How To Protest

My extremely fledgling political party last week threw its support behind the Occupy Wall Street protests, but we may have to retract that support if a few of the following demands aren’t met. We will always support the message but the protests aren’t doing anything or going anywhere, and largely this is the failure of the protestors themselves. It’s all related to a criticism that is often leveled at the military. The criticism is that the military is always preparing to fight the last war. For example, Vietnam was such a quagmire because the people in charge thought we were fighting the Korean War, a war with clearly defined battle lines and one in which the winner of the most battles wins the war; Iraq now was planned on being like Desert Storm. See what I mean, each time a failure to understand the proper context of the battle ground and a realization of who the enemy is/was caused a systemic failure of the war’s conduct.

This is only different in that there are no guns. Well there’s some guns, but we’ll get to that in a sec. The protestors are protesting what exactly? I don’t mean why, but against what are they fighting? It’s unclear. Wall Street isn’t where decisions were made, but I guess it’s symbolic. Still though it reeks of ignorance. Every once in a while I’ll get a facebook post where someone decides that they are going to start a boycott of a particular gasoline company, you probably know what I am talking about. The message is that no one should buy gas at a Sunoco/Mobile/BP/Etc. station for a week (or sometimes one day). The thinking is that the station will have to lower it’s prices to get people to buy their gas and then the other stations would have to do so as well and BANG the price of gas will drop. This post (which will get you blocked from my facebook page by the way) ignores several factors: first off, the station manager has very little control over the price of gas. He does exert some flexibility in the way of a dime or so but that’s really it. More importantly, the price of gas isn’t determined by a simple supply and demand economics. The price of oil is based on futures, the price of gas is thus influenced by that and by production. This is, at least the excuse, given when the price of gas shot up a dollar over the Libyan Revolution even though the US doesn’t receive any of its oil from Libya. So protesting the day traders, the grunts of wall street doesn’t make a lot of sense. Don’t protest the barista at Starbucks because of the price of coffee.

Demand 1: Pick a reasonable target and stick to it. By “reasonable” I mean pick something that is going to change. These 1% people aren’t going to turn over their money because you want it. For instance the surtax on the wealthy in New York is going to expire soon, so you NYC protestors ought to start raising a stink about that. Remember little victories give your movement not only morale but also legitimacy.

You have a problem that is a lot larger than just your protest as well. One enemy that you have is the conservative media. Yes, I know they are hypocrites for supporting the TEA party who allegedly* believed the exact same thing as you, but that’s not going to change. Yes, they are hypocrites–agreed? Let’s move on. The problem with them and with every movement is that change is difficult. There is nothing more troublesome than to refine an already established machine. As people fight hardest when they think they are going to lose what they have. In order to do this, weapons will be deployed and one of the most important ones your opponents have the media.

I know, the media has largely been able to convince the rest of the country that there is some liberal agenda that controls the news. It’s however, a lie. Conservative radio dominates AM, Fox News is the number one cable news station by a wide margin. One thing they don’t like is you. Understanding this is greatly important because they will use every misspelled sign, every arrest, every act of vandalism, to discredit the protest. Yes, they’ve ignored those very things in the TEA party but we already covered the hypocrisy, and yes, if you brought a gun they would scream terrorism even though they kept their mouth shut when their group did it. We already covered that.

Not to say that the liberal media, or the objective media is helping either. While they seem to be largely sympathetic to you, they are inadvertently hurting by describing the “air of friendliness” and “how everyone is being so nice” etc. It gives your protest the sense that it is a party. This needs to stop for the previous two reasons.

Demand 2: Put down the fucking drums and get angry!

People need to understand that you aren’t a bunch of rich college kids on vacation. You have a purpose and a message. Figure that out and get going. Furthermore, start organizing. Take the only good lesson we can get from fascism: organization is key. Go through your protest and start controlling who talks to the press, take down every misspelled sign, and every sign with vulgarities on them.

You don’t have to manicure someone to talk to a news reporter just use simple common sense. Ask yourself, is this person likely to be taken seriously? If that sort of hypothetical is too complicated in such a large group use simple formulae. I’ll give you a couple: dred locks=no talk, hemp clothing=no talk, more than three patches on a jacket=no talk. It’s easy. No I understand that this might be offensive to ideas of self-expression and it is. But needs must when the devil arrives and if you want to be taken seriously as to your message you have to eliminate the needless trivialities that the idiot general public likes to focus on.

Continuing on that idea. Remember the police officer telling you to do something is doing his job just the same as the barista telling you you can’t use the bathroom without a purchase. Most cops are decent people following the law, and if, say, a bunch of cops are telling you not to walk on the brooklyn bridge because of traffic issues, listen to them. Remember what I just said, every arrest makes you look bad. Yes, you have a right to peaceful assembly but not to forestall traffic or destroy property. The cops aren’t being fascists when they arrest you for doing that: they’re being police officers. Sure they may have orders to start enforcing every small pointless law in order to disrupt the protest, but the person doing the actual arresting isn’t in charge. Be polite, and follow their orders. As long as they aren’t themselves violating the law you can both co exist quite nicely. Most of you won’t listen to that, you have a preconceived notion of us vs. them and the police are them. It’s not the case though, they are in the 99% and given the fact that the GOP has decided to demonize public employees they probably have more sympathy then you realize.

Demand 3: Don’t break the law.

Finally, if you find a hostile reporter or counter protest or whatever…just ignore them. I know it might be hard to not want to get on television with today’s celebrity obsessed media but seriously if your words are just going to be twisted don’t talk to them. Pull an Anthony Weiner (not like that), and roll your eyes when they try and push an obvious false dilemma on you or force you to admit a straw man. The counter protestors, just let them be. If they want to brag about how shitty their lives are but they don’t blame wall street, fine. Whatever, you aren’t going to convince them anyway. Accept it, because they are still in the 99% anyway. You aren’t going to convince them of anything.

