Tag: Government

CXLIII – More On Censorship

Background: On Censorship, On Rights.

The President has signed an executive order with the intent of revoking “Section 230” protections for social media companies. Section 230 says that organizations that give a platform to, but do not editorialize, users content, are exempt from publisher rules.

There are two ways this could go.

“Social Media Should Be A Free Speech Platform!”

Ok! Lets commit to it, then. Have your Free Speech! We know that Free Speech really means Government Sanctioned Speech, so instead of Jack Dorsey censoring your tweets, it’s the government. That’s all that means: I don’t want a private corporation censoring me, I want the government to censor me. And what will happen when someone whose name is not Trump enters the office? How long do you think to expect to maintain your free speech when they change the rules of what is considered protected speech?

“The Government Should Not Interfere With Private Corporations!”

Ok! Then Twitter is going to censor you and there’s nothing you can do about it. Don’t like it? Find a new platform! Terms of Use for using a private organizations product means accepting whatever changes they make to that product, unless you vote with your feet. It’s inherently nonsensical to complain about twitter, on twitter. Twitter will let you complain as much as you like as long as you do it using their tool.

“But Scoot, There’s A Real Problem! Someone Should Do Something!”

Yes, someone should. But not Jack Dorsey, and not President Trump. If you do not like how a product you don’t pay for is being used, then don’t use that product. “But I want to use the product!” Ok! Then you get what you pay for.

CXXXIV – COVID After Action Report

The Times Dispatch is not a place you go to for news. It’s one of one trillion opinion sites that is themed with a religious, political, philosophical bent. What you can count on is a thoughtful assessment of events, and a cool head. (I vent all my outrage elsewhere, this is a place for sober contemplation.)

This is a preliminary After Action Report since we are still not done.

Classification

The first task is to assess what the heck actually happened. There are a few factors that seem to conflict with each other. First: the panic factor was visible very early on. Panic requires a trigger, like a run on the banks. The trigger here was uncertainty, caused by the media because the panic began before the US had any confirmed cases. This caused a run on food, toilet paper, supplies, etc. Panic behavior, by design, runs out of steam and is short lived.

Next, there was the political reaction. I believe the reaction of our leadership was driven by two factors: Election year tom-foolery and the public panic. The political reaction was extreme: Lockdown, quarantine, etc. This fed into the public panic, rather than reassure them, and told them that this virus merited the extreme measures our public servants were taking.

The political reaction had immediate and extreme economic consequences. If the public are locked down, revenue flow stops and suddenly a “just-in-time” cash flow operation becomes strained. Many retailers stopped paying rent, many service industry workers stopped making money. And the political reaction had a long time horizon: Here in Virginia, at the time it was announced, was the longest lockdown by far: June 10th. Economies cannot function like this. It was rationalized by familiar political platitudes. A salve was attempted by a $2 Trillion injection of monopoly money into the economy.

Finally, the virus itself. The actual virus had been so over-hyped by the time it actually started manifesting in the US, that some had an incentive to maintain the hype. In a panic, none can think clearly so the early and sustained panic prevented clear messaging.

The way I see this was a failure-cascade feedback loop. It doesn’t fit the model for a Panic, because it was sustained for so long. It doesn’t fit the model for a recession, because the economic fundamentals didn’t break down, our government stopped the economy. It doesn’t fit the model for a social upheaval either because the public were very obedient to their authorities.

So I will classify this as Mass Hysteria.

Features of Mass Hysteria

There’s a famous example of Mass Hysteria in the Salem Witch Trials with which most everyone is probably familiar. This has the feature of people simulating physiological symptoms, so it’s not quite an analog for that reason. There’s another variety of Mass Hysteria which is exemplified by this example I learned about while researching just now: The Irish Fright.

The Glorious Revolution was the deposition of an English King in 1688 AD. At some point after that, a rumor spread that the Irish, in revenge for the deposition of the King they favored, had assembled an army and were burning and pillaging towns along the English countryside. It resulted in an immediate and massive mobilization of people to defend their homes.

The features of note here are: A plausible and personal danger, a swift rush to prepare for the danger, and a sustained panic (in this case, a matter of days.)

One interesting footnote here is that the Irish Fright was possibly a release of years of anti-Catholic propaganda that “imbued the English public with a deep fear of Irish bloodthirstiness”. In the case of COVID, I think this was a release of years of political tension; some fearing that their government is tyrannical, others fearing that the virus was a bioweapon (a rumor which coincided with first reports of the virus out of China). Another interesting note is that the Irish Fright was fueled and sustained by the news media, which has obvious parallels here.

Dilemma of Mass Hysteria

It is tempting to start here and write about the people and circumstances where the hysteria could have been stopped early, and cool heads could have prevailed. But instead, lets look at why cool heads were impossible to find.

