A social contract among individuals is a concept instituted in an attempt to ensure social tranquility. In consenting to the terms of a social contract, members of a societal group agree to forfeiture of certain “Natural Rights” in exchange for the tranquility of a relatively safe and hopefully prosperous civilization brought about by laws put in place to unsure the contract is enforced. These contracts are presumed to be voluntary but are actually compulsory and any individual wishing to terminate their portion of the contract is usually punished.
Each nation presumably enacts laws it sees appropriate to enforce the terms of its contract. A person’s violation of the social contract could result in punishment enacted by a judicial system tasked with the enforcement of the terms of that nation’s social contract. In the United States we have social contract based on individual liberty and personal freedom. This contact is enforced by laws that protect members of our society from violators and can subject them to severe punish. Our social contract holds its member’s personal safety and property rights in high regard. By allowing its members to conduct their lives in a comparatively secure environment, it has permitted our nation to become the prosperous nation that it is. Many people point to the large prison population in the United States and conclude this is a nation full of bigotry and hate that seeks nothing more than to oppress through incarceration as many undesirables as possible. But, the truth is we hold our social contract so dear, that any violation is dealt with in the most appropriate manner. The mandatory long prison sentences given to murderers, crimes involving the use of a gun, kidnapping and drug offences are reflective of our determination and dedication to hold people accountable for their contract violations.
Not all nations maintain social contracts with as high a standards as the United States and it’s evident in viewing their prosperity. One example is our neighbor to our south, Mexico. The citizen’s social contract in Mexico would appear to be grossly inadequate to provide the necessary security to allow a majority of its general population to prosper. The nation of Mexico is rich in natural recourses, such as crude oil, but this surplus of prosperity has not raised the living standards of the population anywhere near that of the United States. There seems to be systemic corruption of their entire society that undermines their otherwise attainable prosperity.
This same scenario is repeated throughout the world. Millions of citizens in foreign nations suffer in needless conditions under brutal governments because their nation’s governing structure is based on weak or purposely tyrannical social contracts. It may sound elitist to state, but until those citizens take the appropriate actions necessary to liberate themselves of their oppressors, they will never earn the privilege of living under a social contract that allows and encourages the prosperity experienced in the United States.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Friday, April 9, 2010
A Little Machiavelli
The reading of “The Prince and the Discourses” by Niccolo Machiavelli was quite an eye opener for me. For several years I’ve heard the name Machiavelli mentioned in political discussions and as a frequently used term in political discussions, especially, it seems, when describing characteristics of our political system in the United States, is “Machiavellism.”
Frequently, it appears political theories derived from the ideas within “The Prince and the Discourses” are viewed negatively. Having never read this book, I must admit, because of this I also negatively viewed any idea described as originating from “Machiavellism.” But, after reading Niccolo Machiavelli’s book I view him as a practical person. Max Lerner writes as much in the introduction on page xxxiii, “He (Machiavelli) had a clear-eyed capacity to distinguish between man as he ought to be and man as he actually is…”
Yes, in his writings Machiavelli describes methods that seem rather brutal. But, in my opinion Machiavelli is only writing of what he’s witnessed or learned from what others have witnessed as to methods used in the ruling of nations, good and bad up to his time. He appears to draw from a vast knowledge of history and of his contemporary times. Impressive is his detailed knowledge of events during the time of the Spartans, Romans, Egyptians, and of the Popes in the Catholic Church. Not only does he advise how to govern based on different philosophies he also appears to be more than capable to advise on military matters through the books of The Discourses.
Out of these observations and learned methods he does give the impression that his only intent is to advise the reader how to successfully rule. Max Lerner yet writes in his introduction on page xliii, “The common meaning he (Machiavelli) has for democrats and dictators alike is that, whatever your ends, you must be clear-eyed and unsentimental in pursuit of them and you must rest your power ultimately on a cohesive principle.” But, it’s Machiavelli’s writings that speak of the benefits of republics over rule by a prince that I find revealing. This alone should divulge to those who study his writings his true intent in writing these books.