Demand 4: Control communications.

It’s the best thing you can do. Image is everything when you already have substance. Find well spoken individuals and make them your press liasons. You might also want to start petitions, written petitions (the ones that mean something), for new laws or whatever you want.

Good luck.

_________________________________
*I say “allegedly” because I completely doubt it. Their big rally before the last election gave audience to the “birther” movement basically legitimizing it. The TEA Party is anti-Obama, not anything else.

We Support the Rest of US

The Founder’s Party supports the 99% protests in NY, Boston, LA, Philadelphia, and everywhere else the protest decides to crop up. The reason: The Founder’s Party is realistic. We understand that if you are reading this entry you are in the 99%, and more importantly you are most likely going to stay there. Not be down or pessimistic, but practically speaking you aren’t going to strike it big and the best the average American is going to do is live and die in the same economic strata they were born into. The Founder’s Party is admittedly self interested, and if a group aligns itself with our self interest we will support that. To do otherwise is foolishness.

The Founder’s Party believes in Adam Smith’s theory of Capitalism, that progressive taxes are necessary for the maintenance of the population’s ability to be educated and the general goodwill of our Republic. We also believe that if a company does business in this country it ought to pay taxes in this country no matter where it’s banks may be located. We follow the principle of Machiavelli in keeping the public rich but the private individual to poor to buy government. Under our government we will not permit individuals to become a Medici, Hearst, or Rockefeller; wielding the type of power that places them beyond the reach of the law.

The Founder’s Party opposes tax shelters. It also opposes tax subsidies for successful businesses instead believing that government money should be spent on research and propping up new emergent businesses. We understand history, that such revolutionary ideas like the internet wouldn’t have occurred without the infrastructure built with the aid of the federal government. Sure the market is great for developments within industry but new industries aren’t founded on their own. They need help, and the Founder’s Party is willing to take a gamble on new industries.

We aren’t Socialists, but we do believe in Socializing some aspects of society. The challenge we offer to those 1%, is that if you are so patriotic why don’t you help the rest of the country out? While we are non-religious we do support the Christian principle of helping the poor, something that seems even religiously Christian politics seems to be opposed to.

These are strictly superficial economic policies. Until the Founder’s Party gets an economist, or I start reading some economic books, I can’t be more specific. Also, until we learn of some hidden agenda in the “Occupy” Protests we support them but offer this piece of advice: That a crowd is useless without a head, for without a leader there is no one that can speak for you. Someone for whom questions and answers can be directed. More importantly, if you become successful who will negotiate? A multitude needs a leader as much as a body needs a head.

Reward

Remember when people were all fired up about the Michelle Bachman candidacy for president? What happened to that? Nothing really changed, none of her policies have shifted and she’s still just as insane as she was then. Now she’s relegated to the position of “also ran” as the GOP has basically dropped her into a spot where she has about as much of a chance of winning the nomination as Ron Paul does. Which, for me, is bitter sweet.

On the one hand I feel that she’s about as dangerous a person to put in the White House as it gets. Mainly because unlike Mitt Romney and some of the other people I see stumping their absurd theories, it seems to me that Bachman actually believes the bullshit she talks about. The re-education camps,  the shopping mall abortions, FEMA’s power to take away the consitutional rights of Americans, the gay-muslim-atheist agenda (I’m still waiting for my membership card but it’s just not coming)…etc. All of this was not only palatable to GOP voters but appealed to them, for whatever reason. She was representative of the ultimate contradiction in the right wing today, the one that wants government to push a Christian conservative agenda but at the same time wants less government. None of this mattered.

Until Rick Perry decided he was going to run. A person who is not possessed of any real difference from Michelle Bachman but has somehow overtaken her spot, despite the fact that she won the pointless straw poll. Which as a side note is a complete farce, as no one is considering the chance of the person who was in second place at all. Rick Perry’s tipping point seems to be that possesses that quality of “being a man from Texas” that Bachman does not. Since he announced, it seems that the only reason he is the front runner is because we’ve been told he’s the front runner. I’m not certain why people like him, but he does have that quality of insanity that seems to be popular in the GOP right now.*

Calling social security a “ponzi scheme” isn’t exactly inaccurate (today anyway, fifty years ago it wouldn’t have been true at all)
but it doesn’t mean you should say it, especially given the amount of voters currently receiving social security, or should I say that the largest voting demographic receives social security.

That however wasn’t the craziest thing said at the debate. That honor belongs to Michelle Bachman, reminding us just how important the “fun” is in “fundamentalist.” Bachman’s appeal must have always been the crazy things she says with little to no attribution. The night of the debate was no different and as usual she took things from a reasonably sane (although I disagree with her, but more on that later) to the edges of insanity…the far edge.

She was chiding Rick Perry for his program of mandatory HPV vaccinations as being another example of government run amok. That’s the reasonable position, it’s wrong, but it’s reasonable. A vaccination to prevent a disease that possesses a high tendency of causing cervical cancer seems like a good idea. I don’t know why anyone, especially a woman, would be against an issue that is a pretty central issue for women’s health…no wait, I do. It’s because HPV is a sexually transmitted disease, and her Christian fundamentalist outlook has to fetishize abstinence and procreation only sex. The good way to tell the difference is that she hasn’t come out against any other vaccinations, not even the eleven mandatory vaccines (most of them require multiple boosters) that her home state requires of all children that are planning on attending school. The Minnesota government even subsidizes the cost of the vaccine for low income people.

