Independent Scotland

[Karl Henning]

Corrigendum

Art need not be beautiful well made.  Think Allan Pettersson.

[Florestan]

Art need not be beautiful.  Think Allan Pettersson.

Oh, ok, now I see your reasoning

1. Art need not need be beautiful
2. Political campaigns need not be beautiful
3. Therefore, political campaigns are art.

it is often important to point out practical historical realities that can and usually do underpin a person's supposedly high-minded arguments.  Bitterness at economic loss is not an uncommon basis for philosophical argument, which itself can devolve into nothing more than selfish griping.  Perhaps you believe in the purity of men's souls and ideas.  I'm doubtful of such purity.

The Soviet leaders could have used exactly the same arguments against Solzhenitsyn: "The Gulag Archipelago" is not credible because its author had a deep seated personal resentment against the Soviet government and justice.

[North Star]

Ugly and beautiful need not be mutually exclusive.

[Todd]

Oh, ok, now I see your reasoning

1. Art need not need be beautiful
2. Political campaigns need not be beautiful
3. Therefore, political campaigns are art.

Gotta say, that's a pretty feeble mock syllogism there.  And shouldn't the second point be more along the lines of: Political campaigns are not beautiful?  At least try to be more accurate in your mock reasoning. 

I got it, the throes of democratic politics offend your monarchist sensibility, and you crave a (presumably) cultured elite to tell you what to do.  Not everyone can handle democracy.

The Soviet leaders could have used exactly the same arguments against Solzhenitsyn: "The Gulag Archipelago" is not credible because its author had a deep seated personal resentment against the Soviet government and justice.

Hmm, tying a dismissal of the intrinsically unworkable proposals (a core one of which you even agreed was unworkable) and arguments of a failed businessman to a critique of the Soviet gulags is stretching things just a bit.

I've not read any Spooner beyond what you posted, nor will I, but while it is true that he was right on abolition, just the summary of his political and economic arguments shows that he certainly took individualism and anarchy to absurd conclusions.  If you can convince yourself that his proposals are good proposals, and that his arguments offer a sound intellectual basis for organizing society and offer a sound critique of contemporary politics, then I guess that's good for you.  I still find it most amusing that you are trying to use the arguments of an anarchist.

[Florestan]

shouldn't the second point be more along the lines of: Political campaigns are not beautiful?

That's exactly how I wrote it at first, but then I reformulated it: I didn't want to offend your democratic sensibility.

I got it, the throes of democratic politics offend your monarchist ethical and aestethical sensibility

There, fixed.

If you can convince yourself that his proposals are good proposals, and that his arguments offer a sound intellectual basis for organizing society and offer a sound critique of contemporary politics, then I guess that's good for you.

What I find intellectually sound is his criticisim of the idea that the USA constitution, or indeed any constitution (monarchical included, BTW) is legally binding for anyone at any time after its adoption. He was a lawyer by trade so he might knew a thing or two about what prerequisites a document needs in order to be legally binding and acknowledged as such in a court of law, none of which is met by the USA constitution, or indeed any constitution (monarchical included). Read his "No Treason"series of tracts and see for yourself.

I still find it most amusing that you are trying to use the arguments of an anarchist.

Finding some specific arguments made by an anarchist on a specific topic compelling doesn't make myself an anarchist anymore than finding some specific Marxian criticism of capitalism compelling makes me a Marxist. Besides, off the record: I am a monarchist (more correctly, a royalist) only because in the context of Romanian history and mentality, monarchy is a lesser evil than the republic; my royalism is (1) strictly pragmatic: I don't believe in the divine right of kings anymore than I believe in the Tooth Fairy, and (2) geographically circumscribed: I don't believe monarchy to be universally feasible, desirable and workable anymore than I believe republic to be so - both forms can be beneficial in some cases and harmful in others. Politics is not an exact science.

[Todd]

What I find intellectually sound is his criticisim of the idea that the USA constitution, or indeed any constitution (monarchical included, BTW) is legally binding for anyone at any time after its adoption.

