Some thoughts on government

[Judean Zealot]

I've decided to write out a relatively brief (yes, compared to what I could write this is brief) outline of my views on society, government, and republicanism, which is to me the most lofty and noble goal a person can pursue. I worship the Supreme Being who animates all of existence through my pursuit of virtue, Republicanism is my creed, and Patriotism is the highest virtue of them all.

----------

The Duties of Man

1) Man is by his very nature a social creature, endowed with the intellect and skills with which to comprehend and improve the world in which he exists. This nature of man generates duties towards that which is around him, both the inanimate as well as his fellow man, for Nature (the Deity) endows every being with that which is required for that being to fulfill it's purpose in the general schema of things. The fulfillment of those duties is the fulfillment of the natural destiny of man, and serves to connect man to that Force which animates all existence. Thus Virtue is to adequately harness one's natural abilities for the maintenance and improvement of all that he encounters, thus performing the ultimate service to himself.

2) As man has the capability to interact with his fellow men, they form an implicit social contract, wherein their respective capabilities are pooled together to maximise output, and thus, utility. Such a society directly arises from the natural state of man, which is social, and so long as it's attentions are directed towards the cultivation of duty, it is a direct extension of the virtue mentioned in paragraph 1.

3) Within this social contract, there must be a degree of social equilibrium, wherein each independent agent has the obligation to protect the whole, arising both from his natural condition as described in paragraph 1, as well as from the further obligation imposed by the necessity of preserving inviolate those bonds which connect him to his fellow man, which includes the duty to protect his fellow's life and property from the depredations of others, so long as that protection is just and serves the furthering of the cause of Virtue. These duties of society from which the individual benefits are called his rights, and must be possible to enforce through recourse to courts of law and the usage of the collective force of society.

The Republic

4) As mentioned at the end of the above paragraph, in order for this social order to maintain itself despite the depredations of other men and natural inclemence, it is necessary to create a centralised force, a governing power, to protect the above order from all predators.

5) It is the primary duty of the government to serve the people and to preserve inviolate their liberty to pursue such means as they view as contributory to their happiness (provided that it does not impinge on the virtue or security of the collective people of the state), and as such must derive it's just powers from the assent of the governed, and must not coerce the public to give them those powers. These obligations of the government are called "political rights" and function by the same mechanics as do the personal rights mentioned in paragraph 3.

6) As such the government must be purely Res Publica, that of the people, and any other form of government, however benevolent it may be, holds no moral authority over the people, and is but the usage of force in the cause of tyranny. The government must both provide the opportunity for the people to recall those in power, as well as ensure that the people are qualified to make such decisions.

7) The virtuous Republic is sacred, the highest form of human society, a collective rallied around their shared humanity and sacred mission. The service and maintenance of the Republic is the service of virtue, and it is the moral prerogative of each and every inhabitant to participate in civic activism and service.

The Maintenance of the Republic

8) There are two interconnected perils which are fatal to the Republic, and they are apathy and opportunism. Apathy is that tool through which ignorance is spread, virtue ignored, and duty abandoned. It eats away at the very fabric of the Republic, which is an involved citizenry, and leads to the second peril, opportunism. Opportunism is a form of tyranny. It is that in which individuals, both in the private and public sector, knowingly subvert the interests of the collective in favour of the interests of themselves, which is only possible when the public is ignorant or apathetic to their actions, and can be viewed as nothing less than treason to the cause of Republicanism.

9) Patriotism is the air which the Republic breathes. It is the citizenry imbued with a love of the nation and a fanatic devotion to it's welfare. The patriot will follow avidly the legislative proceedings, examine the balances of the State account, thoroughly educate himself on all the issues currently facing the Republic, and above all be unforgiving and incorruptible in his struggle against tyrants and enemies of the Republic.

10) There are but three types of inhabitants of a Republic. There are citizens, there are thieves, and there are tyrants. The citizenry are those who have some degree of patriotism, who fulfil their duties and justly enjoy their reciprocal rights. Those who enjoy the infrastructure and benefits provided by the State, yet do not offer significant efforts to the maintenance of the Republic, are nothing but thieves. As a matter of fact, they are worse than thieves, as they are parasites who weaken the whole of society, as well as their sacred duty. And finally, there are those who employ their power, whether natural or provided by the law, to work against the public interest for some personal agenda. These are all tyrants, whether petty or large. The identity politician, the demagogue, the selfish voter - all of these are in equal measure traitors, subverters of the Republic and enemies of the people, and must be combatted with all due vigour.

