Politics: The Individual Or The Herd
SEARCH BLOG: TRIBALISM
In this year of elections, we take for granted that there are certain inalienable rights. Our Constitution guarantees them. A simple question: what guarantees the Constitution? To answer that question, you must examine the dynamics of the herd:
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2004Relationships: Rules of the Road
Humans are "herd" animals. Humans that live in isolation are less likely to survive. Herds survive by spreading the risk and sharing the resources. There are implicit "rules" of the herd. Rules allow the weak and strong to co-exist while acknowledging the strong through larger shares of the resources and protecting the weak by receiving a measure of protection from the strong. So, killing another member of the herd is prohibited except under extreme circumstances. Allowing the strong to kill the weak at will would destroy the herd. Sharing resources, albeit unequally, satisfies the strong and accommodates the weak.Politics is always about herd dynamics regardless of those who want to talk about individual rights or unions. Look at the world and you will see that nations are amalgamations of many tribes who struggle to co-exist with different versions of tribal mechanisms designed to provide a framework for individuals to co-exist. While that is difficult at best, international politics is a balancing act in which these amalgamations seek to maintain or expand their power while other amalgamations attempt the same thing.
As individuals, we presume certain "truths" about the way our amalgamation of tribes should function. "We hold these truths to be self-evident...." "Long live the King...." "لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله...."
When we are faced with truths that conflict with our own, we resolve it with compromise or conflict... depending on how strongly we adhere to our truths and how strongly we are pressed by those opposing our positions.Sometimes it is necessary to "rally the troops." Iran has its "great Satan." The U.S. had its "Evil Empire." Conflict is threatened in the hope that the opposing faction blinks first. Sometimes, no one blinks.
As individuals, we have a strong incentive to support our tribe... or who we believe represents the interests of our tribe... as long as we believe our personal interests are represented as well. Sometimes we will support those who represent some interests contrary to ours as long as they also represent our interests. So, we oppose a war, but we support the leader who promises to take care of our wants and needs despite leading us into war. Sometimes it is "the devil we know" versus the devil we don't know. We all know that leaders lie to or mislead us; we just hope their lies and deceptions are not too damaging.
FRIDAY, JANUARY 06, 2012Damn Politicians Lie To Us
Within our cultural and political framework, we have variations of interests and perceptions of truth. We seek individuals to represent us who we believe best reflect our personal interests within the amalgamation. Do we want protection and sustenance from the tribe more than individual freedom from the demands of the tribe [socialists] ... or vice versa [libertarians]?
Very few demand complete separation from the tribe... and even most of those simply want separation from the demands of the tribe, not separation from the benefits the framework provides; i.e., laws that guarantee rights.
Very few demand complete separation from the tribe... and even most of those simply want separation from the demands of the tribe, not separation from the benefits the framework provides; i.e., laws that guarantee rights.
The point of all of this is that for those who want an objective truth as the basis for their politics, they are faced with the basic dynamic that drives all politics: what's in it for me? It seems we are often left with the feeling that our choice boils down to our perception of what is the lesser of two evils.
So, again, what guarantees our Constitution? Nothing more than people... and leaders... who are willing to play by its rules. If the framework is allowed to be fluid and transitory, there is very little in it for individuals. The tribe disintegrates.
SUNDAY, JANUARY 08, 2012
Posts
From 
4 comments:
A simple question: what guarantees the Constitution?
The consent of the governed.
Look at the world and you will see that nations are amalgamations of many tribes who struggle to co-exist with different versions of tribal mechanisms designed to provide a framework for individuals to co-exist. While that is difficult at best, international politics is a balancing act in which these amalgamations seek to maintain or expand their power while other amalgamations attempt the same thing.
Your muddled thinking is showing through again. Instead of using basic principles to make your point you try to spin a narrative that would have been supported by totalitarians on both the left and the right but rejected by anyone who values liberty. Yours is the argument used by Lenin to support his brand of socialism and Hitler to support his brand of national socialism. It is the argument that was rejected by Jefferson and your founding fathers. It makes it obvious where you stand on the political spectrum.
Sometimes it is necessary to "rally the troops."
Why? History shows us that those who run the government usually resorts to lies so that they can benefit while the 'herd' suffers. They do not send out their own children to die in foreign lands. That burden usually rests on the poor, who are most vulnerable.
As usual, your logic is insufficient to hold together your argument. When it comes to power there is no herd. There are only the members of political elite who understand that government and war are a great racket that can make them rich and powerful as they are allowed to live as parasites of the masses. Such a system would not be supported by a moral and mindful individual.
As individuals, we have a strong incentive to support our tribe... or who we believe represents the interests of our tribe... as long as we believe our personal interests are represented as well.
But it is not possible for everyone's interests to be represented well. When governments limit competition and consumer choice they do not help 'the herd' but the minority that produces the products that are being protected. When the government funds a program to look after welfare recipients it takes money from those who are productive to fund that program. When government attacks Iraq it may help oil companies get better lease deals but it does not help the taxpayers that paid for the war.
The idea that all people in society have the same interests is blatantly false. As is the idea that groups have rights and that there are individuals who are capable of speaking for everyone in any particular category.
Sometimes it is "the devil we know" versus the devil we don't know. We all know that leaders lie to or mislead us; we just hope their lies and deceptions are not too damaging.
Why not remove power from the 'leaders' who lie to you? There certainly is no reason to assume that the amount of power that they wield is just right or too little.
We seek individuals to represent us who we believe best reflect our personal interests within the amalgamation.
WE??? Who is we? What I believe may be totally different than what you believe. There is no WE in this discussion. There is only the individual. And what AMALGAMATION? Are you arguing for collectivism and group rights?
Very few demand complete separation from the tribe... and even most of those simply want separation from the demands of the tribe, not separation from the benefits the framework provides; i.e., laws that guarantee rights.
You are confused again. We form governments to protect our natural rights. They do not come from government. Remember Jefferson's words, "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
When you starting off from the wrong premise your entire argument is worthless. And when you have no idea what the argument is really about you lose any credibility. Libertarians are not any less social than statists like you. They simply do not trust other individuals to wield monopoly power over them and prefer voluntary associations. That means mutual and fraternal organizations over a government run welfare scheme, private charity hospitals over a government run system, and private, church, or community run schools rather than public schools.
Most of us accept the ground rules for our culture and framework.
Perhaps. But the evidence is not all that supportive. And there is a big difference between society, culture, and government.
When we have those who represent us...
You have someone to represent you? Really? Which one of your elected representatives ever votes the way you would have?
...attempting to change the ground rules... or those who selectively play by the rules... we tend to get upset and seek their removal... especially if we believe we are being disadvantaged by those changes.
WE again??? There is no collective WE. There is only you. You do not speak for anyone else but yourself and for most of of your beliefs I can find plenty who would disagree. What gives to the right to impose your beliefs on them?
It seems we are often left with the feeling that our choice boils down to our perception of what is the lesser of two evils.
Nonsense. There is nothing 'evil' about acknowledging and protecting natural rights. The evil is the progressive belief that rights are somehow positive and that there is some ethereal collective that is elevated above the individual. The choice is between good and evil. Period.
Vange, your "rugged individualist" position may be what you wish to be the case, but it simply isn't. Individuals don't live in isolation except for hermits [which tend to be on the looney side of the human spectrum].
Individuals always gravitate toward others who share something in common... even libertarians.
But thanks for stating what you wish to be.
Post a Comment