"The Government"
Throughout the recorded history of mankind, the concept of "Government" had only been functionally expressed through its establishment through the "State", which creates order through the use of fear.
However, if we leave the tradition of establishing government through the use of the State, and instead use the concept of "the increasing of opportunities for individual success" as a means of expressing government, it would no longer be "the problem" but the "consequence" of human interactions.
Therefore, "political power" is not necessary when there is "individual power" emanating the Government, and not a tool of oppression as its mediator - the State - to the individual.
Government = The consequent system of humanity's free and successful interactions per individual.
However, if we leave the tradition of establishing government through the use of the State, and instead use the concept of "the increasing of opportunities for individual success" as a means of expressing government, it would no longer be "the problem" but the "consequence" of human interactions.
Therefore, "political power" is not necessary when there is "individual power" emanating the Government, and not a tool of oppression as its mediator - the State - to the individual.
Government = The consequent system of humanity's free and successful interactions per individual.
Comments (69)
We may be talking about the top of the hierarchy of power, especially those who make the decisions. However, the idea of government is probably complex, because it involves the power structures underlying it, especially the voice of the elite, or ruling class, which have ownership of so much property. However, so much sway of ideas may come from public opinion. So, there is tension between the leaders and those who it represents. In addition, so much conflict and fear may be projected onto leaders, and it is hard to know on what level this has an impact on the government and turns it into an illusionary entity, holding on to collapsed illusions and disillusionment. So we may ask what is a government exactly, and is it truly about leadership?
You speak of government as, 'The consequent system of humanity's free and successful interactions per individual', but I am not sure that we always feel, in reality, that it is serving our interests. It depends on the nature of the particular government in power.
This statement presumes that success in interactions is bilateral. In actuality, we compete for reasons such as attention and control. For example, your announcement is call for attention and attempt to solicit social energy towards a proposed course of action. Someone, like, for example me, contends. We have many intraspecies confrontations stemming not only from resource scarcity, but from need for arbitration between our opinions, ideas and plans...
This statement is so interesting. You are considering the government as a "consequence" no as a need or must. If it exists in today's society the modern term of "governance" is due to human's behaviour. You say freedom and success. I would say selfishness, fear, balance and moderation into the nature of humankind. Every citizen wants to be "free" but how free? This is when the government appears.
The system of "rule of law" will limit us in the behaviour inside of the state. Therefore, the government wants to put limits in our nature.
It is comprehensive.
If we take into account that "success" equals emotional and material "well-being", there is no reason why it cannot be achieved on both sides. In the event that your realization negatively affects - directly or indirectly - others, this is no longer egoism - the point that I defend with my publication - but, egotism.
Therefore, an individualistic success brings with it the indirect consequence of the success of third parties.
I'm not - with this publication - talking about people and their finitudes, but about the concepts behind human actions in midst of the finite. Existence is a direct consequence of the "Ideal" - aka, Egoism -.
The metaphysical remains still; it is static. We, as individuals, must try to approach it.
Interesting the fact that you interpret humanity as having to be ruled in order to function in "community".
However, I do not see the human being as someone of a "collective" nature, but instead, of "individual" nature. The entire human experience in civility had been forged along the path of establishing society through the Government, and consequently, the State, which, in the long run, ended up having its duty reduced only to keeping the population under the "Status Quo".
If we allowed humanity, governed by its egoistic nature - here, see "egoism" as individualism - to establish, independently of a leadership and its apparatus of political power - the State -, we would eventually come to the conclusion that the "Government" is not a "Is", but "something that is being", resulting from the successful individual interactions of humanity.
Concepts such as "freedom", which is completely subjective to the individual's will, would not be necessary in such a government because they would no longer comprise any political power.
You are only considered "free" because there are those who benefit from your freedom, just as there are those considered "non-free" because they are beneficial to the establishment of political power.
Individual power overrides the need for political power.
I think that you need to be more specific, with examples, to make your argument clearer in making it fit into your philosophy of egoism. At the moment, it appears to me to be rather abstract. The idea probably works for you, but when it is read out of context, it seems a bit fuzzy, as if you are telling rather than showing the underlying picture you are presenting.
You, through your egoism, create and already have a pre-established purpose: - Self-realization.
You seek with all your strength - but without creating detriment to others - to have the maximum existential success.
You go, and you get it. With your success, during the process of achieving it, indirectly, the lives of other beings will be positively influenced in some way. And this, consequently, will make them reach the same levels of individual success as yourself, and that will influence other individuals and so on.
Ex:
"You just became the very first individual who discovered agriculture. Contrary to what has been done in history, where this knowledge was used as a political means of power to create dominance over other individuals, which would create divisive concepts such as "hierarchy", "civilization", etc ..., you use your wealth and its success as a motivational and technical example of what to be followed, without seeking to have any conscious influence on these individuals."
In short, if you, without any kind of perversity, seek to succeed, not only you, but everyone else will succeed. This fact would eventually result in a society without "government", but at the same time, it would be its own immanence of government.