I disagree.  The implicit anarchist solution to the problem is that governing institutions are continually put to a referendum.  This is not workable, as you agreed.  In a democratic republic, citizens eligible to vote - which in the US is every non-felon over 18 - can vote for leaders, and in some cases new laws directly.  Participation in the democratic process continually legitimizes the Constitution and other laws from long ago.  I suppose it could be argued that those who do not participate in the process are somehow not subject to the Constitution and other laws, but that is a hollow argument that ignores practical reality.  Such people still enjoy all of the public goods provided by the State, from things such as national defense and protection under the law (equal or unequal), to other goods such as roads and schools and other mundane things.  A person who claims some special exemption should surely give up all of those other public goods to be free from the benefits as well as the burdens of the State, at least if they want to be intellectually consistent, to be true to their principles, even loosely defined.  Otherwise, to be honest, the complaints sound pretty much like a barely more sophisticated version of the teenage lament I wish I'd never been born!

It is worth noting that Spooner tried to compete against the single Constitutionally mandated economic entity - the postal service - using roads built specifically for the postal service.  Using the extreme logic and proposals of Spooner (including continued support for "private money"), shouldn't Spooner have built his own roads in order to compete, or did Spooner adhere, conveniently, to concepts of industrial organization theory that didn't come along for 60-70 years yet somehow think that he was so special as to not be subject to the Constitution as it was understood at the time?

That Spooner was a lawyer does not lend greater credence to his argument; other lawyers disagree with him. 

Politics is not an exact science.

It is not a science at all.

[Karl Henning]

Mind you, the politicians are the subject, not the scientists . . . .

[Florestan]

you crave a (presumably) cultured elite to tell you what to do. 

This is both disingenuous and amusing, because while I have openly expressed my opposition to the idea that one should submit to the dictates of an elite of political experts, you freely admitted that it was precisely a cultured elite who created the US constitution, devising it in such a way as to avoid "mob rule".

I find it rather odd that such a staunch democrat (small d, of course) as you are can honestly subscribe to the idea that (1) if a cultured elite (who, besides being cultured, and probably more important, is also economically rich and politically powerful) secures its rights by securing its ruling position, then one has a "constitutional republic" but (2) when people less cultured (or downright uneducated), less rich (or downright poor) and less powerful (or downright powerless) try to assert and secure their rights as well, then one has "mob rule". One of two: either "all men are created equal" and then cultured and uneducated, rich and poor, powerful and powerless (white and black, one shoud not forget to add) alike must needs take part equally in the conduct of public affair; or that's just an empty slogan, mere demagoguery in which the cultured, the rich and the powerful wrap themselves up in order to establish and preserve their dominion over the uneducated, the poor and the weak; all men are created equal, but some are more equal than others and form the people, as in "government of the people, by the people, for the people".

Look, we both know very well that both republic and monarchy are in fact oligarchies, and that it could not be any other way.  I simply contend that the latter is more honest than the former because less demagogic.

[Todd]

One of two: either "all men are created equal" and then cultured and uneducated, rich and poor, powerful and powerless (white and black, one shoud not forget to add) alike must needs take part equally in the conduct of public affair; or that's just an empty slogan, mere demagoguery in which the cultured, the rich and the powerful wrap themselves up in order to establish and preserve their dominion over the uneducated, the poor and the weak; all men are created equal, but some are more equal than others and form the people, as in "government of the people, by the people, for the people".

Nice straw man.  In theory, I suppose, a constitutional democratic republic could be established by hordes of uneducated people.  Perhaps there's an instance of a long-standing constitutional democratic republic thus established, though I admit I do not know of it.  However, in practice, people with some training, some education usually establish political frameworks and institutions that establish countries or other large political entities.  Of course the US founders designed a slow-moving, difficult to change regime that secured their power and protected their interests.  Why wouldn't they?  Allowing institutions to change, and guaranteed freedoms to change, on the whim of a tyrant or even a majority is not the basis for a free society.  But in the last two centuries, the US has changed a lot, has expanded rights, and is still living under the same ruling institutions, free from hereditary social parasites with fanciful titles.  The US has even had a few leaders who challenged entrenched power, and one populist who destroyed one basis for central power, though he did so legally and only after a bruising political battle.

