Political Theory

Re: government works on a different level

wilderness — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 02:44:22 GMT

loftin:
....

That's really cool about the backpacking and Mayan experience. I don't have that much time tonight but I saw you had some posts in this thread and I definitely want to come back to what you wrote. I also would love to hear about this experience of yours as I think part of the purpose of this thread to not get stuck in the fear or initiated coercion but to contrast that with what is beautiful in life to help provide a wider context to what we are trying to express in this thread. I hope I get some time soon to come back to these posts of yours.

thanks loftin

Re: government works on a different level

wilderness — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 02:39:49 GMT

filc:
wilderness:
Does that seem to fit into the discussion here?

It makes perfect sense. So Government has established itself primarily in the lower two levels. Maybe even attempted to conflate the two. For example "Health Care" is now apparently some kind of need, just as important as access to oxygen.

yes, maybe I'm wrong, but I also thought this pyramid was about once the foundation level is established, then the next can be developed further, then established, then next level, etc.... So to focus on the lower parts of that pyramid, in this context, would be a pursuit to establish the bottom to build higher levels. If the foundation levels fail, then the higher levels don't adequately develop. It seems to be a slight twist upon what we were saying, meaning, it's a good tool to explain the interpretations of what the model is useful for, but does it explain how the government achieves it's ends. Fear to establish regimentation to aggrandize the nation-state leading to mercantilism for one when it comes to economics, which I see as going hand in hand with amoral secularism, meaning, by any means necessary even initiating violence and deception if the moment is interpreted to call for it.

filc:
wilderness:
Could a politician, an individual one, move beyond those lower levels, yes in his or her personal life, but then again that's the persons personal life and it's not dealing with the job.

wilderness:
So when is the gov't going to do a job that works on a higher level?

I think he can and does. What the politician does is attempt to make a government service or good appear to be in the lower two levels. So in this way everything is a security/health issue. That way they can exploit fear with all it's potential.

But then the question would be does fear used in this way lead to the higher levels, if I remember correctly from the model, that include family love and moral awareness, etc....

filc:
I think we don't realize that many items are already on the higher level, because we've been indoctrinated into believing they are a security/safety/health issue. Take socialized education for example.

I think I see what you mean here. I'm willing to hash this out, which is why it took me some time to come back to this as I've been thinking, but if you mean that there are higher levels, which I would maintain are in the individuals no matter what sector of society they operate within so including politicians, if they are partaking in family, contemplation, etc...., then yes I agree. But the question, I think, is what kind of job does the government perform and that includes how it implements that job, which is by threat of force and persuasion/rhetoric is propaganda in the government sphere for appearance purposes because within the gov't there is a hierarchy. How much that hierarchy comes close in range to military regimentation is a good question. One known example of how much of a order and obey system is within the U.S. gov't (the E.U. is more military in nature I would say as the appearance of public choice has nearly been completely abolished) is what Rep. Sherman said on the House floor during the supposed TARP debates during the September 2008 economic crash. He said some people were fear-mongering there would be marshal law in the streets if the legislation would not pass. That's about as close as it gets to exposed military type regimentation. If you haven't heard about that I might be able to find the youtube on that as it was circulating a lot during that time.

filc:
wilderness:
I would doubt a politician likes to be questioned.

But when questioned they always resort to fear tactics to justify themselves. For example when I questioned Congressman McDermott about capntax his response to me was a non economical/ non environmental response and totally an emotional response. In an indirect way implying that I'm insensitive and that if more people don't start caring we will all be harmed. Therefore we should remain in this perpetual state of fear.

yes. that's exactly what we are discussing. excellent point.

filc:
And on a side note, it is interesting how government has entrenched itself in the family section. Even most Christian's now days believe that marriage is sanctified by the state. The have allowed the State to supersede their own God.

The U.S. gov't politicians and those that sympathize with them also plead more moral legislation to force ethics on society from time to time. Much of it seems more rhetoric than anything, I don't know of any strictly ethical legislation that has no ties to some kind of national security or domestic framework issue, but the idea of the U.S. being a strictly Christian valued gov't is explicitly advocated every now and then. Both parties haggle of that issue to win the hearts of those in society that are spiritually inclined.

