What’s the State FOR?

In the great ancient despotisms, political philosophy was a subset of metaphysics — Pharaoh is Pharaoh because his correct performance of the rituals keeps heaven and earth in balance.  In Classical times, political philosophy was a subset of ethics — the state exists to promote virtue in its citizens.  In modern times, political philosophy has been divorced from ethics, metaphysics, and everything else.  It started with Hobbes, and no one since has said it better:

[I]n the first place I put for a general inclination of all mankind a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death. And the cause of this is not always that a man hopes for a more intensive delight than he has already attained to, or that he cannot be content with a moderate power; but because he cannot assure the power and means to live well which he hath present, without the acquisition of more.

That’s it.  That’s what people are.  Nothing metaphysical there; it’s pure anthropology.  No ethics, either — maybe man shouldn’t desire power after power, but we do.  Any social arrangement that doesn’t acknowledge this brute fact about Man is doomed to fail sooner or later.

From this, Hobbes argues that it’s only the fear of shameful death which causes us to moderate — not lose — our unceasing desire for power after power.  Fear of shameful death is why we band together under a king, surrendering some of our natural rights in return for protection.  This is, of course, the social contract, and it’s the basis of all Liberal* political philosophy.

More precisely, arguing against Hobbes’s version of it is the basis of modern political philosophy.  Because Hobbes’s social contract leads to the Leviathan, the most absolute monarch that could ever be.  Hobbes’s philosophy is complex, subtle, and not always entirely coherent, but I’m not doing the old man too much injustice when I say that it boils down to: “Peace at any price.”  Hobbes was born in 1588, the year of the Armada.  He was already old by the outbreak of the English Civil Wars, and he lived to see both the Protectorate and the Restoration.  He witnessed every horror political arguments can produce — the English Civil War was, on some estimates, proportionally as devastating as World War I.  “Peace at any price” makes sense after that.

But it doesn’t make sense to an easier generation, like John Locke’s.  Locke was born in 1632, just as the troubles were gearing up, and the wars didn’t affect him much (though his father was a Parliamentarian cavalry commander in the early stages; Locke himself was in school for most of it).  The great political event of his early manhood wasn’t the Civil War, but the Restoration, when the English people actually voted to hand some of their liberties back to the King.  This was unprecedented, and Locke can be forgiven his optimism — he saw, or seemed to see, the social contract being renegotiated right in front of him.  If men desired only power after power, like Hobbes said, General Monck and the rest would’ve restarted the Civil Wars.  Instead, they peacefully handed the crown to Charles II.

From this, Locke concluded that the state’s purpose isn’t “peace at any price,” but “the protection of citizens’ life, liberty, and property.”  The social contract is broken, he argued, if the King fails in these.

Locke’s version of the social contract seemed to be confirmed when the Colonials went to war with it in 1776.  Using all previous human history as our guide, we’d expect the Patriots’ victory to be followed by a great slaughter — mass execution of Tories, communities turning on one another to settle old grievances while the swords were still drawn.  There’d be no need for a Newburgh Conspiracy, as Washington would’ve already had Congress at gunpoint.  At any other time, in any other place, King George III would’ve been swapped out for King George I.  But that didn’t happen, and since America didn’t do half-bad in the next two centuries, that seems to confirm John Locke’s version of the social contract.

But it’s wrong for all that.  American Exceptionalism is real.  Even the American Revolution’s second string were men of exceptional ability and high principle.  George Washington and (maybe) George Monck are the only two people I know who have had a real opportunity to crown themselves, and turned it down.  Locke’s version of the social contract works, but only in a rough frontier society whose minor league leaders are themselves world class.  Regression to the mean kicks in within a single generation — see the Hartford Convention for details.

Given all that, what is to be done?

Put as simply and plainly as I can: The Second Civil War lots of folks in Our Thing seem to be rooting for will be horrible beyond imagining.  It will be World War III.  What, you think the rest of the world is just going to watch it on pay-per-view?  What happens when the New Confederacy invites Vladimir Putin to help out in their struggle against Holy New England?  Vlad might turn them down — he’ll be too busy overrunning completely defenseless Europe — but the ChiComs will surely come to the aid of their fraternal socialist brothers in the People’s Republic of NorCal, slugging it out with Nuevo Nuevo Mexico.  The minute shots are fired in Washington, the Mullahs will nuke Tel Aviv.  The Korean peninsula will get reunified the hard way.  India and Pakistan will finally settle their grudge.

Civil War 2.0 is the end of the fucking world.

We need to take a long hard look at Hobbes.  Monarchy’s dead, but the fuhrerprinzip is alive and well.  Some kind of Austro-Hungarian Empire thing seems to be the way to go, with the Boss presiding over a “Congress” of all the Peoples.  It’ll be a police state, sure, but it sure beats a radioactive wasteland.  Anyone got a better idea?