Then Bachman decided to take the fast train into crazy town offering that some woman claimed that her daughter became retarded after being given the vaccine. Of course, she can’t produce the person or anyone that will verify her claim. No scientist, medical researcher, or doctor will verify her claim. They won’t even concede the possibility. There has even been an offer of eleven thousand dollars for evidence that this actually happened. I’m sure if they applied the James Randi Foundation would probably pony up some dollars as well.

It’s too bad really, because even though I feared her presidency, I loved her candidacy. It pretty much guaranteed re-election.
______________________
*When a candidate makes a statement that consists of him communicating the idea that he believes in “evolution” and that is considered controversial, you are in crazy town.

The Third Party

Author/Columnist Thomas Friedman said on CNN Sunday that what America needs is a legitimate third party that exists in every state in order to make the world flatter or whatever (I’m trying to make a pun on his books but its not going well, that terrible one you just read was my THIRD attempt so just bear with me). In short because of the complete gridlock that the GOP and the Democrats are going to continually get themselves into, a third party would break up the system giving Americans a choice between the party that says no to everything the other one does, for example in a week or so we are going to hear about a new debate. The president has the desire to extend a payroll tax cut that is set to expire and the GOP is prepared to oppose it.

That’s right the GOP is going to be in favor of raising a tax just because the president wants to continue the cut. It’s a complete reversal of the GOP’s normal position, although it is consistent with their doing-it-out-of-spite childishness behaviour of the last three years. I would say it’s a reversal of Democratic positions too, but they seem to be just fine with cutting taxes based on their voting (caving) record in same amount of time.

I kind of agree with Mr. Friedman, so I am proposing to start my own third party. Bill Maher joked that it seemed like we can never have a party that has both brains and balls, my party will be that party. I need a name for it, and “Davidians” just conjures up the wrong image. I like “Rationalist” but that’s too pretentious, or “Revolutionary” but that is too close to “Communist” and believe me we’ll have our problems with that enough. The name will have to something like “The Founders Party.” It brings up ideas of the Founding Fathers but also appeals to the sense of reason and rationality that most of them based this Republic on. It works on a marketing level that sucks in those who don’t think too much, along with the curious, and the skeptical. Our symbol will be a shark, because it must move lest it die and is incapable of moving backwards.

The first thing that we need is a platform issue. A one button issue that idiots will align themselves with ignoring the rest of our platform that they will probably disagree with and in their minds would actually be suicidal to vote for: like a teacher’s union voting Republican because they want lower taxes. The thing about the Founders Party is that we are going to steal all of the good ideas from both parties and weed out the stupid ones with a scythe. Plus the constitution of the Founders Party is going to have amendment one being: no contradictory policies. We are going to be idealists on this one point. Unlike say, the Democrats, who seem to be liberal when it comes to social issues like drugs for the reason that as long as it hurts no one it should be permitted but then want to ban all guns because of the possibility that someone might hurt another. Or similarly with right wing conservatives who want government to stay out of their lives but at the same time want the government to control who can marry who.

The initial platform issue is going to be personal liberty. And we’re stealing both issues just mentioned. The Founders are going to be against gun control (within reason: for instance convicted felons and mental patients aren’t going to be allowed) and for marriage liberality/drug legalization. We take the NRA sponsored GOP supported gun position, the limousine liberal line on marriage, and the Ron Paul Republican drug position. This way we have rural conservative support, hollywood/NYC elite support, and drug support. Although the latter can’t truly be counted upon because getting potheads to get up and do something with their day, even voting for the legalization of their “non-addictive” drug seemed to be too much for them in California last year. Is it pandering? Of course it is, but this party is going to be honest about its pandering. In fact our policy positions are going to be classified in two tiers: the pandering sound bite positions and serious policy.

Not to say that the pandering positions aren’t going to be held by the party but that there are some positions that you can just take and not be at all serious about it. For instance if someone is going to seriously propose a ban on guns they would have to propose a ratification of an amendment to the Constitution repealing the second amendment. It’s easy to take the position because all in all, it’ll never happen. More serious legislation, the ones that actually have a chance–those are what the party is going to go for.

I’m reluctant to give broad definitions on politics since I’m at heart a pragmatist, but some idealism has to guide pragmatism. So here are some issues that we are going to take:

I) End the US dependence on fossil fuels.
        -It’s not that original I know, but our reasoning is. See one of the problems with the debate on climate change is that it’s been ruined by morons for so long. I mean morons on both sides. One side tried to make everyone feel bad for ruining the environment while the merely put their hands over their ears and pretended like a debate existed over responsibility. Both of these sides are wrong. Our position is to end our dependence on fossil fuels because it puts the country in a position where we are depending on foreign countries for those fossil fuels. This makes the country weak, and as a matter of national defense and security we should be driving toward self-reliance. If OPEC decided to entirely cut off our oil supply, we’d be screwed. One little civil war in Libya, a country we don’t even derive oil from, and the price here shot up almost a dollar in a day. If our energy consumption ran off of sources that this country produced our military engagements would decrease, our expenditures would decrease as well, and our internal economy would increase. There are many different ways to accomplish this and I have a list, but this is a general overview.

II) Treaty review: It’s time that the US looks at the treaties that it has signed and seriously consider whether or not they can be dissolved. For instance the US has a huge military base in Germany. I understand why it was set up, and I understand why part of it still needs to be there, but I seriously doubt that the German military couldn’t defend itself. They are the most powerful economy in Europe with a top tier military itself. The 80s called, they want their existential threat back.

