Category Archives: Politics

20 Saturday May 2017

Posted by in law, Philosophy, Politics

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

When people speak about separation of religion and politics, particularly “legislating morality” as improper, they display a stupendous ignorance. 

For example, why is it wrong to lie to get someone’s money? Well, that is fraud. Why is fraud wrong? Because it is lying? Why is lying wrong? The answer to that question is itself a moral proposition. 

Morality is either a type of aesthetics or is based upon some sort of transcendent proposition: some morals may be more functional than others (everyone lying would soon destroy all commerce), but even caring about the effects is a moral decision.

The basic premises of Western law have a theological basis – a legislative morality: Consider this proposition:

God has ordained contracts of various kinds, Melanchthon wrote, to facilitate tate the sale, lease, or exchange of property, the procurement of labor and employment, and the lending of money and extension of credit.” God has called his political officials to promulgate general contract laws that prescribe “fair, equal, and equitable” agreements, that invalidate contracts based on fraud, duress, mistake, or coercion, and that proscribe contracts that are unconscionable, conscionable, immoral, or offensive to the public good. Melanchthon was content, for the most part, to state these general principles of contract law in categorical form. Occasionally he applied these general principles to specific cases. He condemned with particular vehemence loan contracts that obligated debtors to pay excessive rates of interest or entitled creditors to secure the loan with property whose value far exceeded the amount of the loan, unilateral labor and employment contracts that conditioned a master’s obligation to pay on full performance from the servant, and contracts of purchase and sale that were based on inequality of the exchange.

Law and Revolution II

Howard J. Berman

Harvard University Press 2003

The Spiritual Chymist, Meditation XLIX

16 Tuesday May 2017

Posted by in Politics, Uncategorized, William Spurstowe, William Spurstowe

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

(From The Spiritual Chymist, William Spurstowe, 1666). This an interesting discussion as to what a Puritan would have thought the duty of politicians:
Upon a Spring in a High Ground

The additional blessing which Achsah sought of Caleb her father was springs of water for her dry land, who gave her the upper and the nether springs. If the distinct recording of this particular Scripture Carry anything of importance with it, it is not that he gave her some portion of land that was well watered, As the low valleys for the most part art. And that he also gave such springs that by their high lying were apt to convey their stream to the enriching of other parts that stood in need of such help to make them fruitful.

Now what is it that can more commend a spring than a free diffusion of its waters and spreading of its moisture, not only to the grounds that are near, But to such as are at a distance from it; and what can more conduce onto this commodious usefulness then the Springs rise from some hill or place of ascent?

Another spring may haply serve to water some little spot I’ve ground, To benefit some private garden, but an upper spring will greatly advantage a large inheritance.

Such a late difference methinks there is in the moral wellsprings of grace and holiness as is between the natural, according to the diversity of subjects in which they are seated.

Grace and a poor man is as a nether spring, which is not less useful through a defective water let’s ruining capacity to make any large Communication of it in regard of the circumstances in which he stands. His wants, his paucity of friends, a the world takes of him, the slightings that poverty exposes most men unto, are all great obstacles to the eternal diffusions of his grace, though not to the intrinsical fulness of it. But Grace and a great person is like an upper spring, which may convey itself far and near, because of the many advantages which he has above others. His councils will sooner be hearkened onto, his reproofs will over-awe more, his conversation [manner of conduct, not just speech] Will win more, his example having the force of law.

So willing have many been to make greatness their pattern, as that they have imitated their infirmities. Dionysius’ courtiers affected to be purblind and jostle against one another that’s so they may be like their prince. Alexander’s followers would imitate him in their gesture, and go as if their shoulders were one higher than the other, because there was some inequality in his. Among the Persians, they were wont to highly esteem a long and narrow head because some of their kings’ heads of that figure.

Oh what pity is it then that the greatness in goodness should be ever out of conjunction together, or to be stars of different hemispheres, that are never seen shining at the same time? Yes, why should not those who are the highest among men affect also to be the best, that so they might bring a beauty and shine into the world, that they might allure others not only did the hold it, but also to imitate, by conforming themselves to their happy example?

It is the saying of Plutarch, that rare moralist, that God is angry with them that counterfeit his thunder and lightning; his scepter and his Trident; and his thunderbolts he would not have any meddle with: he loves not that any should imitate him an absolute dominion and sovereignty: but he delights to see them guarding for those amiable and cherishing beams of justice, goodness, and clemency. Without these things be conveyed down to others by those who have the reigns of power and government in their hands, though they look upon themselves as gods on earth, yet they are is unlike to the God of heaven as a blazing comment is to a bright and glorious sun, or deceitful glow worm to a heavenly star.