Re: government works on a different level

loftin — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 02:28:21 GMT

wilderness:

There's definitely an appeal to the focus of a persons time and energy put into this:

That is beautiful. I hiked into some Mayan ruins at El Mirador (border of Guatemala and Mexico) and the guide said that these creatures are extremely difficult to find and observe in the wild. It's a great depiction of the Quetzal.

Re: government works on a different level

loftin — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 02:17:15 GMT

Sorry, forgot the references (most of that was not my own - I'm not that smart...). Here they are:

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/134

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/88/34-40#34

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/88/22-24#22

Re: government works on a different level

loftin — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 02:13:54 GMT

Here's (what I would consider) a sensible starting point for a balanced notion of good government, expressed in the form of a set of basic beliefs regarding it.

1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

3 We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.

4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

5 We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

6 We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men show respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker.

7 We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.

8 We believe that the commission of crime should be punished according to the nature of the offense; that murder, treason, robbery, theft, and the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men, by the laws of that government in which the offense is committed; and for the public peace and tranquility all men should step forward and use their ability in bringing offenders against good laws to punishment.

9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

11 We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.

12 We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth...

From a practical perspective, preaching the gospel addresses the need for a good citizenry. While the term "gospel" does have a specific meaning to me, it can be thought of generally (if one is more comfortable with that) as engaging others in conversations regarding principles one feels are worthwhile.

Regarding the importance of laws, it seems that the quality of our lives depends to some degree on the laws that we are willing - as a group - to espouse. Here are some interesting verses on this topic (law is a general principle that has meaning beyond civil laws - it involves the laws of physics, so-called spiritual laws, etc.):

34 And again, verily I say unto you, that which is governed by law is also preserved by law and perfected and sanctified by the same.

35 That which breaketh a law, and abideth not by law, but seeketh to become a law unto itself, and willeth to abide in sin, and altogether abideth in sin, cannot be sanctified by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment. Therefore, they must remain filthy still.

36 All kingdoms have a law given;

37 And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom.

38 And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions.

39 All beings who abide not in those conditions are not justified.

40 For intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth; virtue loveth virtue; light cleaveth unto light; mercy hath compassion on mercy and claimeth her own; justice continueth its course and claimeth its own; judgment goeth before the face of him who sitteth upon the throne and governeth and executeth all things.

verses 22-4 are illustrative of the connection between what we can achieve as a group and individually and the level of law that we are willing to accept

Re: government works on a different level

loftin — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 23:52:19 GMT

loftin:

It is my understanding that this lack of public verifiability is actually an important part of our condition - I mean that I believe that our circumstances are that way by construction that ultimately has to do with the purpose of life.

Here's an excerpt of an email I sent a couple of years back to someone on this same topic.

The beautiful thing (from my perspective and abstracting from practical matters) is that this lack of public verifiability of spiritual things is actually a necessary condition for diametrically opposed worldviews. On the one hand are worldviews that assert that spiritual things are largely irrelevant – because they don't exist. On the other hand is the worldview that claims that spiritual things are of primary relevance in this estate because they constitute the primary dimension in which we demonstrate our fitness for greater opportunities in [a future state]. Non-verifiability of spiritual experiences (and therefore spiritual truth generally) is implied in each case: in one case because they don’t exist, and in the other because indiscriminate (i.e. public) verifiability would largely destroy the purpose of this mortal experience by limiting our ability to choose what to believe and consequently how to act towards ourselves and towards one another. Now, because this condition (no public verifiability of what’s spiritual) is necessary for both of those worldviews, it is uninformative regarding which one actually obtains (i.e. it cannot be legitimately used to eliminate one or the other from the set of viable explanations of what we observe regarding public verifiability) - and this is precisely as it should be. This means that a priori assignment of spiritual matters to the domain of irrelevance without honest and thorough experimentation is ultimately not only unscientific (why not follow the gospel invitations [e.g. explicitly provided in Alma 32 or by the missionaries] to carry out the experiments at the personal level and see for oneself?) but also somewhat disingenuous it seems, from a purely conceptual standpoint.[3]

...