First, there’s a phenomenon I like to call the “Bad Forecast Fallacy”. Every year, NOAA predicts that this hurricane season will be the worst on record. Inevitably, the hurricane season is relatively tame. This is because if NOAA predicts a light hurricane season, and they are wrong, they will be lambasted by the public. If they predict a terrible hurricane season, and are wrong, there is no public outrage. In the absence of concrete data (of which there was none for months after the first reports of COVID), political leaders must make the worst forecast possible in order to protect themselves from public opinion. You can see the effects playing out now as President Trump is criticized for being overly optimistic early on.

Second, there is the ill informed illusion of public good. Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York is famously quoted as saying “If our efforts save even one life, it will have been worth it.” Obviously such justification can be used for many misdeeds, but why did he say it? Why did he get a pass? Cuomo spoke out of an assumption that his duty is to maximize the public good; this is commonly abbreviated “The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number”. Many in government believe that’s what public service means, and in our classically liberal society, that’s what people believe they need. This is the whole premise of liberalism. The trolley problem comes to mind: If a trolley is hurtling down a track towards 5 people stuck in its path, and you are near a level which could divert the trolley to another track where there is only one person stuck, the greatest good for the greatest number is to pull the lever. Zippy Catholic untangled this dilemma by explaining that circumstances outside of your control would result in the death of 5, but circumstances you directly affected resulted in the death of one.

Finally, there’s what we might call the “Wag the Dog” phenomenon. The panic stricken public demanded action, and our leaders had to do something that looked like action. It didn’t have to do anything, and it certainly didn’t have to actually calm the public, but it had to be something. Politicians are, for a large part, great actors, and so they performed their drama beautifully but ineffectually.

A Few Specific Cases

The Church’s response has been bewildering to me, but we must remember that once they reach a certain level they become politicians, quite like Generals in the military. All the same circumstances that affected our politicians affected our Bishops: They were obliged to accept a prediction that was far worse than reality, they had a culturally-pervasive view of the public good, and the public wanted them to do something. Lo and behold, public Mass is cancelled.

There are many ways this could have been avoided, but I think the most urgent thing that needs to be addressed by the Church for the future is the second item, the culturally-pervasive view of the public good. Our Church leadership is charged with the caretaking of souls. Many Saints have been made by risking life and limb to help others; see St. Charles Borromeo. The Public Good should not factor so heavily with their decision making. Their first responsibility should be figuring out how to care for the souls in peril, what is the Spiritual Good. Secondly, how do they effectuate the Spiritual Good in a way that is free of the Trolley-problem? I think that requires some creative thinking, which was foregone in exchange for the appearance of action. The Church had an opportunity to be on the front lines of hope and healing, and so I can’t help but think that was an opportunity missed.

What about the case of Locking Down states and shutting down the economy? The Public Good mentality was a problem here too, because it is by definition reactionary. Proactive measures could have prevented the need for a lockdown, and even so specific and targeted measures could have allowed a partial lockdown. I don’t know what measures would have worked better, my argument here is that the philosophy that “If it saves one life it will have been worth it” is too low a hurdle and allowed our leaders to reach for extreme but disastrous–dare I suggest, Pyrrhic–solutions to this problem.

Conclusion

We have made it through the worst of a period of Mass Hysteria. The consequences are still playing out, but we learned that a false ideal of the public good does more damage than actual public good. Watch for this in the background as events unfold going forward. The “Blamestorm” as WMBriggs put it will target people who didn’t do enough, perhaps a few who did too much, and we will be dealing with the economic consequences for years to come (to say nothing of the cultural and political impacts). The public psyche will be shaken, but will they return to full trusting of the government, or will our relationship with the government be permanently damaged?

May we live in interesting times!

AMDG

CXXIX – Pandemic Dialogue

Ed: Today lets discuss the Coronavirus pandemic. What are your initial thoughts? Who would like to begin?

Matt: It’s terrifying. Death stalks the land! I have bought toilet paper, food, I even went out and bought a gun for the first time. Anything, for security! These are scary times and It feels necessary to prepare for a long siege.

Peter: But do those things bring you peace? It seems like you are fueling your anxiety even more.

Matt: Does anything–any thing bring peace? These are necessities. I can survive, safely, in my home for a week, maybe two if I’m careful. My disturbed peace has moved me to act out of necessity, and while I may not have peace, I have confidence that comes from a well stocked larder.

Peter: So what happens three weeks from now? A month from now?

Matt: Do you think it will last that long?

Peter: Suppose it does! Fear prompts you to prepare, preparation brings you confidence. What eventuality doesn’t merit immediate concern?