What low thought Solomon himself has of sovereignty when put into an ill hand, we may read in his book of the preacher, we’re he tells us that better is a poor and a wise child, then an old and foolish king who will not be instructed to manage his power and authority for the good of those that are under him.

It is wisdom that makes a man’s face to shine, most of all those that are in highest places. Good in them is most conspicuous, And both more applauded and imitated then in others. What evil can a king not forbid, whose wrath is as the roaring of a lion? What good can he not encourage, whose favor is as a cloud of the latter rain, which promises at a harvest of blessings.
I cannot but wonder at the great changes which this scripture reports to have been made by godly princess in the midst of a general apostasy, such as Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah who purged the land from a spreading idolatry and restored sabbaths, and temple worship to their power and purity, who have bowed the heart of the people towards them like to the top of a fisher’s angling rod, this way or that as it pleases them.

Who but princes that had grace in their hearts, and power in their hands could have ever affected such things as might well seem to be insuperable difficulty? Oh that I could therefore suggest such considerations that might prevail with all whose conditions God has raised above others, to be accordingly instrumental in the doing of good to others that move in the lower sphere. Shall I say, God expects it from you? If I do, it is no other than what he himself has spoken, when he has said, He will get him up to the great man, four they have known the way of the Lord, and the judgment of their God.

Or shall I say, that God signally commands it from you above others? Is it not to you that he particularly calls, Be wise now O ye Kings, Be instructed ye judges of the earth, serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling, kiss the Son lest he be angry and ye perish from the way.

Do you think that greatness does rather exempt from been obliged to obedience, or that you shall have a more favorable audit at the last day when every man must give an account of himself unto God? Be not deceived, God will require what you have done more from him about others, as he has for you about thousands, and will be on to you if you be found too light.

Your exultation in this life will serve only to make your casting down to be the more dismal in the other, and to confirm the truth of that proverb, that hell is paved with the corslets of noble men and the skulls of priests.

Amos: How Politics Relates to Theology

18 Tuesday Apr 2017

Posted by in Amos, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

The prophet Amos begins with a denunciation of the rapine and ravage of the nations against their neighbors. The God of Israel sees what these foreign countries and kings have done and pronounces judgment against them. Thus, the God of Israel was not a local deity concerned with getting his share of the sacrifices (as such deities are), but was a universal king who acted against evil — whether or not those people acknowledged His rule.

Amos thus begins as a prophet concerned with international politics — but the politics are subservient to his theological concerns:

While Amos proclaimed a God of nations who was also a God of humanity, it would be misleading to give the impression that he was interested primarily in politics or even primarily in the principles of humanity as such. He was interested in these; but above them, explaining them and including them, he placed religion. He was concerned above all else with the character of God and with the divine will. If he referred to the political situations of his own nation or of other nations, it was only because he saw in these a field in which God himself was active, and in which God’s will must rule. If he denounced actions that we would regard as offenses against humanity, even when these actions were directed against an enemy nation, it was only because he had been thrilled with a new vision of God’s regard for man as man and had seen the divine importance of a right behavior of men toward each other. The question “Who is my neighbor?” in the great parable of Jesus is really anticipated in spirit by Amos with regard to nations. In a word, his message on this point was “Who is my (national) neighbor?” It is not an easy question for nations to answer.

For him it was religion that was fundamental, and it is abundantly clear that he regarded his whole message as a message of religion. He was not assuming the rôle of statesman or teacher of ethical culture, neither was he offering a gospel of humanity, although all these elements appear in his message; he was first and foremost a religious teacher. As such he demanded a hearing, and only as such has he a claim on us to-day.

It is true that in these ideas he was leading the way toward a much larger view of religion than the one current in his day. Indeed, the expansion of religion to include the affairs of everyday life—the everyday life of business and of politics—is still a novelty. Yet for Amos these were the fields in which religion must operate, and their religious character rested back upon the character and will of God.

To know God as Amos knew him—as a God of honor and equity—means to realize that men cannot be acceptable in the sight of this God unless they themselves possess and exercise the same principles of equity and of honor. This reflection of the life of God in every aspect of the lives of men was for Amos the only true religion, alongside which a religion that contented itself with formal worship, observance of sacred days and seasons, stated offerings, and attendance at the temple was a worthless substitute. Not that these things in themselves were wrong, but that they were not of the essence of man’s most vital acknowledgment of the true God.

Lindsay B. Longacre, Amos, Prophet of a New Order, ed. Henry H. Meyer, Life and Service Series (New York; Cincinnati: The Methodist Book Concern, 1921), 30–31.