11) The government only has the duty of giving the suffrage to those who actually have the welfare of the State in mind. To claim otherwise would be to place a sword in the hands of the tyrants to finish off the Republic and replace it with their oligarchies and despotisms. As has been said above, the man who cares for the state of the Republic will actually bother himself to be thoroughly educated in all matters of state. As such, only those who can perform well on a standardised test (updated annually) regarding the disciplines relating to governance and current affairs shall have the suffrage. Every 10 years the citizen must retake the test, to ensure that the citizenry remain engaged in civil affairs. This is only logical. Should someone who knows nothing about medicine perform surgery? Should someone with no aviation skills be a pilot? Why then should the ignoramus participate in the running of government, that most sacred organ of society? After all, were it truly important to him he would've educated himself about it beforehand. The ignorant are the tool which the opportunists, the demagogues, employ to get themselves into power, and they must not be allowed to do so. All information for these tests must be accessible to everybody absolutely free.

12) The criminal, who has already shown his contempt for the government and his fellow citizen, must not have the vote. Draconian penalties must be in place for public officials who breach the public trust, and all public officials must be closely audited.

[Chapperz16]

The concept of Republicism as you have quite well described above seems to be flawed in more than one way I wish to get into. I would just argue that people are opportunistic and always strive for more. If everyone was happy with the concept of working for each other and the social good then Republicism could work but I would state that it is in human nature to be competitive.

[Judean Zealot]

The concept of Republicism as you have quite well described above seems to be flawed in more than one way I wish to get into. I would just argue that people are opportunistic and always strive for more. If everyone was happy with the concept of working for each other and the social good then Republicism could work but I would state that it is in human nature to be competitive.

The two are not contradictory. People can seek their own utility while keeping it subservient to the needs of the greater whole. We already see that spirit in anyone who sacrifices for some cause or another, which is just about every decent person. Granted, we have to start teaching normative viewpoints again (gasp!) in schools, but instilling a clear idea of civic duties into most of the populace has been done already, in multiple states and societies.

If we want a just society, Republicanism is the only method, and a Republic is only possible so long as it's people are virtuous and devoted to the welfare of the State.

[Chapperz16]

However my point is that it is not in our interest to serve the state. For every 5 people who may hold the interests of the state to importance, there will be those of us who would rather further our own lives. Also I would like to know what you mean when you use the subjective term ' just society'

[Judean Zealot]

However my point is that it is not in our interest to serve the state.

It is insofar as your 'rights' are grounded in that same fulfillment of duty which you wish to ignore.

For every 5 people who may hold the interests of the state to importance, there will be those of us who would rather further our own lives.

And such selfishness ought to be condemned, and any abuses of civic power in tat direction ought to be repressed. Liberty doesn't mean the freedom to hurt society.

Also I would like to know what you mean when you use the subjective term ' just society'

I kind of explained that in the OP. In this context I refer to a government which truly operates for the good of it's citizens, who in turn operate for the good of one another. This is the sort of society which frees a man to pursue virtue - the improvement of the world around him.

[Chapperz16]

Was the terror of 1792 an example of society condemning selfishness? They believed in the virtuous republic but the contrast of human ideas as well as morals caused the republic to collapse. The concept you have posted of a society working for the good of its citizens and them working for each other is a purely idealistic system of government and is not workable in modern times nor is it something which can be considered pragmatic. Lastly when you consider virtue to lead a man to improve the world around him, is this not similar to the French goal of liberation through invasion?

[JamesCam]

It sounds close to hell to me.
Oh and you're forgetting mans greed, something no society has as yet managed to overcome.
Not everyone is virtuous.
Everyone is selfish in one way or another.
You are expecting everyone to act the same.. And if they don't?
I want to better myself, yes for others to a degree but predominantly for me. Yep selfish.

[Chapperz16]

It sounds close to hell to me.
Oh and you're forgetting mans greed, something no society has as yet managed to overcome.
Not everyone is virtuous.
Everyone is selfish in one way or another.
You are expecting everyone to act the same.. And if they don't?
I want to better myself, yes for others to a degree but predominantly for me. Yep selfish.

Haha you worded it better than most could haha. I wonder in this republic whether they would execute anyone who doesn't work towards the state. I don't really have an issue with that but I'd justify it in terms of order not virtue.:yeah:

[JamesCam]

And there you go . Nail on the head. Governance by terror.
It's how rulers have acted throughout time..
The Romans .. The Saxons.. The Vikings..
Here in the UK the monarchy of old and the ruling classes,the church. The biggest bombs.. The public corporal punishment..
Fear is no way to live..
Oppression is no way to live..
Freedom to better yourself to become a better person, to earn your value .. To do it for you because you want to that's freedom .