You also need to understand that you are obsessed with the US federal government, which is common for Europeans; you folks routinely miss a big part of political system in the United States.  One of the beauties of the US structure is separation of powers.  Rather than establishing a single system that entrenches power in one central elite, only some powers are controlled by the central government, with other powers reserved for states.  And even right now, Obama's health care law rollout is having problems, and his proposed fix is not really a fix because even though the ACA is a federal law, the federal government does not directly regulate the insurance market; that is done by states.  The existing structure requires that the federal government negotiate with states, and it more than sometimes prevents the federal government from simply rolling out any old law, even with the supremacy clause.  States have established different rules, and some decentralize power to the citizens on a number of issues.  This is more popular in the Western US than the Eastern US, though it happens all across the country.  I routinely, as in at least once a year, get to vote directly on laws, and sometimes on repealing laws passed by the legislature, as the result of citizen petitions.  Many things that affect my life directly, on an everyday basis, are performed at the state level, or even the town or county level.  Presidential edicts and Beltway admonitions carry little or, usually, no weight, because they don't matter.  I also happen to live in a state with even broader protections for freedom of speech than the rest of the country – basically, nothing is off limits, and even strip clubs have received the judicial seal of approval in the form of a protective ruling.  And even that has been put directly to a vote of the people on several occasions, and the people have upheld it directly.  While DC does impact my life on a daily basis, it does so less than local governments, over which the citizens have more control.  That seems unlikely with a hereditary social parasite in place.

More generally, your tired argument is the lament of the false idealist.  All men are created equal?  Well, under the law, yes, or at least they should be, and some people constantly strive to make this happen, but if you try to take it further, into outcomes and abilities, well, then, no.  The whole "of the people..." thing, well, what precisely does the false idealist seek?  Does the false idealist seek people voting on every law?  I should think not.  This is a constitutional democratic republic.  The people vote for representatives in government who then pass laws.  That is a government of the people, by the people, for the people, though ultimately it may be better to stop using war speeches designed to rally support after a major battle.  I trust you find it persuasive; I find it out of context.  Of course "elites" comprise a large portion of the elected and appointed officials, particularly at the national level, but they don't keep their jobs forever, and sometimes non-elites, and even non-lawyers make it.  And here's a kicker, almost anyone can try.  Provided one is a legal adult without a felony record, one need only to mosey on down to a government office, fill out some paperwork, pay a small filing fee (and not always that) and then one is on the ballot.  There is more to winning than that, but anyone can try.  But then, of course, most people are not very interested in politics most of the time, and all the community organizing in the world won't change that.  The lament of the false idealist that not enough people are engaged in politics has always been true and always will be true.

[Florestan]

All men are created equal?  Well, under the law, yes, or at least they should be

Really? Are men created by law?

At most, the law sanctions men's God-given (or natural, if you so prefer) equality in some respects, but it is as impotent to create equality by legislative fiat as it is to abolish men's God-given (or natural if you so prefer) inequality in some other respects by the same process. The idea that anything pertaining to the intrinsic nature of men can be created or destroyed by law is one of the most absurd and pernicious that ever crossed the mind of a mortal.

  This is a constitutional democratic republic.  The people vote for representatives in government who then pass laws.

It is exactly the same in a constitutional monarchy.

Nicolas Gomez Davila once said that the people never elected; at most they ratified --- and he was absolutely right. The people "choose" between candidates on whose very selection they had no influence at all because it was a partisan affair all along; and between political, economic and social platforms few of them had any influence on creating, fewer have read and still fewer have understood them in all their implications at national or international level.

Now, if by "democracy" you mean that every 4 years the people are free to choose, from among the political elite, those who will make, pass, apply or disregard laws for the next 4 years, then you'll have no argument from me; but if by "democracy" you mean that the people at large really have anything to say on the very scope, content or formulation of those laws, then I'm sorry but I can't help disagreeing.

almost anyone can try.

Sure, just as almost anyone can fail ---- anyone, that is, who is not connected enough to have his candidacy approved by the party bosses, rich enough to finance his campaign, dishonest enough to lie to, cheat on, and deceive, the people and immoral enough to smear his opponents.