Perhaps not surprisingly, a similar situation (involving extremes) arises where the principle of natural selection is concerned: there are indeed different – in some ways even diametrically opposed - "selection" criteria (e.g. the “usual” one exhibited in the animal kingdom, and the one suggested in DC121, the last third of 2NE26, and elsewhere in the scriptures); but how very different are their corresponding outcomes for the behavior and the happiness of both the individual and the group! Is it any wonder that we learn that sociality will be "there" like it is "here"? We will have each chosen our reality in some senses - including the kinds of associations we'll be comfortable in: telestial, terrestrial, or celestial. I suspect that some may be taken in their own craftiness on this one - after the manner described by DC121:12. What a terrible surprise it may end up being for some to find that the same principle they used to justify becoming selfish/egocentric individuals in [mortality] has become the operative principle by which they are deemed unfit for greater opportunities and influence ... in the hereafter (DC 121). After the environmental phase-transition precipitated by mortal death, it may become absolutely clear that the kinds of character traits advantageous for mortal-physical survival may in many cases stand in direct conflict with those required to rule in glory and dominion – and “without compulsory means”! It appears to be the case that great power and selfishness or capriciousness are fundamentally incompatible, or at least unsustainable in the long run – perhaps due to the existence and agency of uncountably many other intelligences (who could “gang up”) or to the tendency for self-deception that seems to accompany selfishness.[4] Shadows of just such principles show up throughout the histories of past civilizations (in and out of the scriptures), but without much notice by a world obsessed with the next episode of “Friends” or “Seinfeld” (or whatever other false gods we choose to worship/emulate).

[2] Distinguishing between the two is useful because it is standard practice in the world, even if it turns out that the two kinds of truth are more similar than most people are willing to grant. For example, the restored gospel suggests (e.g. Alma 32) that experimentation – including exercising faith, patience, and diligence along the way – is just as necessary for learning spiritual as for "scientific" truths, even if verification of those experiments is necessarily individual – as opposed to public – in nature. Likewise, Joseph Smith’s description of the process of revelation has a similar experimental/inductive flavor.

[3] To cut some well-intentioned critics some slack, they generally operate without any exposure to the revelatory updates of recent centuries – including expanded (though always geared at developing the spiritual matrix that is most important) descriptions of the “beginning” of this world, and explicit recognition of infinitely many others. Perhaps as a consequence of this and of confusing spiritual truth with historical religions, some people I’ve met seem to accept evolutionary artifacts as prima facie evidence against spiritual things. But in reality all claimed inconsistencies between the two (the actual artifacts – not the theories – and faith) are largely contrived.

[4] Knowledge of all types accumulates more slowly for self-deceivers I would guess; and there is a way in which knowledge is power (as the saying goes). Besides, Godel showed with his incompleteness theorem that the subset of truth accessible by rational/empirical processes may ultimately be quite limited, leaving room for that other epistemological pillar: revelation of truth from a source that knows what rational process cannot access.

Re: government works on a different level

loftin — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:17:22 GMT

Aster_Lacnala:
.

Personally, I don't think any system, anarchy or government, will work, no matter who is in power. The problem isn't the system, it is the people.

Here's (below) an interesting system of authority that I happen to believe in that deals with what Lacnala is getting at. It does require omniscience and omnipotence to exist but since I believe in the existence of beings with those characteristics, this is not a problem from my perspective. I guess that it probably would be, however, for many of the people in this forum.

34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?

35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

...

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

(ref. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/121/34-42#34)

Anyways, I think I understand what Lacnala is getting at: there is a fundamental deficiency in human nature that tends towards the dissolution of (earthly) governments. That doesn't mean we should give up hope or stop trying to accomplish good things - it doesn't excuse an attitude of apathy towards seeking to make progress in matters of government or science. It's just a recognition that ultimately progress in those areas is dependent on the inner states of existing individuals. Since effective "rights" or effective laws of government ultimately depend (as Jackson LaRose points out in another thread) on group dynamics (what we are willing to enforce as a group - whether we let the "big" guy take unjust advantage of the "small" guy), there is no form of social organization (or government) that can guarantee good outcomes over the long run. What this does suggest is that there is value in promoting personal goodness at the individual level just as there is value in seeking to identify more general principles of human organization or government.

