by FranG
Intro
Before we get into any discussions about the State and its just and unjust doings, let us first begin by defining the existential mandate of the State. At its root level, the State is formed by two or more persons with the goal of providing synergy in the fruits of the relationship between said persons. First and foremost, the State is and represents a voluntary contract, verbal or otherwise, between individuals. By adhering to the tenancies of the contract, the individuals obtain for themselves what they otherwise could not have obtained individually; for if not, then what would be gained by contracting?
By adhering to contractual terms, an individual sacrifices his free will to act in a given circumstance, to the the extent said action would violate the terms of the contract. In all areas concerning it, the contract serves as the rational outcome of the decision making process of an otherwise free brain.
This is what the State is: a sacrifice of personal liberty for the common good of all the members it represents.
This revelation is nothing new, and has been stated ad nauseam by various political philosophers in proposing the different forms in which a state should manifest itself. But no matter the form, the one thing they all have in common is that liberty is sacrificed for the good of the community; i.e., the other parties to the contract that is the State. It is a great thing to ask a man to sacrifice his liberty, and this he will not do lightly.
At least one of two conditions must be present for him to do so:
1) There must be something to be tangibly gained so great as to justify the restricting of liberty, and/or
2) there must be something to be intangibly gained so great as to justify the restricting of liberty.
An example of the former is the increased efficiency in the matching of producers and their products and services, to the customers and consumers of said products and services. Examples of these include food, clothing, shelter, and protection to name a few. Intangible benefits gained would be those benefits received directly by others, but yet serve to bring an individual not privy to the benefits, a vicarious joy. The classic example of this would be the joy received by the donating of money or services to charity, or parents doing things for their children for no other reason but the betterment of the children. An element of love for others exists for intangible benefits received, while for tangible benefits received the love can be categorized only as self-love.
The State can only justify its existence if it is currently benefiting all of its members. It is not enough that the State was once profitable in times past, but it must be currently profitable, or have good prospects for future gain as seen by all its members. Our two types of benefits can be summed up as practical in nature for the tangible type, and emotional in nature for the intangible type. It follows then that the State most beneficial to its members, is the State that scores high on both these scorecards. A State which is either practical or emotional, or neither practical nor emotional, is inferior to the State which is both practical and emotional. Practical bonds are shared by many, but emotional bonds will be shared by a much smaller number.
Factions
As with any congregation of people, people tend to fraternize and associate more so with those who bring an element of joy, peace, and satisfaction in their lives. In other words, people will associate more with those of whom they have a natural affinity. This sort of attachment, and bond developed between people is emotional in nature; and emotional bonds are much harder to break than those that are merely practical in nature. At a very high level, bonds are formed between people via geography, and at a low level by blood relation between people. As we descend from high to low, the bonds tend to become less practical, and more emotional in nature.
In the case of the State, all of its members exists within a geographical area, and they each share in common, at the least, that they are a part of the State. But other members may have more in common than this. For instance, two individuals may be of the same State, and also share the same racial heritage. Even greater would be two individuals who share these two, and also share similar ideas and experiences with each other. Individuals with more in common will naturally associate more with each other, and such direct personal contact strengthens an emotional connection between them.
Thus, from this we can deduce that congregations of people, as is the case for the State, tend to divide into subgroups in an effort to better suit their emotional needs. It is here where individuals begin to enter the realm of brotherly love, as opposed to merely sharing in a common cause.
Too Many Factions
As more and more subdivisions of people within a State emerge, the varying interests that serve these diverse groups become more widespread. And the State, charged with the task of maximizing the liberty of all of its members, has to work harder at satisfying each of its many different factions. The State then is forced to become more complex, and develop more and more laws to address the needs of its body as a whole. These laws will inevitably benefit some factions of people greater than others due to their particular lifestyle situations and circumstances. For example, laws restricting the imports of one industry serve to hurt the profit of that industry, while creating domestic opportunities for other industries. Another example is placing educational requirements, or the requisite of professional accolades, as a prerequisite for running for public office, or engaging in public commerce. These okays from the state usually come in the form of a license, upon which only some members of society will have. Behavioral laws, such as antidrug laws, will obviously adversely affect those whose drug of pleasure is that which the State forbids.
The criteria for legislation of a State is received from its members. And with a multitude of different factions within a State, whose varying interests often conflict, the State can do one of two things. It can either:
1) write laws favoring one faction over another, or
2) it can write laws which contradict themselves or other existing laws, in an attempt to appease the wishes of all its factions.
Choosing the first option will cause immediate dissension between factions, as the one will feel that the State is neglecting its needs. Resentment toward the State will definitely begin to foster, and resentment toward other factions is likely to foster. If the State chooses the second option, and attempts to appease all, in the short run everyone will be happy, but in the long run each group will come to see that the state solution to their concerns has been ineffective. The second option is more damaging to the State, because at least with the first it proves itself to be a practical conduit for some. And with the first, losing factions may still view the State as overall beneficial to the achievement of their happiness, via its fulfilling of ends more practical in nature.
Though the second option is more damaging to the State, too often is the choice of action taken because of its lack of transparency. The State can sweep problems under the rug, and as the lumps begin to become visible, it can play a shell game by addressing those lumps with even more contradictory laws. It is this shell game which allows a very small group of insiders to exploit these contradictory laws for their own personal advantage. When tensions within a State become great, and when the people wise up to the shell game, States reluctantly pass the discriminatory laws favoring one faction over another. Thus, the State creates a class system with discriminatory legislation, and adds yet another layer of subdivision to the already existing factions formed by the people. What ensues is ever increasing tension, as the State becomes bigger, more complex, and writes more laws; with the members of the State questioning the State's usefulness as an effective tool in the maximization of their liberties.
From this then, we can conclude that the State has an incentive to pass contradictory laws to appease all of its factions, if it can do so in stealth; and that these laws will serve to benefit only a few.
Form of government
The actual form of which the State is unveiled is, for all intents and purposes irrelevant. Whether socialist, capitalist, or monarchic, if the people as a whole support the form, then the supported form of government is good for the people in achieving their aims of liberty maximization. But as the State becomes more complex, in response to its ever increasing factions, then its initial character begins to take on new forms in response to the growing demands of its members. Some segments of society may favor a more socialistic form of government, others a more capitalistic, while others will favor the many variants in between. The more factions, the more room for disagreement among the totality of the people, and as the State writes more and more contradictory laws, the form of government ultimately becomes a mystery to the people. On paper one form may be stated, but practice will prove the piece of paper to be just that; paper with ink on it.
And thus we can see that a State that becomes complex will take on a governing style unbeknown to its members.
Continue to Part 2
0 comments:
Post a Comment