Dear Readers,
I hope that you enjoyed last month's treatise about intellectual development. I have here the treatise for October. This treatise contains my political philosophy, as well as patterns and behaviors I have observed in human nature that play a role to studying political science.
On another note, if you didn't get a chance to read the post from earlier this month about Thomas Paine, I would encourage you to take some time to read it. Paine was wonderful example of how sound political ideas can be spread to other people.
In the meantime, happy reading!
Dallin D. Shumway
Political science is a very complex study. One cause for the science’s complexity is found within the nature of man itself. There are two main elements of human nature that create the science’s complexity. They are as follows:
- The innate desire of men for comfort
- The lust of a few men for power.
These are, perhaps, the primary motivators for men. It is these two human instincts that make the study of political science is complex. For, if man did not have the inborn desire to seek power, or stay comfortable, man could live in what is commonly called a utopian society; a society wherein everyone has everything they need to live in comfort.
History, particularly that of the 20th Century, has shown, that such a utopian society is unattainable, so long as men are power hungry and comfort prone. Here, I divide this treatise into parts, the first two of which are designed to address the above statement.
Part I; the Innate Desire of Men for Comfort
Here a question must be addressed; if man desire’s to be comfortable, then a utopian society is something that we, as humankind, should strive to create, is it not?
I answer this questions thusly; mankind wishes to be comfortable, and with that arises another force that drives human beings; man’s desire to avoid work. The reason why this does not appear on our list of motivators mentioned at the very beginning is because it is a sort of sub motivator that falls under the category of staying comfortable. Generally, doing work puts man into uncomfortable situations, therefore part of man’s innate nature is to avoid work.
The reality of a utopian society is dependant on the assumption that the individuals comprising the society will be diligent workers. This is because the economic structure of a utopian society is one of socialism.
Socialism is defined by Merriam-Webster in this way; “Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”
As noted in the definition, socialist governments oversee the collection and distribution of goods. This requires the expenditure of human capital. A socialist government must raise it’s human capital by requiring it of it’s citizens. This process is similar to the way in which a capitalist government, such as the United States of America, taxes its citizens monetarily in order to raise money for itself.
Utopian societies are designed to create a culture where everyone works for everyone else, and everyone, in turn has everything that they need. French Politician Louis Blanc described it like this; “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
This belief was developed, perhaps, because of man’s second motivator; to stay comfortable. If everyone is given everything they need, everyone’s comfort will be had.
But, in examining this, we must return to the sub motivator that I previously established; the desire to avoid work.
If the goal of a utopian society is to keep everyone comfortable, by providing them with their needs, but the society’s method of meeting this goal requires men to do work, going against their own desire’s, are we not then caught in a vicious cycle?
In some ways, we are, yet in many ways we are not. For you see, man must do work to gain long-term comfort. This long-term comfort comes in the form of the means for survival. In our modern, developed society, it means that people, as children, go to school, even if they don’t like it, because they are told it will give them the means of having a decent job in the future. When that future arrives, the so-called “decent job” becomes a reality, and, often, an unpleasant one. The job requires men to sacrifice short-term comfort, because they are working, and one part of being human is the desire not to work.
But, by doing this work, men are able to gain long-term comfort, in the form of livelihood. Whether in the Third-World, or the First-World, human beings recognize that work, however uncomfortable it may seem at the moment, is essential to life.
Work is an essential element to the success of any economic form as well. We as humans must choose to work against our innate desire to avoid work.
One goal of a socialist economy is to spread the workload out across the population, or “even out the load” as we might say. Rather than Mr. Jones working to support the Jones family alone, a utopian society will require that Mr. Jones work to produce goods and services for the government. The government will, in turn, disperse those goods and services across the population, each man receiving what he and his family need. Therefore, however indirectly it may be, Mr. Jones is working for everyone else. And everyone else is doing the same thing as Mr. Jones.