And of course the fact that governments ultimately cannot escape the aggregated (or collective) conditions of their constituent citizenry, by no means implies that some forms of government are not more likely to produce good results than others. It just means that ultimately governments (systems of laws) cannot escape the fact that they are implicitly inherently tied to the group dynamic. Laws are only effective when the group treats them as such by choosing to comply. (Anyone who has lived in a 3rd world country for a significant period of time can attest to this fact.) Here's http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/29 an interesting discussion of this idea in the context of a pre-colombian civilization here in the "new world", where a just king ultimately changes the form of government to a representative one and explains why such a change can't guarantee the civilization's success (ultimately this one collapsed - several centuries later, around 400 AD) even though representative forms of government do generally speaking(i.e. over a broader range of underlying conditions) represent an improvement over monarchical forms of government. The reference is admittedly religious in nature; so those who find that kind of thing offensive will probably not be interested.

As for myself, I don't think there is a person on the planet that has ever lived anything other than a "religious" life, since no one (perhaps not one even in all the history of mankind) lives strictly according to logical deductions based on known facts. Besides the fact that the human brain is not programmed to work like a computer (strictly confining itself to logical deductions), we all "fill in" the (huge) gaps in our understanding of the world with things that are not known (with certainty and in the collective sense) to be true. Religion in its most general sense is acting on beliefs that are not provable - or at least are not generally susceptible of unconditional publicly-verifiable demonstration; and pretty much everyone does that to one degree or another. Of course this doesn't mean that all principles or world-views are of equal value (e.g. equally "true", equally promote our happiness, etc.); it's just a recognition that there are limitations and that the practical consequence of those limitations is choice of beliefs that are not generally speaking provable. It is my understanding that this lack of public verifiability is actually an important part of our condition - I mean that I believe that our circumstances are that way by construction that ultimately has to do with the purpose of life.

Re: government works on a different level

filc — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:25:29 GMT

wilderness:
Does that seem to fit into the discussion here?

It makes perfect sense. So Government has established itself primarily in the lower two levels. Maybe even attempted to conflate the two. For example "Health Care" is now apparently some kind of need, just as important as access to oxygen.

wilderness:
Could a politician, an individual one, move beyond those lower levels, yes in his or her personal life, but then again that's the persons personal life and it's not dealing with the job.

wilderness:
So when is the gov't going to do a job that works on a higher level?

I think he can and does. What the politician does is attempt to make a government service or good appear to be in the lower two levels. So in this way everything is a security/health issue. That way they can exploit fear with all it's potential.

I think we don't realize that many items are already on the higher level, because we've been indoctrinated into believing they are a security/safety/health issue. Take socialized education for example.

wilderness:
I would doubt a politician likes to be questioned.

But when questioned they always resort to fear tactics to justify themselves. For example when I questioned Congressman McDermott about capntax his response to me was a non economical/ non environmental response and totally an emotional response. In an indirect way implying that I'm insensitive and that if more people don't start caring we will all be harmed. Therefore we should remain in this perpetual state of fear.

And on a side note, it is interesting how government has entrenched itself in the family section. Even most Christian's now days believe that marriage is sanctified by the state. The have allowed the State to supersede their own God.

Re: government works on a different level

wilderness — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 19:33:35 GMT

filc:
wilderness:
I would be very happy to find out about this additional information. I'm very curious.

