[Politics] It's back! The State Formed By Force
Earlier, I discussed the formation of the state by social contract. Perhaps the greatest weakness to social contract theory is that no such state exists as was created by those means. In fact all states exist by the same means - the aggregation of force in the body of officials that govern them. Force, in this sense, shall be taken to mean the ability to engage in violence, even if violence is never used nevertheless it shall be considered force if it could be assumed to be the means by which authority would finally be upheld.
The question then, since no state is ever formed by a mutual consent of the governed, and because persons born into a state cannot be said to have chosen the state into which they were born and live, is how such a state can justify its (presumeably impositional) existence morally and politically such that it may be entitled to a reason to exist.
The answer to this question opens the gateway to some alternative forms of government which could be morally and politically acceptable even if they are conceptually incorrect.
At it's core the social contract theory is the most excellent device we have at determining what the ideal government would look like, how it would form, and how it would conduct its business. However, to put this theory into practice is laughably impossible at best. It is therefore incorrect to attempt to use the Social Contract Theory as a means by which to bring about new government. Instead, we use the social contract theory and it's resulting conclusions as a metric against which an existing government's behavior is to be tested.
Though philosophers may often wander far from this principle, what matters in politics - ultimately - is the people whose lives are effected by the descisions made in government. The ethical considerations of what powers a senator should have and what powers a justice should have, &C are merely academic next to the end result of government. Ideally, government runs, and people's lives are peaceful, prosperous, and fulfilling. So long as the product produced by government is satisfactorily approximating the ideal, and is being produced efficiently and reliably, I see no reason why the exact mechanics of that production should be of any concern - except where their reliability is questionable or the approximation of the ideal may be a fluke. To this end, we often shy away from dictatorships. I maintain, however, that if a 'benevolent dictator' actually existed, there would be nothing wrong with this dictatorship, other than the questionable process by which the product was being provided. Government's raison d'etre, however, is to serve the people. If a dictator is serving the people in the manner proscribed by the social contract, who are we to say that the excellent public service being provided is somehow morally or politically incorrect? Morally, the people are being served in accordance with their wishes, and politically the government is stable and benign.
The problem with dictatorships is not the concept of the dictatorship, but rather their historically poor performance at delivering the product we want from them in an efficient manner. (If at all.) Simiarly, the problem with cousins inbreeding is not the act itself, but rather the genetic malformation that results. These governments are judged to be poor because of what they produce, and how far it is from the requirements of government laid out in the social contract. We have found, through experimentation, that representative democracies tend to do the best job at limiting nepotism and abuse of power (though both still occur even there) and provide the most saftey against a government growing beligerent. (Though not total safety.)
Given this fact, even a state that comes about by force of arms can be a moral and politically correct state - so long as the actions and models it undertakes are approximate of the social contract's ideal performance, and that force is not used to impose an order that is contrary thereto. The degree to which a government, any government adheres to these principles is the degree to which that government is then correct.
While this difference may seem academic, it does change the foreign policy stance of the USA if it accepts this distinction. We now would have cause to be alarmed by Iran's behavior, not because it's an Islamist Theocracy, but because it's a beligerent state bent on causing havoc and damaging our interests. We can now fault Iran for specific, incorrect behaviors rather than blanketly accusing all Islamist Theocracies of being evil and corrupt. What a difference this is! Instead of being the enemy of Shariaism, we are now just the enemy of beligerent aggressor nations who give us a cause to be cranky with them. To be certain, many fundamentalist muslims will still have a beef with us as being 'enemies of Islam' but this new dialogue might prevent moderates from siding with them out of fear. (I will discuss more of this next week, when I cover the 'Militarized Pacifism' foreign policy.)
Emotionally charged, irrational rhetoric is a primary staple of politics today. It gets the votes and gets people excited and motivates them to actions - but it is extremely poor at achieving the ideal results as laid down in the social contract. Cool, rational thought and dialogue achieve these results far more often - but are presently ridiculed and persecuted whenever they occur in the political conversations of our time. People who are logical in word and deed are ostracised by their peers - perhaps because of the powerful sway their arguments hold over blanket statements like, "Islam wants to destroy freedom for everyone and cast the world back into the dark ages." (A quote from one of my own peers after we discussed the Israeli/Hezbollah conflict. Unsurprisingly he's an avid Bush supporter and thinks we should bomb most of the Middle East back into the stone age.)
The problem with this rhetoric is the hypocrisy contained within it. Israel, for example, is a theocratic state. We don't have a problem with them, though. But our problem with Iran is that it's a theocracy. Go ahead and roll that one around in your mind a bit.
Essentially, the theocraticness of a state is not the issue. How that state behaves is what is at issue. Similarly, that a state is formed from violence is not at issue, how that government works to uphold the requirements of the social contract is what is at issue. So long as a government, or country, behaves in the manner which rational thought and the social contract say that they should - they may be considered to be morally and politically correct regardless of the means by which they accomplish this product. The purpose of government is a product, and so it may use the ends to justify the means - so long as those means don't then violate the ends itself. (You can't say persecution of a minority is bringing about freedom for everyone, for example.)