[Judean Zealot]

Was the terror of 1792 an example of society condemning selfishness?
*1793

It was a glorious affair. They made some political errors, but still. Had we a couple of Robespierres and Saint-Justs now we'd be in far better shape.

They believed in the virtuous republic but the contrast of human ideas as well as morals caused the republic to collapse.

The Republic was doomed after the 8th of Thermidor. Is was the corrupt members of the Comittee of Public Safety who brought down Robespierre for fear of their positions, not the pursuit of virtue. On the contrary, had Robespierre survived, the terror would've ended after a few more months and the emergency measures ended. Napoleon would've never destroyed the Republic.


The concept you have posted of a society working for the good of its citizens and them working for each other is a purely idealistic system of government and is not workable in modern times nor is it something which can be considered pragmatic.

We have no choice, save to remain slaves to vice, nihilism, and oligarchy. Better to be a Cato than a Caesar, and even better yet to be a Brutus.

Lastly when you consider virtue to lead a man to improve the world around him, is this not similar to the French goal of liberation through invasion?

More or less, yes. Although I can't forgive Napoleon for destroying the Republic he emancipated all of Europe. I think that the world can be improved primarily through peaceful means, but at times war can do the job just as well. Mind you, Robespierre was one of the staunchest opponents of the French declaration of war against Austria. It was an unwise move at that juncture.

And there you go . Nail on the head. Governance by terror.
It's how rulers have acted throughout time..
The Romans .. The Saxons.. The Vikings..
Here in the UK the monarchy of old and the ruling classes,the church. The biggest bombs.. The public corporal punishment..

I'll just give you the paragraph that immediately follows the quote in my sig:

"It has been said that terror is the principle of despotic government. Does your government therefore resemble despotism? Yes, as the sword that gleams in the hands of the heroes of liberty resembles that with which the henchmen of tyranny are armed. Let the despot govern by terror his brutalized subjects; he is right, as a despot. Subdue by terror the enemies of liberty, and you will be right, as founders of the Republic. The government of the revolution is liberty's despotism against tyranny. Is force made only to protect crime? And is the thunderbolt not destined to strike the heads of the proud?"

[JamesCam]

If you actually wrote in 21st century English instead of 18th century romanticism you might get further.
Do you live in a republic?

[Chapperz16]

My god... For someone to call the Terror a glorious affair is not one worthy of further debate. Your ideals of virtue and selflessness are impractical and extremely unlikely to ever appear in modern politics again. We are humans and unless we all achieve a supposed 'enlightenment' we will continue to be subject to greed and that will not change. The Virtuous republic will never work due to one: the extreme stance you take against opposer's of the virtues which society upholds, 2: the impracticality of virtue over freedom to progress oneself and 3 the contrast of human morals and ideas. In short, your views are too idealistic for the world we live in and will never succeed

[Judean Zealot]

If you actually wrote in 21st century English instead of 18th century romanticism you might get further.

Anyone who hangs out here can tell you that I am far from a romantic.

Do you live in a republic?

I live in an oligarchy. I live in a corrupt country which befouls the word 'democracy'.

The Virtuous republic will never work due to one: the extreme stance you take against opposer's of the virtues which society upholds,

It's kind of funny to hear that coming from a Stalinist. But regardless, I would see this as a positive, not a negative.

2: the impracticality of virtue over freedom to progress oneself and 3 the contrast of human morals and ideas.

I'm not sure what you mean by two. And three can be mediated through the representatives of the people in Parliament or Congress, so long as it doesn't literally undermine the reciprocal duties of the people and government.

[JamesCam]

In the terms of your quotes you use romantic 18th century prose.
If you write in everyday 21c English you will connect to more people.

[Chapperz16]

Anyone who hangs out here can tell you that I am far from a romantic.



I live in an oligarchy. I live in a corrupt country which befouls the word 'democracy'.

Democracy does not exist my friend. Human nature has seen to that; all we have is the pretence of power. Name one country that is 100 percent democratic.

[Judean Zealot]

In the terms of your quotes you use romantic 18th century prose.
If you write in everyday 21c English you will connect to more people.

Well I was quoting an 18th century person. Robespierre didn't say 'Ayy m8, #jacobinterror is rad!'

Democracy does not exist my friend. Human nature has seen to that; all we have is the pretence of power. Name one country that is 100 percent democratic.

My point precisely. And yet people delude themselves that they live in democratic societies. It's almost blasphemous.

