-
ML light posted an update 5 years, 3 months ago
Below is an argument I’ve been formulating for some time and yet I rarely have the opportunity to debate it and refine it further. So I put it forth here and welcome criticism and rebuttals with great pleasure, even those of the harshest kind, as didactic refinement is my never ceasing goal in this complicated regard. This argument is an assault upon those most sensitively inclined towards classic Liberalism, myself included, but I cannot help but stoke these thoughts with great passion and concern. Anyhow, on with the show…
America is not a Republic nor in fact have We ever been such in the classical sense. My argument stems from long before the first fruits of the Enlightenment and is based on how the word Republic was best articulated in the fragments of Cicero’s De Re Publica. The word Republic is now more commonly used in an ever fluid state that becomes quite difficult to exactly pin down so I beg your classical, or even ancient indulgences.
As I said, the word Republic (Res Publica) has become quite a malleable word over the centuries, as many definitions abound, but for modernity’s sake I think it’s now best defined as “a cause, thing, or concern for the people”. This is certainly a fine definition but it hardly speaks to what in fact a Republican Government should be.
One may argue that the Republican idea first stemmed from Plato’s Republic, which was no doubt problematic, then it was further propagated by Aristotle, and then ultimately culminated in what Cicero attempted to humbly articulate to his contemporaries as “a mixed constitution” or “a mixed regime” (i.e., a governmental structure consisting of a Monarch, Aristocracy, and Democracy). Now, instead of posting a dissertation on this nuanced topic, and leaving out many influential thinkers on said topic, I’ll simply jump straight to my closing argument and hope I’ve left enough of an appetizer to chew on.
A Democracy is the best way to achieve pluralistic participation in Governance but it will always disenfranchise part of the societal Whole and thus will always lead to a conflict. An Aristocracy is supposed to be those who’ve achieved heights of profound Merit within their society (I exclude the hereditary aspect of Merit as it’s basis of legitimacy is painfully weak), and due to the Dignity of Aristocratic Merit, such are supposed to be able to reconcile the conflict that will inevitably emerge within the Democratic process. If the Meritocracy cannot ratify the Democratic conflict of the Whole it is then up to the Monarch to objectively mediate, or better yet, “discover” the best way out of the yet unratified conflict. The Monarch’s “discovery”, or what one may even call a “synthesized historical discovery”, is achieved in the same way as a Judge is meant to “discover” the Law upon each and every Adjudication. A Judge must never “create” the Law, or every further, should also refrain from subjectively “interpreting” the Law in all cases. A Judge is to only “discover” the Law in its historical sense and strive to apply it to the acceptable standards of the whole society. As Law, in its purest sense, is a historical tradition of consenting social reconciliations. I think I’ll stop there for now and therefore submit that out of all of our worst systems of Governance that Cicero’s Republic is the best of the worst that we have.
The Giza Forum (Legacy)
Closed Archive of The Old Forum
I’ve not studied the philosophy of government, but in the debates I have heard, the one thing I usually find lacking is a consideration of human nature. In particular, it seems to me one of the key questions when trying to determine the best form of government is: What type of government will best restrain the inevitable human tendency toward selfishness, greed, and corruption? Ancient philosophers seem to take it for granted that a monarch or aristocracy will somehow, as if by magic, choose to govern in a manner that benefits the state or the people. I certainly don’t trust a monarch or aristocracy to not be completely self-serving, without some kind of compulsion built into the system of government itself. To my mind, whatever the form of government, the best restraint on the potential tyranny of the one or the few is the vote of the many.
A relevant question as it seems Nemesis is at hand.
No intention of being cryptic here. The first reference is to the Nuns of Nonnberg asking the musical question (The Sound of Music) – How do you solve a problem like Maria?
The problem of Thrasymachus? … justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger. Nemisis is not kind to those who intentionally and habitually employ violence to lessen the other. Her intervention occurs when the natural order is ignored. Is it possible that our most recent unpleasantness is the result of the combination of our acceptance of and our willingness to act from Thrasymachus’s conclusion and the corrections of Nemesis?
I have a very different view but we seem to get to the same place: “The form of government, be it Republic or Democracy we think we live under is not in fact how our government is formed.”
I don’t mean to beat the drum as I’ve mentioned it before but the Mayflower Compact was amazing to me when I read it as it is a document that was shows a perpetual government that has the right under the British King to form Constitutions as they see fit.
It might be said that we fought a revolutionary war and that would be very correct however there is controversy about where the Founding Fathers received their authority for such a document.
A major hurdle to prove is that documents like the Mayflower Compact fall out of memory but they nevertheless are legally binding while conspiracies and confederacies stealing land will never be binding under the law.
My speculation is that while the Founding Fathers did state that they derived their authority from “We, The People”, that body has never been revealed to us in fact. We simply assume that it is the men living in the colonies but another reading could make it just as accurate to say that this was in fact the British King as in, “We are not amused.” Turns of phrase like this are not silly or personal peculiarities, they are legal artifacts.
Is there any support for this idea? When looking up the Mayflower Compact I found the legacy portion in the wiki quite interesting. It refers to a speech by Calvin Coolidge basically stating that the compact was never reneged or rescinded on and still has the full force of law in 1920.
What this would mean is that the families of the Mayflower and their heirs derive special privileges from the British Crown to create governments in the US including Constitutions. They don’t necessarily control the governments directly but shape it and may have input from time to time to create peace and profit…for the Crown.
Applying this to American history really creates a new reading as to how and why our country is pushed into certain situations that do not make sense if we were living in a Republic or Democracy of our own making.
I, for one wished I were invited for a small cup of tea by the British Crown to ask these simple questions.
I believe United States government is now best defined as an oligarchy, with the ruling power openly, unashamedly, and triumphedly in the hands of big banks and private corporations. Alas, some might say it is 10,000 year story.