I think that the post you have just written makes your argument a bit more explicit, but I am a bit troubled by your use of the word, 'perversity'. It seems to be a rather loaded word, and we all probably bring all kinds of preconceived ideas when thinking about this term.
My philosophy is completely descriptive. It seeks to project an image that has been painted through years and years of historical, anthropological, philosophical, and psychological study, for itself.
How it will be understood, used, criticized, refuted, etc... is of complete and total unimportance to me.
"Do with it what you will and can, that is your affair and does not trouble me. You will perhaps have only trouble, combat, and death from it, very few will draw joy from it."
In summary:
"If you have any conscious thought of bringing harm to another individual for your own sake through the "Government" I describe here, this is" perversity"."
Perversity here, understand not only as being something attached to reason. All kinds of perversity - sexual, idealistic, physical, rational, irrational, etc... - are considered something that turns that individual no longer capable of conceiving and participating of the "Government".
A society without government - can that even be described? Having said that, I am sure there are many labyrinthine Utopian theories of society out there.
Not trying to be rude but I can't see how this argument works.
I wish one day we can say we are allowed to live in individualism. I guess in today's world and society is really difficult. It is interesting here how Karl Marx defended in his "communist" theories that is completely impossible to be a human by "yourself" meaning that the humankind by nature is forced to live in communities and social interaction. Those, are ruled by the law and then the government we "vote"
But why this happen? I guess (as I have shared previously with you) in a negative way that we need this abstract political figure called "State" to just controll or better said "preserve" us in the social community. There are citizens who robb, murder, evade taxes, etc... I mean these type of people which clearly do not want to share in the community. Well the government is there to enforce their duties to stay in the State.
For this reason if you do not accept the rules the government with the state will punish you with jail, fines, etc...
Athens had a democratic form of government. Athens wasn't a state.
The claim order is created through fear is just... silly. In fact, fear creates instability, if you have to worry or fear about crime, health the economy etc. civil unrest increases. The order governments create principally reduces these fears, good government more so than others.
For the rest, individualism is overrated and a poor description of the human condition.
So your system only works if everyone involved manages to shed human nature and is able to be truly altruistic. Never going to happen. Sounds very similar to theoretical Communism. Looks good on paper...add people...non-inspiring result.
I enjoy your formulation and largely agree, though we could probably quibble with the terms. It reminds me of Thomas Paine’s distinction between society and of government in Common Sense: “Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices”.
The fact that you categorize yourself as a follower of someone already shows that you are incapable of the originality necessary to conceive and understand the concepts that I have here presented.
Formulating:
Egoism + Success = Government
Egoism + Perversity + Any Other Categorization ( Success, Experience, Etc... ) = State
If the individual is not able to contain his irrational instincts, he is no longer able to be self-governing, and therefore unable to emanate the "Government".
The Western world has been in love for more than 2000 years with the distortion of the concept of "individuality".
True "individual" died when the State was born, since the focus of society was no longer the Unique, but rather the citizen - aka, the concept that represents the individual as being intrinsic property of the government. Thing that it is not -.
Quoting javi2541997
A prime example of a negative-egoist; someone who does not accept his nature and resents it, however, as there is no escape from egoism, he ends up developing a whole altruistic abstraction that morally justifies his actions.
"Communists are those who deceive themselves, or even truly believe, that their deeds are done for a higher cause. The Egoist is superior in all ways by the mere realization that his existence is simply based on self-realization. Without any need for "greater causes", "afterlife", etc... The cause of power is power, and the end of power is, also, power."
Athens was a city-state.
Honestly, your presence, in trying to refute my thoughts, ends up just strengthening all my work about egoism.
[i]Here, I present to you people: - A Negative-Egoist!
That who only exists to bathe himself in his own resentment over being egoist, and not being capable of accepting his true nature![/i]
But only because government is expressed through the state, and not through the indirect interaction of individuals.
The government shouldn't be the cause. It should be the end.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
This idea does interest me - can you provide any examples where a robust egoist system has been achieved or close to being achieved?
This point is so important. Yes individualism dead when the State was born. But is due to about how complex the society is. This why we need to create a concept an abstract term like government to provide us how useful the State is. The rule of law is very important because we can force to live in a society where we can respect each other.
Also, yes, it is completely flawed our system. I guess we never will have a perfect system because it doesn’t exist at all. Are we the humans perfect? NO. Thus, we can never have a perfect relationship between state-citizens.
Unfortunately, humanity was not even able to conceive of this abstraction - I'm sure I'm the first to do it - Max Stirner got pretty close with his "Union of Egoists" but his concept was flawed - - much less it would be able, in the current way in which its entire existence was built collectively and negatively, to act, successfully, so that this Government could be emanated.
I believe that it is impossible, in this historical cycle, for humanity to reach such a level of existential independence.