Kierkegaard, The Diary of the Seducer.2

27 Friday Jan 2017

Posted by in Apologetics, Kierkegaard, Philosophy, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

The “editor” of the “diary” — the whole thing a fiction on a fiction — asks the question of why this “factual” diary had such a “poetical” aspect. The aesthetic aspect of the diary derived from the fact that the “seducer” had such a temperament,

The was the more he himself brought with him. This more was the poetical he enjoyed in the poetic situation of reality; he withdrew this agin in the form poetic reflection. This afforded him a second enjoyment, and his whole life was motived by enjoyment.

This is the “first stage” of human development: the aesthetic, which the first volume of Either/Or seeks to develop and display. This was the whole purpose of the “seduction”. It was the tantalization of desire, not possession of a body, which drove the man, “for he was far to intellectually inclined to be a seducer in the ordinary sense of the world.”

For his part, having brought the girl to the point where “she was read to sacrifice everything”, he broke off the relationship. He did not want her, he wanted the sensation of wanting her. This is what was described in the Immediate Stages of the Erotic, “the erotic here is seduction.”

Thus, the delight derives in the sensation which the seducer manages to derive from the relationship to the other person — the other person is reduced to the object of desire, but has no independent merit as a person. The value of the other is in the sensation they produce in the subject.

This reduction of the other to object, to the sensation they produce does not necessarily mean a pleasant sensation — this is a matter of averting boredom. When we think of this process in such a manner, we can quickly see that the greatest part of our public life and media is built up with human beings who reduce all others into objects to reduce boredom — and, since we are on the other side of Sartre — to create “meaning” (as paltry as it is).

Think of political rallies, demonstrations, riots, demands for “justice” and such in terms of boredom aversion and the creation of “meaning” and they will become instantly more comprehensible. That is why such events and people are not susceptible to reasoned discourse or moral suasion: they are not operating at that “stage” (to use Kierkegaard’s term) of life.  Even the other speaking to them exists for the purpose of averting boredom (and creating meaning).  This throws an interesting light on apologetics.

Soren Kierkegaard: “The Rotation Method” Part Two (Either/Or)

05 Thursday Jan 2017

Posted by in Kierkegaard, Philosophy, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

The next section of the essay proposes a seemingly absurd experiment to permit the escape from boredom without the need for extraneous effort. Sadly, the absurdity of his quip is not a mere literary bubble, but a plan which world governments have put into action with wild abandon.

Every once in a while we hear of a man who is a genius , and therefore neglects to pay his debts-why should not a nation do the same, if we are all agreed? Let us then borrow fifteen millions, and let us use the proceeds, not to pay our debts, but for public entertainment. Let us celebrate the millennium in a riot of entertainment.

The essay proposes making the distribution by means of public boxes set out for public consumption. Modern governments have determined that it would be unfairly difficult to require people to pick up the money, so it is simply delivered (and yes, yes, I know that there are occasions where charitable help is good and necessary but there is also the flagrant use for “entertainment”.)

So let us consider this idea: use money which you do not have and which you cannot (or at least do not intend to) repay for the purpose of making one’s life more entertaining –without the necessity of work.

This desire is a bizarre attempt at reversing the Fall and obtaining Eden without God:

Ecclesiastes 2:1–11 (ESV)

2 I said in my heart, “Come now, I will test you with pleasure; enjoy yourself.” But behold, this also was vanity. 2 I said of laughter, “It is mad,” and of pleasure, “What use is it?” 3 I searched with my heart how to cheer my body with wine—my heart still guiding me with wisdom—and how to lay hold on folly, till I might see what was good for the children of man to do under heaven during the few days of their life. 4 I made great works. I built houses and planted vineyards for myself. 5 I made myself gardens and parks, and planted in them all kinds of fruit trees. 6 I made myself pools from which to water the forest of growing trees. 7 I bought male and female slaves, and had slaves who were born in my house. I had also great possessions of herds and flocks, more than any who had been before me in Jerusalem. 8 I also gathered for myself silver and gold and the treasure of kings and provinces. I got singers, both men and women, and many concubines, the delight of the sons of man.

9 So I became great and surpassed all who were before me in Jerusalem. Also my wisdom remained with me. 10 And whatever my eyes desired I did not keep from them. I kept my heart from no pleasure, for my heart found pleasure in all my toil, and this was my reward for all my toil. 11 Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had expended in doing it, and behold, all was vanity and a striving after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun.

Our essayist seems to have anticipated another aspect of the modern socialist state: those receiving the largesse would not permitted personal property (“No one should be permitted to own any property.”). But, also as accords with the modern socialist state, those in charge are permitted extravagant personal wealth:

 

Only in my own case could there be an exception. I reserve to myself securities in the Bank of London to the value of hone hundred dollars a day, partly because I cannot do less, partly because the idea is mine, and finally because I may not be able to hit upon a new idea with the fifteen millions are gone.

