The Blood of Tyrants
In social contract theory, the public must give that authority it enjoys in a "state of nature" to a sovereign with the power to enforce contracts. What is widely assumed to be the "genius" of the US constitution is the "right to keep and bear arms" so that individuals keep part of their "natural" authority in case they need to rely on themselves to protect their liberty. This contradiction is playing out before us but there seems to be no rational commentary attempting to explain or understand it. Can you voluntarily surrender power for the greater good yet at the same time hold on to as much of it as you think you might need?
The recent "town halls" have brought to a boil a long simmering segment of the population who don't see the statement about "spilling the blood of tyrants" as just some rhetorical flourish and have decided to exercise their "right to bear arms", much to the consternation of the liberal public. Those of us on the Left (especially revolutionaries) have long realized the actual potential of armed uprising ( remember the Panthers) because we have seen first hand the awesome, overwhelming power of the State. What would have happened to me had I been wearing a sidearm to the FTAA protests in Miami? Revolutions don't overwhelm the State military by force any more, they do it with ideas or they don't do it at all.
These "Tea Baggers" were of course cheering the police on as they broke up anti-war/ pro-immigrant demonstrations or labor strikes because their theoretical understanding is weak and superficial but their instincts are right on, they sense the breakdown in order, they sense the social contract dissolving as prosperity and national power evaporate but they have not yet had to confront the reality of their pathetic revolver in the face of the militarized State. Egged on by demagogues and carefully selected readings of the Federalist Papers, they are crumpling John Rawls' social contract up into a little ball and proclaiming Patriotic Anarchism as the Flag of Liberty. I would imagine there was lots of the same sentiment just prior to the civil war.
posted by troutsky @ 5:41 AM
11 comments
11 Comments:
I suppose there is alot of confusion among those on the right (and left) Troutsky.
The teabaggers want to believe in the 'social conract', after all that is the foundation of conservatism (a principles agreement among gentlemen and women). But they want to maintain the sense of 'liberty' that pulls them toward an anarchistic arrangement... almost a seperatist plea forless or no government.
The liberals, on the other hand, want to guarantee the unity of the entire body vis-a vis the contract, and to provide protection for all members... trusting too much in the 'machine'.
Yet, they want engaged and caring leadership by example, seeking the genuine concern of those in position to guide.
Each in its own way wants the best of an anarchisitc model... leadership, not by force or fiat, but caring guidance and support, while giving maximum freedom to the individuals under their care.
That was the sense I was trying to convey kultur, how so much discontent is related yet separated by misconception, misperception, manipulation. To some degree I think a lot of the confusion stems from the conflicting claims of market-anarchists vs socialist anarchists.Understanding that disjunction better would help us all.I am slowly sifting through For and Against the State, edited by Sanders and Narveson but it is at the edge of my range.
Troutsky
I took a quick look at For and Against the State online. Read a bit of Narveson's 'The Anarchist's Case'. The problem that I have with such rationalist approaches to an analysis of anarchy and the limits of political/state theory, is that rationalism is grounded in the same foundations that undergrid all political philosophy. Such analysis and arguments cannot possibly overcome the very presuppositions they are trying to escape from. They are running fast forward into a brick wall, because they believe in the logic of the State... because they use the same logic.
The only anarchy that ever really existed for a prolonged period was in precivilized, preliterate, pre-rational hunter-gatherer communities of small tribes. And it was not based upon some rationalistic framework, but upon the natural accommodation of individuals to one another in a kinship based community.
We cannot continue with impunity to act like idiots. That's becoming obvious.
Yet a return to a simpler life (and a fuller one, I maintain) is blocked by the need to constantly feed the corporate engine and deny the limits of our resources.
Fight with ideas, trout? Certainly a fight that can win but pay attention to the case that the Supreme Court is being called out of resource to hear this month. The corporation is the one that is going to be doing all the talking.
We only have a voice locally and have to use it.
Lets see it will be fun to participate in a protest that excludes commies. We will not accomplish much, but at least we will be well behaved, washed and employable.
I have stated this before. Behold Comwads the only way to get revolution in America is for Commies to try and impose their warped ideas on the American people.
"Behold Comwads the only way to get revolution in America is for Commies to try and impose their warped ideas on the American people."
Actually Beakerkin, I think it is the 'smaller government conservatives' who are the ones that will initiate the revolution here. They are the one's already pushing the secessionist movements... Texas, Vermont, Alaska, etc. That will be the tipping point for revolution and a new 'civil' war in the usa. Anyway, thats my bet!!
kultur, would pre-rational have the same outcomes as irrational? Do you see history (of Man) as the record of the development of rationality? I had never thought of it that way nor had I ever accepted the term "unevolved" to explain people like Beakerkin. David Brooks used the term "swamp fevered" ( for town hall loonies) . None of these get to the real issue, manipulation.
In my reading, contractualism is the foundation of the liberal"Theory of Justice", differing with conservatism in it's defence of the State as the enforcer of such contracts.
Ducky, I agree discourse alone won't change corrupt national institutions such as "Supreme Courts" but look at how single payer advocates have riled up this insane defence of capitalism.
Beak, Thanks for making my point . Can't do it without you.
Trout
We call them villiage idiots here in Siberia! They droll alot and always have something to say.
In either case, Contractualism or Conservatism... the State is always assumed to be the enforcer of contracts, rule of law, etc... IMHO
Kultur
Once again you do not know what you are talking about. The idiots in Vermont who talk about succeeding are not Conservatives.Unlike you I have had conversations with those low IQ types who make the imbecile Troutsky seem coherent.
It will be nice to have a Commie free protest. It was great seeing Commies evicted from Union Square by Tibetans.
Obama is sinking like a rock and he tossed over a good comwad to the crowd.
When and where are the sons of Marx going to surrender their citizenship? Graeme is probably worried that he could not afford good Pot in Caracas.
Graeme is more cannabis than communist. Life is something to be done in between bong hits.
What charm you have beakerkin
Ah Beak, the Bodhisattva of Bipartisanship.
Here we are in a world that is
squandering its resources
can't find a just way to distribute its wealth
runs its political life with bread and circuses
and you are still fighting the Cold War. Why so hostile? The hour is late.
Post a Comment
<< Home