My philosophy is descriptive because my purpose is to register such thoughts so that a future humanity, which will be the synthesis of the contemporary historical cycle, has such thoughts described, and that finally, we could then act in such a way that the Government can manifest itself.
It's a good idea, but we haven't got to the point where can fully comprehend it.
The fact that, throughout human history, we have been debating how to sustain the institution of the State, is clear proof that, when it was conceived, the concept had not been structured so that it could function in a society with billions of individuals.
Humanity reaches points - during history - in which the individual develops the power to emanate, independently of the State, the Government, however, the elites pre-established by the State always end up using collectivism, because with collectivism, you destroy individualism and maintain the structure intact, which keeps them in full control of political power. When this battle is fought, society stagnates and begins to degenerate. In the Bronze Age this had happened, with Rome it had been the same, and today the same is about to happen.
The individual's goal is not revolution, because revolution simply destroys one state for the sake of another. Insurrection is the only means capable of attacking the root of the problem - political power.
No political power, therefore, the individual power is absolute.
The means of egoism are its own ends.
Elites always have been one of the troubles that we the citizens have to face in the government. When you deposit your vote in an urn you think you are doing it to change the government for better. Nevertheless the reality is so different. We have to face some interests or powers that are literally occult from our eyes.
Exactly in this point we can point some classical organisations as Elites: richest, lords, masons, etc...
So here we end up in a dilemma of empowering our presence inside the government as a collective. Maybe yes we have our representatives but literally you cannot develop the rule of law and so called “State” “Senate” without this kind of elitist powerful bases
Pella -the capital of Macedon - was - using your bious views - a "Polis" too:
The "Polis" of Pella
You don't know what you're saying.
The problem is that you see yourself as a "citizen", which projects the image and the consequence that you belong to a nation-state.
The elites who remain in power with political power only remain because the "individual" has been dominated by the structure.
As I had already said: - It is a fact that current humanity is not capable, even if one tries, to end the State, because to end the State they would have to destroy, consequently, an entire society already established of 5,000 years.
It is a situation for future individuals to win, we are already doomed to the future "Dark Ages".
True. Very well said this point. But somehow the structure was always evolving to lead us here where we are. Back in the day even in the Roman Empire slavery was legal also there weren't paid jobs, property, representation in institutions, etc... I think it was more clear how the powerful ones was ruling out the structure or "State"
We can think now everything changed. But you know we have in an interesting paradox of seeing ourselves as citizens: Are we still slaves to the powerful elites? Like back in the Roman Empire no, but... Capitalism drove us in a social structure where you have to work a lot of hours to just pay your bills and if you do not do so you are unemployed or worse in the street while the "Elites" are richer than ever, making the social pyramid structure thicker and having their income in secret bank countries like Andorra or Bermudas.
They changed the way of thinking but not the role since the Roman Empire.
I fully agree, however, the culture of power stratification is much older than the Roman Empire.
In ancient Sumer, in its earliest period - 4500 BC - the city-states of Ur, Eridu, Kish, among others, were established by a "clerical" elite.
It seems to me that the bureaucratization and extension of the State as an institution only became what it is today, so that the structure of society, which kept the minority elite in power, could continually preserve the political power of this same elite as society expanded.
The change was only noticeable in the "means" used to maintain the structure of the State, which, in its most primordial form, is "submission to the metaphysical" - the Bronze Age - which evolved to a "belonging to the State" - Classical Age -.
The abstraction that sustained political power seems to me to have undergone a "transformation" into the "Middle Ages" because "metaphysical submission" and "belonging to the State" merged into one new concept - religion.
The fact is that, the main error to be corrected - the slavery of the Individual -, contemporary humanity is incapable of correcting, given that it is the offspring of more than 5,000 years of complete distortion of the human nature - Egoism -.
Therefore, the only duty of the contemporary individual is to conceive the description of how this error can be corrected so that in the far future, humanity - the synthesis of the thesis - our era - with the antithesis - the near future "dark ages" - - might be able to develop and exist in such a way that the individual is the maximum of society - the Government itself.
The point is that you are still wrong because in practice, humanity has established itself over 5,000 years in the form of the state.
Even the first historical "Empire" - Akkadian Empire - 2334 BC to 2154 - in practice, acted as a state in the modern concept. They even had borders - that in the future, kings as "Gilgamesh" would try to reconquer and become the "New Akkad" - as the medievals tried to re-establish the "Roman Empire" - -.
The empire of Akkad:
Your mistakes in focusing on the details of the terms simply to strengthen your arguments simply exist because your historical knowledge is weak.
"There is no such thing as a "philosopher", without first having a man who knows his own history"
Here is where we find for the first time the feeling of "nationalism" I belong to x State because my identity, culture, customs, language were born here. But I think it is just another trap. As you said previously it is difficult to quickly change a statement that was ruling on the world during 5,000 years.
Yes, probably today we will not die in our works for the conditions or lack of rights but... It terrifying looks like so similar like in the older ages.