Matt: I’m as prepared as I need to be right now. I can prepare more, or not make any additional preparations, later. The situation changes daily.

Peter: I’m more getting at, whats the time horizon for preparation? You say you’re prepared for a week, maybe two. Why that and not, say, a month? two months?

Matt: That seems irresponsible doesn’t it? That’s hoarding. I’m just taking reasonable precautions.

Peter: But there’s no marginal difference between a months supply and a weeks supply, vis a vis hoarding. Hoarding is a subjective term, really all “hoarding” says is that one dislikes the amount of preparation another has done.

Eric: I think you both have a point. Matt values a certain time period of foresight enough to make purchasing decisions. If he valued a different time period, he would have bought that amount, but he didn’t. If someone else did, that doesn’t necessarily make it hoarding, just a different value judgement of goods.

Paul: Hoarding is a measure of social ill. Matt–for the sake of example–may purchase enough to satisfy his needs, but may not purchase so much that there isn’t any for the next person. That’s the ceiling and floor.

Eric: But that’s kind of the point of the free market, right, to efficiently distribute goods based on not just needs but values. It is valuable to Matt to purchase two weeks worth of goods, and it is valuable to the shop to sell him those goods. The social responsibility aspect comes from the stores actively seeking to supply everyone; but that’s not so much social responsibility as profit motive. If there’s a run on goods at their store, that’s money they make. If they run out of goods, people go to a different store, and give their money to a different vendor. The supply chain is stressed, sure, but it’s hard to argue its irresponsible for vendors to sell goods.

Paul: So what if a billionaire walks in and buys the entire contents of a store and ships it to their bunker?

Eric: So what? I think that still fits just fine with what I’m describing. It’s valuable to the billionaire to buy the entire contents of a store, and tomorrow the supply chain will restock what they can.

Peter: Well, if he goes in with the intent of depriving other people of goods, that would be a problem I think.

Paul: How do you differentiate a well intended purchase and an ill intended purchase at the point of sale? That’s where regulation exists to aid the public good. Anti-hoarding promotes both the wide distribution of goods and reduced strain on the supply chain.

Eric: But intervention in that way changes the markets behavior. It reduces efficiency.

Paul: In the spirit of social good, though.

Ed: How far can government push regulation in the spirit of social good?

Paul: We see with Government reaction to Coronavirus now, some lockdown measures. That is a common sense measure to help contain the spread of disease.

Matt: That prevents me from being able to make decisions. If I think it’s best that I stay in, then I’ll stay in. If I don’t think it’s best, then I’ll go out. The consequences will play out however they will, and that data will inform my decisions the next time.

Eric: Necessity is the mother of invention. If the government intervenes then it removes necessity, and we will have fewer solutions. Anti-hoarding measures remove incentives to find supply chain efficiencies. Social lockdown removes incentives for other economic activity. Plus it’s not a full lockdown, so I doubt it’s actually achieving what they say it will achieve. The government’s foremost priority in a crisis is to preserve the status quo.

Peter: I’d also like to ask, when did Government become the arbiter of social good? It used to be that people would take care of each other. Which came first, Government arbitrating the social good or a cynical and distrustful populace?

Paul: I don’t know that I would say the government’s first priority is to preserve the status quo, it seems to me that stability is paramount. Society can function when society is stable. Back in the day there used to be a revolution every time a king died as everyone fought to assert or defend a claim to the throne. Not very stable, not a lot of progress. And, Peter, implicit in the mandate of government is social good. Shoot, explicitly in the Constitution does it say “promote the general welfare”. Imagine if it was indifferent, or antagonistic to the general welfare? That’s instability. The two concepts go hand in hand.

Peter: General welfare according to who? Eric makes a compelling point that anti-hoarding measures are inefficient for the economy. Matt points out that compelling lockdown is actually removing initiative from the populace. A case could be made that the government in this case is not promoting stability. What values are guiding our governments actions? Is it a horse sense for good and bad, bent to the consensus of a vote?

Paul: General welfare doesn’t necessarily mean general happiness. You don’t have to like the measures, even if they benefit you.

Matt: That is fallacious though, because the premise that the government always works for social good hasn’t been accepted. If I want to go and buy supplies to make masks, if the full weight of the law forces me to stay in my home, I can’t help anyone. Initiative dies.


To be continued

CXIV – Life, Liberty, Property

The March for life is happening today, the 24th of January 2020. Wednesday, the 22nd was Celebration of Life day. President Trump will be speaking at the March for Life, which is a big deal and people are very excited about. Because of that intersection of Catholic doctrine, Politics, and social mores, I’d like to muse on the subject.

