails vote, this simple question: “Should Abortion be legal? Yes or no.” The Government would then adopt a binding resolution turning the outcome of this vote into law.

You would be tempted to muster all your Catholic buddies and go to the polls on plebiscite day in order to pack the ballot for a big ol’ HAIL NAW. But then something shocking happens: The next day, the newspapers all shout the headline on the front page: Abortion Should Be Legal.

You are tempted to console yourself and your friends–hey, at least we did the right thing, at least we voted no.

This argument is the same as saying Trump is not your president because you didn’t vote for him. The outcome of the vote does not determine the morality of the vote, neither does the way you vote determine the morality of the vote. The act of voting consents to the outcome, be it “yes” or “no”, before you ever know the results of the vote. In other words, you consent that by voting abortion might become legal anyway and that you agree to abide by that outcome. Your act of voting is to intrinsically consent to the proposition that abortion may be legal and the process of voting is simply the way of determining whether abortion is legal. If the pro-abortion side wins, then the only acceptable response of a good democrat is to say “Oh, I guess Abortion is legal after all!”

Well Intended Principles

Chivalric Catholic is nevertheless right that the Church does not admonish democracy as a political system, nor does the Church admonish civic participation, and further still the Church encourages us to make the best with what we’ve got.

The United States of America and other classically liberal polities are not intrinsically evil, but you see how voting can force you–without realizing it–to consent to evil. Further still, there are other forms of civic participation that can do more tangible good than voting. Hambone likes to describe the ballot box as a “revolution release valve”–we get whipped up into a political fervor, go to the ballot, let off some steam, and go home thinking we’ve done something. You have done something, but perhaps not what or as much as you thought.

This is where the “proportionate reason” line of argument comes in, which I am not very well versed in so this is where I will pass the baton to Jack if he would like to pick up on that line of reasoning.

As far as I understand, the “proportionate reason” argument says that the definite discernable good of a given act is what is important, and the definite discernable good of voting is so miniscule as to be meaningless. Therefore, if the decision to vote comes down to a prudential judgement, pragmatic analysis should result in deciding not to vote.

But again–I may be misrepresenting Zippy’s line there.

Thanks are due, again, to Chivalric Catholic for his fair minded engagement (not to mention the excellent content he puts out otherwise), and I look forward to seeing what he has to say in response. Jack, not to put pressure on you but I hope to see a primer on the “proportionate reason” argument because that has always been hard for me to understand.

God bless you all!

AMDG