Here we are faced with a serious problem. No matter how hard Mr. Jones works, he will only receive goods and services that his family needs. The government guarantees that his family will receive this needful amount, no matter what.
This is contrary to a capitalist society, where the compensation that Mr. Jones received for his work would vary depending on the kind of work he was doing. In addition, the compensation would go directly to him, rather than having to go through a government entity.
Because Mr. Jones is human, the desire to avoid work is a part of his nature. When he realizes that the the compensation he receives is only based on his families needs, rather than the nature or amount of the work he is doing itself, he will fail to see the need to work to the utmost of his ability. The quality and quantity of his work will diminish. And it is obvious that the amount of goods and services produced cannot remain the same if the amount of work done to produce them is lowered. Thus, the amount of goods and services that the government has available to distribute will be diminished.
Mr. Jones is, of course, representative of the general population of the aforementioned utopian society. If most individuals across a society continually behave as he does, the utopian socialist system will fall apart, because without a certain standard of quality and standard quantity of work, the government will not have the right amount of goods and services to distribute.
If the natural desire to avoid work did not exist, the study of political science would be much simpler, because a utopian society would be possible, and utopian societies do not require all of the complex checks & balances, rights, restraints and other laws that societies have found necessary to impose upon themselves.
Part II; The Lust of a Few Men for Power
Thomas Jefferson, in a letter written from Monticello to Roger Weightman said; “...the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.”
History is full of examples of men that believed in the metaphor that Jefferson used.
Shamshi-Adad I, Ashurbanipal, Qin Shi Huang, Nero, John I, Henry VIII, Nicholas II, Francisco Franco, Adolf Hitler, and Joseph Stalin are some of histories examples of men that, “booted and spurred,” “rode” their fellow countrymen, and in many cases the men in conquered countries.
The American Founding Fathers were horrified with the idea that one man would think himself fit to impose himself upon another, ruling in whatever way he pleased.
History shows us that a lust for power exists among mankind. And that lust drives men to commit the blackest of crimes against their fellow men.
There are two main ways in which men secure their power:
- Flattery (which must, almost always, come first),
- Brutality (a treatment reserved for those who will not be flattered).
Here, I divide Part II into two sub-parts, to discuss each of these methods of securing power.
Part II.a Flattery
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines flattery in this way; “Insincere or excessive praise.”
If we analyze the power-seeking journeys of each of the men listed above, we find common threads, not the least of which is military might. Military might is necessary to use the 2nd tool, brutality, which (as we shall see) is necessary to assert power in almost every instance over a certain number of people who will not be flattered.
The easiest way to secure military might is through flattery. Indeed, imagine the difficulty that one man would have if he built his military force through brutality alone. He would have to insure that he could, at all times, physically overpower each person in his military force. This he could never do.
This is where flattery comes into play. He must begin by flattering a number of men to support him militarily.
The power seeking man’s immediate assistants will, most likely, be flattered with promises of position and authority once the man’s power has been secured.
The power-seeking man is in need of the support of these people. But, will not need to flatter everyone in order to secure his power. As we move down through the ranks of his military, the need to flatter for support becomes less and less. The less support the power-seeking man needs from the individual, the more he will be able to use brutality to control them.
But flattery isn’t something just used to secure military might. Flattery is how the power-seeking man gains control over the hearts of the citizens over which he wishes to assert himself. An example of this will illustrate; a nation is in desolation because of a wicked ruler. The people are in an uncomfortable state. Because a natural human desire is to be comfortable, this uncomfortable state works against our human desires. From the ashes of the chaos arises another power-hungry man, ready to make his move. He may very well begin by telling those around him that he has a better life in store for them if they will follow him. This is, by definition, flattery. It is completely insincere because the power seeking man has absolutely no intention of giving his followers a better life in the end. On top of that, to be effective, the flattery must, in many cases, be excessive of necessity.
And so, gathering his little band of followers behind him, the power-hungry man begins to stake his claim through bribes and promises. We will see in due time whether or not those promises are fulfilled.