In Chapter III, page 9 of ‘The Prince” Machiavelli writes “For it must be noted, that men must either be caressed or else annihilated….injury therefore that we do to a man must be such that we need not fear his vengeance.” That idea seems rather brutal and can be viewed negatively, but, prior to that statement and on the same page he writes about planting colonies as a means of securing newly acquired lands because, “The colonies will cost the prince little;….he only injures those whose lands and houses are taken to be given to the new inhabitants, and these form but a small proportion of the state, and those who are injured, remaining poor and scattered, can never do any harm to him, and all the others are, on the other hand, not injured and therefore easily pacified.” While this statement may still appear brutal, planting a colony by taking the property of a few land owners in a region the prince needs to control, you have to admit, is far, far less brutal than annihilating the entire local population. Most likely further steps to reduce the hostility from the local population could be taken by only taking the property of persons ruling the region prior to the prince’s conquest. In all probability these rulers were despised for their oppressive, if not tyrannical citizenry control methods anyway and the new prince will be viewed as a savior. Most will accept him as a welcome change. In page 113, Chapter II of “The Discourses” Machiavelli even writes, “Under such powerful leaders the masses armed themselves against the tyrant, and, after having rid themselves of him, submitted to these chiefs as their liberators.” This describes the plight of a people having been ruled by and then riding themselves of a tyrant, not only submitting to a new prince but considering him as a liberator. While the method used to rid them of the tyrant might have been brutal, living under the new prince must have been far less oppressive.
Machiavelli also seems to favor and espouse the formation of governments ruled by the “people” not princes. He goes so far as titling The Discourses, Chapter LVIII, “The People Are Wiser And More Constant Than Princes.” In this chapter Machiavelli states several times how the people formed as a republic and not a prince would be the preferable ruling method.
Machiavelli gives the example of the people of Rome in page 261 of Chapter LVIII in The Discourses that, “…who, so long as the republic remained uncorrupted, neither obeyed basely nor ruled insolently, but rather held its ranks honorably, supporting the laws and their magistrates.” He follows on the same page describing oppression of the republic with, “And when the unrighteous ambition of some noble made it necessary for them to rise up in self defense, they did so.” Because the Roman leadership became corrupt and oppressive the people knew those actions were necessary to restore the republic and had to be taken.
Machiavelli recognizes that in some cases the people may not rise up against a corrupt prince. The last sentence in The Discourses, Chapter XXIX, page 495, he states what additionally could happen by adding, “The example of the prince is followed by the masses, who keep their eyes always turned upon their chief.” This is to caution that the people may emulate the corruption it sees in their prince. He places the blame squarely with the prince in the very first sentence of this chapter by stating, “Let not princes complain of the faults committed by the people subjected to their authority, for they result entirely from their own negligence or bad example.” This is not saying that the people should not be held accountable for their actions, but he states the prince’s negative actions stood as an example and influenced the negative actions of the people. Previous to this passage he informs the reader in the first sentence of Chapter XLII, “…we should notice also how easily men are corrupted and become wicked, although originally good and well educated.”
Although, Machiavelli does warn in his writings, that when comparing the people’s nature to the prince’s, on page 262 of the same text, he states “…for both alike are liable to err when they are without control.” I think we all would agree that this is true and easy enough to understand. In keeping with Machiavelli’s theory that all men have a drive to possess as much as possible, it stands to reason that both people and princes must be constrained by laws from using nefarious means in pursuit of obtaining possessions. But, Machiavelli does make the distinction between the levels of the grievous actions taken by the people and the prince. At the top of page 263 in the Discourses, he includes, “For a people that governs and is well regulated by laws will be stable, prudent, and grateful, as much so, and even more, according to my opinion, than a prince, although he be esteemed wise; and, on the other hand, a prince, freed from restraints of the law, will be more ungrateful, inconstant and imprudent than a people similarly situated.” Further down the same page Machiavelli states again, “I say, that the people more prudent and stable, and have better judgment than a prince…” Again, on the next page, page 264, he weighs faults and attributes of the people against those of a prince and writes, “…we shall find the people vastly superior in all that is good and glorious.”
