Exemplary clarity. Given the self-interested nature of the governing class and the media, etc, how should (or can) the nomos of the populace best be determined?
Great article David ! Call me naïve, but I'm still hoping for the situation where an Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state :)
The problem with a sensible viewpoint like this is that it is always trumped by the moral arguments of the leftish. The rhetoric around nativism and race is a remarkably powerful force that, for a long time, affected my own viewpoint.
It isn't enough to be reasonable. Conservatives have to find a persuasive synthesis to highlight how self-serving and inhumanly neoliberal the captured institutions and the NGO complex really is.
Eric Kaufman argues the elite-led, state-driven initiative to drive out racism in the US, UK and other Western states with large immigrant populations, from the 1970, is the root of woke. This has pathologised into a sacralisation of race and hobbled any criticism, let alone debate around borders, race and identity. It has also hobbled most of the right and ‘Republican’ government. With the Blair government it was, as they openly admitted, deliberate. Whatever you think of the Kalergi Plan, the underlying premise is correct: ship in enough people from another culture and social cohesion is shattered, paving the way for big government to sort out the confected mess.
"A republic's claim to rule is based on the fact that it represents the people: not necessarily in the sense that it is a democracy, but in the sense that it puts in place a system of law which reflects the norms, or nomos, of the populace, so as to maintain the stability of society across time".
The key word here is "claim". Governments that actually rule in the interests of the governed are rare. If we manage to discard our foolish trusting beliefs and consider matters dispassionately, it is obvious: why should energetic people endowed with some kind of talent (bets not to inquite too closely) go to great lengths in time, trouble, and expense in order to be elected - and then work for someone else's interests? It's plain moonshine, as Machiavelli would be the first to tell us.
The big question is whether shrewd, ruthless operators are justified in ruling - instead of leaving that difficult job to the ignorant, prejudiced, foolish, vacillating, gullible general public. Should the blind insist on leading each other - when they will regularly fall into ditches and get killed crossing roads - or consent to be led by selfish, unscrupulous liars who are out to get what they can for themselves? It's a difficult choice.
You are anticipating Machiavelli - sometimes it is necessary to rule as a prince in order to restore a republic. I have not made my mind up about this yet, but plan to write about it.
"Give me your loyalty and I will give you nice things..."
The royal road to obligation, debt, poverty and eventual slavery! Michael Hudson, in his magnificent book "The Collapse of Antiquity", gives many examples of how accepting a favour of any kind led directly to a loss of liberty. 'As Roman proverbs warned: “To accept a favor [beneficium] is to sell one’s freedom”, and “To ask a favor [an officium] is a form of servitude”'. Watching the detective series "Rebus", I was recently reminded of this dramatically by seeing Rebus (played by John Hannah) ask for help from the convicted criminal Morris Gerald Cafferty (played by James Cosmo). They shake hands, and the director gives us a close-up of Cafferty's big hand closing on Hannah's. Later, of course, Cafferty demands his pound of flesh.
Love the way you have framed the two parties, I think it is very useful in understanding what the two parties represent.
The way I see it, which the last 3 years has made abundantly clear, is that the principality, is susceptible to the human belief in their own capacity to know everything, in their arrogance, and lack of humility. As Leonard Read has written about, if people locate sovereignty in some man or in some man made institution, they have created an authoritarian they must live with. They put into practice what Mencken articulated, The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
Whereas the republic seems to be susceptible to “scope creep” or making some changes due to what are initially good intentions, because of the same reasons as above.
Both bring to mind C.S.Lewis
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
Yes, this is an astute observation. The republic governs through the making of rules. The principality rules through knowing every intimate detail of the population so that it can provide what it 'needs'. This is all implicit in Machiavelli and Foucault does a good job of teasing it out.
Open borders for labour only become a problem with a welfare state. Without that people moving here would have to provide for themselves by bring money in and having a job arranged.
Exemplary clarity. Given the self-interested nature of the governing class and the media, etc, how should (or can) the nomos of the populace best be determined?
Very difficult. Sometimes you just need a politician who 'gets it'. I can think of some examples from history who did.