III) The drug thing. Legalize and tax. Fold the ATF and the DEA back into the IRS as tax enforcers. Possession will no longer be treated as a crime, but intent to sell without a tax license will result in hefty fines as well as possible jail time. We’ll probably keep the current definitions of “intent to sell” and “trafficking.” This will cut expenditures by the federal government as well as generate revenue. If the taxes are too high and people quit, then we did some good too.

Those are but three positions of the Founders Party. I’m working on many more as current politics will no doubt lead to the frustration that warrants more positions.

Random Topic Friday or My Attempt to Get Back to Three Updates Per Week

Topic 1: Gwen’s new method.

People always tell me I’m in big trouble with Gwen when she gets older. I disagree, I’m in trouble now. She’s gorgeous and cunning, what’s worse is that she possesses both self-awareness of these traits and a certain moral ambivalence about using them. She twirls her hair, spins on her toes, all in an effort to get something that she’s clearly not going to get otherwise. She’s also been changing up her phrases to endear herself. What’s the difference between these two sentences:

1) Daddy I would like some chocolate milk yeah? (while nodding her head)
2) Can I have…some chocolate milk my daddy?

She uses “my daddy” when she wants to get something or go somewhere. My daughter is extremely clever at pulling those heart strings like some marionette. It can be really difficult to tell her no sometimes. I actually worry for her future boyfriends.

Topic 2: Ann Coulter and the Tea Party

Ann Coulter expressed surprise (feigned I’m sure) that there were 500,000 less government employees under Obama than there were under Bush. Her surprise was directed at the fact that there at least 500,000 government employees. This was on Real Time with Bill Maher, and she asked why we couldn’t go back to Washington times with an extremely limited number of federal employees. I’ve heard this notion from Tea Party spokespeople on the radio, once in awhile of course. There are times when me and my liberal-atheist-socialist-islamofascist conspirators slips up and let them on our propaganda radio stations. They keep talking about how we ought to return the government back to it’s founding principles and the time that it was founded in.

I have respect for Ann Coulter, while I almost completely disagree with her she’s got the chops as a writer. You can at least follow her argument and while one of her books “Treason” was founded on a false equivalence it made logical sense. Yet this standpoint from her and people like her, that we ought to return to this type of government is not a sound system. Essentially they want to apply an 18th century solution to a 21st century series of problems. While I have great respect for the founders of this government and the core principles surrounding the constitution there are certain public institutions that cannot be privatized as they would have it.

The central fallacy is that certain government programs are going to lose money. Every aspect of the criminal justice system is going to be a money sink hole. Education is a sink hole, you lose money paying staff but then you are supposed to make money in the long run off of what you produce in education. The defense department doesn’t make money either and privatizing its function, even parts of it, is not a good idea.

I understand that there is quite a lot of bloat in the government and plenty of overlap. I understand the need to make some cuts, but going back to a time when most of the navy was occupied by privateers is not a valid solution. Think about it from this analogy, our medical costs are out of control should we return to a 1776 medical practice in order to curb them? It sure cost a lot less to care for people then? Then again I probably just have too much blood in my system, or maybe it’s black bile or the other bile (I forget which one causes the vapors).

While I’m normally one to just rip apart other people’s ideas without offering a suggestion I’ll offer one here. Why not return the tax rate to what it was under Reagan (praise be unto him). While at the same time ending the ability of corporations to do business here but headquarter themselves in foreign countries to avoid taxes, couldn’t this done by making them pay an import tax since essentially these alleged “job creators” aren’t American businesses. If a car company is located in Detroit but builds parts in Mexico, they should be taxed when they bring their parts in. This would not only make American jobs more competitive with their underpaid foreign workers, but would also increases revenue.

My other problem is the absurd defense of private jet owners. If they can afford the plane they can afford the tax. Some defenders like to talk about how many jobs the building of these jets create, but they don’t complain that we just scuttled the shuttle program. If a jet creates 10 jobs then the freekin’ space shuttle ought to create a whole bunch more.

But hold on, I have to take an elixir distilled of lead and pomegranate to fight this headache I have. 

I don’t care about Rep. Weiner

Some of my conservative GOP friends are chiding him for not resigning, because Rep. Lee was busted sending pictures to someone on Craig’s List and he resigned. Apparently the moral fortitude is lacking in Weiner where it was present in Lee, I’m not convinced of that, but what I do know is that I didn’t vote for anyone based on their ability to not cheat on their spouses (if this is even cheating). In fact, I didn’t vote for either of these guys at all, because I’m not in his district. Therefore I care a lot less than the press apparently and a lot less then the people who are really really upset about the whole thing.

I will give him credit for not resigning his post though. Like Lee, he didn’t break any laws. While I’m not exactly sure of the House ethics regulations, I’m pretty sure that he didn’t break any of those rules either. It’s not like he still can’t do his job while operating his twitter account from his left hand, so what is the reason that he should resign?

I really would like to know because I’m reading it on my facebook page, and hearing it on the news. On this, 1308th anniversary of the Vikings raid on Lidinsfarme, should we really be caring about a guy who didn’t actually cheat on his wife?

What I do like is that at least in NY, our hypocrisy is somewhat limited. Sure we’ve had more special elections in the last couple of years to replace people than most, but our elected officials at least don’t go on record screaming about how homosexual marriage will destroy our notions of traditional marriage and ruin society while at the same time being caught in an affair. Despite the fact that by “traditional marriage”  they are actually referring to some idealistic 1950s type marriage. Spitzer, Lee, and now Weiner weren’t any of those type and that somehow makes it better. Of course Spitzer did break the law, and now it seems that Sen. Edwards did as well, but Spitzer wasn’t charged.