The Declaration of Independence started the Freedom Doxology with their proclamation of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness“. The constitution amended this, surely in recognition of the indefensible language of the latter clause, to say “life, liberty, and property”.

I say again, this enumeration of rights is fallacious. Only Life is granted to us by God. Liberty cannot come at the expense of obedience to God, and no one is entitled to property but we may keep the property we happen to have or lawfully acquire.

So of those three, Life is the greater responsibility of Government–indeed of all people. The other two are privileges allowed to us by government, promises the government makes to us, not without qualification.

The commitment to Life, the source of which is the highest possible authority, our Lord God, is absolute. One might even call the focus of opposition to abortion as “narrow” in scope, though it is absolutely the top priority in terms of urgency.

The promise of life extends to all aspects of human existence. I recall a few years ago when a politician expanded on their opposition to drugs as a “pro life” measure. Truly, opposition to war could be said to be the same. Economic prosperity is “pro life”, as is a prudent and just legal system. If the unnatural death of even one life was considered abhorrent, we would view the world very differently.

Empathy is the root of a broad view of Life. Our society is angry and divided because we have tried to supplant “Life” with happiness–I might even say pleasure. If pleasure were the chief focus, then drugs would be a virtue, not a vice. A death by overdose would be the absolute pinnacle of our sad, short lives: going out in euphoric stupor. But its not enough to maximize individual pleasures, but rather the focus is on stacking pleasures over the course of ones life. A man who jealously guards his happiness is successful, while any kind of suffering diminishes the maximum lifetime accumulation of pleasure. At the end of life, if you have a big stack of happiness, you “win” and then get absorbed into the ethereal life force of a loving and benevolent cosmos.

This is gluttony. But what is unique about it is that it is gluttony born from “good intentions”. This creates what i have previously called the soft vices of excess. It is acidic, and eats away at our conscience. It makes us lazy, because we have “everything we need”.

We are gluttons for pleasure, as a society. As gluttons for pleasure, the needs of our fellow humans are subordinated to the almighty demands of “me” and “now”. Practices contrary to this are diligence, asceticism, and temperance. What does that look like on a social scale?

Diligence: Actively, consistently, practicing what we preach, caring for those lives which are in need of help, especially unborn children in danger of abortion. Asceticism: What things do we have and not need? An Ascetic society practices self-denial. Perhaps not engaging in risky behaviors can deepen intimacy and prevent any consideration of abortion in the first place. Perhaps denying ourselves an extra this or that, rejecting a “treat yo self” mentality, and fasting before we feast would help us appreciate the little pleasures of life? Temperance: More than self denial, but moderation in all things. Having an even hand and applying it to all things in your life inspires simplicity. On a social scale, a temperate society is a society that values well rounded citizens, capable of understanding values and differentiating between too much and too little.

The March for life isn’t a march for life: it’s a march for a society that isn’t gluttonous and self centered. It’s a March for civilization.

LXX – Tonlieu

Kristor wrote another excellent article over at Orthosphere which I have been stewing on for some time. Rather than write another essay in the comments, I’ll keep my remarks here. Read it first, before reading this!

It’s a Privilege To Be Here

On it’s face, I like the premise of Tonlieux.  It is coherent with my past expressions regarding rights and authority. In short: That Authority is derived from God via the Sovereign[1], and rights are a logical fallacy and not helpful in determining who is owed what duties by a government. A wayfaring stranger crossing the border from another country has no claims on the hospitality of his newfound host. A sovereign owes to that stranger no obligations; the stranger has no privileges in this land. That same stranger, crossing at a legal point of entry, presenting valid identification does have a claim on the host, the minimum claim of hospitality in exchange for an agreement to abide by the laws and customs of the host.

The present immigration system is designed to work like that, provided our subordinate authorities actually enforce the rules. The basic framework is complicated by questions of human rights, which don’t exist: Are we treating wayfaring strangers well when they wander into our land? There is a puzzling question of Justice: Are we allowing them due process? We technically do not owe them this, non-citizens aren’t bound by the constitution in the same way, but as far as I can tell this is extended as a courtesy to all those within our borders.

Tonlieu works to put a monetary value on access. Kristor explains his suggestion for an Optimal Tonlieu. I cannot dispute the economics of his proposal. I do, however, see a problem: Enforcement.

An Invisible Wall Made of Money

Our border is such that there are millions of illegal immigrants – that is to say, Sovereign citizens of a nation other than ours – who presently reside in and lay claim to the accidents of citizenship without any of the essences. Furthermore, there is such a volume of incoming foreign citizens that the mind boggles. A tonlieu is effective for travel that is limited by some mechanism, but when I can walk from A to B, how does it prevent our present situation? How can it help resolve it?