Avoid selfishness in this world is so difficult. I guess it is even more difficult than ever because we are living an era where the "strongest" has "success" and doesn't matter how is living the other part. There is no empathy. Just look the vaccine of Coronavirus. I wish as you say after the pandemic change the way of thinking and then probably (just probably) make a great transition in governments
If your point was related to these ancient governments as well, then for the life of me I don't understand the individualistic bent of your post because that's even later. Edit: indivualism I mean, that's 17th century.
It is with this nationalist mentality that the great civilizations of the Classical Age were structured - Roman Empire, Sassanian Persia, Aksumite Ethiopia, and the Han Dynasty -.
It is really functional when you project the ambition and purpose of an entire mass of people, in an abstract and complex concept like "the nation" or "our lands". You justify your actions in favor of strengthening the State in "good" causes for "the benefit of the structure that maintains the population".
Quoting javi2541997
It is a trap, and good one.
Nowadays, this same trap has been transformed into a much more complex and rigid form through the use of the sum of:
Nationality + Religion - or in the case of the Western World, "Ideologies "-.
Quoting javi2541997
Yet, because I assure you that the objective of the current job market is to use you as much as possible.
A perfect historical example of what I say here, occurred during the reforms of "Diocletian" in the Roman Empire:
"Partly in response to economic pressures and in order to protect the vital functions of the state, Diocletian restricted social and professional mobility. Peasants became tied to the land in a way that presaged later systems of land tenure and workers such as bakers, armorers, public entertainers and workers in the mint had their occupations made hereditary."
When the economic and labor freedom of the population no longer favors the institution of the State, this is totally annulled and made hereditary, since a stable economy with its stable wave of workers is much more beneficial to the State than a prosperous economy.
Today, what we see are the initial symptoms of this future, which had already occurred in the past.
I know that your argument is that the idea of individualism as a form of government is seen best in the light of a future cycle of humanity. I think that it would be extremely difficult to see how getting rid of government would work in the current chaos. However, do you think that there are any interim measures which could work, or do you think that it has to be a matter of keeping government as we know it, or do you see any scope for other possibilities in our present times?
I affirm and reiterate:
- You focus on the argument that "concepts as abstractions have not yet been conceived" to support your argument directed against me and not my idea.
What you forget is that, in practice, these concepts have been projected by humanity for more than 5,000 years.
Honestly, your total bias in the detail of concepts being only metaphysics has already become almost religious rhetoric.
In your conclusion:
This:
- Roman roads -
Are not the same as this:
- Victorian era roads -
For the sake of your image as an "administrator" and "philosopher" and for the sake of discussion, leave this topic. Good day/ Good night.
The point is that as we are currently moving into a future "age of contradictions" - as Hegel said - or as I prefer to call it, the "Dark Ages" -, "government" as we understand it is becoming even more subjective and diluted in the vast common sense of the masses.
It is very likely that everything that we understand as "reality" today, will be totally distorted in the near future, as it happened with the transvaloration of the reality of the Romans of the Classical Age to the medieval Christians.
If reality is increasingly taking the form of the perception of the reality of the masses - which in this case, it is not a good thing, because the reality of the masses is moved and exists thanks to their perversity of the ego - the awareness and rationalization of instincts - - it is very likely that the future will take the form of "complete symbology" - where the perfect reality is projected and coveted by everyone, which justifies the decadent and degenerate material reality, as they're constantly "trying to reach the perfect reality" -, which will create complete stagnation in all aspects.
Therefore, no, there are no other possibilities for our present, since we became aware of this fall at a time when the bureaucratization of the institutions and the principles that govern these institutions is already fully structured to establish - indefinitely - those same institutions and its degenerative principles.
The "insurrection" is a - hypothetical - possibility to counter this degeneration. However, that possibility would take a long time, and many resources that are currently out of reach.
Yes. Completely. I totally forgot the Religion context. I thought it was needed in the Middle Age but no... we have a lot examples in the present of how Religion divide the individual and then makes conflict against the State: Nigeria (Boko Haram issues with Muslim religion or his constant conflict against the State) Israel vs Palestine (they are conflict for more than 50 years due to religion. Well we can see here another facts as land occupation but it is all related to religion).
I said it was a trap because there are a lot of people out there who literally will give their life for the nation they come from. I think is ridiculous since the day the world is more connected than ever through internet and also abstract things like “customs” are not working in economics. This is the example of European Union (different nations and culture but they have to unite together trying to make a powerful market).
Quoting Gus Lamarch
Will we work until the 70 or 75 years old? Probably.
Will it disappear the jubilation as we know today? Probably too.
I think that we are in a time of great contradictions. Personally, I am not denying the importance of the need for restrictions but I am inclined to think that the whole role the government has played in implementing this is questionable because it has made many people feel extremely oppressed. In England, just about everything apart going out to the supermarket has been for forbidden under government law. I don't think that there has ever been such a time of law and order in recorded history. People are feeling like caged animals.