Like I said earlier, he’s not MY representative, so why should I care? Why should anyone? JFK once remarked that he needed at least two women a day to feel fulfilled and people loved him. I personally blame Clinton and the GOP in the 90s for making any of this an issue.

Then there’s Andrew Breitbart. I think Weiner should apologize to him after he apologizes to ACORN and NPR for hosting that jackass’s fraudulent videos and for the “accidentally” edited video showing Shirley Sherrod which cost her her job before it was reinstated. Then Weiner should apologize to him.

I still think it is laughable that any person in government thinks they can get away with any of this and not get caught.  

To Protect Itself

This is the conclusion to the Early Modern Philosophy paper that I have thus far presented on this blog in four previous sections. It contains the conclusion of the central thesis that if we accept either of the three reasons for the formation of the state from Hobbes, Locke, or Machiavelli; than we must accept that the state has the ability to defend itself using force or compulsion when necessary. How it uses it, or of what kind, is not within the scope of this paper and there are many many books and articles on this subject.

_____________________

Despite their different views and the varied ways in which our theorists have arrived at the formation of the state they all have one thing in common: the state exists to provide some sort of protection for its people. While the focus of the protection is different, Locke’s claim is that it is for the interest of the individual while both Machiavelli and Hobbes both claim that it is for the protection of the self against others, it is still protection nonetheless. Having this established can we then say that the state is justified when it uses compulsion against the members of the state?[1]

            To protect the individuals from each other the state is obviously justified based on the three theories we have visited. In two of them this is the first purpose of its creation and the primary role, while in the third we can easily tie the individual’s interest to their protection. We can salvage a criminal justice system by reference to this.

            We can say then that the state has legitimate recourse to use force when it is acting in the interest of its self-preservation. However self-preservation of the state is a tricky concept when we consider that our discussion is merely focusing on using that force internally. No one aside from a true pacifist would be able to claim that a state could not defend itself from the outside, the only questions to raise in those situations are what kind of force and how much. Internal threats are much different, as we have to decide what constitutes a legitimate existential threat internally. Is dissent one of those threats or do the members of a state have to be doing more than just dissenting?

            Since we are unwilling to claim that the state’s existence is self-dependant, i.e. that it only exists for the sake of itself, to justify the use of force simply because the members of the state are unhappy with the form of government seems untenable. Dissension may be breed discontent and the drive for change, but the dissolution of the state does not necessarily follow. That dissension stems from unhappiness or discontent with the state seems obvious. Yet what is less obvious is that the discontent does not come from the state itself, but rather those in charge of the state. Forcing the population to yield in the case of suppressing a protest seems to be against the purpose of the state’s formation.

            The only true internal existential threat to the state is that of corruption leading to partisanship and the final “failure of the citizenry to support these structures (the governmental institutions) voluntarily.[2]” If the state exists to protect the individuals the individuals themselves must support the state, or else they cannot be said to be members of that state[3]. The difficulty in this claim is that under Locke’s theory an individual can return to a state of nature without leaving any political boundary.[4] The degradation of a state occurs in one of two occurrences, when the state begins acting in its own best interests as Machiavelli indicates,[5] but also when the people begin acting in their own interests only.

            These selfish interests begin to isolate the citizens from their civic duties, creating individuals that act not in accordance with the ideals of the state but with their own, forming partisanships.[6] Taken in the extreme these partisanships can destroy a state if they assume the places of power and then direct the state to act in their interest and not of the state in total. That some selfish behavior is beneficial, even inevitable is found in our three theories. The state is formed in the self-interests of the people, but in surrendering some self-interest for the general interest the state has the obligation to fulfill its role. When forces arise to challenge to the purpose of the state, the state is justified in forcing down the power of the partisans.

            Machiavelli places this responsibility on that of the populace, “it may be urged that the guardianship of anything should be placed in the hands of those who are less desirous of appropriating it for their own use;[7]” rather than that of the elite who are more apt to exercise control in order to preserve that which they have and to gain more, “for men are inclined to think that they cannot hold securely what they possess unless they get more at others’ expense.[8]” This intense desire to keep and gain creates a political situation in which political participation seems to the lower classes futile and “political rhetoric degenerates to a politics of noise.[9]”

The state is justified in creating laws that give the opportunity for participation and eliminate partisanships which corrupt it so thoroughly that it no longer resembles the reason that people came together to form it in the first place. The use of compulsion then is justified in enforcing those laws through the punishments of those people or groups that would transgress them.

---

[1] “Citizen” doesn’t necessarily apply to the members of Hobbes’state, they would be more accurately described as subjects. Patrick Curry makes this claim, briefly, in Introducing Machiavelli, Curry, Patrick; illustrated by Oscar Zarate ©2000 Icon Books, UK.

[2] Pg. 960, Dobel, J. Patrick; The Corruption of a State, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 72 No. 3 pp. 958-973

[3] Pg. 464 Simmons

[4] Pg. 462 Simmons

[5] Pg. 106-109 The Discourses

[6] Pg. 959 Dobel

[7] Pg. 116 The Discourses

[8] Pg. 118 ibid

[9] Pg. 967

Catching Up

I had a lot of topics that I wanted to write about in the last few weeks, but with the semester winding down and myself not as on top of things as I would have liked i had to choose what topics I wanted to cover on this blog. I have several video game reviews, a book review, and political observations as well as the conclusion to the aristotle series and the political philosophy paper that both are papers that I wrote for classes (I spent so much time and energy writing them I figure that someone other than the professor should read them as well). Today, is the constantly delayed political observations on presidential candidates. It was delayed by the budget questions, NPR’s financial situation, the birther controversy, and then the killing of Bin Laden. I’ve wanted to write about the GOP candidate pool for some time, I wanted to do it when Trump was still being considered….oh well.