Provided one is a legal adult without a felony record, one need only to mosey on down to a government office, fill out some paperwork, pay a small filing fee (and not always that) and then one is on the ballot.  There is more to winning than that

Of course there is more: see above.

But then, of course, most people are not very interested in politics most of the time, and all the community organizing in the world won't change that.

Finally, something we can agree upon.

[Todd]

Really? Are men created by law?

Of course not.  Somehow I think you know what I meant by equality under the law, but if not, to be clear, people are not equal in ability or drive, however they are intrinsically equal as people and they should be treated as equal under the law.  Yes, I understand the shortcomings in practice, so you can spare me your philosophy here.

It is exactly the same in a constitutional monarchy.

No, it is not.

Now, if by "democracy" you mean that every 4 years the people are free to choose, from among the political elite, those who will make, pass, apply or disregard laws for the next 4 years, then you'll have no argument from me; but if by "democracy" you mean that the people at large really have anything to say on the very scope, content or formulation of those laws, then I'm sorry but I can't help disagreeing.

I'm guessing you did not read any of the second paragraph as you are sticking to your simplistic understanding of American politics.  It is quite common for literally millions of Americans to vote directly on laws as well as representatives.  The proposed laws themselves are usually drafted by special interest groups, and usually by lawyers who work for those groups, though sometimes the groups like to call themselves advocacy groups or public interest groups, though in their defense, it is not uncommon for such groups to not be working on behalf of specific corporate interests. If you criticize this as merely another form of elite power, you would need to explain what specific mechanism(s) you have in mind that meet your definition of democracy, or the democratic process.  There is far more to American politics than the Presidency; your continued emphasis on every four years indicates that you are stuck on one thing. 

Sure, just as almost anyone can fail

Sure, and that's a good thing.  In contested elections, there must be at least one loser for each position.  Often times there are more than that.  That's to be celebrated.

Your argument strikes me as yet another disingenuous, false idealist argument, though now it is informed by ignorance.  National contests are often very expensive and often rely on funding by outside groups, but state and local elections may or may not be as expensive and may be impacted by such pressures to a far lesser degree. 

As to your supposedly knowing understanding of what it takes to get elected, hobnobbing with the rich and powerful and connected is indeed something that is needed.  So is the ability to pick the right people to run a campaign, to canvas neighborhoods, to do all the legwork necessary to get the message out.  (A well run campaign can be a good proxy to determine a candidate's leadership and judgment.)  So is the ability to get out among voters at various events – some organized by the campaign itself, some not – and meet and connect with people.  Such interactions and connections are superficial, sure, but they are needed.

As Brian indicated earlier, you seem as though you would like to see some type of Philosopher King rule, that you want someone pure of intellect and pure of intent to rule.  The same thing is evident in your critiques of the democratic process here.  Of course most candidates are compromised, and the process is grubby.  These things are necessary, and they are good.  Few things in politics are so potentially frightful or practically ridiculous as idealism detached from practical reality. 

[Florestan]

No, it is not.

What's the difference between how laws are made and passed in Norway and the USA, pray tell?

you would need to explain what specific mechanism(s) you have in mind that meet your definition of democracy, or the democratic process. 

I believe true democracy and truly democratic processes can work only on small territorial units, not bigger than a village or at most a medium-sized city. In the modern national states, with millions of citizens crowded in big cities, if not downright megalopolises, and with other tens of millions scattered across the whole territory, true democracy and truly democratic processes are impossible. There will always be a ruling oligarchy; that it have its origin in elections does not make it less oligarchic.

you seem as though you would like to see some type of Philosopher King rule, that you want someone pure of intellect and pure of intent to rule.

The Philosopher King is one of the most preposterous and dangerous ideas in the whole political history.

My ideal type of monarch was described by Tolkien:

The proper study of Man is anything but Man; and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity. [...] The mediaevals were only too right in taking nolo episcopari as the best reason a man could give to others for making him a bishop. Grant me a king whose chief interest in life is stamps, railways, or race-horses; and who has the power to sack his Vizier (or whatever you dare call him) if he does not like the cut of his trousers.