It's an important topic. If you had time to write about it, I am sure there is an interested audience for it.
Great point, given the current levels of Propaganda, censorship and "conscious manipulation of the opinions of the masses"
Great article David ! Call me naïve, but I'm still hoping for the situation where an Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state :)
The problem with a sensible viewpoint like this is that it is always trumped by the moral arguments of the leftish. The rhetoric around nativism and race is a remarkably powerful force that, for a long time, affected my own viewpoint.
It isn't enough to be reasonable. Conservatives have to find a persuasive synthesis to highlight how self-serving and inhumanly neoliberal the captured institutions and the NGO complex really is.
Eric Kaufman argues the elite-led, state-driven initiative to drive out racism in the US, UK and other Western states with large immigrant populations, from the 1970, is the root of woke. This has pathologised into a sacralisation of race and hobbled any criticism, let alone debate around borders, race and identity. It has also hobbled most of the right and ‘Republican’ government. With the Blair government it was, as they openly admitted, deliberate. Whatever you think of the Kalergi Plan, the underlying premise is correct: ship in enough people from another culture and social cohesion is shattered, paving the way for big government to sort out the confected mess.
"A republic's claim to rule is based on the fact that it represents the people: not necessarily in the sense that it is a democracy, but in the sense that it puts in place a system of law which reflects the norms, or nomos, of the populace, so as to maintain the stability of society across time".
The key word here is "claim". Governments that actually rule in the interests of the governed are rare. If we manage to discard our foolish trusting beliefs and consider matters dispassionately, it is obvious: why should energetic people endowed with some kind of talent (bets not to inquite too closely) go to great lengths in time, trouble, and expense in order to be elected - and then work for someone else's interests? It's plain moonshine, as Machiavelli would be the first to tell us.
The big question is whether shrewd, ruthless operators are justified in ruling - instead of leaving that difficult job to the ignorant, prejudiced, foolish, vacillating, gullible general public. Should the blind insist on leading each other - when they will regularly fall into ditches and get killed crossing roads - or consent to be led by selfish, unscrupulous liars who are out to get what they can for themselves? It's a difficult choice.
You are anticipating Machiavelli - sometimes it is necessary to rule as a prince in order to restore a republic. I have not made my mind up about this yet, but plan to write about it.
"Give me your loyalty and I will give you nice things..."
The royal road to obligation, debt, poverty and eventual slavery! Michael Hudson, in his magnificent book "The Collapse of Antiquity", gives many examples of how accepting a favour of any kind led directly to a loss of liberty. 'As Roman proverbs warned: “To accept a favor [beneficium] is to sell one’s freedom”, and “To ask a favor [an officium] is a form of servitude”'. Watching the detective series "Rebus", I was recently reminded of this dramatically by seeing Rebus (played by John Hannah) ask for help from the convicted criminal Morris Gerald Cafferty (played by James Cosmo). They shake hands, and the director gives us a close-up of Cafferty's big hand closing on Hannah's. Later, of course, Cafferty demands his pound of flesh.
Very well formulated, David. And surprising turn to Machiavelli for clarity. Enjoyable reading. Will pass along...
Love the way you have framed the two parties, I think it is very useful in understanding what the two parties represent.
The way I see it, which the last 3 years has made abundantly clear, is that the principality, is susceptible to the human belief in their own capacity to know everything, in their arrogance, and lack of humility. As Leonard Read has written about, if people locate sovereignty in some man or in some man made institution, they have created an authoritarian they must live with. They put into practice what Mencken articulated, The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
Whereas the republic seems to be susceptible to “scope creep” or making some changes due to what are initially good intentions, because of the same reasons as above.
Both bring to mind C.S.Lewis
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
Yes, this is an astute observation. The republic governs through the making of rules. The principality rules through knowing every intimate detail of the population so that it can provide what it 'needs'. This is all implicit in Machiavelli and Foucault does a good job of teasing it out.
Open borders for labour only become a problem with a welfare state. Without that people moving here would have to provide for themselves by bring money in and having a job arranged.