Monday, December 26, 2016

Democracy be Damned



With an acknowledgement to Hans Hoppe and his Democracy: The God That Failed, I offer an examination of similar sentiments from Bertrand de Jouvenel’s On Power: The Natural History of its Growth.

In my initial post on this book by de Jouvenel, I skipped ahead – choosing to comment on the usefulness to Power of the phrase “all men are created equal.”  With this post, I will begin at the beginning.

This condemnation of our current state of governance begins in the Foreword, written by Dr. Dennis Wilson Brogan:

It was an illusion of the framers of the early American constitutions that they could set up “a government of laws and not of men.” 

Somewhere I recall Rothbard writing something to the effect: if utilizing a written constitution as a check on government failed in the most propitious conditions, what’s the point?  Where can it then be expected to succeed?

The issue is the not the mechanics of legislating, but instead the object of law; how is the law structured and enforced to minimize abuse by the ruler?  What is under the ruler’s authority?

All governments are governments of men though the better of them have a high admixture of law too – that is, of effective limitations on the free action of the rulers.

The most thorough example of such law of which I am aware is the law as understood and enforced during much of the Germanic Middle Ages.  The law was custom and culture; the law was only law if it was both old and good.  The king had no role in legislating law; his only role was to enforce the law as understood by those who voluntarily supported (and could also remove this support) him as king.

“Law” was not delegated to some third party, experts acting supposedly on behalf of the rest of us.  Skipping ahead to de Jouvenel:

Now Power in medieval times was very different: it was tied down, not only in theory but in practice, by the Lex Terrae (the customs of the country), which was thought of as a thing immutable.  And when the English Barons uttered their Nolumus leges Angliae mutari [“We object to changes in the laws of England”] they were only giving vent to the general feeling of the time.

The consecrated king of the Middle Ages was a Power as tied down and as little arbitrary as we can conceive.  He was simultaneously constrained by standing human law, i.e., custom, and by the Divine Law, and could hardly trust his own reading of his duty about anything.

Yves de Chartres, for instance, wrote in these terms to Henry I of England after his accession: “Never forget it, Prince: you are the servant of the servants of God and not their master; you are the protector and not the owner of your people.”

This leash on power saw its final fraying beginning with the Reformation and continuing with the ideas of the Enlightenment achieving prominence.

Returning to the Foreword:

Politics are about power; we cannot evade that truth or its consequences.  We dream of a better world but it is in Utopia – that is, nowhere. 

The check on power is not to be found in a written constitution or in democratic elections.  Such mechanisms support the illusion that the people are in control, the people have the power.  It is Utopia.  It also pacifies the people; no, more accurately, it gives the people feelings of being accomplices.

It is in the popularity of the pursuit of Utopia that the aggrandizers of state power find their most effective ally.

And this is why the enemy is always the state.  Those who dream of making the state more efficient, of bending the state to serve the good of the people, of believing that their vote matters – such are playing directly into the hands of state power; such are power’s most effective ally.

The sacrifices demanded of the people today, under the supposedly most free form of government devised, were never seen under the despots that came before: what was asked of the French people under the Republic made the days under even Louis XIV seem idyllic.  The weight of government for Americans – who supposedly gained their freedom over 200 years ago – would be unrecognizable to the farmer in South Carolina in 1775; “why did we bother fighting,” he would wonder.

If a religion or a general cause not identified with the nation-state asked for these sacrifices, we should be far more critical than we are.

God thought ten percent was the upper limit.  God knew that the sons would be called to war and the daughters to service.  To paraphrase RJ Rushdoony, we tithe our children to the state – handing over their most precious asset, their ability to think and reason, to be formed in accord with the state’s wishes.  We sacrifice to the state infinitely more than we offer to any other individual or institution; to offer the same to our church or our neighbors would seem preposterous – but to offer the same to the state seems…normal.

Further, “we the people” has only afforded those in control of Power to exercise it more freely, with less concern for revolution – after all, “we the people” would only be revolting against…ourselves.  Moving on to the words of de Jouvenel, here citing Benjamin Constant:

…once let them entrust [power] to mandatories chosen by themselves, and there are no limits to what they will think its desirable extension.

As de Jouvenel offers: “No absolute monarch ever had at his disposal a police force comparable to those of modern democracies.”

Both the Jesuits and Hobbes come in for criticism from de Jouvenel: the Jesuits for offering that it is the community which establishes Power; Hobbes…well, for being Hobbes.  Citing Hobbes:

By this establishment of the Republic, each individual is the author of whatever the sovereign does: consequently, anyone who claims that the sovereign is wronging him is objecting to acts of which he himself is the author, and has only himself to accuse.