I know that you are not speaking about the current rules and regulations and they may vary from country to country. However, I have wondered if this whole situation might have been better responded to if people had been asked to take care of themselves and others rather than it all being enforced by the government.
It's important for me to understand what you mean since you make grand statements which aren't at all clear. So if these ancient civilisations fall within the meaning of a State, where do you draw the line? We had earlier settlements than that, that exercised some control over a geographic area? Were those states too?
Because I think that's where you run into trouble, because either you accept those as a "State" avant la lettre or you have to explain where the cut-off is and why that isn't arbitrary. And you run into trouble, because we know that the earliest settlements ("States") were certainly not predicated on fear to create order - I still disagree this is the case, considering the many and varied roles government plays in our lives. There's oppression (penalties, stratification, standardasation) but also positive liberty (opportunities, welfare, etc.).
One of the reasons I thought you were talking about modern states is precisely due to the use of "fear", which is reminiscent of Max Weber's definition that the State has a monopoly on violence. I'm probably more of a pluralist, in that individuals and groups vie for political power but similarly think the structure of modern government is conveniently beneficial to favour capitalist production - in other words, it's not just political but also economic power that shape the State and the government/State isn't an unbiased participant in the socio-economic fabric.
The European Union is an economic prison created by a State larger than the States that compose the European nations.
Initially it was a relationship of interdependence and unity thanks to the great destruction of both World Wars, however, over the course of 70 years, without a new purpose, this institution would meet its end. The point is that this same institution, already established, generated a lot of profit for the elites, and therefore, a new objective had to be be created. This same objective that currently imprisoned and made dependent the nations that decided to be part of it.
Therefore, my previous argument that "a State that is sustained by some characteristic of society, tends to eternalize that same characteristic", is correct, since the current economies are no longer concerned with the development of the economy, but with the establishment of the economy.
"The State does not need anymore that you have economic independence and economic prosperity to establish itself, on the contrary, it needs you to become poor and depend on it so that it stabilizes."
Quoting javi2541997
Indeed...
This is just the taste of what true totalitarianism is.
Quoting Jack Cummins
This is the State's concern.
If the individual matures enough to take care of itself, the purpose of the State loses yet another piece of its illusion of being needed, and therefore, it is necessary that the individual be alienated so that it continues to believe in the value and legitimacy - which it is completely null - of the State.
For the State, the more childish and innocent a population is, the more easily they can be shaped to its own liking...
Absolutely. The knowledge and will to protect oneself is all that is required. But what happens to this knowledge and will when a society that has been raised to depend on the state for both education and protection is asked to protect itself?
:100:
What I have become aware of recently is how public policy and government are so bound together. It seems that so many people want protection from the government and when regulations and policies are brought in they just accept with hardly any questions. This whole attitude makes me wonder what will come next, because it would be so easy for any government to introduce any extremely oppressive legislation.
Agree with this point. Of course it is an economic prison just to make richer other countries, well better called as "elites". Since covid started the last years it has been patent how different the north/south of Europe actually is. Here is where you have a lot of "positive" prejudices to the north (they are workers, keep their money better, industries, etc...) while the south has the "negative" prejudices (lazy, poor, bad workers, insult, etc...) I remember the Dutch primer minister said about my country (Spain) we are citizens who waste the money in women and wine. It is completely a lie. Nevertheless, that is the economic trap. Sometimes I think norths European countries want the south to be poorer just to get more benefit and zero competition. This is why I do not understand how Greece and Spain are the countries which have mora labour hours despite they have the lowest income (?) interesting.
Weren't the first states sustained through "fear"?
“Before the beginning of kingship in Sumer - the most ancient society that we currently have record of -, the city-states were effectively ruled by theocratic priests and religious officials; they exerted power through the use of the fear towards the gods - Sumerian gods weren't known to be "all-loving" even in the time of the Persians -. Later, this role was supplanted by kings - which the fear for the Gods became "fear towards their representation on earth" - most likely a way to preserve power even in the present and not only - as it was with the god - in the future -, but priests continued to exert great influence on Sumerian society." - Kramer, Samuel Noah (1963). The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character.
A simple logical deduction confirms that:
"If the first historical states to be registered were already based on concepts of "power through fear", a tradition that was already well established in the first historical civilizations and if these same societies descended of prehistoric states, the logical conclusion is that these prehistoric states were the ones that established the government through the state of fear, and, therefore, society was already pre-established with the concept of "State"."
Quoting Benkei
In a way, it is obvious that the Sumerians - the people I am using as an example - did not conceive of their socio-economic structure as being based on the concepts of "State" and "Fear".
The point is that with the development of Man during history, we were able to discern concepts from their practical physical aspects and from their symbolic ideas. We currently use the "State" in practice and we also know of its metaphysical existence - as a concept -. The ancients did not have the metaphysical knowledge, however, they already had total mastery of the state's practicality.
An everyday example:
"Your mother knows how to manage the household economy very well, even though she has no theoretical knowledge of how the concept of "economy "is established or works."