[Todd]

I believe true democracy and truly democratic processes can work only on small territorial units, not bigger than a village or at most a medium-sized city.

You don't describe what democracy or the democratic process is, and you still neglect the fact that in the US today, statewide referendums are voted on by millions of people.

My ideal type of monarch was described by Tolkien:

Tolkien, huh?  I see.

[Florestan]

You don't describe what democracy or the democratic process is,

Democracy: John and Jack are the only candidates for mayorship, but the majority of the people want neither one, they want Joe; consequently, Joe is elected.

Democratic process: once elected, Joe imposes a tax on alcohol sales and forbids people from painting their houses in red or blue and the council approves of these measures; Jane, Joseph and James oppose them and take the matter to the general assembly of all citizens of legal age; the vote is in favor of repealing them; consequently, they are repealed.

You still haven't explained what difference there is between the legislative process in Norway and in the USA. but I guess that's because there isn't any whatsoever: in both countries people vote for representatives in government who then pass laws.

[kishnevi]

My ideal type of monarch was described by Tolkien:

The proper study of Man is anything but Man; and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity. [...] The mediaevals were only too right in taking nolo episcopari as the best reason a man could give to others for making him a bishop. Grant me a king whose chief interest in life is stamps, railways, or race-horses; and who has the power to sack his Vizier (or whatever you dare call him) if he does not like the cut of his trousers.

John Ronald Ruel's ideal king was apparently Edward VII.   But Edward VII took an active role in governing once he became king,  even if he did it in an Edward VII sort of way.

[Todd]

Democracy: John and Jack are the only candidates for mayorship, but the majority of the people want neither one, they want Joe; consequently, Joe is elected.

Well, it looks like you don't really understand democracy as practiced in a constitutional democratic republic.  That's not surprising, considering the country you live in.  First of all, there can be multiple candidates, and in parliamentary systems many parties contest for power, with coalitions often needed to form governments.  Second, there's the matter of ballot measures, which you clearly have no knowledge of.  (At least be able to admit your ignorance.)  In those cases, there is no candidate.  There is a potential law to consider, and nothing else.  Voters can choose to pass it, or not.  Happens pretty regularly.  Laws are not people, right?  Third, you completely forgot about the judicial system.  Some things end up in the courts as opposed as to back in the legislative arena.

As to the difference between Norway and the US, well, I confess, I am ignorant of the specifics of Norwegian politics, but my understanding is that it is a parliamentary system, and presumably it is like many other parliamentary systems, where the ruling coalition has comparatively immense power and can push through wide ranging legislative changes without much concern for the opposition, or at least much less than in the US.  Oh, yes, and they maintain a hereditary social parasite, which you admit to loving, at least in concept.  (I don't know, nor do I care, about your opinions about specific royals.)  Fortunately, the US is different in that Congress must pass legislation, and the President must sign or veto it.  If the President's party does not control Congress, things can be tricky.  Divided government in the US is to be applauded at all times, and while it is true that people vote for representatives who then pass laws in the US system as in parliamentary systems, there are significant practical differences between them.  It is no wonder that the American Left regularly laments how the US is not more parliamentary - they worship state power - and it further illustrates how your false idealism is so weak for failing to account for or understand the practical nature of politics.

[kishnevi]

I read Florestan to be describing an ideal rather than how it actually works in practice in any specific location.  And in fact, most of the things you cite are the sort of thing that marks republics off from democracies, or at least deviate from pure democracy. 

The constitutional practices of Athens are probably the closest anyone has ever come to pure democracy in the way Florestan describes it, and political writers ever since have been dutifully aware of how disastrously that ended up, with populist empire expansion turning into defeat at the hands of Sparta and an oligarchic tyranny.  Not to mention the execution of Socrates....

[Florestan]

Well, it looks like you don't really understand democracy as practiced in a constitutional democratic republic.  That's not surprising, considering the country you live in.

Well, not everybody was lucky enough to be born in the most enlightened and constitutional of nations.

First of all, there can be multiple candidates [...] Laws are not people[...]

