EMail Doodlings - The Nature of Man and Govt - Granite Grok

EMail Doodlings – The Nature of Man and Govt

We Groksters blog – a lot.  What most of you readers never see is that we have rip roaring discussions behind the curtain as well.  There can be days when we share no emails at all and then some days, a torrent ranging to a tropical downpour.  Sometimes, entertaining as we pull no punches.  We started in on the topic above: the Nature of Man and Government.  Now, none of us are academicians nor philosophers – merely a bunch of ordinary folk that are concerned that what we once had been given by the Framers has been lost by purposeful obfuscation by a foreign notion from a foreign land: that the idea that Individuals are Sovereign, that we have banded together to protect our Rights given by our Creator is no longer current, no longer useful, and that we, in a Hobbesian / Rousseauian moment of delusion; that we should turn over that sovereignty to a group of Neo-Feudalists (aka, Progressive Socialists) for safe keeping and trust that in their obsession with Collectivism, will be willing to return those Rights after their Workers’ Utopia has been reached.

We believe that Government was formed to protect those values and Rights.  I’ve been writing about this symbiosis and dependence between these two ideas for a while. We Groksters talk about this constantly from roundabout manners.  This time, GraniteGrok returned to its roots about a word from Robert Heinlein’s classic science fiction story “Stranger in a Strange Land”: Grok. As our About page says “To understand, usually in a global sense. Connotes intimate and exhaustive knowledge” leading to “grok in fullness”.  And we started our internal email conversation (edited for some grammer, some content (to follow the train of thought better), remove some fingertip dyslexia, and some emphasis)  talking about a character from that book whose vocation was that of being  “Fair Witness”:

-Skip

Mike:

Ahhh isn’t the correct term for the exalted ones, us, Fair Witness?  Fair Witness is a fictional profession invented for the novel. A Fair Witness is an individual trained to observe events and report exactly what he or she sees and hears, making no extrapolations or assumptions. An eidetic memory is a prerequisite for the job, although this may be attainable with suitable training. In Heinlein’s society, a Fair Witness is a highly reputable source of information. By custom, a Fair Witness acting professionally, generally wearing distinctive white robes, is never addressed directly, and is never acknowledged by anyone present.

I think we come close, apart from that bit about no extrapolations or assumptions   😉

Skip:

Nope.

Fair Witnesses could ONLY report what they see. If I remember right, when the Fair Witness was asked “What color is the house over there?”, the answer was along the lines of “the side of the house facing us is white”.

Trust me, that is not what we do as bloggers. If that is all we did, well, we’d be Reporters (well, the traditional types that actually just reported what happened instead of the running opinions we get as news today). Heck, not even Reporters are reporters any more (Instapundit: they are Democrat operatives with bylines).

Mike:

Aha – We are your fire breathing, hard charging, Democrat stomping, UNFAIR witnesses!

Susan:

Waiting is.

Mike:

Skip, Team,

As some of you may know, we had John Bush and Cat Bleish staying with us this weekend, and we screened two episodes of his nascent documentary series, “Sovereign Living” about being as independent of the government and corporate world as possible.  If you think of Anarchists, most of you think of the long haired troublemakers of the 60’s, who want to break down the current order, but don’t quite know what happens afterwards.

John and Cat are the nice anarchists next door, who simply want to live their lives with as little interaction with government as possible. John has very good ideas about how civil society can be structured without government coercion, using a mixture of cooperation and capitalism to provide all needed services.  Most of us, I suspect, think that very small government, tasked with helping us protect life, liberty, and property (not taking those responsibilities from us) is the way to go.

I propose a debate: on the Grok, on GrokTalk by phone, and on John’s radio show, over those ideas, and let each side make its case.  For example, I challenge John to show how diplomacy and defense of a larger set of cooperating units, whether they be towns or states, can be done without at least a minimal and carefully circumscribed government. John will challenge us by asking why we need ANY government coercion, and its attendant costs, when we have a well armed and civil society to defend our families, our neighborhoods, and ultimately, our country, from marauders. And there’s much more that can be said.

  • Are we on?
  • Who will argue for the evil necessity of a limited government, and describe how we will restrain it?
  • Who will argue for the purest forms of capitalism, cooperation, and self-defense in an armed and polite society with NO central government? (Tim, Tom…..?)