Many people know perfectly well the "theoricity" of things, but without its pratical knowledge, it is worthless. Practicality, on the other hand, does not necessarily need the theory to work.
The "state" is a nationalistic notion, and so comparatively recent.
The government is better defined as those who claim and are given a monopoly on the use of violence.
Doing that undermines your emphasis on individuality.
Let me ask this differently. What distinguishes a non-nomadic tribe from a State? Or a reclusive family staking out a claim of land? An individual doing this? And why do you assume fear is the driving factor instead of (the need for) cooperation behind the ordering of societies? Fear is merely a tool and a pretty useless one compared to inspiration.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
The EU was always about economic harmonisation and therefore integration. I don't think it's radically different than any other modern government in that it favours the wealthy over the poor (or capital over workers). When has a system of government not done that? Marx and other structuralist interpretations of the State often highlight this and I'm missing it from your assessments. I think you're reducing too far. There's certainly an element of repression in every society and I don't think societies can function completely without it because basic rules need to be respected (for instance, human rights).
Quoting javi2541997
Yes, this plays into stereotypes Dutch people (and Swedish, Austrian and Danish) have of southern european countries like Spain, Italy and Greece. You're lazy, and we're hard working. These politicians need to play for their local audience more than they do for the EU as they are elected by Dutch people. And so they take a strict stance to be seen as being critical of the EU, meanwhile working behind the scenes to reach a compromise. It's not pretty when you're on the receiving end.
Anthropologist Franz Oppenheimer wrote a good little book called The State that is worth a look, because it covers the thesis of the “conquest theory of state”, the idea that the state formed in no other way than the exploitation of the vanquished by the victors:
“The State, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages of its existence, 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. Teleologically, this dominion had no other purpose than the economic exploitation of the vanquished by the victors.”
There are some great ideas within. He lays out some anthropological evidence for his thesis, though it may be a little outdated. But I’ve come to accept the “conquest theory” over the so-called “social contract”.
You have not yet understood my conception of the State:
"The "State" is the perversity of the individual's ability to emanate the Government through Egoism."
If, hypothetically, the first "Individual" to appear, it drove the stake into the ground and said: -This is mine. This is not the creation of the State, but of private property. The State arises from the perversed perception of this same individual, who, instead of inspiring other individuals to achieve their own successes like him, and encourage them, he establishes that "whoever lives and has lived in this land, now will have to pay tribute to me", simply because he "can" do it, because he now has political power; he "murdered" the individual power of his peers.
You have to understand "fear" as being the "subjugation through the recognition of the capacity to inflict damage on the individual's most intrinsic property - the self".
“People in their natural state are basically good. But this natural innocence, however, is corrupted by the evils of society.” - Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
This "society" that Rousseau talks about, is our society, therefore, the society already established more than 5,000 in which, instead of using our egoism rationally, we let it act instinctively.
"Through the perversity of our nature, Man is as he is: - Still being Man; a primate whose irrational shadow is always a step ahead of him."
Quoting Benkei
You conclude that fear as the engine of human relationships does not make sense. It is at this very point that you are completely wrong.
Fear is the vehicle by which the State structure is established. And its end is simple and pure power.
The objective of human society, within history, has never been to expand or improve human relationships, but rather to structure them in such a way that they continue to serve the structure of power, therefore, fear is the engine of itself.
That which depends on fear, will establish fear indefinitely.
I get your point but...
As I said previously Greece and Spain are the countries with more hours of working along EU. We are not guilty our corrupt system give to us low incomes and bankruptcy.
If you say it works for those countries have zero respect for Mediterranean countries because it work for the nationalists... it disappoints me a lot. Aren’t you supposed to have a better education system tan us? Aren’t you supposed to be more “open minded” or modern?
I do not how it works tourism in Greece (I guess similar as here) but is full of “perfect north European countries”. So I do not know if you are truly happy of being in “hard working” country when it looks like you need so much to come here in summer time (you even buy properties). Probably I am from a lowest country economy but I do not have that “anxiety” to abandon it.
Again I respect your point of view and I guess you are not of these kind of people but if you say that easy argument of “they are taking our money in south while we are working in north” is so convincing in your population it disappoints a lot coming from countries with better universities, welfare State, modernism, open minded.
It is these types of humanity's attitudes that make me indignant.
Due to a lack of historical knowledge, we continue to imprison ourselves on the same mistakes again, and again, and again...
It is as if we live in a gap of light in a vast darkness as we move through time. It's ridiculous!
Today's Europe forgets that the West was founded thanks to the base of the romance countries, who are descendants of the Roman Empire, which was also sustained and developed at the expense of ancient Greece.
While this kind of irrationality takes place in Europe, we Americans forget that we owe everything and more to Europe itself, and so on.
Hegel nailed it when he said that Man is a "historical Being". Indeed, without history to structure ourselves in time, we get completely lost - as we are currently doing - in the present.