No shit?

and in parliamentary systems many parties contest for power, with coalitions often needed to form governments.Second, there's the matter of ballot measures, which you clearly have no knowledge of.  (At least be able to admit your ignorance.)  In those cases, there is no candidate.  There is a potential law to consider, and nothing else.  Voters can choose to pass it, or not.

Blimey, now that you put it this way I realize that's exactly how Romanian politics works. Why, thank you very much, Sir; had it not been for your illuminating post, I'd have indeed remained forever ignorant of that. We Romanians have a proverb: as long as man lives, man learns. How true!

As to the difference between Norway and the US, well, I confess, I am ignorant of the specifics of Norwegian politics

And yet, the Norwegian constitution is just one click away. But I guess that, not being THE constitution  you have no interest in it.

but my understanding is that it is a parliamentary system, and presumably it is like many other parliamentary systems, where the ruling coalition has comparatively immense power and can push through wide ranging legislative changes without much concern for the opposition.

Your understanding is correct in that it is a parliamentary system, but you are far off the mark in thinking the parliament can pass whatever law it deems fit without much opposition.


Article 77
When a Bill has been approved by the Storting in two consecutive meetings, it is sent to the King with a request that it may receive the Royal Assent.

Article 78
If the King assents to the Bill, he appends his signature, whereby it becomes law.

If he does not assent to it, he returns it to the Storting with a statement that he does not for the time being find it expedient to give his assent. In that case the Bill must not again be submitted to the King by the Storting then assembled.

Article 79
If a Bill has been passed unaltered by two sessions of the Storting, constituted after two separate successive elections and separated from each other by at least two intervening sessions of the Storting, without a divergent Bill having been passed by any Storting in the period between the first and last adoption, and it is then submitted to the King with a petition that His Majesty shall not refuse his assent to a Bill which, after the most mature deliberation, the Storting considers to be beneficial, it shall become law even if the Royal Assent is not accorded before the Storting goes into recess.

Fortunately, the US is different in that Congress must pass legislation, and the President must sign or veto it. If the President's party does not control Congress, things can be tricky. 

Now, that is a big difference indeed: the Norwegian king is not a party man; he does not owe his position to this or that lobby whose vested interests he must take care about once elected; he is not indebted for the financing of his campaign to this or that industry or company, which he must repay by some favorable piece of legislation. He will not veto a law beneficial for the nation just because the Storting is not controlled by his party, nor will he sign a law harmful for the country just because it was submitted to him by his own party. For instance, it is simply inconceivable that the Norwegian government be on the verge of bankruptcy and temporarily shut down all non-essential institutions because the King and the Storting are engaged in a bitter war over the nation's budget.

[Florestan]

I read Florestan to be describing an ideal rather than how it actually works in practice in any specific location. 

Of course. In practice, there is always an oligarchy, be it republican or monarchical; in practice, the purpose of each and every politician is to get into power and stay there as long as possible; in practice, the purpose of each and every party is to secure its ruling position as long as possible; in practice, there are always lobbies and vested interests that are often at variance with people's desires and interests; in practice, there is no such thing as people's will; in practice, the only sense in which government of the people, by the people, for the people can be said to exist is in taking into account that politicians, lobbysts and industrialists are themselves part of the people; in practice a constitutional republic is not a democracy any more than a constitutional monarchy is. The difference between me and Todd is that, while we are both aware of all that, I call a spade a spade and he calls it a democracy. 

[Todd]

Well, not everybody was lucky enough to be born in the most enlightened and constitutional of nations.

That is true.

I read Florestan to be describing an ideal rather than how it actually works in practice in any specific location.  And in fact, most of the things you cite are the sort of thing that marks republics off from democracies, or at least deviate from pure democracy.

True enough.  Pure democracy is unattainable on a large scale, and unsustainable on a small scale.  That written, a republican framework that limits power, encourages intense political competition, and introduces the ability of the citizenry to directly introduce and vote on legislation is a pretty good approximation of practical democracy.  As with most people in the here and now, at least outside of academia, when I use the word democracy, it is loosely used and generally refers to a democratic republic.