Next week we go to foreign policy, social contract style. We examine the morally correct foreign policy that still provides for maximum permissable security. I call it "Militarized Pacifism." The United States' "Second Strike" policy was very close to MP, but there are some key differences I will examine.
As always, comments, thoughts, counterarguments, and suggestions for future topics are readily welcomed.
The question then, since no state is ever formed by a mutual consent of the governed, and because persons born into a state cannot be said to have chosen the state into which they were born and live, is how such a state can justify its (presumeably impositional) existence morally and politically such that it may be entitled to a reason to exist.
The answer to this question opens the gateway to some alternative forms of government which could be morally and politically acceptable even if they are conceptually incorrect.
At it's core the social contract theory is the most excellent device we have at determining what the ideal government would look like, how it would form, and how it would conduct its business. However, to put this theory into practice is laughably impossible at best. It is therefore incorrect to attempt to use the Social Contract Theory as a means by which to bring about new government. Instead, we use the social contract theory and it's resulting conclusions as a metric against which an existing government's behavior is to be tested.
Though philosophers may often wander far from this principle, what matters in politics - ultimately - is the people whose lives are effected by the descisions made in government. The ethical considerations of what powers a senator should have and what powers a justice should have, &C are merely academic next to the end result of government. Ideally, government runs, and people's lives are peaceful, prosperous, and fulfilling. So long as the product produced by government is satisfactorily approximating the ideal, and is being produced efficiently and reliably, I see no reason why the exact mechanics of that production should be of any concern - except where their reliability is questionable or the approximation of the ideal may be a fluke. To this end, we often shy away from dictatorships. I maintain, however, that if a 'benevolent dictator' actually existed, there would be nothing wrong with this dictatorship, other than the questionable process by which the product was being provided. Government's raison d'etre, however, is to serve the people. If a dictator is serving the people in the manner proscribed by the social contract, who are we to say that the excellent public service being provided is somehow morally or politically incorrect? Morally, the people are being served in accordance with their wishes, and politically the government is stable and benign.
The problem with dictatorships is not the concept of the dictatorship, but rather their historically poor performance at delivering the product we want from them in an efficient manner. (If at all.) Simiarly, the problem with cousins inbreeding is not the act itself, but rather the genetic malformation that results. These governments are judged to be poor because of what they produce, and how far it is from the requirements of government laid out in the social contract. We have found, through experimentation, that representative democracies tend to do the best job at limiting nepotism and abuse of power (though both still occur even there) and provide the most saftey against a government growing beligerent. (Though not total safety.)
Given this fact, even a state that comes about by force of arms can be a moral and politically correct state - so long as the actions and models it undertakes are approximate of the social contract's ideal performance, and that force is not used to impose an order that is contrary thereto. The degree to which a government, any government adheres to these principles is the degree to which that government is then correct.
While this difference may seem academic, it does change the foreign policy stance of the USA if it accepts this distinction. We now would have cause to be alarmed by Iran's behavior, not because it's an Islamist Theocracy, but because it's a beligerent state bent on causing havoc and damaging our interests. We can now fault Iran for specific, incorrect behaviors rather than blanketly accusing all Islamist Theocracies of being evil and corrupt. What a difference this is! Instead of being the enemy of Shariaism, we are now just the enemy of beligerent aggressor nations who give us a cause to be cranky with them. To be certain, many fundamentalist muslims will still have a beef with us as being 'enemies of Islam' but this new dialogue might prevent moderates from siding with them out of fear. (I will discuss more of this next week, when I cover the 'Militarized Pacifism' foreign policy.)
Emotionally charged, irrational rhetoric is a primary staple of politics today. It gets the votes and gets people excited and motivates them to actions - but it is extremely poor at achieving the ideal results as laid down in the social contract. Cool, rational thought and dialogue achieve these results far more often - but are presently ridiculed and persecuted whenever they occur in the political conversations of our time. People who are logical in word and deed are ostracised by their peers - perhaps because of the powerful sway their arguments hold over blanket statements like, "Islam wants to destroy freedom for everyone and cast the world back into the dark ages." (A quote from one of my own peers after we discussed the Israeli/Hezbollah conflict. Unsurprisingly he's an avid Bush supporter and thinks we should bomb most of the Middle East back into the stone age.)
The problem with this rhetoric is the hypocrisy contained within it. Israel, for example, is a theocratic state. We don't have a problem with them, though. But our problem with Iran is that it's a theocracy. Go ahead and roll that one around in your mind a bit.
Essentially, the theocraticness of a state is not the issue. How that state behaves is what is at issue. Similarly, that a state is formed from violence is not at issue, how that government works to uphold the requirements of the social contract is what is at issue. So long as a government, or country, behaves in the manner which rational thought and the social contract say that they should - they may be considered to be morally and politically correct regardless of the means by which they accomplish this product. The purpose of government is a product, and so it may use the ends to justify the means - so long as those means don't then violate the ends itself. (You can't say persecution of a minority is bringing about freedom for everyone, for example.)
Next week we go to foreign policy, social contract style. We examine the morally correct foreign policy that still provides for maximum permissable security. I call it "Militarized Pacifism." The United States' "Second Strike" policy was very close to MP, but there are some key differences I will examine.
As always, comments, thoughts, counterarguments, and suggestions for future topics are readily welcomed.