Is any government logically justified?

[wooljesus]

...in a "derived authority from ______" sense; that is, does there exist a logical authority by which one can claim the right to govern?

[jbturnstone]

I've been thinking about this for a while, and I ultimately settled on a few lines from a poem called "Our Doom to Bloom" by Robert Frost:

"...If it's not a mere illusion,
All there is to it is diffusion--
Of coats, oats, votes to all mankind.
In the Surviving Book we find
That liberal, or conservative,
The state's one function is to give.
The bud must bloom till blowsy blown
Its petals loosen and are strown;
And that's a fate it can't evade
Unless 'twould rather wilt than fade."

"The state's one function is to give" is an odd line coming from Frost, a notoriously grumpy fuddy-duddy who objected to the New Deal at a time when adherence to progressive principles was near-compulsory within the artistic community. What's revealing is the part about "coats, oats, votes to all mankind." He only recommends the state "give" three things: food, shelter, and a chance to have your voice counted and heard. He seems, in this sense, to be a very reasonable political moderate. Liberals on the far left would say, of course, that coats, oats and votes are not nearly enough, while conservatives on the far right would say that any government guarantee of food and shelter is tantamount to socialism (some in Florida would say the same about votes, too ).

What makes Frost unique is that he's a fatalist. You really can't be a right-wing extremist or a left-wing extremist unless you have a fanatical devotion to the concept of free will. The whole culture of democracy based on the notion that you can do anything you want as long as you put your mind to it. It's interesting that neither Bernie Sanders nor Ron Paul believe that our culture is rotting and our civilization is in a state of decay. They are both unceasingly hopeful, and they would probably both assert that Frost is way out of line when he warns that the best we can do is choose between "wilting or fading." Frost, being a farmer, knows we can't bloom forever, and that the two popular extremes will only hasten our demise--either by spoiling us with excess or starving us with inequity. Either way, they will lead to a crash that will be horrifying in its abruptness.

So in the middle ground he finds that the best a government can do is make sure the basic needs of the citizens are met and sustained. So one logical justification for government is the fulfillment of need, and nothing more. It's logical because it'll work out best for people in the long term. It may put a damper on your pride, on your desires, on your happiness, but that's too bad. It's the only thing that'll soften the landing when we finally do crash.

The trouble is, no government would ever operate under a presumed fate of eventual demise--due to the simple fact that only clever crooks and stupid idealists have a desire to run for office. Our government is in shambles because too much attention has been committed to the fulfillment of desire. One way around this (in my opinion, the only way to keep democracy pure) is to make it a non-profit enterprise.

[wooljesus]

Fascinating response - I wasn't expecting to hear Robert Frost quoted.

From one angle, I'd agree - humans definitely have needs, if they value human survival. This brings me to a second way of looking at the question, which tends to make me disagree that the imposition of one person's will over another is never logically justified - that no opinion supersedes another, by virtue of relative morality.

Do I believe some forms of government can be beneficial to certain people (e.g. the status quo?) Sure, absolutely; but is there some form of human dominion that makes sense mathematically, in a non-anthropocentric or geocentric way? I'm not sure.

To me government functions a bit like the CPU of a computer; its subjects are the countless transistors in the circuitry, taking input and spitting out truth statements that affect one another. Thus I have to believe that there really is some system that facilitates the operation of the process, but it would probably be dependent on the transistors themselves also functioning properly.

This makes me look at an idealized nation or society as one in which both the CPU and the circuits (laborers, if you will) are both well-kept, state-of-the-art, and regularly maintained by both themselves and their neighbors.

[jbturnstone]

"...is there some form of human dominion that makes sense mathematically, in a non-anthropocentric or geocentric way? I'm not sure."

Political activities based on purely logical definitions tend to inhabit the extreme ends of the spectrum, communism on the far left and absolute monarchy on the far right. Either one is technically sensible in theory. If you desire a forced imposition of equality, then communism would be the obvious choice. If you prefer safety and security, then what you're looking for is a benevolent monarchy. History shows that both extremes fail miserably when actually put into practice. Expecting a monarch to remain benevolent is like hiring a fox to guard the henhouse. Most people say “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I’d say any power corrupts absolutely. If a communist leader is unable to amass power through wealth, he will amass it through the privilege of setting quotas and making bureaucratic decisions. The moment you’re put in charge of something, it elevates you into a separate class.

See this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

The "middle ground" seems to attract romantic, philosophical idealists like Thomas Jefferson. Part scientist, part philosopher, he always preferred to govern from the heart (in spite of his mind). If an ideal society is “one in which both the CPU and the circuits (laborers, if you will) are both well-kept, state-of-the-art, and regularly maintained by both themselves and their neighbors,” it would be very difficult to govern from the heart (and I think Jefferson came to understand this only after becoming president). If a government is to operate like a computer system, then it needs to be restricted and contained by certain limitations; it needs to be pre-programmed by a code that says: “here, and no further.” Otherwise, like an unrestricted computer, it will acquire glitches, bugs, and viruses. So what set of standards could keep Jefferson’s Democracy running smoothly? There has to be some sort of firewall in place to fend off the inevitable corruption.