Bear in mind however, that not all men find power in their grasp by flattering the masses. Time has shown us numerous examples of men who have secured their power simply by conquering with military might. Qin Shi Huang is one such example; he began as the ruler of one Chinese Warring State, and was able to conquer the rest. Yet he still, must have used both flattery and brutality. Flattery to keep his immediate support, however it had been gained in the first place, and then brutality in order rule over those states that he conquered, and all individuals who refused to support him.
Part II.b Brutality
The Merriam-Webster dictionary gives this definition for brutality; “Cruel, harsh, and usually violent treatment of another person.”
The flattery of the power-seeker will continue until he finds that some will not show support for him. Usually at this point, he has sufficient military might to deal with such people. And how does he deal with them? Brutality.
We see this example take place in the French Revolution. The French people, angered by their rulers, erupted in angry revolution, like a pot, heated for so long under pressure that it finally boils over.
With the revolution, a power-void, or vacuum was created. It was filled by several different kinds of men. Some of these men were, likely, greedy for power from the beginning. However, I believe it probable to say that many signed on to the crew of leadership with every intention of helping their fellow countrymen. Whether or not they stayed true to that desire is a different matter....
Gradually, certain key-figures secured prominent governmental positions through flattery. Then the Reign of Terror began, the time when these power hungry men would use brutality to do everything in their power to stamp out any resistance.
The Reign of Terror took place from early September in 1793, to late July in 1794. To make executions more efficient, a terrible machine was created; the guillotine, a tall, skinny frame with a blade running through it. The head of the unfortunate victim rested at the bottom of the frame. The blade was pulled to the top using a rope, which would then be let go of, allowing the blade to fall and the head to be severed.
This sickening device claimed the lives of more than 16,000 people (2,639 of which were in Paris). The Reign of Terror also claimed 25,000 other lives, taken in some other horrible way, amounting to over 40,000 deaths.
Why did the French people stand for this? For one thing, by the time the guillotine’s blade was stained with blood, it was too late for anyone to say anything against it without they too being lead up the steps to the deadly machine.
Well, why did they allow it to begin in the first place? They were flattered into it. Power-seeking men convinced the people to support them, offering them a better life under a republican form of government.
Then, when the power was secured, brutality was used to control anyone who still had not accepted the current leaders, and those who wished they hadn’t accepted them.
Though some ears may close themselves to flattery, the whip crack of brutality will usually be able to open them back up.
These are the ways that power seeking men “saddle” other people, and then, “booted and spurred,” ride them to fulfil their own selfish desires.
Part III; the Cycle of Revolution
The lust for power, and the innate desire for comfort that I have just described are the things that make political science so complex. Without these inborn elements of human nature, man could live in a very simple society indeed. If men didn’t have the desire to avoid work, we could all work for each other in a utopian socialist system. If men didn’t lust after power, we could appoint one man to be a good and just ruler over all of us. This man could make executive decisions when needed, and make sure that everyone treated everyone else in the correct way.
Yet, as we can see, as long as man exists on his own, with his current imperfections, such a society, with such a ruler is unattainable.
The American Founding Father’s, aware that such a society was unattainable, made an attempt to create an imperfect system, that would be closer to perfect than the political systems that they were accustomed to.
They did this by creating a document with intricate complexities that were designed to limit the power of the government. In other words, they placed limitations on what powerful men could do while in power, thereby controlling man’s lust for power.
This document (the United States Constitution) remedied a process that I have already touched on, though you, the reader, may have missed it.
This process in beautifully illustrated by the French Revolution. I call it The Cycle of Revolution.
To explain it, I have created the following chart:
Tyranny------------------------------------------------------Anarchy
(absolute rule) (no rule)
Revolutions occur because nations are on the left hand side of the chart; tyranny. They got to tyranny because one men lusted after absolute power. He attained it, whether by inheritance or his own cunning, and began to use it according to his own will and pleasure. This put his subjects in a state of uncomfortability. Anger began to well up inside these subjects, and when anger explodes, revolutions begin.