It seems Kristors primary suggestion is deterrence. Not being bound by law, the foreign citizen is thus in danger of disappearing into the abyss of human evil. One challenge is that I am not sure how our present system, even without tonlieu, isn’t also designed this way. Does the Constitution protect foreign citizens? I don’t believe it does[2], or if it does only in passing. So fundamental to this proposal of tonlieu is a society which behaves somewhat differently than it does today.

Second, if foreign citizens arrive en masse, and begins perpetrating human evil against it’s host, what can a tonlieu do against it? Certainly there is more money to be made in illegally and repeatedly crossing a border, perhaps smuggling goods, than in abiding by the law. Nothing short of an organized and concerted effort by the host sovereign can reclaim any land physically held by the group of foreign citizens–some might refer to that process as “repelling an invading force”.

A Solution

It seems to me that tonlieu, while an effective solution for people the world over who already abide by the law, is deficient in the practical reality only insofar as it doesn’t address or prevent the problems that exist right now, and adds assumptions which aren’t supported by experience.

One solution, with or without tonlieu, is to enforce the laws as written, and expurgate the foreign citizens residing illegally. This presents the same deterrent force proposed in Kristor’s Optimal Tonlieu. Another solution is to reduce the size and scope of government to minimum constitutionally enshrined services. Fully private healthcare may produce enough of a profit to charitably fund certain needs of illegal immigrants prior to their swift deportation. Never let it be said that America treats it’s visitors, welcome or unwelcome, without dignity. Charity can also pick up much of the slack in service of the needy, without the need for government as arbitrator. In fact, the 10th Amendment may be a justification for 100% of the proceeds of Tonlieu to go towards the state a person enters. This would provide a profit motive for State’s to maximize collected proceeds by Tonlieu.

“But Scoot, why does that profit motive not exist when managed federally?”

The Federal government is in such deep debt, the money would be immediately leveraged or appropriated. I have no confidence in our administrators to effectively manage the money. Further still, subsidiarity would dictate that the enforcement of the tonlieu and thus the benefit thereof go to the closest possible unit of society.

We can enforce immigration if we enforce our laws. The number one problem is not how our structure is designed, but in how it is being administered.

[1] – I am still puzzling over how the Chain of Authority, i.e. legitimacy, functions in a democratic society, expect writings on this in the future.

[2] – The 14th Amendment includes language “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”–the language of “person” vs. Citizen is at issue here, and this is why Illegal Immigrants enjoy such comfortable lifestyles. So, in my article, I am wrong, but begrudgingly so.

LII – A Brick House Built on Solid Ground

There is another excellent conversation going on over at Orthosphere, and a recent contribution is lengthy enough to be a post unto itself.

The conversation at present revolves around how to describe the layered structures of society so as to describe how the ‘wholly owned’ government bureaucracy relates to it.

Commenter:
Scoot,
I don’t know what Zippyist notions of authority might be, but the political rule is rule among equals in the classical conception. Which differs from monarchical rule where the king is more like a father to the people.

Kristor,
When you say you have used despotic rule with your children, you haven’t understood what Aristotle is saying. The despotic rule is ordered to the good of the ruler. The ruled slave does not count. It is NOT paternal at all.

[Furthermore,]
There are no isolated families either. All families are embedded in some City or another. A family is not self-sufficient unit of cultural continuity. The immigrant families adopt the local culture.
And individual can not be denied. He is embedded in a family but he can not be derived from a family.
Aristotle puts it strongly. He analogises a family without the City as a cancerous cell.

The error of Communism is to overemphasize City.
The error of classical liberalism is to overemphasize individual (and to derive family and City from individuals)
The error of familism-is to overemphasize family. Political relations as obtain in the City are not same as or reducible to relations as obtain in the family.

I agree that families are not isolated. If you’ll permit the analogy of society as a brick house, families are the smallest irreducible units (bricks) of the house, and the legal structure are the supports and framing. So again I don’t think we have a disagreement in principle, only in terms.

I guess I would put it this way. If I understand correctly, it seems your thesis is that society is structured on an Aristotelian basis between individual, family, and city. I am proposing a different conception. The precepts of my proposal are as follows:

  1. All exercises of authority are the same. This is what I described as a Zippyist notion. [Authority Figure] has a moral capacity to oblige [subject figure] to choose [preferred behavior] to [non preferred behavior]. A Father obliges a child to mow the lawn over sitting in front of the TV. A Mayor obliges a citizen to drive the speed limit rather than street race. A Sovereign obliges a citizen to march to pay a share of his income to the treasury rather than use it for his own ends.
    1. It seems to me your description of ‘political, monarchic, and despotic’ serves to describe attitudes of that authority. Political rule as rule among equals, as you say, is a mechanism of exercising authority. An Equal has a moral capacity to oblige a fellow equal to choose [XYZ] over [PDQ]. Monarchical rule follows the same rubric, but maybe has different perception by ruler and ruled. Likewise with despotic: Someone is obliging another to do something. How, why, and what everyone thinks of it are all variable. But Authority is being consistently exercised.
  2. Because all exercises of authority are the same, all authority structures can be compared by analogy. To wit: A Father is like a King, but a Father cannot rule like a king. A families ends and means are completely different. But the way Authority is structured, from Father to Subject, is comparable.
  3. The end, the goal, the objective of all exercises of authority are distinct, but the lesser is contained within the greater, and the greater directs the subordinate units to the greater aim. Said another way: Families, as bricks in the house of society, are not self sufficient units nor autonomous units, as you say. It is the role of the Mayor to oblige the family to choose the good of the city over the good of the family, if ever they differ. Likewise it is the role of the Sovereign to oblige the City to choose the good of the Nation over the good of the City. anything else is chaos, as you describe.
    1. One thing you say that perhaps I don’t understand is this: “A family is not a self-sufficient unit of cultural continuity.” Why not? A child is more likely to retain the culture of the parents, and parts of the culture of the surrounding society. But if cultural continuity were the aim of the the authority figure at any level, they would have the moral capacity to oblige the subordinate authority to prefer [XYZ cultural elements] to [PDQ cultural elements]. I would disagree that culture itself is an end of political authority but I do not disagree that there are some authority structures designed for cultural continuity. I would only say that cultural continuity is not, in my opinion, the biggest determinant in the usefulness of the family as a unit of authority.
  4. The role of the individual is to comply with all authority structures of which they are part. An individual ought to work to the benefit of their family structure, city structure, and nation structure but not all on their own. An individual works in a family to the benefit of the family. An individual works in a family so the family can work to the benefit of the city. The family works in the city so the city can work to the benefit of the nation. An Individual that views themselves as the supreme end and means of all of these structures is the cancerous cell you describe. They are not operating within the social structures or hierarchy, they are not helping any group benefit. That is why I assert that individuals are best contextualized as part of a family: That is their first exposure to the greater aims of their nation.
  5. The “Political” realities (i.e. the legalistic structures through which authority is exercised) are extremely convoluted. In Democracy, there is no clear, distinct Sovereign in the traditional sense. The people select a delegate to stand first among them, which gives their chosen delegate power and authority (this is the social contract). But in the present day and age, the exercise of that authority is limited by other delegates who oversee and restrict actions of the Executive delegate (this body is the legislature), and who adjudicate conflicts between executive and legislative delegates (the judicial). All three ultimately derive their authority from the people, and the people obey the authority of the delegates. It is a tautological system, and when it grows to be large and unwieldy, it can and does break down. There are a lot of things to consider when exercising authority, so structures are built to facilitate. The beginning of the bureaucracy is when executive or legislative delegates appoint subsequent delegates who derive their authority from those executive or legislative delegates. And their term does not end when the source of their authority ends. Thus the bureaucratic state, which is separated from direct link to the people, and at varying times subject to or in rivalry with the legislative and executive delegates. This bureaucracy is an authority structure which is distinct from and not directly subordinate to the greater aims of the political authority. It finds itself variously subject to or in rivalry with the Family, City, or Nation. It is wholly owned by the governing polity, but serves its own ends. This is the challenge of the day.

PS: In point #5, I describe politics at a national level. This structure is not reducible to the subordinate levels, as pointed out in #2. A family can be neither democracy nor Monarchy, but is its own ‘political’ structure.

If a family is like a brick, a “city” is like the wall, and the nation is the house. A pile of bricks does not make a nation. A series of parallel walls does not make a house. Each brick must be ordered towards the wall. Each wall must be ordered towards the house. One does not consider the house when making the brick, but how it fits into the wall. The rules that govern how to order the bricks will not be the same as the rules that govern how to order the walls.

Kristor: Scoot, thanks for all the work you have done on this. I have only two quibbles. First, when you say that all exercises of authority are the same, it seems to me that you should make it crystal clear that what you mean is that however they might differ in other ways, all exercises of authority are alike in that they all involve an authority who has a moral capacity to oblige others.

Second, you say that, “A family can be neither democracy nor monarchy …” I would amend that to say, “A family can be neither a pure democracy nor a pure monarchy.” I would add further that a properly ordered monarchy would integrate aristocratic and democratic processes. Such is the Polybian ideal, that engenders stability of the social order. Feudal subsidiarity is one way to accomplish that, provided that members of each level of the subsidiaritan stack have a safe, regular and established way to appeal the rulings of their immediate superiors to the judgement of a higher court.

