"All Government Powers Are Based on Mystical Justifications" [essay]
Current time: 10-23-2017, 10:57 PM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: eye2i2hear
Last Post: Habenae Est Dominatus
Replies: 3
Views: 101

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
"All Government Powers Are Based on Mystical Justifications" [essay]
10-06-2017, 10:29 AM (This post was last modified: 10-06-2017 10:53 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #1
"All Government Powers Are Based on Mystical Justifications" [essay]
[Image: bokmal.gif] The writing/essay runs a bit lengthy by contemporary standards (techie/tv/Twitty feeding), but worth the investment imho:

All Government Powers Are Based on Mystical Justifications

key coupla aspects:
Thumbs Up
Richard M. Ebeling Wrote:Historians have long understood that most modern states have their origins in conquest and plunder. Invading tribes and bands would vanquish a population and settle down to permanently live off those whom they had not killed during the conquest.

The German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer (1864-1943) especially emphasized this in his classic work on the origin of political power and authority, The State (1914). He argued that there are fundamentally two ways by which individuals may obtain the material resources to maintain and improve their lives: the economic means and the political means.

There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. There are work or robbery, one’s own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others.


“I propose in the following discussion to call one’s own labor and the equivalent exchange of one’s own labor for the labor of others, the ‘economic means’ for the satisfaction of needs, while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the ‘political means’ . . . Wherever opportunity offers, and man possesses the power, he [tends to] prefer political to economic means for the preservation of his life. [i.e. power corrupts<-power attracts the corruptible]

What, then, is the State as a sociological concept? The State . . . is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad . . . This dominion had no other purpose than the economic exploitation of the vanquished by the victors. No primitive state known in history originated in any other way.

The origin of the state could be seen in the replacement of roving bands of plundering thieves by stationary bandits who settle down to rule over a territory over a prolonged period.

The roving band cares nothing for what happens in the area it has looted and then leaves behind. But the stationary bandit who wants to permanently live off the conquered area has to take into consideration the conditions and the incentives of his subjects if they are to keep producing and therefore creating something for him to plunder through taxation year-after-year.

Thus, out of the taxes he imposes, the stationary bandit must also, in his own self-interest, to some extent secure his subject’s property rights, enforce contracts, establish a judicial system to adjudicate their disputes, and even supply some “public goods,” such as roads and harbors to facilitate commerce.

But the resident conqueror’s motive in providing any such protections is to extract the greatest amount of tax revenue for himself at the least cost.

But brute force and fear are, in the long run, not a sustainable basis for permanent plunder. It is far better if those over whom the ruler rules not only acquiesce in his control and commands out of fear but also do so willingly through belief in the rightness of his political authority over them.

How, then, do political rulers inculcate this belief in their right to rule and with it an obedient allegiance and loyalty by the subjects and citizens to the governments they command?
... Governments and ideological movements, [author] Louis Rougier (1889-1982) explained, wrap themselves in “mystiques” that serve as the rationales for claims to an ethical and legal right to rule. What is a “mystique”? Said Rougier:
The term refers then to a combination of beliefs which could not be demonstrated by reason or based on experience but which are accepted blindly for irrational reasons: by the effect of custom of which Pascal speaks, of education, of authority, of example, of preconceptions alleged to be inevitable, in short by the effect of all the pressures of social conformism.

Every doctrine that one no longer feels the curiosity or the need to call into question, whether it is because one accepts it as a dogma so evident that any inquiry about its solidity is superfluous, or because one adheres to it by an act of faith considered so necessary as a consequence of its sacrosanct beneficence that to abandon it would be outrageous, is a mystique and is accepted as such.

An “economic mystique,” Rougier said, is one that allows a person to believe in the power of government to do anything it [deems "good"], say, in the form of intervention affecting wages, prices, or production. Because the stated goal of the intervention is “good,” it is deemed necessary for government to implement the interventionist policy to make it so.

The reasoned argumentation, presentation and discussion of historical or contemporary facts and evidence or logical argument are often emotionally rejected as a proof that the critic of the economic mystique has no compassion or a sense of caring for those to be helped by the intervention or the government planning.
...
Part of the reason for this, Rougier suggests, is the wider and deeper problem of “political mystiques” that serve as the bases to justify and legitimize the right of some to rule over others, and the accompanying belief in their power to do “good” if only given enough power.

From the time of antiquity, Rougier explains, conquerors and rulers have searched for that legitimizing justification for their command over others in society. The “monarchical mystique” did so for thousands of years by successfully rationalizing political power through the claim and the indoctrination of a divine right to rule. The king held his absolute and unquestionable authority because he was a “god” himself, or had this status bestowed on him by “the gods” or God.

... By the time of the Enlightenment in the 1700s, secular skepticism and political dissent weakened and finally undermined the “superstition” of the “divine” authority and legitimacy of kings. While it lingered on into the 1800s, the right of kings to rule over others was symbolically beheaded along with the actual decapitation of the king of France, Louis XVI, in Paris in 1793.

But a new mystique arose rapidly in its place in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries: the “democratic mystique.” From the rule of “the one” there emerged the idea and ideal of the “rule of the many.” ["majority rule"] Rougier explained:

By a daring transposition "sovereignty" was transferred from "the monarch" to "the people" (themselves). It appeared that as soon as power was exercised by those who bore its burden, it would be exercised with the minimum of despotism . . .

“Since all the citizens are considered by their representatives to participate in the establishment of the law, the law seems to be the expression of the general will. Everyone submits to it willingly because everyone has the illusion that he has participated in its formation and that, obeying everybody, he obeys himself. The fundamental political problem, that of freely granted obedience, is, in a way, solved by definition. This is where the great strength of democracies comes from. Never has any form of government exercised such extensive discretionary power over the governed without the apparatus of [blatant] coercion. ...