This lead to the overthrowal of the tyrant. The revolting society began to move away from the left-hand side of the chart; tyranny, towards the right hand side; anarchy.
The ultimate purpose of government is to keep society in the center of this chart. They do so, by establishing systems which allow men to freely live their own choice of lifestyle, and protect men from tyrannical rulers by limiting the extent to which government leaders are able to exercise their power.
The best form of government is that which will keep itself, through checks and balances, in the middle of the chart. This keeps societies from a state of absolute rule under one individual, and also keeps them from a state of no rule under many individuals. Anarchy, though it may sound like ultimate freedom, is worse than tyranny, because anarchy allows each member of society to be a tyrant to everyone else, provided they have the strength to do it.
The Cycle of Revolution occurs when a nation continuously fluctuates from one side of the chart to the other.
Merriam-Webster defines revolution thusly; “The usually violent attempt by many people to end the rule of one government and start a new one.”
To illustrate this, I would like to go back to the French Revolution. In the late 1780’s, France was at the far left-hand side of the chart (tyranny). The members of the lower-class in France were uncomfortable, because of the way they were treated by the upper-classes.
A revolution ensued. Revolution, and indeed much of societal change, happens because man, once uncomfortable, does not wish to remain there. The goal of any successful revolution will be to move from tyranny, to the very center of the chart, and stay there. In the case of France, instead of finding a stable political system to keep them in the center of the chart, they quickly escalated all the way to the far right side of the chart (anarchy).
France started with one tyrannical ruler; Louis XVI. Then France was declared a republic in September of 1792. Louis XVI was killed the following January.
“Hurrah!” the people of France may have cried, “we are free of the tyrant!”
It was then that the French began to escalate to anarchy. From this anarchy, Maximilien Robespierre rose to power. He, and the Committee of Public Safety, of which he was the virtual leader, gained absolute power of France, and began the Reign of Terror, which I referred to above. Again, Robespierre was not a leader to the people’s liking. Little wonder to, when you consider all of the deaths that he and his committee were responsible for.
He was executed by his own people. Anarchy ensued once again, and Napoleon Bonaparte rose to power. He lost his power, and his nephew later seized the throne of France.
In essence, the cycle goes like this: tyranny=revolution. Revolution=continued unraveling. Continued unraveling=anarchy. Anarchy=discontentment. Discontentment=uncomfortable lives. Uncomfortable lives=tyranny.
Here we must ask the question; why do men, if they become so discontented with tyrannical rulers, continue to put them in power? There are two answers to this question:
- Perhaps when the new ruler seizes power, there is nothing that anyone can do because the society is in a state of anarchy.
- Beyond that, anarchy, like I said, is worse than tyranny. People would rather be subjected to one man than to live in anarchistic caos. Remember, the power-seeking man flatters them with his promises of a better life. They fall for these promises because they want to stay comfortable.
This Cycle takes place in numerous other historical examples. The history of Russia during the 20th Century, beginning with the Revolution of 1917, all the way to the fall of the USSR in 1991, is a history that followed this cycle.
The rise of Communism in China followed this cycle. Mao Zedong rose to power and started the cultural revolution as a result of the confusion caused by the Chinese Communist Revolution.
The power-seeking man uses flattery to put himself in power. Once in power, he begins to use brutality to keep it. This angers the people over which he rules, and rebellion ensues again.
As the years pass the cry “off with his head!” is heard by the very same voices, who, just a few years earlier, cried of the same man; “Follow him! He will lead us to freedom!”
What, then, is to be done? The securement of the people’s life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness.
Part IV: The Solution
The government that wishes to remain at the center of the chart, maintaining a balance between absolute rule, and no rule, must recognize certain fundamental principles.