Machiavelli even goes so far as comparing those actions of a prince that is constrained by laws to those of a people that aren’t. Reading onto page 265, we find him stating, “…we shall find more virtue in the people than in the prince.” And when neither are constrained by laws, Machiavelli adds “…we shall see the people are guilty of fewer excesses than the prince, and that the errors of the people are of less importance, and therefore more easily remedied.”
Throughout this chapter Machiavelli contrasts the virtues of the people to that of the prince and in each instance he acknowledges that the people are more prudent, are more competent evaluators of good and evil, make better choices, make greater amounts of progress in the minimal amount of time and generally do less harm to the state, (Either through the people’s limited capability or their respect for the laws.) than a prince. Which, as I stated earlier, I think is the reason for his writing of these books. He knew from history, which type of governments were most effective and those traits that made them effective. But, he also knew that a government formed of the people and regulated by laws was vastly superior to that of a prince.
So, in my opinion, yes, Machiavelli's "The Prince" describes techniques useful in governing as a tyrant, but also describes the techniques essential in forming and maintaining a successful republic. It's as if Julia Child wrote a cook book that not only describes how to make a the worlds best apple pie, but how to make the worlds worst apple pie.
Frequently, it appears political theories derived from the ideas within “The Prince and the Discourses” are viewed negatively. Having never read this book, I must admit, because of this I also negatively viewed any idea described as originating from “Machiavellism.” But, after reading Niccolo Machiavelli’s book I view him as a practical person. Max Lerner writes as much in the introduction on page xxxiii, “He (Machiavelli) had a clear-eyed capacity to distinguish between man as he ought to be and man as he actually is…”
Yes, in his writings Machiavelli describes methods that seem rather brutal. But, in my opinion Machiavelli is only writing of what he’s witnessed or learned from what others have witnessed as to methods used in the ruling of nations, good and bad up to his time. He appears to draw from a vast knowledge of history and of his contemporary times. Impressive is his detailed knowledge of events during the time of the Spartans, Romans, Egyptians, and of the Popes in the Catholic Church. Not only does he advise how to govern based on different philosophies he also appears to be more than capable to advise on military matters through the books of The Discourses.
Out of these observations and learned methods he does give the impression that his only intent is to advise the reader how to successfully rule. Max Lerner yet writes in his introduction on page xliii, “The common meaning he (Machiavelli) has for democrats and dictators alike is that, whatever your ends, you must be clear-eyed and unsentimental in pursuit of them and you must rest your power ultimately on a cohesive principle.” But, it’s Machiavelli’s writings that speak of the benefits of republics over rule by a prince that I find revealing. This alone should divulge to those who study his writings his true intent in writing these books.
In Chapter III, page 9 of ‘The Prince” Machiavelli writes “For it must be noted, that men must either be caressed or else annihilated….injury therefore that we do to a man must be such that we need not fear his vengeance.” That idea seems rather brutal and can be viewed negatively, but, prior to that statement and on the same page he writes about planting colonies as a means of securing newly acquired lands because, “The colonies will cost the prince little;….he only injures those whose lands and houses are taken to be given to the new inhabitants, and these form but a small proportion of the state, and those who are injured, remaining poor and scattered, can never do any harm to him, and all the others are, on the other hand, not injured and therefore easily pacified.” While this statement may still appear brutal, planting a colony by taking the property of a few land owners in a region the prince needs to control, you have to admit, is far, far less brutal than annihilating the entire local population. Most likely further steps to reduce the hostility from the local population could be taken by only taking the property of persons ruling the region prior to the prince’s conquest. In all probability these rulers were despised for their oppressive, if not tyrannical citizenry control methods anyway and the new prince will be viewed as a savior. Most will accept him as a welcome change. In page 113, Chapter II of “The Discourses” Machiavelli even writes, “Under such powerful leaders the masses armed themselves against the tyrant, and, after having rid themselves of him, submitted to these chiefs as their liberators.” This describes the plight of a people having been ruled by and then riding themselves of a tyrant, not only submitting to a new prince but considering him as a liberator. While the method used to rid them of the tyrant might have been brutal, living under the new prince must have been far less oppressive.