Conclusion

Democracy is the ultimate usurper; returning to the Foreword:

…a majority can do no wrong, if it is our majority; that is, if we are part of it, it cannot do anything disastrously silly.  It can and does.

A most important task for libertarians is to discredit the state – even (and especially) a state where “we the people” are supposedly in charge. 

In this regard, the success of both Brexit and Trump are valuable to the libertarian cause. 

10 comments:

  1. This is why they attacked the Common Law (no lawyers, aggrieved and wrongdoer only, magistrate is there to enforce the rules of court, jury decides the case and their decision is final, penalties to be applied according to the custom of the time and region).

    The first attack on this was the illegal removal of a key clause from the original 13th amendment, done under the fog of the Civil War. http://www.amendment-13.org/

    Unless Common Law proceedings are restored, none of what we want will be achieved, and any progress will eventually be reversed, as the the most basic check on government stemming from the times of the Magna Carta will not hold.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false- face for the urge to rule it." H.L. Mencken

    "Democracy is a sort of laughing gas. It will not cure anything, perhaps, but it unquestionably stops the pain." H.L. Mencken

    "Democracy is the worship of jackals by jackasses." H.L. Mencken

    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." H.L. Mencken

    "If x is the population of the United States and y is the degree of imbecility of the average American, then democracy is the theory that x times y is less than y." H.L. Mencken

    "All of democracy's axioms "resolve themselves into thundering paradoxes, many amounting to downright contradictions in terms. The mob is competent to rule the rest of us – but it must be rigorously policed itself. There is a government, not of men, but laws – but men are set upon benches to decide finally what the law is and may be." H.L. Mencken

    "The State is not force alone. It depends upon the credulity of man quite as much as upon his docility. Its aim is not merely to make him obey, but also to make him want to obey." H.L. Mencken

    "All government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man; its one permanent object is to oppress him and cripple him. If it be aristocratic in organization, then it seeks to protect the man who is superior only in law against the man who is superior in fact; if it be democratic, then it seeks to protect the man who is inferior in every way against both. One of its primary functions is to regiment men by force, to make them as much alike as possible and as dependent upon one another as possible, to search out and combat originality among them. All it can see in an original idea is potential change, and hence an invasion of its prerogatives. The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are...." H.L. Mencken

    "Dreams, that governments will keep you free,
    In your dreams, Donald Trump is not a fraud,
    In your dreams, the constitution is not a fraud..." - onebornfree.

    From : "Dreams [Matrix Blues]":
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMXtoUtXrTU

    Sleezons Greedings and a Happy Festivus to all ! :-)

    Regards, onebornfree

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice job on the song, One.

      Delete
    2. gpond said: "Nice job on the song, One."

      Thanks for listening. I'm always surprised how well it goes down live. I expect to get stuff thrown at me, or to be physically threatened, but no- so far [2+ years] so good.

      My conclusion is that most misunderstand the lyrics, or simply do not listen too hard because its just background noise, after all.

      And so it goes...

      Regards, onebornfree

      Delete
  3. Waaay back in the deays when the Constitution was written, the phrase "all men are created equally" meant an entirely different thing than it does today.
    To believe the Founders were speaking of Indians, Chinese, Arabs, blacks, etc., is truly the triumph of imagination over intelligence.
    Who they were speaking of were Slavs, Italians, Irish and white people who were considered 'bottom of the barrel' waaay back then.
    Think about it.. Hell, white women weren't even allowed to vote until the 1920's, so why would they consider Eskimos and Arabs as equals?! No way.
    To consider Slavs and Irish as equals was a huuuge step waaay back then. Indians?! Africans?! Equals!!
    C'MON MAN!

    ReplyDelete
  4. The naifs regurgitate their seventh-grade civics lessons: "We're a nation of laws, not men!" Alas, a nation of laws becomes a nation of lawyers. I have yet to encounter a lawyer who was an automaton.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Excellent, Jonathan. The enemy was always the State.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "To paraphrase RJ Rushdoony, we tithe our children to the state – handing over their most precious asset, their ability to think and reason, to be formed in accord with the state’s wishes. We sacrifice to the state infinitely more than we offer to any other individual or institution; to offer the same to our church or our neighbors would seem preposterous – but to offer the same to the state seems…normal."

    Boy..... thats the truth!!


    Owyhee cowboy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When I first read this (and it was Gary North who cited it), it was one of those "DUH" moments. even before reading this, I always felt that the idea of "the state will educate your children" was one of the most dangerous concepts ever invented, but to read it in such stark terms as conveyed by Rushdoony / North was like a slap in the face.

      Delete