These fundamentals may be summed up in the following statement; each individual member of the human race is entitled to the uninfringed, unmolested rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights cannot be given to man by any government, and therefore no government can take them away. Rather, there are given to men by a higher source, the Creator of man, who stands above any government.
Furthermore, individuals are entitled to use every means at their disposal to secure and protect these rights for themselves and others.
These are the fundamental principles that, if protected by a government, will allow a society to stay, checked and balanced, at the center of the chart.
The role of government is to protect these principles. By doing so, it will, by default, prevent power-hungry men from getting their way, and, again, by default, will keep people from becoming so uncomfortable that they choose the path of revolution.
The government protects these principles by, first and foremost, allowing people to express their opinions freely, so long as they do so in such a way that does not violate the rights of others.
They must be allowed to choose their own location of residence, and their own religious beliefs. If they are hindered in these choices in anyway, how can their pursuit of happiness be secured?
In the area of economics, individuals must be free to choose their own path of education, and their own means of livelihood. Remember this principle; the quality of the results of people’s work is the highest it can be when they choose the work themselves. The only way that individuals will be able to choose their own means of livelihood is if they are free to choose their own means of education. If they are forced into a certain educational path, they will not necessarily be able to obtain the necessary knowledge and qualifications needed to obtain the career path that they desire.
Furthermore, the more free humanity has been to choose their own means of education, the more prosperous society will become. I speak of course of the free-enterprise system. This system allowed people to chose their own educational path, and in turn, choose their own career path. By choosing their own career path, they were free to make new developments in the economy. This lead to the fasted technological advancement that humanity has ever seen; an advancement that we are witnessing before our very eyes today.
In order to allow individuals these opportunities, local governments should be given the power to establish educational systems available to all citizens while in the early years of their life. While these opportunities should be available to younger citizens, a mandatory requirement to participate in them, contrary to the wishes of the child’s parents, reaches beyond the extent of the proper role of government. As each individual is unique, and the government has not the capacity to create a one-size-fits all educational program, the power to make the ultimate decision of what educational program a child will participate in shall not be taken from the parents of students while they are still under the parents care.
In the area of physical threat or danger; the local governments have the authority to create law enforcement entities for the purpose of protecting the aforesaid rights of the individual members of that society. The people have every right, and indeed should be highly encouraged, to protect themselves and the rights that are theirs. Because the people have the right to protect themselves, that authority, in turn, is jointly held by the government.
A pioneer community in the American West during the 1800’s will provide an excellent illustration of this point;
Each man in the community, would, most likely, own a gun. And each man would recognize the authority of every other man to do what was necessary to keep himself, and his family safe. But, if each man had to always be on the look out for outlaws, wild animals, or hostile natives, he would find it increasingly difficult to focus on the tasks by which we would provide for his family.
The need to be able to focus on daily tasks of livelihood would, no doubt, draw the community together to a meeting wherein a town marshall would be appointed. This man would be given the task of looking out for everyone else in the town. This would be a much more practical way to keep the townsfolk safe.
However, this does not mean that the individual men are deprived of the right to protect themselves, their families, and even their neighbors. Were this right to be deprived of them, they would find themselves in perilous situations. As a part of protecting themselves, the right of people to keep and bear arms should never be infringed.
It is quite reasonable to assume that situations will occur in which the law enforcement authorities will not be present, and may be long in coming. If those being attacked in this situation do not have the right to protect themselves, and the government is failing in it’s responsibilities to protect them, how will their fundamental right to life and property be protected?
The best way to insure that the fundamental rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness will be protected, will be to insure that the individual will always have the means of protecting themselves.
Building off of that; the local governments must also have the power to organize a well-regulated militia for the purpose of defense against attacks the size of which would overwhelm the law enforcement entities. The federal or national government must have the power to organize a military force, sufficient to insure the national defense against foreign attack and/or internal rebellion. This is a duty owed to the citizens of the country over which the government governs. Both local and national governments have this duty to protect.