Skip:

I think this is a SPLENDID idea.

And I will take the role of the Conservative that declares that a limited Government is a most necessary thing, given the evil that lurks in the heart of Man.

Note: we will soon have our new phone lines in for GrokTALK! podcast – this WILL be something that we will do!

Steve:

I don’t debate but I like all the stuff he favors. As little government as possible works for me. My only objection to any of the neo-anarchist stuff is that it presumes things about human nature that are no less daft than that assumed by utopian leftists in their pursuit of the peoples ‘paradise.’

Tim (Note: Tim has left the ‘Grok but it doesn’t mean that his words are any less appreciated):

Rue, and here is what uber-capitalist hero Ludwig von Mises had to say about anarchists and anarchism (toss these little bons mots out and watch the anarchists go ballistic):

  • Society cannot do without a social apparatus of coercion and compulsion, i.e. without state and government. The Anti-Capitalist Mentality, p. 90.
  • There are people who call government an evil, although a necessary evil. However, what is needed in order to attain a definite end must not be called an evil … Government may even be called the most beneficial of all earthly institutions as without it no peaceful human cooperation, no civilization and no moral life would be possible. Economic Freedom and Interventionism, p. 57.
  • Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. Liberalism, pp. 36-7.
  • Liberalism [in the European sense-the philosophy of free markets and limited government] differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists… Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state. Omnipotent Government, p. 48
  • [Anarchists are] shallow-minded, dull, [and suffer from] illusions and self-deception. The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science, pp. 98-9.

Mike:

Heh!

We could have a great debate right here!  I could think of a few things, too – common laws of basic morality and contract that would hold up over a wide area – who agrees them if there are no representatives, parliaments, or courts??  Weights, measures, and values, although the former would probably best be done on the metric system, and the latter is the free market at work – I tell you how many pieces of silver or BitCoins for my used car, and we haggle.

On the other hand, or foot, has the Constitution failed, or was it flawed? Where we agree with everything in it, or not, it is built on an astute knowledge of human nature, and (I believe) it is an honest attempt to constrain said human nature.  Some anarchists believe that the Constitution was designed to create an all-powerful state, and had all the machinery in place to make it so.

I believe that perfect decentralization across a vast continent is doomed to fail – if one town or community in 100 is inhabited by Ghengis Khan and his buddies, or even by Big Sis and her armed agents, then it will take a degree of organization beyond armed citizens to deter them. On a bigger scale, who manages the air defenses, missiles, and nukes? (Because the bad guys will have them)

Or as Hobbes put it, life with no government at all will be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. (The natural state of mankind pertaining before a central government is formed.)

Tim:

I think anarchism is just plain silly. It is espoused by children who do not understand what human beings are capable of; if you’ve never been kicked around, you don’t really have an inkling. To be fair to them, they say that we’re the “unrealistic” ones, because no government in the history of the world has ever been prevented from growing and growing, eventually getting out of control, and eventually becoming a tyranny. Exhibit #1: The United States of America, “in process.”

My current thinking is that a limited franchise and “limited participation” is probably an important part of the answer. After all, the founding fathers generally agreed, and the states generally allowed, only white males over age 21 who were landowners and taxpayers. I’m willing to dispense with the requirement that all voters be white…but think the rest of the requirements were…ahem!—pretty good!

Mike:

But Sir, THirr! Aren’t you advocating a sort of poll tax?? Raaacist!

In terms of franchise, I basically agree with you, but the trick, as in anything, is the balance – what if, the property owners acted like today’s Liberals and enacted laws that “pulled up the ladder after them“? E.G.,  Democrats and the racist Davis-Bacon laws, minimum wage laws, and other devices intended to suppress black employment and advancement, while pretending to help them?

The balance – referred to in my “too much democracy” piece – is to have both the people and property owners represented. In England, it was landowners and The Church in the House of Lords vs the representatives of the plebes in the House of Commons. In the USA, it was the State Governments in the Senate vs the mass of the people in the House. Both cases have been perverted over time, and the moderating features have been nullified as a result.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. (Attributed to George Washington)

We the people must remember history, or we shall be doomed to repeat it.