Well in our regimentation theory we were discussing lowest common denominators, from that Hayek Quote. One of my friends introduced me to Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. Have you ever seen this and do you think it fits in without model? I think it makes perfect sense. Here's the wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_Pyramid

yes, i've seen this before. What we were talking about, this model can be applied, but I wouldn't say Maslow's Pyramid is solely what we were discussing. But it can be used to help provide insight into our discussion. For instance, politicians are operating with safety and physiology and therefore don't have a foundation to develop further up. They're constantly operating on those levels so their focus can't go higher until those lower levels are solved and the gov't, ie. politicians, trying to solve those levels collectively will not happen. The gov't does dabble with family so that's the third level up. There are probably other operations of the gov't that involve higher levels, but what is happening is the application or the job task is being applied with threat of or use of coercion, so, I don't even think that's in the pyramid other than maybe under safety. The gov't is afraid of society collapsing, even maybe on a moral level (depends on the individual politician), but their job is performed by force so the build up socially and thus psychologically in the social interaction is not reason but force application.

Could a politician, an individual one, move beyond those lower levels, yes in his or her personal life, but then again that's the persons personal life and it's not dealing with the job. In the daily job task of a gov't politician (or any gov't employee for the most part that I can think of) the focus when the work papers hit the desk is a constant focus on these lower levels. So the gov't works on a different level. In gov't it's either in general, sociological factors of physiology (that level) or safety. Economics is performed on the gov't level to handle collectively these bottom two levels. So when is the gov't going to do a job that works on a higher level? That has happened, especially in the Holy Roman Empire with the Inquisition or Late Middle Ages with their form of the Inquisition, ie. Anabaptists. But again this was trying to work upon even higher levels but yet did it with threat of or use of initiating coercion, which is circular and back to square one in that the job task was performed not by reasoning but by force or threat thereof. This method of relating to others turns inward in a regimentation manner, not full out military order, though Machiavelli wasn't full military or Spartan. Yet there is a "rank and file" obedience to order found operating within the gov't. A bunch of people who get what they want and at times with threat or applied coercion, ie. legislated, executive orders, judicial rule; and how much do they get their way by approaching life this way. I would doubt a politician likes to be questioned.

Does that seem to fit into the discussion here?

Re: government works on a different level

filc — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:22:04 GMT

wilderness:
I would be very happy to find out about this additional information. I'm very curious.

Well in our regimentation theory we were discussing lowest common denominators, from that Hayek Quote. One of my friends introduced me to Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. Have you ever seen this and do you think it fits in without model? I think it makes perfect sense. Here's the wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_Pyramid

Re: government works on a different level

wilderness — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:30:31 GMT

filc:
Wilderness, I shared some of our dialogue with my local Ancap Meetup group. Every single person in my group is pretty genius so they presented some excellent additional information. As a result I have some additional stuff I'd like to share on our topic. Would you be interested?

I would be very happy to find out about this additional information. I'm very curious.

Re: government works on a different level

Jackson LaRose — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:13:15 GMT

wilderness:
Yet instantly the mind-set, so it's more psychological than logical, of government defenders is that when dealing with criminals or dangers of the world, then individuals need to deal with those dangers on that beastly level. It's a relational level with the world that doesn't operate with logical arguments because as many have probably heard: 'how is ones logic going to stop people that operate with ruthless power and always want to harm people' - so - the government works on the 'eye for an eye' level. It seems that those that defend the government concede the fact that the government is a force of illogic because it has to deal with unreasonable people on their unreasonable level. They concede the fact that the government is illogical.

I guess that begs the question:

How do you define government?

An institution that can tax? An institution one cannot voluntarily secede?

Re: government works on a different level

filc — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 07:19:48 GMT

Wilderness, I shared some of our dialogue with my local Ancap Meetup group. Every single person in my group is pretty genius so they presented some excellent additional information. As a result I have some additional stuff I'd like to share on our topic. Would you be interested?

Re: government works on a different level

wilderness — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 04:46:09 GMT

I learned a lot too. I was hoping Z would try to continue on with the discussion, but he got caught up in other ventures. That's the way the ball bounces.

This was a very enjoyable discussion. Thanks to all that contributed to help me think this through. If there's more, by all means continue. Simply wanted to let everybody know.

peace

Re: government works on a different level

filc — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 04:27:57 GMT

No, I pretty much agree. I've been able to take surprisingly a whole lot from this discussion. It's been a while since I felt like I've learned this much from a thread. A nice suprise which cannot be said for some of the other poorer quality discussions I've been involved in as of late.