The responsibilities and duties of the government do not include the following;
- Subsidization of private businesses. In this lies a great danger; spread. Once one business or industry has been subsidized, the clamour will come from another for a subsidization of their own. When it comes to subsidizations, what the government gives to one it must give to all. Because it cannot afford to give to all, it must give to non.
- The regulation of private businesses. This includes government standards on things such as minimum wage, a maximum number of hours employees can be worked, or standards on quality of production. The danger that lies in these practices is the impediment of the progress of the private sector. Every government enforced regulation that a business complies with will cost that business in some form or another. If the cost of complying with the regulations is too great for the business to bear, it will be forced into business failure. While large corporations that have grown may be able to pay the costs of complying with government regulations, it will still stifle their progress. If these two scenarios are widespread across an entire economy, we will see rising businesses shut down, large businesses stifled, and industrious people discouraged from creating output in the economy by the rising number of failing businesses due to artificial government regulations.
- The financial assistance of citizens. Ahh, here again we run into the imperfect nature of humans, the thing that makes the study of political science and economics so complicated. Man desires to be comfortable. As a part of that, his natural inclination is to avoid work. If, in the form of government benefits, he will not have to work, what will he choose to do? He will choose to not work. Giving the unemployed money is payment because they are not working. And while it may not by their fault that they are out of work, unless they are given a short-term deadline by which time they must find work, they are likely to put off finding it. But, with a limited amount of time in which new work must be found, the necessity to support himself and his family will (except in rare circumstances of extreme laziness) compel him to find new work, after which the government will be freed from the burden of caring for him.
Relying on the good-nature of community charities and religious organizations to assist those in financial need is a more sure way of securing the self-reliance of citizens. Private systems of charity will, most often, have less resources at their disposal than government charities. Thus, of necessity, private charities are more likely to be required to withdraw benefits to specific people after a limited period of time. This will incentivise those benefiting from the charity to maximize their potential in searching for new work.
Said George Washington once; “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
Fire, as we know, has had been known to harm and hinder societal progress. It has destroyed property and life, and caused some societies to back-track and rebuild what has been lost because of fire’s capacity for harm.
But fire has, going back to the early days of history, been an invaluable resource to human beings. As a provider of light and heat, it has allowed us to make many new discoveries and advance our technological development.
But, this development was made only after fire was mastered by humans. It had to be contained and controlled in order to serve our purposes.
Like fire, much of humanity’s atrocities have been committed by governments. Remember, many human beings lust after power, it is a part of our nature. But, on the opposite end of the spectrum, governments have allowed for much (if not all) of humanity’s growth and progress.
But, this progress could only take place after human beings had mastered government, and made it to work for our own purposes.
By holding true to these fundamental principles that I have outlined, we master government, and cause it to work for our own growth and protection.
By not following these fundamental principles, governments cannot be mastered. They turn into raging fires that escape our control, spreading destruction all around.
The spreading of the ideals that I have shared with you to other individuals and citizens requires the courage and commitment of those who believe in said ideals. As I am sharing these fundamental principles with you, the reader, right now, so you can share them with those whom my words will not reach.
When Dr. Benjamin Franklin was leaving the Constitutional Convention of 1787, a woman approached him and asked the aged Dr. what kind of government the men at the convention had given the American people. He responded; “A republic, if you can keep it.”
“Can” is a key word here, because it allows us, the American people, the ability to allow our government to protect us, as well as the ability to allow our government to fall into ruin.
And so, the question is extended to each of us, will we keep the Republic. Will we open our mouths in showing forth to others the fundamental principles of liberty? will we stand firm in holding to sound political philosophies?
I will, and I hope that you will too. In answer to Dr. Franklin, I hope that for each of us, when asked, “will you keep the republic?” the answer will be a resounding yes.
Thank you for reading,
Dallin D. Shumway
No comments:
Post a Comment