Machiavelli also seems to favor and espouse the formation of governments ruled by the “people” not princes. He goes so far as titling The Discourses, Chapter LVIII, “The People Are Wiser And More Constant Than Princes.” In this chapter Machiavelli states several times how the people formed as a republic and not a prince would be the preferable ruling method.
Machiavelli gives the example of the people of Rome in page 261 of Chapter LVIII in The Discourses that, “…who, so long as the republic remained uncorrupted, neither obeyed basely nor ruled insolently, but rather held its ranks honorably, supporting the laws and their magistrates.” He follows on the same page describing oppression of the republic with, “And when the unrighteous ambition of some noble made it necessary for them to rise up in self defense, they did so.” Because the Roman leadership became corrupt and oppressive the people knew those actions were necessary to restore the republic and had to be taken.
Machiavelli recognizes that in some cases the people may not rise up against a corrupt prince. The last sentence in The Discourses, Chapter XXIX, page 495, he states what additionally could happen by adding, “The example of the prince is followed by the masses, who keep their eyes always turned upon their chief.” This is to caution that the people may emulate the corruption it sees in their prince. He places the blame squarely with the prince in the very first sentence of this chapter by stating, “Let not princes complain of the faults committed by the people subjected to their authority, for they result entirely from their own negligence or bad example.” This is not saying that the people should not be held accountable for their actions, but he states the prince’s negative actions stood as an example and influenced the negative actions of the people. Previous to this passage he informs the reader in the first sentence of Chapter XLII, “…we should notice also how easily men are corrupted and become wicked, although originally good and well educated.”
Although, Machiavelli does warn in his writings, that when comparing the people’s nature to the prince’s, on page 262 of the same text, he states “…for both alike are liable to err when they are without control.” I think we all would agree that this is true and easy enough to understand. In keeping with Machiavelli’s theory that all men have a drive to possess as much as possible, it stands to reason that both people and princes must be constrained by laws from using nefarious means in pursuit of obtaining possessions. But, Machiavelli does make the distinction between the levels of the grievous actions taken by the people and the prince. At the top of page 263 in the Discourses, he includes, “For a people that governs and is well regulated by laws will be stable, prudent, and grateful, as much so, and even more, according to my opinion, than a prince, although he be esteemed wise; and, on the other hand, a prince, freed from restraints of the law, will be more ungrateful, inconstant and imprudent than a people similarly situated.” Further down the same page Machiavelli states again, “I say, that the people more prudent and stable, and have better judgment than a prince…” Again, on the next page, page 264, he weighs faults and attributes of the people against those of a prince and writes, “…we shall find the people vastly superior in all that is good and glorious.”
Machiavelli even goes so far as comparing those actions of a prince that is constrained by laws to those of a people that aren’t. Reading onto page 265, we find him stating, “…we shall find more virtue in the people than in the prince.” And when neither are constrained by laws, Machiavelli adds “…we shall see the people are guilty of fewer excesses than the prince, and that the errors of the people are of less importance, and therefore more easily remedied.”
Throughout this chapter Machiavelli contrasts the virtues of the people to that of the prince and in each instance he acknowledges that the people are more prudent, are more competent evaluators of good and evil, make better choices, make greater amounts of progress in the minimal amount of time and generally do less harm to the state, (Either through the people’s limited capability or their respect for the laws.) than a prince. Which, as I stated earlier, I think is the reason for his writing of these books. He knew from history, which type of governments were most effective and those traits that made them effective. But, he also knew that a government formed of the people and regulated by laws was vastly superior to that of a prince.