The idea of "social contract" seems to me to want to justify the existence of the State and why people are subjected to it. The "conquest theory" only intends to prove its existence and describe its emergence, therefore, it is much more logical and closer to the reality of the first individuals who conceived the idea - of the State -.
We agree.
I don't think the majority thinks this way but enough do, that it's a political consideration. Especially if you're on the Conservative side of the spectrum and your main challenger is euro-sceptic. So it's the 20% of voters, the xenophobists, that were pleased by what they heard, there was another 20% that criticised them for it and the rest doesn't care enough.
As to better education... I had an Italian roommate once who could tell me things about early Dutch history I never learned. Dutch law is basically still roman law. Etc. Etc.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
I'm still not clear on what makes a state a state because I reject the notion that it necessarily must be through fear. The reality is that specialisation allows a community to be more prosperous. It makes no sense for individuals to be successful like "him" because they have different strength. Just like in a family, where the parents lead they can do so through fear or through inspiration, but the latter does not mean children get to do whatever they want - but, OK, those are dependent relationships so the analogy only goes so far.
In a small community though, not everyone is found to be a subsistence farmer. You want better huts but your neighbour is better at building them, so you barter. In a large enough community, the neighbour will become a builder as a result of his aptitude. Where did people bring their disputes? A man or woman was considered wise and they brought them their problems. And here emerges sovereignty, someone's word becomes law. And someone breaks the law and the community as a whole enforces it and if the community is large enough, some burly types are part time enforcers. But this is all on the basis of cooperation and economic specialisation. For the community to function the basic rules need to be enforced but this is only a threat to those that would break the rules otherwise. Most people adhere to the rules, accept the various roles (not a typo) within the community as an expression of beeps aptitudes.
In a healthy community, these rules and roles then serve the community and it's just to enforce them. If they don't serve the community, they ought to be disobeyed. In one oppression is justified in the other it isn't.
Finally I meet someone who understands Europe as its truest spirit. Thank you so much.
Me, as a Spaniard, I do not how to express how thankful I am to Roman and Greek culture. They completely sharped my country. We never had to forget Spain was a very important Empire with those cultures. It is just my humble opinion but I think Mediterranean empires and culture was the basic starting point to all the Occidental countries (government, sociality, economy, State, law, philosophy, etc...)
Nevertheless, sadly, we live in a paradigma where the people do not give a damn about culture and roots. Most of Americans or Asians (no them all but the most) when they hear Europe they quickly think just UK, France, Holland and Germany (provably some Nordic too though). As I named previously the "north European". Yes, they have a better economy, industry and salaries than mine. But... These do not make them more european. A Greek (Mediterranean) is European as much as a German, French, Hungarian, Croatian... It is crazy how European continent has a lot of cultures but they only put economics first.
Indeed, I believe that both of us have come to the conclusion that our dialogue will not cause the other to agree.
Your view of society is still, in my sincere opinion, childish, because you allow yourself to be trapped by the innocence that humanity, with power in hand, will act willingly simply because this act would benefit itself. How rational and logical this act is, humanity still is comprised of its dualistic nature. You are both instinctive and irrational as well as logical and self-conscious, and that nature makes us, overwhelmingly, act in a non-logical way.
The truth is that, for the most part, inside and outside the historical record, the choices that Man had made were justified by a simple: - Because, Yes!
Therefore, I believe that our discussion can be concluded.
Europe as a whole seems to have tired of existing based on its Christian Germanic Roman traditions. From the 18th century, until the early half of the 20th century, Europe constantly lived in a state of panic. There were armed revolts in all corners of the continent, intellectuals gathering to overthrow political regimes established more than a 1000 years ago, prejudices pre-established by the revolutionary enlightenment vision, etc...
The problem is that there is a lot of rich cultural heritage that is being brushed aside by this European resentment. This should be pursued again; a renaissance, but from the past three centuries!
I, living in the "New World", see Europe as it is today, and knowing all its history, I can only be saddened. The noble classist spirit of Europe should again be revived with pride! Not repudiated as a sin that they have committed!
A "good" government is one that is not established, but emanated from the interactions of people. Anarchism has to be established, and, therefore, is just another type of State.
But I've not said this. The exercise I was hoping to go through is the recognition that all societies are far more complex than what you'd like to paint it as. I offered as support a story of cooperation, which has happened and still happens if we look at local political structures. People willingly cooperate often and what they accomplish when they do this willingly because they are inspired is far greater than the fear you suggest as a driving factor or indeed the individualism you appear to push as a solution. It's too simplistic.
We don't drink from wells we dug ourselves. The vocabulary you use isn't your own. Etc. Etc.
In any case, I appreciate the somewhat more civil tone in the last few posts.
I wish we can do it! At least keeping the noble culture alive and spreading through all the countries. The only real time where Europe was at it’s peak was with the Roma Empire. Same language, currency, and law. True, it was perfect at all due to slavery, constant wars etc... Nevertheless if people read the context of time they would appreciate how different the Latin/Greek culture and empire were towards the “barbarians”. Impressive that Romans called them “barbarians” because they do not have culture at all and they made decisions with the use of violence.