[JamesCam]

Yes you quoted from 300 years ago instead of using your own, eloquent and probably more relevant vocabulary

[Judean Zealot]

Yes you quoted from 300 years ago instead of using your own, eloquent and probably more relevant vocabulary

Well, you got the point, didn't you? It's not like I quoted Chaucer or something like that.

[Chapperz16]

[QUOTE=Judean Zealot;3320674]Well I was quoting an 18th century person. Robespierre didn't say 'Ayy m8, #jacobinterror is rad!'



My point precisely. And yet people delude themselves that they live in democratic societies. It's almost blasphemous.[/QUOTE

It is even more delusional to believe in selflessness and virtue as society goals. I'd argue you that the aim of a society/government is to uphold order and security, maybe even control not to achieve virtue. Greed is ever present and I'd rather live under a false sense of democracy then live under a system which is flawed by human nature alone.

[JamesCam]

Well, you got the point, didn't you? It's not like I quoted Chaucer or something like that.

Or worse Bacon

[Judean Zealot]

I'd argue you that the aim of a society/government is to uphold order and security

Can a government provide security if it's populace is selfish and ignorant? I say no, because the corrupt politicians will keep them quiet with 'bread and circuses', all the while doing nothing and letting the state grow fat and weak (yes, America, I mean you).

[Judean Zealot]

Or worse Bacon

Bacon isn't worse than this:

This Nicholas anon leet fle a fart,
As greet as it had been a thonder-dent,
That with the strook he was almoost yblent;
And he was redy with his iren hoot,
And Nicholas amydde the ers he smoot,
Of gooth the skyn an hande brede aboute,
The hoote kultour brende so his toute,
And for the smert he wende for to dye.
As he were wood, for wo he gan to crye,
"Help! Water! Water! Help for Goddes herte!"

[JamesCam]

That sounds more like my drunk uncle ;)

[Microcosm]

I think you're a smart guy. Seriously. I want to try and respond to the points you make and see where it goes as I too enjoy thinking about these things.

1) Man is by his very nature a social creature, endowed with the intellect and skills with which to comprehend and improve the world in which he exists. This nature of man generates duties towards that which is around him, both the inanimate as well as his fellow man, for Nature (the Deity) endows every being with that which is required for that being to fulfill it's purpose in the general schema of things. The fulfillment of those duties is the fulfillment of the natural destiny of man, and serves to connect man to that Force which animates all existence. Thus Virtue is to adequately harness one's natural abilities for the maintenance and improvement of all that he encounters, thus performing the ultimate service to himself.

Here is the logic as I see it: (1)Man is given the tools to improve the world around him. (2)Man's ability to accomplish this improvement creates a sense of natural duty to do so. (3)(my own addition)Virtue is the way of accomplishing one's purpose whilst causing the least amount of harm to the world around him(true virtue being the accomplishment of complete improvement of the world without ever harming anyone or anything in any way either direct or indirect throughout one's life; impossible, but just a thought).(4) Therefore, man can be virtuous if he follows his natural duty to improve the world around him.

There does appear to me to be a problem, though. We have the tools and ability to do other things. It could be one's natural inclination to kill, murder and pillage communities around him. Some believe this is the way to God. It seems to me a discrepancy amongst people as to what virtue means. For some it could mean the improvement of the world by donating to charity and raising people up to their potential, but for others it could mean the improvement of the world by "cleansing" it of inferior beings.

-


3) Within this social contract, there must be a degree of social equilibrium, wherein each independent agent has the obligation to protect the whole, arising both from his natural condition as described in paragraph 1, as well as from the further obligation imposed by the necessity of preserving inviolate those bonds which connect him to his fellow man, which includes the duty to protect his fellow's life and property from the depredations of others, so long as that protection is just and serves the furthering of the cause of Virtue. These duties of society from which the individual benefits are called his rights, and must be possible to enforce through recourse to courts of law and the usage of the collective force of society.

It's an interesting idea that rights to property and such are given not for the individual's sake, but for the sake of the community as a whole. I'd personally like to think it is for the defense of the individual for his own sake and not necessarily for that of the society's, but I can see where you're coming from.

5) It is the primary duty of the government to serve the people and to preserve inviolate their liberty to pursue such means as they view as contributory to their happiness (provided that it does not impinge on the virtue or security of the collective people of the state), and as such must derive it's just powers from the assent of the governed, and must not coerce the public to give them those powers. These obligations of the government are called "political rights" and function by the same mechanics as do the personal rights mentioned in paragraph 3.