The only way to keep the laborers well kept is to prevent the creation of a separate political class. The simplest way to do this (without turning to communism) would be to make conflicts of interest illegal--perhaps even acts of treason. Your integrity is compromised beyond repair once you use your office to enrich yourself and your friends. The free market is alive and well, it’s just not your personal plaything any more. Second, make lobbying illegal. Call it what it is: Racketeering Influenced Criminal Organization. Third, there has to be a salary cap. No sitting member of the House of Representatives may earn more money than the average worker in his or her district; no Senator may earn more than the average worker in his or her state. This would force them to acquire an incentive to improve the lives of working people. They would actually enjoy doing it. Fourth: we need term limits. No more than 8 years for any office. Don’t let them make a career out of it. Finally, do away with elections. Do like the Greeks did: draft people into office, like jury duty. That’s the only way to avoid the formation of a higher class, to keep the system clean.

This is the closest I can come to suggesting something that might make logical, mathematic sense without veering to one extreme or another. Unfortunately, the laws are written by the lawmakers, and no lawmaker would ever agree to these conditions. One might presume then that any need for fundamental change would depend upon a revolution, to let us get our ducks in a row and start from scratch. Here then is the sticky situation of rebelling against a republic. When you kill an evil king, you have only to kill the king and maybe a few of his heirs. But if Guy Fawkes had succeeded in blowing up his evil parliament, there would’ve been 500 bankers and lawyers and businessmen ready to replace them within a matter of minutes. So really, what can be done? The inevitability of corruption was so adept at wriggling around Jefferson’s firewall, it would surely find away around my proposal, too. So it’s beginning to seem unlikely, in a definitive sense, that any government is logically justified...if, as you say, anyone really values human survival.

I guess the next question would be: in response to the quandary of unjustifiable government, is any type of anarchism logically justified as the alternative?

[wooljesus]

I'm actually very familiar with the Stanford Prison Experiment; as you can imagine, it's rammed up the ass of every psych student on the continent. I see a few flaws:

1. Those involved were a) college students, and b) more or less adults. We're all aware of how the majority of the former are brainwashed into thinking others' thoughts while remaining convinced of their originality. Second, adults are and always will be a lost cause; there is no changing them. You can't teach an old dog new tricks. The crucial stage of American education is between kindergarten and middle school not later.

Agreed on all counts with your arguments. I've long felt that it's ridiculous that elected officials earn more than the national average. It's so obviously the correct way to handle and improve the situation, provide motivation for improvement, etc. that I simply can't understand why the public isn't screaming in rage for this change (I can certainly understand why politicians aren't). Ditto for term limits and the outlawing of lobbying.

The problem is, as you mentioned, making lucrative enterprises illegal simply forces them underground. No policy can cure an insatiable thirst for wealth and power. The thirst is the real problem; the addiction, if you will. People honestly believe that these things bring them fulfillment and happiness. It's an error of monumentally stupid proportions.

I actually agree that either communism or an absolute monarchy is the mathematical solution; unfortunately it's sort of analogous to Classical Mechanics, which ignores probabilistic fluctuations like flawed human behavior, which almost never responds to stimuli as it should. It's the behavior that needs to change before either system can work - communism, for example, would work perfectly if everyone was a decent human being. So would the monarchy.

But people aren't decent. Running a country is like running a prison - and that's why we see so much of the Stanford behavior in the "guards." Let's not forget that billions of dollars are swindled out of the IRS every year, that most "hard-working" Americans lie and cheat just as much as the much-maligned holy class. I'm not defending the latter, but more pointing out that the former, always playing the victim, refuses just as steadfastly to take responsibility and change. "Do as I say, not as I do." Washington is full of very smart people, and they've long since learned that power is never acquired; it is only given away.

Revolutions seem to be the collective recognition of the masses, who always lag behind the sociopolitical elite, that "those motherfuckers" are really not going to share. Historically, there have been enough kids in the class to gang-pummel the bully. As we've talked about before, I'm not so sure this is the case anymore.

So - is anarchy the solution? Certainly not over a long duration of time, not if we're valuing stability. But perhaps the reason no nation has been able to figure out a successful system is because they've failed to realize that we are by nature cyclical, not static, and thus need a cyclical government that recurs with our sentiments; one that goes from democracy to plutocracy to anarchy and back again. In fact, this has happened anyway, nature showing us that control is an illusion, that the imposition of static belief systems is a denial of our implicit way of thinking, acting, and evolving.

"The only thing constant is change." Physics confirms this; perhaps only a dynamic government can account for it, and perhaps we have this anyway through the natural process of revolution - the question is, have we unnaturally neutered it?