Nowadays those barbarians are the rulers of EU... what happened? I do not even know. A lot of facts I guess. Are they guilty? I think not they are just using the advantages. Could it be different? I guess it doesn’t disappear at all the Latin/Greek culture but sadly this is not “worthy” in the bank system of today.
The question under discussion is the cause of why contemporary society is established as it is. I believe, and I theorize, that there was a distortion at the beginning of the civilizing process, and that we could have established ourselves in a much more successful and prosperous way in much less time if we accepted our nature - the Egoist "Government" that was the initial topic of the discussion -.
You seem to be stuck in an optimistic view of reality, and I that's not a problem, however, I affirm to you that humanity is much more mundane than you believe it to be.
The fact that humanity cooperates now, in the way that it cooperates, is a consequence of the establishment of the State at the dawn of society. What you perceive to be a "voluntary cooperation" between people, is nothing more than millennia of oppression and diminishment of the individual and of his natural will to realize himself uniquely and individually.
Your perception of reality is tied to the contemporary way of seeing the world. The Romans did not think as we do, the ancient Greeks did not conceive of the world in the same way that we do, much less the Sumerians, still, the State is there, with its elite, and its established estratification, so there is nothing to support the argument that humanity in society arose from a union between wills. If that was the case, the historical records of ancient Sumer, and of its structuring as a civilization, would not convey the image of a state sustained through fear, but one of "cooperation" between individuals.
Quoting Benkei
The topic of language is another subject that we both probably disagree with.
"Language is intrinsically part of the individual who conceives and projects it into existence, and it only serves to "draw" the image of the wishes and purposes of its projector."
Language, in terms of ownership, is only capable of expressing its user's own property. For example:
[i]"My vision";
"My opinion";
"My friend";
"My life".[/i]
Even when it is intended to communicate something that is owned by another entity, the perception of ownership is obligatorily expressed together. Example:
[i]"It's his car";
"The idea said is from XX";
"The subject in question was conceived by XX".[/i]
Language is also capable of projecting the power battle between egos. Example:
[i]"The idea that I just taught you, was first conceived by XX";
"The car I'm using is borrowed from that person".[/i]
(The point of my comments on language is not focused on the semantic rules of the language, but on the concept of "language" and its daily use during history)
Quoting Benkei
I felt compelled to be more polite to you, because you made it clear to me that you are looking to have a debate about my philosophy, and not just looking to cause a scene in question from our past discussions.
We cannot take off the credit from the Germanic countries. They were the most civilized countries in the world between the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.
The point is that the whole of Europe, today, is in a situation of giving up on itself.
I believe that if the West recovers the noble spirit of past centuries, hegemony could be achieved.
Agree with this point. They were been always there. Even they have created one of the basic principles that every nation wants to get: the so called welfare state (another Dante we can talk about is what we consider as a “welfare state”) that clearly leads a more developed country.
For example: Sweden investment in science and education is around 2.25 of its GDP. Spain investment is just 1.1... I have to admit it, my politicians destroy Spain the most they can. It is a shame.
But I guess we are not unique in the EU. Check out for example European historic countries like Poland and Hungry... everything is wrong and there are many differences. But I want to say here is that despite the social/economical problems we still “Europeans” doesn’t matter what the north European could say.
If your point really is about this stigma that northern Europe has with the "Mediterranean" south, in fact, they are wrong, because the whole basis that sustains European society today is, as I had already stated, the one left by the ancient Greeks and which had been vastly expanded by the Romans.
And well, the very word "Europe" is of Greek origin:
[i]"In classical Greek mythology, Europa-Ancient Greek: ??????, Eur?p?-was a Phoenician princess. One view is that her name dela derives from the ancient Greek elements ?????-eurús-," wide, broad "and ??
- ?ps, gen. ????, ?pós - "eye, face, countenance", hence their composite Eur?p? would mean "wide-gazing" or "broad of aspect". Broad has been an epithet of Earth herself."[/i]
But as I also said, humanity lives in a space of light surrounded by a sea of amnesia created by itself.
Quoting javi2541997
Well, having a socialist Prime Minister in a Catholic kingdom is not a good strategy for achieving success.
Complexity. Like all my governors do. Well the governor of Madrid is conservative but I did not see a huge difference. Since COVID crisis started the last year is upon us a big pessimism of what the future holds. Many people lost their jobs and are in bankruptcy. I guess the European bonus pack are not the solution either if the politicians do not know how to use it properly. I guess we have to be more patient if we want to see more changes.
But it’s not all about economy. The country is divided again and this hurts when you have a family that literally experienced a civil war and it’s consequences except me. I wish I never met a civil war in my region. I think it is impossible but could be when there are lot of people getting divided about monarchy/republic or leftist/conservatives etc... I wish my compatriots do not want to die for politicians or whatever.