Reading Kierkegaard back onto our culture leads one to the conclusion that we live in a  world where one’s ethics are aesthetic. Thus, one feels about a matter is the measure of whether it is good or bad (thus, if you make me feel unhappy, you are “evil”).

They Stand for Nothing

21 Thursday Jan 2016

Posted by in Culture, Philosophy, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

‘I agree there is a paucity of conservative thought. It is partly the effect of the dominance of the left. If you come out as a conservative in a university context, you will find yourself very much on the margins. But my main explanation of this is that conservative thought is difficult. It doesn’t consist of providing fashionable slogans or messages of hope and marching into the future with clenched fists and all the things that automatically get a following. It consists in careful, sceptical rumination on the near-impossibility of human existence in the first place.’

In Fools, Frauds and Firebrands Scruton attacks the left idea of thought for a cause, ‘politics with a GOAL’. By contrast, he tells me, ‘Conservatives are by their nature people who are trying to defend and maintain existence without a cause’. Simply to keep things as they are? ‘We obviously all want to change things, but recognising that human life is an end in itself and not a means to replace itself with something else. And defending institutions and compromises is a very difficult and unexciting thing. But nevertheless it’s the truth.’

For Scruton, the left intellectuals’ apparent attachment to a higher cause only disguises what they really stand for: ‘Nothing.’ He writes that ‘when, in the works of Lacan, Deleuze and Althusser, the nonsense machine began to crank out its impenetrable sentences, of which nothing could be understood except that they all had “capitalism” as their target, it looked as though Nothing had at last found its voice’. More recently, ‘the windbaggery of Zizek and the nonsemes of Badiou’ exist only ‘to espouse a single and absolute cause’, which ‘admits of no compromise’ and ‘offers redemption to all who espouse it’. The name of that cause? ‘The answer is there on every page of these fatuous writings: Nothing.’

Robert Scruton on the left’s destruction of intellectual thought.

360 Statues

30 Monday Mar 2015

Posted by in Culture, Diogenes Laetrius, Ecclesiastes, Literature, Politics, Saddam Hussein, Vanity

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Everything is vanity — especially political power. The most absurdly beloved leader can soon find himself chased from town, locked in a prison, bitten by a snake — and his haters using his image for a toilet. Diogenes writes of one Demterius, supreme in Athens from 318-307 B.C.

Demetrius, the son of Phanostratus, was a native of Phalerum. He was a pupil of Theophrastus, but by his speeches in the Athenian assembly he held the chief power in the State for ten years and was decreed 360 bronze statues, most of them representing him either on horseback or else driving a chariot or a pair of horses. And these statues were completed in less than 300 days, so much was he esteemed.

Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, ed. R. D. Hicks 527. However, no political power is permanent, and all history is revisionist. Diogenes continues:

 Yet even this great lamp of Athens was covered by shadow. For certain ones consumed with envy brought a charge of death against his feeble body. But when they could not gain mastery of his body, they belched their poison on his bronze, tearing down them down, throwing them in the sea and cutting up others for latrines. One alone was saved in the Acropolis. (Author’s translation; Greek text and notes below)

He fled to Egypt, where he bet on the wrong children. He advised the king to give the crown to the child of one wife, but the king chose the son of the other wife. When that son came to power he arrested Demetrius. While Demetrius awaited a decision:

 He lived on in deep depression — until one night an asp bit his hand and his life escapes. (Author’s translation; Greek Text and notes below).

Greek Text & Notes: Continue reading →

History does not forbid us hope

27 Saturday Sep 2014

Posted by in Ambrose Bierce, Culture, Politics

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

We are told with tiresome iteration that our social and political systems are clarifying; but when is the skimmer to appear? If the purpose of free institutions is good government where is the good government?—when may it be expected to begin?—how is it to come about? Systems of government have no sanctity; they are practical means to a simple end—the public welfare; worthy of no respect if they fail of its accomplishment. The tree is known by its fruit. Ours is bearing crab-apples. If the body politic is constitutionally diseased, as I verily believe; if the disorder inheres in the system; there is no remedy. The fever must burn itself out, and then Nature will do the rest. One does not prescribe what time alone can administer. We have put our criminals and dunces into power; do we suppose they will efface themselves? Will they restore to us the power of governing them? They must have their way and go their length. The natural and immemorial sequence is: tyranny, insurrection, combat. In combat everything that wears a sword has a chance—even the right. History does not forbid us to hope. But it forbids us to rely upon numbers; they will be against us. If history teaches anything worth learning it teaches that the majority of mankind is neither good nor wise. When government is founded upon the public conscience and the public intelligence the stability of states is a dream.

Ambrose Bierce. “A Cynic Looks at Life.” (1912)