So, in my opinion, yes, Machiavelli's "The Prince" describes techniques useful in governing as a tyrant, but also describes the techniques essential in forming and maintaining a successful republic. It's as if Julia Child wrote a cook book that not only describes how to make a the worlds best apple pie, but how to make the worlds worst apple pie.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Obama "S"care
Well, it passed and was signed. We can only hope a court overturns the "Obama Health Care" bill before it sinks this nation into a bottomless pit of run away federal spending.
This video is a sign of things to come if we allow the health care to bill stand.
Enjoy and try not to puke, then watch it again. (You know you well.)
This video is a sign of things to come if we allow the health care to bill stand.
Enjoy and try not to puke, then watch it again. (You know you well.)
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
The Book of Eli
I broke a promise to myself this weekend. It’s getting to be a habit with me. I promised myself I wouldn’t pay to see any Hollywood produced movies in the movie theater. I’m just so sick of the “Leftist” “America is bad” ”Belief in God is for the mentally insane” story lines. But, this weekend my wife and daughter begged to go see “The Book of Eli” starring Denzel Washington. You know, Dr. Philip Chandler, from “St. Elsewhere.” I had read some favorable reviews of “The Book of Eli” and decided to tag along with my wife and daughter. After all where else can I gorge myself with a 5 pound box of Dots and not have people stare at me or feel bad about it.
So, here’s the premise of the story line:
1. Denzel’s character Eli, is on a mission from God to deliver a book, well, The Book. He doesn’t know to who or where, but knows he must move West. So, for 30 years he’s been walking West and hacking-up anyone that gets in his way.
2. Gary Oldman plays the evil “Carneigie“ who rules a town full of killers. His main quest is to find a copy of “The Book” that Eli just happens to have as he strolls through Carnegie’s town. Carneigie is older and knows the power he could weald over people if he had “The Book.” He could make Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson and Jim Jones look like amateurs.
3. The scenes of the movie take place in a “post appoctoliptic’ world that was destroyed 30 or so years ago evidently in a war caused by ‘The Book.”
4. After the war, all copies of “The Book” were destroyed because of its danger.
This movie had great actors, a great story line and I absolutely loved how it was filmed. Oh, and my box of Dots was wonderful. But, there were so glaring holes in the premise.
1. 30 years of walking? Really? 30 years? Even with a bad limp he could have walked from the East Coast to the West Coast in a couple of months. Didn’t fur trappers do it all the time a hundred and fifty years ago?
2. Why did Carneigie wait 30 years for a copy of “The Book?” Why didn’t he do like those before him have done, write your own book.
Look, all I’m saying, is, take a pen, some paper and start writing whatever pops into your head no matter how wacky the ideas are. Just like David Koresh, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, Rev. Sun Myung Moon, L. Ron Hubbard or the leader of any communist/socialist country. I also understand Barack Obama is into writing.
Just make something up, some people will believe it. The ones that don’t believe it, well, you can follow the above list of people and, lock them in compound, cut their heads off, take everything they own, take everyone they love and sue them in court after taking everything they own.
I mean, no conniving despot worth a grain of salt would wait 30 years for a book. Despots are people of action, they, “don’t need no stinking book” to rape, plunder, not bathe and chew with their mouths open (a true sign of a despot). They’re despots, they excel at those conniving activities. That in its self blew the whole movie for me. Okay, that and the 30 year cross country meanderings of Eli. Did he get side tracked? Did he drop in on relatives in San Antonio and stay for dinner?
Although, I must admit, he did beat Moses by 10 years.
Like I wrote at the beginning, I enjoyed the movie. It’s a great story with great action and a great ending. But, as usual the writers, producers, and directors took a great story and managed to screw it up just enough to ruin.
All it needed were some blue, 15 foot tall characters and my entire box of Dots would have ended up on the floor.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Che Guevara Interview
Here's the first in a series of interviews with some of history's biggest idiots.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