All of that being said I want to be sincere for one sentence here: I feel truly sorry for my GOP friends. I don’t mean that derisively or sarcastically. I mean that sincerely, for three years I have heard, read, seen them put their faith that their party would rescue the country from Obama and after all of that these are the best the GOP could come up with? It’s just like the view I took for my Democratic friends in 2004, Kerry was the best that the Democrats could generate? All of the left wing conspiracies about how Bush/Rove/Cheney stole the 2004 election clearly had memory loss over what a lack of candidate John Kerry was, I’ve said it before but the “anti-candidate” is not a viable substitute for an actual candidate.

Back to the GOP. Because no one had the stones to deride Trump’s “run” for president, he really succeeded in blowing up his own ego and actually topping preliminary polls for GOP nominee. He didn’t even bow out graciously like Huckabee did, he still thinks that he could have won and the entire party legitimized his point of view. Despite the fact that he had no issue or platform other than the “birther” controversy, what did his investigators find in Hawaii that shocked him anyway?

With Huckabee out, there isn’t anyone viable left. Sure their is splitting and anger now, but I know that come nomination time the entire GOP and Fox News will unite behind one person, but who could that person be? Who among these people actually have a chance against the President?

Michelle Bachman? This is the woman that thinks the government is building re-education camps/FEMA camps for American citizens to be interred in, has publicly stated that judges will enforce homosexuality, and more recently said that the founding fathers eliminated slavery.

Palin? Even Karl Rove (whom I have respect for) has stated that she lacks the gravitas to win the election. Honestly, she was only chosen as a vice presidential candidate to absorb women voters who were disenfranchised by Hillary Clinton’s loss in the Democratic primary in 2004. Furthermore her actual political record as governor of Alaska shows a much less conservative person than she portrays herself now. She also seems to have no platform other than generalizations about less government, when you ask anyone what they are planning on cutting they never seem to have specific actual cuts.

Gingrich? As long as his biggest opponent is Newt Gingrich he can’t win. His latest comments about Republican social engineering are probably going to bury him.

Then we come to Mitt Romney, who is now the defacto front runner. He has some huge problems though. First off his healthcare plan for Massachussetts is a little too similar to Obama’s.  Secondly, he’s already proven himself a loser. He couldn’t win the nomination in 2008 and in this day and age people don’t like proven losers. Thirdly, he’s a Mormon. While I don’t particularly think this is of any concern to the office of President, the Christian base of the GOP is unlikely to support him because of that. The only true religion for the base of the GOP is a Protestantism and the Baptist sect of that on top. During the 2008 primary season interviews with evangelicals stated that they wouldn’t vote for a Mormon or a Catholic because they aren’t Christians, which is false as both religions have the requisite belief (That Jesus was the son of God) to be Christian. Although Mormons have a slightly different view on the virgin birth, and I’m not sure why they don’t view Catholics as Christians (charges of Polytheism possibly, but that would put them in league with old accusations that Muslims used to make against Catholics).

The rest of the pool doesn’t have the name recognition. Aside from maybe Ron Paul, but his libertarian ideals offend the moral base so he loses too. Actually it’s too bad because aside from his ridiculous belief in re-instituting the gold standard and the defunct Keynesian economic plan he likes I could actually support him.

Hopefully you GOP’ers can come up with someone good soon. As you are running out of time. 

State of Nature II: Locke

By contrast, Locke’s state of nature, is quite different. Whereas Hobbes’ individuals are in a state of nature if there is no established government, Locke places all men in the state of nature regardless of where they were born, “we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature.[1]” This state of nature applies to all even those living within governments provided that those governments are “illegitimate with respect to them.[2]” Also in the state of nature are those that are “visiting aliens, minors under the age of consent, and those of defective reason.[3]” By virtue of birth all people are in a state of nature as they cannot consent to any form of government.

            We must now characterize Locke’s idea of the state of nature. Perhaps the clearest definition of the state of nature is this: “want of a common judge with authority, puts all men in a state of nature[4]” and “men living together according to reason, without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly a state of nature.[5]” Locke’s idyllic picture is a stark contrast to Hobbes, rather the phrase is reminiscent of the Socialist utopia that Marx paints, “thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind.[6]” In these states of nature the people of the world are presumed to accomplish their own tasks. Locke’s belief incorporates in it the right of people to be left alone. Whereas Hobbes endowed his people with the right to every and all things in pursuit of self-preservation, Locke makes a specific statement against just that, “and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.[7]”

            Locke does permit harm to another person provided that this person be an offender, while man ought to live in the state of nature with accordance to the laws of nature, there will possibly be an offender against those laws. And nature, seemingly unwilling to punish its offenders as Cicero has Cotta referencing Telamon, “If gods did care, the good would prosper and the bad would suffer; that’s not the way of things.[8]” These offenders must be punished and every person “hath a right to punish the offender, and be executioner of the law of nature.[9]” Thus we see that Locke’s idyllic picture is painted in shades of black as well. Neither political philosopher is so foolish as to assume that all men at all times will behave themselves with respect to other people.

It’s important for Locke that we identify the term “offender,” because it is important for our understanding of one crucial difference between Locke and Hobbes. Hobbes’ individuals in nature are just that: individuals. They might be united in familial relationships, and they might have dealings with other families, but given the right of all to all, complete trust is an impossibility. The proscription in Locke against harming others allows a community to form, as “individuals are drawn to enjoy the pleasures and possibilities of social life.[10]” “Social life” and “community” do not imply a break from the state of nature. There is no contradiction in a person who considers themselves in both.