[jbturnstone]

"...perhaps the reason no nation has been able to figure out a successful system is because they've failed to realize that we are by nature cyclical, not static, and thus need a cyclical government that recurs with our sentiments; one that goes from democracy to plutocracy to anarchy and back again. In fact, this has happened anyway, nature showing us that control is an illusion, that the imposition of static belief systems is a denial of our implicit way of thinking, acting, and evolving."

The Founders understood this, and that's why the Constitution wasn't written in stone like the Ten Commandments. The most radical thing about this country is that our laws have been ordained to evolve. Somehow, the Supreme Court didn't get that memo. The conservative justices, who think amendments are tantamount to blasphemy, ironically call themselves "strict Constitutionalists." In the past 2 decades we have actually lost more civil rights than we've gained. Amazingly, it’s not the newer amendments that have been chipped away, but the ancient liberties of habeas corpus, the right to protest a prolonged detainment without a trial, the implementation of draconian "free speech zones,” the ubiquitous surveillance and complete lack of privacy that is utterly contrary to America’s much-ballyhooed virtue of rugged individualism. The hypocrisy at work here is almost beyond comprehension, and, as you pointed out, it endures largely because “most ‘hard working’ Americans lie and cheat as much as the much-maligned holy class.”

"The only thing constant is change." Physics confirms this; perhaps only a dynamic government can account for it, and perhaps we have this anyway through the natural process of revolution - the question is, have we unnaturally neutered it?”

I think we have neutered it, and we’ve spent far too much time in denial of its impotence. Chesterton saw this happening 100 years ago:

“The corruption in things is not only the best argument for being progressive; it is also the only argument against being conservative... all conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are. But you do not. If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change... An almost unnatural vigilance is really required of the citizen because of the horrible rapidity with which human institutions grow old. It is the custom in passing romance and journalism to talk of men suffering under old tyrannies; under tyrannies that had been public liberties hardly twenty years before. Thus England went mad with joy over the patriotic monarchy of Elizabeth; and then (almost immediately afterwards) went mad with rage in the trap of tyranny of Charles the First... So again, we have almost up to the last instant trusted the newspapers as organs of public opinion. Just recently some of us have seen (not slowly, but with a start) that they are obviously nothing of the kind. They are, by the nature of the case, the hobbies of a few rich men. We have not any need to rebel against antiquity; we have to rebel against novelty. It is the new rulers, the capitalist editor, who really hold up the modern world. There is no fear that a modern king will attempt to override the constitution; it is more likely he will ignore the constitution and work behind its back; he will not take advantage of his kingly power; it is more likely he will take advantage of his kingly powerlessness, of the fact that he is free from criticism and publicity. For the king is the most private person of our time. It will not be necessary for any one to fight against a proposal of a censorship of the press. We do not need a censorship of the press. We have a censorship by the press.”

People don’t want to hear this. Liberals prefer to believe that the mainstream media’s general lack of newsworthiness is something new and astonishingly offensive. They long for the days of Woodward and Bernstein, utterly oblivious to the crucial fact that Woodward and Bernstein got Nixon impeached over a petty (and decidedly sensational) misdemeanor. Here was a president with a long history of felonious corruption, none of which meant anything to the press or the Watergate commission, who illegally authorized federal agents to “incapacitate” Daniel Ellsberg to prevent him from testifying in his own defense, and it was his complicity in the burglary of a hotel room that made him unfit for office. And it’s not like people didn’t know about this. The “incapacitation” order was what got the Ellsberg case dismissed with all charges dropped! The absurdity has only intensified since President Obama is now in possession of the legal authority to order the assassination (they’re not even calling it “incapacitation” anymore) of American citizens who pose a threat to what he deems to be matters of national security. Thanks to the PATRIOT Act (which he has never opposed) and the most recent NDAA, every crime committed by Nixon against Ellsberg is now perfectly legal under Obama, who (amazingly) remains utterly despised by the far right wing of the Republican Party. Twenty-five of 37 articles of impeachment entered against Bush by Dennis Kucinich still apply to Obama. If Bush had attempted to take the justification for indefinite detention as far as Obama’s taken it, the Democrats would’ve rioted in the streets. Chesterton proposed a 20-year cycle of public liberties giving way to tyrannies; nowadays it can happen in as little as 4 years: Bush’s popularity hit rock-bottom in 2006, when the Republicans lost the Senate and Rumsfeld got the boot, yet by 2010 his allegedly “liberal” successor had legitimized and accelerated the Bush Administration’s most unconstitutional offenses. If this frequency continues at the same pace, we may well see an overt fascist police state in as little as 10 years (or after as little as one terrorist attack with casualties equal to or slightly higher than 9/11). We still like to think that the truth will set us free, but for at least 100 years, it has only gotten us killed.

[wooljesus]

...as you mentioned...

We still like to think that the truth will set us free, but for at least 100 years, it has only gotten us killed.

I might argue that is in fact the direct natural realization of the Truth - that we all ought to be killed. I mean this seriously.

[jbturnstone]

After consulting the astrological charts and considering various alignments between 2008 and 2019, I'm prepared to say that our solar system is about to become a lot more honest. Siriusly.