I would like to add an idea to this. As mentioned in the Duties of Man section, I believe the government too is a unit by which the world can be improved. It seems here that you limit yourself to the government's protection of the people, but not that it itself may act as a contributor to the world around it. For instance, this would mean the government should act on Climate Change and such. Also, there is the question as to whether it should serve its own people and the people of other countries. This would extend to issues such as a government contributing funds to starving communities in Africa and other impoverished nations.

[Porpoise101]

I have a question: do you view the dynastic system in China as an initial success of your social contact but one that is only temporary?

[Judean Zealot]

Here is the logic as I see it: (1)Man is given the tools to improve the world around him. (2)Man's ability to accomplish this improvement creates a sense of natural duty to do so. (3)(my own addition)Virtue is the way of accomplishing one's purpose whilst causing the least amount of harm to the world around him(true virtue being the accomplishment of complete improvement of the world without ever harming anyone or anything in any way either direct or indirect throughout one's life; impossible, but just a thought).(4) Therefore, man can be virtuous if he follows his natural duty to improve the world around him.

Allow me to modify this in a somewhat clearer fashion.

(1) Everything in nature has it's utility, as is clearly manifested in its properties. Thus the fingers are to manipulate objects with, the rain to provide us with water while filtering it from sea-salt, and the human intellect the capabilities of abstraction and the ability to discern between good and bad.

(2) These ends for which the particulars of nature serve are known as natural law, and are 'intended' by the Supreme Being (my position, as well as any other system of morality in my opinion, requires some sort of Final Cause or intentionality, even if it is just Spinoza or Einstein's God of Nature). These natural ends serve not only the individual organisms, but the entire interconnected system of nature. This is evident from the multiple systems and cycles in nature, wherein countless disparate entities join together to create the desired effect. Fulfillment of these ends is the apotheosis of man; he becomes from a collection of blood and tissue to an ancillary to the Divinity. Just as a block of wood and a chair share the same carbon makeup, yet the chair is transformed, through its function to man, into an entirely new and higher form; so too is man - from flesh and blood he turns into the tool by which Nature fulfills its end, and thus achieves immortality.

(3) Man, having been endowed with reason, wile, and the mechanical skills, is thus uniquely situated in the scheme of nature to be the primary tool with which Nature fulfills her design - a world in which all creations are unified in one vast chain of felicity and sacrifice.

There does appear to me to be a problem, though. We have the tools and ability to do other things. It could be one's natural inclination to kill, murder and pillage communities around him. Some believe this is the way to God. It seems to me a discrepancy amongst people as to what virtue means. For some it could mean the improvement of the world by donating to charity and raising people up to their potential, but for others it could mean the improvement of the world by "cleansing" it of inferior beings.

Although the mind can be used to such ends, it is not it's natural end. It is a perversion, much as cancer is a perversion of the cells function. The mind's function is to view the world as profoundly conjoined by it's mutual end: cognizance and manifestation of the unity of the world's design and Cause. There are two weapons which tend to pervert the mind and enable tyranny: superstition and atheism. While superstition deforms the very notion of the Deity and projects onto Him the crimes of the tyrants, atheism seeks to banish Him from His works so that crime and injustice can be justified (after all, everything is relative). I have confidence that should a person truly devote himself to the pursuit of knowledge and truly wish to discern his nature he will arrive at the same conclusion, even if he may clothe it in different terms.

It's an interesting idea that rights to property and such are given not for the individual's sake, but for the sake of the community as a whole. I'd personally like to think it is for the defense of the individual for his own sake and not necessarily for that of the society's[.]

That's understandable: it enables one to claim his rights independent of the duties owed to the public. But in what do you ground those rights, so that others are morally bound to respect them?

I would like to add an idea to this. As mentioned in the Duties of Man section, I believe the government too is a unit by which the world can be improved. It seems here that you limit yourself to the government's protection of the people, but not that it itself may act as a contributor to the world around it. For instance, this would mean the government should act on Climate Change and such.

I absolutely agree with this. This was included in 'serving the people', as government holds no more power than that of the aggregate populace.

Also, there is the question as to whether it should serve its own people and the people of other countries. This would extend to issues such as a government contributing funds to starving communities in Africa and other impoverished nations.

Absolutely. Although it shouldn't do so to the detriment of it's own people. One must weigh the costs against the utility of humanitarian activities.

I have a question: do you view the dynastic system in China as an initial success of your social contact but one that is only temporary?

In several threads I've pointed to Ming China's success as an indication that merit is a viable factor to be measured for civic eligibility. Nonetheless, it's moral flaw was it's imperial and dynastic system, which ultimately led to it's corruption and collapse.