Given the relative peacefulness and liberty with which men live in nature Locke needs to explain why anyone would want to leave nature and enter into civil government. Men will enter into this state, according to Locke, because while they have liberty in the state of nature they do not have security of property. This is the prime reason to enter into civil state, “The great and chief end, therefore, of men’s uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.[11] While the offenders can be punished by the offended, Locke understands that Hobbes was right on one account that of the ninth law of nature which is that all men are essentially equal[12] and thus the offended may not be able to punish the offender. It is this purpose that leads to civil government.

With the concept of Locke’s state of nature we must then establish how it is that a person leaves the state of nature and enters into the civil state. Hobbes, places a transference of right to the defining moment in which one leaves the state of nature, for Locke we don’t find the same exact threshold, “for it is not every compact that puts an end to the state of nature between men, but only this one of agreeing together mutually to enter into one community, and make one body politic.[13]” It is a specific agreement to enter into a political body that forms the state, not a transference of the right of authority.

The distinction is subtle but important. For men in the state of nature may allow a third to judge between them and even enforce judgment but that doesn’t take them out of the state of nature, “simply erecting an authorized umpire would not be sufficient to constitute creation of a commonwealth or civil society.[14]” While the creation of a judicial like authority is fundamental to the creation of a commonwealth it is only one aspect of that creation. The other aspects, as Simmons argues are “questions to which Locke provides only the frameworks for answers.[15]” What is crucial though, is the consent which Hobbes doesn’t deem as important. Clearly entering into the state making fiat, was a matter of consent for Hobbes, but the act of consenting once creates the state, its continuing endurance does not require further consents.

Locke’s take on the matter is quite different, “Nothing can make any man so, but his actually entering into it by positive engagement, and express promise and compact. This is that, which I think, concerning the beginning of political societies, and that consent which makes any one a member of any common-wealth.[16]” The reasoning for entering into the state and thus the creation of it is three-fold: we have already established the need for a “known and indifferent judge,[17]” we can then add to that the need for “an established, settled, and known law[18]” which would be agreed upon by “common consent to the standard of right and wrong.[19]” Thirdly, building upon the establishment of the law is an executive authority that can enforce the law by punishing the transgressors.[20] The framework that Simmons argues for the creation of civil society are these three aspects of civil government: judicial, legislative, and executive. What Locke provides is more than the mere creation of a sovereign power but also the matter of that power.

Again we see that it is protection that drives the creation of government. Although it is not protection of the self, as Locke’s natural denizens do not have the same universal right as those of Hobbes so the state isn’t needed to protect individuals but rather it exists to protect their interests which for Locke creates an “ill condition, while they remain in it, are quickly driven into society.[21]” While not the same level of fear and anxiety illustrated in Hobbes it is fear all the same.

---

[1] Pg. 4 Locke, John; Second Treatise of Government; Project Guttenberg eBook released January 1^st, 2005. ePub version retrieved from: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7370

[2] Pg. 451Simmons

[3] Pg. 451 ibid

[4] Pg. 11 Locke, pg. 452 Simmons

[5] ibid

[6] Pg. 10 Marx, Karl; Engels, Friedrich Engels, The German Ideology, retrieved from http://faculty.rcc.edu/sellick/The%20German%20Ideology.pdf

[7] Pg. 5,6 Locke

[8] 3.79, Cicero, Marcus Tullius; On the Nature of the Gods, trans. Walsh P.G., ©1998 Oxford University Press

[9] Pg. 6, Locke

[10] Pg. 182 Lawler, James; Matter and Spirit: The Battle of Metaphysics in Modern Philosophy before Kant, ©2006 James Lawler.

[11] Pg. 58 Locke

[12] Pg. 298 Glover

[13] Pg. 9 Locke

[14] Pg. 453 Simmons

[15] Pg. 453 ibid

[16] Pg. 58 Locke

[17] Pg. 58 Locke

[18] ibid

[19] ibid

[20] Pg. 58, 59 Locke

[21] Pg. 59 Locke

State of Nature I: Concerning the view of Thomas Hobbes

Part II of my last paper for this semester.

“Obedience is insured not by your suicidal concessions, but by the superiority given you by your own strength and not their loyalty.”—Cleon of Athens[1]

            Two philosophers write of a “state of nature” that exists in the absence of any form of government, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Their natural states differ in important ways but “it is not difficult to suppose that Hobbes’ and Locke’s definitions of the state of nature are roughly the same,[2]” in that they exist as collections of individuals without a centralized authority by which judgments can be rendered regarding disputes. The two philosophers approach government as both arising out of a state of nature, but the reasons for the development of government are quite different and endurance of government is also called into question as we shall see.

            At the root of Hobbes’ development of the state, and his conception of the state of nature, is his outlook on human nature. Hobbes’ belief is that human beings are, at their core, self-interested and thus act only in accord with either benefit or the absence of pain. Hobbes’ view on human nature is akin to hedonism, that the central drive of human nature is that of attaining desires. This desire, Hobbes explains, is the ultimate and only true motivation for man, “consisteth not in the repose of a mind satisfied. For there is no such “finis ultimus, (utmost ayme) nor summum bonum (greatest good), as is spoken of in the books of the old morall philosophers. Nor can a man any more live, whose desires are at an end, than he, whose senses and imaginations are at a stand. Felicity is a continual progress of the desire, from one object to another; the attaining of the former, being still but the way to the later.[3]”

               This pursuit from one desire to the next may remind us of the hedonistic theory of Callicles. Hobbes doesn’t concern his political theory with the personal moral consequences of adopting such a theory, what is important for Hobbes is what the final consequence for men will be when they are competing for the attainment of the same desire, “Hobbes leaves no doubt but that competition, diffidence, vain glory, and the tendency toward strife that they breed continue even after the state has curbed the strife by its power and furnished security sufficient for the obligations of natural law to be valid again.[4]”