Bearing in mind that neither Scoot nor I would propose that the city is nothing but a big family or that the family is nothing but a big individual, it seems to me then that neither Scoot nor I have any fundamental disagreement with Bedarz on that score.

(f) – Might Makes Bill of Rights

I thought this was an important enough clarification to merit reposting here.

Scoot: “Rights” are the great lie of the last thousand years.

Commenter: If there are no “rights” then there is no Right. Is this what you are really insisting?

Scoot: No. “Rights” are the classically liberal imitation of Natural Law. Natural Law is Truth, and Truth points to what is right and what is wrong.

The Bill of Rights in USA, for example. The government is saying God gives these rights and cannot take them away: The right to speech, the right to bear arms, etc, and the government is positioning themselves as the protectors of those God given rights. But the way the law works, is that you have the right to speech but it is illegal to, for example, shout ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theatre. So you have the right to speech, but not ALL speech. You have the right to bear arms, but not ALL arms.

What the government calls ‘rights’ are actually privileges which the government allows us to exercise. Natural Law remains True regardless of whether the government acts to protect or detract it. The right to Life is granted by God, not by the government. It will always be right to defend and preserve human life. It will not always be guaranteed by government.

Source

XLII – AMERICAN EMPIRE PART 2

See American Empire, Part 1 here.

Beginnings

How did Rome begin? One might as well ask, When does a tribe become a monarchy? When does a chief become a King? When building a new city from scratch, as the legendary Romulus and Remus did, the default state is to rule as a King. The Aeneid tells of a town pre-existing the formal foundation of Rome, Latium. We can also learn some from Plutarch via the second King of Rome, Numa Pompilius[1], that there were numerous other settlements surrounding Rome. So I believe it is sensible at least to say that the area around Rome was populated by settlements which were structured around a single ruler.

The United States, too, began as a Monarchy, though in a different form. The Monarchy already existed, but the territory was colonized by royal subjects. Looking past explicit comparisons of Aeneas with Columbus, A new people were formed out of some material that already existed. “Roman” was not distinct at it’s foundation, but as it grew aggressively the Sabines and Etruscans and Latins became one nation. The Britons, variously fleeing persecution or following the promises of wealth, found themselves far from home but still subject to the King.

Of Monarchs and Men

The Monarchies of early Rome and early USA are distinctly different. Rome was a non-hereditary monarchy, limited by the Senate. America began explicitly as sovereign subjects of the King, either directly or indirectly via joint stock companies. This gave both nations different starting points in terms of legal liberties. However, the reality of the frontier mitigates that somewhat. Far from any authority to enforce, the American colonies developed in a controlled and structured way, but free to experiment and with a dose of danger and lawlessness inherent in being far from direct enforcement. At the point of Rome’s foundation, it’s citizens were few and faced threats on all sides from the local cities. American colonists were few and faced threats on all sides from native Americans. The de facto conditions of their development are very similar.

The impact of this type of development cannot be understated. Early Romans and American colonists built by hand, from nothing, a safe place to live. They battled nature and fellow men; but by their blood, sweat, and tears, they built it. Americans could not credit a distant King for their survival–that was something they witnessed and achieved on their own. The first Roman liege-lord, Romulus, lived among them in their primitive nation. His presence strengthened their national identity rapidly. Americans begrudgingly retained their ties to home, recognizing the fruitful mutual relationship. The hand that fed was the Kings, but the fruits of their labors were all their own.

The Seeds of Republic

The seeds of republic were there from the inception of both societies. The Senate was a Roman institution from the earliest days of Rome and served to select the next King. Whenever men are given power, there will be those who crave more. Some senators would surely come to consider themselves more wise and just than the prospective Kings they had to choose from. So to in America, where the King was not an absolute monarch in the traditional sense, but was limited in the post-magna-carta structure of a Constitutional Monarchy. The idea of a limited legislature, and in turn of a singular document establishing the rules of conduct of the government, existed from the earliest days of the American colonies and surely only grew in their imaginations as they labored far from the reach of their Monarch.

In both cases, the Monarchy was overthrown by violence. Lucius Tarquinius Superbus was the seventh king of the Roman Monarchy, and was considered particularly cruel. He had some senators put to death and refused to replace them. The senate, seeing their size and authority thus diminished, seized on the indefensible crime of the Kings son raping a woman and overthrew the monarch. When the Liege and Legislature feud, one will overthrow the other.

In America, the escalating financial burdens borne by the colony to finance wars they were not involved in increased the unpopularity of the monarch. The trigger was the tax on tea, resulting in the famous ‘Boston Tea Party’, the subsequent Declaration of independence, and bloody revolution.

