“In political theory…”

It’s about a voluntary society.

Politics is about control of the state. The state, whether democratic or not, is the group in society claiming a legal monopoly of the use of force over a subject territory, including a legal monopoly on ultimate decision-making (jurisdiction) and of expropriation of others’ product (taxation).

This ethical double standard underlies it all: - “I’m allowed to hit you, but you’re not allowed to hit me”. This is reflected in the different terminology used to describe the same anti-social behaviour when the state does it, and when everyone else does it e.g.:
“murder”/”execution”
“mass murder”/”defence policy”
“robbery/extortion”/”taxation”
“counterfeiting”/”monetary policy”, “quantitative easing”
“people trafficking”/”immigration policy
etc.

The idea that, if only we could give everyone an equal say, we would have an ideal polity, is wrong in ethics and in practice as I have shown.

Democracy doesn’t mean the majority won't commit abuses. It just means they will *legalise* them. The state is intrinsically a predatory institution. Democracy will not make it less so – indeed it will make tyranny even more perfectly intrusive.

It may be that Mubarak’s wrongs would have been lesser if the people had had more input. But it may not be. The classic case is the popular election of Hitler. There’s no *principle* in democracy stopping corrupt and anti-social behaviour by governments. And many abuses when legalized, cease to be *recognized* as abuses eg corporate handouts.

In any event, the lesser evil argument is only that elective dictatorship would be a lesser evil than non-elective dictatorship. It’s like saying the law forbidding the mutilation of slaves is less evil than the law permitting it. The lesser of two evils is still evil. We should be aiming for a *non-evil* alternative.

Regular and compulsory voting – more input from the people into political decision-making - will do nothing to reduce these ethical and practical evils inherent in democracy – because the problem is political decision-making itself.

Slavery was common for years until a revolution in *ideas* abolished it. Our challenge is a similar revolution in ideas about the state.

Perhaps capitalism has run it's race. The benefits so called, are short term anyway and don't take future generations into account. Exploitation of the present is the hallmark of capitalism, but even more so in the ex USSR where pollution looms just as large as it does in the U.S. The most successful capitalist economy today is China.

Democracy provides the impression that we actually have a choice in these matters, but of course in reality, in practice, no choice actually exists.

If the future of each and every one of us was dependent upon the immediate cessation of exploitation at this very point in time, the evidence of imminent destruction of the planet irrefutable, I wonder how important the continuing existence of Rio Tinto would be, even to the current masters of that company.

My guess is that profits would suddenly become irrelevant to everyone, because there is no nearby planet that we can immigrate too in order that our species survives.

We would have to find a way to co-exist with the planet we have. Or more accurately the planet that has us. A planet with a proven far greater capacity to ensure it's own survival than we have to ensure our own.

We are the modern day dinosaurs choosing our own impending destruction democratically with opportunity through capitalism being nirvana, the motivator, the reason for thinking the way we do.

In the big picture we are not the dominant species but a pest, a threat to our own survival.
This position we willing choose despite our own apparent capacity for cognisance and logical thought.

The massive ego of mankind could well be about to take a hit, and we wouldn't see it coming, because most of attention is absorbed by commercial considerations. Our research and sciences and searches for truth now totally dominated and directed by profits and the political and social view points of the privileged few in search of greater control, power, and personal wealth.

Makes no actual sense. One day all political theorem will be finally identified for what is, self indulgent navel gazing.

I think I actually agree with you Peter Hume.

"Slavery was common for years until a revolution in *ideas* abolished it. Our challenge is a similar revolution in ideas about the state".

Are we both anti-social ?. Or are we both concerned about the future ?.

In our own way we arrive at the same conclusion.

Peter,

Turn that state/individual dichotomy around: ideally, the state has, with the support of the electorate, the prerogatives, the people's authority, to exercise power over all individuals under its sovereign control.

The state takes over all those powers that individuals may have exercised in a stateless, primitive, society. So, having delegated those powers, individuals can no longer exercise these powers themselves except with the concurrence of the state.

So yes, what the state may order, imprison, organise armed forces, print money, etc., because, through elections, it has the authority of the people to do so, but individuals may not do so, since they have no authority other than their own, which, in a democracy, they are deemed to have delegated to the state.

Imperfect as this may be, even unjust at times, how can we improve on it ?

Joe

thinker2

What is the alternative to the private ownership of the means of production? All property is owned by the state? You do realise that would be far worse for human beings as well as for the environment, don't you?

Would the alterntive produce the same amount using fewer resources? How would it be thus more productive without using the instruments of profit and loss to calculate what is more or less economical?

Or would it produce much less, so that many people now living would die or be much reduced in their living standard? If so, you're not comparing apples with apples. If people really did value death, poverty and disease above life, health and enjoyment, capitalism could save more resources too.

But they don't.

Loudmouth
Your theory takes the matter no further than Hobbes left it, and he left it without any constraint on the power of Leviathan to commit abuses against its subject population.

Both the idea that the state originates in a social contract, and the idea that the state represents the people better than they represent themselves, are demonstrably false.

(For proof see “No Social Contract” and “Unrepresentative Government”
http://economics.org.au/?s=unrepresentative+government)

Once we recognise that an idea is indefensible, the rational thing to do is *let go* of it.

“How can we improve on it?”
As with getting rid of slavery, the big problems are not the ethical or practical ones. The big problems are the *ideas*.

Many people are very unhappy with their own state, and states in general. But they have been indoctrinated (by states!) to believe the lie that states are intrinsically good and necessary.

The first improvement is the *idea* of recognizing that the state is *intrinsically* a predatory and exploitative institution. It is not caring, wise or productive. It is made for aggressive violence and, in the case of democracy, for demagoguery – getting votes by bribery, no matter how unprincipled or anti-social.

If this *truth* were as widespread and popular, as the *falsehood* that the state presumptively represents the greater good, we would be past the greatest practical difficulty.

Peter,

i take your point about Hobbes but I did try to stress the people's involvement, popular support, concurrence through the ballot box:

" ... the state has, with the support of the electorate, the prerogatives, the people's authority, to exercise power over all individuals under its sovereign control"

and I trying to envisage how to improve on that arrangement.

Actually, I think Hobbes' Leviathan is currently being dragged, trouserless, through the streets of Tunis, Cairo, Tripoli, Manama, Sana'a - even Djibouti ! Djibouti, for God's sake ! The people speak ! Fantastic !

I'd certainly agree that PRE-CAPITALIST, PRE-DEMOCRATIC (not the same thing) the state was/is as you describe:

" .... *intrinsically* a predatory and exploitative institution. It is not caring, wise or productive."

Yes indeed ! Perhaps not so much 'electoral' states - we get what we ask for, and we deserve as much. In pre-electoral states, if you like, yes, the role of the state - ancient Egypt, Athens, Rome, Delhi, Ayudhya, Sri Vijaya, Abadan, Mexico, wherever - was to tax, exploit, pillage, use forced labour and arbitrary power, in order to maintain a ruling class, pure and simple, no camouflage about it.

James C. Scott has a brilliant book just out: "The Art of Not Being Governed" precisely on this relationship, and the ability of people in very rough mountainous country in SE Asia to escape its effects.

But perhaps it's a different ball-game in democracies: we choose someone from amongst ourselves to represent us, imperfect as this may turn out, given intervening party systems. So how do we improve on this system ?

As a long-term socialist, I don't see any form of socialism employed up until now as having been any real improvement: China ? Cuba ? Zimbabwe ? God forbid. Russia ? North Korea ? Christ help us.

Joe