            For Hobbes, men will get along just fine as long as their desires do not run into conflict with one another. If we posit a “desert island scenario” wherein two men are living on an island and each is furnished with the necessities of survival, there is nothing in Hobbes that would lead us to believe that the two would run into conflict. The trouble arises when one of the two men become aware that the other possesses something that they want, or even worse, something that they need. These two men, on the island, are in a state of nature and thus have a certain right to action. Because they both desire the same thing, they are in competition and that competition is, in Hobbesian terms “war.” This war stems from what Hobbes terms the first law of nature, “by which a man is forbidden to do, that, which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same; and to omit, that, by which he thinketh that it may be best preserved.[5]” Adding to this is the further addition that no man can ever relinquish his right to self-preservation.[6]

            Hobbes claims that this law is founded on reason and thus to deny it would be irrational. This prohibits any man from not participating in a competition that facilitates their own survival. The condition of being in the state of nature places him against all others in a state of war, which allows him the “right to every thing; even to one another’s body,” it denies that any one person has a right of preservation against another, i.e. that I have a claim against another that they do not kill or molest me in any fashion. Importantly, it is the “self” in “self-preservation” that must be stressed. Anything done in Hobbes’ state of nature is justifiable as long as it contributes to the survival of the individual.

            This cynical outlook on human nature is what feeds the development of the state in Hobbes. We can consider the source of the state to be that of fear. Fear of others, fear of the loss of life, which engenders the creation of a sovereign power that is the state. Ending the war of all against all alleviates this fear. This is accomplished by entering into agreement with neighbors to, “lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himselfe.[7]” Mutually agreeing to relinquish this first right allows us to sleep at night with the knowledge that we are now safe.

            Yet Hobbes correctly observes that agreement is not enough. Because all men are allowed the recourse in the war against all to use, “all helps, and advantages of Warre[8]” it is imperative to recognize that deception is one of those advantages. What is to stop our neighbor from entering into a pact with us in order to trick us into letting down our guard? The laying down of the right must be more than mere signs as “these Signes are either Words onely, or Actions onely; or (as it happeneth most often) both Words and Actions.” Hobbes believes that the people bind themselves to each other with more than words, as “covenants, without the sword, are but Words and of no strength to secure a man at all.[9]” There need to be bonds. Bonds he claims derive their strength not “from their own nature, (for nothing is more easily broken then a man’s word) but from Feare of some evill consequence upon the rupture.[10]”

            As men are unwilling to observe the laws[11] and disputes between them will certainly exist. They must then submit to the arbitration of a third party as self-interest will surely prevent them from arising at a resolution equal to both. This third party, is there to decide between disputes in order to prevent the matters from becoming violent which would be ultimately a break in the covenant already made.

            Yet even a third party making decisions involving disputes cannot guarantee the peace so necessary to men. The lack of any consequence in disobeying the arbitrators or in not honoring the compacts made is that those compacts have no weight to them. Thus in the foresight of this, men create a thing which will “keep them in awe, and tye them by feare of punishment of their Covenants, and observation of these Lawes of Nature set down…[12]” That which is wrought is the sovereign, created when they “conferre all their power and strength upon one Man, or one Assembly of men, that may reduce all their Wills, by plurality of voices, unto one Will: which is as much as to say that , to appoint one man, or Assembly of men, to beare their Person.[13]” As everyone in the state of nature makes this agreement the common-wealth is born, “this is the generation of that great Leviathan.[14]”

            Although he illustrates its development in a natural progression the state, then, is artificial not natural, “because it is a product of human will.[15]” It is his emphasis on creating a demonstrable science that would be second only to geometry in that respect.[16] Hobbes’ state, can take a variety of forms recognizing the three types of Government illustrated in Machiavelli and Aristotle, that of: Principality (Monarchy), Aristocracy, and Democracy.[17] No matter the actual type of state the people adopt, the purpose of the state is that of preventing the mutual war of all and maintaining the peace. The statement of Cleon importantly displays where the state derives its authority, it is not from the loyalty of the individual to notions of motherland but rather from the force that it uses or could possibly use to guarantee the peace. It is stressed here that the bonds of citizenship are based in fear not only of the state but also of the fellow man for whom the state restrains.

---

[1] 3.37, Thucydides; History of the Peloponnesian War, trans. Lateiner, Donald; Barnes and Noble Books ©2009

[2] Pg. 450, Simmons, A. John; Locke’s State of Nature, from Political Theory vol. 17 No. 3 (August, 1989) pp. 449-470

[3] Pg. 71, Hobbes, Thomas; Leviathan; Project Guttenberg EBook, released May 1^st 2002. (ePub edition) retrieved from: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3207

[4] Pg. 303 Glover, Willis; “Human Nature and the State in Hobbes,” from Journal of the History of Philosophy Vol. 4 No. 4 October 1966. Pp. 292-311

[5] Pg. 91 Hobbes

[6] Pg. 98 Hobbes

[7] Pg. 92 Hobbes

[8] Pg. 91 Hobbes

[9] Pg. 114 Hobbes

[10] Pg. 93, 99 Hobbes

[11] Pg. 108 Hobbes

[12] Pg. 114 Hobbes

[13] Pg. 116 Hobbes

[14] Pg. 117 Hobbes

[15] Pg. 305 Glover

[16] Pg. 306 ibid

[17] Pg. 106 (and footnote for the Aristotle reference) Machiavelli, Niccolò: The Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livy: trans. Walker, Leslie J. ©1983 Penguin Books.