[1] Plutarch’s Lives is a study in duality. Numa Pompilius was compared to Lycurgus, the Lawgiver of Sparta and founder of Sparta as we know it. Numa Pompilius was the second King of Rome, and founded many of the customs that lasted the duration of the Roman nation.

See American Empire, Part 3 here.

XXXVI – Reverse Communism

Here is an excerpt from Thomas Merton’s Seven Storey Mountain (emphasis mine):

[Communism] was an easy and handy religion–too easy in fact. It told me that all the evils in the world were the product of capitalism. Therefore, all that had to be done to get rid of the evils of the world was to get rid of capitalism. This would not be very hard, for capitalism contained the seeds of its own decay (and that indeed is a very obvious truth which nobody would trouble to deny, even some of the most stupid defenders of the system now in force: for our wars are altogether too eloquent in what they have to say on the subject). An Active and enlightened minority–and this minority was understood to be made up of the most intelligent and vital elements of society, was to have the two-fold task of making the oppressed class, the proletariat, conscious of their own power and destiny as future owners of all the means of production, and to “bore from within” in order to gain control of power by every possible means. Some violence, no doubt, would probably be necessary, but only because of the inevitable reaction of capitalism by the use of fascist methods to keep the proletariat in subjection.

I read this and I could not stop myself from thinking about Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged. It was almost as if she accepted wholesale the mechanism for social change but directed it  from the top down, rather than from the bottom up.

Read it again, modified only to change the ideological perspective:

[Capitalism] was an easy and handy religion–too easy in fact. It told me that all the evils in the world were the product of communism. Therefore, all that had to be done to get rid of the evils of the world was to get rid of communism. This would not be very hard, for communism contained the seeds of its own decay (and that indeed is a very obvious truth which nobody would trouble to deny, even some of the most stupid defenders of the system now in force: for our wars are altogether too eloquent in what they have to say on the subject). An Active and enlightened minority–and this minority was understood to be made up of the most intelligent and vital elements of society, was to have the two-fold task of making the oppressed class, the industrialists, conscious of their own power and destiny as future owners of all the means of production, and to “bore from within” in order to gain control of power by every possible means. Some violence, no doubt, would probably be necessary, but only because of the inevitable reaction of communism by the use of tyrannical methods to keep the industrialists in subjection.

Is this so far removed from Ayn Randian philosophy?

This betrays the lie in the Cult of Demos. It pits one team against the other, like it’s a sport. Whether you’re playing defense or playing offense, you’re still playing the same game. I think that’s why I took to Zippyist philosophical thought like a fish takes to water. He presents an actual alternative to our political realities. I read some political blogs, some religious blogs, and the ones that are angriest are the ones trying to wake up their chosen minority, that minority which is composed of all the most vital and intelligent elements of society, and seize power for themselves.

My friend, who has requested the alias Hambone, put it well when I described what i’m writing about here:

In order for the people in power to not be consumed with concern for losing power, they must rule based on right, not might.

In other words, they must be informed by some morality that is not their own. Ideology is jealous, Morality is just.

AMDG

XXXIII – Demos Man

A Cult shares it’s root with Culture and Cultivate: to raise up from a certain place. Cultivate in the sense of raising agriculture of a quality suitable to consume; Culture in the sense of raising a people of a like kind as yourself. Cult has the modern connotation of raising people but typically has a more sinister idea of something forbidden. It’s common usage was rather mundane, as it was used to describe devotion to a certain of the ancient pantheon of classical gods. Those with particular reverence to Zeus followed a certain form prescribed by the cult of Zeus; likewise with Apollo, Athena, et al.

Human nature remains unchanged since Adam and Eve shared bites of a certain fruit. The names we give our fixations have changed. Our society has many cults, much veneration for things other than man’s proper focus of God. One such cult is the cult of our government I like to refer to as the Cult of Demos; Demos being the root of Democracy, meaning “of the common people”.

The sacred text of this Cult is the Constitution, their precepts are ‘Rights’. Their fixation utterly distracted from the mortal peril of their souls.

The consequences of this distracted fixation is abject demolition of man. In evidence: The open and unashamed promotion of infanticide. The recent ruling that women should be drafted. The ongoing horrors of abortion. Hoax hate crimes. I can go on. Not even in Edeny and Anakay is such destruction possible. Edeny values the sanctity of life. Anakay, as a perfectly anarchic society, would certainly look out for the individual. It is only when society is collectively looking elsewhere that the evil one can execute the great swindle, the sleight of hand, and steal from us the things that make us human.

The devil arrived at the gate, and found it unguarded. We sip absentmindedly from the well which he poisoned while we weren’t looking.

God help us.

AMDG