As soon as the state adds economic power to its political power, whether it holds all the means of production or simply claims to regulate production according to a preconceived plan, it turns out to have all powers and to grant some of them only arbitrarily to individuals.

“In reality, for an individual to be free vis-à-vis the state he must be able to do without the state’s services, he must be able, if need be, to resign from a public function, if he is forced to act against his conscience, without running the risk of not finding other employment. Now this in inconceivable in a statist or collectivist regime, where the individual has no other alternative than to be a functionary, a client of the state, or die of hunger.”

Buried in the democratic mystique, Rougier explains, is the fallacy of “the people” ruling themselves.
[bracketed text+minor editing, mine --eye2i]
Another of the mystiques (beliefs) being to not question who decides/decided who the majority is, as how "they" are derived; arbitrary geographical-referenced imaginary lines (in the proverbial sand) being decided by whom? It's long fascinated me that so few seem to question who decided what the original "States" of "the US" were. Nor what the basis of such "voting" is e.g. morality, conscience, logic, reasoning, "you're here" (where, factually?), etc. i suppose the argument is supposedly (believed to be?) addressed in the opening of The Declaration Of Independence?

--rhetorical2i

All Government Powers Are Based on Mystical Justifications

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2017, 10:59 AM (This post was last modified: 10-06-2017 11:03 AM by NonEntity.)
Post: #2
RE: "All Government Powers Are Based on Mystical Justifications" [essay]
Applause

(Kinda like what Larken sez, just sed differenter.)

- NonE the severely deluded Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2017, 11:19 AM (This post was last modified: 10-06-2017 11:19 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #3
RE: "All Government Powers Are Based on Mystical Justifications" [essay]
What i found myself thinking circa "kinda like" was along the lines of "when was this said?!"
(followed by "and i'm just hearing it why?")

[Image: the%20thinker.jpg]

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2017, 07:18 PM
Post: #4
RE: "All Government Powers Are Based on Mystical Justifications" [essay]
Interesting post eye.

I'm sharing this from my CIAbook (Facebook). It's related.

Quote:yes the most violent usurp the authority -- I told you that before -- all authority is acquired by force and/or coercion -- just because vioilence was used does not make the authority illegitiamte because all land is conquered by violence and all laws forced on us.

To challenge and examine this view of authority,

I Wrote:Let's apply your statement to a scenario of you and I on some lost deserted island. How we got there is irrelevant, ship wreck, plane crash, alien kidnapping, whatever.

There's just you, I, the clothes on our backs, and whatever is provided by nature on that island.

I am a big guy and an asshole. I will tell you what to do and if you don't, I will hurt you. I have taken you and the island by conquest.

By your own words: "I have authority over you whether you consent or not [ ] I have more power than you have."
By your own words, my authority over you is legitimate - NOT bogus.

And by you defending the concept of your words, I must presume that you are okay with this.

Are you?

Quote:That was a very long answer to say that those with might have rights.

And:
Quote:Yes if you were bigger and stronger than me and we were on a deserted Island, you would have authority over me until I kill you.

I will confess to misreading this. At first read it translated in my mind as "Might makes Right" / "Might makes Moral".

After I replied to your reply, I found this editorially added:

Quote:Am I ok with those who have the power and money controlling those who don't? Of course not -- but that is how reality works. THose with the weapons make the rules.

I didn't say anything about those with power and money.
What I did say is,
Quote:There's just you, I, the clothes on our backs, and whatever is provided by nature on that island.

I'm calling you on your attempt to change the subject to avoid what the question was actually meant to examine...

Your words, specifically and to wit:
Quote:all authority is acquired by force and/or coercion -- just because vioilence was used does not make the authority illegitiamte because all land is conquered by violence and all laws forced on us.

Rephrasing because of avoidance of the question.
Are you okay with me having VALID authority over you gained by conquest and violence?
It's your own damn words that claims my authority over you is NOT BOGUS.

Quote:you would have authority over me until I kill you.

By parsing, combining, and translating your various words, you have claimed that:
You would be willing to kill me to end my VALID authority and VALID rule over you.

This says much about your morality and beliefs. You stated that you are willing to commit murder to end authority that you claim is valid.

If this authority is valid, then why would you premeditate murder to end it?

Perhaps you recognize that you did not consent to this authority over you and you actually recognize that this is BOGUS authority?

Or perhaps you've described yourself with your own words:
Quote:yes the most violent usurp the authority.
Or perhaps you believe "Might makes Right" and "Might makes Moral", twin concepts that I reject and dismiss unless you actually claim such belief, thus taking the discussion in another direction?

You previously agreed to this description of authority:

4. The person allegedly holding a position of superior authority is presumed to have a higher claim on a person in a position of subordinate authority.
5. This also includes a presumed higher claim on the subordinate's property.

At issue is, When is such a claim valid?

I have read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy web page about and titled “Authority”. (Link below) I have found nothing to change my view, and in fact that page has helped me clarify my view.

I draw a line between one concept of authority and all the rest.
Authority by extortion on the one side, Authority by consent on the other.

Extortion is not authority.
Threat, duress, or coercion is not authority.
Do what we tell you to do or you will be hurt is not authority.

So STOP using authority as a euphemism for threat, duress, coercion, and extortion.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/authority/



Enjoy.

Can anybody delegate an authority they don't have?
Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else?
Then how did authority nobody had get delegated to those who call themselves government?

Show me my personally signed contract wherein I consented to be governed.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)