Anarchists have another flaw – they understand the problem of the “free riders” in any sort of voluntary community (they try hard not to call it a commune), but they miss the point that, in a larger society, they are the free riders, even if they only take advantages of the basic laws of contract.

Steve:

Tim, I confess I am inclined to agree that property owners did have a habit of keeping their government slimmed down. It happens to be one of the reasons I support a property tax over most any other. There is only so much New Hampshire to own, and those who do have the most to lose.

But not practical. Human nature again would interfere with who owned property and or any other collection of variables that defined such an undertaking.

Skip:

yeah, but Hobbes opined, and wanted, that citizens were mandated to consent to turn ALL of their Rights to the State without question and without discourse – the epitome of trading Liberty for Security when looking to the outside world of “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. Problem is, with all Rights taken by definition, that can also hold true within the Hobbesian State as well.

Skip:

Let us not forget the author that helped to name us – and his other book about having “skin in the game” – “Starship Troopers”.

Only Citizens could vote. You could only become a Citizen, not by being born, but by serving in the military and then ONLY if you “came out on the other side”.  Only then could you influence Government, via your vote.  Only if you were willing to lay down your life – but on a completely voluntarily basis.

Mike:

100% supportive of that idea. Would help to avoid wars started by civilians, too.

So, you own property, you earn property, or you earn your right to vote by standing up for your country – sounds good.

Tim:

Ummm…I’m not so sure about any of the suggestions regarding restricting the franchise here. I’m only sure that it should be. The problem, at one level down, is that those who lust after political power—the government class—will say and do anything to advance their personal and political agenda, i.e. ever bigger, richer, more powerful, and more intrusive government (at every level). Such people are perforce inspired liars (thus giving rise to the old saw about politicians all being liars, which isn’t quite true in all circumstances). Thus, what is needed in those who vote isn’t property owners or males or whites or veterans or the such; what is needed is a population of voters who can see through lies, and can’t be beguiled by all kinds of promises…ALL kinds of promises, for a statist will promise ANYTHING in order to advance his or her agenda of ever more power.

  • Free stuff? You got it.
  • More money for the military? You got it.
  • More police? You got it.
  • Unlimited abortion? You got it.
  • Never having to work? You got it.
  • Free citizenship for people here illegally? You got it.
  • More laws to benefit your religion of environmentalism? You got it.
  • More laws to take from others and give those gains to you? You got it.
  • Higher taxes on “the rich”? You got it.
  • More spending on all kinds of welfare? You got it.
  • Laws to enable people to engage in irresponsibility (single parenthood)? You got it.
  • Spending to benefit your dangerous sexual proclivities (AIDS)? You got it.

The fact that most of these things aren’t even within the proper boundaries of government spending and attention doesn’t make a bit of a difference to the committed statist…or his or her voters.

So what we need is a polity where people understand—and will enforce—the proper limited bounds of government. That’s the reason for and foundation of the Free State Project…and might be the future of New Hampshire. Too soon to tell how this movement is going to play out (although I’m optimistic).

So, the above is a short compendium of some of us just yakking amongst ourselves.  I have another post laying in wait of a bit older stuff (like this one) that I have to lightly massage into a bit of a stream.  No, the above is not complete, not exhaustive, nor particularly all tied together with a bow.  But it is representative of how we think, what we believe and that we actually try to live what we yak about.

More commentary from me:

And, if nothing else, it should show how much we differ from Progressives – and why we fight their foreign idea of The Collective.  We choose not to go along with the notion that each of us would necessarily become a faceless cog in their social machinery.  We all choose not to want to control others, as they do – we only with to decide for our selves knowing that there is a minimal level of government that is necessary for an orderly society to exist.  Note I said orderly – think: no fighting in the street and those things assigned to Government work and work well and limited to those basic things.  We are willing to face Reality and the downsides to keep our Freedom.

Progressives, on the other hand, believe that we ordinary schlubs are unable to take care of our selves – and so we must allow ourselves to give up that Freedom for a faux sense of such – and a blind faith that these Neo-Feudalist will only do what is right for us and not for themselves.

History however, which Conservatives look to see where we’ve been that points the way forward, proves them wrong.  Power does corrupt absolutely – and in every society that could be called Progressive / Socialist, has failed.

Choose wisely, while you still have the chance to choose.

>