 

 

 

*in both senses, Classical and SJW.  It’s one of the many unremarked ironies of SJWism that even as they’re preaching ___ supremacy (trannie, Latinx, whatever), they still somehow assume that the social contract holds.  “Fuck off and die, but leave your wallet… ‘cuz we voted!
Loading Likes...

7 thoughts on “What’s the State FOR?

  1. Recusant

    This.

    It’s almost embarrassing, all those members of the 101st Ma’s Basement Airborne Division, itching for a fight they don’t comprehend and wouldn’t last ten minutes in.

    Reply
    1. Severian

      It’d be embarrassing if it weren’t so terrifying. Even smart folks in Our Thing don’t seem to think beyond “wouldn’t it be cool to decorate a few lampposts with CNN reporters?” Whereas if you think about it for more than three seconds, you realize even a peaceful breakup of the United States — which ain’t nevah gonna hoppen, but let’s pretend — would effectively split the world between Russia and China.

      I’m ok with this — again, given that “glowing glass parking lot” is the alternative — but it horrifies me that seemingly nobody has given this a thought. My friends, I love you, I totally sympathize, but YOU HAVE NOT THOUGHT THIS THROUGH. Please think.

      Reply
      1. WOPR

        I agree it would be horrible. But, you ever get the feeling it’s like the run-up to WWI? Everyone is waiting for the one event that pushes the boulder down the hill.

        Yes, it will be a confused mess of factions getting support from different foreign governments. You know the Feds will pay any price and hire any mercenaries to stay in power. Will nukes get tossed anywhere in the US or the world? I don’t know. Maybe a handful would be used, but I wouldn’t expect a mass launch.

        I will disagree. If it goes Civil War II – The First was for Wimps, Russia and China won’t end up on top. I expect a spiraling into global chaos. China’s economy collapses and with it comes a lashing out with wars against it’s neighbors. Internal fractures will make that short-lived. Russia isn’t as strong as it looks. Europe will likely fall into its own civil war between the natives and Islam. Africa will turn into a mass grave as everything collapses there.

        New super power, Japan, if those few nukes aren’t used between Japan and China. China and the US shatter into multiple warring states. Russia remains a regional power with a reborn Ottoman Empire to the south. Europe either decays as an Islamic caliphate or struggles to rebuild after a reconquista. South America shambles along. The Middle East slides into brutal religious warfare.

        Reply
  2. Altitude Zero

    A peaceful split-up of the United States is the only hope, and it’s not nearly as unlikely as you think. Almost 40% of the US population thinks that this might be a good thing. CalExit is real. This is what we all need to be working towards. With all due respect, spreading the idea that the only alternatives are either Communist domination, or World War Three followed by some sort of Fascist totalitarian state is not either accurate or helpful in this context, IMHO.

    Reply
  3. Rod1963

    Spot on. The U.S. is keeping a lid on a lot of foreign pressure cookers by virtue of our military. But we are also creating a lot of problems during the 50 years. Having no real grand strategy except appeasing Neo-Cons and global corporations has been a disaster for us.

    Even supposing the various players behave themselves, with the U.S. cease being the world’s major importer of goods and exporter of food. All hell will break loose. First off the DTCC(look it what it does) goes off line and basically most global money transactions cease. Boom instant financial chaos across the globe. Globalization dies in a day.

    China loses it’s chief export buyer and we longer supply food to China. They also lose the U.S. as a safe haven for high ranking CCP officials who have been parking their assets and families here. That would a horrific body blow to the Chinese oligarchy, it may fragment China. The Chinese mentality is alien to me.

    South Korea goes into a massive depression.

    Western Europe goes straight to hell as it’s welfare state collapses and sends their Muslim hordes into jihad mode. What’s left of white Europe will be pissed off and not very tolerant of foreign moochers. It will be crusades 2.0 over there for decades. Putin doesn’t want the place, he just wanted their cash in exchange for oil and NG.

    The ME will pretty much stay as it is – a over populated basket case that experience major die off as food imports cease(Egypt). Same with Africa. Mass migration to the West will be off the table.

    Israel just has to sit back and watch the Muzzie states collapse without U.S. military, food and technological assistance.

    I do expect China to make a move on Africa during this time. It’s resource rich, defenseless and no one really wants anything to do with the shit hole.

    Reply
    1. Steven G. Johnson

      Okay, so what happens if we do nothing? Another Democrat gets elected, and then what?

      If we’re lucky, they don’t try to exact revenge for Trump; they just continue looting us and live the high life on the proceeds.

      Are they really likely to know when to stop?

      If not, either they win, and there’s a leftist tyranny for a generation or more … or there’s Civil War II with all the horrors you envision above.

      I think it likely that a Democrat will be elected again (eventually, if not soon) and about medium likely that they’ll push things too far.

      So wouldn’t it be better to act more vigorously now?

      I don’t mean helicopter rides. But vigorous prosecution, under emergency measures used before in this country, of everyone involved, right up to Obama and Clinton …

      … puts us right back where we were before, doesn’t it. Damn.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *